Realignment talk not going away

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

it's catnip, I do love hearing Texas has "way more power than in 2011", lulz.... it sure doesn't feel like it, we haven't won shit in that timeframe

[closetohumping 17,386]

1 minute ago, SwanderedTalent said:

it's catnip, I do love hearing Texas has "way more power than in 2011", lulz.... it sure doesn't feel like it, we haven't won shit in that timeframe

Not about winning.  Otherwise Boise would be more coveted than usc

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, closetohumping said:

Not about winning.  Otherwise Boise would be more coveted than usc

One, I am aware of how it works, but when you get your ass kicked for a decade, it doesn't feel like your program is "more powerful" than a point when it was competing nationally the three major sports. 

Two, who says it's even accurate? We have "way more power" than in 2011? By what measure? We were the most attractive realignment property then and we are now. I don't see how that's changed other than in comparison to the Pac-12, which is presumably weaker.  

[LTbear 4,157]

22 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

 

Two, who says it's even accurate? We have "way more power" than in 2011? By what measure? .... I don't see how that's changed other than in comparison to the Pac-12, which is presumably weaker.  

Well, ya, that's pretty much it. 

[TheFlyingBoat 906]

21 hours ago, hiphopfroggy said:

 

 

• USC
• UCLA
• Washington
• Oregon

 

• UT
• TT
• TCU
• Baylor

 

• OU
• OK St
• Kansas
• K-State

 

• Arizona
• Arizona St
• Iowa St
• WVU

Any chance we could kick out WVU and Iowa State/Kansas State for Cal and Stanford? WVU is too far east for the Pac 12 schools we're adding and given a choice I'm taking them instead. We could also kick out the other of Iowa State/Kansas State for Colorado. Most of the schools in the Big XII should be G5 schools imo so it would be to get rid of the shitters. Also Cal and Stanford are Olympic sports elites along with the SoCal schools and us so that would be great.

Edited March 6, 2020 by TheFlyingBoat

[camel at sea 589]

I completely buy the idea that Stanford runs the PAC.  If it's not SC, then who is it?  Palo Alto makes the most sense.  If so, then SC vs Stanford bickering in the boardroom makes a lot of sense.

I have no idea how/why Stanford would be going after Texas' academic standing.  If it were happening, though, then UT responding in some way would make sense.  

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

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

As a fan of the CBS college football theme song, I support this plan.  

[utee94 15,744]

11 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I completely buy the idea that Stanford runs the PAC.  If it's not SC, then who is it?  Palo Alto makes the most sense.  If so, then SC vs Stanford bickering in the boardroom makes a lot of sense.

I have no idea how/why Stanford would be going after Texas' academic standing.  If it were happening, though, then UT responding in some way would make sense.  

Yeah, the Stanford/USC stuff, sure.  What conferences don't have schools that argue and struggle for power?   Even in the B1G, admins at  plenty of schools not named Michigan and Ohio State are not happy with the political situations.

It's the stuff about some imaginary pissing contest between Stanford and Texas,  and how Texas is somehow attempting to corner USC, that's pure message board fantasy.  

[maninblack 7,974]

18 minutes ago, TheFlyingBoat said:

Any chance we could kick out WVU and Iowa State/Kansas State for Cal and Stanford? WVU is too far east for the Pac 12 schools we're adding and given a choice I'm taking them instead. We could also kick out the other of Iowa State/Kansas State for Colorado. Most of the schools in the Big XII should be G5 schools imo so it would be to get rid of the shitters. Also Cal and Stanford are Olympic sports elites along with the SoCal schools and us so that would be great.

Baylor is the correct answer. Fuck them.

[JWinTX 53]

What needs to be done is for the Pac to get their shit together and bring over the Big XII pieces that are worth it for revenue sports and academia.

I'd do this:

Pac NW--Washington, WSU, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford

Pac--Midwest--Kansas, Iowa State, Colorado, Utah, OU, and OSU

Pac SW--Arizona, Arizona State, USC, UCLA, Tech, and Texas

You play all 5 teams in your division, plus 2 others in each divisions--with one being an annual rival game if needed (Texas/OU, OSU/Tech, USC/Stanford, UCLA/Cal, Washington/Arizona, Colorado/Kansas).

Conference Championship game is between the two highest ranked teams in the BCS ranking. You get three time zones, Pac adds in 3 AAU institutions in UT, KU, and ISU, and you get to work on better networks for the entire system.

 

[maninblack 7,974]

2 minutes ago, JWinTX said:

What needs to be done is for the Pac to get their shit together and bring over the Big XII pieces that are worth it for revenue sports and academia.

I'd do this:

Pac NW--Washington, WSU, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford

Pac--Midwest--Kansas, Iowa State, Colorado, Utah, OU, and OSU

Pac SW--Arizona, Arizona State, USC, UCLA, Tech, and Texas

You play all 5 teams in your division, plus 2 others in each divisions--with one being an annual rival game if needed (Texas/OU, OSU/Tech, USC/Stanford, UCLA/Cal, Washington/Arizona, Colorado/Kansas).

Conference Championship game is between the two highest ranked teams in the BCS ranking. You get three time zones, Pac adds in 3 AAU institutions in UT, KU, and ISU, and you get to work on better networks for the entire system.

 

Too big

[camel at sea 589]

6 minutes ago, JWinTX said:

What needs to be done is for the Pac to get their shit together and bring over the Big XII pieces that are worth it for revenue sports and academia.

I'd do this:

Pac NW--Washington, WSU, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford

Pac--Midwest--Kansas, Iowa State, Colorado, Utah, OU, and OSU

Pac SW--Arizona, Arizona State, USC, UCLA, Tech, and Texas

You play all 5 teams in your division, plus 2 others in each divisions--with one being an annual rival game if needed (Texas/OU, OSU/Tech, USC/Stanford, UCLA/Cal, Washington/Arizona, Colorado/Kansas).

Conference Championship game is between the two highest ranked teams in the BCS ranking. You get three time zones, Pac adds in 3 AAU institutions in UT, KU, and ISU, and you get to work on better networks for the entire system.

 

Why save the PAC at all?  The bottom half of the PAC is a lot worse than the bottom half of the Big 12.  And the tippy top of the Big 12 is better than the same in the PAC.  

[Walden Ponderer 12,639]

30 minutes ago, TheFlyingBoat said:

Any chance we could kick out WVU and Iowa State/Kansas State for Cal and Stanford? WVU is too far east for the Pac 12 schools we're adding and given a choice I'm taking them instead. We could also kick out the other of Iowa State/Kansas State for Colorado. Most of the schools in the Big XII should be G5 schools imo so it would be to get rid of the shitters. Also Cal and Stanford are Olympic sports elites along with the SoCal schools and us so that would be great.

Give me Iowa State over Cal any fucking day of the week. Twice on Saturdays.

[LTbear 4,157]

15 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Too big

So said your mom 

[JWinTX 53]

5 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Why save the PAC at all?  The bottom half of the PAC is a lot worse than the bottom half of the Big 12.  And the tippy top of the Big 12 is better than the same in the PAC.  

