I'm going to open up another realignment speculation thread, this one pertaining to the possibility of the Big Ten and the PAC 12 joining up, either fully or partially. One of the reasons why people think it can't happen is due to the distance between the schools on the West Coast and those in the Midwest and East. Another may be the different focus on sports. Stanford, for example, sponsors a ton of sports for men and women that a few Big Ten schools won't sponsor. There are also differences in culture between the two sides.

With the passage of time, we've seen the Rose Bowl go from being an exclusive deal for the two conferences to now being part of a rotation of bowls that participate in a college football playoff. It's the clearest sign yet that the changes in the game have diminished the political power of the two. What happens on the football field only partly explains the phenomenon. I'm of the opinion that as time goes the conferences will be forced to look into merging their operations. How that would happen is to be determined, but the CFP has shown that the Big Ten no longer can move the college football world like in the past. In some way, they're now playing second-fiddle to the SEC and even the ACC in basketball.

Meanwhile, in PAC world, they're having trouble getting exposure and attention to the games they're hosting. First, their network is having trouble getting carriage due to disputes with DirecTV. There are also internal problems having to do with officiating and over compensation for the commissioner. Recently, a news writer in Oregon published a series over the issues that the PAC is currently having, which is coming after a writer in California has been doing a series of articles on the same over the past two years or so. So far, the PAC is holding on the belief that the network will somehow benefit the conference as the changes in pay television delivery continue to move forward. However, that hasn't stopped the rumors of unhappiness in the athletic director offices from popping up.

One of the things that is becoming apparent to me is that if the Big Ten are to be better prepared for the changes in college sports in the long term that they may have to establish a presence in one of the largest three states in terms of population. Florida and Georgia are basically blocked from consideration by Disney and Texas is not easy to get into, unless UT is willing to leave by itself. One reason is a younger population relative to the country's overall demographics. Now two of the three states could be considered more engaged in college sports than the other but the last one is largest in population, which even with out migration will remain so for years to come. That state also happen to have scores of Big Ten alumni living there, as well as in several states surrounding it.

The last reason, IMO, would not sound pleasing to traditionalists and advocates of regionalism but will become apparent as time goes: perception. Yes, the current geographic spread the Big Ten is in has a lot of people but the population is not spread evenly. Also a few states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois produce most of the players in the highest-viewed sport and there are a lot of hungry programs in the western part of the region. To add to the difficulties, kids are being slowly discouraged from playing contact sports. It's the case for all regions but is more noted here. If the Big Ten is going to keep up with the rest then it has to help itself break out from a regional mindset into much more of a national mindset. It has to spread its influence from coast to coast to mitigate the impact of out migration to the southern states. To me, they have one chance to get this right when the opportunity inevitably presents itself.

Now a simple raid would not work because, first, the PAC has a network deal with its schools and will be too costly to pull out of. Also, the distance between any raided school and the Big Ten would be a lot to consider. But what if a partial merger could be pulled off? The number would not only have to be right but also located in key strategic areas, where alumni are more likely to show up to watch and also have the academic profile that the Big Ten is looking for. To help explain what I mean, here's a good article from Frank The Tank on Big Ten alumni and where they're spread out:

https://frankthetank.me/2018/05/18/oh-th...alignment/

It'd have to be a major move and one that would leave the larger conference in a position to be competitive in the long term. Recently, I have thought about a 7/7/7 alignment. How it could work is there would no longer be clear divisions but the divisions would be turned into "regions" to help people understand where each program is. The current Big Ten East and Big Ten West would stay in place but they would play a non-divisional format. Seven current PAC schools, located near or in Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Portland would represent the western part of the conference. Each team would have up to four games protected every season and the rest spread out among the rest of the conference. The goal is to have games from East to West, with western teams getting more exposure than they currently have. With the odd number of teams there would be space for them to schedule regional opponents not part of this group, a big time non-conference game or a body bag game.

I don't think all the PAC schools could work economically, even though I have nothing against those that would be left out. They may have a chance to join any of the other conferences. A couple of those or three may be attractive to the Big XII, for example.

As for the thorny issue of the Olympic sports, I think that's where I would advocate for all of their non-revenue sports to go outside the conference so that they can compete on a regional basis. Basketball and other non-football revenue sports can go to the conference network. The western schools may, over the long term, get into hockey. Since pro hockey already expanded into the West and just started a new team in Seattle, it would no be so far fetched to see college hockey rise up there as well.

