Realignment talk not going away

[Asu2215 268]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

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.

Which athletic departments in the Big12 have legit TV value? Texas and OU. That's it. The rest is garbage. 

[Treefidy 1507]

On 3/7/2020 at 6:03 PM, David Dennison said:

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

I would like to see this simply to watch aggy get all worked up thinking they could block the move, and then shit all over themselves when their new daddy tells them to go stand in the corner and stfu for a change.  It would crush their fragile souls if we joined the sec. 

[kopp0e 1135]

4 hours ago, camel at sea said:

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.

In a future of cord-cutting, maybe the idea should be which programs are best for market penitration of streaming apps as well..?
It would seem common sense to 1st move, take all the large state flagship programs (9 in total covering from Cascades to Gulf)...
*Washington/ *Oregon/ *California/ *Arizona/ *Utah/ *Colorado/ *Kansas/ Oklahoma/ *Texas, (AAU schools), that´s 97m. folks...
The most logical move after that..? Add state schools with best metrics to ¨make the deal happen¨ as in a state/ tech or private...
USC & UCLA (obviously), would be at the top of any list, then add Texas Tech, & Oklahoma State, that is 13 members, of 16 slots...

The logical adds at this point would be the two state schools with the largest in stadium attendance: Iowa State & Arizona State...
That is 1 spot for the other 3 private schools: Stanford/ TCU/ Baylor, or 3 state schools of Washington St/ Oregon St/ Kansas St...
Granted, expecting West Virginia to ACC, Disney could move 2 brands to SEC (or Stanford, could go the way of Rice, after SWC)...

Quote

 

Pac-12, What the Tuck? | FishDuck

fishduck.com › 2020/03 › pac-12-what-the-tuck

 

1.  

17 hours ago - 

In FY 2020, MSU will receive $55M from the Big 10; CU, $33M from the Pac-12. Over the next five years, each B1G school will collect at least $139M more than Pac-12 schools. And after the next round of media negotiations, the difference in distributions will grow larger to the point at which B1G (and SEC) schools will likely be bringing in double that of the money distributed to the Pac-12 schools annually.

“The Pac-12 has yet to make annual distributions that so much as reach the low end of Scott’s pre-launch projections. The decision to reject ESPN’s offer to take over distribution of the Pac-12 Network is putting athletic departments at greater risk of falling behind.” — Jon Wilner, Mercury News

One thing is sure, it seems need finally caught up with desire to keep pace with SEC projections for 2023, (just as Disney wanted)...

Quote

New TV deal that replaces CBS with ESPN could mean $23 ...

collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com › 2019/12/21 › tv-deal-sec-million

 

1.  

Dec 21, 2019 - New TV deal with ESPN could be worth $330 million annually to the SEC; current deal with CBS pays "just" $55 million a year.

 

But more or less, there´ś already blueprint of how to get 9 votes to end complaint in PAC/ 8 votes to stop bickering in XII by 2025...

Edited March 9, 2020 by kopp0e

[camel at sea 589]

3 hours ago, Asu2215 said:

Which athletic departments in the Big12 have legit TV value? Texas and OU. That's it. The rest is garbage. 

That's probably a fair take.  My point re: the PAC schools and their value is that the argument for the Big 12 to add so many PAC schools... doesn't make financial sense for the Big 12.  What makes sense for the Big 12 is to add the schools with value and as few others as it can get away with adding.  That's always been the underlying discussion with the "poach the Big 12" idea.  How many Texhoma schools need to be added to the _____ Conference to get Texas and OU to join, too?

[camel at sea 589]

53 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

In a future of cord-cutting, maybe the idea should be which programs are best for market penitration of streaming apps as well..?
It would seem common sense to 1st move, take all the large state flagship programs (9 in total covering from Cascades to Gulf)...
*Washington/ *Oregon/ *California/ *Arizona/ *Utah/ *Colorado/ *Kansas/ Oklahoma/ *Texas, (AAU schools), that´s 97m. folks...
The most logical move after that..? Add state schools with best metrics to ¨make the deal happen¨ as in a state/ tech or private...
USC & UCLA (obviously), would be at the top of any list, then add Texas Tech, & Oklahoma State, that is 13 members, of 16 slots...

