Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17408]

3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

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.

I like the SEC.  I think owning football west of the Mississippi would've been great and the road trips, city wise are far better.  A tier  1 of:

 

Texas

USC

ou

Oregon

Washington

UCLA

 

The above is probably still behind the SEC but there would've been some good football and great markets.

[Trojan Man 429]

21 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

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

Right, I'll forever regret the sport's powers west of the Mississippi couldn't make it work with each other and instead joined up with Midwest/Southeast-centric conferences.  Of course I prefer B1G membership over Pac 12 membership but a USC/Texas/Oklahoma conference would have been ideal.  Networks used long term strategies to bait athletic departments with short term strategies into doing their bidding and I don't think that's good for the sport.

6 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

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

Got it, though BYU would be right there with any Pac 12 team after Oregon and Washington.  If BYU was still on the table I wonder if the Pac 12 presidents would get over themselves and invite them or stick to their guns as the conference dies.

3 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

The B1G's deal was delayed because they were busy jacking up the price and securing prime windows with multiple networks, the Pac 12's deal is delayed because nobody wants to give them more than a few McDonalds coupons and an over the pants handjob for their media rights.  But other than that one little detail it's tomato/tohmato.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[TrashMaster G 17395]

1 hour ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

[USC Traveler 488]

9 hours ago, LTbear said:

LOL

That’s what Utah people keep saying.

That their association with Stanford and Cal helped get them into AAU a few years ago and has boosted their research money substantially.

I think a lot of Utah fans are delusional, but I can see where building relationships throughout a conference could help them get the votes to be accepted.  Good old fashioned politics.

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

2 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

What do those tweets mean

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

What do those tweets mean

Jason Sheer is the UofA 247 writer. He is laughing at the walking back of a lot of things that have been said since February, and a lot of people who have told him that he is inaccurate in his reporting.

Locked on Pac12 is a youtube content provider who is implying that covering the Pac12 during this fiasco has not been fun, and/or will not be a viable job for much longer.

Just some Pac12-centric media responses. There are more, but I didn't want to make a bunch of posts.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Jabberwocky

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

10 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Jason Sheer is the UofA 247 writer. He is laughing at the walking back of a lot of things that have been said since February, and a lot of people who have told him that he is inaccurate in his reporting.

What’s the run down of his reporting

Edited April 6, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Jabberwocky 1666]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

What’s the run down of his reporting

He was saying that the Pac12 was not close to a deal back in Feb when the Pac12 released their statement from the presidents about consumating a tremendous deal in the near future. He also said since maybe January or December (maybe earlier?) that Arizona and other Pac12 schools were having discussions with the Big 12. 

He has also said that April 15 would be the beginning of some big decisions for UofA behind the scenes. As an aside, it is rumored that the President of UofA comes back from a trip to Kazaktstahn around the 15th of April as well. We will see if these statements are of any consequence.

[USC Traveler 488]

8 hours ago, camel at sea said:

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.  

In a vacuum, I'd agree, but I don't think UW and the Zeros are ever going to get into the BIG, so it would be worth it to set the B12 up as the clear 3rd strongest conference.  If the B12 doesn't kill the PAC off outright, there's a chance ESPN decides to merge the ACC leftovers with the PAC when the ACC comes apart in 10-12 years to be able to use the ACC/PAC leftovers as negotiating leverage against the B12 to keep costs down.

If the B12 absorbs the PAC, there would be no legit competition presented by the ACC leftovers, so the B12 would be in a strong negotiating position, and would have its pick of whoever the BIG and SEC don't take.

At that point, the B12 would be truly coast to coast, in a tier of their own in the CFB world- not making BIG/SEC money, but in an unassailable position as the next best conference/league.  

In the meantime, having all 10 remaining PAC schools in the B12 would enable both Friday and Saturday 7/7:30 PT kicks throughout the season, so they might come close to paying for themselves playing in a conference with teams from Texas, OK and other places that care about football.

[mdmost 42872]

I want to defend the Pac 12 because I enjoy the late night games and west coast games in general. But this ain't it, Pac 12.

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[TKthunder2 4981]

5 hours 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...

My point was a 10 team PAC10 versus a 16 team Big 12.

I don’t see a scenario where the PAC10+? in any form, is regularly getting 2 bids. The Big 12 on the other hand, without UT/OU, may have done it multiple times if the expanded CFP was in place with TCU, Baylor, Okie St, K State, and even Iowa St…and that’s without including UCF, BYU, Houston, and BYU’s occasional success over the past decade.

