Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17,476]

33 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

You don't think UCLA would be a good fit as well?  I mean I think UCLA, UW, OR, AZ, ASU move the needle more than Iowa St, Kansas St and WV, no?

Yep.  I’d rather watch UW and Oregon over any big 12 team, save ou and Texas.  

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

26 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Not a merger, there'd be no point in taking the PAC's weak properties.  There's really only one school in the PAC that would move the needle for the B12, but if they wanted to bring along another program in their own region, that would certainly be worth considering.

 

32 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Y’all are crazy if you think the pnw schools will be left out.   

I feel like the next wave will be less about maximizing the terrestrial footprint of the conferences, and more about maximizing the per-school revenues and competitive attractiveness. I also think that the law of diminishing returns has been reached with conference membership-- bigger is not automatically better, i.e., a conference isn't suddenly worth more per member (or even more in total) just by adding a couple of third- or fourth-tier programs. In this model, the ideal would be a Pac Western conference of maybe 12 teams total. 

Let's assume that's right, even though it's just my opinion. The challenge there is, what do you do with hanger-on programs, the lesser program in any state? If you say "we want to make the BEST conference we can out of the 22 schools in the Pac-12 / Big 12 by paring it down to 12 teams total", then Oregon State and Washington State aren't in that mix, but good fucking luck separating them from Oregon and Washington. Not because Oregon and UW particularly care, but because their state legislatures will. 

Likewise, it might be difficult for Oklahoma to separate from Oklahoma State, or Texas from TCU, Baylor, and Tech. 

So now we swerve back to the opposite guardrail and say "OK, let's mash those 22 schools together into one conference" and maybe you're able to ditch West Virginia, maybe even WVU, KSU, Iowa State, and Utah to get down to 18. 18 is still way too many and I think in the next round, with TV money potentially tighter (I could be wrong about that), you'd obviously rather split a billion dollars among 16 schools than 18. 

[Thiefery 5,018]

25 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

 

I feel like the next wave will be less about maximizing the terrestrial footprint of the conferences, and more about maximizing the per-school revenues and competitive attractiveness. I also think that the law of diminishing returns has been reached with conference membership-- bigger is not automatically better, i.e., a conference isn't suddenly worth more per member (or even more in total) just by adding a couple of third- or fourth-tier programs. In this model, the ideal would be a Pac Western conference of maybe 12 teams total. 

Let's assume that's right, even though it's just my opinion. The challenge there is, what do you do with hanger-on programs, the lesser program in any state? If you say "we want to make the BEST conference we can out of the 22 schools in the Pac-12 / Big 12 by paring it down to 12 teams total", then Oregon State and Washington State aren't in that mix, but good fucking luck separating them from Oregon and Washington. Not because Oregon and UW particularly care, but because their state legislatures will. 

Likewise, it might be difficult for Oklahoma to separate from Oklahoma State, or Texas from TCU, Baylor, and Tech. 

So now we swerve back to the opposite guardrail and say "OK, let's mash those 22 schools together into one conference" and maybe you're able to ditch West Virginia, maybe even WVU, KSU, Iowa State, and Utah to get down to 18. 18 is still way too many and I think in the next round, with TV money potentially tighter (I could be wrong about that), you'd obviously rather split a billion dollars among 16 schools than 18. 

you would still need schools like Kansas, TCU (Baylor gets the boot, Anne Richards isn't gonna save them this time), AZ, etc. as mid tier schools in this conference.  

[66BUFF 2,565]

WEST

Washington, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU

EAST

Texas, TT, OU, OSU, Colorado, Kansas, Utah

 

14 teams and you lock up all the major TV markets west of the Mississippi and cover 3 time zones.  SC gives you the 1 private school that every conference needs.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

7 minutes ago, 66BUFF said:

WEST

Washington, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU

EAST

Texas, TT, OU, OSU, Colorado, Kansas, Utah

 

14 teams and you lock up all the major TV markets west of the Mississippi and cover 3 time zones.  SC gives you the 1 private school that every conference needs.

This conference of yours only has three California schools and Colorado's in a separate division from them. I thought the whole point of your move to the Pac-X was that all your alumni are there. 