I think the Big Ten's primary targets should be Texas and Oklahoma. They are the cream of the crop and will move the needle the most while simultaneously sacrificing the least.

If they are unattainable in the sense that they will NEVER come to the Big Ten, that's when I'd pursue the PAC 12. My only fear with that is the PAC 12's problems would then become the Big Ten's problems. Would their fans start tuning into games just because their team is in a new conference? Would the BTN be on a basic channel in their region when less regional teams show up? Would the PAC schools drag down the Big Ten fanbases by having games start so late for a game on the west coast?

I do think the big play would be that the conference would control the whole northern and western United States so any media partner couldn't ignore us and had to pay the Big Ten top rates (along with the SEC who I imagine has OU, UT, and maybe ACC schools by this time to counter the B10 move).

I would probably add 10 from the PAC 12, only ignoring Oregon State and Washington State, thus allowing the conference to dissolve without paying exit fees and such. Then I'd break the divisions up into three 8-team divisions:

Western: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State
Central: Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
Eastern: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

I feel like Utah is a must to bridge the gap. It was hard to eliminate an Arizona school as both have positives and negatives but I decided on both. I wanted to drop a California school but I know how important those California games are to the western schools. In all, I think this would be a net benefit to the B10 but would be extremely risky.

(12-15-2018 10:10 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I think the Big Ten's primary targets should be Texas and Oklahoma. They are the cream of the crop and will move the needle the most while simultaneously sacrificing the least.

If they are unattainable in the sense that they will NEVER come to the Big Ten, that's when I'd pursue the PAC 12. My only fear with that is the PAC 12's problems would then become the Big Ten's problems. Would their fans start tuning into games just because their team is in a new conference? Would the BTN be on a basic channel in their region when less regional teams show up? Would the PAC schools drag down the Big Ten fanbases by having games start so late for a game on the west coast?

I do think the big play would be that the conference would control the whole northern and western United States so any media partner couldn't ignore us and had to pay the Big Ten top rates (along with the SEC who I imagine has OU, UT, and maybe ACC schools by this time to counter the B10 move).

I would probably add 10 from the PAC 12, only ignoring Oregon State and Washington State, thus allowing the conference to dissolve without paying exit fees and such. Then I'd break the divisions up into three 8-team divisions:

Western: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State
Central: Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
Eastern: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

I feel like Utah is a must to bridge the gap. It was hard to eliminate an Arizona school as both have positives and negatives but I decided on both. I wanted to drop a California school but I know how important those California games are to the western schools. In all, I think this would be a net benefit to the B10 but would be extremely risky.

I agree with you about TX & OU. They would be the Holy Grail of expansion.

While I think the B1G/PAC "merger" would be interesting and potentially amazing, I worry about a couple of things.

One would be how many of those schools WANT to be part of that vs. how many HAVE to be part of that. Those who have to be there probably wouldn't make for a great foundation going forward. I don't want to see a situation where 10 years from now when the new rights deal expires that those schools start looking for greener pastures. Those who want to be there would be more likely to be in it for the long haul.

The other thing I worry about is how are USC & Stanford going to take this? They were pretty much the ones who killed the B1G/PAC scheduling alliance 6 years ago so I'm not sure they'd be too keen on joining the B1G.

I could see it shaking out like this:

Atlantic: Maryland, Rutgers, PSU, MI ST, tOSU
East: MI, IU, Purdue, IL, NW
Midwest: Iowa, WI, MN, Nebraska, CO
Pacific: UCLA, WA, OR, CAL, Utah?

Both Arizona schools, OR ST, WA ST, go to the XII.

USC & Stanford Independent? Maybe one (or both) would join the B1G which would move Utah to the XII.

(12-18-2018 09:15 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 10:10 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I think the Big Ten's primary targets should be Texas and Oklahoma. They are the cream of the crop and will move the needle the most while simultaneously sacrificing the least.

If they are unattainable in the sense that they will NEVER come to the Big Ten, that's when I'd pursue the PAC 12. My only fear with that is the PAC 12's problems would then become the Big Ten's problems. Would their fans start tuning into games just because their team is in a new conference? Would the BTN be on a basic channel in their region when less regional teams show up? Would the PAC schools drag down the Big Ten fanbases by having games start so late for a game on the west coast?

