Realignment talk not going away

[Sir Ulrich 5187]

 

 

[USC_TMB 405]

26 minutes ago, BachelorTrek said:

Will the last school left holding the PAC-bag turn out the lights?  Lulz.

All that’s be one way them to win a PAC title

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, closetojumping said:

I've heard and read enough commentary from talking heads and writers to feel like the various talking points are being cemented to paint Cal and Stanford as victims who need to be accounted for by somebody, somewhere. 

1) But where will all of the olympic sports athletes go??!! This is an existential threat to American olympic primacy!

2) Stanford shouldn't be left out of the Big 10, because they fit the academics standards and are a big brand. Okay. 

3) If Cal doesn't get a good landing spot, the board of regents will just siphon off from UCLA's revenue bucket to make Cal whole.

4) What's happened to these poor, innocent schools is a tragedy and people, whoever they are, need to be held accountable, dammit!

No one mentions Cal's general indifference, if not outright disdain, for football and other schools that care about it. No mention of Stanford's intractability regarding entrance reqs and transfer restrictions making them a relic in today's landscape. No mention of either school's generally low viewership numbers and mediocre attendance numbers, or their historical mediocrity. No mention of either school's culpability in limiting the future of the PacX at every possible juncture. 

 

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

[Richard Kimball 1494]

4 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

I love when you post about the PAC. 

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

That's so weird to me, I've never heard of a "rivalry" game involving Iowa other than v. Iowa State. And I think I've followed the sport long enough that I have heard of most rivalry games.

I guess you don't do Big 10.  Iowa-Minnesota has been played 116 times.  Except for war back to the double naughts every year.  The whole Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin trio is a big group of rivalries.  Nebraska-Iowa is just because nobody cares about Nebraska in the Big 10.  Kind of the Mizzou of the Big 10, but not as bad.

[Guest]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

@USC Traveler

I support this message of rivalrous hate...and "I told you so."

Edited August 7, 2023 by slorch

[bullet 1596]

28 minutes ago, Sir Ulrich said:

 

 

Good decision.  Besides the difficulty in finding someone to pay for them, they need to sit down and figure out a lot of stuff out with 4 new schools this year and 4 the next.

[bullet 1596]

12 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

With their debt, they probably ought to join WSU and OSU for a few years to get the basketball credits.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

5 minutes ago, bullet said:

Good decision.  Besides the difficulty in finding someone to pay for them, they need to sit down and figure out a lot of stuff out with 4 new schools this year and 4 the next.

Also, looking at the map, they are a pretty region conference now, much better distance wise than the B1G and not much worse than the Pac was prior.  Might as well wait and watch, probably better off with ACC schools around WVU/Cinci/UCF than going further west.    They're remarkably in a good spot for what could have been.

[Jasper_Jester 356]

12 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

My assessment is 1) you have never made a short post and 2) you pretty much hated every other team in the Pac12! 

I don't disagree about Cal's admin. Not every school needs to play big time college football, they seems to be one that doesn't need to. I will say that as far as capitalism, they did go an opposite direction and ended up with scammed by FTX. Welcome to Cal's FTX Field, a Naming-Rights Deal Funded by Cryptocurrency - Sports Illustrated Cal Bears News, Analysis and More.

[BachelorTrek 2967]

23 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

I love when you post about the PAC. 

 

Lulz.

[Alien Octopus 516]

27 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

Is there not a place in this giant world for commie football?

[BachelorTrek 2967]

2 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

Is there not a place in this giant world for commie football?

https://www.rustourismnews.com/2019/12/20/how-american-football-made-its-way-to-russia/

It already has!  Lulz.

[Alien Octopus 516]

2 minutes ago, BachelorTrek said:

https://www.rustourismnews.com/2019/12/20/how-american-football-made-its-way-to-russia/

It already has!  Lulz.

