(09-11-2022 10:12 PM)Poster Wrote:  I’ve never really seen a lot of evidence that UCLA is the second most valuable PAC school. Wasn’t there some evaluation that the PAC will lose 40% of its value because USC is 30% of the PAC’s value, and UCLA is 10%? (Barely more than 1/12, which is 8.25%.)

Do the math ... if USC is 30% and UCLA is 10%, that means that the other 10 are 60%, so the average value contributed by the other 10 is 6%.

Of course, that is just one widely cited estimate (because it was involved in an analysis of the impact immediately after the fact that was cited in the California Board of Regents story). I have seen another estimate (in the Seattle times) that the loss of value to the PAC of USC/UCLA leaving is 25%, and if USC were to leave alone it would be 15%.

Quote: UCLA was probably mainly just taken so that non-revenue teams can double up on UCLA/USC plane trips.

That analysis presumes that it was an open choice "who to take with USC", but what fits the reporting is that USC and UCLA were taken because they applied together and the Big Ten decided to take the pair as opposed to rejecting the pair.

It made a lot more sense to add USC and Stanford had the B1G initiated. Would have been a cleaner split and would have still respected the public institutions and markets existing in the PAC10. But when the travel is so burdensome and you have a chance to knock out two birds with one stone, they went with UCLA. More than likely the two LA institutions moved in lockstep for this very reason, and blindsided the rest of their conference mates as it so happened.

It's all moot, because I think Stanford and Cal are going eventually. Whatever the holdup is, the travel is significantly alleviated for incumbent B1G schools, leaving the athletes with one west coast trip in conference play per year if that.

Speaking of travel, I wonder how feasible it would be if UO and UW joined the B1G as FO, therefore accepting less shares and saving the rest of the conference on travel costs. If that's enough to dissolve the PAC (let's say 4 corners leave shortly after), is there a BBall conference there in the MWC (with OSU/WSU all sports and perhaps Zags)? That gives the MWC a clean 16 and firmly secures itself as the best west coast BBall conference.

Stanford and Cal are forced to break their silence and park Olympics in the Big West, while securing independent deals for football. Otherwise, take less shares and you still end up with 20 team B1G football and you don't have to worry about two separate flights to Seattle and Eugene for women's soccers/volleyball.

(09-12-2022 08:07 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Speaking of travel, I wonder how feasible it would be if UO and UW joined the B1G as FO, therefore accepting less shares and saving the rest of the conference on travel costs. If that's enough to dissolve the PAC (let's say 4 corners leave shortly after), is there a BBall conference there in the MWC (with OSU/WSU all sports and perhaps Zags)? That gives the MWC a clean 16 and firmly secures itself as the best west coast BBall conference.

Stanford and Cal are forced to break their silence and park Olympics in the Big West, while securing independent deals for football. Otherwise, take less shares and you still end up with 20 team B1G football and you don't have to worry about two separate flights to Seattle and Eugene for women's soccers/volleyball.

It’s something like a 4 hour 15 minute bus trip from Eugene to Seattle. (At least under the traffic conditions that were present when I typed that into Google maps one time.) This probably is an underrated issue by this board, where you can’t really go from UO to UW on just one plane trip.


One alternative would be for the Big Ten to force Oregon and Washington to put their Olympic sports in the Big West or something. (Which I’m sure they’d be more than willing to do at this point.) I created a thread suggesting this idea about 4 weeks ago and everybody criticized the idea and some people even claimed it would violate NCAA regulations. (Although nobody seemed to be able to cite what in the NCAA bylaws it would actually violate.)

Reports starting to leak that Big 10 has passed on Oregon and Washington, and that the Pac 12 has approached the Big 12 about a merger again...

(09-12-2022 09:09 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Reports starting to leak that Big 10 has passed on Oregon and Washington, and that the Pac 12 has approached the Big 12 about a merger again...

That's not happening (the merger that is).

(09-12-2022 08:53 AM)Poster Wrote:  It’s something like a 4 hour 15 minute bus trip from Eugene to Seattle. (At least under the traffic conditions that were present when I typed that into Google maps one time.) This probably is an underrated issue by this board, where you can’t really go from UO to UW on just one plane trip.

One alternative would be for the Big Ten to force Oregon and Washington to put their Olympic sports in the Big West or something. (Which I’m sure they’d be more than willing to do at this point.) I created a thread suggesting this idea about 4 weeks ago and everybody criticized the idea and some people even claimed it would violate NCAA regulations. (Although nobody seemed to be able to cite what in the NCAA bylaws it would actually violate.)

You don't think the MWC would be interested in a BBall package of UW, UO, and Zaga? Those three could coordinate together and engage directly with the MWC, as long as B1G FB is secured.

