https://twitter.com/williams_justin/stat...8379209729

Fourth time zone likely refers to the Arizona schools that are on Pacific time until the rest of the country "falls back" on November 6.

(09-07-2022 03:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  https://twitter.com/williams_justin/stat...8379209729

I like Brett Yormark's approach.

After all, a boxer can't beat his opponent without throwing punches.

Wonder if Vegas has a line on what happens first:

A) Pac school to B1G?

B) Pac school to Big 12 Conference #3, version 1.0?

Still think it's A, but maybe Yormark gets word from his BFF Kevin Warren that UW+UO is a go, so he reels in one or more of the Four Corners Four before the B1G's additions are announced.

That actually would be a win/win as far as optics go: Yormark scores an attention-grabblng and momentum-building knockout on his rival George K and the B1G avoids being saddled with all the blame for the Conference of Champions plunging to the bottom of the Pacific.

Must be a sign that the Big 10 is going to add Oregon, Washington and possibly Stanford and Cal. The Big 12 can't raid the current version of the PAC.

I really don't think the Big 12 is going to go West to add MWC teams. They already did more than enough of that sort of thing by adding Houston, UCF and Cincinnati. (And the MWC teams would actually be even less valuable than those three teams are.)

(09-07-2022 03:24 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 03:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  https://twitter.com/williams_justin/stat...8379209729

I like Brett Yormark's approach.

After all, a boxer can't beat his opponent without throwing punches.

Wonder if Vegas has a line on what happens first:

A) Pac school to B1G?

B) Pac school to Big 12 Conference #3, version 1.0?

Still think it's A, but maybe Yormark gets word from his BFF Kevin Warren that UW+UO is a go, so he reels in one or more of the Four Corners Four before the B1G's additions are announced.

That actually would be a win/win as far as optics go: Yormark scores an attention-grabblng and momentum-building knockout on his rival George K and the B1G avoids being saddled with all the blame for the Conference of Champions plunging to the bottom of the Pacific.

A conference commissioner's tweet is pretty much the ultimate sign that something is going to happen. Even moreso than a tweet from an athletic director or university president. Let alone some communication through some "intermediaries". The Big 12 commissioner would probably get fired if he makes this kind of tweet, and the Four Corners schools don't come to the conference. It would leave the conference with ridiculously embarrassing egg on its face.

The Big 12 is saying to the PAC 12...you're not going to be needing the Four Corner schools anymore...they're coming with us...

Big 12 to the Four Corner schools...Come with me if you want to live...

Four Corner schools to the Big 12...Let's Go!!!

With that being said, the SMU and SDSU to the PAC threads (and the threads claiming the Big 10 is done expanding) will probably continue on this website for about another week. Because some of this website will think the PAC isn’t finished until it’s officially announced in a week or so. People will act like Iowa’s opinion seriously matters in Big 10 expansion.

(09-07-2022 03:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  With that being said, the SMU and SDSU to the PAC threads (and the threads claiming the Big 10 is done expanding) will probably continue on this website for about another week. Because some of this website will think the PAC isn’t finished until it’s officially announced in a week or so. People will act like Iowa’s opinion seriously matters in Big 10 expansion.

I think the scheduling concerns are significant. 3-6-6 is infinitely better than 3-7-7 for 18, or the 20-team setups where matchups go on a three year cycle.

Here's the thing, if the lower rung of the B1G (Rutgers, Illinois, NWU, Maryland) is content not playing USC/UCLA every 2 years, but 3+ years, then the scheduling can be mitigated with 18 or 20 schools. You can also cycle UM/USC/OSU/UCLA more often with a 3+2/2+4/4/4 with those cross pairs becoming biannual games. That's where the money is after all.

There may also be serious concerns for Olympic travel to the PNW, because you just can't hit UO and UW on the same flight, whereas it may be possible with the Bay and LA teams for Thursday/Saturday swing even in a sport like Men's BBall, and certainly for remaining Olympic Sports.

