http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-shuffling

2023 is when the B1G TV deal is up for renewal and one year before PAC deal and SEC's Tier 1 deal (ie, CBS Game of the Week). Two years before B12 expiration.

Discusses potential new distribution models - which would likely favor fan bases, with less focus on media markets.

Refers to several quotes from commissioners and AD's that realignment talks have quieted and will likely remain quiet until then. But, everyone is watching and concerned about the media rights deals. Lists B12 and PAC 12 as the most vulnerable, but suggest that the PAC may be the conference most susceptible to realignment come 2023.

Hard to argue, the thing going in the PAC 12 favor is geography. While I think it is a agreed, UT, TT, OSU & OU will probably bolt as full members, I do agree the FO option could be winning options for some G5 schools.

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

(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.

(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

I did not even think about that. Currently, Ca added more states that "Gov't" can't travel to states with Texas just being added. I never thought about CA basically making a raid on the B12 by the PAC 12 impossible. I think the four schools that were thought likely to try a P12 jump would be TX, TT, OU and OSU. Seems Ca just knocked out Tx and it is not Oklahoma is a deep blue state. I have never gave thought to B12 trying to go after AZ, ASU, Utah and possibly try and get back Co but that would not be a bad strategy. Also, I could see that keeping the P5 alive. I could see the B12 implode but never P12. P12 could take Boise, Nevada, SDSU and Air Force as replacements.

Also, PLEADING REQUEST NOT TO MAKE THIS POLITICAL just the impact of passed state laws not if law is moral or not!

so what did he tell us?
were all experts here, throw some meat on the table

What happens if California passes a no travel law to Arizona if Arizona passes a law California doesn't like? It is certainly a possibility. How about Utah?

Short of something really radical ---- like the invention of a shared pool of "top tier" regular season football games, ie something analogous to the CFP for the best regular season games --- I don't see why it won't continue on as it is now, with each of the 10 conferences having their own independent deals, each bowl game doing its own deal, and the CFP having its own deal.

While I think more movement is inevitable at some point, I have to wonder if anything happens this cycle.

Factors that favor a status quo this cycle (at this point):

1- Uncertainty with the changing ways fans watch sports and the impact on rights fees.
2- Ambivalence about further expansion from the already big 14 team conferences.
3- Those same conferences being content with their revenue/ overall strength- why risk upset a comfortable steady state
4- The current postseason arrangement being satisfactory for most (especially SEC and Big 10).

I think if it was this year the contracts were expiring, we would see a status quo cycle with everyone essentially staying put. Eventually the factors that favor expansion/ realignment (i.e. more money, more power) will win out like they always do. The question will be if by 2023 they have changed enough.

The prime mover is revenue. And the prime question is: "how much revenue is 'enough'?"

What do you really need to be a successful P5 athletic dept? And if you don't have that much now, why do you need more?

Does utAh not have any laws ca pols would find objectionable? I think congress should pass a law banning states from passing laws that ban things like this, ha. I mean what happens if Fresno state makes the NCAA tournament with a game in Kansas City?

(06-27-2017 12:32 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Does utAh not have any laws ca pols would find objectionable? I think congress should pass a law banning states from passing laws that ban things like this, ha. I mean what happens if Fresno state makes the NCAA tournament with a game in Kansas City?

They'd be in the clear, since the Sprint Center is in Missouri!

(06-27-2017 11:06 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  What happens if California passes a no travel law to Arizona if Arizona passes a law California doesn't like? It is certainly a possibility. How about Utah?

The law exempts existing contracts. Conferences are existing contracts. So no effect on Arizona and Utah.


Whether that would extend to a NEW member is yet to be seen.


Or if this issue is still an issue in 5 years.

I'm sure they'll make an exception for college athletics. That's a very obvious, well defined niche, that has nothing to do with politics.

(06-27-2017 01:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm sure they'll make an exception for college athletics. That's a very obvious, well defined niche, that has nothing to do with politics.

No, the will make an exception for MONEY not their BELIEFS. I actually would find it refreshing if a state would actaully stand behind what they say despite the "economic" impact. This goes for both Red and Blue states.

(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

The Pac-12 and Big Ten don't want anything below tier 2. They might take 1 or 2 schools below tier 2...if it means getting 2 or 3 from tier 1 or 2. But only if they are scoring big from the top 3 (Texas, OU, Kansas).

But two crazy conferences of let's say...Pac-12 plus Texas, OU, OkSt, TTech...and then Big 10 plus Missouri and Kansas...both at 16 could work the way you described. Just don't be plotting out two 20 team conferences (unless you are going to carve up the ACC).

(06-27-2017 12:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 11:06 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  What happens if California passes a no travel law to Arizona if Arizona passes a law California doesn't like? It is certainly a possibility. How about Utah?

The law exempts existing contracts. Conferences are existing contracts. So no effect on Arizona and Utah.


Whether that would extend to a NEW member is yet to be seen.


Or if this issue is still an issue in 5 years.

However, it does seem this law should impact the upcoming NEW bowl contracts. Seems like PAC 12 should be avoiding Texas Bowls like the Sun and Alamo in the next round. Knowing Ninja Swofford, definately could see him whispering that in the ears of the Alamo Bowl people. Just saying.

First clarification- the CA laws prevent public money from being spent on state employee travel to said states. USC and Stanford are entirely unaffected. Players are not employees so they are exempt. UCLA and Cal have more than enough money in private donations that can be reserved to pay coaches' airfare and accommodations. It's a complete non-issue for PAC schools.

It may be problematic for small public CA schools without a private donor base when it comes to post-season play, but that's the extent of the impact on athletics.

Edit: The most likely scenario is that coaches are transitioned from being state employees to being private contractors working for the state. Then the travel rules are completely irrelevant.

(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

The Pac-12 and Big Ten don't want anything below tier 2. They might take 1 or 2 schools below tier 2...if it means getting 2 or 3 from tier 1 or 2. But only if they are scoring big from the top 3 (Texas, OU, Kansas).

But two crazy conferences of let's say...Pac-12 plus Texas, OU, OkSt, TTech...and then Big 10 plus Missouri and Kansas...both at 16 could work the way you described. Just don't be plotting out two 20 team conferences (unless you are going to carve up the ACC).

Just curious, the re-Alignment appears to be about football only. Why does Kansas keep being mentioned? I understand if Basketball was the money driver but it is football. I see Kansas much like UCONN, great basketball school but does it meet the football needs. I actually would say I think UCONN would be the better choice for the B10 instead of Kanss. UCONN helps with the New England Market for the B10. As I know some UCONN posters will note, I believe UCONN would be behind other states for the ACC but if it was between UCONN and Kansas, I would say the ACC takes UCONN hands down. Is there something I am not understanding about Kansas Football? I typically think KSU for football and KU for Basketball.

(06-27-2017 02:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Just curious, the re-Alignment appears to be about football only. Why does Kansas keep being mentioned? I understand if Basketball was the money driver but it is football. I see Kansas much like UCONN, great basketball school but does it meet the football needs. I actually would say I think UCONN would be the better choice for the B10 instead of Kanss. UCONN helps with the New England Market for the B10. As I know some UCONN posters will note, I believe UCONN would be behind other states for the ACC but if it was between UCONN and Kansas, I would say the ACC takes UCONN hands down. Is there something I am not understanding about Kansas Football? I typically think KSU for football and KU for Basketball.

Realignment is NOT about football, nor is it about basketball. It's about BRANDs.
Kansas is a national sports brand. Basketball only has a few of those.