Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

12 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

THings change, lots of misinformation out there but from what I've read, Oregon isn't wanted by the B1G or USC.  IDK.

 

WSU and OSU, to me, are equivalent to a Vanderbilt, MSU, Purdue, etc.  Only difference is the SEC and B1G protect their little brothers.  

 

I've been super bullish on expansion for the last ten years but now I kind of wish we could head back to 1996.  I think conferences should be regional. 

I've wanted to go back to 1996 ever since 1997.  If the Big 8 could be a thing again, I'd be happier than a pig in shit.  That's a conference that made sense.  Those are the schools ISU should be playing.  By the same token, I'd have to think Texas fans would have more fun with the Arky version of the SWC than what the current SEC will be.

I'm not sure where I come down on USC and Washington.  My initial thought is if the Big 10 wanted them, they would have invited them last week.  But they do seem pretty valuable.  Then you see a source that says a school has to bring $100M to the Big 10 to garner an invite, and I can't imagine they'd be worth that.

I think it's more likely that if the AZ schools, Utah, and CU join the Big 12 that UW and Oregon would do the same if the Big 10 turns them down.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Al_4_ISU

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That's not really how it works. They are the two best programs left in the PAC. We would take them now or 5 years from now if they are still stranded. And we'd know the entire time they'll continue begging for a Big 10 invite and will take it immediately if offered. That's just the new world. Everyone outside the SEC and Big 10 are pursing that invite. The money difference is just enormous now.

I agree.  I just think the Big XII needs to extend the invitation, but also make them turn us down and not just leave us hanging waiting for an answer.

[closetohumping 17410]

Hoping all of this lets us get into Sec in 23

[hawkfan 60]

1 minute ago, Nueces River Rat said:

The time zone thing is going to tick off a bunch of east coast Big 10 fanbases.    That 7:00 PM start time in LA is going to be 10PM for folks in State College, Columbus, and and Ann Arbor.   9:00 PM starts are tough enough for we in the Central time zone.  

 

But the thing is, they won't be putting Penn State/USC or Penn State/UCLA on at 9PM Eastern - that was a necessity for the PAC because they had too much West Coast Inventory - when you only have 5ish West Coast schools, it becomes pretty easy to put those desirable games on at 3PM Eastern/Noon PST and the entire country gets to watch it.

The 9PM start times were the product of having too much undesirable inventory (USC vs. CAL/Oregon State/Washington State/Arizona/Colorado/Etc.)  Will USC/Indiana be on at 9PM EST?  Yeah, probably.  Most of the B1G won't get that time slot.

['stache 21778]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

I've wanted to go back to 1996 ever since 1997.  If the Big 8 could be a thing again, I'd be happier than a pig in shit.  That's a conference that made sense.  Those are the schools ISU should be playing.

I'd have to think Texas fans would have more fun with the Arky version of the SWC than what the current SEC will be.

The Big 12 I thought was perfect, but that may be because I wasn't a fan until the late 90's and I never experienced the Big 8 days. If Arkansas could have been brought back and Baylor left out the conference would have been absolutely picture perfect.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

Just now, 'stache said:

The Big 12 I thought was perfect, but that may be because I wasn't a fan until the late 90's and I never experienced the Big 8 days. If Arkansas could have been brought back and Baylor left out the conference would have been absolutely picture perfect.

I barely remember the Big 8.  Just the last 2 seasons TBH.  It just made sense in my mind that it was ISU's home.  The Texas schools changed the way things looked, but they never seemed weird to me either.  It just made it less Midwestern.

[6th Street 6357]

2 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Hoping all of this lets us get into Sec in 23

If USC and UCLA are going to the BIG in 2024, ESPN will eat that Big 12 buyout for Texas and OU

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Hoping all of this lets us get into Sec in 23

If the Big 12 gets enough new adds and a shiny new TV deal, I think it would be more likely to cut UT/OU loose.

[TexEx15 17493]

7 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Hoping all of this lets us get into Sec in 23

Agree. I think 2024 latest as that is when ESPN takes over SEC I believe. I also think there were discussions about this with the Manning family during the recruiting process. 2024 fits nicely with a redshirt year in 2023 and starting in 2024 in the SEC with Ewers off to the NFL. As long as everything works the way we all hope of course.

Edited July 5, 2022 by TexEx15

[DFW Horn 6118]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd have to think Texas fans would have more fun with the Arky version of the SWC than what the current SEC will be.

Incorrect

Not many of us will miss BU, TCU, SMU, Rice, or UH. Maybe Tech, a little bit.

[Nueces River Rat 5532]

2 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

 

But the thing is, they won't be putting Penn State/USC or Penn State/UCLA on at 9PM Eastern - that was a necessity for the PAC because they had too much West Coast Inventory - when you only have 5ish West Coast schools, it becomes pretty easy to put those desirable games on at 3PM Eastern/Noon PST and the entire country gets to watch it.

The 9PM start times were the product of having too much undesirable inventory (USC vs. CAL/Oregon State/Washington State/Arizona/Colorado/Etc.)  Will USC/Indiana be on at 9PM EST?  Yeah, probably.  Most of the B1G won't get that time slot.

Very good point.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

Maybe it was the TV in Texas at the time, but the only Big 8 games I saw growing up were Neb-ou and the Orange Bowl.  Saw tons of Pac 8/10 and Big 10 games.  No ACC really at all unless they played someone else or ND. 

[billfromlaketravis 11368]

26 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

 

How the f*** is that going to work? ACC schools would be suing ESPN to end the GOR, so 4 schools can join the SEC. 
 

ESPN will own the SEC’s Tier 1, 2, and 3 TV rights after 2024. 
 

Why would the SEC welcome ACC schools that just sued their sole TV partner? 

