Those 4 might be worth more to the PAC-12 than anyone else, but it's a big if, if they would add more than they take. Some games at noon eastern would be nice, but it's doubtful to me that alone is worth increasing the PAC-12's total value by 25% (which you need just to break even).

Even if they have that potential to hit that 25%, the presidents aren't going to add teams for just a break even position. They already rejected Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together (something that I think probably would have made them money) and Oklahoma's value is far higher than any of the other teams listed here.

There is a way the PAC-12 could be convinced to go this route, but it's a long ways down the road in my opinion. It basically amounts to the PAC-12 being the only one left under 16 so they expand with whom they can. I don't see that happening anytime soon though as there's only really about 3 teams in the Big 12 that anyone in the SEC, Big Ten, or ACC is really likely to be interested in anytime soon. That's not enough to force all 3 of them up to 16 and certainly not enough for everyone to agree to take on everyone from the Big 12 now before the grant of rights expires imo.

(06-04-2015 08:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 06:21 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Jon Wilner again saying what we already know, that the likes of Boise State, BYU and San Diego State don't have any chance to join the PAC. He also thinks they should have added Oklahoma and Oklahoma State when they were available and worked out a 14-school schedule.

This to me says the PAC can't effect the outcome of the next major moves so they'll have to deal if they want a chance to keep up with the SEC/B1G.

The old hypothesis about Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech could be viable for four new states and a bridge to the East with central time zone locations, but only if the networks pay more than those 4 are really worth to leverage a piece of the PAC. That's still a dicey move with a product that can't sell but 11 million homes in a footprint as huge as theirs.

See, this is where you are wrong. Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU are worth more in the PAC than they are in any of the other Major Conferences.

I have explained this thoroughly with the precise math that proves such a hypothesis.

Those would be four Central Time Zone locations that would allow the PAC to finally showcase PAC matchups during the noon Eastern Time slot. That is 90 new time slots a season that the PAC would be available for. That alone merits a substantial pay raise. No other conference has something similar going for them. Unfortunately for them, travel from the East to the West is a real ***** so they aren't going to be able to take full advantage and will have to compromise for the schools I have listed.

Oklahoma State to the West makes sense but I don't think your SEC chooses TCU over Oklahoma State. This isn't Oklahoma State of a couple decades ago. This is an Oklahoma State that has almost cracked the top ten in terms of money brought in by the Athletic Department. That is SEC quality.

In terms of the failure of the PAC Network. They most definitely are going to have to package a partnership in the PAC Network with either FOX or ESPN as part of this maneuver. They can talk tough all they want about it, it's just talk. They need either Fox or ESPN to package the Network with their bundles.

H1 you need to read first then comment. I didn't say they would be worth less to the PAC, quite the contrary they aren't worth much at all to the Big 10, SEC & ACC. It is only the PAC that they are worth something to. The question is whether a conference that can't sell more than 11 million homes out of a 150 million or so in their footprint is worth even staking to the addition of those four. Of course 4 new time zone locations is worth more to the PAC. The question is whether the PAC is worth paying the extra money to land those 4.

(06-04-2015 10:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Those 4 might be worth more to the PAC-12 than anyone else, but it's a big if, if they would add more than they take. Some games at noon eastern would be nice, but it's doubtful to me that alone is worth increasing the PAC-12's total value by 25% (which you need just to break even).

Even if they have that potential to hit that 25%, the presidents aren't going to add teams for just a break even position. They already rejected Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together (something that I think probably would have made them money) and Oklahoma's value is far higher than any of the other teams listed here.

There is a way the PAC-12 could be convinced to go this route, but it's a long ways down the road in my opinion. It basically amounts to the PAC-12 being the only one left under 16 so they expand with whom they can. I don't see that happening anytime soon though as there's only really about 3 teams in the Big 12 that anyone in the SEC, Big Ten, or ACC is really likely to be interested in anytime soon. That's not enough to force all 3 of them up to 16 and certainly not enough for everyone to agree to take on everyone from the Big 12 now before the grant of rights expires imo.

Once all four conferences are at 16 teams then you also have to take into account the expansion to having conference football tournaments. That is another projected 30 million dollars using current figures. Future figures are projected to increase as college football interest increases.

You continue to show an extremely traditional mindset. That is fine and dandy but you are one of those persons that is going to be completely shocked and surprised by what is coming.

