Realignment talk not going away

[DFW Horn 6,657]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

There’s really no point to the Pac going forward.  You have two programs with fanbases and facilities that are MWC level, and two that are completely disinterested in revenue sport success.  The other 6 have a seat waiting in the Big 12 that will pay more and give them better exposure, as well as partners that care a lot about sports

BIG 18

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

Wait the Ladies d1 tournament is doubling in value?

Who the fuck watches that?

Not a huge impact on realignment, but women's sports have been surging recently, including basketball, soccer and softball.   LSU/SC wbb just had an average audience of 1.5m and the women's softball tourney last year was out drawing baseball games.   

[KennyPowders 331]

54 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not a huge impact on realignment, but women's sports have been surging recently, including basketball, soccer and softball.   LSU/SC wbb just had an average audience of 1.5m and the women's softball tourney last year was out drawing baseball games.   

Feminists putting their money where their mouth is mi hombre

kinda like that time I said I was going to make it back to the majors and I fucking did it

Edited February 17, 2023 by KennyPowders

[hook me 2,163]

17 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

This has always been the case.

The ACC is not really in danger of falling out of the P5 because they have many quality backfill options.

WVU, Cincy, UConn, Memphis and if they lose FSU/Miami they’d take UCF/USF and still have a pretty solid conference.

Worse case example: BC, UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Cincy, Lville, Memphis, Duke, Wake, UCF, USF

I don't think it's a given that Big 12 teams leave while they're making considerably more money than ACC teams & will renegotiate their TV deals before the ACC. I think the opposite is as likely/more likely & the Big 12 will be filling in its Midwest & Eastern portion with those quality sloppy seconds once the B1G & SEC are finished pillaging whatever schools they want.

[TrashMaster G 18,109]

16 hours ago, Gidnik said:

Same page, dude.

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

 

 

Quote

According to people familiar with the discussions between the Pac-12 Conference and SMU, the private school in Dallas is more than prepared to make certain concessions in order to secure a spot in the league. One concession would be a willingness to agree to a substantial decrease in revenue sharing for the first few years in the league, as well as potentially covering its own expenses.

 

Guess I'm kind of curious as to what types of expenses a conference would pay for instead of a school?  Branding?  

[Al_4_ISU 12,635]

13 minutes ago, hook me said:

I don't think it's a given that Big 12 teams leave while they're making considerably more money than ACC teams & will renegotiate their TV deals before the ACC. I think the opposite is as likely/more likely & the Big 12 will be filling in its Midwest & Eastern portion with those quality sloppy seconds once the B1G & SEC are finished pillaging whatever schools they want.

Yup.  I think the reason the Big 10 didn’t take Washington and Oregon is that they’re waiting for UVA and UNC.  The SEC would respond with FSU and Clemson.  What’s left will not be in position to raid the Big 12.  Instead you’d see Pitt, Louisville, VA Tech etc joining the Big 12(18?).

Edited February 17, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 22,145]

13 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yup.  I think the reason the Big 10 didn’t take Washington and Oregon is that they’re waiting for UVA and UNC.  The SEC would respond with FSU and Clemson.  What’s left will not be in position to raid the Big 12.  Instead you’d see Pitt, Louisville, VA Tech etc joining the Big 12(18?).

If those moves happen, the remaining members of the PAC, XII, and ACC won't have any programs with a massive disparity, and would be ripe for reorganization amongst them geographically into two conferences of 12-16, and a few who should probably relegate to the AAC and MWC. Would love to see that scenario. I will again complain how piecemeal this all has become. Shit or get off the pot already if prestige worldwide is the endgame. 

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

I never realized UVA was so coveted for an athletic conference.

 

['stache 22,145]

Just now, Uncle Nate said:

I never realized UVA was so coveted for an athletic conference.

 

BIG wants them because they are so smrt.

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

BIG wants them because they are so smrt.

Yeah, I kind of get it and then I kind of don't.

The modern era of collegiate athletics and the big money being thrown around really has nothing to do with academics.  But I guess if the BIG is making fuck-you money, at some point the money is no longer the factor and now it is about how the BIG will be so much more academically superior to the other Power 5(4) conferences.

