Realignment talk not going away

[Win5002 2]

On 3/17/2020 at 4:12 PM, Hurtlocker said:

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? 

I really wouldn't focus on divisions so much.  There is already a lot of discussion about allowing conferences to do away with divisions and have a single set of standings.  It doesn't hurt that Delaney who helped stop the ACC from being able to do away with divisions now has openly talked about supporting it.  It serves a lot of purposes.   It gives more flexibility scheduling wise and helps get the best 2 or 4 teams later in conference playoffs.

Scheduling flexibility would help any conference expansion also.  Its a lot easier to maximize matchups and reduce travel costs if teams lock in 3-4 annual games, play some on a 50% basis, some on a 25% basis and maybe even some 1/6 or 1/5.  

I think the PAC could be split between the Big 12 & B1G even.  It gives each of those leagues a late night game that they can't fill now.  It gives each league 4 time slots each day for games and the PAC on their own is just not strong enough.  It also would give the PAC more exposure to other parts of the country because they would be conference mates with 2 leagues that have a better fan base.   The only thing that would concern me if the PAC were split between the B1G & Big 12 would be a scenario where the Big 12 doesn't get one of the Southern Cal teams.  

The only way I can see the PAC improving their tv revenues by significant amounts to stay competitive is if they were willing to put their T1 & T2 games in time slots that networks typically don't get great games, so they are the best game in town.  The easiest slot is 7PM PST/9PM CST but PAC teams don't like that because its late and some of the country goes to bed.  Some would say they already do but those are typically the lower tier games.  I think they need to put their better games on then and see how they do with no other competition from the other P5 leagues at that time slot.  The other thing they could do is try and allocate more T1 and T2 games to Thursday and Friday nights although Friday nights can lose some viewers due to high school products but usually  the best games are not on those nights.   The ACC might do better by willing to allow some of their T1 & T2 games to go to Thurs./Fri. also.       

 If the PAC was divided between the Big 12 & B1G (leaving WSU & OSU out) it would sure be easier to solve the whole playoff thing through expanded playoff conference championships to at least 4 and then producing a final four in football.  We would have no selection committees and politics, it would just play itself out. 

[2300 Nueces 163]

7 hours ago, Win5002 said:

I really wouldn't focus on divisions so much.  There is already a lot of discussion about allowing conferences to do away with divisions and have a single set of standings.  It doesn't hurt that Delaney who helped stop the ACC from being able to do away with divisions now has openly talked about supporting it.  It serves a lot of purposes.   It gives more flexibility scheduling wise and helps get the best 2 or 4 teams later in conference playoffs.

Scheduling flexibility would help any conference expansion also.  Its a lot easier to maximize matchups and reduce travel costs if teams lock in 3-4 annual games, play some on a 50% basis, some on a 25% basis and maybe even some 1/6 or 1/5.  

I think the PAC could be split between the Big 12 & B1G even.  It gives each of those leagues a late night game that they can't fill now.  It gives each league 4 time slots each day for games and the PAC on their own is just not strong enough.  It also would give the PAC more exposure to other parts of the country because they would be conference mates with 2 leagues that have a better fan base.   The only thing that would concern me if the PAC were split between the B1G & Big 12 would be a scenario where the Big 12 doesn't get one of the Southern Cal teams.  

The only way I can see the PAC improving their tv revenues by significant amounts to stay competitive is if they were willing to put their T1 & T2 games in time slots that networks typically don't get great games, so they are the best game in town.  The easiest slot is 7PM PST/9PM CST but PAC teams don't like that because its late and some of the country goes to bed.  Some would say they already do but those are typically the lower tier games.  I think they need to put their better games on then and see how they do with no other competition from the other P5 leagues at that time slot.  The other thing they could do is try and allocate more T1 and T2 games to Thursday and Friday nights although Friday nights can lose some viewers due to high school products but usually  the best games are not on those nights.   The ACC might do better by willing to allow some of their T1 & T2 games to go to Thurs./Fri. also.       

 If the PAC was divided between the Big 12 & B1G (leaving WSU & OSU out) it would sure be easier to solve the whole playoff thing through expanded playoff conference championships to at least 4 and then producing a final four in football.  We would have no selection committees and politics, it would just play itself out. 

Agree with everything here.  I would add that pod scheduling with a neighboring pod would be financially beneficial when considering travel costs.  One would need to do a cost benefit analysis of having bluebloods play every year vs the costs of all schools traveling across the country.  Costs are about to become much larger than they previously were.  I imagine once we get past this period in time that the schools will be moving quickly to secure revenue.

Edited March 26, 2020 by 2300 Nueces

[hiphopfroggy 121]

14 hours ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Agree with everything here.  I would add that pod scheduling with a neighboring pod would be financially beneficial when considering travel costs.  One would need to do a cost benefit analysis of having bluebloods play every year vs the costs of all schools traveling across the country.  Costs are about to become much larger than they previously were.  I imagine once we get past this period in time that the schools will be moving quickly to secure revenue.

