(02-01-2018 05:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PACN is actually a collection of 6 networks together. This means that every job is replicated 6 times. All of their "networks" are paired. Arizona & ASU share a network, UCLA and USC share a network, etc. That's why their overhead is so high

No, no, no. That's not how it works. All of the "regional" PTN channels are run by the same staff that is in the office in San Francisco.

Jon Wilner has written at least two columns about this. The overhead is high because...

(1) The top managers are paid way too much compared to their counterparts at other conference networks
(2) They're renting a very large amount of hellishly expensive office space in San Francisco -- class-A office space in Los Angeles could be rented for half as much
(3) Production costs for hundreds of "Olympic" sports telecasts each year -- other conference networks are probably mostly re-running studio shows and football/basketball telecasts twenty times over, and not spending nearly as much money to produce so many live telecasts of volleyball, baseball, swimming, etc., etc.

(02-01-2018 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 05:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PACN is actually a collection of 6 networks together. This means that every job is replicated 6 times. All of their "networks" are paired. Arizona & ASU share a network, UCLA and USC share a network, etc. That's why their overhead is so high

No, no, no. That's not how it works. All of the "regional" PTN channels are run by the same staff that is in the office in San Francisco.

Jon Wilner has written at least two columns about this. The overhead is high because...

(1) The top managers are paid way too much compared to their counterparts at other conference networks
(2) They're renting a very large amount of hellishly expensive office space in San Francisco -- class-A office space in Los Angeles could be rented for half as much
(3) Production costs for hundreds of "Olympic" sports telecasts each year -- other conference networks are probably mostly re-running studio shows and football/basketball telecasts twenty times over, and not spending nearly as much money to produce so many live telecasts of volleyball, baseball, swimming, etc., etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

(02-01-2018 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 05:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PACN is actually a collection of 6 networks together. This means that every job is replicated 6 times. All of their "networks" are paired. Arizona & ASU share a network, UCLA and USC share a network, etc. That's why their overhead is so high

No, no, no. That's not how it works. All of the "regional" PTN channels are run by the same staff that is in the office in San Francisco.

Jon Wilner has written at least two columns about this. The overhead is high because...

(1) The top managers are paid way too much compared to their counterparts at other conference networks
(2) They're renting a very large amount of hellishly expensive office space in San Francisco -- class-A office space in Los Angeles could be rented for half as much
(3) Production costs for hundreds of "Olympic" sports telecasts each year -- other conference networks are probably mostly re-running studio shows and football/basketball telecasts twenty times over, and not spending nearly as much money to produce so many live telecasts of volleyball, baseball, swimming, etc., etc.

Move the PAC Network to Las Vegas:

1) Rent would probably be a quarter of what it is in San Francisco. The PAC could probably build and own its own facilities for less than the California rent.

2) Ability to lower salaries because of cost of living in NV versus CA.

3) Headquarters is still centrally located and easy flight access but now in a "neutral" city. Las Vegas is closer and likely easier access than San Francisco for any expansion candidate schools in the Central time zone.

4) PAC men's and women's basketball tournaments are already in Las Vegas. Move the football championship game to the new NFL stadium in Las Vegas as well. Perfect synergy.

(02-01-2018 12:43 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 05:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PACN is actually a collection of 6 networks together. This means that every job is replicated 6 times. All of their "networks" are paired. Arizona & ASU share a network, UCLA and USC share a network, etc. That's why their overhead is so high

No, no, no. That's not how it works. All of the "regional" PTN channels are run by the same staff that is in the office in San Francisco.

Jon Wilner has written at least two columns about this. The overhead is high because...

(1) The top managers are paid way too much compared to their counterparts at other conference networks
(2) They're renting a very large amount of hellishly expensive office space in San Francisco -- class-A office space in Los Angeles could be rented for half as much
(3) Production costs for hundreds of "Olympic" sports telecasts each year -- other conference networks are probably mostly re-running studio shows and football/basketball telecasts twenty times over, and not spending nearly as much money to produce so many live telecasts of volleyball, baseball, swimming, etc., etc.

Move the PAC Network to Las Vegas:

1) Rent would probably be a quarter of what it is in San Francisco. The PAC could probably build and own its own facilities for less than the California rent.

2) Ability to lower salaries because of cost of living in NV versus CA.

3) Headquarters is still centrally located and easy flight access but now in a "neutral" city. Las Vegas is closer and likely easier access than San Francisco for any expansion candidate schools in the Central time zone.

4) PAC men's and women's basketball tournaments are already in Las Vegas. Move the football championship game to the new NFL stadium in Las Vegas as well. Perfect synergy.

LA has been suggested because there is already a very large pool of broadcasting and production talent there. You can hire people who don't have to relocate, you don't have to pay overly generous salaries to induce people to move hundreds or thousands of miles, etc, and Bay Area housing is so expensive now that even LA can be half the cost. Based on that LA would probably offer the most practical way to cut that portion of the overhead. I don't think there's any value in tying the location to where other events are -- the SEC network, for example, is based in Charlotte, where AFAIK the conference holds no significant events, and it's obviously not centrally located in the conference "footprint".

(02-01-2018 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 05:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PACN is actually a collection of 6 networks together. This means that every job is replicated 6 times. All of their "networks" are paired. Arizona & ASU share a network, UCLA and USC share a network, etc. That's why their overhead is so high

No, no, no. That's not how it works. All of the "regional" PTN channels are run by the same staff that is in the office in San Francisco.

Jon Wilner has written at least two columns about this. The overhead is high because...

