Realignment talk not going away

[Laxtonto 11,933]

Yeah... that second tweet that goes with this is probably the more important one.

[PilotsError 2,282]

The administrations ask coaches their opinions on schools and possible partners. 
 

 

[camel at sea 589]

I'm starting to see some media leaks indicating that Yormark doesn't have internal support for Gonzaga.  If they can get UConn, Arizona, and Colorado, I don't think they get much extra from the Zags.  

They could park at 15 full members and see what transpires with the ACC down the road. 

 

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

Adding Connecticut as a football member would not be ideal. This seems to be where the battle lines are forming, as these reporters seem to be making a point of mentioning this today.

[thunderlounge 7,758]

25 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I'm starting to see some media leaks indicating that Yormark doesn't have internal support for Gonzaga.  If they can get UConn, Arizona, and Colorado, I don't think they get much extra from the Zags.  

They could park at 15 full members and see what transpires with the ACC down the road. 

 

No support for non-P5 means more than no gonzaga. Last check UConn wasn’t P5 either.

Those are backup backup plans getting smoke to draw from the real show.

 

[bullet 1,596]

7 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Found it:

 

 

Probably should point out that WVU is not in the ACC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim Williams

 

@JWMediaDC

 

Here are a list of the schools that have been vetted by the

@bigten

for possible future members. This is not in order of value just they are just they way I wrote them down. Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Utah, and Miami. It should be noted that when the B10 added Nebraska they were going to invite Maryland as well but held off. Vetting is doing your homework, I am not saying that Oregon or Washington are never getting an invite, what I am saying is not a lock in the next couple of years.

 

Since you referenced it.  Now, McMurphy's Big 10 list was Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Miami, FSU and Notre Dame.  Maybe FSU and Notre Dame go without saying.

[USC Traveler 488]

34 minutes ago, bullet said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim Williams

 

@JWMediaDC

 

Here are a list of the schools that have been vetted by the

@bigten

for possible future members. This is not in order of value just they are just they way I wrote them down. Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Utah, and Miami. It should be noted that when the B10 added Nebraska they were going to invite Maryland as well but held off. Vetting is doing your homework, I am not saying that Oregon or Washington are never getting an invite, what I am saying is not a lock in the next couple of years.

 

Since you referenced it.  Now, McMurphy's Big 10 list was Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Miami, FSU and Notre Dame.  Maybe FSU and Notre Dame go without saying.

I take "vetting" in this context to mean a very preliminary evaluation- i.e., is a school worth taking a deeper dive into considering them for membership.

My understanding is that that USC and UCLA didn't go through the vetting stage- the value was clear (Fox made it known), so they skipped that step.

I would assume it was like that with UT and OU to the SEC.  When a blueblood wants to join, they go straight into serious consideration/voting stage.

That's probably why ND and FSU aren't on Jim's list.  There's no need for a preliminary evaluation.  You do a deep dive and vote.

//

The "vetting" seems sort of like the doorman at a club.  You get waved through and you're in the club, but you're by no means in the VIP area.

Even if the BIG goes to 24, not all of those schools are getting in.

IIRC, BIG also kicked the tires on OU, KU, Vandy (and maybe Mizzou) at various points in time.

Edited June 7, 2023 by USC Traveler

[Gidnik 3,251]

 

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

Apparently there is a Colorado special board meeting now scheduled for June 9th. Maybe this all means that all the current members are going to sign another Pac12 grant of rights. 

[Deej 76,568]

I'm looking forward to the SEC expanding to 20 teams but only playing six conference games.

[CustersDoctor 584]

8 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Even worse- they rejected partnering with both ESPN and Fox because Commissar Scott wanted to be the CEO of PACNet.

He sold the PAC Presidents on the idea that they would be better off owning the network themselves and didn't need a partner for distribution.

He then used the fact that he was running a "media company" to justify getting paid 2-3 times more than Delaney and Slive.

 

When the PAC eventually dissolves/becomes a glorified G5, there will be a great 30 for 30 about Scott and the events that led to the demise:

#1 Hiring Scott and not partnering with ESPN/Fox on the PACNet.

#2 Forcing equal rev sharing on USC and UCLA, then passing on adding UT, OU, Tech, etc because of LHN/equal rev sharing.

