Realignment talk not going away

[DFW Horn 6637]

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

I just heard that our football program had entered the transfer portal.  False alarm?

Why would ND do that?

ACC bends over for you and y'all don't need the money.

[Left Coast 879]

20 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I look forward to seeing USC's first snow game in Madison, Ann Arbor, or Columbus.

You underestimate just how shitty the weather is at the PAC schools outside of LA and the Bay Area.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Gidnik 3475]

Georgia tech, Louisville, clemson, FSU, Pitt are not giving up a rivalry game or an instate non conference game against the SEC  to play the fucking pac

 

[DFW Horn 6637]

54 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

Georgia tech, Louisville, clemson, FSU, Pitt are not giving up a rivalry game or an instate non conference game against the SEC  to play the fucking pac

WTF did the PAC, B1G and ACC say about their relationship previously?

Alliance or some other bullshit

[mdmost 43848]

You guys writing WAC-10 sound very aggy. 

[BurntOrange&White 41646]

5 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

ESPN has not been involved in PAC negotiations in months...ESPN has the deal with ACC through 2036. I don't have any idea what these talks could be about.

[USC Traveler 488]

21 hours ago, Gidnik said:

Copy pastad to him this 

 

Outstanding!  Well done, sir.

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/15/2023 at 5:37 PM, DFW Horn said:

UCLA, Nebraska, and Iowa. Corn!

The B1G will probably give USC and UCLA one of the big boys, too - Ohio St, Michigan or Pedo St.

According to the Athletic, USC won’t be getting OSU or UM as a protected rival.  I don't think we'll get PSU or MSU either.

BIG won’t want top teams getting too many guaranteed losses. At some point, it’s just math.

OSU will get UM, PSU and a cupcake.

UM will get OSU, MSU and a cupcake.

PSU and MSU will get each other on rivalry weekend (there's no one else for them to play that makes sense), plus the above games.

For any of those teams, having USC as their 3rd game would give them brutal schedules.

//

For USC, I want Wiscy and NW, and that's who I think we'll get.

If you break the BIG down into tiers of five (excluding USC): Wiscy is in the top tier, along with OSU, UM, PSU and MSU.

Wiscy and USC make good partners in that sense- gives each of the other two programs with the highest likelihood of winning the BIG a game vs each other.

TV can sell Wiscy vs USC, and Fickell vs Riley, as a big-time matchup, and I think Fickell would love the CA exposure for recruiting.

Wisc would be USC's top-tier annual BIG game, UCLA would be our mid-tier game, and NW would be our cupcake.

USC and NW are the only two private schools in the BIG, and are the only two in huge urban areas besides UCLA.

Nonstop flights for fans between LA to both Wiscy and NW.

Wiscy and NW might sound easy, but WI will be tough, and with ND as an annual opponent, the calculus is different for USC. BIG wants to maximize CFP spots, and USC-ND will impact the CFP race in most years, so the BIG will factor that into our rivals selection.

We'd still getting something like OSU and PSU one year, then UM and MSU the next year, plus WI and UCLA, so there's no cakewalk in any year.

I think UCLA gets Corn- they've played them more than any other school in the BIG, although if I was Corn, I'd lobby to get both USC and UCLA as rivals and get a game in LA every year for recruiting.

 

//

from the Athletic (3-17-23):

"At this point, it doesn’t look like USC or UCLA will have Ohio State or Michigan as a protected game, two sources who attended last week’s meetings said. But the newcomers will still see the two Big Ten mainstays at least twice over a four-year span (and on both campuses) in any of the formats still in the mix.

Big Ten ADs have asked the league that it not require any current member to travel twice to Los Angeles in the same season — an ask that should be able to be accommodated.

Multiple administrative sources expect that the Big Ten will have its conference scheduling model chosen and announced by the summer. A scheduled in-person meeting of the ADs in May is likely the latest this decision-making process will stretch. The conference will likely also announce the fixed and rotational opponents for each school at that time."

[USC Traveler 488]

21 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I haven’t put a ton of thought into this but yeah, USC/UCLA are obvious. Then they’d pair one (likely UCLA) with Nebraska as the Western most member that has no significant history with the Big Ten. After that though…

You assume they need to get at least one of the Big 3 (UM/OSU/Pedo) on USC’s schedule so they have a guaranteed USC vs 2 of those 3 each year but I’m not sure how they’ll swing that.

Michigan: Ohio St, Michigan St each year
Ohio St: Michigan and Penn State each year
Penn St: Ohio St and Rutger and Maryland each year

I don’t see them cutting off Rutger/Maryland from Penn St, nor do I see them overloading Ohio St/Michigan with anymore big games but something will have to give.

You don’t add USC to your conference and NOT pair them with another blueblood as a rival.

Best guess it they give them Penn State and have Rutgers drop their annual Penn St game for Ohio St or Michigan.

TK- see my post above.  You and I are in agreement about BIG not wanting to overload the top programs, and the Athletic reported USC and UCLA won't be getting OSU or UM as a rival.  

Multiple BIG ADs have said that the top priorities with the schedule are maximizing playoff slots, competitive balance, and frequent rotation (3-6-6 model).

I think UCLA will get Neb.  Rhule will make them much better, but they've been down for so long, they're in the BIG's middle tier, along with UCLA, Iowa, MN, Purdue and IL.  Plus, UCLA has played NE more than any other BIG team.  

