(06-27-2017 01:46 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:10 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:52 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Impossible for the big 12 to pull PAC 12 schools but I could see the big 10 do it. They could expand with up to 10 PAC 12 schools or just 1 with the Colorado and Kansas combo. The pc stuff coming out of ca is past crazy and might limit things

That's certainly possible.

I doubt the Big XII exists in it's current form by 2023. No one in a P5 is going to go to a conference without it's own network. Sure the PACN isn't printing money the way the BTN or SECN is, but having a network still matters.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the PACN ends up selling partial ownership to someone like Fox. Fox would then help the PAC & B1G carve up the Big XII's prime cuts establishing 2 super leagues. There would then be a scheduling agreement between the two new conferences that would allow them to have a quasi coast to coast conference complete with all the TV and streaming rights that come with it.

Just spitballing, but if you're going to think, might as well think big.

Problem with that theory is that the Pac-12 and B1G don't WANT much of the Big 12. "Carving them up" isn't in their plans. There are 4 tiers of desirability.
UT
OU and KU
OkSt, Baylor, TTech
Iowa State, TCU, WVU

Their are two tiers of desirability in the Big 12:

(1) Texas

(2) Oklahoma

That's it, no P5 wants anything else.

(07-03-2017 11:47 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Everyone who hopes for a P4 fantasizes that the Big 12 won't get paid well again, in spite of their ratings which are better than the Pac 12, possibly better than the ACC and not far behind the Big 10. And despite that they have athletic departments with average revenues not far behind the SEC and Big 10 and comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC and attendance also comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC. And they were paid in the open market when their Fox deal came up and in a renewal by ESPN with TCU and WVU on board.

There's really zero basis for your comments in the first two sentences.

Two facts are basis:

Fact: Big 12 media partners refused to pay for the addition of programs to strengthen the conference. Conversely ESPN and Fox paid The Big 12 not to expand.

Fact: Big 12 programs refuse to sign a GOR extension. If everything is so great in The Big 12 why not sign an extension and end speculation?

About #2, as far as i know, no conference has signed a GOR extension that wasn't coincident with the terms of TV contract. So the Big 12 is like everyone else with a GOR - they have a contract until 2025, and that's how far out their GOR goes.

As an ACC fan I see no advantage nor benefit to The ACC in The Big 12 disappearing. There is no one in The Big 12 that The ACC would want beyond Texas or Oklahoma. Perhaps WVU but one has to wonder why The ACC didn't take them when they had the chance. Maybe The ACC slow played WVU the same way The Big 12 did Louisville, thinking WVU had no place else to go.

The Big 12 replaced The Big East as the smallest power conference. The Big 12 insulates The ACC from much criticism. It would not be good for The ACC for The Big 12 to go the way of The SWC or Big East.
CJ

(07-03-2017 06:24 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  As an ACC fan I see no advantage nor benefit to The ACC in The Big 12 disappearing. There is no one in The Big 12 that The ACC would want beyond Texas or Oklahoma. Perhaps WVU but one has to wonder why The ACC didn't take them when they had the chance. Maybe The ACC slow played WVU the same way The Big 12 did Louisville, thinking WVU had no place else to go.

To me, WVU to the ACC has been a no-brainer, athletically and geographically, for the past 20 years. But, I grew up in traditional ACC country, the ACC before the football expansion of the past 25 years, and the answer is that amongst the core of the original ACC, the Carolina schools, Virginia, and (at the time) Maryland, there was always a strong cultural snobbery/antipathy towards WVU. WVU was regarded by that core as an uncouth/backwards mountain school, not the kind of school the ACC elitists wanted to rub elbows with.

(07-03-2017 03:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 02:37 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:05 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  The Big12 is giving a 12-team payout for 10 teams. That will be corrected in the next contract. Less money will probably exacerbate OU and/or UT's desire to jump leagues.

One big issue I see is ESPN's need to cut long-term liabilities. That could cause them to low-ball the B12, regardless of whether anyone leaves. It's too unstable of an investment. All they really care about is keeping UT under their umbrella, and OU to a lesser extent. If ESPN comes in low, Fox could bid the whole thing but it's still likely going to be less than the sweetheart deal they have now.

