(10-01-2022 02:23 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 10:28 AM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  BC
Duke
GT
Louisville
Miami
Syracuse
Wake Forest
Pitt
WVU
Cincy
UCF
USF
Memphis
Tulane
UCONN
ECU

No… absolutely not

Well, Cincy, UCF, and WVU can stay in the Big 12....and then the Big 12 add Miami and pretty much any other left behind team in the ACC that they want......you want to risk being left in a depleted ACC?

(10-04-2022 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 12:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:45 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:23 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  The Big XII doesn’t have a conference network. Ergo, location isn’t as important to the Big XII as it is to the Big Ten, because the Big Ten gets subscriber revenue in their “home footprint.” The absolute top priority for the Big XII is viewers, and Utah gets way more viewers than Colorado.

No, but the Big XII is drawing up a new TV deal. Are they going to get more from ESPN/FOX for a second Utah school or a school in San Diego?

It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

In other words, impact on ratings, and impact on carriage / subscription revenue.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah. The ratings charts I have seen of PAC schools suggest that Colorado's ratings really suck quite badly.

There seems to be a disconnect between the leadership at CU and the fanbase. They have a long history with other big 8/12 schools. They can drive to a lot of those games, they have many rivalries created over decades, etc. The fans want the big 12, and I'd wager that they would strongly support such a move with better attendance and higher viewer numbers. It would also likely help their recruiting quite a bit. Oh, and Colorado brings a state that's almost as big as AZ all by themselves.

I have a lot of Hate for Colorado on the field, but in the realm of Realignment, if I'm the big 12 they're my first pick.

It's one of my cardinal rules of conference realignment: Think like a university president and *not* like a fan.

As long as Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon are still in the Pac-12, the administrations of all of the Pac-12 schools besides *maybe* Arizona are going to favor the Pac-12 if the revenue is relatively equal. Colorado and Utah see themselves as being with their institutional peers: AAU/AAU-level prestigious academic research institutions located in the West.

Even if we assume that the Big 12 is going to get paid more per school than the Pac-12, getting 10-20% more revenue in the Big 12 isn't going to change that analysis. Academia, more than any other part of society, is all about the company that you keep and schools like Colorado and Utah absolutely want to be seen with the Stanford/Cal-types of the world.

Now, of course if the Big Ten comes in and invites more Pac-12 schools, then all bets are off. At that point, it's a matter of survival as opposed to worrying about higher-level institutional desires. Barring that situation, though, I just think fans vastly overrate how much schools would move leagues based on a relatively small bump in revenue, especially if they believe that they're otherwise with their institutional peers.

At the same time, there are not-so-subtle ego issues here where Colorado isn't going to want to return to a Big 12 that it had just left last decade or Utah subjecting itself to have to join BYU's league after the Utes having spent the last decade seeing themselves as being in the superior position unless it's an absolute no-other-choice survival situation. Remember that the entire Pac-12 rejected ALL of the Big 12 schools as expansion candidates last year. It takes a massive amount of setting aside ego to then come around and ask to join that same Big 12. I just don't see that happening unless the Big Ten makes another move on the Pac-12. Any movement from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 would be fallout reaction to another Big Ten move as opposed to any proactive movement prior to another Big Ten move.

I also think a lot of people here are misinterpreting the leverage positions of all of the parties. Ultimately, it's the Four Corners schools with the leverage as opposed to the Big 12. No one should pretend otherwise - as long as Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12, it's each of the Four Corners schools that have the leverage to "pick" the Big 12 as opposed to the other way around.

Everyone gets the academic angle and I agree your statements make some sense with that in mind.

BUT are presidents risk takers? Supposedly all the PAC presidents were shocked when USC & UCLA left and had no idea. I can tell you they have an idea UW & Or want in to the B1G bad and if not now will do everything they can in another 6 yrs, and Stanford probably as well.
What stability does the PAC have with that in mind for the 4 corner schools?

Is it guaranteed the B12 will always need all 4 corner schools? Utah is solid football content but BYU covers the market and its a duplicate addition. What if Utah football performance falls off? Would the SDSU market and recruiting be more valuable to the B12? What if Colorado continues to be a doormat for another 6 yrs, does that devalue them? Does the B12 always need ASU & AZ both?

Probably Colorado and both AZ & ASU are always safe but I'm not sure about Utah.

Or lets say the B1G never invites OR/UW/Stanford which I doubt but if they don't I bet they eventually get some ACC schools as well as the SEC. What if the B12 adds Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and Va. Tech or NC St and then says were done. Or now we only need 1 Arizona school and Colorado or only 2 Arizona schools.

Also, why do you want to put off a move you probably have to make in 6 yrs instead of taking more money now?

I'm not sure college presidents love instability.

(10-01-2022 02:23 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 10:28 AM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  BC
Duke
GT
Louisville
Miami
Syracuse
Wake Forest
Pitt
WVU
Cincy
UCF
USF
Memphis
Tulane
UCONN
ECU

No… absolutely not

This is probably an argument for at risk ACC schools actually considering the number of votes needed to disband the ACC if they were all guaranteed a home in a new P3 of Big 12 and select PAC schools.

I think a 3rd conference could almost negotiate a equal CFP playoff share of the 3 leagues at this time and a nationwide conference network which may give the 3rd league the best financial leverage they will ever have.

I still don't think its going to be that great for the P5 schools that go to the B1G/SEC competition wise on the field but they will get their money.

(10-04-2022 02:16 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 12:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:45 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  No, but the Big XII is drawing up a new TV deal. Are they going to get more from ESPN/FOX for a second Utah school or a school in San Diego?

