camel at sea

I suspect UCF would have something to say. Houston, too. As far as Forde's idea goes, he just went too far. Cut the two worst schools out of each conference he designed and make it an even 100 schools instead of 120. 10x10. Most conferences will be good at the top and decent in the middle. He just put too many trash programs at the bottom of each conference. That leaves you without a P5/G5 split. So everyone left in that 100 schools group will have an actual shot to play for championships. The 20 or so schools cut can play FCS ball. But the upside to this plan is that it gets the sport to a true playoff system but it does not change the historic scheduling model very much. And the blue bloods that are accustomed to winning 10+ games per year will continue to do so.

I'd guess that Utah, the Arizona schools, and probably SC will want to play football. Stanford might want to play, too. But I bet the local alumni politics of playing football are worse in Palo Alto than in Los Angeles. If refusal to play somehow triggers a contract/GOR breach within the PAC,then maybe those four (SC, UA, ASU, UU) get the Big 12 to 14 by 2021. I assume all four would be operating as quasi-independents for 2020 at this relatively late stage.

Take 2: If this was a joke about the state of CA splitting in two, it went over my head initially.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the media articles being floated have the CA schools splitting. It seems pretty obvious from the outside that the crux of the PAC's internal issues are between the Bay Area leadership (i.e. Stanford) and the football schools that generate the money for the conference (SC, Oregon, etc.) So if that's where the relationship breakdown exists, then it makes some sense that you'd see SC splitting with Stanford. And from there, the chips fall where they may. Obviously there's time to get the PAC's issues worked out. But that's been the case for years and that hasn't happened yet. The clock is really beginning to tick.

If we've got SC/UCLA, then we just say something along the lines of "the money is better at 14. We will appreciate your input as to who #13 and #14 should be. If any of our current members ever leave we'll try to add another western school to take their spot at #14." How does that play out? Who knows. But if the L.A. schools are willing to move at all, they've already contemplated leaving a bunch of PAC schools behind and I doubt that they would throw up huge road blocks because they can't bring *all* of their friends.

I'll keep banging the only add 4 PAC schools drum. The Big 12 is the side in the position of strength. So none of the current members of the Big 12 would be dropped. WVU is the only one who might want to leave. So: West: USC, UCLA, ASU, UA/CU, TTU, TCU, OSU East: Texas, OU, KSU, KU, ISU, BU, WVU If WVU ever finds a spot in the ACC/SEC, then great. If not, that's fine, too. They do well on TV. Assuming they do find a spot in the ACC/SEC, then this: West: USC, UCLA, ASU, UA, CU, TTU, TCU East: Texas, OU, KSU, KU, ISU, OSU, BU Hold at 14 until another blue blood becomes available. I feel pretty confident that Nebraska would be knocking on our door as soon as their B1G GOR gets near to its end.

They air 30+ football games on the PACN. If 20 of those games were moved and sold as part of a Tier 2 package, they'd be better off from a monetization standpoint. I mean, the Big 12 is getting paid well to air a ton of Kansas / Iowa State /etc. games on FS1. Those lower tier FS1 games are doing well to generate 300-500K in viewership. Would the PAC be paid well to air a bunch of Oregon State / Arizona / Cal type games as part of some Tier 2 package? I guess that remains to be seen but there should be some potential buyers as we move into the next round of deals in a few years.

If SC is making at least $10-15M less per year, in media money, than Iowa State... how do they fix that?

The Big 12 had the same number of games - but the percentage of games involving a huge fanbase went from roughly 1/3 to 1/5th. The money not dipping was help. FOX jumping in with big money right when we needed it was help. It was also "help" to get the Sugar Bowl tie-in. I'm not arguing that the Big 12 didn't bring value to the table, or that the networks were acting altruistically, but there were factors outside of the Big 12's control that went the Big 12's way. What would I view as "help" for the PAC in the context of my previous post? Maybe they move a bunch of inventory away from their Tier 3 platform to Tier 2 and find a buyer that pays well. That would better monetize their games than their current set-up. Maybe they keep the Rose Bowl tie-in (post raid) or alternatively get one with the Fiesta Bowl that pays well. Maybe the schools left behind are more willing to do the PAC After Dark, Thursday Night, Friday Night type games and get paid well for it. So it would be akin to the Big 12's deal a decade ago. It's not like they wouldn't bring value to those contracts. But they wouldn't have a ton of leverage to get those deals to a point where they're financially competitive, either.