The logical adds at this point would be the two state schools with the largest in stadium attendance: Iowa State & Arizona State...
That is 1 spot for the other 3 private schools: Stanford/ TCU/ Baylor, or 3 state schools of Washington St/ Oregon St/ Kansas St...
Granted, expecting West Virginia to ACC, Disney could move 2 brands to SEC (or Stanford, could go the way of Rice, after SWC)...

One thing is sure, it seems need finally caught up with desire to keep pace with SEC projections for 2023, (just as Disney wanted)...

 

But more or less, there´ś already blueprint of how to get 9 votes to end complaint in PAC/ 8 votes to stop bickering in XII by 2025...

Why would you cut loose a mid-tier value from the Big 12 to add a mid-tier value school from the PAC?  It's just a needless complication.  

For example, Utah... great program.  They punch above their weight.  AAU.  And their TV numbers aren't that great and their local fan support is okay but not great.  Who are you cutting for them?  Colorado is kind of the same thing but with less recent success.  Cal is the same thing.  Stanford is the same thing.  From a purely sports standpoint, it doesn't make sense to cut from our side.  Why start a big fight in your own boardroom when you're looking to poach from another league?  Maybe that type of approach would make sense if the Big 12 ends up in a weakened position at some point during our next media rights negotiation.  But that's not where things look like they are going right now.  

[kopp0e 1135]

10 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Why would you cut loose a mid-tier value from the Big 12 to add a mid-tier value school from the PAC?  It's just a needless complication.  

For example, Utah... great program.  They punch above their weight.  AAU.  And their TV numbers aren't that great and their local fan support is okay but not great.  Who are you cutting for them?  Colorado is kind of the same thing but with less recent success.  Cal is the same thing.  Stanford is the same thing.  From a purely sports standpoint, it doesn't make sense to cut from our side.  Why start a big fight in your own boardroom when you're looking to poach from another league?  Maybe that type of approach would make sense if the Big 12 ends up in a weakened position at some point during our next media rights negotiation.  But that's not where things look like they are going right now.  

Here's a pretty simple 8 & 8, that does most of what you inquire:

Pac8:

Washington

Oregon

USC

UCLA

Arizona

Arizona State

Utah

Colorado

 

Big8:

Iowa State

Kansas

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Texas

Texas Tech

TCU

In that instance, California would be the biggest name left out, but note, GoRs for both leagues end within 1 year of one another... So that issue may be moot...

[camel at sea 589]

31 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

Here's a pretty simple 8 & 8, that does most of what you inquire:

Pac8:

Washington

Oregon

USC

UCLA

Arizona

Arizona State

Utah

Colorado

 

Big8:

Iowa State

Kansas

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Texas

Texas Tech

TCU

In that instance, California would be the biggest name left out, but note, GoRs for both leagues end within 1 year of one another... So that issue may be moot...

You just kicked out Baylor and WVU for Utah and Colorado.  Baylor and WVU have wealthier and arguably more successful athletic departments than both.  So Baylor and WVU are two schools who are not going quietly.  And the fact that they won't go quietly is going to make adding those 8 PAC schools much more difficult.  

And what's the upside?  You get a cleaner map?

[2300 Nueces 163]

Just pull the easy lever and go to the sec.  Take ou along so that we can continue to play them in Dallas.  It would also be fun to see the meltdown in ag town as well as feyetnam.  Piggy won't like it either and the hilarity when we move in to run things will be epic.  PLEEEEEaaaase!

[kopp0e 1135]

3 hours ago, camel at sea said:

You just kicked out Baylor and WVU for Utah and Colorado.  Baylor and WVU have wealthier and arguably more successful athletic departments than both.  So Baylor and WVU are two schools who are not going quietly.  And the fact that they won't go quietly is going to make adding those 8 PAC schools much more difficult.  

And what's the upside?  You get a cleaner map?