I'd be fine with USC also getting Neb, but I doubt the other BIG teams want to give Neb that type of recruiting exposure in CA.

Besides too much schedule strength with UM, OSU, PSU and MSU all playing two of the other three schools every year, I can't see USC getting any of the Eastern time zone schools as a permanent rival for a few other reasons:  BIG will want closer schools for travel, bodyclock and PR reasons.  They're not going to want to see a million stories about how much the "student athletes" are traveling across country.  They're going to get some of those stories no matter what, but they're going to try and minimize it.  LA to Madison looks a lot better on a map than LA to Columbus or State College.

Fans are a minor consideration, but PSU would be brutal from LA.  Wiscy and NW are the easiest schools for fan travel to and from LA. 

//

I agree with you about PSU getting MD as their 3rd rival, and Rutgers becoming someone else's cupcake.  UM might lobby for them for recruiting exposure.

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, mdmost said:

You guys writing WAC-10 sound very aggy. 

Nah- it's perfectly fitting.  The conference has been WAC for the last decade and a half- at least.

It's the perfect name for the Presidents that hired Tennis Larry and then wouldn't relent on LHN, launched PACN without ESPN or FOX, rejected OU, didn't take USC seriously when the AD said "All options are on the table" regarding realignment, completely misunderstood who had the leverage in their lates tv negotiations, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

B1G is weak in football, basketball, and baseball. tOSU is the only B1G football team over the past 10 to 15 years that competes against the national elites.  UM has its moments but doesn't really recruit enough speed and runs a prehistoric offense. PSU has a mediocre coach. USC should bring speed and pedigree. That's a good start, but the B1G needs more, especially with the new SEC schedule.

1. B1G needs to kick out some of the weak programs.

2. It needs to add some competitive programs with speed on the roster. There are a couple of teams in the PNW waiting to fill part of that void.

3. It needs to hire more innovative offensive coaches. Wisconsin and Iowa need to come out of the stone age. I'm interested to see the changes this year in Madison.

4. Even with Oregon and UW, B1G probably needs a 10-game conference schedule to even start making up for the lack of competition.

I wish the B1G would add UO, UW, Notre Dame, and Miami while demoting two of Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, or Rutgers. 

Honestly, there shouldn't be out-of-conference games for anyone. Line up and play each other. I'm tired of watching conferences duck competition. tOSU has been a very average team the past few years, and still wins nearly every game because of the lack of competition. 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

Yes, I realize the B1G isn't kicking out those teams

 

[mdmost 43848]

28 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Nah- it's perfectly fitting.  The conference has been WAC for the last decade and a half- at least

Well if some fuckers would stop losing to Utah when it mattered......

[Hurtlocker 2219]

13 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Well if some fuckers would stop losing to Utah when it mattered......

[USC Traveler 488]

56 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Well if some fuckers would stop losing to Utah when it mattered......

Well played my friend.

I was there in Vegas.  It was brutal.

[DanTheHorn 5061]

7 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

ESPN has not been involved in PAC negotiations in months...ESPN has the deal with ACC through 2036. I don't have any idea what these talks could be about.

Based on former ESPN exec ACC may be able to force renegotiation. Also, it could open the door for tiered payouts. Smaller fish may be way more willing to take less if less means more than what they would get if left out in the end.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/former-espn-president-says-acc-pac-12-should-consider-merging

Edited April 17, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[Hurtlocker 2219]

20 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Based on former ESPN exec ACC may be able to force renegotiation. Also, it could open the door for tiered payouts. Smaller fish may be way more willing to take less if less means more than what they would get if left out in the end.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/former-espn-president-says-acc-pac-12-should-consider-merging

Why would the ACC's smaller fish want to take less so Oregon makes more?   They can barely feed FSU as it is.

[DanTheHorn 5061]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Why would the ACC's smaller fish want to take less so Oregon makes more?   They can barely feed FSU as it is.

I did not say want too, they may have to in order to have a chance to be part of a major conference. Lets say B1G, SEC and TV partners decide staying put works fine for them. I do not see how the remaining viable brands stay in current conferences with equal revenue sharing. They probably break off and form a 3rd major conference and that includes some schools breaking away from the BIG 12. I would think recent lessons would have been learned regarding being left behind.

Edited April 17, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[BurntOrange&White 41646]

3 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

I did not say want too, they may have to in order to have a chance to be part of a major conference. Lets say B1G, SEC and TV partners decide staying put works fine for them. I do not see how the remaining viable brands stay in current conferences with equal revenue sharing. They probably break off and form a 3rd major conference and that includes some schools breaking away from the BIG 12. I would think recent lessons would have been learned regarding being left behind.

Yeah I don't see anyway schools would take less money. Even is BIG and SEC stay put in expansion. 

[TKthunder2 5058]

9 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

Based on former ESPN exec ACC may be able to force renegotiation. Also, it could open the door for tiered payouts. Smaller fish may be way more willing to take less if less means more than what they would get if left out in the end.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/former-espn-president-says-acc-pac-12-should-consider-merging

Unless the merger nullifies the ACC GOR I’m not sure how that helps.

Even if they have a clause that triggers a renegotiation, it’s likely based on just paying more for the new schools not paying everyone more otherwise they could just add UConn or Memphis and not worry about going to the West Coast.