#3 Passing on adding OU and OSU because of academic snobbery/coastal elitism.

#4 Ignoring USC's AD saying twice publicly that "All options are on the table" for conference affiliation.

 

It's an incredible series of unforced errors.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.  The WACPAC won't be missed.

Of all the unforced errors, the biggest one is NOT having a media partner on the PAC12 network. Remember that Fox is a stakeholder in the B1G network. Some B1G schools don't like that fact because Fox has a lot of control on which games are relegated to the BIG network. But since Fox has a stake in the B1G network they certainly had to be vocal in landing USC & UCLA since that had the two fold effect of adding value to Fox's investment in the B1G network while simultaneously destroying the value of the PAC12  network. If ESPN or CBS or Fox had a stake in the PAC12 network that stakeholder would have been active in keeping the PAC12 together. That stakeholder would have been working on a good OTA & cable contract with the Pac-12. But Scott wanted to go at it alone and it cost him dearly.

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

1 hour ago, Jabberwocky said:

Apparently there is a Colorado special board meeting now scheduled for June 9th. Maybe this all means that all the current members are going to sign another Pac12 grant of rights. 

A meeting today and another for the 9th?

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

53 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

A meeting today and another for the 9th?

Yes. The one today was closed executive session. The one on the 9th is an open special board meeting.

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

41 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Yes. The one today was closed executive session. The one on the 9th is an open special board meeting.

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

22 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

The meeting on the 9th is scheduled to last from 8 to 830 am, so who knows what they will do in 30 minutes.

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Deej said:

I'm looking forward to the SEC expanding to 20 teams but only playing six conference games.

It just means more.............................................................against Furman.

[notre dame joe 172]

9 hours ago, PilotsError said:

The administrations ask coaches their opinions on schools and possible partners. 
 

 

My boss often begins sentences with "Would you like to __________"

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

7 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Yes. The one today was closed executive session. The one on the 9th is an open special board meeting.

Sounds big and not the typical Tuesday meeting they’ve been known to have 

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

7 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

The meeting on the 9th is scheduled to last from 8 to 830 am, so who knows what they will do in 30 minutes.

A quick vote?

[thunderlounge 7,758]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

A quick vote?

For public view, perhaps. 
 

Maybe they've had the real vote, notified interested parties, and then will have a little public show on Friday?

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

1 minute ago, thunderlounge said:

For public view, perhaps. 
 

Maybe they've had the real vote, notified interested parties, and then will have a little public show on Friday?

 

That's what they did the last time.

I'm still not very convinced this is anything or note regarding realignment.  This board meets to wipe each other's asses.

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That's what they did the last time.

I'm still not very convinced this is anything or note regarding realignment.  This board meets to wipe each other's asses.

Yeah but it’s generally always Tuesday’s they meet. A non scheduled meeting for a Friday is odd. And if they were to vote to leave conference to join another it would have to be a public meeting where as majority of the others have been private. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yeah but it’s generally always Tuesday’s they meet. A non scheduled meeting for a Friday is odd. And if they were to vote to leave conference to join another it would have to be a public meeting where as majority of the others have been private. 

Right.  When they left the Big 12 they had a private meeting on Tuesday and then a public meeting on Friday where the announcement was made.

[closetojumping 62,245]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Right.  When they left the Big 12 they had a private meeting on Tuesday and then a public meeting on Friday where the announcement was made.

Shit. I remember being so excited about CU preparing to bolt at that time. It meant that Baylor would be boxed out of trying to tie themselves to a PAC 16 move with us, Tech, ATM, OSU, and OU. What a fucking kick to the nuts the entire thing turned out to be for everyone involved following that. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

20 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Shit. I remember being so excited about CU preparing to bolt at that time. It meant that Baylor would be boxed out of trying to tie themselves to a PAC 16 move with us, Tech, ATM, OSU, and OU. What a fucking kick to the nuts the entire thing turned out to be for everyone involved following that. 

I was bracing for the end of the world.

The Pac 16 would have ended up being dysfunctional as hell.  I’d argue that what we’re getting after ‘23 is better for ALL of those schools.

