Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2212]

6 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

You do realize this is a professional-looking parody account, right?

@bobtrollsby ? Commissioner of the Big 12. Former CEO of Roc Nation. Realigner of Conferences.

Bob Trollsby is genius.   I'm sad I didn't think of it sooner.

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

7 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

You do realize this is a professional-looking parody account, right?

@bobtrollsby ? Commissioner of the Big 12. Former CEO of Roc Nation. Realigner of Conferences.

Does something about that not seem legit???

[hawkfan 60]

2 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah Stanford is a ND carrot.

Yep, if ND stays independent, I could see the B1G just taking a break until the ACC GOR gets closer to expiring and waiting to see how that shakes out.  Would suck for USC/UCLA, but also, there are rumblings they're trying to block Oregon anyway, so maybe they wanted to be on an island out there.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

Just now, n64ra said:

If the Big 12 wants six Pac-12 leftovers, why would Utah and Arizona State be selected over Stanford? Is it assuming Stanford would decline?

probably because they will jump and they are major state universities.   The Big 12 isn't thumping melons to find the ones that are just right, its grabbing value to stay alive.   

The Cal/Stanford market though is something I'm sure they will go for.    Let's pretend they do get the six and the Big Ten takes Stanford and ND to 18.    I think the question becomes who does the Big 12 take with Cal to get to 20.

The Big Ten/SEC are fighting with brands, the Big 12 has to eat the other sharks in the womb with footprint, performance, and marketing.  

[DFW Horn 6123]

2 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Does something about that not seem legit???

The banner almost fooled me, too, until I saw his handle. Maybe @bobtrollsby will be funnier than Fake Dan Bebee in time.

[Sbbruin 21841]

18 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

If Knight pulls the plug on B1G teams out of spite, adidas wins. Is UA still a player for team sponsorships? I know they took a bath on the UCLA deal.

https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2021/09/20/under-armour-files-countersuit-against-ucla.html

Either Adidas or UA would be a disaster.  And it remains to be seen on how much of a bath UA takes on us.  We are litigating for full contract value.  We will land well short of that when it settles.

[Sbbruin 21841]

7 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

Yep, if ND stays independent, I could see the B1G just taking a break until the ACC GOR gets closer to expiring and waiting to see how that shakes out.  Would suck for USC/UCLA, but also, there are rumblings they're trying to block Oregon anyway, so maybe they wanted to be on an island out there.

Please explain.  Why would this suck?  Honest question.

[n64ra 1081]

9 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

probably because they will jump and they are major state universities.   The Big 12 isn't thumping melons to find the ones that are just right, its grabbing value to stay alive.   

The Cal/Stanford market though is something I'm sure they will go for.    Let's pretend they do get the six and the Big Ten takes Stanford and ND to 18.    I think the question becomes who does the Big 12 take with Cal to get to 20.

The Big Ten/SEC are fighting with brands, the Big 12 has to eat the other sharks in the womb with footprint, performance, and marketing.  

Maybe I should have said "Stanford and/or Cal." It doesn't make sense to me to expand west and skip the whole state of California. Utah can't provide much as the Big 12 is already getting BYU. Don't need both Arizona and ASU to claim the state for TV markets. So why not initially target

1. UW
2. UO
3. CU
4. One of Zona or ASU
5. One of Stanford or Cal
6. Another Pac-12 school - If this is ASU or Utah, it's still after a California-based school

Edited July 5, 2022 by n64ra

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 minutes ago, n64ra said:

Maybe I should have said "Stanford and/or Cal." It doesn't make sense to me to expand west and skip the whole state of California. Utah can't provide much as the Big 12 is already getting BYU. Don't need both Arizona and ASU to claim the state for TV markets. So why not initially target

1. UW
2. UO
3. CU
4. One of Zona or ASU
5. One of Stanford or Cal
6. Another Pac-12 school - If this is ASU or Utah, it's still after a California-based school

Likely because you have this mess:

Best Brands:  Washington and Oregon

Best Markets: Phoenix and San Fran/Oakland

Most willing to GTFO: Arizona and Arizona State.

So get the ones willing to run, destabilize it more, and be there with open arms to the rest who come since no one is coming to them.

The Big Ten can sit at 16 for a decade waiting for ND, and they will.

Oregon and Washington have to go to market next year.

[Sbbruin 21841]

11 minutes ago, n64ra said:

If the Big 12 wants six Pac-12 leftovers, why would Utah and Arizona State be selected over Stanford? Is it assuming Stanford would decline?

