Realignment talk not going away

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

19 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

They’d wait on Utah or Oregon or Washington. I honestly think Washington State would be better than SDSU.

Dumb thought 

[TKthunder2 4981]

18 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Dumb thought 

TV numbers have WSU as the 4th or 5th in the most watched program in the PAC12-10.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/

In order (per 538): Oregon, Stanford/Utah, Washington/Washington St, Arizona State, Cal/Colorado, Arizona, Oregon State

With San Diego State you’re betting on having local interest that one day could be in the top 50% of your league and pull in viewers, with Wazzu you have a proven team that already does that.

Playing the biggest market game is dumb especially without a conference network that gives you carrier payout. It’s now about how many people actually watch your game, and in that WSU has the advantage. SDSU can catch up, but that’s taking a bet, not following the data.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

17 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Bro is acting like SDSU does anything.

Maybe they can snag UConn too?  They can even revive the ‘Civil Conflict’ trophy - if they can find it.  
 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/lists/uconn-absolutely-roasted-ucf-for-using-an-imposter-civil-conflict-trophy-and-it-was-glorious

Edited April 5, 2023 by ChiTownDoc

[billfromlaketravis 11364]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

They’d wait on Utah or Oregon or Washington. I honestly think Washington State would be better than SDSU.

They won’t. They’ll bitch and moan but if Colorado and Arizona leave Utah will jump ship too.

They got ESPN (but not FOX) to agree to a pro rata increase for P5 expansion only. They’d have to negotiate with both ESPN and FOX to get SDSU.

The target is the 4C schools, everything else is just noise. I’d be surprised if the B12 didn’t already have approval from FOX to add the four corner schools.

So do you think FOX’s endgame is to further destabilize the PAC so they can either kill off or get a piece of the Rose Bowl? I’m not sure what threat the PAC poses after USC/UCLA leave.  

[TKthunder2 4981]

3 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

So do you think FOX’s endgame is to further destabilize the PAC so they can either kill off or get a piece of the Rose Bowl? I’m not sure what threat the PAC poses after USC/UCLA leave.  

I don’t think they have that refined of a big picture. FOX is pinching pennies right now and trying to decide what its priorities are. That is just not great for the PAC timing wise. They locked up the Big Ten, Big 12, MWC, and Big East and think that’s enough to compete with ESPN who has SEC, ACC, Big 12, American, Sun Belt, MAC…and the PAC12 isn’t going to shift that one way or another, though I assume adding money late kick options would be appealing especially if it’s discounted otherwise they’ll just reup with the MWC. They are also keeping their powder dry for bidding for a part of the new 12 team playoff (which will ‘own’ the Rose Bowl TV rights going forward).

MLB 3rd tier rights are currently a catastrophe with the regional channels going broke. Fox owned them before, I don’t think it would be crazy to get back into that game.

They own nothing in the NBA, but are starting to lean in on basketball with Big East, Big 12, and Big Ten…something to watch.

They are still in on racing (both cars and horses) and soccer. They lost UFC and gained WWE and still have boxing. No golf but lots of less popular sports like rugby or lacrosse that can fill dead air.

But for now they really just have OTA FOX, FS1, FS2, and BTN so you can see why they don’t feel like they need to go punch for punch with ESPN which has OTA ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and SECN plus ESPNU, ACCN, and whatever the LHN turns into to fill with programming, not to mention it’s Watch ESPN/ESPN+/ESPN3/ESPNnow or whatever streaming service(s).

A lot is changing right now, I think it’s difficult to see an end game other than FOX want to be a major player in NFL (2033), College football (B1G/B12 2030), MLB (2028) and likely will get involved with CFP (2025) and re-up with the Big East (2025). Beyond that I think they are sitting tight and trying to keep cash on hand, because if ESPN is discussing shedding properties, FOX could end up a really strong position (especially if they can turn FS1 into a real competitor for ESPN).

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Some good ol' fashioned market analysis.

 

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

4 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Some good ol' fashioned market analysis.

 

The PAC 12, it just means less.

[DFW Horn 6118]

9 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The PAC 12, it just means less.

* 10

No, 8.....no, 6.....whatever

[Welshy 907]

5 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Some good ol' fashioned market analysis.

 

Fascinating (if long) read. 

[TKthunder2 4981]

7 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Some good ol' fashioned market analysis.