I do think the big play would be that the conference would control the whole northern and western United States so any media partner couldn't ignore us and had to pay the Big Ten top rates (along with the SEC who I imagine has OU, UT, and maybe ACC schools by this time to counter the B10 move).

I would probably add 10 from the PAC 12, only ignoring Oregon State and Washington State, thus allowing the conference to dissolve without paying exit fees and such. Then I'd break the divisions up into three 8-team divisions:

Western: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State
Central: Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
Eastern: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

I feel like Utah is a must to bridge the gap. It was hard to eliminate an Arizona school as both have positives and negatives but I decided on both. I wanted to drop a California school but I know how important those California games are to the western schools. In all, I think this would be a net benefit to the B10 but would be extremely risky.

I agree with you about TX & OU. They would be the Holy Grail of expansion.

While I think the B1G/PAC "merger" would be interesting and potentially amazing, I worry about a couple of things.

One would be how many of those schools WANT to be part of that vs. how many HAVE to be part of that. Those who have to be there probably wouldn't make for a great foundation going forward. I don't want to see a situation where 10 years from now when the new rights deal expires that those schools start looking for greener pastures. Those who want to be there would be more likely to be in it for the long haul.

The other thing I worry about is how are USC & Stanford going to take this? They were pretty much the ones who killed the B1G/PAC scheduling alliance 6 years ago so I'm not sure they'd be too keen on joining the B1G.

I could see it shaking out like this:

Atlantic: Maryland, Rutgers, PSU, MI ST, tOSU
East: MI, IU, Purdue, IL, NW
Midwest: Iowa, WI, MN, Nebraska, CO
Pacific: UCLA, WA, OR, CAL, Utah?

Both Arizona schools, OR ST, WA ST, go to the XII.

USC & Stanford Independent? Maybe one (or both) would join the B1G which would move Utah to the XII.

I kind of have a different take on splitting up the PAC. I think the B1G should take USC, Stanford, Wash., Oregon & Arizona all AAU schools, and let Nebraska go back to the Big 12 along with UCLA, Cal, Colorado, ASU, Utah to the Big 12.

Then the B1G could make their final offer to ND giving them a league that would allow ND to schedule USC, Stanford, Mich., MSU & Purdue every year if they went to a single set of conference standings as Delaney has discussed recently.

Nothing is going to culturally impact college football on the West coast to the positive. The people on the West Coast with money couldn't tell you who was playing and who was in contention. They simply don't care.

It's equally nuts to covet the old core basketball schools of the ACC.

There is only 1 solution that will provide synergy between two conferences. The Big 10 and SEC should be the pair to have a scheduling alliance. It would make us both stronger and the gap between our brands and the rest would enable each of us to assemble the best remaining product and merge them into our conferences.

Then we should package our games and networks in a bundle and sell our rights together. We should also break away from the NCAA and hold our own championships in every sport. And those rights should be brokered out to the highest bidder as well.

Why in the hell should we carry the PAC & ACC on our shoulders, and prop up all of the G5, a set of conferences that doesn't have 1 single program that isn't funding their athletics with less than a 25% subsidy? Your fans and our fans don't give a rat's butt about games with the MAC / CUSA / AAC / or Sunbelt. What they care about are conference rivals, in state rivals, and beating the other conference. It's a gold mine that would draw in Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and possibly a Colorado, N.C. State, Notre Dame, and maybe a Miami.

We don't need to cast a wide net. We just need to add programs that accelerate our content value. If UNC wants to invest in athletics and get serious about football to do it then fine. But really there's no reason why the SEC and Big 10 can't assemble themselves into two leagues of 20-24 each and cut out the middle man and support ourselves wonderfully.

The SEC's scheduling agreement with the Big 12 props them up and our fans care little about it outside of OU and UT. The SEC doesn't love playing the ACC unless it's F.S.U. and Clemson and Tennessee likes playing Virginia Tech.

Personally I think we are pursuing a losing hand to go after West coast and New England schools.

(12-18-2018 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nothing is going to culturally impact college football on the West coast to the positive. The people on the West Coast with money couldn't tell you who was playing and who was in contention. They simply don't care.

It's equally nuts to covet the old core basketball schools of the ACC.

There is only 1 solution that will provide synergy between two conferences. The Big 10 and SEC should be the pair to have a scheduling alliance. It would make us both stronger and the gap between our brands and the rest would enable each of us to assemble the best remaining product and merge them into our conferences.