Stanford has no real desire to be part of this brave new world of college athletics.  NIL and pseudo-professionalism is just not in their DNA.  Their success has always been on finding the best true student athletes and convincing them that a Stanford education is worth more than anything they will find out there.  And for years they were right.  They still ARE right for the vast majority of players.  But beginning with the transfer portal, in which they are generally a net negative because there are very few kids in the portal that would qualify for Stanford but from which they lose some top players, to the new world of NIL, I think Stanford is content on being one of the premier universities in the nation and letting its football and basketball teams make the most of themselves without compromising their core principles.  And I can't say I blame them.  They have a $38 billion endowment.  They down need the revenue from athletics.

[hawkfan 60]

4 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Please explain.  Why would this suck?  Honest question.

Just staying travel would blow, though you'd be getting paid enough where that wouldn't matter from a revenue standpoint - I think adding a couple more West Coast schools would considerably improve the travel situation during football and basketball.

[Bateshorn 9927]

6 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Please explain.  Why would this suck?  Honest question.

All your secondary sports (and future Olympian’s) are going to spend a lot of their semester studying in the cozy confines of ORD

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

13 minutes ago, n64ra said:

Maybe I should have said "Stanford and/or Cal." It doesn't make sense to me to expand west and skip the whole state of California. Utah can't provide much as the Big 12 is already getting BYU. Don't need both Arizona and ASU to claim the state for TV markets.

It's not about the state, the city, the market area or the DMA anymore.  We're not living in the linear cable TV world.  It's about the eyeballs the brands bring.  If it were just about planting a flag in LA to "get the LA market," the B1G would only have taken USC and not UCLA.

[Sbbruin 21841]

1 minute ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

It's not about the state, the city, the market area or the DMA anymore.  We're not living in the linear cable TV world.  It's about the eyeballs the brands bring.  If it were just about planting a flag in LA to "get the LA market," the B1G would only have taken USC and not UCLA.

Fox was the one who told the B1G to get both.  SC was fine to come solo.

[camel at sea 589]

2 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

It's not about the state, the city, the market area or the DMA anymore.  We're not living in the linear cable TV world.  It's about the eyeballs the brands bring.  If it were just about planting a flag in LA to "get the LA market," the B1G would only have taken USC and not UCLA.

I'll be interested to see if people in Arizona and Utah become more engaged in college athletics, due to sharing a league with BYU.  There's a ton of fan overlap between all of those schools and fan overlap generally breeds hatred and encourages fan interest.  It goes without saying that BYU fans and alums will be far more engaged.  

[camel at sea 589]

3 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Fox was the one who told the B1G to get both.  SC was fine to come solo.

Logically, if FOX is driving this thing, and if they ultimately want more PAC schools in the Big Ten, FOX will probably also encourage the four corners schools to join the Big 12.  

['stache 21802]

2 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Stanford has no real desire to be part of this brave new world of college athletics.  NIL and pseudo-professionalism is just not in their DNA.  Their success has always been on finding the best true student athletes and convincing them that a Stanford education is worth more than anything they will find out there.  And for years they were right.  They still ARE right for the vast majority of players.  But beginning with the transfer portal, in which they are generally a net negative because there are very few kids in the portal that would qualify for Stanford but from which they lose some top players, to the new world of NIL, I think Stanford is content on being one of the premier universities in the nation and letting its football and basketball teams make the most of themselves without compromising their core principles.  And I can't say I blame them.  They have a $38 billion endowment.  They down need the revenue from athletics.

It's still true and still relevant. They can opt out of NIL entirely and still put out competitive teams, including football. Most NIL deals aren't going to be massive, only a handful here and there, and Stanford succeeds without a bevy of five star players, which won't change. I doubt they would just opt-out of major college sports entirely, they'll make it work on their own terms, and continue to have a ton of success in olympic sports.

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

 

Presumably because the Alliance worked out so well.

[Sbbruin 21841]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

It's still true and still relevant. They can opt out of NIL entirely and still put out competitive teams, including football. Most NIL deals aren't going to be massive, only a handful here and there, and Stanford succeeds without a bevy of five star players, which won't change. I doubt they would just opt-out of major college sports entirely, they'll make it work on their own terms, and continue to have a ton of success in olympic sports.

