Realignment talk not going away

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

 

['stache 21819]

4 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

This is 100% true, which is why the Zeros are still on the outside looking in after begging for a year to get in.

Does USC and UCLA lobbying help at the margins ?  Sure.  But if UO had ND’s brand it wouldn’t matter.

 

But the reason two people posted about it was because you thought it was weak that USC doesn’t want the Zeros in the BIG.  We were just trying to give you the background.

 

ok, back to how bad PAC leadership has always been….

 

Someone specifically said they didn't want UO in the Big because of their SoCal recruiting. I thought it was kind of weak coming from a blueblood program. I see now there is other animosity, but my comment was specifically about the recruiting competition. 

[Deej 76830]

11 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

It can always go worse.

9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Someone specifically said they didn't want UO in the Big because of their SoCal recruiting. I thought it was kind of weak coming from a blueblood program. I see now there is other animosity, but my comment was specifically about the recruiting competition. 

Their other animosity is just a cover for being scared little bitches about recruiting. 

[USC Traveler 488]

Just drove up to pick up a new passport and was listening to PAC12 Sirius channel.

You know it’s bad when state-run media (I think both hosts are Utah guys) are absolutely savaging Klownkoff.

After months of mostly toeing the party line, these guys sound like they finally read this thread and figured out Klownkoff was an empty suit, there is no deal, they screwed up repeatedly with not taking B12 schools, etc, etc.

Everything they said was spot on, and has never been heard on PAC12 radio before now, at least when I’ve been listening.

This is a massive shift in tone.  Is Klownkoff finally going to get the axe, or has Utah’s President realized he needs to make a B12 move asap and is laying the media groundwork through these two alums ?

[Daichee Bell 2925]

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Daichee Bell
It's worth the repost.

[billfromlaketravis 11515]

33 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Correct- ND cares about ND.

They don’t play Stanford out of charity.  

They play Stanford every year b/c they want to end the season in CA every year for recruiting and exposure to alums, and because they like being associated with Stanford’s academic standing.

They will want that to continue as a conference game, and they will want to be announced to be joining the BIG with Stanford to draft off Stanford’s academic rep.

I think USC is Notre Dame’s only sacrosanct game. The BIG taking that away is their head shot. Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern are all nice.

While I enjoy the Domers playing Army and Navy, we’re talking about rivalries that haven’t mattered since the 1960’s to be generous.

[Trojan Man 429]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Someone specifically said they didn't want UO in the Big because of their SoCal recruiting. I thought it was kind of weak coming from a blueblood program. I see now there is other animosity, but my comment was specifically about the recruiting competition. 

 

4 minutes ago, Deej said:

It can always go worse.

Their other animosity is just a cover for being scared little bitches about recruiting. 

USC beats better schools than Oregon for recruits.  The #1 TE in the 2023 class chose USC over Georgia.  USC also beat Notre Dame, Ohio State and Texas for other top recruits in the 2023 class.  USC's highest rated 2024 commitment is from Georgia and he was favored to commit to Tennessee, plus USC beat Oregon for a couple commitments from top 100 recruits in this class.

Anyways, Texas fans have a list of personal animosity reasons why they wouldn't want the SEC to invite certain Big 12 schools.  Same deal with USC and certain Pac 12 schools.  You all want a clean break from the nutswingers that have done nothing but hate you and blame you for every problem they encounter while simultaneously living off what you brought to their conference, so you should understand why USC isn't eager to let their nutswingers tag along to the B1G.  Maybe we'd be more open to continuing those relationships if we didn't have decades of experience showing us all the benefits flow away from us and towards them.

[Deej 76830]

Oregon and Nike is a bigger threat to USC in recruiting than any remaining Big 12 school is/was to Texas. 

[Magus Ossis 2802]

It’s OK for fans of an athletic program to have an “enemy.” What would we have given to stick it to OU most years or even aggy in their halcyon Sherrill FedEx days? The network slobbering over USC back in 05 bothered me, but the alumni are generally all right in my book. Oregon certainly did more to piss in our Wheaties cheating in recruiting than USC did. I’m at peace with USC having its Ceterum autem censeo Oregonem esse delendam. We can mock their coach and laugh at Utah games and get along with people who don’t pretend to like enemy programs, and we’ll hope to beat them like rented mules next time we face them.

