Realignment talk not going away

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

There is no way wilner is serious here

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/mailbag-next-steps-for-oregon-and-uw-the-bay-area-void-arizonas-role-the-40-million-question-expansion-options-and-more/

[Hurtlocker 2208]

 

 

[bullet 1596]

7 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Thamel, Feldman, Olson, etc  have all reported multiple times that the PNW schools would be dilutive.  And unless they change the playoff to 12 at-large berths (possible), the math of the 12 team/ 6 champ format means the BIG and SEC will get 3 in most years, but not more.  That means if UO or UW make the playoff, they are taking a spot away from an existing BIG team.  They're not adding playoff spots- they're taking them away.

BIG will already dominate the West Coast media attention through USC, UCLA and existing BIG schools playing out West on a regular basis.

The PNW schools don't help the LA schools with travel and make all existing BIG members travel out West twice as often, but with no boost in recruiting or alum engagement.  All in all- less money for BIG schools, travel to the PNW, less games on linear for mid-lower tier BIG teams, more playoff competition for BIG teams.

Even if all of that wasn't the case, why would the BIG add PNW schools now and take up valuable slots before seeing what happens in the ACC ?  

They won't.  2036 isn't far away in realignment terms, and there is real smoke around FSU doing something as early two weeks from now.

//

You might have missed my earlier post to you about a bet for a burger and a beer at a future UT-USC game that Stanford will be in the BIG before UO.

I'll go you one better- I'll bet you that ND, Stanford and some ACC schools all get into the BIG before UO.  

I think I'll win because I doubt UO is ever getting into the BIG.

I live in Atlanta now, so I don't get to too many games in Austin.

McMurphy and at least one other have said they aren't dilutive.  McMurphy still believes UW and Oregon are inevitable in the Big 10 with the only issue being when.  There are 6 at large spots.  The Big 10 and SEC would love to have all the schools who were regular contenders.  In the BCS/playoff era, the SEC would have had 75 slots in the 24 years even without UT and OU, so that is slightly more than 3 per year.  The Big 10 and SEC would love to suck up all 6 of those wildcard slots in addition to their champ being in.

Given how much the media market is changing, 2036 is an eternity.  And I don't think the Big 10 is especially interested in Clemson, knows FSU would prefer the SEC and knows UNC and UVA, as well as Cal and Stanford, ARE dilutive.  If they go to 18, they still have room for the Catholics and Convicts.  Unless ESPN makes a bunch more net in advertising with FSU in the SEC, I don't see anyone getting out of the GOR in the next 10 years.

[bullet 1596]

7 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

BIG expansion info from a poster on the PSU 247 board who seems to be connected and is well-respected by their board:

 

I agree its most likely the Big 10 waits 5-6 years to expand.  They have publicly said things similar to #1.  But situations change.  Even Wilner thinks UW and Oregon end up in the Big 10 in 2031.  

[Hurtlocker 2208]

30 minutes ago, bullet said:

McMurphy and at least one other have said they aren't dilutive.  McMurphy still believes UW and Oregon are inevitable in the Big 10 with the only issue being when. 

I don't think I've ever seen him state they came in equal.   I'm pretty sure he mentioned they'd have to bite the bullet and come in junior until the next media rights deal.

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, Frieda’s Boss said:

I’m glad you mentioned this, because I was going to say of course this guy makes sense, his ‘what I’m hearing’ is probably what he read here from you…

Your animosity toward Oregon is clear, but how do you feel about adding UW and Stanford?  Now you really capture the west coast, academics/research claims of the Big are actually met, two tech hubs with a lot of Big alums, etc.?  Inevitably the Big will eventually want “Big 10 After Dark” and without more west coast representation, are you going to be happy with all USC home games being 7:30pm kickoffs?

 

Stanford was originally supposed to be the second school that went to the BIG with USC, but Fox wanted to lock up the LA market (and lock the PAC out of LA completely) so then UCLA became the partner.  Outside of ND, Stanford is the school I'd bet the most money on getting into the BIG.

ND will want Stanford as their partner to join, which would allow the BIG Presidents to add them without losing revenue in the process. BIG would be thrilled with that scenario for all the reasons you listed above.  USC people are looking forward to it happening, as they're actually the school we have the longest history with, and fans love going to games in Palo Alto (myself included).  The stadium is usually 50% SC fans, so it's like an extra home game.  They'd be a huge help with travel, as it would guarantee USC one home game every year in CA.  Having ND (as a conference game) and Stanford in the BIG is ideal for SC.