Legally, it would just be easier for everyone to separate from the two private schools and WVU if the other conference just invites over the rest of these teams.

Nobody cares about Baylor or TCU--not to mention those Pac schools want absolutely nothing to do with religious schools (see BYU forever snub from the Pac). WVU is too far away. KSU or ISU are what's left and ISU provides a whole different state and is an AAU institution.

It would just be simpler to get the Pac schools to invite over pieces than it would be for the Big XII to get USC/UCLA and others to leave to come here. My guess is that a network (CBS or NBC) will lead the charge here and time this for the GOR expiring over here in 2025. If the Pac just wants 4 programs to not go any higher than 14, I suspect it would be the Texoma 4 or take out Tech for KU with the other three. I could even see a deal to invite over UT, OU, KU, and ISU, just to keep the AAU total higher for those in the academic leadership in the Pac.

[texifornia 56,479]

13 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Give me Iowa State over Cal any fucking day of the week. Twice on Saturdays.

Yeah I pulled for Cal as a kid, it's a top 5 campus, it's maybe the best public school in the country, and I would rather play football against Iowa State every time.

[camel at sea 589]

5 minutes ago, JWinTX said:

 

It would just be simpler to get the Pac schools to invite over pieces than it would be for the Big XII to get USC/UCLA and others to leave to come here. 

I wouldn't discount the ability of the PAC to fire Larry Scott and eventually fix its revenue model at some point.  But where things stand right now, a lot less has to be done to invite SC to the Big 12 than to invite UT/OU to the PAC.  The ADs that are worth more, on average, are on the Big 12 side.

[LTbear 4,157]

10 minutes ago, JWinTX said:

Legally, it would just be easier for everyone to separate from the two private schools and WVU if the other conference just invites over the rest of these teams.

Nobody cares about Baylor or TCU--not to mention those Pac schools want absolutely nothing to do with religious schools (see BYU forever snub from the Pac). WVU is too far away. KSU or ISU are what's left and ISU provides a whole different state and is an AAU institution.

It would just be simpler to get the Pac schools to invite over pieces than it would be for the Big XII to get USC/UCLA and others to leave to come here. My guess is that a network (CBS or NBC) will lead the charge here and time this for the GOR expiring over here in 2025. If the Pac just wants 4 programs to not go any higher than 14, I suspect it would be the Texoma 4 or take out Tech for KU with the other three. I could even see a deal to invite over UT, OU, KU, and ISU, just to keep the AAU total higher for those in the academic leadership in the Pac.

The PAC + 4 would be 16, not 14.

[DFW Horn 6,117]

A Big 12/Pac 12 merger or scheduling alliance is desirable provided we don't have to play Wazzu and Oregon aggy too often. Other match-ups are cool - even Utah and Colorado. It'd be fun to see us as CBS's new showcase game every week.

Just dump Gary Danielson and the broadcast will be okay.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1,258]

1 hour ago, maninblack said:

Baylor is the correct answer. Fuck them.

No CR, but maninblack is almost always wrong.  Except now.  Fuck Baylor.

[ButtFumble 5,158]

57 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

A Big 12/Pac 12 merger or scheduling alliance is desirable provided we don't have to play Wazzu and Oregon aggy too often. Other match-ups are cool - even Utah and Colorado. It'd be fun to see us as CBS's new showcase game every week.

Just dump Gary Danielson and the broadcast will be okay.

 

I have said it before the Big 12 needs to go to 7 conference games with 2 divisions of 5.

Texas, Tech, Baylor, ISU, WVU

OU, OkState, TCU, KSU, KU

Each team plays everyone in their division then you have a fixed cross over game (the teams above and below each other in the pairings) and then play two other teams from each division home and home then swap. The above alignment preserves pretty much all the major rivalries in the conference and it is a very balanced conference in terms of division strength very a long period of time.

I had said in the past the Big 12 could SCHEDULE agree with BYU (no money no membership NOTHING) to play half the conference home and home every two years. But in this case with the PAC 12 the Big 12 could have a scheduling agreement for the 8th game with 10 of the 12 PAC 12 teams and from there find 4 other OOC games. The PAC 12 could go to 8 conference games, have the OOC with the Big 12 and then 3 other conference games. It has been proven with maths that 9 conference games fucks the PAC 12 in a meaningful way and the same is true for the Big 12 and probably to a larger degree with the Big 12 because of fewer teams and the idiotic full round robin. Playing fewer conference games is how you gain overall conference strength and playing more conference games is how you eat yourself to shit and become non-competitive. The Big 12 with 7 conference games and an 8 game annually with a PAC 12 school could easily still fill 4 OOC games and it gives the members of the conference the ability to schedule for NEEDS be it the need to try and make the playoffs or the need for wins until the program improves and they can dream about a playoff bid.

 

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

I wouldn't discount the ability of the PAC to fire Larry Scott and eventually fix its revenue model at some point.  But where things stand right now, a lot less has to be done to invite SC to the Big 12 than to invite UT/OU to the PAC.  The ADs that are worth more, on average, are on the Big 12 side.

it will be hard at this point

ESPN placed a value of the current PAC12n at zero dollars and zero cents. They offered the PAC 12 NOTHING to take over the network and then try and cram it with all their other shit and share some profits after expenses and the PAC 12 said no. The PAC 12 probably could have done slightly better with that model because ESPN surely would have slashed expenses and cut most of the staff and overhead, but ESPN would be wanting to take most of the profit for doing that and supplying their own existing infrastructure. The main issue for ESPN with this is the PAC 12 has fucked up and already PROVEN that no one wants their third tier content. People try and say "well it doesn't get carriage" which is true, but when the PAC 12 implored people to call their cable MSOs and demand the network I think 4 people called their cable MSO and demanded to get the network and 4,000 called their cable MSO and thanked them for not cramming that shit on their bill and told them to stick to their guns. So as of now it is a risk for ESPN to try and take that shit over and cram it because it is the first time that we have absolute proof that subscribers just do not want that shit. While I have said at some point cable MSOs will push back (technically they did with the PAC12n, but only to the PAC 12) now that they are starring Disney+ in the face they realize that Disney finally has gotten their shit together for the end around to traditional cable. So at some point traditional cable has to push back on cramming of shit channels to get the few that people want and that has happened a little both with the Big 10 network that was downgraded off of lower cable tiers in many areas and taken off of "in market rates" in others. We will have to see how the ACCn performs as well (it is said to have more subs at this point than the SEC SEC SEC network), but that was the starting one and the real push will be what you can get the full numbers up to not some meaningless metric of comparison to the first of it's kind.

