Realignment talk not going away

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

Anybody watching the Roughnecks game can see Coug High's stadium in all it's glory right now. 

Yes, the Berry Center is nicer. 

Big 12 2023 baby! 

[Satchel 6938]

2 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Well, that's a good deal if we could sell tickets to academic decathlons. 

I didn’t introduce the AAU angle in this thread. Some Sec person did.

[notre dame joe 190]

5 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

where A&M and Georgia have only played once since A&M joined the conference a decade ago.  

Seriously?

[DFW Horn 6127]

36 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I didn’t introduce the AAU angle in this thread. Some Sec person did.

Yeah, I know. 

So far, only Nebraska has used academics as rationale for changing athletic conferences.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

Big XII Commissioner Brett Yormark can declare checkmate by telling Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State that he's going to add the late-night TV slot to his ESPN package, with or without them. If they don't jump on the Big XII offer, he'll just add two of Fresno, SDSU, and Boise State. If he can get one PAC program to bite, say Arizona, he'll take all 3 of the Group of 5 teams. ESPN would no longer need the PAC late-night television. Could be a semi-bluff, but I think it puts that much more pressure on the 4 corners. And some of his recent media quotes make me think he may be doing just that.

[TKthunder2 4992]

4 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

At what point do conferences experience diminishing returns?

If they maintain the status quo of the 12 team CFP and NCAA bball tournament then yes I think their is a significant diminishing return.

But once you go past 16 to 20-24 the conversation around that will change significantly and you’ll see a push to breakaway from the NCAA and for a SEC only playoff and a Big Ten only playoff in all major sports (where each conference will control the full broadcast right of its playoff games) culminating in a College Super Bowl or sorts (which will be the only joint SEC/B1G media agreement that they can sell separately).

If you add Florida State, Clemson and Miami to the B1G/SEC you have every FBS champ in the last 30 years. Add ND, Washington, Oregon, and UNC and you have the top 30 most valuable programs as well as 68 of the last 75 titles.

We’ve been down this road before with the FBS/FCS split and the D1/D2 split before that. It’s not that an FCS or D2 team can’t beat a FBS/D1 team it’s just that it no longer benefits the bigger schools to pretend to be on the same level  as the smaller schools.

Baylor, Gonzaga, Villanova can still have a basketball tournament and sell their rights, and TCU, BYU, UCF, Boise St and whoever is left can do the same with the CFP while the SEC/B1G do their own thing.

[TrashMaster G 17568]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Anybody watching the Roughnecks game can see Coug High's stadium in all it's glory right now. 

Yes, the Berry Center is nicer. 

Big 12 2023 baby! 

*its

[Trojan Man 429]

14 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Travel partners aren’t for football they are for other sports. But to your point USC/UCLA are already travel partners so they don’t need anymore.

But if they add a school like Washington then you’d need to add another for them like Oregon to have a travel partner basically so the Midwest teams could play both on Saturday/Tuesday in basketball before heading back to ORD or wherever.

Adding Oregon/Washington (and Cal/Stanford) would give USC games in their same time zone which is more valuable to your athletes as jumping 2/3 time zones every other week can be trying.

By adding UW/UO they likely makes the West Coast teams all ‘rivals’ and that would be 3 annual games of your 9 game football schedule, meaning you’d only have 3 Central/Eastern Timezone games each football season.

And again while you might not care, the Big Ten likely cares more as a team that doesn’t have to travel West in the middle of conference play would be perceived as having an advantage over a team that doesn’t have to. With 4 west coast teams that would be 12 of the 14 East Coast teams traveling West each year which likely helps for competitive balance.

I do agree with you that the Big Ten is going to expand and it largely depends on when ND joins, and who they can add from the ACC which is why I think they slowed down expanding again. If they load up to 20 now then UNC, Duke, UVA, ND, Miami, GT, and BC all want to jump onboard then they’ll have to either go bigger than what they want or turn down schools that might give them more bang for their buck than doubling down on the the PNW or SFO.

Ohio State just canceled a home and home they had scheduled with Washington for 2024-25 because they don't want to make more than one West Coast trip per year and I doubt they're the only B1G team with that philosophy.  I realize the math for how often teams will play any given foe is different at 20-24 teams than it is for 16 teams, but that sentiment will be an obstacle to future Western B1G expansion.  You'd have to guarantee all the teams in the Midwest and East they wouldn't play more than one West Coast road game per season.  Even then, with their West Coast swings they'd all likely prefer playing in LA over the PNW for recruiting and because there are more B1G alumni in LA so that's another hurdle for adding Oregon and Washington.  Add that to USC/UCLA not wanting to invite Oregon/Washington into LA every year or add more games with 10:30 PM ET black hole potential and it will take a lot of network money to make everyone vote yes on PNW expansion.

13 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Seriously?

Yes, their only conference game with one another was in Athens in 2019.  It's the most effective way the SEC games the system.  Teams still get credit with the public and the voters and recruits for being in the same conference as the good teams in the other division even though they only play any given cross-division foe who isn't their permanent rival once or twice a decade.  3+6 would actually force Alabama and Georgia to play in the regular season every once in awhile.  In the decade since the SEC expanded to 14 teams they have only played two regular season games against each other.  Under 3+6 they would play twice every four years.  In that same time they have played 3 CCGs and 2 title games.  Interesting to note none of those postseason games occurred in the years they played in the regular season.

http://www.winsipedia.com/games/georgia/vs/texas-am

http://www.winsipedia.com/games/alabama/vs/georgia

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

2 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Ohio State just canceled a home and home they had scheduled with Washington for 2024-25 because they don't want to make more than one West Coast trip per year and I doubt they're the only B1G team with that philosophy.  I realize the math for how often teams will play any given foe is different at 20-24 teams than it is for 16 teams, but that sentiment will be an obstacle to future Western B1G expansion.  You'd have to guarantee all the teams in the Midwest and East they wouldn't play more than one West Coast road game per season.  Even then, with their West Coast swings they'd all likely prefer playing in LA over the PNW for recruiting and because there are more B1G alumni in LA so that's another hurdle for adding Oregon and Washington.  Add that to USC/UCLA not wanting to invite Oregon/Washington into LA every year or add more games with 10:30 PM ET black hole potential and it will take a lot of network money to make everyone vote yes on PNW expansion.

