Realignment talk not going away

['stache 21,805]

Just now, Josef Pwag said:

There won't be a playoff. The B1G champ will play the SEC champ and those 2 conferences will declare that school to be the national champion. That is all that matters. No one will care that Texas Tech beat Oregon State in the Crocs Bowl.

Yeah, that ain't happening. If Bama finishes second in the SEC they'll lose their effing minds if they aren't in a playoff. Remember when they made the BCS title game when they didn't even win their own division? The CFP is also a cash cow, they didn't go to 12 for shits and giggles, they did it for the cash. 

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

Heard McMurphy, Scheer, and another on talk radio today and they've all kind of clarified something that we've wondered.   It seems the way the Pac's contract is written, there is no buyout if they leave by next summer.    There is also no "one year notice" as long as its by 8/1/24, per their contract.  

Colorado must have been given a deadline by the B12 of August.

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

 

Good point about having to scramble for scheduling and figure it out with pretty much less than a year.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

3 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

There won't be a playoff. The B1G champ will play the SEC champ and those 2 conferences will declare that school to be the national champion. That is all that matters. No one will care that Texas Tech beat Oregon State in the Crocs Bowl.

Ha, there is more money on the playoffs than the regular season.   There is ZERO chance there won't be a playoff.

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

Heard McMurphy, Scheer, and another on talk radio today and they've all kind of clarified something that we've wondered.   It seems the way the Pac's contract is written, there is no buyout if they leave by next summer.    There is also no "one year notice" as long as its by 8/1/24, per their contract.  

Colorado must have been given a deadline by the B12 of August.

That is kind of what I thought but some posters were adamant here that there would be some buyout and etc. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,461]

11 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

There is a critical mass of schools that has to be reached. I don't think it is an exact number...but there is a logical range. You can't leave too many historically relevant (and/or 'recent' national title winners) out of the B1G/SEC. When the winners of these 2 conference play each other, you want a national consensus that no school from an outside conference has a legitimate claim that, in any way, they could be conceived as a peer football team and a legitimate claimant to a national title. 

This isn't going to happen, because it will make less money than a big playoff.

The Big 10 and SEC will swing their nuts in structuring that playoff so that more participants = more money, and due to the existing brand consolidation they will always have more participants.

[Sandman 3,403]

39 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Yes the sidelines are so dangerous that zeros of players have actually been injured because of the sidelines in the past 80 years.

And because they never play in Norman and never notice it, no one on here talks shit about ou's narrow sidelines, either. 

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

[closetojumping 62,637]

You guys that insist on repeating over and over that there aren’t schools in the ACC that would be net upside for the SEC and/or Big 10 need to stop huffing your own farts. 

Expansion in the future that included programs like, but not exclusive to, FSU, Clemson, UNC and Virginia would damned sure make sense for the SEC. 

Raw viewership numbers may not quite match up but that is a moveable measure. If the prospect of those four joining the league makes the league overall stronger from a competitive perspective in multiple sports, and it would, including football, then the numbers will follow. Tennessee isn’t going to forever attract bigger numbers than any of those schools when those schools are doing well in football in the SEC. Never mind the 10 or so lesser brands currently in the SEC behind Tennessee. 

On top of that, they would get the chance to destroy a rival conference sapping media dollars and further consolidate power. The Big 10 would see it the same way, as would the Big 12. 

“The SEC and Big 10 have no reason to expand.” Yes they do. In a simple word for an answer to why? is “more” just like every business, government, academic institution (look a fucking round you) and religious entity, “more” is always a driver. I don’t see it happening now, but I bet it happens ahead of 2036 and whether this thread, or the next site’s version of it, thinks the expansion is prudent or not will be irrelevant. These conferences seem to have a firm grasp of brand building and where they’re headed, which is displacing all other sports besides the NFL in viewership and revenue. The Big 12 will be happy to follow suit as the bastard half brother in the process. 

[BachelorTrek 2,968]

13 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Heard McMurphy, Scheer, and another on talk radio today and they've all kind of clarified something that we've wondered.   It seems the way the Pac's contract is written, there is no buyout if they leave by next summer.    There is also no "one year notice" as long as its by 8/1/24, per their contract.  

Colorado must have been given a deadline by the B12 of August.

Where'd you hear it? They must podcast everything.

