USC Traveler

Reduce travel costs for schools making a fraction of the tv money that the BIG and SEC make.

From the Beavs' 247 board, fwiw:

Good call- going bigger makes it easier to sell the top AAC schools, as the travel stays mostly regional. App State would be another possibility for the eastern division. Having all the top G6 programs in one conference would make for a better tv product.

I think Stanford and Cal will try to stay aligned with Duke, Wake, BC, etc, but the lower tv money will force them to make some interesting choices.

West division Wazzu, Beavs, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, UNLV East Division CSU, AFA, UTSA, Rice, Tulane, Memphis That's probably the best scenario for the "newPAC" until the ACC implodes, as the winner would get the G6 autobid in most years. Memphis would have a game in CO and two games out West every year. Would that be worth it to be in the best G6 league ? (That league should make more tv money than any other G6.)

Yeah- UNLV and AFA definitely seem like the logical programs to add that are still in the MW. But what legal issues are they worried about ? The PAC went from 10 schools to 4 schools in one day and that didn't create any legal problems for the exiting schools.

There it is. Good call TK. I agree that's where this is heading. They'd be smart to add AFA to set the stage for a an eventual merger with the ACC leftovers. I could see the ACC leftovers (Wake, Cuse, BC,Stanford, Cal, etc) bringing in the service academies, adding the top Sunbelt schools and merging with the “new PAC” to become the far and away dominant G6 conference. The champ of that conference would almost certainly get an autobid for as long as that structure exists. They would get the best G6 tv deal, and having east and west divisions would allow them to play a mostly regional schedule to reduce travel costs.

Wait until they actually starting playing each other. That's when the excitement starts. Cal at BC!!! SMU at Syracuse!!!! Wake at Stanford late night!!! All played in front of dozens of fans!!! Are you feeling the excitement yet ? 🤣

After reading about Tech coeds for 10 years plus on Shaggy and Surly, I thought "Wow- Tech really embraces it and calls their cheerleaders the Saddle Tramps!" Needless to say I was incredibly disappointed to google it and find out that wasn't the case.

I agree. That's the key hurdle. That's why I said in the previous post: "If the existing ACC schools agree to split the extra tv $ plus playoff $ in a way that would give FSU and Clemson enough extra money to keep them in the ACC, that would be a huge win for ESPN." If they have $55m in extra revenue to work with, the existing schools could agree to divide the money based on tv ratings in a way that sent the vast majority of the money to FSU and Clemson. $20m+/yr each would put Clemson and FSU closer to an even footing with the BIG/SEC. Combine that with what they've already agreed to on the playoff money, and there would be years with Clemson/FSU in the playoff where they could make more than a BIG/SEC team. With the 12 team format starting next year, FSU and Clemson could cash in on playoff money on a regular basis. I think this is why FSU has been so vocal in public- to scare the schools that will be left behind into agreeing to something like this. It's well worth it if you're BC, Cuse, Wake, etc. to keep Clemson and FSU in the ACC and keep cashing their current checks as long as possible.

This smells like BS from Cal to try to put pressure on the ACC. ESPN has much greater motivation to put Stanford, Cal, and SMU in the ACC. If the existing ACC schools agree to split the extra tv $ plus playoff $ in a way that would give FSU and Clemson enough extra money to keep them in the ACC, that would be a huge win for ESPN. ESPN has the ACC at a bargain price, and would be smart to do what they need to do to keep the ACC intact as long as possible, even if it means throwing in a little more money for theses extra three teams. They'll get some more late night inventory for late Friday and Saturday slots, plus the in-market cable rates for ACCNet to help offset the cost, and that cost would be well worth it to keep the ACC intact for as long as possible. And when FSU/Clemson/etc eventually leave, ESPN will use the composition clause in the deal to sharply reduce the deal with the remaining teams, so it's all upside with no downside for ESPN. Phillips probably has no idea of the endgame here. He seems a lot like Klownkoff- clueless and out of touch. The only thing adding the PAC4 to the B12 does for ESPN is it gives them more inventory for late night windows. No ACCNet bump, and more importantly, it doesn't help them with FSU and Clemson. Outside of ND, those two schools get the highest tv ratings of any 2024 non-BIG/SEC school except ND. For ESPN, the longer those schools are in the ACC, the better. Again, this smells like BS from Cal. Stanford has Condi Rice applying pressure. SMU has W Bush. Cal has........ Michael Silver of the SF Chronicle. 🤣