 

More data showing that again, by the numbers, Wazzu over representing for the PAC12.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

I'd love to have Wazzu in the Big 12 if it made financial sense.  We played them in the Alamo Bowl a few years ago, and their fans were awesome.  Just seemed like there aren't many of them and there was no way they could draw dollars unfortunately.

Much cooler than Utah fans.

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

TV numbers have WSU as the 4th or 5th in the most watched program in the PAC12-10.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/

In order (per 538): Oregon, Stanford/Utah, Washington/Washington St, Arizona State, Cal/Colorado, Arizona, Oregon State

With San Diego State you’re betting on having local interest that one day could be in the top 50% of your league and pull in viewers, with Wazzu you have a proven team that already does that.

Playing the biggest market game is dumb especially without a conference network that gives you carrier payout. It’s now about how many people actually watch your game, and in that WSU has the advantage. SDSU can catch up, but that’s taking a bet, not following the data.

Washington State's numbers are boosted by the Leach years (RIP).  Whether he was at Tech or Washington State or Mississippi State his team's games were always a good choice if you were looking for something to watch before or after your team's game, plus he eventually had WSU playing at a pretty high level.

In 2017-18 (Washington State's two best Leach years) 6 of their 18 conference games were on the Pac 12 Network while all 12 of the rest were on ESPN or Fox.  Leach was getting their games against Cal and Colorado and Stanford picked up by the big networks instead of relegated to T3.  For comparison over the last two years Washington State played 9 of their 18 conference games on the Pac 12 Network.  Of their other 9 conference games 4 were on FS1 or ESPNU and all 5 that ended up on ESPN or Fox were vs Oregon, Washington and USC.  The Pac 12 Network doesn't release ratings, which also helps boost average ratings for teams playing on there often.  A team will have high average ratings if most of their data points are ESPN/FOX games against powerhouses while the Pac 12 Network clunkers with probably 200-300K viewers aren't included.

Washington State's 2010s ratings are fool's gold and the networks know it.  With San Diego State you're betting a promotion to a better conference is a shot in the arm that elevates their program, much like what happened with TCU and Utah.  I think it could work, whether it's in the Big 12 or if the Pac 12 somehow survives.  With Washington State you know what you're in for.  They aren't getting a shot in the arm going from Pac 12 to Big 12 the way MWC teams did going to the Big 12/Pac 12.  Every once in awhile they're good at football but most of the time they're mediocre, they have a tiny stadium (33K) that only fills up for their biggest games, they do nothing in any other sports, they're in the middle of nowhere, their academics are nothing special and there aren't a whole lot of recruits or alumni bases in rural eastern Washington.  Their only real value is the ability to host late night games, which SDSU also offers.  Even if SDSU becomes a football punching bag you're still getting a desirable location for both recruiting and alumni engagement plus a quality basketball program.

[USC_TMB 405]

Wow, if adding SUDS-U is the PAC’s big move, they have joined the parrot in shuffling off this mortal coil… they are an ex-conference. Is the PAC going to bring in a Directional State School as a travel partner?

For all intents and purposes (or intensive porpoises), they are looking to add a program which trades losses with the likes of Nevada, UNLV, New Mexico & Fresneck State. Yes they have some success against major programs, mainly due to the fact they are a trap game. Moving to what used to be a major conference means they won’t have one game a year they can circle on their calendar. Of course, considering what’s left in the PAC, they may finish mid-pack or higher depending on who bails.

tldr:/ Someone call Time if Death on the PAC

[USC Traveler 488]

On 3/30/2023 at 10:53 AM, Laxtonto said:

That was a complete nothing piece with the biggest thing of value is now knowing that there won’t be a real offer by the April 15th date…

So once again, what is the real drop dead date, not for the PAC 12 l, but for acceptance into the Big 12? Is it June 1st to set up a full one year as a lame duck school? Is it later than that? I always thought the April 1st date as essentially there to help calm nerves before the last couple of BOT meetings of the academic to keep someone from going rouge during the summer. If that isn’t going to happen, then what does that signal to everyone?

USC and UCLA announced they were leaving at the end of June to avoid paying any exit penalty on the way out.  

No GOR issues since they will leave after the GOR expires, which would also be the case for any other schools leaving.

