Realignment talk not going away

[TKthunder2 4981]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Still the MLS model? $100 for a season subscription? 
 

That would suck for casual PAC viewers like myself. 

They haven’t said. I think the PAC fans are assuming it will just be included in AppleTV+ but are worried that they’d do the MLS premium model. They are hoping Apple will partner with ESPN for their Tier Two rights in order to get at least one night game a week too in order to cover the cost instead of the premium model.

Here is a summary on what I’ve seen people hoping for on the PAC boards:

Tier One #1 game of the week: AppleTV+ Friday showcase with a deal to joint simulcast the Friday CCG on ESPN. No real competition in that window so people may actually switch to Apple to watch.

Tier Two #2/3/4 games of the week - joint Apple/ESPN. When ESPN has the #2 game it’s guaranteed to be on primetime ABC or 230/primetime on ESPN. When ESPN has #3 it’s late night. Apple #2/3 games goes on primetime or 230 avoiding competing with PAC games on ESPN. #4 game goes on ESPN/2 late kick window. Hoping by having Apple/ESPN cooperating with these rights that ESPN will buy a sub licensed Tier One game once or twice a year to showcase (like UO/UW) on ABC primetime (think Gameday showcase game).

Tier Three #5+(think OOC and the 4 weeks they’ll have without conference byes) games goes on Apple avoiding other games when possible.

So 4 games with 50% on linear ESPN but with Apple owning the big #1 game of the week and paying out $30million a year with ESPN for that deal.

[BurntOrange&White 39690]

8 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Apple may pay $31million for the whole package of PAC12 games but only with a GOR. Oregon refuses to sign and that number drops to $27million and puts in an renegotiation clause that reduces the value of the deal proportional to the value of any schools lost.

That, IMO, is why the Apple thing is just cope coming from the PAC. I can't see Arizona, Oregon, Washington, or even Colorado potentially signing a 6 year GOR, that will obviously have a ridiculous buyout. Also if 60-70% of your games are stream only and not linear that is just another huge negative for the conference.

Edited April 24, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Hurtlocker 2208]

11 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

It’s not that tricky. TV deals don’t require a GOR. PAC12 gets a less than great TV deal that requires a GOR the others schools won’t sign it and their partners will have to deal without the GOR likely dropping the amount they are willing to pay.

Apple may pay $31million for the whole package of PAC12 games but only with a GOR. Oregon refuses to sign and that number drops to $27million and puts in an renegotiation clause that reduces the value of the deal proportional to the value of any schools lost.

TV deals do require a GoR, that is literally the entire reason they exist.   Even back before we all knew about them, GoRs existed in The Big 12 and B1G and SEC and every other sports rights package.   They were just one year deals that would be resigned yearly as part of the media contract.   The reason being, if you're a broadcaster, you can't have Ohio State selling their rights twice or backing out of a game you're putting money into producing.

The longer the GoR you sign, the less risk it is for the broadcaster, the less risk the higher money you'll make for whatever it is you're selling.

In the Pac's situation, as of July 1st, assuming you need a one year notice, the best a team can do to get out would be the year after (or pay more money than most of these schools seem to have).   Now you're in a one year media deal you just said you don't want to be a part of, where they require you to sign a GoR for likely longer than you want to stay.   Can you deal with it, sure, but it becomes unnecessarily complicated.

Either they move before the one year window or they sit out of realignment until a year before the next contract.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

11 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Still the MLS model? $100 for a season subscription? 
 

That would suck for casual PAC viewers like myself. 

It would suck for hard core PAC viewers too.  Streaming is usually a quarter the audience of Linear, and not like major linear, but like ESPNU or FS2.   A stream you need to pay $99 a year on?   I'd guess that weeds out all but the most hard core fans.  

Apple will have a clause in that contract that their investment in the rights is directly tied to the amount of subscriptions they receive.

250k subscribers = $25m/year

That doesn't pay the schools a lot.

[YGIFS 19449]

SEC country lost a titan of broadcasting this morning.  Thoughts and prayers.  

[Richard Kimball 1492]

17 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

""Nobody’s asked us – I shouldn’t even say that. We’re committed to the Pac-12," he said. "What I’ve said along with the other presidents and chancellors is we’re not going to even think about going anywhere, none of us, until we see what kind of offer we get, and that’s still being worked out. And I’m confident it’s going to be fine.""

 

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/21/2023 at 1:14 PM, Hurtlocker said:

sorry to hear about your mom man, even if it wasn't recent

 

Likely agree with Duke, but I know UNC/UVA are connected at the hip, so you're spot on there.   They hate Duke in basketball, but the connection is the elder state schools.  Whatever happens they'll stay together.   Notice that UNC and UVA are not the entities concerned about ACC payments.   

Side note, I was in Elliot's offices this morning and literally everyone I talked to at some point said, "We're not going to win any national championships around here any time soon, but we're going to do things the right way."  Like it was on a press release.   The wording was nearly always identical.  Totally different mindset than most SEC schools.

Thanks for your thoughts my friend.  My mom had a great run.  She was physically and mentally doing very well into her late '80s.  Things started slipping the last few years, but it was only at the very end (when she was 91) that things really deteriorated sharply.  She was truly blessed, and it was an incredible blessing for us that we were able to be there for her those last few years.  Got to be there for the people that were there for you.

I think we see the UNC/UVA situation the same way.  My take: they'll hang on in the ACC as long as possible, as they enjoy running things, and neither is seriously pursuing a National Title in football.  As long as they can tell themselves that the ACC is a peer conference to the BIG and SEC (despite the financials) they will stay.  Once the GOR gets closer to the end and it becomes clear that FSU and Clemson are going to leave, UNC/UVA will leave also, as they're not going to want to be the kings of a second-rate conference.

I've always thought they'll go BIG (no matter what their fans want) because of the mindset you described above.  That's UVA 100%.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:18 PM, Sandbagging Steve said:

NYC has 8.5 million people

NYC  is not a huge college football town per capita

But NYC is a college football town when looking at raw numbers compared to other cities and even states

The vast majority of NYC fans come from the B1G, especially tOSU, Michigan, and Penn State.

 

 

You make great points about the CFB demographics in NYC- absolutely dominated by the BIG, which is exactly the opposite of the situation in DFW, where the BIG is probably a distant 3rd behind the B12 and SEC.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/21/2023 at 1:39 PM, Hurtlocker said:

No, not the entire state.   They're in Texas already, and the DFW DMA would bump, but the entire state of Texas is a bit harder to read.    There is literally nothing else in New York.   Once you have NYC, everything else is like croutons on a salad.   Gaining San Antonio, Austin and Houston would be a serious negotiation with providers in that area.  Similarly, USC doesn't get them max local rates in all of Cali either.  

This is the same math with the ACC teams.   FSU doesn't get you the entire state of Florida at local rates any more than Syracuse gets you all of New York.   If it did the ACC network would be swimming in cash.   It gets you Tallahassee and any metro close.   For instance, WVU is in the Pittsburgh DMA. Penn State gets Pittsburgh and Philly.   They're big enough brands with big fan bases in those metros that are relatively close - e.g. the group that may actually drive to a game, so they have big local rates that stretch further than you'd imagine.   Georgia Tech would technically get you Atlanta and Miami - er, Miami, but FSU doesn't get you BTN's highest rates in all of Florida like Ohio State does for Ohio or Penn State for Pennsylvania.  