Looks like Stanford and Cal have learned nothing in realignment. They seem to think nothing will change. They thought the PAC (and media money) would always be there because they never thought USC would leave. Now they're going to go ACC with a 30% share than won't reach 100% until 2036. What's going to happen when FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, etc all leave ? FSU people like Bud Elliot think FSU is leaving next year. If not next year, the closer it gets to 2036, the more likely the exodus becomes. Once the BIG and SEC take the top ACC teams, ESPN will likely push the 2nd tier teams like UL, Pitt, etc to the B12 and let the conference dissolve completely. At the very least, ESPN will use the composition clause (standard in conference tv deals) to drastically reduce payments to the ACC. Stanford and Cal are going to take $7-10m/yr to start, and there's a great chance the conference dissolves or gets hammered way down on revenue long before the Bay area schools start getting any real money. They are setting themselves up for absolute disaster- Cal especially, given their finances and lack of ND connection/hope for BIG. They would have been much better to get over their coastal elitism, academic snobbery and religious bigotry to try to be part of a BIG 18. I guess being in a pod with BYU and playing teams in OK, KS, WV, etc was too much for them.

You're giving Klownkoff and Phillips too much credit. There was no piece of paper. "There is no contract. We shook hands as gentlemen and looked each other in the eye."🤣

Great to see the Chair of the BOT of a state flagship university who understands the CFB fan experience, the SEC and actually knows what the Grove is. Contrast that with the UC Regents last year talking about impact of USC and UCLA to the BIG on Cal. It was a complete clown show, where they all exposed their ignorance. It was so clear none of them had any clue. He's 100% correct that Horns Down penalties are stupid and that it's a compliment to UT. When you're hated, you're relevant. No one does anti-Rutgers signs because no one cares.

It gets better: One of the other schools that led the charge to reject UT, OU and the gang over LHN, and then rejected OU/OSU the next year was............. Oregon St. Their President at the time (Ed Rey), along with ASU's Crow, were Larry Scott's two biggest supporters from beginning to end. Poetic justice that four of the five schools that were most responsible for killing the PAC16 deal ended up homeless. Too bad ASU didn't get stranded also. It was close. Crow tried to keep his lips attached to Stanford's ass until the bitter end.

USC self-sanctioning the program with idiotic AD and HC hires bathed the program in shame, but it didn't kill the conference. USC still had plenty of value, as shown by how much the BIG's tv deal grew after the LA schools were added. Arrogance, incompetence and gross negligence killed the PAC. The difference between the BIG/SEC vs the PAC is that there were always multiple top level programs in the BIG/SEC which have won National Titles and have the credibility to to carry the conference when other top level programs are down. When Bama was down from the late '90s until Saban's arrival, the Vols, LSU and UF all won titles. Bama, Auburn, LSU and UGA have all won titles since. OSU carried the BIG for while UM slumbered, and now UM is back on top, with PSU looking like they might make a leap. // Due to geography, the only chance for the PAC to have that type of depth at the top was to add UT and OU. They were the only possible blueblood additions, and they would have made it possible for the PAC to stand on equal footing with the BIG/SEC. Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions. They were the only "No" vote back in the day. Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU, Tech, OSU, etc in 2010 b/c of LHN. Stanford, Cal and WSU were three of the ringleaders again in rejecting OU and OSU the following year. They didn't want the added competition, they didn't want to have unequal Tier 3 revenue, and they didn't want to be associated with Tech, OSU, or aggy. Think about that- Stanford passed on UT as a conference member twice!!! Cal passed on UT once, and both Stanford and Cal passed on OU twice. And you want to say they were "minor players" in the PAC's demise ? 🤣 USC shitting the bed for a decade was like someone in hospice with terminal cancer getting psoriasis- the damage was done long before. Cal and Stanford were the tip of the spear that inflicted the fatal wound on the PAC16 deal- the PAC's last chance to be a true peer of the SEC/BIG. // You can spin whatever fairytale you want, but the PAC was dead the day every school not named USC or UCLA rejected UT, OU and the gang over LHN/equal revenue sharing. We talked about it in detail over on the old Shaggy realignment thread. Once it was no longer possible to add bluebloods, it was just a matter of time before the revenue gap caused the top programs to leave. Like Thanos, it was inevitable. PS- To double down on their previous realignment 5D chess moves, Stanford and Cal were part of the decision-making team that turned the PAC into a pile of ash. The PAC could have been a stable conference making B12 money, but the schools thought they were worth $50m/yr, when ESPN offered $30m. Can't blame that on USC, as the LA schools weren't part of those decisions. That's all on Klownkoff and the 10 idiots who listened to him.

