Realignment talk not going away

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

Just now, closetojumping said:

Huh? Auburn has a permanent fixture against Georgia and plays in the SEC West. Arkansas is not "known" for getting the hardest schedule. On SECRant, it's a fucking given among the span of posters there that Auburn is fucked first and foremost each season.

Why not both?

[closetojumping 62,883]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Why not both?

Because one answer is incorrect.

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

59 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Probably not saying anything new, but from the guy who covers Arizona recounting a Sports Business Journal Podcast

 

Shaking my head at how badly the Pac 12 leadership has managed things for the past 15 years.  Larry Scott should have done everything possible to grab UT, OU, OSU, and Tech in 2010-11 when A&M & Mizzou announced they were leaving for the SEC and Nebraska leaving for the Big 10.  But all he took was CU...what a head-scratcher.  He could've had the first super conference and who knows where the Pac 16 could be today.

Then George Kliavkoff sat around and did nothing when UT and OU announced they were heading to the SEC in 2021.  Just sat there with his thumb up his ass, not realizing that this move indeed made the Pac 12 vulnerable.

Never would have dreamed in 2021 that by 2023 the new Big 12 would be in such a better position than the Pac 12.  Just utter mismanagement.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Uncle Nate

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

12 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Because one answer is incorrect.

 

[Gaffords 757]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That's probably not going to happen in the new Big 12, which is why it will be so entertaining.  No school has some massive gap in resources or history over the others that will allow it to have maintain some real power position or run at the top.

By pushing all of the blue bloods into a couple leagues, you remove the power structures that existed for years.  There's a vacuum, and I think it's far more likely that vacuum fills with ruthless parity rather than some new hegemony.

Someone will rise to the top eventually, they will never carry the conference.

 

But that doesn't mean that they won't feel they do.  Let  certain schools go on a good run and make it fat into the playoffs a few times in a decade, and we will see what type of insufferable cunts they become....

 

And hope it isn't BYU.  Cunts will be a polite way of describing them...  Just think of what it would be like if aggy was still here...  At least BYU will wait until there actually win something

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Gaffords

[Al_4_ISU 12,502]

3 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

Shaking my head at how badly the Pac 12 leadership has managed things for the past 15 years.  Larry Scott should have done everything possible to grab UT, OU, OSU, and Tech in 2010-11 when A&M & Mizzou announced they were leaving for the SEC and Nebraska leaving for the Big 10.  But all he took was CU...what a head-scratcher.  He could've had the first super conference and who knows where the Pac 16 could be today.

Then George Kliavkoff sat around and did nothing when UT and OU announced they were heading to the SEC in 2021.  Just sat there with his thumb up his ass, not realizing that this move indeed made the Pac 12 vulnerable.

Never would have dreamed in 2021 that by 2023 the new Big 12 would be in such a better position than the Pac 12.  Just utter mismanagement.

I think the lack of give-a-shit from most of the Pac 12 would have lead to a lot of frustration from the Texas and Oklahoma schools.  It was never going to be a good fit, and what's transpired is a pretty good example of why, IMO.

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

Of the new schools that could rise to Big 12 power I think the early favorites would be BYU and Cincy, correct?

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,804]

20 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Huh? Auburn has a permanent fixture against Georgia and plays in the SEC West. Arkansas is not "known" for getting the hardest schedule. On SECRant, it's a fucking given among the span of posters there that Auburn is fucked first and foremost each season.

My AU buddy seems to think they are getting Vandy as a permanent to counterbalance Alabama and Georgia. In the alternative I guess they get LSU, in which case, ouch. 

['stache 21,892]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Of the new schools that could rise to Big 12 power I think the early favorites would be BYU and Cincy, correct?

Wut? No. If "rise to the top" is meant to mean at the top of the standings year in and year out like OU has done for the last 20 years, I don't think that's gonna happen with any of the programs. I think it will be a revolving door of parity. Four different programs have played in the conference title game the last two years, I think it'll be similar from here on out. A team might catch fire with a badass QB who keeps them at the top for a few years in a row, but I just don't see any one of the remaining programs pulling any sort of long term dominance. 

