(10-23-2019 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:19 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well, AZ fits the culture of the Big 12 better than the PAC 12.

The way California has been acting lately would give me pause with the ties with Cali.

While I agree with you that California has gone nuts, nevertheless, as someone who has spent a lot of time in Phoenix, I can assure you that the identification there is far, far greater with California and the west coast than with Texas.

Texas has a very strong pull in eastern New Mexico, up to about the middle of the state. But once you get to Albuquerque and to the north and the mountains of Ruidoso in the center and south, it's basically gone.

Oh, yes, definitely. Arizona definitely looks more towards the West Coast culturally. You could even argue that has stronger ties to the Midwest than it does to Texas, which is why the Big Ten looked seriously at adding Arizona State as a hockey member. The spring training economy there is powered by Cubs fans more than anyone else and Chicago-based restaurants (such as Portillo's and Lou Malnati's) have flocked there en masse because of how many former Chicagoans are there.

(10-23-2019 07:19 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well, AZ fits the culture of the Big 12 better than the PAC 12.

The way California has been acting lately would give me pause with the ties with Cali.

Another stupid rumor with no basis in reality. More garbage. Cal State at Tempe and UC Arizona are not leaving the Pac-12. These schools spend a lot of time and resources recruiting athletes and students in California. The University of Arizona averages about 1,500 freshman per year from California. ASU about the same.

Most of Arizona State and Arizona home football games are at night. There is a reason for that. It is really hot during the daytime, especially in September and October. It is the desert. All a switch does is trade Washington State for Iowa State. Or Oregon State for Kansas. Or Baylor for Utah. So they pick up Texas and Oklahoma and lose UCLA and USC. All for a couple of games in the Central Time Zone on FS2 or ESPN PLUS. A ridiculous idea.

Arizona has more in common with western schools culturally than the Big 12 schools. A school like Arizona State wants to be playing schools in Texas, for example, because they want to recruit Texas. There is a ton of football talent in Texas. ASU has home-and-home future games scheduled with Texas, Texas A&M and Texas State, my alma mater. They have had recent home-and-home games with Texas Tech, Texas A&M and UTSA. I am sure they would not mind having Texas in the Pac-12, but they are not leaving the Pac-12 and the California schools.

(10-23-2019 12:04 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Oh this guy again. The Dud of WVU twin brother .

Nah. That's an insult to the Dude. (seriously).

But then, it was a Tuesday.

(10-23-2019 04:37 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He’s the one circulating the rumors. Come clean, Swaim.

I believe the PAC is fragile right now, but it’s fixable. The repair solution? Big XII schools who move on from that conference.

I also think something works itself out between the B1G and PAC. Let time and different personalities work out the kinks of scheduling football commitments. Too many schools were game for this in the PAC to let it die. You simply can’t force the PAC schools to move fast, and the B1G overreached.

I do believe there are some unhappy schools in the PAC, and the Zona’s are low-hanging fruit. We’ve never really gotten real “shots fired” from them at their source pains. Some cheap shots at the conference, but, let’s be real...if they’re really done with this, let them take shots at the California schools where the PAC universe revolves.

Why would Big 12 schools leave for lower revenues, less exposure, a weaker football and basketball league and more travel?

(10-23-2019 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said this before:

The Big 12 schools may like their money, but they hate their conference.

In contrast, the Pac-12 schools may not like their money, but they love their conference.

Here's the massive difference in long-term risk: the Pac-12 could lose both USC and UCLA (and even a couple of more schools) and it would *still* be clearly a power conference. They are a well-balanced league with multiple flagship and top tier academic schools in major fast-growing markets. In contrast, the Big 12 losing Texas and Oklahoma would kill that league in terms of power status. You could say the same about all of the other power conferences: they could lose their two (or even four) most valuable programs and still retain power status. That definitely cannot be said for the Big 12, which is why that league has zero conference realignment poaching power over the rest of the Power Five.

The Pac-12 is like a well-balanced stock portfolio, whereas the Big 12 has a portfolio that is quite literally driven by the performance of only two stocks. If you're a university president that's looking at a 50-to-100-year decision, the depth of the institutions of the Pac-12 is quite a big deal regardless of any short-term revenue disadvantages. They know better than anyone that Texas and Oklahoma will always be flight risks because they're the conference that almost convinced them to leave to create the Pac-16. It's hard to see why any Pac-12 university president would trust them going forward. Stability means even more than revenue in conference realignment decisions.