[Francisco 2.0 32347]

2 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

How the f*** is that going to work? ACC schools would be suing ESPN to end the GOR, so 4 schools can join the SEC. 
 

ESPN will own the SEC’s Tier 1, 2, and 3 TV rights after 2024. 
 

Why would the SEC welcome ACC schools that just sued their sole TV partner? 

 

Don't overthink it.

If the SEC could improve their TV deal significantly by adding some ACC schools, they don't give a shit about the semantics of how those ACC schools broke free.   And ESPN won't care either, because the SEC became that much more marketable (if it even needs to)

 

 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18526]

 

3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Don't overthink it.

If the SEC could improve their TV deal significantly by adding some ACC schools, they don't give a shit about the semantics of how those ACC schools broke free.   And ESPN won't care either, because the SEC became that much more marketable (if it even needs to)

 

 

Is that really true? 

I know that everybody is angling for this two mega-conference end game that we all seem headed for... but outside of Notre Dame, is there anybody out there that actually increases the payout per team? Clemson, Florida State, UNC, Oregon, Washington? Do any of them make financial sense for either the B1G or SEC? And if it doesn't increase the bottom line, I don't think expansion just for the sake of expansion is in any conference's best interest. Unless the goal is to just kill the other conferences, Game of Thrones style, I just don't see the point.

[bullet 1596]

21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The Big 12 I thought was perfect, but that may be because I wasn't a fan until the late 90's and I never experienced the Big 8 days. If Arkansas could have been brought back and Baylor left out the conference would have been absolutely picture perfect.

SWC was doomed.  But 1996-1998 era was a good alignment.  Original Big 12 before Nebraska cratered and CU smoked too much weed was good.

SEC at 12 made sense.  Big 10+1 could have added Rutgers instead of Nebraska.  ACC didn't need Pitt, SU and BC.  There still could have been a NE conference.

[hawkfan 60]

So lets assume that Pate tweet is correct and we just get to the final end game here.  Say the B1G is willing to go to 24 and play 11 conference games - kill off all the warm ups in September against the FCS/MAC/Etc, which is what the Networks probably want.  A 24 school B1G setup that could work out pretty well would look something like this:

 

Pacific

USC

Notre Dame

UCLA

Stanford

Washington

Oregon

 

Great Plains

Wisconsin

Iowa

Nebraska

Minnesota

Colorado

Northwestern

 

Great Lakes

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Purdue

Indiana

Illinois

 

Atlantic

Penn State

Rutgers

Maryland

North Carolina

Virginia

Georgia Tech

 

That setup preserves geographic continuity pretty well, it's a total national conference, and we've been hearing rumors of Georgia Tech/Miami having B1G interest.

Only current annual rivalry you lose there is Illinois/Northwestern - everything else fits pretty well and I could see ND being fine being in the Pacific Division to protect the games against USC/Stanford.

Edit:  I forgot about Rutgers, lol.  I know the B1G has to be regretting that addition right now.

Edited July 5, 2022 by hawkfan

[chainsaw 9839]

1 minute ago, hawkfan said:

So lets assume that Pate tweet is correct and we just get to the final end game here.  Say the B1G is willing to go to 24 and play 11 conference games - kill off all the warm ups in September against the FCS/MAC/Etc, which is what the Networks probably want.  A 24 school B1G setup that could work out pretty well would look something like this:

 

Pacific

USC

Notre Dame

UCLA

Stanford

Washington

Oregon

 

Great Plains

Wisconsin

Iowa

Nebraska

Minnesota

Colorado

Northwestern

 

Great Lakes

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Purdue

Indiana

Illinois

 

Atlantic

Penn State

Maryland

North Carolina

Virginia

Georgia Tech

Miami

 

That setup preserves geographic continuity pretty well, it's a total national conference, and we've been hearing rumors of Georgia Tech/Miami having B1G interest.

Only current annual rivalry you lose there is Illinois/Northwestern - everything else fits pretty well and I could see ND being fine being in the Pacific Division to protect the games against USC/Stanford.

Does NW have a rivalry with UIUC?

[SimkinsMan 4353]

Anyone got this?

 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/34195148/college-realignment-next-steps-acc-big-12-pac-12-scramble-amid-chaos

[hawkfan 60]

If you could kick out Rutgers and add Miami, that setup above is about perfect, Miami isn't really an academic fit though, Rutgers definitely is.

[bullet 1596]

4 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

 

Is that really true? 

I know that everybody is angling for this two mega-conference end game that we all seem headed for... but outside of Notre Dame, is there anybody out there that actually increases the payout per team? Clemson, Florida State, UNC, Oregon, Washington? Do any of them make financial sense for either the B1G or SEC? And if it doesn't increase the bottom line, I don't think expansion just for the sake of expansion is in any conference's best interest. Unless the goal is to just kill the other conferences, Game of Thrones style, I just don't see the point.

With the vast escalation in dollars, I just don't see a 24 team B$G or $EC making sense.  Maybe they could get to 20.  5 years ago, I thought the B$G and $EC splitting up the ACC and forming 2 22-24 team groups each with a 10-12 team league made sense.  There were 44 teams between the three conferences when you add in WVU.  They might stick at each having a 10 team league and 12 team league in their "conference" or they could add 4 more from the then Big 12 and AAC.

But now, I just don't see that making sense.  And with Texas/OU/USC/UCLA moving, having two leagues in one conference makes less sense geographically as you would have to split up the old core of the B$G and $EC.  Having one league with 24 just doesn't make sense.

[Zhorn96 1772]

4 minutes ago, SimkinsMan said:

Anyone got this?

 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/34195148/college-realignment-next-steps-acc-big-12-pac-12-scramble-amid-chaos

Spoiler

The only certainty in conference realignment is uncertainty, much like the only constant in college athletics is change.

