No

No.

(07-06-2022 06:52 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Everyone is forgetting that if this happened before UCF, UC, UH, and BYU were added, the PAC would be doing the raiding and the Big 12 would be dead. Now the Big 13 is stronger and more stable and is the aggressor. The Big 12 should thank it's lucky stars that the PAC defections didn't happen until now.

This. When the Big 12 announced these four as their new members, most in the media thought they got it right. Yes you can quibble about Memphis, USF, Boise and SMU, but these four were a "home run" for the Big 12. Solid football and basketball adds.

New markets in Florida and in Salt Lake City and Ohio, a replacement school in Texas, a rival for WVU in Cincy and national championship in football in BYU.

No regrets from the Big 12.

(07-06-2022 04:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Right now I suspect there may be a little Big12 buyers remorse---but I think they will end up being pleasantly surprised with how well their newbies work out over the long term.

This is what I'm trying to parse mentally.

Everyone here knew more P5 realignment moves were on the way after the Texas and Oklahoma announcements and the B1G was just probably just waiting for Fox to figure out valuations for each potential new member.

I'm inclined to be skeptical the invites are rescinded, but I'm also skeptical that the Big 12 minus Texas and Oklahoma didnt know the B1G was going to make a move.

As far as "the Big 12 wouldn't be trusted", yeah sure. Every present-day G5 school would give a left nut to be in the conference even with Big 12 and Pac leftovers. It's like acting like Nick Saban will be hurt in recruiting by over-signing guys.

I'm still trying to figure out why people really think schools like Arizona or Utah or Colorado would go to the Big 12 (or in Colorado's case return). Do people think the rejiggered Big 12 is going to get more in media rights than the PAC would? Half the conference has been picked over by the SEC, Big 10, and even the PAC and the other half is made up of schools no other power conference cares about.

Some of these same people push the idea that Oregon or Washington or even Stanford or Cal could jump to the Big 10. So somehow the PAC has up to 4 Big 10 worthy schools and the Big 12 has none. And yet the Big 12 is more valuable? What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. IF Oregon or Washington leaves and the PAC just falls apart, the Big 12 will STILL take Colorado or Utah even at some point down the road. Simply because those schools are more valuable than many of the current schools. So while the Big 12 might have "stability", it pretty much will always be an option to most of the PAC.

No… They won’t
And if they did, UCF, Houston, BYU, Cincinnati would sue and win.

(07-06-2022 10:07 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out why people really think schools like Arizona or Utah or Colorado would go to the Big 12 (or in Colorado's case return). Do people think the rejiggered Big 12 is going to get more in media rights than the PAC would? Half the conference has been picked over by the SEC, Big 10, and even the PAC and the other half is made up of schools no other power conference cares about.

Some of these same people push the idea that Oregon or Washington or even Stanford or Cal could jump to the Big 10. So somehow the PAC has up to 4 Big 10 worthy schools and the Big 12 has none. And yet the Big 12 is more valuable? What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. IF Oregon or Washington leaves and the PAC just falls apart, the Big 12 will STILL take Colorado or Utah even at some point down the road. Simply because those schools are more valuable than many of the current schools. So while the Big 12 might have "stability", it pretty much will always be an option to most of the PAC.

Thats the key. My view is this----if you are a Pac12 school with no realistic chance of making the SEC/Big10 cut---then your better off taking a Big12 invite NOW rather than hoping you'll be one of the ones that make it later on when everyone is rushing for the exits after Oregon/Washington eventually leave. Maybe that happens in the next 2 to 5 month---maybe it happens in the next 2 to 5 years. Either way---it doesnt matter because you'll be in a solid P5 Big12 conference with reasonable geography that isnt going to be losing any teams.

Man, the USF fans are really hurt by this move...

(07-06-2022 10:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:07 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out why people really think schools like Arizona or Utah or Colorado would go to the Big 12 (or in Colorado's case return). Do people think the rejiggered Big 12 is going to get more in media rights than the PAC would? Half the conference has been picked over by the SEC, Big 10, and even the PAC and the other half is made up of schools no other power conference cares about.

