Realignment talk not going away

[LTbear 4157]

12 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

that Colorado-Nebraska rivalry, culminating in the 2001 game, was pretty fucking enjoyable

it doesn't feel like a "rivalry" when they play now

It was pretty fucking epic. Disagreed on that last sentence though. Both games the last two years have been pure good old rivalry hatred, and immensely enjoyable. Both had a lot of emotions, a lot of big plays, and down-to-the-wire suspense. 

[LTbear 4157]

12 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Agreed.  The Big 12 was a really good fit, and even still is with the exception of WVU.  It covered every major college between the Mississippi and the Rockies except for Piggy and Herky - who are both solid cultural fits in their current arrangement.  Sure, the Plains are a forgotten part of the country without a ton of sexy media markets, but people fucking love college sports here.

The original Big XII was indeed pretty epic. As a Baylor fan I actually enjoy having TCU in the league, but I understand few others probably feel the same. I also don't dislike WVU - they're odd if you look on a map, but culturally they feel right in line with Ames, Stillwater, Lubbock, etc. 

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

38 minutes ago, LTbear said:

The original Big XII was indeed pretty epic. As a Baylor fan I actually enjoy having TCU in the league, but I understand few others probably feel the same. I also don't dislike WVU - they're odd if you look on a map, but culturally they feel right in line with Ames, Stillwater, Lubbock, etc. 

I think both TCU and WVU have been entertaining members and good fits - one geographically, the other culturally.  I went to Morgantown in 2013 and had a blast.  Their fans were extremely grateful to be playing games against schools that gave a shit about football.

There was not a loss of football quality by swapping them for the 4 that left.  None of those schools were any better at actual sports than TCU or WVU, and have continued to exist at the same level.  That 2014 TCU team would probably wax any squad that any of the 4 have put together in that time frame, save maybe the 2012 Aggy team.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Al_4_ISU

[LTbear 4157]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

I think both TCU and WVU have been entertaining members and good fits - one geographically, the other culturally.  I went to Morgantown in 2013 and had a blast.  Their fans were extremely grateful to be playing games against schools that gave a shit about football.

There was not a loss of football quality by swapping them for the 4 that left.  None of those schools were any better at actual sports than TCU or WVU, and have continued to exist at the same level.  That 2014 TCU team would probably wax any squad that any of the 4 have put together in that time frame, save maybe the 2012 Aggy team.

Agreed all around. TCU and WVU great adds from a competitive standpoint, but there's no denying they don't fully make-up for the loss of four institutions, especially four with such big alumni bases and more sports tradition/ history in some cases (especially Nebraska, obviously). 

I think 2014 TCU could have smacked 2012 Aggy, for the record. That was a fantastic team. The Baylor-TCU game that year was an all-time great for me. 

[texifornia 56479]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think both TCU and WVU have been entertaining members and good fits - one geographically, the other culturally.  I went to Morgantown in 2013 and had a blast.  Their fans were extremely grateful to be playing games against schools that gave a shit about football.

There was not a loss of football quality by swapping them for the 4 that left.  None of those schools were any better at actual sports than TCU or WVU, and have continued to exist at the same level.  That 2014 TCU team would probably wax any squad that any of the 4 have put together in that time frame, save maybe the 2012 Aggy team.

WVU is a blast for away fans and they really give a shit.

They know they're not a perfect culture fit, but they're resigned to not being at the academic level to join with their Appalachian rivals (Pitt, VT) in the ACC.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

4 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Agreed all around. TCU and WVU great adds from a competitive standpoint, but there's no denying they don't fully make-up for the loss of four institutions, especially four with such big alumni bases and more sports tradition/ history in some cases (especially Nebraska, obviously). 

I think 2014 TCU could have smacked 2012 Aggy, for the record. That was a fantastic team. The Baylor-TCU game that year was an all-time great for me. 

Right.  The losses of those schools were felt in a sense of geographic cohesion, rivalry, alumni base, etc.  Extremely important for fan interest in college football, but definitely not a hit from the sense of enjoying the games.  Playing Nebraska meant more to me than any game other than Iowa, because they were the bully growing up, and the whole state is one giant cocksucking cult of Tom Osborne.  Missouri was a big one as well, just because we all know they're sister fucking slaver meth-heads, and the Telephone Trophy is hilarious.  There's no way TCU or WVU could ever generate the same response.

[LTbear 4157]

46 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Right.  The losses of those schools were felt in a sense of geographic cohesion, rivalry, alumni base, etc.  Extremely important for fan interest in college football, but definitely not a hit from the sense of enjoying the games.  Playing Nebraska meant more to me than any game other than Iowa, because they were the bully growing up, and the whole state is one giant cocksucking cult of Tom Osborne.  Missouri was a big one as well, just because we all know they're sister fucking slaver meth-heads, and the Telephone Trophy is hilarious.  There's no way TCU or WVU could ever generate the same response.