Yes, their only conference game with one another was in Athens in 2019.  It's the most effective way the SEC games the system.  Teams still get credit with the public and the voters and recruits for being in the same conference as the good teams in the other division even though they only play any given cross-division foe who isn't their permanent rival once or twice a decade.  3+6 would actually force Alabama and Georgia to play in the regular season every once in awhile.  In the decade since the SEC expanded to 14 teams they have only played two regular season games against each other.  Under 3+6 they would play twice every four years.  In that same time they have played 3 CCGs and 2 title games.  Interesting to note none of those postseason games occurred in the years they played in the regular season.

http://www.winsipedia.com/games/georgia/vs/texas-am

http://www.winsipedia.com/games/alabama/vs/georgia

B1G aka the Slow 10 shouldn't be talking so much about unfair advantages. First, the B1G started the whole expansion game over 30 years ago and continues to be the most aggressive in the business. Second, the B1G was the original conference to come up with the idea of not playing everyone. This is the conference that only played 8 games in an 11-team conference without a title game. They could have easily played all 10 teams in the conference or raised enough attention to get a title game added to the league. The fact of the matter is they avoided competition. They invented the idea.

Not to mention nearly half the teams in that conference aren't even worthy of P5 status. And half of the teams worthy of P5 status refuse to do what is necessary to remain competitive in recruiting at a level that makes them truly a national player. Now we have Ohio State, who is guaranteed 10 wins, even if they suck, backing out of a game with Washington because it is too hard! They just can't play USC or UCLA, Michigan, AND Washington in the same year, even though the majority of the rest of the schedule is full of cupcakes. This is an era where the SEC is on the verge of setting up a schedule where most of the top programs will play FIVE games per year against the top 15 recruiting programs in the entire country, all within their own conference. In fact, the majority of those teams are top 10 in recruiting. And this doesn't include tough outs like Ole Miss, etc, nor does it include OOC schedules.

PAC hasn't been relevant in nearly a decade. It looks like high school football out there these days. How can you argue about unfair advantages when you are on here admitting over and over that you don't want Oregon and Washington in the B1G because that will make things more compettive? That shouldn't be goal, BTW.

ACC has two programs worth paying attention to. Even the Big 12 has looked bad the past few years. It used to be the most competitive top to bottom.

Honestly, since the pay4play programs were introduced to national recruiting during the internet era, no conference looks all that great anymore. All the elite talent lands on the rosters of 3 or 4 programs.

[notre dame joe 190]

55 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

. Second, the B1G was the original conference to come up with the idea of not playing everyone. This is the conference that only played 8 games in an 11-team conference without a title game. They could have easily played all 10 teams in the conference or raised enough attention to get a title game added to the league. The fact of the matter is they avoided competition. They invented the idea.

Doubtful it was the BUG's idea because the SEC never played a full round robin.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

29 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Doubtful it was the BUG's idea because the SEC never played a full round robin.

I didn't word that the way I wanted to. I'm talking about since expansion. Before 1990, teams lined up and played each other. Many of these matchups happened OOC or as Independents. Since the era of modern expansion, too many try to avoid one another; and that includes OOC.

B1G expanded first in 1990.

SEC played 8 conference games and a championship.

B1G played 8 conference games and used an excuse to not change a rule to get a championship game. Either increase the conference games or change the rule.

B1G's conference slate is an issue because they have way too much dead weight. Add to it their cutthroat mentality of trying to get as rich as possible while making excuses to keep from paying the talent. They're not alone in that mentality, but you can't blame the SEC for it. It's hard to believe that some of the worst academic schools in the country are the only ones willing to share the riches and run a business like a business. Universities in America have turned into capitalistic enterprises. They should at least just admit it.

 

[flatdawgs 1279]

Ohio State backing out of the UW series is for two reasons - their stated one that now with the LA schools on board, having to go aaaalllll the way west twice in one of those seasons just isn't faaaaaiiirrr, and their unstated one that UW is probably better than they had expected.

Any B1G schools bitching about having to make a 2nd trip west for an OOC game while the LA schools must travel east at least 4 times a season - exclusive of any OOC games such as SC-ND - are a pathetic joke.

Edited February 19, 2023 by flatdawgs

[TKthunder2 4992]

12 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I didn't word that the way I wanted to. I'm talking about since expansion. Before 1990, teams lined up and played each other. Many of these matchups happened OOC or as Independents. Since the era of modern expansion, too many try to avoid one another; and that includes OOC.

B1G expanded first in 1990.

SEC played 8 conference games and a championship.

B1G played 8 conference games and used an excuse to not change a rule to get a championship game. Either increase the conference games or change the rule.

B1G's conference slate is an issue because they have way too much dead weight. Add to it their cutthroat mentality of trying to get as rich as possible while making excuses to keep from paying the talent. They're not alone in that mentality, but you can't blame the SEC for it. It's hard to believe that some of the worst academic schools in the country are the only ones willing to share the riches and run a business like a business. Universities in America have turned into capitalistic enterprises. They should at least just admit it.

 

Just to be fair the SEC plays this game too. They expanded to 14 but refused to go to 9 conference games while the B1G did go to 9 conference games.

SEC plays only 8 conference games means less losses which means the average SEC teams looks more impressive (thanks to their 4th easy OOC cupcake win) while the B1G/B12/P12 all played 9 conference games which simply makes their records worse (yep the math checks out). Then you add in cupcake weekend in November where the SEC artificially rises in the polls while the other conferences are dropping since they are playing conference games.