[FartingDreamer 138]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

Shit. I remember being so excited about CU preparing to bolt at that time. It meant that Baylor would be boxed out of trying to tie themselves to a PAC 16 move with us, Tech, ATM, OSU, and OU. What a fucking kick to the nuts the entire thing turned out to be for everyone involved following that. 

Yes it was.

[Laxtonto 11,933]

 

[closetojumping 62,245]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I was bracing for the end of the world.

The Pac 16 would have ended up being dysfunctional as hell.  I’d argue that what we’re getting after ‘23 is better for ALL of those schools.

It's an interesting discussion. I'm not sure what comes after '23 is better or worse than what could have been for Texas and OU, but in truth, the last 12-13 years have been a beating as a Texas fan and I like to imagine that being in the PAC 16 would have made it all better. It's pure fiction, so I'll take the happiest version. 

Any conference with 16+ teams and programs with massive egos as part of that 16 is for sure going to be very dysfunctional. Stanford, UCLA, USC, Texas, OU, ATM - all of those programs and schools have massive egos for various reasons, whether justified or not. It isn't like Oregon, UW, or Cal couldn't be lumped into that group as well. There are cultural, regional, and academic issues all over that hypothetical group of 16. 

That considered, same shit different day with the SEC. Texas, ATM, OU, LSU, Bama, UGA, UF, and Tennessee all have massive egos. Auburn is batshit crazy and has a massive ego too. There are cultural and academic issues all over that group of 16. As a Texas fan, growing up in Texas and traveling all over the western world as an adult, I know I am not alone in not viewing the rest of the SEC as a peer set whatsoever.

I do not give one fuck if that offends any of the fans of the rest of the SEC. I don't see that changing for Texas going forward, but I think the competitive level of the conference, the money, and not being one of two college sports blue bloods carrying water for the conference will offset those differences for everyone. 

I still wish, personally, that the PAC 16 would have happened. I'm glad for you guys and others that it didn't though. The future definitely looks less messy for the Big 12 than it would have been with Beebe at the helm of the fallout back in the day.

[TKthunder2 4,980]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I was bracing for the end of the world.

The Pac 16 would have ended up being dysfunctional as hell.  I’d argue that what we’re getting after ‘23 is better for ALL of those schools.

Curious

Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, aggy, Tech, Oklahoma, Okie St leave…

Utah, BYU, TCU, Houston, WVU, Louisville, Cincy join.

Which conference would you rather be in?

If you assume both versions have ISU/KU/KSU/BU/BYU/WVU/TCU/UH/Cincy

Tech, Okie St, UCF
vs
Mizzou, Utah, Louisville

[bullet 1,596]

19 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Cross country rivalries of convenience. 

Are you saying Northern Arizona has a chance?!  (6 of the last 7 cross-country championships).

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

 

 

[bullet 1,596]

8 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

It's an interesting discussion. I'm not sure what comes after '23 is better or worse than what could have been for Texas and OU, but in truth, the last 12-13 years have been a beating as a Texas fan and I like to imagine that being in the PAC 16 would have made it all better. It's pure fiction, so I'll take the happiest version. 

Any conference with 16+ teams and programs with massive egos as part of that 16 is for sure going to be very dysfunctional. Stanford, UCLA, USC, Texas, OU, ATM - all of those programs and schools have massive egos for various reasons, whether justified or not. It isn't like Oregon, UW, or Cal couldn't be lumped into that group as well. There are cultural, regional, and academic issues all over that hypothetical group of 16. 

That considered, same shit different day with the SEC. Texas, ATM, OU, LSU, Bama, UGA, UF, and Tennessee all have massive egos. Auburn is batshit crazy and has a massive ego too. There are cultural and academic issues all over that group of 16. As a Texas fan, growing up in Texas and traveling all over the western world as an adult, I know I am not alone in not viewing the rest of the SEC as a peer set whatsoever.

I do not give one fuck if that offends any of the fans of the rest of the SEC. I don't see that changing for Texas going forward, but I think the competitive level of the conference, the money, and not being one of two college sports blue bloods carrying water for the conference will offset those differences for everyone. 

I still wish, personally, that the PAC 16 would have happened. I'm glad for you guys and others that it didn't though. The future definitely looks less messy for the Big 12 than it would have been with Beebe at the helm of the fallout back in the day.

I think it would be better for college football to have at least one other conference to balance out the SEC and Big 10 instead of a bi-polar college football.