Yep, exactly. And why Baylor fans may be the one group (we don't admit it much) that really enjoyed TCU getting into the conference; they're a natural rival. Not knocking TCU - they have a very strong football resume in the past 25 years - I just know that other fanbases probably weren't as jazzed as most Bear fans were. 

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

40 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Yep, exactly. And why Baylor fans may be the one group (we don't admit it much) that really enjoyed TCU getting into the conference; they're a natural rival. Not knocking TCU - they have a very strong football resume in the past 25 years - I just know that other fanbases probably weren't as jazzed as most Bear fans were. 

Baylor has every reason to want to play TCU.

I like TCU being in the league, have had good interactions with their fans, and find them a generally solid program.  But I can't really hate them.

[hiphopfroggy 121]

USC joining the Big 12 down the line 'makes a lot of sense'

ByNICK KOSKO 84 minutes ago 

 

 

https://247sports.com/Article/USC-joining-the-Big-12-down-the-line-makes-a-lot-of-sense-Trojans-PAC-12-television-contract-2024-144592787/

 

 

Ideally, Abraham believes USC and other PAC 12 members would need to make a move to the Big 12 to ensure the biggest bang for their buck. The PAC 12 expanded to 12 teams in 2011 when they added Colorado and Utah. If USC were to leave, a second team would likely join them so the conference could rebrand back to their old PAC 10 moniker.

“Joining the Big 12 with other PAC 12 members makes a lot of sense,” Abraham said. “Just having your own tier three rights would be such an upgrade over what they're getting now with the PAC 12 networks. So I think something like this is realistic over the next couple of years but it starts with USC getting their act together first.”

[DCLonghorn 244]

1 hour ago, hiphopfroggy said:

USC joining the Big 12 down the line 'makes a lot of sense'

ByNICK KOSKO 84 minutes ago 

 

 

https://247sports.com/Article/USC-joining-the-Big-12-down-the-line-makes-a-lot-of-sense-Trojans-PAC-12-television-contract-2024-144592787/

 

 

Ideally, Abraham believes USC and other PAC 12 members would need to make a move to the Big 12 to ensure the biggest bang for their buck. The PAC 12 expanded to 12 teams in 2011 when they added Colorado and Utah. If USC were to leave, a second team would likely join them so the conference could rebrand back to their old PAC 10 moniker.

“Joining the Big 12 with other PAC 12 members makes a lot of sense,” Abraham said. “Just having your own tier three rights would be such an upgrade over what they're getting now with the PAC 12 networks. So I think something like this is realistic over the next couple of years but it starts with USC getting their act together first.”

And just like that, the biggest hurdle in the Big 12, disparate 3rd tier rights, is now a selling point.

[Loose Stool 112]

I see this getting a lot of traction in the coming months.  The financial disparity is well documented and these west coast teams have to do something.  Hopefully, the B12 is watching this closely and has a plan to be proactive.

 

[LTbear 4157]

@Loose Stool are you related to @ButtFumble?

[Loose Stool 112]

@LTbear Negative

[camel at sea 589]

35 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

And just like that, the biggest hurdle in the Big 12, disparate 3rd tier rights, is now a selling point.

Not to mention, reeling in a school like SC would mean the equally shared money would also improve for everyone.  

[tonedeaf 56]

If we take USC and dump baylor, then add the AZ schools, that would be back to 12 right?  Would that work?   

[JWinTX 53]

6 minutes ago, tonedeaf said:

If we take USC and dump baylor, then add the AZ schools, that would be back to 12 right?  Would that work?   

There is no dumping of Baylor as long as the Big XII exists, which is too bad for the rest of us.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

49 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

And just like that, the biggest hurdle in the Big 12, disparate 3rd tier rights, is now a selling point.

Back in 2010 I thought that could always be a selling point, but I don't think what anyone considered at that juncture was the extent to which cord cutting would uproot the cable subscription model and cut out the knees from the network model.

[kopp0e 1135]

9 hours ago, utee94 said:

Ultimately, the question will be, when your sports budget is $100M-$150M/year, is $2M-$5M per year deficit to other conferences, really enough to enter the logistical nightmare of a conference that ranges from the west coast to the plains states?  So far the answer has been no.

If that gap widens to $10M/year would it be enough?   Where's the point that it becomes compelling? That's what USC will have to decide.

 

 

 

 

It may have already been decided, by the most recent news of Disney gaining all 3 tiers of SEC media content...

