(05-03-2017 02:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 02:04 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 01:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios.

Kansas was after A&M made it clear they would go to the SEC instead. Texas Tech was one of the 6 schools.

A&M to the SEC was basically a foregone conclusion from the onset.
Where do people keep getting the idea that KU was in line to replace A&M as #16. There is simply no evidence for that. The only time that KU came into the picture was when they popped up on Scott's flight itinerary after UT bailed on the deal (and I don't think he ever made the trip). Where was this supposed Kansas interest from the PAC?

I think Scott considered a play for 14 with KU on OU, but that went nowhere with OU countering with OU/OSU.

The way I remember it, Scott left Texas on his plane headed to Kansas to invite KU, thinking he had a deal after A&M had bailed. However, before he got to Kansas, Texas changed their mind and shut the deal down.

That's not what happened- the PAC knew A&M was not happening far ahead of that visit, but leaving A&M "on the table" served the same purpose as the preemptive CU invite- to keep Baylor out of the discussion. Scott left Texas knowing UT would not be joining, not with anything new concerning A&M.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...the-radar/

Kansas was on the radar and a visit set as the PAC #16.

http://www.ocregister.com/2010/06/13/pac...d-to-ku-2/

Scott was headed to KC to talked to KU about joining the PAC.


http://www.kansas.com/news/article1040820.html

CU was already invited as was the first PAC expansion school.

(05-03-2017 02:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 02:04 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 01:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios.

Kansas was after A&M made it clear they would go to the SEC instead. Texas Tech was one of the 6 schools.

A&M to the SEC was basically a foregone conclusion from the onset.
Where do people keep getting the idea that KU was in line to replace A&M as #16. There is simply no evidence for that. The only time that KU came into the picture was when they popped up on Scott's flight itinerary after UT bailed on the deal (and I don't think he ever made the trip). Where was this supposed Kansas interest from the PAC?

I think Scott considered a play for 14 with KU on OU, but that went nowhere with OU countering with OU/OSU.

The way I remember it, Scott left Texas on his plane headed to Kansas to invite KU, thinking he had a deal after A&M had bailed. However, before he got to Kansas, Texas changed their mind and shut the deal down.

That's not what happened- the PAC knew A&M was not happening far ahead of that visit, but leaving A&M "on the table" served the same purpose as the preemptive CU invite- to keep Baylor out of the discussion. Scott left Texas knowing UT would not be joining, not with anything new concerning A&M.

I definitely remember the Daily Oklahoman reporting that Scott was at one point was on his way to Kansas to issue an invite. It was common knowledge that A&M was never seriously thinking of the PAC, so you are correct there, but I do not buy that A&M was used as a cover up. The bottom line is Scott was smitten with KU basketball and wanted them in the PAC. There were reports in Oklahoma that he was thinking of dropping OSU for Kansas. The papers reported that Texas assured Boone Pickens they would not go without OSU.

I can see as a Utah fan you do not want to believe Kansas was in, because that means Utah was out..... Which they were.

Chip Brown was the primary source for Scott's interest and Kansas, and here are his exact words:
"And Scott and Weiberg made one critical mistake in the courtship of the Big 12. Other than its somewhat foggy math that a 16-team Pac-10 could readily get to $20 million in TV revenue per school, they wanted to substitute Kansas for Oklahoma State late in the process, according to multiple sources in the Big 12.
Texas was really starting to feel queasy now, sources said. UT officials knew deep down Texas A&M wasn't coming to the Pac-10, despite Bill Byrne's assurances, according to sources. And now Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas. If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add Utah. Scott was looking to add new TV markets, not stick to the deal that was agreed upon a few days earlier.
According to sources who talked to me Tuesday (two days after the fact), Dodds and Plonsky couldn't stop thinking about all the negatives. And now they were dealing with a wheeler-dealer Pac-10 commissioner who wanted to sub out Boone Pickens' Cowboys for the chance to grab new households in Kansas, Missouri and middle America.
Dodds had given Oklahoma State his word they would be part of the group headed west. Now, the Pac-10 wanted to do some late rearranging. Dodds didn't feel good about it, sources said Tuesday. Now, Dodds and Plonsky had to convince Powers that the Beebe Plan was the best plan."