Decisions can whipsaw on the whims of a board member or a president pressured into a ready-fire-aim strategy. When diagnosing the travails of modern college sports, the fact that university decision-makers have virtually no expertise in the billion-dollar enterprise they run on the side often gets overlooked.

So to say with any certainty that the Big Ten and SEC aren't on the cusp of more imminent realignment moves would be correct for now, but that's seemingly a temporary pause. Is that pause a week? Or a year? But they have established themselves as destinations so alluring that schools outside the "Power 2" would have to be tempted to join at a cut rate.

The only certain trigger for expansion among the Power 2 in the near term is a move by Notre Dame, which for now appears to be taking on a century-old strategy of patience. (The Fighting Irish have an ally in the SEC in any attempts by the Big Ten to box them out of the College Football Playoff. The SEC is unlikely to bless any move that prevents Notre Dame from having access to the playoff, as it would push the Irish to the Big Ten. The SEC wouldn't want to strengthen its rival league like that.)

The issue that both the Big Ten and SEC have in terms of adding additional schools is that there simply aren't any -- outside of Notre Dame -- that offer certainty of value to grow the financial pie enough to justify their slice. There are arguments for ACC schools like Clemson, North Carolina, Florida State and Miami. But there are looming legal reasons why UCLA, USC, Texas and Oklahoma are all waiting for their current TV contracts -- and congruent grants of rights -- to expire.

Any cries for Oregon and Washington in the Big Ten should be tempered by the reality that if USC and UCLA wanted them there in the first place, they'd probably be there. Those schools appear to value owning Los Angeles and the rich recruiting market much more. They have a monopoly on the West Coast. Why invite in your top competition?

For the ACC schools to bounce, there's a legal briar patch no one -- the poachers or the schools wanting to leave -- is eager to navigate. University presidents and conference commissioners are generally averse to legal issues; deposition is a dirty word in higher ed. Those factors, combined with exit fees and legal fees tied to grant of rights that could run more than $100 million, might make it so the juice of adding teams isn't worth the legal and fiscal squeeze -- at least in the short term.

So where's the next likely action amid the realignment landscape? Well, the most jockeying, consulting, back-channeling and speculation are centered around the race for No. 3. With the Big Ten and SEC having established themselves as a Power 2, the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 are scrambling to attempt to solidify or build the next best league.

What's unfolding in those three leagues is the quintessential college sports scenario where members are pledging fidelity to league members on Zooms while side texting about leaving for other leagues. Commissioners are chatting about potential deals among one another and privately crunching the numbers with consultants to poach the other's members. Conference allegiance these days comes with all the romance and permanence of a Tinder swipe.

Here's a look at the options all three leagues are exploring:

 

Big 12

The Big 12 is the most stable of the three remaining leagues. That would have been considered a punchline for much of the past two decades, when the league endured so much infighting that it became the archetype of instability.

But here's the reality for the Big 12: The league is the most stable among the "Next Three" because there are no programs that are clearly coveted by the Big Ten or SEC.

When Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving last year, the remaining eight Big 12 members essentially put themselves on the open market. No one stopped to pick them up. That gave them solidarity by reality, which has birthed a stable union that blossomed by adding UCF, BYU, Cincinnati and Houston.

"We're more galvanized than we've ever been," a league source said. "There's no interest by Big 12 members going to the Pac-12 or ACC."

It's been quite a first week for new commissioner Brett Yormark, who has impressed the league's athletic directors and leaders with his humility and willingness to admit he knows what he doesn't know.

Yormark has been aggressive, per sources. The most logical play for the Big 12 remains going after Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah. In a realignment landscape that often doesn't make sense, those four schools would fit both competitively and geographically. All four would have realistic ambition to win the Big 12 while putting rivals Utah and BYU in the same league.

For those four schools, hitching their futures to Oregon and Washington in some sort of rearranged Pac-12 would likely be a short-term relationship, as it's probable the Ducks and Huskies will be looking across the financial moat over to the Big Ten. Even, perhaps, at a discounted rate.

If Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah go to the Big 12, it would essentially kill the Pac-12. Would Washington and Oregon end up following? The Pac-12 would be largely vacant, and they'd need a home better than a juiced-up Mountain West.

The Big 12's advantage over the ACC in potentially poaching schools is that they are headed to open market after the 2024 football season.

The ACC can reopen its TV deal if schools are added, but there's unlikely to be an eye-popping increase in the value of that ACC contract.

The Big 12 can pitch potential schools on the allure of a lucrative deal that could potentially involve streamers, networks and perhaps new linear partners.

A full-on merger/alliance-type move with the Pac-12 would be complicated for many reasons, including existing television deals. There's also too many mouths to feed to get a blockbuster deal. The Pac-12 TV deal expiring in 2023 makes the league an easy target.

 

Will the ACC be able to keep its elite programs like Clemson happy through a new model of unequal revenue sharing? Ken Ruinard/Greenville News-USA TODAY NETWORK

ACC

When assessing the ACC in the race for No. 3, the fact that it is seemingly protected legally looms as a giant factor. The ACC has a handful of high-end properties left on the board, and those schools have agreed to a binding grant of rights that ties them together through 2036, when its ESPN television contract expires.

The ACC's options are simple: stand pat, add a select handful of schools to open up the ESPN deal for potentially more revenue or enter a strategic merger.

The issue for the ACC is that there are enough current members unsettled at the notion of the league evenly splitting its income between its 14 football members that it has become a tension point.

There's been informal discussion of unequal revenue sharing in the ACC for months, and commissioner Jim Phillips' biggest challenge is going to be keeping big brands that could have interest from the Power 2 -- Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Florida State and Virginia -- happy.

However the ACC evolves in the upcoming weeks, expect the league to introduce some type of new revenue sharing. In theory, a Clemson program that's won two national titles in the past decade would make more than a Boston College program that hasn't won eight games since 2009. Would this be based on performance both on the field and in TV ratings? That'll be for the consultants. But the days of holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" are likely over in the ACC. And probably elsewhere below the Power 2.