Texas earns $53 million for 1st/2nd/3rd tier media contracts, vs B1G @ $51 million... (SEC $65 million in 2024)...
Oklahoma earns $48 million for 1st/2nd/3rd tier media contracts, vs B1G @ $51 million... (SEC $65 million in 2024)...
USC & UCLA earn $31 million for 1st/2nd/3rd tier media contracts, vs B1G @ $51 million... (SEC $65 million in 2024)...

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by kopp0e

[kopp0e 1135]

There seems to be some traction to the idea of USC/ UCLA/ Texas & Oklahoma in the same athletic conference..?

 

Stewart Mandel

 

@slmandel

 

USC AD Mike Bohn recently said "everything's on the table" with USC's conference membership. I talked Pac-12 future in this week's Mailbag. https://theathletic.com/1652355/2020/03/04/stewart-mandel-ryan-day-ohio-state-unc-texas-am-usc/…

@Andy_Staples

urges the Big 12 to pounce.

Edited March 5, 2020 by kopp0e

[TexasMan 10785]

 

[SunUvAbitchMarcos 129]

it cost them about $7 million in exit fees to leave the Big 12
since that time they have been earning about $1 to $3 million a year less in the PAC 12 not counting any 3rd tier they might have earned in the Big 12 with the exception of maybe 1 year
one can see here from FY 2013 and beyond
https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/campus-corner/article313346/Forbes-Big-Ten-tops-revenue-list-but-Big-12-richest-league-per-school.html
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/05/21/pac-12-conference-fy14-revenues-expenses-and-per-school-distributions/
https://herosports.com/college-football/pac-12-revenue-distribution-power-five-ahah
quick math from the first article for 2013 the Big 12 was about $2 million ahead and that is not counting the massively higher overhead of the PAC 12 because of their network ownership that means they distribute less of their total revenue than other conferences
2014
Big 12: $23 million
Pac-12: $21 million (does not include Tier 3 withholdings of approx 750k)
2015
in 2015 (not on a Wilner article) the PAC 12 was ahead by about $2 million
2016
Big 12: $30.4 million
Pac-12: $28.7 million
2017
Big 12: $34 million 
Pac-12: $29.5 million
2018
Big 12: $37.5 million
Pac-12: $32.5 million
so you are looking at -$7 (exit fees) + (2011 unknown) + (2012 unknown) - $2 (2013) -$2 (2014) +$2 (2015)  -$1.7 (2016) -$4.5 (2017) -$5 (2018)
so right there you are looking at $20.2 million in the hole from Big 12 revenues
they should be below the Big 12 about another $5 million in 2019 with lower PAC12n revenues because they have been getting dropped and because the PAC 12 has been missing the playoffs and they are doing poorly in NCAA credits so you are at $25.2
it should be noted as Wilner shows many PAC 12 schools actually pay (out of their own pocket after distributions) amounts of about $500,000 to $1m+ to buy back their 3rd tier content from whatever entity they had sold it off to (that is the $750,000 he averages in his numbers), but there is a chance that Colorado coming from the Big 12 did not have that issue so I am not counting that......but if CU had been in the Big 12 they would have been able to sell their 3rd tier rights just like everyone else and that would be at the lowest $1 million per year (everyone in the Big 12 sold theirs for more than that some much more) and those 3rd tier numbers are not in any of the above distribution numbers.....so if you add in $1 million per year for 9 years to the Big 12 numbers you have another -$9 million
so Colorado is looking at being $34.2 million in the hole easily from not being in the Big 12
so perhaps my $50 million was a bit high, but I imagine if you add in travel cost and lower ticket sales from visiting fans (no one is coming east to see PAC 12 football in Colorado from PAC 12 schools) you can probably get a good deal closer to $50 million
I will be the first to say that "travel" is not always a factor of distance it is a factor of availability of flights and other services, but even the harder places to get to for Colorado vs Big 12 schools are not as hard to get to as some PAC 12 schools plus some of the "easy" places to get to for Colorado are going to be extremely expensive for hotels and meals because they are in California and Seattle where as the bigger cities for the Big 12 are not that expensive and when you factor that in for all sports I imagine they are spending a great deal more on travel
but still I was a bit high with $50 million on pure revenues it is closer to $35 million using comparable numbers from the same sources just counting distributions  (that are very reliable like Wilner) no travel or lower ticket sales and that is using a very conservative $1 million valuation on potential 3rd tier earnings in the Big 12 if you bumped that to $2 million per year (hardly unreasonable) then you are looking at a $43.2 million deficit which is a lot of money over 10 years especially to a program like Colorado
at best Colorado is easily $25 million in the hole and growing each year and continuing to grow until the current TV deals run out, but I think it is highly reasonable to include some 3rd tier revenues if they were in the Big 12 and even at the very lowest end of that Colorado gets into the hole much more than $25 million and much closer to $50 million

