CSNbbs

...we either see the Big 10 stand pat at 16 and realignment dies down for a couple of years, or...

...the Big 10 adds Oregon/Stanford and Washington and away we go!

So depending upon the second option coming to fruition:

1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

2. The movement of the 4 corner schools in some fashion if internally they know what will happen.

3. Possibly Washington State and Oregon State making some kind of move if they know what will happen.

4. If the PAC goes pop, a hyperactive period involving Big 12 expansion and pressure swelling to substantial amounts within the ACC will occur.

Until then the bones of the NCAA tournament will be picked over incessantly, speculation will run wild as usual, and many here will twiddle their thumbs until there is a fresh kill on the Serengeti of realignment.

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]...we either see the Big 10 stand pat at 16 and realignment dies down for a couple of years, or...

...the Big 10 adds Oregon/Stanford and Washington and away we go!

So depending upon the second option coming to fruition:

1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

2. The movement of the 4 corner schools in some fashion if internally they know what will happen.

3. Possibly Washington State and Oregon State making some kind of move if they know what will happen.

4. If the PAC goes pop, a hyperactive period involving Big 12 expansion and pressure swelling to substantial amounts within the ACC will occur.

Until then the bones of the NCAA tournament will be picked over incessantly, speculation will run wild as usual, and many here will twiddle their thumbs until their is a fresh kill on the Serengeti of realignment.

I wonder if the Lions know that they're not just the Apex Predators of the Serengeti, but, by extension, the Ultimate Apex Predators of the Ultimate Apex Environment. I think they know. How could Simba ever leave that?

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]...we either see the Big 10 stand pat at 16 and realignment dies down for a couple of years, or...

...the Big 10 adds Oregon/Stanford and Washington and away we go!

So depending upon the second option coming to fruition:

1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

2. The movement of the 4 corner schools in some fashion if internally they know what will happen.

3. Possibly Washington State and Oregon State making some kind of move if they know what will happen.

4. If the PAC goes pop, a hyperactive period involving Big 12 expansion and pressure swelling to substantial amounts within the ACC will occur.

Until then the bones of the NCAA tournament will be picked over incessantly, speculation will run wild as usual, and many here will twiddle their thumbs until their is a fresh kill on the Serengeti of realignment.

I hope the BIG get a new commissioner by then. A new report says by the end of May.

https://sports.yahoo.com/report-big-ten-...45543.html

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]...we either see the Big 10 stand pat at 16 and realignment dies down for a couple of years, or...

...the Big 10 adds Oregon/Stanford and Washington and away we go!

So depending upon the second option coming to fruition:

1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

2. The movement of the 4 corner schools in some fashion if internally they know what will happen.

3. Possibly Washington State and Oregon State making some kind of move if they know what will happen.

4. If the PAC goes pop, a hyperactive period involving Big 12 expansion and pressure swelling to substantial amounts within the ACC will occur.

Until then the bones of the NCAA tournament will be picked over incessantly, speculation will run wild as usual, and many here will twiddle their thumbs until their is a fresh kill on the Serengeti of realignment.

Good thread starter JR

I'll take a stab for the fun of it:

1. Fox Sports boss Mark Silverman will be the new B1G commissioner (with, if he's smart, Jim Phillips coming up from Greensboro soon enough to handle the conference's day-to-day "school business" as associate commissioner and, not coincidentally, leave the ACC's pending legal quagmire for some poor fool)

2. B1G leadership (i.e. Jim Delany) is holding out for one, some or all of the Four Corners 4 to jump into Yappy's waiting arms ... thus avoiding some culpability after firing the first and near-deadly shot last June. UO and UW (and perhaps Stanford and Cal, too) will be out Kliavkoff's exit door with a quickness and last seen headed to Chicago with pen in hand.

3. WSU and OSU scramble in the wake of the FC4 departures to also find safe haven in the Big XII (a decent chance if Yormark, ESPN and FOX decide 24 is the target).

4. A five-alarm fire breaks out on Tobacco Road. The ACC as John Swofford shackled built it is gasping for air — and it's still only 2023

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]...we either see the Big 10 stand pat at 16 and realignment dies down for a couple of years, or...

