I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

(03-08-2022 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:43 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:33 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  On the field/court performance counts for very little at the higher echelons of the sport.

You just jumped the shark.

On the field/court counts for a ton. It's the basis for brand. Success on the field has buoyed Clemson and the lack of it has been dry rot for the rest of the ACC.

You are a Rutgers fan. Rutgers was the least successful of the AAC move-ups. Rutgers addition was solely based on a market.

The Big 12 has added teams in recruiting areas that have supported NY6/BCS/CFP success.

Those schools are positioned to be greater P5 additions than Rutgers was. Unfortunately for the B1G, the media market paradigm changed a bit after Rutgers was taken from the AAC.

While I disagree with RUScarlets on playoff matters, I completely agree with him here. The ACC brands are absolutely more valuable than the Big 12 brands. I respect what UCF has done on-the-field for the past decade, but FSU and Miami are simply bigger brands than them covering the same state. UNC and Duke are mega-elite blue bloods in basketball with mega-elite academics. Clemson has obviously had the recent success in football. UVA won a national championship in basketball in 2019 and is a top tier academic flagship school.

It's an easy call here: the Big 12 would take every single member of the ACC within two seconds in conference realignment. Every. Single. One.

In contrast, you might convince me that the ACC would take maybe Kansas, TCU and possibly Cincinnati, but that's about it.

The biggest mistake that fans make is thinking that on-the-field success = conference realignment value and that has been proven over and over again that it's not true at all.

I agree with this. 100 percent.

The conference pecking order is not necessarily same as the conference football power ranking.

In terms of the pecking order, the BIG / the SEC have been top two conferences. No doubt about that. Now if you remember, the ACC and the Big 12 were in a way competing for the #3 spot (or #4 spot if you believe the Pac 12 was the #3). Or you can say the ACC and the Big 12 were competing for survival as a power conference.

Both conferences were courting ND as a non football member. ND eventually chose the ACC. But soon after that UMCP decided to leave and many people including some WV fans predicted several ACC teams would join the Big 12 and the ACC would become like an old Big East (this ACC becoming an old Big East scenario never dies by the way...). But in the end the ACC signed the very long GOR and you know what happened to the Big 12.

In my opinion, the battle is over. No matter how successful the new Big 12 would be on the field or on the court, if the ACC or the Pac decides to expand, the Big 12 teams will want to join. I don’t know how likely they want to expand, but one thing I can guarantee is this: the possibility of the ACC adding a team or two from the Big 12 is much much higher than the possibilty of the Big 12 adding some ACC teams after 2036.

(03-08-2022 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:43 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:33 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  On the field/court performance counts for very little at the higher echelons of the sport.

You just jumped the shark.

On the field/court counts for a ton. It's the basis for brand. Success on the field has buoyed Clemson and the lack of it has been dry rot for the rest of the ACC.

You are a Rutgers fan. Rutgers was the least successful of the AAC move-ups. Rutgers addition was solely based on a market.

The Big 12 has added teams in recruiting areas that have supported NY6/BCS/CFP success.

Those schools are positioned to be greater P5 additions than Rutgers was. Unfortunately for the B1G, the media market paradigm changed a bit after Rutgers was taken from the AAC.

While I disagree with RUScarlets on playoff matters, I completely agree with him here. The ACC brands are absolutely more valuable than the Big 12 brands. I respect what UCF has done on-the-field for the past decade, but FSU and Miami are simply bigger brands than them covering the same state. UNC and Duke are mega-elite blue bloods in basketball with mega-elite academics. Clemson has obviously had the recent success in football. UVA won a national championship in basketball in 2019 and is a top tier academic flagship school.

It's an easy call here: the Big 12 would take every single member of the ACC within two seconds in conference realignment. Every. Single. One.

In contrast, you might convince me that the ACC would take maybe Kansas, TCU and possibly Cincinnati, but that's about it.

The biggest mistake that fans make is thinking that on-the-field success = conference realignment value and that has been proven over and over again that it's not true at all.

I agree with this. 100 percent.

The conference pecking order is not necessarily same as the conference football power ranking.

In terms of the pecking order, the BIG / the SEC have been top two conferences. No doubt about that. Now if you remember, the ACC and the Big 12 were in a way competing for the #3 spot (or #4 spot if you believe the Pac 12 was the #3). Or you can say the ACC and the Big 12 were competing for survival as a power conference.

