Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

Assuming that it's actually a deal that gets actually presented and not just another tweet pulled from the ether while the Pac 12 media just kinda eventually dies, leaving the schools to sniff each other's assholes and play non-televised games.

[bullet 1597]

9 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

I hope you're right, as I think top 4 champs getting byes would help keep CCGs meaningful, as TK was pointing out.

I just don't think the other conferences will be able to stop it if the BIG/SEC make a push for a "Top 12" format with no autobids.

We may see 5-7 instead of 6-6 but champs getting a bye has value in down years for the big 10 if not the SEC. 

['stache 21815]

Wasn't there a report about unequal revenue sharing for UO and UW? I can't remember if it was that they agreed to unequal sharing or if they rejected that idea. It seems the only programs that would happily accept less to keep the conference together would be ORST and WSU. The four corners schools have BXII invites ready and should get more or they might leave. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

 

10 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

I hope you're right, as I think top 4 champs getting byes would help keep CCGs meaningful, as TK was pointing out.

I just don't think the other conferences will be able to stop it if the BIG/SEC make a push for a "Top 12" format with no autobids.

 

They can stop it very, very easily.    At some point, without an anti-trust exemption, CFB needs political help to reduce access.   Much of the move from 2 to 12 in recent years has been for providing more post season opportunity optics as it has been increasing money.   CFB is the only NCAA sport with so few schools routinely represented in the post season and that raises eyebrows.

The NCAA has tried for decades to get the NFL's antitrust exemption and if they couldn't do it I guarantee you that the B1G/SEC can't do it on their own.   The only way to shake it more is to break away fully from the NCAA for a single sport.  Conferences would kind of cease to be and it would move to this organization.   But even then, due to not having the exemption, the organization would need to offer a path to joining or these universities would start to be treated as businesses.    

So, having 6 autos isn't frowned upon by the SEC/B1G even if they say "it should be the best 12" because by allowing the autos they stay out of federal hearings on their financial structure.    And they would, once states lost access, those politicians would start banding together and it would be a huge mess.

On top of that, it doesn't really gain them anything.   The B1G and SEC are already going to get 3 each in, they're going to restructure the financials so the B12 windfall of the CFP doesn't occur anymore, you'll get paid by the number of teams you have in your conference, for one, and, likely, performance over time, as another. 

In short, their battle for a 4th team, just isn't worth the fight.  

Edited June 21, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Hurtlocker 2212]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wasn't there a report about unequal revenue sharing for UO and UW? I can't remember if it was that they agreed to unequal sharing or if they rejected that idea. It seems the only programs that would happily accept less to keep the conference together would be ORST and WSU. The four corners schools have BXII invites ready and should get more or they might leave. 

Jesus, unequal AND $23m?!

To get the Ducks and Huskies to $32m, the other eight would only clear $20m.   

My guess is unequal is in any future post season revenue since they can't budget for it yet, unless you're Washington State.

[BurntOrange&White 39933]

8 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Jesus, unequal AND $23m?!

To get the Ducks and Huskies to $32m, the other eight would only clear $20m.   

My guess is unequal is in any future post season revenue since they can't budget for it yet, unless you're Washington State.

Don't forget to take out the Comcast portions for the next two years as well. Would be disastrous if unequal revenue sharing. Hell 25 million per with those payouts to Comcast is really bad too.

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Assuming that it's actually a deal that gets actually presented and not just another tweet pulled from the ether while the Pac 12 media just kinda eventually dies, leaving the schools to sniff each other's assholes and play non-televised games.

"Tonight on the CW!!!  PAC10 Asshole Sniffing After Dark!!!  Right after the Gilmore Girls marathon."

That actually might do better ratings than PAC football in the Bay Area, Portland and Seattle.  

Wilner doing play by play and Canzano with the analysis.

The real reason why Berkley, UO and UW never wanted to add BYU or B12 schools is because none of them sponsored Asshole Sniffing.  That's what the PAC meant by "cultural fit".  

 

//

That sounds ridiculous , but  does it sound any more ridiculous than the endless search for a media deal and SDSU's sending a letter saying they were withdrawing and then saying that's not what they meant ?

😂

[Laxtonto 12080]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

22.5 is really bad. 25 is bad.

In comparison, the Big 12 was at 22 and moved to 31.7. So the best case is 6+M behind per year with the gap only getting worse. I can see 28 keeping schools there, but 22.5 or 25 is just not going to cut it.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Laxtonto

[LTbear 4170]

44 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

22.5 is really bad. 25 is bad.

In comparison, the Big 12 was at 22 and moved to 31.7. So the best case is 6+M behind per year with the gap only getting worse. I can see 28 keeping schools there, but 22.5 or 25 is just not going to cut it.

I just feel the need to comment that you have the best avatar on this site and I legitimately smile every damn time I see it. 

 

Carry on. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Jesus, unequal AND $23m?!

To get the Ducks and Huskies to $32m, the other eight would only clear $20m.   

My guess is unequal is in any future post season revenue since they can't budget for it yet, unless you're Washington State.

Well-played, sir.

[Laxtonto 12080]

52 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I just feel the need to comment that you have the best avatar on this site and I legitimately smile every damn time I see it. 

 

Carry on. 

If you like that, you should see the gifs I post… I think they will be in your wheelhouse 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

Meanwhile, SlamBall got their deal done with ESPN.  Maybe the PacX should have hired the SlamBall commissioner to do their negotiating.  

 

Yes, I know, apples and oranges.  Just having a little fun with the ridiculousness that is the PacX nearly year-long TV contract negotiation.

[DanTheHorn 4925]

Just because it deserves to be seen where we are going. This is why aggy feels so comfortable.

[closetojumping 62730]

2 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

Just because it deserves to be seen where we are going. This is why aggy feels so comfortable.