...the Big 10 adds Oregon/Stanford and Washington and away we go!

So depending upon the second option coming to fruition:

1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

2. The movement of the 4 corner schools in some fashion if internally they know what will happen.

3. Possibly Washington State and Oregon State making some kind of move if they know what will happen.

4. If the PAC goes pop, a hyperactive period involving Big 12 expansion and pressure swelling to substantial amounts within the ACC will occur.

Until then the bones of the NCAA tournament will be picked over incessantly, speculation will run wild as usual, and many here will twiddle their thumbs until their is a fresh kill on the Serengeti of realignment.

1.The Big 10 Presidents are looking for a commish that will keep them at 16. Ohio State's president is set against adding anymore schools period. It was Warren who wanted to expand further, but he was getting push back from some presidents from the Big 10 schools.

I don't see any conferences going beyong 16 schools for a set of reasons. We already seen a mega-conference in the past that was the parent conference of SoCon that had almost 30 schools at one time. It got way too out of hand as all the different schools have different agendas. I just don't see a coast to coast conference works in this climate with the cost of travel and all that. It would hurt the non-revenue sports big time in the long run.

(04-06-2023 01:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]...we either see the Big 10 stand pat at 16 and realignment dies down for a couple of years, or...

...the Big 10 adds Oregon/Stanford and Washington and away we go!

So depending upon the second option coming to fruition:

1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

2. The movement of the 4 corner schools in some fashion if internally they know what will happen.

3. Possibly Washington State and Oregon State making some kind of move if they know what will happen.

4. If the PAC goes pop, a hyperactive period involving Big 12 expansion and pressure swelling to substantial amounts within the ACC will occur.

Until then the bones of the NCAA tournament will be picked over incessantly, speculation will run wild as usual, and many here will twiddle their thumbs until their is a fresh kill on the Serengeti of realignment.

1.The Big 10 Presidents are looking for a commish that will keep them at 16. Ohio State's president is set against adding anymore schools period. It was Warren who wanted to expand further, but he was getting push back from some presidents from the Big 10 schools.

I don't see any conferences going beyong 16 schools for a set of reasons. We already seen a mega-conference in the past that was the parent conference of SoCon that had almost 30 schools at one time. It got way too out of hand as all the different schools have different agendas. I just don't see a coast to coast conference works in this climate with the cost of travel and all that. It would hurt the non-revenue sports big time in the long run.

Once again you have zero sources and know nothing about the Big Ten.

Long-term, I struggle to see USCLA remaining on an island. The B1G doesn't need to add anyone right now though. If new members enter with partial shares, perhaps that is a compromise for all.

I still believe the B1G prefers certain ACC brands. 2036 is a long way away.

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

After one of Dodd's articles talked about realignment reopening once the B1G's commissioner situation was straightened out, I began to wonder if OU and UW were helping to delay the media deal. We've made it to April and suggestions are that they still are not close to a deal. Reaching April was my cutoff date so I'm completely on board with this thought now.

The #1 cheerleader for more B1G west coast expansion was the commissioner. The #1 adversary was some university presidents. One of those elements has been removed, and one of those elements is still there.

(04-06-2023 02:03 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]The #1 cheerleader for more B1G west coast expansion was the commissioner. The #1 adversary was some university presidents. One of those elements has been removed, and one of those elements is still there.

My question/thinking has been is that because they were truly opposed to expansion, or were they opposed to the commissioner and further expansion delayed because that's what he wanted?

(04-06-2023 01:59 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]Long-term, I struggle to see USCLA remaining on an island. The B1G doesn't need to add anyone right now though. If new members enter with partial shares, perhaps that is a compromise for all.

I still believe the B1G prefers certain ACC brands. 2036 is a long way away.

Just remember that in 2036 those born in 1946 will be 90 if alive.
Those born in 1956 will be 80 if alive.
Those born in 1962 (arguably the end of the Baby Boom will be 74 if alive, and all 3 groups will be in retirement and the Baby Boomers will be decimated by mortality. The oldest X'ers will be 71.