Then we should package our games and networks in a bundle and sell our rights together. We should also break away from the NCAA and hold our own championships in every sport. And those rights should be brokered out to the highest bidder as well.

Why in the hell should we carry the PAC & ACC on our shoulders, and prop up all of the G5, a set of conferences that doesn't have 1 single program that isn't funding their athletics with less than a 25% subsidy? Your fans and our fans don't give a rat's butt about games with the MAC / CUSA / AAC / or Sunbelt. What they care about are conference rivals, in state rivals, and beating the other conference. It's a gold mine that would draw in Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and possibly a Colorado, N.C. State, Notre Dame, and maybe a Miami.

We don't need to cast a wide net. We just need to add programs that accelerate our content value. If UNC wants to invest in athletics and get serious about football to do it then fine. But really there's no reason why the SEC and Big 10 can't assemble themselves into two leagues of 20-24 each and cut out the middle man and support ourselves wonderfully.

The SEC's scheduling agreement with the Big 12 props them up and our fans care little about it outside of OU and UT. The SEC doesn't love playing the ACC unless it's F.S.U. and Clemson and Tennessee likes playing Virginia Tech.

Personally I think we are pursuing a losing hand to go after West coast and New England schools.

THAT'S a great idea.

A scheduling alliance between the B1G & SEC would make much of the remaining college football world irrelevant.

TX, OU, ND, Clemson, and maybe CO & FSU could be incorporated. Everything else that's left wouldn't really matter. I doubt SEC fans will be left pining for a K-State matchup or B1G fans will be heartbroken if Oregon State is left off the schedule.

It would make for better games, better ratings, more interest, and more $$$. Best part is there'd be no need for an expanded playoff, the teams that matter would be playing a virtual tournament every year.

(12-19-2018 08:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nothing is going to culturally impact college football on the West coast to the positive. The people on the West Coast with money couldn't tell you who was playing and who was in contention. They simply don't care.

It's equally nuts to covet the old core basketball schools of the ACC.

There is only 1 solution that will provide synergy between two conferences. The Big 10 and SEC should be the pair to have a scheduling alliance. It would make us both stronger and the gap between our brands and the rest would enable each of us to assemble the best remaining product and merge them into our conferences.

Then we should package our games and networks in a bundle and sell our rights together. We should also break away from the NCAA and hold our own championships in every sport. And those rights should be brokered out to the highest bidder as well.

Why in the hell should we carry the PAC & ACC on our shoulders, and prop up all of the G5, a set of conferences that doesn't have 1 single program that isn't funding their athletics with less than a 25% subsidy? Your fans and our fans don't give a rat's butt about games with the MAC / CUSA / AAC / or Sunbelt. What they care about are conference rivals, in state rivals, and beating the other conference. It's a gold mine that would draw in Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and possibly a Colorado, N.C. State, Notre Dame, and maybe a Miami.

We don't need to cast a wide net. We just need to add programs that accelerate our content value. If UNC wants to invest in athletics and get serious about football to do it then fine. But really there's no reason why the SEC and Big 10 can't assemble themselves into two leagues of 20-24 each and cut out the middle man and support ourselves wonderfully.

The SEC's scheduling agreement with the Big 12 props them up and our fans care little about it outside of OU and UT. The SEC doesn't love playing the ACC unless it's F.S.U. and Clemson and Tennessee likes playing Virginia Tech.

Personally I think we are pursuing a losing hand to go after West coast and New England schools.

THAT'S a great idea.

A scheduling alliance between the B1G & SEC would make much of the remaining college football world irrelevant.

TX, OU, ND, Clemson, and maybe CO & FSU could be incorporated. Everything else that's left wouldn't really matter. I doubt SEC fans will be left pining for a K-State matchup or B1G fans will be heartbroken if Oregon State is left off the schedule.

It would make for better games, better ratings, more interest, and more $$$. Best part is there'd be no need for an expanded playoff, the teams that matter would be playing a virtual tournament every year.

You have to keep more of the nation engaged in college football than that if you want to command big tv revenues. If you cut the field down too much there will be too many sections of the country tuning out. CFB doesn't have the popularity of the NFL.

(12-19-2018 01:04 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 08:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nothing is going to culturally impact college football on the West coast to the positive. The people on the West Coast with money couldn't tell you who was playing and who was in contention. They simply don't care.