Two other thoughts:

1) You don't need a private school for anything. That is one of those sports message board canards that someone made up 20 years ago and it still gets quoted. Before you respond, yes I already know why people SAY you need a private school, but it's still bullshit.

2) Good luck separating Cal and Stanford in any endeavor. 

[utee94 15,868]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

You don't think UCLA would be a good fit as well?  I mean I think UCLA, UW, OR, AZ, ASU move the needle more than Iowa St, Kansas St and WV, no?

UCLA would be fine.  They don't add anything, but they don't subtract either.  If that's who USC wanted to bring with them, I'm sure they'd be welcome.  The other schools you mention don't move the needle any more than ISU, KSU, or WVU, and the important difference is that ISU, KSU, and WVU are already in the B12.  Nobody's interested in watching PAC schools play, other than USC, so there's no reason at all to invite them and further dilute the B12 product.  Do you think USC would insist on bringing all of them?  I don't.  But if so, it'd likely be a deal breaker.  The B12 already has enough dead weight, adding more makes zero sense.

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Y’all are crazy if you think the pnw schools will be left out.   

The PNW schools won't have any say if USC elects to dump them.  The B12 doesn't need them, they're just more dead weight.  The PAC is falling behind financially because nobody wants to watch their teams play football-- not even their own fans.  That's not going to get any better with a move to the B12, and it would just drag the B12 down with them.  

This isn't going to be a merger.  This will be USC ditching the PAC, and all of the dead weight associated with it.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by utee94

[Thiefery 5,018]

8 minutes ago, utee94 said:

 

This isn't going to be a merger.  This will be USC ditching the PAC, and all of the dead weight associated with it.

 

That's like saying Texas is dumping the Big 12 and bringing a partner in ou...

[utee94 15,868]

Just now, Thiefery said:

That's like saying Texas is dumping the Big 12 and bringing a partner in ou...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

Texas and OU would only leave the B12 for a more profitable conference, and the only two options there, are the B1G and the SEC.  Texas and OU aren't going to leave the B12 and take a step down to the PAC. 

USC is not negotiating from a position of strength.  Adding USC to the B12 would increase the profitability of the conference.  Adding USC and a partner like UCLA would still be a net positive.  But adding USC and a bunch of dead weight from the PAC doesn't make any sense and it's something the B12 wouldn't do.  If all of the schools you mention like UW, Oregon, ASU, and Arizona, really were as desirable as you seem to think they are, don't you think they'd be getting paid accordingly?  But they're not, and they aren't.

Everyone has understood that the B12 adding undesirable schools doesn't make any sense.  They'll bring nothing to the table, but they'll still take from it.  Noting has changed that, just because USC is potentially in play.  USC is a school that makes sense to add to the B12. The rest of the PAC, not so much.  So it would be a question of who exactly USC would want to bring along.

[Al_4_ISU 12,500]

13 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

That's like saying Texas is dumping the Big 12 and bringing a partner in ou...

Except at this point it's pretty clear that the Big 12 is more valuable than the Pac 12.

I realize that Ames, Iowa; Stillwater, Oklahoma; Manhattan, KS; etc aren't vacation destinations, but people there actually care about and tune into college sports.  The gap the Pac can likely never close is that absolutely no one out there gives a fuck about college sports.

That's why the Big 10 and SEC do so well.  Not only do they have population, they have give-a-shit.  The Big 12 lacks population, but has give-a-shit in spades, and that's going to translate into more eyeballs and a more viable product than a mountain of theoretical but disinterested viewers.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Al_4_ISU

[Al_4_ISU 12,500]

2019 USC home attendance:  59,358

2019 Iowa State home attendance:  59,807

They don't fucking care.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Al_4_ISU

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3,868]

Anyone know if there is any validity to the rumor that the ACC is talking to Texas and OU? 

[kopp0e 1,135]

17 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Think the best route would to take 7/8 schools from the current Pac conference along with 7/8 of the current big 12 conference (Bye Baylor, WV)

You can get pretty close to this, if looking at moves through the lens of likely partner: ESPN...

ESPN can flip LHN into a 16 team conference network, while moving 3 current XII members to ACC & SEC...

Why would ESPN be willing to pay SEC to take 2 XII schools/ ACC to take 1 XII school..? As it opens up the western half of the market to be owned by Disney...