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wut? No. If "rise to the top" is meant to mean at the top of the standings year in and year out like OU has done for the last 20 years, I don't think that's gonna happen with any of the programs. I think it will be a revolving door of parity. Four different programs have played in the conference title game the last two years, I think it'll be similar from here on out. A team might catch fire with a badass QB who keeps them at the top for a few years in a row, but I just don't see any one of the remaining programs pulling any sort of long term dominance. 

When I say rise to the top I mean be a team consistently in the hunt or playing in the big 12 championship, not necessarily winning it every year but the OU run is not common. So I still think BYU and Cincy with improved recruiting in Texas and etc could become even better. So those are my picks for the new schools coming in.

 

I'm not sure who I would say of the current members would be. Kansas State has a solid coach so it could be them. It's kind of wide open for them. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Al_4_ISU 12,502]

19 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Of the new schools that could rise to Big 12 power I think the early favorites would be BYU and Cincy, correct?

I think there's an argument for all of them.

Which is sort of why I don't think someone always being on top will happen.  Look at us this year, we beat Iowa in Iowa City, and it wasn't a fluke.  We tried desperately to give the game away and were just better.  They were a cunt hair away from playing for a Big 10 championship.  We won a single Big 12 game.  With Kansas out of the basement, the Big 12 simply doesn't have a truly shitty team and that will likely be the case with the new schools coming in.

When your worst team gets road Ws against an upper half team from a "better" conference, that shows a level of parity that keeps anyone from being on the top for long.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[Richard Kimball 1,499]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think the lack of give-a-shit from most of the Pac 12 would have lead to a lot of frustration from the Texas and Oklahoma schools.  It was never going to be a good fit, and what's transpired is a pretty good example of why, IMO.

When you look at the original B12, it could have been something special, but being run by Commandant Lassard, it didn't happen. The B12 and the PAC were both run by old school guys who thought the money train was fine, and viewed the college football landscape as a lake, and all the conferences were in their own little canoes, and the idea was to keep the lake as smooth as possible, not upsetting anyone else's canoe. The SEC recognized the coming storms and acted accordingly. The PAC12 still lives in a world where they think the Rose Bowl matters. 

In the PAC, Berkley and Stanford see football as being kind of icky, and view people who like football in the same light as they view people who go to monster truck races. 

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Of the new schools that could rise to Big 12 power I think the early favorites would be BYU and Cincy, correct?

I wouldn't discount UCF.  They have a large enrollment and are in a recruiting hotbed. 

[Gaffords 757]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

When I say rise to the top I mean be a team consistently in the hunt or playing in the big 12 championship, not necessarily winning it every year but the OU run is not common. So I still think BYU and Cincy with improved recruiting in Texas and etc could become even better. So those are my picks for the new schools coming in.

 

I'm not sure who I would say of the current members would be. Kansas State has a solid coach so it could be them. It's kind of wide open for them. 

I'm not sure, it will take years before the big 12 shakes out. I think the first thing they will have issues with, will be will take place behind closed doors, among the ADd.  There's always sheep looking for someone else to take the lead and I'm not sure there's a pecking order established yet.  I'm sure there's been some issues we've not heard about yet, nothing major, even though the sheep have been leaderless since 2021, it's just now become official, and are just now starting to relax with the Big 12 out of danger...   The fireworks will happen once they are done patting each other's back for a job well done.  

The Big 12s had it's foundation shattered before anything was built on it and the first game played. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,502]

5 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

When you look at the original B12, it could have been something special, but being run by Commandant Lassard, it didn't happen. The B12 and the PAC were both run by old school guys who thought the money train was fine, and viewed the college football landscape as a lake, and all the conferences were in their own little canoes, and the idea was to keep the lake as smooth as possible, not upsetting anyone else's canoe. The SEC recognized the coming storms and acted accordingly. The PAC12 still lives in a world where they think the Rose Bowl matters. 

In the PAC, Berkley and Stanford see football as being kind of icky, and view people who like football in the same light as they view people who go to monster truck races. 

I wouldn't discount UCF.  They have a large enrollment and are in a recruiting hotbed. 