(1) The top managers are paid way too much compared to their counterparts at other conference networks
(2) They're renting a very large amount of hellishly expensive office space in San Francisco -- class-A office space in Los Angeles could be rented for half as much
(3) Production costs for hundreds of "Olympic" sports telecasts each year -- other conference networks are probably mostly re-running studio shows and football/basketball telecasts twenty times over, and not spending nearly as much money to produce so many live telecasts of volleyball, baseball, swimming, etc., etc.

I appreciate your post, but just wanted to point out that baseball and softball actually draw quite well on the SECN and LHN and I'm sure they will, as much as is possible, on the ACCN when it is up and running. It is true however that we don't produce every single game not picked up by the main network channels, but they still do pretty well on a slightly reduced production schedule than Football or Basketball. What they don't produce are the early season games. You won't see baseball on the SECN until just before basketball is over.

(02-01-2018 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 05:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PACN is actually a collection of 6 networks together. This means that every job is replicated 6 times. All of their "networks" are paired. Arizona & ASU share a network, UCLA and USC share a network, etc. That's why their overhead is so high

No, no, no. That's not how it works. All of the "regional" PTN channels are run by the same staff that is in the office in San Francisco.

Jon Wilner has written at least two columns about this. The overhead is high because...

(1) The top managers are paid way too much compared to their counterparts at other conference networks
(2) They're renting a very large amount of hellishly expensive office space in San Francisco -- class-A office space in Los Angeles could be rented for half as much
(3) Production costs for hundreds of "Olympic" sports telecasts each year -- other conference networks are probably mostly re-running studio shows and football/basketball telecasts twenty times over, and not spending nearly as much money to produce so many live telecasts of volleyball, baseball, swimming, etc., etc.

I appreciate your post, but just wanted to point out that baseball and softball actually draw quite well on the SECN and LHN and I'm sure they will, as much as is possible, on the ACCN when it is up and running. It is true however that we don't produce every single game not picked up by the main network channels, but they still do pretty well on a slightly reduced production schedule than Football or Basketball. What they don't produce are the early season games. You won't see baseball on the SECN until just before basketball is over.

I just picked baseball as an example. I don't know which "Olympic" sports do better or worse on PTN. Wilner said that he has seen the internal data but wouldn't identify ratings for any specific Olympic sport because the point is the high cost of televising a vast number of events in niche sports, and not the relative ratings of water polo vs. softball vs. track.

IMO a part of the eventual solution is to ask each school to produce telecasts for, say, the 10-15 least-watched sports and make that available to PTN. (Some schools, including Cal, did that before we had PTN.) No realistic viewer expects the same cost of production for most Olympic sports that we see for football and basketball. But if I were a president or an AD, I would tell the conference office to substantially cut internal overhead first, return a lot more of the PTN revenue to each school, and then ask schools to produce their own telecasts for niche sports.

I thought the P12 Network was a national network and 6 regional networks. The idea that 2 schools can provide enough content for a regional network plus some content a conference network plus some content for the national networks is flawed. There may be some economy of scale but not enough to support those 6 networks.

(02-01-2018 08:46 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I thought the P12 Network was a national network and 6 regional networks. The idea that 2 schools can provide enough content for a regional network plus some content a conference network plus some content for the national networks is flawed. There may be some economy of scale but not enough to support those 6 networks.

They can provide sufficient content. Its the viewers that are lacking to justify the cost.

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:26 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

Maybe it will be the PAC that gets picked apart and maybe Texas and Oklahoma will do some of the poaching. Arizona & Arizona State have already expressed some angst as has U.C.L.A.

Is this just speculation or has USC expressed any interest in leaving?

The tweet posted in the article is from someone who is apparently a large backer. It's probably a talking point to try to force change with the PACN. Nothing like a threat to leave to force an issue like deciding to get FOX or ESPN backing for the PACN. Then the PAC might pursue Texa-homa or something similar again. But if not, I don't think the thought is necessarily a hollow threat.

I think it could get really interesting. Consider that if the current FOX / Disney deals go through that ESPN will wind up holding the T3 of the Big 12 and would be in a perfect position to handle the changing of the LHN into a viable Big 12N. That would create an even bigger gap in revenue between the PAC and the Big 12 making movement conceivable. Let's say Arizona and Arizona State were interested as well and U.C.L.A. decided to throw in with U.S.C.. That would put California and Stanford on the clock so to speak. The present PAC has 12 schools. If they dropped to 7 they would have a year to get back up to 8 or lose conference status. Remember their contracts are up in 2024-5 as well.

While not likely, it has, if the Disney/FOX deal goes through, moved into the realm of possibility. Besides when a conference, or one of its schools, doesn't want to accept the responsibility for making a potential threat they usually have one of their boosters do the talking, or a local beat writer. It's an effective way to send a message. So we'll see.

This suggestion is slightly different from one I made earlier.

What if, when the Big 12 media contracts and GoR expire, the 8 western Big 12 schools (all but Iowa State and West Virginia) decide to dissolve the Big 12? Eight votes is what are required, IIRC.

Now those 8 are in position to invite both the Cali 4 plus the Four Corners 4 to join them in a new conference with perfectly logical balanced divisions. No scheduling dilemmas to deal with. The entire southwest within their market, and two of the four best recruiting grounds in the country. Surely you could make a network profitable in that scenario.

Now, for all practical purposes, you are down to a P4 with only 59 mouths to feed. There are now two tweener conferences (a rebuilt PAC and the AAC) and four more or less equal bottom feeders.

If that new P4 wants to stage 4 team conference tournaments, who's to stop them?

(02-04-2018 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:26 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

Maybe it will be the PAC that gets picked apart and maybe Texas and Oklahoma will do some of the poaching. Arizona & Arizona State have already expressed some angst as has U.C.L.A.

Is this just speculation or has USC expressed any interest in leaving?

