https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hotlin...ar-AAZCnJs

"...What we believe at this moment could be rendered moot by developments an hour from now, but here’s our guess on the outcomes:

— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together but with either expansion or a partnership with the ACC or Big 12. Likelihood: 40 percent

— At least eight schools merge with the Big 12 to form a western division of a super-conference. (In this scenario, Oregon State and Washington State could be left behind.) Likelihood: 30 percent

— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together without mergers, acquisitions or partnerships. Likelihood: 20 percent

— Six schools (Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and Washington) are poached by the Big 12, sparking the complete dissolution of the conference. Likelihood: 10 percent

The situation could get resolved in the next few days. But multiple sources have indicated the more likely outcome is a prolonged process — at least weeks and perhaps months...."

Lots of other stuff further down in the article.

Note that Wilner is giving a 40% chance the Pac 10 ceases to exist and only a 20% chance they remain as is.

His predictions are a little more dire than previous ramblings.

(07-15-2022 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hotlin...ar-AAZCnJs

"...What we believe at this moment could be rendered moot by developments an hour from now, but here’s our guess on the outcomes:

— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together but with either expansion or a partnership with the ACC or Big 12. Likelihood: 40 percent

— At least eight schools merge with the Big 12 to form a western division of a super-conference. (In this scenario, Oregon State and Washington State could be left behind.) Likelihood: 30 percent

— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together without mergers, acquisitions or partnerships. Likelihood: 20 percent

— Six schools (Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and Washington) are poached by the Big 12, sparking the complete dissolution of the conference. Likelihood: 10 percent

The situation could get resolved in the next few days. But multiple sources have indicated the more likely outcome is a prolonged process — at least weeks and perhaps months...."

Lots of other stuff further down in the article.

So really we can consolidate estimates two and three as both deal with merger to the Big 12 and both would result in the dissolution of the PAC-10 - 40% chance of happening.

The first option requires either expansion or partnership with the Big 12/ACC meaning that the PAC is not able to survive in it's current form without great assistance from other conferences. - 40% Chance of happening.

Chance of PAC sticking together absent anything else - 20% Chance.

This is pretty dire look from Wilner IMO.

I don’t see the impetus yet for a super conference as long as the CFP stays as it is or goes to the 6-6 proposed format. Both the PAC 10 and Big 12 have a sufficient base to exist on their own and should be competitively on par with the ACC.

Bye Pac, hardly knew thee (never wanted to minus USC).

(07-15-2022 02:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see the impetus yet for a super conference as long as the CFP stays as it is or goes to the 6-6 proposed format. Both the PAC 10 and Big 12 have a sufficient base to exist on their own and should be competitively on par with the ACC.

It’s the only way leftovers can dictate.

They need consolidation more than P2 worthy brands.

First group of leftovers to super conference has much better chance at making it than not.

A Big 20 is a problem for the leftovers of the ACC.

(07-15-2022 02:21 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hotlin...ar-AAZCnJs

"...What we believe at this moment could be rendered moot by developments an hour from now, but here’s our guess on the outcomes:

— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together but with either expansion or a partnership with the ACC or Big 12. Likelihood: 40 percent

— At least eight schools merge with the Big 12 to form a western division of a super-conference. (In this scenario, Oregon State and Washington State could be left behind.) Likelihood: 30 percent

— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together without mergers, acquisitions or partnerships. Likelihood: 20 percent

— Six schools (Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and Washington) are poached by the Big 12, sparking the complete dissolution of the conference. Likelihood: 10 percent

The situation could get resolved in the next few days. But multiple sources have indicated the more likely outcome is a prolonged process — at least weeks and perhaps months...."

Lots of other stuff further down in the article.

So really we can consolidate estimates two and three as both deal with merger to the Big 12 and both would result in the dissolution of the PAC-10 - 40% chance of happening.

The first option requires either expansion or partnership with the Big 12/ACC meaning that the PAC is not able to survive in it's current form without great assistance from other conferences. - 40% Chance of happening.

Chance of PAC sticking together absent anything else - 20% Chance.

This is pretty dire look from Wilner IMO.

Eh - if you read further in that article, he also pours cold water on the assumption that the Big 12 has the leverage to take Pac-12 schools here (as he makes the argument as I have that the only reason why the Big 12 is "stable" is that neither the Big Ten nor SEC find anyone left in the Big 12 to be valuable in the first place, whereas the Pac-12 has several valuable schools on paper).

His general writings lately have seemed to really focus on the Pac-12 merging/partnering with someone else (whether the ACC or Big 12) than it does with the league losing more schools.

(07-15-2022 02:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see the impetus yet for a super conference as long as the CFP stays as it is or goes to the 6-6 proposed format. Both the PAC 10 and Big 12 have a sufficient base to exist on their own and should be competitively on par with the ACC.

Ehh? In a 4 team CFP, neither the nB12 nor nPAC members have good experiences. 1 invitation in 8 years for the nB12 (Cincy last year); and only 2 for the PAC. Both conferences really need CFP expansion, otherwise a merger is essential.