I think having 10 members will be an advantage in the long run. I think 14/16/18 is too many.

Depends on what business you are in.

For the G5 10-12 is the optimal for revenue distribution in the current market.

8-10 used to be the sweet spot for conferences when TV was run by the NCAA.

Right now beyond the logistical constraints, I think 20-28 could be the sweet spot for a P5 league, because of the logistical issues 12-14 seems to work well.

Could you expound on the last thoughts on the sweet spot. Just curious.

Some of you guys are conspiracy level dillusional. The P12 is insulted from poaching via geography and time zones. That's why there's a bias against the P12 teams because most fans and poll voters aren't awake to watch the games at 1am. The idea that the B10 would poach the P12 is absurd. So the B10 is going to torpedo the rose bowl, which is sacrosanct for both conferences, for what? Money? West coast college football isn't as lucrative as the rest of the country because of the NFL. Clearly some of you know nothing about the west coast.

(07-03-2017 06:49 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Some of you guys are conspiracy level dillusional. The P12 is insulted from poaching via geography and time zones. That's why there's a bias against the P12 teams because most fans and poll voters aren't awake to watch the games at 1am. The idea that the B10 would poach the P12 is absurd. So the B10 is going to torpedo the rose bowl, which is sacrosanct for both conferences, for what? Money? West coast college football isn't as lucrative as the rest of the country because of the NFL. Clearly some of you know nothing about the west coast.

Agreed, the Rocky Mountains are to the PAC what the English Channel has been to the English - protection against land invasion from the East.

That's one reason why the PAC is right there with the SEC and B1G in terms of stability. No matter how much money it makes or doesn't make, it is the total master of its domain.

(07-03-2017 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Their are two tiers of desirability in the Big 12:

(1) Texas

(2) Oklahoma

That's it, no P5 wants anything else.

I would think KU and possibly WV are worthwhile unto themselves.

OSU, TT, and TCU aren't super desirable alone but might be tolerable as ride-alongs in some cases.

Baylor, ISU, and KSU are screwed though.

(07-03-2017 06:49 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Some of you guys are conspiracy level dillusional. The P12 is insulted from poaching via geography and time zones. That's why there's a bias against the P12 teams because most fans and poll voters aren't awake to watch the games at 1am. The idea that the B10 would poach the P12 is absurd. So the B10 is going to torpedo the rose bowl, which is sacrosanct for both conferences, for what? Money? West coast college football isn't as lucrative as the rest of the country because of the NFL. Clearly some of you know nothing about the west coast.

Here are my views on this

1) The new contracts are going to contain serious haircuts for everyone.
2) There are very few teams that can move the needle in new conferences

There is a small risk that a national league of 12-24 teams forms their own NFL within the NCAA. But barring that, the changes might simply involve a few programs.

1) Texas and Oklahoma from the Big XII
2) Florida State, North Carolina, and Clemson from the ACC

There's also the real threat that UT just goes independent. They could do it and just take all of their revenue in house.

The political environment will probably sort itself out by that point, but it cannot be discounted at this point. Remember, the PAC as of now, is kind of saved from a raid (and prevented from raiding anyone else) due to California's prohibition on new football games (they can play games already scheduled, but no more games can be scheduled) by its taxpayer funded schools with teams in Texas (and several other states including Oklahoma). UCLA and Cal are under that rule. Its not inconceivable that Washington and Oregon could follow California there too. And the Big XII cannot raid the Pac 12. There is some question as to one state in the B1G as well....which is Ohio, which might fall under the California rule as it is currently written (actually Ohio is in violation of the terms of the California rule as far as I can tell, but I don't think anyone in California has realized it yet). My guess is that the political situation will be resolved by that point, but California's legislature could care less about UCLA or Cal football and Texas isn't changing its laws for the near term. And the Pac 12 teams aren't walking away from UCLA or Cal.