I heart pods 

[ButtFumble 5158]

https://oklahoman.com/article/5658693/big-12-commissioner-projects-possible-18-million-loss-but-its-a-whole-new-ballgame-if-football-games-are-canceled

Bobby B saying expansion does not make sense because of the changing cable market (I am sure he means with G5 programs not any suddenly available P5 programs)

[hiphopfroggy 121]

Big16


Pac

UW
UO
USC
UCLA



West

UA
ASU
TCU
TT


Red River

UT
OU
OSU
BU


North

WVU
ISU
KU
K St

[Thiefery 4960]

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

[2300 Nueces 163]

2 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

I wonder how season ticket sales are going?

[Thiefery 4960]

Just now, 2300 Nueces said:

I wonder how season ticket sales are going?

slow, but I have it on good authority that they will be sold out by the end of April.

[2300 Nueces 163]

Just now, Thiefery said:

slow, but I have it on good authority that they will be sold out by the end of April.

$100 says they have more cancellations than sales.

[Thiefery 4960]

6 minutes ago, 2300 Nueces said:

$100 says they have more cancellations than sales.

hell why don't we make it $100,000,000,003.50?

[Win5002 2]

3 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

The pods could be  scheduling component but you have a single set of standings.  I wouldn't even even rotate evenly through pods, like I mentioned some schools you play 50% of the time some 33% and some 25% in a larger conference.  

[JWinTX 53]

3 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

WVU will find a place at the table, I bet--still think the ACC or SEC will take them. But Baylor, TCU, and Iowa State are totally about to get dropped backwards--possibly KSU, too.

Still think the powers that be want the Pac-16/18 to happen--getting the Texoma 4 or the Texomakan 6 would make a lot sense for the networks and bowls. I still see three pods of 6 being setup--Pac 12 North (WSU, Washington, OSU, Oregon, Stanford, Cal) Pac-12 Southwest (USC, UCLA, ASU, Arizona, Tech, UT), and the Pac-12 Midwest (Utah, CU, KSU, KU, OU, and OSU). Play your 5 pod teams, plus 2 from the other pods each, but keep rivalries together annually (UT-OU, USC-Stanford, UCLA-Cal, OSU-Tech, for example). 

Conference championship game is between the two highest rated division winners.

In hoops and baseball, you'd play your pod teams home-and-home every year, then play three teams from the other pods each year, rotating those teams out every two years.

[Thiefery 4960]

I don't get why Cal, utah, oregon st, washington state and even colorado get a pass for a merger.  If we are trimming down from the current conferences, Iowa St on paper is better than those schools in sports generally.

SC, ucla, asu, az, uw, or, stan, utah

UT, TT, ou, okie, Iowa St, kansas, ksu, TCU

If Nebraska really wants back they can take TCUs spot..let UT/SC decide if colorado is a better take than Utah.

[Poolflood 845]

7 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 7 team divisions.

Fixed.  Baylor and wvu.... later.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

7 hours ago, Win5002 said:

The pods could be  scheduling component but you have a single set of standings.  I wouldn't even even rotate evenly through pods, like I mentioned some schools you play 50% of the time some 33% and some 25% in a larger conference.  

Don't disagree on pods, could be fun and a great way for schedule.   I went with divisions because that just happens to be the rule as of right now.   Anything over ten requires two divisions and a champ game. 

[hiphopfroggy 121]

For those who prefer getting rid of BU and WVU, and divisions over pods.

 

 

North


UW
UO
OU
OK St
KU
K-State
ISU


South

USC
UCLA
UA
AZ St
UT
TCU
TT

 

PX4      SEC               B1G

UT       Bama            Ohio St
OU      LSU                UM
USC    Georgia        Penn St
UW     UF                 Wisconsin 
UO     Auburn?        Iowa? 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

[2300 Nueces 163]

On 3/27/2020 at 2:59 PM, JWinTX said:

WVU will find a place at the table, I bet--still think the ACC or SEC will take them. But Baylor, TCU, and Iowa State are totally about to get dropped backwards--possibly KSU, too.

Still think the powers that be want the Pac-16/18 to happen--getting the Texoma 4 or the Texomakan 6 would make a lot sense for the networks and bowls. I still see three pods of 6 being setup--Pac 12 North (WSU, Washington, OSU, Oregon, Stanford, Cal) Pac-12 Southwest (USC, UCLA, ASU, Arizona, Tech, UT), and the Pac-12 Midwest (Utah, CU, KSU, KU, OU, and OSU). Play your 5 pod teams, plus 2 from the other pods each, but keep rivalries together annually (UT-OU, USC-Stanford, UCLA-Cal, OSU-Tech, for example). 

Conference championship game is between the two highest rated division winners.

In hoops and baseball, you'd play your pod teams home-and-home every year, then play three teams from the other pods each year, rotating those teams out every two years.