The more people want it, the more you can charge.   This is part of the negotiation process.   The BTN may want the highest rate in every local market, but they do kind of need to do some work for that too.   Rutgers doesn't just get big rates in NYC because they're Rutgers, they get it because there is a metric fuck ton of Big Ten grads in the NYC/Philly/DC metroplex.    Are there a ton of Big Ten alumni in Tampa....Orlando...Houston?   If the answer is no the bump is much harder to come by.

Think of it this way.  When you're in the market you plant a flag that provides a bigger bonus.   The more eyeballs you can pull out of that market, the more you can charge.

Great stuff brother.  Thanks for all the details.  

NY state vs TX breakdown, BIG demographics in NY, etc all makes a ton of sense.

I had always thought there were clauses in these contracts that guaranteed in-market rates in the local DMA, and getting the rest of a state was a series of negotiations.  As you said "The more people want it, the more you can charge."

But when I saw the BIG was in-market throughout NY state, I started wondering if those contracts were by state instead of DMA.  

Your "croutons on a salads" analogy for NY is perfect.

[thunderlounge 7759]

1 hour ago, Richard Kimball said:

Here’s what’s between the lines on that one:

 

“Nobody’s asked us”, is true. They haven’t been asked. That doesn’t mean they don’t know they have a place.

The “committed to the PAC” part almost has a vote of confidence feel, yeah?

Hmmmm. Interesting to watch the dance and careful wording when such things get asked.

 

For the B1G (or SEC for that matter) what schools left can actually pay for themselves at the rate of their new deal, aside from ND?

Seems like a big waste of money/time for schools that won’t increase or even simply meet that financial.

However, those teams would (mostly) be able to increase or maintain the contracts of the B12 or ACC.

Why overpay when you can give a more reasonable increase in the other two? 

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/21/2023 at 5:36 PM, TKthunder2 said:

NYC is nearly 9 million people, NJ itself is #11 in population with over 9 million people, the CSA of NYC/NJ is over 23 million.

The State of Maryland is 7 million and DC/Baltimore metro which includes areas of Northern Virginia is 10 million

Penn State already had a claim on Philadelphia and their metro of 7 million but it was fairly weak but now with Rutgers/Maryland the Big Ten can basically claim (and will have metrics to prove) the entire area from DC to NYC as their footprint and will be able to charge additional carriage rates for their network.

That will not happen with TCU. There is too much competition in Texas and SEC/Big12 will control the vast majority of the market share. With just TCU, I’m not even sure they could get in market rates in Dallas likely just Fort Worth.

The top markets left to the Big Ten are San Francisco, New England/Boston, Atlanta, Miami (& Orlando indirectly), Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, Portland, Charlotte, Salt Lake, Kansas City. so PAC or ACC or Kansas.

Thanks for the detailed response.  Greatly appreciated.

I always thought Delaney was brilliant to add RU and MD for the "We've got everything from NY to DC" pitch, but was only thinking of each team/ DMA individually.  I hadn't thought about the indirect effect on a place like Philly of adding MD and Rutgers, or the PSU fans in DC, but it makes perfect sense.  They all work together to make the BIG's claims in each area stronger.

And as you, Steve and Hurt all point out, that's the opposite situation for the BIG in DFW.  Too far down the pecking order.

Agree with your list of potential future BIG markets.  

 

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

TV deals do require a GoR, that is literally the entire reason they exist.   Even back before we all knew about them, GoRs existed in The Big 12 and B1G and SEC and every other sports rights package.   They were just one year deals that would be resigned yearly as part of the media contract.   The reason being, if you're a broadcaster, you can't have Ohio State selling their rights twice or backing out of a game you're putting money into producing.

The longer the GoR you sign, the less risk it is for the broadcaster, the less risk the higher money you'll make for whatever it is you're selling.

In the Pac's situation, as of July 1st, assuming you need a one year notice, the best a team can do to get out would be the year after (or pay more money than most of these schools seem to have).   Now you're in a one year media deal you just said you don't want to be a part of, where they require you to sign a GoR for likely longer than you want to stay.   Can you deal with it, sure, but it becomes unnecessarily complicated.

Either they move before the one year window or they sit out of realignment until a year before the next contract.

I remember reading that USC and UCLA pushed up the BIG's timetable because they needed to give two years' notice that they were leaving the PAC to avoid any exit penalties.  And there are no GOR issues because they're leaving after the GOR expires.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 5-9 weeks.  My gut is that CU, UA and ASU go B12, and then the fireworks begin.

50/50 on whether the PNW would follow, or if they'd rather backfill with G5s and have an easier path to the playoffs.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

7 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Thanks for the detailed response.  Greatly appreciated.

I always thought Delaney was brilliant to add RU and MD for the "We've got everything from NY to DC" pitch, but was only thinking of each team/ DMA individually.  I hadn't thought about the indirect effect on a place like Philly of adding MD and Rutgers, or the PSU fans in DC, but it makes perfect sense.  They all work together to make the BIG's claims in each area stronger.

And as you, Steve and Hurt all point out, that's the opposite situation for the BIG in DFW.  Too far down the pecking order.

Agree with your list of potential future BIG markets.  

 

It kind of works that way on the west coast too.  There are actually a lot of B1G alum in LA, along with a massive amount of USC/UCLA.   The Rose Bowl connection to the Big Ten is real for a reason.

Is that true in the NW?   I'm not sure.   While I'm not sure its viable, I think it makes more sense for them to add UVA/UNC/Tech with ND to go to 20, than Stanford/Oregon/Washington.  

But then again, I also thought it made more sense to pair UCLA/USC with Texas/Oklahoma than what shook out, so what do I know.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

2 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I remember reading that USC and UCLA pushed up the BIG's timetable because they needed to give two years' notice that they were leaving the PAC to avoid any exit penalties.  And there are no GOR issues because they're leaving after the GOR expires.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 5-9 weeks.  My gut is that CU, UA and ASU go B12, and then the fireworks begin.

50/50 on whether the PNW would follow, or if they'd rather backfill with G5s and have an easier path to the playoffs.

I think Oregon and Washington are in the worst possible position.   They believe they deserve to be paid like USC, because "they're not Arizona nor Colorado" and to a degree that makes sense with Oregon being the top draw in the remaining Pac.   But the top draw in the remaining Pac isn't even in the same conversation as the top draw in the Big/SEC.   They're a rung below with FSU/Miami.   Bigger than the ACC/B12, by about $10m, but still $20m behind the SEC/B1G.   

So do you become the big dogs of the B12, likely paying everyone $5m more than they make now, knowing they'll lock you up for a long time, killing the dream.   Or do you make it work with less, counting on the expanded playoffs to up your profile to hope for something bigger in 6 years?

That's not a very fun position to reside.

[Laxtonto 11934]

2 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I remember reading that USC and UCLA pushed up the BIG's timetable because they needed to give two years' notice that they were leaving the PAC to avoid any exit penalties.  And there are no GOR issues because they're leaving after the GOR expires.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 5-9 weeks.  My gut is that CU, UA and ASU go B12, and then the fireworks begin.

50/50 on whether the PNW would follow, or if they'd rather backfill with G5s and have an easier path to the playoffs.