I get this comes from a source WAY more knowledgeable about the subject matter than any of us, but I feel like they skipped over some key information that proves their point

[Hurtlocker 2219]

11 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Unless the merger nullifies the ACC GOR I’m not sure how that helps.

Even if they have a clause that triggers a renegotiation, it’s likely based on just paying more for the new schools not paying everyone more otherwise they could just add UConn or Memphis and not worry about going to the West Coast.

I get this comes from a source WAY more knowledgeable about the subject matter than any of us, but I feel like they skipped over some key information that proves their point

Yeah, i'm really not sure how this helps the ACC at all, except maybe getting the ACC Network in more homes.   Most of their games are on that anyway, but with 24 teams they'll be a glut of inventory and no where to put it.

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Unless the merger nullifies the ACC GOR I’m not sure how that helps.

Even if they have a clause that triggers a renegotiation, it’s likely based on just paying more for the new schools not paying everyone more otherwise they could just add UConn or Memphis and not worry about going to the West Coast.

I get this comes from a source WAY more knowledgeable about the subject matter than any of us, but I feel like they skipped over some key information that proves their point

I'm with you.  If they add teams, that would be covered under whatever expansion provisions are in the contract.

If a merger would somehow invalidate the GOR, schools like Wake, BC, Cuse, etc aren't going to vote for it, as FSU, Clemson, etc would bolt at the first opportunity, with some of the remnants getting left behind entirely.

Schools like VT and NC St aren't assured of a landing place in the P2.  If UNC and UVA go SEC, they're not getting into the BIG.  Louisville, Pitt no shot.

I don't think the votes are there for anything that would allow teams to escape.  

[Hurtlocker 2219]

31 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I'm with you.  If they add teams, that would be covered under whatever expansion provisions are in the contract.

If a merger would somehow invalidate the GOR, schools like Wake, BC, Cuse, etc aren't going to vote for it, as FSU, Clemson, etc would bolt at the first opportunity, with some of the remnants getting left behind entirely.

Schools like VT and NC St aren't assured of a landing place in the P2.  If UNC and UVA go SEC, they're not getting into the BIG.  Louisville, Pitt no shot.

I don't think the votes are there for anything that would allow teams to escape.  

It wouldn't invalidate a grant of rights, actually the new schools would likely need to sign onto the one that currently exists for the ACC.   Merging would open up a negotiation on what any new inventory would be worth to the conference, but it wouldn't necessarily open anything up on items already on the current contract.  

[camel at sea 589]

14 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

TK- see my post above.  You and I are in agreement about BIG not wanting to overload the top programs, and the Athletic reported USC and UCLA won't be getting OSU or UM as a rival.  

Multiple BIG ADs have said that the top priorities with the schedule are maximizing playoff slots, competitive balance, and frequent rotation (3-6-6 model).

I think UCLA will get Neb.  Rhule will make them much better, but they've been down for so long, they're in the BIG's middle tier, along with UCLA, Iowa, MN, Purdue and IL.  Plus, UCLA has played NE more than any other BIG team.  

Nebraska's 3 are probably: Iowa, Minnesota, UCLA.  The Bruins and Huskers seem like a ready-made match to me.

On paper (facilities, donors, history, etc.), the Huskers should be a better version of Iowa and Wisconsin.  Rhule seems like the best hire they've made since Osborne left.  He's had a lot of success at the college level, more than once, at much worse jobs than NU.  He runs a system/program that fits their recruiting footprint.  We'll see how it works out.  That 3 game slate is winnable enough that it sets them up to be another top tier program in that conference.  I don't know if boosting NU is a priority, but the Big Ten offices would be happy to finally get what they hoped they were getting a decade ago.

On the subject of the Huskers, I would think that NU would be a strong "no" vote for Oregon/Washington, especially if they get UCLA as a permanent rival.  If I'm sitting in Lincoln, I want the HS players in LA. who leave the city to look east, not north.  I'd want those NW schools as limited as possible with respect to exposure.  That same logic probably applies for a lot of other B1G schools, but it's particularly true at Nebraska.

 

[camel at sea 589]

On 4/16/2023 at 11:18 AM, Jabberwocky said:

 

Interpretation: Huskies don't want fanbase to start considering Big 12 just yet.  The ACC merger stuff (however illogical) bumps the Big 12 down a rung with respect to their future options.  If Arizona and/or Colorado jump for the Big 12, two alternative options to the Big 12 should tamp down the clamor to follow for a while (long enough to find another option or long enough to adequately sell the Big 12 move.)  

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

It wouldn't invalidate a grant of rights, actually the new schools would likely need to sign onto the one that currently exists for the ACC.   Merging would open up a negotiation on what any new inventory would be worth to the conference, but it wouldn't necessarily open anything up on items already on the current contract.  

Agreed.  That's what I'd been thinking. It makes much more sense.

 I was just saying in that other post that if a merger did somehow  invalidate the GOR, there wouldn't be enough votes to make the merger happen in the first place.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

10 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Agreed.  That's what I'd been thinking. It makes much more sense.

 I was just saying in that other post that if a merger did somehow  invalidate the GOR, there wouldn't be enough votes to make the merger happen in the first place.