Solid format, although BU, TCU, and KSU are solid programs.  I would rather go to 24 with 4 6 team pods.  This gets a bit unwieldy but a 4 team playoff would decide the champion and bring some continuity/stabilty to the big12 and pac.  The champion with a solid SOS would be ensured a final 4 playoff spot.  Could rotate pod play/playoff matchups, etc... for a single conf championship which would jive with current OOC format and conf schedules.  Would ensure that networks get the best match ups by having their choice among all the scheduled games.  Otherwise put the games on an ESPN+ format.  Same with non football sports.

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by 2300 Nueces

[tonedeaf 56]

12 hours ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Solid format, although BU, TCU, and KSU are solid programs.  I would rather go to 24 with 4 6 team pods.  This gets a bit unwieldy but a 4 team playoff would decide the champion and bring some continuity/stabilty to the big12 and pac.  The champion with a solid SOS would be ensured a final 4 playoff spot.  Could rotate pod play/playoff matchups, etc... for a single conf championship which would jive with current OOC format and conf schedules.  Would ensure that networks get the best match ups by having their choice among all the scheduled games.  Otherwise put the games on an ESPN+ format.  Same with non football sports.

 

By solid I assume you are referring to competitive.  That's not the issue with baylor.

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

On 3/27/2020 at 3:55 PM, Thiefery said:

I don't get why Cal, utah, oregon st, washington state and even colorado get a pass for a merger.  If we are trimming down from the current conferences, Iowa St on paper is better than those schools in sports generally.

SC, ucla, asu, az, uw, or, stan, utah

UT, TT, ou, okie, Iowa St, kansas, ksu, TCU

If Nebraska really wants back they can take TCUs spot..let UT/SC decide if colorado is a better take than Utah.

We are more worthy of P5 inclusion than half the Pac 12.

If that guy thinks Oregon State and their 30,000 fans keep a seat at the table, while Iowa State, an AAU school, that made more money than USC last year, and averaged better football attendance than all but one Pac 12 school is getting the boot, he's absolutely ignorant of the reality of modern college athletics.  This isn't 1994.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Al_4_ISU

[Thiefery 4960]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

We are more worthy of P5 inclusion than half the Pac 12.

If that guy thinks Oregon State and their 30,000 fans keep a seat at the table, while Iowa State, an AAU school, that made more money than USC last year, and averaged better football attendance than all but one Pac 12 school is getting the boot, he's absolutely ignorant of the reality of modern college athletics.  This isn't 1994.

The more I think of it, I hope the Big 12 continues to be the outlier and stick at 10 unless there is no-brainer schools wanting in that would help the conference (AZ, Pig, Neb, etc)

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

The more I think of it, I hope the Big 12 continues to be the outlier and stick at 10 unless there is no-brainer schools wanting in that would help the conference (AZ, Pig, Neb, etc)

The only reason I want to raid the Pac is to fuck Larry Scott after he tried to fuck the ISU’s of the world 10 years ago.

I like everyone playing everyone

[hiphopfroggy 121]

I like the Big12 as is and playing everyone else as well. However, when a once in a lifetime golden opportunity comes along I think you have to take it. In this case, not taking it could come back to bite the Big12 in the rear. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

41 minutes ago, hiphopfroggy said:

I like the Big12 as is and playing everyone else as well. However, when a once in a lifetime golden opportunity comes along I think you have to take it. In this case, not taking it could come back to bite the Big12 in the rear. 

This.  Yeah if you can pry USC loose, you do it, then you make it make sense.   They're the only potential program out there that will rival Texas and Oklahoma at the box office.

[utee94 15742]

3 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

This.  Yeah if you can pry USC loose, you do it, then you make it make sense.   They're the only potential program out there that will rival Texas and Oklahoma at the box office.

Yup.  Like I said earlier, if USC wants to leave the PAC, you listen. At that point it depends on how much PAC deadweight they want to bring.  If it's one school, then it probably makes sense.  If it's more than that, it probably doesn't.

[camel at sea 589]

10 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  Like I said earlier, if USC wants to leave the PAC, you listen. At that point it depends on how much PAC deadweight they want to bring.  If it's one school, then it probably makes sense.  If it's more than that, it probably doesn't.

We probably have to at least go to 14 if we bring in SC.  As long as UCLA or Stanford comes with them, I'd guess we can add any two others and the group would be additive.  

[Poolflood 845]

Between the 2 conferences there are 22 teams.  14 to make up the Big Pac.  We all know the players, the margins are tbd.

The remaining 8 - call 'em the Big Leftovers - along with the likes of cougar high make another new conference that still has pull.  This would be the perfect time to go to 6 or 8 teams for football playoff.  

Big pac, big 10,  acc, sec and big leftovers all get autobid + 1-3 at large spots.  

None of this is happening without espn et al.  But the timing looks like a tectonic shift could happen.