It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

In other words, impact on ratings, and impact on carriage / subscription revenue.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah. The ratings charts I have seen of PAC schools suggest that Colorado's ratings really suck quite badly.

There seems to be a disconnect between the leadership at CU and the fanbase. They have a long history with other big 8/12 schools. They can drive to a lot of those games, they have many rivalries created over decades, etc. The fans want the big 12, and I'd wager that they would strongly support such a move with better attendance and higher viewer numbers. It would also likely help their recruiting quite a bit. Oh, and Colorado brings a state that's almost as big as AZ all by themselves.

I have a lot of Hate for Colorado on the field, but in the realm of Realignment, if I'm the big 12 they're my first pick.

It's one of my cardinal rules of conference realignment: Think like a university president and *not* like a fan.

As long as Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon are still in the Pac-12, the administrations of all of the Pac-12 schools besides *maybe* Arizona are going to favor the Pac-12 if the revenue is relatively equal. Colorado and Utah see themselves as being with their institutional peers: AAU/AAU-level prestigious academic research institutions located in the West.

Even if we assume that the Big 12 is going to get paid more per school than the Pac-12, getting 10-20% more revenue in the Big 12 isn't going to change that analysis. Academia, more than any other part of society, is all about the company that you keep and schools like Colorado and Utah absolutely want to be seen with the Stanford/Cal-types of the world.

Now, of course if the Big Ten comes in and invites more Pac-12 schools, then all bets are off. At that point, it's a matter of survival as opposed to worrying about higher-level institutional desires. Barring that situation, though, I just think fans vastly overrate how much schools would move leagues based on a relatively small bump in revenue, especially if they believe that they're otherwise with their institutional peers.

At the same time, there are not-so-subtle ego issues here where Colorado isn't going to want to return to a Big 12 that it had just left last decade or Utah subjecting itself to have to join BYU's league after the Utes having spent the last decade seeing themselves as being in the superior position unless it's an absolute no-other-choice survival situation. Remember that the entire Pac-12 rejected ALL of the Big 12 schools as expansion candidates last year. It takes a massive amount of setting aside ego to then come around and ask to join that same Big 12. I just don't see that happening unless the Big Ten makes another move on the Pac-12. Any movement from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 would be fallout reaction to another Big Ten move as opposed to any proactive movement prior to another Big Ten move.

I also think a lot of people here are misinterpreting the leverage positions of all of the parties. Ultimately, it's the Four Corners schools with the leverage as opposed to the Big 12. No one should pretend otherwise - as long as Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12, it's each of the Four Corners schools that have the leverage to "pick" the Big 12 as opposed to the other way around.

Everyone gets the academic angle and I agree your statements make some sense with that in mind.

BUT are presidents risk takers? Supposedly all the PAC presidents were shocked when USC & UCLA left and had no idea. I can tell you they have an idea UW & Or want in to the B1G bad and if not now will do everything they can in another 6 yrs, and Stanford probably as well.
What stability does the PAC have with that in mind for the 4 corner schools?

Is it guaranteed the B12 will always need all 4 corner schools? Utah is solid football content but BYU covers the market and its a duplicate addition. What if Utah football performance falls off? Would the SDSU market and recruiting be more valuable to the B12? What if Colorado continues to be a doormat for another 6 yrs, does that devalue them? Does the B12 always need ASU & AZ both?

Probably Colorado and both AZ & ASU are always safe but I'm not sure about Utah.

Or lets say the B1G never invites OR/UW/Stanford which I doubt but if they don't I bet they eventually get some ACC schools as well as the SEC. What if the B12 adds Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and Va. Tech or NC St and then says were done. Or now we only need 1 Arizona school and Colorado or only 2 Arizona schools.

Also, why do you want to put off a move you probably have to make in 6 yrs instead of taking more money now?

I'm not sure college presidents love instability.

Because the Big 12's "stability" pitch is still ultimately, "Absolutely no one else wants any of our schools." Everyone knows it, not the least of whom the Pac-12 schools themselves since they passed over all of those Big 12 schools for expansion a year ago.

That's not the same as how the Big Ten or SEC (or even the Big East in a basketball context) are stable.

It's simply not a compelling selling point to university presidents. Frankly, it's little different than when the AAC and MWC have sniped at each other over the years where one attacks the other on the basis of being "unstable" because the "unstable" league actually has some programs of value to the power leagues.

Once again, if it's a matter of survival where the Pac-12 completely implodes, then there's no doubt that the Four Corners schools would seek refuge in the Big 12. My only contention continues to be that it's simply not going to happen before that time. The threat to the Pac-12 is *solely* the Big Ten. The Big 12 might be able to take advantage of any fallout from Big Ten moves, but they are NOT a "proactive" (which is such an overused word in conference realignment) player in this at all no matter how much their commissioner likes throwing red meat to the fans in his interviews.

(10-04-2022 02:16 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Everyone gets the academic angle and I agree your statements make some sense with that in mind.

BUT are presidents risk takers? Supposedly all the PAC presidents were shocked when USC & UCLA left and had no idea. I can tell you they have an idea UW & Or want in to the B1G bad and if not now will do everything they can in another 6 yrs, and Stanford probably as well.
What stability does the PAC have with that in mind for the 4 corner schools?

Is it guaranteed the B12 will always need all 4 corner schools? Utah is solid football content but BYU covers the market and its a duplicate addition. What if Utah football performance falls off? Would the SDSU market and recruiting be more valuable to the B12? What if Colorado continues to be a doormat for another 6 yrs, does that devalue them? Does the B12 always need ASU & AZ both?

Probably Colorado and both AZ & ASU are always safe but I'm not sure about Utah.

I would narrow that down to probably ASU always has a safe landing spot in the Big12 or whatever its successor is, and the others are more up in the air.