It's equally nuts to covet the old core basketball schools of the ACC.

There is only 1 solution that will provide synergy between two conferences. The Big 10 and SEC should be the pair to have a scheduling alliance. It would make us both stronger and the gap between our brands and the rest would enable each of us to assemble the best remaining product and merge them into our conferences.

Then we should package our games and networks in a bundle and sell our rights together. We should also break away from the NCAA and hold our own championships in every sport. And those rights should be brokered out to the highest bidder as well.

Why in the hell should we carry the PAC & ACC on our shoulders, and prop up all of the G5, a set of conferences that doesn't have 1 single program that isn't funding their athletics with less than a 25% subsidy? Your fans and our fans don't give a rat's butt about games with the MAC / CUSA / AAC / or Sunbelt. What they care about are conference rivals, in state rivals, and beating the other conference. It's a gold mine that would draw in Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and possibly a Colorado, N.C. State, Notre Dame, and maybe a Miami.

We don't need to cast a wide net. We just need to add programs that accelerate our content value. If UNC wants to invest in athletics and get serious about football to do it then fine. But really there's no reason why the SEC and Big 10 can't assemble themselves into two leagues of 20-24 each and cut out the middle man and support ourselves wonderfully.

The SEC's scheduling agreement with the Big 12 props them up and our fans care little about it outside of OU and UT. The SEC doesn't love playing the ACC unless it's F.S.U. and Clemson and Tennessee likes playing Virginia Tech.

Personally I think we are pursuing a losing hand to go after West coast and New England schools.

THAT'S a great idea.

A scheduling alliance between the B1G & SEC would make much of the remaining college football world irrelevant.

TX, OU, ND, Clemson, and maybe CO & FSU could be incorporated. Everything else that's left wouldn't really matter. I doubt SEC fans will be left pining for a K-State matchup or B1G fans will be heartbroken if Oregon State is left off the schedule.

It would make for better games, better ratings, more interest, and more $$$. Best part is there'd be no need for an expanded playoff, the teams that matter would be playing a virtual tournament every year.

You have to keep more of the nation engaged in college football than that if you want to command big tv revenues. If you cut the field down too much there will be too many sections of the country tuning out. CFB doesn't have the popularity of the NFL.

Most of the games people are watching involve the B1G, SEC, TX, OU, or ND.

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/To...26048068_1

Outside of a few hotspots or a couple of programs, people don't seem to have much interest in western states football.

Yes, it would probably mean losing viewership in parts of the country, but it might be made up by increased viewership in the south and midwest by providing better out of conference games.

(12-19-2018 01:04 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 08:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nothing is going to culturally impact college football on the West coast to the positive. The people on the West Coast with money couldn't tell you who was playing and who was in contention. They simply don't care.

It's equally nuts to covet the old core basketball schools of the ACC.

There is only 1 solution that will provide synergy between two conferences. The Big 10 and SEC should be the pair to have a scheduling alliance. It would make us both stronger and the gap between our brands and the rest would enable each of us to assemble the best remaining product and merge them into our conferences.

Then we should package our games and networks in a bundle and sell our rights together. We should also break away from the NCAA and hold our own championships in every sport. And those rights should be brokered out to the highest bidder as well.

Why in the hell should we carry the PAC & ACC on our shoulders, and prop up all of the G5, a set of conferences that doesn't have 1 single program that isn't funding their athletics with less than a 25% subsidy? Your fans and our fans don't give a rat's butt about games with the MAC / CUSA / AAC / or Sunbelt. What they care about are conference rivals, in state rivals, and beating the other conference. It's a gold mine that would draw in Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and possibly a Colorado, N.C. State, Notre Dame, and maybe a Miami.

We don't need to cast a wide net. We just need to add programs that accelerate our content value. If UNC wants to invest in athletics and get serious about football to do it then fine. But really there's no reason why the SEC and Big 10 can't assemble themselves into two leagues of 20-24 each and cut out the middle man and support ourselves wonderfully.

The SEC's scheduling agreement with the Big 12 props them up and our fans care little about it outside of OU and UT. The SEC doesn't love playing the ACC unless it's F.S.U. and Clemson and Tennessee likes playing Virginia Tech.

Personally I think we are pursuing a losing hand to go after West coast and New England schools.

THAT'S a great idea.

A scheduling alliance between the B1G & SEC would make much of the remaining college football world irrelevant.