Placing a 3rd conference network alongside ACCN & SECN, in PXCN, would give Disney 3rd tier rights to 48 of the top 65 power brands, damn near locking up rights from coast to coast...

Not to mention, Disney would also gain Notre Dame football (as NBC contract expires in 2025), thus by moving 3 XII teams, ESPN can lock in Notre Dame/ Oklahoma/ USC & UCLA long term to various conferences...

My proposal would be simple for ACC, add (ND football) West Virginia to regain most old BigEast rivals/ SEC add Kansas State & Oklahoma State, giving Missouri & Arkansas regional rivals, then raid PAC for the best brands, with XII best football brands...

PXC -

Washington/ Oregon/ California/ Stanford/ UCLA/ USC/ Arizona/ Arizona State/ Utah/ Colorado/ Texas/ Texas Tech/ TCU/ Oklahoma/ Kansas & Iowa State...

That would place 9 XII teams in a P4 league, (1 ACC/ 2 SEC/ 6 PXC) to dissolve league, as needing 8 votes to do so, PAC would also have enough votes to dissolve with 10 members merging into a new league with former XII members ( as PAC needs 9 votes to dissolve conference) this is the same as the SEC & Big8 merger/ ACC raid of BigEast...

And lately, there's talk of ESPN looking to open up SEC & ACC 2nd & 3rd tier contracts to place more content on streaming apps, along with linear networks... 

It will be interesting to see what comes about in the near future, as Oklahoma has 3rd tier rights due for bids before the end of 2022, that are now with Sinclair (although still branded as "Fox" since Disney was forced into selling the RSN's to complete to $71 billion dollar deal of a year ago from 20th Century Fox)...

Division aligni could be pretty fun as well, as the north could consist of 8 & 8 in the south division:

North -

Washington

Oregon

California

Stanford

Utah

Colorado

Kansas

Iowa State

 

South -

UCLA

USC

Arizona

Arizona State

Oklahoma

Texas

Texas Tech

TCU

The conference title game could rotate from Las Vegas & San Antonio, for football/ Kansas City & Phoenix for basketball.!? 

[Thiefery 5,018]

2 hours ago, utee94 said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

Texas and OU would only leave the B12 for a more profitable conference, and the only two options there, are the B1G and the SEC.  Texas and OU aren't going to leave the B12 and take a step down to the PAC. 

USC is not negotiating from a position of strength.  Adding USC to the B12 would increase the profitability of the conference.  Adding USC and a partner like UCLA would still be a net positive.  But adding USC and a bunch of dead weight from the PAC doesn't make any sense and it's something the B12 wouldn't do.  If all of the schools you mention like UW, Oregon, ASU, and Arizona, really were as desirable as you seem to think they are, don't you think they'd be getting paid accordingly?  But they're not, and they aren't.

Everyone has understood that the B12 adding undesirable schools doesn't make any sense.  They'll bring nothing to the table, but they'll still take from it.  Noting has changed that, just because USC is potentially in play.  USC is a school that makes sense to add to the B12. The rest of the PAC, not so much.  So it would be a question of who exactly USC would want to bring along.

Meaning it's not as simple as it looks.  

[Thiefery 5,018]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

2019 USC home attendance:  59,358

2019 Iowa State home attendance:  59,807

They don't fucking care.

2019 season was a lame duck year for USC football.. they had a dead man walking for a HC (somehow got a stay for now), and boosters boycotting with no AD.  And still were pretty much even with attendance with ISU.  I'm not saying that Iowa st, KSU should be left behind or anything.  But SC is still SC despite the dumpster fire it currently is.  This notion of thinking that it's them and just one partner being allowed to join is a joke.  You can call it a merger or annex or expansion but a min of 7/8 teams from the Pac along with 7/8 of the current big 12 makes the most sense,

Keep the schools in the same division as now.  The 9th conf game will be a random crossover game from the opposite division.

Iowa St, KSu fans should be happy.. they have a chance to grab kids from Cali now too if this were to happen.