Going back to Bob Thompson's points scale for where the various schools stand on the various drivers of media value:

1. 36, Washington
2. 34, Oregon
3. 30, Stanford
4. 25, Arizona State
5. 22, Utah
6. 20, Cal
7. 19, Arizona
8. 16, WSU
9. 15, Colorado
10. 10, Oregon State
    

The average Arizona State / Utah add is 22.5 points, the average P4C add is 20.25, a 10% drop in media value.

Now, the ASU/Utah add might be a slam dunk and the P4C merely adding a smaller second win as a cherry on top ... but if the ASU/Utah add is more marginal, Arizona and Colorado might have reason to be nervous.

Now, the Big Ten top two vs PN4 is an even larger drop-off, at 35 vs 30, a 14% drop ... but if the top two from the PN4 is not a slam dunk (as the comment of the Buckeyes' AD would seem to suggest), then that 14% drop might be enough to close out discussion of a four school expansion and focus the discussion on the two high media value pairs versus no further expansion at this time.

Quote: ... Also, why do you want to put off a move you probably have to make in 6 yrs instead of taking more money now?

This could be an argument for making the ASU/Utah move now even if the Big12 Presidents / ADs are a bit less certain whether they want to expand to 16 at this point or to leave room for future opportunities that may arise.

Ideally, you would want to only have 1 school per state with the exceptions of Fla, Tex and Cali but in reality having brands as strong as the 4-corner schools fall into your lap is the best thing that could happen to the Big 12. You're not going to be shut out from adding additional brands (say from the ACC if it falls apart), because with other conferences going to 20 or 24, it would be no problem for the Big 12 to expand that big. The only question I have is, if the B1G takes Ore, Wash, Stan, and Cal does the B12 take Oregon State and Washington State with the 4-corner schools? Because they add value too.

(10-04-2022 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 02:16 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 12:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

In other words, impact on ratings, and impact on carriage / subscription revenue.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah. The ratings charts I have seen of PAC schools suggest that Colorado's ratings really suck quite badly.

There seems to be a disconnect between the leadership at CU and the fanbase. They have a long history with other big 8/12 schools. They can drive to a lot of those games, they have many rivalries created over decades, etc. The fans want the big 12, and I'd wager that they would strongly support such a move with better attendance and higher viewer numbers. It would also likely help their recruiting quite a bit. Oh, and Colorado brings a state that's almost as big as AZ all by themselves.

I have a lot of Hate for Colorado on the field, but in the realm of Realignment, if I'm the big 12 they're my first pick.

It's one of my cardinal rules of conference realignment: Think like a university president and *not* like a fan.

As long as Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon are still in the Pac-12, the administrations of all of the Pac-12 schools besides *maybe* Arizona are going to favor the Pac-12 if the revenue is relatively equal. Colorado and Utah see themselves as being with their institutional peers: AAU/AAU-level prestigious academic research institutions located in the West.

Even if we assume that the Big 12 is going to get paid more per school than the Pac-12, getting 10-20% more revenue in the Big 12 isn't going to change that analysis. Academia, more than any other part of society, is all about the company that you keep and schools like Colorado and Utah absolutely want to be seen with the Stanford/Cal-types of the world.

Now, of course if the Big Ten comes in and invites more Pac-12 schools, then all bets are off. At that point, it's a matter of survival as opposed to worrying about higher-level institutional desires. Barring that situation, though, I just think fans vastly overrate how much schools would move leagues based on a relatively small bump in revenue, especially if they believe that they're otherwise with their institutional peers.

At the same time, there are not-so-subtle ego issues here where Colorado isn't going to want to return to a Big 12 that it had just left last decade or Utah subjecting itself to have to join BYU's league after the Utes having spent the last decade seeing themselves as being in the superior position unless it's an absolute no-other-choice survival situation. Remember that the entire Pac-12 rejected ALL of the Big 12 schools as expansion candidates last year. It takes a massive amount of setting aside ego to then come around and ask to join that same Big 12. I just don't see that happening unless the Big Ten makes another move on the Pac-12. Any movement from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 would be fallout reaction to another Big Ten move as opposed to any proactive movement prior to another Big Ten move.

I also think a lot of people here are misinterpreting the leverage positions of all of the parties. Ultimately, it's the Four Corners schools with the leverage as opposed to the Big 12. No one should pretend otherwise - as long as Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12, it's each of the Four Corners schools that have the leverage to "pick" the Big 12 as opposed to the other way around.

Everyone gets the academic angle and I agree your statements make some sense with that in mind.

BUT are presidents risk takers? Supposedly all the PAC presidents were shocked when USC & UCLA left and had no idea. I can tell you they have an idea UW & Or want in to the B1G bad and if not now will do everything they can in another 6 yrs, and Stanford probably as well.
What stability does the PAC have with that in mind for the 4 corner schools?

Is it guaranteed the B12 will always need all 4 corner schools? Utah is solid football content but BYU covers the market and its a duplicate addition. What if Utah football performance falls off? Would the SDSU market and recruiting be more valuable to the B12? What if Colorado continues to be a doormat for another 6 yrs, does that devalue them? Does the B12 always need ASU & AZ both?

Probably Colorado and both AZ & ASU are always safe but I'm not sure about Utah.

Or lets say the B1G never invites OR/UW/Stanford which I doubt but if they don't I bet they eventually get some ACC schools as well as the SEC. What if the B12 adds Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and Va. Tech or NC St and then says were done. Or now we only need 1 Arizona school and Colorado or only 2 Arizona schools.

Also, why do you want to put off a move you probably have to make in 6 yrs instead of taking more money now?

I'm not sure college presidents love instability.