Christ. I know I talk about this a lot, but easily the weakest contributors to the Houston white collar marketplace, in terms of degreed workforce, are LSU grads. That degree should be held with lower regard than a Texas HS diploma.

[camel at sea 589]

5 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

22.5 is really bad. 25 is bad.

In comparison, the Big 12 was at 22 and moved to 31.7. So the best case is 6+M behind per year with the gap only getting worse. I can see 28 keeping schools there, but 22.5 or 25 is just not going to cut it.

If those are the numbers that get presented, I think the "Big 12 adds six from the PAC" option (4C + UO/UW) has to be on the table.  Everyone who can get out will try to get out.

That would be an unbelievable bounce-back for the Big 12.  Competitively at least, they'd often be #1 in men's basketball and pushing for #2 in football in a lot of years.  

[thunderlounge 7834]

4C sure, but I’m not sold on them taking UO/UW.

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

30 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

4C sure, but I’m not sold on them taking UO/UW.

 

My question is, at this point how would they get into the B1G? 

The B1G schedule for 24 is set and the media windows are well saturated. Who in the B1G is going to want give up their network window to play on the conference network or Peacock? Who in the B1G is going to want to make less money at this point?

[Trojan Man 429]

12 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

4C sure, but I’m not sold on them taking UO/UW.

 

I think if the Big 12 can land the 4C that almost forces Oregon and Washington to ask if they can tag along too.  The Pac 6 would be a tremendously shitty conference.  No matter which G5 teams you add it basically becomes Oregon and Washington running a train on a bunch of nobodies.  That's not worth much to media partners or the CFP committee.  Even if those two bully the rest of that zombie conference into a big enough split of uneven revenue sharing to get themselves on par with the Big 12's payout their reputation with recruits and brand value will take a beating playing in a glorified MWC.  Why go through all that bullshit when the Big 12 is available?  Big 12 + Oregon, Washington and 2 or all 4 of the 4C would be a legit conference that gets an at large CFP bid or two every year and a top 4 seed every year.  Zombie Pac 6 would never sniff an at large bid and even a top 4 seed is unlikely.

From the Big 12's perspective I get they don't want to deal with members who have wandering eyes after all the realignment drama they have been through, but Oregon and Washington raise the profile of their conference in a way no other team they can land would and probably gets the Big 12 a raise on their media contract.  Even if it is a short marriage before the B1G comes calling years I think the Big 12 will be better for it, plus all parties would be going into this marriage knowing it's likely to be short.  The Big 12 wouldn't be blindsided like they were in past rounds of realignment so maybe both sides can negotiate a palatable exit strategy ahead of time that pays off the remaining Big 12 teams without bankrupting Oregon and Washington.  There's a good chance the B1G isn't looking at the Pacific Northwest until after things with the ACC play out in about 13 years, which is a long enough time to make Big 12 invitations to Oregon and Washington worthwhile.

[camel at sea 589]

33 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

4C sure, but I’m not sold on them taking UO/UW.

 

It comes down to whether the Ducks and Huskies have an invite to the Big Ten.  They can't stay in a PAC that lacks a competitive media deal and that just lost the 4C.  If there is no B1G invite, where else are they going to go?  

[billfromlaketravis 11481]

Oregon coaches are on the phone right now telling 2024 recruits they’re going to the Big Ten. They’re not joining the Big 12. 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

[BurntOrange&White 39933]

27 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

My question is, at this point how would they get into the B1G? 

The B1G schedule for 24 is set and the media windows are well saturated. Who in the B1G is going to want give up their network window to play on the conference network or Peacock? Who in the B1G is going to want to make less money at this point?

Go  independent for 2024

[camel at sea 589]

19 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

I think if the Big 12 can land the 4C that almost forces Oregon and Washington to ask if they can tag along too.  The Pac 6 would be a tremendously shitty conference.  No matter which G5 teams you add it basically becomes Oregon and Washington running a train on a bunch of nobodies.  That's not worth much to media partners or the CFP committee.  Even if those two bully the rest of that zombie conference into a big enough split of uneven revenue sharing to get themselves on par with the Big 12's payout their reputation with recruits and brand value will take a beating playing in a glorified MWC.  Why go through all that bullshit when the Big 12 is available?  Big 12 + Oregon, Washington and 2 or all 4 of the 4C would be a legit conference that gets an at large CFP bid or two every year and a top 4 seed every year.  Zombie Pac 6 would never sniff an at large bid and even a top 4 seed is unlikely.

From the Big 12's perspective I get they don't want to deal with members who have wandering eyes after all the realignment drama they have been through, but Oregon and Washington raise the profile of their conference in a way no other team they can land would and probably gets the Big 12 a raise on their media contract.  Even if it is a short marriage before the B1G comes calling years I think the Big 12 will be better for it, plus all parties would be going into this marriage knowing it's likely to be short.  The Big 12 wouldn't be blindsided like they were in past rounds of realignment so maybe both sides can negotiate a palatable exit strategy ahead of time that pays off the remaining Big 12 teams without bankrupting Oregon and Washington.  There's a good chance the B1G isn't looking at the Pacific Northwest until after things with the ACC play out in about 13 years, which is a long enough time to make Big 12 invitations to Oregon and Washington worthwhile.

If the Big 12 has an option to get UO and UW, they have to take them.  They add too much not to take them.  And I don't think those two can stay in the PAC if the 4C leave.  The 4C would be leaving due to a bad rights deal, and that deal would not get better with MWC/AAC backfill.  

The media smoke on the Big Ten's interest in the PAC NW has been mixed, but the impression I get is that the LA. schools do not want them coming along.  That probably matters at least a little bit.  Maybe those two would be more okay with Stanford joining if/when ND does.

 

[thunderlounge 7834]

45 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It comes down to whether the Ducks and Huskies have an invite to the Big Ten.  They can't stay in a PAC that lacks a competitive media deal and that just lost the 4C.  If there is no B1G invite, where else are they going to go?  