I wonder how much leverage th departing schools have vs the situation with USC/UCLA…

At the time , the Pac12 was stable and the exit therefore needed to be by the book. Now you are sitting there with the argument of “we are leaving as a 4some. Play ball and we will vote to allow teams to reach 14 then minus 4 on the way out and the Pac12 survives as an entity. If not, we leave and you are stuck with a 6 pack and the image/concern of does the conference lives or does it get poached more by the G5?”

Is that enough leverage to see a waiver of the rights window? Being able to expand first before a truthful public announcement saves some face for the leftover schools and probably makes their new deal, and so their payout, a little better. Is that offset by penalty language?

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 minute ago, Laxtonto said:

I wonder how much leverage th departing schools have vs the situation with USC/UCLA…

At the time , the Pac12 was stable and the exit therefore needed to be by the book. Now you are sitting there with the argument of “we are leaving as a 4some. Play ball and we will vote to allow teams to reach 14 then minus 4 on the way out and the Pac12 survives as an entity. If not, we leave and you are stuck with a 6 pack and the image/concern of does the conference lives or does it get poached more by the G5?”

Is that enough leverage to see a waiver of the rights window? Being able to expand first before a truthful public announcement saves some face for the leftover schools and probably makes their new deal, and so their payout, a little better. Is that offset by penalty language?

I don't think so to be honest.   The only reason the B12 did it is it saved Texas and Oklahoma buyout money and they were under contract.   The B12 has a much harder buyout than the P12 has because they've been through turmoil and built new bylaws to combat it (side note, the ACC copied it when they stabilized).   The Pac is still more like the old B12, where Nebraska/A&M and company basically left for free.

If four schools don't want to stick around, they won't be valued in the entire contract.   The Pac will require they sign a GoR to get any of the money and I'd be shocked if the GoR didn't run longer than the next contract just to keep everyone together.

The Pac is coming at this from a different angle, they need long term stability and it will be codified some how in the new deal.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

I don't think so to be honest.   The only reason the B12 did it is it saved Texas and Oklahoma buyout money and they were under contract.   The B12 has a much harder buyout than the P12 has because they've been through turmoil and built new bylaws to combat it (side note, the ACC copied it when they stabilized).   The Pac is still more like the old B12, where Nebraska/A&M and company basically left for free.

If four schools don't want to stick around, they won't be valued in the entire contract.   The Pac will require they sign a GoR to get any of the money and I'd be shocked if the GoR didn't run longer than the next contract just to keep everyone together.

The Pac is coming at this from a different angle, they need long term stability and it will be codified some how in the new deal.

The reason they can get out for free next year is because the Grant of Rights ends after August 1st of next year. At that point they do not have to pay anything to anyone in order to move. They are not tied to any conference after that unless they sign a new grant of rights.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

Just now, Jabberwocky said:

The reason they can get out for free next year is because the Grant of Rights ends after August 1st of next year. At that point they do not have to pay anything to anyone in order to move. They are not tied to any conference after that unless they sign a new grant of rights.

Right, its a window that exists until the next one.   There is no world where whatever the Pac puts together doesn't include a GoR for at least the amount of time of the deal.  So, they have to slip out before its signed.  

I don't know the buyout amount, which is separate from the GoR.   UCLA/USC moved to get onto the Big Ten's timing, not sure if they got at that time due to a two year notice, like Texas/Oklahoma did, or because they had to have announced it to sign the B1G's deal to start next year.      If its a one year buyout or two year buyout, they'll need to announce before July.   The only difference is do they just not get paid for next year or do they need to come up with more to give the Pac for that second year or is it too expensive and they can't afford to move.

No matter what the Pac does, its going to involve losing money, they have $50m to make up to Comcast too to the tune of $4+m/team.

[USC Traveler 488]

8 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

It kind of works that way on the west coast too.  There are actually a lot of B1G alum in LA, along with a massive amount of USC/UCLA.   The Rose Bowl connection to the Big Ten is real for a reason.

Is that true in the NW?   I'm not sure.   While I'm not sure its viable, I think it makes more sense for them to add UVA/UNC/Tech with ND to go to 20, than Stanford/Oregon/Washington.  

But then again, I also thought it made more sense to pair UCLA/USC with Texas/Oklahoma than what shook out, so what do I know.

Yeah- Gene Smith has mentioned a few times how important the BIG alums in LA were as a secondary motivation to expand there.

There are four DMAs where more than 1% of the grads from every BIG school reside:  NY, LA, DC and...... the Bay Area.

Wall St, Hollywood, DC and Silicon Valley.  That's one of the reasons I think Stanford will be the choice to come in with ND eventually.

//

The best of the rest:

Chicago- has the highest total number of BIG grads, but less than 1% from MD and RU, so only 12 out of 14 schools.

Boston and Denver- 10 out of 14

ATL-9

DFW and Seattle- 8

PHX- 6 

No one else above 3 except Houston, which has 4 of 14 schools represented.

PDX- not listed

Agree that outside of ND, BIG will pursue ACC schools before doing anything else.

If ASU had strong academics, they'd be a slamdunk eventually, given the location.

 

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

56 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

Here’s what’s between the lines on that one:

 

“Nobody’s asked us”, is true. They haven’t been asked. That doesn’t mean they don’t know they have a place.

The “committed to the PAC” part almost has a vote of confidence feel, yeah?

Hmmmm. Interesting to watch the dance and careful wording when such things get asked.

You left out, in my opinion, the most interesting thing he said:  "...I shouldn't even say that."

That's the part I'm scratching my head on.  "Nobody's asked us...I shouldn't even say that."  Why shouldn't you?  Did he catch himself providing too much info?  It's just an odd thing to say in this context.

[Vertigo 20267]

29 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think Oregon and Washington are in the worst possible position.   They believe they deserve to be paid like USC, because "they're not Arizona nor Colorado" and to a degree that makes sense with Oregon being the top draw in the remaining Pac.   But the top draw in the remaining Pac isn't even in the same conversation as the top draw in the Big/SEC.   They're a rung below with FSU/Miami.   Bigger than the ACC/B12, by about $10m, but still $20m behind the SEC/B1G.   

So do you become the big dogs of the B12, likely paying everyone $5m more than they make now, knowing they'll lock you up for a long time, killing the dream.   Or do you make it work with less, counting on the expanded playoffs to up your profile to hope for something bigger in 6 years?

That's not a very fun position to reside.

If I am Oregon and Washington, you almost have to take the bet on yourself and go to the B1G in hopes for full membership in 6 years. One or both of those schools will be a playoff team in the expanded playoff during that time period at least once and probably multiple times, so you would essentially pay your own way by adding playoff revenue. Plus Nike is going to make sure Oregon stays at the top of NIL, and could even give member schools some incentives. 

[Laxtonto 11934]

10 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

If I am Oregon and Washington, you almost have to take the bet on yourself and go to the B1G in hopes for full membership in 6 years. One or both of those schools will be a playoff team in the expanded playoff during that time period at least once and probably multiple times, so you would essentially pay your own way by adding playoff revenue. Plus Nike is going to make sure Oregon stays at the top of NIL, and could even give member schools some incentives. 

I used to think that the Nike NIL machine would be a huge plus for Oregon in this setting, but it might be more of a detriment than people think.