Because the Big 12's "stability" pitch is still ultimately, "Absolutely no one else wants any of our schools." Everyone knows it, not the least of whom the Pac-12 schools themselves since they passed over all of those Big 12 schools for expansion a year ago.

That's not the same as how the Big Ten or SEC (or even the Big East in a basketball context) are stable.

It's simply not a compelling selling point to university presidents. Frankly, it's little different than when the AAC and MWC have sniped at each other over the years where one attacks the other on the basis of being "unstable" because the "unstable" league actually has some programs of value to the power leagues.

Once again, if it's a matter of survival where the Pac-12 completely implodes, then there's no doubt that the Four Corners schools would seek refuge in the Big 12. My only contention continues to be that it's simply not going to happen before that time. The threat to the Pac-12 is *solely* the Big Ten. The Big 12 might be able to take advantage of any fallout from Big Ten moves, but they are NOT a "proactive" (which is such an overused word in conference realignment) player in this at all no matter how much their commissioner likes throwing red meat to the fans in his interviews.

The big12 pitch isn’t stability because no one else wants us. The pitch is we will make more money than you. All projections have the b12 making more money than the p10. But let us assume projections are wrong and will be the same as the p10. Think about that, the programs no one want is as valuable as the elites of the west coast! And if the money were the same, some p10 would still consider jumping to the b12 because the p10 is unstable. Unstable not because p4 are desired but because the p4 want to jump. The instability of the p10 is the push much more than the stability of the b12 is a pull. To suggests the b12 pitch is stability is misleading.
What will likely drive the c4 to the b12 will be money: likely more than if they remain in the p10 and certainly more money than the p6. Not all c4 will be invited.

(10-01-2022 10:28 AM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  Personally I think it's a no brainer that the 4 corners eventually end up in the Big12 Especially once the ACC GOR expires, after the dust settles there I think you will have some shuffling between the Big12 and ACC as teams will move but both Conferences will survive:

ACC:
-Loses UNC, UVA, VT, NC-State, FSU and Clemson between the BIG10 and SEC.
-Adds WVU, Cincy and UCF from the Big12 along with USF, Memphis, Tulane, ECU and UCONN
-Conference would/could look like:

BC
Duke
GT
Louisville
Miami
Syracuse
Wake Forest
Pitt
WVU
Cincy
UCF
USF
Memphis
Tulane
UCONN
ECU

BIG12: Assuming the 4 Corners have joined already at this point they could easily backfill with Oregon State and Wazzu along with SDSU
-Would/Could have a Conference looking like:

Oregon State
Wazzu
SDSU
Utah
BYU
ASU
Arizona
Colorado
Kansas
KSU
OK State
Iowa State
TTU
TCU
Baylor
Houston

You nailed it … it’s spot on…

(10-04-2022 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 02:16 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 12:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

In other words, impact on ratings, and impact on carriage / subscription revenue.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah. The ratings charts I have seen of PAC schools suggest that Colorado's ratings really suck quite badly.

There seems to be a disconnect between the leadership at CU and the fanbase. They have a long history with other big 8/12 schools. They can drive to a lot of those games, they have many rivalries created over decades, etc. The fans want the big 12, and I'd wager that they would strongly support such a move with better attendance and higher viewer numbers. It would also likely help their recruiting quite a bit. Oh, and Colorado brings a state that's almost as big as AZ all by themselves.

I have a lot of Hate for Colorado on the field, but in the realm of Realignment, if I'm the big 12 they're my first pick.

It's one of my cardinal rules of conference realignment: Think like a university president and *not* like a fan.

As long as Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon are still in the Pac-12, the administrations of all of the Pac-12 schools besides *maybe* Arizona are going to favor the Pac-12 if the revenue is relatively equal. Colorado and Utah see themselves as being with their institutional peers: AAU/AAU-level prestigious academic research institutions located in the West.

Even if we assume that the Big 12 is going to get paid more per school than the Pac-12, getting 10-20% more revenue in the Big 12 isn't going to change that analysis. Academia, more than any other part of society, is all about the company that you keep and schools like Colorado and Utah absolutely want to be seen with the Stanford/Cal-types of the world.

Now, of course if the Big Ten comes in and invites more Pac-12 schools, then all bets are off. At that point, it's a matter of survival as opposed to worrying about higher-level institutional desires. Barring that situation, though, I just think fans vastly overrate how much schools would move leagues based on a relatively small bump in revenue, especially if they believe that they're otherwise with their institutional peers.

At the same time, there are not-so-subtle ego issues here where Colorado isn't going to want to return to a Big 12 that it had just left last decade or Utah subjecting itself to have to join BYU's league after the Utes having spent the last decade seeing themselves as being in the superior position unless it's an absolute no-other-choice survival situation. Remember that the entire Pac-12 rejected ALL of the Big 12 schools as expansion candidates last year. It takes a massive amount of setting aside ego to then come around and ask to join that same Big 12. I just don't see that happening unless the Big Ten makes another move on the Pac-12. Any movement from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 would be fallout reaction to another Big Ten move as opposed to any proactive movement prior to another Big Ten move.

I also think a lot of people here are misinterpreting the leverage positions of all of the parties. Ultimately, it's the Four Corners schools with the leverage as opposed to the Big 12. No one should pretend otherwise - as long as Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12, it's each of the Four Corners schools that have the leverage to "pick" the Big 12 as opposed to the other way around.

Everyone gets the academic angle and I agree your statements make some sense with that in mind.

BUT are presidents risk takers? Supposedly all the PAC presidents were shocked when USC & UCLA left and had no idea. I can tell you they have an idea UW & Or want in to the B1G bad and if not now will do everything they can in another 6 yrs, and Stanford probably as well.
What stability does the PAC have with that in mind for the 4 corner schools?