Colorado has been in the same conference as both Oklahoma & Texas, since 1947 & 1996, until 2010, respectively...
Colorado is a bridge between both leagues, one of the more infuencial donors of Buffs, was president of Oklahoma...
The 4 biggest in conference games for CU (usually) in XII: Nebraska/ Oklahoma/ Texas (football) & Kansas (hoops)...

West Virginia joined XII as more of need to keep a media contract viable, most of the old rivals are now in ACC (Pitt)...
West Virginia would be the 8th former BigEast school in ACC, with closer travel & older rivals, school would go east...
The biggest rivals of West Virginia from BigEast: Pitt (football-basketball)/ Virginia Tech/ Miami/ Syracuse (football)...

Baylor has been with XII since formation in 1996, & a founding member in 1915, so history is on the side of the Bears...
There yet & still, is the case of 2010, (& possibly 2011), where Baylor was set to be left behind by Texas & Oklahoma...

 

I say the biggest argument in this case, may be between Baylor & Utah, both are AAU, tho 1 is a state flagship school...

[tonedeaf 56]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

 

I say the biggest argument in this case, may be between Baylor & Utah, both are AAU, tho 1 is a state flagship school...

I just did a quick google and bqylor was not listed. But in the case of baylor, they are a mediocre school that will always have some sort of scandal hovering around them cause of their over-inflated opinion of themselves that they deserve to be a blueblood program.  Whatever the cost.  Even though baylors admittance to the B12 was a political move (the B8 schools did not want them), they had no issues leaving Houston, TCU, SMU, and Rice behind.  They were all sucking aggys dick when the LHN showed up accusing us of breaking up the league.  They are the biggest hypocritical POS school on the planet.  Not even close to being a "religious" school.  So fuck them.  Let 'em go independent like BYU and ND.  I don't know of any other league that would take them.  I'm sick of them hanging on UT's coattail.  

[closetohumping 17882]

8 hours ago, kopp0e said:

Here's a pretty simple 8 & 8, that does most of what you inquire:

Pac8:

Washington

Oregon

USC

UCLA

Arizona

Arizona State

Utah

Colorado

 

Big8:

Iowa State

Kansas

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Texas

Texas Tech

TCU

In that instance, California would be the biggest name left out, but note, GoRs for both leagues end within 1 year of one another... So that issue may be moot...

Would you be down to trade the Kansas schools for Stanford and cal?

[hiphopfroggy 121]

13 hours ago, Asu2215 said:

Which athletic departments in the Big12 have legit TV value? Texas and OU. That's it. The rest is garbage. 

 

 

 

Which Conference has leverage?

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

Take the top 6 from the Pac 12: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Colorado (along with the two Arizona schools)  and combine with the top 4 of the Big 12: UT, OU, TT and Kansas along with BYU (national following, could easily and quickly make the jump) and New Mexico (yes, they are of little value now but that could change as part of a major conference) and you would have a contiguous 14 team conference with long-term potential with the option to add 2 more in the future.   

[Loose Stool 112]

Quote

In FY 2020, MSU will receive $55M from the Big 10; CU, $33M from the Pac-12. Over the next five years, each B1G school will collect at least $139M more than Pac-12 schools. And after the next round of media negotiations, the difference in distributions will grow larger to the point at which B1G (and SEC) schools will likely be bringing in double that of the money distributed to the Pac-12 schools annually.

Quote

Cal in FY 2019 posted a deficit of $24M and is projected in FY 2020 to post a deficit of $17M.

Little brother, UCLA, is expected to post the same negative number in FY 2020 and lost $18.9M in FY 2019. The 2019 shortfall was covered by an interest-bearing loan from the University, not boosters. Meaning, a loan provided by California’s tax-paying citizens.

Oregon State and Washington State athletic departments both have tens of millions of dollars in accumulated debt.

These were quotes from one of the articles @kopp0e posted above.  The finances tell you all you need to know about the Pac-12.  They are in a tailspin and the B12 needs to be the aggressor and take who we want.  Given the financial outlook of the teams in the Pac-12, any team would be crazy to turn us down.