Maybe they lie in the bed they’ve made?

UO @ UCF? How cute.

Not saying they’re too good for that, they aren’t, but damn that’s corner to corner diagonally across the map.

It’s USC/UCLA -> MD/Rut, but worse.

AZ-> FL is a haul, but not as bad, and they’re also closer to most of the other members.

I’m not sure it would be a pleasant experience for the rest of the b12 conference. They’ll come in like they’re packing 12”, while secretly packing 3”.

 

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Oregon coaches are on the phone right now telling 2024 recruits they’re going to the Big Ten. They’re not joining the Big 12. 

 

It isn't that simple. Otherwise they would be in the B1G already.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

59 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Go  independent for 2024

So, they would choose not to be on tv for home games, and maybe not even for away games with the sort of schedule they might be able to cobble together?

Unlikely.

[billfromlaketravis 11481]

2 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

It isn't that simple. Otherwise they would be in the B1G already.

No, it’s not that simple, but Oregon will exhaust every Big Ten option before they go to Plan B. 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Just now, billfromlaketravis said:

No, it’s not that simple, but Oregon will exhaust every Big Ten option before they go to Plan B. 

I am thinking they are exhausted. How could they get in during this contract cycle? Is money going to drop from the sky? Is Minnesota and Wisconsin going to give up their seat on NBC to play their games on Peacock or BTN?

[billfromlaketravis 11481]

2 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

I am thinking they are exhausted. How could they get in during this contract cycle? Is money going to drop from the sky? Is Minnesota and Wisconsin going to give up their seat on NBC to play their games on Peacock or BTN?

They’re likely thinking more long term. 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

6 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

They’re likely thinking more long term. 

Perhaps, but I am not certain what that means for them. Does that mean playing all their games on BTN and Peacock for 6 years while making pennies compared to the other teams in the B1G? Are FOX, CBS, and NBC going to pony up for them 6 years in the future, just out of the goodness of their hearts? Will these schools in the B1G actually vote them in if it means less exposure amd no increase in revenue?

Consider me skeptical. We have already witnessed the difference between expectations and reality when it comes to schools in the Pac. Why didn't the B1G just add them when they took the LA schools?

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

If the Big 12 has an option to get UO and UW, they have to take them.  They add too much not to take them.  And I don't think those two can stay in the PAC if the 4C leave.  The 4C would be leaving due to a bad rights deal, and that deal would not get better with MWC/AAC backfill.  

The media smoke on the Big Ten's interest in the PAC NW has been mixed, but the impression I get is that the LA. schools do not want them coming along.  That probably matters at least a little bit.  Maybe those two would be more okay with Stanford joining if/when ND does.

 

I would be shocked if USC and UCLA push to add Oregon and Washington in the near future.  There are a lot of hurt feelings and bad blood on both sides of the LA/PNW relationship.  Oregon and Washington were largely responsible for the equal revenue sharing policies that drove USC and UCLA out of the conference.  They also forced the California schools to be in separate divisions so they could play more games in California, then framed it like guaranteeing all the California schools would still play each other yearly was a fair tradeoff for equal revenue sharing.  Meanwhile the PNW schools never had to give anything up to keep playing all of their local rivals annually.  They constantly took and never gave.  All of the sacrifices for the conference were expected to come from LA and to a lesser extent the Bay Area.  I also hope nobody at USC has forgotten an Oregon athletic department employee cast one of the deciding votes on the ridiculous Bush sanctions.  They stabbed USC in the back so they could climb atop USC's corpse.  Why bring that traitorous behavior to a new conference?  I wouldn't mind Washington getting into the B1G eventually but Oregon can go fuck themselves.

In addition to all the drama it's better strategy to box out your biggest West Coast recruiting competition for seats at the winner's table, and not just for USC and UCLA.  One reason the B1G invited USC and UCLA was to improve their recruiting.  The other 14 schools can hammer Oregon and Washington on conference affiliation while they establish pipelines in California.  As for inviting Notre Dame and Stanford that would be a pretty quick yes vote from every B1G school.  Stanford guarantees all 3 CA schools get to play 1 conference road game instate every year, which is far more beneficial from a travel standpoint than going to Seattle and Eugene.  With 3 Californian teams in an 18 team B1G the math still works out that none of the other 15 teams besides Notre Dame would ever have to go to California more than once a season, and considering their desire to play a more national schedule I don't think the Irish would complain about years they had to play at UCLA in addition to playing at USC or Stanford.  Personally, I'd be thrilled to have Notre Dame/Stanford/UCLA as permanent rivals then rotate the rest of the conference schedule.

53 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

Maybe they lie in the bed they’ve made?

UO @ UCF? How cute.

Not saying they’re too good for that, they aren’t, but damn that’s corner to corner diagonally across the map.

It’s USC/UCLA -> MD/Rut, but worse.

AZ-> FL is a haul, but not as bad, and they’re also closer to most of the other members.

I’m not sure it would be a pleasant experience for the rest of the b12 conference. They’ll come in like they’re packing 12”, while secretly packing 3”.

 

 

If the Big 12 expanded to that point those cross country trips would only have to be made once every 4 years, which isn't going to kill anyone.  Just like USC and UCLA are only playing at Rutgers and Maryland once every 4 years and vice versa, the same would be true for Oregon/Washington and UCF/WVU.  This expanded footprint is also beneficial to the former Pac 12 teams.  One of the biggest problems for the Pac 12 is not having enough exposure to the Central and Eastern time zones, which have more people and a higher proportion of CFB fans.  Moving to the Big 12 solves that.  It also means fewer games with the dreaded 10:30 PM ET kickoff.  They would still get some late kickoffs at home or on the road vs former Pac 12 teams, but when they play at Central and Eastern teams they will kickoff at a time Central and Eastern audiences are still awake.  There is also more media value in being in a conference that has teams in all 4 time zones vs a conference that only has teams in the 2 least desirable time zones.