Hell, I would love to shift the center of gravity west of the sec.  Make a big enough play and all of a sudden piggy and lsu may want to join the party.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

I think the ones you want in order are:

USC, Washington, and Oregon first, because they actually generate eyeballs.   They've won nattys or played for nattys and are known names.   If you need WSU and OSU for Washington and Oregon, I'm not sure its worth it.   If you have to take all the Cali schools for USC, I think it is.  

If you still need to do divisions, due to the current rules not changing, it allows you to do 8 division games, and 2 cross overs, netting 5 home games with two left to schedule.   You could give away to home and homes and be at six.    

Or, if you could do pods, 16 would give you four of four.   The in between gets a little messy though.   Two from each other pod nets you nine games, three fills the schedule.  

The SEC sells about 115 football games for around $45M a year per team

The B1G sells about 128 football games, for around $55m a year per team

Eighteen teams listed above, would allow you to take nearly 200 football games to market, over four time zones if Colorado or the Arizonas were involved.   You could build a conference network AND allow Oklahoma and USC to start their own along with LHN, and have enough content to power them all.  

[kopp0e 1135]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think the ones you want in order are:

USC, Washington, and Oregon first, because they actually generate eyeballs.   They've won nattys or played for nattys and are known names.   If you need WSU and OSU for Washington and Oregon, I'm not sure its worth it.   If you have to take all the Cali schools for USC, I think it is.  

If you still need to do divisions, due to the current rules not changing, it allows you to do 8 division games, and 2 cross overs, netting 5 home games with two left to schedule.   You could give away to home and homes and be at six.    

Or, if you could do pods, 16 would give you four of four.   The in between gets a little messy though.   Two from each other pod nets you nine games, three fills the schedule.  

The SEC sells about 115 football games for around $45M a year per team

The B1G sells about 128 football games, for around $55m a year per team

Eighteen teams listed above, would allow you to take nearly 200 football games to market, over four time zones if Colorado or the Arizonas were involved.   You could build a conference network AND allow Oklahoma and USC to start their own along with LHN, and have enough content to power them all.  

Of top 300 cities in America, a merger of best of XII & PAC brands could hold 164 of the top cities, (or 54.6% of the nation) the league would dominate media:

Edited March 29, 2020 by kopp0e

[Thiefery 4960]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think the ones you want in order are:

USC, Washington, and Oregon first, because they actually generate eyeballs.   They've won nattys or played for nattys and are known names.   If you need WSU and OSU for Washington and Oregon, I'm not sure its worth it.   If you have to take all the Cali schools for USC, I think it is.  

If you still need to do divisions, due to the current rules not changing, it allows you to do 8 division games, and 2 cross overs, netting 5 home games with two left to schedule.   You could give away to home and homes and be at six.    

Or, if you could do pods, 16 would give you four of four.   The in between gets a little messy though.   Two from each other pod nets you nine games, three fills the schedule.  

The SEC sells about 115 football games for around $45M a year per team

The B1G sells about 128 football games, for around $55m a year per team

Eighteen teams listed above, would allow you to take nearly 200 football games to market, over four time zones if Colorado or the Arizonas were involved.   You could build a conference network AND allow Oklahoma and USC to start their own along with LHN, and have enough content to power them all.  

This is what seems to be the most ideal.  However, the current Big 12 and Pac 12 as we know it must disolve in order to make this work.  From listening to realignment message boards, to get SC, you have to get all 4 CA schools on board or it's DOA.  Not sure how truthful that is but it seems to be the consensus on boards.  Choosing which schools come along among the CA schools out west and the UT/Tech/ou/okie light schools is going to be interesting to see. 

[LTbear 4152]

On 3/27/2020 at 11:12 AM, hiphopfroggy said:

Big16


Pac

UW
UO
USC
UCLA



West

UA
ASU
TCU
TT


Red River

UT
OU
OSU
BU


North

WVU
ISU
KU
K St

That's not bad, frog. 

[LTbear 4152]

On 3/27/2020 at 2:59 PM, JWinTX said:

WVU will find a place at the table, I bet--still think the ACC or SEC will take them. But Baylor, TCU, and Iowa State are totally about to get dropped backwards--possibly KSU, too.

Internet wisdom among the 'Eers is the ACC will never take them on the account of historical hurt feelings and academics, and that this has more or less been expressed to WVU.

If ISU ever gets left out that's a complete joke. Rabid fans, solid attendance, AAU, etc. They're more worthwhile than about 3/4 of the ACC and PAC. 

[jdhorn92 1535]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

Of top 300 cities in America, a merger of best of XII & PAC brands could hold 164 of the top cities, (or 54.6% of the nation) the league would dominate media:

I think this has been discussed, but AL, MS, KY, SC and all the SEC states (less UF)  all have very small markets and they are the biggest needle-movers with TV ratings.  I dont think this next round will be as tied to TV markets as in the past.  Throw in the cord cutting and i think the above graphic is a very dated way to approach realignment partners.  If you play great football, the TV viewers will find you, something the B12 and Pac have failed to do the last decade.