Big 10 (Ohio St./Michigan), Pac 12 (USC/UCLA), ACC (FSU/Clemson) lose their top two and they become a tweener conference like the Big East 2.0. Same for Big 12. Only the SEC could lose two top teams and retain its top level status.

I remember going back and looking at Swain bsck when realignment was at itd height. My impression is he wrote a million things hoping for hits and knowing he'd get something right on accident.

(10-23-2019 09:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said this before:

The Big 12 schools may like their money, but they hate their conference.

In contrast, the Pac-12 schools may not like their money, but they love their conference.

Here's the massive difference in long-term risk: the Pac-12 could lose both USC and UCLA (and even a couple of more schools) and it would *still* be clearly a power conference. They are a well-balanced league with multiple flagship and top tier academic schools in major fast-growing markets. In contrast, the Big 12 losing Texas and Oklahoma would kill that league in terms of power status. You could say the same about all of the other power conferences: they could lose their two (or even four) most valuable programs and still retain power status. That definitely cannot be said for the Big 12, which is why that league has zero conference realignment poaching power over the rest of the Power Five.

The Pac-12 is like a well-balanced stock portfolio, whereas the Big 12 has a portfolio that is quite literally driven by the performance of only two stocks. If you're a university president that's looking at a 50-to-100-year decision, the depth of the institutions of the Pac-12 is quite a big deal regardless of any short-term revenue disadvantages. They know better than anyone that Texas and Oklahoma will always be flight risks because they're the conference that almost convinced them to leave to create the Pac-16. It's hard to see why any Pac-12 university president would trust them going forward. Stability means even more than revenue in conference realignment decisions.

Big 10 (Ohio St./Michigan), Pac 12 (USC/UCLA), ACC (FSU/Clemson) lose their top two and they become a tweener conference like the Big East 2.0. Same for Big 12. Only the SEC could lose two top teams and retain its top level status.

No way, the Big Ten would still have Penn State and Wisconsin plus strong programs at Iowa, Michigan State, and Nebraska.

PAC-12 would still have Washington and Oregon plus every single member is a highly respected elite or near-elite university. They won't be discarded.

With the ACC, you could at least make an argument, but they'd still be propped up by UNC and Virginia Tech plus the ghost of Miami. The ACC has strength in numbers. Now if they lost UNC and VT on top of FSU and Clemson, leaving Georgia Tech as the best football program in the conference, then bets are off, but they'd just become the equivalent to the post-2005 Big East living off memory of long-gone achievements.

Why would the Big 12 want both Arizona schools? They should go after USC, Arizona and Colorado.

(10-23-2019 10:22 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said this before:

The Big 12 schools may like their money, but they hate their conference.

In contrast, the Pac-12 schools may not like their money, but they love their conference.

Here's the massive difference in long-term risk: the Pac-12 could lose both USC and UCLA (and even a couple of more schools) and it would *still* be clearly a power conference. They are a well-balanced league with multiple flagship and top tier academic schools in major fast-growing markets. In contrast, the Big 12 losing Texas and Oklahoma would kill that league in terms of power status. You could say the same about all of the other power conferences: they could lose their two (or even four) most valuable programs and still retain power status. That definitely cannot be said for the Big 12, which is why that league has zero conference realignment poaching power over the rest of the Power Five.

The Pac-12 is like a well-balanced stock portfolio, whereas the Big 12 has a portfolio that is quite literally driven by the performance of only two stocks. If you're a university president that's looking at a 50-to-100-year decision, the depth of the institutions of the Pac-12 is quite a big deal regardless of any short-term revenue disadvantages. They know better than anyone that Texas and Oklahoma will always be flight risks because they're the conference that almost convinced them to leave to create the Pac-16. It's hard to see why any Pac-12 university president would trust them going forward. Stability means even more than revenue in conference realignment decisions.

Big 10 (Ohio St./Michigan), Pac 12 (USC/UCLA), ACC (FSU/Clemson) lose their top two and they become a tweener conference like the Big East 2.0. Same for Big 12. Only the SEC could lose two top teams and retain its top level status.

No way, the Big Ten would still have Penn State and Wisconsin plus strong programs at Iowa, Michigan State, and Nebraska.