This artificially inflates the rankings ahead of their rivalry weekend games, making them appear more important than they really are and giving the top schools more of a rankings boost when they win and the losers more grace so they don’t drop too far. This also attracts more media and fan interest as well.

More media/fan interest leads to better recruiting and ultimately to high NFL draft picks which makes their recruits get rankings boost simply because they are committing to an SEC school (Texas got this same love during the later year under Mack Brown).

This entire system then leads to higher than average preseason polls which helps inflate early season victories and soften any early season losses as the media continually bought into the SEC hype.

To clarify I’m not saying the SEC is a bad conference my any measure, the top is/has been great but it’s just that their also ran programs get way too much benefit of the doubt because of that SEC patch on their jerseys. Bowl season typically proves this out every year (even with the SEC manipulating their bowl seeding) but collective ignores this and allows the ‘didn’t want to be their’ excuse.

Anyway,  my point was that everyone is guilty to some degree. The fact that the PAC12 and B12 unnecessarily played 9 conference games (so the rest of the conference could play UT/OU, or USC/UCLA more) and intentionally lower their rankings makes them dumb and the SEC/ACC smarter, and the B1G smarter before them. If you’re not taking advantage of the rules to make your conference more successful then you’re a dipshit, a term that can accurately describe the leadership of the P12/B12 over the last decade+.

[Laxtonto 12090]

The more we hear about the various networks deciding thanks but no thanks for the Pac10 rights, the more I start questioning how do they get a deal that makes sense for everyone to stick around?

They will need in essence 300 M a year total for this to work at 10 schools and 350 or so if they expand. Where does that come from? How much is the Pac12 after dark game worth? That seems to be the real jewel for ESPN. The rest is filler content that will somewhat compete for airtime with other ESPN contracts.

Also, with the bot anchor of the Pac12 network, there really isn’t any small secondary “start up” ESPN+ channel that makes sense.

So you got one major time slot that has a ton of value and a few brands that have a strong regional reach. The late night slot is most valuable to ESPN and the issue I see is what value is the regional content to Amazon? 
 

The best thing that could probably happen $$ for the majority of the Pac12 is a full merger/takeover between the B12 and P12. Maybe let Stanford and /or Cal the option to go independent in football and keep the other sports for ego. This lets ESPN get the same PAC content plus you now have nationwide games on Amazon instead of just regional content. Let the PacN die since the conference is dead and go from there.

The problem is the logistics of even getting this done is probably an impossibility and the egos involved are going to need an iron hand and a hardcore GOR to make this a possibility. They would need a longish term commitment from Amazon and find out how to deal with the loss of the NCAA tournament credits.

 

[Gidnik 3284]

I cant believe that there has been so little real info to have leaked.  

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

3 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Just to be fair the SEC plays this game too. They expanded to 14 but refused to go to 9 conference games while the B1G did go to 9 conference games.

SEC plays only 8 conference games means less losses which means the average SEC teams looks more impressive (thanks to their 4th easy OOC cupcake win) while the B1G/B12/P12 all played 9 conference games which simply makes their records worse (yep the math checks out). Then you add in cupcake weekend in November where the SEC artificially rises in the polls while the other conferences are dropping since they are playing conference games.

This artificially inflates the rankings ahead of their rivalry weekend games, making them appear more important than they really are and giving the top schools more of a rankings boost when they win and the losers more grace so they don’t drop too far. This also attracts more media and fan interest as well.

More media/fan interest leads to better recruiting and ultimately to high NFL draft picks which makes their recruits get rankings boost simply because they are committing to an SEC school (Texas got this same love during the later year under Mack Brown).

This entire system then leads to higher than average preseason polls which helps inflate early season victories and soften any early season losses as the media continually bought into the SEC hype.

To clarify I’m not saying the SEC is a bad conference my any measure, the top is/has been great but it’s just that their also ran programs get way too much benefit of the doubt because of that SEC patch on their jerseys. Bowl season typically proves this out every year (even with the SEC manipulating their bowl seeding) but collective ignores this and allows the ‘didn’t want to be their’ excuse.

Anyway,  my point was that everyone is guilty to some degree. The fact that the PAC12 and B12 unnecessarily played 9 conference games (so the rest of the conference could play UT/OU, or USC/UCLA more) and intentionally lower their rankings makes them dumb and the SEC/ACC smarter, and the B1G smarter before them. If you’re not taking advantage of the rules to make your conference more successful then you’re a dipshit, a term that can accurately describe the leadership of the P12/B12 over the last decade+.

I agree with the scheduling and never said otherwise. I was responding to someone pointing the finger at the SEC without looking in the mirror. B1G started it and ND is still clinging to an Independent schedule that allows them to just choose half of their schedule. Like politics, there are no innocent parties here. It's hard to point the finger without looking in the mirror.

SEC gets better players because they have a massive recruting footprint, a bunch of large state universities that care about their programs and they aren't afraid to pay their employees. With the rise of the internet, they can now take their philosophy national. There are very few programs outside the SEC willing to pay. It's been a cakewalk. Bear Bryant came before Nick Satan.

The rest of college football, including Texas, could help the competitive balance by simply paying the players what they are actually worth and then let's all line up and play each other. 

Pay the players a percentage of ticket sales and TV revenue. All the big programs that can offer competitive wages should play each other every week. Even since NIL, most of the players are going to 3 or 4 teams. It's not competitive. And now Ohio State (one ofthe biggest pay4play programs) looks like they are running from competition. Maybe the B1G is going to a 10 game conferences schedule or Washington is joining the B1G. It's the only two things that doesn't make them look bad. Their conference schedule is a joke.

1. Pay the employees what they are worth.

2. Every game should be a conference game. No team should get to determine who they play.

BTW, all this conference expansion has been 40 to 50 years in the making. There's only so much a commissioner can do to stop the inevitable.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

If BIG wanted to they could make scheduling a pain in the ass for ND to try and force their hand. 