[HookEm 2441]

Why not form a new conference with 10 members instead of a big merger? Something like:
USC, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, CU +
Texas, OU, TT, OSU, Kansas

Have everybody play everybody just like the current system. Would have great matchups every game. No dead weight, easy road trips with a lot of direct flights.

Great football, great hoops, great academics.

[2300 Nueces 163]

A first step might be to schedule games between the Big 12 and Pac 12.  The goal would be to have a team or 2 (pipe dream) that would qualify continually for the 4 team playoff at the end of the season due to the strength of schedule.

1.  Schedule Pac champion vs Big 12 Champion.

2. Begin to integrate schedules.

3. Look for 2 teams to add.  Preferably a team or 2 closer to WVU. Cincinnati, Memphis, Pitt, Missouri, BYU would be a no brainer.

4. Come up with an incentive laden contract that rewards teams for "eyeballs"/winning.  Allow tier 3 to be a wild west.  Allow teams to have their own network.

5. An incentive laden contract would be optimal.  Tell the lesser schools to take it or leave it.  To leave it would mean they join Cougar High.  I prefer the pay for performance over the equal share deal.  This will allow the larger schools to compete with the SEC and B1G contracts without having to join those leagues.  Over time it will force the lesser schools to have to perform and survive on less.  They will become competitive while the lesser in the SEC and B1G become lazy.

 

**** The baseline TV money is going to have to be close to the SEC and B1G.  This will be the deciding factor on whether is this possible.

Edited March 30, 2020 by 2300 Nueces

[Hurtlocker 2208]

14 minutes ago, 2300 Nueces said:

A first step might be to schedule games between the Big 12 and Pac 12.  The goal would be to have a team or 2 (pipe dream) that would qualify continually for the 4 team playoff at the end of the season due to the strength of schedule.

1.  Schedule Pac champion vs Big 12 Champion.

2. Begin to integrate schedules.

3. Look for 2 teams to add.  Preferably a team or 2 closer to WVU. Cincinnati, Memphis, Pitt, Missouri, BYU would be a no brainer.

4. Come up with an incentive laden contract that rewards teams for "eyeballs"/winning.  Allow tier 3 to be a wild west.  Allow teams to have their own network.

5. An incentive laden contract would be optimal.  Tell the lesser schools to take it or leave it.  To leave it would mean they join Cougar High.  I prefer the pay for performance over the equal share deal.  This will allow the larger schools to compete with the SEC and B1G contracts without having to join those leagues.  Over time it will force the lesser schools to have to perform and survive on less.  They will become competitive while the lesser in the SEC and B1G become lazy.

 

**** The baseline TV money is going to have to be close to the SEC and B1G.  This will be the deciding factor on whether is this possible.

They were actually discussing this prior to the last round of realignment.   A joint rights deal between the two conferences was going to be worth bank.   And that was like 2012.

[2300 Nueces 163]

50 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

They were actually discussing this prior to the last round of realignment.   A joint rights deal between the two conferences was going to be worth bank.   And that was like 2012.

Looks like they are down the road.  I wonder what the snags are?  I recall hearing that Stanford was not happy with some of our "proposals" or some such.  Personally, I don't care for Stanford.  Sounds like a decent rivalry in the making.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

2 hours ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Looks like they are down the road.  I wonder what the snags are?  I recall hearing that Stanford was not happy with some of our "proposals" or some such.  Personally, I don't care for Stanford.  Sounds like a decent rivalry in the making.

I can't find the old article on this, but I believe this was even back in the Bebee days.   The idea was go to market together, package two conference races like normal, then add in a beefed up schedule with a scheduling alliance.   I think it ended up failing for a couple reasons, first was that there wasn't the stomach for a harder schedule in the BCS days, the Pac and B1G didn't pull the trigger on a scheduling alliance either.   The SEC schedule today is still the way to game that system.  The second was, at the time, the idea of conference channels were just picking up with the Big Ten showing how to do it (ironically with the plan pitched to the Big 12 and turned down by them first).   With the Big 12 having no appetite for a conference channel and the Pac wanting one, they needed more content.  That led to the Pac trying to jump to 16, to get more content, and to also try and snag the Big 12's guaranteed BCS bid, giving the larger conference two of them.

Obviously it all fell apart, but it was all about the same few years and interrelated. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Hurtlocker
spellz bad

[hiphopfroggy 121]

In Reply to:  posted by BruinSpud on March 26, 2020 at 18:28:09

Their athletic-specific endowment was around $500MM in 2013, and assuredly has grown since then.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-odd-economics-of-stanford-football-1383796720

Relevant graf for this discussion: "The normal revenues Stanford receives from football are so low, in fact, that its 36 varsity sports teams depend on something no other school has, or would dare rely so heavily on: an athletics-only endowment worth between $450 million and $500 million that pays out at 5.5% each year, people familiar with the matter said."

