Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away

The Tower

By The Tower
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Sandbagging Steve,

How many teams will be left when the dust settles in a few years? I think there's a way for all the teams to still have some involvement. I will explain that at the end of this list. Here's my list of the top 32 programs and a list if it goes to 48. There's some debate if it goes to 48, but not much debate if it stops at 32. I guess one could debate Arizona State, but that's about it. The top 32 at least come close to carrying their own weight. Everyone below that line is losing money for t

This is great content for free.

Recommended by immamac

  • Hook 'Em

6 reactions

Go to this post
  • Replies 36.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bullet

    1507

  • Hurtlocker

    1322

  • Al_4_ISU

    1079

  • BurntOrange&White

    976

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos
Hiphopopotamos
MAUFRAIS
MAUFRAIS

Aggy should abstain so the vote is 13-0 and then we can then brand it on their dog.

jofus
jofus

Posted Images

Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2208

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

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.

According to reports, it was like $17m before July, then $34m after.   I think it has to do with how quickly notice is given, so if you want out sooner, the price goes up.   Also SDSU just paid the legal fees to the MWC to get them to agree that they didn't leave, and NOW the Pac is going to consider.   Its just so backwards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5406

Posted
Posted

The PAC has such a great history for sports. They were paired with the B10 in owning the Rose Bowl game. California produced so much talent, and west coast schools shared in it. 
 
That they can collapse upon losing USC and UCLA exhibits just how much free riding was going on. The remaining schools absolutely could make this conference work. All they have to do is have a “come to Jesus” moment like TCU did when it fell out upon the SWC collapse. They (TCU) made a commitment, as a university, to the AD and they marshaled support in the community. If the remaining PAC schools, or even just a majority of them, did that and committed to making the conference better, they could absolutely survive this and be in a more secure spot. 
 
That all of these schools just want to keep doing what they’re doing and be taken care of for that is damning. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
locodos

locodos 5329

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I cannot see a scenario with FSU thinks about the PAC and a shittier deal. 

That's 100% on brand for FSU.   The Gata stumped for them and got them an invite to the SEC. Bowden took a greasy shit and wiped his ass with it.  They chose a conference based on BASKETBALL.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Nate

Uncle Nate 2097

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

d3d549a043b677f1042dd3d48ffa57ae.png

 

 

An alliance!  It worked so well the last time!

I think the only way the ACC could do anything at this point would be to dissolve the conference outright, and then merge with the Pac 10 (or they both dissolve and merge to form a new conference).  Honestly, that would be the only way either one could try to outflank the Big 12 for the undisputed #3 spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanTheHorn

DanTheHorn 4893

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BachelorTrek said:
  Hide contents

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.

 

Oh Mandel's day is not going well.

777c544c325fca9c79e791a24253e421ed063b11

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gatormarc

gatormarc 904

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

 

An alliance!  It worked so well the last time!

I think the only way the ACC could do anything at this point would be to dissolve the conference outright, and then merge with the Pac 10 (or they both dissolve and merge to form a new conference).  Honestly, that would be the only way either one could try to outflank the Big 12 for the undisputed #3 spot.

To be fair, the ACC and Pac appeared to actually have followed the guidelines of The Alliance™ the first time through, or at least didn't use those guidelines for a checklist of what rules to break like the B1G

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21743

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

To be fair, the ACC and Pac appeared to actually have followed the guidelines of The Alliance™ the first time through, or at least didn't use those guidelines for a checklist of what rules to break like the B1G

 

4 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

F2-EA9pf-XQAAa51-I-format-jpg-name-large

If this were feasible the PAC negotiations wouldn't still be stalled after a year, and CU would definitely be part of a partial PAC/ACC merger (more likely new conference). I think the following set up would still be way below BIG/SEC, but more than Big XII.

West: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, AU, ASU, UU, CU

East: FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NC St., UVA, VT

When is the CU vote? If there's nothing official today I'd worry that this plan has been revived and CU was convinced to hold off to see if it can be done. If CU makes it official today, my assumption is that they pursued this and it wasn't possible.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Nate

Uncle Nate 2097

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

If this were feasible the PAC negotiations wouldn't still be stalled after a year, and CU would definitely be part of a partial PAC/ACC merger (more likely new conference). I think the following set up would still be way below BIG/SEC, but more than Big XII.

West: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, AU, ASU, UU, CU

East: FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NC St., UVA, VT

When is the CU vote? If there's nothing official today I'd worry that this plan has been revived and CU was convinced to hold off to see if it can be done. If CU makes it official today, my assumption is that they pursued this and it wasn't possible.

I believe it is 4pm Central, 3pm Mountain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CustersDoctor

CustersDoctor 584

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They wouldn't and I think they'd actually lose money going that route. The best route would be 4 18-20 team conferences with it's conference championship games essentially being part of the playoff. 

