What Is The PAC’s or Big 12’s Move?

[huskers1217]

desperate move for desperate people

 

[Tharvot]

UCLA is also their chief PAC rival.

USC/UCLA always made rivalry week national tv (end November) back when there were only 3 channels.
The others were Nebraska/Oklahoma, Michigan/Ohio St, and Alabama/Auburn.

Oregon/Oregon St, Washington/Washington St? WHO?

The sister school issue is also a problem. I think Washington would be attractive to the B1G. WSU certainly would not be. Oregon might be interesting, Oregon State is a non-starter.

Both UCLA and USC would have been attractive options on their own, so taking them in a package deal is no problem for the B1G.
The remaining options out west for the B1G (IMO in order from most attractive to least):
- Stanford
- Washington
- Colorado
- Oregon
- Cal (not last only due to proximity and package deal possibilities with Stanford)
- Utah

If ND is off the table and I could choose any combination of 4 a la carte, I'd snap up the top 4 on that list.

 

[Wild Turkey]

If this is true, then the B1G has to decide if they want Cal and Stanford. After that, they are done. Then the action will be all in the B12 and PAC. ACC stands pat. After the B12 and PAC are done, the G5 gets active with what is left.

I'm curious if this new and improved B12 is formed (which looks like it will) how the GOR will be written and for how long it will be put into place. I imagine for many schools they are going to want as long a period as they can get and then the bigger name brands are going to want as much flexibility as possible. Should be a very spirited negotiation and the new commish Brett Yorkman is going to earn his stripes early.

Can you imagine getting the B12 job and then up to 6 PAC teams fall into your lap and you pretty much need to revamp everything? This guy is going to be hero or a zero as I don't see much room for in-between.

 

[Wild Turkey]

if the Big and SEC decided to have their own Championship between themselves involving their current 32 teams and or adding a handful more you dont think the other 100 teams would still stage a championship?

I do and I hope it thrives and makes for good TV. I want more not less quality college football.

I honestly don't like the direction any of this is heading but nothing is going to stop it.

 

[Thiefery]

The sister school issue is also a problem. I think Washington would be attractive to the B1G. WSU certainly would not be. Oregon might be interesting, Oregon State is a non-starter.

Both UCLA and USC would have been attractive options on their own, so taking them in a package deal is no problem for the B1G.
The remaining options out west for the B1G (IMO in order from most attractive to least):
- Stanford
- Washington
- Colorado
- Oregon
- Cal (not last only due to proximity and package deal possibilities with Stanford)
- Utah

If ND is off the table and I could choose any combination of 4 a la carte, I'd snap up the top 4 on that list.

i don't think SC wants any of them to come tbh

 

[Tharvot]

I think the whole point of expansion now is to do the following:

- Break the back of the other P5 conferences
- Create a conference big enough you don't need many additional teams
- Own as much of the quality sports programming as you possibly can
- Cut as many out of the national pie picture as you possibly can

This is an orchestrated race to get to two major conferences, strip as much money as you can from everyone else, and control the future of the sport.

I'm not a fan of what's happening but there is no way to stop it. I don't think this happens if the Big 12 would have had a better revenue-sharing system and could have gotten along. If Colorado, aTm, Missouri and Nebraska were still in the Big 12 none of this expansion starts and the Gaps in strength wouldn't have been as great.

Bottom line - We can all blame Texas.

I don't like it either. UCLA and USC in the B1G confuses my sports brain, but I fear you are right. There is no way to stop it now.

If I had to guess, those 2 LA schools approached the B1G unhappy or concerned with what they saw for the future of the PAC. No way the B1G is going to turn those two away, no matter how much they may or may not have been supportive of the alliance thing.

 

[Tharvot]

i don't think SC wants any of them to come tbh

Possibly. All conjecture at this point.

If the conference can go ahead and capture the San Fran, Seattle, and Denver markets in addition to LA...well no pun intended, but I'm not sure how much bigger you can possibly get at that point.

 

[Thiefery]

I don't like it either. UCLA and USC in the B1G confuses my sports brain, but I fear you are right. There is no way to stop it now.

If I had to guess, those 2 LA schools approached the B1G unhappy or concerned with what they saw for the future of the PAC. No way the B1G is going to turn those two away, no matter how much they may or may not have been supportive of the alliance thing.

rumor is that they didn't include SC into discussions.. so SC spoke directly to FOX

FOX wanted this

 

[Tharvot]

rumor is that they didn't include SC into discussions.. so SC spoke directly to FOX

FOX wanted this

Hell yeah they did. The B1G and their BTN is partnered with Fox.