Both conferences were courting ND as a non football member. ND eventually chose the ACC. But soon after that UMCP decided to leave and many people including some WV fans predicted several ACC teams would join the Big 12 and the ACC would become like an old Big East (this ACC becoming an old Big East scenario never dies by the way...). But in the end the ACC signed the very long GOR and you know what happened to the Big 12.

In my opinion, the battle is over. No matter how successful the new Big 12 would be on the field or on the court, if the ACC or the Pac decides to expand, the Big 12 teams will want to join. I don’t know how likely they want to expand, but one thing I can guarantee is this: the possibility of the ACC adding a team or two from the Big 12 is much much higher than the possibilty of the Big 12 adding some ACC teams after 2036.

However, this is the point that people keep on ignoring, over and over again on this thread. The ACC and PAC are NOT adding anyone UNLESS they lose members. If they lose members, it will be from the top....therefore, I do not think Big 12 teams move to a decapitated and weakened PAC or ACC.

(03-08-2022 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:43 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:33 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  On the field/court performance counts for very little at the higher echelons of the sport.

You just jumped the shark.

On the field/court counts for a ton. It's the basis for brand. Success on the field has buoyed Clemson and the lack of it has been dry rot for the rest of the ACC.

You are a Rutgers fan. Rutgers was the least successful of the AAC move-ups. Rutgers addition was solely based on a market.

The Big 12 has added teams in recruiting areas that have supported NY6/BCS/CFP success.

Those schools are positioned to be greater P5 additions than Rutgers was. Unfortunately for the B1G, the media market paradigm changed a bit after Rutgers was taken from the AAC.

While I disagree with RUScarlets on playoff matters, I completely agree with him here. The ACC brands are absolutely more valuable than the Big 12 brands. I respect what UCF has done on-the-field for the past decade, but FSU and Miami are simply bigger brands than them covering the same state. UNC and Duke are mega-elite blue bloods in basketball with mega-elite academics. Clemson has obviously had the recent success in football. UVA won a national championship in basketball in 2019 and is a top tier academic flagship school.

It's an easy call here: the Big 12 would take every single member of the ACC within two seconds in conference realignment. Every. Single. One.

In contrast, you might convince me that the ACC would take maybe Kansas, TCU and possibly Cincinnati, but that's about it.

The biggest mistake that fans make is thinking that on-the-field success = conference realignment value and that has been proven over and over again that it's not true at all.

I agree with this. 100 percent.

The conference pecking order is not necessarily same as the conference football power ranking.

In terms of the pecking order, the BIG / the SEC have been top two conferences. No doubt about that. Now if you remember, the ACC and the Big 12 were in a way competing for the #3 spot (or #4 spot if you believe the Pac 12 was the #3). Or you can say the ACC and the Big 12 were competing for survival as a power conference.

Both conferences were courting ND as a non football member. ND eventually chose the ACC. But soon after that UMCP decided to leave and many people including some WV fans predicted several ACC teams would join the Big 12 and the ACC would become like an old Big East (this ACC becoming an old Big East scenario never dies by the way...). But in the end the ACC signed the very long GOR and you know what happened to the Big 12.

In my opinion, the battle is over. No matter how successful the new Big 12 would be on the field or on the court, if the ACC or the Pac decides to expand, the Big 12 teams will want to join. I don’t know how likely they want to expand, but one thing I can guarantee is this: the possibility of the ACC adding a team or two from the Big 12 is much much higher than the possibility of the Big 12 adding some ACC teams after 2036.

Here's the issue with that last paragraph: That's our snapshot today. Yes, right now the ACC is higher on the pecking order, but that doesn't mean that's where we'll be a decade or so from now. The reality is that when the GOR is up, the top 4-6 brands in the ACC are going to be very attractive to poaching from the SEC and B1G. And if the ACC loses those 4-6 top brands, their spot in the pecking order is significantly diminished.

(This would especially be bolstered if the XII has a team that has a Clemson-level decade, further helped with a second team having a Penn St.-level decade, and further helped if the ACC basically spends the next decade wandering in the forest--which isn't out of the realm of possibility.)

At that point, if I'm WVU, UC, UCF, would I rather join that bottom 8-10 of the ACC, or would I rather look to grab, say, NC St. and Pitt?