Agree.   I don't really see what the ACC gets out of it.  It won't increase their payout dramatically just because Oregon and Washington are there.   The only real benefit I can see is that the ACCN, which is only in like 20m homes, could be the combined home of the Pac/ACC, get it in more homes and spread out more games over more time zones.  At that point though, its not really a conference merger, its a combined media partnership.   However, now they have to spread that benefit over more mouths - square one.

An actual mega merger like that though could provide different benefits, since there are no more actual ways to expand for the B10/SEC without limiting money.   We have fun talks about relegation/promotion, but, while I doubt it would happen for all FBS, it could work within conferences.   Say the Big 12 expands to 16 with Colorado, AZ, ASU, and who the fuck cares at that point.   The SEC could join forces with the B12 on a 32 team super conference - pool all that inventory, and package it en mass with several providers.   It could then split that conference into two divisions.   You could pay 60% to the top half (playing on Fox/ABC/CBS) and 40% to the bottom half (playing on ESPN, FS1, SECN).   Everyone is slightly happy because guaranteed money, but with promotion/relegation between the two (usually three swap every year) you satisfy @Al_4_ISUprimary gripe that people who just happened to be in the right place are more deserving than those who aren't.

The biggest brands will likely remain locked in the top split, but may see a Vandy/Kentucky/South Carolina fall down and an Oklahoma State or UCF or whoever, move up.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

That's not the worst idea out there, but at that point you have schedules (for everyone) changing so much that you don't really keep promoting the regular history and familiarity that makes the game so much fun.  Just enabling a seat at the table and post-season access is the most important thing for the Big 12 and ACC going forward.

I think the teat sucklers are going to be getting theirs in the near future, and it will be kind of fun to watch.  Seeing Iowa fans brag about the Big 10 TV deal when they're not feasting on a Big 10 West schedule is going to be great.

[CustersDoctor 585]

So many of you keep talking about realignment that reduces the number of Division I schools to 64. That all sounds good but CFB already has a limited audience. CFB in many areas has an elitist snob vibe that doesn't appeal at all to the blue collar masses. Fans who have their local favorite cut out of the big time DO NOT migrate over to some other team. Schools like Rutgers and Maryland have terrible viewership, but it's good for the Division I to have a team in New Jersey and Maryland. Kicking out the poor viewership teams would decrease the overall viewership of CFB and that is bad for the game. I just don't see the ACC getting poached of their big names and leaving the dead wood behind. The only reduction possibility would be from a PAC10 collapse where the ratings disaster schools of OST, WST, CAL, & STAN get left behind.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

7 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

So many of you keep talking about realignment that reduces the number of Division I schools to 64. That all sounds good but CFB already has a limited audience. CFB in many areas has an elitist snob vibe that doesn't appeal at all to the blue collar masses. Fans who have their local favorite cut out of the big time DO NOT migrate over to some other team. Schools like Rutgers and Maryland have terrible viewership, but it's good for the Division I to have a team in New Jersey and Maryland. Kicking out the poor viewership teams would decrease the overall viewership of CFB and that is bad for the game. I just don't see the ACC getting poached of their big names and leaving the dead wood behind. The only reduction possibility would be from a PAC10 collapse where the ratings disaster schools of OST, WST, CAL, & STAN get left behind.

Right.  There seems to be this belief by some of the media/network types that if you kicked schools like OK State, TTU, ISU, etc to the curb that their fans would just become fans of OU, UT, or Iowa respectively and keep watching.  That isn't going to happen, and it seems like the guys pulling the strings have kind of figured that out as evidenced by keeping the Big 12 alive and the 12 team playoff with guaranteed spots for the conference champs.

Making the tent smaller makes for fewer eyeballs, inevitably.

 

[closetohumping 17776]

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Right.  There seems to be this belief by some of the media/network types that if you kicked schools like OK State, TTU, ISU, etc to the curb that their fans would just become fans of OU, UT, or Iowa respectively and keep watching.  That isn't going to happen, and it seems like the guys pulling the strings have kind of figured that out as evidenced by keeping the Big 12 alive and the 12 team playoff with guaranteed spots for the conference champs.

Making the tent smaller makes for fewer eyeballs, inevitably.

 

12 team playoffs was going to happen regardless.  In fact Texas and ou leaving halted the momentum for a second. 

 

Texas has fallen on hard times.  At our peak, we drew the second highest ratings......in California.  Your eyes won't shift, but in general an ISU/Tech fan would watch Texas over say Colorado and not just because we are in the same conference.  

[notre dame joe 202]

33 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

So many of you keep talking about realignment that reduces the number of Division I schools to 64. That all sounds good but CFB already has a limited audience. CFB in many areas has an elitist snob vibe that doesn't appeal at all to the blue collar masses. Fans who have their local favorite cut out of the big time DO NOT migrate over to some other team. Schools like Rutgers and Maryland have terrible viewership, but it's good for the Division I to have a team in New Jersey and Maryland. Kicking out the poor viewership teams would decrease the overall viewership of CFB and that is bad for the game. I just don't see the ACC getting poached of their big names and leaving the dead wood behind. The only reduction possibility would be from a PAC10 collapse where the ratings disaster schools of OST, WST, CAL, & STAN get left behind.

So we are circling back to the CFA?

