(06-04-2021 08:59 PM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the Pac-12 invited Colorado first to lock Baylor out as Texas Tech wanted Baylor in instead of Colorado. But it was 10 years ago.
Having lived through the situation, it was much more complicated than that with lots of moving pieces. I don't want to hijack this thread but would be willing to recount the movements (and non-movements) but only if Fighting Muskie OKs it since this is his thread.
(06-04-2021 09:16 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 08:59 PM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the Pac-12 invited Colorado first to lock Baylor out as Texas Tech wanted Baylor in instead of Colorado. But it was 10 years ago.
Having lived through the situation, it was much more complicated than that with lots of moving pieces. I don't want to hijack this thread but would be willing to recount the movements (and non-movements) but only if Fighting Muskie OKs it since this is his thread.
I give special dispensation for nostalgic reminiscing of the 2010 realignment.
(06-04-2021 10:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 09:16 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 08:59 PM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the Pac-12 invited Colorado first to lock Baylor out as Texas Tech wanted Baylor in instead of Colorado. But it was 10 years ago.
Having lived through the situation, it was much more complicated than that with lots of moving pieces. I don't want to hijack this thread but would be willing to recount the movements (and non-movements) but only if Fighting Muskie OKs it since this is his thread.
I give special dispensation for nostalgic reminiscing of the 2010 realignment.
Having been graciously given dispensation, I reminisce as follows:
Larry Scott, PAC Commissioner, came up with a plan to add 6 schools to the PAC and become a major force in the Central Time Zone by adding a group of "power" programs to the PAC. This was partially in response to the Big 10 announcing it was considering expansion. His plan was to add 6 schools (CU, UT, TA&M, TT, OU and OSU). Colorado was contacted first and immediately accepted (they had never been really happy in the Big 8, let alone the Big 12, and had actually been somewhat PAC oriented for some years since almost 15% of their student body was from California, more than from any state other than Colorado).
During discussions with the remaining schools, it became clear that TA&M was NOT going to the PAC and had decided to go to the SEC. The PAC did NOT want Baylor (the PAC was not "thrilled" with TT & OSU but felt that was the price it had to pay to get UT & OU) and approached KU to fill in for TA&M. Scott went even so far as filing a flight plan from Austin to Lawrence. So, it was going to be CU (already accepted) and UT, TT, OU, OSU and KU.
However, in further talks with UT, UT began wavering, mainly due to the LHN. (UT wanted to retain it separately from the PAC). Talks broke down with UT and that brought the plan to a halt. Without UT (and TA&M), the PAC had little interest in adding the other schools (and that feeling seemed to be mutual with the prospective schools, though a year or so later David Boren then head of OU proposed that OU & OSU move to the PAC alone, which the PAC rejected). Now sitting at 11 members UU grabbed the golden ring as the only viable school anywhere between California and Colorado so the PAC 12 could hold a championship game as NCAA rules at the time required 12 conference members to do so. (The rules still do but the Big 12 and AAC have both received waivers.)
Hence, we are where we are today!
(06-04-2021 11:58 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ]However, in further talks with UT, UT began wavering, mainly due to the LHN. (UT wanted to retain it separately from the PAC). Talks broke down with UT and that brought the plan to a halt. Without UT (and TA&M), the PAC had little interest in adding the other schools (and that feeling seemed to be mutual with the prospective schools, though a year or so later David Boren then head of OU proposed that OU & OSU move to the PAC alone, which the PAC rejected).
Hence, we are where we are today!
This could give insight on the next realignment. Oklahoma could certainly consider moving to a new conference without Texas although back then the proposed move was with Oklahoma State as a tag along. David Boren is no longer president of OU and Oklahoma is more valuable in college football than the 2010's. If the Pac 12 presidents are as academic snobbish today as they were back then (the commissioner won't matter if the presidents still have to sign off on it), Oklahoma-Oklahoma State without Texas won't fly with the Pac-12 this decade either. I'm pretty sure it won't in the Big 10 either. The SEC might accept Oklahoma-Oklahoma State although all three conferences would obviously be smart to counter offer OU-UT first.