[Crockett 490]

13 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Just drove up to pick up a new passport and was listening to PAC12 Sirius channel.

You know it’s bad when state-run media (I think both hosts are Utah guys) are absolutely savaging Klownkoff.

After months of mostly toeing the party line, these guys sound like they finally read this thread and figured out Klownkoff was an empty suit, there is no deal, they screwed up repeatedly with not taking B12 schools, etc, etc.

Everything they said was spot on, and has never been heard on PAC12 radio before now, at least when I’ve been listening.

This is a massive shift in tone.  Is Klownkoff finally going to get the axe, or has Utah’s President realized he needs to make a B12 move asap and is laying the media groundwork through these two alums ?

They are probably finally coming to the realization that BYU is in a better situation than them now and there is a significant chance they get relegated to MWC+. Or, almost as bad, they have to swallow their pride and follow BYU to the Big 12, if there is even an open spot for them, which there very well may not be. Their identity has been so wrapped up in rubbing shoulders with Stanford and Cal and being in a better sports position than BYU, that I am not sure they are mentally able to make the move.

[USC Traveler 488]

59 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I think it's more that there are only so many spots to go around, and the B1G doesn't necessarily want to add schools that don't make everyone else (potentially) better.  Oregon and Washington both make travel harder and neither really adds much to the league's recruiting turf.  Stanford is a better travel partner for the L.A. schools and has good recruiting turf surrounding it.  Several ACC schools are much better for travel (for existing members) than anyone in the PAC and they could make recruiting easier for an existing members.

Arizona State is a possibility for the B1G.  Arizona's local HS recruiting turf has improved year over year for a while.  ASU is travel-friendly for the two L.A. schools - unlike Oregon and Washington.  ASU plays hockey.  But ASU has very little brand value or historical success in either revenue sport.  Maybe they'd be a backup plan if preferred ACC targets didn't work out.      

Agree with all of this 100%.
 

AAU was a game-changer for ASU.

They’re not a top tier BIG option, but for the reasons you listed, I think they’ll be at the top of the BIG’s backup plan list in the West if they need a filler school to round things out after ND, Stanford and whatever ACC schools are added.

 

Also- lots of BIG alums in PHX and it’s going to be a top 10 market fairly soon given where it is now and how fast it’s growing.

[The Dog 44060]

 

[ChickenNuggets 1628]

Big 12 expansion is basically analogous to when you dig a big fucking rock out of your yard and you have to back fill it... 

better make sure you're using dirt rather than compost cause you'll end up with an unsightly divot.

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

Their other animosity is just a cover for being scared little bitches about recruiting. 

There’s genuine bad blood there, and it goes way beyond the stuff that’s already been posted.

All it takes is one trip to a game at Eugene Community College dealing with a stadium full of meth-head Zeros fans to understand.

In addition to previously stated reasons, we want to fuck the Zeros over in every way possible because it’s a parasitic institution that led the charge to siphon off revenue from USC on PAC media deals, while having the worst fans (by far) of any place I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to games in Auburn, Clemson, UGA and South Carolina.  USC people despise Eugene Community College and have no respect for the institution.

As opposed to ND and UCLA, both of which can do major damage in CA recruiting with the right coach, but which are institutions worthy of respect that we enjoy playing.

From being on Shaggy/Surly over the years, I would equate how USC people feel about the Zeros to the way a lot of UT fans feel about Baylor.

 

[Deej 76830]

2 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

USC people despise Eugene Community College and have no respect for the institution

Hard to respect a team without a double murder Heisman winner, I guess.

[USC Traveler 488]

4 minutes ago, Deej said:

Hard to respect a team without a double murder Heisman winner, I guess.

You got that right!

😂

[Gidnik 3284]

21 hours ago, tx ind said:

 

this is fucking perfect

 

[LTbear 4170]

 

 

[Deej 76830]

I really feel sorry for the Big 12 refs after this year. Their arms will atrophy not being able to throw flag after flag on UT.