PAC-12 would still have Washington and Oregon plus every single member is a highly respected elite or near-elite university. They won't be discarded.

With the ACC, you could at least make an argument, but they'd still be propped up by UNC and Virginia Tech plus the ghost of Miami. The ACC has strength in numbers. Now if they lost UNC and VT on top of FSU and Clemson, leaving Georgia Tech as the best football program in the conference, then bets are off, but they'd just become the equivalent to the post-2005 Big East living off memory of long-gone achievements.

Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn were all strong universities academically. WVU had the best football program. UL, USF, Cincinnati more than held their own competitively in football and all had large student bodies. In basketball it was one of the best conferences between those 8 and the basketball schools. But it was still a tweener league. Same for everyone but the SEC.

ACC would be Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, UVA, UNC, NCSU, Georgia Tech, Miami and Virginia Tech. It looks a lot like Big East 1.0, but with the last two much faded from those days. And it was Miami, Virginia Tech and WVU carrying BE 1.0.

The Big 12 and ACC are both weaklings without their top 2 anchor schools. The Big Ten and PAC 12 both have enough depth that they would still be a major player.

The truly interesting possibility here is never really discussed, but to me seems to be the more viable solution. The PAC 12 and Big 12 GOR's expire within a year of one another. Therefore the possibility is there for the top schools of each conference to reorganize into a new conference which would permit the PAC schools to escape horrendous management of their rights, allow the up to possibly 6 of the Big 12 schools to join with them and reform a new Conference in much the same way the Big 12 was formed out of the SWC and Big 8.

Let's say that the PAC schools included everyone but their weakest 2 (WSU and OSU) and the Big 12 schools involved were Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas and Iowa State.

Your two divisions would become:
Arizona, Arizona State, the 4 California schools, Oregon, and Washington.
Add Utah and Colorado to the six from the Big 12 and you have it.
The new conference gets 6 CTZ slots to market includes all of the AAU schools from the PAC and Big 12, and expands the market of what was the PAC by the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus West Virginia.

That conference could earn in the 40 million range fairly easily.

The MWC could pick up WSU and OSU adding to their strength as a conference that might overtake the AAC competitively.

The GOR expirations are what make this kind of solution a possibility.

Will it happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Yes.

So to Frank I'd say I agree with your assessment of both the PAC and Big 12. But what makes this concept worth considering is that it nullifies the PAC and Big 12 as they are presently contracted and comported. That benefits the 10 PAC schools by liberating them from a failed structure, but maintains those associations they love while culling the weakest 2 and adding a robust Texas/Oklahoma market plus the nearly 6 million in Kansas and Iowa.

If the ACC remained as is the SEC might be interested in TCU for the DFW market presence. Baylor and Kansas State would help boost the profile of the AAC. And WVU might find a spot in the ACC or might be considered by the SEC if all other moves were off the table.

Any way you cut such a move would produce a third competitive conference and would change all of the current thinking about realignment.

Utah and Iowa St wouldn’t even be necessary. You could do this reorganization with 14–the Arizona twins would just have to consent to going East while Colorado plays in the West.

Conventional wisdom has always been that Texas and Oklahoma would prefer to look East rather than West.

Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA sharing power together would be an interesting combination.

I guess ISU would be in the west division with UA, ASU, TCU, BU and TT?

Don’t see KU/KSU, OU/OSU/UT want to be in different divisions.

(10-23-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 04:37 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He’s the one circulating the rumors. Come clean, Swaim.

I believe the PAC is fragile right now, but it’s fixable. The repair solution? Big XII schools who move on from that conference.

I also think something works itself out between the B1G and PAC. Let time and different personalities work out the kinks of scheduling football commitments. Too many schools were game for this in the PAC to let it die. You simply can’t force the PAC schools to move fast, and the B1G overreached.

I do believe there are some unhappy schools in the PAC, and the Zona’s are low-hanging fruit. We’ve never really gotten real “shots fired” from them at their source pains. Some cheap shots at the conference, but, let’s be real...if they’re really done with this, let them take shots at the California schools where the PAC universe revolves.

Why would Big 12 schools leave for lower revenues, less exposure, a weaker football and basketball league and more travel?

I think they are both fine where they are at. But the Pac-12 has more talent, top to bottom than the Big 12.