I doubt that the new B12 can or should establish a GOR. The existing GOR is hurting OU and UT’s opportunities to build brand value and revenue over the next several years…that provides an example for the future B12 leaders. A few schools will need to be flexible in the unlikely case that the SEC and/or B1G have a need to expand quickly…TCU and WVU previously took advantage of their flexibility. I could also see media partners incentivizing the PAC and/or ACC to further expand…schools are hopeful that further change is imminent.

As compared to the other P5 conferences, the B12 will be a risky venture. They have lost 6 original members. There is no longer a shared history that keeps members bound to the common interests. There are no tent pole programs that can stabilize the conference through media rights negotiations.

Similar to the new Big East, the new B12 should be better-off by prioritizing media payouts over enhanced exposure. Their on-field success will eventually build the conference equity and school loyalty. Finally, it seems wiser to sign shorter term media contracts…which also lessens the value of a GOR.

(03-08-2022 01:27 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:43 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  [quote='RUScarlets' pid='18123213' dateline='1646735623']

The biggest mistake that fans make is thinking that on-the-field success = conference realignment value and that has been proven over and over again that it's not true at all.

I agree with this. 100 percent.

The conference pecking order is not necessarily same as the conference football power ranking.

In terms of the pecking order, the BIG / the SEC have been top two conferences. No doubt about that. Now if you remember, the ACC and the Big 12 were in a way competing for the #3 spot (or #4 spot if you believe the Pac 12 was the #3). Or you can say the ACC and the Big 12 were competing for survival as a power conference.

Both conferences were courting ND as a non football member. ND eventually chose the ACC. But soon after that UMCP decided to leave and many people including some WV fans predicted several ACC teams would join the Big 12 and the ACC would become like an old Big East (this ACC becoming an old Big East scenario never dies by the way...). But in the end the ACC signed the very long GOR and you know what happened to the Big 12.

In my opinion, the battle is over. No matter how successful the new Big 12 would be on the field or on the court, if the ACC or the Pac decides to expand, the Big 12 teams will want to join. I don’t know how likely they want to expand, but one thing I can guarantee is this: the possibility of the ACC adding a team or two from the Big 12 is much much higher than the possibility of the Big 12 adding some ACC teams after 2036.

Here's the issue with that last paragraph: That's our snapshot today. Yes, right now the ACC is higher on the pecking order, but that doesn't mean that's where we'll be a decade or so from now. The reality is that when the GOR is up, the top 4-6 brands in the ACC are going to be very attractive to poaching from the SEC and B1G. And if the ACC loses those 4-6 top brands, their spot in the pecking order is significantly diminished.

(This would especially be bolstered if the XII has a team that has a Clemson-level decade, further helped with a second team having a Penn St.-level decade, and further helped if the ACC basically spends the next decade wandering in the forest--which isn't out of the realm of possibility.)

At that point, if I'm WVU, UC, UCF, would I rather join that bottom 8-10 of the ACC, or would I rather look to grab, say, NC St. and Pitt?

That pecking order is a snapshot of today and ten plus years. Remember the ACC GOR is very long.

I understand the scenario where the ACC is being poached and collaped has been oddly popular on this board and is certainly not impossible, but during that ten plus years, it is a lot more likely that the new Big 12 loses more members. For example, if the ACC feels threatened, wouldn’t it add some schools from the Big 12 BEFORE the GOR is up? I would.

As you said, it is possible one or two of the new Big 12 teams may step up and become a national brand. In my opinion, that will actually increase the possibility of being poached as that program becomes a more desirable target. TCU joined the Big 12 when it was good. The ACC pursued Miami when it reached to the height. VT would have not been even considered without the football sucessess. UConn (or someone else) might have been added to the ACC instead of Louisville if Louiville was not successful.

If Cicny sustains its recent success, then watch out.

(03-08-2022 02:32 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  That pecking order is a snapshot of today and ten plus years. Remember the ACC GOR is very long.

I understand the scenario where the ACC is being poached and collaped has been oddly popular on this board and is certainly not impossible, but during that ten plus years, it is a lot more likely that the new Big 12 loses more members. For example, if the ACC feels threatened, wouldn’t it add some schools from the Big 12 BEFORE the GOR is up? I would.