Then some will say "well the PAC 12 can just bundle that content and sell it like normal next time since they own it all". Yes, but it has already been proven by the MARKET to not be worth shit. A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich no matter the name. More importantly back to the cable network model the whole reason the SEC SEC SEC network and the ACC network exist is so that ESPN can take all of the content that they HAVE WAY WAY WAY too much of and are obligated to carry and instead of finding a place for it on their current networks they can offer a "profit sharing model" AFTER EXPENSES to conferences. So from the stand point of ESPN as long as they make a dollar a year off of the ACCn or SEC SEC SEC network they are money ahead because they have covered 100% of the cost of carrying content they are obligated to show and they have moved that content off of their main channels (where they do not pass expenses on to any partnership) and they have freed that space up on those main networks for more profitable content. So with the PAC 12 3rd tier content it is worth less than nothing to ESPN unless they can get it into a "conference network" sharing arrangement that covers 100% of the cost of showing that content before any profits are given to the conference. And that gets us back to the above where the PAC 12 made the massive mistake of taking their content to market and letting the market tell them their content was worth nothing to anyone.  And that means there is a risk of that network not covering expenses (even lower ones with ESPN) and making a profit. Now to be realistic the network does cover their cost even with larry BiG SpEnDa scott running the show and spending dolla dolla bills all over the place. So ESPN could make "a profit", but equally what I said about ESPN needing to make a dollar a year to be better off with conference networks and moving that content they are OBLIGATED to carry over tot hose conference networks is of course exaggerated as well. They really need to make some good money to make it worth the long term effort, but in the case of those networks and that content they were already dumb enough to bid on it and agree to carry it and show it (somewhere) so making the conference networks was a way to correct a mistake when ESPN was in the "just buy all the content you can who cares if we have nowhere to show it" mode. Those days are over just like the days of easily cramming conference networks are over so that means the PAC 12 3rd tier is worth next to nothing to pretty much everyone.

 

periods and capital letters and commas and shit for you Imisswallypryor

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by ButtFumble

[texifornia 56,479]

58 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

A Big 12/Pac 12 merger or scheduling alliance is desirable provided we don't have to play Wazzu and Oregon aggy too often. Other match-ups are cool - even Utah and Colorado. It'd be fun to see us as CBS's new showcase game every week.

Just dump Gary Danielson and the broadcast will be okay.

From a revenue sense, sure, but those are both fun schools that really like their football. Much more engaged on an average night than a Cal or a Kansas. 

[2300 Nueces 163]

18 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

I have said it before the Big 12 needs to go to 7 conference games with 2 divisions of 5.

Texas, Tech, Baylor, ISU, WVU

OU, OkState, TCU, KSU, KU

Each team plays everyone in their division then you have a fixed cross over game (the teams above and below each other in the pairings) and then play two other teams from each division home and home then swap. The above alignment preserves pretty much all the major rivalries in the conference and it is a very balanced conference in terms of division strength very a long period of time.

I had said in the past the Big 12 could SCHEDULE agree with BYU (no money no membership NOTHING) to play half the conference home and home every two years. But in this case with the PAC 12 the Big 12 could have a scheduling agreement for the 8th game with 10 of the 12 PAC 12 teams and from there find 4 other OOC games. The PAC 12 could go to 8 conference games, have the OOC with the Big 12 and then 3 other conference games. It has been proven with maths that 9 conference games fucks the PAC 12 in a meaningful way and the same is true for the Big 12 and probably to a larger degree with the Big 12 because of fewer teams and the idiotic full round robin. Playing fewer conference games is how you gain overall conference strength and playing more conference games is how you eat yourself to shit and become non-competitive. The Big 12 with 7 conference games and an 8 game annually with a PAC 12 school could easily still fill 4 OOC games and it gives the members of the conference the ability to schedule for NEEDS be it the need to try and make the playoffs or the need for wins until the program improves and they can dream about a playoff bid.

 

it will be hard at this point

ESPN placed a value of the current PAC12n at zero dollars and zero cents. They offered the PAC 12 NOTHING to take over the network and then try and cram it with all their other shit and share some profits after expenses and the PAC 12 said no. The PAC 12 probably could have done slightly better with that model because ESPN surely would have slashed expenses and cut most of the staff and overhead, but ESPN would be wanting to take most of the profit for doing that and supplying their own existing infrastructure. The main issue for ESPN with this is the PAC 12 has fucked up and already PROVEN that no one wants their third tier content. People try and say "well it doesn't get carriage" which is true, but when the PAC 12 implored people to call their cable MSOs and demand the network I think 4 people called their cable MSO and demanded to get the network and 4,000 called their cable MSO and thanked them for not cramming that shit on their bill and told them to stick to their guns. So as of now it is a risk for ESPN to try and take that shit over and cram it because it is the first time that we have absolute proof that subscribers just do not want that shit. While I have said at some point cable MSOs will push back (technically they did with the PAC12n, but only to the PAC 12) now that they are starring Disney+ in the face they realize that Disney finally has gotten their shit together for the end around to traditional cable. So at some point traditional cable has to push back on cramming of shit channels to get the few that people want and that has happened a little both with the Big 10 network that was downgraded off of lower cable tiers in many areas and taken off of "in market rates" in others. We will have to see how the ACCn performs as well (it is said to have more subs at this point than the SEC SEC SEC network), but that was the starting one and the real push will be what you can get the full numbers up to not some meaningless metric of comparison to the first of it's kind.

Then some will say "well the PAC 12 can just bundle that content and sell it like normal next time since they own it all". Yes, but it has already been proven by the MARKET to not be worth shit. A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich no matter the name. More importantly back to the cable network model the whole reason the SEC SEC SEC network and the ACC network exist is so that ESPN can take all of the content that they HAVE WAY WAY WAY too much of and are obligated to carry and instead of finding a place for it on their current networks they can offer a "profit sharing model" AFTER EXPENSES to conferences. So from the stand point of ESPN as long as they make a dollar a year off of the ACCn or SEC SEC SEC network they are money ahead because they have covered 100% of the cost of carrying content they are obligated to show and they have moved that content off of their main channels (where they do not pass expenses on to any partnership) and they have freed that space up on those main networks for more profitable content. So with the PAC 12 3rd tier content it is worth less than nothing to ESPN unless they can get it into a "conference network" sharing arrangement that covers 100% of the cost of showing that content before any profits are given to the conference. And that gets us back to the above where the PAC 12 made the massive mistake of taking their content to market and letting the market tell them their content was worth nothing to anyone.  And that means there is a risk of that network not covering expenses (even lower ones with ESPN) and making a profit. Now to be realistic the network does cover their cost even with larry BiG SpEnDa scott running the show and spending dolla dolla bills all over the place. So ESPN could make "a profit", but equally what I said about ESPN needing to make a dollar a year to be better off with conference networks and moving that content they are OBLIGATED to carry over tot hose conference networks is of course exaggerated as well. They really need to make some good money to make it worth the long term effort, but in the case of those networks and that content they were already dumb enough to bid on it and agree to carry it and show it (somewhere) so making the conference networks was a way to correct a mistake when ESPN was in the "just buy all the content you can who cares if we have nowhere to show it" mode. Those days are over just like the days of easily cramming conference networks are over so that means the PAC 12 3rd tier is worth next to nothing to pretty much everyone.

 

periods and capital letters and commas and shit for you Imisswallypryor

 

Yep, no one cares about any school's olympic sport prowess.  It's all about football and to a much lesser extent basketball.  There are a few decent PAC football programs but the majority need to give up sport all together.  Go east Texas to the land of bag men and hotties.