That was the basis of my 2 of 16 > 1 of 10. The SEC&B1G will likely pull in 3 bids regularly so it’s really not worth comparing to them.

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

PAC after dark on the CW!

[Uncle Nate 2097]

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

PAC after dark on the CW!

Lower tier games on MeTV.  So long Andy Griffith and Hogans Heroes reruns on Fri and Sat nights. 

[LTbear 4161]

3 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

That’s what Utah people keep saying.

That their association with Stanford and Cal helped get them into AAU a few years ago and has boosted their research money substantially.

I think a lot of Utah fans are delusional, but I can see where building relationships throughout a conference could help them get the votes to be accepted.  Good old fashioned politics.

I'm sure some Utah fans with zero understanding of academia think that, but they don't know what they're talking about. (For the record I'm a college prof who spent a combined seven years at Stanford and Cal). Utah has been working hard at doing everything right for AAU membership for decades. Their athletic conference had zilch to do with it. 

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

13 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Lower tier games on MeTV.  So long Andy Griffith and Hogans Heroes reruns on Fri and Sat nights. 

PBS sponsored by viewers like you. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[USC Traveler 488]

18 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Lower tier games on MeTV.  So long Andy Griffith and Hogans Heroes reruns on Fri and Sat nights. 

I'd rather watch the reruns than most of the lower tier PAC games.

The Johnny Cash Show was awesome.  Incredible guests, and he would play a song or two with them.

[USC Traveler 488]

14 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I'm sure some Utah fans with zero understanding of academia think that, but they don't know what they're talking about. (For the record I'm a college prof who spent a combined seven years at Stanford and Cal). Utah has been working hard at doing everything right for AAU membership for decades. Their athletic conference had zilch to do with it. 

That makes a lot more sense, and lines up with what their old AD (Chris Hill) said on Wilner's podcast a few weeks back.

I should have phrased my op differently to make it clear that was the sentiment from their fans and supposed "insiders".  LOL

[Uncle Nate 2097]

47 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I'd rather watch the reruns than most of the lower tier PAC games.

Me too. My “so long” was in lament. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Uncle Nate

[USC Traveler 488]

Can't wait to hear Wilner and Clownzano try to spin this as a positive.

As an example of how much Wilner keeps moving the goalposts on the WAC10's timeline for their deal, this is from mid-December.

He was saying this would get done early in the new year.

Quote

Commissioner George Kliavkoff has spent months negotiating a new media rights contract, which he will present to the schools for approval sometime in early 2023.

The final steps had been on hold until the regents resolved UCLA’s situation.

“We didn’t think it made sense to close a media rights deal before that decision was made,” Kliavkoff explained last week during a college athletics forum in Las Vegas.

//

If Amazon or Apple or Turner or any other newcomer wants to take the Power Five plunge during the remainder of this decade, there is only one conference with rights available.

Can the Pac-12 take maximum advantage?

We should know early in 2023.

 

Quote

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2F2022%2F12%2F15%2Fpac-12-media-rights-whats-next-for-the-conference-after-uclas-official-departure%2F

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by USC Traveler

[Uncle Nate 2097]

Well, “early” is relative. 

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

PAC after dark on the CW!

For the halftime shows they can do paternity tests with Maury featuring the players and coaches from the teams in the game.

[USC Traveler 488]

7 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I'll forever regret the sport's powers west of the Mississippi couldn't make it work with each other and instead joined up with Midwest/Southeast-centric conferences.  

.......Networks used long term strategies to bait athletic departments with short term strategies into doing their bidding

There was more to it than that, though.  The PAC Presidents and Commisar Scott were so intent on handicapping USC and boosting their own programs through equal revenue sharing that they couldn't see past that to realize they were signing the PAC's death warrant by not allowing UT to have the LHN in the PAC.

If they had allowed schools to keep T3 rights, the PAC 16 would have become a reality.

UT, OU, USC, etc would have made a little more money than other schools, but the vast majority of the money would have been equal, and would be exponentially larger than what the PAC is looking at now.

Scott and the PAC Presidents' arrogance, envy and incompetence had as much or more to do with where things ended up than the networks.

 

//

 

And I'm fine with where things ended up.  UT in the SEC is going to be great to watch, and I love USC in the BIG.  We've got a lot more in common with OSU, UM, Wiscy and other schools that care about football than we do with most of the schools in the PAC, who don't invest in football and don't care about it.