As the full article is behind a subscriber paywall, please see it below:

Fifth-ranked Stanford, once again in the mix for the Pac-12 title and maybe even more, pounded No. 3 Oregon, 26-20, on Thursday in one of this college-football season's biggest games, making the Cardinal the only team to slow down the Ducks the last two years. That makes this as good a time as any to ponder one of this sport's great mysteries: How is Stanford doing it?

There is no single reason for Stanford's rise from a pushover—one that supposedly couldn't compete because of its tough academic standards—to a powerhouse that wins because of them. The transformational 2007-to-2010 tenure of coach Jim Harbaugh, who has since gone on to the San Francisco 49ers, was clearly pivotal. So is the program's growing ability to convince elite high-school recruits of a Stanford degree's value.

But there is another critical factor behind the Cardinal's ascent: the way Stanford finances its football program.

Stanford isn't like other football powers. It can't generate as much cash from its fans, since it doesn't have nearly as many. Stanford Stadium seats about 50,000—half the size of some venues in the Southeastern and Big Ten conferences.

The school accounted for $9.7 million in football ticket sales on its 2012 annual report. The four teams ranked above Stanford in the latest Bowl Championship Series standings averaged $27 million, with Ohio State topping the list at $41 million. In merchandise sales, Stanford ranked 42nd this year on the Collegiate Licensing Company's list of top-selling schools, well behind not just Texas but also Texas Tech.

The normal revenues Stanford receives from football are so low, in fact, that its 36 varsity sports teams depend on something no other school has, or would dare rely so heavily on: an athletics-only endowment worth between $450 million and $500 million that pays out at 5.5% each year, people familiar with the matter said.

The way Stanford keeps up in the college-football arms race is to lean on private donations. As a result, almost everything the football program touches is endowed, from each of the school's 85 football scholarships to David Shaw's head-coaching position. Stanford's offensive coordinator is even known as the Andrew Luck Director of Offense in honor of an anonymous gift in 2012.

"Many have looked at Stanford to say: 'How can we make that happen at our place?'" said Stanford athletic director Bernard Muir.

Given that Stanford sits in the heart of Silicon Valley, and many of its graduates are making untold millions, it seems like fundraising should be easy. But most football donors are well past 50, and younger donors can be hard to find, since football was mostly an afterthought on campus until recently.

In its attempt to build a football program this way, though, Stanford does benefit from a specialized network of benefactors most schools can only dream about.

Among the young Stanford alumni crowding into a New York sports bar on a recent Saturday night was Salman Al-Rashid, 26, who attended Stanford just as the Cardinal football team was becoming relevant again. As that night's Stanford game against Oregon State played on televisions around him, Al-Rashid sat at a table in the back, wearing a Rose Bowl sweatshirt and eating chicken wings.

Earlier this year, Al-Rashid pledged a $500,000 donation to Stanford's football program, a highly unexpected gift given his age and background. He grew up in Saudi Arabia, where his only access to football was an American Forces Network feed. He moved to New Jersey when he was 12 and had his first experience playing the game in a prep-school intramural league.

When Al-Rashid was at Stanford, the team's success produced some formative experiences. He recalls rushing the field after Stanford beat rival California in 2007, for instance, and he has a photo on his phone commemorating an improbable win that season over 41-point-favorite Southern California, a game that ranks as one of the biggest upsets in college-football history.

But what was most unusual about Al-Rashid's donation to the football program is that nobody at Stanford saw it coming.

"He was on no one's radar," said Joe Karlgaard, Rice's athletic director, who led athletic fundraising at Stanford until October. "No one at the university knew who he was."

Football philanthropy runs in Al-Rashid's family. He is the son of Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid, who fell in love with the game as an undergraduate at Texas. Despite never seeing a snap before moving to the U.S. for college, he ended up giving funds for the Texas weight room in the 1980s. He has since invested in several renovations, most recently a few months ago, to the Dr. Nasser Al-Rashid Strength Complex, considered one of the finest in the game.

But the younger Al-Rashid was never identified as a potential donor by Stanford's athletic department. His gift was only the result of Al-Rashid introducing himself to a member of Stanford's athletic board at an alumni gathering last year to hear Muir speak in a private setting. Al-Rashid hadn't even been invited to the event.

Al-Rashid and Karlgaard, Stanford's former development director, discussed the athletics endowment as one option for his donation. But others beat him to their checkbooks before Al-Rashid could fund the defensive-coordinator or strength-coach positions.

As it turns out, Al-Rashid came along as the football team was raising funds for a 27,000-square-foot addition to a building named for the family of John Arrillaga, a 76-year-old Stanford benefactor whose $151 million gift to the university this year was its largest from a living donor. The facility includes new player lockers, coaching offices, a study lounge and a meeting room with theater-style seating.