Yeah, I see an independent Stanford in football, and an affiliation with a lower conference in hoops

[ABSR 5309]

19 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Stanford has no real desire to be part of this brave new world of college athletics.  NIL and pseudo-professionalism is just not in their DNA.  Their success has always been on finding the best true student athletes and convincing them that a Stanford education is worth more than anything they will find out there.  And for years they were right.  They still ARE right for the vast majority of players.  But beginning with the transfer portal, in which they are generally a net negative because there are very few kids in the portal that would qualify for Stanford but from which they lose some top players, to the new world of NIL, I think Stanford is content on being one of the premier universities in the nation and letting its football and basketball teams make the most of themselves without compromising their core principles.  And I can't say I blame them.  They have a $38 billion endowment.  They down need the revenue from athletics.

Stanford does care about athletics overall as can be seen by them winning, or coming close to winning, the Directors cup every year.

While I would agree about their lack of interest in the Brave New NIL world as it pertains to Football, does Football provide the meal ticket to pay for all of the other sports as it does with almost all other programs?  If so, then I believe they would be reticent to bail on football (and conference alignment and money) based on the impact to all of it's sports.    Additionally, without a conference, and even if they kept all their other sports, it would be a struggle to get games/schedules as an independent (not impossible).

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

- All it takes is one team left to keep the conference. 

I thought it was 6 schools that have played each other at least 5 consecutive years.

45 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

And that says 2027, not the 2036 that's been reported.   That could spell trouble for the ACC if teams don't want to extend.

I believe that was an early version, all the reporters could get their hands on.  Subsequent version extended to 2036, IIRC.

 

Anyway, I wonder if some of the willingness for several Pac schools to talk to the B12 has to do with being sick of Stanford and Cal's crap.  Stanford (and probably Cal's) snootiness has at least twice killed off efforts to secure the Pac's future by adding us.  And apparently a PITA regarding other matters that could have helped the Pac.  So instead of more of the same as the conference tries to avoid sinking, here's the chance to move to a conf. with a different attitude and values.

But the B12 isn't in the clear yet.  Of course it all depends on ND, B1G, and SEC, but the ACC does have the chance, if ESPN plays along, to strengthen some and expand.  The ACC can go to unequal revenue sharing and ESPN could up per school pay a bit if they add a few schools, say 2-6 of the best brands/markets from the B12 or even Pac.  The advantage for ESPN would be to strengthen the ACC as their secondary conference, with more and stronger quality matchups for their non-SEC slots.  Let the weakest of the B12/Pac go to Fox/CBS/whatever or still the chance to bid for part of the leftover B12 (or Pac) conf. but at a greater discount.

As for now the ACCNet still exists, and still could get some $ for getting new schools in major markets.  I don't know what would pencil out, but perhaps we'd see 2 of the Texas schools added if they think that could get local rates for DFW, Houston, and maybe the entire state.  Oregon and Wash if still available, maybe ASU and Okie St for a bridge and new states, or Cinci instead for Ohio, playoff potential, etc.  Don't know what their thinking and valuing is, but I'd expect ESPN wants to insure and solidify the ACC has the clear #3 conference, a confl they own fully versus half owned.  B12 expansion threatens that.

Or maybe they do nothing.  Too many potential moving parts right now to know for sure.   

[Hagbard Celine 10853]

4 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Bay Area delusion/snobbery?

your new and improved pac:

Cal

Tree

WA state

OR state

Fresno State

San Diego State

UNLV

Nevada

Boise State

Idaho

['stache 21802]

10 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Yeah, I see an independent Stanford in football, and an affiliation with a lower conference in hoops

I think Stanford would join the Big 10 if asked, especially since the invite would come after ND agreed to join. If that doesn't happen, then yeah they'd probably prefer this route to the Big 12.

Edited July 5, 2022 by 'stache

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

It would be great if the SEC took Ok St as well. let's just super-conference this shit and put an end to the NCAA. 

Not that I think its likely, but one scenario would be ND/Stanford to Big 10+8, UNC/Duke to SEC, WVU/Cincy/UCF/UConn/USF Temple to ACC 18 and the Pac 9 and Big 12-3 merge into a Big Pac 18.

[clapclapclap 9000]

20 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I'll be interested to see if people in Arizona and Utah become more engaged in college athletics, due to sharing a league with BYU.  There's a ton of fan overlap between all of those schools and fan overlap generally breeds hatred and encourages fan interest.  It goes without saying that BYU fans and alums will be far more engaged.  

BYU is already the actual P12 champ, last year going undefeated against AZ, ASU, USC, Washington St, and faux champ Utah.   