 

@hurtlocker, they could rebrand as the PACC.  and we could call them the P-wacc.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, CustersDoctor said:

So many of you keep talking about realignment that reduces the number of Division I schools to 64. That all sounds good but CFB already has a limited audience. CFB in many areas has an elitist snob vibe that doesn't appeal at all to the blue collar masses. Fans who have their local favorite cut out of the big time DO NOT migrate over to some other team. Schools like Rutgers and Maryland have terrible viewership, but it's good for the Division I to have a team in New Jersey and Maryland. Kicking out the poor viewership teams would decrease the overall viewership of CFB and that is bad for the game. I just don't see the ACC getting poached of their big names and leaving the dead wood behind. The only reduction possibility would be from a PAC10 collapse where the ratings disaster schools of OST, WST, CAL, & STAN get left behind.

Conference realignment makes some sense if the end goal is putting athletic departments that look similar to one another, under the same umbrella. There are a lot of upsides to that, ranging from better intra-conference governance, more opportunities for success for existing members, it will be easier for networks to negotiate and meet demands, etc.  But I agree with you that if the goal is to reduce the slate of inventory, that's asinine.  

Why would the networks not want the 1-2M audience that accompanies BYU vs. Oklahoma State?  Or Utah vs. Washington State in the super-late slot?  You drop them off the top tier of the sport and those games get a significantly smaller audience.  It's hard enough as it is to get live audiences in big numbers. Why reduces those opportunities?  Realignment can increase the ceiling for ratings in the SEC and B1G, but it doesn't make any sense to lower the ceiling, substantially, for current B12 / PAC / ACC schools.  I think you could also argue that by moving the blue bloods / big brands from the B12 / ACC / PAC that new opportunities will emerge for the schools who remain to significantly grow their brand.  If OU and Texas are in the Big 12, chances are good that one or both will usually be a difficult roadblock for high level success.  With them gone now, someone in the Big 12 will be making the playoff more often than they would have otherwise, and there will be brand growth that comes with that.  

The same logic applies farther down, too.  Why wouldn't you want a G5 to make the playoff?  It would be a big media story if/when a team from the MWC knocks off a team the Big Ten in the first round.  It will happen eventually.  Someone like Boise will beat an overrated Iowa.  The CFP will benefit from "Cinderella" just like March Madness does.  

Edited April 17, 2023 by camel at sea

[Laxtonto 13013]

Generally, I point and laugh at posts like this, but in truth, this is something WAY more viable for Amazon/Apple than the idea of dishing out big money to the Pac12 with a questionable future.

Have the B10 kills the Pac12 and allow the 4 corners some cover when leaving vs forcing one of the 4 corners to make the leap first and be the bad guy. If the B10 comes calling you can't really fault them at the upper levels of the ivory tower of academia.

The real question is 120M per year for Thurs/Sat West Coast brands for all digital be worth it for both Amazon or Apple and provide functional value for the B10. Why make the revenue-neutral move and in essence cap yourself from ND to bring in UW and UO?

 

Dont see it happening, but this seems like a much more plausible scenario to kick things off soon vs waiting for the slow death as they finally have to admit to no takers on the TV deal in August.

[TKthunder2 5058]

This whole argument again. Yes SWC schools like Houston and SMU and TCU and Rice “fans” absolutely switched their alliances to Big 12 schools. Clearly not 100% of them, many die hards would not but then they likely just stopped watching cfb.

But their kids, when they started getting interested in college football likely gravitated to Texas or aggy or Tech. People want to belong and feel included. You can still root for Rice while also rooting for Texas. Just because you personally disagree with this doesn’t mean it’s not true.

As for why conferences and networks would ditch Okie St or BYU’s 1-2million eyeball it’s because they are local die hards and not casual fans. Die hards will watch them play San Jose St but casual fans won’t.

What happened when the FBS/FCS split, when Texas ditched the SWC for the B12 or Miami ditched the Big East for the ACC? Did college football suffer when Rice and USF were left out or did it get more popular?

This isn’t a black or white solution. If Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Notre Dame, Clemson, and USC split off to form their own league just playing each other and crowning their own national champ that would not be the best the sport and would likely not have the desired outcome for the networks.

But flip side, let’s not act like the world of college football would be ruined just because Oregon St, Mississippi St, Wake Forest, Purdue or <insert Big 12 school> we’re left out. There is a balance that the networks need to be mindful of. USC/UCLA are not the only programs West of Austin that have value.

[USC Traveler 488]

9 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Nebraska's 3 are probably: Iowa, Minnesota, UCLA.  The Bruins and Huskers seem like a ready-made match to me.

On paper (facilities, donors, history, etc.), the Huskers should be a better version of Iowa and Wisconsin.  Rhule seems like the best hire they've made since Osborne left.  He's had a lot of success at the college level, more than once, at much worse jobs than NU.  He runs a system/program that fits their recruiting footprint.  We'll see how it works out.  That 3 game slate is winnable enough that it sets them up to be another top tier program in that conference.  I don't know if boosting NU is a priority, but the Big Ten offices would be happy to finally get what they hoped they were getting a decade ago.

On the subject of the Huskers, I would think that NU would be a strong "no" vote for Oregon/Washington, especially if they get UCLA as a permanent rival.  If I'm sitting in Lincoln, I want the HS players in LA. who leave the city to look east, not north.  I'd want those NW schools as limited as possible with respect to exposure.  That same logic probably applies for a lot of other B1G schools, but it's particularly true at Nebraska.