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

 

I don't see this as true

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

I don't see this as true

"for now" being the key part. Arizona insiders are pretty much saying it's happening for them within the next month or so.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

6 minutes ago, BachelorTrek said:

Where'd you hear it? They must podcast everything.

SirusXM shows while driving this morning.

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

Spoiler

With Colorado initiating the process to leave the Pac-12 and join the Big 12 for the 2024-25 season, it marks a significant ripple in college athletics as the next phase in realignment.

Here's a look at the biggest questions for both leagues and what's next on the landscape in the wake of Colorado's looming departure.

What's next for the Big 12?
The league is now slated to have 13 teams for 2024-25, and it would make sense to add another in time for the 2024 football season. Where will that team come from? And could more than one be added?

The preference of the Big 12 would be one of the Pac-12's other so-called Four Corners schools -- Arizona, Arizona State or Utah. According to sources, Arizona has been the most engaged among those three schools. But virtually every school in the league has had some kind of contact with the Big 12, as the Pac-12 has spun its wheels on landing a television deal for nearly a year. It would be fiduciary negligence to not explore other options.

Arizona's decision-making will be made more through the prism of basketball than most power conference schools, which would make a move to the Big 12 more attractive. Pac-12 basketball has been significantly weakened with the loss of USC and UCLA, and the Big 12 has been the country's top basketball conference in recent years. Arizona president Bobby Robbins has maintained publicly that no decisions will be made until there's clarity on the Pac-12's television deal. That will be put to the test after Colorado's decision.

As for television payouts, Colorado is expected to join the Big 12 at a pro rata basis, which is an average of $31.7 million in television revenue over the course of the league's new deal starting in 2025. Additional schools coming in at that rate would require some additional conversation, as Power 5 schools are expected to be pro rata -- assuming Fox and ESPN agree on that. For schools such as UConn and San Diego State, the tenor of that television payout conversation is expected to be different.

The question for the other three schools is the same one Colorado faced. Do they wait and see what kind of television contract Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff can secure? Logic and traditionally conservative presidential leadership would dictate that. But the conversation could go in a new direction with Colorado's decision.

Who else could join the Big 12?
The biggest variable for potential additions will be what the Pac-12 can come up with in its upcoming television deal.

It's difficult to quantify how Colorado actually leaving -- as opposed to months of speculation about leaving -- will impact CEOs and boards around the Pac-12. The protracted process of landing a television deal becomes more complicated with the Buffaloes gone, as there's a visceral power to making the move as opposed to discussing it.

Does this clear the way for others to follow? We'll find out soon, as more treading water amid the television negotiations portends more anxiety and can only increase flight risk. No matter what these presidents say publicly, they are committed until they are not. That's the undefeated truism of realignment.

University leadership is generally risk averse, which is why Colorado leaving before full clarity on the Pac-12's television deal emerged is striking as antithetical to how schools typically operate. Have they opened the door for others? It's the biggest question looming over the landscape in college sports right now.

The other Big 12 target that has undergone serious vetting is Connecticut. There's been significant conversation between the sides, and Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark's steadfast belief in the market, the donor support and college basketball being undervalued would align with the Huskies coming aboard. There's also a belief UConn football has turned the corner under Jim Mora after a 6-7 bowl season in 2022.

It's uncertain, however, where the internal support among Big 12 membership to invite UConn to join a league that's anchored by football-forward schools in the Texas footprint stretching north. (Some of which happen to play elite basketball.) For UConn, the monetary difference, even at a reduced rate initially, would appear to be too much to resist. The 11 Big East schools get in the neighborhood of $4 million annually in television money.

San Diego State is believed to be wedged in the Mountain West for the next two years, as they'd owe a $34 million exit fee to leave before then. There's been modest contact between SDSU and the Big 12, but not to the level of UConn. Neither SDSU nor the Big 12 has shown much interest in each other so far. Could that change?

The Big 12's best strategy may be patience. If the Pac-12 rallies and keeps things intact, they could wait to see how the ACC shakes out in the upcoming seasons with Florida State and Clemson sending smoke signals of their unhappiness. That could prompt other ACC schools to peek west to the Big 12 if the ACC has a major shakeup.

There's a significant leverage advantage that Yormark has gained with Colorado coming the Big 12's way. They are operating from a position of strength.