The tweet posted in the article is from someone who is apparently a large backer. It's probably a talking point to try to force change with the PACN. Nothing like a threat to leave to force an issue like deciding to get FOX or ESPN backing for the PACN. Then the PAC might pursue Texa-homa or something similar again. But if not, I don't think the thought is necessarily a hollow threat.

I think it could get really interesting. Consider that if the current FOX / Disney deals go through that ESPN will wind up holding the T3 of the Big 12 and would be in a perfect position to handle the changing of the LHN into a viable Big 12N. That would create an even bigger gap in revenue between the PAC and the Big 12 making movement conceivable. Let's say Arizona and Arizona State were interested as well and U.C.L.A. decided to throw in with U.S.C.. That would put California and Stanford on the clock so to speak. The present PAC has 12 schools. If they dropped to 7 they would have a year to get back up to 8 or lose conference status. Remember their contracts are up in 2024-5 as well.

While not likely, it has, if the Disney/FOX deal goes through, moved into the realm of possibility. Besides when a conference, or one of its schools, doesn't want to accept the responsibility for making a potential threat they usually have one of their boosters do the talking, or a local beat writer. It's an effective way to send a message. So we'll see.

This suggestion is slightly different from one I made earlier.

What if, when the Big 12 media contracts and GoR expire, the 8 western Big 12 schools (all but Iowa State and West Virginia) decide to dissolve the Big 12? Eight votes is what are required, IIRC.

Now those 8 are in position to invite both the Cali 4 plus the Four Corners 4 to join them in a new conference with perfectly logical balanced divisions. No scheduling dilemmas to deal with. The entire southwest within their market, and two of the four best recruiting grounds in the country. Surely you could make a network profitable in that scenario.

Now, for all practical purposes, you are down to a P4 with only 59 mouths to feed. There are now two tweener conferences (a rebuilt PAC and the AAC) and four more or less equal bottom feeders.

If that new P4 wants to stage 4 team conference tournaments, who's to stop them?

So you are saying Kansas, Kansas, State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the 4 Big 12 Texas schools join with the 4 California Schools, and Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona's to form a new PAC? If I read that right then I could see Colorado heading to the Big 10.

My question is why hang onto T.C.U.?

Why not include Iowa State and Colorado and cut T.C.U. & Baylor loose?

So the PAC/B12 becomes:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech

Why leave anyone for the Big 10 or SEC of value? After all part of the move would be made to close the gap.

Then in 2033 or thereabouts the Big 10 and SEC get to 16 by each taking two from the ACC. The ACC then back-fills with West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U. and Connecticut/Cincinnati.

So Notre Dame and Virginia head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke to the SEC.

The football kings remain in their own conference now.

So the Big 10 becomes:

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC becomes:

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee



The rebuilt ACC becomes:

B.C., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, W.V.U.

Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, N.C. State, T.C.U., Wake Forest



Now what you have is a more football emphasized ACC without losing all of its basketball cachet. The Big 10 and SEC get into valuable markets with brands. U.N.C. gets to move with Duke. You've only whittled the P5 down to 64, but you have much stronger eastern market draws with Connecticut and Cincinnati than you would have with Washington State, Oregon State, or Utah. And both divisions of the ACC have a tie to Florida and Texas opens up for them.

If N.D. is recalcitrant substitute Syracuse or Pitt and plug the Irish into the ACC.

But truly Ken D. for the sake of efficiency in eliminating duplicated overhead a Big 10 of 24 and a SEC of 24 to form as you pointed out elsewhere a Mega 2 is still much more efficient. Then two tweener conferences one in the East and one in the West make sense as well.

If you look at the Gross Total Revenue from 2016 with the exceptions of Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Rutgers everyone in the top 48 essentially had 82 million in total gross revenue. Vanderbilt was at 79 and Northwestern at 77, and Rutgers lagged a tad below that. Only UConn was in their range at 79 million as well. Baylor & TCU were both in the 90 million range.

I always look at revenue when considering a dividing line. So with the Mega 2 approach you have a little gray area in revenues, but a fairly clear separation overall. That separation also includes with those same few exceptions, attendance.

(02-04-2018 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:26 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

Maybe it will be the PAC that gets picked apart and maybe Texas and Oklahoma will do some of the poaching. Arizona & Arizona State have already expressed some angst as has U.C.L.A.

Is this just speculation or has USC expressed any interest in leaving?

The tweet posted in the article is from someone who is apparently a large backer. It's probably a talking point to try to force change with the PACN. Nothing like a threat to leave to force an issue like deciding to get FOX or ESPN backing for the PACN. Then the PAC might pursue Texa-homa or something similar again. But if not, I don't think the thought is necessarily a hollow threat.

I think it could get really interesting. Consider that if the current FOX / Disney deals go through that ESPN will wind up holding the T3 of the Big 12 and would be in a perfect position to handle the changing of the LHN into a viable Big 12N. That would create an even bigger gap in revenue between the PAC and the Big 12 making movement conceivable. Let's say Arizona and Arizona State were interested as well and U.C.L.A. decided to throw in with U.S.C.. That would put California and Stanford on the clock so to speak. The present PAC has 12 schools. If they dropped to 7 they would have a year to get back up to 8 or lose conference status. Remember their contracts are up in 2024-5 as well.

While not likely, it has, if the Disney/FOX deal goes through, moved into the realm of possibility. Besides when a conference, or one of its schools, doesn't want to accept the responsibility for making a potential threat they usually have one of their boosters do the talking, or a local beat writer. It's an effective way to send a message. So we'll see.

This suggestion is slightly different from one I made earlier.