TX, OU, ND, Clemson, and maybe CO & FSU could be incorporated. Everything else that's left wouldn't really matter. I doubt SEC fans will be left pining for a K-State matchup or B1G fans will be heartbroken if Oregon State is left off the schedule.

It would make for better games, better ratings, more interest, and more $$$. Best part is there'd be no need for an expanded playoff, the teams that matter would be playing a virtual tournament every year.

You have to keep more of the nation engaged in college football than that if you want to command big tv revenues. If you cut the field down too much there will be too many sections of the country tuning out. CFB doesn't have the popularity of the NFL.

Disagree. 1. The NFL ratings have taken a big hit thanks to the kneelers. 2. If UW, USC, Oregon, and maybe 1 or 3 others are worked in you'll still have a very national audience.

Let's look at a set up like this:

East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina (if they commit to football/N.C. State if they don't), Penn State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

North: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Wisconsin

South: Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M

West: Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Southern Cal, Texas, Utah, Washington

Now tell me, would that be a national lineup? It cuts out a lot of sorry games but engages most of the states we now engage with 5 conferences.

Let the four division champs play it off for the national championship and keep the playoffs internal of the league. That will almost double the revenue without having ESPN as the middle man. They can bid on rights to the playoffs which should be marketed separately from the regular season.

(12-19-2018 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 01:04 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 08:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nothing is going to culturally impact college football on the West coast to the positive. The people on the West Coast with money couldn't tell you who was playing and who was in contention. They simply don't care.

It's equally nuts to covet the old core basketball schools of the ACC.

There is only 1 solution that will provide synergy between two conferences. The Big 10 and SEC should be the pair to have a scheduling alliance. It would make us both stronger and the gap between our brands and the rest would enable each of us to assemble the best remaining product and merge them into our conferences.

Then we should package our games and networks in a bundle and sell our rights together. We should also break away from the NCAA and hold our own championships in every sport. And those rights should be brokered out to the highest bidder as well.

Why in the hell should we carry the PAC & ACC on our shoulders, and prop up all of the G5, a set of conferences that doesn't have 1 single program that isn't funding their athletics with less than a 25% subsidy? Your fans and our fans don't give a rat's butt about games with the MAC / CUSA / AAC / or Sunbelt. What they care about are conference rivals, in state rivals, and beating the other conference. It's a gold mine that would draw in Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and possibly a Colorado, N.C. State, Notre Dame, and maybe a Miami.

We don't need to cast a wide net. We just need to add programs that accelerate our content value. If UNC wants to invest in athletics and get serious about football to do it then fine. But really there's no reason why the SEC and Big 10 can't assemble themselves into two leagues of 20-24 each and cut out the middle man and support ourselves wonderfully.

The SEC's scheduling agreement with the Big 12 props them up and our fans care little about it outside of OU and UT. The SEC doesn't love playing the ACC unless it's F.S.U. and Clemson and Tennessee likes playing Virginia Tech.

Personally I think we are pursuing a losing hand to go after West coast and New England schools.

THAT'S a great idea.

A scheduling alliance between the B1G & SEC would make much of the remaining college football world irrelevant.

TX, OU, ND, Clemson, and maybe CO & FSU could be incorporated. Everything else that's left wouldn't really matter. I doubt SEC fans will be left pining for a K-State matchup or B1G fans will be heartbroken if Oregon State is left off the schedule.

It would make for better games, better ratings, more interest, and more $$$. Best part is there'd be no need for an expanded playoff, the teams that matter would be playing a virtual tournament every year.

You have to keep more of the nation engaged in college football than that if you want to command big tv revenues. If you cut the field down too much there will be too many sections of the country tuning out. CFB doesn't have the popularity of the NFL.

Disagree. 1. The NFL ratings have taken a big hit thanks to the kneelers. 2. If UW, USC, Oregon, and maybe 1 or 3 others are worked in you'll still have a very national audience.

Let's look at a set up like this:

East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, North Carolina (if they commit to football/N.C. State if they don't), Penn State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

North: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Wisconsin

South: Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M

West: Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Southern Cal, Texas, Utah, Washington

Now tell me, would that be a national lineup? It cuts out a lot of sorry games but engages most of the states we now engage with 5 conferences.