Most USC people I know are good with the idea of UW in the BIG.  Their fans are mostly cool, and they fit the BIG profile in terms of market, research and academics in a way that Eugene Community College and their human trashcan fans don't.  I think UW is going to have a tough time because of geography, though.  I've said in this thread before that if UW were in VA, they'd be a slamdunk for the BIG, as the BIG is going to prioritize ND and the ACC schools.  Only after they know who they're getting from the ACC will they turn back out West to fill in the gaps imo.  

Now that ASU is AAU, I think they're more appealing to the BIG- slightly bigger market, more BIG alums, faster-growing, better recruiting, easier travel for BIG schools, and ASU actually helps the LA schools with travel.  Also an attractive travel destination for BIG admin and fans in late fall and winter.  I don't think it's a coincidence that they got AAU along with ND and Miami.  Depending on how the BIG does with their ACC targets, there may be none or only one spot left, so UW could fall victim to unfavorable geography.  For USC folks, beyond helping with travel for the team, if you've ever been to ASU when you were single, it's a trip you want to repeat, so most people I know like the idea of ASU coming in eventually.  ASU is probably preferred over UW by most, but people would be fine if UW was added.

As for the late night games, I think you're looking at it the wrong way.  The chances of "BIG after dark" are actually much greater if there are a bunch of West Coast schools than there are with just the LA schools.  The BIG schools don't want to play in those timeslots, and the BIG didn't add USC to air our games when 3/4 of the country is no longer watching.  One more reason USC people don't want a lot of West Coast schools added.

[The Dog 43792]

 

[TrashMaster G 17386]

On 7/28/2023 at 3:33 PM, mdmost said:

How about never. They're getting two to three times more revenue than the Big 12 schools and now get games in Los Angeles every few years. They also no longer have to worry about divisions. 

Or being competitive.

 

[The Dog 43792]

 

[Richard Kimball 1492]

28 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

What da fuck the beavers doing in there? I mean the team, not the girls. 

[Gidnik 3251]

May be a done deal. He doesn’t really do rumors. 
 

 

[General Specific 3232]

IDK if it this is just trolling but would be hilarious if true. 
 

Ha ha. But, if you’re gonna troll, BU to intramurals!

Fuck Baylor!

[BurntOrange&White 39614]

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

May be a done deal. He doesn’t really do rumors. 
 

 

He’s the most realistic person from that conference

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, Gidnik said:

May be a done deal. He doesn’t really do rumors. 
 

 

Yeah- he has a low-key, just the facts style of reporting, which is a nice change from the hucksters like Swaim and the propagandists like Wilner and Clownzano.  Jason has made it clear in their realignment thread (which is very good btw) that UA is going B12 and that Robbins' public statements are posturing for political purposes, just like CU's were.

//

Speaking of public posturing, I was surprised how many months it took for the tone to change, but once the CU/UA Presidents and ADs went from "We're staying in the PAC" to "We'd like to stay in the PAC, but we need to do what's best for CU/UA" you knew the B12 move was happening.

Once UA goes, it feels like Utah will have to make the move unless they are completely clueless.  They're in a precarious position.

ASU is a harder read, because their Pres (Crow) is completely clueless.  He was one of Grifter Larry's biggest supporters, and probably loves Klownkoff too.

 

[Crockett 481]

12 hours ago, TonyTexas said:

IDK if it this is just trolling but would be hilarious if true. 

 

[Crockett 481]

9 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

The model for the BIG18 works incredibly well, though eighteen probably wouldn't work elsewhere. In the B18, You would have three regions of 6 teams. The West: BYU, UU, UO, UW, UA, AST. The North: Kansas, KST, ISU, Cincy, WVU, CU. The South: Tech, OST, TCU, BU, UH, UCF. So, Annually Tech would play five games in their region and One road game in the west and host one west team AND they'd play one North team at home and one on the road. UO would play their 5 western rivals each season, then host one south team and visit one south team, host one North team and visit one North team. Therefore west of the rockies teams will only have to travel East of the rockies twice a season. West of the Rockies teams will have 2 meaningful games a season in the CTZ while hosting multiple East of the rockies teams. This greatly reduces the old PAC12 teams isolation. During the 6 year term of the current media rights deal, Tech would play each west school at home once and on the road once and each North school at home once and on the road once.