My understanding is that USC/UCLA needed to give two years notice to avoid a penalty.  I don't know what the penalty is, and we all know they get negotiated down, but I'd think any WAC10 school would probably be better off announcing a move before the end of June to at least give one year notice.

OTOH, given the WAC10's history of inept leadership (Hansen, Scott, Knlownkoff and the idiotic Presidents who passed on UT, OU, and other B12 schools on multiple occasions over decades), it's possible there is no difference in the penalty once you get inside the two year mark, in which case anything could happen.

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/2/2023 at 2:37 PM, notre dame joe said:

WAC10  I love it. 

 

As to the above, A&M did not want any more Texas schools following them to the SEC.  Their want was drowned by what the tv networks wanted. 

 

The difference between aggy not wanting UT in the SEC and USC not wanting any other WAC10 schools in the BIG is that every school in the SEC without Jizz Jars wanted UT, whereas no school in the BIG is pushing for any remaining WAC10 schools.

UT is a blueblood in the second biggest state in America, with two massive tv markets, a top 3 recruiting state, AAU, geographically contiguous, etc.  

There is no school in the WAC10 that is similar in profile in any way to UT.  Eugene Community College is the exact opposite of UT in every way.

Given the revenue dilution, travel issues, lack of recruiting grounds, etc, there are no schools in the BIG that want to expand with West Coast teams.  

Outside of bringing in Stanford as a partner with ND, they're going to take another run at the ACC schools- better brands (FSU, Miami, UNC), better tv markets, better recruiting, better travel for existing BIG schools, etc.  With the added benefit of forcing ND to the BIG by collapsing the ACC.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

19 hours ago, bullet said:

On a historical note, it was actually a Greg Swaim tweet that started the Shaggy realignment thread.

I had forgotten that.  That's pretty funny actually.

[TKthunder2 4981]

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

Washington State's numbers are boosted by the Leach years (RIP).  Whether he was at Tech or Washington State or Mississippi State his team's games were always a good choice if you were looking for something to watch before or after your team's game, plus he eventually had WSU playing at a pretty high level.

In 2017-18 (Washington State's two best Leach years) 6 of their 18 conference games were on the Pac 12 Network while all 12 of the rest were on ESPN or Fox.  Leach was getting their games against Cal and Colorado and Stanford picked up by the big networks instead of relegated to T3.  For comparison over the last two years Washington State played 9 of their 18 conference games on the Pac 12 Network.  Of their other 9 conference games 4 were on FS1 or ESPNU and all 5 that ended up on ESPN or Fox were vs Oregon, Washington and USC.  The Pac 12 Network doesn't release ratings, which also helps boost average ratings for teams playing on there often.  A team will have high average ratings if most of their data points are ESPN/FOX games against powerhouses while the Pac 12 Network clunkers with probably 200-300K viewers aren't included.

Washington State's 2010s ratings are fool's gold and the networks know it.  With San Diego State you're betting a promotion to a better conference is a shot in the arm that elevates their program, much like what happened with TCU and Utah.  I think it could work, whether it's in the Big 12 or if the Pac 12 somehow survives.  With Washington State you know what you're in for.  They aren't getting a shot in the arm going from Pac 12 to Big 12 the way MWC teams did going to the Big 12/Pac 12.  Every once in awhile they're good at football but most of the time they're mediocre, they have a tiny stadium (33K) that only fills up for their biggest games, they do nothing in any other sports, they're in the middle of nowhere, their academics are nothing special and there aren't a whole lot of recruits or alumni bases in rural eastern Washington.  Their only real value is the ability to host late night games, which SDSU also offers.  Even if SDSU becomes a football punching bag you're still getting a desirable location for both recruiting and alumni engagement plus a quality basketball program.

Good post, I knew all these metrics but constantly forget how the PAC’s hidden tier 3 boosts their overall stats. Still the numbers posted this morning were about fan engagement which is also higher for WSU.

I generally agree with SDSU over WSU but the Big 12 feels like it already pulled in directional State U Florida and city U (times 2) so I don’t see a giant appeal taking another on “potential” like SDSU.

I think the 4 corner schools are the obvious target, but even if Utah refuses to see the light right away, I’d still sit back and wait on #16 before offering SDSU, Fresno or Gonzaga. In addition to Utah, you’d still have and school like Oregon who could get tired waiting on their Big Ten invite waiting to join especially if it starts affecting their fb recruiting, or Cal who could get left out if they add the Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Notre Dame, possibly a deal to take all 5 (Stan, Cal, UW, UO, Utah) at the end of their next disappointing contract. All of those options are more appealing than SDSU in my opinion.