Using the NFL draft for the past over the past six years (2014-2019) and total draft picks by conference:
Pac-12 - 204
Big 12 - 128

For the NBA draft, I found this:
Over the last six years (2014-19), the ACC leads all conferences with 42 first-round selections, followed by the SEC (29), Pac-12 (25), Big Ten (19), Big 12 (14) and the Big East (8).

The Pac-12 has more total revenue than the Big 12, but they have not controlled their expenses, so the Big 12 ends up with more net revenue per school. Exposure, that is debatable. Kansas has played two home games on ESPN+ and a road game on LHN, a network that is not easy to find in Texas. Oregon State will play six consecutive games on the Pac-12 Network. The network is available nationally, it just may not be available with your local cable or satellite provider.

(10-23-2019 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said this before:

The Big 12 schools may like their money, but they hate their conference.

In contrast, the Pac-12 schools may not like their money, but they love their conference.

That's a great way to put it.



The problem of course is that the Big 12 remains a Big 8/SWC hybrid that has never really worked in a cultural sense. I thought it should have, since Texas/Oklahoma seemed a natural glue in that regard, but it hasn't.

In contrast, the PAC consists of schools that are an ideal cultural fit for all of them, save for the recent Colorado and Utah add-ons, and those schools are very grateful to be in the PAC.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc...753425002/

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opi...story.html

https://asunow.asu.edu/content/californi...racted-asu

Yeah, those schools are going to abandon the state of California to go play games in Iowa, Kansas and West Virginia because of a few athletic dollars...



USFFan

(10-23-2019 11:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The truly interesting possibility here is never really discussed, but to me seems to be the more viable solution. The PAC 12 and Big 12 GOR's expire within a year of one another. Therefore the possibility is there for the top schools of each conference to reorganize into a new conference which would permit the PAC schools to escape horrendous management of their rights, allow the up to possibly 6 of the Big 12 schools to join with them and reform a new Conference in much the same way the Big 12 was formed out of the SWC and Big 8.

Let's say that the PAC schools included everyone but their weakest 2 (WSU and OSU) and the Big 12 schools involved were Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas and Iowa State.

Your two divisions would become:
Arizona, Arizona State, the 4 California schools, Oregon, and Washington.
Add Utah and Colorado to the six from the Big 12 and you have it.
The new conference gets 6 CTZ slots to market includes all of the AAU schools from the PAC and Big 12, and expands the market of what was the PAC by the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus West Virginia.

That conference could earn in the 40 million range fairly easily.

The MWC could pick up WSU and OSU adding to their strength as a conference that might overtake the AAC competitively.

The GOR expirations are what make this kind of solution a possibility.

Will it happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Yes.

So to Frank I'd say I agree with your assessment of both the PAC and Big 12. But what makes this concept worth considering is that it nullifies the PAC and Big 12 as they are presently contracted and comported. That benefits the 10 PAC schools by liberating them from a failed structure, but maintains those associations they love while culling the weakest 2 and adding a robust Texas/Oklahoma market plus the nearly 6 million in Kansas and Iowa.

If the ACC remained as is the SEC might be interested in TCU for the DFW market presence. Baylor and Kansas State would help boost the profile of the AAC. And WVU might find a spot in the ACC or might be considered by the SEC if all other moves were off the table.

Any way you cut such a move would produce a third competitive conference and would change all of the current thinking about realignment.

One of the PAC or Big 12 monikers would still be available such that the PAC and Big 12 leftovers could still possibly be in a position of power vis-a-vis the MWC and AAC.

So, you might get TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, Oregon State, and Washington State as the new nucleus for expansion from the MWC and AAC ranks.

Or, may be just TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia focus on taking their pick from the AAC. And, may be its just Oregon State and Washington State that start something to supplant the MWC.

I could see this:

Big 12:
- TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, Houston, Memphis
- West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Temple

New West:
- OSU, WSU, BSU, SDSU, UNLV, CSU, Air Force, Wyoming, New Mexico

AAC:
- Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, Navy, ECU, +4 or 5 from CUSA (Rice, Marshall, UAB, Southern Miss, ?)

MWC:
- Utah State, Nevada, Fresno State, Hawaii, SJSU, NMSU, +2 or 3 (from FCS?)