[FartingDreamer 138]

22 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

If they maintain the status quo of the 12 team CFP and NCAA bball tournament then yes I think their is a significant diminishing return.

But once you go past 16 to 20-24 the conversation around that will change significantly and you’ll see a push to breakaway from the NCAA and for a SEC only playoff and a Big Ten only playoff in all major sports (where each conference will control the full broadcast right of its playoff games) culminating in a College Super Bowl or sorts (which will be the only joint SEC/B1G media agreement that they can sell separately).

If you add Florida State, Clemson and Miami to the B1G/SEC you have every FBS champ in the last 30 years. Add ND, Washington, Oregon, and UNC and you have the top 30 most valuable programs as well as 68 of the last 75 titles.

We’ve been down this road before with the FBS/FCS split and the D1/D2 split before that. It’s not that an FCS or D2 team can’t beat a FBS/D1 team it’s just that it no longer benefits the bigger schools to pretend to be on the same level  as the smaller schools.

Baylor, Gonzaga, Villanova can still have a basketball tournament and sell their rights, and TCU, BYU, UCF, Boise St and whoever is left can do the same with the CFP while the SEC/B1G do their own thing.

Not gonna happen, nor should it.

[bullet 1597]

On 2/18/2023 at 10:45 PM, TKthunder2 said:

If they maintain the status quo of the 12 team CFP and NCAA bball tournament then yes I think their is a significant diminishing return.

But once you go past 16 to 20-24 the conversation around that will change significantly and you’ll see a push to breakaway from the NCAA and for a SEC only playoff and a Big Ten only playoff in all major sports (where each conference will control the full broadcast right of its playoff games) culminating in a College Super Bowl or sorts (which will be the only joint SEC/B1G media agreement that they can sell separately).

If you add Florida State, Clemson and Miami to the B1G/SEC you have every FBS champ in the last 30 years. Add ND, Washington, Oregon, and UNC and you have the top 30 most valuable programs as well as 68 of the last 75 titles.

We’ve been down this road before with the FBS/FCS split and the D1/D2 split before that. It’s not that an FCS or D2 team can’t beat a FBS/D1 team it’s just that it no longer benefits the bigger schools to pretend to be on the same level  as the smaller schools.

Baylor, Gonzaga, Villanova can still have a basketball tournament and sell their rights, and TCU, BYU, UCF, Boise St and whoever is left can do the same with the CFP while the SEC/B1G do their own thing.

On a shorter time frame, with those 7 + Colorado (who is way down, but has had past success), you get 53 of the last 55 titles (and 60 of 62) and all but 13 of the top 3 finishers in the AP Poll over those 55 years.   Literally, the only other teams to crack the top 3 going back to 1968 are TCU (3 times), Pitt (2 times including #1), BYU (#1),  Okie St., SMU, Stanford, Utah, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech (who had a coaches MNC that year), and Arizona St.

[notre dame joe 190]

5 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

If BIG wanted to they could make scheduling a pain in the ass for ND to try and force their hand. 

IF you mean the ND-SC game, the networks would like a word with you. 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

6 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

IF you mean the ND-SC game, the networks would like a word with you. 

Fox would much rather have multiple games with ND than 1. 

 

Plus your dumbass school doesn't want to spend money on coaches, recruiting, NIL or anything. Your boomer ass AD going to have to make some changes if they want to remain competitive moving forward. Because as I see it right now you're stuck in the past as college football is moving forward in this new era.

Edited February 20, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Frank Drebin 5649]

On 2/18/2023 at 3:58 PM, Trojan Man said:

Yeah, there's no benefit to USC and UCLA to support Oregon and Washington getting into the B1G.  Anyone pushing the travel partner line needs to look at a map.  Just because they're also in the Pacific timezone does not mean they are quick, easy trips.  LA to Seattle is 960 miles as the crow flies, LA to Eugene is 773 miles.  For perspective Clemson to Boston is 827 miles but nobody will say Boston College is a convenient travel partner for Clemson when the ACC gets picked apart.  The Bay Area schools and the Arizona schools are the only convenient travel schools for the LA schools but other than maybe Stanford none of them are ever getting into the B1G so USC and UCLA just need to deal with the travel.

And that's just the flimsy upside.  The downside for USC/UCLA of Oregon/Washington joining the B1G is supercharging two of your biggest local recruiting foes when you have an opportunity to leave them in the dust, playing more late games after finally escaping from that window and bailing out a couple schools who were the ringleaders for Pac 12 policies that harmed the LA schools.  I still think Oregon and Washington will get in eventually after the B1G secures the ACC teams they really want, but the next decade or so will be shitty for them stuck on the outside looking in.

It's better than the current way of doing things, where A&M and Georgia have only played once since A&M joined the conference a decade ago.  I will like being in a bigger conference with a more varied schedule and as long as the conferences get the permanent opponents right I expect most fans will feel the same way.  UCLA is a given for one of USC's permanent opponents.  For the other two I'm hoping for some combination of Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin or Minnesota.  Penn State would be a fun permanent game, it seems like a longshot but networks are driving this bus.  They might insist on annually matching USC with one of the East juggernauts.  Ohio State and Michigan have more games that make sense to protect than Penn State does so USC/Penn State could be the made for TV rivalry.  I didn't need yearly games against Arizona and Colorado.  At least in the B1G that caliber of team will rotate on and off the schedule every couple years to keep things fresh instead of permanently being a game I don't give a fuck about.

The only problem with the Big 10 is that they have too many crappy programs no one is interested in watching.  They should ditch a couple and replace with UW and Oregon.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

Realignment chatter: How the Pac-12 holds the key to it all

Quote

The looming changes to the structure of college football simultaneously highlight the strength of the SEC and Big Ten while exposing the fluidity of the rest of the major-conference landscape.