What will the Pac-12 do?
It's too early to say how much urgency it will show to add a 10th member. The conventional wisdom is it would quickly add San Diego State, as that's long been the internal assumption within the league. But the timing on that potential move is in flux after SDSU's muddled attempt to put off the exit fee increase via an extension at the June 30 deadline.

If SDSU wanted to leave for the Pac-12 and play there in 2024, it would cost $34 million in exit fees. That's giant money for a school in its budget range, and there's no guarantee it would get a full share of whatever the Pac-12 media deal becomes. So the Aztecs may have to wait an extra year until 2025 if the Pac-12 extends an invitation, as the other Pac-12 schools wouldn't be eager to cover that tab.

Kliavkoff reiterated at Pac-12 media day that the preference has always been to get a media deal first, then expand. Does Colorado's move change that batting order?

The good news for the Pac-12 is Colorado's actual value isn't drastically different than a school like San Diego State. No television partner is going to pull out of a deal starting in 2024 because of the loss of Colorado, even with Deion Sanders making the Buffaloes the country's buzziest team. SDSU's market and potential are plenty attractive, and they add some basketball juice in the wake of an NCAA men's title game appearance. That matters with the loss of UCLA and USC.

Amid the year of contractual deadlines and delays, Kliavkoff has positioned the Sanders hiring as a positive, saying Sanders "absolutely adds value" to the television deal. It will be interesting to see how he views that notion now.

The biggest damage here so far is perception, as it magnifies the fragility of the league moving forward.

As for what the league needs to do and who the league will add, it's important to follow a simple line of logic: What would Oregon and Washington want?

The Pac-12 is veering toward a precarious place where other leagues in flux over the past generation have been -- the ambitions of the league's clear bell cows colliding with what would work best for the league as a whole in the long-term.

The simple solution for the Pac-12 would be to add San Diego State and then explore a few other brands to plant seeds and grow as a 12-team conference. SMU has been visited by the league and has indicated it would open its wallet as an incentive. But even if SMU came for a giant discount for a few years, is that really in the best short-term interest of Oregon and Washington?

The Dallas area isn't a top-tier recruiting priority, and there's the travel expense of shipping teams -- especially in non-revenue sports -- that far away. The priority of Oregon and Washington will be to make as much money as possible, and adding teams usually means the pie being sliced more ways. It's no secret Oregon and Washington harbor ambitions of getting to the Big Ten, where the payouts for full-share members are nearly double what the Pac-12 will bring in.

What could hold up Pac-12 expansion?
There's a lot of precedent for a league following the wishes of its strongest members. Oklahoma and Texas were cool on adding members to the Big 12 when they were the titans of that league after Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas A&M left. Even if expansion was in the best long-term interest of the league.

Same for USC and UCLA after OU and Texas left the Big 12 and teams from that league were begging to join the Pac-12. Heck, the same thing happened in the old Big East as it fell apart as a football league. Schools like Pittsburgh were waiting for their call to the ACC and didn't want the short-term financial sacrifice to bring in schools to grow. It's a timeless push-pull scenario.

It's uncertain when the eyes of the Big Ten could turn to Oregon and Washington. They'd likely go for a partial share, but the Big Ten presidents and athletic directors weren't eager to add them when former commissioner Kevin Warren made a late push to get an additional television deal via a streaming partner last year. It's likely they'll end up there eventually, but the tricky variable is when that would happen.

USC also made it known upon joining the Big Ten they didn't want to share the Los Angeles recruiting market with anyone else on the West Coast. Why give up the biggest competitive advantages of joining the Big Ten -- the vastly superior finances being flexed to the rich Southern California recruiting base. Why pay more foxes to come to the hen house?

So Washington and Oregon have to keep winning and waiting, as eventually there will be another round of realignment. Since USC and UCLA joined, there's already a new Big Ten commissioner, Tony Petitti, and USC's athletic director, Mike Bohn, resigned.

For the long haul, it would make sense for the Pac-12 to add San Diego State and SMU and perhaps a growth property like UNLV, Colorado State or Fresno State for their markets or Boise State for their consistent football success and strong brand. Bigger is safer, but that's going to clash with the short-term goals of Oregon and Washington.

A nine-team league would appear vulnerable. But any strategy that alienates Oregon and Washington wouldn't make sense either.