 

If I am an AD or president, do I willingly give the 800 lbs gorilla a lifeline into a conference so that now they have the huge NIL warchest plus being paid like the rest of the big boys in CFB? Unless they provide a huge bump in payout to everyone else, worst case the mid-level schools are going to be gun shy about helping Oregon out, much less the rest of the conference.  Why help them when you can just let them stay at a salary level less than yours and hope that balances things out.

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think Oregon and Washington are in the worst possible position.   They believe they deserve to be paid like USC, because "they're not Arizona nor Colorado" and to a degree that makes sense with Oregon being the top draw in the remaining Pac.   But the top draw in the remaining Pac isn't even in the same conversation as the top draw in the Big/SEC.   They're a rung below with FSU/Miami.   Bigger than the ACC/B12, by about $10m, but still $20m behind the SEC/B1G.   

So do you become the big dogs of the B12, likely paying everyone $5m more than they make now, knowing they'll lock you up for a long time, killing the dream.   Or do you make it work with less, counting on the expanded playoffs to up your profile to hope for something bigger in 6 years?

That's not a very fun position to reside.

Agree with you on all of this.

There are rumblings on the 247 AZ board that if 3 of the 4C go B12, UW is a much stronger possibility to go B12 than UO is.  

Probably wishful thinking by UA fans.

Uncle Phil will probably bankroll UO to offset the money difference for a while, as they want the easiest possible playoff path.

If they stay put, I can't see UW leaving the other 3 PNW schools and the Bay Area schools.

They'll add SDSU and stay at 8, or maybe also add SMU and Tulane.  

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Laxtonto said:

I wonder how much leverage th departing schools have vs the situation with USC/UCLA…

At the time , the Pac12 was stable and the exit therefore needed to be by the book. Now you are sitting there with the argument of “we are leaving as a 4some. Play ball and we will vote to allow teams to reach 14 then minus 4 on the way out and the Pac12 survives as an entity. If not, we leave and you are stuck with a 6 pack and the image/concern of does the conference lives or does it get poached more by the G5?”

Is that enough leverage to see a waiver of the rights window? Being able to expand first before a truthful public announcement saves some face for the leftover schools and probably makes their new deal, and so their payout, a little better. Is that offset by penalty language?

I've been thinking about this also.

With everything so chaotic and the PAC in such a bad place, it feels like there are a number of ways this could play out.

[USC Traveler 488]

56 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

You left out, in my opinion, the most interesting thing he said:  "...I shouldn't even say that."

That's the part I'm scratching my head on.  "Nobody's asked us...I shouldn't even say that."  Why shouldn't you?  Did he catch himself providing too much info?  It's just an odd thing to say in this context.

That caught my eye as well.

These admin types fumble fairly frequently when trying to talk about sports, but that seemed unusually awkward.

Maybe he's afraid to open the subject up for discussion at all because he knows full well that they've been talking to intermediaries.

Was the "We're going to get a bigger deal than the B12" setting the stage to give themselves an excuse to leave ?

He definitely gave them an out as far as not leaving "before they see the new deal".

Edited April 24, 2023 by USC Traveler
clarity

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

If I am Oregon and Washington, you almost have to take the bet on yourself and go to the B1G in hopes for full membership in 6 years. One or both of those schools will be a playoff team in the expanded playoff during that time period at least once and probably multiple times, so you would essentially pay your own way by adding playoff revenue. Plus Nike is going to make sure Oregon stays at the top of NIL, and could even give member schools some incentives. 

I think if either one had an invite, they would have joined already, no matter what the share was, just to get in the door.

There doesn't seem to be support in the BIG for adding them- even at a reduced share, as they eventually become full shares.

And those playoff appearances would come at the expense of existing BIG teams.

Getting pushed down a peg in the BIG pecking order by adding USC is worth it for the mid-tier and lower tier BIG schools because of the increased tv money, recruiting exposure and alum engagement in SoCal.  UO brings none of those positives, only the negative.

Edited April 24, 2023 by USC Traveler

[Laxtonto 11934]

26 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I think if either one had an invite, they would have joined already, no matter what the share was, just to get in the door.

There doesn't seem to be support in the BIG for adding them- even at a reduced share, as they eventually become full shares.

And those playoff appearances would come at the expense of existing BIG teams.

Getting pushed down a peg in the BIG pecking order by adding USC is worth it for the mid-tier and lower tier BIG schools because of the increased tv money, recruiting exposure and alum engagement in SoCal.  UO brings none of those positives, only the negative.

Oregon and UW seem to be in such and advantageous position when you look at it from the surface level, but once you start digging it becomes so convoluted that it is even possible to talk yourself to a point that they only really make since along with ACC escapees.

They have great value of the B12, but as a standalone limited value for the B10.

It’s like everyone is waiting on ND and UW and Oregon are having a hard time swallowing that they are several spots back in line. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

Agree with you on all of this.

There are rumblings on the 247 AZ board that if 3 of the 4C go B12, UW is a much stronger possibility to go B12 than UO is.  

Probably wishful thinking by UA fans.

Uncle Phil will probably bankroll UO to offset the money difference for a while, as they want the easiest possible playoff path.

If they stay put, I can't see UW leaving the other 3 PNW schools and the Bay Area schools.

They'll add SDSU and stay at 8, or maybe also add SMU and Tulane.  

Not sure how much wishful thinking it is, it doesn't seem far off.   If you look at the top 20 non USC/UCLA games two thirds involve Oregon, only a handful involve Washington.   They have the "great school" cache, but there is zero national buzz around the Huskies.  If the Big Ten takes three, would they pick the Huskies or Colorado, or would they fuck them both and take Stanford, Utah and Colorado to make a stepping stone to Cali, since both are also AAU?    I'm with @Vertigo on "betting on yourself" but Missouri will tell you there is no guarantees Uncle B1G will rescue you.

Both OU and Washington would be advantaged by playing a more national schedule, no matter how difficult the travel is.   So you're stuck with:

1. Play in a depleted PAC and put all your eggs on the 12 team playoff or
2. Join the B12 for a more national schedule and more exposure, but the B12 will likely lock everyone up for 20+ years to kill wandering eyes.

At some point it may become a knife fight for who goes down with the ship and who gets off and it may not be who we assume.

[Vertigo 20267]

56 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I think if either one had an invite, they would have joined already, no matter what the share was, just to get in the door.

There doesn't seem to be support in the BIG for adding them- even at a reduced share, as they eventually become full shares.

And those playoff appearances would come at the expense of existing BIG teams.

Getting pushed down a peg in the BIG pecking order by adding USC is worth it for the mid-tier and lower tier BIG schools because of the increased tv money, recruiting exposure and alum engagement in SoCal.  UO brings none of those positives, only the negative.

Remember that Warren bolted for the NFL as soon as the TV deal was done, so the new commissioner coming aboard is just getting started. I think that could have been a big reason for the lack of activity on the UO/UW front. To your point, there is really no hurry to add them, however them being a playoff team would NOT be at the expense of another B1G member. It is simply the 6 highest ranked non-conference champions that would make up the at large bids. So technically, you could have 7 B1G teams in the playoffs at any one time if a comet hit the SEC. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

7 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not sure how much wishful thinking it is, it doesn't seem far off.   If you look at the top 20 non USC/UCLA games two thirds involve Oregon, only a handful involve Washington.   They have the "great school" cache, but there is zero national buzz around the Huskies.  If the Big Ten takes three, would they pick the Huskies or Colorado, or would they fuck them both and take Stanford, Utah and Colorado to make a stepping stone to Cali, since both are also AAU?    I'm with @Vertigo on "betting on yourself" but Missouri will tell you there is no guarantees Uncle B1G will rescue you.