Is it guaranteed the B12 will always need all 4 corner schools? Utah is solid football content but BYU covers the market and its a duplicate addition. What if Utah football performance falls off? Would the SDSU market and recruiting be more valuable to the B12? What if Colorado continues to be a doormat for another 6 yrs, does that devalue them? Does the B12 always need ASU & AZ both?

Probably Colorado and both AZ & ASU are always safe but I'm not sure about Utah.

Or lets say the B1G never invites OR/UW/Stanford which I doubt but if they don't I bet they eventually get some ACC schools as well as the SEC. What if the B12 adds Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and Va. Tech or NC St and then says were done. Or now we only need 1 Arizona school and Colorado or only 2 Arizona schools.

Also, why do you want to put off a move you probably have to make in 6 yrs instead of taking more money now?

I'm not sure college presidents love instability.

Because the Big 12's "stability" pitch is still ultimately, "Absolutely no one else wants any of our schools." Everyone knows it, not the least of whom the Pac-12 schools themselves since they passed over all of those Big 12 schools for expansion a year ago.

That's not the same as how the Big Ten or SEC (or even the Big East in a basketball context) are stable.

It's simply not a compelling selling point to university presidents. Frankly, it's little different than when the AAC and MWC have sniped at each other over the years where one attacks the other on the basis of being "unstable" because the "unstable" league actually has some programs of value to the power leagues.

Once again, if it's a matter of survival where the Pac-12 completely implodes, then there's no doubt that the Four Corners schools would seek refuge in the Big 12. My only contention continues to be that it's simply not going to happen before that time. The threat to the Pac-12 is *solely* the Big Ten. The Big 12 might be able to take advantage of any fallout from Big Ten moves, but they are NOT a "proactive" (which is such an overused word in conference realignment) player in this at all no matter how much their commissioner likes throwing red meat to the fans in his interviews.

I think your history of Big Ten/PAC 12 clouds your judgment. You can down grade the B12 due to the unlikely chance many schools are moving from that league but the fact is they are probably making more money than the PAC going forward.
You also haven't fully taken into account the loss of the LA Market on the PAC and what it will do to ratings going forward which would determine a 2nd future tv contract also. If you want to say the PAC 12 is better because they make less money and 2-4 brands probably eventually make it to the B1G so be it.

But its a HUGE leap to say Az/ASU/Co/Utah are better off making less money in a less stable conference. But I will give you credit for trying.

One last thing, if the PAC is the better league and has more stability, why has the PAC's number one beat writer and cheerleader openly promoted a merger?

I think the future of Oregon St and Washington St is largely dependent on how big the Big 10 and SEC choose to go on the next expansion:

18–At this size things could go either way. Presumably the 8 member PAC could survive by adding from the MWC, thus keeping them in an “M” league. Being reduced to 8 could also send the 4 Corners to the Big 12, leaving the PNW land grants outside of the establishment.

20–This is not where Oregon St and Washington St want to see things heading. The PAC 10 loses 4 and the ACC loses 4, putting those leagues at 6 and 11 respectively. 11 is more than enough for the ACC to regroup with while 6 is not enough for the PAC. The 4 Corners go the the Big 12; Ore St and Wash St get left out.

24–This gives them a shot at staying in a “Conference 3” built around the Big 12, who absorbs the PAC and ACC remnants.

(10-04-2022 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 02:16 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 12:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

In other words, impact on ratings, and impact on carriage / subscription revenue.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah. The ratings charts I have seen of PAC schools suggest that Colorado's ratings really suck quite badly.

There seems to be a disconnect between the leadership at CU and the fanbase. They have a long history with other big 8/12 schools. They can drive to a lot of those games, they have many rivalries created over decades, etc. The fans want the big 12, and I'd wager that they would strongly support such a move with better attendance and higher viewer numbers. It would also likely help their recruiting quite a bit. Oh, and Colorado brings a state that's almost as big as AZ all by themselves.

I have a lot of Hate for Colorado on the field, but in the realm of Realignment, if I'm the big 12 they're my first pick.

It's one of my cardinal rules of conference realignment: Think like a university president and *not* like a fan.

As long as Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon are still in the Pac-12, the administrations of all of the Pac-12 schools besides *maybe* Arizona are going to favor the Pac-12 if the revenue is relatively equal. Colorado and Utah see themselves as being with their institutional peers: AAU/AAU-level prestigious academic research institutions located in the West.

Even if we assume that the Big 12 is going to get paid more per school than the Pac-12, getting 10-20% more revenue in the Big 12 isn't going to change that analysis. Academia, more than any other part of society, is all about the company that you keep and schools like Colorado and Utah absolutely want to be seen with the Stanford/Cal-types of the world.

Now, of course if the Big Ten comes in and invites more Pac-12 schools, then all bets are off. At that point, it's a matter of survival as opposed to worrying about higher-level institutional desires. Barring that situation, though, I just think fans vastly overrate how much schools would move leagues based on a relatively small bump in revenue, especially if they believe that they're otherwise with their institutional peers.

At the same time, there are not-so-subtle ego issues here where Colorado isn't going to want to return to a Big 12 that it had just left last decade or Utah subjecting itself to have to join BYU's league after the Utes having spent the last decade seeing themselves as being in the superior position unless it's an absolute no-other-choice survival situation. Remember that the entire Pac-12 rejected ALL of the Big 12 schools as expansion candidates last year. It takes a massive amount of setting aside ego to then come around and ask to join that same Big 12. I just don't see that happening unless the Big Ten makes another move on the Pac-12. Any movement from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 would be fallout reaction to another Big Ten move as opposed to any proactive movement prior to another Big Ten move.