It's also contingent on the PN4 accepting less shares.

Lots of concerns any competent AD would have.

(09-07-2022 04:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 03:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  With that being said, the SMU and SDSU to the PAC threads (and the threads claiming the Big 10 is done expanding) will probably continue on this website for about another week. Because some of this website will think the PAC isn’t finished until it’s officially announced in a week or so. People will act like Iowa’s opinion seriously matters in Big 10 expansion.

I think the scheduling concerns are significant. 3-6-6 is infinitely better than 3-7-7 for 18, or the 20-team setups where matchups go on a three year cycle.

Here's the thing, if the lower rung of the B1G (Rutgers, Illinois, NWU, Maryland) is content not playing USC/UCLA every 2 years, but 3+ years, then the scheduling can be mitigated with 18 or 20 schools. You can also cycle UM/USC/OSU/UCLA more often with a 3+2/2+4/4/4 with those cross pairs becoming biannual games. That's where the money is after all.

There may also be serious concerns for Olympic travel to the PNW, because you just can't hit UO and UW on the same flight, whereas it may be possible with the Bay and LA teams for Thursday/Saturday swing even in a sport like Men's BBall, and certainly in remaining Olympic Sports.

It's also contingent on the PN4 accepting less shares.

Lots of concerns any competent AD would have.

Well, regardless of how legitimate Iowa’s concerns might be, it’s almost impossible to imagine they won’t get outvoted after this tweet.


And I have no idea why people are talking about the Big 10 possibly adopting 3 permanent opponents. I’ve seen exactly zero reports saying the Big 10 is even considering that idea.

That’s a pretty significant quote there from Mr. Yormark.

(09-07-2022 04:10 PM)Poster Wrote:  Well, regardless of how legitimate Iowa’s concerns might be, it’s almost impossible to imagine they won’t get outvoted after this tweet.


And I have no idea why people are talking about the Big 10 possibly adopting 3 permanent opponents. I’ve seen exactly zero reports saying the Big 10 is even considering that idea.

Because teams have multiple rivals. 1+9/9 is great, but it kills too many rivals. We haven't seen anyone come out and downplay the existing rivalries aside from your main rival. I don't see how it's a good thing if PSU loses OSU or UM/MSU goes biannual. It's going to take a lot for boosters and networks to swallow that.

Yes, it would seem to indicate that ASU is getting closer to joining Arizona in moving to the Big 12.

https://twitter.com/Williams_Justin/stat...rAm8ErAAAA

(09-07-2022 04:29 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Yes, it would seem to indicate that ASU is getting closer to joining Arizona in moving to the Big 12.

https://twitter.com/Williams_Justin/stat...rAm8ErAAAA

A lot of it could be posturing by the B1G to take the PAC schools at 2/3rds shares. I don't think the PN4 get less than that (I mean, it has to be well above the Big 12 numbers). Maybe take the PN4 at 50 million after the Corner 4 defects for the Big 12.

Let's say the Big 12 lands a deal comparable to the ACC. ESPN/Fox paying 4.5 billion over let's say seven years would put 16 schools at 40 million. That's at least 5-10 million higher than what the PAC is expected to receive. Still, I don't think that gets the Corners to jump. 45-50 million would do it.

I wonder if the PN4 can buy equity into the B1G TV network like Rutgers had to do, albeit that is not as important as it was then.

My hunch is AZ is committed to joining the Big 12, now the Big 12 is waiting to shake at least one more school loose, likely ASU.

(09-07-2022 04:41 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  My hunch is AZ is committed to joining the Big 12, now the Big 12 is waiting to shake at least one more school loose, likely ASU.

That's been the prevailing consensus. Nothing new here. I'd imagine Yormark got the numbers by now. Negotiations have started this week. The key is getting both Fox and ESPN at the table, and once that's done, we should know soon enough. 24' is the target date if they can get money from early OUT exit.