(06-04-2021 11:58 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ]... Now sitting at 11 members UU grabbed the golden ring as the only viable school anywhere between California and Colorado so the PAC 12 could hold a championship game as NCAA rules at the time required 12 conference members to do so. (The rules still do but the Big 12 and AAC have both received waivers.) ...
This parenthetical bit can be checked by looking at the rules, and the rules do NOT require 12 conference members to hold a championship game any more. That part of the rule was changed since the time the Pac-10 became the Pac-12.
What the AAC applied for a waiver for was to hold a CCG without either having full divisional round robins or a full conference round robin. Otherwise with 11 members either two schools would be one conference game short, or two schools each play an extra conference game.
That waiver is still ticking down to it's deadline. If the AAC is clever, they will apply for the Covid-affected year to not count, "since under the conditions it was not possible to advance talks with prospective conference members." IIUC, that would take their waiver out to 2023, by which time it will be clearer whether there's going to be a scramble leading into 2024.
(06-05-2021 06:53 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 11:58 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ]... Now sitting at 11 members UU grabbed the golden ring as the only viable school anywhere between California and Colorado so the PAC 12 could hold a championship game as NCAA rules at the time required 12 conference members to do so. (The rules still do but the Big 12 and AAC have both received waivers.) ...
This parenthetical bit can be checked by looking at the rules, and the rules do NOT require 12 conference members to hold a championship game any more. That part of the rule was changed since the time the Pac-10 became the Pac-12.
What the AAC applied for a waiver for was to hold a CCG without either having full divisional round robins or a full conference round robin. Otherwise with 11 members either two schools would be one conference game short, or two schools each play an extra conference game.
That waiver is still ticking down to it's deadline. If the AAC is clever, they will apply for the Covid-affected year to not count, "since under the conditions it was not possible to advance talks with prospective conference members." IIUC, that would take their waiver out to 2023, by which time it will be clearer whether there's going to be a scramble leading into 2024.
That extension seems reasonable enough. 2020 was not the time for making big realignment decisions. While there were realignment moves that occurred in that time frame, they were all among programs and conferences with much fewer dollars at stake.
AAC increases by at least 1 school in 2024 if the conference has not done so by then already. The AAC move affects the remaining G4 conferences if they need to replace schools unless the AAC finally lands BYU or another independent (Army). The P5 schools sit tight if Texas and Oklahoma remain in the B-12. If they move to new conferences then all hell breaks loose again in the next realignment period, especially with the B-12 clipping the best of the rest out of the AAC and MWC plus BYU to get back to 10 or 12 teams to keep the Championship Game on the books.
(06-04-2021 11:58 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 10:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 09:16 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 08:59 PM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the Pac-12 invited Colorado first to lock Baylor out as Texas Tech wanted Baylor in instead of Colorado. But it was 10 years ago.
Having lived through the situation, it was much more complicated than that with lots of moving pieces. I don't want to hijack this thread but would be willing to recount the movements (and non-movements) but only if Fighting Muskie OKs it since this is his thread.
I give special dispensation for nostalgic reminiscing of the 2010 realignment.
Having been graciously given dispensation, I reminisce as follows:
Larry Scott, PAC Commissioner, came up with a plan to add 6 schools to the PAC and become a major force in the Central Time Zone by adding a group of "power" programs to the PAC. This was partially in response to the Big 10 announcing it was considering expansion. His plan was to add 6 schools (CU, UT, TA&M, TT, OU and OSU). Colorado was contacted first and immediately accepted (they had never been really happy in the Big 8, let alone the Big 12, and had actually been somewhat PAC oriented for some years since almost 15% of their student body was from California, more than from any state other than Colorado).
During discussions with the remaining schools, it became clear that TA&M was NOT going to the PAC and had decided to go to the SEC. The PAC did NOT want Baylor (the PAC was not "thrilled" with TT & OSU but felt that was the price it had to pay to get UT & OU) and approached KU to fill in for TA&M. Scott went even so far as filing a flight plan from Austin to Lawrence. So, it was going to be CU (already accepted) and UT, TT, OU, OSU and KU.