Bears will have to join the NFL to get their "fair share"  queue Joseph Stiglitz

[redswingline 1057]

On 8/5/2023 at 9:09 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

They didn’t get AAU status and build a campus in LA to get cut off from Southern California. Under current leadership, they want to be University of California at Tempe. 

Who, ASU?

Most of ASU's degrees are the equivalent of a high school diploma.

Edited August 7, 2023 by redswingline

[camel at sea 589]

43 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

100%  

The thing that makes it even crazier to me is that Cal (under Tedford) was drawing 60K+ crowds and playing Top 25 football.  It's like the success of the football program embarrassed the admin, so they kneecapped it.  

[Steelers Roll Left 1168]

Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Colorado State, Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Tulane…………Nah…..

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, camel at sea said:

I doubt the B1G ends up with a clean schedule model.  Michigan can't go to a 1-8-8 model bc they are going to want to play MSU and tOSU each year.  I bet they keep and expand the convoluted system they just installed, with each school having a different number of permanent rivals, depending on their situation.  

The two overriding concerns will be protecting the rivalry games that matter, and making certain that the over-the-air TV partners get as good a slate as possible.  I'd guess a distant third will be rotation through the conference slate.  The upshot of that is that it likely reduces the number of times any one PAC addition might play Maryland or Rutgers to once a decade (those games are bad for travel, and not great for TV.)    

I have two friends who went to UM and they'd both love to drop MSU to every other year.  Their 247 board seems to feel the same way.

MSU would pitch a fit, and Iowa will complain, but is that going to be enough to stop Fox from getting what they want ?

The other thing is that BIG wants to maximize schools in the playoffs.  1-8-8 is the best way to do that.

Tv will want USC, UW, UO playing OSU, UM, PSU as often as possible, but you also need games vs RU, PU, IU to keep the top teams from cannibalizing each other.

[Vertigo 20276]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

While this is one of the funniest outcomes possible for Cal and their out of touch administration, the funnier outcome would have been that the school signed the P12 GOR only to have an earthquake level their (empty) stadium. Then they could be tossed out for inability to execute on their contract. 

[bullet 1596]

8 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I have two friends who went to UM and they'd both love to drop MSU to every other year.  Their 247 board seems to feel the same way.

MSU would pitch a fit, and Iowa will complain, but is that going to be enough to stop Fox from getting what they want ?

The other thing is that BIG wants to maximize schools in the playoffs.  1-8-8 is the best way to do that.

Tv will want USC, UW, UO playing OSU, UM, PSU as often as possible, but you also need games vs RU, PU, IU to keep the top teams from cannibalizing each other.

Again, what difference does 7 in 15 matter vs. 7 in 14?  And if you let Iowa be the only one with 3, does anyone really care that it is 6 in 14 for them instead of 7 in 14?  Makes scheduling a little trickier, but not much.

[USC Traveler 488]

34 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

100%  

The thing that makes it even crazier to me is that Cal (under Tedford) was drawing 60K+ crowds and playing Top 25 football.  It's like the success of the football program embarrassed the admin, so they kneecapped it.  

I think you're onto something there my friend.  Cal faculty and admin seemed unhappy about the attention on the program.

Stanford embraced and promoted "Nerd Football" when they were rolling with JH and the early Shaw years.  

Never saw that with Cal.  As you said, they seemed embarrassed.  Sucks for them.

Edited August 7, 2023 by USC Traveler

[camel at sea 589]

36 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I have two friends who went to UM and they'd both love to drop MSU to every other year.  Their 247 board seems to feel the same way.

MSU would pitch a fit, and Iowa will complain, but is that going to be enough to stop Fox from getting what they want ?

The other thing is that BIG wants to maximize schools in the playoffs.  1-8-8 is the best way to do that.

Tv will want USC, UW, UO playing OSU, UM, PSU as often as possible, but you also need games vs RU, PU, IU to keep the top teams from cannibalizing each other.