So for now the Pac 12 couldn't make a play for UT or Oklahoma even if they wanted to. And the ACC, SEC, Big XII, and probably the B1G have teams subject to the California rule. So to predict the Pac to get involved in any significant way is also to predict some major political change in the country.

And if you don't take UCLA and Cal....you're probably not taking USC or Stanford. And if those four stay....do you really think Oregon is going? And the Pac cannot offer membership to any team in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and a few other states at this point.

And I suspect that even the threat of a loss of TV revenue isn't going to move the California legislature.

By the way, any talk about SDSU to the AAC is irrelevant so long as the California bill is valid too. The Calif bill kind of locks in the MWC. And it probably means that anyone who thinks that the MWC might make a play for some Texas CUSA schools is not really reading things correctly.

At least for now...if the raid in question involves a play by the Big XII or B1G for Utah or Arizona...then sure, it could happen. But I'm not really seeing that.

(07-03-2017 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:46 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:10 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:52 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Impossible for the big 12 to pull PAC 12 schools but I could see the big 10 do it. They could expand with up to 10 PAC 12 schools or just 1 with the Colorado and Kansas combo. The pc stuff coming out of ca is past crazy and might limit things

That's certainly possible.

I doubt the Big XII exists in it's current form by 2023. No one in a P5 is going to go to a conference without it's own network. Sure the PACN isn't printing money the way the BTN or SECN is, but having a network still matters.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the PACN ends up selling partial ownership to someone like Fox. Fox would then help the PAC & B1G carve up the Big XII's prime cuts establishing 2 super leagues. There would then be a scheduling agreement between the two new conferences that would allow them to have a quasi coast to coast conference complete with all the TV and streaming rights that come with it.

Just spitballing, but if you're going to think, might as well think big.

Problem with that theory is that the Pac-12 and B1G don't WANT much of the Big 12. "Carving them up" isn't in their plans. There are 4 tiers of desirability.
UT
OU and KU
OkSt, Baylor, TTech
Iowa State, TCU, WVU

Their are two tiers of desirability in the Big 12:

(1) Texas

(2) Oklahoma

That's it, no P5 wants anything else.

Given the B1G's logic, I wouldn't be surprised if they took KU first. LOL.

(07-03-2017 11:47 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Everyone who hopes for a P4 fantasizes that the Big 12 won't get paid well again, in spite of their ratings which are better than the Pac 12, possibly better than the ACC and not far behind the Big 10. And despite that they have athletic departments with average revenues not far behind the SEC and Big 10 and comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC and attendance also comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC. And they were paid in the open market when their Fox deal came up and in a renewal by ESPN with TCU and WVU on board.

There's really zero basis for your comments in the first two sentences.

Two facts are basis:

Fact: Big 12 media partners refused to pay for the addition of programs to strengthen the conference. Conversely ESPN and Fox paid The Big 12 not to expand.

Fact: Big 12 programs refuse to sign a GOR extension. If everything is so great in The Big 12 why not sign an extension and end speculation?

The Big 12 since its inception has been built on shifting sands. Nothing has happened to change that.
CJ

(07-03-2017 07:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:49 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Some of you guys are conspiracy level dillusional. The P12 is insulted from poaching via geography and time zones. That's why there's a bias against the P12 teams because most fans and poll voters aren't awake to watch the games at 1am. The idea that the B10 would poach the P12 is absurd. So the B10 is going to torpedo the rose bowl, which is sacrosanct for both conferences, for what? Money? West coast college football isn't as lucrative as the rest of the country because of the NFL. Clearly some of you know nothing about the west coast.

Here are my views on this

1) The new contracts are going to contain serious haircuts for everyone.
2) There are very few teams that can move the needle in new conferences

There is a small risk that a national league of 12-24 teams forms their own NFL within the NCAA. But barring that, the changes might simply involve a few programs.

1) Texas and Oklahoma from the Big XII
2) Florida State, North Carolina, and Clemson from the ACC

There's also the real threat that UT just goes independent. They could do it and just take all of their revenue in house.