Fair enough. Thanks for the thorough reply. Makes sense



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hornius Emeritus 12408]

2 hours ago, TexasMan said:

 

By Andy Staples


The people in charge have changed. The landscape has changed. But two interviews given in the past week by USC’s athletic director have made one thing abundantly clear. If the Big 12 wants to pull a Count of Monte Cristo and gut the league that tried to sentence it to college sports purgatory 10 years ago, it’s going to have the chance.

And given the opportunity, it absolutely should do it.

Last week, Ryan Abraham of 247Sports asked new USC AD Mike Bohn during a podcast interview whether the Trojans would be willing to consider independence or joining another conference. “I think right now, and (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) would agree with this, everything’s on the table,” Bohn replied.

Spoiler alert: Larry absolutely would not agree with this.

Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com then called Bohn and asked him to clarify. Bohn said that USC is “aligned” with the Pac-12. He also said this:

“There’s no talk of (leaving), but guess what? If it was on the table, we would certainly explore that. But I’ve got to be careful. The league is really tender.

“The context that I was talking about was whether it was league TV stuff, creative pieces with any other type of deliverable, it has to be on the table. Guess what? If that helps (the league) understand the importance of what our campuses are going through, so be it.”

Those words could not be reassuring to the people at Pac-12 headquarters. Nor should they be surprising. The leaders of Pac-12 schools, especially the ones such as USC that provide the league’s drawing power, grow more frustrated with each passing day as they fall farther behind the Big Ten and SEC.

A new media rights deal is coming for the Pac-12, but not until after the Big Ten and SEC make new deals that will allow them to continue to dwarf the Pac-12’s revenue-generating capacity. Short of making people suddenly care about Cal football the way Auburn or Iowa fans feel about their teams, there isn’t much anyone in the Pac-12 can do to change the league’s trajectory.

But what if there was another way? What if there was a league that had the capacity to take on the Pac-12’s biggest earners and create a new entity that could get closer to those numbers the Big Ten and SEC can generate? And what if that league already had a financial setup designed to appeal to programs whose leaders are sick of subsidizing conference members whose brands aren’t nearly as strong?

Well, there is such a league.

The Big 12.

Between now and when the Pac-12’s media rights deal — and accompanying Grant of Rights agreement — runs out in spring 2024, the Big 12 needs to invite USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Arizona and Arizona State. The Big 12 needs to do to the Pac-12 what the Pac-12 tried to do 10 years ago to the Big 12. It needs to do it unapologetically. If we learned anything from the previous rounds of conference realignment, this is a kill-or-be-killed business. The Pac-12 took its shot in 2010 and missed. The Big 12 can secure its long-term survival by ensuring it doesn’t.

Before we lay out the blueprint for future conference realignment intrigue, let’s travel back 10 years. The Pac-10 and Big 12, looking to strengthen their upcoming media rights deals, had held some preliminary talks about a potential scheduling alliance. Scott, the new Pac-10 commissioner who had come to the league from the Women’s Tennis Association, thought much bigger. He realized that if he could pry Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Colorado away from the Big 12, his league could sign an obscenely rich media rights deal and create a conference network that essentially would print money. Just imagine it: Texas, USC, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M under one umbrella.

Scott nearly pulled it off, too. Unfortunately for him, he got outmaneuvered by a more experienced college sports operator named DeLoss Dodds. Dodds, the longtime athletic director at Texas, went down the road with the Pac-10 while simultaneously remaining engaged with Big 12 leadership. The endgame for Texas was the best possible deal — for Texas. The Pac-10 crew thought the deal was done. Scott and his team visited campuses, ready to welcome the new members to the fold. Just before the Pac-10 group left College Station to head to Austin, Texas A&M regent Jim Wilson asked Scott what he planned to do when Texas asked to create its own network. Scott replied that such an option wasn’t on the table.

Except that’s exactly what Texas wanted. Instead of finalizing a deal, Texas officials asked if they could join the Pac-10 and still start their own cable network. The entire Pac-10 plan was contingent upon all the schools pooling their third-tier rights to create a conference network, and the deal fell apart. The first Big 12 Missile Crisis ended without total destruction, and Texas got its chance to create the channel we now know as the Longhorn Network.