If someone had been able to convince guys like Tom Osborne and DeLoss Dodds in the early 00's that fostering an "all for one one for all" mentality would pay dividends in the future, we might have been able to get there.

The Big 12's story reminds me a lot of when rural school districts consolidate.  The guys who were the big dogs in the previous stand alone school are now shoved into the same class and hate each other.  The sports teams usually suck for the first couple of years because of this lack of cohesion.  It's not until the OG big dogs graduate and people forget about the old rivalries that the new entity has any chance at long term success.

It's unfortunate that the previous commissioners couldn't/wouldn't facilitate a better relationship between the original Big 12 power brokers, but it's not that surprising either. 

[Laxtonto 12,121]

30 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Of the new schools that could rise to Big 12 power I think the early favorites would be BYU and Cincy, correct?

[Trojan Man 429]

55 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

Shaking my head at how badly the Pac 12 leadership has managed things for the past 15 years.  Larry Scott should have done everything possible to grab UT, OU, OSU, and Tech in 2010-11 when A&M & Mizzou announced they were leaving for the SEC and Nebraska leaving for the Big 10.  But all he took was CU...what a head-scratcher.  He could've had the first super conference and who knows where the Pac 16 could be today.

Then George Kliavkoff sat around and did nothing when UT and OU announced they were heading to the SEC in 2021.  Just sat there with his thumb up his ass, not realizing that this move indeed made the Pac 12 vulnerable.

Never would have dreamed in 2021 that by 2023 the new Big 12 would be in such a better position than the Pac 12.  Just utter mismanagement.

To be fair to Kliavkoff, he did want to poach Big 12 teams shortly after Texas and Oklahoma announced their SEC move.  USC's president killed any expansion talk since she was secretly working on the B1G exit strategy.  Expansion would have meant either a renegotiated media deal and new GOR, which wasn't an option for USC and UCLA since they were trying to leave, or announcing they were planning on leaving which would have been precarious because at that point it wasn't a done deal for one more year.  That's another year for the politicians and the UC Regents to try to cockblock UCLA, another year for the anti-expansion crowd in the B1G to try to stop the whole thing and another year of a drawn out divorce.

[Thiefery 5,018]

5 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

To be fair to Kliavkoff, he did want to poach Big 12 teams shortly after Texas and Oklahoma announced their SEC move.  USC's president killed any expansion talk since she was secretly working on the B1G exit strategy.  Expansion would have meant either a renegotiated media deal and new GOR, which wasn't an option for USC and UCLA since they were trying to leave, or announcing they were planning on leaving which would have been precarious because at that point it wasn't a done deal for one more year.  That's another year for the politicians and the UC Regents to try to cockblock UCLA, another year for the anti-expansion crowd in the B1G to try to stop the whole thing and another year of a drawn out divorce.

Yeah SC really fucked the PAC by nixing expansion

[bullet 1,599]

11 hours ago, Gaffords said:

The schools who were making the most noise about the PAC getting left behind are still there. 

I'd say that any PAC school who has other options are waiting to see what the deal they are offered looks like, and if it's somewhat behind the Big 12's there will be some jumping ship taking place.

It was the PAC falling behind that put them in this mess, so I don't see those who can leave, sticking around just to continue falling 3v3n further behind... 

 

But 5hen again,. Does the Big 12 really want 4 pact teams?  The sports mouths around FSU are making a lot of noise about getting out...  I only mention it, not because I think the BIG 12 has a chance to snag them. I mention it because I remember us getting crucified over unequal revenue sharing as if UT not only created the concept, they were also the only team who benefited from it.  But that's what FSU sports guys think the ACC has to do...  The same talk was taking place out west also.   

It's funny how we are evil incarnate for being greedy, but when It's their coattail that's weighing them down from all the mouths on it, then it's fine to get more money than others. But you really got to love the hate that UT and OU is getting from the other Big 12 fans and sports media for leaving, knowing if their school's phone had rang instead, they would be the ones leaving. 

It will be interesting to see who rises to the top of the Big 12 amd feels the burden of shouldering a conference in which over half of the members are more than happy to let others do it, but then bitch about how it's being done...  