Both OU and Washington would be advantaged by playing a more national schedule, no matter how difficult the travel is.   So you're stuck with:

1. Play in a depleted PAC and put all your eggs on the 12 team playoff or
2. Join the B12 for a more national schedule and more exposure, but the B12 will likely lock everyone up for 20+ years to kill wandering eyes.

At some point it may become a knife fight for who goes down with the ship and who gets off and it may not be who we assume.

No one is doing a 20+ contract of any kind after seeing the situation that the ACC is in.  If OUW joins the Big 12, is for whatever this recent contract is signed for (5-6 years I think?)

But to your point, I think OUW would view 5-6 years as an eternity, so it might as well be 20+.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

3 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

No one is doing a 20+ contract of any kind after seeing the situation that the ACC is in.  If OUW joins the Big 12, is for whatever this recent contract is signed for (5-6 years I think?)

But to your point, I think OUW would view 5-6 years as an eternity, so it might as well be 20+.

Not a 20 year contract, a 20 year Grant of rights.    The premise being, its not a short term stop.   If you come here you're committing to build this up and we have four media contracts to do so.   The Bylaws already state membership is for 99 years, which gives the buyout some teeth.

The B12 isn't the B1G/SEC, clearly, but they're the conference right now generating the most buzz outside that group.   They don't need to cater to a single brand or two and likely will ensure if anyone joins that that group is committed to each other for a while and, if you're not, stick in the Pac and wait.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[bullet 1596]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I don't think so to be honest.   The only reason the B12 did it is it saved Texas and Oklahoma buyout money and they were under contract.   The B12 has a much harder buyout than the P12 has because they've been through turmoil and built new bylaws to combat it (side note, the ACC copied it when they stabilized).   The Pac is still more like the old B12, where Nebraska/A&M and company basically left for free.

If four schools don't want to stick around, they won't be valued in the entire contract.   The Pac will require they sign a GoR to get any of the money and I'd be shocked if the GoR didn't run longer than the next contract just to keep everyone together.

The Pac is coming at this from a different angle, they need long term stability and it will be codified some how in the new deal.

Well Nebraska, A&M and CU all paid about 50% of distributions instead of the 1 year in the contract.  Its just that distributions were about $20 million then, not $40 million and the exit fee is 2 years now.

[bullet 1596]

4 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

I think if either one had an invite, they would have joined already, no matter what the share was, just to get in the door.

There doesn't seem to be support in the BIG for adding them- even at a reduced share, as they eventually become full shares.

And those playoff appearances would come at the expense of existing BIG teams.

Getting pushed down a peg in the BIG pecking order by adding USC is worth it for the mid-tier and lower tier BIG schools because of the increased tv money, recruiting exposure and alum engagement in SoCal.  UO brings none of those positives, only the negative.

Those playoff appearances probably add to the Big 10 and take away from the M3.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

Well Nebraska, A&M and CU all paid about 50% of distributions instead of the 1 year in the contract.  Its just that distributions were about $20 million then, not $40 million and the exit fee is 2 years now.

right, my point was those schools leaving caused the B12 to increase the pain for leaving.   The ACC followed suit.   I don't believe the Pac did.

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not sure how much wishful thinking it is, it doesn't seem far off.   If you look at the top 20 non USC/UCLA games two thirds involve Oregon, only a handful involve Washington.   They have the "great school" cache, but there is zero national buzz around the Huskies.  If the Big Ten takes three, would they pick the Huskies or Colorado, or would they fuck them both and take Stanford, Utah and Colorado to make a stepping stone to Cali, since both are also AAU?    I'm with @Vertigo on "betting on yourself" but Missouri will tell you there is no guarantees Uncle B1G will rescue you.

Both OU and Washington would be advantaged by playing a more national schedule, no matter how difficult the travel is.   So you're stuck with:

1. Play in a depleted PAC and put all your eggs on the 12 team playoff or
2. Join the B12 for a more national schedule and more exposure, but the B12 will likely lock everyone up for 20+ years to kill wandering eyes.

At some point it may become a knife fight for who goes down with the ship and who gets off and it may not be who we assume.

You and I are thinking alike here- if you or I was running one of the PNW schools, we'd absolutely go B12, for the reasons you detailed.

I have my doubts that the people who are actually running those schools think like we do, though.

I hope they do go B12.  It would make the B12 that much more fun.

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Remember that Warren bolted for the NFL as soon as the TV deal was done, so the new commissioner coming aboard is just getting started. I think that could have been a big reason for the lack of activity on the UO/UW front. To your point, there is really no hurry to add them, however them being a playoff team would NOT be at the expense of another B1G member. It is simply the 6 highest ranked non-conference champions that would make up the at large bids. So technically, you could have 7 B1G teams in the playoffs at any one time if a comet hit the SEC. 

But it's been widely reported by Thamel, Auerbach, etc that Warren wanted to add the PNW schools, but that there was no support for it amongst the member schools in the BIG.  If Warren was blocking expansion, I could see it, but it's the other way around.  That was one of the reasons he left.

 

I guess it's theoretically possible to gain an extra CFB Playoff slot without cannibalizing one of your other slots, but the wins a PNW team would need to make the playoff as a BIG member would have to come from somewhere, and they wouldn't only be playing Rutgers, Purdue and MD.  At some point, the math kicks in and you get more top teams taking losses because they can't avoid each other beyond a certain point.

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

Those playoff appearances probably add to the Big 10 and take away from the M3.

But they're building a playoff-worthy record by beating other BIG teams.  

I guess they could go 9-3 with losses to OSU, UM and USC and get in, but that would be threading the needle pretty well I think.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

But it's been widely reported by Thamel, Auerbach, etc that Warren wanted to add the PNW schools, but that there was no support for it amongst the member schools in the BIG.  If Warren was blocking expansion, I could see it, but it's the other way around.  That was one of the reasons he left.

 

I guess it's theoretically possible to gain an extra CFB Playoff slot without cannibalizing one of your other slots, but the wins a PNW team would need to make the playoff as a BIG member would have to come from somewhere, and they wouldn't only be playing Rutgers, Purdue and MD.  At some point, the math kicks in and you get more top teams taking losses because they can't avoid each other beyond a certain point.

Reminds me when the Pac 10 wanted to make the Pac 16 by raiding the Big 12 and take their BCS qualifier, which was a thing at the time.   Then the Pac would have two post season ins instead of one, and double the money.   Then everyone told them that wasn't a thing and, without that additional guarantee, things started falling apart.  

Even if the Pac dies, they're going to give out 6 auto bids.   It would just mean the AAC and Sunbelt start getting teams in more.   Worst case, they drop it to 5, but bringing those teams to the B1G won't increase how many they get in too much, just who gets in.  Usually 2, at most 4. 

I don't see where a lot of 3 loss teams are making this.  Rarity perhaps.   But we're only talking 6 total spaces, even if 4 of the top ten come from champs, the rest of the top ten is going to fill in the remainder.   There are usually at least one from each conference who finished second with 2 losses or less and 3 loss teams are generally out of the top ten.   Generally.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

But it's been widely reported by Thamel, Auerbach, etc that Warren wanted to add the PNW schools, but that there was no support for it amongst the member schools in the BIG.  If Warren was blocking expansion, I could see it, but it's the other way around.  That was one of the reasons he left.