[hiphopfroggy 121]

3 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

2019 season was a lame duck year for USC football.. they had a dead man walking for a HC (somehow got a stay for now), and boosters boycotting with no AD.  And still were pretty much even with attendance with ISU.  I'm not saying that Iowa st, KSU should be left behind or anything.  But SC is still SC despite the dumpster fire it currently is.  This notion of thinking that it's them and just one partner being allowed to join is a joke.  You can call it a merger or annex or expansion but a min of 7/8 teams from the Pac along with 7/8 of the current big 12 makes the most sense,

Keep the schools in the same division as now.  The 9th conf game will be a random crossover game from the opposite division.

Iowa St, KSu fans should be happy.. they have a chance to grab kids from Cali now too if this were to happen.

The 8th and 9th conference games could be interdivisional, guaranteeing a home and away every year, and guaranteeing no longer than 4 years between matchups. 

[Walden Ponderer 12,639]

6 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Could Colorado be on the outside looking in?

I was looking for a window-bison picture, and there just aren't any.

I guess buffalo are too pathetic even to get on the back porch.

[Lidig8r 1,874]

[PittsburghTiger 6,204]

On 2/20/2020 at 5:24 PM, Doc Sam Beckett said:

The ACC definitely doesn't want WVU, no matter how badly the Big 12 wants to dump them. 

I was told that WVU was told, in no uncertain terms, that the ACC does not ever want them, and that a lot of it had to do with their fan behavior.

[Iceman 2,726]

6 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

I was told that WVU was told, in no uncertain terms, that the ACC does not ever want them, and that a lot of it had to do with their fan behavior.

Sure you were listening objectively...Lolz.

[PittsburghTiger 6,204]

8 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Sure you were listening objectively...Lolz.

Since it was told to me by a friend, a former WVU football player, who has/had been involved with WVU athletics, yeah, I think I did.

I don't care what happens to Morganhole Community College, but my friend had no reason to lie to me.

[Iceman 2,726]

1 minute ago, PittsburghTiger said:

Since it was told to me by a friend, a former WVU football player, who has/had been involved with WVU athletics, yeah, I think I did.

I don't care what happens to Morganhole Community College, but my friend had no reason to lie to me.

we all have that friend too.

Just fucking around, brother...  cannot help but note that it was related to a "not-so-favorite" rival.

[Thiefery 5,018]

21 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

Since it was told to me by a friend, a former WVU football player, who has/had been involved with WVU athletics, yeah, I think I did.

I don't care what happens to Morganhole Community College, but my friend had no reason to lie to me.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,797]

1 hour ago, PittsburghTiger said:

I was told that WVU was told, in no uncertain terms, that the ACC does not ever want them, and that a lot of it had to do with their fan behavior.

Yeah that's exactly it. They're like a worse Maryland, who nobody else liked. When you get fan bases like GT and Wake to hate you, then you're really trying hard to be dicks. 

[utee94 15,868]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Meaning it's not as simple as it looks.  

Well I absolutely agree with you there. I think that folks that believe a "merger" is likely, are taking a pretty simplistic view and not evaluating the big picture from the B12 league office's perspective.

The B12 gains nothing from a "merger" with the PAC..  However, the B12 gains plenty by adding just USC and perhaps a traveling partner, depending on who it is and what eactly USC is asking.

All of this is nothing more than speculation of course, based on the idea that USC would actually consider leaving the PAC.  I know they said nothing is off the table, but that would be a pretty major step for a program with a lot of tradition and history in that conference.

Edit: I'll add that I value tradition in college football and as excited as I'd be to have USC in the same conference as Texas, I'd be sad to see them leave the PAC and abandon those long-standing traditional ties.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by utee94

[Dirk X West 772]

1 hour ago, PittsburghTiger said:

I was told that WVU was told, in no uncertain terms, that the ACC does not ever want them, and that a lot of it had to do with their fan behavior.

Yeah, not surprising if true, as the WVU fanbase is like the worst of Tech fans mixed with the worst of Ohio State fans, minus the teeth.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Dirk X West

[hiphopfroggy 121]

5 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Well I absolutely agree with you there.  Anyone that takes the simplistic view that a "merger" is likely, doesn't see the big picture.

The B12 gains nothing from a "merger" with the PAC..  However, the B12 gains plenty by adding just USC and perhaps a traveling partner, depending on who it is and what eactly USC is asking.