"Leagues that aren't the SEC and Big Ten need a different revenue distribution model," an industry source said. "The top teams can't afford to support the bottom half of the league. To keep the bigger brands away from the Big Ten and SEC, the bigger brands are going to need a bigger piece of the pie."

In the past, the notion of unequal revenue sharing has been a precursor to leagues falling apart. Perhaps if it's earned, as opposed to given, that could be more sustainable?

Could more money from some type of ACC addition or merger, combined with unequal revenue sharing, make the ACC more sustainable for the top teams?

A full merger doesn't make sense because it brings on more of the same issue: too many second-tier schools that offer little high-end inventory.

So what could the ACC do? Could it swing a Western Division and cherry-pick six to eight schools in the Midwest (TCU, Oklahoma State or Houston) and the core of the remaining Pac-12 (Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal) or maybe target decent-sized media markets such as Cincinnati, Arizona State or Colorado? Could it lure them with more money than a league like the Big 12?

Pac-12

Clearly, this league is the most vulnerable going forward. There isn't a strong appetite among the remaining 10 members to add a few Mountain West schools like San Diego State or Boise State or the WCC's Gonzaga in basketball and soldier on.

They want to think bigger, but the loss of USC and UCLA has meant a loss of leverage. Perhaps the most nerve-wracking thing for Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is that any school can leave without penalty after 2023. Just like USC and UCLA did. So it's hard to poach when the contract leaves you vulnerable to being poached.

Kliavkoff must be aware of conflicts of interest. As Pac-12 expert Jon Wilner pointed out recently, the Pac-12's new board chair is Washington president Ana Mari Cauce. Clearly, Washington is going to have a wandering eye for safer ground. Can she be relied on to guide the league through a period where its survival is at stake?

There isn't much current interest from the Big Ten in adding Washington and Oregon at a full share nor are USC or UCLA lobbying for them to join.

The Big Ten is waiting on Notre Dame, just like everyone else. That underscores why things are so tenuous for the Pac-12, as it's hard to envision Washington and Oregon agreeing to some type of long-term binding grant of rights through the length of whatever next deal the league could put together. The cruel reality of the environment is that outside of the Power 2, the best programs in all the other leagues are plotting to get across the moat and join them. In today's environment, the financial disparity after the Power 2 is going to accentuate the instability everywhere else.

For Kliavkoff to save the league, he needs to be aggressive and creative in some type of merger, as his league is wounded, and the timing of the television contract leaves them exposed. Much of this isn't his fault. But he should take some blame for not catering enough to his big brands. Much like we mentioned earlier about the ACC's future, there was no way the Pac-12 could have moved forward with USC earning the same as Oregon State. But the reality is that even the Pac-12's most generous and creative solutions probably wouldn't have been able to keep the Los Angeles schools around.

The Pac-12 needs to fortify however possible, and that vulnerability makes it an unlikely poacher. Safety in numbers via some arrangement with another league appears to be the best option. But there's no league more desperate right now, which is a tough position to negotiate from.

 

[Godzillatron 292]

Makes sense.  The Oregon/Washington schools are working their own stuff out as are Cal/Stanford.  It's over for the PAC.  USC killed it.  Actually Larry Scott did when he missed on Texas.

So what you're saying is aggy killed it when they poison-pilled the move.

[TKthunder2 4981]

29 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Incorrect

Not many of us will miss BU, TCU, SMU, Rice, or UH. Maybe Tech, a little bit.

I miss Rice.

[LTtxfan 49037]

13 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

  Hide contents

The only certainty in conference realignment is uncertainty, much like the only constant in college athletics is change.

Decisions can whipsaw on the whims of a board member or a president pressured into a ready-fire-aim strategy. When diagnosing the travails of modern college sports, the fact that university decision-makers have virtually no expertise in the billion-dollar enterprise they run on the side often gets overlooked.

So to say with any certainty that the Big Ten and SEC aren't on the cusp of more imminent realignment moves would be correct for now, but that's seemingly a temporary pause. Is that pause a week? Or a year? But they have established themselves as destinations so alluring that schools outside the "Power 2" would have to be tempted to join at a cut rate.

The only certain trigger for expansion among the Power 2 in the near term is a move by Notre Dame, which for now appears to be taking on a century-old strategy of patience. (The Fighting Irish have an ally in the SEC in any attempts by the Big Ten to box them out of the College Football Playoff. The SEC is unlikely to bless any move that prevents Notre Dame from having access to the playoff, as it would push the Irish to the Big Ten. The SEC wouldn't want to strengthen its rival league like that.)

The issue that both the Big Ten and SEC have in terms of adding additional schools is that there simply aren't any -- outside of Notre Dame -- that offer certainty of value to grow the financial pie enough to justify their slice. There are arguments for ACC schools like Clemson, North Carolina, Florida State and Miami. But there are looming legal reasons why UCLA, USC, Texas and Oklahoma are all waiting for their current TV contracts -- and congruent grants of rights -- to expire.

Any cries for Oregon and Washington in the Big Ten should be tempered by the reality that if USC and UCLA wanted them there in the first place, they'd probably be there. Those schools appear to value owning Los Angeles and the rich recruiting market much more. They have a monopoly on the West Coast. Why invite in your top competition?

For the ACC schools to bounce, there's a legal briar patch no one -- the poachers or the schools wanting to leave -- is eager to navigate. University presidents and conference commissioners are generally averse to legal issues; deposition is a dirty word in higher ed. Those factors, combined with exit fees and legal fees tied to grant of rights that could run more than $100 million, might make it so the juice of adding teams isn't worth the legal and fiscal squeeze -- at least in the short term.

