(08-02-2022 07:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 06:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

Personally, I don’t think so for now (meaning the next few years). I think fans in their zeal to see the final form of all these super/mega-conferences underestimate some of the inertia where none of these leagues really want to add entire wings of schools all at one time.

USC and UCLA need to be integrated as Big Ten members first and foremost as opposed to being the “West Coast schools” that they would inevitably grouped with if the B1G invited more Pac-12 schools.

From a pure TV perspective at least as of now, the Big Ten wants as many Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games as possible and those would ALL occur at least 2 times out of every 4 years in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Every school that gets added will dilute that rotation. I think that has been an underestimated check on expansion - every Big Ten school being guaranteed to visit the LA market at least once every other year is pretty huge in terms of both TV exposure and recruiting.

I’d say the same in the SEC. They’re finally moving to a 3-6-6 format where those Alabama/Texas A&M vs. Georgia/Florida games are played 2 out of every 4 years instead of once every 7 years and they’re integrating Texas and Oklahoma on top of it. Every addition goes back to diluting that rotation, so that makes every expansion school particularly critical.

As much as I’m a realignment guy and I’ll talk about it all day, there’s one thing that I’m somewhat traditionalist on: a conference should still actually have their teams play each other frequently and regularly as opposed to being a CFA-style scheduling arrangement. Once you get past 16 schools, that becomes increasingly difficult unless you start going to 10 conference games or more and effectively eliminate any P5 non-conference opponents completely (which, to be sure, I wouldn’t put past either the Big Ten or SEC in the long term).

You might be right about USC/UCLA Frank but if that truly is the case this is one of the most boneheaded expansion moves that has ever happened.

OUT at least makes some kind of sense to the SEC, They're in contiguous states, and there is a history of the SEC flirting with these schools for decades.

USC and UCLA was a money grab and you gutted your brother to do it. You talk about conference integration but it will never happen if you leave them on an island with no partners and 2000 miles to B1G conference HQ and 1500 to their nearest conference rival. It's not sustainable, money is the attraction to get you in the door but if you don't have people like you at your work your attitude sours quickly regardless of how much you make. The B1G will add more schools to avoid this problem or they will have a major headache on their hands.

What is fast in realignment? Imo it will be under 2 years that we have the major follow-up moves. Warren himself set 5 years as the back stop. That is much faster than we've generally had.

There is a lot of inertia for change, Warren talked about all the disruptions coming to college athletics. NIL, playoff revisions, potential employment, etc. That doesn't even factor in the revenue disparities that has anyone on the outside willing to remove barriers that in previous eras would be prohibitive.

Warren's words:

"Where expansion goes? I don’t know. … I’m embracing change,” Warren explained, “I’m going to be very aggressive. We want to be aggressive in how we build this. We’re in a stage of probably a five-year period of change.”

“We’re in a five-year period of transformation,” Warren said. “Just because these are some of the moves on the front end of the transformation, we won’t really know that until we get toward a conclusion. I think over the next couple of years, it will settle down — the movement between conferences. How many are there? How many are not there? The structure will become clear.

As for Warren’s “five-year transformation period,” he’s unsure how many power conferences will remain.

“That is a question that remains to be seen,” Warren said. “Think of how much more we know today than we did a year ago. Then think a year from now. It will become crystal clear as far as what is the right fit. The market will dictate where things should settle.”

“Regarding expansion, … it may include future expansion. But it will be done for the right reasons, at the right time,” “When I say add value: value is important, but I just look at the fit,” Warren told Action Network Tuesday at Big Ten Media Days. “A fit has to be there academically, has to be there athletically. All those things are really important."


The fit and right reason comments scream they are coming back for more PAC, even though the money is not as good, particularly with Cal and Stanford.
The "market will dictate" comments kind of hint at something like the 4 corners leaving first, then the Big 10 coming in and finishing up the PAC, and seeing what they can shake free from the ACC imo.

And it is impossible to ignore that the BIG/FOX have basically tried drive the 4 corners out of the PAC via making a black whole in the most important market and stoking mass uncertainty thereafter. And not a political whimper for two weeks that UCLA left? That is more than apathy. If you wanted to get 4 corners to leave, you'd block off southern CA, tell them "no" and continually flirt with UW and Oregon, while also leaking Stanford is ND's actual preferred choice. Did UW and Oregon really apply? That almost never happens unless it is likely to be a 'yes'. Someone had reason to feel optimistic.

Just waiting on the market to see what balance of west-east additions occur- how much room is needed for the east imo