(09-12-2022 09:09 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Reports starting to leak that Big 10 has passed on Oregon and Washington, and that the Pac 12 has approached the Big 12 about a merger again...

Source?

Interesting. The pacific 6 don’t seem good fit with the b12.

If a merger is back on the table, I would be surprised.

I would think the new 12 team college football playoff would cause it to be way more attractive to keep the B12 and PAC independent of each other.

(09-12-2022 10:46 AM)Boots Wrote:  If a merger is back on the table, I would be surprised.

I would think the new 12 team college football playoff would cause it to be way more attractive to keep the B12 and PAC independent of each other.

You could obviously do 22-24 team setups, but I think that would be too dilutive. However, if they can lock in a 7-8 year GoR, they may get the payout they are looking for. It would depend on the playoff money, because that conference should get the bye every year. More than likely Stanford would look to drop schools like WVU and UC. My guess is it would be contingent on the eastern schools getting placed in the ACC.

I do think the midwest 8 would prefer to allign with the PAC 10 if they could, but there is no way to remove the appendage that is WVU/UC/UCF. They also don't think too highly of OSU/WSU. Just too many barriers to make it happen for anything but a very short term arrangement.

8 year GoR would lock in a 5+4/4/4/4 so you'd get everyone H&H in the existing 22 team straight merger.

(09-12-2022 10:46 AM)Boots Wrote:  If a merger is back on the table, I would be surprised.

I would think the new 12 team college football playoff would cause it to be way more attractive to keep the B12 and PAC independent of each other.

Having 10 teams with 16 team SEC and Big 10s making lots more is not a good position to be in.

But going beyond 20 teams is a real risk.

I'm not sure the Big 12 would really want the trouble and attitude Stanford and Cal bring with them. And it would be 8 long time Pac schools, 1 newer Pac school, 1 having been both Pac and Big 12, 6 long time Big 12 schools, 2 newer Big 12 schools and 4 brand new Big 12 schools. Just doesn't seem like a coherent mix. Adding 6 Pac schools when 2 were CU and UU might work a lot better.

(09-12-2022 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 10:46 AM)Boots Wrote:  If a merger is back on the table, I would be surprised.

I would think the new 12 team college football playoff would cause it to be way more attractive to keep the B12 and PAC independent of each other.

Having 10 teams with 16 team SEC and Big 10s making lots more is not a good position to be in.

But going beyond 20 teams is a real risk.

I'm not sure the Big 12 would really want the trouble and attitude Stanford and Cal bring with them. And it would be 8 long time Pac schools, 1 newer Pac school, 1 having been both Pac and Big 12, 6 long time Big 12 schools, 2 newer Big 12 schools and 4 brand new Big 12 schools. Just doesn't seem like a coherent mix. Adding 6 Pac schools when 2 were CU and UU might work a lot better.

Yeah but you'd have to look at it as a rental situation. Those original PAC 6 schools will have every opportunity to break away after the B1G deal is up. But I do think it is an all or nothing situation.

(09-12-2022 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 10:46 AM)Boots Wrote:  If a merger is back on the table, I would be surprised.

I would think the new 12 team college football playoff would cause it to be way more attractive to keep the B12 and PAC independent of each other.

Having 10 teams with 16 team SEC and Big 10s making lots more is not a good position to be in.

But going beyond 20 teams is a real risk.

I'm not sure the Big 12 would really want the trouble and attitude Stanford and Cal bring with them. And it would be 8 long time Pac schools, 1 newer Pac school, 1 having been both Pac and Big 12, 6 long time Big 12 schools, 2 newer Big 12 schools and 4 brand new Big 12 schools. Just doesn't seem like a coherent mix. Adding 6 Pac schools when 2 were CU and UU might work a lot better.

If merging to the B12, I could imagine that they might accept 8, but not Stanford or Cal.

And if they could work something out with the ACC to accept WV, Cinn, and UCF, they could add SMU, SDSU, and BSU too.

(09-12-2022 11:30 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If merging to the B12, I could imagine that they might accept 8, but not Stanford or Cal.

And if they could work something out with the ACC to accept WV, Cinn, and UCF, they could add SMU, SDSU, and BSU too.

Nonsense. They'd place those schools to accommodate Stanford/Cal. BYU would have to go too. None of those latter schools will be added unless they are going past 22, which is already ridiculous.

Anyhow, BYU and the eastern schools are likely protected in this scenario. Frank covered this earlier. Stanford and Cal would simply have to stomach BYU for 8 years and hope they can get out later.

(09-12-2022 11:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 11:30 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If merging to the B12, I could imagine that they might accept 8, but not Stanford or Cal.

And if they could work something out with the ACC to accept WV, Cinn, and UCF, they could add SMU, SDSU, and BSU too.