Why would ESPN and Fox have paid the PAC all that much more to tear Oklahoma and Oklahoma State away at that time? The PAC will be used, and paid, to take the schools that the others do not want as much so that the Networks can have more of what they really want. They want smaller, tighter divisions with stronger rivalries in them that correlates into strong interest for these new divisional races that lead to four divisional champions entering conference tournaments.

I have explained this over and over and you have continuously shown that your traditional mindset trumps any rational numbers put before you.

The PAC will be paid for those schools because of the Opportunity that provides the Networks, not just with the PAC but with the Big Picture over all. If you cant understand that, oh well.

He1nousOne, I agree long term consolidation is in the cards and I've made predictions accordingly (although I see it happening differently than most here). There's just no evidence that's in the cards right now though and the current power 5 system looks to be the norm for awhile. If you show me any evidence out there that we are heading towards a consolidation in the near future and if it's compelling, I'll agree with your assessment, but until then this is what I see:

1. You can't get to four conferences of 16 without destroying the Big 12. That would require probably providing homes for all 10 to get around the grant of rights. Since that would very, very disproportionately help one or at most two conferences vs. the others, you have to be talking about a permanent (not just short term) advantage for the other 2 conferences to play along.

2. I have never once seen any mention of conference semi-finals from any official (even just a coach) in any of the major conferences. Structural changes like that would require changes in NCAA rules, would invoke considerable debate, and would provide tremendous discussions about the effect of them on regular season income (every expansion of the post-season will effect the regular season). I'm not saying these types of games can never happen, but they aren't going to come out of the blue; we will start hearing discussions about them years before they come about.

3. It wasn't FOX/ESPN that voted against Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Larry Scott was fully on board and pushing the two. There is no way he was pushing so hard if it was a loosing proposition. It was the presidents who didn't like expanding that far out of the footprint for just those two; especially after they were happy with how the last expansion had changed things.

4. Why would the PAC agree to take schools it doesn't want just for a short term contract from ESPN and/or FOX? These conferences are more than just sports entities, they are a collection of schools. Taking 4 central time zone schools with mostly just OK academics would fundamentally alter the character of the conference and would provide the conference with long term disadvantages compared to the conferences getting the stronger collection of teams.

5. Texas wanted a conference with the Longhorn Network. It pushed hard for it it and went against the PAC-16 idea for it. There has been nothing that's happened that's suggests that position has been changed only a few years later.

Again I agree long term consolidation is in the cards and think it makes financial sense even if I hate it. I will not agree that anything is in the works right now though without some actual evidence given everything we see right now points to the 5 conference system being the norm for awhile.

You never heard anything about Maryland either before it happened and yet...I was here telling you it would happen more than 6 months in advance. Why? Because it made sense, monetarily speaking. The same is the case for the dissolution of the big 12 and the same is the case for conference tournaments in football.

It will happen and they are not waiting around for a decade to get all that money. You make a lot of assumptions. If a short term contract with Fox is such a bad thing, which I agree, then why don't you think the PAC would have the intelligence to hold out until they get a long term contract?

Folks who do not want things to happen, always come up with reasons why it cant happen yet these reasons would be things that people in charge can figure out for themselves. The Money is a strong motivating factor. Look at how much Fox gave up for two Championship games.

I get it, you are a glass half empty kind of guy and you need someone "credible" handing you everything before you believe it. Well I am sorry but it doesn't work that way. Maryland should be your proof but you ignore that because of your "Belief System" in regards to this.

Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

He1nous, I am sorry if my posts have seemed too strong. Please accept that we disagree and that this has nothing to do with a belief system on my part. I look at numbers in this kind of stuff a lot and end up making predictions that I hate and that are unorthodox/unpopular all the time. I'm not asking that you agree with me, but please respect that I am looking at the numbers, the history of behavior of the powers that be, and available options in as unbiased a way as I can and simply coming up with different most likely outcomes. In short, I'm doing nothing differently here than you are.