I also think a lot of people here are misinterpreting the leverage positions of all of the parties. Ultimately, it's the Four Corners schools with the leverage as opposed to the Big 12. No one should pretend otherwise - as long as Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington are in the Pac-12, it's each of the Four Corners schools that have the leverage to "pick" the Big 12 as opposed to the other way around.

Everyone gets the academic angle and I agree your statements make some sense with that in mind.

BUT are presidents risk takers? Supposedly all the PAC presidents were shocked when USC & UCLA left and had no idea. I can tell you they have an idea UW & Or want in to the B1G bad and if not now will do everything they can in another 6 yrs, and Stanford probably as well.
What stability does the PAC have with that in mind for the 4 corner schools?

Is it guaranteed the B12 will always need all 4 corner schools? Utah is solid football content but BYU covers the market and its a duplicate addition. What if Utah football performance falls off? Would the SDSU market and recruiting be more valuable to the B12? What if Colorado continues to be a doormat for another 6 yrs, does that devalue them? Does the B12 always need ASU & AZ both?

Probably Colorado and both AZ & ASU are always safe but I'm not sure about Utah.

Or lets say the B1G never invites OR/UW/Stanford which I doubt but if they don't I bet they eventually get some ACC schools as well as the SEC. What if the B12 adds Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and Va. Tech or NC St and then says were done. Or now we only need 1 Arizona school and Colorado or only 2 Arizona schools.

Also, why do you want to put off a move you probably have to make in 6 yrs instead of taking more money now?

I'm not sure college presidents love instability.

Because the Big 12's "stability" pitch is still ultimately, "Absolutely no one else wants any of our schools." Everyone knows it, not the least of whom the Pac-12 schools themselves since they passed over all of those Big 12 schools for expansion a year ago.

That's not the same as how the Big Ten or SEC (or even the Big East in a basketball context) are stable.

It's simply not a compelling selling point to university presidents. Frankly, it's little different than when the AAC and MWC have sniped at each other over the years where one attacks the other on the basis of being "unstable" because the "unstable" league actually has some programs of value to the power leagues.

Once again, if it's a matter of survival where the Pac-12 completely implodes, then there's no doubt that the Four Corners schools would seek refuge in the Big 12. My only contention continues to be that it's simply not going to happen before that time. The threat to the Pac-12 is *solely* the Big Ten. The Big 12 might be able to take advantage of any fallout from Big Ten moves, but they are NOT a "proactive" (which is such an overused word in conference realignment) player in this at all no matter how much their commissioner likes throwing red meat to the fans in his interviews.

You’re getting too worked up about the “why” of the nbig12’s stability. It doesn’t matter why they’re more stable than the pac, or that they’re a more lucrative conference with which to be affiliated, it just matters that they are. It also matters that the long term growth of football is in the big 12 and sec footprint and not in the pac 12 footprint.

FWIW, I think that the B1G is done looking at the Pac until 2030, and likely until after they see what they can get from the ACC. if I’m Washington and Oregon I’m calling Yormark and Phillips and seeing which offers the best deal…my gut says they’d be best off in the big 12 with most but not all of their current pac(k), and a GoR that expires in 2030. If the B1G still isn’t interested they can sign another contract and GoR until 2036.

The only sticking point I can see will be the big 12 exit fees, though it seems certain that in light of recent events the Pac will also have exit fees as part of their next contract.

Assuming UO and UW jump to the big 12, that provides political cover for any and all other pac schools to do so as well. But what will the big 12 do? They don’t want 10 more schools…probably more like 4-6. Which 4-6? My preference if I was Yormark would be:

1. UW
2. UO
3. Stanford
4. ASU


Anyone not on that list is at least potentially getting left behind. The best way to avoid that fate is to preemptively make a move to the big 12, preferably with a group of 2-4.

The 4C get so much talk in big12 circles right now bc they’re potential targets even if the B1G doesn’t come knocking, but they should be worried about what happens if some or all of the PN4 are also interested. The big 12 could grab the 2-4 top choices from the pac today then grab a few more if some of those end up joining the B1G down the road.

One other thing to keep in mind: if the big12 is really worth 10-15% more than the Pac, as Bob Thompson seems to think, then how much more than THAT would it be worth with the 4 top schools from the Pac? A reasonable guess is a $4-5m difference if things stay as is, and double that with the top 4-6 Pac schools.

(10-04-2022 04:14 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Ideally, you would want to only have 1 school per state with the exceptions of Fla, Tex and Cali but in reality having brands as strong as the 4-corner schools fall into your lap is the best thing that could happen to the Big 12. You're not going to be shut out from adding additional brands (say from the ACC if it falls apart), because with other conferences going to 20 or 24, it would be no problem for the Big 12 to expand that big. The only question I have is, if the B1G takes Ore, Wash, Stan, and Cal does the B12 take Oregon State and Washington State with the 4-corner schools? Because they add value too.

I agree about the one per state comment but you can make the case that ASU is cross-state entity that makes it the third or fourth school in the So Cal area and the second or third school in Las Vegas. When the Pac 8 added ASU and Arizona, they really were adding ASU at the behest of USC. Because of its location UA has a cross-state effect over into El Paso and Southern NM.

If you look at the DMA maps of the area Phoenix (11), Denver (18), SLC (30), and Tuscon (64) are their core DMA's but El Paso/Las Cruces (93), Las Vegas (40), and Albuquerque/Santa Fe (48) broadcast into one or more of those states. Then there is the issue of SW Arizona and the proximity to LA (2) and San Diego (27). It is the U of Arizona pulling on El Paso and Alb/SF. It is ASU and Utah pulling on Las Vegas.