[Thiefery 5113]

58 minutes ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

Take the top 6 from the Pac 12: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Colorado (along with the two Arizona schools)  and combine with the top 4 of the Big 12: UT, OU, TT and Kansas along with BYU (national following, could easily and quickly make the jump) and New Mexico (yes, they are of little value now but that could change as part of a major conference) and you would have a contiguous 14 team conference with long-term potential with the option to add 2 more in the future.   

[utee94 16093]

1 hour ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

Take the top 6 from the Pac 12  

Why?

[Big Frog II 522]

It is possible that some of the Pac 12 could look to the Big 10 as well as the Big 12 for a better deal.

[2300 Nueces 163]

12 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

 

It is possible that some of the Pac 12 could look to the Big 10 as well as the Big 12 for a better deal.

 

In order:

USC, Oregon, UW, UA, ASU, UCLA.  Colorado tied the noose when they bailed on us.  B1G can have stanford and cal.  I would rather join $ec than assimilate pac schools.

Edited March 9, 2020 by 2300 Nueces

[utee94 16093]

14 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

It is possible that some of the Pac 12 could look to the Big 10 as well as the Big 12 for a better deal.

Sure it is.  But there's only one PAC school that would actually increase the value of either conference.  The only question is, who would USC want to bring along as a traveling partner, and would their new conference be willing to accept whoever that might be?

 

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

1 hour ago, utee94 said:

Why?

Because a few of those bottom level Pac teams (OSU, Utah, Wazzu, Arizona) bring little to nothing to the table and would be dead weight when it comes to generating revenue?

Edited March 9, 2020 by TeddyBearStallion

[utee94 16093]

1 minute ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

Because a few of those bottom level Pac teams bring little to nothing to the table and would be dead weight when it comes to generating revenue?

That's my point.  It's not just a few.  It's everyone but USC.  Why would the B12 take on the PAC's problems?  If USC wants to come and bring a traveling partner, that would make sense.  Taking any more than a couple does not make sense for the B12.

Despite all of the wishful thinking on this thread, the B12 isn't going go to be able to dissolve, or kick out, anyone.  So we're not talking about a merger here.  We're talking about the (very unlikely IMO) possibility of USC leaving the PAC for another conference.  How attractive that would be, to the B12 or the B1G, is entirely dependent on how many, and which, traveling partners USC might require.

 

 

[TaDuh 1]

By the end of the GOR, every B12 public will be past $50m dollars in conference distribution/Tier III media.   That will still dwarf the PAC.     I can look at K-State's projections and know that for this current FY they'll be at about $46m all in between conference and Tier 3.    That means OU/KU/WVU are pushing or surpassing $50m this year, Texas is  looking at mid 50's or higher.   So yeah, the Big 12 should absolutely approach future changes from a position of weakness relative to the financial disaster that is the current PAC . . . good lawd.   

Note, never hire some of you people to negotiate anything.

 

 

[Lone Star Horn 2071]

4 hours ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

Take the top 6 from the Pac 12: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Colorado (along with the two Arizona schools)  and combine with the top 4 of the Big 12: UT, OU, TT and Kansas along with BYU (national following, could easily and quickly make the jump) and New Mexico (yes, they are of little value now but that could change as part of a major conference) and you would have a contiguous 14 team conference with long-term potential with the option to add 2 more in the future.   

FUCK cult-cougar, I'd rather the Big X12 take Utah is it really needs that state. And I'd sure as hell prefer to keep Iowa State, TCU, Okie State, and K-State over cult-cougar.

[kopp0e 1135]

7 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Would you be down to trade the Kansas schools for Stanford and cal?

I´d want to keep Kansas, but would be willing to add California...

Quote

Andy Staples

 

@Andy_Staples

 

Imagine UW having to travel to Austin? Larry Scott did that 10 years ago, and it almost happened. So don’t act like it’s far-fetched. Also, you realize that by joining the Big 12, USC also could have its own network, right?

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by kopp0e

[Poolflood 845]

On 3/5/2020 at 9:08 AM, Thiefery said:

 

Texas and blowU deign to bring along couple schools (none of these schools should be baylor) and join with USC and their favorites.