Where does this leave Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff?
This is the third big strike of Kliavkoff's tenure. The first was joining the ill-fated Alliance with the Big Ten and ACC. The second came with the departure of USC and UCLA, which he didn't court hard enough at a different financial price point. Then he lost them to a league he was allegedly in an alliance with. The sputtering process for a television deal has now led to a solid member leaving, which can only be viewed as another significant misstep.

The losses are buttressed by no significant wins since being hired in May 2021. There's empathy for the mess he inherited, but at some juncture there need to be tangible signs of progress, too. Kliavkoff needs a win fast by keeping things together with a financially viable television deal with enough exposure to keep his members happy.

The Colorado departure, in many ways, can be viewed as a vote of no confidence by that school in both Kliavkoff and the future of the league, especially because it didn't wait for the conference to come up with a concrete television deal. Colorado's frustrations with the Pac-12 predate Kliavkoff's hire, but there have been few signs that stability is imminent.

There's still a clear path to short-term survival. Get a television deal that satisfies the incumbent nine, lure a new school or perhaps roll at nine teams for the short team. Circle the wagons and keep everyone together.

After USC and UCLA left, Kliavkoff chased political angles for months to try and lure UCLA back. Instead of carving a clear and concise path forward, there were months of reminders of what was lost and little time accumulating any gains. And when the Bruins weren't forced to stay, his strategy proved a giant waste of time.

When Yormark maneuvered to open up the Big 12's negotiations early with Fox and ESPN -- jumping the line a year early as the Big 12 deal wasn't expiring until after 2024 -- he recognized the value of stability and visibility. That's allowed the Big 12 to push forward and grow, as they've closed in on a data deal, announced a strategy in Mexico and generally pushed forward in the wake of Oklahoma and Texas leaving.

More importantly, Yormark's move condensed the market for both television windows and available money at a bearish time in media. That's a maneuver that could ultimately be viewed as a pivot point in the college landscape, with this Colorado move being the first tangible sign of its significance.

 

[TKthunder2 4,991]

34 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Ha, there is more money on the playoffs than the regular season.   There is ZERO chance there won't be a playoff.

Unless the SEC and Big Ten hold their own playoff.

Regular season determines seeding.

Top 4 play.

Winner plays SEC.

Not sharing the playoff payout with B12/ACC/P12 and other G5 conference and allowing the SEC/B1G to negotiate their own value and only share/split to title game would be pretty valuable even if it’s slightly less overall than their current structure since the SEC/B1G’s pie would be bigger.

Not saying it’s happening…but it could.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Unless the SEC and Big Ten hold their own playoff.

Regular season determines seeding.

Top 4 play.

Winner plays SEC.

Not sharing the playoff payout with B12/ACC/P12 and other G5 conference and allowing the SEC/B1G to negotiate their own value and only share/split to title game would be pretty valuable even if it’s slightly less overall than their current structure since the SEC/B1G’s pie would be bigger.

Not saying it’s happening…but it could.

It makes sense to the schools in the SEC/B1G, but not the networks. Shrinking the pie also shrinks overall viewership.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

3 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Unless the SEC and Big Ten hold their own playoff.

Regular season determines seeding.

Top 4 play.

Winner plays SEC.

Not sharing the playoff payout with B12/ACC/P12 and other G5 conference and allowing the SEC/B1G to negotiate their own value and only share/split to title game would be pretty valuable even if it’s slightly less overall than their current structure since the SEC/B1G’s pie would be bigger.

Not saying it’s happening…but it could.

I'm with you, but again though, they can do that at 16 and share it with less mouths.    There is quite literally no one out there that matches Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Tennessee or hell even Auburn.  The strength is there without need of dilution.  

With 32 teams you could toss out CCGs and pit the top 4 against each other in an 8 and keep all the money.   20-24 does nothing more than give you what you have, except instead of paying them in the ACC, you're paying them in the SEC.   But, at the end of the day, there aren't more slots available to watch the high paying games during the season and the B1G/SEC already own the best ones.   If you add 16 more teams, that's 4 more games a week that need to be shown to pay for them.  

The most valuable in is likely keeping the B12/ACC at 16 and let them fight for the left over slots while you get paid a premium for the best ones.   Then give them some post season money by performance, which you know you'll earn the lion's share of.   That way you give away a little to get a lot, as opposed to needing to support these moves all year long.

[Crockett 490]

3 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

and the big 12 is even more pussy for wanting them back

You don't play chess do you?