Michigan vs. Michigan State is a good TV matchup, MSU would pitch a fit if it wasn't played, and I'd guess you'd see a lot of disgruntlement from some politicos if it's not an annual game.  The Big 10 has already demonstrated that it's going to prioritize preserving rivalry games above setting up a clean scheduling model.  There's plenty of room to preserve annual rivalry games and produce a lot of good TV matchups for the over-the-air media partners.  Adding Oregon helped with that.

 

My guess is that SC is going to be playing the Bruins, Huskies, and Ducks every year.  All three of those are good TV games and there's some history there that's marketable.  

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

4 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Michigan vs. Michigan State is a good TV matchup, MSU would pitch a fit if it wasn't played, and I'd guess you'd see a lot of disgruntlement from some politicos if it's not an annual game.  The Big 10 has already demonstrated that it's going to prioritize preserving rivalry games above setting up a clean scheduling model.  There's plenty of room to preserve annual rivalry games and produce a lot of good TV matchups for the over-the-air media partners.  Adding Oregon helped with that.

 

My guess is that SC is going to be playing the Bruins, Huskies, and Ducks every year.  All three of those are good TV games and there's some history there that's marketable.  

I think if they were that concerned about it, they would have given Penn State one of the big football schools as a rival. 

[Bigbend1812 12915]

1 hour ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Colorado State, Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Tulane…………Nah…..

[camel at sea 589]

  

 

[Huckleberry 32850]

Texas State to the Pac-4. If they haven't already called after hearing that rumor then they're failing their fiduciary duties. At some point those guys need to take advantage of the fact that they're Texas fucking State. 

[ChiTownDoc 21145]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Iowa/Minnesota was pushed to a Friday in 2021.  I actually thought it was pretty fun at the end of the day.  Some Hawk buddies of mine did a big fish fry for it.

To be fair, anything with a big fish fry and friends is pretty fun, at the end of the day.  "My wife made me go to some bullshit babyshower, but my buddies showed up and we did a big fish fry for it".  See?  Now I'm hungry.  

[ChiTownDoc 21145]

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

 

 

It's all about the money, fuck everything else.  Just make these geniuses play double headers when they travel out east.  And make current ACC teams traveling out west do the same thing.  Think of all the injuries in game two?  Who wouldn't tune in.  Eyeballs = money

Also, maybe 1-2 neutral site games in London.  Soooo many eye balls out there.  LFG

[Sbbruin 21836]

cal and Stanford to the ACC is just regarded.

[Welshy 907]

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Texas State to the Pac-4. If they haven't already called after hearing that rumor then they're failing their fiduciary duties. At some point those guys need to take advantage of the fact that they're Texas fucking State. 

They are part of the 3b endowment from the state of Texas, netting them something like 24m a year for research. A dick that big needs to be wagged. 

[Deej 76757]

48 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

At some point those guys need to take advantage of the fact that they're Texas fucking State

They could put a really big "Texas" on their jerseys with a tiny "State" under it like aggy does with their shit. 

[Steel Shank 9421]

3 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

100%- Cal is fucked and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Their admin has been actively hostile to football for at least 12-15 years, and they seem to be hostile to capitalism as well.  They certainly don't understand it.

They rebuilt a stadium directly on a fault line for $450m at the same time they were kneecapping their football program, sending attendance and tv ratings plummeting.

They thought they could put a shit product on the field, suck on USC's teat for equal tv revenue till the end of time, and budgeted accordingly.

They fought against adding UT and OU, and would never even consider adding other B12 schools and BYU due to coastal elitism and religious bigotry.

The idea of programs getting paid what they're worth in a free market was inconceivable in Berkeley. 

Cal is the epitome of the arrogance, entitlement and elitism that doomed the PAC.  I'm glad they're getting left behind.  Fuck Cal.

 

And fuck Aaron Rodgers.

[Welshy 907]

6 minutes ago, Deej said:

They could put a really big "Texas" on their jerseys with a tiny "State" under it like aggy does with their shit. 

TEXAS*st

Fightn' Shaggy Bevs?