 

I guess it's theoretically possible to gain an extra CFB Playoff slot without cannibalizing one of your other slots, but the wins a PNW team would need to make the playoff as a BIG member would have to come from somewhere, and they wouldn't only be playing Rutgers, Purdue and MD.  At some point, the math kicks in and you get more top teams taking losses because they can't avoid each other beyond a certain point.

I think the point was that there wasn't sufficient support at that point in time, not that there was no support.  McMurphy has consistently said the Big 10 wants Washington and Oregon and that they are likely to be in by 2031 is not before.  Possibly in two yeas.  Possibly sooner.  Some B10 presidents want to digest their latest additions first.

[bullet 1596]

19 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Reminds me when the Pac 10 wanted to make the Pac 16 by raiding the Big 12 and take their BCS qualifier, which was a thing at the time.   Then the Pac would have two post season ins instead of one, and double the money.   Then everyone told them that wasn't a thing and, without that additional guarantee, things started falling apart.  

Even if the Pac dies, they're going to give out 6 auto bids.   It would just mean the AAC and Sunbelt start getting teams in more.   Worst case, they drop it to 5, but bringing those teams to the B1G won't increase how many they get in too much, just who gets in.  Usually 2, at most 4. 

I don't see where a lot of 3 loss teams are making this.  Rarity perhaps.   But we're only talking 6 total spaces, even if 4 of the top ten come from champs, the rest of the top ten is going to fill in the remainder.   There are usually at least one from each conference who finished second with 2 losses or less and 3 loss teams are generally out of the top ten.   Generally.

When you look at the BCS era in a 6-6 model (of course with past membership, not current), the M3 averages over 2 wildcards a year.  Those could come from the P2 instead if they added the right schools.  And the first wildcard out fell almost evenly between the 5 power conferences.  Washington would have made it twice as a wildcard and been the first one out twice.  They also would have made it 3 times as a champ.  Oregon would have made it 3 times as a wildcard and 6 times as a champ.

I counted 21 times where a 3 loss team was the wildcard, occasionally 3 wildcards had 3 losses.  There were, of course, a number of 3 loss champs.  And with the supercharged SEC and Big 10, they may more often get the benefit of a doubt with a 3 loss team.  But there were 21 3 loss wildcards in the 25 years, averaging about 1 per year.  (this was based on the BCS or CFP rankings in those years).

[bullet 1596]

I mention the "first one out" because that is often a very close call, so it is someone who might have made it.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

16 minutes ago, bullet said:

When you look at the BCS era in a 6-6 model (of course with past membership, not current), the M3 averages over 2 wildcards a year.  Those could come from the P2 instead if they added the right schools.  And the first wildcard out fell almost evenly between the 5 power conferences.  Washington would have made it twice as a wildcard and been the first one out twice.  They also would have made it 3 times as a champ.  Oregon would have made it 3 times as a wildcard and 6 times as a champ.

I counted 21 times where a 3 loss team was the wildcard, occasionally 3 wildcards had 3 losses.  There were, of course, a number of 3 loss champs.  And with the supercharged SEC and Big 10, they may more often get the benefit of a doubt with a 3 loss team.  But there were 21 3 loss wildcards in the 25 years, averaging about 1 per year.  (this was based on the BCS or CFP rankings in those years).

I do love you going back, but I'd still call a 7% chance of grabbing a wild card as a 3 loss team a rarity.  That also basically means that 2 loss or less teams have a 93% chance of making it.   So, it will happen, but, per your point, we shouldn't expect a lot of them.

[TKthunder2 4981]

22 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I do love you going back, but I'd still call a 7% chance of grabbing a wild card as a 3 loss team a rarity.  That also basically means that 2 loss or less teams have a 93% chance of making it.   So, it will happen, but, per your point, we shouldn't expect a lot of them.

You’re comparing teams in polls that are happening before the SEC/B1G expand to 16.

Do you really think a three loss Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee will be left out of the 12 team playoff for a two loss Pitt or Baylor?

If one of those two teams lost to a blueblood like ND out of conference and went undefeated in conference play but lost the CCG…then sure, but short of that specific scenario I’d take a 3 loss SEC team over a 2 loss ACC/B12/PAC team.

With 12 teams we really need to pay attention to SOS and Quality of Opponents for those at large spots. Conferences are not created equal, especially after this next round of realignment,

The old way of thinking where sports writers would slot their polls in order of purely wins and losses for P5 teams with very little deviation should no longer be the norm.

Assuming neither are champions in 2024, a three loss LSU should absolutely outrank a two loss TCU.

[Hagbard Celine 10771]

10 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Uncle Phil will probably bankroll UO to offset the money difference for a while, as they want the easiest possible playoff path.

t.boone lived to 91

phil is 85

knight had 2 sons, matthew died in a scuba accident, travis went to... portland state

... spins the wheel ....

checks notes......  oSu got left behind

it's now or never for the daffys

[Hagbard Celine 10771]

6 hours ago, bullet said:

Well Nebraska, A&M and CU all paid about 50% of distributions instead of the 1 year in the contract.  Its just that distributions were about $20 million then, not $40 million and the exit fee is 2 years now.

just as good a time as any to remind newbs and drive-bys that when the Orphan 5 offered their share of corn and ralph exit fees to "try to make the math work", texas said no, you keep that cash, and aggy said "GIVE US OUR FUCKING MONEY"....

chip brown is not popular around here, but it's appropriate to dial up the wayback machine for a reminder of what could should have been....

Quote

https://texas.rivals.com/news/one-year-later-the-big-12-missile-crisis-revisited/printable

110603

Chip Brown

Orangebloods.com

Spoiler

One of the most surreal moments of the Big 12 Missile Crisis one year ago was a top administrator at a Big 12 school sending me an e-mail that read: "Is this really happening?"

And it was an administrator from one of the six schools about to be invited to the Pac-10. An administrator who probably should have been able to make a call to someone in their own offices instead of sending an e-mail to myself to confirm such news.

But so began the zany nature of things on June 3, 2010, the day Orangebloods.com sent shockwaves through college athletics by breaking the story that the Pac-10 and commissioner Larry Scott intended to invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado to go west.

The Pac-10 meetings in San Francisco were coming up that weekend (June 5-6) and everything was about to go down.

In Kansas City, where the Big 12 athletic directors were meeting June 3-4, all hell was breaking loose after our story got out. Press conferences were canceled. Athletic directors ducked out of hotel lobbies for cover. Commissioner Dan Beebe just kept talking about the strengths of the Big 12 - no matter how much more time it had.

What transpired after June 3 was a drama with more lefts and rights, more high-stakes poker and more pressurized moments than a Jason Bourne story line.

By the end of the 12 days, Orangebloods.com and myself would be called everything from the Iraqi information minister and a mouthpiece for the University of Texas to the reason super conferences didn't take over the BCS in the summer of 2010.

--------

People have asked me repeatedly how Orangebloods.com was able to stay ahead of the Big 12 Missile Crisis seemingly from start to finish. And I've said the same thing over and over again.

We had valuable information not many people had. Others involved in the story with information began calling me. And we began to trade information. I probably started the story with 3 great sources and finished with about a dozen.