The issue is that Boomers and X'ers make up the bulk of college sports enthusiasts. No subsequent generation comes close. Subsequent generations have little disposable income and thanks to end-of-life costs and inflation will inherit much less than their parents inherited so the wealth is not being passed down. The less affluent a generation is the less interest in attending live sporting events they have, and the donations to them is essentially negligible when compared to their parents.

This is why I continue to raise the massive demographic shift coming within the next 12 years and why no institution which can make more prior to 2036 is going to wait. There is no incentive to add anyone in 2036. Group integrity will keep the SEC and Big 10 going. This is why the major brands in the PAC 12, ACC, and any left in the Big 12 will be doing what it necessary to get into one of those two groups. It isn't about sports, it's about keeping your name before the public in a period of time in which major downsizing in higher education is coming due to decline in birth rates we've been experiencing for sometime now, increased AI usage, and a lousy ROI for any non STEM degree. It is why massive building is happening on flagship campuses around the country. They are preparing to increase enrollment, funnel more state money to that school, in some states 2 schools, or 3, and redefine the role to be played by smaller state schools, which will likely specialize, and those even smaller turned into trade schools or closed.

Small privates are already going away.

I tell you this, again, to illustrate that nobody is done with realignment. What the Big 10 and SEC will do now is assemble more flagships with branding for exposure, for collective bargaining positions they will need in the future, for expanded post season revenue, and to keep associations which are important to the member institutions. The added enrollment, essentially a doubling of what many of these schools have right now, will be to utilized undergraduate tuition to fund some of the research priorities, and help remain competitive for faculty.

Call it "The Monster from the Real World meets Fan Boy." Only this one won't be science fiction. And that's if the economy doesn't do a premature nosedive, or world hostilities don't boil over into something worse. We are worried about football championships. Presidents are worried about enrollment, revenue, and exposure. The networks want to fill time slots with the schools which have the largest, and hopefully most interested fans. And all of us are the final Top 10 beauty pageant contestants telling the judges in our 30 seconds to speak that we just want "World Peace!", 'cause we do.

I don't lay any political responsibility in these remarks, it's just the sitz im leben in which all of our sports talk is happening, and it is great enough to be impacting all of it and it is a global phenomenon and not one limited to the United States.

What do most loosely organized groups due when under extreme duress? They consolidate and circle the wagons until the threat is passed.

(04-06-2023 02:01 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

After one of Dodd's articles talked about realignment reopening once the B1G's commissioner situation was straightened out, I began to wonder if OU and UW were helping to delay the media deal. We've made it to April and suggestions are that they still are not close to a deal. Reaching April was my cutoff date so I'm completely on board with this thought now.

I think this viewpoint has legs. I also don't believe the Big 10 wanted to take a second shot which looked like a coup de grace. I believe they were using the commissioner's departure as a convenient delay hoping that perhaps some other PAC schools would get antsy and jump.

So I see the delay as one of perception, and likely negotiating strength.

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]...we either see the Big 10 stand pat at 16 and realignment dies down for a couple of years, or...

...the Big 10 adds Oregon/Stanford and Washington and away we go!

So depending upon the second option coming to fruition:

1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

2. The movement of the 4 corner schools in some fashion if internally they know what will happen.

3. Possibly Washington State and Oregon State making some kind of move if they know what will happen.

4. If the PAC goes pop, a hyperactive period involving Big 12 expansion and pressure swelling to substantial amounts within the ACC will occur.

Until then the bones of the NCAA tournament will be picked over incessantly, speculation will run wild as usual, and many here will twiddle their thumbs until their is a fresh kill on the Serengeti of realignment.

Interesting thoughts.

I think there may be other options besides "staying at 16" or "adding schools"

For example, if FSU finds a way out of the ACC, then ND likely may too.

I think it may stay affiliated with the ACC in some ways (unless the ACC membership more drastically changes), but likely with a new deal which allows them to do a football scheduling agreement with the Big10 through NBC.

Also, from the rumors we've been hearing, the B10 wants Stanford, but the sports pundits keep saying OR and WA. On the other hand, we don't seem to know what Stanford wants.