The 6+6 CFP proposal would provide access for both conferences.

(07-15-2022 02:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 02:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see the impetus yet for a super conference as long as the CFP stays as it is or goes to the 6-6 proposed format. Both the PAC 10 and Big 12 have a sufficient base to exist on their own and should be competitively on par with the ACC.

Ehh? In a 4 team CFP, neither the nB12 nor nPAC members have good experiences. 1 invitation in 8 years for the nB12 (Cincy last year); and only 2 for the PAC. Both conferences really need CFP expansion, otherwise a merger is essential.

The 6+6 CFP proposal would provide access for both conferences.

As 2 leagues, 6-6 probably means 2 guaranteed spots, 1 for each league. Merging would result in just 1 guaranteed spot.

One other item that I think a lot of people have been glossing over (which is sort of ironic considering that it's what drove the USC/UCLA move in the first place): the finalization of the new Big Ten TV contracts.

When that happens, everyone will have more clarity.

If there aren't any further defections from the Pac-12 by that point, any argument that Washington/Oregon might pick up and leave the Pac-12 tomorrow won't hold much water because the Big Ten would absolutely have added them *before* signing any TV deal if they wanted to expand further. The Pac-12 will be "stable" at that point in the sense that the one league with absolute poaching power over them (the Big Ten) won't have a financial incentive for more expansion when it has its TV deal in place.

We'll also know if ESPN retains any Big Ten games or not, which will instruct just how motivated they will or won't be for going after the Pac-12 rights and/or brokering some type of Pac-12/ACC partnership. Same thing for the other networks like CBS and NBC or streaming services like Amazon.

It's really hard for anyone - the Pac-12, Big 12, ACC or ESPN - to make any moves outside of talking until that Big Ten contract is finalized.

Actually Wilner puts staying together at 60%; 40% in partnership with either ACC or Big 12, 20% as stand alone.

He puts 30% at 8 schools leaving out WSU and OSU, merge (join) with Big 12 (this effectively dissolves the Pac-12 as you have >75% vote).

10% chance the four corners plus UW and Oregon join the Big 12. He says this dissolves the Pac-12, but not true, as 4 schools are too many no votes. Instead you'll see those four collect exit fees and pull in MWC schools of their choosing (San Diego State, Colorado State, Air Force for starters, Boise State, Fresno State and UNLV in hold nose on academics next). Too much money and too many credits to throw away.

Note I could see Stanford go Independent in that scenario (New Mexico or Wyoming would replace them).

In the dissolve scenario Oregon State and Washington State would join the MWC.

(07-15-2022 02:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 02:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see the impetus yet for a super conference as long as the CFP stays as it is or goes to the 6-6 proposed format. Both the PAC 10 and Big 12 have a sufficient base to exist on their own and should be competitively on par with the ACC.

Ehh? In a 4 team CFP, neither the nB12 nor nPAC members have good experiences. 1 invitation in 8 years for the nB12 (Cincy last year); and only 2 for the PAC. Both conferences really need CFP expansion, otherwise a merger is essential.

The 6+6 CFP proposal would provide access for both conferences.

If this were geometry class, I would say that the nB12 has had something of an asymptote for making the playoffs. Meaning, they have had several members infinitely approach that barrier but were ultimately unable to cross.

Examples:
2021: OSU a mere inch from crossing the goal line in the Big 12 championship to make the CFP.
2019: Baylor is brought down by an unlikely speedster from OU to stop Baylor and force OT where Baylor falls short. Thus missing the CFP.
2014: Baylor/TCU, self-explanatory.

The Big 12 should go full-court press on ASU and also invite SDSU. The Big Ten and Big 12 lock the PAC out of Southern California...

The PAC 9 add Fresno State, Boise State, and Nevada out of desperation....and BYU fans gets to travel to Phoenix and San Diego for road games while Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington, and Utah get to go to Fresno, Reno, Boise, and Tuscon.

I note that Arizona State and San Diego State are solid public-school options to the state flagships and have much in common institutionally with many Big 12 schools, such as Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Houston, Cincinnati, and UCF.

I understand that OSU/WSU are getting ragged on a lot, but it would make more sense to request the Big 12 buys out schools like BYU and UCF before the PAC would kick out the Beavers/Cougars to join the Big 12 of all conferences.

However, I'd make a lot more sense to feature a championship game versus the Big 12 than the ACC. I think the ACC would much rather prefer a Clemson UNC rematch in the ACC CG in Charlotte as opposed to sending a representative to Vegas to play, say Oregon. Whereas the Big 12 would have a harder time selling a Baylor vs OSU rematch nationally. Perhaps a Big 12 rep vs a Stanford or Oregon would be much more lucrative. Plus you avoid a direct affiliation with BYU/Baylor if you are Stanford/Cal.