 

[OlyDuck]

The sister school issue is also a problem. I think Washington would be attractive to the B1G. WSU certainly would not be. Oregon might be interesting, Oregon State is a non-starter.

Both UCLA and USC would have been attractive options on their own, so taking them in a package deal is no problem for the B1G.
The remaining options out west for the B1G (IMO in order from most attractive to least):
- Stanford
- Washington
- Colorado
- Oregon
- Cal (not last only due to proximity and package deal possibilities with Stanford)
- Utah

If ND is off the table and I could choose any combination of 4 a la carte, I'd snap up the top 4 on that list.

id be interested to know your reasoning on this order of things.
I would put
Stanford (if included with ND)
Oregon
Washington
Stanford (if not with ND)
Colorado
Utah
Cal

 

[Kburjr]

I still see Stanford and Cal as natural targets. Getting the markets plus more exposure to Calfornia recruits.

 

[Hu War Yu]

Won't happen because in the SEC each team gets an equal seat and vote at the table. Alabama is free to leave at any point with no penalty but it would be suicide even for them to do it.

I think what is more likely is not an individual team but a select group deciding they can break off and be more profitable. I can totally see in 15 years Texas trying to convince 9 other teams to break off from the SEC and negotiate their own deal. This is the era of expansion and it's entirely possible the next big era will be one of division. The one absolute is that everyone will be really happy for a period and then change will start being appealing.

This is where it starts getting messed up.

Already, we have people talking about kicking out members of leagues because they're not powerhouse programs. We can reasonably anticipate that the "have's" will keep becoming an increasingly smaller group because they want more and more of the revenue for themselves. But they can't forget the fact that you don't rack up 13 wins and a natty by playing all powerhouse programs.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Found this nugget in an article (note I don't consider this a great source but found it interesting):

• Oregon Gov. Kate Brown may throw a wrinkle into the UO plans. There’s been some speculation that she might step in and attempt to force the Ducks to stay in lockstep with Oregon State. Some lawmakers in Washington have indicated they’d do the same on Washington State’s behalf. I think it’s unlikely that politicians would be successful in blocking potential conference moves by Oregon and Washington.

Canzano: Oregon Ducks make a wish list, while Pac-12 rallies behind scenes

Ducks covet Big Ten or SEC invite.

www.johncanzano.com

Probably garbage but the last thing Oregon and Washington want is politics getting involved.

 

[Tharvot]

id be interested to know your reasoning on this order of things.
I would put
Stanford (if included with ND)
Oregon
Washington
Stanford (if not with ND)
Colorado
Utah
Cal

Reasoning is pretty simple. I weight recent on-field performance pretty low. Instead, I weight school academic rating, historic sports performance across all programs, and natural TV market (population of surrounding area) as the highest 3. If I'm looking at that list of schools independently of who else may or may not join, i have them listed how I would value them.

1 - Stanford: unparalleled academic rating, great historic athletic success, massive TV market in the SF Bay Area (~7.7 million)
2 - Washington: strong academic rating, athletic success has been middling, large TV market in the Seattle Area (~4 million)
3 - Colorado: similar profile to Washington with pretty good academics, ok athletics, and large TV market in the Denver area ( ~3 million)
4 - Here is where i would have Oregon. Academic rating on par with Colorado, athletic success much greater than Washington or Colorado, but TV market also much smaller.

If I'm forced to take Cal along with Stanford to capture the SF market, then they move way up on my list. Utah again fits ok in the academic wing, but offers very little in historic athletic success. Some recent success, and SLC while a pretty large TV market, isn't huge and is mostly dominated by BYU anyhow. For those reasons, the Utes are last among the 6.

They would, however, be a very attractive option for the B12 since BYU is joining in with them. The AZ schools also would be good proximity fits for the B12. Oregon would probably be best suited for the B1G, especially if Washington is added. If not, then a PNW wing of the B12 with both oregon and washington schools might work.

 

[Thiefery]

This is where it starts getting messed up.

Already, we have people talking about kicking out members of leagues because they're not powerhouse programs. We can reasonably anticipate that the "have's" will keep becoming an increasingly smaller group because they want more and more of the revenue for themselves. But they can't forget the fact that you don't rack up 13 wins and a natty by playing all powerhouse programs.

i think when people understand that CFB is a business first, not about student athletes.. They too will see the bigger picture here...

