Realignment talk not going away

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

11 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Arkansas and Tennessee were both top 5 in attendance this year.

All of the football blue bloods have a large enough athletics budget to be contenders in hoops. Georgia, I’ve never heard shit about them and basketball. That needs to change. 
 

Florida needs to get back to where they where.

Respect to Bama, Arkansas, and Tennessee for getting serious in hoops. 
 

SEC Hoops should improve with Texas and possibly OU joining. The jury is out on Terry, but he should benefit from the move. The Big 12 HC experience is a brutal gauntlet.
 

Kentucky needs to ease Cal out. Give him the farewell tour bullshit and let him be involved in picking his successor. But yeah, they need to do their job and prop the conference up in hoops. 
 

LSU cheated like crazy, but they should bounce back at some point. 
 

aggy for better or worse seems to be content with Buzz. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

[John80 157]

I'm surprised at Arkansas and Tennessee but I know Arkansas had good support when Nolan Richardson had things going. I'm a UK fan but I know the money is in football. If basketball mattered financially, then the ACC would be worth a fortune. Most UK fans are tired of Cal and his one and done crap but our AD gave him a huge a contract. If he doesn't get to the Final Four this year I think it will be his last year because he's aware most people are tired of him.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

6 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

 

I agree with you both.  Miami, Clemson, FSU, UO, UW all bring some level of tv value but not at a UT/USC level, so they fall into a larger group of potential targets, including UNC, UVA, Stanford, ASU and (maybe, possibly) GT and CU.

This is where "everything else" comes into play, and tv value becomes one metric, part of a puzzle with recruiting grounds (for athletes and students), alumni engagement possibilities, academic and cultural fit, ease of travel and desire for fans and admin to visit.  

Even tv value has multiple components, as market size, conference network value and presence of tv partner owned and operated stations are all factors.  That's why Bob Thompson (Oregon grad) rated Stanford as more valuable for tv than UW or UO- the Farm's tv ratings since 2010 are close to UO and UW's ratings, but the market size, etc make them more valuable.

The BIG has a different set of priorities than the SEC, which makes it even more interesting.  Adding Miami and FSU would be home runs for the BIG because of of all the other reasons, even if their tv ratings alone wouldn't make them additive.  They're much less additive for the SEC, given that UF is already there and that SEC schools are all in states that are growing.  

UNC and UVA bring less tv value, but they would bring value to BTN of SECN and score highly on the other metrics.  Most importantly for the BIG in the long run, would bring existing BIG schools a lot of value as fast-growing, populous feeder states for students and great recruiting grounds for BIG schools.

I've said it before, but if UW was located in VA, they'd be a slamdunk for the BIG with their athletics, academics and research.  Their location in the PNW is the biggest thing holding them back.

UO doesn't bring much in any of the "everything else" categories, and the non-ratings components of their tv value aren't great.  Combined with their location, that's why I think they'll have real trouble getting a BIG invite vs ASU, which brings much, much more to the table in the "everything else" categories.

All of that said, I don't think anything happens with existing PAC schools (except Stanford coming in with ND) until after the ACC has been carved up.  The SEC doesn't want PAC schools, and the BIG has no reason to add more PAC schools until they see who they get from the ACC.

Yeah Oregon and Washington will end up making more if they joined the B12, than if they stay in the Pac.   Though, they'll have an easier run to the playoffs in the Pac.

No one in the ACC is going anywhere for a decade, no matter how much bitching there may be.

And a decade from now, when this may matter again, conferences may either be unnecessary or be a necessary victim, depending on the POV.  The next step to making more money is pooling media rights together, not fragmenting.   No pro sports fragment, only college sports.   If the top 50-60 programs broke away from all the ties that bind and pooled their rights together, the numbers could become astronomical compared to where the B1G/SEC are today.

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[USC Traveler 488]

On 7/5/2023 at 2:28 PM, Hagbard Celine said:

i'll go with that but would ask traveler or condom man to run it to ground for the hell of it

it does explain everything with the exception of the aztec fuck-up

other than being idiots, which is the probable explanation, you never worry about the deadline of your current employer - it's all about the time line of your future employer

even if the mountain west had a pumpkin date of midnight 30 June why would you give a fuck if your destination has another 45 days of runway?

@USC Traveler  @Trojan Man please run this to ground on pac fiscal year dates

I think HL has figured it out correctly.

There was some reporting when USC and UCLA left that they had to give the PAC notice 2 years ahead of time, but that doesn't ring true based on the docs that we've seen HL pull and the fact that no PAC school made a move before 6-30 of this year.  

All eyes on 7-31.  I'll be shocked if CU doesn't make the move, and surprised if UA doesn't follow.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

36 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Spoiler

Now in its second year, the Pac-12’s pursuit of a media rights agreement that will ensure the conference’s survival faces an unofficial deadline while undergoing a power shift at the presidential level.

For the first time since the saga began last summer, the so-called Four Corners schools have a seat on the board of directors’ executive committee: Arizona president Robert Robbins began his three-year term on the agenda-driving group on July 1.