I never understand the aspect of this thread when actual news and stuff is happening people still want to post future speculation. Just post the now and what's happening currently....you'll have another year or years to go into speculation on the future of conferences.

Reminds me of Carl Sagan who couldn't just talk about nuclear war. He had to talk about nuclear winter. Really! We just blew up the entire planet and killed 99% of everything and all Carl Sagan wants to know is, "What's the weather going to be like?". What a Grandpa thing to be on your mind after a nuclear holocaust. And here we are talking about conference realignment when we may get nuked tomorrow. WHERE ARE OUR PRIORITIES?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markstanco

markstanco 12489

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, TxEx84 said:

And now do the corners of the end zones.

If you cant stop from full speed at the back of the endzone from a fade in 14 feet before you eat concrete, maybe you dont deserve to play college football. 

Did that aggy that built the stadium in Allen build BP Stadium too?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

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.

Stop perpetuating this fantasy that schools are in a position to swing their nuts anywhere. They’ll do what the networks tell them to do and like it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 172

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

If this were feasible the PAC negotiations wouldn't still be stalled after a year, and CU would definitely be part of a partial PAC/ACC merger (more likely new conference). I think the following set up would still be way below BIG/SEC, but more than Big XII.

West: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, AU, ASU, UU, CU

East: FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NC St., UVA, VT

When is the CU vote? If there's nothing official today I'd worry that this plan has been revived and CU was convinced to hold off to see if it can be done. If CU makes it official today, my assumption is that they pursued this and it wasn't possible.

I don't believe CU will move to the Big12_whatever.  That would make sense and the one common prime factor is that no CR makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laxtonto

Laxtonto 11926

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

ccfdeca2cc553368af5a5ef41dd37d39.png

That's it everyone, its official!   You heard it here first!

So all this means is from the network side, UW and UO have been pushed to at least talk to the B12 because no move is coming from Fox/B1G. Once you figure out where his info is coming from (one of the bigger sports consultants in NYC and some regional ADs) it’s pretty easy to figure out the rest of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky 1666

Posted
Posted
Spoiler

At the end of May, Brett Yormark flew to West Virginia to convene the Big 12’s spring meetings. The commissioner and his presidents, chancellors and athletic directors gathered at the swanky Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs.

During that three-day session, the leaders had extensive discussions about their expansion options. They walked away aligned on a strategy. Texas Tech president Lawrence Schovanec went so far as to say he’d never seen greater unanimity among the Big 12’s board of directors.

“We have a plan,” Yormark said on June 2.

They all agreed on step one: Go get Colorado. And now they’re on the verge of pulling it off.

The Big 12 board met again for a conference call Wednesday night and voted unanimously to accept Colorado as a new member for 2024, a person familiar with the Big 12’s discussions confirmed to The Athletic. Colorado’s regents will meet Thursday afternoon, when they’re expected to formally move forward with exiting the Pac-12 and returning to their former league.

What, then, would be step two for the Big 12?

The next move may not happen instantly. These processes are complex. But at this point, Yormark is not looking to stand pat at 13 members starting in 2024. He hasn’t been shy about acknowledging he prefers a 14-member league moving forward after Oklahoma and Texas exit for the SEC, and conference sources believe 14 is more likely than 16, barring a disaster in the Pac-12.

There was a time when Yormark and Big 12 leadership hoped that landing one Pac-12 member sets off a domino effect, that one gets them two and maybe even four. The theory all along was that one school bailing might set off a panic among other Pac-12 members bothered by uncertainty, concerned about the media rights deal and fearful of getting left behind. These Big 12 schools have gone through it before. They know how it feels.

Can the Big 12 convince one more Pac-12 school to make a change? We’re about to find out if that’s a real possibility or was purely wishful thinking. Getting another Pac-12 school to jump on board would be a triumph, and more basketball-focused Big 12 additions probably belong on the back burner for these next few weeks.

But here’s the thing about Yormark: What he wants to sell his members on is UConn.

If Colorado is the only Pac-12 member coming in, don’t be surprised if Yormark goes all-in on UConn. All the political capital he’s gaining in the eyes of his league presidents, chancellors and ADs from pulling off this Colorado move? Conference sources believe that’s where he wants to spend it.

In a brief interview with The Athletic on Wednesday, University of Arizona president Robert C. Robbins repeated what he’s said all along: He needs to see a Pac-12 media rights deal. He’d prefer to stay in the Pac-12, that much is clear, but Kliavkoff needs to deliver an acceptable agreement. He’s willing to be patient but acknowledged that the Pac-12’s latest board meeting on Wednesday morning didn’t offer much clarity on a timetable.

“We’ve still got a year left on the contract. It’s not like you’ve got to decide do you jump or go down with the building,” Robbins said. “So I don’t feel pressure or stress or anything about this. I’m just waiting to see what the deal looks like.”