The Pac-10’s incursion came as Nebraska was leaving for the Big Ten. Colorado used the drama as a chance to leap from the Big 12 to the Pac-12, where it appeared to be a better cultural fit. The Big 12 managed to stay together, but the creation of the Longhorn Network the following year was the last straw for Texas A&M, which left for the SEC. Missouri, which also had been looking to leave, quickly followed suit. The Big 12 was completely destabilized and seemed in danger of becoming like the Big East, which had started this century as a peer of the Power 5 leagues and wound up getting split into a basketball-only league (the Big East) and a middle-class all-sports league (the American Athletic Conference) after the ACC took what it needed to ensure its own survival.

For several years, the Big 12 was a laughingstock. Its attempts to regain its footing were lampooned. Some of this was justified. Paying a consultant to use two years of College Football Playoff data to guide longterm strategy was the equivalent of lighting money on fire, and the upshot of that was a dog-and-pony-show audition process that made schools such as UCF and Cincinnati think they had a chance to join a Power 5 league when the truth was the 10 existing members weren’t going to take on another mouth to feed unless that new member could guarantee the existing members made the same or more money.

Meanwhile, the leagues that had agreed to even media rights revenue splits across the board enjoyed the stability the Big 12 sought. But while all those other leagues were pointing and laughing at the Big 12, the Big 12 members were cutting individual deals for their third-tier rights that made them quite content from a revenue standpoint and left them competitive with the ACC and more comfortable than Pac-12 members. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who was Stanford’s athletic director when the Pac-10 tried to raid the Big 12, steered the league out of an existential crisis and into calm waters.

Last year, the Big 12 distributed an average of $38.8 million per school. The average distribution by the Pac-12 for the 2017-18 school year was $31.3 million per school. In the same fiscal year, the Big 12’s full distributions ranged from $33.6 million to $36.6 million. But that doesn’t paint the entire picture.

Because Big 12 schools can sell their third-tier rights individually, they can make millions more. Texas makes about $15 million a year from the Longhorn Network. Oklahoma makes about $7 million a year for its third-tier deal. Pac-12 schools’ third-tier rights are bundled to program the Pac-12 Network. That money is included in the conference revenue figure. Jon Wilner of the Bay Area News Group reported last year that the per-school contribution from the network in 2018 came out to about $2.7 million.

Now it is Scott’s league that faces the existential crisis. And the drivers for realignment have changed. It makes no sense for the Big Ten or SEC to expand again. There is no one other than Texas and Oklahoma that either league would want, and Texas and Oklahoma seem content being the primary muscle in the Big 12. Meanwhile, cord-cutting has rendered territory acquisition for the sake of higher cable network subscriber fees, the raison d’etre for the last round of realignment, a fool’s errand. If there is another major round of realignment — and the move being suggested here probably is the only inciting action that would inspire another round — it will be driven by brand names that can draw viewers from across the country.

USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington fit that description. Arizona and Arizona State, meanwhile, are a geographic fit for the league in a fast-growing state that could make the territory valuable for football recruiting and for brand purposes. USC especially would appreciate the ability to negotiate a separate third-tier deal. The Trojan Network might not command as much as the Longhorn Network, but it would bring USC a hell of a lot more money than the Pac-12 Network does. Meanwhile, the Trojans’ new conference would be headquartered in quite reasonable confines in Irving, Texas, instead of bleeding money paying for space in pricy San Francisco.

Should Oregon and/or Washington protest that they can’t come without Oregon State and/or Washington State, Big 12 officials can simply say “Fine. Then stay where you are.” They could stay content at 14, or they could look in a different direction — perhaps toward UCF and Cincinnati — to create a truly nationwide league. (In sports other than football and basketball, teams could be grouped geographically to limit extreme travel.) They also could approach Stanford and Cal. An association with such academic powerhouses likely would appeal to the other Big 12 presidents. The problem is that neither could draw the kind of interest Oregon and Washington would. USC is the big prize here, but all of these schools could benefit from an association with Texas and Oklahoma. ESPN and Fox would be willing to pay big money for that league.

This could be met with serious resistance from Pac-12 schools that don’t get invited. Remember, Baylor fought Texas A&M’s exit from the Big 12 out of fear that the league would collapse and didn’t stand down until it was clear the Bears would remain in a power conference. That likely would happen again. But if all this takes place within the vicinity of the expiration of the Pac-12’s current deal, there might not be much anyone could do.

The popular notion back in 2010 was that if one power league expanded to 16, all the surviving ones also would. I doubt that would happen in this case. The Big Ten and SEC would have no reason to do it. The ACC would happily take Notre Dame football to create a 15th full member — and if that happened might grab a 16th member — but the Fighting Irish have made it abundantly clear that they wish to remain independent in football.

