Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2208]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Why do they keep referencing the BIG 10 deal as that is relevant to the PAC negotiations? 

Because they got it done 11 months before the season started.   They're trying to paint the Pac more runway.  

[Hurtlocker 2208]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I’m saying brand consolidation will inevitably dilute and lower the status of some of today’s brands.  Those matchups that are marquee now won’t be as appealing when the schools involved are battling to go .500.  And all the fanbases on the outside (to whatever extent that happens) will lose interest.

My opinion is that the regionality of college football is part and parcel with the passion for the game.  Especially in places with no NFL team.  Obviously I’m biased, but I honestly think if brand consolidation goes much further, it will result in decreased national interest in the sport - which is what I mean when I say “good for the sport”.

This is true.   The upside is the brands high is higher, but their low is higher too.   When good, Texas/Bama or Texas/Georgia will be a behemoth of a game, but with each loss that high becomes a bit less high.   Tennesee is a good example, when they were strugglebus, they drew about 3m less than when they were running Bama out of the game.

To get a huge game on TV:

• It has to be on a major channel.   CBS/ABC/FOX/NBC and slightly behind is ESPN.   (then any cable channel > Any conference Network > Any streaming service)
• It has to be marketed well.   CBS is the king of this, ABC and Fox are slightly behind, and NBC better figure it out quick now that they wrote a big check.
• It has to be close.    No matter who is playing if the game is a blow out in the second, people tune out.   To get the massive numbers it has to go down to the last 5 minutes.
• It has to be FOR something.    Title Race?   Championship?    The only reason outside those that draw are like Made for TV events to start the season because we want football back.

That's it really.   Brands factor in, but they're multipliers.   They'll add audience, but the audience they add depends on the above.  Case in point, last years CFP:

• Afternoon game: TCU/Michigan.   Checks all the boxes above and drew 21.7m viewers at 4pm, with a 10 rating (meaning it had 10% of all viewers watching TV)
• Prime game: Georgia/Ohio State.   Again, checks everything above, close game, etc.   It drew 22.45m with a 9.8 rating.
• Championship game, TCU/Georgia.   Did not check the boxes as the game was over in the first quarter - 17.2m with an 8.7 rating.

So, having two brands in a game didn't provide as huge of a multiplier as you'd imagine with having one.  TCU pulled its weight considering Michigan/Ohio State to get into the Big Ten Title drew 17m.   Both games hovered around 22m, because they were close and good games.

To your other point, its a bit of give and take.   Having all the brands together allows them to increase the one thing they do sell, the regular season, with the knowledge of at least two of their brands will be in it at the end of the season.   That does mean that many brands will be sitting it out more then they're used to.   For instance I'd be shocked if OU duplicated the conference championship run in the SEC it had in the B12.    There will be more 8 win seasons and less 12.  But, you're also in the biggest marketing machine all year round.

The upside for those not in the top two, is that your negative is a lower regular season number/lower publicity, but your opportunity to build your brand is increased, due to a higher chance to play for a Natty.   Look at TCU this year.   It doesn't matter that they got their ass stomped in the champ game.   What matters is that 40m people watched TCU's logo flash up repeatedly and have talking heads market them for weeks.   Its probably a half bill in free publicity.   Do that enough and your regular season games start getting watched by more people, meaning the next contract is bigger.

[BurntOrange&White 39700]

43 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Because they got it done 11 months before the season started.   They're trying to paint the Pac more runway.  

The circumstance is entirely different though haha!

[Hurtlocker 2208]

11 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The circumstance is entirely different though haha!

hahah, right?   Yeah, the Big Ten also probably had most of it done before Fox went, "hold up, let's snag LA" so the Big Ten turned to NBC and CBS and went, "you all ok if we wait a bit for USC?"

BIG difference from the Pac's approach:

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah I don't see the motivation either.   They have the ACC locked down for 13 more years.  Let's say the SEC pays out $60m on their current deal for current members, those four schools you are discussing are not equal ads.   Every conference has a unequalness, there is no way around that.   The difference in the ACC isn't that the low is freakishly lower than the SEC's low, its that the high isn't anywhere near the SEC's high.   I haven't pulled the numbers this year to run a straight comparison, but some key numbers from last year:

• Last year's ACC championship game drew 3.5 million in prime time.   Three times as many turned into Michigan/Purdue at the same time.   Purdue.  The Pac drew twice as many on Friday and both the SEC and Big 12's championships were seen by three times the audience.
• Miami v Clemson last year drew 1.4m on ESPN in the coveted 3:30 eastern window.   Three times as many turned into Ohio State/Maryland.   Maryland.
• FSU v Miami last year drew 1.5m on ABC in prime time.   Texas Tech/TCU drew a million more than day, at noon.
• FSU v Clemson did the best in the regular season last year of the bunch, pulling 3.4m in prime time on ABC.   Of course Penn State/Michigan doubled that at noon while Alabama/Tennessee quadrupled that at 3:30.

On quick look, unless an ACC team is playing Notre Dame, the numbers are not impressive.    They're not $60m numbers.   If those schools were generating 8-12m when playing each other OR competing with the SEC/B1G team that played opposite them, then maybe.   But neither of those is happening.

EDIT: also factor into ESPN's non-motivation, ND is currently locked into the ACC in all other sports with a clause that if they join any league before 2036, it will be the ACC.   Why would ESPN want to accelerate the move of ND to Fox/NBC?  ND on the road is one of the consistently best games for ESPN in the ACC.   Last year:

• ND/USC - 6.7m
• ND/Clemson - 3.3m
• ND/UNC - 3.5m
• ND/Cal - 2.9m

ND is likely the only property hanging a flag in the ACC's offices who could command the money in the current SEC/B10 deals.

 

Those numbers, and the context of how they compare to other games that day, are brutal.  

You'd make a good trial lawyer my friend.

//

I do think FSU and Miami will be worth the type of money that other BIG teams get- not because of their tv value alone, but their holistic value- massive new state for BTN, and access to FL recruiting (for both athletes and students), in addition to the value they would bring as a tv draw vs OSU, UM, USC, PSU.

None of those things apply to the SEC, though, as they are already in FL, and as you pointed out in an earlier post, the SEC will already have 8 top tiers brands when UT and OU join.  The BIG only has four- OSU, UM, USC, PSU.  There is a clear drop to Wiscy, MSU, NE and IA, so adding FSU and Miami to BIG slate would be a bigger boost for the BIG than for the SEC.