Besides that, taking your points in order:

1.) I don't think they're "stalling". I think the situation's a mess behind the scenes, and they're doing what they can to keep a lid on it.

Once the Big10 has a new commissioner, wouldn't you love to listen to his voice mail? "Hi, this is California. I just wanted to say that I think you're a GREAT choice for commissioner, and I look forward to working closely with you in the future... uh... How's tomorrow for lunch sound?..." "Hi, this is California again, I've left a few dozen messages. I so understand that you're busy settling into your new job. But I just want to touch base about a few things. Please call back as soon as possible..."

2.) I'm not sure if all or even any of them move. It'll really come down to that media deal and whether Yomark can entice them over as part of a package that they'll be happy with.

3.) lol, I think they're the last to move - unless they are "helped" out...

If, in the end, a decent media deal hinges between keeping them in conference, or "allowing" them to leave - I don't think they're Vanderbilt. I think they could be out. Possibly with a consolation prize or two.

4.) I think both B12 wont for expansion, and the pressure in the ACC will continue regardless. I've started to wonder if the ACC situation might take the media pressure of the PAC soon.

5.) (added a number : ) - I think FSU and Stanford are the schools to watch right now.

(04-06-2023 02:01 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

After one of Dodd's articles talked about realignment reopening once the B1G's commissioner situation was straightened out, I began to wonder if OU and UW were helping to delay the media deal. We've made it to April and suggestions are that they still are not close to a deal. Reaching April was my cutoff date so I'm completely on board with this thought now.

I don’t think there’s any question those two have tried to delay

No deal to present means no decision for OR and uW to make before BIG decides

I think the question is whether OR and UW are actually trying to drive others out of PAC with their uncertainty

If their flight risk and refusal to commit to PAC were to cause 4C to leave, those two could view their chances of getting a BIG invite as improved. With the contingency of getting paid more in Big 12 and the optics of they were “forced” to leave PAC and WSU/Oregon St

And the 4C able to point to no deal to consider or commitment by OR and UW forcing them to leave.

PAC HQ isn’t forced to present the embarrassingly bad deal, able to blame things on lack of commitment and schools leaving “right before” they landed that mythical offer that’s “better” than Big 12

With the coming collapse of the dollar, the conference with the brightest future will be the Ivy League. It will be the elites that will have placed their assets in places that will best preserve their wealth and the Ivy will once again be the toast of college athletics.

The B1G (a mostly blue state conference) will get lots of government handouts as will the PAC. The SEC, Big 12 and the southern half of the ACC will suffer the most decline. Look for the military academies to surge as well.

(04-06-2023 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 02:01 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

After one of Dodd's articles talked about realignment reopening once the B1G's commissioner situation was straightened out, I began to wonder if OU and UW were helping to delay the media deal. We've made it to April and suggestions are that they still are not close to a deal. Reaching April was my cutoff date so I'm completely on board with this thought now.

I think this viewpoint has legs. I also don't believe the Big 10 wanted to take a second shot which looked like a coup de grace. I believe they were using the commissioner's departure as a convenient delay hoping that perhaps some other PAC schools would get antsy and jump.

So I see the delay as one of perception, and likely negotiating strength.

No one has put forth a compelling argument that Oregon/Washington are actually net positive adds for the Big Ten. They don't increase per school revenue now and even if they take partial shares for 6 years there is no reason to suspect they will increase per school revenue in the next deal. They substantially increase travel for the 14 non-LA schools, and unlike LA they don't increase revenue to offset those costs.

If someone can explain to me what the current Big Ten schools gain from adding Oregon/Washington, other than "not leaving USC/UCLA on an island" (which is irrelevant) I'd appreciate it, because I'm not seeing it.

(04-06-2023 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 01:59 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]Long-term, I struggle to see USCLA remaining on an island. The B1G doesn't need to add anyone right now though. If new members enter with partial shares, perhaps that is a compromise for all.

I still believe the B1G prefers certain ACC brands. 2036 is a long way away.