Meanwhile, the conference faces a fast-approaching, albeit informal, deadline.

Its mid-summer media showcase, designed to promote the players and coaches powering the most anticipated football season in years, is scheduled for July 21 at Resorts World Las Vegas.

If commissioner George Kliavkoff doesn’t provide clarity on the contract negotiations over the next 10 days, the existential crisis could dominate the Las Vegas event and create unseemly optics.

(The tangible impact of not having a media deal in place by July 21 would be negligible, however. The Pac-12’s negotiating partners are discussing deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually and don’t care about bad press from a single media event.)

How should Pac-12 fans define clarity on the negotiations?

The conference doesn’t need to unveil a finalized long-form contract, which could take months to complete. But it cannot simply offer another “statement of unity” from the presidents, akin to the one issued in February. Nor can it hide behind optimistic but vague comments by Kliavkoff.

After so many months of silence, it must offer concrete evidence that a satisfactory deal is on the table and resolution is close on three tracks:

— The media rights contract. The annual valuation matters immensely, but so does the means of delivery. How many football games will be placed on a streaming platform and how many will be available on linear television?

— The grant-of-rights agreement. There is no collective security without this document, which is signed by the schools and binds their media revenue to the conference. (The Pac-12 likely is targeting a medium-term agreement that covers five or six years.)

— The decision on expansion. Should the conference add two members — SMU and San Diego State are the favorites — or move forward with 10?

USC and UCLA are not involved in strategic matters that impact the conference beyond the 2023-24 school year, so presidential approval on media rights and expansion will require eight of 10 votes. (The grant-of-rights deal must be signed by every school, thus requiring unanimous agreement.)

Which brings us back to the Pac-12’s board of directors and two notable changes on July 1:

— Washington State president Kirk Schulz took over as board chair from Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce, whose term expired.

— Robbins, the Arizona president, joined Schulz and Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne on the executive committee (in the spot previously occupied by Cauce).

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

55 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I think HL has figured it out correctly.

There was some reporting when USC and UCLA left that they had to give the PAC notice 2 years ahead of time, but that doesn't ring true based on the docs that we've seen HL pull and the fact that no PAC school made a move before 6-30 of this year.  

All eyes on 7-31.  I'll be shocked if CU doesn't make the move, and surprised if UA doesn't follow.

Thanks man, I think the USC move was predicated more on getting into the B1G deal than getting out of the Pac's

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

I think HL has figured it out correctly.

There was some reporting when USC and UCLA left that they had to give the PAC notice 2 years ahead of time, but that doesn't ring true based on the docs that we've seen HL pull and the fact that no PAC school made a move before 6-30 of this year.  

All eyes on 7-31.  I'll be shocked if CU doesn't make the move, and surprised if UA doesn't follow.

 

20 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Thanks man, I think the USC move was predicated more on getting into the B1G deal than getting out of the Pac's

IIRC, the reason USC and UCLA announced they were leaving on that specific date (6/30/22) is because that was the deadline to announce you are leaving after the 2023-24 year without any penalties.  No announcement to leave then would have meant you were either agreeing to stay and negotiate a new media deal/GOR (which the remaining Pac 12 schools started doing shortly after USC/UCLA made their exit) or you were going to pay some kind of penalty to leave after 2023-24.

I'm unsure how that will play out with Arizona, Colorado and anybody else who might leave after 2023-24.  They didn't announce they were leaving by 6/30/22.  However, AFAIK there is nothing contractually binding them to the Pac 12 past 2023-24.  That 6/30/22 deadline was mainly to know who was in or out when starting negotiations for a new contract.  They could argue they made a good faith effort for Kliavkoff and the Pac 12 to negotiate a new deal on their behalf but after over a year of being told a new deal was right around the corner they lost confidence it would ever materialize, so fuck paying any penalties to a conference that couldn't uphold their end of things.  I think the end of this month or early August is finally the "shit or get off the pot" moment for Pac 12 schools with options.  If Pac 12 Media Days are a disaster because the only thing anyone wants to talk about is the lack of a media deal that would give them something dramatic to point at and say "Everyone knows what a fucking mess this conference and its leadership is, we have to move" to boosters and anyone in a position of power who is still undecided.  From a practical standpoint a move then also gives their accountants a budget forecast to work with and their new conference all season to hype up the moves and start planning schedules for 2024-25.

[bullet 1596]

4 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Interesting that the executive committee was UW, who expected to get out, WSU, who was stuck and desperate for a deal, and Stanford, who wanted out.  Now you have someone from Arizona who will look at options other than the Pac 10 or hope of a Big 10 invite.

[USC Traveler 488]

9 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

 

IIRC, the reason USC and UCLA announced they were leaving on that specific date (6/30/22) is because that was the deadline to announce you are leaving after the 2023-24 year without any penalties.  No announcement to leave then would have meant you were either agreeing to stay and negotiate a new media deal/GOR (which the remaining Pac 12 schools started doing shortly after USC/UCLA made their exit) or you were going to pay some kind of penalty to leave after 2023-24.