I believe it was pretty common knowledge that the Big East was ready to take the Big 12 leftovers if the PAC-16 would have happened. With that said, the Big 12 leftovers probably would have invited all Big East football teams, and maybe ND non-football to the Big 12 officially and the Big east would have become a non-football conference.

Of course this starts a chain reaction, I am making some assumptions here but the end result would be

PAC-16
Add Col, Tex, TT, Ok, OkSt, Kan

SEC
Add A&M, Mizzou

Big Ten
Add Neb, MD, Rut

ACC
Add Pitt, Cuse, WV, ND (Non-football)

New Big 12
Bay, KSU, ISU
LOU, Uconn, CINCY
USF, UCF, Houston
TCU, Utah, BYU,
CSU, NM
BSU, SDSU

ESPN's National College Football Reporter Joe Schad posted on Twitter that "Hearing if A&M passes on Pac-10, Utah has edge on Kansas as potential 16th member."

Chip Brown tweeted back "Kansas appears to have the edge on Utah to get invited to the Pac-10 if Texas A&M decides to jump to the SEC, sources say."

This tweet is basically the entire basis for this rumor. Brown later recants this version by saying that the PAC wanted Kansas AND Utah, not Kansas instead of Utah.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...cy-theory/

Does anyone actually disagree with anything Wilner says here? UT used Chip Brown and Orangebloods to create an environment where he could negotiate the most Texas friendly BigXII deal possible. flirtations wth the PAC10 and flirtations with independence (UT played a big role in convincing BYU to go independent as sort of an example) were meant to imbalance the rest of the BigXII. UT (via Chip Brown) then cited Scott's last minute substitution of KU for OKSU as a driver for not joining the PAC.

Remember, Scott had visited SLC on multiple occasions in the weeks prior to his Texas trip and then scheduled a last minute KU trip (his first) in the midst of discussions with UT. I suspect it was actually UT who demanded the last minute KU for OKSU switch knowing it would leave them blameless for blowing up a deal that was no longer workable for OU.

We also all know that people at KU were actively making plans for their future in the BigEast. People at Utah were just waiting for A&M's official acceptance of the SEC offer.

I think this is correct. The Pac-10 Presidents and Chancellors almost certainly balked at Oklahoma State, an R2 school, being admitted to the all R1 league. KU is both R1 and AAU, and would have made the package much sweeter with a 3rd (or 4th if A&M unexpectedly declined the SEC).

This also fits the B1G offer of Iowa State (AAU), Kansas (AAU), Texas A&M (AAU), Nebraska (AAU), and Oklahoma (R1) that was trial ballooned. Both scenarios drop Oklahoma State from the list -- that R2 status simply kills OSU's realignment chances.

I can still see (although highly unlikely) a PAC-16 happening in the future if Texas, KU and OU come as a package. I am less sure who the 4th would be (Rice, New Mexico, Iowa State, Colorado State, Texas Tech?) in such a scenario.

The only way that those schools join the PAC is if FOX/B1G make a similar play for KU, OU, UT and PAC-N equity. ESPN would probably rather see those schools in an independent PAC than as FOx properties and might overpay or take a smaller equity to make it happen.

Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

(05-03-2017 01:44 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:39 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

1. Colorado was always part of the Pac-expansion. They wanted to go to 16 with those four plus Tech and Colorado.

2. The left over Big XII schools (ISU, KSU, KU, Mizz & Baylor) if none of them were taken which i'm sure KU & Mizz would have gotten a look from the B1G, would have owned the Big XII name and like the old Big east would have back filled from the Big East.