[tx ind 7013]

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

Arizona's next step in realignment should be obvious

Quote

When Colorado announced its move to the Big 12 on Thursday, it laid out the reasons why it became the only option for the future of its athletics department.

“After careful thought and consideration, it was determined that a switch in conference would give CU Boulder the stability, resources, and exposure necessary for long-term future success in a college athletics environment that is constantly evolving,” a joint statement from Chancellor Philip DiStefano and Athletic Director Rick George read.

Are you listening Arizona?

We fully acknowledge that every school in the Pac-12 wanted to keep the conference together. After all, it would have meant that there was a good enough media deal in place and that George Kliavkoff was able to deliver the stability that the conference members want so badly.

Unfortunately, that’s just not the case. There are no hard numbers being presented and no end in sight for the conference.

Kliavkoff held a meeting with Pac-12 Presidents and Athletic Directors on Thursday and sources indicate to WildcatAuthority that it could not have gone worse. At a time where the schools want and need clarity, Kliavkoff was unable to give it.

We’ve said in the past that every school would be looking out for its best interests and that has never been the case more than it is now. Schools are on the phones with other conferences trying to secure their future and the unity statements are somehow less meaningful than they were before.

Arizona is known to be next up. There are conversations with the Big 12 that have already been had and we expect those to pick up significantly. Colorado was much further down the line than any school involved in the process, but Arizona is second. The Wildcats know the pitch from the Big 12 and have gone about the process the right way.

The Wildcats never wanted to be the first to go and Colorado got that out of the way. Robbins will now ask for numbers like he has in the past and they won’t be presented. Eventually the Big 12 will push a little bit and when that happens, Arizona is likely to go.

We know there are no guarantees in the realignment process. Maybe Kliavkoff finds a way to add SMU as soon as 2024 and then proceeds to add San Diego State and find a TV deal that somehow keeps the conference together for five years.

That seems entirely unlikely, but crazier things have happened. Arizona does not believe internally a deal is likely and has not this entire time, but Robbins is at least giving Kliavkoff an opportunity.

Colorado said the same thing Robbins has been saying in the entire process and then decided to make the move when it becomes too obvious to ignore. Arizona seems to be on a similar path.

As of now, forget the deadlines. These things never move as fast as people think and it’s not as easy as picking up a phone and announcing a few minutes later. This could take time to play out and there are other schools wanting in the Big 12 now. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s Arizona’s decision to make first and one that is becoming all too obvious.

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

 

[USC Traveler 488]

Massive shift in tone on the UW, UO and Utah boards.

They all were overwhelmingly “go to BIG or stay in the PAC” until yesterday.

Now the dam has broken and strong sentiment on all 3 is “Go B12.”

There are some UW  and UO holdouts wanting only BIG or stay in PAC, and some delusional Zeros fans talking about going independent, but the ground has shifted massively.

On Utah 247, the shift has been multiple orders of magnitude.  They went from despising everything about B12 to desperately wanting the B12, realizing they could get completely hosed if they don’t make a move quickly.  Incredible to see that kind of shift that quickly.

['stache 21819]

2 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

It’s OK for fans of an athletic program to have an “enemy.” What would we have given to stick it to OU most years or even aggy in their halcyon Sherrill FedEx days? The network slobbering over USC back in 05 bothered me, but the alumni are generally all right in my book. Oregon certainly did more to piss in our Wheaties cheating in recruiting than USC did. I’m at peace with USC having its Ceterum autem censeo Oregonem esse delendam. We can mock their coach and laugh at Utah games and get along with people who don’t pretend to like enemy programs, and we’ll hope to beat them like rented mules next time we face them.

When Riley took that job I became a fan, because of the sooner butthurt, lol.

[Tomatillo 354]

4 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

So Oregon and UW have to leave right? Go make $190 million while they wait out the Big Ten in 2031. Are they waiting for Arizona to make the move to avoid blame?
 

I listened to The Athletic’s pod on Colorado, and it was a meh across the board from the national talking heads. “The PAC loses Colorado but if they replace them with SDSU that’s probably a net positive.” Uh what?