 

Agreed on NE's 3 rivals.  That's who I think it will be also.

Also agree that Rhule is their best hire (by far imo) since Osborne, for the reasons you listed.

//

As far as UW and the Zeros from Eugene, you're spot on with the CA recruiting angle- the other BIG schools want to get those CA recruits.

The Zeros have no recruiting grounds for BIG schools to access, but are very aggressive in NIL.  They almost got Kaydn Proctor out of Iowa before Bama did.

NE and the other mid-lower tier programs (MN, PU, IL, IN, Rutgers, etc) won't want them in the mix for the rare blue chip recruits they have in their home states.

The lower-mid tier BIG schools also don't want to take additional Ls while taking less money, and per Thamel and others, they don't want their games shifted onto streaming due to having too many conference games for their broadcast partners to handle.

Plus, per Thamel and others, OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, Wiscy are not taking pay cuts to add trips to Eugene to their schedules.

And oh btw, USC has been lobbying from day 1 UW and UO, according to Feldman and the LAT.  I've heard it's the same for UCLA.  

There's a reason the PNW schools didn't get an invite with USC and UCLA.

UW is the more attractive of the two- much better tv market, academics and research, but the revenue dilution and fear of getting shoved down another peg among the middle tier is still there.

Kevin Warren wanted to keep expanding, and the schools told him it wasn’t happening, so fans of the PNW saying that the new commissioner is going to get them in makes me laugh.

I can't think of one school in the BIG that would support adding the PNW schools.  Certainly not before they see how things play out with ND and the ACC in 10-12 years.  UNC, UVA, GT, Miami and FSU are all much more attractive than UW or the Zeros.

The only other West Coast school that I think gets in will be Stanford.  ND and USC will both want Stanford to come in with ND, and BIG Presidents would be thrilled to add Stanford for a variety of reasons, especially since they wouldn't dilute revenue as ND's partner, since ND will bring so much value on their own.

 

 

 

[bullet 1626]

8 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Agree.   I don't really see what the ACC gets out of it.  It won't increase their payout dramatically just because Oregon and Washington are there.   The only real benefit I can see is that the ACCN, which is only in like 20m homes, could be the combined home of the Pac/ACC, get it in more homes and spread out more games over more time zones.  At that point though, its not really a conference merger, its a combined media partnership.   However, now they have to spread that benefit over more mouths - square one.

An actual mega merger like that though could provide different benefits, since there are no more actual ways to expand for the B10/SEC without limiting money.   We have fun talks about relegation/promotion, but, while I doubt it would happen for all FBS, it could work within conferences.   Say the Big 12 expands to 16 with Colorado, AZ, ASU, and who the fuck cares at that point.   The SEC could join forces with the B12 on a 32 team super conference - pool all that inventory, and package it en mass with several providers.   It could then split that conference into two divisions.   You could pay 60% to the top half (playing on Fox/ABC/CBS) and 40% to the bottom half (playing on ESPN, FS1, SECN).   Everyone is slightly happy because guaranteed money, but with promotion/relegation between the two (usually three swap every year) you satisfy @Al_4_ISUprimary gripe that people who just happened to be in the right place are more deserving than those who aren't.

The biggest brands will likely remain locked in the top split, but may see a Vandy/Kentucky/South Carolina fall down and an Oklahoma State or UCF or whoever, move up.

Oregon and Washington are not going to lock themselves in to 2036 with the Big looming in the next 7 years.  They also aren't going to sign a 3 year's revenues exit fee.

[billfromlaketravis 11784]

I almost admire Oregon and UW fans. They wake up every and refuse to believe they’re screwed. 

[Hurtlocker 2219]

34 minutes ago, bullet said:

Oregon and Washington are not going to lock themselves in to 2036 with the Big looming in the next 7 years.  They also aren't going to sign a 3 year's revenues exit fee.

Yeah and there are like 5 less viable parts in that merger than what Oregon or Washington think.   I can't find a single positive benefit to it.   If the ACC wasn't under contract for another 13 years, if there were a lot of viable windows available, or if there was a chance of creating a very popular conference channel.   Perhaps.   But none of these are the case.

[USC Traveler 488]

9 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Agree.   I don't really see what the ACC gets out of it.  It won't increase their payout dramatically just because Oregon and Washington are there.   The only real benefit I can see is that the ACCN, which is only in like 20m homes, could be the combined home of the Pac/ACC, get it in more homes and spread out more games over more time zones.  At that point though, its not really a conference merger, its a combined media partnership.   However, now they have to spread that benefit over more mouths - square one.

An actual mega merger like that though could provide different benefits, since there are no more actual ways to expand for the B10/SEC without limiting money.   We have fun talks about relegation/promotion, but, while I doubt it would happen for all FBS, it could work within conferences.   Say the Big 12 expands to 16 with Colorado, AZ, ASU, and who the fuck cares at that point.   The SEC could join forces with the B12 on a 32 team super conference - pool all that inventory, and package it en mass with several providers.   It could then split that conference into two divisions.   You could pay 60% to the top half (playing on Fox/ABC/CBS) and 40% to the bottom half (playing on ESPN, FS1, SECN).   Everyone is slightly happy because guaranteed money, but with promotion/relegation between the two (usually three swap every year) you satisfy @Al_4_ISUprimary gripe that people who just happened to be in the right place are more deserving than those who aren't.