I'm unsure how that will play out with Arizona, Colorado and anybody else who might leave after 2023-24.  They didn't announce they were leaving by 6/30/22.  However, AFAIK there is nothing contractually binding them to the Pac 12 past 2023-24.  That 6/30/22 deadline was mainly to know who was in or out when starting negotiations for a new contract.  They could argue they made a good faith effort for Kliavkoff and the Pac 12 to negotiate a new deal on their behalf but after over a year of being told a new deal was right around the corner they lost confidence it would ever materialize, so fuck paying any penalties to a conference that couldn't uphold their end of things.  I think the end of this month or early August is finally the "shit or get off the pot" moment for Pac 12 schools with options.  If Pac 12 Media Days are a disaster because the only thing anyone wants to talk about is the lack of a media deal that would give them something dramatic to point at and say "Everyone knows what a fucking mess this conference and its leadership is, we have to move" to boosters and anyone in a position of power who is still undecided.  From a practical standpoint a move then also gives their accountants a budget forecast to work with and their new conference all season to hype up the moves and start planning schedules for 2024-25.

Your memory is correct.  That is what was reported.  

What wasn't making sense to me was that 6/30 of this year didn't seem to have any effect on the other schools, but maybe the 6/30/22 date was the only thing that was specified in the bylaws, so everything from here on out is uncharted territory with the PAC on the brink of collapse.  I agree with you that CU and UA are probably waiting until after the upcoming media days fiasco to announce that they're out to give them cover with stakeholders who don't want to move.

Because you know Klownkoff's speech is going to be something along the lines of "We are engaged in productive talks with media rights partners that are nearing fruition on a package that all of our members are going to be thrilled with, but I can't divulge any of the details due to NDAs with the parties involved.  What I can say is that the members of this conference has never been more united."

Edited July 11, 2023 by USC Traveler

[Hurtlocker 2212]

40 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Your memory is correct.  That is what was reported.  

What wasn't making sense to me was that 6/30 of this year didn't seem to have any effect on the other schools, but maybe the 6/30/22 date was the only thing that was specified in the bylaws, so everything from here on out is uncharted territory with the PAC on the brink of collapse.  I agree with you that CU and UA are probably waiting until after the upcoming media days fiasco to announce that they're out to give them cover with stakeholders who don't want to move.

Because you know Klownkoff's speech is going to be something along the lines of "We are engaged in productive talks with media rights partners that are nearing fruition on a package that all of our members are going to be thrilled with, but I can't divulge any of the details due to NDAs with the parties involved.  What I can say is that the members of this conference has never been more united."

If 6/30 is the date required to provide notice, then realignment with the Pac is over, at least in terms of schools leaving.    The next notice would be next June, with another year out.   But to survive that year, they'd need to be on a media contract, which requires a GoR.  So if they're not gone before the end of the next fiscal, they're not going to be gone.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

If 6/30 is the date required to provide notice, then realignment with the Pac is over, at least in terms of schools leaving.    The next notice would be next June, with another year out.   But to survive that year, they'd need to be on a media contract, which requires a GoR.  So if they're not gone before the end of the next fiscal, they're not going to be gone.

I don't think that is true.

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

6 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

If 6/30 is the date required to provide notice, then realignment with the Pac is over, at least in terms of schools leaving.    The next notice would be next June, with another year out.   But to survive that year, they'd need to be on a media contract, which requires a GoR.  So if they're not gone before the end of the next fiscal, they're not going to be gone.

If they never sign a new GOR, then I don't think it really matters does it?

[Laxtonto 12078]

I just can’t get over that it is July 11th, approximately 50 days until the start of the college football season and there is no Pac12 deal yet. At some point this is going it move beyond just the politics of conference realignment, the bickering over stratus and schools getting hammered in recruiting and start getting to the point that ADs are going to have some serious issues regarding trying to sign any form of long term contract or propose any true capital improvements.

 

No media deal means no real budget and I don’t care how well of a relationship you have with a school, no one wants to enter into a new contract without something showing what the future entails.

How the fuck have they let this drag out this long? It’s insanity at this point

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If they never sign a new GOR, then I don't think it really matters does it?

They can't be on the media contract without it.   So if the fiscal is July to June, that means their exit year is July 2025-2026.   The Pac media deal, whatever it is, will start in the summer of 2024.   Only way that works is if they sign the media deal and stick around through it, or some really random situation where they're not paid nor shown on TV for a year.

Now, could you with a big buy out, sure, but none of these teams are sitting on piles of cash to burn.   If USC/UCLA gave proper notice for a giant raise, the rest definitely will too.

I'm still convinced that the PAC's fiscal is August/July.    Which is the same situation we just discussed, but the window on announcing anything hasn't closed yet.   Another wrinkle in this is that the PAC's language just states everything resets on August 1st, 2024.   Maybe they don't have to announce if that triggers, they just don't need to sign up for more.   This would make the Pac extremely unstable, though, far worse than today.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

They can't be on the media contract without it.   So if the fiscal is July to June, that means their exit year is July 2025-2026.   The Pac media deal, whatever it is, will start in the summer of 2024. 

