tOfficial PAC-12 Thread

Wild Turkey said:
Who did you have the B1G going in with Stanford?

3 is just odd.

Plus since Oregon and Washington went in at reduced revenue share you’re only getting credit for one.
Click to expand...
i assumed ND would also see the writing on the wall and finally give in
 
OlyDuck said:
i assumed ND would also see the writing on the wall and finally give in
Click to expand...
ND isn't going anywhere and that's why they wanted Cal, Stanford and SMU added to the ACC so ESPn couldn't but any funding if Clemson and FSU bolted and the still have numbers after 2036. Their AD was crying about what was right in college football but his motivation was 100% about keeping his independence deal.

If the ACC implodes after 2036 I'm betting it's 50/50 SEC or B1G and I'm betting there is a 75% chance one of the leagues gives them a similar deal as the ACC did. Everyone assumes the B1G is the only choice but no way ND doesn't shop themselves for the best deal and no way the SEC doesn't listen to screw the B1G if they can. Getting guaranteed OOC games for SEC teams would take ratings through the roof so it makes sense.

I wouldn't assume anything in regards to ND.
 
Wild Turkey said:
Who did you have the B1G going in with Stanford?

3 is just odd.

Plus since Oregon and Washington went in at reduced revenue share you’re only getting credit for one.
Click to expand...
They’re getting partial revenue initially, but are in the conference.

You’re silly.
 
DayButtAssMans’s said:
They’re getting partial revenue initially, but are in the conference.

You’re silly.
Click to expand...
The point is partial revenue wasn’t on the table when we were first making predictions. At full boat neither of you are in.
 
Wild Turkey said:
The point is partial revenue wasn’t on the table when we were first making predictions. At full boat neither of you are in.
Click to expand...
Why would it be? Who would consider such things when determining where teams land?

If you called Big 10, you’re right.

What kind of nerd would be like “well, I think they land in the big 10, but will initially get a reduced revenue share until the current deal is up.”

It makes no difference from a conference alignment perspective.
 
Wild Turkey said:
ND isn't going anywhere and that's why they wanted Cal, Stanford and SMU added to the ACC so ESPn couldn't but any funding if Clemson and FSU bolted and the still have numbers after 2036. Their AD was crying about what was right in college football but his motivation was 100% about keeping his independence deal.

If the ACC implodes after 2036 I'm betting it's 50/50 SEC or B1G and I'm betting there is a 75% chance one of the leagues gives them a similar deal as the ACC did. Everyone assumes the B1G is the only choice but no way ND doesn't shop themselves for the best deal and no way the SEC doesn't listen to screw the B1G if they can. Getting guaranteed OOC games for SEC teams would take ratings through the roof so it makes sense.

I wouldn't assume anything in regards to ND.
Click to expand...
yeah i was talking about predicting last year when the LA schools announced
 
DayButtAssMans’s said:
Why would it be? Who would consider such things when determining where teams land?

If you called Big 10, you’re right.

What kind of nerd would be like “well, I think they land in the big 10, but will initially get a reduced revenue share until the current deal is up.”

It makes no difference from a conference alignment perspective.
Click to expand...
By your logic it doesn't matter that SMU is joining the ACC without accepting any TV revenue for 9 years and buying themselves out for 10 to 30mm.

Of course, it changes everything.
 
Wild Turkey said:
By your logic it doesn't matter that SMU is joining the ACC without accepting any TV revenue for 9 years and buying themselves out for 10 to 30mm.

Of course, it changes everything.
Click to expand...
It matters to them. But if I said they will join the ACC I’d have been right.
 
Wild Turkey said:
So technically I don’t think either of us was right.

1. PAC didn’t get a deal and all the teams are basically gone. However they didn’t all join the B12.

2. Oregon and Washington joined the B1G but at significantly reduced revenue so that skews predictions on that.

3. Neither of us would have dreamed the ACC would take Stanford, Cal and SMU.

I’m going with this as a push.
Click to expand...

As I said, the Big Ten was going to expand before the end of 2024. I was 100% right about that. If you were surprised at the revenue deal, that's on you because the Big Ten did that with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. That option was always in play.

The funny thing is the PAC 12 did have an offer on par with the Big 12's deal and turned it down. I originally thought they would sign that but I now understand teams like Oregon and Washington wanted to get to the Big Ten before 2026.