All of this speculation of course, based on the idea that USC would actually consider leaving the PAC.  I know they said nothing is off the table, but that would be a pretty major step for a program with a lot of tradition and history in that conference.

 

Which is why from a USC prospective, it may be better to include 7 or so other Pac schools, keeping the division regional and historical. 

 

Either way the fact is, which is now codified by the USC AD, that they are financially desperate, minor tweaks aren't cutting it, and a drastic change is going to have to be made in order for USC to be satiated financially. Standing pat is no longer an option for USC and Pac schools, a big change of some sort is coming.

 

From a Big12 school perspective, and these may be varying but it would seem logical, that the priorities would be to keep their division regional, and receive as large a pay bump as possible. 

[JFKFC 4,893]

4 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Anyone know if there is any validity to the rumor that the ACC is talking to Texas and OU? 

[camel at sea 589]

9 hours ago, Iceman said:

And Phil Knight is just gonna what... vaporize or get into drone racing or some shit? Cal and Stanford left to rot with Dawg and Coug from Washington?

 

LOlz.

If the Big 12 only took 4 PAC schools (the two L.A. schools + 2 more), the PAC would still be around. They'd still (probably) have a Rose Bowl tie-in.  They could add two as backfill, get back to playing a ten team round robin, and they'd still be a P5 conference.  

Oregon would be fine. 

It's dumb to try to add too much of the PAC if you're trying to add value to the Big 12.  You'd just be importing their problems.

Edited February 26, 2020 by camel at sea

[Al_4_ISU 12,500]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

2019 season was a lame duck year for USC football.. they had a dead man walking for a HC (somehow got a stay for now), and boosters boycotting with no AD.  And still were pretty much even with attendance with ISU.  I'm not saying that Iowa st, KSU should be left behind or anything.  But SC is still SC despite the dumpster fire it currently is.  This notion of thinking that it's them and just one partner being allowed to join is a joke.  You can call it a merger or annex or expansion but a min of 7/8 teams from the Pac along with 7/8 of the current big 12 makes the most sense,

Keep the schools in the same division as now.  The 9th conf game will be a random crossover game from the opposite division.

Iowa St, KSu fans should be happy.. they have a chance to grab kids from Cali now too if this were to happen.

My point isn't that ISU is of an equal value to USC, but rather that the Pac 12's second highest attendance (Washington had the best) and biggest brand was outdrawn by a 7-5 Big 12 school that has literally no football history, and that this is an example of my point about the difference in fan interest between the leagues.

I agree with pretty much all of your post.  If the ACC and WVU could come together, dump Baylor completely, and have the remaining 8 Big 12 schools form a division against the top 8 of the Pac 12, you'd have a valuable arrangement.

[Iceman 2,726]

So the State of California is just gonna nod and go along while fucking over Cal and Stanford?  Maybe they don't have a say in it; but if homeboys can protect Baylor in Texas, i have a real hard time believing the folks in Sacramento are just gonna say, "Fuck you folks in the Bay Area.  You're in the new WAC."

[camel at sea 589]

1 minute ago, Iceman said:

So the State of California is just gonna nod and go along while fucking over Cal and Stanford?  Maybe they don't have a say in it; but if homeboys can protect Baylor in Texas, i have a real hard time believing the folks in Sacramento are just gonna say, "Fuck you folks in the Bay Area.  You're in the new WAC."

From the outside looking in, the PAC's issues appear to be a Stanford vs. SC issue.  If the Trojans aren't running the show, then the Cardinal are undoubtedly the program with their hand on the wheel.  Splitting California in two makes sense in that context.  Maybe UCLA would be compelled to stay behind with Cal but I have a hard time seeing the legislature putting up a big fight over that if all four are going to be in a P5 conference when the dust settles.

In any case, if you've got Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal as the core of your conference, you're still a P5 league.

[Iceman 2,726]

Splitting CA makes sense to whom?  The Big XII?   LOlz.  that's the whole fucking point.

[Eugene11 379]

why do i keep getting drawn back to this thread and why do i keep reading it?