They currently have no deal for 2024 and beyond that is the gist of the counter argument. For them to sign a NEW GOR for the new deal they would ALL have to agree to the new deal as well as terms for GOR. That is why it is pretty much wild west currently.

Edited July 11, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[USC Traveler 488]

10 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

If 6/30 is the date required to provide notice, then realignment with the Pac is over, at least in terms of schools leaving.    The next notice would be next June, with another year out.   But to survive that year, they'd need to be on a media contract, which requires a GoR.  So if they're not gone before the end of the next fiscal, they're not going to be gone.

I forgot about an important piece of info.  USC and UCLA aren't joining the BIG until August 2nd, 2024.

That matches up with the docs that you had previously pulled about the fiscal year ending 7-31.

For whatever reason, the 6/30 date was applicable to giving two years notice, but it doesn't match up with the exit date from the conference.

With no acceptable media deal, no signed GOR, and no certainty that the conference will exist past 7-31-24, I don't see how the PAC would be able to force schools to stay.  

I'm still looking at the 10 days between WAC10 media day and 7-31 to see departure announcements from CU and UA. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by USC Traveler

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

So nothing is coming and Washington State is Baghdad Bobbing

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They currently have no deal for 2024 and beyond that is the gist of the counter argument. For them to sign a NEW GOR for the new deal they would ALL have to agree to the new deal as well as terms for GOR. That is why it is pretty much wild west currently.

Right, my point was if they have to give a year's notice, and the time to give a year's notice just past, then they'd either need to have a year without any media, pay a staggering buyout to leave immediately, or they'd have to take whatever deal is offered, which will require a GoR.

[CustersDoctor 584]

4 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

I just can’t get over that it is July 11th, approximately 50 days until the start of the college football season and there is no Pac12 deal yet. At some point this is going it move beyond just the politics of conference realignment, the bickering over stratus and schools getting hammered in recruiting and start getting to the point that ADs are going to have some serious issues regarding trying to sign any form of long term contract or propose any true capital improvements.

 

No media deal means no real budget and I don’t care how well of a relationship you have with a school, no one wants to enter into a new contract without something showing what the future entails.

How the fuck have they let this drag out this long? It’s insanity at this point

Your budgeting point is spot on. Just a month ago WST publicly pushed the budget crisis panic button. This was at a time when the WST president was on the PACX commission. He knew that they were screwed. Now the UW president is on the PACX commission and we get, "The room just shifted." How the heck will media negotiations get better with a school president on the commission that has an escape hatch to the BIG12, versus a president whose only viable option is PACX survival. I guess maybe if there is a commission member who can continually tell Klownkov, "That deal won't keep us here", then maybe GK won't present unworkable deals to the entire ten.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Right, my point was if they have to give a year's notice, and the time to give a year's notice just past, then they'd either need to have a year without any media, pay a staggering buyout to leave immediately, or they'd have to take whatever deal is offered, which will require a GoR.

I'm pretty sure they could give a notice they're leaving next summer and just have to pay the conference exit fee. There is no GOR fee or anything else remaining.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

53 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I'm pretty sure they could give a notice they're leaving next summer and just have to pay the conference exit fee. There is no GOR fee or anything else remaining.

Right, but most conferences require a one-year notice or things escalate.   That either occurred two weeks ago or will occur in two weeks.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

2 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Right, but most conferences require a one-year notice or things escalate.   That either occurred two weeks ago or will occur in two weeks.

I don't think it really matters in this scenario....oh you want to sue a school who wants to leave your conference while you don't have a deal in place....good fucking luck with that.  

[bullet 1596]

Not as rosy a numbers as Pac 12 presidents and sycophants are pushing.  But if it does come out this high (without hidden things like production costs) that would probably be enough to keep them together.  But where the linear TV is could be a factor.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

3 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

I'm sorry, what the fuck does that mean? 

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

I'm sorry, what the fuck does that mean? 

I think he’s insinuating that the Pac 12 has a deal they’re happy with but have no plans to announce it anytime soon.

Which means they probably don’t

[USC Traveler 488]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think he’s insinuating that the Pac 12 has a deal they’re happy with but have no plans to announce it anytime soon.

Which means they probably don’t

"I've got a secret and I'm not telling you.  Nah nah nah nah nah!"

😂

It's literally laughable.

 

[Sandman 3403]

22 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

"I've got a secret and I'm not telling you.  Nah nah nah nah nah!"

😂

It's literally laughable.

 

Reminds me of high school:

"Bro, I had hot sex with this chick last night"

"Who??? Tell me about it"

"Nah, I can't"

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

Reminds me of high school:
"Bro, I had hot sex with this chick last night"
"Who??? Tell me about it"
"Nah, I can't"

She’s from Canada

[Jasper_Jester 356]

I'm skeptical too, but isn't this saying they are holding their happy secret until Pac12 media days which starts in 10 days? That isn't so laughable. If they do have something to share, that seems like the time to do it. If they did just get an offer or news they like, why would they say it today when they have a party planned next week?