With that said, where I disagree with your analysis comes down to four points: a) I think you are greatly underestimating how badly any conference will work to avoid being at a long term disadvantage vs. the other conference, b) I think you are vastly over-estimating the monetary advantages of bigger conferences, c) I think you are missing how big non-monetary factors are an issue in all of this, and d) I think changes of the sort you are imagining could not happen quickly without anyone knowing them and would require considerable debate that would reach the public.

a) It's easy to say the PAC-12 and ACC would insist on a long term contract to go along with ending the Big 12, but what happens when that contract is up? The PAC-12 and ACC are already at a disadvantage vs. the Big Ten and SEC in many ways. They are not going to want to compound those problem by making it easy for the Big Ten or SEC to get even stronger and by removing one conference they are actually more equally matched with. Further, getting the Big Ten and SEC to cooperate would likely be just as hard. If the PAC-12 really expected 16 team conferences in the near future, they never would have voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That wasn't the networks that told them to do that, it was the presidents.

b) I know you strongly believe that a bigger playoff is worth a lot. I think there's a real lesson in what we have seen the presidents support over a better than 20 year period of time though with the national championship. We have seen a very slow increase in it's size (from no game to 2 teams to 4 teams), but there is a great fear about removing drama from the regular season and they have been incredibly reluctant to expand at almost every turn. There will be every bit as much fear with adding an additional round of playoffs in conference. While a few games will gain relevancy, many others will lose something as a conference loss will be far less damaging for a good team. Further, conferences have felt less connected with every round of expansion so far as this has meant playing other teams on average less and less. The presidents are going to be conscious of this and understand it will effect the value of their products as well.

c) It would have made monetary sense for each of North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame, and Texas to come to the Big Ten. Despite decent evidence that they were all approached at some point in the past few years, they all said no. That's because there are strong non-monetary factors at play in all of this too. Notre Dame values the independent identity more than they value the extra money. The others all identify strongly with conferences they are a core of more than they value the added money. Texas choose the Big 12 over pretty much every other conference a few years ago and nothing we've seen has suggested they regret that move.

d) Adding expansion candidates is hard to keep secret, but can be done. You are only talking a few people in the know (the top leaders of the conference expanding and the president/AD of the new school). Changes of the scale you are talking about are very different. Think about the CFP debates. That required a great number of meeting and involved all the commissioners using the press to push their positions. Changing conference championship structure would be closer to that example, especially given the great amount of debate about the extra work for student athletes and effect on lawsuits.

Removing the Big 12 would require probably almost as much debate. You would be talking about coordination from all 4 of the other power conferences and talking about the presidents of all those schools getting involved. There would be different sides pushing to get certain schools in their conference or not cooperating. There would be Big 12 schools lobbying to get into their conference of choice. There would be talk from the SEC about compensation for loosing their opponent in the Sugar Bowl. There would be talk with both ESPN and FOX. There's just too many people who would have different stakes in this for me to believe it would be happening and not a word made into the press.

Again, I'm not saying I don't agree that consolidation is going to happen. I think it will and when it does I actually think a direct merging or semi-merging of power conferences is possible. For the time being though, the evidence to me simply points to the status quo.

It's nothing personal Ohio and yes we will just have to differ in opinion in regards to whether or not there have been signs that this all is coming as I have said it will. There are plenty of signs, sorry though, they are no longer in the business of telling everything to the public or to the media.

Can there be that level of cooperation that I am insinuating there is? When it is in everyone's best interests to do so, yes...yes there can be and there Is.

In regards to some of your responses, I have listed at times when Cultural Considerations don't allow for a move despite the money. All of the moves I define as happening in the future are not crushed by cultural considerations because there is no other equivalent option. There are only lesser options that would greatly harm the institutions in question. If you need me to illustrate further upon that, I can.

(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

It wouldn't be the PAC "giving them away," if going by H1's scenario, but UT, OU and KU having their own preferences. I tend to think OU has soured a bit on the PAC lately and if given other options would consider them before looking at the PAC again.

(06-06-2015 08:22 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In regards to some of your responses, I have listed at times when Cultural Considerations don't allow for a move despite the money. All of the moves I define as happening in the future are not crushed by cultural considerations because there is no other equivalent option. There are only lesser options that would greatly harm the institutions in question. If you need me to illustrate further upon that, I can.

I would like a further illustration, as I must admit that the scenario you presented is very intriguing for various reasons. Also, as a way of avoiding the megaconference scenario, which I think would make it much more likely to have splits down the roads where programs I'd prefer to see more leave, just going from five to four is more preferable.

(06-06-2015 01:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

It wouldn't be the PAC "giving them away," if going by H1's scenario, but UT, OU and KU having their own preferences. I tend to think OU has soured a bit on the PAC lately and if given other options would consider them before looking at the PAC again.

If Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and/or someone else wants to leave, they pay the grant of rights or sue some people; either way, it's expensive. The only way they don't pay a ton of money is if the Big 12 dissolves. To do that, eight of the ten members needs P4 homes so that they vote to dissolve. So if Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas wanted to go to another conference(s), why would the PAC let the most valuable schools go to the other conference(s) by offering homes to the leftovers in order for them to approve the dissolution of the Big 12?

(06-06-2015 07:15 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 01:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

It wouldn't be the PAC "giving them away," if going by H1's scenario, but UT, OU and KU having their own preferences. I tend to think OU has soured a bit on the PAC lately and if given other options would consider them before looking at the PAC again.

If Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and/or someone else wants to leave, they pay the grant of rights or sue some people; either way, it's expensive. The only way they don't pay a ton of money is if the Big 12 dissolves. To do that, eight of the ten members needs P4 homes so that they vote to dissolve. So if Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas wanted to go to another conference(s), why would the PAC let the most valuable schools go to the other conference(s) by offering homes to the leftovers in order for them to approve the dissolution of the Big 12?

All they have to do is wait two years to give their two year prior notification of leaving. In the interim between the notice and their actual departure chaos abounds and mid tier programs all start seeking an avenue out. At the end of the four years (the two years prior to issuing notice, and then the two years following before actual departure) the buyout of the GOR is reduced below the level of that which Maryland paid to leave the ACC, or at least close to it. If Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma all gave notice at the same time, it is possible that West Virginia, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech all find new homes. Then if anyone picks up two of Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, or T.C.U. it all becomes moot. Key here is that the exit fee is waived for the two years prior notification served so the only remaining penalty is the buyout of the last few years of the GOR. If there is longer remaining on the GOR than 4 years you would just add a year or two more before issuing notice. When it gets down to the last four years of the GOR it becomes very doable.

(06-06-2015 01:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

It wouldn't be the PAC "giving them away," if going by H1's scenario, but UT, OU and KU having their own preferences. I tend to think OU has soured a bit on the PAC lately and if given other options would consider them before looking at the PAC again.

(06-06-2015 08:22 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In regards to some of your responses, I have listed at times when Cultural Considerations don't allow for a move despite the money. All of the moves I define as happening in the future are not crushed by cultural considerations because there is no other equivalent option. There are only lesser options that would greatly harm the institutions in question. If you need me to illustrate further upon that, I can.

I would like a further illustration, as I must admit that the scenario you presented is very intriguing for various reasons. Also, as a way of avoiding the megaconference scenario, which I think would make it much more likely to have splits down the roads where programs I'd prefer to see more leave, just going from five to four is more preferable.

Well, after the big 12's gor I put forward that the target switched to The ACC. That was actually the target I personally preferred because that would have kept Iowa in a division with the likes of Wisconsin and Minnesota. North Carolina faced a whole lot of pressure internally once some of their top officials started talking with UNC graduate, Commish Delany. It wasn't that the big money folks didn't want them to move, they really didn't face any pressure at all to not go to the SEC. The pressure for that came from Academia, the people the President deals with on an every day basis. Their opinion matters, a lot. Just take a look at Maryland, a lot of fans, alumni and traditionalists were angry about the move but not Academia.

So, in that case, North Carolina was in a strong enough position to have many choices. In the end, they were able to go the easy route and allow cultural complications to decide for them despite the fact that moving to The Big Ten would have made them more money. They didn't need the boost in pay. It wasn't that easy for Maryland. They made the tough decision because culturally they were sliding away from the old blood of the ACC. Fans take longer to come to such realizations because they do not have responsibility. The folks running Maryland had to make the tough decision to go against the grain culturally.

So you take that and equate it to the situation of schools like Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech. Culturally, it is very tough to sell the idea of moving to the PAC. So they won't sell it, just like Maryland didn't sell the idea of moving to The Big Ten ahead of time. I knew it was going to happen though because of my equations. So, for ISU, KSU and Texas Tech...the clock is ticking. As the pressure builds, they will have to make the tough decision about dollars just as Maryland did. The same can be said for The PAC. They tried to get what culturally would be acceptable and that failed. In fact, what they tried to get wasn't culturally acceptable within the conference, I am alluding to Oklahoma State.

If The PAC waits ten years, then The Big Ten, SEC and ACC are going to get everything while the PAC ends up a smaller league. The only way that doesn't happen is if they take a bunch of MWC schools and they Really don't want to do that. Compare that to ISU, KSU, Texas Tech and TCU. It is an easy decision, especially considering the Networks will pay them heavily to accept that so that we can move forward to the next phase which means a whole lot better match ups for the Networks.