As you said, it is possible one or two of the new Big 12 teams may step up and become a national brand. In my opinion, that will actually increase the possibility of being poached as that program becomes a more desirable target. TCU joined the Big 12 when it was good. The ACC pursued Miami when it reached to the height. VT would have not been even considered without the football sucessess. UConn (or someone else) might have been added to the ACC instead of Louisville if Louiville was not successful.

If Cicny sustains its recent success, then watch out.

I'm not sure how that's a snapshot of 10 years out. Let's go back to 2012. Would any of us not have thought it was crazy that the B1G and SEC could break away and form their own league? But here just 10 years later it doesn't seem so crazy of a notion.

As to the ACC feeling threatened: It should feel threated NOW. Just because that GOR keeps them whole for another 13-14 years or so doesn't mean they're not potentially on borrowed time, and it doesn't mean that we won't find out as early as 2030 or 2031 which teams are leaving the conference a few years down the road. And I think the SEC and B1G are actually glad that they are forced by the ACC's GOR into waiting several years before they figure out which teams to pluck as it allows them to assess how NIL, pay-for-play and the new playoff system work for them and who it's best to grab under the new paradigm.

Personally, I think the ACC made a big mistake by not expanding now and either further weakening or killing the XII. But we haven't seen any league willing to make a move that lowered their per-school payout, even if it would potentially lead to greater conference security down the road. And the truth is that the ACC will never expand while they have that Notre Dame carrot dangling in front of their face because they don't want to fill up that spot--even though Notre Dame is never coming. The reality, though, is that conferences are likely going to 20, maybe even 24 as inventory for streaming is really going to be the revenue paradigm. Felt like the ACC or PAC could have been the trendsetter here.

(03-08-2022 06:54 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 01:05 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  If the Pac 12 decides to expand, which non P4 teams would it pursue? I think Texas Tech would be high on the list.

You're looking in the wrong direction.

Ask the Big 10 if they will expand, and which P12 teams would it pursue.

Then ask USC AD Mike Bohn if he is going to sign a Grant of Rights.

I kinda assume 'No' from his past comments.

I've always wondered if the Big 12 needs a GOR. It's in its own geography with top 3 metrics, and enough schools that share geography with schools in other conferences.

If the Pac 12 gets eaten then the Big 12 will more than likely have more neighbors for BYU.

It never fails that a question about the Big 12 GOR turns into ridiculous statements about the Pac-12. First, I believe the new Big 12 will not agree to a GOR. The current Big 12 needed a GOR to keep Oklahoma and Texas in the conference. Those two schools, per Bob Bowlsby, represented 50% of the current Big 12 TV value. The new Big 12 does not have two brands that are going to carry the conference. They are just a collection of schools and while they should be interesting to watch, there is nothing close to Oklahoma and Texas. Some stiff exit fees should do the job.

Secondly, regarding Mike Bohn, his statement was made to force a change in the Pac-12 leadership. It worked and the Pac-12 has a new commissioner. Nothing is going to happen in the Pac-12 until they know what their new TV deal is, and the distribution is fixed with their network, which they own 100% of. The Pac-12 deal was done in 2011. The Big Ten will have negotiated two new TV contracts by the time the Pac-12 gets to their new deal.

It is always funny to see fans say things like the Pac-12 is going to be eaten up, like the Big Ten is "The Blob" and it is just going to swallow whatever it wants. Pac-12 schools do not like to travel back east, especially during the winter. UCLA fans and USC fans do not travel well. They are not going to be happy with Big Ten games, and without UCLA and USC, the Big Ten is not touching the Pac-12. I don't think Pac-12 schools want to make it any easier on schools like Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State to come in and steal west coast players. I think that goes against everything Lincoln Riley is trying to build at USC.

A Pac-12 GOR depends on the TV deal. Assuming the new TV deal goes well, they should do another GOR.

(03-08-2022 01:04 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

Definitely! There's no telling how big the Big 2 could get. If the PAC signs a new deal and no one leaves then we'd know that things have settled for the next few years.

However...

(03-08-2022 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:33 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:02 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 04:04 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  None of the Eastern schools should sign as a spot could always open in the ACC with a defection or plus ND.

The ACC's deal is not good.