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

I'm skeptical too, but isn't this saying they are holding their happy secret until Pac12 media days which starts in 10 days? That isn't so laughable. If they do have something to share, that seems like the time to do it. If they did just get an offer or news they like, why would they say it today when they have a party planned next week?

To defuse the tension leading into the event. If they have a deal in place, it makes that whole event celebratory and more focused on football

[DFW Horn 6123]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To defuse the tension leading into the event. If they have a deal in place, it makes that whole event celebratory and more focused on football

Then why not just announce the agreed upon media deal NOW? That way, to your point, they're spending more time talking about their great PAC teams instead of the elephant in the room. The deal is underwhelming if its annual payout per team is less than the Big 12's regardless of how you spin it.

Williams and Canzano need PAC pom-poms and skirts. "The room just shifted"? Doubtful

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

4 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Then why not just announce the agreed upon media deal NOW? That way, to your point, they're spending more time talking about their great PAC teams instead of the elephant in the room. The deal is underwhelming if its annual payout per team is less than the Big 12's regardless of how you spin it.

Williams and Canzano need PAC pom-poms and skirts. "The room just shifted"? Doubtful

No, I’m arguing that they should announce it now if they have it.

I think it’s dumb to sit on it 

[camel at sea 589]

49 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To defuse the tension leading into the event. If they have a deal in place, it makes that whole event celebratory and more focused on football

Assuming the deal is with Apple / the CW / Tubi / etc., they probably want to get through Media Days first before announcing it.  Even if the money is good, they're not going to want to talk about the new media partners.  There's no way for that to come off well.  

"Coach Lanning, how do you feel about playing games on the CW and do you worry about the possible negative effect that will have with recruits."  You don't want football guys having to talk about that.  Save that for ADs and admins.  

[gatormarc 911]

2 hours ago, Liquor and Poker said:

I'm sorry, what the fuck does that mean? 

There's a fault line in Vegas?

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think he’s insinuating that the Pac 12 has a deal they’re happy with but have no plans to announce it anytime soon.

Which means they probably don’t

Yep.  i just don’t believe their deal with SiriusXM could be all that lucrative.  

[notre dame joe 187]

14 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

 

11 hours ago, Liquor and Poker said:

I'm sorry, what the fuck does that mean? 

Shifting walls means you have been in Vegas too long. 

[Lou_Sassle 2874]

13 hours ago, Sandman said:

Reminds me of high school:

"Bro, I had hot sex with this chick last night"

"Who??? Tell me about it"

"Nah, I can't"

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Spoiler

It’s almost inarguable that the most influential figure in collegiate sports during the past three decades and perhaps ever was former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany. In leading the oldest and most financially advanced league from 1989 through his retirement on Jan. 1, 2020, Delany orchestrated many of the moves that altered the college sports landscape for generations to come.

Delany was 31 when he left NCAA enforcement to take over as the Ohio Valley commissioner. Delany was 41 when he became the fifth commissioner in Big Ten history. In an era he described as “bully ball” among the Big Ten’s presidents, athletic directors and coaches, Delany presided over a league that grew unified, added four members and soared beyond its peers in wealth.

While working with 71 presidents across 30 years in the Big Ten, Delany helped secure Penn State as the league’s 11th member in 1990. It was the first modern-era expansion and one that ushered 26 other major-conference football moves through 1999. The Big Ten missed out on Notre Dame in 1999, but its expansion search in 2009 and conclusion with Nebraska in 2010 caused major conference upheaval. The major conferences combined for 17 other moves through 2014 and the Big East and WAC collapsed.

Now 75, out of the limelight and living in the Nashville area, Delany reflected on expansion and conference realignment during his time as Big Ten commissioner in an exclusive interview. Delany identified the primary markers that set college sports on their current trajectory.

Delany had plenty to say, so much that his comments will appear in other stories during this series. He also chose not to elaborate on meetings with potential expansion candidates because of signed non-disclosure contracts. In this series of Delany responses to realignment topics — the first of two — the former commissioner spoke at length about what he believed drove expansion from the late 1980s through the early 2000s.

For Delany, modern realignment begins with two events, both of which predate his days with the Big Ten. The Big East’s formation on May 31, 1979, came one week before the OVC hired him as its commissioner. The Big East chose eight urban basketball-first members, and in concert with ESPN’s debut in September 1979, the league found national footing on television. The other marker came on June 2, 1984, when the United States Supreme Court ruled the NCAA violated the Sherman Act by price fixing and placing artificial limits on its membership through its television policy.

Both events work collectively to set the course for the 198 Division I football moves since 1990.

Delany: The first thing I would say is CFA defeats NCAA. That would be No. 1. No. 2, I think, maybe even No. 1 is a precursor to ’84, the founding of the Big East by Dave Gavitt on a media-based conference. They were mostly Catholic but not exclusively. They were on the East Coast. And TV underlined it. And there was no football involved; it was just basketball.