The political environment will probably sort itself out by that point, but it cannot be discounted at this point. Remember, the PAC as of now, is kind of saved from a raid (and prevented from raiding anyone else) due to California's prohibition on new football games (they can play games already scheduled, but no more games can be scheduled) by its taxpayer funded schools with teams in Texas (and several other states including Oklahoma). UCLA and Cal are under that rule. Its not inconceivable that Washington and Oregon could follow California there too. And the Big XII cannot raid the Pac 12. There is some question as to one state in the B1G as well....which is Ohio, which might fall under the California rule as it is currently written (actually Ohio is in violation of the terms of the California rule as far as I can tell, but I don't think anyone in California has realized it yet). My guess is that the political situation will be resolved by that point, but California's legislature could care less about UCLA or Cal football and Texas isn't changing its laws for the near term. And the Pac 12 teams aren't walking away from UCLA or Cal.

So for now the Pac 12 couldn't make a play for UT or Oklahoma even if they wanted to. And the ACC, SEC, Big XII, and probably the B1G have teams subject to the California rule. So to predict the Pac to get involved in any significant way is also to predict some major political change in the country.

And if you don't take UCLA and Cal....you're probably not taking USC or Stanford. And if those four stay....do you really think Oregon is going? And the Pac cannot offer membership to any team in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and a few other states at this point.

And I suspect that even the threat of a loss of TV revenue isn't going to move the California legislature.

By the way, any talk about SDSU to the AAC is irrelevant so long as the California bill is valid too. The Calif bill kind of locks in the MWC. And it probably means that anyone who thinks that the MWC might make a play for some Texas CUSA schools is not really reading things correctly.

At least for now...if the raid in question involves a play by the Big XII or B1G for Utah or Arizona...then sure, it could happen. But I'm not really seeing that.

Texas cannot go independent. What would they do with their non-football teams?

Also, another poster on this board who seemed to know what he was talking about (imagine that) said that the California laws apply to state employees travel expenses and that players were not employees, therefore not affected by the laws. Coaches are, but their travel expenses could easily be paid by private donations.

Actually I believe some of the the more successful programs do not use state funds at all for their athletic program. Anyway it appears to be a worthless endeavor that will go away.

could the upper crust of the p5 make some new move? will there be a time when a school like Michigan or Texas decides it isn't making enough money playing Indiana and Kansas and decide they want to cut them out?

(07-03-2017 08:08 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 11:47 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Everyone who hopes for a P4 fantasizes that the Big 12 won't get paid well again, in spite of their ratings which are better than the Pac 12, possibly better than the ACC and not far behind the Big 10. And despite that they have athletic departments with average revenues not far behind the SEC and Big 10 and comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC and attendance also comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC. And they were paid in the open market when their Fox deal came up and in a renewal by ESPN with TCU and WVU on board.

There's really zero basis for your comments in the first two sentences.

Two facts are basis:

Fact: Big 12 media partners refused to pay for the addition of programs to strengthen the conference. Conversely ESPN and Fox paid The Big 12 not to expand.

Fact: Big 12 programs refuse to sign a GOR extension. If everything is so great in The Big 12 why not sign an extension and end speculation?

The Big 12 since its inception has been built on shifting sands. Nothing has happened to change that.
CJ

(07-03-2017 07:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:49 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Some of you guys are conspiracy level dillusional. The P12 is insulted from poaching via geography and time zones. That's why there's a bias against the P12 teams because most fans and poll voters aren't awake to watch the games at 1am. The idea that the B10 would poach the P12 is absurd. So the B10 is going to torpedo the rose bowl, which is sacrosanct for both conferences, for what? Money? West coast college football isn't as lucrative as the rest of the country because of the NFL. Clearly some of you know nothing about the west coast.

Here are my views on this

1) The new contracts are going to contain serious haircuts for everyone.
2) There are very few teams that can move the needle in new conferences

There is a small risk that a national league of 12-24 teams forms their own NFL within the NCAA. But barring that, the changes might simply involve a few programs.