[Thiefery 5,018]

The pay bump for a merger would be big for the current Big 12 and a wet dream for the current Pac schools.  Lots of people keep saying that fans just don't care about college sports out West... I think with the pay bumps, these schools can do what the middle and lower tier teams of the Rust Belt do.. hire better coaching.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

14 minutes ago, Eugene11 said:

why do i keep getting drawn back to this thread and why do i keep reading it?

I see this kind of remark made and I'm always confused by it. How is this topic not interesting to people? Like you don't have to live and breathe it, but during the offseason, I think speculation about what CFB realignment might look like is an interesting time-waster. 

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

If the Big 12 only took 4 PAC schools (the two L.A. schools + 2 more), the PAC would still be around. They'd still (probably) have a Rose Bowl tie-in. 

Not sure about that. It depends which other two schools you're talking about. Washington, Stanford, Oregon, and USC have been the Pac-10/12 representative out there for most of the past thirty years. 

I am a sucker for any Texas realignment that brings Washington in. I can't help it. It's illogical but it's real. 

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Splitting CA makes sense to whom?  The Big XII?   LOlz.  that's the whole fucking point.

It makes sense if the PAC in-fighting is specifically between Southern Cal and Stanford.  If SC isn't the one in charge (their AD just implied that they haven't been calling the shots and to their detriment) then the school that's most likely calling the shots is in Palo Alto.  

If the two CA schools can't come to a solution together, then the CA schools split up.

[ButtFumble 5,183]

1. a lot of people are looking at this like the idiots on the UH fan forum, but no one gives a fuck if you are in a major market if no one in that market gives a fuck about your program

2. while the ISU fan is making a good comparison it is also a good point that this is a very low point for USC football.....but not to be rude to ISU, they have a shit tonne of low points in football and still bring a shit tonne of fans.....that goes back to point #1 for dumb fuck schools like UH.....when you have your bestest season evAR and you do not even sell out a 40,000 seat stajium in a city of 4+ million you can fuck right off comparing yourself to Iowa State in anything evAR

and with USC it is not a position of strength (like with Miami) when you have a shit tonne of history and shitty fair weather fans even if you have a lot of them and still somewhat decent numbers.....that is not when you want to roll into TV negotiations swinging your big media market dick around and asking for a larger share of conference revenue

3. TV networks do not give a shit if a place is a great travel destination for fans and the truth of the matter is most fans even of a program like UT are not going to be making a mini-vacation out of going to see west coast games even against top teams

you need to put asses in seats and viewers in the ratings .....a large number of the Big 12 programs do that much better than a large number of PAC 12 programs and all the more so with casual fans

4. is is disturbing that ESPN seems to be going to SECspn and CBS seems to be fucking off sports entirely....but then again things change, ESPN did make sure that the Big 12 stayed together, they paid the Big 12 at or above market rates and did so 3 years early the last time and have done so with The Sugar Bowl so who knows how it will work out

and perhaps CBS is smart enough to not massively over pay for one fucking game a week and a CCG and the reality is until that deal is done we have no idea if the numbers of that deal are real or bullshit and these negotiation numbers are often bullshit

5. I think it is a real concern about PAC 12 teams in the same state abandoning other teams just like I think it is a concern in the Big 12 as well and I think there is even reason to look at what would happen if Iowa State was on the outside looking in and what their politicians MIGHT pressure Iowa with or possibly pressure TV networks with

politicians are generally fuck heads and stupid when it comes to pressuring media and cable/sat companies, but places like Iowa or Iowa politicians (and others in the mid west and west coast) suddenly passing laws like à la carte pay TV could really fuck some of these media companies over.....good lick getting your investment in the SEC SEC SEC back disney when you cannot cram that shit on tens of millions of totally disinterested viewers any longer 

6. I think there is a chance that the Big 12 and PAC 12 might be able to work some things out and maybe drop a PAC 12 team or two (probably not, but who knows) or more likely make a situation where two conferences and one or two media companies have a package of programming that they control that goes coast to coast from WVA to California

hopefully that would include fewer conference games for the Big 12 and probably for the PAC 12 and perhaps some guaranteed conference meetings that would still be OOC

no merger, no giving up guaranteed NCAA spots or bowl games or shit like that, but just playing more frequently and working on games times to have an across the day across the country coverage package

who knows how that would look....money for top level content and then other content for each conference to market, some "big dogs" in each conference taking a larger share (or in one conference and not the other), not equal money for each conference (Big 12 is currently more valuable for sure) or who knows what else