SDSU has better football/baseball/hoops than colorado by far right now. That’d be my guess. It also gives them another presence in socal that they are losing next year. 

[John80 157]

At one point the ACC presidents had a snobbish attitude but they got over and added some programs that would help football.

The BIG presidents blabs about academics but the reality is they rejected Cal and accepted Nebraska who isn't close to Cal academically.

The PAC presidents have held onto to their snobbish attitude to the point of no return This is an ATHLETICS conference.

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Their fans don't really care about Stanford, but Notre Dame likes playing Stanford because it lets them end each season with a game in California.  It's a nice vacation from the shitty weather at home and since they never have a CCG the next week to start planning for some of their coaches can hang around for an extra day or two recruiting.  They also have plenty of fans/alumni in California so this series guarantees a yearly game in front of that audience.  Also every university president gets hot and bothered thinking about rubbing shoulders with Stanford.  Lastly, Notre Dame doesn't like being thought of as a small town Midwestern school in the heart of B1G country.  They like having a national image and a national schedule.  Playing Stanford every year helps with that and it's also one reason why they cut a deal with the ACC.

Basketball schools are untouchable because March Madness is how the NCAA makes most of its money.  UNC basketball getting a postseason ban takes money out of the NCAA's pocket so the NCAA is incentivized to look the other way, like they also did when it came out Duke paid Zion Williamson and Kansas had Adidas funneling 5* recruits their way.  Basketball schools get away with even more shit than SEC football.  USC football receiving a postseason ban doesn't really matter to the NCAA because FBS postseason money goes to the schools, not the NCAA.

Kentucky hasn't.  They got banned from the tourney for a couple years early 90s due to the 20k cash in the Emery Air Freight package.  They got the death penalty in 52-53 due to the point shaving scandal in college basketball.  They had won 3 of the past 4 NCAA titles and only played in the NIT the other year.  In 53-54 the NCAA declared key players ineligible, so UK unbeaten and #1 stayed home for the postseason.

Some schools like UNC get leniency.  Other schools like UK get nailed.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

44 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Massive shift in tone on the UW, UO and Utah boards.

They all were overwhelmingly “go to BIG or stay in the PAC” until yesterday.

Now the dam has broken and strong sentiment on all 3 is “Go B12.”

There are some UW  and UO holdouts wanting only BIG or stay in PAC, and some delusional Zeros fans talking about going independent, but the ground has shifted massively.

On Utah 247, the shift has been multiple orders of magnitude.  They went from despising everything about B12 to desperately wanting the B12, realizing they could get completely hosed if they don’t make a move quickly.  Incredible to see that kind of shift that quickly.

I sincerely hope Utah gets left out in the cold. I have no desire for then to be in the Big12. Their fans have been completely insufferable. 

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, camel at sea said:

I think it's more that there are only so many spots to go around, and the B1G doesn't necessarily want to add schools that don't make everyone else (potentially) better.  Oregon and Washington both make travel harder and neither really adds much to the league's recruiting turf.  Stanford is a better travel partner for the L.A. schools and has good recruiting turf surrounding it.  Several ACC schools are much better for travel (for existing members) than anyone in the PAC and they could make recruiting easier for an existing members.

Arizona State is a possibility for the B1G.  Arizona's local HS recruiting turf has improved year over year for a while.  ASU is travel-friendly for the two L.A. schools - unlike Oregon and Washington.  ASU plays hockey.  But ASU has very little brand value or historical success in either revenue sport.  Maybe they'd be a backup plan if preferred ACC targets didn't work out.      

But Oregon and Washington are teams that have been and will be playoff contenders.  Along with FSU, Clemson, Miami and Notre Dame, they complete the list of teams who can compete more than once in a blue moon who aren't already heading to the Big 10 or SEC.  I guess Colorado fits in too, but it isn't clear if they are getting back to their early 70s and late 80s to early 00s form.  In the cord cutting future, you need brands.  Fact is that UW and Oregon have had serious discussions with the Big 10.