But the same year the Big East did that, you know what was founded? ESPN. So I would say ’79 begins to lay the foundation for a new media entity in ESPN and a conference based on media markets.

The Big East was lucrative in the early 1980s and had to fend off an attempt from then Penn State football coach/athletic director Joe Paterno to pick off Boston College and Syracuse to form an all-sports Eastern league involving Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and the Nittany Lions. Gavitt secured Syracuse and Boston College by inviting Pittsburgh on Nov. 18, 1981. It killed Paterno’s attempt.

The next year, Penn State sought admission into the Big East. Six of the eight Big East members had to vote yes on Penn State. Basketball-only schools Georgetown, St. John’s and Villanova voted no, which kept Penn State out. Its ripple effect was profound when Penn State was accepted as a Big Ten member in 1990.

Delany: If Penn State is with Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College … the East Coast is stabilized, and the Big Ten doesn’t have many places to move. So you have a more formidable, a more stable Big East. But in my view, that inability to see that future and the importance of football made the Big East very vulnerable.

Notre Dame doesn’t ever move. Florida State doesn’t move in my view if Penn State doesn’t move. The SEC was already good with their little move (Arkansas and South Carolina). And Florida State is not going to be pursued by the ACC. I’m saying none of that happens if the Big East expands properly to eight football schools and 12 basketball schools. But their rationale was, that’s too many schools. Eight and 12. Isn’t that kind of quaint?

It would have changed history probably in the sense that if the East were consolidated with football, and you had Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Penn State, maybe West Virginia, and they had full basketball schools, the Big East publics, plus the Catholics plus Penn State and few others, arguably there would have been no vacuum there.

No singular event had more impact on expansion and conference realignment than the NCAA v. Board of Regents case, which included Oklahoma and Georgia universities as primary plaintiffs. Beginning in 1952, the NCAA regulated college football on television to ensure competitive balance and exposure while protecting gate revenue. In 1981, the College Football Association, which represented several conferences, agreed to a deal with NBC, which was outside the NCAA’s contracts with ABC and CBS.

The NCAA threatened sanctions against any school that appeared on NBC, and a suit was filed. Filing amicus briefs on behalf of Oklahoma and Georgia included the CFA, the Southeastern, Big Eight, Southwest, ACC and WAC conferences and Notre Dame. The Big Ten and Pac-10 backed the NCAA. District and appeals courts ruled against the NCAA and the U.S. Supreme Court concurred 7-2 on June 2, 1984.

Delany cited the dissent by Justice Byron “Whizzer” White as impactful in predicting the current environment. White wrote: “The (NCAA’s) plan fosters the goal of amateurism by spreading revenues among various schools and reducing the financial incentives toward professionalism.”

Delany: His basic premise for the dissent was that the educational mission, which justified the controls to some extent, didn’t get out of hand and competition get out of hand, was that you need to be able to control this. Otherwise, in a free market environment, it will, at a certain point, serve the wealthiest and drive education into the background of commercial activity.

reaction to what we did. I think he had seen the divisional opportunity. He was a smart guy and he saw a championship game as a real marketing device. So it was a marketing play, not necessarily a TV play.

The moves impacted the other conferences. The Big East got into football in 1991 and invited members ranging from Miami to Rutgers. Arkansas’ departure left the Southwest Conference with only eight members, all of which were in Texas. The Pac-10 contemplated adding Texas and Colorado. At the same time, the Big Ten dissolved its cooperative marketing arrangement with the Pac-10 but the two leagues remained close allies.

In 1994, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor agreed to join the Big Eight members to form the Big 12 in 1996. Delany said there never was a discussion about adding members of either league at the time.

Delany: The Big Eight was very short on TV homes, and the Southwest Conference was in trouble, mostly by its own actions. With the exception of Rice — I could be wrong about this — but most, if not all, were on probation in about a five-year period. So there was a lot of self-inflicted damage there.

The way it was explained to me was from the beginning, it was a problem because the Big Eight felt it had expanded by adding four schools. The Southwest thought there had been a merger. You get the difference. One is an acquisition, and the other is a merger. They never had an agreement sort of about what it really was, and that created enormous governance issues, symbolized probably by the office moving from Kansas City to Dallas. I think that probably reflected the Nebraska-Texas tension that was there for really close to 15 years.

By the late 1990s, conferences had gotten larger, and at least one was too big for its own good. The WAC added six members in 1996, including three from the defunct Southwest Conference. It soared to 16 members and developed a pod system for football.

It became too much for eight original WAC members, who dropped out in 1999 to form the Mountain West. The Big East started to form cracks, too, between the original basketball schools and those that joined as football members. By 2003, Miami and Boston College were accepted into the ACC. A final spot between Syracuse and Virginia Tech became hotly contested. In part because of pressure exerted by Virginia’s political leaders, the Hokies left the Big East for the ACC.

Television rights fees and a lucrative conference championship game became critical components in the decision to expand.