What if, when the Big 12 media contracts and GoR expire, the 8 western Big 12 schools (all but Iowa State and West Virginia) decide to dissolve the Big 12? Eight votes is what are required, IIRC.

Now those 8 are in position to invite both the Cali 4 plus the Four Corners 4 to join them in a new conference with perfectly logical balanced divisions. No scheduling dilemmas to deal with. The entire southwest within their market, and two of the four best recruiting grounds in the country. Surely you could make a network profitable in that scenario.

Now, for all practical purposes, you are down to a P4 with only 59 mouths to feed. There are now two tweener conferences (a rebuilt PAC and the AAC) and four more or less equal bottom feeders.

If that new P4 wants to stage 4 team conference tournaments, who's to stop them?

So you are saying Kansas, Kansas, State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the 4 Big 12 Texas schools join with the 4 California Schools, and Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona's to form a new PAC? If I read that right then I could see Colorado heading to the Big 10.

My question is why hang onto T.C.U.?

Why not include Iowa State and Colorado and cut T.C.U. & Baylor loose?

So the PAC/B12 becomes:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech

Why leave anyone for the Big 10 or SEC of value? After all part of the move would be made to close the gap.

Then in 2033 or thereabouts the Big 10 and SEC get to 16 by each taking two from the ACC. The ACC then back-fills with West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U. and Connecticut/Cincinnati.

So Notre Dame and Virginia head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke to the SEC.

The football kings remain in their own conference now.

So the Big 10 becomes:

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC becomes:

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee



The rebuilt ACC becomes:

B.C., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, W.V.U.

Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, N.C. State, T.C.U., Wake Forest



Now what you have is a more football emphasized ACC without losing all of its basketball cachet. The Big 10 and SEC get into valuable markets with brands. U.N.C. gets to move with Duke. You've only whittled the P5 down to 64, but you have much stronger eastern market draws with Connecticut and Cincinnati than you would have with Washington State, Oregon State, or Utah. And both divisions of the ACC have a tie to Florida and Texas opens up for them.

If N.D. is recalcitrant substitute Syracuse or Pitt and plug the Irish into the ACC.

But truly Ken D. for the sake of efficiency in eliminating duplicated overhead a Big 10 of 24 and a SEC of 24 to form as you pointed out elsewhere a Mega 2 is still much more efficient. Then two tweener conferences one in the East and one in the West make sense as well.

If you look at the Gross Total Revenue from 2016 with the exceptions of Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Rutgers everyone in the top 48 essentially had 82 million in total gross revenue. Vanderbilt was at 79 and Northwestern at 77, and Rutgers lagged a tad below that. Only UConn was in their range at 79 million as well. Baylor & TCU were both in the 90 million range.

I always look at revenue when considering a dividing line. So with the Mega 2 approach you have a little gray area in revenues, but a fairly clear separation overall. That separation also includes with those same few exceptions, attendance.

All well and good, but.................Carolina isn't going to the SEC (neither will Duke).

(02-04-2018 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:26 PM)megadrone Wrote:  Is this just speculation or has USC expressed any interest in leaving?

The tweet posted in the article is from someone who is apparently a large backer. It's probably a talking point to try to force change with the PACN. Nothing like a threat to leave to force an issue like deciding to get FOX or ESPN backing for the PACN. Then the PAC might pursue Texa-homa or something similar again. But if not, I don't think the thought is necessarily a hollow threat.

I think it could get really interesting. Consider that if the current FOX / Disney deals go through that ESPN will wind up holding the T3 of the Big 12 and would be in a perfect position to handle the changing of the LHN into a viable Big 12N. That would create an even bigger gap in revenue between the PAC and the Big 12 making movement conceivable. Let's say Arizona and Arizona State were interested as well and U.C.L.A. decided to throw in with U.S.C.. That would put California and Stanford on the clock so to speak. The present PAC has 12 schools. If they dropped to 7 they would have a year to get back up to 8 or lose conference status. Remember their contracts are up in 2024-5 as well.

While not likely, it has, if the Disney/FOX deal goes through, moved into the realm of possibility. Besides when a conference, or one of its schools, doesn't want to accept the responsibility for making a potential threat they usually have one of their boosters do the talking, or a local beat writer. It's an effective way to send a message. So we'll see.

This suggestion is slightly different from one I made earlier.

What if, when the Big 12 media contracts and GoR expire, the 8 western Big 12 schools (all but Iowa State and West Virginia) decide to dissolve the Big 12? Eight votes is what are required, IIRC.

Now those 8 are in position to invite both the Cali 4 plus the Four Corners 4 to join them in a new conference with perfectly logical balanced divisions. No scheduling dilemmas to deal with. The entire southwest within their market, and two of the four best recruiting grounds in the country. Surely you could make a network profitable in that scenario.

Now, for all practical purposes, you are down to a P4 with only 59 mouths to feed. There are now two tweener conferences (a rebuilt PAC and the AAC) and four more or less equal bottom feeders.

If that new P4 wants to stage 4 team conference tournaments, who's to stop them?

So you are saying Kansas, Kansas, State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the 4 Big 12 Texas schools join with the 4 California Schools, and Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona's to form a new PAC? If I read that right then I could see Colorado heading to the Big 10.

My question is why hang onto T.C.U.?

Why not include Iowa State and Colorado and cut T.C.U. & Baylor loose?

So the PAC/B12 becomes:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech

Why leave anyone for the Big 10 or SEC of value? After all part of the move would be made to close the gap.

Then in 2033 or thereabouts the Big 10 and SEC get to 16 by each taking two from the ACC. The ACC then back-fills with West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U. and Connecticut/Cincinnati.

So Notre Dame and Virginia head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke to the SEC.

The football kings remain in their own conference now.