As for the ACC, they are preparing to lose members before 2026. You can quote me and scream about the GOR but it's going to happen. Adding Stanford, Cal and SMU makes sense because they want to stay above 15 teams to maintain their current payout. If you're wondering what schools are looking elsewhere, look at the 3 that voted "no" on ACC expansion.
 
duckboy33 said:
If you're wondering what schools are looking elsewhere, look at the 3 that voted "no" on ACC expansion.
Click to expand...
I can't wait to see a world in which North Carolina and Duke are not in the same hoops conference.
 
Deep Creek said:
I can't wait to see a world in which North Carolina and Duke are not in the same hoops conference.
Click to expand...
No you don't want to see that. the world will get all out whack and start spinning back.....
hmmmm....... not a bad idea. I wouldn'd mind to start getting younger. I have a hellofa lot longer getting back to zero than I do going straight ahead.
 
Nebraska at #22 Colorado (-3)
Oklahoma State (-3.5) at Arizona State
#13 Oregon (-6.5) at Texas Tech
#19 Wisconsin (-6.5) at Washington State
Auburn (-6.5) at California
#12 Utah (-7.5) at Baylor
Arizona at Mississippi State (-9)
UCLA (-13.5) at San Diego State
Stanford at #6 USC (-29)
Tulsa at Washington (-34)
UC Davis at #16 Oregon State - NL

A lot of road favorites in Week 2
 
Heard an interesting take on the radio yesterday based on the PAC-12's start.

The idea was that if the PAC has a really strong year, a network or 2 comes in with a strong revenue offer and most or all of the teams currently looking to leave, decide to stay.

Don't know if something like that is even possible at this point and I know USC's issues with the conference go beyond tv revenue, so that would have to be worked out.

Could be interesting if it's actually possible.
 
trojanfan12 said:
Heard an interesting take on the radio yesterday based on the PAC-12's start.

The idea was that if the PAC has a really strong year, a network or 2 comes in with a strong revenue offer and most or all of the teams currently looking to leave, decide to stay.

Don't know if something like that is even possible at this point and I know USC's issues with the conference go beyond tv revenue, so that would have to be worked out.

Could be interesting if it's actually possible.
Click to expand...
Don’t see how that’s even possible. It’s not the on the field product that led to this in the first place. Just let it die.
 
trojanfan12 said:
Heard an interesting take on the radio yesterday based on the PAC-12's start.

The idea was that if the PAC has a really strong year, a network or 2 comes in with a strong revenue offer and most or all of the teams currently looking to leave, decide to stay.

Don't know if something like that is even possible at this point and I know USC's issues with the conference go beyond tv revenue, so that would have to be worked out.

Could be interesting if it's actually possible.
Click to expand...
It is not possible and the person who proposed it is an idiot.

The PAC has a shot at a strong year but USC, Washington and Oregon could all make the playoff and it wouldn't matter.
 
DayButtAssMans’s said:
Don’t see how that’s even possible. It’s not the on the field product that led to this in the first place. Just let it die.
Click to expand...

Wild Turkey said:
It is not possible and the person who proposed it is an idiot.

The PAC has a shot at a strong year but USC, Washington and Oregon could all make the playoff and it wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said, I don't know if it's even possible. Likely isn't. But I don't know if contracts, etc. have been signed.

Funny thing is, with all of the other craziness around cfb right now, I wouldn't be all that shocked if it did happen.
 
Nebraska at #22 Colorado (-3) Colorado cover
Oklahoma State (-3.5) at Arizona State Oklahoma State cover
#13 Oregon (-6.5) at Texas Tech Oregon cover
#19 Wisconsin (-6.5) at Washington State Washington State W
Auburn (-6.5) at California Auburn cover
#12 Utah (-7.5) at Baylor Utah cover
Arizona at Mississippi State (-9) Miss state cover
UCLA (-13.5) at San Diego State UCLA W no cover
Stanford at #6 USC (-29) USC W no cover
Tulsa at Washington (-34) Washington cover
UC Davis at #16 Oregon State - NL Oregon State W
 
trojanfan12 said:
Heard an interesting take on the radio yesterday based on the PAC-12's start.

The idea was that if the PAC has a really strong year, a network or 2 comes in with a strong revenue offer and most or all of the teams currently looking to leave, decide to stay.

Don't know if something like that is even possible at this point and I know USC's issues with the conference go beyond tv revenue, so that would have to be worked out.

Could be interesting if it's actually possible.
Click to expand...
would probably have to be like 40-50 Mil per. not sure they could come with something not knowing who all would actually choose to stay/come back.
Boise and TCU backed out of Big East deal before playing a game. there was a 5 mil exit fee but not sure they actually paid it. so not entirely unprecedented
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top