Edited March 6, 2020 by 2300 Nueces

[closetohumping 17,386]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

A Big 12/Pac 12 merger or scheduling alliance is desirable provided we don't have to play Wazzu and Oregon aggy too often. Other match-ups are cool - even Utah and Colorado. It'd be fun to see us as CBS's new showcase game every week.

Just dump Gary Danielson and the broadcast will be okay.

A trip too Corvallis or Pullman would be fun , similar to a wva trip

[kopp0e 1,135]

2 hours ago, JWinTX said:

Legally, it would just be easier for everyone to separate from the two private schools and WVU if the other conference just invites over the rest of these teams.

Nobody cares about Baylor or TCU--not to mention those Pac schools want absolutely nothing to do with religious schools (see BYU forever snub from the Pac). WVU is too far away. KSU or ISU are what's left and ISU provides a whole different state and is an AAU institution.

It would just be simpler to get the Pac schools to invite over pieces than it would be for the Big XII to get USC/UCLA and others to leave to come here. My guess is that a network (CBS or NBC) will lead the charge here and time this for the GOR expiring over here in 2025. If the Pac just wants 4 programs to not go any higher than 14, I suspect it would be the Texoma 4 or take out Tech for KU with the other three. I could even see a deal to invite over UT, OU, KU, and ISU, just to keep the AAU total higher for those in the academic leadership in the Pac.

PAC schools join XII, as XII schools already earn more than PAC...

Oklahoma - $48m. per year/ Texas - $53m. per year... USC/ UCLA - $31m. per year... 
Those brands join XII (similar to SWC & Big8 merger), then UT & OU would earn into the $60m. per year range (I assume, by increased value)...

The theory you have is a bit backwards, as UT/ OU & pals go to a league with lower revenue... It is as smart as some who say Texas will go indy & place all sports in the ACC (over on dirt, by a few ¨outsider¨ pro-B1G posters), UT & OU gain more ay adding to XII, & keep fiefdom in new league...

Edited March 6, 2020 by kopp0e

[hiphopfroggy 121]

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

 

I have said it before the Big 12 needs to go to 7 conference games with 2 divisions of 5.

Texas, Tech, Baylor, ISU, WVU

OU, OkState, TCU, KSU, KU

Each team plays everyone in their division then you have a fixed cross over game (the teams above and below each other in the pairings) and then play two other teams from each division home and home then swap. The above alignment preserves pretty much all the major rivalries in the conference and it is a very balanced conference in terms of division strength very a long period of time.

I had said in the past the Big 12 could SCHEDULE agree with BYU (no money no membership NOTHING) to play half the conference home and home every two years. But in this case with the PAC 12 the Big 12 could have a scheduling agreement for the 8th game with 10 of the 12 PAC 12 teams and from there find 4 other OOC games. The PAC 12 could go to 8 conference games, have the OOC with the Big 12 and then 3 other conference games. It has been proven with maths that 9 conference games fucks the PAC 12 in a meaningful way and the same is true for the Big 12 and probably to a larger degree with the Big 12 because of fewer teams and the idiotic full round robin. Playing fewer conference games is how you gain overall conference strength and playing more conference games is how you eat yourself to shit and become non-competitive. The Big 12 with 7 conference games and an 8 game annually with a PAC 12 school could easily still fill 4 OOC games and it gives the members of the conference the ability to schedule for NEEDS be it the need to try and make the playoffs or the need for wins until the program improves and they can dream about a playoff bid.

 

it will be hard at this point

ESPN placed a value of the current PAC12n at zero dollars and zero cents. They offered the PAC 12 NOTHING to take over the network and then try and cram it with all their other shit and share some profits after expenses and the PAC 12 said no. The PAC 12 probably could have done slightly better with that model because ESPN surely would have slashed expenses and cut most of the staff and overhead, but ESPN would be wanting to take most of the profit for doing that and supplying their own existing infrastructure. The main issue for ESPN with this is the PAC 12 has fucked up and already PROVEN that no one wants their third tier content. People try and say "well it doesn't get carriage" which is true, but when the PAC 12 implored people to call their cable MSOs and demand the network I think 4 people called their cable MSO and demanded to get the network and 4,000 called their cable MSO and thanked them for not cramming that shit on their bill and told them to stick to their guns. So as of now it is a risk for ESPN to try and take that shit over and cram it because it is the first time that we have absolute proof that subscribers just do not want that shit. While I have said at some point cable MSOs will push back (technically they did with the PAC12n, but only to the PAC 12) now that they are starring Disney+ in the face they realize that Disney finally has gotten their shit together for the end around to traditional cable. So at some point traditional cable has to push back on cramming of shit channels to get the few that people want and that has happened a little both with the Big 10 network that was downgraded off of lower cable tiers in many areas and taken off of "in market rates" in others. We will have to see how the ACCn performs as well (it is said to have more subs at this point than the SEC SEC SEC network), but that was the starting one and the real push will be what you can get the full numbers up to not some meaningless metric of comparison to the first of it's kind.

Then some will say "well the PAC 12 can just bundle that content and sell it like normal next time since they own it all". Yes, but it has already been proven by the MARKET to not be worth shit. A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich no matter the name. More importantly back to the cable network model the whole reason the SEC SEC SEC network and the ACC network exist is so that ESPN can take all of the content that they HAVE WAY WAY WAY too much of and are obligated to carry and instead of finding a place for it on their current networks they can offer a "profit sharing model" AFTER EXPENSES to conferences. So from the stand point of ESPN as long as they make a dollar a year off of the ACCn or SEC SEC SEC network they are money ahead because they have covered 100% of the cost of carrying content they are obligated to show and they have moved that content off of their main channels (where they do not pass expenses on to any partnership) and they have freed that space up on those main networks for more profitable content. So with the PAC 12 3rd tier content it is worth less than nothing to ESPN unless they can get it into a "conference network" sharing arrangement that covers 100% of the cost of showing that content before any profits are given to the conference. And that gets us back to the above where the PAC 12 made the massive mistake of taking their content to market and letting the market tell them their content was worth nothing to anyone.  And that means there is a risk of that network not covering expenses (even lower ones with ESPN) and making a profit. Now to be realistic the network does cover their cost even with larry BiG SpEnDa scott running the show and spending dolla dolla bills all over the place. So ESPN could make "a profit", but equally what I said about ESPN needing to make a dollar a year to be better off with conference networks and moving that content they are OBLIGATED to carry over tot hose conference networks is of course exaggerated as well. They really need to make some good money to make it worth the long term effort, but in the case of those networks and that content they were already dumb enough to bid on it and agree to carry it and show it (somewhere) so making the conference networks was a way to correct a mistake when ESPN was in the "just buy all the content you can who cares if we have nowhere to show it" mode. Those days are over just like the days of easily cramming conference networks are over so that means the PAC 12 3rd tier is worth next to nothing to pretty much everyone.