ACC update: 😂

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30492065/sec-espn-strike-10-year-deal-college-football-basketball-starting-2024 From the ESPN press release announcing the deal: Since they weren't allowed to put SEC games on ABC in primetime before, that's one of the reasons this was such a big deal for ESPN/ABC and the SEC. It was also important for the other reasons you listed. I agree with all of those, as well as the fact that ESPN is basically equivalent to a broadcast network.

The numbers for the existing SEC are artificially deflated because of the CBS deal. As a part of that deal, Disney can't show any SEC games in primetime on ABC. That's why SEC games in primetime are always on ESPN (except for one CBS primetime game per season), while ABC shows a BIG, ACC, B12 or PAC game. Bama and UGA have big numbers on that chart because 90% of the time they are one of the teams playing in the 3:30 CBS game. // The other thing that jumps out on that chart is how many times UT and USC were on OTA, despite the fact that both programs had at least 3 losses every year from 2016-2021, and neither one was a national title contender. The fans still watch, and the haters tune in to hate-watch. I'll take "What drives realignment for $1,000, please Alex."

The polls disagree with you. AP had 8 future BIG and SEC teams in top 25. Coaches had SEC 8 and BIG 7, with Iowa as #26. I posted the below yesterday, as part of the SOS debate. SOS is driven by perception: 2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference: BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25). SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23). Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17). ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21). PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State). AAC -- 1 team (No. 24) ND-- (No. 13) // Once the ACC is divided up, if ND goes BIG we could easily be looking at a top 25 of: BIG -- 10 teams SEC -- 10 teams Big 12 -- 3 PAC/MWC -- 1 AAC -- 1

It's not a hollow threat. Just like the regular season, those two conferences would get the vast majority of the media money for the postseason. BIG/SEC would make massive $$$ from each having their own 4 team playoffs: first 2 games in each conference on campus, with CCGs in Rose and Sugar on NYD. They wouldn't have to share that with anyone. Then add in a "Super College Bowl" that they split 50/50. That would be seven games total, and they would get the same guaranteed money every year. The 12 team playoff will have 11 games to sell, but BIG/SEC have to share the money with the ACC, B12 and G5, so the money could easily be similar, or even greater, by doing their own thing. Personally, I want to see 4-5 champs qualify, with 7-8 at larges, as a full breakaway would suck for fans and it would be be a disaster in the long run financially, when people like the folks in this thread check out once their teams no longer have access. But the threat is credible because CFB history has few very examples where schools/conferences prioritized the long-term good of the game over short term financial benefits, and the BIG/SEC would dominate the money and suck up most of the CFB oxygen if they did this. If you're in the ACC, B12 or G5, that's going to scare you. I think BIG/SEC will use that threat to get the revenue splits they want and to make sure SOS is factored into the equation in the way that they want. They'll push for 12 at-large bids, but hopefully BIG/SEC will compromise with 5 champs for now, dropping to 4 once the ACC melts away like we just saw with the PAC.