A portion of USC’s fan base is pushing for independence or a partnership with football rival Notre Dame, but the Trojans might be better off joining forces with the Longhorns and Sooners. Just as Scott intended 10 years ago, but in a completely different way.

If the members of the Big 12 want to get aggressive about their future — and perhaps exact a little vengeance — they’ll consider this plan. It could create an immediate payday followed by decades of stability for a league that nearly imploded 10 years ago. Meanwhile, we’d get USC-Oklahoma and Oregon-Texas as conference games.

And if the leaders of the Big 12 decide to take this advice and form a raiding party, I only have one request:

They have to call it the Big 16.
 

[tonedeaf 56]

14 hours ago, JWinTX said:

There is no dumping of Baylor as long as the Big XII exists, which is too bad for the rest of us.

Unfortunately you are probably right.    I just cant figure out why Texas has to be associated to that POS.  Oh well!!!

[Lidig8r 1852]

12 hours ago, TexasMan said:

 

Not so fast my friend.

Before any state schools from California could come on board with the Big 12, the issue of Assembly Bill 1887 would have to be resolved.

California's Assembly Bill 1887 prohibits approval of any state funded or state sponsored travel to states which has enacted a law (which in the opinion of California) discriminates on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation or gender expression. That means no travel for any collegiate sporting teams, bands, coaches, or paying for college admins or professors to even attend conferences in prohibited states. The list of prohibited states currently include: Kansas, Iowa, Oklahoma ... and Texas. On the other hand, California state schools could still play at West Virginia. YAY! Go Mountaineers.

Now, Texas has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Texas' challenge to AB 1887. But, if the Supremes do not take up the petition and that bill is not revoked, there will be no merger with California state schools. USC and Stanford are probably exempt (I don't believe they accept any state funding). But, UCLA, Cal-Berzerkely? Nope Nope Nope.

[PilotsError 2281]

Yet another reason to keep that fucking state out of our state.

[2300 Nueces 163]

Tex-Ou go to the $ec.  I would rather play piggy, corndog, sheephumper, blowu, and the Mississippi inbreds every year.  Far less trouble and more money.

[JFKFC 4878]

If we are going to 18-team super conferences,  I'd like to see Texas, Washington, Cal and Stanford go to the B1G.

 

 

[Thiefery 4964]

Why people want to go to the rust belt to play football I will never understand

[hiphopfroggy 121]

2 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

Not so fast my friend.

Before any state schools from California could come on board with the Big 12, the issue of Assembly Bill 1887 would have to be resolved.

California's Assembly Bill 1887 prohibits approval of any state funded or state sponsored travel to states which has enacted a law (which in the opinion of California) discriminates on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation or gender expression. That means no travel for any collegiate sporting teams, bands, coaches, or paying for college admins or professors to even attend conferences in prohibited states. The list of prohibited states currently include: Kansas, Iowa, Oklahoma ... and Texas. On the other hand, California state schools could still play at West Virginia. YAY! Go Mountaineers.

Now, Texas has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Texas' challenge to AB 1887. But, if the Supremes do not take up the petition and that bill is not revoked, there will be no merger with California state schools. USC and Stanford are probably exempt (I don't believe they accept any state funding). But, UCLA, Cal-Berzerkely? Nope Nope Nope.

Cal baseball played a 3 game series in Fort Worth last weekend. Their Football team starts a home and home w/TCU this year that will see them coming to Fort Worth again next year. USC basketball was in Fort Worth 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure Stanford tennis was in Fort Worth last week too.

 

Non-issue, those Cail schools are loaded and don't need govnt money, they got other monies. 

[texifornia 56479]

17 minutes ago, hiphopfroggy said:

Cal baseball played a 3 game series in Fort Worth last weekend. Their Football team starts a home and home w/TCU this year that will see them coming to Fort Worth again next year. USC basketball was in Fort Worth 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure Stanford tennis was in Fort Worth last week too.

 

Non-issue, those Cail schools are loaded and don't need govnt money, they got other monies. 

Yeah, practically it's a complete nonfactor for FBS athletic departments.

[Thiefery 4964]

With more talk about this move.. which network will throw a life saver to the Pac 12 the way ESPN did to the Big 12?

[hiphopfroggy 121]

USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona St

UT
TT
TCU
Baylor

OU
OK St
Kansas
K-St

Utah
Colorado
Iowa St
WVU

[texifornia 56479]

1 hour ago, hiphopfroggy said:

USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona St

UT
TT
TCU
Baylor

OU
OK St
Kansas
K-St

Utah
Colorado
Iowa St
WVU

Yeah we'd be taking Washington and especially Oregon before the mountain schools.