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

Just now, Uncle Nate said:

 

 

Fitting considering Canzano just dropped a fluff piece haha

[Laxtonto 11,933]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

Just now, Laxtonto said:

 

Yup....if they're getting 5.7 million taken away for the next two years plus a deal worth less than big 12....the schools are standing to lose a lot of money.

 

 

My question is say a Colorado or Arizona leaves, are they still responsible for that payment or do the remaining PAC schools have to make up that difference?

[Laxtonto 11,933]

 

So we now have a GOR on the table that they all like, if they gets a media deal that works...

 

So if we all make 500M a year, sure I will sign that GOR for 10 years, why not? ... but what if it is only 25 per school..... yeah fuck you

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

It's an interesting discussion. I'm not sure what comes after '23 is better or worse than what could have been for Texas and OU, but in truth, the last 12-13 years have been a beating as a Texas fan and I like to imagine that being in the PAC 16 would have made it all better. It's pure fiction, so I'll take the happiest version. 
Any conference with 16+ teams and programs with massive egos as part of that 16 is for sure going to be very dysfunctional. Stanford, UCLA, USC, Texas, OU, ATM - all of those programs and schools have massive egos for various reasons, whether justified or not. It isn't like Oregon, UW, or Cal couldn't be lumped into that group as well. There are cultural, regional, and academic issues all over that hypothetical group of 16. 
That considered, same shit different day with the SEC. Texas, ATM, OU, LSU, Bama, UGA, UF, and Tennessee all have massive egos. Auburn is batshit crazy and has a massive ego too. There are cultural and academic issues all over that group of 16. As a Texas fan, growing up in Texas and traveling all over the western world as an adult, I know I am not alone in not viewing the rest of the SEC as a peer set whatsoever.
I do not give one fuck if that offends any of the fans of the rest of the SEC. I don't see that changing for Texas going forward, but I think the competitive level of the conference, the money, and not being one of two college sports blue bloods carrying water for the conference will offset those differences for everyone. 
I still wish, personally, that the PAC 16 would have happened. I'm glad for you guys and others that it didn't though. The future definitely looks less messy for the Big 12 than it would have been with Beebe at the helm of the fallout back in the day.

Eventually the fact that a large portion of what would have been the Pac 16 doesn’t give any fucks about college sports would have created a gigantic rift. Among all the other cultural incompatibility.

The SEC and new Big 12 are mostly comprised of passionate fanbases and there aren’t many empty stadiums. The SEC is at least contiguous even if a lot of the newer members aren’t southeastern. The Big 12 is still anchored along the Great Plains, despite its more far flung adds.

I think that had the Pac 16 happened, the bigger brands would have gotten pretty sick of playing in Pacific time in empty stadiums. The SEC doesn’t go west of Austin. The lesser schools still care a lot. The exposure is bigger.

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

Curious
Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, aggy, Tech, Oklahoma, Okie St leave…
Utah, BYU, TCU, Houston, WVU, Louisville, Cincy join.
Which conference would you rather be in?
If you assume both versions have ISU/KU/KSU/BU/BYU/WVU/TCU/UH/Cincy
Tech, Okie St, UCF
vs
Mizzou, Utah, Louisville

At that time, the thought was ISU and the Kansas schools end up in the Big East, but it would have been an absolute dead last “major” conference and a constant media whipping boy. Behind the Pac and ACC by a big margin.

However, all of us spent the 10 team Big 12 era ramping up facilities, galvanizing fanbases, and generally improving the profile to the point the league has pulled ahead of the ACC and Pac 12.

I would much rather be in the 2024 Big 12 than that morass of uncertainty.

[Texas Wahoo 3,383]

 

 

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

 

 

 

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

All the grant of rights talk among the Pac media, preceded by the Washington State tweet about giving Schultz the power to sign a grant of rights, seems pretty orchestrated. 

I don't know what they are trying to accomplish though. The PR seems pretty useless if they still have a shitty media rights offer.

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

5 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

All the grant of rights talk among the Pac media, preceded by the Washington State tweet about giving Schultz the power to sign a grant of rights, seems pretty orchestrated. 

I don't know what they are trying to accomplish though. The PR seems pretty useless if they still have a shitty media rights offer.