The biggest brands will likely remain locked in the top split, but may see a Vandy/Kentucky/South Carolina fall down and an Oklahoma State or UCF or whoever, move up.

Agree on the ACC part, and would love to see the second part take place.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5477]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:33 PM, &#x27;stache said:

I think ESPN was more to blame back in 2011. The Pac's media deal was Fox heavy and they didn't want to lose OU or UT, so they gave UT a network as a way to funnel them an extra $15 mil a year.

By far, the worst consequence of this terrible decision isn't anything that's been discussed in the last 500 pages. It's Lowell Fucking Galindo. 

[notre dame joe 202]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

This whole argument again. Yes SWC schools like Houston and SMU and TCU and Rice “fans” absolutely switched their alliances to Big 12 schools. Clearly not 100% of them, many die hards would not but then they likely just stopped watching cfb.

But their kids, when they started getting interested in college football likely gravitated to Texas or aggy or Tech. People want to belong and feel included. You can still root for Rice while also rooting for Texas. Just because you personally disagree with this doesn’t mean it’s not true.

As for why conferences and networks would ditch Okie St or BYU’s 1-2million eyeball it’s because they are local die hards and not casual fans. Die hards will watch them play San Jose St but casual fans won’t.

What happened when the FBS/FCS split, when Texas ditched the SWC for the B12 or Miami ditched the Big East for the ACC? Did college football suffer when Rice and USF were left out or did it get more popular?

This isn’t a black or white solution. If Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Notre Dame, Clemson, and USC split off to form their own league just playing each other and crowning their own national champ that would not be the best the sport and would likely not have the desired outcome for the networks.

But flip side, let’s not act like the world of college football would be ruined just because Oregon St, Mississippi St, Wake Forest, Purdue or <insert Big 12 school> we’re left out. There is a balance that the networks need to be mindful of. USC/UCLA are not the only programs West of Austin that have value.

Well it's kind of simple.  Is college football expanding or declining during consolidation.  You can start the clock with Board of Regents that started media driven CR. 

['stache 22115]

Not sure a merger makes sense. Wouldn’t ACC just choose who to take? UW, UO, Stan, Cal. They can maintain their love for academics. The. AU, ASU, CU, and Utah to XII.

[camel at sea 589]

15 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

This whole argument again. Yes SWC schools like Houston and SMU and TCU and Rice “fans” absolutely switched their alliances to Big 12 schools. Clearly not 100% of them, many die hards would not but then they likely just stopped watching cfb.

But their kids, when they started getting interested in college football likely gravitated to Texas or aggy or Tech. People want to belong and feel included. You can still root for Rice while also rooting for Texas. Just because you personally disagree with this doesn’t mean it’s not true.

As for why conferences and networks would ditch Okie St or BYU’s 1-2million eyeball it’s because they are local die hards and not casual fans. Die hards will watch them play San Jose St but casual fans won’t.

What happened when the FBS/FCS split, when Texas ditched the SWC for the B12 or Miami ditched the Big East for the ACC? Did college football suffer when Rice and USF were left out or did it get more popular?

This isn’t a black or white solution. If Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Notre Dame, Clemson, and USC split off to form their own league just playing each other and crowning their own national champ that would not be the best the sport and would likely not have the desired outcome for the networks.

But flip side, let’s not act like the world of college football would be ruined just because Oregon St, Mississippi St, Wake Forest, Purdue or <insert Big 12 school> we’re left out. There is a balance that the networks need to be mindful of. USC/UCLA are not the only programs West of Austin that have value.

The reason this conversation comes up so often is because there's a large difference between the fanbases at Rice and SMU, in the late 1980s, and those at Mississippi State and Oklahoma State today.  It seems like a lot of people can't seem to see that difference.  Fanbases the size of Miss State or OK State have never been cut out of the top tier of college football before.  It's reckless to assume you could cut out several programs of that size without inflicting quite a bit of damage to the sport's overall viewership.    

[oSuJeff97 3438]

10 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The reason this conversation comes up so often is because there's a large difference between the fanbases at Rice and SMU, in the late 1980s, and those at Mississippi State and Oklahoma State today.  It seems like a lot of people can't seem to see that difference.  Fanbases the size of Miss State or OK State have never been cut out of the top tier of college football before.  It's reckless to assume you could cut out several programs of that size without inflicting quite a bit of damage to the sport's overall viewership.    

Exactly.

There’s a big difference between small private schools in a random big metro area and large public state universities.

That’s why pretty much every large public state university is already in a P5 conference, regardless if they are traditional blue bloods or not, and why schools like Rice and SMU are always swinging in the wind during realignment.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

14 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I almost admire Oregon and UW fans. They wake up every and refuse to believe they’re screwed. 

The magical thinking is hilarious.

That "heard it from my buddy at the gym" post is a truly epic fail.

For no revenue increase, existing BIG schools are going to play West Coast games that are streaming-only with 9:30pm CT starts ?  😂

The same BIG schools that don't want to add the PNW schools because they don't want their games moved onto streaming platforms ?

The same BIG ADs who have said they don't want to take more than one trip to the West Coast per season ?