To sum up, cultural considerations come into affect if the School has the power, the clout and the lack of money stress to be able to just float down the cultural current. That isn't always the case though. When it isn't the case, expect secrecy about the situation.

(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

The Pac tried and failed, in a very public attempt. Is this little tidbit of reality lost upon you? You do understand how the complication of travelling two time zones to the West sucks, don't you?

Do we need to run you through a beginners class for realignment? I am not having a go at you with this comment, I'm honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding your comment about the Pac "giving away" schools that chose to not join The PAC. Oklahoma only wanted to come if Texas was willing. They weren't so...Oklahoma doesn't want to go to the PAC.

He1nous,

We've had these discussions a lot, but it's generally been over bits and pieces of what you/me think is going to happen. Is this basically what you think is going to happen (please correct anything I'm wrong on):

1. Conference semi-finals are worth a lot and will also increase value of conference championship games. This is a major monetary advantage pushing everyone to a format with conference semi-finals.

2. Getting the teams together for this requires (at least that make it economically viable) requires realignment. Easiest way is to end the Big 12.

3. Grant of rights currently makes taking only a handful of Big 12 teams impossible, but monetary advantages are such that they don't want to wait until it comes close to expiring. The other 4 power conferences will work together to provide homes for all 10 existing Big 12 members. While some conferences will be helped more than others, all conferences will make money on this.

4. Teams will likely be divided somewhat like this: Oklahoma and Kansas to Big Ten. TCU, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Kansas State to PAC-12. Oklahoma State and Texas(?) to SEC. West Virginia and Baylor(?) to ACC (possibly switching Texas and Baylor).

5. Once this is done, you have 4 power conferences and they all institute semi-finals. There are 4 divisions in each. All 4 divisional winners might or might not be automatically in semi-finals for conference.

6. I can't remember if this was part of your idea or not, but likely eventually a direct feed-in to a national championship with the 4 conference champs in.

(06-06-2015 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oklahoma only wanted to come if Texas was willing. They weren't so...Oklahoma doesn't want to go to the PAC.

I agree on Texas, but not Oklahoma. In 2010, Texas said no and no one else besides Colorado went, but in 2011, Larry Scott seriously pursued Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and they were all but in. The PAC-12 presidents were the ones who voted Oklahoma down and the grant of rights in the Big 12 followed shortly after that. If I remember right, it was that very action which prompted Missouri to more seriously pursue the SEC invite (Texas A&M was already invited).

I'll certainly agree that was probably a long term mistake for the PAC-12 to vote them down though.

(06-06-2015 08:23 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  He1nous,

We've had these discussions a lot, but it's generally been over bits and pieces of what you/me think is going to happen. Is this basically what you think is going to happen (please correct anything I'm wrong on):

1. Conference semi-finals are worth a lot and will also increase value of conference championship games. This is a major monetary advantage pushing everyone to a format with conference semi-finals.

2. Getting the teams together for this requires (at least that make it economically viable) requires realignment. Easiest way is to end the Big 12.

3. Grant of rights currently makes taking only a handful of Big 12 teams impossible, but monetary advantages are such that they don't want to wait until it comes close to expiring. The other 4 power conferences will work together to provide homes for all 10 existing Big 12 members. While some conferences will be helped more than others, all conferences will make money on this.

4. Teams will likely be divided somewhat like this: Oklahoma and Kansas to Big Ten. TCU, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Kansas State to PAC-12. Oklahoma State and Texas(?) to SEC. West Virginia and Baylor(?) to ACC (possibly switching Texas and Baylor).

5. Once this is done, you have 4 power conferences and they all institute semi-finals. There are 4 divisions in each. All 4 divisional winners might or might not be automatically in semi-finals for conference.

6. I can't remember if this was part of your idea or not, but likely eventually a direct feed-in to a national championship with the 4 conference champs in.

(06-06-2015 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oklahoma only wanted to come if Texas was willing. They weren't so...Oklahoma doesn't want to go to the PAC.

I agree on Texas, but not Oklahoma. In 2010, Texas said no and no one else besides Colorado went, but in 2011, Larry Scott seriously pursued Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and they were all but in. The PAC-12 presidents were the ones who voted Oklahoma down and the grant of rights in the Big 12 followed shortly after that. If I remember right, it was that very action which prompted Missouri to more seriously pursue the SEC invite (Texas A&M was already invited).