Just remember that in 2036 those born in 1946 will be 90 if alive.
Those born in 1956 will be 80 if alive.
Those born in 1962 (arguably the end of the Baby Boom will be 74 if alive, and all 3 groups will be in retirement and the Baby Boomers will be decimated by mortality. The oldest X'ers will be 71.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

born in 1965-1980

So yes, those born in 65 would be 58 in 2023. And thus 71 in 2036.

But for your point, we should be adding in the youngest as this end of your time period, not the oldest.

So those born in 80, would be 56 in 2036.

That said, I think your point about everyone older than that, is well taken.

I don't think "school spirit" is going away, but the idea that someone as an alumni is going to donate thousands a year to their school, just seems unlikely, when belt tightening is going on everywhere, and with other priorities seemingly coming to the fore. Generation Y (millennials) are on the cusp, and Generation Z(oom) just seems to view college differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_...th_America

And with the rise of college costs/debt, community colleges and trade schools are on the rise.

Add to that, that businesses these days are starting to look for certifications, rather than degrees, and, again, college sports could be in for a bumpy ride unless they figure out a new normal.

(04-06-2023 03:23 PM)Skyhawk Wrote: [ -> ]Also, from the rumors we've been hearing, the B10 wants Stanford, but the sports pundits keep saying OR and WA. On the other hand, we don't seem to know what Stanford wants.

If Stanford joins The Big 10 they will do so kicking and screaming. Stanford looks down on The Big 10. (Don’t take it personal Stanford looks down on everyone.)

In my honest opinion as a former SC season ticket holder, I see Stanford as the pin holding The PAC together.

If Stanford leaves, piss on the fire and call in the dawgs cause The PAC is done.

(04-06-2023 03:55 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 02:01 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. I expect a continued string of PAC 12 stalls when it comes to press releases about their media deal between now and a period of time from the announcement of a new Big 10 commissioner and with a couple of weeks following it for time to get his/her feet on the ground and make a move.

After one of Dodd's articles talked about realignment reopening once the B1G's commissioner situation was straightened out, I began to wonder if OU and UW were helping to delay the media deal. We've made it to April and suggestions are that they still are not close to a deal. Reaching April was my cutoff date so I'm completely on board with this thought now.

I think this viewpoint has legs. I also don't believe the Big 10 wanted to take a second shot which looked like a coup de grace. I believe they were using the commissioner's departure as a convenient delay hoping that perhaps some other PAC schools would get antsy and jump.

So I see the delay as one of perception, and likely negotiating strength.

No one has put forth a compelling argument that Oregon/Washington are actually net positive adds for the Big Ten. They don't increase per school revenue now and even if they take partial shares for 6 years there is no reason to suspect they will increase per school revenue in the next deal. They substantially increase travel for the 14 non-LA schools, and unlike LA they don't increase revenue to offset those costs.

If someone can explain to me what the current Big Ten schools gain from adding Oregon/Washington, other than "not leaving USC/UCLA on an island" (which is irrelevant) I'd appreciate it, because I'm not seeing it.

get ready for a bunch of college ranking lists - much of which may or may not be relevant.

Personally, I think the next schools picked likely are in a situation of:

"I don't need to outrun the crocodile, I just need to outrun you..."

(04-06-2023 03:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-06-2023 03:23 PM)Skyhawk Wrote: [ -> ]Also, from the rumors we've been hearing, the B10 wants Stanford, but the sports pundits keep saying OR and WA. On the other hand, we don't seem to know what Stanford wants.

If Stanford joins The Big 10 they will do so kicking and screaming. Stanford looks down on The Big 10. (Don’t take it personal Stanford looks down on everyone.)

In my honest opinion as a former SC season ticket holder, I see Stanford as the pin holding The PAC together.

If Stanford leaves, piss on the fire and call in the dawgs cause The PAC is done.

I don't strongly disagree.

I dunno.

Stanford definitely is the wildcard here.

There are a lot of variables in play there.

But I think if we were to rank what schools the Big10 wants next, I think Stanford might well top the list.

But who knows if, or under what conditions, Stanford might say yes.