As for the ability of Big 12 teams to compete with Oregon and Washington, I don't think they would struggle too much.  They've been able to hang with Oklahoma and Texas.  Oregon and Washington are watered down versions of that.  That's why I laugh at Colorado fans already assuming Deion will have them rolling to Big 12 titles and CFP bids.  CU won't touch the kind of classes UT and OU can put together, I don't think the Buffs will intimidate anyone in the Big 12.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

4C sure, but I’m not sold on them taking UO/UW.

 

You're joking right?  I'm more they won't take Utah over each of those two

[CustersDoctor 584]

Big18 Three Divisions

WEST: UW, UA, AST, UU, UO, BYU

NORTH: KST, CINCY, WVU, IST, CU, UK

SOUTH: TECH, OKST, TCU, BU, UH, UCF.

9 conference games. You play five divisional games, play one North school at home and one on the road, one West school at home and one on the road. So in the six years of the contract you'll play all 6 North schools once at home and once on the road and all 6 West schools once at home and once on the road.

[TKthunder2 4991]

16 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

Big18 Three Divisions

WEST: UW, UA, AST, UU, UO, BYU

NORTH: KST, CINCY, WVU, IST, CU, UK

SOUTH: TECH, OKST, TCU, BU, UH, UCF.

9 conference games. You play five divisional games, play one North school at home and one on the road, one West school at home and one on the road. So in the six years of the contract you'll play all 6 North schools once at home and once on the road and all 6 West schools once at home and once on the road.

When did Kentucky join the conference?

edit: also 9 conference games with 18 teams gives you a good 1-8-8 setup.

Rivals: UW/UO, AZ/ASU, BYU/UU, CU/Tech, TCU/BU, UCF/UH, ISU/OkSU, KU/KSU, WVU/Cincy

Everyone plays half the conference and their rival each year.

Edited June 22, 2023 by TKthunder2

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I would be shocked if USC and UCLA push to add Oregon and Washington in the near future.  There are a lot of hurt feelings and bad blood on both sides of the LA/PNW relationship.  Oregon and Washington were largely responsible for the equal revenue sharing policies that drove USC and UCLA out of the conference.  They also forced the California schools to be in separate divisions so they could play more games in California, then framed it like guaranteeing all the California schools would still play each other yearly was a fair tradeoff for equal revenue sharing.  Meanwhile the PNW schools never had to give anything up to keep playing all of their local rivals annually.  They constantly took and never gave.  All of the sacrifices for the conference were expected to come from LA and to a lesser extent the Bay Area.  I also hope nobody at USC has forgotten an Oregon athletic department employee cast one of the deciding votes on the ridiculous Bush sanctions.  They stabbed USC in the back so they could climb atop USC's corpse.  Why bring that traitorous behavior to a new conference?  I wouldn't mind Washington getting into the B1G eventually but Oregon can go fuck themselves.

In addition to all the drama it's better strategy to box out your biggest West Coast recruiting competition for seats at the winner's table, and not just for USC and UCLA.  One reason the B1G invited USC and UCLA was to improve their recruiting.  The other 14 schools can hammer Oregon and Washington on conference affiliation while they establish pipelines in California.  As for inviting Notre Dame and Stanford that would be a pretty quick yes vote from every B1G school.  Stanford guarantees all 3 CA schools get to play 1 conference road game instate every year, which is far more beneficial from a travel standpoint than going to Seattle and Eugene.  With 3 Californian teams in an 18 team B1G the math still works out that none of the other 15 teams besides Notre Dame would ever have to go to California more than once a season, and considering their desire to play a more national schedule I don't think the Irish would complain about years they had to play at UCLA in addition to playing at USC or Stanford.  Personally, I'd be thrilled to have Notre Dame/Stanford/UCLA as permanent rivals then rotate the rest of the conference schedule.

If the Big 12 expanded to that point those cross country trips would only have to be made once every 4 years, which isn't going to kill anyone.  Just like USC and UCLA are only playing at Rutgers and Maryland once every 4 years and vice versa, the same would be true for Oregon/Washington and UCF/WVU.  This expanded footprint is also beneficial to the former Pac 12 teams.  One of the biggest problems for the Pac 12 is not having enough exposure to the Central and Eastern time zones, which have more people and a higher proportion of CFB fans.  Moving to the Big 12 solves that.  It also means fewer games with the dreaded 10:30 PM ET kickoff.  They would still get some late kickoffs at home or on the road vs former Pac 12 teams, but when they play at Central and Eastern teams they will kickoff at a time Central and Eastern audiences are still awake.  There is also more media value in being in a conference that has teams in all 4 time zones vs a conference that only has teams in the 2 least desirable time zones.

As for the ability of Big 12 teams to compete with Oregon and Washington, I don't think they would struggle too much.  They've been able to hang with Oklahoma and Texas.  Oregon and Washington are watered down versions of that.  That's why I laugh at Colorado fans already assuming Deion will have them rolling to Big 12 titles and CFP bids.  CU won't touch the kind of classes UT and OU can put together, I don't think the Buffs will intimidate anyone in the Big 12.

All of this.  100%

[USC Traveler 488]

6 hours ago, camel at sea said:

The media smoke on the Big Ten's interest in the PAC NW has been mixed, but the impression I get is that the LA. schools do not want them coming along.  That probably matters at least a little bit.  Maybe those two would be more okay with Stanford joining if/when ND does.

 

Your instinct is correct, sir.  Feldman and the LATimes have both reported that USC and UCLA don't want the PNW schools added.

 

I don’t think there is any legit smoke around PNW schools going to the BIG.

BIG has added NE, RU, MD, USC and UCLA over 10-12 years, with no smoke in mainstream media circles. The BIG moved in complete silence each time.