Al-Rashid, who manages an investment fund that focuses on the Mongolian and Southeast Asian markets, decided to earmark his gift for this football building, which opened this month. The meeting room for the defensive line and defensive coaching staff—which dominated Oregon on Thursday—carries Al-Rashid's name and graduation class. He is also listed on a plaque with other backers, such as former Stanford quarterbacks Jim Plunkett and John Elway, who had his No. 7 jersey retired at halftime of this week's Stanford win.

While it may seem like an anomaly, Al-Rashid's experience suggests that Stanford's football economic model, which depends on passion more than anything else, could work long into the future. In fact, Al-Rashid cares so deeply about the Cardinal that he watched Stanford's overtime upset of Oregon last season from Beijing, celebrating with dumplings and baijiu.

"I just want to support the program and make sure it has long-term, sustained success," said Al-Rashid, who watched Thursday's game from the stadium. "The athletics at Stanford epitomize what the university is all about." 

[2300 Nueces 163]

3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I can't find the old article on this, but I believe this was even back in the Bebee days.   The idea was go to market together, package two conference races like normal, then add in a beefed up schedule with a scheduling alliance.   I think it ended up failing for a couple reasons, first was that there wasn't the stomach for a harder schedule in the BCS days, the Pac and B1G didn't pull the trigger on a scheduling alliance either.   The SEC schedule today is still the way to game that system.  The second was, at the time, the idea of conference channels were just picking up with the Big Ten showing how to do it (ironically with the plan pitched to the Big 12 and turned down by them first).   With the Big 12 having no appetite for a conference channel and the Pac wanting one, they needed more content.  That led to the Pac trying to jump to 16, to get more content, and to also try and snag the Big 12's guaranteed BCS bid, giving the larger conference two of them.

Obviously it all fell apart, but it was all about the same few years and interrelated. 

At this point the Big12 may be looking at the PAC as a bad investment.  Unforturnaley adding Pac teams may decrease the TV payout per school. The Big 12 needs to move when the Pac is at "fire sale" lows.  That may be during the next season, if we have a season.  Then push the incentive agreement to get some of these programs to appeal to the millions of people in their states.  Maybe trucking in some okie inbreds talking a lot of crap will be just what the doctor ordered.

[2300 Nueces 163]

I posted this on an Oregon site discussing realignment.

 

 

Would it be possible to join all the teams in the Big 12 and pac 12 for a total of 22 teams and add BYU, Cincinatti, or Memphis? That would total 24 teams.... Would it be feasible to allow for an incentive payout system in tiers? More eyeballs=more TV money, etc.... The teams in smaller markets would not turn down the opportunity to stay in this conference while the teams with more eyeballs would make a larger %. Allow for a wild west tier 3 which would allow for team channels, etc... like ESPN+.

Set the structure as 4 6 team pods that would play regional conference schedules with 2-3 out of pod conference games. There could be a conference playoff of the 4 pod winners which would greatly increase the SOS of the overall winner which would ensure at least one team into the final 4 team playoff. This would also bring in considerably more eyeballs on the conference playoff. I would hate to dump some of these proven programs and rivalries. I am a Texas fan btw.

Pods:

NW: Wash, Wash St, Oregon, Or St, Utah, BYU
SW: USC, UCLA, Az, Az St, Cal, Stanford
SE: Tex, Tex Tech, BU, TCU, OK St, Oklahoma
NE: KU, K st, Colo, Iowa St, Cincinnati, WVU

These pods would retain natural rivalries while mixing in 2-3 new (or old) conference match ups each year.

Play: Rotate pods by scheduling a different pod each year. Playoff would be against a pod that was not that year's matched pod ensuring that the playoff would not be a rematch of any game from regular season. Chance of championship being a rematch would be relatively low.

 

[hiphopfroggy 121]

Big16


Northwest

UW
UO
UU
CU


Southwest

USC
UCLA
UA
Az St


Lone Star

UT
TCU
TT
BU


Big

OU
Ok St
KU
K-St



B1G

Legends

UNL
UMN
UI
ISU

Leaders

UW-Madison
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue

Heroes

tOSU
UM
MSU
UI


Gods

PSU
UMD
UC
RU



ACC


ND
Pitt
Cuse
BC

UV
VaTech
UofL
WVU

UNC
NC St
Duke
Wake

Clemson
Florida St
Miami
Ga Tech



SEC

West

LSU
AR
aTm
SMU

North

MU
UK
Tennessee
Vanderbilt


South

Bama
AU
Ole Miss
Miss St

East

UGA
UF
SC
UCF
 

[Extra Anejo 99]

^^^That has as good of a chance as any of the other makeovers.

[camel at sea 589]

If we're just giving college football a makeover:

1) Big 12 adds:  SC, UCLA, Colorado, Arizona
2) PAC back-fills with SDSU + 1 (BYU, Boise, Colorado State... whoever the TV side requires)
3) At some point down the road after that, Nebraska re-joins a Big 12 that now has a footprint in both Texas and CA.  Big Ten gives WVU an "athletics only" invite.  

First two are pretty realistic, and the 3rd is realistic once the first one happens.