[Al_4_ISU 12,635]

The Big 10 cares about academics.  The SEC doesn’t.  Everyone else cares about survival.

[Texas Wahoo 3,631]

22 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I never realized UVA was so coveted for an athletic conference.

 

It is the flagship University of a decently sized state that is relatively wealthy and growing and that has disproportionate influence in DC.  It is also one of the few schools that is located in geographic proximity for both major conferences (especially when paired with UNC).  It does not hurt that is is a great academic school with good non-football sports.  Obviously football is questionable, but perhaps being in a major conference could help it keep some of it's home-grown recruits from going to Penn State.

[BurntOrange&White 41,913]

Wasn't there talk of SEC wanting UVA for foot hold in that state? 

[Vertigo 20,499]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

 

Guess I'm kind of curious as to what types of expenses a conference would pay for instead of a school?  Branding?  

I would guess things like marketing to their dozens and dozens of fans. 

[Vertigo 20,499]

9 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Wasn't there talk of SEC wanting UVA for foot hold in that state? 

Clemson, FSU, Miami, North Carolina, and UVA have some tangible value in the ACC. If I had to guess, Clemson, FSU, Miami, and maybe North Carolina go SEC eventually. UVA, Oregon, Washington and maybe Notre Dame go B1G. 

[Texas Wahoo 3,631]

10 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Clemson, FSU, Miami, North Carolina, and UVA have some tangible value in the ACC. If I had to guess, Clemson, FSU, Miami, and maybe North Carolina go SEC eventually. UVA, Oregon, Washington and maybe Notre Dame go B1G. 

I would be surprised if UVA/UNC split up.  If they had a choice, I am not sure which way they would go (SEC vs. B1G), but I think it would be together.

[Gaffords 778]

It's kinda comical to watch different shows coming out of Pac territory.

They cannot fathom a world in which the networks would consider the Big 12 more valuable than the PAC. it's 30 seconds of sports comparisons before before it turne into PAC vs big 12 academics. Which leads into no school would ever leave the PAC for Big 12. Which turns into the PAC will at least get 40 million...  You know, the demand for spelling bees 

They refuse to bring up the networks spelled out  who is more valuable to them when no one bid on the PAC product.  The value they believed they had is leaving for the Big 10. 

The lack of exposure in the East had major consequences. The way they handled the almost coup of the Big 12 south division was beyond boneheaded

 

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

54 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I would be surprised if UVA/UNC split up.  If they had a choice, I am not sure which way they would go (SEC vs. B1G), but I think it would be together.

Yeah they won't split, they're the east coast, public grandaddies.  Outside the UNC/Duke game in basketball, they care more about each other than any other school in their state.   Neither need any money, get all the exposure they care about, and control their own show.   While I can see Clemson and FSU chomping at the bit, if UNC/UVA were given the choice between "twice as much money" or they "get to do their own thing", I'd bet my house they'd pick "Do their own thing".   Its a vibe that is hard to describe, but is probably more like Stanford or other Pac schools who don't view athletics as their tip of their institutional spear.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

Will the Pac-12 break up? Where each team would go if league disintegrates over media rights deal

A college landscape without the Pac-12 has become a storyline worth considering, though a break-up of the 107-year-old league isn't particularly likely.

Industry sources still project a media rights deal split between ESPN and Amazon for the embattled conference. However, dissolution of the Pac-12 is being talked about openly in those same industry circles as a potential consequence if the league does not wrap up its new deal soon.

The fact that it could happen in these tenuous times is enough to project what the process might look like.

Multiple sources tell CBS Sports the league is struggling to match its desired value for its 10-team league (south of $400 million annually, $40 million per school) following the departures of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten.

The most compelling reason: As it stands, the Pac-12 inventory of games is not something broadcast, linear cable or streaming must have at this point.

Not without USC and UCLA. Not with the league is in its eighth month since losing its two flagships. And not with 3.5 months having passed after the Pac-12 was leapfrogged by the Big 12.

The Big Ten is now coast-to-coast, spread across the three major broadcast networks (CBS, Fox, NBC). ESPN has gone all in on the SEC with an exclusive deal including the lucrative 3:30 p.m. ET window on Saturdays as well as the primetime slot with some of the highest-rated inventory in the sport. The ACC is locked in through 2036 at a stable number that is expected to grow as the ACC Network continues to throw off revenue. The Big 12 has staked its claim with Fox and ESPN, and it is looking to get bigger with expansion.