But as soon as they added USC and UCLA, all of a sudden the BIG has leaks everywhere ? Why would that have happened in a matter of weeks and months?

I don’t buy that the BIG went from completely leakproof to frequent and regular leaks overnight, so I've thought from the beginning that the “smoke” is disinformation coming from other sources.

ESPN, Fox and B12 are the biggest beneficiaries of these leaks, because in combination with ESPN and Fox lowballing/no-balling the PAC, the leaks help keep the Four Corners schools nervous about the PNW schools leaving.  If CU and UA jump, the B12 has a good chance at getting the other 4C, UW and UO.

Another party that benefits from keeping this narrative going is Eugene Community College.  Their coaches have been telling recruits for the last 11 months that they’re going to the BIG.  They're doing whatever it takes to stay afloat in recruiting.  Some of this "smoke" is coming from Eugene.

//

 

I keep going back to three things:

1. The BIG’s main target is ND, as it should be. No one else comes close to bringing the value ND would bring, and no one else makes sense to bring in before ND- unless that would directly lead to ND going BIG.

The BIG has historically never been in a hurry on expansion. They will take their time, with their efforts focused on ND. 

ND doesn’t have any relationships with the PNW schools, so taking them doesn’t help get ND.  BIG will want to keep all options open to take as many ACC teams as they can.

Depending on how things play out vs the SEC, being able to bring in some combo of UNC, UVA, FSU and Miami, along with ND and a partner of ND’s choice, may be enough to get the ACC schools to move as a block when the GOR is closer to expiring.  Thamel, Rittenberg and Auerbach have all reported multiple times that after ND, the schools the BIG wants are in the ACC.

2. Thamel, Rittenberg and Auerbach have also reported that the existing power programs in the BIG (OSU, UM, PSU) don't want the revenue dilution that would come with adding PNW schools, while the lower and mid-tier BIG programs don't want to see their games shoved onto streaming if more teams are added, in addition to not wanting revenue reduced.

So which schools in the BIG are voting to add the PNW schools ? And why are they doing so ?

If the BIG completely strikes out on ACC schools 10 years or so from now, then the equation could look a lot different, but the BIG doesn't need to do anything with the PNW schools until after they see what happens with the ACC.  There's no urgency for the BIG- the SEC won't be adding PNW schools.  

 

3. The BIG could have added the PNW schools at any time in the last 11 months. Why haven't they added them ?

Occam's Razor would point to the fact that if the BIG wanted the PNW schools, they’d already be in.

 

 

[closetohumping 17442]

7 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I would be shocked if USC and UCLA push to add Oregon and Washington in the near future.  There are a lot of hurt feelings and bad blood on both sides of the LA/PNW relationship.  Oregon and Washington were largely responsible for the equal revenue sharing policies that drove USC and UCLA out of the conference.  They also forced the California schools to be in separate divisions so they could play more games in California, then framed it like guaranteeing all the California schools would still play each other yearly was a fair tradeoff for equal revenue sharing.  Meanwhile the PNW schools never had to give anything up to keep playing all of their local rivals annually.  They constantly took and never gave.  All of the sacrifices for the conference were expected to come from LA and to a lesser extent the Bay Area.  I also hope nobody at USC has forgotten an Oregon athletic department employee cast one of the deciding votes on the ridiculous Bush sanctions.  They stabbed USC in the back so they could climb atop USC's corpse.  Why bring that traitorous behavior to a new conference?  I wouldn't mind Washington getting into the B1G eventually but Oregon can go fuck themselves.

In addition to all the drama it's better strategy to box out your biggest West Coast recruiting competition for seats at the winner's table, and not just for USC and UCLA.  One reason the B1G invited USC and UCLA was to improve their recruiting.  The other 14 schools can hammer Oregon and Washington on conference affiliation while they establish pipelines in California.  As for inviting Notre Dame and Stanford that would be a pretty quick yes vote from every B1G school.  Stanford guarantees all 3 CA schools get to play 1 conference road game instate every year, which is far more beneficial from a travel standpoint than going to Seattle and Eugene.  With 3 Californian teams in an 18 team B1G the math still works out that none of the other 15 teams besides Notre Dame would ever have to go to California more than once a season, and considering their desire to play a more national schedule I don't think the Irish would complain about years they had to play at UCLA in addition to playing at USC or Stanford.  Personally, I'd be thrilled to have Notre Dame/Stanford/UCLA as permanent rivals then rotate the rest of the conference schedule.

If the Big 12 expanded to that point those cross country trips would only have to be made once every 4 years, which isn't going to kill anyone.  Just like USC and UCLA are only playing at Rutgers and Maryland once every 4 years and vice versa, the same would be true for Oregon/Washington and UCF/WVU.  This expanded footprint is also beneficial to the former Pac 12 teams.  One of the biggest problems for the Pac 12 is not having enough exposure to the Central and Eastern time zones, which have more people and a higher proportion of CFB fans.  Moving to the Big 12 solves that.  It also means fewer games with the dreaded 10:30 PM ET kickoff.  They would still get some late kickoffs at home or on the road vs former Pac 12 teams, but when they play at Central and Eastern teams they will kickoff at a time Central and Eastern audiences are still awake.  There is also more media value in being in a conference that has teams in all 4 time zones vs a conference that only has teams in the 2 least desirable time zones.

As for the ability of Big 12 teams to compete with Oregon and Washington, I don't think they would struggle too much.  They've been able to hang with Oklahoma and Texas.  Oregon and Washington are watered down versions of that.  That's why I laugh at Colorado fans already assuming Deion will have them rolling to Big 12 titles and CFP bids.  CU won't touch the kind of classes UT and OU can put together, I don't think the Buffs will intimidate anyone in the Big 12.

Sounds a lot like the big twelve schools and Texas 

[FartingDreamer 138]

On 6/17/2023 at 1:18 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

If it's just Colorado the Big 12, who's the second team going with them? 