I agree with TK, though, that the BIG would prefer not to add them on an island.  The BIG's best shot at landing the FL schools would be to bring in all of UNC, UVA, Duke, GT, FSU and Miami as a block.  This would end the ACC and force ND to the BIG.  On the whole, the BIG would gain a lot of value adding all of those states for the markets and recruiting.

It will be interesting to see how much playing defense is worth to ESPN/SEC in 10-12 years when the ACC deal starts getting closer to the end.

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Zero motivation? I mean if they want to keep the ACC around with teams that actually justify general interest, I’d say that motivation. If they don’t give FSU/Miami/UNC more money sooner rather than later, what are the odds those schools would want to continue their association with ESPN either by joining the SEC or by staying in the ACC and continuing their partnership with them?

They have a motivation. Now in these belt tightening days of TV$ is that enough to override their greed?

FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC see themselves as worth the same money as Maryland and South Carolina. Now they obviously won’t get that by staying in the ACC, but if ESPN doesn’t give anything then there won’t be an ACC worth broadcasting come 2036.

I see ESPN pushing for another 5 year extension and giving the ACC the same money as the Big 12 is getting (maybe a little more to make them feel good) in exchange for 9 conference games and a better OOC slate (say all ACC teams have to work with ESPN to schedule 2 P5 teams a year going forward). The goal is to keep the Big Ten away and provide ND a home to keep them out of the Big Ten (where ESPN will have even less access to the Irish).

I don't think ESPN is under any delusion that the ACC is going to last past 2036.  They see where this is going, and are a huge force that has driven consolidation.

As you pointed out, they are retrenching their spending on sports rights, and the ACC is a bargain.  They have no motivation to give that up.

When the ACC comes apart, if ESPN and Sankey can get the schools on board to offer FSU, FSU will go SEC, no matter how they feel about ESPN.

The big question I keep coming back to is will the SEC schools want to add FSU and Clemson and make them much more formidable as competitors ?

None of us know the answer, and it will be a long time before we find out imo.

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I’m saying brand consolidation will inevitably dilute and lower the status of some of today’s brands.  Those matchups that are marquee now won’t be as appealing when the schools involved are battling to go .500.  

.....

Obviously I’m biased, but I honestly think if brand consolidation goes much further, it will result in decreased national interest in the sport

This is a potential problem, but this is one of the reasons I don't think Vandy, MS State, UK, IN, NW, Rutgers, etc will get kicked out of their conferences in the future as a lot of people have predicted.  Those teams are getting paid to take the Ls, as Bud Elliot says.

NFL has 32 teams.  So will the BIG/SEC in 2024, with many of those in markets without an NFL team.  There's room for more expansion.

With a BIG18/20/24 and SEC18/20/22, we'd end up with somewhere between 36-44 teams, with both conferences having a number of teams getting paid to take Ls and keep the top brands's records looking better.

[Loose Stool 112]

There is a lot of activity on the Arizona board this morning with one guy who had been adamant that no PAC team would leave for the Big 12.  Apparently, he got some news and now has changed his tune after MONTHS of fighting with everyone that Arizona would never leave.  Nothing specific yet but it is believed to be related to Colorado and Arizona (and possibly more) moving to the Big 12 and being announced soon.  For what it is worth, this poster shared the info with Jason Scheer who validated the info and brings some credibility to the rumor.

[BurntOrange&White 39700]

Fuck the PAC, hope it dies.

[bullet 1596]

50 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

hahah, right?   Yeah, the Big Ten also probably had most of it done before Fox went, "hold up, let's snag LA" so the Big Ten turned to NBC and CBS and went, "you all ok if we wait a bit for USC?"

BIG difference from the Pac's approach:

As I recall they pretty much had it done in early June, but then had to work out all the coordination between the different media companies.

[DanTheHorn 4902]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I’m saying brand consolidation will inevitably dilute and lower the status of some of today’s brands.  Those matchups that are marquee now won’t be as appealing when the schools involved are battling to go .500.  And all the fanbases on the outside (to whatever extent that happens) will lose interest.

My opinion is that the regionality of college football is part and parcel with the passion for the game.  Especially in places with no NFL team.  Obviously I’m biased, but I honestly think if brand consolidation goes much further, it will result in decreased national interest in the sport - which is what I mean when I say “good for the sport”.

The Cowboys have not won shit for the last 25 years and people still can't help and talk about them at every turn as America's team. Constant bigger match-ups means more exposure for all these brands and no one will care about the record because they will be watching. So instead of watching the two big games (LSU & Auburn) Bama has traditionally had per year we may be watching 4 or 5. So they won't go 11-1 and instead will go 8-4 and miss the playoffs or 9-3 and still make the playoffs. Exposure, exposure, exposure and brand recognition. The Cowboys that are still America's Team have proven you don't have to win you just have to make it into the playoffs on a consistent basis.

Edited April 11, 2023 by DanTheHorn
Was not clear that 8-4 would miss play-offs but 9-3 would be sufficient for blue blood brands to make play-offs

[bullet 1596]

28 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I don't think ESPN is under any delusion that the ACC is going to last past 2036.  They see where this is going, and are a huge force that has driven consolidation.

As you pointed out, they are retrenching their spending on sports rights, and the ACC is a bargain.  They have no motivation to give that up.

When the ACC comes apart, if ESPN and Sankey can get the schools on board to offer FSU, FSU will go SEC, no matter how they feel about ESPN.

The big question I keep coming back to is will the SEC schools want to add FSU and Clemson and make them much more formidable as competitors ?

None of us know the answer, and it will be a long time before we find out imo.

I don't think there is any doubt they take them.  They want all the big dogs in their own pen.

There are 6 big dogs left.  UW, Oregon and Notre Dame are not joining the SEC.  That leaves FSU, Clemson and Miami.  At one point FSU had more value in the ACC than in the SEC.  But now, big matchups matter more.  You see it in the ratings.  They add more to the SEC than to the ACC.  And with the rivalries, that offsets the state duplication, so I don't see them going to the Big 10 if the SEC is an option.

 

Clemson is the closest school to Georgia other than Georgia Tech.  That has always been a pretty fierce rivalry.  Just hasn't been played much since the SEC went to 8 conference games.  They recruit all the same people.

