USC is a PRIVATE university, so wouldn't affect them, but UCLA is a state university, soooo. Is that ban STILL in place?
PAC News
- Thread starter Wild Turkey
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 30,562
- Reaction score
- 46,081
- Bookie:
- $ 20,806.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
Yep. But is being reconsidered.
California May End Travel Ban to States With Anti-LGBTQ Laws
A California lawmaker wants to end a ban on state-funded travel to states with discriminatory LGBTQ laws.
www.nbcbayarea.com
Today, the ban includes 23 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 4,394
- Reaction score
- 2,073
- Bookie:
- $ 7,613.00
I dont think they would take the same amount they would get in the Pac to change conferences. If 31 is what they would get for staying or going it makes no sense. 35 or 40 makes sense.
I dont think they want to for any other reason other than money. if money wasnt a factor there is no other want to reason.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,619
- Reaction score
- 6,970
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
It doesn't take this long for the involved media to come up with numbers unless:
1. They can't get a commitment from the schools - meaning UO and UW, who still want to go to the B1G.
2. They can't get a GOR signed for the same reasons as above.
Seriously, that's the only thing that could be holding this up. The media people have already told them what they can pay them once they get everyone on board. It's just has to be that not everyone is on board.
1. They can't get a commitment from the schools - meaning UO and UW, who still want to go to the B1G.
2. They can't get a GOR signed for the same reasons as above.
Seriously, that's the only thing that could be holding this up. The media people have already told them what they can pay them once they get everyone on board. It's just has to be that not everyone is on board.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 7,269
- Reaction score
- 6,039
- Bookie:
- $ 12,463.00
I agree 100%. I think this also tells us that the numbers are good enough to keep the corner 4 from joining the Big 12. If they weren't, I doubt they would be hanging around waiting.
This is the way I read it:
1) UO and UW are waiting for an answer from the Big Ten. They won't get one until the new commissioner takes over. This likely means a final decision isn't made until late May, at the earliest. This drama likely spills into the summer.
2) The corner 4 (AZ, ASU, Utah and CU) all prefer to stay in the PAC, which means preliminary numbers show that the $$$ is competitive with the Big 12. If their preferences were to leave the PAC for the Big 12, they wouldn't be waiting for UO and UW to make a decision. However, they remain in talks with the Big 12 in case UO and UW (and potentially Stanford and Cal) join the Big Ten.
3) If ultimately the Big Ten chooses not to expand, I think the PAC will get a deal that's competitive with the Big 12. Maybe a little bit less but enough to keep the conference together.
FWIW, I predicted another round of Big Ten expansion by the end of the 2024 calendar year. I still think that's going to happen but I honestly thought it would have happened quicker. I think there was something behind the scenes going on with Kevin Warren which delayed this process.
San Diego State is in Texas for NCAA, so I guess there are exceptions? Would expect anything less from a state like that.Yep. But is being reconsidered.
California May End Travel Ban to States With Anti-LGBTQ Laws
A California lawmaker wants to end a ban on state-funded travel to states with discriminatory LGBTQ laws.
Today, the ban includes 23 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,549
- Reaction score
- 11,922
- Bookie:
- $ 799.00
You are nuts. Again, as long as it’s for a trial period I would bet they’d take under 30 to guarantee themselves a spot in the B10. Of course money is the only reason this is happening.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2020
- Posts
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 6,832
- Bookie:
- $ 2,000.00
I have heard it is pretty much a powerless law that was overblown to appeal to their constituents. I think there are a ton of exceptions that makes most travel still possible.
Ah yes, political theater, that is what the left does best
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 18,949
- Reaction score
- 30,811
- Bookie:
- $ 10,500.00
There are massive flaws in what you are writing:
1st and most important is that Stanford and Cal make zero financial sense as they probably aren't worth the money they are being given now so there is no way they are worth 100 million a year. Your retort will be they will take less but how are they going to take less but have a travel budget that is probably doubled overnight for all sports? The numbers don't work.
2nd you are talking about growing a league to 20 teams and I don't know if you have tried to play with scheduling 20 teams but it is nearly impossible. Forget football when you get to the conference basketball and baseball tournaments you would have to limit the number of teams that qualify to participate.
3rd potential major issue is even if you just add Ou and UW to the B1G and at a reduced revenue share how long does that last? At what point does that start to eat into the other conference member's revenue or is the network just supposed to cough up the additional money at some point in the future?
There is a scenario where they possibly add OU and UW but there is zero shot they go beyond that and the networks would balk if they tried.
It's not cut and dry this happens and I can almost promise you that if it does drag into next summer then the Arizona schools will be gone. There is no other reason their president has been as vocal as he has recently and that is because he is sending a message to the other schools. If you look at it from their position why let OU and UW control your destiny when they obviously would prefer to leave you holding the bag? At some point they are going to say FU and that is why deadlines have been thrown out there.
Your coast-to-coast B1G dream is a fantasy that will never happen.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 7,269
- Reaction score
- 6,039
- Bookie:
- $ 12,463.00
You’re already back tracking on your original position which was Oregon and Washington will never be invited to the Big Ten. I agree that Stanford and especially Cal are unlikely to receive an invite soon. They’ll likely stop at 18 and then add ND and Stanford in the next round
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 30,562
- Reaction score
- 46,081
- Bookie:
- $ 20,806.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
They use private funds.
Some politicians even use campaign funds to pay for trips to banned states.
They just can't use "taxpayer" dollars.