ASU and Utah are trying their best, but no one does academic snobbery like Cal and Stanford- they're orders of magnitude higher than anyone else. ASU and Utah are like the little brothers trying to imitate Cal and Stanford so they can be just like them. Michael Crow almost kept them aligned in a conference. He has a similar level of cluelessness about sports as the Bay Area schools and was close to relegating ASU to the PAC5. Larry Scott's biggest enabler. ASU was one of the schools (along with Kolownkoff) saying we should get $50m/yr in media rights!!! What a fucking moron. 😂 // PSA for all 2024 B12 Surlyites who are single: ASU roadtrips are a must- especially for night games. You'll make some great memories interacting with the local talent after the games- amazing concentration of talent that is not be missed.

That's true of every conference, though. Teams will drop out, and others will cycle up into the top 25. But the drops and rises aren't equal. We already see how SEC teams (and some BIG teams) are treated differently: they drop less after a loss or rise more after a win than other conferences. That's going to become even more pronounced in 2024. What determines rankings ? Perception. And the perception from 2024 on is going to be that most of the strength in CFB will be concentrated in the BIG/SEC. And once the ACC gets carved up, it will get even worse, with 20 of the top 25 every year being in the BIG/SEC. So I agree with Tk that SOS is going to be a much bigger factor in the 12 team model than it has up till now because of the concentration of brands. // The playoff is a tv product, and the networks that land the playoffs are going to be the same networks hyping their respective conferences all year, reinforcing the idea that these two conferences are on a different level in terms of SOS. And while the networks will want a couple of cinderella teams in the playoff field, they'll mostly want to include the big brands that will bring in the highest ratings, which are the BIG/SEC brands, where the networks have invested the most money. The networks, via the BIG/SEC, will make it clear to the CFP how they want to see SOS factored in. And the BIG/SEC hold all the power from 2026 on. Their ultimate leverage is the threat to "Go back to the old days, with the bowl system. They can each have a four team internal playoff to determine their conference champs, with the SEC CCG in the Sugar and BIG CCG in the Rose- both on NYD. They'll meet in the "Super College Bowl" two weeks later. They'll say they're not excluding anyone, because they will no longer be positioning it as a playoff, and that the other conferences can set up their own bowl arrangements. BIG/SEC will say it's a return to the old way of doing things, with poll voters deciding the best team. But everyone knows that in reality, that would mean the winner of the BIG-SEC bowl would be voted #1 every year. That threat is going to scare the living shit out of every other conference, so BIG/SEC will get what they want on the 2026 and beyond format. I hope it's 5 champs until the ACC gets carved up, and then top 4 champs afterwards. Assuming it becomes 5 champ format, from 2024 until ACC breakup: BIG: 3-4 SEC: 3-4 ACC: 1-2 B12: 1-2 G5: 1 If we have a 4 champ format after the ACC gets carved up by the BIG, SEC and B12: BIG: 4-5 SEC: 4-5 B12: 1-2 G5: 1

The problem is they're not smart when it comes to the business of CFB. They're clueless and arrogant, though, which is a deadly combo. Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions. They were the only "No" vote the first time. Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU and the gang in 2010 b/c of LHN. They could have brought in the remaining B12 schools and/or BYU in 2021, but look down on those schools and didn't want them in the PAC. There's a reason they want to play in the ACC and have never talked to the B12. B12 is better off without them. // On top of that, Cal admin has kneecapped their football team for the last 12 years or so, making them completely irrelevant. Stanford kept Shaw on way too long, making them mostly irrelevant. Neither school has invested in football. Like the rest of the PAC, they thought they could leech off USC's media value forever via revenue-sharing. It never occurred to them that USC would actually leave, even though USC had been talking about it for years- sometimes publicly. Stanford and Cal were huge factors in the PAC failing. They helped sow the seeds of its destruction and are reaping what they sowed.

2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference: BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25). SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23). Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17). ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21). PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State). AAC -- 1 team (No. 24) ND-- (No. 13) // Once the ACC is divided up, we could easily be looking at a top 25 of: BIG -- 10 teams SEC -- 10 teams Big 12 -- 3 PAC/MWC -- 1 AAC -- 1 If this year's rankings are any indication, it's going to be harder than I was originally thinking for the B12 to get two teams in.