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Welshy

[bullet 1596]

"ESPN, Fox and CBS all put in last-minute bids for packages of Pac-12 games. But the bids all came in way lower than the conference wanted. How low? Commissioner George Kliavkoff only presented the conference's presidents with Apple TV's bid last week.

Fox's bid was for a package of just 13 football games, for which it said it would pay around $35-$40 million per year. Fox's bid, essentially, was for what it considered part of the conference's "B" package.

ESPN had offered a significant package to the conference more than a year ago -- one that the conference's university presidents rejected. ESPN ended up cutting a deal with the Big 12, and while it remained involved with the Pac-12, it only put in a small bid for Pac-12 rights within the past few weeks.

CBS also engaged with the Pac-12 over the past couple of weeks, but it only put forward a bid for a handful of basketball games -- around five in total. Sources had expected ESPN and Amazon to share the Pac-12's "A" package. But as it turned out, Amazon never submitted a bid. Neither did NBC.

The delay from last year, when ESPN, Fox and CBS were willing to do a deal, to last week, when all three put forth small bids, was devastating to the Pac-12. A changing media landscape -- with shrinking subscriber numbers and employee layoffs -- caused the networks to be much more disciplined in where to spend their money than they have in the past.

Similarly, Wall Street hit the streamers hard as shares fell once bankers started prioritizing profits over subscriber growth and caused deep-pocketed companies like Amazon and Apple to also become more disciplined in how much they spend on sports rights...."


https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2023/08/07.aspx

[bullet 1596]

24 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

And fuck Aaron Rodgers.

Some Cal people are still complaining about Mack Brown.

[Viper 12108]

6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

If the ACC says no then the Big 12 should immediately call those two schools and the ACC and say they'll send UCF and WV and take Cal and Stanford. 

Make those two schools take their last lifeline to stay in the top 4 conferences. 

It would make some sense but I don't think the conferences are going to try to re-enact the Sykes-Picot Agreement

Edited August 8, 2023 by Viper

[Welshy 907]

3 minutes ago, bullet said:

"ESPN, Fox and CBS all put in last-minute bids for packages of Pac-12 games. But the bids all came in way lower than the conference wanted. How low? Commissioner George Kliavkoff only presented the conference's presidents with Apple TV's bid last week.

Fox's bid was for a package of just 13 football games, for which it said it would pay around $35-$40 million per year. Fox's bid, essentially, was for what it considered part of the conference's "B" package.

ESPN had offered a significant package to the conference more than a year ago -- one that the conference's university presidents rejected. ESPN ended up cutting a deal with the Big 12, and while it remained involved with the Pac-12, it only put in a small bid for Pac-12 rights within the past few weeks.

CBS also engaged with the Pac-12 over the past couple of weeks, but it only put forward a bid for a handful of basketball games -- around five in total. Sources had expected ESPN and Amazon to share the Pac-12's "A" package. But as it turned out, Amazon never submitted a bid. Neither did NBC.

The delay from last year, when ESPN, Fox and CBS were willing to do a deal, to last week, when all three put forth small bids, was devastating to the Pac-12. A changing media landscape -- with shrinking subscriber numbers and employee layoffs -- caused the networks to be much more disciplined in where to spend their money than they have in the past.

Similarly, Wall Street hit the streamers hard as shares fell once bankers started prioritizing profits over subscriber growth and caused deep-pocketed companies like Amazon and Apple to also become more disciplined in how much they spend on sports rights...."


https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2023/08/07.aspx

"Fox's bid was for a package of just 13 football games, for which it said it would pay around $35-$40 million per year." - #holyfuck

[USC Traveler 488]

6 hours ago, bullet said:

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan St. will fight tooth and nail.  I don't think Illinois and Purdue really care that much, but the schools are close.

Is 2-7 really much different from 1-8?  You get everyone 7 in 15 years instead of 7 in 14.  Iowa is the only school with 3 fixed games-Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska.  Maybe they are willing to give up Wisconsin.