So where's the next likely action amid the realignment landscape? Well, the most jockeying, consulting, back-channeling and speculation are centered around the race for No. 3. With the Big Ten and SEC having established themselves as a Power 2, the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 are scrambling to attempt to solidify or build the next best league.

What's unfolding in those three leagues is the quintessential college sports scenario where members are pledging fidelity to league members on Zooms while side texting about leaving for other leagues. Commissioners are chatting about potential deals among one another and privately crunching the numbers with consultants to poach the other's members. Conference allegiance these days comes with all the romance and permanence of a Tinder swipe.

Here's a look at the options all three leagues are exploring:

 

Big 12

The Big 12 is the most stable of the three remaining leagues. That would have been considered a punchline for much of the past two decades, when the league endured so much infighting that it became the archetype of instability.

But here's the reality for the Big 12: The league is the most stable among the "Next Three" because there are no programs that are clearly coveted by the Big Ten or SEC.

When Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving last year, the remaining eight Big 12 members essentially put themselves on the open market. No one stopped to pick them up. That gave them solidarity by reality, which has birthed a stable union that blossomed by adding UCF, BYU, Cincinnati and Houston.

"We're more galvanized than we've ever been," a league source said. "There's no interest by Big 12 members going to the Pac-12 or ACC."

It's been quite a first week for new commissioner Brett Yormark, who has impressed the league's athletic directors and leaders with his humility and willingness to admit he knows what he doesn't know.

Yormark has been aggressive, per sources. The most logical play for the Big 12 remains going after Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah. In a realignment landscape that often doesn't make sense, those four schools would fit both competitively and geographically. All four would have realistic ambition to win the Big 12 while putting rivals Utah and BYU in the same league.

For those four schools, hitching their futures to Oregon and Washington in some sort of rearranged Pac-12 would likely be a short-term relationship, as it's probable the Ducks and Huskies will be looking across the financial moat over to the Big Ten. Even, perhaps, at a discounted rate.

If Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah go to the Big 12, it would essentially kill the Pac-12. Would Washington and Oregon end up following? The Pac-12 would be largely vacant, and they'd need a home better than a juiced-up Mountain West.

The Big 12's advantage over the ACC in potentially poaching schools is that they are headed to open market after the 2024 football season.

The ACC can reopen its TV deal if schools are added, but there's unlikely to be an eye-popping increase in the value of that ACC contract.

The Big 12 can pitch potential schools on the allure of a lucrative deal that could potentially involve streamers, networks and perhaps new linear partners.

A full-on merger/alliance-type move with the Pac-12 would be complicated for many reasons, including existing television deals. There's also too many mouths to feed to get a blockbuster deal. The Pac-12 TV deal expiring in 2023 makes the league an easy target.

 

Will the ACC be able to keep its elite programs like Clemson happy through a new model of unequal revenue sharing? Ken Ruinard/Greenville News-USA TODAY NETWORK

 

ACC

When assessing the ACC in the race for No. 3, the fact that it is seemingly protected legally looms as a giant factor. The ACC has a handful of high-end properties left on the board, and those schools have agreed to a binding grant of rights that ties them together through 2036, when its ESPN television contract expires.

The ACC's options are simple: stand pat, add a select handful of schools to open up the ESPN deal for potentially more revenue or enter a strategic merger.

The issue for the ACC is that there are enough current members unsettled at the notion of the league evenly splitting its income between its 14 football members that it has become a tension point.

There's been informal discussion of unequal revenue sharing in the ACC for months, and commissioner Jim Phillips' biggest challenge is going to be keeping big brands that could have interest from the Power 2 -- Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Florida State and Virginia -- happy.

However the ACC evolves in the upcoming weeks, expect the league to introduce some type of new revenue sharing. In theory, a Clemson program that's won two national titles in the past decade would make more than a Boston College program that hasn't won eight games since 2009. Would this be based on performance both on the field and in TV ratings? That'll be for the consultants. But the days of holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" are likely over in the ACC. And probably elsewhere below the Power 2.

"Leagues that aren't the SEC and Big Ten need a different revenue distribution model," an industry source said. "The top teams can't afford to support the bottom half of the league. To keep the bigger brands away from the Big Ten and SEC, the bigger brands are going to need a bigger piece of the pie."

In the past, the notion of unequal revenue sharing has been a precursor to leagues falling apart. Perhaps if it's earned, as opposed to given, that could be more sustainable?

Could more money from some type of ACC addition or merger, combined with unequal revenue sharing, make the ACC more sustainable for the top teams?

A full merger doesn't make sense because it brings on more of the same issue: too many second-tier schools that offer little high-end inventory.

So what could the ACC do? Could it swing a Western Division and cherry-pick six to eight schools in the Midwest (TCU, Oklahoma State or Houston) and the core of the remaining Pac-12 (Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal) or maybe target decent-sized media markets such as Cincinnati, Arizona State or Colorado? Could it lure them with more money than a league like the Big 12?

Pac-12

Clearly, this league is the most vulnerable going forward. There isn't a strong appetite among the remaining 10 members to add a few Mountain West schools like San Diego State or Boise State or the WCC's Gonzaga in basketball and soldier on.

They want to think bigger, but the loss of USC and UCLA has meant a loss of leverage. Perhaps the most nerve-wracking thing for Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is that any school can leave without penalty after 2023. Just like USC and UCLA did. So it's hard to poach when the contract leaves you vulnerable to being poached.

Kliavkoff must be aware of conflicts of interest. As Pac-12 expert Jon Wilner pointed out recently, the Pac-12's new board chair is Washington president Ana Mari Cauce. Clearly, Washington is going to have a wandering eye for safer ground. Can she be relied on to guide the league through a period where its survival is at stake?

There isn't much current interest from the Big Ten in adding Washington and Oregon at a full share nor are USC or UCLA lobbying for them to join.