Nonsense. They'd place those schools to accommodate Stanford/Cal. BYU would have to go too. None of those latter schools will be added unless they are going past 22, which is already ridiculous.

Anyhow, BYU and the eastern schools are likely protected in this scenario. Frank covered this earlier. Stanford and Cal would simply have to stomach BYU for 8 years and hope they can get out later.

"have to"

reminds me of all the people talking about ND and that they will now"have to" join a conference.

So I dunno about "have to"

(09-12-2022 11:45 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  "have to"

reminds me of all the people talking about ND and that they will now"have to" join a conference.

So I dunno about "have to"

If Stanford and Cal threatens to go independent and move Olympics to the Big West because of BYU or WVU or whatever excuse, that essentially kills the merger. The PAC 10 are better off sticking together. So I use "Have to" in that you have to have them to make a merger viable. Otherwise it isn't a merger, but the Big 12 adopting the malleable children and leaving out the problem children in Stanford/Cal.

FTR, I don't think a merger is likely.

The other rumors from Arizona are that the Big 12 will command $10M per year per school more in TV money than the Pac 12.

If that's true, merger doesn't make sense.

(09-12-2022 12:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 11:45 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  "have to"

reminds me of all the people talking about ND and that they will now"have to" join a conference.

So I dunno about "have to"

If Stanford and Cal threatens to go independent and move Olympics to the Big West because of BYU or WVU or whatever excuse, that essentially kills the merger. The PAC 10 are better off sticking together. So I use "Have to" in that you have to have them to make a merger viable. Otherwise it isn't a merger, but the Big 12 adopting the malleable children and leaving out the problem children in Stanford/Cal.

a merger by any other name... : )

[quote='RUScarlets' pid='18438184' dateline='1662987341']
It made a lot more sense to add USC and Stanford had the B1G initiated. Would have been a cleaner split and would have still respected the public institutions and markets existing in the PAC10. But when the travel is so burdensome and you have a chance to knock out two birds with one stone, they went with UCLA. More than likely the two LA institutions moved in lockstep for this very reason, and blindsided the rest of their conference mates as it so happened.

It's all moot, because I think Stanford and Cal are going eventually. Whatever the holdup is, the travel is significantly alleviated for incumbent B1G schools, leaving the athletes with one west coast trip in conference play per year if that.


Stanford I understand, but Cal? They may make the academic grade but their football and BB programs have not been good, and they have enormous athletic department debt that they are paying interest only until 2032.

[quote]"Stadium debt already absorbs 20 percent of intercollegiate athletics' annual income, or roughly $18 million of its $89 million budget. And that pays only the interest.

Cal won't start paying down the principal until 2032, when its yearly payments rise to $26 million, then $37 million, before tapering off in 2051. After a brief respite, Cal will owe a lump sum of $82 million in 2053 alone. Then it will have six decades to pay off the final 17 percent, or $75 million."[/quote]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1680...erspective

(09-12-2022 09:12 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 09:09 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Reports starting to leak that Big 10 has passed on Oregon and Washington, and that the Pac 12 has approached the Big 12 about a merger again...

That's not happening (the merger that is).

(09-12-2022 08:53 AM)Poster Wrote:  It’s something like a 4 hour 15 minute bus trip from Eugene to Seattle. (At least under the traffic conditions that were present when I typed that into Google maps one time.) This probably is an underrated issue by this board, where you can’t really go from UO to UW on just one plane trip.

One alternative would be for the Big Ten to force Oregon and Washington to put their Olympic sports in the Big West or something. (Which I’m sure they’d be more than willing to do at this point.) I created a thread suggesting this idea about 4 weeks ago and everybody criticized the idea and some people even claimed it would violate NCAA regulations. (Although nobody seemed to be able to cite what in the NCAA bylaws it would actually violate.)

You don't think the MWC would be interested in a BBall package of UW, UO, and Zaga? Those three could coordinate together and engage directly with the MWC, as long as B1G FB is secured.

Zags? Sure. But why would the MWC teams vote in Ore and Wash who would have a huge financial advantage due to their media contract with the BIG while not providing much, if any, increase in the MWC media contract?

(09-12-2022 12:06 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  FTR, I don't think a merger is likely.

The other rumors from Arizona are that the Big 12 will command $10M per year per school more in TV money than the Pac 12.

If that's true, merger doesn't make sense.

I believe that $10m more per school for the big 12 is possible, and if the difference really is that large then the Pac is really screwed. If I was the Big 12, I'd go for ASU, UO, UW and Stanford or Cal. If any 2 of them go for it then you can stop at 14, if 1 or 3 want to join then you can look at memphis or maybe SDSU, assuming you feel that it's important to have an even number of schools.