The bottom line is I've never been a part of a faster-moving, more complex story with so many ramifications than that one.

It became clear immediately after our story broke that the rest of the BCS would react to the Pac-16 super conference by attempting to form their own. The Big Ten immediately put the full-court press on Notre Dame but was also taking the temperature of schools like Nebraska, Syracuse and Maryland.

The SEC saw this move coming a mile away and was already in the ears of Oklahoma and Texas A&M.

In fact, if you go back and read our very first story on this, I wrote the SEC's courtship of OU and Texas A&M could ultimately complicate the Pac-10's attempt to lure half of the Big 12 out west.

In the end, OU was on board with Texas go to the Pac-10. But Texas A&M had other plans. SEC plans. And those plans would complicate everything, playing a key role in heading off the Pac-16 from happening in the final 48 hours of the Big 12 Missile Crisis.

And to my knowledge, we were the only ones ever to report what the Pac-16 would look like in terms of divisions. That one division would be Arizona and Arizona State with the six schools from the Big 12 and the other division would be USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State.

Initially, there were critics and doubters attacking our story, including some reporters who would ultimately get out of breath from trying to catch up.

But we knew only one thing: that if Larry Scott's plans came to fruition, college athletics would be changed forever.

------

Here are the 12 key turning points in the Big 12 Missile Crisis that caused things to play out the way they did.

1. First and foremost was Big Ten Conference commissioner Jim Delany saying in 2009 his league would be open to expansion.

2. That was followed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, an MU grad, talking to The Associated Press in December of 2009 and all but saying the Tigers should bolt the Big 12. These were his words:

"I'm not going to say anything bad about the Big 12, but when you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at," Nixon told the AP.

"If a significant conference with a long history of academic and athletic excellence talks about you joining them, you shouldn't just say, 'We're from the old Big 8 and I remember when' ... If they want to talk, we should talk, and we should listen."

Sources would tell me these words were like an earthquake sending tremors across the league because every Big 12 administrator now had to worry about realignment in the conference.

As the Big 12 Missile Crisis began to unfold amidst utter uncertainty, a top administrator from a Big 12 school told me, "If there was a vote right now among the Big 12 schools to kick out Missouri, it would be successful."

3. Nebraska sensing the Big Ten was more enamored with Missouri than the Cornhuskers began to lobby the Big Ten with the argument that NU delivered Kansas City TVs better than Missouri did.

Nebraska reminded the Big Ten that Illinois already delivered St. Louis TVs, so there was really no need for Missouri. Besides, NU officials told the Big Ten, Nebraska has better football tradition.

Sold.

Nebraska moved ahead of Missouri on the invite list. But Nebraska's invitation was still predicated on Notre Dame's decision.

As the pressure mounted on the Big Ten to have an expansion answer with the Pac-10 preparing to move boldly, Notre Dame asked the Big Ten to cap its expansion at 12.

The Big Ten blinked and said yes, vowing that if Notre Dame joined the Big Ten, it would be the only school added to what was already the Big 11. But Notre Dame's board of directors was split between old and new blood.

The old blood wanted to keep Notre Dame's independence and felt sure if super conferences started forming, the Irish would have a home. The new blood didn't want Notre Dame to be left behind. After all, Notre Dame football hadn't been what it once was.

In fact, several sources told me the Big Ten started talking expansion again because it felt like Notre Dame might be feeling a little insecure about its future with NBC and might be ready to jump into a conference situation so all its sports would be united in one league.

But we would later learn that Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds was feeling out Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick about possibly joining the Big 12. Notre Dame knew it had options, and stayed put.

4. Still, the Big Ten started the whole expansion discussion in 2009, some would argue, setting off the Pac-10's plans to grow.

And Jim Delany wasn't going to go home without a championship game. So after Notre Dame said no, an invitation was extended to Nebraska, and Missouri was left wondering, "What happened?"

Orangebloods.com reported on June 9 that Nebraska regents had enough votes to go to the Big Ten and that an official announcement would come from Lincoln on Friday, June 11.

On June 9 at 2 p.m. CT, Texas president William Powers gathered the school's coaches and told them, "We did everything we could to save the Big 12 but were unsuccessful."

The UT coaches left that meeting thinking they would soon be conference mates with USC, Stanford and Arizona.

5. On Friday, June 11, after Nebraska made it official that it was going to the Big Ten and Colorado had a press conference with its new commissioner, Larry Scott of the Pac-10, Texas posted that it would have a regents meeting on June 14.

Sources told Orangebloods.com that meeting was to formalize Texas' decision to join the Pac-10.

But there was still much to be played out over that weekend.

6. As the pace of talks between the Pac-10 and six schools from the Big 12 began to heat up, the Texas Legislature was telling the schools inside its borders to slow down.

Powerful Texas lobbyist Buddy Jones, a prominent Baylor graduate who feared his school was headed to limbo, also worked overtime to rally support among lawmakers to tap the brakes on any realignment involving the Big 12.

Texas Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, called for hearings on Wednesday, June 16, as chair of the House Higher Education Committee, and said it would not be wise to act on any conference movement before then.

According to sources, Texas had already planned a press conference in the base of the UT Tower for Tuesday, June 15, announcing the Longhorns' plans to join the Pac-10.

As of Friday, June 11, a collision course had been set.

7. There was an image from the Texas-TCU Super Regional baseball game on Saturday, June 12, that may have told the whole story of the change in direction of college realignment.

ESPN's coverage of the game picked up a shot of Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds, women's athletic director Chris Plonsky and football coach Mack Brown gathered around Texas president William Powers in an outdoor set of box seats.

I was told by multiple sources Powers was driving the bus on Texas joining the Pac-10. Powers is a Cal-Berkeley graduate and loved the idea of Texas rubbing shoulders with academic research institutions like Cal and Stanford.

But I was told Dodds was growing increasingly concerned about the move to the Pac-10 and was the one tapping the brakes. We may have been watching the lobbying of Powers to reconsider Texas' position in that very shot from the baseball game.

8. A month after the Big 12 Missile Crisis, Dodds told Orangebloods.com he had asked Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott if the Pac-10 would pay for Texas' millions of dollars in exit fees from the Big 12.

Scott told Dodds the Pac-10 would "loan" Texas the money.

"We can loan ourselves the money," Dodds responded.

Dodds also said he began to wonder about the $20 million per school the Pac-10 was promising in a 16-team league.

Nonetheless, these issues of concern were expressed to Scott when he made a whirlwind tour of the Big 12 schools being invited to the Pac-10 over that June 12-13 weekend.

Scott and Pac-10 deputy commissioner Kevin Weiberg went to Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Texas.

The visit to Texas A&M was a disaster, in part, because Mike Slive, the SEC commissioner, was in College Station courting the Aggies. A&M basically told Scott and Weiberg thanks but no thanks.

The Pac-10 was set to invite Utah instead of Texas A&M. But that didn't sit well with Dodds, who knew breaking up 100 years of tradition between UT and A&M would go down as one of the biggest stories in the history of college athletics.

Dodds wasn't prepared for that to happen on his watch, especially considering Texas was prepared to announce its intentions to leave the Big 12 on Tuesday, and A&M was patiently waiting to announce its plans based on what Texas was doing.

Texas was set up to be the fall guy. Exactly as Nebraska had said on Friday, June 11, when it made veiled and not-so veiled references to Texas and Missouri for what the NU officials felt was the impending breakup of the Big 12.

