(03-05-2020 08:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:37 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I know Bohm said everything is on the table but I'm trying to believe the four California schools being split up and I'm having a hard time with it.

I'm having a hard time with that as well. I'm also having a hard time imagining the California schools splitting from Washington and Oregon. But I could imagine those six splitting off from the rest of the PAC12.

Question: Does the PAC have an exit fee, and if so, how much is it?

Another question: Which conference would these six schools want to be a part of, and would that conference take them?

I'm not sure it would make financial sense for the B1G to take all six if they all received an equal share of conference revenues. That would likely dilute the payments current members now receive. Would they offer to bring those six in at some amount between what they are now getting and what B1G members are now getting? Would they agree to move without being given equal shares?

The Big XII could probably afford to bring them all in. And, they would still only be at 16 members if they did. But would those six schools want to be part of a conference they probably don't consider academic peers?

There doesn't seem to be a scenario I can imagine that makes everybody happy (or at least happier than they are now). Which is why I've believed for some time now that the current alignment might last for a long time barring some complete game changer.

They left Oregon behind in the 60s along with Idaho, WSU and OSU. But they did bring UW along.

The old PCC started falling apart in the late 1950's with payment scandals at UCLA, Washington, and others. Stanford moved to expel UCLA. In 1959 Washington, Cal, UCLA, and USC started the AAWU, Stanford came along a few months later. Those five didn't want to have to travel to Idaho, Pullman, Eugene, or Corvallis, but over the next 3 years WSU, then the Oregon schools were admitted. Idaho never "reapplied".

Because the PAC 8 retained the PCC's and AAWU's records they look more cohesive outside the core 5 schools than they really are. I wouldn't say Oregon or OSU were left behind. Left behind is what happened to Virginia Tech in 1954 and to Houston, SMU, and TCU in 1996.

You forgot Missoula. David St will have you know Montana is a likely target for Pac 12 expansion.

(03-05-2020 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money.

Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

Yes, the bottom line is that recent events have highlighted disparities among the P5. The B1G and SEC are clearly the most valuable conferences. The B1G will be making a bit more than the SEC, but that's because Delaney was smarter than Slive, not because of inherently better properties. But they will be in the same ballpark, and it is a sure thing that their rights packages that come up in 2023 will draw big dollars.

The ACC, Big 12, and PAC are all pursuing strategies to stay in somewhat in range. The ACC doesn't have the uncertainty that the PAC and Big 12 have, because for better or worse, they are all-in with ESPN and now have the ACCN up and running. They will rise or fall based on how much additional money the ACCN brings in, and we should start to get some information on that pretty soon. ACC fans seem to sense optimism about this, but that is based on household penetration, which is clearly good, not carriage rates, which we haven't heard much about. The SECN makes a lot of money not just because it's in a lot of households, but because ESPN was able to negotiate high rates for it.

The PAC and Big 12 have big deals coming up in 2024/2025, but as you say, there are lots of variables in play, with the money-sucking nature of the B1G and SEC deals maybe hurting them. OTOH, they may each get a great deal. We shall see, but that's where the real uncertainty lies.

The money will be there if the ratings are there, no matter how much they pay the SEC and B$G. The issue is whether they have time slots. There are really only 3 time slots a day on each network. ABC doesn't run college football all day, so that's 8 Saturday slots between ABC/ESPN and ESPN2. The other ESPN networks have much lower coverage and viewership so it is less valuable to put games there. FS2 hardly gets any viewers and Fox has baseball and other things. So Fox only has 4 to 5 slots between Fox and FS1 on Saturdays. ESPN now has the entire ACC and SEC lineup. That's a lot of inventory.

I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

They could go to 18 with Texas Tech, Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, OSU and Kansas and be as important to broadcasters as the SEC or B1G.

(03-06-2020 08:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

The Big 12 taking WV was the best move they could make under the circumstances. It wasn't something they wanted to do, it was something they pretty much had to do. The Big 12 had just bled out a lot of football value, and they needed football power, and at the time, WV was a football power, having won multiple Big East titles and BCS bowl titles in the previous few years. They had also already added TCU from the ranks of the non-power schools.

BYU wasn't as strong as WV in football or hoops, so WV was the best choice in a bad situation.

If one raids the other, it will almost certainly be the PAC 12 raiding the Big 12. I would be highly surprised (though not shocked) to see the reverse scenario.

(03-06-2020 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

The Big 12 taking WV was the best move they could make under the circumstances. It wasn't something they wanted to do, it was something they pretty much had to do. The Big 12 had just bled out a lot of football value, and they needed football power, and at the time, WV was a football power, having won multiple Big East titles and BCS bowl titles in the previous few years. They had also already added TCU from the ranks of the non-power schools.

So who else was available? The only western school that could possibly have been an option was Utah, as they were a state flagship with good football too. But of course Utah had just moved to the PAC.

As a state flagship with good football and basketball, WV was clearly the best choice in a bad situation.

Louisville. They eventually won a national championship in men's basketball (at least before it was vacated), that could have been the Big 12's. They would have been in a larger market. The Big 12 could have also taken both West Virginia and Louisville and Cincinnati or two of them and BYU. Them staying at 10 makes them clearly a target to get raided (although I'm not sure if there's any extra schools the Big 12 could have added that would have changed that chance).

