(09-25-2023 01:03 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 10:40 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  Thing is both Cal and Stanford would pay their own way - accept less payout

I actually think the B12 should have just added OSU/WSU/Cal/Stanford and gone to 20

4 5-team pods -
OSU, WSU, Cal, Stan, Utah
AZ, ASU, BYU, TTU, TCU
CO, KU, KSU, ISU, Ok St (old Big 8)
Hous, Bay, UCF, Cinc, WV

Those all contain some nice existing rivalries/ratings drivers

Football - play 4 from your pod every year, then 2 from the other 3 pods (10 games but works best that way)

Basketball - home and home within pod (8 games), everyone else once (12) - making a 20 game conf season -doable

The old Big 8 schools get to maintain their 100 year old rivalries, BYU-TCU get to play every year, the Pac NW group has decent travel

The B12 gets two more AAU schools in Cal and Stan, gives AZ some west coast recruiting access

Also, when ACC implodes, B12 can add Louisville, Pitt and find two more to get to 24 - guessing this configuration of the B12 is a near match to SEC and B1G football and basketball

Did you just really split up BYU and Utah in your pods?

Yeah, you know that everyone is dying to get games in Utah...

(09-25-2023 02:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The ACC has set itself up to be the private school/Ivory tower conference after the inevitable happens

Wake, Duke, GA Tech, Syracuse, BC, SMU, Cal, Stanford at minimum

Rice, Tulane, USF would fit in well as needed

That’s the impression I have as well.

When the ACC does finally see its most attractive members depart, there will be some schools with difficult choices to make—stay in the academic minded ACC or the more athletically focused Big 12.

Louisville strikes me as a school that better fits the Big 12 mentality.

Miami/Pitt/VT/NC St could be swayed to go either way. SMU is a bit of a snob but they might find their old SWC foes attractive conference mates.

If they are still there, BC, Cuse, UVA, Duke, WF, GT, Cal, and Stanford are your academic upper crust cohort.

If the Big 12 and ACC were able to go through a sorting post ACC departures I think it could look something like this

BIG 12
SDSU/Arizona/BYU/Colorado
Texas Tech/Houston/Baylor/TCU
Oklahoma State/Kansas St/Kansas/Iowa State
WVU/Louisville/Cincinnati/UCF

ACC
BC/Syracuse/Pitt/UConn
SMU/Rice/Tulane/Notre Dame*
USF/GA Tech/Wake/Duke
Cal/Stanford/Utah/Arizona State

(09-25-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  If B12 money dries up while the ACC remains viable, those 4 are the most likely to be left behind as the ACC backfills.

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract

It's only gotten worse for the ACC over the past couple years, and it's only gotten better for the Big 16. TCU and KState (!!), 2 tiny, forgotten Big 12 afterthoughts, pulled in 9.4m viewers for the Big 12 CCG last year. That's 50% more than the past 2 years combined of the ACC CCG. CU through 3 games this year has 25.3m viewers. Different school, and one that wasn't even an afterthought 9 months ago, and it's also joining the Big 12. Contrast that with the abysmal ratings of Calford and SMU over the past decade, past 5 years, past year...any time period you choose, the Big 12 recently got better, the ACC recently got worse, and your own precious Utes joined the Big 12...yet you continue to trash that Conference of poor, misbegotten Truck Stoppers like they've got leprosy. It's hardly any wonder that the Pac imploded, the wonder to me is just that so many of you found a new home.

It matters not to me if we look up in 2036 and have 2 Power Conferences, or 3, or 4, and I certainly don't care where Baylor, TCU, UH, KSt, ASU, Utah, etc etc play their Conference games. However, if I was a bettin' man, then I'd bet a lot more on the Big 12's continued stability and success than I would on the ACC's. The Big 12 got the 4 best schools leftover from the Pac after the B1G was done feeding, and the ACC was stuck with the schools the Big 12 didn't want. The Big 12 has lost 5 of their top 6 Brands in the past dozen years, and they're roughly equal to the ACC in media value today. What's the ACC going to look like after they lose their top 3-6?

I'll admit, I don't understand you. You were drowning and got thrown a $31.7m lifeline, and you'd rather dissect why it's made out of substandard rope than just tie it around your waist and use it to get to safety.