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

Mother of god...

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

Just now, Hurtlocker said:

Mother of god...

just trade up! lmaooooo

 

 

Impulsive moves like this will completely fuck them

Edited July 27, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

[tx ind 7,012]

3 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Mother of god...

Oregon scheduled a last minute meeting today.  They may be looking for 2 replacements.

 

[gatormarc 911]

If you thought LA to New Jersey was an exciting roadtrip, just wait for Orlando to Eugene.

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

The negative recruiting Oregon will get if they remain in the PAC will be incredible. Especially when they're trying to compete with the BIG and SEC teams for top recruits

[DanTheHorn 4,922]

Quote

A recent Instagram post released by the Ohio State football mascot Brutus Buckeye alongside The Duck, the face for the Oregon Ducks, has a lot of fans talking. On Wednesday, the IG account posted an image of the two mascots standing together at Autzen Stadium in Eugene, and it was the caption that stuck out, in particular.

"BIG things coming," the caption read.

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-ohio-state-oregon-instagram-post-rumors

SIAP

[LTbear 4,168]

Just now, DanTheHorn said:

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-ohio-state-oregon-instagram-post-rumors

SIAP

Makeup game for one that was cancelled during COVID

[Josef Pwag 1,738]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The negative recruiting Oregon will get if they remain in the PAC will be incredible. Especially when they're trying to compete with the BIG and SEC teams for top recruits

I read a rumor in the twitter-x-verse that Oregon has been telling recruits for months they are going to the B1G. How do they sell that if they stay after Colorado ejects?

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

 

[closetojumping 62,637]

7 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The negative recruiting Oregon will get if they remain in the PAC will be incredible. Especially when they're trying to compete with the BIG and SEC teams for top recruits

Oregon went from leading big with Brandon Baker to likely third due directly to other schools pointing out to him that Oregon can't credibly tell him where his games will be televised. I'm doubting that developments happening right now are helping their cause.

They also went from leading big with Justin Williams to not even factoring into his decision when he chose Georgia. Georgia, at least Georgia, has been telling any recruits considering Oregon that they won't even be on tv while they're playing there. Hell, maybe Kirby is sitting down with guys and reviewing this thread with them on their visits.

[Crockett 490]

25 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Mother of god...

Utah you should totally stick it out with Stanford, Cal, WSU, OSU, SDSU, SMU, Boise State, etc. in the traded up Pac 12. 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

24 minutes ago, tx ind said:

Oregon scheduled a last minute meeting today.  They may be looking for 2 replacements.

 

Why trade up once when you can trade up twice? Seems like great news for the Pac. Gonzaga, come on down.

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

9 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

And this is why I have zero sympathy for any school left behind.  They had a chance to prevent all of this.  Unless the Commish and the Exec Committee have the ability to exercise extreme authority over all things, there was no reason why the schools couldn't come together and identify the need to merge.  But their arrogance and ego blinded them to reality.  

 

[Crockett 490]

lol

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

1 minute ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Why trade up once when you can trade up twice? Seems like great news for the Pac. Gonzaga, come on down.

"This was a great opportunity for us.  SDSU and SMU really elevate our conference to a whole new level and improve us cumulatively than what we were before the defections."

[John80 157]

I know University presidents aren't hired for their athletics knowledge but how can you be this clueless and out of touch with reality? I can see why USC felt that they have to get away from these people.

[TKthunder2 4,991]

Just now, Uncle Nate said:

"This was a great opportunity for us.  SDSU and SMU really elevate our conference to a whole new level and improve us cumulatively than what we were before the defections."

Except SDSU has to payout out like $30 million to leave the MWC.

They obviously did that intentionally. It makes it unwise for 4 or more MWC to join the PAC as they be wheeling out $120+ million to the remaining 8 in the MWC and opens the door to a merger of equals where Wyoming v Stanford is now a must see conference matchup.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

3 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Except SDSU has to payout out like $30 million to leave the MWC.

They obviously did that intentionally. It makes it unwise for 4 or more MWC to join the PAC as they be wheeling out $120+ million to the remaining 8 in the MWC and opens the door to a merger of equals where Wyoming v Stanford is now a must see conference matchup.

The road to the Rose Bowl runs through Laramie.