There is a finite amount any potential rightsholder is willing to pay for a damaged conference that is the last among the Power Five to complete a new media rights deal. Perhaps that was the implicit intent of the conference's recent statement from its presidents -- to calm fears.

Now consider what has impacted the Pac-12 and some of its potential bidders just since the beginning of the year: 

• The league discovered it may owe a media partner $50 million.
• Disney (parent company of ESPN) announced it is laying off 7,000 employees in a restructuring.
• Amazon recently laid off 6% of its work force (18,000 globally).
• Alphabet (parent company of Google) cut 12,000 jobs.

The Pac-12 may have simply waited to too long to do a deal that makes financial sense to some of its members. CBS Sports previously reported the Pac-12 may have to commit to expansion in order to maximize the value of a deal. 

The bulk of the other Power Five's games are on what are still-reliable linear platforms (broadcast, cable). Linear continues to outperform streaming by a large margin. Consider, during the 2022 season, the SEC and Big Ten had a combined 50 conference games that finished in the top seven of the weekly TV ratings.

The Pac-12 had one such game that didn't include USC or UCLA, according to SportsMediaWatch.com

When the Big 12 similarly lost its two flagships programs, the league acted decisively to expand under then-commissioner Bob Bowlsby. Under new commissioner Brett Yormark, the Big 12 jumped ahead of the Pac-12 with that new media rights deal.

The Pac-12 has reached a point where the best broadcast windows on the best networks are filled with premium content from other conferences while streaming remains an unproven home. Did the league simply overvalue itself?

Taking all that into account, here is a step-by-step look at what would happen if the Pac-12 disbanded.

Why would the Pac-12 break up?

Basically, the current members would get nervous enough over a lack of value coming back to them in a media rights deal in conjunction with dissipating exposure and perceived prominence for their universities and athletic programs.

How will Pac-12 games be seen by a broad audience if they are not on TV or the best windows, which are filling up fast. If significantly more than half of future Pac-12 games project to be on a streaming serve, as CBS Sports previously reported, that's a bad sign. Again, linear is still the preferred delivery system for live sports.

On a streaming carrier, the Pac-12 would lose significant visibility That translates -- for starters -- to declined recruiting and a struggle to hire top coaches if their games will not be widely available.

If individual or collective Pac-12 schools sense they can make more money and receive better exposure in another Power Five conference, they have no choice but to look out for the long-term financial security of their universities and athletic departments. Football (and basketball) media rights basically fund a program's remaining sports.

Where would Pac-12 teams go?

If the Pac-12 ultimately breaks up, most -- but not all -- of its membership would find waiting Power Five homes. It would kick off another round of expansion and may result in further changes coming down the road.

Four Corners schools

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah have been Big 12 targets, in some form, since USC and UCLA announced plans last summer to leave fo the Big Ten.

That interest has picked up considerably with the Pac-12 appearing even more vulnerable. Yormark wants to have membership in the Pacific Time Zone. That would make the Big 12 the only conference to have members across all four time zones.

• Adding the Four Corners schools would also make the Big 12 the third conference with 16 members joining the SEC and Big Ten.
• Arizona would enhance the Big 12's basketball reputation. (Gonzaga is in consideration as a basketball-only member.)
• Arizona State is one of the biggest sleeping giants in the country playing in the nation's 11th biggest market (just outside Phoenix).
• Colorado is a former Big 12 member, achieving its greatest success in the league in the old Big Eight. Deion Sanders at CU is a walking, talking marketing executive. Whatever he accomplishes, it can't hurt viewership.
• Utah (along with Oregon) is arguably the Pac-12's strongest remaining football program. It would also give BYU a travel partner.

In essence, adding those four schools would create more Big 12 content in more time slots. Such an expansion might reflect what the Pac-12 is worth right now. If the Big 12 expands, its contract states new team(s) would get 63% of pro rata revenue from ESPN (approximately $20 million annually). If that's what compels those schools to move, what does it say about the current worth of the Pac-12?