With the Big Ten and SEC preparing to start 16-program versions in 2024 and the 12-team playoff looming the same year, the rest of the college football landscape is left to sort itself out. The only certainty is that more change is coming.

What's most apparent after interviews with industry and campus sources over the past week is how that financial gap between the SEC and Big Ten and everyone else is going to cause further unrest. It's safe to say the schools in the Power 2 are going to be making more than $30 million more than teams in the other leagues now and going forward. (The Big 12 is at least safely established in the upper-middle class after agreeing to a recent deal with ESPN and Fox.)

The only variable is time, and the next significant trigger could emerge in the coming weeks when the Pac-12 schools find out what their television deal could look like.

And this all plays out against a backdrop of industry-wide uncertainty -- evolving television markets, financial stress in the tech industry, new NCAA leadership and lawsuits and potential government action that loom as change agents.

What's next for an industry perpetually in flux? Here are four big questions to answer on the Pac-12's potential problems and how it will affect the Big 12, Big Ten and even the ACC.

What happens now for the Pac-12?

In the immediate future, the most uncertainty looms over the Pac-12, as expiring grants of television rights always yield potential change. The biggest signs of panic have come from the league itself. First, commissioner George Kliavkoff and two other conference officials visited SMU earlier this month in a 48-hour advertisement of the league's weakness and lack of self-awareness.

By exploring SMU, the Pac-12 is acknowledging that what it's attempting to sell networks isn't good enough with 10 schools. And SMU, a fine school with modest tradition, isn't a significant value add to drive up a league's overall value the way, for example, that USC and UCLA did for the Big Ten. It's really inventory filler in a nice market, a move that was expected but didn't need to be advertised with an administrative parade.

Then the league issued the dreaded "vote of confidence" statement that its schools are "united in our commitment to one another." By doing it, the league reminded everyone that it could, indeed, fall apart. Tough stretch.

Here's the bottom line on the Pac-12: The television contract numbers Kliavkoff delivers in the upcoming weeks are paramount to the league's survival. If the numbers are decent, some sort of temporary solution can be constructed with a deal expected to be in the five-year range. And that's certainly possible.

Commissioners are ultimately judged by their television deals. Nothing else matters. Especially in this case, as there has been a clear disconnect between Pac-12 hopes and market realities.

No one is expecting anything in the $40-million-per-school range anymore. Getting something in the $30-million range -- similar to the Big 12 -- could keep the league duct-taped together.

But there's confusion in the industry over how it will get done. Any type of home run deal would be viewed as Kliavkoff channeling his Las Vegas roots and pulling a Houdini act.

"We're going to find out if George has had something in his back pocket the whole time," a Pac-12 source said. "Unfortunately, this next deal is about keeping this league alive after a decade of Larry Scott's poor decisions and failed strategies."

Those Scott failures included a too-long television contract, outlandish rent for the conference office, an over-reliance on a conference television network, failure to team that network with a mainstream partner and subsequent distribution issues. It left Kliavkoff a ditch to dig out of.

Within the industry, there are a lot more television suitors who've passed on the Pac-12 than those who are believed to still be interested in paying market value. ESPN and Amazon have long been the speculative favorites, but the level of their interest remains the key variable. And that has caused both an undercurrent of nervousness among the Pac-12 programs and emboldened other leagues interested in adding schools.

"If [Kliavkoff] has something up his sleeve, it's with some entity that no one knows about," an industry source said.

Can the Pac-12 keep Washington and Oregon in the conference for the long haul? Jesse Beals/Icon Sportswire

Is there a long-term solution for the Pac-12?

The future of the Pac-12 hinges on cornerstone schools Oregon and Washington. And, really, the interest level from the Big Ten in poaching them.

The bad news for a long-term solution is that Oregon and Washington seeking an exit plan looms as an eternal issue. Considering the financial disparity they face with the SEC and Big Ten programs they hope to compete against nationally, sticking in a watered-down Pac-12 for the next generation appears unlikely.

And it's hard to be conference anchors while flirting with the Big Ten. Unless some financial windfall comes, Oregon and Washington are always going to lack permanence thanks to the financial and potential competitive inequities that come with USC's and UCLA's exits from the Pac-12.

Kliavkoff's biggest failure with USC and UCLA was not realizing they needed to be treated differently. His inability to court them in a way that reflected their market value contributed to their wandering eye. In reality, he likely didn't have the financial firepower to stop them. But he never got a chance to truly make his case.

Has Kliavkoff learned his lesson and catered to Oregon and Washington in a way he didn't with USC and UCLA? Time will tell, but he certainly wasted a lot of time and energy -- and spent months affirming the league's weakness -- by flailing around trying to keep UCLA in the league through California political pressure. That failed, to the surprise of no one.

The issue with Oregon and Washington and the Pac-12's future is that the long-term path appears fraught. If there's a decent deal available to the Pac-12 in the upcoming weeks and if Oregon and Washington want to sign a grant of rights to be part of that deal, it will be a short-term deal. (Think five years.) This means in another three years, the same issues of whether the Big Ten has the appetite to consume them will remain.

Do schools with options, like Colorado, Arizona State, Arizona and Utah -- the so-called corner schools -- want to be part of a bandage? Or do they slide to the Big 12 and start over there?

With the future of Oregon and Washington in the Pac-12 so uncertain, is it worth it for the corner schools to wait for an inevitable disruption or just control their fate and set their own course?

How does this play out from here?

The easy solution is Kliavkoff and his consultant, Doug Perlman, finding enough TV money to make everyone happy. If not, things could get increasingly complex.

One of the most bizarre factors looming here is that much of the future of a century-old conference could hinge on Amazon, which has never broadcast a college game of significance.

Amazon has long been linked to the Pac-12 as one of its suitors. And its interest level has been viewed as a potential lifeline for the league amid a marketplace without many attractive open broadcast windows remaining. But it also could have the opposite impact if Amazon's dollars are redirected.