[USC Traveler 488]

32 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Well, “early” is relative. 

True, but by mid-January Wilner was saying that the PAC needs a deal by March.

Quote

 

On a Wednesday afternoon in early December, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff took the stage at an intercollegiate athletics forum in Las Vegas and addressed the timing of a media rights deal for his conference.

Six weeks later — and 202 days since USC and UCLA announced their plans to enter the Big Ten in 2024 — the Pac-12 still does not have a media deal.

It needs one, soon. How soon? Fixing a date is a fool’s errand, but a targeted timeframe isn’t unreasonable. So here’s our window: The conference needs a deal by March.

If the process bleeds into the spring, anxiety on the 10 remaining campuses will soar. Presidents and athletic directors will seek escape hatches. Options that once seemed untenable will grow more attractive.

“The Pac-12 cannot get overconfident,” said a Hotline source in the sports media space. “If we know anything about college sports, it’s that you can’t assume the status quo will last.”

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2Fpac-12-media-rights-kliavkoff-sees-no-need-to-rush-but-the-strategy-carries-risk-this-is-realignment-after-all%2F

 

 

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

In a vacuum, I'd agree, but I don't think UW and the Zeros are ever going to get into the BIG, so it would be worth it to set the B12 up as the clear 3rd strongest conference.  If the B12 doesn't kill the PAC off outright, there's a chance ESPN decides to merge the ACC leftovers with the PAC when the ACC comes apart in 10-12 years to be able to use the ACC/PAC leftovers as negotiating leverage against the B12 to keep costs down.

If the B12 absorbs the PAC, there would be no legit competition presented by the ACC leftovers, so the B12 would be in a strong negotiating position, and would have its pick of whoever the BIG and SEC don't take.

At that point, the B12 would be truly coast to coast, in a tier of their own in the CFB world- not making BIG/SEC money, but in an unassailable position as the next best conference/league.  

In the meantime, having all 10 remaining PAC schools in the B12 would enable both Friday and Saturday 7/7:30 PT kicks throughout the season, so they might come close to paying for themselves playing in a conference with teams from Texas, OK and other places that care about football.

The Big 12 is already ahead of the PAC, before Oregon and Washington have gone anywhere.  Geography and local fan interest have seen to that.  Adding the Four Corners, without UO and UW, would widen the gap.  There's no real need to deliver a kill shot to the PAC.  They can wait Oregon and Washington out.  Those two can hold out on the CW / Ion / MeTV with their little brothers for one contract, maybe, but they won't do it for two.  The ACC deal is so shockingly long that the B12 and PAC will both be back at the table again 4-5 years before the ACC contract is up, and the Big 12 should be in even better position vis a vis the PAC than they are now, at that point.  

As for a PAC/ACC merger?  It doesn't make a ton of sense.  There's not enough good Tier 1 inventory in those two conferences, even combined, to justify flying them from coast to coast.  Oregon vs. Clemson, as a TV matchup, is a tier below Bama vs. Texas or Ohio St vs. Penn St.  The bad inventory in that type of merger doesn't get more interesting either, only more expensive.  BC vs. Cal?  Wake vs. Washington St?  If I'm Yormark, I'm not worried enough about that possibility to let it sway me into taking on dead weight.  

[USC Traveler 488]

38 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Me too. My “so long” was in lament. 

Hopefully those lower tier games end up on a streamer instead.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

7 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The Big 12 is already ahead of the PAC, before Oregon and Washington have gone anywhere.  Geography and local fan interest have seen to that.  Adding the Four Corners, without UO and UW, would widen the gap.  There's no real need to deliver a kill shot to the PAC.  They can wait Oregon and Washington out.  Those two can hold out on the CW / Ion / MeTV with their little brothers for one contract, maybe, but they won't do it for two.  The ACC deal is so shockingly long that the B12 and PAC will both be back at the table again 4-5 years before the ACC contract is up, and the Big 12 should be in even better position vis a vis the PAC than they are now, at that point.  

As for a PAC/ACC merger?  It doesn't make a ton of sense.  There's not enough good Tier 1 inventory in those two conferences, even combined, to justify flying them from coast to coast.  Oregon vs. Clemson, as a TV matchup, is a tier below Bama vs. Texas or Ohio St vs. Penn St.  The bad inventory in that type of merger doesn't get more interesting either, only more expensive.  BC vs. Cal?  Wake vs. Washington St?  If I'm Yormark, I'm not worried enough about that possibility to let it sway me into taking on dead weight.  