Tick, Tock..

 

[Volbound1700]

This is where it starts getting messed up.

Already, we have people talking about kicking out members of leagues because they're not powerhouse programs. We can reasonably anticipate that the "have's" will keep becoming an increasingly smaller group because they want more and more of the revenue for themselves. But they can't forget the fact that you don't rack up 13 wins and a natty by playing all powerhouse programs.

No one but morons on message boards are talking about that. I don't think there is any serious talk about kicking out programs.

Now programs getting left behind is an issue. A couple of teams that would be nice for SEC to add from Big12 from a rivalry game stand point would be Kansas (for Missouri and Basketball) and Oklahoma State (to help OU and Okie State is good in all sports). However, I just don't see that happening because it is all based on $$$$ right now.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I'm curious if this new and improved B12 is formed (which looks like it will) how the GOR will be written and for how long it will be put into place. I imagine for many schools they are going to want as long a period as they can get and then the bigger name brands are going to want as much flexibility as possible. Should be a very spirited negotiation and the new commish Brett Yorkman is going to earn his stripes early.

Can you imagine getting the B12 job and then up to 6 PAC teams fall into your lap and you pretty much need to revamp everything? This guy is going to be hero or a zero as I don't see much room for in-between.

Yeah, talk about baptism by fire. Good point on teams like Oregon not wanting a really long GOR. I believe most everyone sees the B1G short contracts as being good, and the ACCs as bad. THe SEC is in the middle.

 

[Volbound1700]

Reasoning is pretty simple. I weight recent on-field performance pretty low. Instead, I weight school academic rating, historic sports performance across all programs, and natural TV market (population of surrounding area) as the highest 3. If I'm looking at that list of schools independently of who else may or may not join, i have them listed how I would value them.

1 - Stanford: unparalleled academic rating, great historic athletic success, massive TV market in the SF Bay Area (~7.7 million)
2 - Washington: strong academic rating, athletic success has been middling, large TV market in the Seattle Area (~4 million)
3 - Colorado: similar profile to Washington with pretty good academics, ok athletics, and large TV market in the Denver area ( ~3 million)
4 - Here is where i would have Oregon. Academic rating on par with Colorado, athletic success much greater than Washington or Colorado, but TV market also much smaller.

If I'm forced to take Cal along with Stanford to capture the SF market, then they move way up on my list. Utah again fits ok in the academic wing, but offers very little in historic athletic success. Some recent success, and SLC while a pretty large TV market, isn't huge and is mostly dominated by BYU anyhow. For those reasons, the Utes are last among the 6.

They would, however, be a very attractive option for the B12 since BYU is joining in with them. The AZ schools also would be good proximity fits for the B12. Oregon would probably be best suited for the B1G, especially if Washington is added. If not, then a PNW wing of the B12 with both oregon and washington schools might work.

Stanford is an interesting option. I don't think they move the needle enough for leagues to go grab them but coupled with Notre Dame, they make sense. USC and UCLA having a Cali partner would have helped. In fact, you could probably schedule the last two games for both in late November and avoid having them go into the Snowstorms of the Midwest.

 

[Thiefery]

No one but morons on message boards are talking about that. I don't think there is any serious talk about kicking out programs.

Now programs getting left behind is an issue. A couple of teams that would be nice for SEC to add from Big12 from a rivalry game stand point would be Kansas (for Missouri and Basketball) and Oklahoma State (to help OU and Okie State is good in all sports). However, I just don't see that happening because it is all based on $$$$ right now.

oh look it's mother teresa trying to save CFB when she can't even save herself

 

[Wild Turkey]

Yeah, talk about baptism by fire. Good point on teams like Oregon not wanting a really long GOR. I believe most everyone sees the B1G short contracts as being good, and the ACCs as bad. THe SEC is in the middle.

If you are talking about network contracts I think you’re correct in that we have made them a little long but this last one was longer because we got money from ESPN for expansion of aTm and Mizzou. CBS were idiots for not giving the SEC more money for an extended contract and it cost them the league. CBS has the most profitable deal in sports right now and could have easily added 5 years to it. CBS could have added a game a week and extended the contract for 20% of what it is worth now.

The result is that CBS is going to go from top ratings on Saturdays to zero.