1) Texas and Oklahoma from the Big XII
2) Florida State, North Carolina, and Clemson from the ACC

There's also the real threat that UT just goes independent. They could do it and just take all of their revenue in house.

The political environment will probably sort itself out by that point, but it cannot be discounted at this point. Remember, the PAC as of now, is kind of saved from a raid (and prevented from raiding anyone else) due to California's prohibition on new football games (they can play games already scheduled, but no more games can be scheduled) by its taxpayer funded schools with teams in Texas (and several other states including Oklahoma). UCLA and Cal are under that rule. Its not inconceivable that Washington and Oregon could follow California there too. And the Big XII cannot raid the Pac 12. There is some question as to one state in the B1G as well....which is Ohio, which might fall under the California rule as it is currently written (actually Ohio is in violation of the terms of the California rule as far as I can tell, but I don't think anyone in California has realized it yet). My guess is that the political situation will be resolved by that point, but California's legislature could care less about UCLA or Cal football and Texas isn't changing its laws for the near term. And the Pac 12 teams aren't walking away from UCLA or Cal.

So for now the Pac 12 couldn't make a play for UT or Oklahoma even if they wanted to. And the ACC, SEC, Big XII, and probably the B1G have teams subject to the California rule. So to predict the Pac to get involved in any significant way is also to predict some major political change in the country.

And if you don't take UCLA and Cal....you're probably not taking USC or Stanford. And if those four stay....do you really think Oregon is going? And the Pac cannot offer membership to any team in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and a few other states at this point.

And I suspect that even the threat of a loss of TV revenue isn't going to move the California legislature.

By the way, any talk about SDSU to the AAC is irrelevant so long as the California bill is valid too. The Calif bill kind of locks in the MWC. And it probably means that anyone who thinks that the MWC might make a play for some Texas CUSA schools is not really reading things correctly.

At least for now...if the raid in question involves a play by the Big XII or B1G for Utah or Arizona...then sure, it could happen. But I'm not really seeing that.

Texas cannot go independent. What would they do with their non-football teams?

Also, another poster on this board who seemed to know what he was talking about (imagine that) said that the California laws apply to state employees travel expenses and that players were not employees, therefore not affected by the laws. Coaches are, but their travel expenses could easily be paid by private donations.

Actually I believe some of the the more successful programs do not use state funds at all for their athletic program. Anyway it appears to be a worthless endeavor that will go away.

All the coaches? In all the sports? The number of teams that actually are self supporting in their athletic programs is pretty small. You are correct that players are not state employees. But the travel expenses would be covered under the ban unless the school can prove no subsidy. For UCLA football, it might be possible (although they probably lose money like 90 percent of programs). But for Cal State Bakersfield soccer?

The bigger issue IIRC, is that the California ban prohibits contracts for new games. So UCLA might be able to send its coach and players to Texas, but it can't sign a contract for a game there.

I may be wrong but I believe OU and OSU might be tied together due to state politics. Some one from that area may know if there is any grains of truth to this.

(07-03-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:24 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  As an ACC fan I see no advantage nor benefit to The ACC in The Big 12 disappearing. There is no one in The Big 12 that The ACC would want beyond Texas or Oklahoma. Perhaps WVU but one has to wonder why The ACC didn't take them when they had the chance. Maybe The ACC slow played WVU the same way The Big 12 did Louisville, thinking WVU had no place else to go.

To me, WVU to the ACC has been a no-brainer, athletically and geographically, for the past 20 years. But, I grew up in traditional ACC country, the ACC before the football expansion of the past 25 years, and the answer is that amongst the core of the original ACC, the Carolina schools, Virginia, and (at the time) Maryland, there was always a strong cultural snobbery/antipathy towards WVU. WVU was regarded by that core as an uncouth/backwards mountain school, not the kind of school the ACC elitists wanted to rub elbows with.

Do you have any idea where those WVU elbows have been?

Probably on a table!