Edited July 5, 2022 by clapclapclap

[closetohumping 17438]

17 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I'll be interested to see if people in Arizona and Utah become more engaged in college athletics, due to sharing a league with BYU.  There's a ton of fan overlap between all of those schools and fan overlap generally breeds hatred and encourages fan interest.  It goes without saying that BYU fans and alums will be far more engaged.  

Which is why I'm a fan of geo-continuity.  Regionalism is still a positive.  BYU, Utah, Colorado, the Zona schools, they're pretty connected. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

9 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

your new and improved pac:

Cal

Tree

WA state

OR state

Fresno State

San Diego State

UNLV

Nevada

Boise State

Idaho

This guy here is dead!

[SimonBolivar 10958]

3 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

BYU is already the actual P12 champ, last year go undefeated against AZ, ASU, USC, Washington St, and faux champ Utah.   

Which I was pretty surprised by as they looked slow and small against BU.

[WBT 20561]

4 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Which is why I'm a fan of geo-continuity.  Regionalism is still a positive.  BYU, Utah, Colorado, the Zona schools, they're pretty connected. 

Have I got some bad news for you

[Hornius Emeritus 12457]

 

['stache 21802]

4 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

And what exactly does it mean to "screw over Indiana?" I don't think I've seen a single second of Indiana football in any capacity, including highlights.

Edit: It took me 5 minutes to vaguely remember something about them and I now vaguely recall playing them in a bowl game and it turns out it was 2007. I don't remember anything about that game except we won. That's how unmemorable they are.

Edited July 5, 2022 by 'stache

[Hurtlocker 2212]

33 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

It's not about the state, the city, the market area or the DMA anymore.  We're not living in the linear cable TV world.  It's about the eyeballs the brands bring.  If it were just about planting a flag in LA to "get the LA market," the B1G would only have taken USC and not UCLA.

We are still living in that world.   USC/UCLA are primarily paid for through BTN revenues from in network carriage in SoCal.

Whatever the Big 12 becomes could increase their revenues as well due to their DMAs nearly doubling from the ten team.

[utee94 15811]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

And what exactly does it mean to "screw over Indiana?" I don't think I've seen a single second of Indiana football in any capacity, including highlights.

Edit: It took me 5 minutes to vaguely remember something about them and I now vaguely recall playing them in a bowl game and it turns out it was 2007. I don't remember anything about that game except we won. That's how unmemorable they are.

Indiana is basically the Missouri of the B1G.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

49 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

 

Presumably because the Alliance worked out so well.

Their learning curve is flat. 

[closetohumping 17438]

30 minutes ago, WBT said:

Have I got some bad news for you

What do you mean?  I think this merge is happening.  Or maybe a loose alliance?  
 

 

if I’m the acc I start looking at big 12 and pac leftovers too

[DFW Horn 6123]

 

[DFW Horn 6123]

Moar pods and maps!

 

[DFW Horn 6123]

I should've taken a screenshot of @bobtrollsby's header and avatar b4 he changed it.

Too funny

[4th&Five 41525]

 

[clapclapclap 9000]

8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I've wanted to go back to 1996 ever since 1997.  If the Big 8 could be a thing again, I'd be happier than a pig in shit.  That's a conference that made sense.  Those are the schools ISU should be playing.  By the same token, I'd have to think Texas fans would have more fun with the Arky version of the SWC than what the current SEC will be.

I'm not sure where I come down on USC and Washington.  My initial thought is if the Big 10 wanted them, they would have invited them last week.  But they do seem pretty valuable.  Then you see a source that says a school has to bring $100M to the Big 10 to garner an invite, and I can't imagine they'd be worth that.

I think it's more likely that if the AZ schools, Utah, and CU join the Big 12 that UW and Oregon would do the same if the Big 10 turns them down.

Let's go back to 1983.  But with more work on punt fielding.

[Royale with cheese 1466]

44 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Their learning curve is flat. 

Uh, that's the brain wave monitor.

[TrashMaster G 17551]

21 hours ago, Sabalo said:

what happened to @kopp0e? He kept this thread alive for a decade and I haven't seen a post from him since the USC, UCLA news?

I'm pretty sure he masturbated to death some time after the Texas/OU to the SEC news last summer. 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Likely because you have this mess:

Best Brands:  Washington and Oregon

Best Markets: Phoenix and San Fran/Oakland

Most willing to GTFO: Arizona and Arizona State.

So get the ones willing to run, destabilize it more, and be there with open arms to the rest who come since no one is coming to them.