I don't see the SEC as a conference that is worried about competition.  

 

[camel at sea 589]

18 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

This is a potential problem, but this is one of the reasons I don't think Vandy, MS State, UK, IN, NW, Rutgers, etc will get kicked out of their conferences in the future as a lot of people have predicted.  Those teams are getting paid to take the Ls, as Bud Elliot says.

NFL has 32 teams.  So will the BIG/SEC in 2024, with many of those in markets without an NFL team.  There's room for more expansion.

With a BIG18/20/24 and SEC18/20/22, we'd end up with somewhere between 36-44 teams, with both conferences having a number of teams getting paid to take Ls and keep the top brands's records looking better.

If you've got teams who are getting paid to take the Ls, it really helps if they're basketball schools.  KU got kicked around for a decade in the Big 12, but they were ripping off Big 12 men's basketball titles year after year and their AD was relatively happy.  Kentucky is somewhat similar in the SEC, historically.  

That said, if you're the SEC and you find yourself in a situation where you've consolidated too many big football brands (not enough wins to go around) then it would be really convenient to have a financial reason to add basketball schools.  Sankey's behavior re: March Madness is worth keeping an eye on.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

8 minutes ago, Loose Stool said:

There is a lot of activity on the Arizona board this morning with one guy who had been adamant that no PAC team would leave for the Big 12.  Apparently, he got some news and now has changed his tune after MONTHS of fighting with everyone that Arizona would never leave.  Nothing specific yet but it is believed to be related to Colorado and Arizona (and possibly more) moving to the Big 12 and being announced soon.  For what it is worth, this poster shared the info with Jason Scheer who validated the info and brings some credibility to the rumor.

If true, and makes kind of the most sense, and they're likely equal value partners.   That would open up a major knife fight for the next two spots to leave them at 16.    No one is currently comfortable boxed in a corner with 10 members, there isn't a situation imaginable where the top half of the Pac aren't freaking with 8.    15/16 would immediately become the most valuable spots in the current sports world, as the Pac would be on life support, the SEC is set and the B1G is leaderless.   With nothing being immediately open...

• First off, would the Big 12 grow past 16?   There will be diminishing returns at some point.   Is that number 16, or 18 or 20?   I'm guessing they take 2...and wait for the door to knock while talking to Fox/ESPN.
• Would Oregon/Washington push to move next as the two biggest brands just to get off the sinking ship, especially since the Big 12 will lock them into a GoR, likely for longer for this contract.   The B12 would have the leverage and they likely don't view it that they need to be a short-term temp home for anyone.   
  • Oregon/Washington likely increase the B12's deal.   Instead of it being $32/per, those two probably jump it to $36-40 per. If they wanted friends, they could add more Pac, but it will start to push down the number.
• If they stay to wait on the B1G, assuming Stanford also holds out hoping to be ND's side kick to get the B1G to 20:
  • Cal gets them a big market into Cali, but not much product at the moment.   
  • Rivalries sell.   Utah shares a market with BYU, but is the Holy War enough to make up for that?
  • If you're going to duplicate states, ASU is smack dab in the middle of the Phoenix DMA with a massive school.   

If AZ/Colorado go, its going to be chaos out west.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

34 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

 So they won't go 11-1 and instead will go 8-4 or 9-3 and still make the playoffs. Exposure, exposure, exposure and brand recognition. The Cowboys that are still America's Team have proven you don't have to win you just have to make it into the playoffs on a consistent basis.

That's not going to be a thing.   There will still be 1 to 2 loss teams in the SEC getting into the playoffs.    Remember, half of the 12 slots are already filled for each conference champion.   That leaves six at large.    You really think they're getting all the way down to 4 losses....for six spots?   The only way an 8 win makes 12 is if they win their conference.   

Brand is a value in the regular season, that's all conferences sell.   The post season is all on performance.   Winning sells the post season.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[BurntOrange&White 39700]

Colorado could be considered a homey hopper if they do go back to the big 12

[BurntOrange&White 39700]

9 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

First off, would the Big 12 grow past 16?   There will be diminishing returns at some point.   Is that number 16, or 18 or 20?   I'm guessing they take 2...and wait for the door to knock while talking to Fox/ESPN.

IMO if the Big 12 can get Arizona and Colorado to get to 14 teams that sets them up nicely. Try and poach two more PAC teams after the initial two and you're at 16. I think the best long term approach for them would be to expand to 18-20 teams and be the first conference to do so. Strength in numbers would be the approach but it would need the right teams.

 

I'd be interested to see what Oregon/Washington will do if Big 12 does steal Arizona/Colorado combination. If the pressure gets turned up and Oregon/Washington feel the BIG isn't going to invite them then the best move would be Big 12 rather than staying PAC.

Edited April 11, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[USC Traveler 488]

38 minutes ago, bullet said:

I don't think there is any doubt they take them.  They want all the big dogs in their own pen.

There are 6 big dogs left.  UW, Oregon and Notre Dame are not joining the SEC.  That leaves FSU, Clemson and Miami.  At one point FSU had more value in the ACC than in the SEC.  But now, big matchups matter more.  You see it in the ratings.  They add more to the SEC than to the ACC.  And with the rivalries, that offsets the state duplication, so I don't see them going to the Big 10 if the SEC is an option.

 

Clemson is the closest school to Georgia other than Georgia Tech.  That has always been a pretty fierce rivalry.  Just hasn't been played much since the SEC went to 8 conference games.  They recruit all the same people.

I don't see the SEC as a conference that is worried about competition.  

 

There’s no doubt the conference office would take them.

 

Would the actual schools (who all recruit in FL) want to turn FSU and Miami into much more formidable competitors by making them SEC members ?

If the SEC keeps them out, they’re much easier to recruit against in the BIG, which SEC coaches will portray as a second-rate conference, much as they do with the ACC now.

Would Saban, Smart, Freeze, etc and their successors rather recruit against them as BIG or SEC members.  I have no doubt as to the answer.

Sankey has a lot of sway, but he ultimately works for the schools.  If they don’t want it to happen, then it won’t happen.

FSU isn’t UT.  It’s definitely not a slam dunk.

[USC Traveler 488]

37 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

If you've got teams who are getting paid to take the Ls, it really helps if they're basketball schools.  KU got kicked around for a decade in the Big 12, but they were ripping off Big 12 men's basketball titles year after year and their AD was relatively happy.  Kentucky is somewhat similar in the SEC, historically.  