ISU
Baylor
KU
KSU
Mizz
Cincy
Louisville
TCU
BYU
Utah
WVU
Pitt

After that the ACC probably scoops up Cuse and Rutgers and the C7 breaks off leaving UConn and USF behind.

the ACC would take UConn over Rutgers this time unlike in the big 10 where they wanted the NY market and football is more important, In this scenario the ACC already got the NY market with Syracuse and the ACC is a basketball run conference, therefore UConn would be a better choice, based on basketball prestige and the fact UConn was still relevant in football terms back then. So you couldn't pull the UConn is bad a football card in this case.
[/quote]

Whatever you have to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. Rutgers was better than UConn and Cuse is 6 hours away from NYC and doesn't deliver the NYC market.

I love how you say it's a fact in a hypothetical and after the fact UConn got turned down multiple times by the ACC.

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 could trim some of the dead weight back to G5 status.

Duke G5
Wake Forest G5
Virginia G5
Vanderbilt G5
Kentucky G5
Northwestern G5
Purdue G5
Washington State G5
Oregon State G5
Kansas G5
Iowa State G5
Baylor G5
Oklahoma State G5
West Virginia G5
Kansas State G5
Texas Tech G5

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

No one is getting dropped. Once that door is open teams like your and mine will see ourselves out of it in due time. Also no way the state governments allow it's sister schools to vote to kick out the other schools.

(05-03-2017 05:08 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

No one is getting dropped. Once that door is open teams like your and mine will see ourselves out of it in due time. Also no way the state governments allow it's sister schools to vote to kick out the other schools.

I agree that no P5 will drop members. But I think only the B1G and SEC are guaranteed survival. If (big if) those two in collaboration with ESPN/FOX were to go full super league we could wind up with a 50-60 school P2 where some ACC, BigXII, and PAC members get dropped. Your school IMO as a B1G member is in a very, very safe place. But if the B1G wanted to go National by adding the Best of the West I'd be hoping, but far from sure, that Utah could grab one of the final spots.

I don't think it's entirely far-fetched that a P2 could happen. The mechanism would be 1) at end of BigXII GoR dissolve the BigXII and move valuable properties (OU, KU, UT affiliated) to PAC in exchange for Network equity. 2) at end of LHN dissolve the PAC and move valuable properties into the B1G. The UT, OU, KU votes make it so UW, OU can't protect OSU/WSU.

(05-03-2017 04:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 could trim some of the dead weight back to G5 status.

Duke G5
Wake Forest G5
Virginia G5
Vanderbilt G5
Kentucky G5
Northwestern G5
Purdue G5
Washington State G5
Oregon State G5
Kansas G5
Iowa State G5
Baylor G5
Oklahoma State G5
West Virginia G5
Kansas State G5
Texas Tech G5

At least three will be saved by basketball. Duke, Kentucky and Kansas.

(05-03-2017 04:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 could trim some of the dead weight back to G5 status.

Duke G5
Wake Forest G5
Virginia G5
Vanderbilt G5
Kentucky G5
Northwestern G5
Purdue G5
Washington State G5
Oregon State G5
Kansas G5
Iowa State G5
Baylor G5
Oklahoma State G5
West Virginia G5
Kansas State G5
Texas Tech G5

Purdue and Northwestern are founding members of the Big Ten. They are never going anywhere. Come back to Planet Earth David.

(05-03-2017 04:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 could trim some of the dead weight back to G5 status.

Duke G5
Wake Forest G5
Virginia G5
Vanderbilt G5
Kentucky G5
Northwestern G5
Purdue G5
Washington State G5
Oregon State G5
Kansas G5
Iowa State G5
Baylor G5
Oklahoma State G5
West Virginia G5
Kansas State G5
Texas Tech G5

Replace with...let's see

NDSU
Boise St.
San Diego State
UC San Diego
Eastern Washington, etc

The teams to be relegated to G5 don't add anything to their conferences since basketball doesn't count. David St get real.

(05-03-2017 07:54 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 could trim some of the dead weight back to G5 status.

Duke G5
Wake Forest G5
Virginia G5
Vanderbilt G5
Kentucky G5
Northwestern G5
Purdue G5
Washington State G5
Oregon State G5
Kansas G5
Iowa State G5
Baylor G5
Oklahoma State G5
West Virginia G5
Kansas State G5
Texas Tech G5

Replace with...let's see

NDSU
Boise St.
San Diego State
UC San Diego
Eastern Washington, etc

The teams to be relegated to G5 don't add anything to their conferences since basketball doesn't count. David St get real.