WVU.  Nice knowing ya.  Baylor, get fucked.

New conference, big money.  Oh!  But, but but.... we're also pushing time for 6 team playoff!  The pac/big leftovers make a new conference with the likes of cougar high, utah and blah, blah blah (all of whom are better than baylor) with shot at playoffs.

What starts here changes the world.

[Bevo14 8471]

Dump Baylor and WVU. Add the pac 12 schools except Utah, Colorado, Oregon State, and Washington State.

[hiphopfroggy 121]

Utah Would Be In Real Trouble If Pac-12 Loses Marquee Teams

Share   

BY JEREMY MAUSS, KSL SPORTS
MARCH 10, 2020 AT 10:17 AM

 

https://kslsports.com/430182/utah-would-be-in-real-trouble-if-pac-12-loses-marquee-teams/

 

 

 

“It hurts Utah, and that is an easy question to answer. There is still a conference there and it is good. I think everyone is disappointed with the move the Pac-12 did and it really is with the TV network,” Mitchell said. “The problem is that everyone thought there was going to be a whole lot more revenue generated. These schools are saying, ‘we would get a better deal from ESPN, NBC, any of them, Fox Network independently than the type of revenue generated and this all driven by TV.”

The money disparity is only going to get bigger as the Big Ten and SEC continue to gain in popularity and the ACC has its own league-network but it is owned by ESPN so the distribution from the start has been miles ahead of the Pac-12.

If the conference were to lose the big three in Washington, USC, and Oregon, what would the league do?

“Utah has no leverage, they have zero leverage. They are, quite frankly, to just happy to be there,” Mitchell said. “Arizona is the same way, Arizona State, Oregon State is the same, and most of the Pac-12. Really, only USC, Oregon and Washington [have leverage].”

[ButtFumble 5315]

I am seeing this as a long shot, but another Big 16 article

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/asu/2020/03/05/pac-12-football-lose-asu-usc-oregon-washington-ucla-big-12/4964313002/

the vieo in the story is actually not related to the article, but it is interesting to listen to because it talks about AU and ASU joining the PAC 8 and how even back then Stanford was a bunch of dicks about letting teams in the conference so was UW

it would be funny to see Stanford eat a dick all these years later with AU and ASU joining in with UT, OU and OkState (even though I stand by the opinion that OU and OkState would have been admitted to the PAC 12 on their own, but they turned down the PAC 12 once UT said they were staying in the Big 12 and OU knew they Fox 3rd tier deal was going to happen)

[kopp0e 1135]

41 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

I am seeing this as a long shot, but another Big 16 article

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/asu/2020/03/05/pac-12-football-lose-asu-usc-oregon-washington-ucla-big-12/4964313002/

the vieo in the story is actually not related to the article, but it is interesting to listen to because it talks about AU and ASU joining the PAC 8 and how even back then Stanford was a bunch of dicks about letting teams in the conference so was UW

it would be funny to see Stanford eat a dick all these years later with AU and ASU joining in with UT, OU and OkState (even though I stand by the opinion that OU and OkState would have been admitted to the PAC 12 on their own, but they turned down the PAC 12 once UT said they were staying in the Big 12 and OU knew they Fox 3rd tier deal was going to happen)

A PXC south division of:

Texas

Texas Tech

TCU

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Arizona

Arizona State

USC

UCLA

That would feel a lot like the ol' XII south days..!

On the other hand, Washington/ Oregon/ Utah & Iowa State would carry the north... 

Yep, that would feel a lot like the ol' XII north days..!

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

I am seeing this as a long shot, but another Big 16 article

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/asu/2020/03/05/pac-12-football-lose-asu-usc-oregon-washington-ucla-big-12/4964313002/

the vieo in the story is actually not related to the article, but it is interesting to listen to because it talks about AU and ASU joining the PAC 8 and how even back then Stanford was a bunch of dicks about letting teams in the conference so was UW

it would be funny to see Stanford eat a dick all these years later with AU and ASU joining in with UT, OU and OkState (even though I stand by the opinion that OU and OkState would have been admitted to the PAC 12 on their own, but they turned down the PAC 12 once UT said they were staying in the Big 12 and OU knew they Fox 3rd tier deal was going to happen)

I'd be fine with a Big 14 that just leaves out the PAC North division altogether.  And at that point they could reform as a more regional PAC NW entity that isn't quite so spread out.  Rotate the Rose Bowl tie-in between the B12 and the new PAC 10.  Give them a permanent tie-in with the Fiesta Bowl.  Everyone comes out of that okay.