That said, if you're the SEC and you find yourself in a situation where you've consolidated too many big football brands (not enough wins to go around) then it would be really convenient to have a financial reason to add basketball schools.  Sankey's behavior re: March Madness is worth keeping an eye on.

Agree 100%.

There is a pot of gold down the line where the expanded P2 and B12 take control of the tournament.

This is probably why they’re talking about going to 80 teams- they’ll run the tournament, but give every conference winner an autobid to ensure Cinderella stories and avoid lawsuits.

 

Have you heard anything from Sankey on this, or are you saying “watch what he says in the future” ?

[DanTheHorn 4902]

21 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

That's not going to be a thing.   There will still be 1 to 2 loss teams in the SEC getting into the playoffs.    Remember, half of the 12 slots are already filled for each conference champion.   That leaves six at large.    You really think they're getting all the way down to 4 losses....for six spots?   The only way an 8 win makes 12 is if they win their conference.   

Brand is a value in the regular season, that's all conferences sell.   The post season is all on performance.   Winning sells the post season.

I meant 9-3 still makes the playoff and that is why I referenced making playoff on a consistent basis. After reading again I see that its says 8-4 makes the playoffs.

Edited April 11, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[Magus Ossis 2784]

18 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

There’s no doubt the conference office would take them.

 

Would the actual schools (who all recruit in FL) want to turn FSU and Miami into much more formidable competitors by making them SEC members ?

If the SEC keeps them out, they’re much easier to recruit against in the BIG, which SEC coaches will portray as a second-rate conference, much as they do with the ACC now.

Would Saban, Smart, Freeze, etc and their successors rather recruit against them as BIG or SEC members.  I have no doubt as to the answer.

Sankey has a lot of sway, but he ultimately works for the schools.  If they don’t want it to happen, then it won’t happen.

FSU isn’t UT.  It’s definitely not a slam dunk.

I don't know how much recruiting-rivalry calculus coaches do, and I don't know how accurately I could do it regarding future hypotheticals either. If you are marking FSU as less of a recruiting threat to your school with FSU in the B1G, to what degree is that offset by tOSU and Michigan (among others) becoming greater threats with a local opponent?

The strategy might involve SEC plucking just enough choice fruit to make the leftovers less valuable to the B1G: take Clemson and FSU, let B1G go after GT and UM. Atlanta is still going to be SEC country, irrespective of whether the local engineering school affiliates with the snowbrat crowd, and Miami would be in, shall we say, a somewhat geographically incongruous conference alignment.

[hook me 2080]

8 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

I don't know how much recruiting-rivalry calculus coaches do, and I don't know how accurately I could do it regarding future hypotheticals either. If you are marking FSU as less of a recruiting threat to your school with FSU in the B1G, to what degree is that offset by tOSU and Michigan (among others) becoming greater threats with a local opponent?

The strategy might involve SEC plucking just enough choice fruit to make the leftovers less valuable to the B1G: take Clemson and FSU, let B1G go after GT and UM. Atlanta is still going to be SEC country, irrespective of whether the local engineering school affiliates with the snowbrat crowd, and Miami would be in, shall we say, a somewhat geographically incongruous conference alignment.

The asshole in me really wants the SEC to pass on FSU & UM sighting a "gentlemen's agreement" to not allow another FL school into the SEC.

[USC Traveler 488]

31 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

If true, and makes kind of the most sense, and they're likely equal value partners.   That would open up a major knife fight for the next two spots to leave them at 16.    No one is currently comfortable boxed in a corner with 10 members, there isn't a situation imaginable where the top half of the Pac aren't freaking with 8.    15/16 would immediately become the most valuable spots in the current sports world, as the Pac would be on life support, the SEC is set and the B1G is leaderless.   With nothing being immediately open...

• First off, would the Big 12 grow past 16?   There will be diminishing returns at some point.   Is that number 16, or 18 or 20?   I'm guessing they take 2...and wait for the door to knock while talking to Fox/ESPN.
• Would Oregon/Washington push to move next as the two biggest brands just to get off the sinking ship, especially since the Big 12 will lock them into a GoR, likely for longer for this contract.   The B12 would have the leverage and they likely don't view it that they need to be a short-term temp home for anyone.   
  • Oregon/Washington likely increase the B12's deal.   Instead of it being $32/per, those two probably jump it to $36-40 per. If they wanted friends, they could add more Pac, but it will start to push down the number.
• If they stay to wait on the B1G, assuming Stanford also holds out hoping to be ND's side kick to get the B1G to 20:
  • Cal gets them a big market into Cali, but not much product at the moment.   
  • Rivalries sell.   Utah shares a market with BYU, but is the Holy War enough to make up for that?
  • If you're going to duplicate states, ASU is smack dab in the middle of the Phoenix DMA with a massive school.   

If AZ/Colorado go, its going to be chaos out west.

The mod on the AZ board has said for months that it was going to be UA and CU, and the biggest skeptic flipped a full 180 today, talking about the fact that he of all people got this info is some sort of act of God.

CU's prior B12 ties, lack of success in the PAC, AD debt and Coach Prime's TX ties all point towards B12.  They're all-in on Prime to try to position themselves for a future BIG invite.  They have a 10 year window to have any shot whatsoever, and need money plus exposure, which they're not going to get in the WAC10.

UA's high level of unhappiness with PAC leadership has been second only to USC over the last 10 plus years.  Hoops first school, and next closest after CU to the B12.  B12 makes all the sense in the world for them- more money, better exposure, and exponentially better games in the sport they care about the most.

 

//

 

ASU won't be far behind those two, and may even come along with them, as the more schools that leave at once, the more it destabilizes the WAC-PAC.  B12 definitely wouldn't say "No" to ASU.  

Adding all three puts a lot of pressure on Utah, UW and UO.  I think they all end up in B12 at that point, bringing Cal along to keep a recruiting presence in CA.  Cal is completely fucked financially, so they'll have to say yes.  Academic snobbery only goes so far.  Cal joining would also get SDSU to join if offered.

Stanford becomes the big question mark.  Do they do independent with a scheduling agreement with the BIG that ensures they come in as ND's partner when that inevitably happens ?