Arizona?  SDSU?  

On 6/17/2023 at 1:53 PM, camel at sea said:

Yormark is a northeastern guy.  He keeps talking up how basketball is undervalued, he wants the Big 12 playing in Madison Square Garden, etc.  I'm not saying I agree with the strategy but I think that's what they're after.

I hope he keeps in mind what butters the athletic bread and puts football first.

10 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Go  independent for 2024

Good luck with putting together a decent schedule on that short notice.  

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

3 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

 

3. The BIG could have added the PNW schools at any time in the last 11 months. Why haven't they added them ?

Occam's Razor would point to the fact that if the BIG wanted the PNW schools, they’d already be in.

 

 

This is really the whole mic drop of this entire conversation regarding ORWA and the Big 10.  If the Big 10 wanted them, they'd be there right now.

Even taking reduced shares won't matter.  I'm sure KU and ISU were making themselves available at a very reduced rate to the Big 10 in late July of '21.  They know who would they add, and if those schools aren't on the table, they aren't adding.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

11 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Oregon coaches are on the phone right now telling 2024 recruits they’re going to the Big Ten. They’re not joining the Big 12. 

 

Because we all know a coach would never say something untrue to a recruit.

[thunderlounge 7834]

10 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

If the Big 12 expanded to that point those cross country trips would only have to be made once every 4 years, which isn't going to kill anyone.  Just like USC and UCLA are only playing at Rutgers and Maryland once every 4 years and vice versa, the same would be true for Oregon/Washington and UCF/WVU.  This expanded footprint is also beneficial to the former Pac 12 teams.  One of the biggest problems for the Pac 12 is not having enough exposure to the Central and Eastern time zones, which have more people and a higher proportion of CFB fans.  Moving to the Big 12 solves that.  It also means fewer games with the dreaded 10:30 PM ET kickoff.  They would still get some late kickoffs at home or on the road vs former Pac 12 teams, but when they play at Central and Eastern teams they will kickoff at a time Central and Eastern audiences are still awake.  There is also more media value in being in a conference that has teams in all 4 time zones vs a conference that only has teams in the 2 least desirable time zones.

As for the ability of Big 12 teams to compete with Oregon and Washington, I don't think they would struggle too much.  They've been able to hang with Oklahoma and Texas.  Oregon and Washington are watered down versions of that.  That's why I laugh at Colorado fans already assuming Deion will have them rolling to Big 12 titles and CFP bids.  CU won't touch the kind of classes UT and OU can put together, I don't think the Buffs will intimidate anyone in the Big 12.

 

But you're missing the point. I'm fully aware of that modern invention known as the airplane.

You sit there and list all of the positives for UO/UW, but what is in it for the b12? A few more bucks, maybe? In return they get 2 new conference members coming in with the attitude that they're going to be calling the shots. Look what they've done to the PAC, and you think that would change with them moving?

I don't think so. I think they would be terrible for the b12 members to deal with, and not worth what menial bump (if any) they would bring to the table.

I don't doubt one bit that there is a ton of upside for UO/UW. However the return for the b12 is significantly less. The reality must be faced that there is a chance that nobody wants to deal with their shit. USC/UCLA didn't, the b1g doesn't. Why would the b12 want to expose themselves to that bullshit? "Oh look, we got all nike money, so bow down mother fuckers."

This is why I'm not convinced about the b12 taking UO/UW. They don't really bring much, if they did they wouldn't be in their current position. But they sure do have a fuckton to gain from it all. See the problem yet?

 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

2 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

 

But you're missing the point. I'm fully aware of that modern invention known as the airplane.

You sit there and list all of the positives for UO/UW, but what is in it for the b12? A few more bucks, maybe? In return they get 2 new conference members coming in with the attitude that they're going to be calling the shots. Look what they've done to the PAC, and you think that would change with them moving?

I don't think so. I think they would be terrible for the b12 members to deal with, and not worth what menial bump (if any) they would bring to the table.

I don't doubt one bit that there is a ton of upside for UO/UW. However the return for the b12 is significantly less. The reality must be faced that there is a chance that nobody wants to deal with their shit. USC/UCLA didn't, the b1g doesn't. Why would the b12 want to expose themselves to that bullshit? "Oh look, we got all nike money, so bow down mother fuckers."

This is why I'm not convinced about the b12 taking UO/UW. They don't really bring much, if they did they wouldn't be in their current position. But they sure do have a fuckton to gain from it all. See the problem yet?

 

Those schools would likely bring that attitude, but they don't have the option to go anywhere better (or they'd be there already).  So it really just makes them a fun villain with little ability to really harm the conference.

I really don't care if we add them, but I think they're desperation to be in another league is kind of a moot point when there's not an interested league.

[Trojan Man 429]

4 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Sounds a lot like the big twelve schools and Texas 

It definitely is.  The many similarities between USC's relationship with the Pac 12 and Texas' with the Big 12 are something I've touched on in this thread and a few others.  That shared experience is one reason I decided to start posting here.

1 hour ago, thunderlounge said:

 

But you're missing the point. I'm fully aware of that modern invention known as the airplane.

You sit there and list all of the positives for UO/UW, but what is in it for the b12? A few more bucks, maybe? In return they get 2 new conference members coming in with the attitude that they're going to be calling the shots. Look what they've done to the PAC, and you think that would change with them moving?

I don't think so. I think they would be terrible for the b12 members to deal with, and not worth what menial bump (if any) they would bring to the table.

I don't doubt one bit that there is a ton of upside for UO/UW. However the return for the b12 is significantly less. The reality must be faced that there is a chance that nobody wants to deal with their shit. USC/UCLA didn't, the b1g doesn't. Why would the b12 want to expose themselves to that bullshit? "Oh look, we got all nike money, so bow down mother fuckers."

This is why I'm not convinced about the b12 taking UO/UW. They don't really bring much, if they did they wouldn't be in their current position. But they sure do have a fuckton to gain from it all. See the problem yet?