 

Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Utah, +, +, +.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

Wow, take some time off from the board for a while and all the fun happens.    Can't say I'm too surprised, this kind of undercurrent of anger has been going on for years now.   I would be surprised if it actually worked out.   I think the real end game is a shared contract/scheduling agreement, and it may include more than one conference.   Pac/Big12/B1G pairing up gives a nationwide footprint worth literal billions.  It would force the ACC/SEC to pair up and they couldn't compete.    The B1G just increased their payouts and their NET scores in basketball by going to 9 and 20 conference games, play that idea out further where you play 8 conference games in football and two crossovers in the other two conferences and you've got 11 marketable games out of 12 with 6 home games a year.   You'd control the strength of schedule narrative and you'd control the visibility of those games, where conferences do not at the moment.   You get the home and give the away, now you'd get both on the same contract.    Consistency means money.  Do this with basketball as well and you add even more.  

This would make the B1G more money as well, so its very viable.

That being said, its not as fun as talking about raiding.   So why not jump into the fray as well...

I see why they picked the teams they did, but those don't make a lot of sense and, as others mentioned, there are some hiccups along the way.

First USC is who you need to target immediately.   No one else in the Pac matters without USC and USC can do what it wants.   It could go independent if it wanted, but that's actually a kind of a pain in the ass.    Considering it is private, it doesn't need to follow the rules of the California legislature if its not funded from it.   It also doesn't need to worry about anyone in the UC system.   Fly to LA, get USC more playing time at the noon to 3 eastern slots and less "Pac after Dark"   Give them the Trojan network.   The hundreds of millions they'll bring to the contract at T1 and T2 will far and away blow the T3 dollars out of the water.   Also, this isn't the east coast where everyone is a drive away from each other.  USC is 1100 miles from Seattle and 1400 from Dallas.   Travel for the Pac 12 teams isn't going to be an issue, they already deal with it.

After that it gets a little dicy.   They mention UCLA, but they are tethered to the UC system, with Cal.  There is likely a lot of politics to play there.   However, Stanford, is not.   As another private, funded extremely well, it is only beholden to its own needs.   UCLA may have a bit more cache, but Stanford gives you a national name and San Fran.   They also need T3, because, as someone mentioned, they are loaded with Olympic athletes.  The PacNet, however, is not national, so solve that problem.

If you got those two, the rest kind of falls into place.   Yes, the Pac 10 could remain as is, but odds are there will be some starting to reach out to you because now you own Texas and California.   You can pick and choose brands or locations or, more realistically, you'll ask USC who they want as travel partners and go with that list.  Washington and Oregon will likely want to move now as well, if they can untether from the "states".   That gives you 14 with 4 amazingly worthwhile pick ups.   You can be selective with the remaining two.   

If UCLA and Cal can't move due to politics, then Colorado would jump since it keeps California, 15...and Denver, and a stop in the middle.   Would that create a knife fight in Arizona over the last spot?   Or would Colorado lose out to those two.  

Or if Washington and Oregon can't leave due to politics, grab the Arizonas and then fill in the gaps two WVU with a Memphis/Cinci combo.   Not worth as much as Washington, but worth more with 15/16 and to fill in some eastern gaps, than to take with 11/12, which are the key additions. 

Whatever options of those you get to make 16 though, you're in a good spot.   Two 8 team divisions give you 7 games, with 5 to play with in some form of cross-over or scheduling agreement.   The future isn't less conference games now that the B1G has showed the SEC how to make money.   This grouping would rival the B1G in valuation if you kept conference scheduling high.