Haven't you heard ... football is the only sport played in college.

Actually more than half of those schools have national titles in baseball, basketball, lacrosse, and rifle.

(05-03-2017 08:56 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 07:54 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Will ESPN be willing to spend that money? That is an open question now.

The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 could trim some of the dead weight back to G5 status.

Duke G5
Wake Forest G5
Virginia G5
Vanderbilt G5
Kentucky G5
Northwestern G5
Purdue G5
Washington State G5
Oregon State G5
Kansas G5
Iowa State G5
Baylor G5
Oklahoma State G5
West Virginia G5
Kansas State G5
Texas Tech G5

Replace with...let's see

NDSU
Boise St.
San Diego State
UC San Diego
Eastern Washington, etc

The teams to be relegated to G5 don't add anything to their conferences since basketball doesn't count. David St get real.

Haven't you heard ... football is the only sport played in college.

Actually more than half of those schools have national titles in baseball, basketball, lacrosse, and rifle.

It is football that counts. Even the Big East is not safe to join the P5 schools if there is a break. I should also add Rutgers, Maryland, Boston College and Syracuse not worth for football either. The idea is for football and not other sports. Duke, Kansas and Kentucky does not have the football to save them.

(05-03-2017 01:44 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  the ACC would take UConn over Rutgers this time unlike in the big 10 where they wanted the NY market and football is more important, In this scenario the ACC already got the NY market with Syracuse and the ACC is a basketball run conference, therefore UConn would be a better choice, based on basketball prestige and the fact UConn was still relevant in football terms back then. So you couldn't pull the UConn is bad a football card in this case.

No they wouldn't, for the same reasons the football schools put their foot down last time. Even then they knew that the slightly moderate success UConn was having at the time was a mirage based on the supporting factors: small fan base, zero recruiting area, and lack of tradition.

(05-03-2017 09:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 08:56 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 07:54 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 04:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The pot for TV revenue is shrinking, and the only way to generate the kind of revenue to effect Realignment is reduce the number of people eating from the pot. The BigXII is most vulnerable because realistically, you could drop half the BigXIi's membership without losing many cable subscribers. Dropping 6 BigXII members to G5 pay frees up some money, but really only about 150M/yr or 10M more for each of the new PAC16. That's still not catching up to the SEC and B1G, but it's really close. Dropping a few PAC members who are also superfluous while adding UT, OU, KU would do the trick. Basically, the only way I see PAC expansion happening is if it's more of a merger with a few schools dropped. That seems improbable, so I don't see it happening.

A PAC-X that eliminates WSU and OSU in favor of UT and OU would work. Add the PAC could add any 2 more (14) and realistically not have to many issues with divisional alignment as Eastern schools would maintain their CA exposure in cross division play due to removing OSU and WSU from that division.

ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 could trim some of the dead weight back to G5 status.

Duke G5
Wake Forest G5
Virginia G5
Vanderbilt G5
Kentucky G5
Northwestern G5
Purdue G5
Washington State G5
Oregon State G5
Kansas G5
Iowa State G5
Baylor G5
Oklahoma State G5
West Virginia G5
Kansas State G5
Texas Tech G5

Replace with...let's see

NDSU
Boise St.
San Diego State
UC San Diego
Eastern Washington, etc

The teams to be relegated to G5 don't add anything to their conferences since basketball doesn't count. David St get real.

Haven't you heard ... football is the only sport played in college.

Actually more than half of those schools have national titles in baseball, basketball, lacrosse, and rifle.

It is football that counts. Even the Big East is not safe to join the P5 schools if there is a break. I should also add Rutgers, Maryland, Boston College and Syracuse not worth for football either. The idea is for football and not other sports. Duke, Kansas and Kentucky does not have the football to save them.

Duke is ACC division champion two years ago.