That's a big reason why they're trying to corner Notre Dame into all-sports. A ND is the only kind of addition that can get the networks back to the negotiating table.

It's a bigger stretch than the Grand Canyon to argue that the money is there for a 16th team with a cut of the ACC deal.

The Big 12 is a higher rated P5 conference with fewer teams.

A GOR depends on the media partner, as it was with the ACC - who was in danger of losing more teams.

The Big 12 is not a higher rated P5 by any stretch. On the field/court performance counts for very little at the higher echelons of the sport. There is simply no marketability for the remaining Big 12 schools relative to the ACC. It’s just a conglomerate of the best of the rest from the Big 8 Southwest and former Big East.

I’d say if both conferences went to the negotiating table today the ACC would get 5 million more per school in a 14 team ACC than a 12 team Big 12. And while that wouldn’t make up for immediate exit penalties, it would still be worth considering if Big 12 schools had offers to jump.

Very true. The ACC has a lot more brand value than the new Big 12.

It's not close - between the two conferences the top 5 brands would all be from the ACC. Arguably the top seven.

I call B.S. on this.

The ACC has a very wonky footprint with FOUR schools overlapping in the relatively small state of North Carolina. The ACC footprint is a noose as much as anything.

The ACC has been crippled competitively with a misguided expansion that brought in a significant number of northern underachievers in basketball and football (which really is the important sport in valuation).

Without success as a top P5, and a most unfortunate media deal, the ACC Commish has been putting the full court press on Notre Dame in attempt to generate "brand value." Notre Dame will never limit themselves to an ACC schedule. That would be competitive suicide.

IMO, the Big 12 is doing just fine on the "brand" front after the best bowl season in the P5. The expanded Big 12 had a CFP team, 2 NY6 winners beating Notre Dame and Ole Miss), and multiple SEC wins. The Big 12 is an unquestioned Top 3 in football and a Top 1 in basketball (even after expansion).

"Brand" has always been a fluid construct.

That being said, the ACC had to force a GOR on their membership because they were concerned about losing more teams - and they wanted to lock their teams up until 2035. Unfortunately for them, those "brands" are withering on the proverbial vine.

(03-08-2022 03:12 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 01:04 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

Definitely! There's no telling how big the Big 2 could get. If the PAC signs a new deal and no one leaves then we'd know that things have settled for the next few years.

However...

I don't think the massive SEC-B1G expansion concept is out of the question, but a what point does a conference become too large? I mean, does anyone really want to see something like this:

SEC North: Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, NC State.
SEC East: Florida State, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson.
SEC South: LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, Auburn.
SEC West: Texas, A&M, OU, Mizzou, Arkansas.

B1G South: Georgia Tech, Duke, UNC, Virginia, Maryland
B1G East: Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
B1G North: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
B1G West: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska.

ACC/Big XII: Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Wake, Miami, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, BYU.

I think we are stable all around until 2025.... then all bets are off.......

(03-08-2022 03:43 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:33 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:02 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 04:04 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  None of the Eastern schools should sign as a spot could always open in the ACC with a defection or plus ND.

The ACC's deal is not good.

That's a big reason why they're trying to corner Notre Dame into all-sports. A ND is the only kind of addition that can get the networks back to the negotiating table.

It's a bigger stretch than the Grand Canyon to argue that the money is there for a 16th team with a cut of the ACC deal.

The Big 12 is a higher rated P5 conference with fewer teams.

A GOR depends on the media partner, as it was with the ACC - who was in danger of losing more teams.

The Big 12 is not a higher rated P5 by any stretch. On the field/court performance counts for very little at the higher echelons of the sport. There is simply no marketability for the remaining Big 12 schools relative to the ACC. It’s just a conglomerate of the best of the rest from the Big 8 Southwest and former Big East.

I’d say if both conferences went to the negotiating table today the ACC would get 5 million more per school in a 14 team ACC than a 12 team Big 12. And while that wouldn’t make up for immediate exit penalties, it would still be worth considering if Big 12 schools had offers to jump.

Very true. The ACC has a lot more brand value than the new Big 12.

It's not close - between the two conferences the top 5 brands would all be from the ACC. Arguably the top seven.

I call B.S. on this.

The ACC has a very wonky footprint with FOUR schools overlapping in the relatively small state of North Carolina. The ACC footprint is a noose as much as anything.