[USC Traveler 488]

20 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Every day that passes it becomes more and more clear that Yormark has been playing 4D chess to Kliavkoff's Candyland.

PAC is fucking toast.

Klownkoff playing Candyland sounds about right.  He clearly lives in Fantasyland.

[notre dame joe 173]

36 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Klownkoff playing Candyland sounds about right.  He clearly lives in Fantasyland.

I can't keep up with gaming nowadays. I assume there is some SIMS like Candyland multiverse that will eventually be a movie?

 

On SDSU, you either want to play in Southern California or you don't.  I am unaware of any private schools in the area that could be convinced to revive their football.

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Good post, I knew all these metrics but constantly forget how the PAC’s hidden tier 3 boosts their overall stats. Still the numbers posted this morning were about fan engagement which is also higher for WSU.

I generally agree with SDSU over WSU but the Big 12 feels like it already pulled in directional State U Florida and city U (times 2) so I don’t see a giant appeal taking another on “potential” like SDSU.

I think the 4 corner schools are the obvious target, but even if Utah refuses to see the light right away, I’d still sit back and wait on #16 before offering SDSU, Fresno or Gonzaga. In addition to Utah, you’d still have and school like Oregon who could get tired waiting on their Big Ten invite waiting to join especially if it starts affecting their fb recruiting, or Cal who could get left out if they add the Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Notre Dame, possibly a deal to take all 5 (Stan, Cal, UW, UO, Utah) at the end of their next disappointing contract. All of those options are more appealing than SDSU in my opinion.

The only reason big 12 takes SDSU is if they’re trying to destroy the PACs only plan of adding them. Which would cause other pac schools to likely bail as well

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/4/2023 at 7:15 PM, camel at sea said:

Big 12 interest in SDSU is interesting.  CU, Zona, ASU, and SDSU would be a nice group of four if Utah wants to go down with the PAC ship.  Keeping the PAC out of southern California would be a strong move by Yormark and it would probably mollify the Cali alums at UA and ASU.

It's counterintuitive, but SDSU is the least likely school of the five to go B12.  They really want to get more connected to Cal and the UC system, and wouldn't mind at all being associated with Stanford, so they're looking at PAC membership as the way to do it.  Even if the 4C, UW and the Zeros from Eugene Community College went B12, SDSU would be ecstatic to be in a conference with Cal, Stanford and other CA schools (SJ State, Fresno), if for some reason the Bay Area schools didn't also join the B12.

I would peg Utah as a close second for least likely to leave, for the same reasons.  They want to stay associated with the Bay Area schools.  Utah is AAU now thanks to joining the PAC.  They want to keep improving their academics and research, while maintaining a solid football program- all with an eye on becoming a realistic option for the BIG in the 2030's.  

CU (former B12 school, better recent history recruiting TX than CA) and UA (bball focused and closest distance to  B12 schools from the old PAC10) are by far the most likely.  They also have the least margin for error.  If they don't secure seats at the table now, they could be left out in the cold later.

All of that being said, I think CU and UA go to the B12, and when they do, it sets off a chain reaction.  ASU follows, at which point the PNW schools also join the exodus.  Do they use their leverage to bring the Beavs and Wazzu along ?  It would be well worth taking all four PNW schools to kill off the PAC once and for all.

The Bay Area schools would have to swallow their pride and join at that point.

If I were Yormark (he may have already done this), I would have offered UW, the Zeros and the Bay Area schools a deal where there was no exit fee and and easy out from the GOR if they get an invite from the P2.  Same with the Four Corners.  Reality is that most will never get the call, and while Stanford probably ends up in the BIG eventually as ND's partner, that could be 12 more years.

If any of them did leave, it wouldn't be a huge hit to the B12, and it would enable the B12 to clearly establish itself as the last man standing once the ACC gets picked apart.

 

 

[Crockett 490]

On 4/4/2023 at 7:38 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

Utah staying in the PAC if Colorado, ASU, and Arizona leave is next level bitterness. They might hate BYU more than aggy hates us. 

A bunch of those morons are waiting for a Big Ten invite lol. 