Nobody has never been more unequal with new members than the Big 10.  One year Rutgers made $11 million, Maryland $26 million while the recurring members made $54 million.  Nebraska had about a $60 million buy-in, probably bigger than anyone ever.  Rutgers and Maryland are far worse.  You never hear about the Big 10 wanting to share their wealth with other conferences.  Instead, they have stripped members from the Pac 12, Big 12, ACC and Big East.  Nobody is greedier than the Big 10 and nobody struts more about their "equal" revenue sharing than the Big 10.

[Al_4_ISU 12,502]

6 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Yeah SC really fucked the PAC by nixing expansion

In hindsight, that was a bigger blow than USC leaving.

[Gaffords 757]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

We would be thrilled to be in a position to carry the weight.

I don't understand this mindset from your fanbase one bit.  I would love it if ISU was the most powerful school in a conference and had to take the silly sniping from the schools down the food chain.

Probably all of this just boils down to human beings inherently wanting the things they don't have.

It's not the carrying that gets old, it's when you are already doing 80 percent of the work, while 2/3 of the others there to work are chilling under a tree and haven't moved all day and time is running out to have the job done before it starts cutting into your money because they are fine making enough to keep the lights on and the old lady happy. It's more than they've ever made before, while you are busting your ass because the roof is starting to leak, and the car is on it's last legs...

When you feel the burden, is when you've hurt your knee and can't get the work done, and that still doesn't light a fire under the others asses. Because there's still guaranteed money coming in for a few more years and Iowa St will be back on it's feet before then...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bullet 1,599]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Wut? No. If "rise to the top" is meant to mean at the top of the standings year in and year out like OU has done for the last 20 years, I don't think that's gonna happen with any of the programs. I think it will be a revolving door of parity. Four different programs have played in the conference title game the last two years, I think it'll be similar from here on out. A team might catch fire with a badass QB who keeps them at the top for a few years in a row, but I just don't see any one of the remaining programs pulling any sort of long term dominance. 

Probably looks kind of like the MAC.  Different winner every year.

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

 

[closetohumping 17,476]

38 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Yeah SC really fucked the PAC by nixing expansion

Sounds like a dirtbag move in hindsight.  Sheesh

[Al_4_ISU 12,502]

43 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

It's not the carrying that gets old, it's when you are already doing 80 percent of the work, while 2/3 of the others there to work are chilling under a tree and haven't moved all day and time is running out to have the job done before it starts cutting into your money because they are fine making enough to keep the lights on and the old lady happy. It's more than they've ever made before, while you are busting your ass because the roof is starting to leak, and the car is on it's last legs...

When you feel the burden, is when you've hurt your knee and can't get the work done, and that still doesn't light a fire under the others asses. Because there's still guaranteed money coming in for a few more years and Iowa St will be back on it's feet before then...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since 2010, ISU has been knocking itself dead to improve facilities, grow its fanbase, and win more at the sports that matter.  And it's mostly worked.  Really, all of the Remaining 8 were doing the most they could over the past decade to better themselves.  It's probably why we ended up getting a feasible post-UT and OU TV deal. 

I think the Pac 12 has been far more guilty of what you're describing.

[Crockett 494]

1 hour ago, Gaffords said:

It's not the carrying that gets old, it's when you are already doing 80 percent of the work, while 2/3 of the others there to work are chilling under a tree and haven't moved all day and time is running out to have the job done before it starts cutting into your money because they are fine making enough to keep the lights on and the old lady happy. It's more than they've ever made before, while you are busting your ass because the roof is starting to leak, and the car is on it's last legs...

When you feel the burden, is when you've hurt your knee and can't get the work done, and that still doesn't light a fire under the others asses. Because there's still guaranteed money coming in for a few more years and Iowa St will be back on it's feet before then...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is your burdened, broken-down example supposed to represent UT? I had no idea it's been so hard for you. My deepest sympathies.  

[SimonBolivar 10,960]

22 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Since 2010, ISU has been knocking itself dead to improve facilities, grow its fanbase, and win more at the sports that matter.  And it's mostly worked.  Really, all of the Remaining 8 were doing the most they could over the past decade to better themselves.  It's probably why we ended up getting a feasible post-UT and OU TV deal. 

