(08-03-2022 12:48 PM)Tigerblud Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 11:46 AM)Tigerblud Wrote:  Staying at 10 would be a mistake. You need to build the conference for the future. Just go ahead and grab SDSU and SMU.

I think 8 of those 10 schools aren’t in this for the long haul so I don’t see them trying to fill out the ranks.

As a conference commissioner that's your job. You need to protect Oregon state and Washington state. Get some teams in now that will compete right away to an extent. Then can add more later to survive.

Commissioners make all the expansion decisions? I thought school presidents had the power.

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

(08-03-2022 12:51 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

I agree with this 100%. It's not a popular take here though.

Its because it runs contrary to everything that has been printed in the media.
And it actually is a pretty popular take.

(08-03-2022 12:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

He is either operating fully on emotion or a simpleton that is out of touch with the realities of today.

You know what is worth even less than $5 million, conference pride between rump conferences. The only tenable path forward is getting a 3rd super conference of P5 leftovers ASAP.


Regardless of which conference name survives, the leftovers need consolidation as much as the P2.

It just so happens to be that the PAC the worst positioned for that. It is simply false that a school's valuation is static. The PAC schools are worth more the less PAC they become, due to some pretty basic econometrics.
Then there is the risk and uncertainty of the BIG continuing to remind the PAC it is nothing more than fodder. Waiting on the BIG to finish the PAC is not risk free for the 4 corners.

He talks about that. That is his point about potentially there being a 48 team top division and a leaky boat. He talks about some seeing safety in numbers. He doesn't think it helps.

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

They wouldn't be moving for dollars. They could be moving for "safety in numbers."

As I've stated, SMu and SDSU would give them pipelines in both top G5 conferences and Kliavkoff can remain employed.

I think the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC need to sit down and consolidate into two. The Big and SEC are at 16 and making tons more. There is benefit in consolidation to counter that power.
If they don't, some of their members will be left behind.

There are a lot of vulnerable schools-Oregon St., Washington St., Utah, possibly even Cal, WVU, UCF, Cincinnati, Iowa St., Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech. Any of them could be left out depending on how things shake out. That's why the 3 conferences need to consolidate now (or at least once Notre Dame and the Big 10 reach decisions and stopping points this fall).

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

what would be the threshold to move?
not 5mil. 10?

(08-03-2022 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC need to sit down and consolidate into two. The Big and SEC are at 16 and making tons more. There is benefit in consolidation to counter that power.
If they don't, some of their members will be left behind.

There are a lot of vulnerable schools-Oregon St., Washington St., Utah, possibly even Cal, WVU, UCF, Cincinnati, Iowa St., Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech. Any of them could be left out depending on how things shake out. That's why the 3 conferences need to consolidate now (or at least once Notre Dame and the Big 10 reach decisions and stopping points this fall).

An original and productive thought, that actually makes sense.

(08-03-2022 01:12 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

what would be the threshold to move?
not 5mil. 10?

Probably a %. 5 million is plenty to move for a G5 making between $100k and $7 million. For a Big 10 or SEC school making $60 million +, it just takes more.

I'm not sure the Big 10 would have added USC and UCLA if not for strategic reasons. Indications are it only increased their revenue from $71 to $78 million per school. That is $7 million, but its also only 10% while forcing their programs to fly across the country.

(08-03-2022 01:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

He is either operating fully on emotion or a simpleton that is out of touch with the realities of today.

You know what is worth even less than $5 million, conference pride between rump conferences. The only tenable path forward is getting a 3rd super conference of P5 leftovers ASAP.


Regardless of which conference name survives, the leftovers need consolidation as much as the P2.

It just so happens to be that the PAC the worst positioned for that. It is simply false that a school's valuation is static. The PAC schools are worth more the less PAC they become, due to some pretty basic econometrics.
Then there is the risk and uncertainty of the BIG continuing to remind the PAC it is nothing more than fodder. Waiting on the BIG to finish the PAC is not risk free for the 4 corners.

He talks about that. That is his point about potentially there being a 48 team top division and a leaky boat. He talks about some seeing safety in numbers. He doesn't think it helps.

1. There is a long, long list of widely believed hot media takes which are nothing but a BS souffle' cooked up to jazz public interest or anger to drive hits and and sell papers. We live in an information age when 99.9% of it is flawed or simply not so.