You need USC first though

 

P.S. Edit - The Big 12 owns the copyright to the "Big 16"

Edited March 12, 2020 by Hurtlocker

[Hurtlocker 2219]

Thinking a bit more, if you nabbed Stanford and USC, what would that do to Notre Dame?

Currently they are under agreement with the ACC to play 5 football games a year until 2037, which is a long time away.   It has a $50m buyout and is contractually obligated to join the ACC should it ever join a conference.  I have no idea how that wording looks, but any contract can be ended with enough money.   And ND isn't really hurting for cash.   It makes like $6m from the ACC.

Would ND be interested if Stanford and USC, two "every year" teams, joined the options of Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Arizona State (who they play for Phoenix) were in the Big 12.   They could schedule WVU in DC every year too, giving an eastern presence.  

I think its far fetched, but the odds of luring that apple are probably a lot higher than they were when the Big 12 was beat up.  

[Hurtlocker 2219]

One last one...what happens to the remains.

Let's say USC, Stanford, the Arizonas, Oregon and Colorado move, That leaves UCLA, Cal, Oregon State, Utah, Washington and Washington State.    That's not nothing.

They could add the Aztecs, BYU, Boise, and Colorado State, get back to ten

Its not a power house, but its not sucksville either.   

[Extra Anejo 99]

This thread has missed HL and his view of the sports world. 

[Tom 2960]

I've always been warm to the idea of joining the PAC due to being with like-minded academic institutions. 

I'm coming around to the SEC.  Previously I hated the idea from a perspective of the SEC having " too many chiefs, not enough Indians" where we might get lost in a lineup of too many blue bloods.  Now I kind of appreciate keeping our biggest and most historic rivalries together and being in a geographically convenient conference.  

[Hurtlocker 2219]

College football must innovate as FBS attendance dips for sixth straight year to lowest since 1996

 

Quote

Conference             AVG. ATTENDANCE IN 2019	% CHANGE FROM 2018	NOTES
SEC	72,723	-1.7	Lowest since 2000
Big Ten	65,065	-0.5	Lowest since 1993
Big 12	57,467	+0.1
ACC	48,243	-1.2	Lowest since 1999
Pac-12	46,080	-0.8	Lowest since 1978*
Independents	37,038	-2.4
AAC	29,496	+2.0
MWC	23,232	-2.6	Lowest in history^
C-USA	18,929	0.0	2nd lowest in history
Sun Belt	18,342	+5.5
MAC	15,530	+0.5

 

 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

here is an innovative idea, go back to an 11-game regular season and play only one G5 opponent max per season, no FCS opponents-- like stop trying to schedule as many guaranteed Ws at home as possible

just doing that will improve attendance by ~ 2%

 

[Thiefery 5113]

once we get over this obstacle of a health crisis, I think sport attendance is going to go through the roof.

[PhillyD 1317]

Potential thread derail, but I've wondered if the opposite will occur.  Will we discover that we don't really need sports?  I miss March madness, but I don't really feel like I'm empty without it.  This is the time of year I start really getting into a hockey, but I'm going on without it.  I wonder if there are a bunch of folks thinking, "meh, maybe I should spend my money somewhere else."

[2300 Nueces 163]

17 minutes ago, PhillyD said:

Potential thread derail, but I've wondered if the opposite will occur.  Will we discover that we don't really need sports?  I miss March madness, but I don't really feel like I'm empty without it.  This is the time of year I start really getting into a hockey, but I'm going on without it.  I wonder if there are a bunch of folks thinking, "meh, maybe I should spend my money somewhere else."

The cost structure of sport needs to come down.  Most of the coaches/best players are too expensive, including 5 star recruits.  Ticket prices need to decrease while the quality provided needs to increase.  I hate the godzillatron.  Give me more band and traditional fight songs, etc...  Here's a thought, come up with some new fight songs, not Journey, but that's ok too. 