7. there could be a SMALL possibility the Big 12 is ask to add two programs on the east coast to expand the presence there or perhaps the networks work a scheduling agreement with some "independent" schools that are willing to travel and the Big 12 actually adds no one....BYU, UConn, or some other programs that move to be independent

8. I would doubt the Big 12 and PAC 12 will both be blowing up the politics of that to get 22 teams down to 14 or 12 or even 16 just does not work

even with 16 teams you are dumping 6 and the PAC 12 has the most dead weight while they have the most history, but the teams that many would call dead weight in the Big 12 are the teams with the longest history together or the politicians that would make a hell of a lot of noise prevent things from happening....in Texas, Kansas, Iowa and Oklahoma it would be all out war

9.there are still streaming issues, new buyers of content, paying athletes and other issues to work through between now and then....but we do know that at least now USC is open to anything and everything and at some point you have to wonder of Cal and Stanford have the same attitude or if Colorado does 

10. there is next to no way that an intelligent UT administration goes west to a PAC anything that has a majority of PAC 12 members over Big 12 members....that is sure death period the end which means that any mix and match if that was to happen would be PAC 12 members coming east

11. we do know that the PAC 12 gets an offer first so the Big 12 has time to plan and the Big 12 has time to see what PAC 12 members think of that offer

Edited February 26, 2020 by ButtFumble

[camel at sea 589]

27 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Not sure about that. It depends which other two schools you're talking about. Washington, Stanford, Oregon, and USC have been the Pac-10/12 representative out there for most of the past thirty years. 

I am a sucker for any Texas realignment that brings Washington in. I can't help it. It's illogical but it's real. 

Let's assume that USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington all bolt:

That leaves:  Stanford, Cal, Or St, Wash St, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado + 2.  There's no way those schools aren't a P5 conference.  Low paid?  Sure.  But still a P5.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

14 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

That leaves:  Stanford, Cal, Or St, Wash St, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado + 2.  There's no way those schools aren't a P5 conference.  Low paid?  Sure.  But still a P5.

Right but my point was, I am not sure that relatively weak P5 conference with almost no historical presence in Pasadena holds onto the Pac-12's traditional Rose Bowl bid. It's one thing to say "it's still most of the Pac-12", it's another to say "The Tournament of Roses committee would love to preserve Utah and Oregon State's right to play the Big Ten Champion in years that game's not a playoff matchup". 

[camel at sea 589]

7 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Right but my point was, I am not sure that relatively weak P5 conference with almost no historical presence in Pasadena holds onto the Pac-12's traditional Rose Bowl bid. It's one thing to say "it's still most of the Pac-12", it's another to say "The Tournament of Roses committee would love to preserve Utah and Oregon State's right to play the Big Ten Champion in years that game's not a playoff matchup". 

Yeah.  I'll agree with you on that.  Maybe they end up with the Fiesta Bowl instead. 

[hiphopfroggy 121]

If the Big12 had tie-ins to both the Sugar and Rose Bowls it would be raining $$$.

[kopp0e 1,135]

[Iceman 2,726]

Fuck Wazzu, Corvalis, Okie Lite, and the Little Apple?

 

Of course fuck Baylor...

Edited February 27, 2020 by Iceman

[Thiefery 5,018]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

It makes sense if the PAC in-fighting is specifically between Southern Cal and Stanford.  If SC isn't the one in charge (their AD just implied that they haven't been calling the shots and to their detriment) then the school that's most likely calling the shots is in Palo Alto.  

If the two CA schools can't come to a solution together, then the CA schools split up.

Then SC can say goodbye to Stanford.  I bet if SC said who's coming with me.. their DMs will be FULL

[Thiefery 5,018]

40 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

I still rather have the divisions mirror what schools have now.  Okie and ksu both will be included.  If Stanford or Cal put up a fight, say good bye to them as well.. or just keep one.  Then Utah and possibly Colorado can join the cougar outside the window.  One thing for sure.. If Colorado is a part of this, wonder how Corn fans will feel

 

[kopp0e 1,135]

22 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Fuck Wazzu, Corvalis, Okie Lite, and the Little Apple?