Amazon could have outsized influence by putting its money elsewhere -- the Big Ten and Big 12 via a sublicense -- to help subsidize potential realignment moves.

Months ago, Amazon chatted with the Big Ten about buying a package if Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford were added. But the games they'd have access to weren't worth the investment because of where Amazon would have been in the game-picking order. Could they slip back into those conversations? Could the conference find a way with its broadcast partners to provide Amazon access to better games once the extra inventory arrives?

Don't expect anything significant to happen with the Big Ten and Amazon until outgoing commissioner Kevin Warren officially leaves office, which is scheduled for April. Would a media partner want a deal with an outgoing commissioner? Probably not, especially because Amazon was involved in the original Big Ten negotiations and ultimately left out.

But the potential of new leadership combined with the increasing desperation of Oregon and Washington has cracked the door back open. The Big Ten presidents weren't keen on more additions initially, and both USC and UCLA have been protective of the West Coast. But could properties that valuable really get left behind?

From an academic standpoint, there'd be some Big Ten interest in Cal and Stanford by the Big Ten presidents. But from a television standpoint, the interest would be minimal. They're both in a good market, but both programs get little penetration within that market.

Stanford's best hope is as Notre Dame's preferred dance partner if the Irish were to ever enter the Big Ten. But the only real threat to Notre Dame's independence is if it can no longer put together a vibrant schedule because leagues have become so big and bloated that they don't play many nonconference games or are discouraged from playing non-league games of significance. (That said, Notre Dame certainly won't be bullied into joining a league.)

As for the corner schools (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah), the only real market is the Big 12. If the Pac-12 television number comes in below the Big 12's number, it becomes a math and distribution equation. The notion of too much streaming still looms as uncomfortable for many schools because of visibility. Most are open to some streaming but are afraid of too much.

Could Amazon chip in to buy part of the Big 12 package if it expands with the four corner schools? Would there be enough inventory for a potential Amazon package to be sliced off via sublicense? The corner schools would provide ESPN access to late-night windows, which it needs, and perhaps be a lower expenditure for both companies. (Fox has stated publicly it doesn't have much interest in the Pac-12, which makes sense after the Big Ten took USC and UCLA.)

And what happens with the ACC?

The Big 12's new deal -- and subsequent grant of rights -- has left it in a solid position through 2030-31.

The fact that every major conference television deal expires and can be reupped before the ACC comes back to the table illuminates the fears around the ACC.

The ACC's deal with ESPN runs through 2036, and part of the reason it ran that long is because it allowed the league to form the ACC Network. But there are increasing nerves about the more than $30 million annually its competitors will be earning above the ACC.

About half the league is fine with the financial status quo. And there's another half -- those schools most invested in football -- that continues to look for creative ways to find more money, whether within the league or by finding a way out. Unequal revenue sharing continues to be discussed, but that can't cover a $30 million delta.

"There's a disparate nature to the ACC," an ACC source said. "You have publics and privates and big schools and small schools. It's a little bit of the ACC uniqueness. But times like now, it really, really shows itself. In the last year, it has become so apparent."

Sources around the league stress nothing is imminent in terms of a breakaway, but the search for new financial avenues continue.

"I don't expect anything in six months," an industry source said. "But in six years, it'd be shocking if everything looked the same. The other leagues get an additional bump before the ACC comes up."

Just how binding are the grant of rights? School after school has gone to league headquarters to study them, so if there was an easy way out, some smart lawyer would have found it by now. (The ACC, like most leagues, doesn't allow copies of the television contracts and grants of rights out of the building, which protects the contracts from FOIA requests.)

The essence of an ACC escape is that it would cost more than $100 million to leave and the schools would still need legal wrangling to get access to their own games' TV money for more than a decade. That's significant risk -- but there's also plenty of risk for the high-profile schools of falling hundreds of millions behind national competitors.

"Different lawyers have different opinions," an industry source said. "Eventually, someone will take the leap. You'd assume that others would follow right behind."

As usual in college athletics, the lawyers would be sure to cash in. The only certainty from any type of attempted breakup or breakaway would be billable hours.

"If you are going to try and get out of the grant of rights, you better have a war chest," an industry source said. "You're going to need it to pay legal fees."

Summary:

• Why would Amazon do a Pac deal, when it can carve out deals with the Big Ten/Big 12 with less schools if they move.
• Likely no movement until the Big Ten has a new commish
• ACC has a divide between schools who don't need money and those who need more to keep up
• Stanford/Cal seem to be unwanted with Stanford only having a chance as an ND rival add
• The real mess will be in six years when the Big Ten/Big 12 reup their deals and the ACC is still on the old one.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

lol, SDSU just doesn't do it IMO.

Edited February 20, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

27 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

721 followers. It's makes sense, but consider the source. 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

4 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

721 followers. It's makes sense, but consider the source. 

He has 12k followers....he only follows 721.    He's the publisher for Wildcat Authority, the Arizona 24/7 fan site.

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

15 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

If BIG wanted to they could make scheduling a pain in the ass for ND to try and force their hand. 

I believe both Notre Dame and USC view their game as sacrosanct. They don't play Purdue or Indiana annually. Stanford and Navy would crawl through glass to keep Notre Dame on their schedule. There's your Big 3 with Pitt and Boston College on their beck and call. 

So the only game meaningful game the Big Ten can mess with the Domers on is USC which they almost certainly won't allow. 

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

19 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

He has 12k followers....he only follows 721.    He's the publisher for Wildcat Authority, the Arizona 24/7 fan site.

Yeah I looked at it wrong. I believe Scheer is basically the Arizona FCB. He's been wrong quite frequently. 

[DFW Horn 6127]

58 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

lol, SDSU just doesn't do it IMO.

True, but what are the Pac's other options? Boise St? UNLV?

SDSU is the best of the least palatable options. They've gotta have a presence in SoCal or they're really fucked. Not that they aren't already.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

14 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

He's been wrong quite frequently. 