[USC Traveler 488]

FSU podcast- first 10 minutes is very good, with the 247 guy who dropped the nugget about them leaving the ACC.  

He's definitely not a kook or a fraud like the realignment hucksters.  Well worth a listen.

On The Bench: An FSU football podcast network- Is FSU’s time in the ACC nearing an end? 


On The Bench begins with 10 minutes of Chris Nee diving into his report on Noles247 about Florida State's exploration of leaving the ACC. He details the reasoning of the timing of his report, why he believe things are escalating when it comes to FSU/realignment, and the possible risks and factors involved if FSU were to indeed make a jump. 

Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-bench-an-fsu-football-podcast-network/id1215365810?i=1000622649897

 

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

I’m at peace with USC having its Ceterum autem censeo Oregonem esse delendam.

Iswydt- outstanding work!  

I loved the whole post obviously.  Hope to see you guys in the playoffs soon.  Would be an epic rematch.

That Rose Bowl is still the most-watched CFB game in history.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

6 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

FSU podcast- first 10 minutes is very good, with the 247 guy who dropped the nugget about them leaving the ACC.  

He's definitely not a kook or a fraud like the realignment hucksters.  Well worth a listen.

On The Bench: An FSU football podcast network- Is FSU’s time in the ACC nearing an end? 


On The Bench begins with 10 minutes of Chris Nee diving into his report on Noles247 about Florida State's exploration of leaving the ACC. He details the reasoning of the timing of his report, why he believe things are escalating when it comes to FSU/realignment, and the possible risks and factors involved if FSU were to indeed make a jump. 

Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-bench-an-fsu-football-podcast-network/id1215365810?i=1000622649897

 

I wasn't going to post on it, but since you opened the topic....

There is a Florida State BOR meeting on August 2nd, and there is speculation that it is focused on exploring/persuing actions to break the ACC GOR.

More public noise is expected in mid August, if not sooner.

This seems to be connected to the ACC commissioner stating today that the ACC is exploring options for expansion.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Seems it was actually yesterday...

 

[Horn Dogg 3909]

It would have been funny if the Pac 12 put Tech and OSU into the two empty spots.  Then Baylor, TCU and the rest of the B12 gang of clowns would have been left on their asses.

[chase25 2048]

 

[notre dame joe 188]

12 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Correct- ND cares about ND.

They don’t play Stanford out of charity.  

They play Stanford every year b/c they want to end the season in CA every year for recruiting and exposure to alums, and because they like being associated with Stanford’s academic standing.

They will want that to continue as a conference game, and they will want to be announced to be joining the BIG with Stanford to draft off Stanford’s academic rep.

It was a made up rivalry between an academic inferiority complex and a boring athletic department. But both school are necessary to the final P-whatever so it is not something to worry about. 

[Dbeasy 15068]

Are there exit fees for Big 12 members going forward?

[bullet 1597]

14 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Delaney has said in the past that 16 is the magic number where once you cross it you start to cease to be a conference.    Now, he's been out for a while now, but the B1G probably requires daily worship to his altar.

But at the same time he was talking 18 to 20 back when they moved to 14.  I remember some of the ADs talking about their doubts about getting that big.

[bullet 1597]

14 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Correct- ND cares about ND.

They don’t play Stanford out of charity.  

They play Stanford every year b/c they want to end the season in CA every year for recruiting and exposure to alums, and because they like being associated with Stanford’s academic standing.

They will want that to continue as a conference game, and they will want to be announced to be joining the BIG with Stanford to draft off Stanford’s academic rep.

The point is that Stanford could easily be replaced by Cal.  Or even UCLA.

[bullet 1597]

14 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

This is 100% true, which is why the Zeros are still on the outside looking in after begging for a year to get in.

Does USC and UCLA lobbying help at the margins ?  Sure.  But if UO had ND’s brand it wouldn’t matter.

 

But the reason two people posted about it was because you thought it was weak that USC doesn’t want the Zeros in the BIG.  We were just trying to give you the background.

 

ok, back to how bad PAC leadership has always been….