Fair enough.  I think there's a value in certainty, given "never say never" in realignment, so I'd be willing to do it, but I get where you're coming from.

If you allow WSU and OSU to come along, you ensure all of it happening, so that if the 4C schools are on the fence, you get everyone to come over together.

But I agree that the B12 holds the leverage, and if the 4C schools make the jump, UW and UO probably follow anyway.  

 

[Trojan Man 429]

29 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

There was more to it than that, though.  The PAC Presidents and Commisar Scott were so intent on handicapping USC and boosting their own programs through equal revenue sharing that they couldn't see past that to realize they were signing the PAC's death warrant by not allowing UT to have the LHN in the PAC.

If they had allowed schools to keep T3 rights, the PAC 16 would have become a reality.

UT, OU, USC, etc would have made a little more money than other schools, but the vast majority of the money would have been equal, and would be exponentially larger than what the PAC is looking at now.

Scott and the PAC Presidents' arrogance, envy and incompetence had as much or more to do with where things ended up than the networks.

 

//

 

And I'm fine with where things ended up.  UT in the SEC is going to be great to watch, and I love USC in the BIG.  We've got a lot more in common with OSU, UM, Wiscy and other schools that care about football than we do with most of the schools in the PAC, who don't invest in football and don't care about it.

Right, I'm well aware of how the rest of the Pac 12 constantly screwing USC has played a part in the conference's downfall.  But USC still has some ownership in how it played out.  USC had terrible leadership at that time.  If Folt and Bohn were in charge when the Pac 16 was coming to fruition I think they would have thrown USC's weight around and dictated to the nutswinger Pac 10 schools that they need to shut up, get over themselves and enjoy cashing the checks that will be generated by USC, Texas and Oklahoma.  Instead of using its leverage as the Pac 12's only blueblood USC's spineless leaders allowed the spiteful little chucklefucks in Berkeley and Corvallis to get too big for their britches and make shortsighted decisions that ultimately killed the conference.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[USC Traveler 488]

8 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Right, I'm well aware of how the rest of the Pac 12 constantly screwing USC has played a part in the conference's downfall.  But USC still has some ownership in how it played out.  USC had terrible leadership at that time.  If Folt and Bohn were in charge when the Pac 16 was coming to fruition I think they would have thrown USC's weight around and dictated to the nutswinger Pac 10 schools that they need to shut up, get over themselves and enjoy cashing the checks that will be generated by USC, Texas and Oklahoma.  Instead of using its leverage as the Pac 12's only blueblood USC's spineless leaders allowed the spiteful little chucklefucks in Berkeley and Corvallis to get too big for their britches and make shortsighted decisions that ultimately killed the conference.

Agree 100%.
 

But none of that had anything to do with ESPN and Fox.  

Self-inflicted wounds by the PAC- including USC for agreeing to it due to incompetence and weakness of Haden and Nikias.

[Trojan Man 429]

15 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Agree 100%.
 

But none of that had anything to do with ESPN and Fox.  

Self-inflicted wounds by the PAC- including USC for agreeing to it due to incompetence and weakness of Haden and Nikias.

The long term play by ESPN was to offer Texas the LHN to keep them in the Big 12 long enough to eventually move them into the SEC and prevent the formation of a third super conference.  ESPN also overpaid the Big 12 after they shrunk to 10 teams to help keep Texas and Oklahoma in the conference until it was time for the SEC to invite them.  The short term strategy by the Pac 10 schools (not all of them of course but enough) was the bickering over T3 rights that sank the Pac 16.  The Pac 12's have nots were being penny wise and pound foolish when they were hung up over T3 rights, and I'm guessing ESPN knew they'd get that reaction when they offered the LHN.

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

Holy copium!

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/04/06/hotline-mailbag-media-rights-and-expansion-timelines-how-long-could-this-go-the-linear-calculation-sdsus-wait-survival-odds-and-more/

Down at the bottom of the above link is some Q&A that I didn't post in the body of his article.

Quote

By JON WILNER | jwilner@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: April 6, 2023 at 11:50 a.m. | UPDATED: April 7, 2023 at 3:25 a.m.