Oregon and Washington

Assuming the Four Corners bolt first, that creates a decision for what would become the two biggest available brands in the country. Keyword "available" because, with the league crumbling around it, Oregon and Washington would have options. And their best option would likely be the Big Ten.

The schools align academically with the Big Ten. They would join USC and UCLA, mitigating travel issues in the Big Ten for all four schools with more games closer to home.

Even if the Pac-12 stays together, how long until Oregon and Washington have wandering eyes? Nike founder and Oregon benefactor Phil Knight has been looking out for the Ducks since early in the process. CBS Sports confirmed Washington's interest in the Big Ten last fall, which was termed significant at the time, if the Pac-12 didn't work out.

It is known outgoing Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren wanted further conference expansion seeking to add those two schools as well as Stanford and California. There was much pushback from Big Ten presidents and athletic directors, but with the Pac-12 potentially decided its own fate, the Big Ten wouldn't be perceived as breaking up the league this time around, avoiding a possible costly legal challenge. (This time, however, the Big Ten would likely want no part of Stanford and Cal.)

An 18-team league would make the Big Ten the biggest in the history of major-college football. It would create significant scheduling issues and result in balking from existing rightsholders, who will be asked to pay more. Perhaps a streaming service would get involved to defer costs.

Best guess: Oregon and Washington would take less than a full Big Ten share (estimated $75 million per school starting in 2024) at least initially to be part of the richest conference in the land.

The last four

Out of that upheaval emerges a conference of leftovers. Think of a Pac-12 -- or whatever it is called by then -- attempting to forge ahead with its four remaining schools (Cal, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington State) while filling the rest of the conference with Mountain West programs. (It could also go the other direction.)

San Diego State and SMU are already projected as expansion candidates if the Pac-12 survives, so pencil them in to make it six teams in the hybrid league. A corner bar discussion might reveal a new Pac-12 that looks like this:

• Cal
• Boise State
• Fresno State
• Oregon State
• San Diego State
• SMU
• Stanford
• Washington State

That lineup would reduce the Power Five to the Power Four, creating implications beyond the Pac-12 itself.

Pac-12's best chance

The way out of this muck is a 12-team league that includes San Diego State and SMU appearing to present more value to potential rightsholders.

The Pac-12 has been positioning itself for such an expansion while struggling to meet its goals. SDSU gives the Pac-12 a presence once again in Southern California. SMU gives the league some things it never possessed: games in the noon ET window and a recruiting foothold in Texas. We've detailed San Diego State's advantages.

Adding the two teams would give rightsholders 90 Pac-12 games on which to bid. But again, that's assuming there's enough bidders with enough money left for the remains of the Conference of Champions.

[camel at sea 589]

3 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

I never realized UVA was so coveted for an athletic conference.

 

The extent to which UVA is coveted is probably overstated.  When the revenue model was based on cable subs, they added more to the table than they do now.  UNC is similar though their hoops fanbase will probably be among the most reliable cbb streamers in the country.  Both of them likely will need a stronger partner to open a door for them (Notre Dame to the B1G, FSU to the SEC.)  My guess though would be that if ND goes all in on the B1G, the Irish would prefer other partners before those two (Miami, Georgia Tech.)

That said, I'm not at all convinced they want to go anywhere.

Edited February 17, 2023 by camel at sea

[NorLa Horns 1,458]

The question has probably already been asked. But...

When/if LHN goes away, where would the Texas spring game be televised?

[mdmost 44,065]

SEC Network/ESPN/ESPN+. One of those 3. 

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Best guess: Oregon and Washington would take less than a full Big Ten share (estimated $75 million per school starting in 2024) at least initially to be part of the richest conference in the land.

This sounds like wishful thinking to me.  I don't get the impression that the Big Ten is interested in this (or that SC / UCLA are interested in this.)  

[hook me 2,163]

3 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Clemson, FSU, Miami, North Carolina, and UVA have some tangible value in the ACC. If I had to guess, Clemson, FSU, Miami, and maybe North Carolina go SEC eventually. UVA, Oregon, Washington and maybe Notre Dame go B1G. 