I think the Pac 12 has been far more guilty of what you're describing.

Yeah it's been a second-tier arms race around here for quite a while. If you look at the stadiums of the conference pre original realignment to today they're night and day for a good number of the schools.

[Al_4_ISU 12,502]

2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yeah it's been a second-tier arms race around here for quite a while. If you look at the stadiums of the conference pre original realignment to today they're night and day for a good number of the schools.

With the exception of WVU and KU, all of the remaining 8 have undergone major stadium renovations (or built entirely new stadiums) in the past 10-15 years.  WVU and KU have heavily invested in better training facilities, and KU is touting a big stadium improvement coming down the pipe.

No one has sat on their laurels.  Almost all of the R8 have P5 OOC games every year.  They've all been aggressive with coaching hires.  The reasons they have less value in a TV contract than Texas and OU have everything to do with general demographics, institutional status within their own system, or what happened 50 years ago.  Not because they sat around cashing checks and laughing to themselves.

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, Thiefery said:

Yeah SC really fucked the PAC by nixing expansion

 

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Sounds like a dirtbag move in hindsight.  Sheesh

You're not wrong, but I don't feel bad about it.  The job of USC's president is to put USC's best interests first, not the rest of the Pac 12.  Not a single president in the rest of the Pac 12 ever looked out for USC's priorities, so USC gave them the same courtesy.  The Pac 12 repeatedly did stupid shit like giving USC 12 straight games without a bye (2017), giving USC two straight road games to start conference play with the second game on short rest while the second opponent played a FCS cupcake the previous week (2016 and 2017 - USC lost both of the short rest games), putting the California schools in different divisions to help the PNW schools with their constant whining for more games in CA, giving USC weeknight home games and pretending Pullman and Tucson were just as valuable to the Pac 12 as LA.  You don't see the B1G or the SEC abuse their bellcows like that.

I've seen plenty of teeth gnashing from Texas fans about how drawn out their exit from the Big 12 has been.  Because of USC nixing any Big 12 poaching that means the divorce for USC and UCLA is a lot shorter and less dramatic than it was for Texas and Oklahoma.  Securing the B1G invitation was far more important than helping out 10 institutions that were always happy to fuck over USC and pick USC's pockets if it would help them in any way.

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

In hindsight, that was a bigger blow than USC leaving.

This has been a dead conference since the failure to land Texas/Oklahoma and expand to 16 back in 2010, it just didn't know it yet.  That was the terminal illness.  USC and UCLA leaving was just pulling the plug on the braindead patient.  I'm happier with the Big 12 primed to become the #3 conference instead of the Pac 12 because I like watching the Big 12 more than the Pac 12 in both football and basketball, and it's not just Texas or Oklahoma I watch in the Big 12.

Lets play this one out.  Suppose USC and UCLA tell the Pac 12 "We're going to the B1G in 2024, deal with expansion on your own" when Kliavkoff wanted to poach the Big 12 after the UT/OU to the SEC news broke.  Do you think any Big 12 schools would have been eager to leave their mostly regional conference with longtime rivals aftter getting its top schools poached for another conference getting its top schools poached, where they would be geographic outliers and wouldn't have as many of their longtime rivals?  Any Big 12 school joining the Pac 12 would also have to deal with Pac 12 fans and administrators looking down on them like they're a bunch of short bus passengers unworthy of being in the presence of such prestigious Pac 12 institutions.  The advantage still goes to the Big 12 here because geography is on their side.  They have much better poaching options available.  Given a choice between Big 12 and Pac 12 I think Cincinnati, Houston and UCF would all choose the Big 12 over the Pac 12.  BYU is the only wild card but I'm inclined to say they still go Big 12 after all the times the Pac 12 told them to fuck off in the past, plus it wouldn't surprise me if Pac 12 schools chose to die on the "no religious schools" hill.