The Big Ten is waiting on Notre Dame, just like everyone else. That underscores why things are so tenuous for the Pac-12, as it's hard to envision Washington and Oregon agreeing to some type of long-term binding grant of rights through the length of whatever next deal the league could put together. The cruel reality of the environment is that outside of the Power 2, the best programs in all the other leagues are plotting to get across the moat and join them. In today's environment, the financial disparity after the Power 2 is going to accentuate the instability everywhere else.

For Kliavkoff to save the league, he needs to be aggressive and creative in some type of merger, as his league is wounded, and the timing of the television contract leaves them exposed. Much of this isn't his fault. But he should take some blame for not catering enough to his big brands. Much like we mentioned earlier about the ACC's future, there was no way the Pac-12 could have moved forward with USC earning the same as Oregon State. But the reality is that even the Pac-12's most generous and creative solutions probably wouldn't have been able to keep the Los Angeles schools around.

The Pac-12 needs to fortify however possible, and that vulnerability makes it an unlikely poacher. Safety in numbers via some arrangement with another league appears to be the best option. But there's no league more desperate right now, which is a tough position to negotiate from.

 

 

Interesting...

"So what could the ACC do? Could it swing a Western Division and cherry-pick six to eight schools in the Midwest (TCU, Oklahoma State or Houston) and the core of the remaining Pac-12 (Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal) or maybe target decent-sized media markets such as Cincinnati, Arizona State or Colorado? Could it lure them with more money than a league like the Big 12?"

[hawkfan 60]

6 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

The only certainty in conference realignment is uncertainty, much like the only constant in college athletics is change.

Decisions can whipsaw on the whims of a board member or a president pressured into a ready-fire-aim strategy. When diagnosing the travails of modern college sports, the fact that university decision-makers have virtually no expertise in the billion-dollar enterprise they run on the side often gets overlooked.

So to say with any certainty that the Big Ten and SEC aren't on the cusp of more imminent realignment moves would be correct for now, but that's seemingly a temporary pause. Is that pause a week? Or a year? But they have established themselves as destinations so alluring that schools outside the "Power 2" would have to be tempted to join at a cut rate.

The only certain trigger for expansion among the Power 2 in the near term is a move by Notre Dame, which for now appears to be taking on a century-old strategy of patience. (The Fighting Irish have an ally in the SEC in any attempts by the Big Ten to box them out of the College Football Playoff. The SEC is unlikely to bless any move that prevents Notre Dame from having access to the playoff, as it would push the Irish to the Big Ten. The SEC wouldn't want to strengthen its rival league like that.)

The issue that both the Big Ten and SEC have in terms of adding additional schools is that there simply aren't any -- outside of Notre Dame -- that offer certainty of value to grow the financial pie enough to justify their slice. There are arguments for ACC schools like Clemson, North Carolina, Florida State and Miami. But there are looming legal reasons why UCLA, USC, Texas and Oklahoma are all waiting for their current TV contracts -- and congruent grants of rights -- to expire.

Any cries for Oregon and Washington in the Big Ten should be tempered by the reality that if USC and UCLA wanted them there in the first place, they'd probably be there. Those schools appear to value owning Los Angeles and the rich recruiting market much more. They have a monopoly on the West Coast. Why invite in your top competition?

For the ACC schools to bounce, there's a legal briar patch no one -- the poachers or the schools wanting to leave -- is eager to navigate. University presidents and conference commissioners are generally averse to legal issues; deposition is a dirty word in higher ed. Those factors, combined with exit fees and legal fees tied to grant of rights that could run more than $100 million, might make it so the juice of adding teams isn't worth the legal and fiscal squeeze -- at least in the short term.

So where's the next likely action amid the realignment landscape? Well, the most jockeying, consulting, back-channeling and speculation are centered around the race for No. 3. With the Big Ten and SEC having established themselves as a Power 2, the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 are scrambling to attempt to solidify or build the next best league.

What's unfolding in those three leagues is the quintessential college sports scenario where members are pledging fidelity to league members on Zooms while side texting about leaving for other leagues. Commissioners are chatting about potential deals among one another and privately crunching the numbers with consultants to poach the other's members. Conference allegiance these days comes with all the romance and permanence of a Tinder swipe.

Here's a look at the options all three leagues are exploring:

 

Big 12

The Big 12 is the most stable of the three remaining leagues. That would have been considered a punchline for much of the past two decades, when the league endured so much infighting that it became the archetype of instability.

But here's the reality for the Big 12: The league is the most stable among the "Next Three" because there are no programs that are clearly coveted by the Big Ten or SEC.

When Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving last year, the remaining eight Big 12 members essentially put themselves on the open market. No one stopped to pick them up. That gave them solidarity by reality, which has birthed a stable union that blossomed by adding UCF, BYU, Cincinnati and Houston.

"We're more galvanized than we've ever been," a league source said. "There's no interest by Big 12 members going to the Pac-12 or ACC."

It's been quite a first week for new commissioner Brett Yormark, who has impressed the league's athletic directors and leaders with his humility and willingness to admit he knows what he doesn't know.

Yormark has been aggressive, per sources. The most logical play for the Big 12 remains going after Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah. In a realignment landscape that often doesn't make sense, those four schools would fit both competitively and geographically. All four would have realistic ambition to win the Big 12 while putting rivals Utah and BYU in the same league.

For those four schools, hitching their futures to Oregon and Washington in some sort of rearranged Pac-12 would likely be a short-term relationship, as it's probable the Ducks and Huskies will be looking across the financial moat over to the Big Ten. Even, perhaps, at a discounted rate.

If Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah go to the Big 12, it would essentially kill the Pac-12. Would Washington and Oregon end up following? The Pac-12 would be largely vacant, and they'd need a home better than a juiced-up Mountain West.