I'd prefer a full merger myself, but 22 schools really doesn't make a ton of sense unless they can find a scheduling advantage in that. In fact, if there were two additional schools from the G5 they could poach that made 24 worthwhile (SDSU and USF perhaps) you could get to a 24 team league that way. But the scheduling has to make sense, breaking down into 4x6 or something of the other. It's contingent on whether Colorado Utah Zonas lean east or west, because Stanford/Cal/UO/WU/OSU/WSU is a very compelling six team division in a hypothetical Superleague.

(07-15-2022 02:59 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I understand that OSU/WSU are getting ragged on a lot, but it would make more sense to request the Big 12 buys out schools like BYU and UCF before the PAC would kick out the Beavers/Cougars to join the Big 12 of all conferences.

However, I'd make a lot more sense to feature a championship game versus the Big 12 than the ACC. I think the ACC would much rather prefer a Clemson UNC rematch in the ACC CG in Charlotte as opposed to sending a representative to Vegas to play, say Oregon. Whereas the Big 12 would have a harder time selling a Baylor vs OSU rematch nationally. Perhaps a Big 12 rep vs a Stanford or Oregon would be much more lucrative. Plus you avoid a direct affiliation with BYU/Baylor if you are Stanford/Cal.

I'd prefer a full merger myself, but 22 schools really doesn't make a ton of sense unless they can find a scheduling advantage in that. In fact, if there were two additional schools from the G5 they could poach that made 24 worthwhile (SDSU and USF perhaps) you could get to a 24 team league that way. But the scheduling has to make sense, breaking down into 4x6 or something of the other. It's contingent on whether Colorado Utah Zonas lean east or west, because Stanford/Cal/UO/WU/OSU/WSU is a very compelling six team division in a hypothetical Superleague.

Why would they do that? BYU and UCF move the tv meter more than the Beavers and Cougars.

Growing from the playoff expansion debacle, I'm workshopping a theory that these guys are all idiots.

I'm going to be boundlessly amused if
1. PAC gets a low offer (what's low? IDK, low enough to make #2 happen)
2. PAC schools jump to the Big 12
3. Big 12 ends up signing for less money per school than the PAC was offered in #1.

(07-15-2022 03:09 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 02:59 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I understand that OSU/WSU are getting ragged on a lot, but it would make more sense to request the Big 12 buys out schools like BYU and UCF before the PAC would kick out the Beavers/Cougars to join the Big 12 of all conferences.

However, I'd make a lot more sense to feature a championship game versus the Big 12 than the ACC. I think the ACC would much rather prefer a Clemson UNC rematch in the ACC CG in Charlotte as opposed to sending a representative to Vegas to play, say Oregon. Whereas the Big 12 would have a harder time selling a Baylor vs OSU rematch nationally. Perhaps a Big 12 rep vs a Stanford or Oregon would be much more lucrative. Plus you avoid a direct affiliation with BYU/Baylor if you are Stanford/Cal.

I'd prefer a full merger myself, but 22 schools really doesn't make a ton of sense unless they can find a scheduling advantage in that. In fact, if there were two additional schools from the G5 they could poach that made 24 worthwhile (SDSU and USF perhaps) you could get to a 24 team league that way. But the scheduling has to make sense, breaking down into 4x6 or something of the other. It's contingent on whether Colorado Utah Zonas lean east or west, because Stanford/Cal/UO/WU/OSU/WSU is a very compelling six team division in a hypothetical Superleague.

Why would they do that? BYU and UCF move the tv meter more than the Beavers and Cougars.

I think his argument would be that at least with respect to BYU, there are several Pac-12 schools (and I don't think it's just Cal/Stanford) that would find being in a conference with them to be a non-starter on principle regardless of how much money that they might bring to the table. Granted, I doubt that there would be an objection to UCF unless there's also an objection to a school like Houston.

(07-15-2022 02:59 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I understand that OSU/WSU are getting ragged on a lot, but it would make more sense to request the Big 12 buys out schools like BYU and UCF before the PAC would kick out the Beavers/Cougars to join the Big 12 of all conferences.

However, I'd make a lot more sense to feature a championship game versus the Big 12 than the ACC. I think the ACC would much rather prefer a Clemson UNC rematch in the ACC CG in Charlotte as opposed to sending a representative to Vegas to play, say Oregon. Whereas the Big 12 would have a harder time selling a Baylor vs OSU rematch nationally. Perhaps a Big 12 rep vs a Stanford or Oregon would be much more lucrative. Plus you avoid a direct affiliation with BYU/Baylor if you are Stanford/Cal.

I'd prefer a full merger myself, but 22 schools really doesn't make a ton of sense unless they can find a scheduling advantage in that. In fact, if there were two additional schools from the G5 they could poach that made 24 worthwhile (SDSU and USF perhaps) you could get to a 24 team league that way. But the scheduling has to make sense, breaking down into 4x6 or something of the other. It's contingent on whether Colorado Utah Zonas lean east or west, because Stanford/Cal/UO/WU/OSU/WSU is a very compelling six team division in a hypothetical Superleague.

The Baylor Oklahoma state rematch blew away the ACC and pack 12 championship games last year in ratings