 

periods and capital letters and commas and shit for you Imisswallypryor

 

 

 

So putting that 3rd tier content, USC,UCLA,UO,UW, on the Big12 NOW ESPN+ app would please everyone or no?

[ButtFumble 5,158]

46 minutes ago, hiphopfroggy said:

 

 

So putting that 3rd tier content, USC,UCLA,UO,UW, on the Big12 NOW ESPN+ app would please everyone or no?

the only way that will matter (to the Big 12, PAC 12 or any combo/alliance of the two) is if there is some type of revenue sharing based on subscriber numbers.....I don't think Disney/ESPN will go for that, but who knows

the other way that some alliance/combo or just scheduling agreement will make a difference for the Big 12 (and probably more so the lesser earning PAC 12) is if some company that is not ESPN and probably not Fox decides they want to go hard core into college sports and they are excited by the prospect of a conference or a pair of conferences that offer coast to coast programming and the ability to fill most of a network most of the year

right now ESPN probably has enough content to put 4 football games a day in 5+ networks that would be football from 10am Eastern to 2am Eastern or 7am Pacific to 11pm Pacific and again probably on 5+ networks

Fox probably has enough for 3 games a day on 2 networks if not a bit more plus both have other content like Baseball, NFL, Swamp Buggy Racing and other shit they want to show

it just makes no sense at this point that they could offer meaningful money to buy more content to place on networks to compete with their own content and networks

the end result is that CBS or NBC or someone else (Sinclair) decides they want to get back into college sports and they see a package of programming that offers some coast to coast viewership

at this point I am not sure any of that is going to happen CBS and NBC are run like shit (compared to media companies that are all run like shit so that means really shitty) and Sinclair seems to have no clue why they massively over paid for a bunch of regional stations with "who knows" content plus Sinclair does not have full national coverage over the air and probably does not have the content leverage to force themselves on the lower levels of cable/sat and who knows if they can get streaming set up (though plenty of readily available partners are out there that could do it in a few months, but media companies seem to be ignorant of this fact)

so unless Sinclair can find a way to partner with other station owners in markets they are not over the air and get their package of product in the over the air channels for the top level content they are probably not a bidder and lack the leverage to force cable carriage (mandatory carriage of over the air channels and all of that)

and CBS and NBC seem firmly stuck at being shitty especially in sports

plus can the Big 12 afford to piss off Fox and ESPN while they wait to see if the PAC 12 (that has their full content available a year earlier) can work a deal or get their heads out of their ass and come together with the Big 12 to make something happen

ESPN (and probably Fox) if they want the Big 12 content will almost surely be pushing for negotiations with the Big 12 at the same time as the PAC 12 even with the year difference and there is a chance they will try and play them off against each other just like last time.....I suppose the Big 10 being a year earlier than that will give a clue as to who might  be bidding and if the numbers just go up and up or if there is only ESPN and Fox again and the numbers stagnate....or do the numbers go up and ESPN and Fox then say "have all we need" and that is that

I suppose how the SEC SEC SEC game of the week and CCG that is up the same time as the PAC 12 will give another hint....is ESPN all in as the SEC SEC SEC/ACc Acc acc network and a little bit of Big 10 or are they still in for the PAC 12 and then Big 12

if they are in big for the SEC SEC SEC game of the week and CCG and they tell the PAC 12 "so sorry here is chump change" well the Big 12 better be ready to move as far as adding members or forming an ADVANTAGEOUS (for the Big 12) agreement with the PAC 12 (that will be in panic) and the Big 12 better be ready to stand firm to ESPN as well otherwise standing up with some or all of the PAC 12 and then having no fall back plan means low money and being fucked

that probably includes UT playing hard ball with the LHN and accepting a high (though probably not full) buyout under the allowed current contract and tossing their content all in with the new deal.....or I suppose Ut could ride it out and make sure the new deal includes additional compensation (most likely for all) when that content comes available

[hiphopfroggy 121]

7 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

the only way that will matter (to the Big 12, PAC 12 or any combo/alliance of the two) is if there is some type of revenue sharing based on subscriber numbers.....I don't think Disney/ESPN will go for that, but who knows

the other way that some alliance/combo or just scheduling agreement will make a difference for the Big 12 (and probably more so the lesser earning PAC 12) is if some company that is not ESPN and probably not Fox decides they want to go hard core into college sports and they are excited by the prospect of a conference or a pair of conferences that offer coast to coast programming and the ability to fill most of a network most of the year

right now ESPN probably has enough content to put 4 football games a day in 5+ networks that would be football from 10am Eastern to 2am Eastern or 7am Pacific to 11pm Pacific and again probably on 5+ networks

Fox probably has enough for 3 games a day on 2 networks if not a bit more plus both have other content like Baseball, NFL, Swamp Buggy Racing and other shit they want to show

it just makes no sense at this point that they could offer meaningful money to buy more content to place on networks to compete with their own content and networks

the end result is that CBS or NBC or someone else (Sinclair) decides they want to get back into college sports and they see a package of programming that offers some coast to coast viewership

at this point I am not sure any of that is going to happen CBS and NBC are run like shit (compared to media companies that are all run like shit so that means really shitty) and Sinclair seems to have no clue why they massively over paid for a bunch of regional stations with "who knows" content plus Sinclair does not have full national coverage over the air and probably does not have the content leverage to force themselves on the lower levels of cable/sat and who knows if they can get streaming set up (though plenty of readily available partners are out there that could do it in a few months, but media companies seem to be ignorant of this fact)

so unless Sinclair can find a way to partner with other station owners in markets they are not over the air and get their package of product in the over the air channels for the top level content they are probably not a bidder and lack the leverage to force cable carriage (mandatory carriage of over the air channels and all of that)

and CBS and NBC seem firmly stuck at being shitty especially in sports

plus can the Big 12 afford to piss off Fox and ESPN while they wait to see if the PAC 12 (that has their full content available a year earlier) can work a deal or get their heads out of their ass and come together with the Big 12 to make something happen

ESPN (and probably Fox) if they want the Big 12 content will almost surely be pushing for negotiations with the Big 12 at the same time as the PAC 12 even with the year difference and there is a chance they will try and play them off against each other just like last time.....I suppose the Big 10 being a year earlier than that will give a clue as to who might  be bidding and if the numbers just go up and up or if there is only ESPN and Fox again and the numbers stagnate....or do the numbers go up and ESPN and Fox then say "have all we need" and that is that

I suppose how the SEC SEC SEC game of the week and CCG that is up the same time as the PAC 12 will give another hint....is ESPN all in as the SEC SEC SEC/ACc Acc acc network and a little bit of Big 10 or are they still in for the PAC 12 and then Big 12

if they are in big for the SEC SEC SEC game of the week and CCG and they tell the PAC 12 "so sorry here is chump change" well the Big 12 better be ready to move as far as adding members or forming an ADVANTAGEOUS (for the Big 12) agreement with the PAC 12 (that will be in panic) and the Big 12 better be ready to stand firm to ESPN as well otherwise standing up with some or all of the PAC 12 and then having no fall back plan means low money and being fucked

that probably includes UT playing hard ball with the LHN and accepting a high (though probably not full) buyout under the allowed current contract and tossing their content all in with the new deal.....or I suppose Ut could ride it out and make sure the new deal includes additional compensation (most likely for all) when that content comes available