 

[USC Traveler 488]

20 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

I don't know how much recruiting-rivalry calculus coaches do, and I don't know how accurately I could do it regarding future hypotheticals either. If you are marking FSU as less of a recruiting threat to your school with FSU in the B1G, to what degree is that offset by tOSU and Michigan (among others) becoming greater threats with a local opponent?

The strategy might involve SEC plucking just enough choice fruit to make the leftovers less valuable to the B1G: take Clemson and FSU, let B1G go after GT and UM. Atlanta is still going to be SEC country, irrespective of whether the local engineering school affiliates with the snowbrat crowd, and Miami would be in, shall we say, a somewhat geographically incongruous conference alignment.

I tend to think SEC coaches would be much more concerned about legitimizing FSU as an SEC team than they would be about OSU and UM having a game in FL every three years, but your point is valid.  There's a lot of meat on the bone to chew on in that debate.

Agreed on GT.  No shot at the SEC.  And Miami may very well prefer the BIG.  They were in the Big East by themselves, so the geographic isolation wouldn't be anything new.  Even with FSU in conference, they're still geographically isolated now.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by USC Traveler

[USC Traveler 488]

10 minutes ago, hook me said:

The asshole in me really wants the SEC to pass on FSU & UM sighting a "gentlemen's agreement" to not allow another FL school into the SEC.

That would be worth it for the aggy meltdown alone, when they finally realized their true place in the SEC pecking order- right next to Mizzou.😂

[camel at sea 589]

9 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Agree 100%.

There is a pot of gold down the line where the expanded P2 and B12 take control of the tournament.

This is probably why they’re talking about going to 80 teams- they’ll run the tournament, but give every conference winner an autobid to ensure Cinderella stories and avoid lawsuits.

 

Have you heard anything from Sankey on this, or are you saying “watch what he says in the future” ?

Sankey has been vocal about making changes to the NCAA tourney for around a year, at least.  But if that's with an eye toward eventually adding basketball brands, or not, I have no idea.   

[General Specific 3235]

Because they got it done 11 months before the season started.   They're trying to paint the Pac more runway.  

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

IMO if the Big 12 can get Arizona and Colorado to get to 14 teams that sets them up nicely. Try and poach two more PAC teams after the initial two and you're at 16. I think the best long term approach for them would be to expand to 18-20 teams and be the first conference to do so. Strength in numbers would be the approach but it would need the right teams.

 

I'd be interested to see what Oregon/Washington will do if Big 12 does steal Arizona/Colorado combination. If the pressure gets turned up and Oregon/Washington feel the BIG isn't going to invite them then the best move would be Big 12 rather than staying PAC.

The entertainment value of Oregon and Washington taking Utah and ASU's Big 12 spots would be enormous.  

[USC Traveler 488]

1 minute ago, camel at sea said:

The entertainment value of Oregon and Washington taking Utah and ASU's Big 12 spots would be enormous.  

It would, but don't you think B12 would rather take all 4 ?

That would give them 7 schools for the late night window (including BYU).  Add Cal and SDSU for CA access and you've got 9 teams that can play in that window.

If each of those teams plays 3 times in that window, that would fill up 14 weeks of AfterDark games without involving anyone East of CU.

Seems like that would be revenue neutral, and possibly additive, for the B12, especially when adding in UW, UO, Utah vs existing B12 schools.

[USC Traveler 488]

15 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Sankey has been vocal about making changes to the NCAA tourney for around a year, at least.  But if that's with an eye toward eventually adding basketball brands, or not, I have no idea.   

To your KU and UK examples above, UNC and UVA would fit perfectly into those roles in the BIG or SEC.

[hook me 2080]

14 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

It would, but don't you think B12 would rather take all 4 ?

That would give them 7 schools for the late night window (including BYU).  Add Cal and SDSU for CA access and you've got 9 teams that can play in that window.

If each of those teams plays 3 times in that window, that would fill up 14 weeks of AfterDark games without involving anyone East of CU.

Seems like that would be revenue neutral, and possibly additive, for the B12, especially when adding in UW, UO, Utah vs existing B12 schools.

SDSU & CAL don't move the needle. They're leeches, even by Big 12 standards they're bleh. The UCF/UH/Cincy move were necessities to stabilize the conference but now that they're in somewhat of the drivers seat for the B1G & SEC sloppy-seconds they can be much MUCH more selective. Take UA & CU to start the dominoes & hope UO & UW come knocking. If not, there's no reason to panic & add as you're in prime position to reap some of the benefits of the ACC implosion in the near future. If Utah gets over itself and asks nicely then maybe you add them & ASU but Cal, Stanford, OSU, WSU, & any other Western school isn't worth it. Wait for Pitt, VA Tech, NCST, & maybe GT to become available, see if UCONN & gonzaga want to be added as basketball members & you've got yourself a damn good basketball conference with some of the biggest names out there to go along with an entertaining football conference.

[camel at sea 589]

6 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

It would, but don't you think B12 would rather take all 4 ?

That would give them 7 schools for the late night window (including BYU).  Add Cal and SDSU for CA access and you've got 9 teams that can play in that window.

If each of those teams plays 3 times in that window, that would fill up 14 weeks of AfterDark games without involving anyone East of CU.

Seems like that would be revenue neutral, and possibly additive, for the B12, especially when adding in UW, UO, Utah vs existing B12 schools.

I'd think they would take all four, but it probably depends on how the money works out.  You don't want to cost your existing school money by slicing the conference pie into too many slices.  I think you go to 18 (for Oregon and Washington) if you've already got the Four Corners, but I'm not sure the math works the same way for ASU/Utah if you've already got Oregon and Washington.  Does ESPN cheerlead expansion to 18 under those parameters?  I think the Sun Devils and Utes would be good "fits" but the money has to work, too.

[camel at sea 589]

8 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

To your KU and UK examples above, UNC and UVA would fit perfectly into those roles in the BIG or SEC.

If I were Sankey, and somehow the money could be made to work, I'd want Kansas, UNC, Duke, and Virginia.  You're a hoops juggernaut immediately, there are now plenty of wins to go around for football, you've expanded the conference's reach, and you've significantly boosted the academic perception of the conference.  

On ESPN's end of things, they do this and control college athletics while only having to pay for / negotiate with one conference.  

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

IMO if the Big 12 can get Arizona and Colorado to get to 14 teams that sets them up nicely. Try and poach two more PAC teams after the initial two and you're at 16. I think the best long term approach for them would be to expand to 18-20 teams and be the first conference to do so. Strength in numbers would be the approach but it would need the right teams.