I like this except you included UU.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39614]

5 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Once UA goes, it feels like Utah will have to make the move unless they are completely clueless.  They're in a precarious position.

I feel like if UA pops then Oregon/Washington become a lot more realistic and possible even if only for 6 years. Utah would be odd team out. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[statsman 5421]

Observations about media contracts- 

1. B10: the best, the gold standard. They have the best conference network setup and are maximizing broadcast revenue. 
2. SEC: second best. Probably the best conference. But their media payout, with even more national brands than the B10, is a lower per-school share than the B10, by the amount of an annual ACC share. 
3. B12: Third place, solidly in revenue, despite the lack of blue bloods or bell cows. Note- third despite the lack of a conference network. Is there even one in the works?

4. ACC: fourth. Note that their contract didn’t look so awful a few years ago. It does now. The new contracts bumped up the B19, SEC and even the B12, while the ACC lags. 
5. PAC: a few years ago, they were either 3 or 4, and they thought they were doing something smart with their own network that would pay off. Yeah, not so much. With USC and UCLA gone, and with Fox, ESPN, CBS and NBC seemingly “full”, there just isn’t a lot of money available to come their way. 
 
So, the B10 and SEC are on a whole different tier than the others. Of the P3-5, the B12 is happy with their contract, the ACC is unhappy with theirs and the PAC doesn’t have one. 
 
In terms of conference rating- the ACC seems the strongest of the three. I count about 14 MNCs and NCs over the last 65 years, from about six programs. (Compared to about one from the new B12). I see more huge stadiums. 
 
I know a lot of folks want to say that the B12’s status with the third best contract payout is “the new normal”, but I just can’t see it. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it doesn’t matter, because ADs have five year contracts and a media deal that goes through 2031 is a career-long deal. 
 
I think there is a way for the PAC to stay together and end up in a more solid footing, financially, and competitively, but I don’t know that they have the leadership to do it. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by statsman

[Hurtlocker 2208]

4 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

Hahaha, this is one of the better ones I've seen

[Hurtlocker 2208]

10 minutes ago, statsman said:

Observations about media contracts- 

1. B10: the best, the gold standard. They have the best conference network setup and are maximizing broadcast revenue. 
2. SEC: second best. Probably the best conference. But their media payout, with even more national brands than the B10, is a lower per-school share than the B10, by the amount of an annual ACC share. 
3. B12: Third place, solidly in revenue, despite the lack of blue bloods or bell cows. Note- third despite the lack of a conference network. Is there even one in the works?

4. ACC: fourth. Note that their contract didn’t look so awful a few years ago. It does now. The new contracts bumped up the B19, SEC and even the B12, while the ACC lags. 
5. PAC: a few years ago, they were either 3 or 4, and they thought they were doing something smart with their own network that would pay off. Yeah, not so much. With USC and UCLA gone, and with Fox, ESPN, CBS and NBC seemingly “full”, there just isn’t a lot of money available to come their way. 
 
So, the B10 and SEC are on a whole different tier than the others. Of the P3-5, the B12 is happy with their contract, the ACC is unhappy with theirs and the PAC doesn’t have one. 
 
In terms of conference rating- the ACC seems the strongest of the three. I count about 14 MNCs and NCs over the last 65 years, from about six programs. (Compared to about one from the new B12). I see more huge stadiums. 
 
I know a lot of folks want to say that the B12’s status with the third best contract payout is “the new normal”, but I just can’t see it. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it doesn’t matter, because ADs have five year contracts and a media deal that goes through 2031 is a career-long deal. 
 
I think there is a way for the PAC to stay together and end up in a more solid footing, financially, and competitively, but I don’t know that they have the leadership to do it. 