(07-03-2017 08:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 08:08 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 11:47 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  Everyone who hopes for a P4 fantasizes that the Big 12 won't get paid well again, in spite of their ratings which are better than the Pac 12, possibly better than the ACC and not far behind the Big 10. And despite that they have athletic departments with average revenues not far behind the SEC and Big 10 and comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC and attendance also comfortably ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC. And they were paid in the open market when their Fox deal came up and in a renewal by ESPN with TCU and WVU on board.

There's really zero basis for your comments in the first two sentences.

Two facts are basis:

Fact: Big 12 media partners refused to pay for the addition of programs to strengthen the conference. Conversely ESPN and Fox paid The Big 12 not to expand.

Fact: Big 12 programs refuse to sign a GOR extension. If everything is so great in The Big 12 why not sign an extension and end speculation?

The Big 12 since its inception has been built on shifting sands. Nothing has happened to change that.
CJ

(07-03-2017 07:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:49 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Some of you guys are conspiracy level dillusional. The P12 is insulted from poaching via geography and time zones. That's why there's a bias against the P12 teams because most fans and poll voters aren't awake to watch the games at 1am. The idea that the B10 would poach the P12 is absurd. So the B10 is going to torpedo the rose bowl, which is sacrosanct for both conferences, for what? Money? West coast college football isn't as lucrative as the rest of the country because of the NFL. Clearly some of you know nothing about the west coast.

Here are my views on this

1) The new contracts are going to contain serious haircuts for everyone.
2) There are very few teams that can move the needle in new conferences

There is a small risk that a national league of 12-24 teams forms their own NFL within the NCAA. But barring that, the changes might simply involve a few programs.

1) Texas and Oklahoma from the Big XII
2) Florida State, North Carolina, and Clemson from the ACC

There's also the real threat that UT just goes independent. They could do it and just take all of their revenue in house.

The political environment will probably sort itself out by that point, but it cannot be discounted at this point. Remember, the PAC as of now, is kind of saved from a raid (and prevented from raiding anyone else) due to California's prohibition on new football games (they can play games already scheduled, but no more games can be scheduled) by its taxpayer funded schools with teams in Texas (and several other states including Oklahoma). UCLA and Cal are under that rule. Its not inconceivable that Washington and Oregon could follow California there too. And the Big XII cannot raid the Pac 12. There is some question as to one state in the B1G as well....which is Ohio, which might fall under the California rule as it is currently written (actually Ohio is in violation of the terms of the California rule as far as I can tell, but I don't think anyone in California has realized it yet). My guess is that the political situation will be resolved by that point, but California's legislature could care less about UCLA or Cal football and Texas isn't changing its laws for the near term. And the Pac 12 teams aren't walking away from UCLA or Cal.

So for now the Pac 12 couldn't make a play for UT or Oklahoma even if they wanted to. And the ACC, SEC, Big XII, and probably the B1G have teams subject to the California rule. So to predict the Pac to get involved in any significant way is also to predict some major political change in the country.

And if you don't take UCLA and Cal....you're probably not taking USC or Stanford. And if those four stay....do you really think Oregon is going? And the Pac cannot offer membership to any team in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and a few other states at this point.

And I suspect that even the threat of a loss of TV revenue isn't going to move the California legislature.

By the way, any talk about SDSU to the AAC is irrelevant so long as the California bill is valid too. The Calif bill kind of locks in the MWC. And it probably means that anyone who thinks that the MWC might make a play for some Texas CUSA schools is not really reading things correctly.

At least for now...if the raid in question involves a play by the Big XII or B1G for Utah or Arizona...then sure, it could happen. But I'm not really seeing that.

Texas cannot go independent. What would they do with their non-football teams?

Also, another poster on this board who seemed to know what he was talking about (imagine that) said that the California laws apply to state employees travel expenses and that players were not employees, therefore not affected by the laws. Coaches are, but their travel expenses could easily be paid by private donations.

Actually I believe some of the the more successful programs do not use state funds at all for their athletic program. Anyway it appears to be a worthless endeavor that will go away.

All the coaches? In all the sports? The number of teams that actually are self supporting in their athletic programs is pretty small. You are correct that players are not state employees. But the travel expenses would be covered under the ban unless the school can prove no subsidy. For UCLA football, it might be possible (although they probably lose money like 90 percent of programs). But for Cal State Bakersfield soccer?