Good stuff, Thanks 

Edited March 7, 2020 by hiphopfroggy

[2300 Nueces 163]

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

the only way that will matter (to the Big 12, PAC 12 or any combo/alliance of the two) is if there is some type of revenue sharing based on subscriber numbers.....I don't think Disney/ESPN will go for that, but who knows

the other way that some alliance/combo or just scheduling agreement will make a difference for the Big 12 (and probably more so the lesser earning PAC 12) is if some company that is not ESPN and probably not Fox decides they want to go hard core into college sports and they are excited by the prospect of a conference or a pair of conferences that offer coast to coast programming and the ability to fill most of a network most of the year

right now ESPN probably has enough content to put 4 football games a day in 5+ networks that would be football from 10am Eastern to 2am Eastern or 7am Pacific to 11pm Pacific and again probably on 5+ networks

Fox probably has enough for 3 games a day on 2 networks if not a bit more plus both have other content like Baseball, NFL, Swamp Buggy Racing and other shit they want to show

it just makes no sense at this point that they could offer meaningful money to buy more content to place on networks to compete with their own content and networks

the end result is that CBS or NBC or someone else (Sinclair) decides they want to get back into college sports and they see a package of programming that offers some coast to coast viewership

at this point I am not sure any of that is going to happen CBS and NBC are run like shit (compared to media companies that are all run like shit so that means really shitty) and Sinclair seems to have no clue why they massively over paid for a bunch of regional stations with "who knows" content plus Sinclair does not have full national coverage over the air and probably does not have the content leverage to force themselves on the lower levels of cable/sat and who knows if they can get streaming set up (though plenty of readily available partners are out there that could do it in a few months, but media companies seem to be ignorant of this fact)

so unless Sinclair can find a way to partner with other station owners in markets they are not over the air and get their package of product in the over the air channels for the top level content they are probably not a bidder and lack the leverage to force cable carriage (mandatory carriage of over the air channels and all of that)

and CBS and NBC seem firmly stuck at being shitty especially in sports

plus can the Big 12 afford to piss off Fox and ESPN while they wait to see if the PAC 12 (that has their full content available a year earlier) can work a deal or get their heads out of their ass and come together with the Big 12 to make something happen

ESPN (and probably Fox) if they want the Big 12 content will almost surely be pushing for negotiations with the Big 12 at the same time as the PAC 12 even with the year difference and there is a chance they will try and play them off against each other just like last time.....I suppose the Big 10 being a year earlier than that will give a clue as to who might  be bidding and if the numbers just go up and up or if there is only ESPN and Fox again and the numbers stagnate....or do the numbers go up and ESPN and Fox then say "have all we need" and that is that

I suppose how the SEC SEC SEC game of the week and CCG that is up the same time as the PAC 12 will give another hint....is ESPN all in as the SEC SEC SEC/ACc Acc acc network and a little bit of Big 10 or are they still in for the PAC 12 and then Big 12

if they are in big for the SEC SEC SEC game of the week and CCG and they tell the PAC 12 "so sorry here is chump change" well the Big 12 better be ready to move as far as adding members or forming an ADVANTAGEOUS (for the Big 12) agreement with the PAC 12 (that will be in panic) and the Big 12 better be ready to stand firm to ESPN as well otherwise standing up with some or all of the PAC 12 and then having no fall back plan means low money and being fucked

that probably includes UT playing hard ball with the LHN and accepting a high (though probably not full) buyout under the allowed current contract and tossing their content all in with the new deal.....or I suppose Ut could ride it out and make sure the new deal includes additional compensation (most likely for all) when that content comes available

Fox and ESPN will go all in on the East Coast league.  Big 12 and Pac are going to be left out in the cold.  The best of these leagues need to be moving now.  Let's hope Bowlsby and CDC are not currently sitting on their hands.

[closetohumping 17,386]

24 minutes ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Fox and ESPN will go all in on the East Coast league.  Big 12 and Pac are going to be left out in the cold.  The best of these leagues need to be moving now.  Let's hope Bowlsby and CDC are not currently sitting on their hands.

Disagree.  You have 4 top ten markets between Texas and California.  Add Phoenix, Denver, Seattle, etc.  Both leagues suck now, but if they win, things could change.

[2300 Nueces 163]

19 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Disagree.  You have 4 top ten markets between Texas and California.  Add Phoenix, Denver, Seattle, etc.  Both leagues suck now, but if they win, things could change.

I have doubts...  I don't think this is cyclical anymore.  It's financial.

[closetohumping 17,386]

3 minutes ago, 2300 Nueces said:

I have doubts...  I don't think this is cyclical anymore.  It's financial.

Yeah, but we're ignoring half the country..  Espn/Fox doesn't want the Big ten/sec challenge.  I think SEC will always be the conference that puts the most guys in the NFL, but with California and Texas talent, you can definitely field a championship team.

[kopp0e 1,135]

7 hours ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Fox and ESPN will go all in on the East Coast league.  Big 12 and Pac are going to be left out in the cold.  The best of these leagues need to be moving now.  Let's hope Bowlsby and CDC are not currently sitting on their hands.

Actually, a combined XII & PAC league has better numbers (as far as merkets), that bodes well for potential viewership -

*50 largest cities in America, by population/ #50 largest cities in America, by media market [per Wikipedia]:
ACC _ Atlantic Coast Conference/ B1G _ Big Ten Conference/ SEC _ Southeastern Conference/ PX6 _ "merging" of Pacific 12 Conference (PAC) & Big XII Conference (XII)...