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

The hits keep coming for potential suitors for PAC

 

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/30760264/nbc-sports-network-shut-end-2021

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

This seems like what the PAC is down to in terms of major networks:

 

[Sbbruin 21,898]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

This seems like what the PAC is down to in terms of major networks:

 

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

3 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

 

 

Awfully suspicious

[Al_4_ISU 12,502]

16 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

 

You're not wrong, but I don't feel bad about it.  The job of USC's president is to put USC's best interests first, not the rest of the Pac 12.  Not a single president in the rest of the Pac 12 ever looked out for USC's priorities, so USC gave them the same courtesy.  The Pac 12 repeatedly did stupid shit like giving USC 12 straight games without a bye (2017), giving USC two straight road games to start conference play with the second game on short rest while the second opponent played a FCS cupcake the previous week (2016 and 2017 - USC lost both of the short rest games), putting the California schools in different divisions to help the PNW schools with their constant whining for more games in CA, giving USC weeknight home games and pretending Pullman and Tucson were just as valuable to the Pac 12 as LA.  You don't see the B1G or the SEC abuse their bellcows like that.

I've seen plenty of teeth gnashing from Texas fans about how drawn out their exit from the Big 12 has been.  Because of USC nixing any Big 12 poaching that means the divorce for USC and UCLA is a lot shorter and less dramatic than it was for Texas and Oklahoma.  Securing the B1G invitation was far more important than helping out 10 institutions that were always happy to fuck over USC and pick USC's pockets if it would help them in any way.

This has been a dead conference since the failure to land Texas/Oklahoma and expand to 16 back in 2010, it just didn't know it yet.  That was the terminal illness.  USC and UCLA leaving was just pulling the plug on the braindead patient.  I'm happier with the Big 12 primed to become the #3 conference instead of the Pac 12 because I like watching the Big 12 more than the Pac 12 in both football and basketball, and it's not just Texas or Oklahoma I watch in the Big 12.

Lets play this one out.  Suppose USC and UCLA tell the Pac 12 "We're going to the B1G in 2024, deal with expansion on your own" when Kliavkoff wanted to poach the Big 12 after the UT/OU to the SEC news broke.  Do you think any Big 12 schools would have been eager to leave their mostly regional conference with longtime rivals aftter getting its top schools poached for another conference getting its top schools poached, where they would be geographic outliers and wouldn't have as many of their longtime rivals?  Any Big 12 school joining the Pac 12 would also have to deal with Pac 12 fans and administrators looking down on them like they're a bunch of short bus passengers unworthy of being in the presence of such prestigious Pac 12 institutions.  The advantage still goes to the Big 12 here because geography is on their side.  They have much better poaching options available.  Given a choice between Big 12 and Pac 12 I think Cincinnati, Houston and UCF would all choose the Big 12 over the Pac 12.  BYU is the only wild card but I'm inclined to say they still go Big 12 after all the times the Pac 12 told them to fuck off in the past, plus it wouldn't surprise me if Pac 12 schools chose to die on the "no religious schools" hill.

I would much prefer the current reality to the Pac 12 absorbing the R8 (likely sans Baylor and WVU), especially if the Big 12 gets CU and the AZ schools in the fold.

[statsman 5,486]

Yeah, I notice the R8 scheduling USC, ND, LSU, Bama and eschewing FCS teams, in order to increase the value of the media deal. 

[Josef Pwag 1,741]

Could the Pac go to YouTube? Is YouTube an option for live sports? If yes, does anyone know if they will take a 3rd party out-of-state check? 

[Crockett 494]

31 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Given a choice between Big 12 and Pac 12 I think Cincinnati, Houston and UCF would all choose the Big 12 over the Pac 12.  BYU is the only wild card but I'm inclined to say they still go Big 12 after all the times the Pac 12 told them to fuck off in the past, plus it wouldn't surprise me if Pac 12 schools chose to die on the "no religious schools" hill.

We have more alumni and fans in the P12 footprint, but I agree with you: I think we still go Big 12 given a choice. Most fans I know and follow prefer the Big 12 option.

[Texas Wahoo 3,420]

Almost assuredly unrelated to realignment, but fun to speculate.

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

5 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Almost assuredly unrelated to realignment, but fun to speculate.

 

 

Similar to OU/Georgia 2023/2024 games being canceled.