Would the SEC want 3 teams in the same state that the rest of the conference recruits so heavily? Would they prefer the B1G gain a foothold in their territory because they passed on one of them? Neither of those sound like great outcomes for the SEC so it'll be interesting to see which they pursue hardest. Is there a way for the SEC to get FSU & hope the B1G doesn't go after Miami due to B1G snobbery & watch Miami go to the Big 12 which already has UCF in-state? That would probably be best case for the SEC along with adding UNC & maybe UVA & Clemson.

[Leanderman 2,367]

I am old school. Here is my input for the four team pod. Just an opinion so haters, screw off. Now on to my pod.......Piggy, Land Thieves, The Good Guys, L$U. Screw the gomers and the sheep they molested.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

4 hours ago, camel at sea said:

This sounds like wishful thinking to me.  I don't get the impression that the Big Ten is interested in this (or that SC / UCLA are interested in this.)  

Only idea I heard that made sense for the Big Ten was to get ESPN as a partner again on the 10:30 est slot, e.g after dark, and if you got UW/Oregon, you could play one of those two on the west coast weekly.   Doesn't really fit every week, but if you could get $150m for that it helps pay their way.

[TKthunder2 5,059]

On UNC/UVA, fans generally want the SEC but their administration wanted the Big Ten for academic snobbery reasons. Still, now that the Big Ten is in LA and Texas has joined the SEC I think that perspective has changed fairly significantly.

Travel in the Big Ten (especially if they expand further with UW, UO, Cal, Stanford as has been rumored a while back) is not going to be easy and you’re already seeing push back from student athletes (nothing too serious yet). That may be a concern for both administrators and fans alike.

Texas joining the SEC along with Vandy and Florida really helps solidify the top end of the SEC’s academic standing and, along with aggy/Mizzou, helped changed the narrative. Both conferences have 5 AAU members and only the ACC has a R2 level research school (Wake Forest) all others are R1. The ACC without ND, UNC/UVA really doesn’t look to different than the SEC and they even invited the worst academic school out of the 31 schools in Louisville so they can’t be to high on their academic snootiness.

Athletically, SEC football and baseball are obviously elite, and although the ACC has historical basketball success their actual success hasn’t been all that impressive as of late. If you really wanted to build a great basketball conference imagine Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke and Kansas playing in the same conference tournament which could only happen in the SEC since Kentucky isn’t going to leave.

A combo of UNC/UVA & FSU/Clemson would be great for the SEC at 20.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

A combo of UNC/UVA & FSU/Clemson would be great for the SEC at 20.

NCState and VTech are FAR more likely though.  Tech is just down the road from Tennessee, even playing the Vols at Bristol Motor Speedway right between the two campuses.  Far more SEC like atmosphere than UVA, which is more like attending the Kentucky Derby, or the Masters, or a Taylor Swift concert.

If UVA stayed in the ACC it may be very unlikely Tech would bolt though, considering the state flexed on UVA to force the ACC to take Tech when the Big East melted.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

I never realized UVA was so coveted for an athletic conference.

 

They are a couple of seasons removed from a basketball title.

Maybe the B1G likes substance over hype?

Edited February 18, 2023 by slorch

[statsman 5,693]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

They are a couple of seasons removed from a basketball title.

Maybe the B1G likes substance over hype?

I don’t know that a one shot wonder says much about a program’s fundamental strength and potential. I mean- TT went to the NCAA Finals game, but does any major conference want them?

[Frank Drebin 5,840]

I think a conference of 16  with 9 conference games -- so you can play 3 permanent rivals annually and then 6 others rotating -- is about as big as a conference can really be and still be a real conference.  That means for your non permanent rivals you still play them twice every four years. Otherwise you're basically two conferences when you get to 18 or 20.

This stuff is silly.  There really should be a reset.  Like a conference realignment constitutional convention. And the first thing that should happen would be one conference for football and men's basketball and then regional conferences for everything else.  The amount of money spent on travel, and the time spent travel, makes no sense for the nonrevenue sports.

[Frank Drebin 5,840]

1 minute ago, statsman said:

I don’t know that a one shot wonder says much about a program’s fundamental strength and potential. I mean- TT went to the NCAA Finals game, but does any major conference want them?

Probably has more to do with potential.  It is the flagship U of a pretty decent state.