 

Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Which will come first: Spring, or a Pac-12 media rights deal? Also, what’s the absolute latest that anyone in the past has signed a new media deal? Still seems like the Pac-12 can drag this out another six months or so and be just fine. — @Taquineur

Well, spring is here, and there’s no deal. Nor does it seem like the Pac-12 is on the brink of announcing a deal.

Skip Ad

We can speculate on reasons for the holdup, with one possibility being the media rights piece and the other being expansion: The legal aspect of drawing up contracts and formally adding members takes time.

If the Pac-12 intends to land three planes at once — reach a media deal; sign a grant-of-rights agreement; and officially add new schools — before it announces anything, well, that could draw this saga out for several more weeks, at least.

We don’t know if that’s the case, but it seems reasonable to conclude the Pac-12 won’t announce a media deal until the grant-of-rights component has been signed.

Why? Because without the schools binding their revenue to the conference, the media deal is meaningless. And the deal itself probably depends on an expansion decision, because of both the media markets and the game inventory available.

So we have a difficult time envisioning a scenario in which any of those pieces are handled — and announced — separately. (To be clear: That is merely Hotline speculation. On this piece, too, the conference has been radio silent.)

But if nothing is announced until it’s all announced, and the announcement includes formal membership invitations, that could be part of the holdup.

Which brings us to the risk factor of a delay.

The Hotline has argued repeatedly that time and risk move in lockstep in the realignment game.

The longer it takes to secure a media deal, and lock in your membership, the greater the chance of disruption and, potentially, extinction.

That disruption could result from external forces (economic factors, for example). Or it could be internal, with a university president or two losing faith in the process and/or simply panicking.

In a formal sense, you’re correct: The Pac-12 could wait several more months before signing a media deal and grant-of-rights agreement that take hold in the summer of 2024.

For context, consider several previous timelines:

— The Pac-12 announced its current deals with ESPN and Fox in May 2011 for a contract cycle that began in July 2012 (timeframe: 14 months out).

— The Big Ten’s current deal reportedly was agreed to in principle in June 2016 for a contract cycle that began in July 2017 (timeline: 13 months out). However, the conference didn’t formally announce that contract until late July 2017.

“We have labored in bringing our agreements to maturity,” explained then-commissioner Jim Delany. “The (game) selection I wouldn’t say is tricky, but it is sensitive. Any change requires you to go back.”

— And in case anyone has forgotten, the Big Ten announced its new contract in August 2022 — after adding USC and UCLA — for a contract cycle that begins in July 2023 (timeframe: 11 months out).

Put another way: If the L.A. schools hadn’t announced their departures last summer, forcing the Pac-12 to accelerate its jump to the negotiating table, the conference would be in the heart of the window right now … just as it was back in 2011.

As long as the presidents don’t panic and external forces remain at bay, the Pac-12 could wait until June or July to finalize and announce the three pieces.

The risk would be substantial. But there’s nothing within the contractual guts of the media rights process that prevents an agreement from being reached 11 or 12 months prior to the start of a new cycle.

 

My guy your conference got leaped from by a competitive conference and secured a deal before you.

Edited April 7, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[closetohumping 17408]

5 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

The long term play by ESPN was to offer Texas the LHN to keep them in the Big 12 long enough to eventually move them into the SEC and prevent the formation of a third super conference.  ESPN also overpaid the Big 12 after they shrunk to 10 teams to help keep Texas and Oklahoma in the conference until it was time for the SEC to invite them.  The short term strategy by the Pac 10 schools (not all of them of course but enough) was the bickering over T3 rights that sank the Pac 16.  The Pac 12's have nots were being penny wise and pound foolish when they were hung up over T3 rights, and I'm guessing ESPN knew they'd get that reaction when they offered the LHN.

There was no way us or any school would turn down a chance to have its own network.  Pac would’ve been great with Texas and ou imo.  Great for cfb as well.  But espn played the longish game. 

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

50 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

There was no way us or any school would turn down a chance to have its own network.  Pac would’ve been great with Texas and ou imo.  Great for cfb as well.  But espn played the longish game. 

If you're talking about what's good for college football, you wouldn't have broken up the old Big 12.  The 6 BCS conferences of the turn of the century was much better for college football than the Pac 16 or what's going today are.  Hell, you could go back to like the 1991 conference affiliations and that was honestly probably better for the sport than the 2001 version.  Every conference was tightly regional and drivable among all schools (save the Pac 10).