That starts to look a lot like the old MWC (with OSU, WSU, and BSU replacing TCU, BYU and Utah), the old WAC, and the old CUSA.....

(10-23-2019 11:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've said this before:

The Big 12 schools may like their money, but they hate their conference.

In contrast, the Pac-12 schools may not like their money, but they love their conference.

That's a great way to put it.



The problem of course is that the Big 12 remains a Big 8/SWC hybrid that has never really worked in a cultural sense. I thought it should have, since Texas/Oklahoma seemed a natural glue in that regard, but it hasn't.

In contrast, the PAC consists of schools that are an ideal cultural fit for all of them, save for the recent Colorado and Utah add-ons, and those schools are very grateful to be in the PAC.

The Big 12 is and has always been a business arrangement. It is less a conference and more a collection of schools with a TV contract.

I have fond memories of the Big 8, but it was Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri's conference. Nebraska and Iowa State were along for the ride. Colorado was an outlier. OU was an outlaw, especially with its NCAA issues and, in the 80's, its renegade coaches (Switzer and Tubbs). OSU wasn't allowed to come along with the original schools, and didn't make it into the conference until 1957. Conference headquarters were in Kansas City. There was always a basketball tournament in Kansas City. Before post-season tournaments caught wind across the country, the Big 8 for decades conducted a holiday tournament in Kansas City. The Big 8 worked well for the five schools closest to KC. The Oklahoma schools often felt outnumbered in the power structure of the Big 8. In addition, Oklahomans, for better or worse, are more oriented to Texas than to the Midwest. Texans are much different from midwesterners. So, the Big 8, due to its geography and lack of markets, became unable to obtain a large TV contract. There was a lot of bitterness among what became the Big 12 North as it moved into a shotgun wedding with the Texas schools. It eventually bubbled into the loss of Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado.

Enter DeLoss Dodds and Donnie Duncan (Texas and OU athletic directors in the 1990's). They created a conference that would attract a large TV contract, while keeping a place in big-time college football for schools in the middle of the country. In the process, they created a conference that primarily benefited Texas and OU. Texas still got to be king of the hill, while OU got to be in a conference with both their old Big 8 rivals and schools in Texas, where a good portion of alumni and fans reside. As a consequence, Oklahoma State benefited in much the same way as OU, with a conference centered on Texas.

In hindsight, a zipper format (similar to the ACC) would have been a better division split for the Big 12 instead of North-South. It would have given everyone equal access to the state of Texas, and would have better integrated the two parts of the conference.

Big 12 3.0 has stabilized, at least until the GOR expires in 2025. There still isn't a whole lot in common between the Texas schools and the northern schools. West Virginia will always be an odd fit, through no fault of their own. But, as the years go by, the schools have learned to work together, as they know the alternatives are worse. Still, there will always be a separation between Texas/OU and the other 8 schools, especially with the division of revenue.

The Arizona schools can make more money in the Big 12, but their culture fits in the Pac 12. The Pac needs to fix their TV situation, especially their conference network. If they can do that, they won't have any problem keeping their conference together. Those schools want to be together.

This is what I will see as this.

Big 12 to 16:
West:
Arizona
California
Oregon
Washington
UCLA
USC
California
Stanford

East:
Arizona State protected rivalry game with Arizona.
Oklahoma
Kansas
Iowa State
Texas
Texas Tech
Colorado
Utah

PAC 12 16:
West:
Oregon State
Washington State
Boise State
Hawaii
UNR
Fresno State
San Diego State
UNLV

EAST:
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
TCU
Baylor
New Mexico
Colorado State
BYU
Houston

PAC 132 keeps P status.

West Virginia and UTSA moves over to AAC and that conference gets P6.

MWC:
San Jose State
Wyoming
Utah State
New Mexico State
UTEP
Idaho
Montana
Montana State
Weber State
E. Washington
N. Arizona
Sacramento State

Big Sky:
Idaho State
UC-Davis football only
Portland State
N. Colorado
Dixie State
S. Utah
C. Washington
Simon Fraser football grandfathered in
W. Oregon
Cal. Poly football only
Azusa Pacific football only
Colorado Mesa
CSU-Pueblo

It gives Big Sky 9/13. 9 all sports + 4 football only.

WAC will raid Lone Star and the California schools in D2.

Arizona to the SEC