[Texas Wahoo 3,420]

10 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Almost assuredly unrelated to realignment, but fun to speculate.

 

 

Some speculation is that it is because tOSU does not want two West Coast trips in one year.

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

5 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Some speculation is that it is because tOSU does not want two West Coast trips in one year.

 

 

Stewart is a PAC 12 water carrier.

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

5 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Stewart is a PAC 12 water carrier.

Water carrier, dick sucker.  Tomato, tomahto.

[Texas Wahoo 3,420]

24 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Stewart is a PAC 12 water carrier.

Even so, it looks like tOSU basically confirmed it:

 

If this was because of Washington moving to the Big Ten, tOSU would not be paying the liquidated damages.

[Gaffords 757]

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

No there isn't anyone left. ESPN is looking for some top games in the west to air after the eastern and central games are done... They know no one watches those late games, but they get watched by more people than. 4 hours straight of game recaps do...  So they aren't going to up their offer because they see the games as fillers and no one else is bidding... 

I don't think anyone was really ever bidding against Amazon, so for this still not to be done points to major issues with the money.  They are not getting anywhere near the other conferences...  No commissioner has ever gone to a school to personally recruit them.  None have stepped foot on a none member's campus before, saving that for the press release with new members...

One would think it would be SMU doing the work.  Instead, it's been the opposite.  That doesn't bode well for the PAC schools. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Gaffords

[BurntOrange&White 40,045]

1 minute ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Even so, it looks like tOSU basically confirmed it:

 

If this was because of Washington moving to the Big Ten, tOSU would not be paying the liquidated damages.

I mean I guess we will see but you expect them to say yeah we canceled cause they are going to be in conference come 2025 season?

[Gaffords 757]

6 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I mean I guess we will see but you expect them to say yeah we canceled cause they are going to be in conference come 2025 season?

I know Oregon and Washington both want the BUG, but I think things will cool down until the ACC contract is close to ending then then endgame begins.. I think ESPN wants some teams from there in the PAC,. And I believe the big 10 probably has their eyes on a couple...

ESPN knows the PAC is fucked so they arent going to give away money for rights that will be theirs in the Big 12 before long anyways

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,292]

6 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Of the new schools that could rise to Big 12 power I think the early favorites would be BYU and Cincy, correct?

I'm not sure if extra money will really do much to elevate the BYU football program. Their recruiting advantages and disadvantages mostly revolve around the Mormon church and will continue to do so. UCF seems like the program that could really elevate itself with more revenue. 

[Crockett 494]

26 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I'm not sure if extra money will really do much to elevate the BYU football program. Their recruiting advantages and disadvantages mostly revolve around the Mormon church and will continue to do so. UCF seems like the program that could really elevate itself with more revenue. 

It certainly won't hurt, but you make a fair point. What may end up having the most positive impact is that we are now in a power conference with better access to the playoff (theoretically) and the 4 and 5 star Mormon/LDS recruits that would often pick P5 schools will be more willing to go to BYU. 

[Vertigo 20,336]

23 minutes ago, Crockett said:

It certainly won't hurt, but you make a fair point. What may end up having the most positive impact is that we are now in a power conference with better access to the playoff (theoretically) and the 4 and 5 star Mormon/LDS recruits that would often pick P5 schools will be more willing to go to BYU. 

I think BYU has a chance to return to their Lavelle Edwards days, where nobody really wants to tussle with them on a national level. I can see them being a playoff contender pretty regularly, particularly with continued weakness in the PAC. BYU represents a pretty enticing option for west coast talent. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Vertigo

[thunderlounge 7,952]

4 hours ago, Gaffords said:

I know Oregon and Washington both want the BUG, but I think things will cool down until the ACC contract is close to ending then then endgame begins.. I think ESPN wants some teams from there in the PAC,. And I believe the big 10 probably has their eyes on a couple...

ESPN knows the PAC is fucked so they arent going to give away money for rights that will be theirs in the Big 12 before long anyways

People in hell want ice water too.

ESPN knows the PAC is shit. Nobody wants their inventory now. Why would ESPN pay for it, when they can move some schools out into other places for less than paying for the entire PAC?