I'm basing this off what the BIG COO said over the weekend about staying as close as possible to the principles behind the 3-6-6.

So it comes down to which principles are more important- what tv wants (frequent rotation), getting teams into the playoffs, or the fact that Iowa wants 3 rivals (the only school in the BIG with 3).  

10 games is bad for getting teams into the playoffs when the SEC is at 8.

2-7-7 is more complicated to schedule, but it could work- it depends on who the locked rivals are, and who misses the every other year rotation.  

Fox, CBS, NBC will want as many USC, UW, UO vs OSU, UM, PSU as possible, and tv is clearly driving the bus.

It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.  Tv wants top games, but they also want those games to be between highly ranked teams.

So you need some easier games along the way for the top programs.

If Iowa is locked into games with NU, MN and WI, that's a couple of less easier games to go around (NU, MN, IA) and one less WI vs a big brand high-ratings game.

 

 

 

 

 

[ABSR 5309]

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

I think you're onto something there my friend.  Cal faculty and admin seemed unhappy about the attention on the program.

Stanford embraced and promoted "Nerd Football" when they were rolling with JH and the early Shaw years.  

Never saw that with Cal.  As you said, they seemed embarrassed.  Sucks for them.

And all the other sports they have, and do embrace, are paid for by football and the football revenue being in the PAC 12 provided.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

Again, what difference does 7 in 15 matter vs. 7 in 14?  And if you let Iowa be the only one with 3, does anyone really care that it is 6 in 14 for them instead of 7 in 14?  Makes scheduling a little trickier, but not much.

The benefit is the more times you put Iowa against Minnesota, the less times you need to feature them against Ohio State.   

[Al_4_ISU 12455]

6 hours ago, 'stache said:

That's so weird to me, I've never heard of a "rivalry" game involving Iowa other than v. Iowa State. And I think I've followed the sport long enough that I have heard of most rivalry games.

Their matchup with Minnesota has a phenomenal trophy.  It’s a bronze pig named Floyd of Rosedale.  But Minnesota is so fucking apathetic that no one notices.

Iowa/Wisconsin is kind of the Farmageddon of the Big 10, without a great nickname.  The games usually finishes 5-3 or something like that, but it’s usually what decides the West division for Wisky, and the fanbases (at least Iowa) seem to care a lot, and they’ve played a million times.  The Big 10 gave it a dumb generic trophy about 15 years ago.

Iowa/Nebraska is a forced rivalry with another generic trophy, because it’s the only game within 6 hours of Lincoln.   Its developed some actual steam locally, mostly because western Iowa has a lot of front running Nebraska fans from the glory days, and the states are so economically and culturally tied.  The game is never for anything, so the rest of the country hasn’t caught on.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[hawkfan 60]

 

[hawkfan 60]

9 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

That's how I picture the ideal endgame for the BIG.  Totally agree about the schools, the divisional setup, and ND wanting to be in the West or SE.

A 5-2-2-2 schedule would be best for travel, and I think the rotation can offset the relative weakness of the Plains division.

Year 1:

 Iowa- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

WI- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

NE- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

Year 2:

 WI- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

NE- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

Iowa- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

Year 3:

 NE- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

Iowa- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

WI- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

//

 

While we're sitting at 18 waiting to carve up the ACC with our friends in the SEC, what do you think of a 1-8-8 schedule ?

The BIG's COO said they want to stay closely aligned to the principles they had for the 16 team model: getting teams in the playoff, competitive balance, and full rotation in two years.  If that's the case, then the only two options are 1-8-8 (9 games) and 3-7-7 (10 games).

Going to 10 games would hurt their playoff chances when the SEC is still at 8 games, so I can't imagine they'd be dumb enough to do that. That's Scott/Klownkoff level stupidity.

There were also some complaints about travel being unequal under the 3-6-6, with some teams not going to the West Coast in a given year.  Under a 1-8-8, every current BIG school would make 1 trip per year to the West Coast, and no more, so that will have some appeal.