 

Keep the games regional and focus on the regional involvement.  Older rivalries are my favorite. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by 2300 Nueces

[closetohumping 17882]

19 minutes ago, PhillyD said:

Potential thread derail, but I've wondered if the opposite will occur.  Will we discover that we don't really need sports?  I miss March madness, but I don't really feel like I'm empty without it.  This is the time of year I start really getting into a hockey, but I'm going on without it.  I wonder if there are a bunch of folks thinking, "meh, maybe I should spend my money somewhere else."

Yep.  I think there’s a chance where the fans say “you know what you don’t care about us why should we care about you?”

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Yep.  I think there’s a chance where the fans say “you know what you don’t care about us why should we care about you?”

that happened to me with Major League Baseball in 1994, then NBA in 1998, and then for different reasons, the NFL at some point in the early 2000s. 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 hour ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Keep the games regional and focus on the regional involvement.

I'm onboard with this, but right now it would put the schools doing it at too much of a disadvantage in terms of television revenue. But I agree it would be ideal for teams to be in a conference of 8-10 geographically cohesive or logical teams.

Geography is not the end-all, be-all. Texas doesn't belong in a conference with UTSA or UTEP. But I'd rather play Arkansas than Utah, Tech than Mississippi, etc. 

[Handcruser 2817]

Texas
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Nebraska
USC
UCLA
Colorado
Utah

The rest I don’t care


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Hurtlocker 2219]

2 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

here is an innovative idea, go back to an 11-game regular season and play only one G5 opponent max per season, no FCS opponents-- like stop trying to schedule as many guaranteed Ws at home as possible

just doing that will improve attendance by ~ 2%

 

Doing this would expand media contracts too.   One thing networks hate in inventory isn't playing the Kansas's of the world.   It is the 3-4 games out of conference because they can't plan for them.   And, while some always play at least a good game or two, they are all lower in value because they're not "known"   This is how the Big Ten exploded their contract.    Banning FCS and going from 8 conference games to 9 jumped them from about $44 to $50m a team, and that's with everyone playing Rutgers.   The Big 12 got this as well.   The reason they didn't lose value when they lost 2 teams is they went from 8 to 9 conference games.   In short, conference games are worth way more than non-con games.

So, If the Big Ten went to 9 and made a shit ton more on their schedule, the SEC is looking at it.   That 10-15% jump is nothing to sneeze at.  

If the Big 12 raided the Pac, per the discussion, they could increase their network revenue by keeping it all in house.   

14 = 6 division games, 3-5 crossovers

16 = 7 division, 3-4 crossovers

18 = 8 division, 3 crossovers

The Big 12 currently sells 90 conference games a year in 90/10 split on two time zones   The Big Ten sold around 126 with about a 50/50 split over two time zones.   The Big 16, with some Pac 12 raiding (as long as it included USC), playing most games internally per above, would be selling at least 160 games a year with a split over potentially 4 time zones.  With Texas, USC, and Oklahoma you could practically guarantee two Tier 1 games per week, host eight Tier 2 games per week (two per 12/3/PT/10pm eastern) and still have six to seven games a week to package into a Tier Three offering for streaming.   This allows you to let the biggest brands have their own channel and still run a conference channel for the rest.

That's more than the Big Ten is taking to market, with similar sized brands and population.   If you get UCLA, Oregon, and Washington to boot the numbers could get stupid.

Oh, yeah, and also, attendance could improve in the process due to everyone playing 10 conference games.   Want more money? 

[SWCFROG 41]

Eleven.  I like it.

 

SWCFROG

[DFW Horn 6679]

[Godzillatron 303]

  I hate the godzillatron. 
 

Words hurt, you Surly bastard.

[Al_4_ISU 12699]

2 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

That entire plan is fucking awesome.  What red blooded college football fan couldnt have a ball with that?

I'm stunned that mouth breather put that together.  His Twitter account is insufferable.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Al_4_ISU

[tonedeaf 56]

12 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

This looks good and aggy is already there, but I don't think Texas is going to be able to go anywhere and not take a traveling partner.  Anyone but baylor.  Memphis is probably out and Tech/TCU in.  Just my opinion.  But I do like the looks of this.  I was never a big fan of "let's stay put and take the easy road".  The 2005 team could have navigated that schedule with no problem.