Big 12 Plains: OU, OSU, Kansas, KSU, CU, NU, ISU
Big 12 Border:  UT, TTU, Zona, TCU, UCLA, USC, Baylor

PAC 10:  UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Stanford, Cal, SDSU, ASU, Utah, BYU 

B1G West:  Mich, Mich St, Wisky, Iowa, Minny, Illinois, Northwestern
B1G East:  tOSU, Penn St, WVU, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers

SEC, ACC, AAC all stay status quo.  MWC has to replace 1 or 2 (options include NMSU, UTEP, maybe a UC Davis joins FBS)

 

This basically makes the Big 12 the western U.S. version of the SEC.  And it makes the PAC a smaller version of the ACC.  Seems like a more stable balance to me.  

[markstanco 12489]

^^^That has as good of a chance as any of the other makeovers.

.

[kopp0e 1135]

On 3/29/2020 at 7:34 PM, jdhorn92 said:

I think this has been discussed, but AL, MS, KY, SC and all the SEC states (less UF)  all have very small markets and they are the biggest needle-movers with TV ratings.  I dont think this next round will be as tied to TV markets as in the past.  Throw in the cord cutting and i think the above graphic is a very dated way to approach realignment partners.  If you play great football, the TV viewers will find you, something the B12 and Pac have failed to do the last decade.

If, there was a revamp/ remake (due to end of GoR's) for PAC-2023 & XII-2024, I'd imagine a "core group" from both divisions:

East -
Iowa State [AAU]
Kansas [AAU]
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas [AAU]
Texas Tech
TCU

West -
Washington [AAU]
Oregon [AAU]
California [AAU]
Stanford [AAU]
UCLA [AAU]
USC [AAU]
Arizona [AAU]

That's 14 slots filled, Colorado [AAU] would be a bridge between both leagues footprint, & current/former foe of USC/UCLA/Oklahoma/Texas...
1 slot for Arizona State/ Utah [AAU]/ Kansas State & Baylor- WVU not included due to distance- Washington St./ Oregon St. out of new league ...

[hiphopfroggy 121]

Having been informed by an SEC representative (some dude on the internet) that, having last option and being last to act(fully owned by ESPN into 2030's), if the SEC were to ever add G5 teams they would prefer UC, ECU and USF. They probably just stay at 14 for a while but if things ever changed and it made sense for them to make a couple adds in highly valuable territory, and UC was already in B1G I have been informed they would look at USF and ECU. 

 

 

SEC

West

LSU
aTm
Missouri
Ark

North

UK
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
ECU

South

Bama
AU
Ole Miss
Miss St

East

UGA
FL
SC
USF
 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by hiphopfroggy

[JWinTX 53]

The Pac-12 GOR expire at the end of 2023, while the Big 12 expires in June of 2025.

I think the way this goes is that the Pac-12 gets a new deal with the idea that behind the scenes, the networks know the Pac will get the Texomakan 6 and move to be the Pac-18. Three time zones, big names in Texas, OU, and KU (hoops), and Pac gets two AAU institutions in UT and KU. It also keeps the lawsuits from Baylor from really ever getting off the ground because they were not invited, most likely because of religious reasons (see BYU) that don't mesh with the liberal views of the West Coast.

Iowa State and WVU join the AAC, while TCU and Baylor join the MWC.  

[hiphopfroggy 121]

7 minutes ago, JWinTX said:

The Pac-12 GOR expire at the end of 2023, while the Big 12 expires in June of 2025.

I think the way this goes is that the Pac-12 gets a new deal with the idea that behind the scenes, the networks know the Pac will get the Texomakan 6 and move to be the Pac-18. Three time zones, big names in Texas, OU, and KU (hoops), and Pac gets two AAU institutions in UT and KU. It also keeps the lawsuits from Baylor from really ever getting off the ground because they were not invited, most likely because of religious reasons (see BYU) that don't mesh with the liberal views of the West Coast.

Iowa State and WVU join the AAC, while TCU and Baylor join the MWC.  

 

 

 

It seems very unlikely that the Pac schools will be signing anything ever again. 

[SnowAggy 154]

2 hours ago, JWinTX said:

The Pac-12 GOR expire at the end of 2023, while the Big 12 expires in June of 2025.

I think the way this goes is that the Pac-12 gets a new deal with the idea that behind the scenes, the networks know the Pac will get the Texomakan 6 and move to be the Pac-18. Three time zones, big names in Texas, OU, and KU (hoops), and Pac gets two AAU institutions in UT and KU. It also keeps the lawsuits from Baylor from really ever getting off the ground because they were not invited, most likely because of religious reasons (see BYU) that don't mesh with the liberal views of the West Coast.

Iowa State and WVU join the AAC, while TCU and Baylor join the MWC.  

They could take a 3rd AAU and increase the footprint (if you're into that sort of thing), add a burgeoning / established western program (you pick) and bingo bango...Pac XX!