[kopp0e 1135]

9 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

Not so fast my friend.

Before any state schools from California could come on board with the Big 12, the issue of Assembly Bill 1887 would have to be resolved.

California's Assembly Bill 1887 prohibits approval of any state funded or state sponsored travel to states which has enacted a law (which in the opinion of California) discriminates on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation or gender expression. That means no travel for any collegiate sporting teams, bands, coaches, or paying for college admins or professors to even attend conferences in prohibited states. The list of prohibited states currently include: Kansas, Iowa, Oklahoma ... and Texas. On the other hand, California state schools could still play at West Virginia. YAY! Go Mountaineers.

Now, Texas has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Texas' challenge to AB 1887. But, if the Supremes do not take up the petition and that bill is not revoked, there will be no merger with California state schools. USC and Stanford are probably exempt (I don't believe they accept any state funding). But, UCLA, Cal-Berzerkely? Nope Nope Nope.

Thatś not correct, that bill pertains to as civic events (as in convention center/ conferences & meetings) but the athletic portion is null to USC/ Stanford...

Meanwhile, B1G has itś own issues with scandal at 11 of 14 member schools over the past (that seem to repeat itself) meh, the new commish will fix it..?

Quote

Eight years of Big Ten scandals paint unflattering picture, but ...

www.cbssports.com › college-football › news › eight-years-of-big-ten...

Aug 13, 2018 - Eleven of the Big Ten's 14 programs have been involved in a serious incident over ... "The fact of it is these are sexual predators," Delany said. It must be acknowledged that arguably the nation's richest conference is going through one of its roughest off-field patches. Since 2011 -- the year the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke at Penn State -- to the current Maryland investigation, there have been at least 16 high-profile instances of alleged wrongdoing in Big Ten athletic departments involving 11 of the conference's 14 schools.

Both of those are private schools, and UCLA & California just use donor funds to still go to games in said locations, *UCLA has since scheduled Auburn & other team in the list, just as California has games as TCU/ Stanford vs Vanderbilt, ect... Note, Minnesota has same wording in itś state sponsored bills that prohibits travel to locations as North Carlolina (for the athroom bill), thus if you want to pull the ẗhey ain the same as us"card, don forget that SEC would be the league with most similar voting habits of Oklahoma & Texas... But anyhow, I think I have placed a chart before, but here goes for red/ blue/ swing states: 

Likeminded states in PXC - Arizona/Utah/ Kansas/Oklahoma/Texas... (Washington/Oregon/California) [Colorado/Iowa]

Likeminded states in B1G - Nebraska/ Indiana... (Minnesota/Wisconsin/Illinois/Michigan/Pennsylvania/New Jersey/Maryland) [Iowa/Ohio]

Likeminded states in SEC - Missouri/Arkansas/Texas/Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama/Tennessee/Kentucky/South Carolina/Georgia... [Florida]

Quote

Andy Staples makes case for Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA move to Big 16 Conference. Andy Staples of The Athletic joined me on Wednesday for a discussion about the possibility of Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA leaving the Pac-12 Conference. Staples thinks the Big 12 could become the Big 16.

Andy Staples makes case for Oregon, Washington, USC and ...



https://soundcloud.com/kxtg-the-bald...andy-staples-2

In either a move to SEC or XII raiding PAC, the schools in this reagion would still be in a league with many like-minded constituents...
In the merger option, both of the king southwestern schools keep fiefdom within a expanded footprint (opposed to being a newbie)...

Edited March 5, 2020 by kopp0e

[kopp0e 1135]

6 hours ago, Thiefery said:

With more talk about this move.. which network will throw a life saver to the Pac 12 the way ESPN did to the Big 12?

Unless itś Fox, or CBS (as Google, or any other tech giant, has yet to enter the fray), I don really see it happening..?

[hiphopfroggy 121]

3 hours ago, texifornia said:

Yeah we'd be taking Washington and especially Oregon before the mountain schools.

 

 

• USC
• UCLA
• Washington
• Oregon

 

• UT
• TT
• TCU
• Baylor

 

• OU
• OK St
• Kansas
• K-State

 

• Arizona
• Arizona St
• Iowa St
• WVU

[TexasBuckeye 43]

The only way for any of this to work is for the PAC12 big schools to join the B1G and/or Big 12 in football only; Oregon St. Washington St, and Utah join a lesser western league in football. Then retain the PAC12 for all their other sports. I know this would entail a lot of work, but it is the only way for this to work. 

[Gaffords 755]

8 hours ago, Thiefery said:

With more talk about this move.. which network will throw a life saver to the Pac 12 the way ESPN did to the Big 12?