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

4 hours ago, Crockett said:

A bunch of those morons are waiting for a Big Ten invite lol. 

bUt wE hAd a GeNtLmEnS aGrEeMeNt AnD wEre AaU!

[LTbear 4161]

9 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Utah is AAU now thanks to joining the PAC.  

 

 

LOL

[CustersDoctor 584]

I saw this on another chat room and since its on the internet it must be true.

"The new PAC10 media rights deal will be announced on April 12th. It will be a six year 2.4billion deal. That comes out to 30million a year per team, BUT ONLY IF THEY DON'T EXPAND! They will stay at ten teams. This is the strategy the Big12 employed when we lost our first two teams. We stayed at ten and therefore our payout per team went up with only ten mouths to feed. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to expand considering the teams available. All the schools that the PAC has considered will be left at the alter. The conference leaders will be able to claim that they did their due diligence to get back to 12 teams but none of the options passed to high standards for admission into the conference of champions."

So everybody stays, no expansion, and their media rights deal will be smaller than the Big12's, but with just 10 teams they'll each get almost as much as a Big12 team.

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

7 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

I saw this on another chat room and since its on the internet it must be true.

"The new PAC10 media rights deal will be announced on April 12th. It will be a six year 2.4billion deal. That comes out to 30million a year per team, BUT ONLY IF THEY DON'T EXPAND! They will stay at ten teams. This is the strategy the Big12 employed when we lost our first two teams. We stayed at ten and therefore our payout per team went up with only ten mouths to feed. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to expand considering the teams available. All the schools that the PAC has considered will be left at the alter. The conference leaders will be able to claim that they did their due diligence to get back to 12 teams but none of the options passed to high standards for admission into the conference of champions."

So everybody stays, no expansion, and their media rights deal will be smaller than the Big12's, but with just 10 teams they'll each get almost as much as a Big12 team.

But that made up bullshit fails to mention if it will be predominantly streaming or etc. Similar money but 50-75% of your games are stream only is not a good deal at all.

[TrashMaster G 17395]

44 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

I saw this on another chat room and since its on the internet it must be true.

"The new PAC10 media rights deal will be announced on April 12th. It will be a six year 2.4billion deal. That comes out to 30million a year per team, BUT ONLY IF THEY DON'T EXPAND! They will stay at ten teams. This is the strategy the Big12 employed when we lost our first two teams. We stayed at ten and therefore our payout per team went up with only ten mouths to feed. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to expand considering the teams available. All the schools that the PAC has considered will be left at the alter. The conference leaders will be able to claim that they did their due diligence to get back to 12 teams but none of the options passed to high standards for admission into the conference of champions."

So everybody stays, no expansion, and their media rights deal will be smaller than the Big12's, but with just 10 teams they'll each get almost as much as a Big12 team.

Chump doesn't know how to spell altar.  I call bullshit.

[BluTechsan 393]

47 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

I saw this on another chat room and since its on the internet it must be true.

"The new PAC10 media rights deal will be announced on April 12th. It will be a six year 2.4billion deal. That comes out to 30million a year per team, BUT ONLY IF THEY DON'T EXPAND! They will stay at ten teams. This is the strategy the Big12 employed when we lost our first two teams. We stayed at ten and therefore our payout per team went up with only ten mouths to feed. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to expand considering the teams available. All the schools that the PAC has considered will be left at the alter. The conference leaders will be able to claim that they did their due diligence to get back to 12 teams but none of the options passed to high standards for admission into the conference of champions."

So everybody stays, no expansion, and their media rights deal will be smaller than the Big12's, but with just 10 teams they'll each get almost as much as a Big12 team.

I was told there would be no math but...

How does 2.4B / 6 / 10 = 30M?

[LTbear 4161]

1 minute ago, BluTechsan said:

I was told there would be no math but...

How does 2.4B / 6 / 10 = 30M?

In the old PAC the conference took a full share, which might throw the math some. 

[Park Gothic 4996]

32 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

I was told there would be no math but...

How does 2.4B / 6 / 10 = 30M?

8 year deal?

Either way, it's bullshit. Guy doesn't even specify who is paying or how much will be streaming vs. linear. 

[TKthunder2 4981]

Pretty sure one of the Arizona presidents was out of the country until after April 15th and they said they’d meeting after he got back, so I highly doubt they’ll announce anything before then. Smells like BS.