Travel Ban Turns California Teams to Private Dollars
It’s been three years since California passed a law barring state-funded travel to a set of states with what the states view as discriminatory laws against LGBTQ people on the books — but in that time college sports teams have found ways to fund their tri
www.athleticbusiness.com
Despite California's travel ban, lawmakers find ways to visit states with ‘anti-LGBTQ’ laws
Three years after the Legislature banned taxpayer-funded travel to 10 states with ‘anti-LGBTQ’ laws, lawmakers and athletic teams are still going.
www.latimes.com
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 18,949
- Reaction score
- 30,811
- Bookie:
- $ 10,500.00
I'm not backtracking as I don't think they add them. @OlyDuck I think has it more correct than you do when he said it will probably be next round if it happens at all and I think he is right for the following reasons:
1. No way a new commissioner comes into the B1G and his first decision is we are going to add two more PAC teams without a detailed study. It would be job suicide if it went wrong and let's be honest he can pull that trigger any time he wants but he can't undo it.
2. You fart around too long and it only going to piss people off and someone will leave. Why would anyone stay in the PAC if you guys aren't committed and they become dependent on making you happy? The Big 12 becomes attractive at warp speed. The PAC folds you have two choices 1. Beg the Big 12 for membership and sign a long-term GOR or 2. Try to add marginal teams to the PAC and try to stay relevant.
3. ND is locked up until 2036 and I would go into it but we done it like 1,000 times now but just take my word the ACC is pretty stuck unless something extremely unlikely happens and that gives them what they want the ability to be independent. A new commissioner is going to factor that in also because if he adds schools he still has to have room for ND down the road because after 2036 the ACC dies as it is more than likely.
You are the only idiot in the entire world that believes the B1G is going to create a nationwide league in which you had Miami in at one point. It's just ridiculous. If they were to do that then the SEC will eat their lunch because the logistic nightmare will nearly kill the middle of the road and bottom schools of the conference.
So go BS yourself big boy and when someone leaves the PAC or you sign the GOR I'll be waiting for the "I'm a dumbass thread" you promised.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 4,394
- Reaction score
- 2,073
- Bookie:
- $ 7,613.00
im nuts? you really think they are willing to take that much less? no it would for sure have to be more than what they would make staying.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,619
- Reaction score
- 6,970
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
It depends if that will grow or stay that way forever. There has never been the situation where it stayed that way forever. Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska (IIRC) all took lesser money to being with.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 4,394
- Reaction score
- 2,073
- Bookie:
- $ 7,613.00
why would the Big Ten add Oklahoma?
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,619
- Reaction score
- 6,970
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
You make some good points, but I'll be the devil's advocate seeing how I am the one that brought Cal and Stanford into the discussion. Trust me ... this goes totally against my Rule No. 1 - It's all about the money. But if any conference will do something like this it's the B1G that truly cares about academics, and already has some house money to play with having landed the huge contract.
- Scheduling. Their scheduling is fucked, regardless. Providing a western division for non-football sports could be the answer for the B1G that values academics. Have them play divisions for non-football until the time for a tournament. Limiting travel could be really important to the B1G. If that is the case, you need 6 in the West, not 2. One of things that is coming up in the discussions with Congress is the academic aspect of college sports, so this would put some credence to that argument.
- I think you may be wrong on the networks. They love that late night Pacific time slot. And what better way to capture that than to bring in those other schools. You could have 3 late day/evening/night games - FOX would own that slot. In essence, they are getting the best of the PAC so the B1G really becomes the B1G/PAC. There may be more value to that than we are thinking.
Gun to head, I don't think this happens because of Rule no. 1. But, there are some things that make sense the more you peel off the layers.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 15,549
- Reaction score
- 11,922
- Bookie:
- $ 799.00
If it’s a trial period and guarantees them a seat in the B1G absolutely I believe they’d take that much less. If it’s the exact same as the PAC it’d be a no brainer. Staying in the PAC (or ACC or B12) over time puts everyone not in the B1G and SEC at a huge disadvantage. That’s why I say if they have the option, they’ll take it.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 4,394
- Reaction score
- 2,073
- Bookie:
- $ 7,613.00
they all took lesser money compared to the other Big Ten schools but i believe only maryland made less than if it stayed in the ACC
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 18,949
- Reaction score
- 30,811
- Bookie:
- $ 10,500.00
I think Warren took off because he started to realize the mess he created and didn't want to stick around and clean it up. The USC & UCLA adds were because he felt the need to answer the Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC move and USC was his biggest opportunity. Now that is an opinion of course but it seems to be playing out.
Let's be real the only piece on the bd that the B1G truly wants is ND and that probably isn't happening until 2036. Does the new guy come in and make his first major decision adding two more PAC teams just to clean up Warren's mess? I wouldn't make that move because USC and UCLA made their bed and the majority of the burden is really on them because for everyone else it's a mild annoyance but really no different than playing an OOC game on the west coast. They really can't create a Western Division because who on the East are you going to put in it? Do you put Nebraska and Iowa in that division? The answer is divisions are gone and no one is going to want to be permanent opponents of west coast teams. The ratings for PAC at Night do not justify the payout that would come with it. Let's be real they could replace those games with MWC and no one would care.
The B1G probably does need 2 more PAC teams and go to a 3 permanent opponent model and that would leave the PAC teams playing each other and everyone else rotates but adding anything else makes zero sense. It's just an absolute mess they've created.