Pretty spot on.   Couple thoughts:

• The ACC's contract looked terrible at the time they signed it, but it is actually getting better.   Just not better, fast enough, to match the SEC.  This is because they gave away decades of not being able to go to market so that ESPN would give them the ACC network.   It is just now starting to gain traction and their revenue is increasing because of it.   Third tier rights are nice, but don't match T1 games in terms of revenue, and that's where the ACC won't catch the SEC for a long time, if ever.
• The B12 never formed a network because their households weren't awesome and they never had enough inventory to fill one, its basically sold content to FS1 and ESPN+ and this didn't change with the move to 12.   With the move to 14 and perhaps 16, including their households doubling from 10 to 13, they would have the extra inventory and markets where they could form one in the right conditions.   With cable losing 36% of its homes over the past 5 years, would they want to?
• The ACC and B12 are two different peas in the same pod, financially.   The ACC has 2-3 major draws, 3-5 duds, and some solid middle.  The B12 lacks both major draws and duds, so its just a solid middle.   The ACCs highs are higher, but their lows are lower, evening out their network value.  This could change if the B12 grows to 16 with even money plays.   They'll end around 34-38% below the B1G's set ceiling, higher than the ACC, and with the ability to prove they deserve more money 5 years before the ACC can even go to market.   This is likely the main reason FSU wants out of the deal it forced on the ACC.   It expected to match the SEC with its own network, but that was never going to be the case.
• The Pac had a great contract, best in the biz for a moment, but destroyed it.   Seven channels was too many channels, too much expense, too little payoff and it was evident two years into the experiment.   Now they're at the point that if Arizona leaves, I'm not sure how the Pac remains in the same conversation as the ACC/B12 as long as Oregon/Washington want a new home.  They could add SDSU and SMU, but even if they're worth $200m a year, Oregon/Washington are 40-50% of that contract.  If the B1G takes them or turns to them and says, "we will never, ever want your wagon wheel coffee table" and they join the B12, there is nothing left, due to geography.   It is really a shocking case study on how 12 schools with the brightest minds and massive business schools ran their own operation into the ground.

[tx ind 6997]

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

 

 

[gatormarc 904]

16 hours ago, chase25 said:

19 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

VT and NC State would actually fit in well culturally to the SEC.  Both have die-hard fans and Lane stadium is a great environment.  

Money for SECNet and a direct recruiting presence for SEC schools in those states would also be beneficial.

And neither program would actually threaten the top dogs in the SEC.  They would be like South Carolina, but with more value and better recruiting grounds.

North Carolina and Virginia are both better fits culturally in the SEC. I doubt the SEC would even consider VT and NC State. 

I think all 4 were/would have been legit considerations back in 2011 after A&M made #13.

But what fits culturally and has the right value as school #14 is different than #17 or 18.

[gatormarc 904]

It's also worth nothing that although the 4 are close/culturally similar, they don't have a ton of rivalries with current SEC schools.

VT - none
UNC/NCSstate/UVA - have some history with South Carolina but very little the last 30 years.

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Spoiler

Do Oregon and Washington need to give consideration to joining the Big 12? It has been well documented that both schools covet the Big Ten. But the opportunity may not exist today, and they could always join at a later date if/when the opportunity arises. — Andrew Perez

The Hotline doesn’t foresee the Pacific Northwest powers ever joining the Big 12, no matter how dire the Pac-12 situation becomes — even if, for example, the Arizona schools and Utah were to follow Colorado’s lead and flee the conference.

It works both ways: The Big 12 isn’t a good fit for them, and they aren’t good fits for the Big 12.

The reasons are rooted in the financial, logistical and competitive aspects of realignment and conference structure.

First, from the Big 12’s side: Adding Washington and Oregon to a group of newcomers that would include the Four Corners schools would create an 18-team conference — bigger than the Big Ten and SEC and, frankly, too big to function effectively.

To make it work, the Big 12 would need a western division similar to what has been proposed for the Big Ten. But why would the network partners (ESPN and Fox) want a western division that did not include a presence in California? They wouldn’t.

Cal chancellor Carol Christ is retiring next year, and Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne is stepping down next month following an academic scandal.

The schools are staggering on the field, seemingly rudderless in their Ivory Towers and poorly positioned to make any demands, or set any academic requirements for expansion, within the Pac-12 boardroom.

(That’s a huge factor in the broader realignment game, by the way: The Pac-12 would be vastly better positioned to hold its ground if the schools in the nation’s sixth-largest media market were thriving on the field, as Cal did in the 2000s and Stanford did in the 2010s.)

The Cardinal and Bears cannot compete as Independents for financial and competitive reasons — only Notre Dame can thrive in that role — and the Ivy league isn’t an option. (Check back in 15-20 years on that, however.)

We believe their fate is tied to Oregon and Washington, either in the current Pac-12, in a reconfigured Pac-12 or in the Big Ten.

Is there a minimum number of teams the Pac-12 needs to remain eligible for an automatic berth in the College Football Playoff? — @jeffyrocket

Yes, and it’s not an issue.