(09-25-2023 02:32 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The ACC has set itself up to be the private school/Ivory tower conference after the inevitable happens

Wake, Duke, GA Tech, Syracuse, BC, SMU, Cal, Stanford at minimum

Rice, Tulane, USF would fit in well as needed

AZ State and Utah would both want to join that conference.

They just ditched the Pac over $10m, and that theoretical Conference would be far more than $10m behind the Big 12 in media dollars. It could possibly maintain P4 status, but I doubt it. It would be paid like the Broke Pac Mountain. And you think that ASU/Utah would willingly join that?

I don't see why this is shocking to people. Stanford might string together a decent season every now and then. But let's be honest, the PAC borderline had no right to even call itself a power conference most years. Sure, now you have teams like Oregon State that can string together a team good enough to get bowl eligible every now and then.

But no one actually cares about college football in the bay area. And every year people are getting less interested because the demographics that are increasing in that area traditionally do not care about such things.

(09-25-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  If B12 money dries up while the ACC remains viable, those 4 are the most likely to be left behind as the ACC backfills.

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract

It's only gotten worse for the ACC over the past couple years, and it's only gotten better for the Big 16. TCU and KState (!!), 2 tiny, forgotten Big 12 afterthoughts, pulled in 9.4m viewers for the Big 12 CCG last year. That's 50% more than the past 2 years combined of the ACC CCG. CU through 3 games this year has 25.3m viewers. Different school, and one that wasn't even an afterthought 9 months ago, and it's also joining the Big 12. Contrast that with the abysmal ratings of Calford and SMU over the past decade, past 5 years, past year...any time period you choose, the Big 12 recently got better, the ACC recently got worse, and your own precious Utes joined the Big 12...yet you continue to trash that Conference of poor, misbegotten Truck Stoppers like they've got leprosy. It's hardly any wonder that the Pac imploded, the wonder to me is just that so many of you found a new home.

It matters not to me if we look up in 2036 and have 2 Power Conferences, or 3, or 4, and I certainly don't care where Baylor, TCU, UH, KSt, ASU, Utah, etc etc play their Conference games. However, if I was a bettin' man, then I'd bet a lot more on the Big 12's continued stability and success than I would on the ACC's. The Big 12 got the 4 best schools leftover from the Pac after the B1G was done feeding, and the ACC was stuck with the schools the Big 12 didn't want. The Big 12 has lost 5 of their top 6 Brands in the past dozen years, and they're roughly equal to the ACC in media value today. What's the ACC going to look like after they lose their top 3-6?

I'll admit, I don't understand you. You were drowning and got thrown a $31.7m lifeline, and you'd rather dissect why it's made out of substandard rope than just tie it around your waist and use it to get to safety.

What a lie. The Big 12 wasnt a preferred destination for Stanford, Cal, Oregon or Washington. They got the leftovers. They couldnt afford to add more schools. You always create these false narratives.

The Big XII is only stable because nobody is currently desired by the SEC or B1G. The ACC is not stable because they have multiple brands that are more valuable than anyone left in the Big XII.

Lets see how the Big XII does after Texas and Oklahoma leave. Lets see how their ratings and on-field performance do over some time. 1-2 years wont be enough to determine their strength in comparison to the the P2 and ACC.

I don't think there's much more to it than "there was no more money".

Stanford and Cal had more value to the ACC because of the ACC Network. While I'm guessing there was some interest in expanding to California, it would have meant less money for these schools, and it's probably as simple as that.

(09-25-2023 12:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think it was pretty dumb for the big 12 to turn down cal and Stanford and allow smu to join the acc. The best move now would be for the big 12 and ACC to merge and invite San Diego state and Oregon state to get to 36. Eventually, the big 10 and SEC will expand so securing a conference right below those 2 for the 36 big 12 members should be the goal. Post big 10/SEC expansion the big 12/ACC merged conference can downsize and or reload to be the clear #3 conference. I would fold the big 12 into the ACC with its network and rebrand All Coast Conference or maybe get a sponsorship with Allstate Coast Conference

Man this is some David st evel stuff.

(09-25-2023 03:23 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  If B12 money dries up while the ACC remains viable, those 4 are the most likely to be left behind as the ACC backfills.