However, in further talks with UT, UT began wavering, mainly due to the LHN. (UT wanted to retain it separately from the PAC). Talks broke down with UT and that brought the plan to a halt. Without UT (and TA&M), the PAC had little interest in adding the other schools (and that feeling seemed to be mutual with the prospective schools, though a year or so later David Boren then head of OU proposed that OU & OSU move to the PAC alone, which the PAC rejected). Now sitting at 11 members UU grabbed the golden ring as the only viable school anywhere between California and Colorado so the PAC 12 could hold a championship game as NCAA rules at the time required 12 conference members to do so. (The rules still do but the Big 12 and AAC have both received waivers.)
Hence, we are where we are today!
Nicely presented, ICThawk. You explained it clearly so that even a bonehead like myself could understand. Well done.
We all should have a better feel once the FOX/ou deal is extended/expired.
More likely than not, I think we will see some changes involving OU and the Big 12.
OU definetely wanted out. Did things get better now? Big 12’s revenue number is solid but the gap between them vs SEC and BIG seems growing. Big 12 approached the ESPN and the FOX for a media deal extension talk but the ESPN and the FOX declined to engage in such discussion. I know the future is uncertain with NIL, playoff, etc. but when was the last time that a major conference approached a media company for a deal and the media company said no?
The question is whether OU can leave OK state in the Big 12. BIG will never take OU and OK stste only in my view. Pac-12 became more desperate and may take OU and OK state this time. Or the ESPN has to arrange something so that the SEC and the ACC can take two Texas schools and two OK schools.
I voted no, but that is conditional on there being no new legislation regarding compensation above and beyond NIL. If there is, and it allows more than a modest stipend increase, then there may be some movement within the P5 conferences. Otherwise, I think most everybody is where they want to be, or at least are able to be. That is, somebody like West Virginia might want to be in either the ACC or SEC, but they aren't able to be without an invitation that isn't coming.
(06-04-2021 12:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 12:07 PM)46566 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the PAC 12 goes to 14 and the Big 12 goes back to 12 at least or to 14. I think P5 conferences are going to need 14 teams.i think quantity of games are a easy way to expand the payouts. I think the Big 12 gets Houston, Memphis and Cincinnati. I'm only unsure of the #4 add but I would prefer a school that fits in the Big 12 north. For the PAC 12 it really depends on who is #11. If you get Colorado state for the South then maybe Boise State for the North. Though does a Idaho school bring more tv viewers. Would Hawaii with a late start time (maybe extra ESPN or fox game) and week Zero access outweigh the strength of Boise State football. Honestly the PAC 12 has to make the most out of bad choices.
I don’t see any conferences growing with non-P5 schools. Replacing lost members, yes, but no one is going to invite anyone from outside of the “club” to come in and share a piece of their pie.
I think it's the only option for the Big 12 and PAC 12. The only P5 options for the Big 12 is Colorado and maybe a slim chance at the Arizona schools. The PAC 12 has less options and at least Colorado state brings in a rivalry game and they have history with Utah. It moves a non conference game in conference which frees up a slot for another game. I'm not saying it's a smart or good move but the one I see that most likely to happen if they expand.
(06-05-2021 10:50 AM)46566 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 12:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 12:07 PM)46566 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the PAC 12 goes to 14 and the Big 12 goes back to 12 at least or to 14. I think P5 conferences are going to need 14 teams.i think quantity of games are a easy way to expand the payouts. I think the Big 12 gets Houston, Memphis and Cincinnati. I'm only unsure of the #4 add but I would prefer a school that fits in the Big 12 north. For the PAC 12 it really depends on who is #11. If you get Colorado state for the South then maybe Boise State for the North. Though does a Idaho school bring more tv viewers. Would Hawaii with a late start time (maybe extra ESPN or fox game) and week Zero access outweigh the strength of Boise State football. Honestly the PAC 12 has to make the most out of bad choices.
I don’t see any conferences growing with non-P5 schools. Replacing lost members, yes, but no one is going to invite anyone from outside of the “club” to come in and share a piece of their pie.