[gatormarc 911]

8 minutes ago, John80 said:

I know University presidents aren't hired for their athletics knowledge but how can you be this clueless and out of touch with reality? I can see why USC felt that they have to get away from these people.

Given what we're seeing at Northwestern and the President's defense of "I didn't actually read the football report" or the AD's defense of "I didn't actually interview the baseball coach" this might not be just a PacX issue.

[BachelorTrek 2,968]

Spoiler

Mandel: Colorado rejoining Big 12 would be a product of Pac-12 negligence
  By Stewart Mandel - The Athletic
6h ago
 
In 2010, Colorado opted to flee the Big 12 for what was then the Pac-10 amid fears that Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma were about to leave for other leagues and decimate the Buffs’ conference. Which they eventually did.
Thirteen years later, Colorado’s board is expected to vote Thursday to rejoin the Big 12.

Think about just how many things the Pac-12 had to get wrong over those 13 years to arrive at this precarious moment where it may soon be down to just nine members. Think about the fact that just two summers ago, after powers Oklahoma and Texas bolted the Big 12, new commissioner George Kliavkoff and his league presidents felt no need to grab a TCU or Houston when either would have come crawling in a nanosecond.
Former commissioner Larry Scott may have set the Pac-12’s tumble in motion with his combo of arrogance and aloofness, but Kliavkoff, his successor, has now rolled the boulder right up to the edge of the cliff with a unique cocktail of naivete and negligence.
It’s admittedly debatable whether Kliavkoff could have done anything to prevent USC and UCLA from leaving for the much-richer Big Ten. Some folks within the league say the warning signs were there that its golden ticket, USC, was getting antsy. Others say the L.A. schools’ defections last year came as a complete shock.
But Colorado? … He really can’t keep Colorado?
How demoralizing must it be for a school that’s gone 27-76 in conference play to have the leverage to singlehandedly destabilize your league. How much more time could he have possibly needed to prepare for the possibility than, oh, the last 13 months?
At no point since June 30, 2022, would any of the Four Corners schools — Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State — leaving be considered a shock. And yet, it does genuinely appear that Kliavkoff — the same guy who once formed an “Alliance” with the ACC and Big Ten based on “an agreement between three gentlemen” — did not see this one coming. Had he even a hint Colorado might leave this week, he probably would not have said or done any of the following at his conference’s football media day last Friday:
• When asked whether it was a “major concern” that the Big 12 may poach his schools, he called it “not a concern,” said that realignment “will come to an end for this cycle” and that “the truth is, we have bigger fish to fry.”
• On the topic of his league’s interminable media rights negotiations, he said the longer the league has waited, the better their options have become, and that presidents’ and chancellors’ “commitment and patience will be rewarded with an announcement in the near future.”
• And when the league hosted a lunch-hour roundtable to discuss College Football Playoff expansion, one of the invited panelists was none other than Colorado AD Rick George, a former committee member.

In hindsight, the first sign something might be amiss came when George rushed off stage afterward and purposefully dodged a group of reporters — at media day.
As realignment sagas go, this one is uniquely bizarre. In a vacuum, losing Colorado would seem entirely insignificant to the conference. The program is now three decades removed from its Eric Bieniemy/Kordell Stewart/Rashaan Salaam glory days and last played in a major bowl game in 2001. While CU performs better TV-wise than one might expect — fifth-best among the non-L.A. Pac-12 schools from 2015-21 — it would not be considered “additive” if the league were starting from scratch today. Unless potential TV partners were willing to gamble hundreds of millions on Coach Prime becoming the Buffs’ savior.
And yet, because of its own continued ineptitude, CU leaving is a huuuuuge deal for the Pac-12.
For one thing, it makes the conference look even weaker than it already does. Since taking over the Big 12 a little over a year ago, commissioner Brett Yormark has outmaneuvered his Pac-12 counterpart at every turn. He landed an extension with ESPN and Fox a year earlier than expected, making the Pac-12’s negotiations more difficult. He’s spent a full year courting the Four Corners schools and is ultimately set to reel in Colorado in part because he’d locked in assurances from ESPN and Fox that any Pac-12 additions would receive the same $31.7 million-per-year share as his current members come 2025. Whereas Kliavkoff has yet to deliver his own members assurance of any TV numbers of any kind beyond this coming year.
But of course, the much, much bigger deal will be if Colorado’s departure becomes the domino that causes other Pac-12 schools to leave.
For weeks, administrators across the conference have expressed confidence both that Kliavkoff will land the plane on the TV deal, and that Colorado was the only school still intrigued by the Big 12. If there are in fact new bidders that came to the negotiating table recently, as Oregon AD Rob Mullens and others said last week, and if it results in a deal with a similar dollar figure to the Big 12’s, the Pac-12 could ostensibly just swap in San Diego State for Colorado and be done with the thing.
But even that would not play out cleanly. The Pac-12’s inability to nail down its deal sooner has all but assured the Aztecs won’t be able to join before 2025, lest they have to pay the Mountain West double their exit fee. Plus, as of media day on Friday, there were at least two schools still opposed to expansion, per two league sources. One would think they’ll reconsider that stance now, though this being the Pac-12, never gamble on it acting rationally.