The difference is ESPN torpedoed the PAC-NET when they used the SEC to flirt with aggy...   then they nuked it with the LHN.  They knew the PAC-NET would be doomed without a (Texas) bridge to the east. And Fox doesn't seem interested in saving the PAC.   Besides, it is in ESPN's interest to push as many top teams to the Big 12 so they can start yet another network that would rival the money they make off the secnet.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

Is this seriously being analyzed through the lens of Presidential voting patterns?

[texifornia 56479]

39 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Is this seriously being analyzed through the lens of Presidential voting patterns?

Koppoe's an odd duck

[kopp0e 1135]

1 hour ago, texifornia said:

Koppoe's an odd duck

Umm, note the post the gave the initial post, that claims bathroom bills (or whatnot) have an affect on realignment...

From my point of view, that would not be something that makes a great deal of difference in the discussion, (but I am an oddity, I'll admit)..!

___

Pac-12 football lose ASU, USC, Oregon, Washington, UCLA to Big 12?

 

21 hours ago · He brought up the idea of USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon and Washington joining the Big 12 (which actually only has 10 teams). "The Big 12 is not as poorly run as people outside of Big 12 country think," Staples said on the Andy Staples Show podcast.

[1leggedduck 443]

The prospect of a Texas/USC conference game gruntles me greatly. But I think we can all agree that ultimately, aggy is a bunch of dumb ass, tard, weirdo, cock suckers, who went off with people who ultimately took advantage of them, and to no real advancement of their position in the world. Oh well, fuck em and good ridance.

I don't think we belong in the SEC, and don't want to go there, but I hope it gets kicked around so aggy can realize that they are not on the same footing as LSU. 

[utee94 15744]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

"The Big 12 is not as poorly run as people outside of Big 12 country think," Staples said on the Andy Staples Show podcast.

Heh, well, I don't know about THAT, but it's not as poorly run as the PAC, that's for sure.

 

 

[Thiefery 4964]

On a USC message board I read this :

 We are in a pissing contest between Texas and Stanford

Texas told Stanford no because they wanted to keep the LHN.

Stanford is trying to go after Texas' academic standing

Texas is trying to use us to force Stanford in a corner

Stanford should stick to academics and allow someone else to run the athletic end.

But supposedly CBS wants to underwrite a Big 12/PAC 12 merge

Texas has way more power now than they did in 2011.
Stanford made a huge mistake and they cannot admit it.

 

any truth to Stanford being the one leading the conference?

[texifornia 56479]

3 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

On a USC message board I read this :

 We are in a pissing contest between Texas and Stanford

Texas told Stanford no because they wanted to keep the LHN.

Stanford is trying to go after Texas' academic standing

Texas is trying to use us to force Stanford in a corner

Stanford should stick to academics and allow someone else to run the athletic end.

But supposedly CBS wants to underwrite a Big 12/PAC 12 merge

Texas has way more power now than they did in 2011.
Stanford made a huge mistake and they cannot admit it.

 

any truth to Stanford being the one leading the conference?

Hm, they are the kings of Olympic sports. Like half the US women's swim team including Ledecky has passed through there.

[Thiefery 4964]

Just now, texifornia said:

Hm, they are the kings of Olympic sports. Like half the US women's swim team including Ledecky has passed through there.

I forgot about the swim team.. Seems like when I watch the finals, it's always Texas, Stanford and Cal representing.

[utee94 15744]

The vast majority of that sounds like message board fantasy.  How on Earth is Stanford "trying to go after Texas' academic standing?"

There is no pissing match between Texas and Stanford.  That's even weirder and more far-fetched than most of the crap posted on THIS thread.

[LTbear 4157]

40 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

On a USC message board I read this :

 We are in a pissing contest between Texas and Stanford

Texas told Stanford no because they wanted to keep the LHN.

Stanford is trying to go after Texas' academic standing

Texas is trying to use us to force Stanford in a corner

Stanford should stick to academics and allow someone else to run the athletic end.

But supposedly CBS wants to underwrite a Big 12/PAC 12 merge

Texas has way more power now than they did in 2011.
Stanford made a huge mistake and they cannot admit it.

 

any truth to Stanford being the one leading the conference?

Which board is that from?

[Thiefery 4964]

Just now, LTbear said:

Which board is that from?

weareSC

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

21 minutes ago, utee94 said:

The vast majority of that sounds like message board fantasy.  How on Earth is Stanford "trying to go after Texas' academic standing?"

There is no pissing match between Texas and Stanford.  That's even weirder and more far-fetched than most of the crap posted on THIS thread.

I bet the guy who wrote that was The Dude of West Santa Cruz.