9. Dan Beebe never stopped working the back channels.

Beebe couldn't persuade individual members to do anything. Heck, he was their representative. He usually reflected their opinions. Not the other way around.

But what Beebe could control was television negotiations. He could talk to the Big 12 TV partners and see if they wanted to try and hold the league together with financial incentives. And they did.

Beebe was able to secure assurances from the league's TV partners - primarily ABC/ESPN and Fox that the money would be there for the Big 12 if it wanted to proceed as a 10-team league.

Minds started to change on Sunday, June 13.

10. I was doing a television appearance at 10 p.m. Sunday, June 13, when I got a text message from my best source during the Big 12 Missile Crisis saying, "The winds have changed."

I immediately started scrambling back to all my sources to see if the "Beebe Plan" had gotten everyone to reconsider. At 8 a.m. on June 14, I got the confirmation I needed that all 10 remaining schools were back at the table talking about saving the Big 12.

I reported my story at 8:30 a.m. CT. My heart sank at 10 a.m. CT when ESPN's Joe Schad reported the Beebe Plan was dead and the Big 12 was dead. I figured someone from ABC/ESPN had walked down the hall to Schad and told him the deal was dead, and that the Big 12 would indeed die.

So I scrambled back to the phones and got another one of my best sources on the phone who said, "No. You're right on. The train is still on the tracks."

Schad, who is a friend of mine, later came on our radio show (104.9 The Horn, ESPN Radio, espnaustin.com) and said he simply hadn't seen my report before going with his report. Otherwise, he would have doubled back to his sources. Joe was also planning for a wedding. I felt terrible for the guy, who does good work and is tireless.

Nonetheless, that made for more tension in the story.

11. But as of 5 p.m. Monday, June 14, the Big 12 had been revived from cardiac arrest.

Sources were confirming to me from several different schools that Texas and Texas A&M, heated rivals who took that word to new meaning during the Big 12 Missile Crisis, had come back together with assurances that Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma would each receive $20 million in TV revenue starting in 2012-13.

To make that work, the Orphan 5 as they came to be known - Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor - were willing to give up their share of exit fees paid by Colorado and Nebraska to help make the math work.

12. On Tuesday, June 14, instead of a press conference in the base of the UT Tower announcing Texas was going to the Pac-10, Texas held a press conference in Bellmont Hall announcing it was staying in the Big 12.

Dan Beebe had a press conference shortly after saying the Big 12 would be solid going forward.

And earlier this year, Beebe was able to announce a 13-year, $1.17 billion deal with Fox Sports that will, indeed, get Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M to $20 million in TV revenue in 2012-13 without needing the Orphan 5's share of NU and CU's exit fees.

For now, the Big 12 seems stable. The 10 members are continuing to be paid by ABC/ESPN as if it is a 12-team league with a championship game. Why? Because ABC/ESPN did not opt to utilize a clause that would have allowed it to cut $20 million in distribution to the Big 12 ($10 million per school when NU and CU left).

ESPN officials and DeLoss Dodds have said it was an investment by ESPN in protecting its college football inventory and the primary broadcast rights to Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M. Not to mention the rising tide of other schools in the Big 12.

ESPN would later make an out-of-this-world investment in Texas in the form of a 20-year, $300 million bankrolling of the Longhorn Network. Dodds told me a year ago he thought it might bring in $3 million to $5 million per year. Now, that figure is $15 million per year.

Burke Magnus, a senior programming official at ESPN, told Orangebloods.com that the Big 12 Missile Crisis "opened our eyes" to just how valuable Texas is in the landscape of television rights in college athletics. The Longhorn Network rolls out in August.

In the end, the Big 12 Missile Crisis nearly changed the landscape of college athletics forever. Instead, it just gave everyone a glimpse into what the future could be … and still might be … one day.

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 39690]

The theory that Washington would need 3/4 of the four corner schools to the big 12 to make them likely to jump ship as well doesn't track too well with me. I don't think it would take 3/4. I think if 1 or 2 leave for the Big 12 it would cause them to shop themselves more. Because there are no teams out there that could bring up deal value to be on part or near Big 12/ACC.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

You’re comparing teams in polls that are happening before the SEC/B1G expand to 16.

Do you really think a three loss Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee will be left out of the 12 team playoff for a two loss Pitt or Baylor?

If one of those two teams lost to a blueblood like ND out of conference and went undefeated in conference play but lost the CCG…then sure, but short of that specific scenario I’d take a 3 loss SEC team over a 2 loss ACC/B12/PAC team.

With 12 teams we really need to pay attention to SOS and Quality of Opponents for those at large spots. Conferences are not created equal, especially after this next round of realignment,

The old way of thinking where sports writers would slot their polls in order of purely wins and losses for P5 teams with very little deviation should no longer be the norm.

Assuming neither are champions in 2024, a three loss LSU should absolutely outrank a two loss TCU.

In short, yes.

If two loss Pitt or Baylor got their second loss in their CCG, I can absolutely see them getting in over a 3 loss team in the B1G/SEC who didn't play in their CCG.   Brands will matter, like they always have, but wins will matter too, as they always have.   If there is a 2 loss SEC, I expect them to get the benefit of the doubt over a 2 loss ACC.  Could a 3 loss SEC CCG loser get in over a 2 loss B12, i can see that too.   But considering there are only 6 spots, assuming that 3 losses is good enough in the B1G/SEC is hopeful optimism.   Not to mention the fact that there could be three 2-loss SEC teams in any given year.   

2 loss = often

3 loss = needs tons of help

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The theory that Washington would need 3/4 of the four corner schools to the big 12 to make them likely to jump ship as well doesn't track too well with me. I don't think it would take 3/4. I think if 1 or 2 leave for the Big 12 it would cause them to shop themselves more. Because there are no teams out there that could bring up deal value to be on part or near Big 12/ACC.

Definitely.   The first one to move destabilizes everything.   Colorado may not be Texas in valuations, but they're leaps and bounds ahead of San Diego State.    And if the Pac is struggling to find the right puzzle pieces for money now, that all goes away once the dam breaks.

[camel at sea 589]

If you assume the PAC dam breaks, and that the money doesn't work for Oregon/Washington to get a B1G invite, then there's a good chance that the Big 12 ends this round of realignment as 1) the best men's basketball conference in the country, and 2) arguably a deeper top to bottom football league than both the Big Ten and ACC (though not as good at the very top as either.)

You almost have to applaud the PAC presidents for how well they've mismanaged their conference.  This shouldn't even be a possibility, let alone one that isn't far-fetched.  

[USC Traveler 488]

6 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The theory that Washington would need 3/4 of the four corner schools to the big 12 to make them likely to jump ship as well doesn't track too well with me. I don't think it would take 3/4. I think if 1 or 2 leave for the Big 12 it would cause them to shop themselves more. Because there are no teams out there that could bring up deal value to be on part or near Big 12/ACC.

If any of the regulars from this thread or the old shaggy thread were running UW, I'd feel the same way, but the PAC Presidents are the same people who hired Tennis Larry, said No Thanks to the PAC16 b/c of LHN, rejected OU/OSU, extended Tennis Larry's contract, ignored USC's AD when he said "All options are on the table for conference affiliation", and hired Klownkoff.

Making horrifically bad decisions is their trademark.