Once the current pieces finish moving you have:

- SEC/B1G @ 16
- B12 @ 12
- ACC @ 14

That's 6 shy of 64. A number that's been floating around as important since this thread began.

You have 7 suitors for those spots. UO, UW, UA, ASU, UT, CU, and.. ND.

Who's left without a chair when the music stops?
 

There's your Big Dance, still at 64 teams. March Madness gets extended 1 (or 2) weeks to hold a play-in for spots 65 and 66, which then play spots 63 and 64. Or something like that. Point being, it makes the tournament work and others outside looking in can still have a shot at making the dance. The expanded "madness" would make them some nice cash.

They also then have the numbers to break away. Maybe it's a new upper league under the NCAA, maybe they flip them the bird. I think the big sticking point here is if ESPN/Fox can work together for both their benefit, or if they cut their nose to spite their face.

Quite interesting how it could up. Solves a lot of earlier problems as well, and makes it a path which is not dependent upon the ACC GOR. This takes it out of play. Now you have your teams together, and earlier than expected. Not exactly their perfect roster, but pretty close. Once a new league is formed, ESPN/Fox could then work together, maybe rearrange which teams are in which division of the league to balance it out a bit better for travel, and off they go.

The stubborn, shortsightedness of the PAC has lead to its demise. This in turn has played right into the hands of the networks better than they could have expected.

[TKthunder2 4,998]

5 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Lets play this one out.  Suppose USC and UCLA tell the Pac 12 "We're going to the B1G in 2024, deal with expansion on your own" when Kliavkoff wanted to poach the Big 12 after the UT/OU to the SEC news broke.  Do you think any Big 12 schools would have been eager to leave their mostly regional conference with longtime rivals aftter getting its top schools poached for another conference getting its top schools poached, where they would be geographic outliers and wouldn't have as many of their longtime rivals?  Any Big 12 school joining the Pac 12 would also have to deal with Pac 12 fans and administrators looking down on them like they're a bunch of short bus passengers unworthy of being in the presence of such prestigious Pac 12 institutions.  The advantage still goes to the Big 12 here because geography is on their side.  They have much better poaching options available.  Given a choice between Big 12 and Pac 12 I think Cincinnati, Houston and UCF would all choose the Big 12 over the Pac 12.  BYU is the only wild card but I'm inclined to say they still go Big 12 after all the times the Pac 12 told them to fuck off in the past, plus it wouldn't surprise me if Pac 12 schools chose to die on the "no religious schools" hill.

You’re just plain wrong on this one. Of course Cincy and UCF would have picked the Big 12 over the PAC but for obvious geographical reasons. Houston would want to join the power conference that had the remaining SWC members but if USC hadn’t blocked expansion in the wake of UT/OU’s departure announcement that scenario would have been drastically different.

Tech and Oklahoma State (the two schools perceived as the biggest powers remaining) would have bolted immediately so secure their spots in a P4 conference. The PAC12 securing themselves with 12 and dropping the Big 12 permanently down to number 5 in the pecking order. Both schools are quality big state non religious that were already previously invited to the conference (as tag-a-longs) and could have bolstered the ranks of the PAC with little debate.

Then the PAC12 could have reviewed its options and taken its time to grab #13/14 and even 15/16 if the numbers justified it. They would have had it’s pick of the remaining R8 schools like Kansas, K State, Iowa State, TCU, and Baylor, plus expansion candidates like BYU and Houston. My gut says they would have gone with Kansas, Houston, TCU, and Iowa State; then you’d have a PAC that looked like this:

UW, WSU, UO, OrSU, Cal, Stan, AZ, ASU, Utah, CO, TT, TCU, UH, OkSU, KU, ISU

and a Big 12 that looked like this:

SDSU, Boise St, BYU, Baylor, SMU, K State, Cincy, WVU, Memphis, Tulane, UCF, USF

Clearly the PAC would have been the better conference and would have secured their spot as #4 maybe even #3 after the upcoming ACC raids.

I don’t blame USC for leaving, but let’s not act like their choices (coupled with Stanford/Cal’s arrogance) weren’t directly responsible for relegating the PAC12 down to the worst P5 conference.