Let the four division champs play it off for the national championship and keep the playoffs internal of the league. That will almost double the revenue without having ESPN as the middle man. They can bid on rights to the playoffs which should be marketed separately from the regular season.

You would cut the ratings by 25-33% at least I would bet you by removing that number of teams.

Any talk of SEC-Big Ten collaboration would be immediately squashed by the academics and presidents in the Big Ten group and as long as presidents control the process of conference accession it would remain the case.

So we're back to the question of whether further cooperation with the PAC is worth pursuing.

https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status...5405280256

https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status...8421895168

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...8829654016

More issues coming out of PAC-land. There's still a lot of ways to go before we'd know whether there's an opportunity to be had out west but we should stay alert for what might be coming.

(12-30-2018 07:27 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status...5405280256

https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status...8421895168

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...8829654016

More issues coming out of PAC-land. There's still a lot of ways to go before we'd know whether there's an opportunity to be had out west but we should stay alert for what might be coming.

Christmas is over and they are still looking for Santa Claus. This isn't going to end well. In fact it's unprecedentedly bad.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-779730-post-15...id15826534

Quote:The only scenario that I can imagine Colorado leaving for the B1G would include bringing a few West Coast friends along. Maybe Washington, Oregon, California, UCLA, and Arizona? The XII could come in for Stanford, USC, Arizona St, and Utah. Washington St and Oregon St would be forced to either go independent or join the Mountain West...or perhaps the American as a Western leg with Boise St, BYU, San Diego St, and one or two others.

I have thought about various scenarios involving the PAC schools, from just the Pacific coast schools to the crazy 24-team model. Of course, that last one is too far-fetched but could be used as a counter to the Disney machine if need be.

Anyway, I think that's a good idea if we're going to expand with PAC schools. Knowing how snobby academics are if CU were to leave the PAC they would prefer the Big Ten over any other conference due to academic reputation. Then it's a matter of geographic continuity until you get to Seattle.

There's a chance that the Cal 4 would stick together no matter what. However, Stanford and USC were the ones that killed the PAC-B1G scheduling agreement. They might prefer independence over joining another conference. That way they can almost guarantee future games with that Indiana Catholic school. If so, that actually simplifies things a bit with the Big Ten.

UW
UO
Cal
UCLA
UA

CU
UNL
IA
WI
MN

NU
IL
PU
IU
MSU

UM
OSU
PSU
UMD
RU


Utah and Arizona State would make a nice 11 and 12 for the XII

(12-18-2018 07:08 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I kind of have a different take on splitting up the PAC. I think the B1G should take USC, Stanford, Wash., Oregon & Arizona all AAU schools, and let Nebraska go back to the Big 12 along with UCLA, Cal, Colorado, ASU, Utah to the Big 12.

Then the B1G could make their final offer to ND giving them a league that would allow ND to schedule USC, Stanford, Mich., MSU & Purdue every year if they went to a single set of conference standings as Delaney has discussed recently.

I think the Big Ten, if they can't get all of the California schools, would prefer the public schools over the private schools, due to the Rose Bowl connection. If that's the case, then I would cede the Arizona schools to the XII so that I can finish with the rest of the Four Corners plus UDub and Oregon, for the Seattle and Portland markets. UDub being one the top public schools nationally would be a real target and a big complement to the UC schools and Colorado. Lots of Big Ten alumni in Denver.

This would be a massive change for the Big Ten and lots of old alliances would be disrupted but, in my opinion, we need to become a truly national conference to prepare for the future by exposing the schools to more people in different regions. I understand lots disagree but I think they'll eventually see the wisdom.

Big Ten West: Cal, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, UCLA, Utah, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa

Big Ten East: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers

The XII should then allow West Virginia to move to the ACC so that to bring in BYU. I think the precedent has been set with Texas and Oklahoma having their own 3rd-tier deals. USC, Stanford and BYU would also be able to carve out their own deals, with the rest signing on to ESPN+.

West: BYU, USC, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, TCU
Central: Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

Having the most coveted football program in the West plus another national private school to anchor the western division would be a nice haul for the XII.

a lot of the Big Ten was resistant to Penn State, then Rutgers and Maryland. I can't imagine a situation, outside of turning the P5 into a true independent league, where the Big Ten would want to merge with the complete other side of the country in such a large fashion.