Unless you take just Colorado, I think you have to take all four. I also think you have to give Colorado more friends in the region if for no other reason than Sandia Labs and Los Alamos do not have a discrete national university that rolls up everything between Denver and Tuscon.

Chris, I feel that the happenstance of where certain DMA are centered make some schools more natural multi-state entities for sports television.

Charlotte, the Tri-Cities, DC, Pittsburgh, and the Pensacola DMA create this effect for those state schools with a deep presence in the core of the DMA as well as out to the hinterlands.

Charlotte - UNC, Clemson, NC State, South Carolina
Tri-Cities - Tennessee, Va Tech
DC - MD, VT, UVa, PSU, WVa, Pitt
Pitt - Pitt, WVa, PSU, Ohio State
Pensacola - Mobile - FSU, Bama, Auburn, Florida

Into this mix you can sprinkle the private schools that have a tie to the region or a particular popularity and for the above it would be Duke, ND, Vandy, WF,

With around 10 games a weekend need to fill ABC, ESPN, Fox, and NBC - the DMA can be dominated by one school for only about 4 of about 32-35 hours a weekend.

There are just a handful of schools that can dominate anytime, anywhere, across the nation - Bama, Ohio State, and ND are really just about it in my mind. Then there is a second tier but it fluctuates with Texas, Clemson, Michigan, USC, OU, LSU, and PSU rotating in and out of this next to the top tier.

(10-04-2022 06:47 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  Chris, I feel that the happenstance of where certain DMA are centered make some schools more natural multi-state entities for sports television.

Charlotte, the Tri-Cities, DC, Pittsburgh, and the Pensacola DMA create this effect for those state schools with a deep presence in the core of the DMA as well as out to the hinterlands.

Charlotte - UNC, Clemson, NC State, South Carolina
Tri-Cities - Tennessee, Va Tech
DC - MD, VT, UVa, PSU, WVa, Pitt
Pitt - Pitt, WVa, PSU, Ohio State
Pensacola - Mobile - FSU, Bama, Auburn, Florida

Into this mix you can sprinkle the private schools that have a tie to the region or a particular popularity and for the above it would be Duke, ND, Vandy, WF,

With around 10 games a weekend need to fill ABC, ESPN, Fox, and NBC - the DMA can be dominated by one school for only about 4 of about 32-35 hours a weekend.

There are just a handful of schools that can dominate anytime, anywhere, across the nation - Bama, Ohio State, and ND are really just about it in my mind. Then there is a second tier but it fluctuates with Texas, Clemson, Michigan, USC, OU, LSU, and PSU rotating in and out of this next to the top tier.

Really tOSU is the only 1 with the capacity to dominate anywhere, anytime. For comparison, look at ND's ratings for the 4-5 home games per year in which they face weaker schools. They get trounced by the B1G and SEC games of the week, and even the recent BYU-Baylor game (2.4m) would beat many ND games. And that's with ND being very strong for the past decade, it will be interesting to see how far their ratings fall during the rest of 2022 if they don't improve significantly.

(10-04-2022 04:53 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  ... the fact is they are probably making more money than the PAC going forward. ...

Though as Bob Thompson points out, a large part of that is the underperformance of the P12N. If the PAC-10 can work out a deal that properly monetizes the inventory that is presently on the P12N, that closes most of the gap, if not all of it.

(10-04-2022 02:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 02:16 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Everyone gets the academic angle and I agree your statements make some sense with that in mind.

BUT are presidents risk takers? Supposedly all the PAC presidents were shocked when USC & UCLA left and had no idea. I can tell you they have an idea UW & Or want in to the B1G bad and if not now will do everything they can in another 6 yrs, and Stanford probably as well.
What stability does the PAC have with that in mind for the 4 corner schools?

Is it guaranteed the B12 will always need all 4 corner schools? Utah is solid football content but BYU covers the market and its a duplicate addition. What if Utah football performance falls off? Would the SDSU market and recruiting be more valuable to the B12? What if Colorado continues to be a doormat for another 6 yrs, does that devalue them? Does the B12 always need ASU & AZ both?

Probably Colorado and both AZ & ASU are always safe but I'm not sure about Utah.

I would narrow that down to probably ASU always has a safe landing spot in the Big12 or whatever its successor is, and the others are more up in the air.

Going back to Bob Thompson's points scale for where the various schools stand on the various drivers of media value:

1. 36, Washington
2. 34, Oregon
3. 30, Stanford
4. 25, Arizona State
5. 22, Utah
6. 20, Cal
7. 19, Arizona
8. 16, WSU
9. 15, Colorado
10. 10, Oregon State
    

The average Arizona State / Utah add is 22.5 points, the average P4C add is 20.25, a 10% drop in media value.

Now, the ASU/Utah add might be a slam dunk and the P4C merely adding a smaller second win as a cherry on top ... but if the ASU/Utah add is more marginal, Arizona and Colorado might have reason to be nervous.

Now, the Big Ten top two vs PN4 is an even larger drop-off, at 35 vs 30, a 14% drop ... but if the top two from the PN4 is not a slam dunk (as the comment of the Buckeyes' AD would seem to suggest), then that 14% drop might be enough to close out discussion of a four school expansion and focus the discussion on the two high media value pairs versus no further expansion at this time.

Quote: ... Also, why do you want to put off a move you probably have to make in 6 yrs instead of taking more money now?

This could be an argument for making the ASU/Utah move now even if the Big12 Presidents / ADs are a bit less certain whether they want to expand to 16 at this point or to leave room for future opportunities that may arise.

I think Utah wants to go wherever WA/OR go.

That aside, those numbers look to reinforce a previous thought I had - that Stanford and AZ state, being on either side of USC/UCLA, would be good travel partner targets.