So the Big 10 becomes:

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC becomes:

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee



The rebuilt ACC becomes:

B.C., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, W.V.U.

Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, N.C. State, T.C.U., Wake Forest



Now what you have is a more football emphasized ACC without losing all of its basketball cachet. The Big 10 and SEC get into valuable markets with brands. U.N.C. gets to move with Duke. You've only whittled the P5 down to 64, but you have much stronger eastern market draws with Connecticut and Cincinnati than you would have with Washington State, Oregon State, or Utah. And both divisions of the ACC have a tie to Florida and Texas opens up for them.

If N.D. is recalcitrant substitute Syracuse or Pitt and plug the Irish into the ACC.

But truly Ken D. for the sake of efficiency in eliminating duplicated overhead a Big 10 of 24 and a SEC of 24 to form as you pointed out elsewhere a Mega 2 is still much more efficient. Then two tweener conferences one in the East and one in the West make sense as well.

If you look at the Gross Total Revenue from 2016 with the exceptions of Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Rutgers everyone in the top 48 essentially had 82 million in total gross revenue. Vanderbilt was at 79 and Northwestern at 77, and Rutgers lagged a tad below that. Only UConn was in their range at 79 million as well. Baylor & TCU were both in the 90 million range.

I always look at revenue when considering a dividing line. So with the Mega 2 approach you have a little gray area in revenues, but a fairly clear separation overall. That separation also includes with those same few exceptions, attendance.

All well and good, but.................Carolina isn't going to the SEC (neither will Duke).

You never get tired of it do you X. I know who Bubba called when things didn't look too hot, and it wasn't the B1G. And I know what he asked, "Can we bring Duke?" So take a deep breath and exhale that baby blue haze from your lungs and your head will clear.

(02-04-2018 09:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The tweet posted in the article is from someone who is apparently a large backer. It's probably a talking point to try to force change with the PACN. Nothing like a threat to leave to force an issue like deciding to get FOX or ESPN backing for the PACN. Then the PAC might pursue Texa-homa or something similar again. But if not, I don't think the thought is necessarily a hollow threat.

I think it could get really interesting. Consider that if the current FOX / Disney deals go through that ESPN will wind up holding the T3 of the Big 12 and would be in a perfect position to handle the changing of the LHN into a viable Big 12N. That would create an even bigger gap in revenue between the PAC and the Big 12 making movement conceivable. Let's say Arizona and Arizona State were interested as well and U.C.L.A. decided to throw in with U.S.C.. That would put California and Stanford on the clock so to speak. The present PAC has 12 schools. If they dropped to 7 they would have a year to get back up to 8 or lose conference status. Remember their contracts are up in 2024-5 as well.

While not likely, it has, if the Disney/FOX deal goes through, moved into the realm of possibility. Besides when a conference, or one of its schools, doesn't want to accept the responsibility for making a potential threat they usually have one of their boosters do the talking, or a local beat writer. It's an effective way to send a message. So we'll see.

This suggestion is slightly different from one I made earlier.

What if, when the Big 12 media contracts and GoR expire, the 8 western Big 12 schools (all but Iowa State and West Virginia) decide to dissolve the Big 12? Eight votes is what are required, IIRC.

Now those 8 are in position to invite both the Cali 4 plus the Four Corners 4 to join them in a new conference with perfectly logical balanced divisions. No scheduling dilemmas to deal with. The entire southwest within their market, and two of the four best recruiting grounds in the country. Surely you could make a network profitable in that scenario.

Now, for all practical purposes, you are down to a P4 with only 59 mouths to feed. There are now two tweener conferences (a rebuilt PAC and the AAC) and four more or less equal bottom feeders.

If that new P4 wants to stage 4 team conference tournaments, who's to stop them?

So you are saying Kansas, Kansas, State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the 4 Big 12 Texas schools join with the 4 California Schools, and Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona's to form a new PAC? If I read that right then I could see Colorado heading to the Big 10.

My question is why hang onto T.C.U.?

Why not include Iowa State and Colorado and cut T.C.U. & Baylor loose?

So the PAC/B12 becomes:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech

Why leave anyone for the Big 10 or SEC of value? After all part of the move would be made to close the gap.

Then in 2033 or thereabouts the Big 10 and SEC get to 16 by each taking two from the ACC. The ACC then back-fills with West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U. and Connecticut/Cincinnati.

So Notre Dame and Virginia head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke to the SEC.

The football kings remain in their own conference now.

So the Big 10 becomes:

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC becomes:

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee



The rebuilt ACC becomes:

B.C., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, W.V.U.

Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, N.C. State, T.C.U., Wake Forest



Now what you have is a more football emphasized ACC without losing all of its basketball cachet. The Big 10 and SEC get into valuable markets with brands. U.N.C. gets to move with Duke. You've only whittled the P5 down to 64, but you have much stronger eastern market draws with Connecticut and Cincinnati than you would have with Washington State, Oregon State, or Utah. And both divisions of the ACC have a tie to Florida and Texas opens up for them.

If N.D. is recalcitrant substitute Syracuse or Pitt and plug the Irish into the ACC.

But truly Ken D. for the sake of efficiency in eliminating duplicated overhead a Big 10 of 24 and a SEC of 24 to form as you pointed out elsewhere a Mega 2 is still much more efficient. Then two tweener conferences one in the East and one in the West make sense as well.

If you look at the Gross Total Revenue from 2016 with the exceptions of Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Rutgers everyone in the top 48 essentially had 82 million in total gross revenue. Vanderbilt was at 79 and Northwestern at 77, and Rutgers lagged a tad below that. Only UConn was in their range at 79 million as well. Baylor & TCU were both in the 90 million range.