Delany: I’m not saying the Big East is responsible for it, but it did indicate you could build a conference based on TV. I certainly think that the founding of ESPN showed there’s a new technology and new ways to develop revenue. I certainly think Penn State to the Big Ten, and not to the Big East, encouraged people to do some things. I certainly think, having gotten the freedom, Notre Dame and the SEC defecting (from the CFA) so quickly, and then Big Ten defecting from the Pac-12 showed the commercial freedom that was available and how powerful entities could do pretty well.

I certainly think the Big Eight and the Southwest Conference was a marriage that maybe wasn’t a great marriage, but it was done for media reasons to become stronger. I certainly think the ACC was trying to keep up when they added Florida State. I certainly think that a lot of the adds by the Big East to maintain relevance, which eventually didn’t work, whether it’s Virginia Tech or Miami, they just weren’t very good. They just weren’t sustainable. I certainly think the WAC’s over-expansion didn’t work.

The Big Ten pursued Notre Dame, but the school’s leaders announced on Feb. 5, 1999, that they would remain independent in football. NCAA rules through May 2022 called for leagues to have at least 12 members and two divisions to stage a championship game. That annual event further enhanced the SEC’s brand. The Big 12 held a title game in 1996, four years after the SEC. The ACC started its football championship game a decade later. Had Notre Dame joined the Big Ten, it would have enabled the Big Ten to hold a title contest.

It does beg a question. Had the NCAA eliminated membership requirements for conferences holding title games, would it have impacted realignment? Delany isn’t sure.

Delany: Roy’s move was strategic. Our Penn State move was only in a very broad sense. We just thought it was a great add. But we didn’t have any plans beyond that. In fact, other than Notre Dame, we had no plans. The bar was high for expansion, and it should be high. But timing, it’s like time and score in a basketball game. Circumstances can change, and I think they did change.

What’s more relevant than the deregulation of divisions? What would be the two things that stand out in my mind? The ’84 TV decision is one. And the other is the Big East turning down Penn State. Those are the two seminal moments because I could tell you Roy going to 12 teams had no effect on us. Notre Dame joining the Big East or the ACC had really no effect on us. Really the Southwest and the Big 12 had no effect on us. What had an effect on us was the deregulation.

I don’t think that the question is hypothetical. It’s hard to answer a hypothetical, but I’m trying, I don’t think that that will have enough of an impact to do anything for anybody. I would say just generally about expansion. There’s a point at which an association of colleges is no longer a conference, and my guess is it’s at 16.

The Big Ten took the next major step that altered the college landscape, one that has approached the Supreme Court decision in relevance. That move kicks off the second part of Delany’s question-and-answer session, coming later this week.

 

['stache 21800]

I'll read the full article later, but the 1984 case is clearly the main answer. I remember looking into realignment early on and being surprised how many teams were independent for so long (PSU, South Carolina, FSU, VT). I think it's inevitable that ND caves before 2030. The money is too much and the BIG network partners will probably do all they can to get ND to join. I'm not sure NBC or another outlet is ready to pay out the ass for just ND.

Edited July 12, 2023 by 'stache

[Eugene11 379]

On 7/9/2023 at 7:32 PM, Deej said:

Edited July 12, 2023 by Eugene11
Wrong thred

[DFW Horn 6123]

Quote

There’s a point at which an association of colleges is no longer a conference, and my guess is it’s at 16. - Jim Delany

I agree and hope the SEC is done after adding Texas and 0u.

FSU, Miami, UNC, and UVA are good schools, but won't necessarily grow the pie any further or make the competition significantly better. 

It'd sure be nice if DeLoss Dodds would agree to a similar interview. Set the record straight from UT's perspective.

[PilotsError 2287]

Who actually believes we're keeping conferences?  Doesn't everyone assume it'll be one ESPN and one FOX conference?  It's just taking thirty years to take shape.  

[gatormarc 911]

 

[Al_4_ISU 12453]

I mean, no shit.

Why would you not add a school that created more value?  I highly doubt that applies to any non P5 school, but if the Big 12 got money whipped to do it, they'd be stupid not to.

[CustersDoctor 584]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I mean, no shit.

Why would you not add a school that created more value?  I highly doubt that applies to any non P5 school, but if the Big 12 got money whipped to do it, they'd be stupid not to.

The only reason UConn would be in the conversation is that ESPN wants them in the conference. But even IF ESPN said that they'd prorate the payout if we added UCONN, that doesn't mean that FOX would.

[TKthunder2 4985]

7 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I agree and hope the SEC is done after adding Texas and 0u.

FSU, Miami, UNC, and UVA are good schools, but won't necessarily grow the pie any further or make the competition significantly better. 

It'd sure be nice if DeLoss Dodds would agree to a similar interview. Set the record straight from UT's perspective.

I don’t think they’ll expand until the ACC GOR expires (nor do I really want them to for my own reasons) but I think you’re looking too short term.

FSU and Clemson consolidate and protect the brand. They are both top 20 home stadiums by capacity and would enhance the SEC product in all sports. They would be a threat to SEC hegemony in the South if they joined the Big Ten. No other school has the same impact.