 

Of course fuck Baylor...

The average attendance figures for 4 similar ACC brands:
Louisville 50,251
Miami 61,469
NC State 56,855
Virginia Tech 59,574

West Virginia 58,158 

The average attendance figures for 4 similar SEC brands:
Arkansas 59,884
Kentucky 55,117
Mississippi State 58,057
Missouri 51,466

Kansas State 49,738 & Oklahoma State 53,542

The average attendance figures for the reconfigured MWC:
Air Force - 27,701
*Baylor - 41,336
Boise State - 33,068
~BYU - 52,476
Colorado State - 29,504
Fresno State - 31,503
^Oregon State - 35,209
Nevada - 17,181
UNLV - 16,823
-UTEP - 14,155
New Mexico - 16,587
San Diego State - 31,439
San Jose State - 14,255
Utah State - 18,717
^Washington State - 30,091 
Wyoming - 18,880

(* former XII school/ ^ former PAC school/ ~ former independent/ - former Conference USA school)...

[seven 1,368]

Damn, Sean Snyder has only been at USC for like 3 weeks and he's already got them begging to come to the big 12. 

[utee94 15,868]

The B12 isn't USC's only option.  If they'd consider traveling to far-flung options in Texas and the plains states, then they'd likely consider traveling to far-flung options in the midwest as well.  And they're an AAU university.

USC to B1G talk not going away.

[ButtFumble 5,183]

one needs to look at other issues as well

here are how P5 academic side subsidies look in FY 2017-18

Rutgers $29,980,791

ASU $20,611,739

UVA $16,571,993

Maryland $14,695,924

AU $12,463,914

Utah $12,374,118

CU $12,338,945

Oregon State $9,763,192   

so 5 of the top 7 academic side subsidies are in the PAC 12

after that you have to go through 11 other P5 programs (mostly ACC a couple of Big 10 an SEC and WSU) before you get to the first Big 12 school WVU with $4 million

so the PAC 12 is running high academic side subsidies in a large % of their programs 

annual deficits

in that same FY

ASU ran a $13 million dollar deficit AFTER those academic side subsidies

AU $7.5

Oregon State $8

WSU $8.5

Cal $19

CU and UCLA broke even

for the Big 12 no program had a deficit and ISU broke even and OkState was under $1 million in profits

with debt loads

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-04/college-football-s-top-teams-are-built-on-crippling-debt

30% of the top 10 are PAC 12 and they are not the "top earners" (WTF Bellmont by the way) and as another graph shows only Tech in the Big 12 is the one with high debt and they have acknowledged that, paid cash for current projects and they have already paid down some of that with improved mens BB revenues

one can see how those debt services hit the PAC 12 here

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/24/college-hotline-pac-12-schools-project-massive-fy17-debt-service-payments-were-talking-nine-figures-folks/

Oregon: $19.1 million
Cal: $18.7 million
Washington: $16.2 million
Colorado: $14.8 million
Washington State: $9.2 million
Oregon State: $8.7 million
Arizona: $8 million
Utah: $4.6 million
Arizona State: $4.2 million
UCLA: $3 million

https://www.lubbockonline.com/article/20150613/SPORTS/306139867

one can see similar for the Big 12 here...true from two years earlier, but most Big 12 teams have not taken on a lot more debt in that time period

Texas, $18,000,000

Texas Tech, $12,280,585

Oklahoma, $9,000,000

Baylor, $8,281,863

Iowa State, $6,836,812

Kansas State, $6,289,460

Oklahoma State, $4,435,508

West Virginia, $4,400,000

Kansas, $3,482,167

TCU, $3,473,524

so of the 10 public PAC 12 schools and all 10 Big 12 teams basically 7 (70%) of the Big 12 has a smaller (or about the same) debt service annually as 7 PAC 12 teams

so the PAC 12 is lowest in TV revenues, far and away the leader in academic side subsidies, still has a large number of programs running an annual deficit, they have some of the highest debt total and annual debt service,and they have some of the lowest total revenue teams (even with academic subsidies counted) in all of P5

that is not a conference that should believe they can pull members from other conferences and that is not a conference filled with members that should count on "history" keeping their top programs around to watch it all break down further