The drawback to the 1-8-8 is that UM-MSU IA-MN, IA-WI and IL-PU turn into every other year games.  UM seems like they'd be happy about that, and IL-PU isn't going to stop the networks from getting the full rotation they want.  

How hard would Iowa fight against the 1-8-8, and how much juice do they have in the boardroom ?

I think the networks will ultimately get what they want, but wanted to get your take.

 

 

The biggest disagreement I think we have is that if you follow the money, 10/11 conference games will be inevitable. 

The networks don't give a fuck about 3/4 OOC games, most of which are against bumfuck FCS University.  In a 24 school conference they'll prefer 10/11 weeks of prime match ups, and once the ACC dies, it doesn't really matter what the SEC does, 4-6 schools are getting in the playoff from the B1G regardless of their record - I think it's likely that in the near future the schedules get tougher and we regularly see 9-3 or 8-4 teams make the playoff.  And the SEC will increase their number of conference games because they'll want ESPN to pay them more.

With respect to scheduling, I still think an NFL style schedule is easiest to follow for fans.  It also promotes more stability and regional flavor that made college football historically great.  With 11 conference games, you can get into 4 divisions of 6 schools, you play the 5 other schools in your division every year, then you rotate the opposite division you play every season.  

I'm my example, Great Plains plays Pacific in 2024 (and Atlantic plays Great Lakes the same year), the team with the best records on each pairing meet in the CCG - you get a true conference champion decided on the field every year.  Every school plays every other school once every three years (in other divisions) and completes a home and home with all the other schools on a six year rotation.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

5 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

The biggest disagreement I think we have is that if you follow the money, 10/11 conference games will be inevitable. 

The networks don't give a fuck about 3/4 OOC games, most of which are against bumfuck FCS University. 

 

Agree with this completely.    This is the next big revenue slot to fill once the playoffs are expanded.    Currently when you look at these media deals, they only value conference games.   Even if you go play another P5, er P4 it isn't factored in because, one, its a H/A usually so you only get half and, two, because it isn't consistent...its an outlier they can't measure.

That leaves 25-33% of the games undervalued.    You can fix this by playing more conference games, or entering into a scheduling agreement.    For instance if the new Big 16 and the SEC decide to play 8 conference games and two H/A's a year against each other, they'd have 12 P4 games on the schedule, providing value to both media deals, and maximizing the entire regular season.

Downside, you get rid of "tune ups"

But do something like this and a $60m media deal turns into an $80m one as fast as you can say Abilene Christian.

[hawkfan 60]

I've often thought it would make sense for big schools to schedule an actual televised spring game against an FCS opponent, maybe do the same to conclude fall camp as well to get the tune up game in before the real thing starts.

[Richard Kimball 1494]

12 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

I've often thought it would make sense for big schools to schedule an actual televised spring game against an FCS opponent, maybe do the same to conclude fall camp as well to get the tune up game in before the real thing starts.

Why not do a spring game against a team about your level?

Scrimmage after March Madness ends. That's a pretty dead time, and you could scrimmage against a really good team without hurting yourself in the standings. Texas vs Notre Dame or Clemson vs Oklahoma would get good ratings. 

[nunna yo bizness 1687]

1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

 

Tough shit for them.  Nobody forced them to schedule MOO and N.Ill. noncon games.  For that matter nobody forced them into the shitty ACC either.  They had their choice of any conference.  Don't expect too many tears shed for those fuckers.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

7 minutes ago, nunna yo bizness said:

Tough shit for them.  Nobody forced them to schedule MOO and N.Ill. noncon games.  For that matter nobody forced them into the shitty ACC either.  They had their choice of any conference.  Don't expect too many tears shed for those fuckers.

Report: Dodds admits courting ND

Matt Fortuna, ESPN Staff WriterMay 23, 2012, 09:00 AM ET

 

No, the Big 12 isn't planning on expanding just yet. That doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't welcome Notre Dame, though.

Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds told CBSSports.com on Tuesday that conference representatives have spoken with the Irish as far back as August 2010 about moving the athletic department's Olympic sports to the Big 12....

[Laxtonto 12080]

Spoiler

Interesting post-mortem on the Pac-12 media deal saga by Ourand of SBJ

Summary of media offers from this & other sources:

1) Amazon: “Never submitted a bid”

2) NBC: “Never submitted a bid.” This despite the Pac-12 approaching them 3 different times per Ross Dellenger. Hey! “No means No,” right?

3) Fox: $3.5-4M/team AAV for “13 B-package football games per yr” (likely late windows FS1 content)

4) CBS: only recent offer was for 5 total Basketball games per year; no bid amount given.

5) ESPN: -recent offer: “small bid for Pac-12 rights” (this has been widely rumored to be $9M/team AAV for the Tier 1 content) -original ESPN offer, during the exclusive negotiating window over a yr ago, was a “significant package.” Others described this as “the same deal the Big12 later accepted”… I assume this is the ~$20M AAV/team that ESPN will paying the Big12. Fox would have likely paid for FB/BB content as well, but since their inventory is more BB-heavy, I doubt Fox would have paid the $11.7M AAV to the Pac-12 that they are paying the Big12 who offers better BB brands & more inventory. I’d assume any combined offer would have been around $27-8M/yr, but was Fox or the Pac-12 themselves not willing to “play ball” with one another from the start? Was the relationship too damaged due to Fox being viewed as complicit with the B1G’s poaching of USC/UCLA, and swooning over Ore/UW?

6) CW: Not mentioned in article but had been in negotiations/discussions at least once. Unclear if they submitted a bid.

7) AppleTV+: $23M/team AAV with all streaming content (no linear) but subscription incentives to boost payouts beyond that baseline This last one was the best they could do, was presented to the presidents last week, and was the straw that finally broke the camel’s back.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Laxtonto

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Michigan vs. Michigan State is a good TV matchup, MSU would pitch a fit if it wasn't played, and I'd guess you'd see a lot of disgruntlement from some politicos if it's not an annual game.  The Big 10 has already demonstrated that it's going to prioritize preserving rivalry games above setting up a clean scheduling model.  There's plenty of room to preserve annual rivalry games and produce a lot of good TV matchups for the over-the-air media partners.  Adding Oregon helped with that.

 

My guess is that SC is going to be playing the Bruins, Huskies, and Ducks every year.  All three of those are good TV games and there's some history there that's marketable.  

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful posts.

I agree that MSU losing UM is the biggest obstacle by far to a 1-8-8.  No question.  That was in one of my first posts about this.

How much juice does MSU have ?  And how much does Fox want that game vs full rotation ?  

OSU-PSU got dropped, which was a much bigger game ratings-wise, although it doesn't have the history or in-state aspect of UM-MSU.

Part of the OSU-PSU game becoming every other year is neither OSU nor PSU wanted it annually.  They wanted some schedule relief.

BIG had previously said they only made rivals permanent if both schools agreed.  If UM (with a nudge from Fox) says they no longer want MSU, is MSU asked to make a sacrifice "for the good of the conference" ?  Same for Iowa-MN and Iowa-WI ?   Little Brown Jug is no longer played annually, despite the history, and there are a few others like that.

//

As for SC vs UW and UO.  If all four former PAC schools play each other every year, that's less games where they're matched up vs OSU, UM and PSU.

Isn't the biggest value for Fox to have more of the "Rose Bowl Rematches" and less "PAC Rematches" ?

Obviously, 3-7-7 solves all of this, and Fox would love an extra conference game, but that would be idiotic with the SEC at 8.

Will be fascinating to see how it plays out.  

And if FSU says they're leaving the SEC in the next week, all of this will go out the window anyway.🤣

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by USC Traveler