I always look at revenue when considering a dividing line. So with the Mega 2 approach you have a little gray area in revenues, but a fairly clear separation overall. That separation also includes with those same few exceptions, attendance.

All well and good, but.................Carolina isn't going to the SEC (neither will Duke).

You never get tired of it do you X. I know who Bubba called when things didn't look too hot, and it wasn't the B1G. And I know what he asked, "Can we bring Duke?" So take a deep breath and exhale that baby blue haze from your lungs and your head will clear.

Bubba was a rookie and only gathering information. He can't pull the trigger, he doesn't have the authority.

(02-04-2018 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:26 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...gnment-lol

Maybe it will be the PAC that gets picked apart and maybe Texas and Oklahoma will do some of the poaching. Arizona & Arizona State have already expressed some angst as has U.C.L.A.

Is this just speculation or has USC expressed any interest in leaving?

The tweet posted in the article is from someone who is apparently a large backer. It's probably a talking point to try to force change with the PACN. Nothing like a threat to leave to force an issue like deciding to get FOX or ESPN backing for the PACN. Then the PAC might pursue Texa-homa or something similar again. But if not, I don't think the thought is necessarily a hollow threat.

I think it could get really interesting. Consider that if the current FOX / Disney deals go through that ESPN will wind up holding the T3 of the Big 12 and would be in a perfect position to handle the changing of the LHN into a viable Big 12N. That would create an even bigger gap in revenue between the PAC and the Big 12 making movement conceivable. Let's say Arizona and Arizona State were interested as well and U.C.L.A. decided to throw in with U.S.C.. That would put California and Stanford on the clock so to speak. The present PAC has 12 schools. If they dropped to 7 they would have a year to get back up to 8 or lose conference status. Remember their contracts are up in 2024-5 as well.

While not likely, it has, if the Disney/FOX deal goes through, moved into the realm of possibility. Besides when a conference, or one of its schools, doesn't want to accept the responsibility for making a potential threat they usually have one of their boosters do the talking, or a local beat writer. It's an effective way to send a message. So we'll see.

This suggestion is slightly different from one I made earlier.

What if, when the Big 12 media contracts and GoR expire, the 8 western Big 12 schools (all but Iowa State and West Virginia) decide to dissolve the Big 12? Eight votes is what are required, IIRC.

Now those 8 are in position to invite both the Cali 4 plus the Four Corners 4 to join them in a new conference with perfectly logical balanced divisions. No scheduling dilemmas to deal with. The entire southwest within their market, and two of the four best recruiting grounds in the country. Surely you could make a network profitable in that scenario.

Now, for all practical purposes, you are down to a P4 with only 59 mouths to feed. There are now two tweener conferences (a rebuilt PAC and the AAC) and four more or less equal bottom feeders.

If that new P4 wants to stage 4 team conference tournaments, who's to stop them?

So you are saying Kansas, Kansas, State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the 4 Big 12 Texas schools join with the 4 California Schools, and Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona's to form a new PAC? If I read that right then I could see Colorado heading to the Big 10.

My question is why hang onto T.C.U.?

Why not include Iowa State and Colorado and cut T.C.U. & Baylor loose?

So the PAC/B12 becomes:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech

Why leave anyone for the Big 10 or SEC of value? After all part of the move would be made to close the gap.

Then in 2033 or thereabouts the Big 10 and SEC get to 16 by each taking two from the ACC. The ACC then back-fills with West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U. and Connecticut/Cincinnati.

So Notre Dame and Virginia head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke to the SEC.

The football kings remain in their own conference now.

So the Big 10 becomes:

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC becomes:

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee



The rebuilt ACC becomes:

B.C., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, W.V.U.

Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, N.C. State, T.C.U., Wake Forest



Now what you have is a more football emphasized ACC without losing all of its basketball cachet. The Big 10 and SEC get into valuable markets with brands. U.N.C. gets to move with Duke. You've only whittled the P5 down to 64, but you have much stronger eastern market draws with Connecticut and Cincinnati than you would have with Washington State, Oregon State, or Utah. And both divisions of the ACC have a tie to Florida and Texas opens up for them.

If N.D. is recalcitrant substitute Syracuse or Pitt and plug the Irish into the ACC.

But truly Ken D. for the sake of efficiency in eliminating duplicated overhead a Big 10 of 24 and a SEC of 24 to form as you pointed out elsewhere a Mega 2 is still much more efficient. Then two tweener conferences one in the East and one in the West make sense as well.

If you look at the Gross Total Revenue from 2016 with the exceptions of Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Rutgers everyone in the top 48 essentially had 82 million in total gross revenue. Vanderbilt was at 79 and Northwestern at 77, and Rutgers lagged a tad below that. Only UConn was in their range at 79 million as well. Baylor & TCU were both in the 90 million range.

I always look at revenue when considering a dividing line. So with the Mega 2 approach you have a little gray area in revenues, but a fairly clear separation overall. That separation also includes with those same few exceptions, attendance.

I think as long as there is an ACC then Lina, Dook and Virginny would be part of it. Perhaps by then they would stop the pretense of being a football power and go back to their niche of being basketball-focused. In that case, FSU and Clemson move over to the SEC, VA Tech goes to the B10 along with Pitt. Then Temple, USF, UCONN and West Virginia take their places in the ACC.

Baylor, TCU, USF, Louisville, West Virginia, Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest

Syracuse, Connecticut, Boston College, Temple, Virginia, UNC, Duke, NC State

Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State

Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Missouri, Ole Miss, Alabama, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Clemson, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee

(02-04-2018 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So you are saying Kansas, Kansas, State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the 4 Big 12 Texas schools join with the 4 California Schools, and Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona's to form a new PAC?