[Horn of Gabriel 1,886]

2 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

I think a conference of 16  with 9 conference games -- so you can play 3 permanent rivals annually and then 6 others rotating -- is about as big as a conference can really be and still be a real conference.  That means for your non permanent rivals you still play them twice every four years. Otherwise you're basically two conferences when you get to 18 or 20.

This stuff is silly.  There really should be a reset.  Like a conference realignment constitutional convention. And the first thing that should happen would be one conference for football and men's basketball and then regional conferences for everything else.  The amount of money spent on travel, and the time spent travel, makes no sense for the nonrevenue sports.

Not really, as more and more good teams get pulled into the major 2 conferences, there's fewer reasons for non-conf games.  Go to 10 noncon, 3-4 permanent and 6-7 rotating.  Blah blah NFL-lite, etc

[TKthunder2 5,059]

7 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

NCState and VTech are FAR more likely though.  Tech is just down the road from Tennessee, even playing the Vols at Bristol Motor Speedway right between the two campuses.  Far more SEC like atmosphere than UVA, which is more like attending the Kentucky Derby, or the Masters, or a Taylor Swift concert.

If UVA stayed in the ACC it may be very unlikely Tech would bolt though, considering the state flexed on UVA to force the ACC to take Tech when the Big East melted.

Maybe more likely, but the SEC’s preference is for big flagship U of a Southern (or Southern-ish state). The New SEC is literally all flagship universities except Auburn, Mississippi State, and aggy. They’ll go after UNC and UVA because they are the schools with rich traditions and big fan bases that all the other Southern schools would want to associate with, the only question is do UNC/UVA want to associate with the SEC and Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Alabama or do they feel they have more in common with Michigan, Rutgers, Penn St, UCLA, and Nebraska?

[BurntOrange&White 41,913]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Mississippi State

I'm pretty sure Miss State was a SEC member before Ole MIss.

[notre dame joe 205]

7 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

I think a conference of 16  with 9 conference games -- so you can play 3 permanent rivals annually and then 6 others rotating -- is about as big as a conference can really be and still be a real conference.  That means for your non permanent rivals you still play them twice every four years. Otherwise you're basically two conferences when you get to 18 or 20.

This stuff is silly.  There really should be a reset.  Like a conference realignment constitutional convention. And the first thing that should happen would be one conference for football and men's basketball and then regional conferences for everything else.  The amount of money spent on travel, and the time spent travel, makes no sense for the nonrevenue sports.

It's like 75% of ND's philosophy of scheduling where you have annual rival siblings, biennial cousins, and in-laws played once or twice each decade.  I like how the SEC proposed 3 rivals without a 4 team pod.  That said it is a good design of a bad idea.  A college football season that looks like the NFL is completely unsatisfying.

 

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

do they feel they have more in common with Michigan, Rutgers, Penn St, UCLA, and Nebraska?

They feel they have more in common with Penn, and Harvard, and Princeton.

[Trojan Man 429]

29 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

This sounds like wishful thinking to me.  I don't get the impression that the Big Ten is interested in this (or that SC / UCLA are interested in this.)  

Yeah, there's no benefit to USC and UCLA to support Oregon and Washington getting into the B1G.  Anyone pushing the travel partner line needs to look at a map.  Just because they're also in the Pacific timezone does not mean they are quick, easy trips.  LA to Seattle is 960 miles as the crow flies, LA to Eugene is 773 miles.  For perspective Clemson to Boston is 827 miles but nobody will say Boston College is a convenient travel partner for Clemson when the ACC gets picked apart.  The Bay Area schools and the Arizona schools are the only convenient travel schools for the LA schools but other than maybe Stanford none of them are ever getting into the B1G so USC and UCLA just need to deal with the travel.

And that's just the flimsy upside.  The downside for USC/UCLA of Oregon/Washington joining the B1G is supercharging two of your biggest local recruiting foes when you have an opportunity to leave them in the dust, playing more late games after finally escaping from that window and bailing out a couple schools who were the ringleaders for Pac 12 policies that harmed the LA schools.  I still think Oregon and Washington will get in eventually after the B1G secures the ACC teams they really want, but the next decade or so will be shitty for them stuck on the outside looking in.