What's best for ESPN and Fox is consolidating the biggest brands, and that's going to hurt the game in the long run.

[closetohumping 17408]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If you're talking about what's good for college football, you wouldn't have broken up the old Big 12.  The 6 BCS conferences of the turn of the century was much better for college football than the Pac 16 or what's going today are.  Hell, you could go back to like the 1991 conference affiliations and that was honestly probably better for the sport than the 2001 version.  Every conference was tightly regional and drivable among all schools (save the Pac 10).

What's best for ESPN and Fox is consolidating the biggest brands, and that's going to hurt the game in the long run.

And even if they weren’t drivable there was definitely commonality among all of the pac schools.  I look at it from a Texas perspective.  If it was inevitable I thought the pac made the most sense

[Richard Kimball 1492]

7 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Right, I'm well aware of how the rest of the Pac 12 constantly screwing USC has played a part in the conference's downfall.  But USC still has some ownership in how it played out.  USC had terrible leadership at that time.  If Folt and Bohn were in charge when the Pac 16 was coming to fruition I think they would have thrown USC's weight around and dictated to the nutswinger Pac 10 schools that they need to shut up, get over themselves and enjoy cashing the checks that will be generated by USC, Texas and Oklahoma.  Instead of using its leverage as the Pac 12's only blueblood USC's spineless leaders allowed the spiteful little chucklefucks in Berkeley and Corvallis to get too big for their britches and make shortsighted decisions that ultimately killed the conference.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

42 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

And even if they weren’t drivable there was definitely commonality among all of the pac schools.  I look at it from a Texas perspective.  If it was inevitable I thought the pac made the most sense

I think in an era of forced consolidation, the SEC makes way more sense for Texas and OU than the Pac 16 would have.  The Pac 16 would have far worse geography, and only dangle a couple of blue bloods to beef up the home slate.  Add in the cultural mismatch, and over half the schools simply not giving a fuck, and IMO that league would not have worked long term.

[USC Traveler 488]

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think in an era of forced consolidation, the SEC makes way more sense for Texas and OU than the Pac 16 would have.  The Pac 16 would have far worse geography, and only dangle a couple of blue bloods to beef up the home slate.  Add in the cultural mismatch, and over half the schools simply not giving a fuck, and IMO that league would not have worked long term.

Agreed.

PAC 16 would have been a great conference for a number of years, but in the long, long run, consolidation was inevitable.  It has been ever since the 80’s, when UGA and OU beat the NZAA in court to get control of their tv rights.

We’ve seen it over and over- the most successful conferences picking off quality programs and/or markets, generating more money, and making themselves even more attractive for their next expansion targets- all the while weakening the other conferences.  
 

There has been a steady trend for 30 years of bigger conferences with more brands, and fewer conferences that matter.

The SEC/BIG finally got so strong that the revenue, exposure and recruiting advantages made it impossible for schools like UT and USC to stay in the B12 and PAC.

UT, OU and USC ended up in the conference that best fit each school.

Like Thanos, this was inevitable.

[closetohumping 17408]

I just think Fox could’ve owned crb west of the Mississippi.   With USC, Oregon and ou aligned with us, we may have been much more likely to not look around

[TrashMaster G 17395]

11 hours ago, LTbear said:

I'm sure some Utah fans with zero understanding of academia think that, but they don't know what they're talking about. (For the record I'm a college prof who spent a combined seven years at Stanford and Cal). Utah has been working hard at doing everything right for AAU membership for decades. Their athletic conference had zilch to do with it. 

Who sponsored their membership?

 

 

9 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

There was more to it than that, though.  The PAC Presidents and Commisar Scott were so intent on handicapping USC and boosting their own programs through equal revenue sharing that they couldn't see past that to realize they were signing the PAC's death warrant by not allowing UT to have the LHN in the PAC.

If they had allowed schools to keep T3 rights, the PAC 16 would have become a reality.

UT, OU, USC, etc would have made a little more money than other schools, but the vast majority of the money would have been equal, and would be exponentially larger than what the PAC is looking at now.

Scott and the PAC Presidents' arrogance, envy and incompetence had as much or more to do with where things ended up than the networks.

 

THIS!