The NCAA’s minimum requirement to be an officially recognized conference is six members. We asked the CFP about this months ago and were told its qualification process would follow the NCAA requirement.

So in theory, the Pac-12 could lose all the Four Corners schools, then add San Diego State and someone else to reach eight members, and still send its champion to the CFP (as long as it was one of the six highest-ranked conference winners).

That might be just fine with Oregon, which is all about the playoff. But there are obviously a slew of challenges with such an outcome.

What are the 2024 schedule ramifications with only nine schools? — @DmanKeyes

The Pac-12 plays nine conference games, which is, of course, unworkable with only nine schools. Best we can tell, the conference must add a 10th member by next summer.

That’s problematic because of San Diego State’s massive exit fee (approximately $34 million) for leaving the Mountain West with less than 12 months notice.

SMU’s escape route from the American conference is cheaper — probably $18 million, based on precedent — and that could push the Mustangs into the top spot on the Pac-12’s list of expansion candidates.

San Diego State has had much more football and men’s basketball success than Colorado, and you can argue it’s in a better market. Would a one-for-one swap be a net upgrade for the Pac-12? — @_alexwakefield

While the San Diego media market isn’t quite as large as Denver and the surrounding area, according to Nielsen, it’s close enough to be immaterial. And from a recruiting standpoint, SDSU’s location is substantially more important to the Pac-12.

Meanwhile, the Aztecs’ major sports have performed better than Colorado’s versions over the past decade.

So yes, that swap would constitute an upgrade on several fronts.

With Colorado’s departure, do you see the Pac-12 adding three schools? — @WHS1969

The bold play at this point would be to add multiple schools at reduced revenue shares — some combination of San Diego State, SMU and Gonzaga, for instance.

But anyone expecting bold action from the Pac-12 presidents is setting themselves up for disappointment.

The group talks about a strategic approach that anticipates “where the puck is going.” In reality, it’s unable to see the puck until the conference gets whacked in the mouth.

Do you feel that you have been misled by your sources inside the Pac-12?— @KenRhodes23

Not at all, and here’s the reason: To a significant extent, our coverage of the media rights process has leaned into 1) sources in the sports media industry who are unaffiliated with the conference, and 2) on-the-record comments by the university presidents.

How would you grade Kliavkoff’s performance to this point? — @miles_adkisson

The Hotline long ago committed to waiting out the media rights negotiations before rendering a verdict on Kliavkoff.

Yes, he was dealt a difficult hand by his predecessor, Larry Scott. But this is what he was hired to do. Construct a media deal. Find new sources of revenue. Put the conference in position to thrive.

(The Pac-12 presidents opted against hiring someone from inside college sports because they wanted an expert in media rights and revenue generation.)

We’ll withhold judgment out of fairness to Kliavkoff, so an incomplete grade remains on the report card.

 

[billfromlaketravis 11358]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Pretty spot on.   Couple thoughts:

• The ACC's contract looked terrible at the time they signed it, but it is actually getting better.   Just not better, fast enough, to match the SEC.  This is because they gave away decades of not being able to go to market so that ESPN would give them the ACC network.   It is just now starting to gain traction and their revenue is increasing because of it.   Third tier rights are nice, but don't match T1 games in terms of revenue, and that's where the ACC won't catch the SEC for a long time, if ever.
• The B12 never formed a network because their households weren't awesome and they never had enough inventory to fill one, its basically sold content to FS1 and ESPN+ and this didn't change with the move to 12.   With the move to 14 and perhaps 16, including their households doubling from 10 to 13, they would have the extra inventory and markets where they could form one in the right conditions.   With cable losing 36% of its homes over the past 5 years, would they want to?
• The ACC and B12 are two different peas in the same pod, financially.   The ACC has 2-3 major draws, 3-5 duds, and some solid middle.  The B12 lacks both major draws and duds, so its just a solid middle.   The ACCs highs are higher, but their lows are lower, evening out their network value.  This could change if the B12 grows to 16 with even money plays.   They'll end around 34-38% below the B1G's set ceiling, higher than the ACC, and with the ability to prove they deserve more money 5 years before the ACC can even go to market.   This is likely the main reason FSU wants out of the deal it forced on the ACC.   It expected to match the SEC with its own network, but that was never going to be the case.
• The Pac had a great contract, best in the biz for a moment, but destroyed it.   Seven channels was too many channels, too much expense, too little payoff and it was evident two years into the experiment.   Now they're at the point that if Arizona leaves, I'm not sure how the Pac remains in the same conversation as the ACC/B12 as long as Oregon/Washington want a new home.  They could add SDSU and SMU, but even if they're worth $200m a year, Oregon/Washington are 40-50% of that contract.  If the B1G takes them or turns to them and says, "we will never, ever want your wagon wheel coffee table" and they join the B12, there is nothing left, due to geography.   It is really a shocking case study on how 12 schools with the brightest minds and massive business schools ran their own operation into the ground.