[CustersDoctor 584]

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

But that made up bullshit fails to mention if it will be predominantly streaming or etc. Similar money but 50-75% of your games are stream only is not a good deal at all.

How history will remember Kliavkoff

Edited April 6, 2023 by CustersDoctor
Omission

[camel at sea 589]

13 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

All of that being said, I think CU and UA go to the B12, and when they do, it sets off a chain reaction.  ASU follows, at which point the PNW schools also join the exodus.  Do they use their leverage to bring the Beavs and Wazzu along ?  It would be well worth taking all four PNW schools to kill off the PAC once and for all.

Oregon and Washington don't have that much leverage.  If they hadn't been so public about wanting to join the Big Ten... then maybe.  But you don't add the valueless little brothers, forever, just to get a 4-5 year rental of the Big Brothers.  

[Laxtonto 11934]

1 hour ago, Park Gothic said:

8 year deal?

Either way, it's bullshit. Guy doesn't even specify who is paying or how much will be streaming vs. linear. 

 

2 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

I saw this on another chat room and since its on the internet it must be true.

"The new PAC10 media rights deal will be announced on April 12th. It will be a six year 2.4billion deal. That comes out to 30million a year per team, BUT ONLY IF THEY DON'T EXPAND! They will stay at ten teams. This is the strategy the Big12 employed when we lost our first two teams. We stayed at ten and therefore our payout per team went up with only ten mouths to feed. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to expand considering the teams available. All the schools that the PAC has considered will be left at the alter. The conference leaders will be able to claim that they did their due diligence to get back to 12 teams but none of the options passed to high standards for admission into the conference of champions."

So everybody stays, no expansion, and their media rights deal will be smaller than the Big12's, but with just 10 teams they'll each get almost as much as a Big12 team.

If it is a flat linear rate, then that deal  is out of date in year 3. If it is an escalating rate they are already way behind. 
 

The only way that works if it 300 in year one with a tiered escalator, but then you are still in the % of streaming discussion.  Now if they said 3.4 starting at 30 with an average of 34 I could bite as a potential leak, but this version is bad on both the top and notion values.

[camel at sea 589]

 

3 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

I saw this on another chat room and since its on the internet it must be true.

"The new PAC10 media rights deal will be announced on April 12th. It will be a six year 2.4billion deal. That comes out to 30million a year per team, BUT ONLY IF THEY DON'T EXPAND! They will stay at ten teams. This is the strategy the Big12 employed when we lost our first two teams. We stayed at ten and therefore our payout per team went up with only ten mouths to feed. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to expand considering the teams available. All the schools that the PAC has considered will be left at the alter. The conference leaders will be able to claim that they did their due diligence to get back to 12 teams but none of the options passed to high standards for admission into the conference of champions."

So everybody stays, no expansion, and their media rights deal will be smaller than the Big12's, but with just 10 teams they'll each get almost as much as a Big12 team.

Being at ten makes the most sense.  They can divide up the CFP revenue into fewer slices, divide up whatever CCG revenue into fewer slices, etc.  The problem is 1) this deal almost certainly fails the streaming/linear ratio that the presidents are looking for, and 2) it also fails to get member schools back in southern California for recruiting purposes (recruiting is more than athletics and it will matter to university Presidents as well as ADs.)  

If I were going to imagine a thread-the-needle scenario where the PAC feels like it "won" then they could probably lose Arizona and Colorado to the Big 12, then add SDSU and SMU/Colorado St to get back to 10.  If the media rights deal still works with that trade-off, then maybe they can hit the pause button on realignment for several years.  It's hard for me to imagine Oregon and Washington being okay with this, but maybe GK and the presidents get them on board by agreeing to let them play a disproportionate percentage of the linear games that the conference will have and by agreeing to unequal distribution of CFP money. 

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

2 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

 

Being at ten makes the most sense.  They can divide up the CFP revenue into fewer slices, divide up whatever CCG revenue into fewer slices, etc.  The problem is 1) this deal almost certainly fails the streaming/linear ratio that the presidents are looking for, and 2) it also fails to get member schools back in southern California for recruiting purposes (recruiting is more than athletics and it will matter to university Presidents as well as ADs.)  