UNC and UVA are about expanding the brand. They won’t be worth their payout but both have extremely high sports, including basketball (which is something the SEC is weak in), academics (ditto), and markets that the SEC has long desired. The SEC Network is headquartered in North Carolina.

The Big Ten can grab Miami or Georgia Tech but 2 Southern away games out of 20-24 won’t change their demographics. The rust belt is dying and the South is booming. Taking the two biggest targets of Big Ten expansion at forcing them to look West absolutely should be a high priority for the SEC.

If they can get the Big Ten to take Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Arizona State, Colorado and Notre Dame; that would be huge win for the SEC.

If the Big Ten takes UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Notre Dame, and Stanford that can only be interpreted as a loss.

[Hagbard Celine 10852]

On 7/11/2023 at 12:05 AM, USC Traveler said:

Your memory is correct.  That is what was reported.  

What wasn't making sense to me was that 6/30 of this year didn't seem to have any effect on the other schools, but maybe the 6/30/22 date was the only thing that was specified in the bylaws, so everything from here on out is uncharted territory with the PAC on the brink of collapse.  I agree with you that CU and UA are probably waiting until after the upcoming media days fiasco to announce that they're out to give them cover with stakeholders who don't want to move.

Because you know Klownkoff's speech is going to be something along the lines of "We are engaged in productive talks with media rights partners that are nearing fruition on a package that all of our members are going to be thrilled with, but I can't divulge any of the details due to NDAs with the parties involved.  What I can say is that the members of this conference has never been more united."

tl/dr: 2 weeks

Spoiler

By Jon Wilner | | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: July 10, 2023 at 8:02 a.m. | UPDATED: July 10, 2023 at 9:48 a.m.

Now in its second year, the Pac-12’s pursuit of a media rights agreement that will ensure the conference’s survival faces an unofficial deadline while undergoing a power shift at the presidential level.

For the first time since the saga began last summer, the so-called Four Corners schools have a seat on the board of directors’ executive committee: Arizona president Robert Robbins began his three-year term on the agenda-driving group on July 1.

Meanwhile, the conference faces a fast-approaching, albeit informal, deadline.

Its mid-summer media showcase, designed to promote the players and coaches powering the most anticipated football season in years, is scheduled for July 21 at Resorts World Las Vegas.

If commissioner George Kliavkoff doesn’t provide clarity on the contract negotiations over the next 10 days, the existential crisis could dominate the Las Vegas event and create unseemly optics.

(The tangible impact of not having a media deal in place by July 21 would be negligible, however. The Pac-12’s negotiating partners are discussing deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually and don’t care about bad press from a single media event.)

How should Pac-12 fans define clarity on the negotiations?

The conference doesn’t need to unveil a finalized long-form contract, which could take months to complete. But it cannot simply offer another “statement of unity” from the presidents, akin to the one issued in February. Nor can it hide behind optimistic but vague comments by Kliavkoff.

After so many months of silence, it must offer concrete evidence that a satisfactory deal is on the table and resolution is close on three tracks:

— The media rights contract. The annual valuation matters immensely, but so does the means of delivery. How many football games will be placed on a streaming platform and how many will be available on linear television?

— The grant-of-rights agreement. There is no collective security without this document, which is signed by the schools and binds their media revenue to the conference. (The Pac-12 likely is targeting a medium-term agreement that covers five or six years.)

— The decision on expansion. Should the conference add two members — SMU and San Diego State are the favorites — or move forward with 10?

USC and UCLA are not involved in strategic matters that impact the conference beyond the 2023-24 school year, so presidential approval on media rights and expansion will require eight of 10 votes. (The grant-of-rights deal must be signed by every school, thus requiring unanimous agreement.)

Which brings us back to the Pac-12’s board of directors and two notable changes on July 1:

— Washington State president Kirk Schulz took over as board chair from Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce, whose term expired.

— Robbins, the Arizona president, joined Schulz and Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne on the executive committee (in the spot previously occupied by Cauce).

The move creates better geographic balance by giving the Four Corners schools, the quartet of universities being wooed by the Big 12, a presence on the influential body.

What’s more, Robbins has vastly more passion for college sports than does Cauce. In fact, the executive committee now features perhaps the two most sports-savvy presidents in the conference, Robbins and Schulz. (The latter serves as the Pac-12’s representative on the College Football Playoff’s board of managers.)

Of course, none of the board-level developments alter the fundamental calculation in this 53-week-old saga:

If Kliavkoff doesn’t present a satisfactory media rights offer to the presidents — one that offers enough annual revenue and linear-network exposure — the conference could fracture.

At some point in the next 10 days, perhaps, we will have clarity on the endgame.

 

[John80 157]

SEC expansion has always been about increasing payouts for existing members and no one is going to take less money to be in the same conference with Florida State or UNC or anyone else. There's plenty of four year universities in the South that play football and if the B10 wants to have schools in every corner of the US, more power to them. That isn't the SEC's goal which was to get into Texas and that's done.