2. As to the formation of a tweener conference, it will happen naturally as the need arises and 40 million is a solid blanket figure for one as it covers B12, PAC and ACC numbers and the formation of such will give access and a cover payout to eliminate damages and it will permit the 2 x 24 to form.

(08-03-2022 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 01:12 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

what would be the threshold to move?
not 5mil. 10?

Probably a %. 5 million is plenty to move for a G5 making between $100k and $7 million. For a Big 10 or SEC school making $60 million +, it just takes more.

I'm not sure the Big 10 would have added USC and UCLA if not for strategic reasons. Indications are it only increased their revenue from $71 to $78 million per school. That is $7 million, but its also only 10% while forcing their programs to fly across the country.

Right - it's a range. $5 million more is a huge deal for a G5 league.

What the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC are looking for a real material closing of the gap between them and the Big Ten/SEC, however that's defined.

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

People dont watch football based on how smart the schools are. Football is valuable because people care about it. If your located in a market where people dont care about it---your value has a cap. If your located in an area where only 20% of he nations TVs are located---you're ceiling is less than if you are located in an area where 80% of the TV's are located. The one thing the Pac12 has that is unique is late night P5 programming---but that has a cap because 80% of the TV's are asleep at that point---so nobody is going to overpay too much for that unique content. Still---thats always created some premium because the Pac12 was the only supplier of late night P5 western content. But is that still true? The fact is the Pac12 has already lost its unique stranglehold on that late night P5 programming with the exit of USC and UCLA. The Big10 can now offer some late night P5 inventory. BYU joining the Big12 added another conference that can potentially offer late night P5 programming. I think the amount of late night P5 content either of these alternative P5 sources can supply is still fairly limited----but if the Big12 nabs 2 to 4 Pac12 schools---the Pac12's position as the only substantial supplier of "unique" late night western P5 content would be significantly undermined.

That said---I dont think there will be much difference in contract values---assuming all stays "as is" for now. However, if the Pac12 loses more---that could quickly change. Where I think the HUGE difference comes is if you compare the value of the current Pac-10 to a potential Big16. I think there is a synergistic premium to be had there.

(08-03-2022 01:12 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

what would be the threshold to move?
not 5mil. 10?

The TV value of any leftover school is basically an intrinsic property. At any given time the school might be marginally better reimbursed in one leftover conference’s contract versus another. But that’s probably going to be labile and maybe next contract you’re worth a few million more to a different conference. But if your school is continually chasing those TV dollars (which are sort of out of your control), you’re probably going to do some things that destabilize your other revenue streams which are generally more under your own control.

Unless one leftover conference becomes the clear #1 with a wide financial gap, you’re likely better off in your current conference because in general you likely joined that conference because it’s the best situation for optimizing your branding and non-TV revenue streams.

There are some outliers here where some schools would likely be better fits in the ACC or BigXII or PAC than their current conference, and movement of those individual schools will likely be for reasons other than highly similar TV revenue.

Also, the leftovers are going to be severely lacking in Big Fish programs that move the needle in any meaningful way. The only way one conference gets we’ll ahead of the rest is if they BOTH collect all the best programs AND eliminate the bottom programs. That would require a new “best of” conference because each of the PAC, ACC, and BigXII have programs that would need to be trimmed to really pull ahead on a revenue/school metric.

...perhaps a bit too easy, but...

PAC adds SDSU and BSU (Smurf Turf, baby) - back to 12.

BIG XII will be at 12 in 2023.

MERGE the two.

BOOM - the BIG PAC - double dozen, whatever - a new 24-team conference to be the 'next best thing' to the B1G/SEC status...

DONE.

...yeah, that seems way too easy...

(08-03-2022 01:36 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...perhaps a bit too easy, but...

PAC adds SDSU and BSU (Smurf Turf, baby) - back to 12.

BIG XII will be at 12 in 2023.

MERGE the two.

BOOM - the BIG PAC - double dozen, whatever - a new 24-team conference to be the 'next best thing' to the B1G/SEC status...

DONE.

...yeah, that seems way too easy...

It makes sense to me---but you probably can tweak it a bit to increase per team payouts by cutting a little fat using a slightly more limited "merger" strategy....maybe take 6 to 8 rather than all 10.

The only way I see a team leaving the Big 12 would be if PAC was offering more dollars locked in now and because of the deal timing B12 teams feared their own deal coming in low.