If I were going to imagine a thread-the-needle scenario where the PAC feels like it "won" then they could probably lose Arizona and Colorado to the Big 12, then add SDSU and SMU/Colorado St to get back to 10.  If the media rights deal still works with that trade-off, then maybe they can hit the pause button on realignment for several years.  It's hard for me to imagine Oregon and Washington being okay with this, but maybe GK and the presidents get them on board by agreeing to let them play a disproportionate percentage of the linear games that the conference will have and by agreeing to unequal distribution of CFP money. 

In an age when conferences are growing to 16-18-20 staying at 10 is most certainly not the most sense or best move. It's only compounding how far they are behind all other conferences.  On top of all that you are actively struggling to even get a deal worth a shit and by all accounts minimum 50% of your games are going to be streaming only, that aint good.

Edited April 6, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[camel at sea 589]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

In an age when conferences are growing to 16-18-20 staying at 10 is most certainly not the most sense or best move. It's only compounding how far they are behind all other conferences. 

They'd be the Big 12 (2010-present), psychological disadvantages and all.  But staying at ten is how they keep up financially.  They're dead in the water if they don't do that.  They can talk themselves into the idea that something might break in their favor, in the future, with respect to expansion (i.e. "if we can just survive, maybe the Big 12 will get damaged in the future, and we'll not make the mistake of failing to raid them next time.")

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

2 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

They'd be the Big 12 (2010-present), psychological disadvantages and all.  But staying at ten is how they keep up financially.  They're dead in the water if they don't do that.  They can talk themselves into the idea that something might break in their favor, in the future, with respect to expansion (i.e. "if we can just survive, maybe the Big 12 will get damaged in the future, and we'll not make the mistake of failing to raid them next time.")

And the big 12 fired it's commissioner for being stagnant dog shit commissioner and the new one is actively expanding and trying to grow the conference. Who knows what the BIG will want to do as soon as they get a new commissioner as well. But staying stagnant in this ever evolving college football landscape is the worst decision they could make. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[camel at sea 589]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

And the big 12 fired it's commissioner for being stagnant dog shit commissioner and the new one is actively expanding and trying to grow the conference. 

No arguments.  But it's also true that the Big 12 survived and that Texas and Oklahoma kept up financially during that window.  The PAC's priority is giving Oregon and Washington a reason to stay and those two will care most about keeping up financially, right now, than building for the future.  Staying at ten is the easiest way to keep those two happy.  The PAC is in a tough spot where keeping their big brands happy, and building for the future, are somewhat at odds with each other.

Even with Yormark as commissioner, the Big 12 probably doesn't expand if UT and OU remain in the conference.   

 

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

14 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

No arguments.  But it's also true that the Big 12 survived and that Texas and Oklahoma kept up financially during that window.  The PAC's priority is giving Oregon and Washington a reason to stay and those two will care most about keeping up financially, right now, than building for the future.  Staying at ten is the easiest way to keep those two happy.  The PAC is in a tough spot where keeping their big brands happy, and building for the future, are somewhat at odds with each other.

Even with Yormark as commissioner, the Big 12 probably doesn't expand if UT and OU remain in the conference.   

 

I'm not sure I believe your last sentence.

[TKthunder2 4981]

29 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

 

Being at ten makes the most sense.  They can divide up the CFP revenue into fewer slices, divide up whatever CCG revenue into fewer slices, etc. 

The CFP money isn’t going to come out as a lump sum anymore where the P5 conferences will get roughly the same money to divide. Both the Big Ten and SEC said it will be per school (so the 16 teams conferences will make more than the 10 team ones, but all schools in the P5+ND will make the same) with a major increase on getting bids and winning.

The scenario wing thrown around out West where staying at 10 gets then them more money per school since they get same annual guaranteed money as the B1G/SEC (before factoring in performance) is not realistic.

1 bid divided by 10 will not be more beneficial than 2 bids divided by 16. The Big Ten and SEC will not allow that math, and anyone thinking that the PAC12 staying at 10 will outsmart them is hopelessly naive.

[Texas Wahoo 3383]

35 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

The CFP money isn’t going to come out as a lump sum anymore where the P5 conferences will get roughly the same money to divide. Both the Big Ten and SEC said it will be per school (so the 16 teams conferences will make more than the 10 team ones, but all schools in the P5+ND will make the same) with a major increase on getting bids and winning.

The scenario wing thrown around out West where staying at 10 gets then them more money per school since they get same annual guaranteed money as the B1G/SEC (before factoring in performance) is not realistic.