 

What's in it for the Big 12 is Oregon and Washington are the highest profile football programs they could plausibly land.  The post-Texas/Oklahoma Big 12's weakness is it lacks big name football programs.  Oregon and Washington would be a major boost in that department.  Also, I talked about how there is value to be gained for Pac 12 teams going East.  That equation still works in reverse.  There is value for the Big 12 to gain by going West to pick up Pacific windows and audiences, and those two schools are by far the biggest fanbases and most valuable schools available to the west of the Big 12's current footprint.  I don't think there would be as much bullshit from Oregon and Washington in the Big 12 as there was in the Pac 12.  A lot of their antics were related to equal revenue sharing and maximizing their games/exposure in California.  Neither would be an issue in the Big 12.  They also wouldn't have an 800 pound gorilla to constantly be at odds with like they were with USC.  There might be some initial snootiness from some of their fans about joining the truck stop conference, but I think they would get over it as they are exposed to gameday atmospheres and fanbase enthusiasm that are more like theirs than the general apathy throughout the Pac 12.

And for the record, I don't think Oregon and Washington will join the Big 12.  It is a realistic possibility but I would not put money on it happening.  I think the most likely outcome with the Pac 12 in this round of realignment is the Pac 12 loses Colorado to the Big 12, then Arizona pulls the trigger.  The Pac 12 backfills with San Diego State and either Colorado State or SMU.  Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Arizona State and Utah all believe they have a shot at getting into the B1G by the end of the decade so they don't mind just biding their time together.  Next most likely outcome is Colorado decides to stay because they have the same "We'll get in the B1G eventually so we can deal with a few more years in the Pac 12" mindset those other schools have and Arizona doesn't have the balls to leave by themselves so the Pac 12 manages to cobble together a media deal that's just good enough to keep the 10 schools together for another 5-6 years.  I'd put the "4C + Oregon and Washington to Big 12" Pac 12 death scenario at a distant third behind these first two because I'm skeptical ASU and Utah will come around on joining the Big 12 at this time, and that's what would kill any remaining credibility the Pac 12 still has.

[PilotsError 2287]

3 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

 

But you're missing the point. I'm fully aware of that modern invention known as the airplane.

You sit there and list all of the positives for UO/UW, but what is in it for the b12? A few more bucks, maybe? In return they get 2 new conference members coming in with the attitude that they're going to be calling the shots. Look what they've done to the PAC, and you think that would change with them moving?

I don't think so. I think they would be terrible for the b12 members to deal with, and not worth what menial bump (if any) they would bring to the table.

I don't doubt one bit that there is a ton of upside for UO/UW. However the return for the b12 is significantly less. The reality must be faced that there is a chance that nobody wants to deal with their shit. USC/UCLA didn't, the b1g doesn't. Why would the b12 want to expose themselves to that bullshit? "Oh look, we got all nike money, so bow down mother fuckers."

This is why I'm not convinced about the b12 taking UO/UW. They don't really bring much, if they did they wouldn't be in their current position. But they sure do have a fuckton to gain from it all. See the problem yet?

 

LOL WHAT??

I don't know the future of the anything but Oregon and Washington would immediately be the biggest name (Oregon) and wherever you rank UW.

 

[camel at sea 589]

13 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

Big18 Three Divisions

WEST: UW, UA, AST, UU, UO, BYU

NORTH: KST, CINCY, WVU, IST, CU, UK

SOUTH: TECH, OKST, TCU, BU, UH, UCF.

9 conference games. You play five divisional games, play one North school at home and one on the road, one West school at home and one on the road. So in the six years of the contract you'll play all 6 North schools once at home and once on the road and all 6 West schools once at home and once on the road.

I think this is the right concept.  I'd probably tweak the division alignment a little bit.  

West:  UW, UO, UU, BYU, UA, ASU
Central:  UH, BU, TCU, TTU, OSU, CU (throws CU a recruiting bone for splitting with the West schools)
Misc.:  KU, KSU, ISU, Cincy, WVU, UCF

A 1-8-8 model would cycle through the conference more efficiently but in the Big 12's case I don't see that as an obvious positive.  I think they'd be better off preserving some regionality to limit travel and keep fan interest higher.  Assuming you had two games (one home, one away) from each of the other two divisions, you'd cycle through the whole league once every six years.  

['stache 21815]

1 minute ago, camel at sea said:

I think this is the right concept.  I'd probably tweak the division alignment a little bit.  

West:  UW, UO, UU, BYU, UA, ASU
Central:  UH, BU, TCU, TTU, OSU, CU (throws CU a recruiting bone for splitting with the West schools)
Misc.:  KU, KSU, ISU, Cincy, WVU, UCF

A 1-8-8 model would cycle through the conference more efficiently but in the Big 12's case I don't see that as an obvious positive.  I think they'd be better off preserving some regionality to limit travel and keep fan interest higher.  Assuming you had two games (one home, one away) from each of the other two divisions, you'd cycle through the whole league once every six years.  

I'd be on board for this.

[Trojan Man 429]

39 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I think this is the right concept.  I'd probably tweak the division alignment a little bit.  

West:  UW, UO, UU, BYU, UA, ASU
Central:  UH, BU, TCU, TTU, OSU, CU (throws CU a recruiting bone for splitting with the West schools)
Misc.:  KU, KSU, ISU, Cincy, WVU, UCF

A 1-8-8 model would cycle through the conference more efficiently but in the Big 12's case I don't see that as an obvious positive.  I think they'd be better off preserving some regionality to limit travel and keep fan interest higher.  Assuming you had two games (one home, one away) from each of the other two divisions, you'd cycle through the whole league once every six years.  