 

I've seen enough reliable people say it that I think UW and Oregon, as part of the Big 10 (not as part of the Pac 10) bring enough to justify addition.  They just don't bring up the average any noticeable amount.  So it would be a strategic addition to dominate the west coast and get more playoff spots.  They aren't going to bring bunches more money to anyone.  Cal and Stanford were definitely dilutive.

[bullet 1597]

8 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

I wasn't going to post on it, but since you opened the topic....

There is a Florida State BOR meeting on August 2nd, and there is speculation that it is focused on exploring/persuing actions to break the ACC GOR.

More public noise is expected in mid August, if not sooner.

This seems to be connected to the ACC commissioner stating today that the ACC is exploring options for expansion.

They had a whole presentation on the possibility of leaving for the Big 12 covered on the Shaggy board.  Their president Barron, formerly a UT prof,  had no interest and proceeded to lock them in for 20 years to the ACC.  One of the 247/365 blogger types was at the meeting and did a report on it.  Clemson discussed it at several board meetings.  Doesn't mean there will be any action.

[Magus Ossis 2802]

Assuming Oregon joins the B12, they will be subject to a significant financial hit if and when they desire to break their membership agreement to leave for the B1G. Because their move would not significantly increase the per-team value of either TV contract, no network is likely going to be motivated to ‘underwrite’ much of the cost/penalty. A cagey league, warned by this round of shuffling, could and likely would work to complete future deals and accompanying GORs early enough that the penalty is magnified. An Oregon motivated to escape the Pac would have little leverage for a carve-out when signing up. Even should the B1G decide at some post-B12-join date that they do want Oregon enough to offer, plucking them would be very unlike how easily they acquired Nebraska. A landscape change even more fundamental than this one might be required to allow future defections from now-stabilized conferences as the escalation of conference contracts continues. ACC may already be locked up too tightly for early departures much before GOR expiration, and even MWC’s terms at present may prove strong enough to wound Pac deeply based on awkward timing.

[SurlyGator 865]

I think the B12 should go in the opposite direction on GOR restrictions.  Take away the penalty to leave.  The only destination anyone would leave for would be the B1G or the SEC.  If dropping the exit fee meant you could have Oregon and Washington for a decade or more, and the B1G came calling, wish them well and send them on their way.  In the meantime, you added a lot of value to the B12 during the time they were there.  The networks might even sweeten the pot a little on the front end if they knew they could pull teams out later.

If you want some sort of "repayment" for the lost value from a team leaving, maybe put in the contract that if a team leaves the B12 gets a percentage of future conference payouts from that team's new conference.  B12 needs to think outside the box here.

[Chewbacca 7780]

Massive shift in tone on the UW, UO and Utah boards.
They all were overwhelmingly “go to BIG or stay in the PAC” until yesterday.
Now the dam has broken and strong sentiment on all 3 is “Go B12.”
There are some UW  and UO holdouts wanting only BIG or stay in PAC, and some delusional Zeros fans talking about going independent, but the ground has shifted massively.
On Utah 247, the shift has been multiple orders of magnitude.  They went from despising everything about B12 to desperately wanting the B12, realizing they could get completely hosed if they don’t make a move quickly.  Incredible to see that kind of shift that quickly.

I think Utah fans are realizing they are about to get left behind and they are freaking out.

[Laxtonto 12090]

15 minutes ago, SurlyGator said:

I think the B12 should go in the opposite direction on GOR restrictions.  Take away the penalty to leave.  The only destination anyone would leave for would be the B1G or the SEC.  If dropping the exit fee meant you could have Oregon and Washington for a decade or more, and the B1G came calling, wish them well and send them on their way.  In the meantime, you added a lot of value to the B12 during the time they were there.  The networks might even sweeten the pot a little on the front end if they knew they could pull teams out later.

If you want some sort of "repayment" for the lost value from a team leaving, maybe put in the contract that if a team leaves the B12 gets a percentage of future conference payouts from that team's new conference.  B12 needs to think outside the box here.

The other benefit of this approach is that it would make sure you kill the Pac12. It is worth it longterm froM a CFP payout standpoint to kill the brand off completely to make sure there is one less mouth to feed at the conference table. Don’t let it be a zombie and suck CFP payout $$ based upon past glories and name recognition that has no bearing on the current state product.
 