(09-07-2022 04:25 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 04:10 PM)Poster Wrote:  Well, regardless of how legitimate Iowa’s concerns might be, it’s almost impossible to imagine they won’t get outvoted after this tweet.


And I have no idea why people are talking about the Big 10 possibly adopting 3 permanent opponents. I’ve seen exactly zero reports saying the Big 10 is even considering that idea.

Because teams have multiple rivals. 1+9/9 is great, but it kills too many rivals. We haven't seen anyone come out and downplay the existing rivalries aside from your main rival. I don't see how it's a good thing if PSU loses OSU or UM/MSU goes biannual. It's going to take a lot for boosters and networks to swallow that.

I already asked in another thread for who in the Big 10 seriously has 3 rivals, and the responses I got basically claimed that all 10 of the traditional Big 10 teams are rivals. Some of those “rivalries” that people cited already got broken up by the expansion to 14, and some of the “rivalries” weren’t even played every season when the Big 10 was a 10-11 team conference.

The fit description of nationally recognized screams Arizona. But the 4th time zone screams San Diego State (Arizona is on Mountain Time, but don't have daylight savings, so half the year on Pacific Time)

(09-07-2022 05:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The fit description of nationally recognized screams Arizona. But the 4th time zone screams San Diego State (Arizona is on Mountain Time, but don't have daylight savings, so half the year on Pacific Time)

I’ve never once seen an article say that SDSU (or any other MWC team) had ever been considered for Big 12 membership. SDSU has only been rumored as a candidate for the PAC, and I’ve always been skeptical of those rumors. Why would the Big 12 expand with more low value G5 teams even though they’ve already at 12 teams? The only reason why SDSU is rumored for the PAC is because they don’t have 12 teams. And I can’t imagine that the conference commissioner would seriously act like SDSU is a nationally known brand.


Since PAC teams would not join the Big 12 unless there’s a further Big 10 raid, this is a pretty clear sign that there’s going to be another Big 10 raid on the PAC.


He’s probably referring to the Four Corners teams, but if Stanford and Cal aren’t being picked up by the Big Ten he might be referring to them.

A lot of overreaction in this thread over what is a pretty innocuous statement. I don’t see it as a “significant quote”, but rather just pointing out the obvious. He even alludes to that “Obviously going out west is where I would like to go”. It’s pretty well understood that the 4 corner schools are the only viable adds for the B12 now, but there’s no indication that the interest is mutual, and Yormack’s statement doesn’t move that needle one way or another.

(09-07-2022 03:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  With that being said, the SMU and SDSU to the PAC threads (and the threads claiming the Big 10 is done expanding) will probably continue on this website for about another week. Because some of this website will think the PAC isn’t finished until it’s officially announced in a week or so. People will act like Iowa’s opinion seriously matters in Big 10 expansion.

But would SMU and SDSU head for a Pac12 like this----

Wash St
Oregon St
Possibly Cal if ND joins the Big10
SDSU
Fresno
Boise
Air Force
UNLV
SMU
UTSA
New Mexico
One of Wyoming, CSU, Tulsa, or Utah St. I'd also invite Wichita and Zags.

I think they would.

(09-07-2022 05:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 03:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  With that being said, the SMU and SDSU to the PAC threads (and the threads claiming the Big 10 is done expanding) will probably continue on this website for about another week. Because some of this website will think the PAC isn’t finished until it’s officially announced in a week or so. People will act like Iowa’s opinion seriously matters in Big 10 expansion.

But would SMU and SDSU head for a Pac12 like this----

Wash St
Oregon St
Possibly Cal if ND joins the Big10
SDSU
Fresno
Boise
Air Force
UNLV
SMU
UTSA
New Mexico
One of Wyoming, CSU, Tulsa, or Utah St. I'd also invite Wichita and Zags.

I think they would.

I see no reason why Cal wouldn’t get picked up by the Big 12 if they don’t get picked by the Big 10.


There seems to be some conflicting information about whether WSU and Oregon State could keep alive a 2 member PAC due to the NCAA tournament credit rules.