Actually, what I was saying was the 4 Cali schools plus Utah and Colorado and the two Arizonas. They would form a conference in 7 contiguous states, all (more or less) in the southwest.

The four Northwest schools would likely build a new Pacific conference with schools like Boise, BYU, SDSU, Nevada, Fresno and Gonzaga. Iowa State and West Virginia would have to find refuge in the AAC, because at this point I don't see any logical future adds for the B1G, SEC or ACC. Presumably, teams in the new Great Southwest and the ACC would both be tied up contractually until the mid-30's.

There is method to my madness in all this. The Four Corners (AZ, UT and CO) schools all have a logical geographical affinity with one another, all are in the PAC only because they want to be associated with the 4 California schools, and none have any particular affinity with the Pacific Northwest 4. No real rivalries would be broken up on either side.

But the most important aspect is this. If six PAC schools were to come east and join with the Big 12, or 4 Texhoma schools were to go west to join the PAC, they would always be the newbies, who were given a helping hand by the surviving conference. I don't think the egos of Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Stanford and maybe others could tolerate that. It would prevent them from getting together at all.

But as I arranged it, the resulting 16 team conference would be in all ways a marriage of equals. Each side brings something to the table critical to both - eyeballs to support a profitable network. The kingpins from each would still be the kingpins of their respective divisions. In short, Texas and Oklahoma could sell this to their fans.

Now, Washington and Oregon are still attractive and available additions for the B1G, but having two members out on an island - even within their own division - probably precludes that from happening. They could still form a very respectable and geographically logical conference. They just wouldn't have nearly as much money. But they'd have more than anybody else in their league.

Here are some statistics to give an idea how a merger of the Big 8 (formerly Big 12) teams and PAC 8 (formerly PAC 12) would fit into the big picture of power conferences. For this purpose, I am calling the merged conference the GSW (Great Southwest) and the rebuilt PAC retains the conference name.

The first column is the average Sagarin power rating for the past 3 seasons for each conference. This is a measure of top to bottom strength (depth). The second, a measure of how strong the conference is at the top, is the average 3 year rating for the four highest rated teams in each conference. These are the teams most likely to contend often for a playoff berth.

The third column is the number of appearances in the BCS/CFP Final Four over the past five years. The fourth is the number of appearances in the Top Ten for those years. The fifth and final column is the population in millions of the states in each conference's footprint after the realignment.

Conf....3 year...Top 4....FF.....Top 10...Pop

..SEC.......79........90........7.........12.......90
..ACC.......78........87........5..........9.......92
..GSW......77........88........2.........12.......86
..B1G......76.........89.......4..........14.......94
..PAC.......71........79........2..........3........57

IMO, this competitive balance among the four P conferences enables changes to the CFP structure. If the P4 were allowed to hold a 4 team conference championship tournament (and were permitted to use divisionless scheduling models if they like), then the 14 team AAC could have a CCG in Week 14, and their champ play the round robin champion of the 9 team PAC the following week while P4 CCG's are staged.

Then, the semifinalists could be the 4 highest ranked conference champs. It would still be difficult for the PAC and AAC champs to make the Final Four, but their post season matchups could add enough to the resume of the winner to keep them in the conversation. They would have a path. I would give the winner of their Week 15 game an auto bid to the NY6.

The path to the NY6 would be very difficult for the four remaining conferences, and nearly impossible for the CFP. After all, on average the top four teams from those conferences would be three touchdown underdogs to the top four from the P4 conferences. I would give an autobid to any of these G4 teams ranked in the Top Ten. Only twice in the last 15 years has such a team cracked the Top Ten (Hawaii and Miami of Ohio).

Perhaps the most significant number from the data above is that the GSW would now be in the same ballpark as the other P4 conferences in the population within their footprint. Before the merger, both the PAC 12 and the Big 12 were in the 60 million range, far behind the rest of the P5, hampering their ability to have a profitable conference network. Now, the playing field would be pretty level across the board.

I don't think the PAC California schools would move with Utah and Colorado, but without Washington and Oregon. That's a long history to take a dump on, two AAU schools are better than one plus a convenient airport, and the Seattle-Portland markets are better than Denver-Salt Lake.

If there were a real-world scenario, it would likely follow this order: 1) PAC adds B12 schools; 2) full merger of both; 3) the best of the PAC-B12. And, the latter scenario would likely mean to shave off some of the in-state little brothers (Oregon St., Washington St., Kansas St., etc.) and/or outliers (Baylor, WVU).

I also see the Big 12 losing schools to the SEC or B1G well before the B12 is able to attract PAC schools.

(02-05-2018 08:28 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:26 PM)megadrone Wrote:  Is this just speculation or has USC expressed any interest in leaving?

The tweet posted in the article is from someone who is apparently a large backer. It's probably a talking point to try to force change with the PACN. Nothing like a threat to leave to force an issue like deciding to get FOX or ESPN backing for the PACN. Then the PAC might pursue Texa-homa or something similar again. But if not, I don't think the thought is necessarily a hollow threat.

I think it could get really interesting. Consider that if the current FOX / Disney deals go through that ESPN will wind up holding the T3 of the Big 12 and would be in a perfect position to handle the changing of the LHN into a viable Big 12N. That would create an even bigger gap in revenue between the PAC and the Big 12 making movement conceivable. Let's say Arizona and Arizona State were interested as well and U.C.L.A. decided to throw in with U.S.C.. That would put California and Stanford on the clock so to speak. The present PAC has 12 schools. If they dropped to 7 they would have a year to get back up to 8 or lose conference status. Remember their contracts are up in 2024-5 as well.