The problem with 3 divisions is the huge potential for drama with CCG berths/tiebreakers.  If the Big 12 gets that large I think they will do what the B1G did and give every team an appropriate number of permanent rivals between 0-3.  That allows the league to set up schedules in a way that minimizes the chance of tiebreaker problems while cycling through all potential opponents within a reasonable time.  It also gives the schools and the fans the games they care about the most every year.  If the Big 12 adds this many Pac 12 teams it's important the league integrates them with the rest of the conference instead of cloistering them off in their own division.  That would slow down integration and encourage factions to form.

['stache 21815]

28 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

The problem with 3 divisions is the huge potential for drama with CCG berths/tiebreakers.  If the Big 12 gets that large I think they will do what the B1G did and give every team an appropriate number of permanent rivals between 0-3.  That allows the league to set up schedules in a way that minimizes the chance of tiebreaker problems while cycling through all potential opponents within a reasonable time.  It also gives the schools and the fans the games they care about the most every year.  If the Big 12 adds this many Pac 12 teams it's important the league integrates them with the rest of the conference instead of cloistering them off in their own division.  That would slow down integration and encourage factions to form.

I think it would be more of scheduling "pods" than divisions with the CCG decided like I guess the others will, two best records or rankings. It would make for a 5-2-2 model, and teams across the conference would see each other often enough. It's not like we need UO and WVU to be familiar foes. It hasn't seemed to bother the SEC that aggy and UGA haven't met each other after a decade of being conference mates. This is the new normal, large conferences that won't play each other regularly outside their annual rivalry games or scheduling "pods." This actually makes more sense than whatever the hell it is the BIG is doing, with some teams having no permanent games, some having 1, some having two, and I think a few having three. No symmetry whatsoever. 

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

 

But you're missing the point. I'm fully aware of that modern invention known as the airplane.

You sit there and list all of the positives for UO/UW, but what is in it for the b12? A few more bucks, maybe? In return they get 2 new conference members coming in with the attitude that they're going to be calling the shots. Look what they've done to the PAC, and you think that would change with them moving?

I don't think so. I think they would be terrible for the b12 members to deal with, and not worth what menial bump (if any) they would bring to the table.

I don't doubt one bit that there is a ton of upside for UO/UW. However the return for the b12 is significantly less. The reality must be faced that there is a chance that nobody wants to deal with their shit. USC/UCLA didn't, the b1g doesn't. Why would the b12 want to expose themselves to that bullshit? "Oh look, we got all nike money, so bow down mother fuckers."

This is why I'm not convinced about the b12 taking UO/UW. They don't really bring much, if they did they wouldn't be in their current position. But they sure do have a fuckton to gain from it all. See the problem yet?

 

I hate the Eugene Community College Zeros and their methhead, human-trashcan fans, but adding the PNW schools along with the 4C would give the B12 the 4th window, which does have value.  Between the 6 PAC additions and BYU, you could program a full season of late night games (14 weeks), with each school hosting two and being the away team in two.  That would give the B12 that much more money, but the existing B12 schools (except BYU) wouldn't have to play any late night games.

More importantly, adding those 6 schools would be a death blow to the PAC as a relevant conference (even if the name lives on with MWC schools).  The B12 would solidify itself as as the sole survivor and clear #3 conference once the ACC gets picked apart. 

I don't think UO is ever getting into the BIG, and for UW, they probably aren't either, but if they do, it won't be until 10-15 years from now. Just as CU and UA are dominos that could eventually lead to UU, ASU and the PNW schools, adding those 6 could be the domino that ensures Pitt, UL, etc come to the B12 when the ACC gets picked apart, instead of creating some bi-coastal zombie conference with the WACPAC.

UW, Utah and Zeros vs top existing B12 teams would also help with the quality of games for the next tv package.

And the PNW schools wouldn't have much influence in the B12, given how many members there are on the Plains and back East.

[CustersDoctor 584]

John Conzano article from Sept 22, 2022. His PACX analysis was more accurate and more objective back then. It's kind of funny to go back in time to read some of his stuff.

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-amazons-nfl-win-creates-moment

Conzano wrote this about pending Big12 contract negotiations. On Sept 8,2022. https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-latest-big-12-expansion-jab

"I’m fascinated by the 180-degree difference in strategy between Yormark and Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff. Outside of Kliavkoff’s spicy Media Day appearance in July, he’s remained silent.

In fact, the Pac-12 commissioner was in Atlanta for the Oregon-Georgia game and didn’t do interviews. Presumably because the Pac-12 is amid a media-rights negotiation. On the same day, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey conducted a lengthy impromptu news conference in the Mercedes-Benz Stadium press box.

The Big 12’s Yormark was also asked on Wednesday about his conference’s media rights negotiations. There’s some confusion about whether the Big 12 is — or isn’t — in the exclusive negotiating window.

“That process has started,” Yormark told reporters. “I met with ESPN last week... I’ll be meeting with FOX in the next week... My gut tells me that both FOX and ESPN would like to (negotiate early) but I’ll know for sure... in the next week.”

Some interesting semantics at play here. I bounced Yormark’s quote off two TV-industry insiders. They agreed that it sounds like all Yormark has is an indication from ESPN that they’d like to talk outside the exclusive-negotiating window. Per the contract, the Big 12 can only talk with ESPN and FOX at this point. The networks like it that way, too. If they’re not in an exclusive, 30-day negotiating window, there’s no ticking clock."

Turns out BY was INDEED involved in contract negotiations and the BIG12 getting their deal done early may be the thing that kills the PACX.

[TKthunder2 4991]

The Big 12 can write out a new bylaw effective July 1, 2024 (after UT/OU leave) that lowers their exit fees and reduces the transition timeline for any members that leave for the SEC/B1G. This would remove a lot of hesitation for Colorado or any P12 school that believes they’ll get an invite from the Big Ten. Now they won’t be able to break the GOR but if they can make an effort to lower their concerns and make the conference more attractive to P12/ACC school who think they are better than they are.