The Big 12's advantage over the ACC in potentially poaching schools is that they are headed to open market after the 2024 football season.

The ACC can reopen its TV deal if schools are added, but there's unlikely to be an eye-popping increase in the value of that ACC contract.

The Big 12 can pitch potential schools on the allure of a lucrative deal that could potentially involve streamers, networks and perhaps new linear partners.

A full-on merger/alliance-type move with the Pac-12 would be complicated for many reasons, including existing television deals. There's also too many mouths to feed to get a blockbuster deal. The Pac-12 TV deal expiring in 2023 makes the league an easy target.

 

Will the ACC be able to keep its elite programs like Clemson happy through a new model of unequal revenue sharing? Ken Ruinard/Greenville News-USA TODAY NETWORK

 

ACC

When assessing the ACC in the race for No. 3, the fact that it is seemingly protected legally looms as a giant factor. The ACC has a handful of high-end properties left on the board, and those schools have agreed to a binding grant of rights that ties them together through 2036, when its ESPN television contract expires.

The ACC's options are simple: stand pat, add a select handful of schools to open up the ESPN deal for potentially more revenue or enter a strategic merger.

The issue for the ACC is that there are enough current members unsettled at the notion of the league evenly splitting its income between its 14 football members that it has become a tension point.

There's been informal discussion of unequal revenue sharing in the ACC for months, and commissioner Jim Phillips' biggest challenge is going to be keeping big brands that could have interest from the Power 2 -- Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Florida State and Virginia -- happy.

However the ACC evolves in the upcoming weeks, expect the league to introduce some type of new revenue sharing. In theory, a Clemson program that's won two national titles in the past decade would make more than a Boston College program that hasn't won eight games since 2009. Would this be based on performance both on the field and in TV ratings? That'll be for the consultants. But the days of holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" are likely over in the ACC. And probably elsewhere below the Power 2.

"Leagues that aren't the SEC and Big Ten need a different revenue distribution model," an industry source said. "The top teams can't afford to support the bottom half of the league. To keep the bigger brands away from the Big Ten and SEC, the bigger brands are going to need a bigger piece of the pie."

In the past, the notion of unequal revenue sharing has been a precursor to leagues falling apart. Perhaps if it's earned, as opposed to given, that could be more sustainable?

Could more money from some type of ACC addition or merger, combined with unequal revenue sharing, make the ACC more sustainable for the top teams?

A full merger doesn't make sense because it brings on more of the same issue: too many second-tier schools that offer little high-end inventory.

So what could the ACC do? Could it swing a Western Division and cherry-pick six to eight schools in the Midwest (TCU, Oklahoma State or Houston) and the core of the remaining Pac-12 (Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal) or maybe target decent-sized media markets such as Cincinnati, Arizona State or Colorado? Could it lure them with more money than a league like the Big 12?

Pac-12

Clearly, this league is the most vulnerable going forward. There isn't a strong appetite among the remaining 10 members to add a few Mountain West schools like San Diego State or Boise State or the WCC's Gonzaga in basketball and soldier on.

They want to think bigger, but the loss of USC and UCLA has meant a loss of leverage. Perhaps the most nerve-wracking thing for Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is that any school can leave without penalty after 2023. Just like USC and UCLA did. So it's hard to poach when the contract leaves you vulnerable to being poached.

Kliavkoff must be aware of conflicts of interest. As Pac-12 expert Jon Wilner pointed out recently, the Pac-12's new board chair is Washington president Ana Mari Cauce. Clearly, Washington is going to have a wandering eye for safer ground. Can she be relied on to guide the league through a period where its survival is at stake?

There isn't much current interest from the Big Ten in adding Washington and Oregon at a full share nor are USC or UCLA lobbying for them to join.

The Big Ten is waiting on Notre Dame, just like everyone else. That underscores why things are so tenuous for the Pac-12, as it's hard to envision Washington and Oregon agreeing to some type of long-term binding grant of rights through the length of whatever next deal the league could put together. The cruel reality of the environment is that outside of the Power 2, the best programs in all the other leagues are plotting to get across the moat and join them. In today's environment, the financial disparity after the Power 2 is going to accentuate the instability everywhere else.

For Kliavkoff to save the league, he needs to be aggressive and creative in some type of merger, as his league is wounded, and the timing of the television contract leaves them exposed. Much of this isn't his fault. But he should take some blame for not catering enough to his big brands. Much like we mentioned earlier about the ACC's future, there was no way the Pac-12 could have moved forward with USC earning the same as Oregon State. But the reality is that even the Pac-12's most generous and creative solutions probably wouldn't have been able to keep the Los Angeles schools around.

The Pac-12 needs to fortify however possible, and that vulnerability makes it an unlikely poacher. Safety in numbers via some arrangement with another league appears to be the best option. But there's no league more desperate right now, which is a tough position to negotiate from.

 

The brass at ESPN do not want Notre Dame in the B1G - pretty clear from that article they know that swings a lot of the CFB power balance towards Fox.

For that reason alone, I'd think Notre Dame would want to join the B1G.  Unless they want to inevitably end up in the SEC under ESPN's control.

[LTbear 4161]

1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

Oregon and Stanford are heading to the BIG. UW too most likely. Gives Big 10/Fox a presence in the Bay Area and Pac NW and gives USC/UCLA a few closer schools for the Olympic sports.  

Cool thanks for letting us know 

[Jasper_Jester 356]

14 hours ago, TriStone said:

And an even more idiotic idea emerges!  There's a very real possibility that we might have all three of our historic rivals on the schedule every season, while at the same time playing in the conference that ESPN has brainwashed America's youth into believing is the best football conference in the history of the universe.  Quit looking for ways to fuck that up.