While not likely, it has, if the Disney/FOX deal goes through, moved into the realm of possibility. Besides when a conference, or one of its schools, doesn't want to accept the responsibility for making a potential threat they usually have one of their boosters do the talking, or a local beat writer. It's an effective way to send a message. So we'll see.

This suggestion is slightly different from one I made earlier.

What if, when the Big 12 media contracts and GoR expire, the 8 western Big 12 schools (all but Iowa State and West Virginia) decide to dissolve the Big 12? Eight votes is what are required, IIRC.

Now those 8 are in position to invite both the Cali 4 plus the Four Corners 4 to join them in a new conference with perfectly logical balanced divisions. No scheduling dilemmas to deal with. The entire southwest within their market, and two of the four best recruiting grounds in the country. Surely you could make a network profitable in that scenario.

Now, for all practical purposes, you are down to a P4 with only 59 mouths to feed. There are now two tweener conferences (a rebuilt PAC and the AAC) and four more or less equal bottom feeders.

If that new P4 wants to stage 4 team conference tournaments, who's to stop them?

So you are saying Kansas, Kansas, State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the 4 Big 12 Texas schools join with the 4 California Schools, and Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona's to form a new PAC? If I read that right then I could see Colorado heading to the Big 10.

My question is why hang onto T.C.U.?

Why not include Iowa State and Colorado and cut T.C.U. & Baylor loose?

So the PAC/B12 becomes:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech

Why leave anyone for the Big 10 or SEC of value? After all part of the move would be made to close the gap.

Then in 2033 or thereabouts the Big 10 and SEC get to 16 by each taking two from the ACC. The ACC then back-fills with West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U. and Connecticut/Cincinnati.

So Notre Dame and Virginia head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke to the SEC.

The football kings remain in their own conference now.

So the Big 10 becomes:

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC becomes:

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee



The rebuilt ACC becomes:

B.C., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, W.V.U.

Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, N.C. State, T.C.U., Wake Forest



Now what you have is a more football emphasized ACC without losing all of its basketball cachet. The Big 10 and SEC get into valuable markets with brands. U.N.C. gets to move with Duke. You've only whittled the P5 down to 64, but you have much stronger eastern market draws with Connecticut and Cincinnati than you would have with Washington State, Oregon State, or Utah. And both divisions of the ACC have a tie to Florida and Texas opens up for them.

If N.D. is recalcitrant substitute Syracuse or Pitt and plug the Irish into the ACC.

But truly Ken D. for the sake of efficiency in eliminating duplicated overhead a Big 10 of 24 and a SEC of 24 to form as you pointed out elsewhere a Mega 2 is still much more efficient. Then two tweener conferences one in the East and one in the West make sense as well.

If you look at the Gross Total Revenue from 2016 with the exceptions of Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Rutgers everyone in the top 48 essentially had 82 million in total gross revenue. Vanderbilt was at 79 and Northwestern at 77, and Rutgers lagged a tad below that. Only UConn was in their range at 79 million as well. Baylor & TCU were both in the 90 million range.

I always look at revenue when considering a dividing line. So with the Mega 2 approach you have a little gray area in revenues, but a fairly clear separation overall. That separation also includes with those same few exceptions, attendance.

I think as long as there is an ACC then Lina, Dook and Virginny would be part of it. Perhaps by then they would stop the pretense of being a football power and go back to their niche of being basketball-focused. In that case, FSU and Clemson move over to the SEC, VA Tech goes to the B10 along with Pitt. Then Temple, USF, UCONN and West Virginia take their places in the ACC.

Baylor, TCU, USF, Louisville, West Virginia, Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest

Syracuse, Connecticut, Boston College, Temple, Virginia, UNC, Duke, NC State

Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State

Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Missouri, Ole Miss, Alabama, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Clemson, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee

Well we might be interested in some horse trading:
How about 2 trades with the B1G, Pitt for Maryland, and Virginia Tech for Northwestern
One Trade with the SEC, Louisville for Vanderbilt.
Then bring in Texas and Notre Dame as a full time member.

Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, Miami
Texas, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Carolina, State, Duke, Wake Forest

I very much doubt Stanford and Cal would ever see the likes of Baylor and/or Oklahoma State as peers, let alone be comfortable being in a conference with them. UDub, as well as being located in a major market, is one of the top public flagship schools in the country, so a school Stanford would be more comfortable associating itself with.

Any B12-P12 partial merger would have to involve leaving the private schools outside of California and the 2nd public schools behind. I don't know if Arizona State would be part of this or not. Maybe the Phoenix market can justify including them but Arizona has two schools representing the state already.

Until athletics are completely divorced from the academic side the opinions of presidents and administrators will continue to matter.

(02-05-2018 03:38 PM)YNot Wrote:  I don't think the PAC California schools would move with Utah and Colorado, but without Washington and Oregon. That's a long history to take a dump on, two AAU schools are better than one plus a convenient airport, and the Seattle-Portland markets are better than Denver-Salt Lake.

If there were a real-world scenario, it would likely follow this order: 1) PAC adds B12 schools; 2) full merger of both; 3) the best of the PAC-B12. And, the latter scenario would likely mean to shave off some of the in-state little brothers (Oregon St., Washington St., Kansas St., etc.) and/or outliers (Baylor, WVU).

I also see the Big 12 losing schools to the SEC or B1G well before the B12 is able to attract PAC schools.

I agree. The California schools have more affinity for UW and UO than they do newcomers Utah and Colorado. They are more likely to be included in any sort of Big 12/Pac 12 Best of Conference.

Now if 2 Big 12 schools got an offer to go to the Big Ten, I could see Colorado sneaking back into the conversation to build a 16 team league but they'd be on the Big 12 side of the league.