*1 New York ACC/B1G & New York (#1) ACC/B1G
*2 Los Angeles PX6 & Los Angeles (#2) PX6
*3 Chicago ACC/B1G & Chicago (#3) ACC/B1G
*4 Houston PX6/SEC & Philadelphia (#4) ACC/B1G
*5 Phoenix PX6 & Dallas-Fort Worth (#5) PX6/SEC
*6 Philadelphia ACC/B1G & Washington, D.C. (Hagerstown) (#6) ACC/B1G
*7 San Antonio PX6/SEC & Houston (#7) PX6/SEC
*8 San Diego PX6 & San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (#8) PX6
*9 Dallas PX6/SEC & Boston (Manchester) (#9) ACC
10 San Jose PX6 & Atlanta (#10) ACC/SEC
11 Austin PX6/SEC & Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota) (#11) ACC/SEC
12 Jacksonville ACC/SEC & Phoenix (Prescott) (#12) PX6
13 San Francisco PX6 & Seattle-Tacoma (#13) PX6
14 Columbus B1G & Detroit (#14) B1G
15 Fort Worth PX6/SEC & Minneapolis-St. Paul (#15) B1G
16 Indianapolis ACC/B1G & Miami-Fort Lauderdale (#16) ACC/SEC
17 Charlotte ACC & Denver (#17) PX6
18 Seattle PX6 & Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne (#18) ACC/SEC
19 Denver PX6 & Cleveland-Akron (Canton) (#19) B1G
20 Washington ACC/B1G & Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto (#20) PX6
21 Boston ACC & St. Louis (#21) SEC/B1G
22 El Paso PX6/SEC & Portland, OR (#22) PX6
23 Detroit B1G & Charlotte (#23) ACC
24 Nashville SEC & Pittsburgh (#24) ACC/B1G
25 Memphis SEC & Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville) (#25) ACC
26 Portland PX6 & Baltimore (#26) ACC/SEC
27 Oklahoma City PX6 & Nashville (#27) SEC
28 Las Vegas MWC/PX6 & Indianapolis (#28) ACC/B1G
29 Louisville ACC & San Diego (#29) PX6
30 Baltimore ACC/B1G & Salt Lake City (#30) PX6
31 Milwaukee B1G & San Antonio (#31) PX6/SEC
32 Albuquerque MWC & Kansas City (#32) PX6/SEC
33 Tucson PX6 & Hartford & New Haven (#33) ACC/B1G
34 Fresno PX6 & Columbus, OH (#34) B1G
35 Sacramento PX6 & Cincinnati (#35) B1G/SEC
36 Mesa PX6 & Milwaukee (#36) B1G
37 Kansas City PX6/SEC & West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (#37) ACC/SEC
38 Atlanta ACC/SEC & Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville-Anderson (#38) ACC
39 Long Beach PX6 & Las Vegas (#39) MWC/PX6
40 Omaha B1G & Austin (#40) PX6/SEC
41 Raleigh ACC & Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York (#41) ACC
42 Colorado Springs PX6 & Jacksonville (#42) ACC/SEC
43 Miami ACC/SEC & Birmingham (Anniston and Tuscaloosa) (#43) SEC
44 Virginia Beach ACC/B1G & Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News (#44) ACC/B1G
45 Oakland PX6 & Oklahoma City (#45) PX6
46 Minneapolis B1G & Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem (#46) ACC
47 Tulsa PX6 & Albuquerque-Santa Fe (#47) MWC
48 Arlington PX6/SEC & Louisville (#48) ACC/SEC
49 New Orleans SEC & Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (#49) B1G
50 Wichita PX6 & New Orleans (#50) SEC

For the record, currently a PAC-XII (PX6) has 27 of top 50 largest cities/ 16 of top 50 media markets; in regions still growing... (vs B1G 11 cities/ 16 media)...

[NoctambulantBrobdingnagian 530]

17 hours ago, JWinTX said:

Legally, it would just be easier for everyone to separate from the two private schools and WVU if the other conference just invites over the rest of these teams.

Nobody cares about Baylor or TCU--not to mention those Pac schools want absolutely nothing to do with religious schools (see BYU forever snub from the Pac). WVU is too far away. KSU or ISU are what's left and ISU provides a whole different state and is an AAU institution.

It would just be simpler to get the Pac schools to invite over pieces than it would be for the Big XII to get USC/UCLA and others to leave to come here. My guess is that a network (CBS or NBC) will lead the charge here and time this for the GOR expiring over here in 2025. If the Pac just wants 4 programs to not go any higher than 14, I suspect it would be the Texoma 4 or take out Tech for KU with the other three. I could even see a deal to invite over UT, OU, KU, and ISU, just to keep the AAU total higher for those in the academic leadership in the Pac.

The big12 is the one in a position of power.  Why would they give that up and join a sinking conference.  This makes absolutely no since.  why throw a lifeline to bottom dwellers in another conference?  The big12's 1st&2nd tier rights makes 8 million more per school compared to the pac12's 1st&2nd&3rd tier.  This is freaking laughable.  Again, why would anyone in the big12 do this?

[2300 Nueces 163]

8 minutes ago, NoctambulantBrobdingnagian said:

The big12 is the one in a position of power.  Why would they give that up and join a sinking conference.  This makes absolutely no since.  why throw a lifeline to bottom dwellers in another conference?  The big12's 1st&2nd tier rights makes 8 million more per school compared to the pac12's 1st&2nd&3rd tier.  This is freaking laughable.  Again, why would anyone in the big12 do this?

If any of these schools are brought on board, we need to be dictating the terms.....  Fuck Stanford and all their arrogance.  Who's laughing now?

 

For the record, I think we would be better off as daddy of an sec west and bama as daddy of an sec east.  It would be fun pimping our old whores.

Edited March 7, 2020 by 2300 Nueces

[Caddox 952]

Just because raiding the Pac is better than what we have now doesnt mean it still doesnt suck. UT and OU to the SEC makes way too much sense financially and geographically. Let the buttfucks we leave behind fend for themselves with the losers on the west coast. 

[US183 124]

Again, why would anyone in the big12 do this?

 

Because the Big XII leadership has no leadership, no vision, no plan, no future, no idea what the hell is going on. The Big XII just exists as does a pencil. 

[closetohumping 17,386]

4 hours ago, Caddox said:

Just because raiding the Pac is better than what we have now doesnt mean it still doesnt suck. UT and OU to the SEC makes way too much sense financially and geographically. Let the buttfucks we leave behind fend for themselves with the losers on the west coast. 

Would be my #1 choice to ditch these fucks

[David Dennison 18,646]

4 hours ago, Caddox said:

Just because raiding the Pac is better than what we have now doesnt mean it still doesnt suck. UT and OU to the SEC makes way too much sense financially and geographically. Let the buttfucks we leave behind fend for themselves with the losers on the west coast. 

It's silly that Texas and OU don't just go to the SEC and say, "Here we are. Let's do this."

[kopp0e 1,135]

(In my opinion) a move to SEC has the makings of a power 16 that will always have (somone) in a CFP title game...
But also, the map shows how new PXC league holds well vs an ACC with recent CFP titles/ B1G-last/ SEC-in front:

B1G- 388
PXC- 473
ACC- 487
SEC- 710

(NFL players by league) -

[DFW Horn 6,117]

On 3/6/2020 at 5:01 PM, texifornia said:

From a revenue sense, sure, but those are both fun schools that really like their football. Much more engaged on an average night than a Cal or a Kansas. 

You can say the same thing about K-State, Iowa State, and WVU. Tough, competitive opponents with good fan bases in college towns, but they don't really move the needle for TV or most Orangebloods. I'd much rather watch UT vs the Pac's name brands.

[texifornia 56,479]

12 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

You can say the same thing about K-State, Iowa State, and WVU. Tough, competitive opponents with good fan bases in college towns, but they don't really move the needle for TV or most Orangebloods. I'd much rather watch UT vs the Pac's name brands.

I like that college football has room for those kinds of schools and would hate to lose them.

[closetohumping 17,386]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

You can say the same thing about K-State, Iowa State, and WVU. Tough, competitive opponents with good fan bases in college towns, but they don't really move the needle for TV or most Orangebloods. I'd much rather watch UT vs the Pac's name brands.

Which is why I’ve always wanted to leave.  Would you rather watch Texas vs baylor or Texas vs Auburn?