 

I'd be interested to see what Oregon/Washington will do if Big 12 does steal Arizona/Colorado combination. If the pressure gets turned up and Oregon/Washington feel the BIG isn't going to invite them then the best move would be Big 12 rather than staying PAC.

Agree 100% with the first part.  B12 would be smart to take the 8 PAC schools not named Wazzu or OSU and establish themselves as the #3 conference with no real competitor in terms of future status.  

As for the PNW schools, I'd think the 4C schools leaving would force them to go B12 at that point.

It was interesting to hear Mandel on his podcast yesterday, though.  He was saying that, putting Stanford and Cal aside, with Utah wanting to hang onto the PAC no matter what, the PNW schools plus Utah was a strong enough core to keep the PAC intact.  Five schools.  I just don't see it.

They'd be much better off in an expanded B12, with guarantees that they're all in the same division, or pods.  UW and UO would love to be in a pod with Cal and Stanford or SDSU in that scenario.

[USC Traveler 488]

10 minutes ago, hook me said:

SDSU & CAL don't move the needle. They're leeches, even by Big 12 standards they're bleh. The UCF/UH/Cincy move were necessities to stabilize the conference but now that they're in somewhat of the drivers seat for the B1G & SEC sloppy-seconds they can be much MUCH more selective. Take UA & CU to start the dominoes & hope UO & UW come knocking. If not, there's no reason to panic & add as you're in prime position to reap some of the benefits of the ACC implosion in the near future. If Utah gets over itself and asks nicely then maybe you add them & ASU but Cal, Stanford, OSU, WSU, & any other Western school isn't worth it. Wait for Pitt, VA Tech, NCST, & maybe GT to become available, see if UCONN & gonzaga want to be added as basketball members & you've got yourself a damn good basketball conference with some of the biggest names out there to go along with an entertaining football conference.

I was working on the assumption that UW and UO would push to have CA schools in the conference as a condition of them joining.

CA is the prime recruiting territory for both schools- they're not going to want to abandon that.  I can't see them joining B12 without CA schools.

Also- believe it or not, Bob Thompson (former Fox Sports President) said a while back the Stanford and Cal actually have more tv value than UW and UO.  That was in the context of BIG membership so Bay Area market for BTN is obviously a big part of that calculation, but I still found that interesting.

 

 

[DanTheHorn 4902]

I have an idea so that the BIG 10 can reduce travel for their teams. Maybe there is already an article on it or someone here already posted something similar. So here is a hypothetical email I would send to the BIG 10 but you guys tear up ideas pretty well and shoot holes in them like no other folks. So I thought I post it here first. Have at it.

Spoiler

To whom it may concern,

 

As the BIG 10 grows west everyone knows that there will be a travel issue for all sports except football. Since football will most likely be a 3-6 schedule or something along those lines with at most 5 away games. I am an international soccer fan and the international soccer federations have had to solve a problem of naming a champion without everyone playing everyone in order to name a winner. The CONCACAF model that used a HEXAGONAL round seems like a solution that would reduce travel for sports like basketball, baseball and volleyball in the BIG 10.

 

How it would work with 18 teams (I know now there are only 16 for now):

 

3 non-football divisions (football schedule is its own format):

 

East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State

 

Midwest: Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa

 

West: Minnesota, Nebraska, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon

 

Each school plays a round robin of division games and then the top 2 finishers go into a group of six (i.e. championship round) so that a champion can be declared from playing 2 or 3 home games and 2 or 3 road games depending on seeding for a total of 5 games each. Place 3 and 6 go into their own group of six as do places 4 and 5 to fill out the schedule with same home and road format. This allows for a champion to be declared and travel is greatly reduced plus tickets to TBD games can also be sold since the games are assured. The rest of the schedule is filled with regional OOC games.

 

Thanks,

 

Brain storming contributor

 

[USC Traveler 488]

15 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I'd think they would take all four, but it probably depends on how the money works out.  You don't want to cost your existing school money by slicing the conference pie into too many slices.  I think you go to 18 (for Oregon and Washington) if you've already got the Four Corners, but I'm not sure the math works the same way for ASU/Utah if you've already got Oregon and Washington.  Does ESPN cheerlead expansion to 18 under those parameters?  I think the Sun Devils and Utes would be good "fits" but the money has to work, too.

If it's only CU and UA, PNW will probably feel like they can backfill with SDSU and SMU and stay at 10, with easier playoff access offsetting revenue and exposure differences, but it would really come down to just how bad is the PAC's deal at that point.

[USC Traveler 488]

13 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

If I were Sankey, and somehow the money could be made to work, I'd want Kansas, UNC, Duke, and Virginia.  You're a hoops juggernaut immediately, there are now plenty of wins to go around for football, you've expanded the conference's reach, and you've significantly boosted the academic perception of the conference.  

 On ESPN's end of things, they do this and control college athletics while only having to pay for / negotiate with one conference.  

Agreed.  I think that's exactly why we've heard about how UNC and UVA are top priorities for SEC's next round of expansion.

Will be quite a battle with the BIG.  That's why I think UNC and UVA will have the leverage to bring Duke along wherever they end up.

Even if UVA and UNC go BIG, Sankey can counter with VT, NC State and KU.  

The first two are better football fits in the SEC, and with OU in the conference, KU isn't really that much of a reach in terms of travel.  

Having KU and UK in the same conference would bring real value.

[BurntOrange&White 39700]

15 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

It was interesting to hear Mandel on his podcast yesterday, though.  He was saying that, putting Stanford and Cal aside, with Utah wanting to hang onto the PAC no matter what, the PNW schools plus Utah was a strong enough core to keep the PAC intact.  Five schools.  I just don't see it.

[thunderlounge 7759]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

I don't think there is any doubt they take them.  They want all the big dogs in their own pen.

There are 6 big dogs left.  UW, Oregon and Notre Dame are not joining the SEC.  That leaves FSU, Clemson and Miami.  At one point FSU had more value in the ACC than in the SEC.  But now, big matchups matter more.  You see it in the ratings.  They add more to the SEC than to the ACC.  And with the rivalries, that offsets the state duplication, so I don't see them going to the Big 10 if the SEC is an option.