Do leaders like Robbins take Yormark and the Big 12 a little more seriously now that he’s pulled off one addition? That’s one of the many curious questions going forward. Arizona State and Utah have consistently rejected being interested in switching leagues. The Big 12 has had communication with Oregon and Washington in the past year. For them, Colorado departing still might not move the needle enough. And that might not bother Yormark much. He doesn’t want these schools reluctantly backing into the Big 12 solely because of a disappointing TV deal. He wants members who seriously buy what he’s selling.

In UConn, Yormark sees something that other Big 12 leaders don’t. They think football first and have their doubts that UConn football can become relevant. The recent track record — 27-83 since 2013 — is hard to ignore. They see the success in men’s and women’s basketball as undeniably attractive, but it’s less easy to get them to buy the pitch that UConn adds value for this league, in part because these presidents, chancellors and ADs have spent the past year locked in on trying to land Power 5 football schools.

But Yormark sees an entry point into New York City. He sees a dominant basketball conference and big-time events at Madison Square Garden. He sees a future in which the Big 12 makes more money down the road by decoupling its media rights package and selling its basketball rights separately. Conference sources say he sees a sort of buy-low opportunity here, a bet that the Big 12 investing in UConn over the rest of the decade will drive up the conference’s value. For him, there’s no hesitation. There’s real conviction.

Throughout this yearlong pursuit of Pac-12 members, the goal hasn’t changed: The Big 12 wants to be No. 3. There’s no surpassing the SEC and Big Ten in revenue anytime soon. But they can aim to get ahead of the ACC and Pac-12 and stay ahead. Anything that pushes the conference, in perception and reality, closer to that position is worth considering. So when USC and UCLA declared they’re leaving for the Big Ten and opened the door to Pac-12 instability last July, the newly hired Yormark barged through it.

Remember, the Big 12 was on the brink in the summer of 2021. Don’t forget that moment in sizing up this current one. The conference was in a vulnerable spot, so much so that former Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby traveled to Montana to visit Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff and discuss a partnership or merger. The Pac-12 wasn’t interested.

The Pac-12 could’ve swooped in and swiped Baylor, Oklahoma State, TCU and Texas Tech. Had it seized the opportunity, the Big 12 would be toast. But Pac-12 presidents couldn’t be convinced. Too many of them didn’t love the fit. They instead preferred the good vibes and handshake pacts of the short-lived Alliance with the Big Ten and ACC.

After living out that existential crisis for six weeks, the eight remaining Big 12 members locked arms and invited the four best available expansion candidates — BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF — and moved in a new direction together.

Bowlsby offered to stay on through the new members’ transition into the conference. The Big 12’s board took a risk, preferring to launch a search for a new commissioner in the summer of 2022. The search committee took another risk with a nontraditional candidate in Yormark, the New York businessman who brought minimal college athletics experience to the table but excited them with all the ideas for innovation he proposed. The Big 12 needed a bold vision for its brand and future without Oklahoma and Texas, and Yormark took over a league that’s more willing to be bold.

That alignment is essential. Over the past year, there haven’t been any whispers about one or two Big 12 schools standing in the way of expansion to protect their own interests. They’ve given Yormark the authority to chase these ambitious moves. And look at what he’s bringing home.

When it comes to deciding what’s next, this is not a one-man decision-making process. Yormark certainly has a lot of juice right now, but it’s his board of directors, now led in the chairperson role by Baylor president Linda Livingstone, that must sign off on making expansion moves. More Power 5 additions will garner unanimous support. If those aren’t coming next, those conference sources believe Yormark will want his board to get on board with UConn.

That’s how Yormark operates. Adding Colorado is a significant feat, another validating vote of confidence in the conference and its future, but don’t expect much of a victory lap from the commissioner. He and his regime have moved quickly in his first year on the job, stacking as many improvements and achievements as he can as fast as he can, and he’s not slowing down soon.

Colorado appears to be coming. And then the Big 12 will be on to the next one.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
USC Traveler

USC Traveler 488

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, gatormarc said:

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.

President of NW was recently hired away from Eugene Community College, so he’s been a big part of the PAC stupidity himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12408

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Oregon and Washington are at least equal with Colorado. Still a great move though. 

Maybe better.  I’m just saying the blue bloods are almost fully consolidated.  ND is the last one out there, with Clemson and FSU being fringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32685

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Significantly better than CU.

Better but I bet not by as much as you think nationwide. Oregon and Washington are "way over there" for most of the country and have never had the appeal of the LA schools. I agree they're bigger brands than Colorado and was being friendly with Al, but Colorado actually benefits from having played in the central time zone for so long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2208

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Maybe better.  I’m just saying the blue bloods are almost fully consolidated.  ND is the last one out there, with Clemson and FSU being fringe.

Yeah I'd lump Oregon, Washington, FSU, and Clemson into that purgatory tier between the massive brands and the normal P5 brands.   Big enough to move the B12/ACC needle, but not enough to move the SEC/B1G needle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...