The ACC has been crippled competitively with a misguided expansion that brought in a significant number of northern underachievers in basketball and football (which really is the important sport in valuation).

Without success as a top P5, and a most unfortunate media deal, the ACC Commish has been putting the full court press on Notre Dame in attempt to generate "brand value." Notre Dame will never limit themselves to an ACC schedule. That would be competitive suicide.

IMO, the Big 12 is doing just fine on the "brand" front after the best bowl season in the P5. The expanded Big 12 had a CFP team, 2 NY6 winners beating Notre Dame and Ole Miss), and multiple SEC wins. The Big 12 is an unquestioned Top 3 in football and a Top 1 in basketball (even after expansion).

"Brand" has always been a fluid construct.

That being said, the ACC had to force a GOR on their membership because they were concerned about losing more teams - and they wanted to lock their teams up until 2035. Unfortunately for them, those "brands" are withering on the proverbial vine.

I mean, the XII "forced" a GOR on their membership, too, so I don't know that's a good argument for one conference over the other.

The XII has had good on-field/court success. However, "unquestioned Top 3?" There is a question. Google "Should the Big 12 still be P5?" Then Google "Should the ACC still be P5?" 3 of the links on the latter ask "Should the Big 12 still be P5?" That's not scientific of course, but it means there are questions and certainly doesn't speak to the XII being an "unquestioned" #3.

Imagine the SEC and B1G are expanding tomorrow. Make a list of the order of perceived desirability for those 2 conferences for the XII/ACC. If you're being honest, that top 5, at least, is likely all ACC. Even if you can make some kind of argument and sprinkle a few XII teams in, that top 10 is dominated by the ACC. Those two conferences already could have had any XII team they wanted and yet didn't take them.

(03-08-2022 01:04 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

By all accounts, the Pac 12 is not going to get a "Grant of Rights" (if that's in their strategic plans).

The Pac 12 sits on the 'San Andreas Fault' of Autonomy conferences. USC is the lone big brand that could trigger movement.

For far too long, conferences (like the ACC & Big Ten) have added needless heft that just doesn't have the value they hoped. These leagues with 14+ members are like little fat kids that can't get rid of their baby fat. Now that they are fat and unathletic they are limited in their ability to add teams just for the sake of adding - because splitting the proverbial pie even more ways will lower the return per team.

The above predicament has made it so only the "Whales" (such as a team like USC) can trigger realignment. There's simply no room and only a whale is worth reconfiguring a conference's model. In many ways the Big 12 was fortunate that they got to pick last because they brought in teams that had more value than the ACC's Big East (and the Big Tens Rutgers) additions, since the Big 12's centrally-located natural footprint opened up much better expansion possibilities across the board.

Honestly, I don't think the Big 12 needs to strong-arm a GOR document like the ACC had to after Maryland saw the writing on the wall and bolted.

(03-08-2022 03:58 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  The XII has had good on-field/court success. However, "unquestioned Top 3?" There is a question. Google "Should the Big 12 still be P5?" Then Google "Should the ACC still be P5?" 3 of the links on the latter ask "Should the Big 12 still be P5?" That's not scientific of course, but it means there are questions and certainly doesn't speak to the XII being an "unquestioned" #3.

A google search??

When the Big 12 was reduced to 8 teams, an avalanche of negative articles were written - which fed into those google searches. It was a period of perceived instability that produced speculation.
The Big 12 has since expanded and the metrics over the last year are now in (all of the important indicators have come in; including bowl performance, kenpom, NET, etc), showing the Big 12 expansion has been a big success.

During that same period, the metrics for the Pac 12 and ACC have looked meek in comparison (to say the least).

(03-08-2022 01:05 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 07:12 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Texas Tech is very optimistic if it thinks the Big Ten or Pac-12 would want to add them.

If the Pac 12 decides to expand, which non P4 teams would it pursue? I think Texas Tech would be high on the list.

For what reasons? Academics are bad. Success athletically lately but not anything sustained.

(03-08-2022 05:43 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 05:33 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  On the field/court performance counts for very little at the higher echelons of the sport.

You just jumped the shark.

On the field/court counts for a ton. It's the basis for brand. Success on the field has buoyed Clemson and the lack of it has been dry rot for the rest of the ACC.