The Big Ten can sit at 16 for a decade waiting for ND, and they will.

Oregon and Washington have to go to market next year.

I think people need to get “markets” out of their heads at this point.

The ability to draw incremental eyeballs to broadcasts and streams is what matters. The market that teams sit in play a part of that, but it can become disconnected pretty quickly, especially in the PAC 12, where fans have a more casual approach to fandom compared with with other parts of the country.

San Francisco/Oakland is a great market, but Cal’s viewership numbers are shit and so it hardly matters that they are situated there. Stanford’s are a bit better, but nothing special. They are about on par with Kansas State and Texas Tech, for example.

[notre dame joe 187]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Likely because you have this mess:

Best Brands:  Washington and Oregon

Best Markets: Phoenix and San Fran/Oakland

Most willing to GTFO: Arizona and Arizona State.

So get the ones willing to run, destabilize it more, and be there with open arms to the rest who come since no one is coming to them.

The Big Ten can sit at 16 for a decade waiting for ND, and they will.

Oregon and Washington have to go to market next year.

Whatever gets Cal & BYU together.

[TexasMan 10891]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2022-07-05/ucla-cut-sports-programs-big-ten

 

Quote

It was a splashy move with a quiet beneficiary.

Given its perilous athletic department finances, UCLA faced the prospect of cutting sports had the school not agreed to bolt for the Big Ten Conference.

The timing isn’t certain and the number of teams that would have been affected isn’t known, but the Bruins were headed toward an Olympic sports Armageddon without the infusion of cash that will accompany its departure from the Pac-12 Conference in 2024.

 

Quote

Now its 25 teams and more than 700 athletes can exhale knowing that their futures have been secured, making those cross-country flights and frigid midwinter temperatures in Big Ten country far more bearable.

“If you love Olympic sports, you should be a fan of this move,” UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond told The Times on Tuesday. “When your program is in significant debt, it’s difficult just to maintain, never mind to invest. This not only preserves the programs now — which was not a given — but also will allow us to invest in them. This move allows us to reimagine what UCLA athletics can be with more strategic investment and resources.”

 

Quote

Over the last three fiscal years, UCLA’s athletic department had run up a $102.8-million deficit that figured only to worsen given the school’s sagging football attendance and paltry Pac-12 payouts that lagged behind its major conference counterparts. Now it’s conceivable that the Bruins could receive $100 million from the Big Ten per year if the expanded conference can snag the projected $1-billion media rights deal that’s set to begin in 2024.

 

I bolded a sport, because TIL this is a collegiate sport.

 

Spoiler

In the span of one or two years, UCLA’s deficit could become a surplus, its budget worries as much a relic as the Bruins residing in the Pac-12 South.

Those immediate riches should stave off the sort of crisis that Stanford found itself in two years ago, when it announced it was cutting 11 sports because of budgetary constraints. A year later, amid a backlash of lawsuits and athlete angst, the school reversed course and kept its athletic department intact.

Lacking similar salvation, others weren’t as fortunate. More than 30 colleges nationwide have shed sports, citing fiscal hardships created mostly by the COVID-19 pandemic.

UCLA won’t join that list thanks to its new benefactor, eliminating cutback worries. The increased resources will provide, among other things, more money for facilities, travel and coaches’ salaries, even among the four programs — beach volleyball, men’s volleyball, and men’s and women’s water polo — that will not be making the move to the Big Ten because the conference doesn’t sponsor those sports.

“I constantly think about, how do we get No. 120?” Jarmond said, referring to UCLA’s quest for its next NCAA team title. “How do we not only get to the Final Four, but win it all? How do we help the programs win and win big in this changing environment? These days, you have to be constantly increasing your resources to help coaches and student-athletes reach those goals and to stay competitive as a department.

“We want to bring more excitement and energy to our teams. We want more exciting games in the Rose Bowl, more fun in Pauley Pavilion. I think about, how do we help softball not only continue to get to the College World Series but to win it all again? Our student-athletes deserve an elite experience, and this move will play a significant role in our ability to provide that for them.”

Giving them a chance simply to compete may have been the greatest gift of all.

 

 

[DFW Horn 6123]

 

[DFW Horn 6123]

 

[RoyalBevo21 767]

39 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Let's go back to 1983.  But with more work on punt fielding.

While we're at it, extra "ball, pass, oskie" drills the week before Tech in 2008 would be great. 

[DFW Horn 6123]