[closetojumping 62260]

They’re talking a ton about the Pac 12 on XM84 this morning. It’s pretty interesting. I hadn’t checked this thread in a few days so I didn’t know the CW story until Childers and Neuheisel were talking with Barrett Sallee and it came up. I legitimately do not know if Directv carries CW, but I assume they do. Hope they do. But holy shit. Where is Raycom in all of this? Is Jefferson Pilot just not interested? 

Neuheisel always does a few things every time realignment comes up, consistent as the sun rising in the east:

1) carries water for Larry Scott

2) carries water for George Kliavkov

3) laments the exit of UCLA and USC while refusing to consider even the remote possibility that the PAC 12 could break up.

4) says that the PAC 12 should be earnestly working strategic scheduling with the Big 12 and ACC where all teams are playing each other through the decade and then taking that to the negotiating table. 

On item 4, I am sure the reasons why that would not work have been discussed here ad nauseum, but honestly, it doesn’t sound like the worst idea. 

Meanwhile, Childers always has to fucking bring up the inane notion of the SEC going after Arizona and ASU to add another time zone. 

[BurntOrange&White 39706]

9 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

4) says that the PAC 12 should be earnestly working strategic scheduling with the Big 12 and ACC where all teams are playing each other through the decade and then taking that to the negotiating table. 

On item 4, I am sure the reasons why that would not work have been discussed here ad nauseum, but honestly, it doesn’t sound like the worst idea. 

I believe the PAC and Big 12 were in some discussion about this but those talks broke down. From what I recall and some others here could chime in the PAC had arrogance about themselves about this deal and so of course the talks broke off and went completely different directions.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

When UT and OU left, the remaining 8 wanted to merge with the Pac, and naturally the Pac scoffed at the idea and here we are.

 

”What we’ve got here, is failure…. To communicate.”

[USC Traveler 488]

19 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

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.

Agreed that the SEC/BIG will be getting 3 bids each the vast majority of the time.

BIG/SEC- 6 bids

ACC, B12, PAC, G5 champs- 4 bids

2 bids left.  

I could see a lot of years where the BIG/SEC get 7, and the second place B12 team gets the other slot.

There will be a fair number of years where one of the BIG/SEC will have all their top teams with one or two losses due to the schedule breaking favorably and the top teams evenly distributing the losses.  I'm sure Sankey will try to set the schedules up in this way, even with a 3-6-6.  The BIG will try as well.

Overly-simplistic example:  UT beats LSU but loses once (to the Vols), and doesn't have Bama or UGA on their schedule.  

The Vols lose to Bama, but win their other games.  Bama loses to LSU, but beats everyone else.  UGA loses only to Bama.  

All four have 1 loss.  None are getting left out for the 2nd place ACC team.  Overly simplified, but it makes the point.

Most years, one or two of two of these teams will have two losses, but they still get in over the 2nd place team from the ACC and PAC.

Ultimately, this is a tv product that will be controlled by ESPN and FOX/CBS/NBC.  Which teams will they want to see make the cut for the last couple of spots ?

 

[closetohumping 17408]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

When UT and OU left, the remaining 8 wanted to merge with the Pac, and naturally the Pac scoffed at the idea and here we are.

 

”What we’ve got here, is failure…. To communicate.”

But USC has to shoulder some of that blame.

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

I just think Fox could’ve owned crb west of the Mississippi.   With USC, Oregon and ou aligned with us, we may have been much more likely to not look around

I agree that it would have been fun, but I don't think it would have lasted for more than a decade or two probably, because aggy was always going to end up in the SEC.  They'd been thinking about it for years.  

They would have eventually left the PAC16 for the same reasons they left the B12- butthurt little brother complex.

And Slive/Sankey/whoever would have always been ready to take them as a way to get into TX.  

And once aggy was in the SEC, things would have played out the same way most likely, with UT making the move to protect recruiting and keep aggy in their place.

[closetohumping 17408]

1 minute ago, USC Traveler said:

I agree that it would have been fun, but I don't think it would have lasted for more than a decade or two probably, because aggy was always going to end up in the SEC.  They'd been thinking about it for years.  

They would have eventually left the PAC16 for the same reasons they left the B12- butthurt little brother complex.

And Slive/Sankey/whoever would have always been ready to take them as a way to get into TX.  

And once aggy was in the SEC, things would have played out the same way most likely, with UT making the move to protect recruiting and keep aggy in their place.

True.  We just took away aggy's one recruiting advantage.  Even if we had gone to the B1G, a shrewd aggy coach would say "want to play in a league full of NFL players or in Wisconsin in November?"