18 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

It's like 75% of ND's philosophy of scheduling where you have annual rival siblings, biennial cousins, and in-laws played once or twice each decade.  I like how the SEC proposed 3 rivals without a 4 team pod.  That said it is a good design of a bad idea.  A college football season that looks like the NFL is completely unsatisfying.

It's better than the current way of doing things, where A&M and Georgia have only played once since A&M joined the conference a decade ago.  I will like being in a bigger conference with a more varied schedule and as long as the conferences get the permanent opponents right I expect most fans will feel the same way.  UCLA is a given for one of USC's permanent opponents.  For the other two I'm hoping for some combination of Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin or Minnesota.  Penn State would be a fun permanent game, it seems like a longshot but networks are driving this bus.  They might insist on annually matching USC with one of the East juggernauts.  Ohio State and Michigan have more games that make sense to protect than Penn State does so USC/Penn State could be the made for TV rivalry.  I didn't need yearly games against Arizona and Colorado.  At least in the B1G that caliber of team will rotate on and off the schedule every couple years to keep things fresh instead of permanently being a game I don't give a fuck about.

[DFW Horn 6,657]

15 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

On UNC/UVA, fans generally want the SEC but their administration wanted the Big Ten for academic snobbery reasons. Still, now that the Big Ten is in LA and Texas has joined the SEC I think that perspective has changed fairly significantly.

Travel in the Big Ten (especially if they expand further with UW, UO, Cal, Stanford as has been rumored a while back) is not going to be easy and you’re already seeing push back from student athletes (nothing too serious yet). That may be a concern for both administrators and fans alike.

Texas joining the SEC along with Vandy and Florida really helps solidify the top end of the SEC’s academic standing and, along with aggy/Mizzou, helped changed the narrative. Both conferences have 5 AAU members and only the ACC has a R2 level research school (Wake Forest) all others are R1. The ACC without ND, UNC/UVA really doesn’t look to different than the SEC and they even invited the worst academic school out of the 31 schools in Louisville so they can’t be to high on their academic snootiness.

Athletically, SEC football and baseball are obviously elite, and although the ACC has historical basketball success their actual success hasn’t been all that impressive as of late. If you really wanted to build a great basketball conference imagine Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke and Kansas playing in the same conference tournament which could only happen in the SEC since Kentucky isn’t going to leave.

A combo of UNC/UVA & FSU/Clemson would be great for the SEC at 20.

Hard to believe aggy and mizzery are AAU, but whatever. This ain't about schoolin'.

UNC/UVA admin are double-stupid if they choose B1G over the SEC now. Not that I want to expand beyond 16 teams unless it results in a helluva lot more money. At what point do conferences experience diminishing returns?

[Poolflood 845]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I'm pretty sure Miss State was a SEC member before Ole MIss.

Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia,  Tennessee, Vanderbilt,  Auburn, Lsu and both Miss schools joined same year.  Per wiki.  So must be true. 

[Satchel 6,982]

50 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Hard to believe aggy and mizzery are AAU, but whatever. This ain't about schoolin'.

UNC/UVA admin are double-stupid if they choose B1G over the SEC now. Not that I want to expand beyond 16 teams unless it results in a helluva lot more money. At what point do conferences experience diminishing returns?

Before it somehow inexplicably imploded, the original Big 12 had 7 AAU members.

[billfromlaketravis 11,824]

25 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Before it somehow inexplicably imploded, the original Big 12 had 7 AAU members.

[DFW Horn 6,657]

30 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Before it somehow inexplicably imploded, the original Big 12 had 7 AAU members.

Well, that's a good deal if we could sell tickets to academic decathlons. 

[bullet 1,630]

On 2/17/2023 at 11:57 AM, Hurtlocker said:

Not a huge impact on realignment, but women's sports have been surging recently, including basketball, soccer and softball.   LSU/SC wbb just had an average audience of 1.5m and the women's softball tourney last year was out drawing baseball games.   

Interesting.  Good fast pitch softball is pretty boring.  Softball can be more entertaining with lesser teams, but some of Division I softball players are really poor.  Can't throw.  Can't hit.  (I'm not talking about Big 12 players-there are 32 division I conferences).