Put in a restriction that has GOR buyout for the first 8 or 10 years. Long enough to make it worth it for the media partners and provide some stability but still short enough give the UO and UW some semblance hope that if the B10 does come calling, they are OK. In truth the media partners might even be thankful because it allows some time reset market prices and not see a forced reopening on the top end of the market.

[USC_TMB 405]

16 minutes ago, SurlyGator said:

I think the B12 should go in the opposite direction on GOR restrictions.  Take away the penalty to leave.  The only destination anyone would leave for would be the B1G or the SEC.  If dropping the exit fee meant you could have Oregon and Washington for a decade or more, and the B1G came calling, wish them well and send them on their way.  In the meantime, you added a lot of value to the B12 during the time they were there.  The networks might even sweeten the pot a little on the front end if they knew they could pull teams out later.

If you want some sort of "repayment" for the lost value from a team leaving, maybe put in the contract that if a team leaves the B12 gets a percentage of future conference payouts from that team's new conference.  B12 needs to think outside the box here.

Admittedly I have no clue as to how the conferences think, but would the B12 really want to be a “rebound” choice for the ducks (or any other WAC9 school)?  If the ducks hung around for 10 years, then I could see it. But I guarantee-damn-tee if the B1G came calling in a year or two, they’d dip before hanging up the phone.

If it was me, I would give them a “take it or shake it” offer locking them in for 10 years with a big buyout penalty. It’s not like they have ND’s (for example) brand value and national following, they aren’t going to move the needle in a huge way dollar-wise. Plus Uncle Phil will just cut a check to get them out of the deal.  It’s not like they have a ton of options since the B1G is hinting they are standing pat at 16, and the SEC isn’t flirting with them.

It’s an interesting poker game going on.

[closetojumping 62746]

Is it even possible to have a GOR past a media deal? Seems unlikely. Oregon and Washington could safely join knowing the GOR expires in 2031 and they can talk to the Big 10 anytime they like. The Big 10 will be renegotiating their deal ahead of that same deadline. 

If Arizona and Oregon/UW break away to the Big 12, it seems like the obvious move to avoid the MWC penalties is to merge the conferences. Form a “Pac 16” with 5-6 of those schools and SMU. Maybe Stanford and Cal just bow out of football rather than go that route, but it seems like that would make a lot of sense for ASU, Utah, Wazzou, and Oregon State. That probably gets around $15M/school doesn’t it? If the PNW powers leave the Pac 9, what the hell is left for a media deal otherwise? Arguably less than AAC money. 

['stache 21819]

I think the networks ask for the heftiest exit fees to get out of a grant of rights. I think UO or whoever would be fine with 6-10 years if the BIG says they’re closed this round. I doubt the rest of the schools themselves care at this point since nobody is joining the SEC or BIG. The only likely move at this point might be WVU to the ACC but it wouldn’t be for a decade until the ACC GOR gets closer to its end.

[FartingDreamer 138]

19 hours ago, Kwix said:

I think the real problem with your argument is that Bush never deserved that Heisman in the first place.

The media basically stole it from VY.  Was the biggest injustice in Heisman history.  

41 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

14 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Massive shift in tone on the UW, UO and Utah boards.
They all were overwhelmingly “go to BIG or stay in the PAC” until yesterday.
Now the dam has broken and strong sentiment on all 3 is “Go B12.”
There are some UW  and UO holdouts wanting only BIG or stay in PAC, and some delusional Zeros fans talking about going independent, but the ground has shifted massively.
On Utah 247, the shift has been multiple orders of magnitude.  They went from despising everything about B12 to desperately wanting the B12, realizing they could get completely hosed if they don’t make a move quickly.  Incredible to see that kind of shift that quickly.

I think Utah fans are realizing they are about to get left behind and they are freaking out.

And it is glorious and has me highly enchubbened.   

[Tex Long 4401]

I'd like to see the XII add Utah and the Arizonas, to get to 16, and then be the first to go to pods and have its own 4-team conference playoff.