Some of these same people push the idea that Oregon or Washington or even Stanford or Cal could jump to the Big 10. So somehow the PAC has up to 4 Big 10 worthy schools and the Big 12 has none. And yet the Big 12 is more valuable? What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. IF Oregon or Washington leaves and the PAC just falls apart, the Big 12 will STILL take Colorado or Utah even at some point down the road. Simply because those schools are more valuable than many of the current schools. So while the Big 12 might have "stability", it pretty much will always be an option to most of the PAC.

Thats the key. My view is this----if you are a Pac12 school with no realistic chance of making the SEC/Big10 cut---then your better off taking a Big12 invite NOW rather than hoping you'll be one of the ones that make it later on when everyone is rushing for the exits after Oregon/Washington eventually leave. Maybe that happens in the next 2 to 5 month---maybe it happens in the next 2 to 5 years. Either way---it doesnt matter because you'll be in a solid P5 Big12 conference with reasonable geography that isnt going to be losing any teams.

Let's say hypothetically in 5 years Oregon and Washington leave the PAC. And at that point Colorado and Utah decide they'd rather go Big 12. Do you really think the Big 12 says no to either school? And why? Do you not think both would add significant value and therefore $$$ to a Big 12 media rights that's relying so much on schools like Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to carry the load?

(07-06-2022 10:24 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:07 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out why people really think schools like Arizona or Utah or Colorado would go to the Big 12 (or in Colorado's case return). Do people think the rejiggered Big 12 is going to get more in media rights than the PAC would? Half the conference has been picked over by the SEC, Big 10, and even the PAC and the other half is made up of schools no other power conference cares about.

Some of these same people push the idea that Oregon or Washington or even Stanford or Cal could jump to the Big 10. So somehow the PAC has up to 4 Big 10 worthy schools and the Big 12 has none. And yet the Big 12 is more valuable? What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. IF Oregon or Washington leaves and the PAC just falls apart, the Big 12 will STILL take Colorado or Utah even at some point down the road. Simply because those schools are more valuable than many of the current schools. So while the Big 12 might have "stability", it pretty much will always be an option to most of the PAC.

Thats the key. My view is this----if you are a Pac12 school with no realistic chance of making the SEC/Big10 cut---then your better off taking a Big12 invite NOW rather than hoping you'll be one of the ones that make it later on when everyone is rushing for the exits after Oregon/Washington eventually leave. Maybe that happens in the next 2 to 5 month---maybe it happens in the next 2 to 5 years. Either way---it doesnt matter because you'll be in a solid P5 Big12 conference with reasonable geography that isnt going to be losing any teams.

Let's say hypothetically in 5 years Oregon and Washington leave the PAC. And at that point Colorado and Utah decide they'd rather go Big 12. Do you really think the Big 12 says no to either school? And why? Do you not think both would add significant value and therefore $$$ to a Big 12 media rights that's relying so much on schools like Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to carry the load?

That's a huge gamble for the 4 corners schools. What if the AAC gets raided by the Big 10 and a couple PAC schools get taken too. The Big 12 could expand with leftover AAC schools and leave the four corners out to dry. They could be stuck in a glorified MWC.

(07-07-2022 06:45 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:24 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:07 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out why people really think schools like Arizona or Utah or Colorado would go to the Big 12 (or in Colorado's case return). Do people think the rejiggered Big 12 is going to get more in media rights than the PAC would? Half the conference has been picked over by the SEC, Big 10, and even the PAC and the other half is made up of schools no other power conference cares about.

Some of these same people push the idea that Oregon or Washington or even Stanford or Cal could jump to the Big 10. So somehow the PAC has up to 4 Big 10 worthy schools and the Big 12 has none. And yet the Big 12 is more valuable? What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. IF Oregon or Washington leaves and the PAC just falls apart, the Big 12 will STILL take Colorado or Utah even at some point down the road. Simply because those schools are more valuable than many of the current schools. So while the Big 12 might have "stability", it pretty much will always be an option to most of the PAC.