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract

It's only gotten worse for the ACC over the past couple years, and it's only gotten better for the Big 16. TCU and KState (!!), 2 tiny, forgotten Big 12 afterthoughts, pulled in 9.4m viewers for the Big 12 CCG last year. That's 50% more than the past 2 years combined of the ACC CCG. CU through 3 games this year has 25.3m viewers. Different school, and one that wasn't even an afterthought 9 months ago, and it's also joining the Big 12. Contrast that with the abysmal ratings of Calford and SMU over the past decade, past 5 years, past year...any time period you choose, the Big 12 recently got better, the ACC recently got worse, and your own precious Utes joined the Big 12...yet you continue to trash that Conference of poor, misbegotten Truck Stoppers like they've got leprosy. It's hardly any wonder that the Pac imploded, the wonder to me is just that so many of you found a new home.

It matters not to me if we look up in 2036 and have 2 Power Conferences, or 3, or 4, and I certainly don't care where Baylor, TCU, UH, KSt, ASU, Utah, etc etc play their Conference games. However, if I was a bettin' man, then I'd bet a lot more on the Big 12's continued stability and success than I would on the ACC's. The Big 12 got the 4 best schools leftover from the Pac after the B1G was done feeding, and the ACC was stuck with the schools the Big 12 didn't want. The Big 12 has lost 5 of their top 6 Brands in the past dozen years, and they're roughly equal to the ACC in media value today. What's the ACC going to look like after they lose their top 3-6?

I'll admit, I don't understand you. You were drowning and got thrown a $31.7m lifeline, and you'd rather dissect why it's made out of substandard rope than just tie it around your waist and use it to get to safety.

What a lie. The Big 12 wasnt a preferred destination for Stanford, Cal, Oregon or Washington. They got the leftovers. They couldnt afford to add more schools. You always create these false narratives.

The Big XII is only stable because nobody is currently desired by the SEC or B1G. The ACC is not stable because they have multiple brands that are more valuable than anyone left in the Big XII.

Lets see how the Big XII does after Texas and Oklahoma leave. Lets see how their ratings and on-field performance do over some time. 1-2 years wont be enough to determine their strength in comparison to the the P2 and ACC.

You have a point that it isn't an apples to apples comparison right now, because while we're chopping away at the neck we haven't fully severed the head of the ACC yet. So lets see how the ACC does after FSU, Clemson and maybe more escape...the fact that there is an argument for the post-OUT Big XII being stronger than the full ACC tells you all you need to know. The Big XII has positioned itself to be head and shoulders above the remnants of the ACC, once the thoroughbreds are out of the barn.

And who could the ACC add to make it a competition again? The ACC couldn't even best the XII in this round of realignment, let alone after losing their bell cows. BYU, UCF, Cincinnati and Houston are much better adds than Stanford, Cal and SMU except when it comes to academics and institutional wealth. As others have said, I think the ACC is positioning themselves to be the conference of academic elites and private schools. They may maintain their seat at the big boy table but they won't be comparable to the power conferences on the field.

Good for these ADs, **** CAL and Stanford they would have immediately started causing problems

(09-25-2023 03:11 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 02:32 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The ACC has set itself up to be the private school/Ivory tower conference after the inevitable happens

Wake, Duke, GA Tech, Syracuse, BC, SMU, Cal, Stanford at minimum

Rice, Tulane, USF would fit in well as needed

AZ State and Utah would both want to join that conference.

They just ditched the Pac over $10m, and that theoretical Conference would be far more than $10m behind the Big 12 in media dollars. It could possibly maintain P4 status, but I doubt it. It would be paid like the Broke Pac Mountain. And you think that ASU/Utah would willingly join that?

We will have to see the dollars but Crow and the Utah President are complete academic snobs whom I’m guessing are not happy with their new peers. It’s the Nouveau Riche phenomenon. The Big will absolutely be their first target but the Big 12 is a temporary rental in their minds.

Looking forward, when comparing Big 12 tv audiences to ACC tv audiences (in games not featuring Clemson or Florida St), I think the Big 12 fairs pretty well.

(09-25-2023 03:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I don't see why this is shocking to people. Stanford might string together a decent season every now and then. But let's be honest, the PAC borderline had no right to even call itself a power conference most years. Sure, now you have teams like Oregon State that can string together a team good enough to get bowl eligible every now and then.