You just described every post on this thread dating back over a decade on two boards.

[Gidnik 3284]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Realignment chatter: How the Pac-12 holds the key to it all

Summary:

• Why would Amazon do a Pac deal, when it can carve out deals with the Big Ten/Big 12 with less schools if they move.
• Likely no movement until the Big Ten has a new commish
• ACC has a divide between schools who don't need money and those who need more to keep up
• Stanford/Cal seem to be unwanted with Stanford only having a chance as an ND rival add
• The real mess will be in six years when the Big Ten/Big 12 reup their deals and the ACC is still on the old one.

“If kliavkoff has something up his sleeve it’s with an entity nobody knows about” an industry insider said.

Fucking yikes

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

25 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

True, but what are the Pac's other options? Boise St? UNLV?

SDSU is the best of the least palatable options. They've gotta have a presence in SoCal or they're really fucked. Not that they aren't already.

I think SDSU has potential. Greater San Diego has north of 3.3 million people, and the Padres are the only major pro sports team. The NFL is probably never coming back. The Aztecs are the only football game in town. 

['stache 21823]

1 minute ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I think SDSU has potential. Greater San Diego has north of 3.3 million people, and the Padres are the only major pro sports team. The NFL is probably never coming back. The Aztecs are the only football game in town. 

I think SMU could find a good niche with Dallas football fans who don't care to go to Arlington and deal with the gameday nightmare. They already started with their Dallas campaign, but could really get a boost playing better programs. It wouldn't be the same as the old PAC, but better in general than the AAC. But if I'm SDSU and SMU I'd be warry of joining a sinking ship, like when TCU joined the Big East and got lucky that they made it to the Big XII after that collapse.

[billfromlaketravis 11519]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think SMU could find a good niche with Dallas football fans who don't care to go to Arlington and deal with the gameday nightmare. They already started with their Dallas campaign, but could really get a boost playing better programs. It wouldn't be the same as the old PAC, but better in general than the AAC. But if I'm SDSU and SMU I'd be warry of joining a sinking ship, like when TCU joined the Big East and got lucky that they made it to the Big XII after that collapse.

Ford Stadium is a great place to see a game. Not a bad sight line in the entire stadium, but it's comically small for the Power 5. 

Tailgating scene is top notch. Second best in Texas in my opinion. 

[Crockett 491]

31 minutes ago, 'stache said:

But if I'm SDSU and SMU I'd be warry of joining a sinking ship

Yeah, but it's still better than their current situation. They are better off with Oregon State, WSU, and whoever else doesn't get picked up (and maybe inviting a few more MWC teams to fill in the gaps).

Can you imagine Stanford and Cal with Boise State and Fresno State in the same conference? hahahaha. That's an Island of Misfit Toys...

[DFW Horn 6127]

42 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think SMU could find a good niche with Dallas football fans who don't care to go to Arlington and deal with the gameday nightmare. They already started with their Dallas campaign, but could really get a boost playing better programs. It wouldn't be the same as the old PAC, but better in general than the AAC. But if I'm SDSU and SMU I'd be warry of joining a sinking ship, like when TCU joined the Big East and got lucky that they made it to the Big XII after that collapse.

Neither have anything to lose if the PAC back-fills with the MWC if the 4 Corners bolt. I mean, who is SMU's league rival now? The AAC means nothing to them.

[DFW Horn 6127]

59 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

“If kliavkoff has something up his sleeve it’s with an entity nobody knows about” an industry insider said.

Fucking yikes

Kliavkoff is either interviewing for his next gig or planning his buy-out life.

I'll be very surprised if the Big 12 doesn't scoop up the 4 Corners after the Pac's underwhelming media deal is consummated. CU and UA, miniumum.

[Trojan Man 429]

5 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Ford Stadium is a great place to see a game. Not a bad sight line in the entire stadium, but it's comically small for the Power 5. 

Tailgating scene is top notch. Second best in Texas in my opinion. 

Small for any other P5 conference, but it fits in with the Pac 12.  SMU's stadium is the same size as Washington State's stadium and only a few thousand smaller than what Oregon State's stadium will have when they are done with renovations.  Around 32K attendance is what everyone besides Oregon, Washington and Utah will average if the Pac 12 survives.  A sellout of 32K is more fun to watch both in person and on TV than 32K in a 50-60K stadium.

 

3 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

The only problem with the Big 10 is that they have too many crappy programs no one is interested in watching.  They should ditch a couple and replace with UW and Oregon.

Agreed, the B1G's athletic value would go up if you replaced Illinois/Northwestern or Indiana/Purdue with Oregon/Washington.  But that won't happen.  It would harm academic relations between schools.  USC and UCLA telling Cal and Stanford "We're leaving to make more sports money in the B1G but I hope we can keep collaborating together on nerd stuff" is a much different message than the B1G saying "We're kicking you out to make more sports money but I hope we can keep collaborating together on the nerd stuff" to Illinois and Northwestern.  If something like this comes to pass it will be the formation of Prestige Worldwide because the big brands deciding to leave isn't as offensive to the not haves as telling them to fuck off and find a new home because you found better sportsball programs to take their place.

19 hours ago, flatdawgs said:

Ohio State backing out of the UW series is for two reasons - their stated one that now with the LA schools on board, having to go aaaalllll the way west twice in one of those seasons just isn't faaaaaiiirrr, and their unstated one that UW is probably better than they had expected.

Any B1G schools bitching about having to make a 2nd trip west for an OOC game while the LA schools must travel east at least 4 times a season - exclusive of any OOC games such as SC-ND - are a pathetic joke.