[bullet 1,630]

On 2/17/2023 at 1:22 PM, 'stache said:

If those moves happen, the remaining members of the PAC, XII, and ACC won't have any programs with a massive disparity, and would be ripe for reorganization amongst them geographically into two conferences of 12-16, and a few who should probably relegate to the AAC and MWC. Would love to see that scenario. I will again complain how piecemeal this all has become. Shit or get off the pot already if prestige worldwide is the endgame. 

Yeah.  The piecemeal leads to a lot of suboptimal results.

[bullet 1,630]

On 2/17/2023 at 1:26 PM, 'stache said:

BIG wants them because they are so smrt.

After North Carolina, its the 2nd most populous state not in the P2 already.

[TKthunder2 5,059]

2 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Yeah, there's no benefit to USC and UCLA to support Oregon and Washington getting into the B1G.  Anyone pushing the travel partner line needs to look at a map.  Just because they're also in the Pacific timezone does not mean they are quick, easy trips.  LA to Seattle is 960 miles as the crow flies, LA to Eugene is 773 miles.  For perspective Clemson to Boston is 827 miles but nobody will say Boston College is a convenient travel partner for Clemson when the ACC gets picked apart.  The Bay Area schools and the Arizona schools are the only convenient travel schools for the LA schools but other than maybe Stanford none of them are ever getting into the B1G so USC and UCLA just need to deal with the travel.

Travel partners aren’t for football they are for other sports. But to your point USC/UCLA are already travel partners so they don’t need anymore.

But if they add a school like Washington then you’d need to add another for them like Oregon to have a travel partner basically so the Midwest teams could play both on Saturday/Tuesday in basketball before heading back to ORD or wherever.

Adding Oregon/Washington (and Cal/Stanford) would give USC games in their same time zone which is more valuable to your athletes as jumping 2/3 time zones every other week can be trying.

By adding UW/UO they likely makes the West Coast teams all ‘rivals’ and that would be 3 annual games of your 9 game football schedule, meaning you’d only have 3 Central/Eastern Timezone games each football season.

And again while you might not care, the Big Ten likely cares more as a team that doesn’t have to travel West in the middle of conference play would be perceived as having an advantage over a team that doesn’t have to. With 4 west coast teams that would be 12 of the 14 East Coast teams traveling West each year which likely helps for competitive balance.

I do agree with you that the Big Ten is going to expand and it largely depends on when ND joins, and who they can add from the ACC which is why I think they slowed down expanding again. If they load up to 20 now then UNC, Duke, UVA, ND, Miami, GT, and BC all want to jump onboard then they’ll have to either go bigger than what they want or turn down schools that might give them more bang for their buck than doubling down on the the PNW or SFO.

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

Before it somehow inexplicably imploded, the original Big 12 had 7 AAU members.

The original Big 12 was just mismanaged badly.  The worst thing they did was the football schedule / division alignment.  It essentially made the North schools non-existent in the big Texas media/recruiting markets and consequently damaged their per-team value.  I think it was hard to envision it playing out that way when the league was formed - with Nebraska and Colorado so strong - but it was dumb not to adapt when the obvious became obvious a decade in.  

By the early to mid 2000s, there should have been discussions within the league about rearranging the divisions on the basis of something other than geography.  

OU, Texas,, BU, KU, KSU, OSU
NU, A&M, TTU, MU, ISU, CU

Something like this ^ would preserve most rivalries and it would distribute media/recruiting exposure more evenly for all 12 teams in the conference's big markets.  Big 12 1.0 had the North schools basically invisible in DFW and Houston during football season.  None of those schools were part of the conference standings that mattered (the South standings.)  Under a different divisional alignment, you probably also get support for the cross-division rivalry game that was working really well in the SEC.  The Big 12 left money on the table by not having OU play Nebraska every year.  The Huskers might have been less willing to jump ship if they were actually playing their only real rival every year and getting more exposure in Texas, too.  

[TKthunder2 5,059]

Old Big 12 should have just mirrored the SEC rivalry model. Play your division +1 rival and rotate through the other 5 less often.

OU/NU
UT/CU
aggy/MU
OSU/KSU
TT/ISU
BU/KU