The bigger issue IIRC, is that the California ban prohibits contracts for new games. So UCLA might be able to send its coach and players to Texas, but it can't sign a contract for a game there.

Idk where you're getting your information. https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887

(07-03-2017 08:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  All the coaches? In all the sports? The number of teams that actually are self supporting in their athletic programs is pretty small. You are correct that players are not state employees. But the travel expenses would be covered under the ban unless the school can prove no subsidy. For UCLA football, it might be possible (although they probably lose money like 90 percent of programs). But for Cal State Bakersfield soccer?

The bigger issue IIRC, is that the California ban prohibits contracts for new games. So UCLA might be able to send its coach and players to Texas, but it can't sign a contract for a game there.

The effect on Cal,UCLA,SDSU, and Fresno is that no program is likely to join the SEC or BigXII any time soon. These schools have more than enough money in private donations to fund a few games in prohibited states for each sport annually. CAL and UCLA could play 12 games a year in Texas bringing the full roster and marching band, and still have plenty of private donor money left over. They just have to keep two checkbooks from now one- one for private donations and prohibited travel and the other for all other revenues and expenses.

California can mandate some new accounting, but a state can't interfere with freedom of movement because that's a constitutional right with a long precedent of enforcement. If the CA law was actually as expansive as people here have painted it, it would very quickly be overruled as unconstitional.

Thw first part of the law, which prevents state emplotmyees from being compelled to travel to listed states. This part is more germane.

The only real way a major CA school could be effected is if a coach refused to travel to any away game in a listed state. The coach, as a state employee, would NOT be in breach of contract for refusing to travel to a discriminatory state.

(07-03-2017 06:41 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 03:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 02:37 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:05 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  The Big12 is giving a 12-team payout for 10 teams. That will be corrected in the next contract. Less money will probably exacerbate OU and/or UT's desire to jump leagues.

One big issue I see is ESPN's need to cut long-term liabilities. That could cause them to low-ball the B12, regardless of whether anyone leaves. It's too unstable of an investment. All they really care about is keeping UT under their umbrella, and OU to a lesser extent. If ESPN comes in low, Fox could bid the whole thing but it's still likely going to be less than the sweetheart deal they have now.

I think having 10 members will be an advantage in the long run. I think 14/16/18 is too many.

Depends on what business you are in.

For the G5 10-12 is the optimal for revenue distribution in the current market.

8-10 used to be the sweet spot for conferences when TV was run by the NCAA.

Right now beyond the logistical constraints, I think 20-28 could be the sweet spot for a P5 league, because of the logistical issues 12-14 seems to work well.

Could you expound on the last thoughts on the sweet spot. Just curious.

It's about leverage.

Larger geography provides greater leverage with TV. When you start a pro league in the TV area, first thing you do is find an owner for NY and LA. MLS did it, USFL, WFL, WHA, ABA. The NHL expansion from the Original Six hit LA and Philadelphia the 2nd and 4th largest markets in the country.

From a marketing and TV standpoint, merge Big 10 and Pac-12 and you have a beast. The logistics of NCAA rules regarding selecting a champion is a major road block but if that were not an obstacle that's a beast of a conference financially

(07-03-2017 09:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I may be wrong but I believe OU and OSU might be tied together due to state politics. Some one from that area may know if there is any grains of truth to this.

Supporters of Oklahoma State (Go Pokes!) would surely try to make that true ... like supporters of various SWC schools worked to make their school one of the ones that "had to be with" Texas and Texas A&M when the Big8 decided to invite four to make the Big12, and Texas Tech and Baylor ended up being the lottery winners.

(07-04-2017 12:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  California can mandate some new accounting, but a state can't interfere with freedom of movement because that's a constitutional right with a long precedent of enforcement.

Refusing to fund movement isn't the same as interfering with it. You have a right to travel from California to Alabama if you want, but California isn't obligated to pay for it, so refusing to do so isn't a violation of your rights.