I think it's the only option for the Big 12 and PAC 12. The only P5 options for the Big 12 is Colorado and maybe a slim chance at the Arizona schools. The PAC 12 has less options and at least Colorado state brings in a rivalry game and they have history with Utah. It moves a non conference game in conference which frees up a slot for another game. I'm not saying it's a smart or good move but the one I see that most likely to happen if they expand.
Both up to this point have been lukewarm to add non-land grant schools.
One exception is the privates. TCU got in to the XII for the Dallas media market. SMU to the PAC could function the same way. Of course BYU is still out there as a free agent for any prospective P5 conference.
Could the PAC look at something like UNLV and SMU? They wouldn't be blockbuster adds but the existing schools wouldn't perceive them as destabilizing to the existing conference order. UNLV has the stadium and SMU has shown deep pockets for athletics.
I know Houston has better support than SMU but Houston is more southern and less western than DFW.
Another option is the PAC going with both SMU/Rice for the academics and a way to get into Texas without being dominated by Texas.
With the SEC/B1G/ACC going from 14 to 16 would be less of a money cut then say a conference going from 10 to 12.
ACC could sign WVU/UCF in a strategy to get deeper support for bowl games. Splitting the pie 16 instead of 14 isn't much different.
XII has much more to lose going from 10 to 14 or 16 on a per school basis from where they are now.
(06-05-2021 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]We all should have a better feel once the FOX/ou deal is extended/expired.
The Fox tier 3 deal went with Sinclair/Bally Sports. The content is primarily on Bally Sports Oklahoma/Bally Sports Southwest. I'm not sure if Sinclair will want to re-up. I know Sinclair has taken a bath in acquiring the former Fox regional networks. I question their ability or desire to keep up with ESPN in bidding.
ESPN holds the cards.
(06-05-2021 09:06 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]Big 12 approached the ESPN and the FOX for a media deal extension talk but the ESPN and the FOX declined to engage in such discussion. I know the future is uncertain with NIL, playoff, etc. but when was the last time that a major conference approached a media company for a deal and the media company said no?
That's a big red flag for me, too. It looks to me like neither ESPN nor Fox wish to continue to overpay for the Big 12. If you're a school other than Oklahoma or Texas, you have reason to be concerned.
I’d guess 1 of these 3 things happen :
OU and KU to the big 10
OU and Ok state to the SEC or PAC 12 with 4-8 others if moving to the pac
Big 12 adds 2 from BYU, Col state and Cincinnati
(06-05-2021 11:37 AM)johnintx Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2021 09:06 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]Big 12 approached the ESPN and the FOX for a media deal extension talk but the ESPN and the FOX declined to engage in such discussion. I know the future is uncertain with NIL, playoff, etc. but when was the last time that a major conference approached a media company for a deal and the media company said no?
That's a big red flag for me, too. It looks to me like neither ESPN nor Fox wish to continue to overpay for the Big 12. If you're a school other than Oklahoma or Texas, you have reason to be concerned.
The XII contracts have always had a short term feel to them.
Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, TAMU were picked off to other conferences and they roped what was left over into a contract.
(06-05-2021 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]We all should have a better feel once the FOX/ou deal is extended/expired.
I wonder what curveball the new MLB contract with ESPN will throw at CFB?
(06-05-2021 06:53 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2021 11:58 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ]... Now sitting at 11 members UU grabbed the golden ring as the only viable school anywhere between California and Colorado so the PAC 12 could hold a championship game as NCAA rules at the time required 12 conference members to do so. (The rules still do but the Big 12 and AAC have both received waivers.) ...
This parenthetical bit can be checked by looking at the rules, and the rules do NOT require 12 conference members to hold a championship game any more. That part of the rule was changed since the time the Pac-10 became the Pac-12.
What the AAC applied for a waiver for was to hold a CCG without either having full divisional round robins or a full conference round robin. Otherwise with 11 members either two schools would be one conference game short, or two schools each play an extra conference game.
That waiver is still ticking down to it's deadline. If the AAC is clever, they will apply for the Covid-affected year to not count, "since under the conditions it was not possible to advance talks with prospective conference members." IIUC, that would take their waiver out to 2023, by which time it will be clearer whether there's going to be a scramble leading into 2024.
Thanks for the correction. Sometimes my memory fails me!