It would be interesting to see how an expanded CFP, state politics, and the media money mix as competing forces. Let's say you're Oregon or Washington, and SC/UCLA have decided to leave for the Big 12 for financial reasons. You could follow. Or you could stay, not fight with little brother, and have an annual game against your primary rival for a conference title and a trip to the CFP. Following the L.A. schools to the Big 12 puts a couple of new huge roadblocks in front of your hopes to even make the playoffs. How much extra TV money offsets the improved path to titles that you get by staying? Winning big brings financial rewards, too. Maybe that all comes down to whether a depleted PAC gets helped out (media deals, bowl tie-ins, etc.) in a similar way to the one that the Big 12 was helped in 2011-2012.

If we're just giving college football a makeover: 1) Big 12 adds: SC, UCLA, Colorado, Arizona 2) PAC back-fills with SDSU + 1 (BYU, Boise, Colorado State... whoever the TV side requires) 3) At some point down the road after that, Nebraska re-joins a Big 12 that now has a footprint in both Texas and CA. Big Ten gives WVU an "athletics only" invite. First two are pretty realistic, and the 3rd is realistic once the first one happens. Big 12 Plains: OU, OSU, Kansas, KSU, CU, NU, ISU Big 12 Border: UT, TTU, Zona, TCU, UCLA, USC, Baylor PAC 10: UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Stanford, Cal, SDSU, ASU, Utah, BYU B1G West: Mich, Mich St, Wisky, Iowa, Minny, Illinois, Northwestern B1G East: tOSU, Penn St, WVU, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers SEC, ACC, AAC all stay status quo. MWC has to replace 1 or 2 (options include NMSU, UTEP, maybe a UC Davis joins FBS) This basically makes the Big 12 the western U.S. version of the SEC. And it makes the PAC a smaller version of the ACC. Seems like a more stable balance to me.

We probably have to at least go to 14 if we bring in SC. As long as UCLA or Stanford comes with them, I'd guess we can add any two others and the group would be additive.

Yeah. I'm just guessing that the North schools in that scenario would want the division flag planted directly in DFW. Give the Frogs an annual cross-division game with Baylor and I'm not sure how much they really get to complain. Even if they do complain, I'm not sure they've got the clout to do anything about it. Alternatively, you could switch up the PAC schools invited to USC, UCLA, UA/ASU, and Colorado. That allows for something more like this: North: OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, CU, WVU South: UT, TTU, TCU, BU, UAorASU, UCLA, USC As a fan, I probably prefer the option that puts CU back in the Big 12. But it seems more likely that we'd get both Arizona schools when looking at it from a conference politics standpoint. But assuming we didn't have to do that, you could give CU a permanent cross-division game with UCLA or USC as a consolation for playing in the Big 8 division. And they could join the rest of the chorus of ex-Big 8 schools trying to sell NU on coming back on board. If it worked, CU would have annual games with OU, NU, one of the L.A. schools while UT and the other L.A. school rotate through the cross-division schedule. That's a pretty good outcome.

Yeah. Big 8 division vs Border division would be pretty fun. I'd miss the basketball double round robin, but if the conference went to a 20 game slate - which is already the trend in bigger conferences - then you could do a double round robin within each division, play all 7 teams from the other division (including one of them twice.) I think that would cover most bases for most hoops fans. And a conference with USC, Texas, and Oklahoma football (even before you factor in the "lure Nebraska back" possibilities) would make elite money. Disney could market a hoops conference with Kansas, UCLA, and Arizona heading up the other revenue sport.