It's obviously a negotiation tactic to get a better media rights deal. "HEY LOOK WE ALL AGREE ON A GRANT OF RIGHTS!  Please give better offer!"

 

Seems like a hail mary, if you will.

Edited June 7, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[closetojumping 62,245]

It's a bullying tactic to try to create concern for BOR folks at Colorado/Arizona/Oregon/Washington should they vote to move on elsewhere. It's patrician bullying driven by Stanford and/or Cal, I think. Unfortunately for them, Colorado people aren't going to get worked up over "optics" and I doubt Arizona or Oregon people would either. If there's a better, concrete deal with a seemingly competently run and stable conference on the table, that option keeps looking better and better by the day. 

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yup....if they're getting 5.7 million taken away for the next two years plus a deal worth less than big 12....the schools are standing to lose a lot of money.

 

 

My question is say a Colorado or Arizona leaves, are they still responsible for that payment or do the remaining PAC schools have to make up that difference?

My guess is still responsible and will be taken out of future earnings with a buy out.   They were there when it occurred so its on their watch.

[CustersDoctor 584]

2 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

 

Is this a new tweet because its nearly identical in content to about 10 other tweets over the last 10 months. "There is a deal on the table that we're all ready to sign as soon as the deal that we are willing to sign is on the table."

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

51 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

All the grant of rights talk among the Pac media, preceded by the Washington State tweet about giving Schultz the power to sign a grant of rights, seems pretty orchestrated. 

I don't know what they are trying to accomplish though. The PR seems pretty useless if they still have a shitty media rights offer.

Seems it all occurred the moment Colorado's Board posted a public meeting.

['stache 21,774]

4 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Shit. I remember being so excited about CU preparing to bolt at that time. It meant that Baylor would be boxed out of trying to tie themselves to a PAC 16 move with us, Tech, ATM, OSU, and OU. What a fucking kick to the nuts the entire thing turned out to be for everyone involved following that. 

It would have been great, especially since my school was included. I think it's 50-50 whether it would have been good enough to keep USC/UCLA from the BIG and UT/OU from the SEC. I also think 2020 could have been a complete disaster,  the bickering between the California folks and the Texas/Oklahoma folks about how to treat COVID could have been really difficult to navigate.

Edited June 7, 2023 by 'stache

[TKthunder2 4,980]

55 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I also think 2020 could have been a complete disaster,  the bickering between the California folks and the Texas/Oklahoma folks about how to treat COVID could have been really difficult to navigate.

Would have been fun to watch though.

[Trojan Man 429]

41 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It would have been great, especially since my school was included. I think it's 50-50 whether it would have been good enough to keep USC/UCLA from the BIG and UT/OU from the SEC. I also think 2020 could have been a complete disaster,  the bickering between the California folks and the Texas/Oklahoma folks about how to treat COVID could have been really difficult to navigate.

Possibly, however USC played a major part in the Pac 12 eventually playing in 2020.  The conference's drastic approach towards Covid largely came from Cal and Stanford, like most of the shitty ideas to emerge from the Pac 12.  I think there would be less deference towards those two problem children if there were more members in the conference that prioritized successful athletics over bragging about being affiliated with the Bay Area schools.  USC and the former Big 12 schools telling Cal and Stanford to go fuck themselves when they suggested canceling the 2020 season would have led to a fuller season than the joke season the Pac 12 ended up playing.

Having more Big 12 teams in the conference also would have chipped away at the conference's pecking order in the decade leading up to the pandemic as well.  Cal, Stanford and Washington have always had more say than they deserve in the direction of the Pac 12 and most of that time their decisions have been detrimental to the conference.  There would have been some erosion of that hierarchy with Pac 16 expansion and that would provide benefits beyond a better handling of the pandemic.  Maybe the conference puts more emphasis on football and basketball and less on irrelevant sports nobody outside of the Pacific time zone knows exists if Texas, Oklahoma and A&M are throwing their weight around.  But navigating all of this cultural and political bullshit is why my dream conference was USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington to the original Big 12 instead of the Pac 16.  The Pac 12's nutswinger schools are malignant tumors, the Big 12's nutswinger schools are more like mosquito bites.

[BurntOrange&White 39,655]

lol