The more I think about it, the less I like a PAC 12 merger. The only reason they would be interested is if they continue their downward trend and I'd be afraid of them dragging down the Big Ten with them. Suddenly adding all these schools from halfway around the country (or more) with minimal history could really make fans apathetic. Imagine someone like Iowa that would be replacing traditional Big Ten opponents for a couple west coast schools, maybe more. Do you think Oregon or Washington will boost attendance, donations, etc. at Iowa? Would these PAC 12 schools start performing better and caring more about football, basketball, etc. if they were in the Big 10? I don't know but I'd rather take my chances of adding Texas and/or Oklahoma.

(04-21-2019 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  The more I think about it, the less I like a PAC 12 merger. The only reason they would be interested is if they continue their downward trend and I'd be afraid of them dragging down the Big Ten with them. Suddenly adding all these schools from halfway around the country (or more) with minimal history could really make fans apathetic. Imagine someone like Iowa that would be replacing traditional Big Ten opponents for a couple west coast schools, maybe more. Do you think Oregon or Washington will boost attendance, donations, etc. at Iowa? Would these PAC 12 schools start performing better and caring more about football, basketball, etc. if they were in the Big 10? I don't know but I'd rather take my chances of adding Texas and/or Oklahoma.

The best thing for both conferences (IMO) would be an 8-game schedule with an OOC scheduling agreement. Do away with divisions so that each Big Ten team can play their biggest rivals in conference while rotating through the other teams more rapidly. Beat up on Pac-12 teams instead of each other for that 9th (and maybe 10th?) P5 game.

(04-21-2019 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  The more I think about it, the less I like a PAC 12 merger. The only reason they would be interested is if they continue their downward trend and I'd be afraid of them dragging down the Big Ten with them. Suddenly adding all these schools from halfway around the country (or more) with minimal history could really make fans apathetic. Imagine someone like Iowa that would be replacing traditional Big Ten opponents for a couple west coast schools, maybe more. Do you think Oregon or Washington will boost attendance, donations, etc. at Iowa? Would these PAC 12 schools start performing better and caring more about football, basketball, etc. if they were in the Big 10? I don't know but I'd rather take my chances of adding Texas and/or Oklahoma.

Funny thing, ask the XII fanboys and they'll tell you some of the PAC schools are just itching to defect......

I think it COULD work, but it would require a whole lot of logistics to come together. I think all sided would be interested depending on how much $$$ would be involved. If Fox/ESPN would be willing to pony up to not only increase payouts but cover travel expenses it could work.

What might work better would be adding several PAC schools (if several defect to the XII) as another division in football and have the scheduling agreement with the others for the remaining sports. Fold the PAC network into the BTN so all the schools would get coverage and programming.

The ball would be in the court of SC & Stanford, which MIGHT agree is they were allowed to keep their current arrangement with ND.

(04-22-2019 07:35 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  The more I think about it, the less I like a PAC 12 merger. The only reason they would be interested is if they continue their downward trend and I'd be afraid of them dragging down the Big Ten with them. Suddenly adding all these schools from halfway around the country (or more) with minimal history could really make fans apathetic. Imagine someone like Iowa that would be replacing traditional Big Ten opponents for a couple west coast schools, maybe more. Do you think Oregon or Washington will boost attendance, donations, etc. at Iowa? Would these PAC 12 schools start performing better and caring more about football, basketball, etc. if they were in the Big 10? I don't know but I'd rather take my chances of adding Texas and/or Oklahoma.

Funny thing, ask the XII fanboys and they'll tell you some of the PAC schools are just itching to defect......

I think it COULD work, but it would require a whole lot of logistics to come together. I think all sided would be interested depending on how much $$$ would be involved. If Fox/ESPN would be willing to pony up to not only increase payouts but cover travel expenses it could work.

What might work better would be adding several PAC schools (if several defect to the XII) as another division in football and have the scheduling agreement with the others for the remaining sports. Fold the PAC network into the BTN so all the schools would get coverage and programming.

The ball would be in the court of SC & Stanford, which MIGHT agree is they were allowed to keep their current arrangement with ND.

I don't think Big 12 fans have said they are itching to defect but when USC is getting $20M a year less than Texas & OU they take notice. The only way the PAC was going to be viable long term was taking 6 teams in the beginning which included A&M. Now even 4 teams if off the table, the league has no options to catch up with other leagues. Either the PAC 12 is split between the B1G & Big 12 or a merger of some type with the Big 12 of 16 teams is the only thing that will improve their future.