North: TCU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, WVU South: BU, UT, TTU, UA, ASU, USC, UCLA North schools have a media/recruiting presence in DFW via TCU. They also get the cross-over games in Texas and CA for recruiting exposure. OU has the division game with TCU and a permanent cross-over game with UT. I think with the money, you could get everyone to sign off on it. Long term, Nebraska is obviously a better fit in this alignment than WVU. So maybe we see what we can work out on that front if we can make the PAC raid part happen first. That move back to the Big 12 is not such a hard sell with the Huskers once you have USC on board. Conference games in both Texas and CA, and a renewed annual game with OU, is their dream outcome.

I'd be fine with a Big 14 that just leaves out the PAC North division altogether. And at that point they could reform as a more regional PAC NW entity that isn't quite so spread out. Rotate the Rose Bowl tie-in between the B12 and the new PAC 10. Give them a permanent tie-in with the Fiesta Bowl. Everyone comes out of that okay. Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Utah, +, +, +.

You just kicked out Baylor and WVU for Utah and Colorado. Baylor and WVU have wealthier and arguably more successful athletic departments than both. So Baylor and WVU are two schools who are not going quietly. And the fact that they won't go quietly is going to make adding those 8 PAC schools much more difficult. And what's the upside? You get a cleaner map?

Why would you cut loose a mid-tier value from the Big 12 to add a mid-tier value school from the PAC? It's just a needless complication. For example, Utah... great program. They punch above their weight. AAU. And their TV numbers aren't that great and their local fan support is okay but not great. Who are you cutting for them? Colorado is kind of the same thing but with less recent success. Cal is the same thing. Stanford is the same thing. From a purely sports standpoint, it doesn't make sense to cut from our side. Why start a big fight in your own boardroom when you're looking to poach from another league? Maybe that type of approach would make sense if the Big 12 ends up in a weakened position at some point during our next media rights negotiation. But that's not where things look like they are going right now.

That's probably a fair take. My point re: the PAC schools and their value is that the argument for the Big 12 to add so many PAC schools... doesn't make financial sense for the Big 12. What makes sense for the Big 12 is to add the schools with value and as few others as it can get away with adding. That's always been the underlying discussion with the "poach the Big 12" idea. How many Texhoma schools need to be added to the _____ Conference to get Texas and OU to join, too?

So which athletic departments in the PAC have legit TV value? USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, and ... ?? That's about it. Per the Andy Staples' suggestion, if you take those 4 and add two more to bridge geography (Arizona schools or Arizona+Colorado) you're at 16 and don't need to add anyone else. Why would the Big 12 be looking to kick anyone out? Without kicking anyone out, Disney gets its west coast value and the remaining PAC 6 schools can still add the 4 best available and get going with the PAC 10 2.0. Adding the extra intra-political hurdle of also kicking out Big 12 schools just muddies the water and makes the whole thing more difficult to execute. Personally, I'd rather we limit the whole thing to the L.A. schools + 2 for geography. I don't see that the PAC NW schools add so much value that they make taking on the travel something that's worthwhile. But if Disney and/or SC insisted on it, then obviously we'd figure out a way to make it work.

I wouldn't discount the ability of the PAC to fire Larry Scott and eventually fix its revenue model at some point. But where things stand right now, a lot less has to be done to invite SC to the Big 12 than to invite UT/OU to the PAC. The ADs that are worth more, on average, are on the Big 12 side.

Why save the PAC at all? The bottom half of the PAC is a lot worse than the bottom half of the Big 12. And the tippy top of the Big 12 is better than the same in the PAC.

As a fan of the CBS college football theme song, I support this plan.

I completely buy the idea that Stanford runs the PAC. If it's not SC, then who is it? Palo Alto makes the most sense. If so, then SC vs Stanford bickering in the boardroom makes a lot of sense. I have no idea how/why Stanford would be going after Texas' academic standing. If it were happening, though, then UT responding in some way would make sense.

Not to mention, reeling in a school like SC would mean the equally shared money would also improve for everyone.