You are a Rutgers fan. Rutgers was the least successful of the AAC move-ups. Rutgers addition was solely based on a market.

The Big 12 has added teams in recruiting areas that have supported NY6/BCS/CFP success.

Those schools are positioned to be greater P5 additions than Rutgers was. Unfortunately for the B1G, the media market paradigm changed a bit after Rutgers was taken from the AAC.

So let's take Texas Tech
Academics - bad
Market - possibly the worst
Infield - solid but not great outside of one random NCAABB Final

Now do you think Virginia or TT has a better chance of a Big Ten invite?

(03-08-2022 06:49 AM)otown Wrote:  The ACC is a P5. When people throw around the term P4, it's very cute, especially coming from ACC or PAC fans. There is only 1 P5 conference that has been rated worse than a G conference one year, that would be the ACC. The PAC has come close, but never did. Everyone assumes it would be the Big 12 getting taken apart........ taken apart by who, the PAC or ACC? These have the exact same problem as what happened to the Big 12 on a much grander scale.

PAC and ACC do not expand unless one or two from their conference mates get poached. As crappy as ACC performs during a down Clemson year, can you imagine what the conference would look like if Clemson plus one to three others leave? MWC may perform better after that. You think ANY big 12 team would leave for that? Big 12 is the #3 football P5 conference and the #1 basketball conference with better attendance than the ACC and PAC.

So I do not get this fascination with schools in conferences that may sit higher perception wise due to one or two name brands sitting talking about P4 and who they will poach. Those name brands that when they don't perform, bring the conference rating down so far that top G conferences compete with them.

I'm looking at VT fans, Arizona State fans etc who talk like this. Your glass floor is cracking and when is shatters, your floor will be knowhere near where the Big 12 currently is. You sit higher only on those one or two tent pole teams....... when they bolt, your floor is a true tweener conference..... and let me get you in on a hint, it won't be the #1 bball and # 3 football conference.

A bigger question through all this is whether the PAC signs a GOR. If the B1G takes Oregon, USC, Stanford, and Washington, what is left of the PAC? No Big 12 team would dream of that mess after the fire is out. The only thing that saves the ACC from these types of conversations are their GOR.

ACC is a P4 because it's schools are actually brands and are wanted by other conferences. What happens on the field matters very little. Duke, UNC, UVA, FSU, and the others are more likely to get invites than the better performing Big 12/New Big 12 schools. How can you not grasp this concept?

(03-08-2022 04:10 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:58 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  The XII has had good on-field/court success. However, "unquestioned Top 3?" There is a question. Google "Should the Big 12 still be P5?" Then Google "Should the ACC still be P5?" 3 of the links on the latter ask "Should the Big 12 still be P5?" That's not scientific of course, but it means there are questions and certainly doesn't speak to the XII being an "unquestioned" #3.

A google search??

When the Big 12 was reduced to 8 teams, an avalanche of negative articles were written - which fed into those google searches. It was a period of perceived instability that produced speculation.
The Big 12 has since expanded and the metrics over the last year are now in (all of the important indicators have come in; including bowl performance, kenpom, NET, etc), showing the Big 12 expansion has been a big success.

During that same period, the metrics for the Pac 12 and ACC have looked meek in comparison (to say the least).

National perception really doesn't care about lower-bowl performance, including NY6. I'm not saying the XII isn't #3, at least performance-wise. I'm just saying that nationally performance-wise isn't the be-all end-all. There are questions, especially as it relates to brand-value. And let's not act like there aren't still plenty of people out there still asking if the XII is a genuine P5 conference. That narrative does still exist, even now, in some circles.

But you still didn't address why no one took those XII teams last year when they could've easily done so. And you didn't list which XII programs could crack the expansion Top 5 ahead of the top 5-6 ACC brands.

(03-08-2022 03:58 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  "Imagine the SEC and B1G are expanding tomorrow..."

This is where you are jumping the shark.

A LOT goes into expansion that make it less of an exercise of "choosing the best player on the Draft Board" and more about geographical considerations and 'goodness of fit' that defers to relationships between schools.

Most collegiate expansion has not been about taking the best teams - relative to all the other teams across the country.

Most expansion is driven by the map (and politicking according to the interests of the current membership).

The success of the Big 12's expansion (as corroborated the past years metrics) is they put the politicking aside and actually took the best properties.