Thats the key. My view is this----if you are a Pac12 school with no realistic chance of making the SEC/Big10 cut---then your better off taking a Big12 invite NOW rather than hoping you'll be one of the ones that make it later on when everyone is rushing for the exits after Oregon/Washington eventually leave. Maybe that happens in the next 2 to 5 month---maybe it happens in the next 2 to 5 years. Either way---it doesnt matter because you'll be in a solid P5 Big12 conference with reasonable geography that isnt going to be losing any teams.

Let's say hypothetically in 5 years Oregon and Washington leave the PAC. And at that point Colorado and Utah decide they'd rather go Big 12. Do you really think the Big 12 says no to either school? And why? Do you not think both would add significant value and therefore $$$ to a Big 12 media rights that's relying so much on schools like Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to carry the load?

That's a huge gamble for the 4 corners schools. What if the AAC gets raided by the Big 10 and a couple PAC schools get taken too. The Big 12 could expand with leftover AAC schools and leave the four corners out to dry. They could be stuck in a glorified MWC.

How is that any worse than being stuck in a glorified AAC which is what the XII is fast turning into.

(07-06-2022 10:07 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out why people really think schools like Arizona or Utah or Colorado would go to the Big 12 (or in Colorado's case return). Do people think the rejiggered Big 12 is going to get more in media rights than the PAC would? Half the conference has been picked over by the SEC, Big 10, and even the PAC and the other half is made up of schools no other power conference cares about.

Some of these same people push the idea that Oregon or Washington or even Stanford or Cal could jump to the Big 10. So somehow the PAC has up to 4 Big 10 worthy schools and the Big 12 has none. And yet the Big 12 is more valuable? What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. IF Oregon or Washington leaves and the PAC just falls apart, the Big 12 will STILL take Colorado or Utah even at some point down the road. Simply because those schools are more valuable than many of the current schools. So while the Big 12 might have "stability", it pretty much will always be an option to most of the PAC.

Some valid points here: if the PAC does fall apart later, then the Big 12 has time to wait and take pieces then; the PAC has more Big 10 quality teams.

But a few things I think you may be missing. "Big 10 quality teams" have to do with market (they just took LA and the prior expansion was to get them into NY and Washington, DC) and academics as well as football/basketball power. The Big 12 doesn't have as many markets as the PAC, granted (though with the newbies they are trying), and their academics are not to the same level, granted (with the exception of say Kansas). But, what they lack in those categories they make up for in athletic competitiveness. They still have strength there, especially with the newbies, and that does bring value too.

In addition, the uncertainty helps the Big 12 right now. Waiting could backfire. Right now, the Big 12 is the conference that expanded, that is being proactive vs. the PAC having to be reactive. If the Big 12 waits, that could change. In fact, I would say that the longer the Big 12 waits, the stronger the new PAC will be. And that could hurt down the road.

On the other hand if they make use of the uncertainty and act now and grab at least ASU, Arizona, Colorado and Utah, they add P5 teams (as opposed to say Memphis, USF, SMU and Boise - who are the next G5 up and worthy) and still have room come 2036 for ACC leftovers (Pitt? Syracuse?).

(07-06-2022 09:26 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 06:52 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Everyone is forgetting that if this happened before UCF, UC, UH, and BYU were added, the PAC would be doing the raiding and the Big 12 would be dead. Now the Big 13 is stronger and more stable and is the aggressor. The Big 12 should thank it's lucky stars that the PAC defections didn't happen until now.

This. When the Big 12 announced these four as their new members, most in the media thought they got it right. Yes you can quibble about Memphis, USF, Boise and SMU, but these four were a "home run" for the Big 12. Solid football and basketball adds.

New markets in Florida and in Salt Lake City and Ohio, a replacement school in Texas, a rival for WVU in Cincy and national championship in football in BYU.

No regrets from the Big 12.

I agree. Strong adds that should be solid additions in the long term. Frankly they are as strong as most of the rest of the remaining 8 and you could make the argument that the Big 12 should have just added them in 2016.