I think. just merely based on those numbers, and geography/distances, that maybe we're back to AZ state and Stanford being the best next two choices for the B10.

It definitely would simplify a marriage between the rest of the PAC and the B12.

I think in that instance that Cal would likely go find a different home, though.

(09-30-2022 04:30 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:45 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:23 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  The Big XII doesn’t have a conference network. Ergo, location isn’t as important to the Big XII as it is to the Big Ten, because the Big Ten gets subscriber revenue in their “home footprint.” The absolute top priority for the Big XII is viewers, and Utah gets way more viewers than Colorado.

No, but the Big XII is drawing up a new TV deal. Are they going to get more from ESPN/FOX for a second Utah school or a school in San Diego?

It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah.

I suspect that Utah’s former MWC membership harms them in conference realignment, especially among university presidents who all seem to be something like 75 years old. TBH, it wasn’t until about 2016 or 2017 that I stopped thinking of Utah as an MWC school-and I was born in 1992. I can barely imagine how it must be for somebody who was already over 60 years old when Utah got invited to the PAC.


They aren’t even a team that made it back up to the power leagues like TCU.

I know several of these old fart Presidents think the same way about Arizona and ASU being WAC schools still. Utah wasn’t even a power in the WAC in football. They finally hit their stride in the MWC though.

(10-04-2022 08:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 04:53 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  ... the fact is they are probably making more money than the PAC going forward. ...

Though as Bob Thompson points out, a large part of that is the underperformance of the P12N. If the PAC-10 can work out a deal that properly monetizes the inventory that is presently on the P12N, that closes most of the gap, if not all of it.

The PAC 12 network has been around since 2013. If they haven't figured out how to monetize the network yet (even with USCw still in the conference), I doubt they'll ever figure it out.

(10-04-2022 09:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:30 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:45 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:23 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  The Big XII doesn’t have a conference network. Ergo, location isn’t as important to the Big XII as it is to the Big Ten, because the Big Ten gets subscriber revenue in their “home footprint.” The absolute top priority for the Big XII is viewers, and Utah gets way more viewers than Colorado.

No, but the Big XII is drawing up a new TV deal. Are they going to get more from ESPN/FOX for a second Utah school or a school in San Diego?

It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah.

I suspect that Utah’s former MWC membership harms them in conference realignment, especially among university presidents who all seem to be something like 75 years old. TBH, it wasn’t until about 2016 or 2017 that I stopped thinking of Utah as an MWC school-and I was born in 1992. I can barely imagine how it must be for somebody who was already over 60 years old when Utah got invited to the PAC.


They aren’t even a team that made it back up to the power leagues like TCU.

I know several of these old fart Presidents think the same way about Arizona and ASU being WAC schools still. Utah wasn’t even a power in the WAC in football. They finally hit their stride in the MWC though.

Arizona State and Arizona joined the PAC in 1978, and Arizona was a big WAC power for a long time.

Aside from being a former WAC/MWC team, Utah wasn't even that good of a Western mid-major until 2004. They really just got into the PAC because of the 2004 and 2008 seasons. If BYU had been invited to the PAC in 2010 (which they weren't for religious reasons), I think they'd suffer less from the problem of some people viewing them as MWC-like than Utah does. BYU had a much longer pedigree going back to the 1980s.

(10-04-2022 11:02 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-01-2022 12:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 04:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:45 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(09-30-2022 09:23 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  The Big XII doesn’t have a conference network. Ergo, location isn’t as important to the Big XII as it is to the Big Ten, because the Big Ten gets subscriber revenue in their “home footprint.” The absolute top priority for the Big XII is viewers, and Utah gets way more viewers than Colorado.

No, but the Big XII is drawing up a new TV deal. Are they going to get more from ESPN/FOX for a second Utah school or a school in San Diego?

It depends on (1) how many people around the country are going to watch the team in Utah and the team in San Diego (2) how many people are going to make cable premium sports package and streaming sports subscription choices based on that school being in the conference.

In other words, impact on ratings, and impact on carriage / subscription revenue.

That could well make Colorado the weakest link here, rather than Arizona or Utah. The ratings charts I have seen of PAC schools suggest that Colorado's ratings really suck quite badly.

There seems to be a disconnect between the leadership at CU and the fanbase. They have a long history with other big 8/12 schools. They can drive to a lot of those games, they have many rivalries created over decades, etc. The fans want the big 12, and I'd wager that they would strongly support such a move with better attendance and higher viewer numbers. It would also likely help their recruiting quite a bit. Oh, and Colorado brings a state that's almost as big as AZ all by themselves.

I have a lot of Hate for Colorado on the field, but in the realm of Realignment, if I'm the big 12 they're my first pick.

I completely agree with you. Also, it's important to note that when Colorado moved to the PAC-12, they were expecting at least another Big XII school to follow suit. Unfortunately that didn't happen so they've been kinda stuck there. Yes, the state gets a lot of west coast transplants so it's not like the move didn't make sense at the time. (Then again, it's evident to me with the benefit of hindsight that they were also trying to get away from Texas. Now that Texas will be going to the SEC, you'd think it'd be a no brainer for Colorado to move back to the Big XII, but their BOR is hesitant while the fans are clamoring for them to do it. Only time will tell, but I think the Big XII would be the better option for them going forward.)

Colorado was considering moving to the PAC with Texas in 1990ish. But things seemed to settle down over the next 20 years. I suspect the main reason they joined the PAC-10 was because they thought it would become a PAC-16.

Really, half the reason for the Big 12 defections in 2010 was because everybody was afraid that somebody else would leave.

But that's separate from the question of whether Colorado wants to return in 2022.