 

Clemson is the closest school to Georgia other than Georgia Tech.  That has always been a pretty fierce rivalry.  Just hasn't been played much since the SEC went to 8 conference games.  They recruit all the same people.

I don't see the SEC as a conference that is worried about competition.  

 

Bolded above is key, in part.

ND aside, no teams remain that command a B1G/SEC price tag.

However, they are worth B12/ACC level money.

That’s the key.
 

Neither the B1G nor SEC will be able to expand if the money isn’t there.

Waiting 13 years on the ACC GOR is way too long of a timeframe to sit and idle.

 16x4 looks to be the direction the networks are pushing their money longterm.

No conference can expand without the money. Period.

Fuck what a conference wants. It’s what the people paying the bills want.

4C to B12 would fill the B12 up.

ACC spots remain.

Leaves a few on an island for the ACC, but that’s ok in the short term. Why? Once the new level of competition/league is together, however the pieces fall, they can restructure/rearrange. 

See what ESPN/Fox did with the B12? Once the ACC renews, they can do the same thing and split the games. Or they could combine all the rights and split that way.

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

The mod on the AZ board has said for months that it was going to be UA and CU, and the biggest skeptic flipped a full 180 today, talking about the fact that he of all people got this info is some sort of act of God.

CU's prior B12 ties, lack of success in the PAC, AD debt and Coach Prime's TX ties all point towards B12.  They're all-in on Prime to try to position themselves for a future BIG invite.  They have a 10 year window to have any shot whatsoever, and need money plus exposure, which they're not going to get in the WAC10.

UA's high level of unhappiness with PAC leadership has been second only to USC over the last 10 plus years.  Hoops first school, and next closest after CU to the B12.  B12 makes all the sense in the world for them- more money, better exposure, and exponentially better games in the sport they care about the most.

 

//

 

ASU won't be far behind those two, and may even come along with them, as the more schools that leave at once, the more it destabilizes the WAC-PAC.  B12 definitely wouldn't say "No" to ASU.  

Adding all three puts a lot of pressure on Utah, UW and UO.  I think they all end up in B12 at that point, bringing Cal along to keep a recruiting presence in CA.  Cal is completely fucked financially, so they'll have to say yes.  Academic snobbery only goes so far.  Cal joining would also get SDSU to join if offered.

Stanford becomes the big question mark.  Do they do independent with a scheduling agreement with the BIG that ensures they come in as ND's partner when that inevitably happens ?

 

That's a lot of mouths to feed without the windows to feed them.

I think the only way the Big 12 gets to 16 is if ESPN gives them a Friday Prime and Saturday Late slot for around 140-200m/year.   That would be a payment of $32-36m/team/year.

Any more teams and you need to open a Thursday slot or get Fox to chime in on more T1 windows.    There just isn't enough left in the schedule to take 20 teams AND pay them right now.

What I do know is SOMEONE is going to get the ESPN late night window.   Its either the Big Ten or the Big 12.   The best solution for the Pac is if both conferences carve them up.   Without that, there is going to be a lot of happy MWC teams getting invites.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

22 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

Bolded above is key, in part.

ND aside, no teams remain that command a B1G/SEC price tag.

However, they are worth B12/ACC level money.

That’s the key.
 

Neither the B1G nor SEC will be able to expand if the money isn’t there.

Waiting 13 years on the ACC GOR is way too long of a timeframe to sit and idle.

 16x4 looks to be the direction the networks are pushing their money longterm.

No conference can expand without the money. Period.

Fuck what a conference wants. It’s what the people paying the bills want.

4C to B12 would fill the B12 up.

ACC spots remain.

Leaves a few on an island for the ACC, but that’s ok in the short term. Why? Once the new level of competition/league is together, however the pieces fall, they can restructure/rearrange. 

See what ESPN/Fox did with the B12? Once the ACC renews, they can do the same thing and split the games. Or they could combine all the rights and split that way.

 

This.   Here is a relative valuation of teams that remain on a per year.   Napkin math crap:

• ND - $100m+ e.g. Pays for itself and a friend no matter where it goes
• Oregon - $45-49m
• FSU/Clemson - $40-$44m
• Miami/UNC/Washington - $35-$39m
• UVA/Colorado/Arizona/ASU - $30-34m
• Utah - $25-29
• Stanford/Cal/WSU - $20-24
• SDSU/SMU/Memphis/USF/Oregon State - $15-19m

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

There’s no doubt the conference office would take them.

 

Would the actual schools (who all recruit in FL) want to turn FSU and Miami into much more formidable competitors by making them SEC members ?

If the SEC keeps them out, they’re much easier to recruit against in the BIG, which SEC coaches will portray as a second-rate conference, much as they do with the ACC now.

Would Saban, Smart, Freeze, etc and their successors rather recruit against them as BIG or SEC members.  I have no doubt as to the answer.

Sankey has a lot of sway, but he ultimately works for the schools.  If they don’t want it to happen, then it won’t happen.

FSU isn’t UT.  It’s definitely not a slam dunk.

Everybody already recruits Florida.  A couple years ago I saw the numbers.  The ACC had the most signed freshman from Florida.  The SEC was tied with the Big 10 for 2nd. one recruit fewer than the ACC.  Georgia supplied the most SEC recruits.  And the bottom half of the SEC isn't really competing with FSU for recruits.  Georgia, Alabama, LSU do.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

6 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Deets:

Quote

The latest news in realignment is magic. That is if you believe "Chris Angel's Magic With The Stars" is a proper lead-in to major college football. That's the kind of foundational programming featured on The CW, a broadcast network that specializes in ratings giants such as "World's Funniest Animals" and "The Goes Wrong Show."

The CW has been in discussions with the Pac-12 as a linear partner in the league's much scrutinized new media rights deal, multiple sources confirm to CBS Sports. However, sources also say those discussions were weeks ago and only regarding what was described as a "small package" of games.

A 10-team Pac-12 has about 65-70 games per year to sell. Nearly nine months news broke of USC and UCLA leaving for the Big Ten, the conference hasn't been able to find a buyer or buyers.

"It's just not a market to be a seller of major college sports rights at this particular moment," said Patrick Crakes, a programming expert, media consultant and former senior vice president with Fox Sports.  

That doesn't necessarily mean a deal won't get done, but a lingering question remains: Who is going to carry Pac-12 games beginning in 2024? And that begs an even bigger question: What kind of deal can the league get?