1 bid divided by 10 will not be more beneficial than 2 bids divided by 16. The Big Ten and SEC will not allow that math, and anyone thinking that the PAC12 staying at 10 will outsmart them is hopelessly naive.

That's obviously true, but what are the odds that the Pac 12 is getting two bids even with 16 teams - seems pretty low.  1 bid divided by 10 will definitely be more beneficial than 1 bid divided by 16...

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

12 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

That's obviously true, but what are the odds that the Pac 12 is getting two bids even with 16 teams - seems pretty low.  1 bid divided by 10 will definitely be more beneficial than 1 bid divided by 16...

Meanwhile the SEC/Big will be consistently getting 2 bids and i'd wager 3 bids most years thus creating much more payout.

 

Above is using the criteria for the 12 team playoff and was put together by CBS Sports. USC is a non factor moving forward for PAC. But SEC/BIG each had 3 teams. Add in BIG/SEC most likely going to two best teams in the conference championship instead of division winners and that number is sure to stay around 3 teams per conference most years.

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

Even with Yormark as commissioner, the Big 12 probably doesn't expand if UT and OU remain in the conference.   

If Texas and Oklahoma stayed in the Big 12 they'd get Oregon and Washington.  They would have their pick of anyone else left in the Pac 12 plus the teams that they did add to get to 16 teams, though BYU is the only one from that group that would get serious consideration.  Hell, the Big 12 instead of the B1G might have landed USC and UCLA in that scenario.  USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington all in the same conference would get as much TV money as the B1G and the SEC.  For all the talk about the ratings of B1G and SEC teams they're not the ones that set the viewership record.  It was USC and Texas that played in the most watched CFB game of all time.  This is why ESPN and Fox manipulated events to get all their favorite horses into only 2 barns instead of 3 so they could minimize the amount of schedule filler teams they have to pay big bucks in order to get the teams they really want.

[closetohumping 17408]

4 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

If Texas and Oklahoma stayed in the Big 12 they'd get Oregon and Washington.  They would have their pick of anyone else left in the Pac 12 plus the teams that they did add to get to 16 teams, though BYU is the only one from that group that would get serious consideration.  Hell, the Big 12 instead of the B1G might have landed USC and UCLA in that scenario.  USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington all in the same conference would get as much TV money as the B1G and the SEC.  For all the talk about the ratings of B1G and SEC teams they're not the ones that set the viewership record.  It was USC and Texas that played in the most watched CFB game of all time.  This is why ESPN and Fox manipulated events to get all their favorite horses into only 2 barns instead of 3 so they could minimize the amount of schedule filler teams they have to pay big bucks in order to get the teams they really want.

If ESPN didn't stop it, we'd be together in the PAC 16

[camel at sea 589]

19 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

If Texas and Oklahoma stayed in the Big 12 they'd get Oregon and Washington.  They would have their pick of anyone else left in the Pac 12 plus the teams that they did add to get to 16 teams, though BYU is the only one from that group that would get serious consideration.  Hell, the Big 12 instead of the B1G might have landed USC and UCLA in that scenario.  USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington all in the same conference would get as much TV money as the B1G and the SEC.  For all the talk about the ratings of B1G and SEC teams they're not the ones that set the viewership record.  It was USC and Texas that played in the most watched CFB game of all time.  This is why ESPN and Fox manipulated events to get all their favorite horses into only 2 barns instead of 3 so they could minimize the amount of schedule filler teams they have to pay big bucks in order to get the teams they really want.

This is certainly true.  When I said the Big 12 wouldn't have expanded, I was referring to UCF/Cincy/UH/BYU.  

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[DFW Horn 6118]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

And the big 12 fired it's commissioner for being stagnant dog shit commissioner and the new one is actively expanding and trying to grow the conference. Who knows what the BIG will want to do as soon as they get a new commissioner as well. But staying stagnant in this ever evolving college football landscape is the worst decision they could make. 

I think the new, 16-team SEC is fine as is unless the networks wanna pay for FSU, Clemson, etc. Personally, I don't want more teams bc I like the idea of playing errbody twice every 4 years. Bigger than 16 is a clusterfuck.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

[DFW Horn 6118]

29 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

If ESPN didn't stop it, we'd be together in the PAC 16

But, I'm glad they did even though LHN was too ambitious. It was a nice bribe for UT to keep Texas athletics with ESPN.