I think it will be very hard for ACC/Big 12/Pac 12 teams to schedule games with B1G/SEC teams going forward.  The ACC/SEC rivalry games will continue, and I wouldn't be surprised if the LA schools scheduled the Bay Area schools every once in awhile, but for the most part the B1G/SEC schools know they will make more money playing each other than they will playing other conferences.  For example USC's first 3 years in the B1G will feature a game in Las Vegas vs LSU and a home and home with Ole Miss (plus Notre Dame as always) while UCLA is playing a return game at LSU in 2024, then playing home and homes with Georgia and Auburn the next 4 years.  Clemson, Miami and Florida State have enough clout plus favorable geography to get B1G/SEC games.  Oregon and Washington will probably have to do 1 off neutral site games in the other team's backyard or 2 for 1s to land some B1G/SEC games.  The PNW schools would have better luck scheduling SEC schools since they don't have the West Coast conference game excuse.

[CustersDoctor 584]

My prediction for the new pac12th media rights deal.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by CustersDoctor
spelling

[bullet 1597]

8 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Yeah I looked at it wrong. I believe Scheer is basically the Arizona FCB. He's been wrong quite frequently. 

Wrong about what?  He's rightfully made fun of silly stuff Calzano says.

 

[bullet 1597]

Thinking about it logically, and assuming Kliavcoff isn't a total idiot (not that its out of the realm of possibility), the commissioner publicly appearing at SMU's basketball game means things are close.

UW and Oregon aren't getting into the Big 10 for the foreseeable future (not in the next 6 months)

The Pac 10 really want to stay together even if it means SDSU as a member

SDSU and SMU invitations are imminent

They have the basics of a deal that is tolerable to the 10 members

The deal is tolerable, but not what they want and so they are trying to see if there is any way to bump it up, hence all the rumbling the past week

[Magus Ossis 2809]

9 minutes ago, bullet said:

Thinking about it logically, and assuming Kliavcoff isn't a total idiot (not that its out of the realm of possibility), the commissioner publicly appearing at SMU's basketball game means things are close.

UW and Oregon aren't getting into the Big 10 for the foreseeable future (not in the next 6 months)

The Pac 10 really want to stay together even if it means SDSU as a member

SDSU and SMU invitations are imminent

They have the basics of a deal that is tolerable to the 10 members

The deal is tolerable, but not what they want and so they are trying to see if there is any way to bump it up, hence all the rumbling the past week

Or Kliavkov is doing what increasingly desperate men do.

[Horn of Gabriel 1634]

45 minutes ago, bullet said:

Thinking about it logically, and assuming Kliavcoff isn't a total idiot (not that its out of the realm of possibility), the commissioner publicly appearing at SMU's basketball game means things are close.

UW and Oregon aren't getting into the Big 10 for the foreseeable future (not in the next 6 months)

The Pac 10 really want to stay together even if it means SDSU as a member

SDSU and SMU invitations are imminent

They have the basics of a deal that is tolerable to the 10 members

The deal is tolerable, but not what they want and so they are trying to see if there is any way to bump it up, hence all the rumbling the past week

We'll see if UW and UO sign any meaningful GOR.  Doubtful.

[camel at sea 589]

10 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Neither have anything to lose if the PAC back-fills with the MWC if the 4 Corners bolt. I mean, who is SMU's league rival now? The AAC means nothing to them.

Yeah, no matter what, SMU is better off with Stanford and Cal than the AAC.  And if the PAC gets heavily raided and starts backfilling, there's a decent chance that Rice and Tulane get a look, too.  The Bay Area schools will probably do what they can to keep the academic standards as high as possible.  

[Gidnik 3284]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

Thinking about it logically, and assuming Kliavcoff isn't a total idiot (not that its out of the realm of possibility), the commissioner publicly appearing at SMU's basketball game means things are close.

UW and Oregon aren't getting into the Big 10 for the foreseeable future (not in the next 6 months)

The Pac 10 really want to stay together even if it means SDSU as a member

SDSU and SMU invitations are imminent

They have the basics of a deal that is tolerable to the 10 members

The deal is tolerable, but not what they want and so they are trying to see if there is any way to bump it up, hence all the rumbling the past week

He doesn’t show up if it’s not a done deal 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

Thinking about it logically, and assuming Kliavcoff isn't a total idiot (not that its out of the realm of possibility), the commissioner publicly appearing at SMU's basketball game means things are close.

UW and Oregon aren't getting into the Big 10 for the foreseeable future (not in the next 6 months)

The Pac 10 really want to stay together even if it means SDSU as a member

SDSU and SMU invitations are imminent

They have the basics of a deal that is tolerable to the 10 members

The deal is tolerable, but not what they want and so they are trying to see if there is any way to bump it up, hence all the rumbling the past week

My guess is the deal is post season revenue isn't equal payout.   That way Oregon or Washington can gain massively on the new playoff payout, which could be a $200m number on its own (its already $90m) for the Pac, and everyone else can stick it out.   If they did this with basketball Arizona would clean up too.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[DFW Horn 6127]

6 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Yeah, no matter what, SMU is better off with Stanford and Cal than the AAC.  And if the PAC gets heavily raided and starts backfilling, there's a decent chance that Rice and Tulane get a look, too.  The Bay Area schools will probably do what they can to keep the academic standards as high as possible.  

I guess you can say it's admirable for Stanford and Cal to maintain high academic standards, but it goes against the current reality of big-time collegiate athletics.

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

I actually think that no one will leave the Pac and they'll just kind of fall down to the 5th conference status permanently.

The schools there really don't care if they make less money and have bad exposure.  They're completely opposed to any kind of association with middle America and would rather just fall into the dust bin than be mentioned in the same breath with institutions that come from rural places where people vote for Republicans.  No CR.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[LTbear 4171]

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I actually think that no one will leave the Pac and they'll just kind of fall down to the 5th conference status permanently.

The schools there really don't care if they make less money and have bad exposure.  They're completely opposed to any kind of association with middle America and would rather just fall into the dust bin than be mentioned in the same breath with institutions that come from rural places where people vote for Republicans.  No CR.

I think some schools (like Oregon) definitely care about less money and less exposure.