If PAC guarantee to Houston, TCU, Baylor, etc. was $35mm locked in....and the Big 12 true estimates was only $25mm. Could that scare B12 teams enough to move? The timing of TV deals could play in PACs favor...but even that feels like a stretch.

My guess assuming no more Big 10 poaching...PAC adds SDSU and SMU and things stabilize.

Then question then becomes does Big 12 add anyone else since in expansion mode? The possible 2nd expansion that was discussed prior to USC/UCLA move? Do they circle back to Memphis/Boise/USF/CSU or some combo to get back to 14-16?

There’s just a lot of denial/anger/bargaining from the BigXII driving the conversation.

If/WHEN we get a roughly 48 team breakaway, it’s over if you’re on the outside. There is no rearranging of chairs that keeps you relevant. Interest in your product will drop precipitously and the TV revenue will follow shortly. The MAC looks better set up to weather that storm than a transcontinental monstrosity like the BigXII.

I anticipate a return to the good ol’ skyline/RMAC days. Maybe with a CCG versus the border conference. This panicked need to grab hold of others before the bottom falls out isn’t going to help anyone.

Here’s the same piece potentially without the paywall https://www.ksl.com/article/50451602/for...the-pac-12

(08-03-2022 11:14 AM)Boots Wrote:  Here is Mandels mailbag from this morning...some juicy information he sounds confident in...summary...

-If PAC expands he feels confident it would be SDSU and SMU
-If one conference is poaching...much more likely it is the PAC taking from the Big 12...not the reversal.
-Also very possible they stay at 10.

Here is the Q & A....

I am a lifelong Southerner, but pulling for the Pac-12 to survive and prosper. After San Diego State, are either Nevada or UNLV acceptable candidates? — Mark C.

Nothing against either of those two fine institutions, but if the Pac-12 brought either of them in, the remaining schools would basically have to write them a check from their own bank accounts, because they’re bringing zero new dollars to the league’s next TV deals.

Based on the conversations I’ve had, and reading between some tea leaves, the only remaining Group of 5 schools on the Pac-12’s radar are San Diego State and SMU. The former is fairly obvious, both due to its location and its strong athletic department. SMU’s appeal is part getting into the Dallas recruiting and TV market, and part that it’s highly ranked in academics (No. 68 nationally in US News) — which Pac-12 presidents really do care about. However, it’s also debatable whether either or both will add enough per-school value to prevent the existing 10 from getting their slice of the pie.

I would not discount two other possibilities for the Pac-12. One is the league stays at 10 programs. It would be much the same strategy the Big 12 followed from 2011-21, which benefitted its schools financially but then of course left them a sitting duck when Oklahoma and Texas left. This to me is the likely outcome if they end up landing a less-than-desired number from their next set of media rights. (If that happens, I’d also expect to see Oregon and possibly others push for a bigger slice of the revenue).

Or — they do better than expected, and try to use it as incentive to add schools from the Big 12.

Obviously, the Pac-12 had that opportunity a year ago and declined. (The LA Times recently reported that of all people, USC president Carol Folt put the kibosh on expansion at that time.) I’ve been told the conference did its diligence and found that only a couple of the Big 12 holdovers would have added any value. But circumstances have changed, and if commissioner George Kliavkoff and/or his presidents deem it important to get into Texas, it would make sense to pursue TCU and Baylor, or perhaps even Houston, before turning to SMU and San Diego State.

The tricky thing is that the Big 12 Grant of Rights goes for a year longer than the Pac-12’s, so it wouldn’t line up with the start of the Pac-12’s next TV deal. But that could also work to their advantage. The Pac-12 is going to know its post-USC/UCLA valuation a year or more earlier than the Big 12 schools find out their post-Oklahoma/Texas fate. Probably before the end of this calendar year. That guaranteed money could be tempting to a school like TCU that will still have no idea the new Big 12’s value. And, if they wait until 2025, they can defect without having to pay an exit fee.

To be clear, I would not place the likelihood of this scenario particularly high, though certainly higher than anyone going in the reverse direction.

Seemed plausible and "insider-ish" enough, but loses all credibility when he pitches Baylor as a possibility to the current Pac. Stanford and Cal (and probably others) will never, ever, let that happen.

Also he's too lazy (or ignorant) to mention that the Big 12 exit fee pretty much prohibits anyone jumping from there to the Pac.

Just realignment clickbait (the article, not the poster).