[tonedeaf 56]

8 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Which is why I’ve always wanted to leave.  Would you rather watch Texas vs baylor or Texas vs Auburn?

Yep.  Any situation that includes baylor needs to be reconsidered.  Fuck baylor.

Edited March 8, 2020 by tonedeaf
spelling

[kopp0e 1,135]

Oklahoma & Texas, already earn $48m./ $53m. (respectively) vs $51m. for B1G (as of now) w/o expansion..?

And adding Washington/Oregon/California/USC/UCLA/Arizona/Arizona State/Utah, and the *66m. residents...
Adding up Iowa State/Kansas/*Colorado/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Texas/Texas Tech/TCU, and 39m. folks...
That is 8 team divisions that Disney can place into a single league net, or give indy a contract to OU & USC...
It should place Oklahoma in the same ballpark as Alabama in 2023, of earning $65m. for all rights by ESPN...
Not counting, as you´ve mentioned Disney may place ACCN/ SECN (PXCN) alongside each on ESPN+ too...
 

Quote

OTT is Eating Cable: Here's How to Protect Streaming and On ...

www.intertrust.com › intertrustblog › ott-eating-cable-heres-protect-st...
Globally, the consumption among cord-cutters is growing rapidly. ... 4 hours per day on their mobile phone and OTT can reach customers anywhere including ... -size-worth-16513-billion-by-2025-grand-view-research-inc-2017-07-24-520328
 

 

If so, schools could gain a larger share of profits cord-cutting trends as expected to lose 20m. subs by 2025...

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by kopp0e

[DFW Horn 6,117]

7 hours ago, kopp0e said:

Adding up Iowa State/Kansas/*Colorado/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Texas/Texas Tech/TCU

This fantasizing about dropping Baylor (and K-State?) needs to stop. Ain't gonna happen.

[kopp0e 1,135]

13 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

This fantasizing about dropping Baylor (and K-State?) needs to stop. Ain't gonna happen.

The easist way for Disney (ESPN) to gain all rights to the best brands in both XII & PAC (under 1 conference banner) by 2025..?
It takes 9 schools to dissolve PAC as a league (GoR´s expire in 2024), likewise it takes 8 XII teams to have a landing spot also...

Quote

Southwest Conference - Wikipedia

The Southwest Conference (SWC) was an NCAA Division I college athletic conference in the United States that existed from 1914 to 1996.

Quote

Pacific Coast Conference - Wikipediai
The Pacific Coast Conference (PCC) was a college athletic conference in the United States which existed from 1915 to 1959.

History already has shown in past, USC & Texas, leaving members behind to form or join new membership, as in 1959 & 1995...

*Washington/ *Oregon/ *California/ *USC/ *UCLA/ *Arizona/ Arizona State/ *Utah/ *Colorado, are the needed 9 votes to disband... *(AAU brands) 
*Iowa State/ *Kansas/ Oklahoma/ Oklahoma State/ *Texas/ Texas Tech/ TCU, total 7 votes (WVU to ACC gives 8), for no legal issues... (AAU brands)

Now, could Baylor (or more logically, Stanford) remain in the group of 16 brands that host athletic events for a PXC (or B16), & 2 others are left out, yes...
But most posters seem to have a favoring of Baylor as a brand left out, could Baylor find an invite to SEC (along with 1 other brand), possible, not likely...
 

Anyhow, this shows a ¨rough blueprint¨ of what Disney may look to seek in having Texas/ Oklahoma/ Kansas/ USC/ Oregon /Wahington, in one league...
The same has already been done with ESPN partner league ACC, in raiding BigEast of best brands, back in the early 2000/ early 2010 era, & form ACCN...
 

Quote

ACC media-rights deal to lock in schools OK'd by ... - ESPN.com
Apr 22, 2013 - The vote of the ACC presidents will ensure that the conference will strengthen ... at three other power leagues, if the Big Ten wants to add more schools, ... That deal was worth $17 million per school per year, but sources told ...

So we shall see how this all shakes out, but Disney could place PAC brands within XII & keep both league best brands, or parse XII into SEC, interesting...

[SnowAggy 154]

On 3/6/2020 at 2:52 PM, TheFlyingBoat said:

Any chance we could kick out WVU and Iowa State/Kansas State for Cal and Stanford? WVU is too far east for the Pac 12 schools we're adding and given a choice I'm taking them instead. We could also kick out the other of Iowa State/Kansas State for Colorado. Most of the schools in the Big XII should be G5 schools imo so it would be to get rid of the shitters. Also Cal and Stanford are Olympic sports elites along with the SoCal schools and us so that would be great.

Ouch, Boat.  COLD BLOODED...

 

[1bigtx 129]

Add Florida State and Clemson and this thread is dead.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

The easist way for Disney (ESPN) to gain all rights to the best brands in both XII & PAC (under 1 conference banner) by 2025..?
It takes 9 schools to dissolve PAC as a league (GoR´s expire in 2024), likewise it takes 8 XII teams to have a landing spot also...

History already has shown in past, USC & Texas, leaving members behind to form or join new membership, as in 1959 & 1995...

*Washington/ *Oregon/ *California/ *USC/ *UCLA/ *Arizona/ Arizona State/ *Utah/ *Colorado, are the needed 9 votes to disband... *(AAU brands) 
*Iowa State/ *Kansas/ Oklahoma/ Oklahoma State/ *Texas/ Texas Tech/ TCU, total 7 votes (WVU to ACC gives 8), for no legal issues... (AAU brands)

Now, could Baylor (or more logically, Stanford) remain in the group of 16 brands that host athletic events for a PXC (or B16), & 2 others are left out, yes...
But most posters seem to have a favoring of Baylor as a brand left out, could Baylor find an invite to SEC (along with 1 other brand), possible, not likely...
 

Anyhow, this shows a ¨rough blueprint¨ of what Disney may look to seek in having Texas/ Oklahoma/ Kansas/ USC/ Oregon /Wahington, in one league...
The same has already been done with ESPN partner league ACC, in raiding BigEast of best brands, back in the early 2000/ early 2010 era, & form ACCN...

So we shall see how this all shakes out, but Disney could place PAC brands within XII & keep both league best brands, or parse XII into SEC, interesting...

So which athletic departments in the PAC have legit TV value?  USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, and ... ??  That's about it.  

Per the Andy Staples' suggestion, if you take those 4 and add two more to bridge geography (Arizona schools or Arizona+Colorado) you're at 16 and don't need to add anyone else.  Why would the Big 12  be looking to kick anyone out?  Without kicking anyone out, Disney gets its west coast value and the remaining PAC 6 schools can still add the 4 best available and get going with the PAC 10 2.0.  Adding the extra intra-political hurdle of also kicking out Big 12 schools just muddies the water and makes the whole thing more difficult to execute.  

Personally, I'd rather we limit the whole thing to the L.A. schools + 2 for geography.  I don't see that the PAC NW schools add so much value that they make taking on the travel something that's worthwhile.  But if Disney and/or SC insisted on it, then obviously we'd figure out a way to make it work.