Colorado officials may provide a more complete picture in the coming days as to their rationale — one that likely includes Deion Sanders’ desire to recruit Texas — but this much is obvious: CU ran out of patience with the Pac-12.
Last Friday, its commissioner said, “Getting the right deal has always been more important to our board and to the conference than getting the expeditious one.” At least one school disagreed, and if even one more follows, the conference may cease to exist.

Surely Kliavkoff must be aware of that possibility.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

This isn't getting enough discussion in the big picture.

There's this assumption that the Big 10 and SEC are just going to grow to some arbitrary number to create a new division, but given that this is all about money, it seems unlikely that the money really backs that.

Outside of Notre Dame, and MAYBE 2-3 ACC schools, additional schools are no longer financially additive to those leagues.  They already have enough blue bloods to demand top dollar and have the biggest say in how the sport is run.  There's a real likelihood that continuing to add schools won't make them any more money, and they can't really get any more power.

There's this assumption that we're heading towards 2 super conferences, but with the exception of Notre Dame, we're kind of already there.  Future growth with the remaining brands is a risk to the bottom line of those 32 schools.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

There’s a lot of delusion and magical thinking in places like Eugene.

[statsman 5,457]

27 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

"This was a great opportunity for us.  SDSU and SMU really elevate our conference to a whole new level and improve us cumulatively than what we were before the defections."

“…why, SDSU brings southern California viewers and SMU? SMU would give Texas, especially the DFW metroplex, to the PAC!”😂

['stache 21,805]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

This isn't getting enough discussion in the big picture.

There's this assumption that the Big 10 and SEC are just going to grow to some arbitrary number to create a new division, but given that this is all about money, it seems unlikely that the money really backs that.

Outside of Notre Dame, and MAYBE 2-3 ACC schools, additional schools are no longer financially additive to those leagues.  They already have enough blue bloods to demand top dollar and have the biggest say in how the sport is run.  There's a real likelihood that continuing to add schools won't make them any more money, and they can't really get any more power.

There's this assumption that we're heading towards 2 super conferences, but with the exception of Notre Dame, we're kind of already there.  Future growth with the remaining brands is a risk to the bottom line of those 32 schools.

BIG and SEC aren't going to form their own division unless they excise their "leeches." It would only work if they went Prestige Worldwide with the top 16-24 brands, mostly bluebloods. For now at least, I think they'll be content taking the majority of the 12 playoff spots, and the rest of us will be content having a seat at the table for the few programs that in any given year play really well ala TCU last year. 

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

Haha

 

theyre going to Hail Mary SDSU or SMU 

Edited July 27, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Haha

 

theyre going to Hail Mary SDSU or SMU 

AFTER SDST said we need to do this before July because we can't afford the $34m buyout if we don't.

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Haha

 

theyre going to Hail Mary SDSU or SMU 

I wonder who the lucky addition(s) will be. One from the AAC, while waiting two years for MWC adds?

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

AFTER SDST said we need to do this before July because we can't afford the $34m buyout if we don't.

Honestly San Diego state should tell them to go fuck themselves 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Honestly San Diego state should tell them to go fuck themselves 

Yeah. The PAC schools don't have a buyout and they can join the MWC if they want to play SDSU.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

The Pac is such a shit show making bad decision after bad decision, its really stunning.

['stache 21,805]

I don’t think MWC could support $34M as a measure of damages if a team left. I’d that’s really the number and if the PAC teams are looking a media deal in the $20M range, they might not have any real expansion options except for SMU.