You seem to have misunderstood. I was hoping for a way out of the Big 12 sooner vs later.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

17 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

No one has said it yet, but the basketball tournament is worth over a billion dollars a year and less than half of that goes to the power 5 conferences.  If you think these schools will abandon long time rivals in football but then turn around and stump for a small catholic university in rural Washington state in basketball then I got some beach front property to sell you in Arizona.  Hosting a power 5 only tournament may not pull in the same amount of money as the current tournament, but it will mean more money overall for the power 5.  Love it or hate it, to me this seems inevitable.

The tournament makes the money that it does because of the gambling element. Getting rid of the midmajors makes it a lot smaller and more predictable, and it also makes it lose just about all of its value. 

[Vertigo 20274]

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Makes sense.  The Oregon/Washington schools are working their own stuff out as are Cal/Stanford.  It's over for the PAC.  USC killed it.  Actually Larry Scott did when he missed on Texas.

In hindsight, what a dodged bullet that was for Texas. 

[LTbear 4161]

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by LTbear

[Mitch Cumsteen 18526]

3 minutes ago, LTbear said:

 

[Vertigo 20274]

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

THings change, lots of misinformation out there but from what I've read, Oregon isn't wanted by the B1G or USC.  IDK.

 

WSU and OSU, to me, are equivalent to a Vanderbilt, MSU, Purdue, etc.  Only difference is the SEC and B1G protect their little brothers.  

 

I've been super bullish on expansion for the last ten years but now I kind of wish we could head back to 1996.  I think conferences should be regional. 

In fairness, we tried to do that too but aggy got all pissy about it

 

[AUS-97HORN 11720]

if those idiots sign a media rights agreement right now they are complete idiots.  the way that contract is written is there is a $0 buy out if they leave after the 2023 season is over.    why fucking sign away future media rights when you could go to a diff conf with a much better timeslot... Oregon, Washington, Arizona and Arizona St talking to you....

[LTbear 4161]

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by LTbear

[DFW Horn 6118]

 

[mdmost 42886]

 

[Vertigo 20274]

1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

 

Is that really true? 

I know that everybody is angling for this two mega-conference end game that we all seem headed for... but outside of Notre Dame, is there anybody out there that actually increases the payout per team? Clemson, Florida State, UNC, Oregon, Washington? Do any of them make financial sense for either the B1G or SEC? And if it doesn't increase the bottom line, I don't think expansion just for the sake of expansion is in any conference's best interest. Unless the goal is to just kill the other conferences, Game of Thrones style, I just don't see the point.

I go back to the poison pill provisions in the TV contracts. I believe ESPN put a number in the TV contract that the conference had to stay above a certain number of members to make a viable TV product. If they fell below that number, then the TV deal was void and the GOR is essentially meaningless. That is why ESPN tried to throw a bunch of schools into the AAC when Texas/OU announced. 

[Royale with cheese 1462]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

2.  The guy making that tweet is from West Virginia.  We should be happy enough that he even knows how to spell "state".  

We spotted him the "a" and one of the "t's".

[Vertigo 20274]

19 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

if those idiots sign a media rights agreement right now they are complete idiots.  the way that contract is written is there is a $0 buy out if they leave after the 2023 season is over.    why fucking sign away future media rights when you could go to a diff conf with a much better timeslot... Oregon, Washington, Arizona and Arizona St talking to you....

In order to sign a new deal, you need a negotiating partner. I bet FOX tells them to go jump in the pacific unless they can figure out a way to bolster their inventory with something that they care about. Or, it will give them a number so low that it squeezes the other schools out towards new conferences, which would also be a win for FOX. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Vertigo

[mdmost 42886]

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

28 minutes ago, LTbear said:

 

Is this the equivalent to the Titanic coming up with iceberg avoidance procedures after hitting the iceberg?

[DFW Horn 6118]

Dodd is an assclown, but maybe this is worth a read. 

['stache 21778]

1 hour ago, Godzillatron said:

So what you're saying is aggy killed it when they poison-pilled the move.

That deal would have put the conference on par with the BIG and SEC. It made too much goddamned sense.

[closetohumping 17410]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

 

To me, the conference make up has changed so much to where they should just let us go.  

[TriStone 1724]

1 hour ago, Jasper_Jester said:

You seem to have misunderstood. I was hoping for a way out of the Big 12 sooner vs later.

I certainly did.  Mea culpa.

[mdmost 42886]

Just now, closetohumping said:

To me, the conference make up has changed so much to where they should just let us go.  

I have a feeling that if ESPN is who the new Big 12 negotiates with then a stipulation is to let us go early with no buyout. Fox could grab up the Big 12 but is that really that big a deal if ESPN already has the ACC and SEC?  If Notre Dame stays independent, that's another feather in ESPN's cap as they get to broadcast the ACC away games Notre Dame plays. 

[closetohumping 17410]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That deal would have put the conference on par with the BIG and SEC. It made too much goddamned sense.

Correct.  We would've owned the west.  I was all for it:

 

Texas

ou

USC

Oregon

Washington

 

That's a good enough top 5 to hang with the B1G. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

If true that it is six schools and not four, that tells me the rumors that UO and UW were not, and are not, going to be considered by BIG are accurate, and they see no other option.

Also if true, this is the absolute best scenario the current Big 12 (sans UT and OU) could have possibly dreamt of, and never would have imagined a year ago happening.

[DFW Horn 6118]

Quote

The Pac-12's projected AAV (annual average value) dropped significantly from $500 million annually (approximately $42 million per school) to $300 million ($30 million) for the remaining 10 teams after the league lost USC and UCLA, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Navigate, a sports and entertainment consultant group, stated in March that members of a 12-team Big 12 would earn $52 million by 2029. Other industry insiders have disputed that figure.

Who's got the FOX's or ESPN's formula for AAV?

Edited July 5, 2022 by DFW Horn