I'll certainly agree that was probably a long term mistake for the PAC-12 to vote them down though.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. For the most part correct because you did list the possibility of me seeing Texas with the ACC because that is what I see happening. The unusually close relationship between Texas and Notre Dame tells me that the two Institutions share a lot in common in terms of their mentality on this subject, and I mean A LOT. Texas is a strong ally of Notre Dame's in regards to Notre Dame's Independence being protected. That is why their clout with Notre Dame has risen so high, so fast. That is the best explanation by far for their new relationship, they have common ground when it comes to football independence. West Virginia and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

5. Yes and yes to divisional champions having representation in the new conference tournaments.

6. It wouldn't be an official direct feed in unless the tournament expands past four teams at the National level. I see it expanding to six teams with one autobid for each of the four major conferences. I also see one autobid for an expanded AAC that has 20 teams. That would put everyone else at such a disadvantage that the cost of giving the AAC an autobid would be worth the gain which would be putting up a virtual wall between The Power 4+1 in an untouchable position from everyone else. All they would have would be a small chance to get in that last autobid spot but that would be undone easily, especially if Independents Texas and Notre Dame had a strong year.



Yes, some PAC schools weren't interested in OSU. Most if not all were fine with Oklahoma from what I gathered. They weren't interested in doubling up in Oklahoma. No other conferences are interested in that prospect either. They used that as the cover story and it made a great one. It is a true story but it's not the whole story. The rest, which was not released to the public, was that Oklahoma was not interested if they could not pull Texas with them and have a four team division of their own. As long as they would have had their own four team division, they would have been fine with it but without Texas saying yes...there was no desire by Oklahoma to make that move.

(06-06-2015 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 01:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

It wouldn't be the PAC "giving them away," if going by H1's scenario, but UT, OU and KU having their own preferences. I tend to think OU has soured a bit on the PAC lately and if given other options would consider them before looking at the PAC again.

(06-06-2015 08:22 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In regards to some of your responses, I have listed at times when Cultural Considerations don't allow for a move despite the money. All of the moves I define as happening in the future are not crushed by cultural considerations because there is no other equivalent option. There are only lesser options that would greatly harm the institutions in question. If you need me to illustrate further upon that, I can.

I would like a further illustration, as I must admit that the scenario you presented is very intriguing for various reasons. Also, as a way of avoiding the megaconference scenario, which I think would make it much more likely to have splits down the roads where programs I'd prefer to see more leave, just going from five to four is more preferable.

Well, after the big 12's gor I put forward that the target switched to The ACC. That was actually the target I personally preferred because that would have kept Iowa in a division with the likes of Wisconsin and Minnesota. North Carolina faced a whole lot of pressure internally once some of their top officials started talking with UNC graduate, Commish Delany. It wasn't that the big money folks didn't want them to move, they really didn't face any pressure at all to not go to the SEC. The pressure for that came from Academia, the people the President deals with on an every day basis. Their opinion matters, a lot. Just take a look at Maryland, a lot of fans, alumni and traditionalists were angry about the move but not Academia.

So, in that case, North Carolina was in a strong enough position to have many choices. In the end, they were able to go the easy route and allow cultural complications to decide for them despite the fact that moving to The Big Ten would have made them more money. They didn't need the boost in pay. It wasn't that easy for Maryland. They made the tough decision because culturally they were sliding away from the old blood of the ACC. Fans take longer to come to such realizations because they do not have responsibility. The folks running Maryland had to make the tough decision to go against the grain culturally.

So you take that and equate it to the situation of schools like Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech. Culturally, it is very tough to sell the idea of moving to the PAC. So they won't sell it, just like Maryland didn't sell the idea of moving to The Big Ten ahead of time. I knew it was going to happen though because of my equations. So, for ISU, KSU and Texas Tech...the clock is ticking. As the pressure builds, they will have to make the tough decision about dollars just as Maryland did. The same can be said for The PAC. They tried to get what culturally would be acceptable and that failed. In fact, what they tried to get wasn't culturally acceptable within the conference, I am alluding to Oklahoma State.

If The PAC waits ten years, then The Big Ten, SEC and ACC are going to get everything while the PAC ends up a smaller league. The only way that doesn't happen is if they take a bunch of MWC schools and they Really don't want to do that. Compare that to ISU, KSU, Texas Tech and TCU. It is an easy decision, especially considering the Networks will pay them heavily to accept that so that we can move forward to the next phase which means a whole lot better match ups for the Networks.