But no one actually cares about college football in the bay area. And every year people are getting less interested because the demographics that are increasing in that area traditionally do not care about such things.

Stanford could be national champs if they wanted to. So could Harvard and Yale. Particularly in the NIL era. They just have to do two things:

1) grant admission for athletes who graduated into their Grad programs..
2) choose to direct their big money donors towards NIL.

Harvard has a $53B endowment
Yale has a $42B endowment
Stanford has a $37B endowment

The issue is none of them want to make that choice. Stanford used to allow admission but that changed under David Shaw.

(09-25-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  If B12 money dries up while the ACC remains viable, those 4 are the most likely to be left behind as the ACC backfills.

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract

It's only gotten worse for the ACC over the past couple years, and it's only gotten better for the Big 16. TCU and KState (!!), 2 tiny, forgotten Big 12 afterthoughts, pulled in 9.4m viewers for the Big 12 CCG last year. That's 50% more than the past 2 years combined of the ACC CCG. CU through 3 games this year has 25.3m viewers. Different school, and one that wasn't even an afterthought 9 months ago, and it's also joining the Big 12. Contrast that with the abysmal ratings of Calford and SMU over the past decade, past 5 years, past year...any time period you choose, the Big 12 recently got better, the ACC recently got worse, and your own precious Utes joined the Big 12...yet you continue to trash that Conference of poor, misbegotten Truck Stoppers like they've got leprosy. It's hardly any wonder that the Pac imploded, the wonder to me is just that so many of you found a new home.

It matters not to me if we look up in 2036 and have 2 Power Conferences, or 3, or 4, and I certainly don't care where Baylor, TCU, UH, KSt, ASU, Utah, etc etc play their Conference games. However, if I was a bettin' man, then I'd bet a lot more on the Big 12's continued stability and success than I would on the ACC's. The Big 12 got the 4 best schools leftover from the Pac after the B1G was done feeding, and the ACC was stuck with the schools the Big 12 didn't want. The Big 12 has lost 5 of their top 6 Brands in the past dozen years, and they're roughly equal to the ACC in media value today. What's the ACC going to look like after they lose their top 3-6?

I'll admit, I don't understand you. You were drowning and got thrown a $31.7m lifeline, and you'd rather dissect why it's made out of substandard rope than just tie it around your waist and use it to get to safety.

Four ACC teams in the top 25. I see two (Utah being one) from the Big XII, not counting Texas and Oklahoma cuz they gone. Louisville is knocking on the door and Clemson has votes as well.

CCG ratings? Stop rehashing the same irrelevant talking points. Let’s see what the ratings are this year when the ACC is finally having a good season.

What is the Big XII going to look like in six years when both FOX and ESPN are renegotiating with their crown jewel conferences? Please don’t skip over this question.

I admit, I don’t understand you. It’s like you’re championing the Big XII because you feel guilty your school left them high and dry. Pander to your AD to give Tech and Baylor a 2-for-1 if you feel so bad lol

(09-25-2023 03:25 PM)cc22 Wrote:  I don't think there's much more to it than "there was no more money".

Stanford and Cal had more value to the ACC because of the ACC Network. While I'm guessing there was some interest in expanding to California, it would have meant less money for these schools, and it's probably as simple as that.

While this board won’t believe it, Fresno State sources said their was discussion between Fresno, the Big 12 and the TV partners on adding Fresno after the 4-Corners schools as Yormark wanted in CA and wanted Fresno Football which is clearly better than SDSU.

But the TV partners said they had no incremental dollars. Now we did hear TV wanted Stanford (but not Cal) but Stanford said no.

(09-25-2023 07:38 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 03:25 PM)cc22 Wrote:  I don't think there's much more to it than "there was no more money".

Stanford and Cal had more value to the ACC because of the ACC Network. While I'm guessing there was some interest in expanding to California, it would have meant less money for these schools, and it's probably as simple as that.

While this board won’t believe it, Fresno State sources said their was discussion between Fresno, the Big 12 and the TV partners on adding Fresno after the 4-Corners schools as Yormark wanted in CA and wanted Fresno Football which is clearly better than SDSU.

But the TV partners said they had no incremental dollars. Now we did hear TV wanted Stanford (but not Cal) but Stanford said no.