Oregon and UW getting munsoned would be/is currently hilarious. Oregon has Knight/Nike, and a growing national brand. UW has Amazon and the Seattle TV market. Both has respectable student/fan engagement which is a rarity in the PAC. Both will be in the 5th best conference in the country. 
 

It’s fairly obvious the Big Ten won’t make another move until Notre Dame makes a decision. The Big Ten also has the Domer’s most reliable TV partner in their pocket now. NBC/Peacock if they play their cards correctly, could force ND into the Big Ten. 
 

I think Oregon chickens out and chooses an easy playoff path. The CFP didn’t do anybody a favors with 6 auto bids for conference champions. Oregon can beat up on SMU, SDSU and still easily make the CFP. I think that’s the sell to Phil right now. Don’t worry, if we beat Utah or UW in the conference championship game, we’re in. 

[CustersDoctor 584]

8 hours ago, Crockett said:

I like this except you included UU.

Serious question: Who's your 6th team? CAL, STAN, OST, WST, SDSU, FRENSO.

[NCMountaineer 99]

On 7/29/2023 at 11:54 AM, 'stache said:

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.

not even likely. I live in the heart of ACC country and the general sense around here is that the conference is going to fall apart basically as soon as the GoR is up. The ACC in its current state is a lateral move at best that saves a bit of money. The ACC once Clemson and FSU go to the SEC, and UNC, UVA, and Duke (along with ND) go to the B1G is worth about as much in terms of TV rights as the current Pac 9 is. Yeah most of our old rivals outside of the pederasts and Maryland are there, but those schools can always apply to join the Big 12 when things go to shit for the ACC.

[closetohumping 17392]

Hearing on radio that UConn could be an option

[TKthunder2 4980]

21 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Hearing on radio that UConn could be an option

Only if the PAC lands a TV deal locks up a GOR.

Colorado as #13 makes scheduling extremely difficult. UConn is the fall back option if they can’t land Arizona.

2 hours ago, gatormarc said:

It's also worth nothing that although the 4 are close/culturally similar, they don't have a ton of rivalries with current SEC schools.

VT - none
UNC/NCSstate/UVA - have some history with South Carolina but very little the last 30 years.

 

Missouri says hello.

[billfromlaketravis 11358]

21 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Hearing on radio that UConn could be an option

Yormark sex tape in Storrs confirmed. 
 

But seriously, I think he’s on island that regular season basketball is undervalued. Most of the talking heads think there’s more tv money coming from the tourney, but they’re skeptical adding basketball schools brings more money to conferences. 
 

There’s also a theory that the BIG and SEC will need Big 12 if they break away and form their own super league, and hoops is the hook. 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

UConn is an L for the Big 12. They built some momentum 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

32 minutes ago, NCMountaineer said:

not even likely. I live in the heart of ACC country and the general sense around here is that the conference is going to fall apart basically as soon as the GoR is up. The ACC in its current state is a lateral move at best that saves a bit of money. The ACC once Clemson and FSU go to the SEC, and UNC, UVA, and Duke (along with ND) go to the B1G is worth about as much in terms of TV rights as the current Pac 9 is. Yeah most of our old rivals outside of the pederasts and Maryland are there, but those schools can always apply to join the Big 12 when things go to shit for the ACC.

Yeah the upside is that GoR lasts until 2036 and the downside is that GoR lasts until 2036.

If the B12 stayed at 14 and waited, i can see them gobbling up Pitt and Vtech once the splinter occurs.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

8 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Yormark sex tape in Storrs confirmed. 
 

But seriously, I think he’s on island that regular season basketball is undervalued. Most of the talking heads think there’s more tv money coming from the tourney, but they’re skeptical adding basketball schools brings more money to conferences. 
 