To sum up, cultural considerations come into affect if the School has the power, the clout and the lack of money stress to be able to just float down the cultural current. That isn't always the case though. When it isn't the case, expect secrecy about the situation.

Thanks for that. I now have more understanding on the internal politics of the power conferences. Now how much would the PAC get paid to be made whole for their assent, percentagewise?

We're talked enough about the likelihood of a short term Big 12 break-up. While I still maintain that any big changes are highly unlikely for the next several years, I do find the concept of semi-finals interesting (not something I support, but fun to play through the scenarios).

If we ever do get there, I imagine them being somewhat different. I think the conferences would be very reluctant to have 4 very small divisions where only those 4 were in semi-finals. You would literally be talking about the possibility of an 8-1 team in conference being left out while a 5-4 team from another division was in. I do not see the conferences going that route as it would both be bad for rating and leave out potential national championship teams (who might well need the extra games to get in).

I think the most likely route would actually be to eliminate divisions outright, lock a few rivals for each school, and simply take the top 4 teams at the end of the regular season.

The 2nd most likely route to me would be to have 2 divisions. The champions of each would be guaranteed a spot (and home field advantage). You could then add in one more from each division or potentially set-up rules so both the extras could be from the same division.

(06-06-2015 11:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Thanks for that. I now have more understanding on the internal politics of the power conferences. Now how much would the PAC get paid to be made whole for their assent, percentagewise?

Now you are delving into a line of questioning that I am not expert in. All I can tell you is that the amount will be negotiated in order to get the PAC to go from the No column, crossing that line, and stepping into the Yes column. It's that important.

(06-06-2015 11:17 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  We're talked enough about the likelihood of a short term Big 12 break-up. While I still maintain that any big changes are highly unlikely for the next several years, I do find the concept of semi-finals interesting (not something I support, but fun to play through the scenarios).

If we ever do get there, I imagine them being somewhat different. I think the conferences would be very reluctant to have 4 very small divisions where only those 4 were in semi-finals. You would literally be talking about the possibility of an 8-1 team in conference being left out while a 5-4 team from another division was in. I do not see the conferences going that route as it would both be bad for rating and leave out potential national championship teams (who might well need the extra games to get in).

I think the most likely route would actually be to eliminate divisions outright, lock a few rivals for each school, and simply take the top 4 teams at the end of the regular season.

The 2nd most likely route to me would be to have 2 divisions. The champions of each would be guaranteed a spot (and home field advantage). You could then add in one more from each division or potentially set-up rules so both the extras could be from the same division.

Once again, you are wearing blinders. Inevitably it isn't about the Semifinal matches. If you end up with a weak division winner then that just gives your conference a great shot to get it's Number #1 team all the way. You have to understand the concept of manipulating reality in an orderly fashion so that there is the least amount of chaos possible. That is how you predict and that is how you invest. To you, it may seem a bad idea to have a 5-4 division champion. To the conference and to ESPN/Fox, they can sell that. Everyone loves a Cinderella.

They also want the best match ups possible for the National Tournament so that is what you need to understand. Everyone tries to use this argument against my idea but it just shows a misunderstanding of the reality at the top where they want everything predictable and by everything I mean money earning potential.

Once again, I'm not wearing blinders. Please stop assuming a disagreement means that I'm not open to looking at different possibilities. I just disagree.

1. If you have a 9-0 and 8-1 team in the same division, in a 4 power conference set-up, the best way to ensure one team in the national championship race is to have both in the conference playoff. The 8-1 will be far easier to leave out of the playoff if they are not competing for the conference championship and with both the 9-0 and 8-1 teams in, you're much more likely to have a strong team win the conference (who will make a good argument to get into the playoff) than if you only have 1 serious playoff contender in the semi-finals.

With just CCGs, I'll grant the opposite is might be true and that you might be better off having a strong team from one division playing a weak team from the other most of the time. That very much changes when you start talking about 4 teams though (meaning an extra chance to lose for the best team and fewer conference champs to compete with).

2. The conferences care every bit as much about their own rating as they do about representation in a national playoff. If necessary (and I don't think it is because of #1), they would sacrifice one team every couple of years if it meant their own conference playoff was a bigger success (which it will be with better teams in).