CBS Sports previously reported the wait could be months.

Media consultant Jim Williams told CBS Sports last week he was high on The CW as well as ION as broadcast options for the Pac-12. The Athletic reported "recent discussions" between the Pac-12 and The CW.

The CW owns stations in Chicago, New York, Dallas and Tampa Bay -- key areas beyond the West Coast where the Pac-12 could have penetration. The Pac-12 would also have the advantage of being able to produce those games. The league has the infrastructure left over from the Pac-12 Networks, which is expected to cease operations when the current deal expires in 2024.

"Basically, they have fiber optics at every one of those campuses," Williams said. "They're wired already. The ability to produce these games is a huge advantage the conference has in negotiating any deal.

"That's a huge benefit for whoever it is. If you're CW or ION or any combination of the two, the fact you don't have to send a production team to wherever is a huge plus."

Williams suggested that infrastructure may open a door to another option for a Pac-12 deal: something all-in with Apple. That's what Major League Soccer is doing this season at the start of a 10-year deal. Some of those games are sublicensed to Fox. That gives the MLS a presence on linear (traditional broadcast and cable) in addition to streaming.

Another industry source said the MLS deal might be the blueprint for the Pac-12. If so, that would explain why the negotiations are taking so long. It would be the first-of-its kind deal for a Power Five conference. 

"There are ways to do this," Williams said, "if you get creative."

ION, in 37 of the top 50 markets, is on both DirecTV and Dish Network, which might have been the difference in whether the Pac-12 Networks had survived. Former commissioner Larry Scott's failure to clear distribution on DirecTV is a big reason he is no longer with the league. ION's parent company, Scripps Company, launched a sports division late last year.

Crakes doubts the viability of a deal with a station group or a lower profile network like The CW. In general, those stations are not going to be as quality a partner as an established linear cable station when it comes to rights fees. They're not as diversified as other larger legacy media, which means they can't support major rights fees allocations the significant sports media properties like the Pac-12 need to survive. 

Also consider 80% of modern media rights deals comes from pay TV (linear cable), though the problem with linear cable is declining subscriber numbers. Plus, streaming as a revenue-generating entity for major sports at scale hasn't hit yet.

That highlights the difficult situation in which the Pac-12 finds itself.

Crakes foresees a media rights landscape "under extreme stress" because the free-running tap of money that gushed before has now been slowed to a trickle. There will be competition in the market like the upcoming NBA and UFC contracts that will impact cable giant ESPN's decisions. Also on the table is College Football Playoff expansion (ESPN), which many expect to wind up across multiple networks, and the WWE (NBCUniversal, Fox).

The CFP's expansion to 12 teams will lead to multiple bidders in a Super Bowl-like process. Where does the Pac-12 fit, especially if it has to park significant content on a streaming partner?

"If you're the Pac-12, and you're looking at Oregon State-Washington State the first week of November that would do 650,000-800,000 viewers on FS1, say hello to 250,000-500,000 [viewers] on a streamer," Crakes said. "I don't care who that streamer is. That's the math of it. The Pac-12 has got a problem on its hands."

Crakes also believes the Pac-12 will eventually do a deal with ESPN or another established linear partner. He doesn't see much value in the Big 12 expanding with Pac-12 teams at present. If that sounds confusing, it should be. It all folds in with the Pac-12 deal taking this long.

CBS Sports reported as long ago as last summer that the Big 12 had engaged with multiple Pac-12 schools about joining their league.  

The issue still comes down visibility vs dollars. How much visibility on linear TV does the Pac-12 trade for the dollars it needs to keep some members from jumping to the Big 12? That number is one of the most closely guarded secrets in college sports. School officials aren't saying or just don't know at this point.

The Pac-12 continues to be trapped in an age of transition from runaway media rights to a direct-to-consumer model.

There remains no clear linear partner for the Pac-12 at the moment. 

No inventory windows left, except Thursday/Friday/Late Night Saturday

[closetojumping 62259]

16 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

We’ve played Tech 72 (not 100) soon to be 73 times which will tie them with SMU as our 7th most played team. Texas is reconnecting/keeping 3 of our top 6 and finally getting to leave Baylor like we wanted to back in 1996 and ditching TCU and now UH again for the second time. If Tech stop whining like a little bitch I assume we will keep them as a regular OOC game in nonfb sports and an occasional OOC opponent like we do with Rice.

 

Regarding playing Tech going forward - Tech's people in the legislature and at the school are working aggressively to get a piece of the PUF pie. To the point of doing some dirty shit and trying to do other dirty shit to work every angle. I won't pretend to know what those things are, but Texas, at the highest levels, has little interest in doing anything that helps Tech in anything going forward. We'd rather see them relegated to college sports backwaters. There is no trust between the schools at this point.

I don't know if they're able to strongarm some games with Texas in the future, they might be able to do it, but their recent whining in social media and with people in the media carrying water is an indicator that they don't like where things are heading in terms of riding UT's coattails.

That shit comes from someone that every poster on this thread and board would believe if they'd say it in public.

[Crockett 489]

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

It was interesting to hear Mandel on his podcast yesterday, though.  He was saying that, putting Stanford and Cal aside, with Utah wanting to hang onto the PAC no matter what, the PNW schools plus Utah was a strong enough core to keep the PAC intact.  Five schools.  I just don't see it.

I hope Utah tries this until all the spots are filled in the B12 and then it's too late for them.

[TrashMaster G 17395]

47 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Regarding playing Tech going forward - Tech's people in the legislature and at the school are working aggressively to get a piece of the PUF pie. To the point of doing some dirty shit and trying to do other dirty shit to work every angle. I won't pretend to know what those things are, but Texas, at the highest levels, has little interest in doing anything that helps Tech in anything going forward. We'd rather see them relegated to college sports backwaters. There is no trust between the schools at this point.

I don't know if they're able to strongarm some games with Texas in the future, they might be able to do it, but their recent whining in social media and with people in the media carrying water is an indicator that they don't like where things are heading in terms of riding UT's coattails.

That shit comes from someone that every poster on this thread and board would believe if they'd say it in public.

So, NOT Chip Brown or Kurt Bohls?

[closetojumping 62259]

15 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

So, NOT Chip Brown or Kurt Bohls?

Ha, correct. 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Probably relevant, since a new commissioner was not expected for a while longer.