 

Can you imagine a BIG President or AD trying to sell their donors on this ?  😂😂😂

[USC Traveler 488]

31 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The reason this conversation comes up so often is because there's a large difference between the fanbases at Rice and SMU, in the late 1980s, and those at Mississippi State and Oklahoma State today.  It seems like a lot of people can't seem to see that difference.  Fanbases the size of Miss State or OK State have never been cut out of the top tier of college football before.  It's reckless to assume you could cut out several programs of that size without inflicting quite a bit of damage to the sport's overall viewership.    

Not only do you alienate those fanbases if they get left behind in a super league, you also create a lot of unhappy fanbases within the super league, as teams that formerly posted 9-10 wins annually now go 4-8 a lot of years.

Miss St, arky, IU, Purdue, etc all serve a purpose in the P2- they take most of the Ls in a given year, with the top teams getting a certain number of fairly easy wins, setting up more "Clash of the Titans" top games between the big brands.  10-1 USC vs 11-0 UM, or 11-0 UT vs 10-1 Bama both sound a lot more exciting than if all the teams had 3 losses NFL-style.

And when the stars align, like when Dak was at MSU, or in 2020 at IU, those long-suffering fanbases get to go on a magic carpet ride that is great for the whole sport.

//

I'm not an NFL fan.  I watch the playoffs, but don't care about the regular season.  I like the passion, energy and tradition of CFB.  And even though the average game in CFB is less competitive than the average NFL game, that's what makes the CFB upsets resonate so loudly.  

App St over aggy ?  Are you kidding me ?  On paper, that should have never happened.  But it did, and there's nothing like it.

[USC Traveler 488]

30 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Exactly.

There’s a big difference between small private schools in a random big metro area and large public state universities.

That’s why pretty much every large public state university is already in a P5 conference, regardless if they are traditional blue bloods or not, and why schools like Rice and SMU are always swinging in the wind during realignment.

 

Yeah- schools like OSU will form the backbone of the third conference that emerges, which imo will be a coast to coast B12, with the PAC and ACC schools that don't get into the P2 joining in different waves over the next 10-12 years.

There will be too many good programs with fans who care consolidated in one place for the networks to ignore, so there will be good value in the tv deal.

It won't make as much money as the P2, but it will be a fun league to watch, and it will make enough $$$ that it will enable teams to field strong squads with the right type of coach who can evaluate and develop.  Fickell at Cincy and Rhule at Baylor are perfect examples.

There will be some years where one of those teams makes some noise in an early round playoff game or two.

How far would that Cincy squad have gotten in a 12 team playoff if they didn't get Bama in the first round ?

//

P2 will probably end up somewhere between 36-44 teams- not necessarily the same number in BIG as in SEC.  Could be BIG24 and SEC 20 for example.

B12 could land anywhere between 20 all the way up to maybe 28 or 32 teams, depending on how many teams the tv partners say are worth adding.

[camel at sea 589]

14 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

As far as UW and the Zeros from Eugene, you're spot on with the CA recruiting angle- the other BIG schools want to get those CA recruits.

The Zeros have no recruiting grounds for BIG schools to access, but are very aggressive in NIL.  They almost got Kaydn Proctor out of Iowa before Bama did.

NE and the other mid-lower tier programs (MN, PU, IL, IN, Rutgers, etc) won't want them in the mix for the rare blue chip recruits they have in their home states.

The lower-mid tier BIG schools also don't want to take additional Ls while taking less money, and per Thamel and others, they don't want their games shifted onto streaming due to having too many conference games for their broadcast partners to handle.

Plus, per Thamel and others, OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, Wiscy are not taking pay cuts to add trips to Eugene to their schedules.

And oh btw, USC has been lobbying from day 1 UW and UO, according to Feldman and the LAT.  I've heard it's the same for UCLA.  

There's a reason the PNW schools didn't get an invite with USC and UCLA.

UW is the more attractive of the two- much better tv market, academics and research, but the revenue dilution and fear of getting shoved down another peg among the middle tier is still there.

Kevin Warren wanted to keep expanding, and the schools told him it wasn’t happening, so fans of the PNW saying that the new commissioner is going to get them in makes me laugh.

I can't think of one school in the BIG that would support adding the PNW schools.  Certainly not before they see how things play out with ND and the ACC in 10-12 years.  UNC, UVA, GT, Miami and FSU are all much more attractive than UW or the Zeros.

The only other West Coast school that I think gets in will be Stanford.  ND and USC will both want Stanford to come in with ND, and BIG Presidents would be thrilled to add Stanford for a variety of reasons, especially since they wouldn't dilute revenue as ND's partner, since ND will bring so much value on their own.

I agree with you, though I do think it's weird to imagine Cal being left out.  They've got a larger local fanbase than Stanford does.  If the Bears don't suck, they can draw 50K+ to football games.  The TV appeal just isn't there, though.  Stanford hiring Harbaugh and going on an extended run may end up pretty fortunate for their program in the long run.  

I see talk about Amazon/Apple getting involved in the B1G, pushing for more expansion there, but there isn't really a reason they couldn't get involved with the Big 12, and less expensively.  If the Big 12 added the 4C + UO/UW, that's more inventory than ESPN/FOX likely have room for.  The rest would go to market and the streamers could bid on it.