There’s also a theory that the BIG and SEC will need Big 12 if they break away and form their own super league, and hoops is the hook. 

I can see them making more bball money by selling/marketing it differently, but that's just being more efficient.   Last year a lot of top games ended up streaming or hidden.   They just didn't do a good job featuring.  For some reason football games are booked on a 7 day window, but most basketball are booked in the summer, and they rarely change.    If you got more games onto main channels and had good audiences, say 1-2m avg, you could definitely gain more smack, but its not going to out draw football.

In that same regard, i think Storrs is more an ESPN/NYC play, than anything else.   Like they're offering to treat UConn like they treat UNC/Duke, where every game is featured on ESPN, regardless of who they play.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[BurntOrange&White 39614]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

UConn is an L for the Big 12. They built some momentum 

Agree with this. UCONN should be absolute last option after pac schools

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

UConn is being floated to keep pressure on AZ.

I think Yormark would do it if he “has” to.  But I don’t think they have much support from the Big 12 as a whole.

At the end of the day, the networks are going to make the call.

[gatormarc 904]

26 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Missouri says hello.

Needs were different for #14 vs #17

[TKthunder2 4980]

3 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Needs were different for #14 vs #17

True, but while the SEC will be fine without, the demographic and long term benefit of moving into NC are fairly obvious.

[gatormarc 904]

17 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

True, but while the SEC will be fine without, the demographic and long term benefit of moving into NC are fairly obvious.

Enough to justify expanding to the point that we are a league and not a conference?

[Hurtlocker 2208]

9 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Enough to justify expanding to the point that we are a league and not a conference?

Personally, i don't think so.   The SEC has enough brands to service.    ND is the only additive left.

[TKthunder2 4980]

19 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Enough to justify expanding to the point that we are a league and not a conference?

I agree with the sentiment. But if the Big Ten is going coast to coast and trying to move South with UNC, UVA, and FSU the SEC would be foolish to just let them in without any resistance.

As I stated on the last page:

FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VT works

Clemson, UNC, UVA, Duke(or whoever) works too

They need FSU or UNC to go past 16. If the Big Ten landed both of those it would be a big loss for the SEC (and if the SEC lands both that would be a big win).

Assuming the Big Ten lands both FSU and UNC then I think the SEC standing pat is the right move. Without those, any moves would be too dilutive and spread the conference out for very little return.

[Reese Bennett 3605]

I would like nothing more than Clemson be left out in the cold. Dabo can then go form the Holy 8 Conference with Baylor, Hillsdale, Oral Roberts, Liberty, George Fox, Regent, and Bob Jones.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

21 minutes ago, Reese Bennett said:

I would like nothing more than Clemson be left out in the cold. Dabo can then go form the Holy 8 Conference with Baylor, Hillsdale, Oral Roberts, Liberty, George Fox, Regent, and Bob Jones.

??

Clemson isn’t a religious school.  It’s not even private. It’s a public institution.

 

[gatormarc 904]

1 minute ago, Uncle Nate said:

??

Clemson isn’t a religious school.  It’s not even private. It’s a public institution.

 

Probably just seems like it because Dabo is in a cult.

[gatormarc 904]

41 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with the sentiment. But if the Big Ten is going coast to coast and trying to move South with UNC, UVA, and FSU the SEC would be foolish to just let them in without any resistance.

But I was assured by B1G fans that they would never have expanded if they hadn't been "forced to" by the SEC.

[Reese Bennett 3605]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

??

Clemson isn’t a religious school.  It’s not even private. It’s a public institution.

 

Check out Dabo's quote on NIL.

[Big Frog II 511]

If you were the Big, who would you take of Washington, Oregon, Cal, and/or Stanford?  Are would you pass on all of them?

[Satchel 6908]

1 hour ago, Reese Bennett said:

Check out Dabo's quote on NIL.

His fake sanctimony makes me want to give three cheers to sin.

[TKthunder2 4980]

33 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

If you were the Big, who would you take of Washington, Oregon, Cal, and/or Stanford?  Are would you pass on all of them?

Big Ten, pass on all until you get clarity from ND/ACC.

Big 12, UO/UW are obvious takes. Cal/Stanford could get invited but they are too busy looking down on anyone not in the B1G/PAC that it’s not worth the effort or energy right now to consider them realistic candidates. Maybe after 5 years in the wilderness they’ll come down from their high horse.