Nope, Yormark got everything he wanted in the 4 corners schools as it stands right now. Next round of realignment will be 2030 and we will have to see what kind of money the B12 can get from their next media deal. Now, if the feds get involved that could see changes come quicker.

(09-25-2023 10:55 AM)goofus Wrote:  So if there was no more money, what exactly was being proposed?

Were Cal and Stan asking for equal shares of the existing pot?

So $31M x 16 /18 = $27M each for all 18 members.

Or were Cal and Stan offered 30% shares?

x = $31M x 16 / 16.6

= $30M each for 16 existing members
= $9M each for Cal and Stan

You would think if Cal an Stan were asking for equal shares, I could see why old Big 12 schools pushed back. If Cal and Stan were willing to take 30% shares, why would the Big 12 say no?

It could also be as simple as espn and fox were only willing to pay prorata for 4 schools max for 2024

(09-25-2023 08:02 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 07:38 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 03:25 PM)cc22 Wrote:  I don't think there's much more to it than "there was no more money".

Stanford and Cal had more value to the ACC because of the ACC Network. While I'm guessing there was some interest in expanding to California, it would have meant less money for these schools, and it's probably as simple as that.

While this board won’t believe it, Fresno State sources said their was discussion between Fresno, the Big 12 and the TV partners on adding Fresno after the 4-Corners schools as Yormark wanted in CA and wanted Fresno Football which is clearly better than SDSU.

But the TV partners said they had no incremental dollars. Now we did hear TV wanted Stanford (but not Cal) but Stanford said no.

Nope, Yormark got everything he wanted in the 4 corners schools as it stands right now. Next round of realignment will be 2030 and we will have to see what kind of money the B12 can get from their next media deal. Now, if the feds get involved that could see changes come quicker.

Personally if the PAC/MWC combines in a relegation model your bigger issue currently is making the PAC group. Might want to focus on that.

(09-25-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  If B12 money dries up while the ACC remains viable, those 4 are the most likely to be left behind as the ACC backfills.

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract

It's only gotten worse for the ACC over the past couple years, and it's only gotten better for the Big 16. TCU and KState (!!), 2 tiny, forgotten Big 12 afterthoughts, pulled in 9.4m viewers for the Big 12 CCG last year. That's 50% more than the past 2 years combined of the ACC CCG. CU through 3 games this year has 25.3m viewers. Different school, and one that wasn't even an afterthought 9 months ago, and it's also joining the Big 12. Contrast that with the abysmal ratings of Calford and SMU over the past decade, past 5 years, past year...any time period you choose, the Big 12 recently got better, the ACC recently got worse, and your own precious Utes joined the Big 12...yet you continue to trash that Conference of poor, misbegotten Truck Stoppers like they've got leprosy. It's hardly any wonder that the Pac imploded, the wonder to me is just that so many of you found a new home.

It matters not to me if we look up in 2036 and have 2 Power Conferences, or 3, or 4, and I certainly don't care where Baylor, TCU, UH, KSt, ASU, Utah, etc etc play their Conference games. However, if I was a bettin' man, then I'd bet a lot more on the Big 12's continued stability and success than I would on the ACC's. The Big 12 got the 4 best schools leftover from the Pac after the B1G was done feeding, and the ACC was stuck with the schools the Big 12 didn't want. The Big 12 has lost 5 of their top 6 Brands in the past dozen years, and they're roughly equal to the ACC in media value today. What's the ACC going to look like after they lose their top 3-6?

I'll admit, I don't understand you. You were drowning and got thrown a $31.7m lifeline, and you'd rather dissect why it's made out of substandard rope than just tie it around your waist and use it to get to safety.

FWIW - You should read the article that you posted…Per the SicEm viewership numbers, the 4C weren’t the best available programs after the B1G took their choices. Stanford and Washington State had better ratings than any of the 4C. The B12 went after the programs that they could get and complemented their geography.

With regards to the ongoing attraction to the California market. Every nearby university wants more access to California residents.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story...zona-state
California students are 14% of ASU’s total enrollment.

(09-25-2023 10:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I dont see Cal and Stanford being good partners in the Big 12. It wouldn't have been a pleasant experience for any of the involved parties

Exactly what I was thinking...