(03-06-2020 08:42 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

The Big 12 taking WV was the best move they could make under the circumstances. It wasn't something they wanted to do, it was something they pretty much had to do. The Big 12 had just bled out a lot of football value, and they needed football power, and at the time, WV was a football power, having won multiple Big East titles and BCS bowl titles in the previous few years. They had also already added TCU from the ranks of the non-power schools.

So who else was available? The only western school that could possibly have been an option was Utah, as they were a state flagship with good football too. But of course Utah had just moved to the PAC.

As a state flagship with good football and basketball, WV was clearly the best choice in a bad situation.

Louisville. They eventually won a national championship in men's basketball (at least before it was vacated), that could have been the Big 12's. They would have been in a larger market. The Big 12 could have also taken both West Virginia and Louisville and Cincinnati or two of them and BYU. Them staying at 10 makes them clearly a target to get raided (although I'm not sure if there's any extra schools the Big 12 could have added that would have changed that chance).

Take a bunch of leftover teams from a conference that was just raided to prevent being raided. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

(03-06-2020 08:42 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

The Big 12 taking WV was the best move they could make under the circumstances. It wasn't something they wanted to do, it was something they pretty much had to do. The Big 12 had just bled out a lot of football value, and they needed football power, and at the time, WV was a football power, having won multiple Big East titles and BCS bowl titles in the previous few years. They had also already added TCU from the ranks of the non-power schools.

So who else was available? The only western school that could possibly have been an option was Utah, as they were a state flagship with good football too. But of course Utah had just moved to the PAC.

As a state flagship with good football and basketball, WV was clearly the best choice in a bad situation.

Louisville. They eventually won a national championship in men's basketball (at least before it was vacated), that could have been the Big 12's. They would have been in a larger market. The Big 12 could have also taken both West Virginia and Louisville and Cincinnati or two of them and BYU. Them staying at 10 makes them clearly a target to get raided (although I'm not sure if there's any extra schools the Big 12 could have added that would have changed that chance).

I don't think UL was ready to leave in just a few month's timeframe. Oliver Luck didn't care what bridges he burned on his way out the door, flipping the bird as he went.

I thought it was the Big 12 TV partners who said that the TCU/WVU combination was what was acceptable to them following the TAMU/Mizzou departures.

Realignment has produced unthinkable results but I find it implausible that the PAC-12 breaks up in a manner that does not keep USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford together. The connections seem too tight but it is also hard to see it being feasible for a defection that did not provide some games that are fan and student-athlete friendly in travel.

The league looking to take West Coast teams I suspect would find those pairings very desirable. If you are sending the Michigan or UNC basketball team out west, that becomes easier if you can fly into one airport, play a game, take a couple days in a hotel and find some welcoming smaller four year, or community college or quality high school venue to practice at, play a second game and fly back out of the same airport. That's far easier than go to the LA metro for one game and leave or the San Francisco/Oakland metro for one game and return directly to your Central or Eastern time zone home.

Pure and simple math makes B12 the "obvious" but culturally I suspect ACC and B1G are easier fits

(03-05-2020 04:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

I guess Sankey is sitting on the details until the Spring meeting. It is possible (from some rumors) that the SEC is renegotiating their T2 valuations and possibly might see some change to the T3. The T1 was not renegotiated. It is a new contract.

Terminology wasn't correct, but they negotiated a new contract 4 years early. It was due to expire in 2025 as the Big 12 deal does. And they may be changing the CBS deal early.

Neither are your facts. The SEC contract with CBS expires after the 2024 football season's CCG. CBS requested the contract be renewed early. The SEC hired a sports rights negotiating firm to handle the process. CBS offered 300 million. ABC was rumored to have offered 335-345 million. In January FOX made a bid. ABC/ESPN countered. ABC/ESPN is trying to buy out the last 3 years of the CBS contract '22, '23, & '24.
We'll see how that goes.

So the SEC will be making minimally 67 million plus escalators either by the end of 2022 or the end of 2025 and we might well be making over 70 million. The Big 10 renews in 2024 and a 10% bump takes them to 60 million with escalators and a 15% bump (which I don't consider likely) takes them to 64 plus escalators.

It will be a new paradigm.

My facts are fine. The contract expired in 2025 like the Big 12. The Big 12's expires June 30, 2025. I don't know who initiated the early renewal talks (and you probably don't either), but the SEC chose to do it and it was a good move strategically.

(03-05-2020 09:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:37 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I know Bohm said everything is on the table but I'm trying to believe the four California schools being split up and I'm having a hard time with it.

I'm having a hard time with that as well. I'm also having a hard time imagining the California schools splitting from Washington and Oregon. But I could imagine those six splitting off from the rest of the PAC12.

Question: Does the PAC have an exit fee, and if so, how much is it?

Another question: Which conference would these six schools want to be a part of, and would that conference take them?

I'm not sure it would make financial sense for the B1G to take all six if they all received an equal share of conference revenues. That would likely dilute the payments current members now receive. Would they offer to bring those six in at some amount between what they are now getting and what B1G members are now getting? Would they agree to move without being given equal shares?

The Big XII could probably afford to bring them all in. And, they would still only be at 16 members if they did. But would those six schools want to be part of a conference they probably don't consider academic peers?

There doesn't seem to be a scenario I can imagine that makes everybody happy (or at least happier than they are now). Which is why I've believed for some time now that the current alignment might last for a long time barring some complete game changer.

They left Oregon behind in the 60s along with Idaho, WSU and OSU. But they did bring UW along.

The old PCC started falling apart in the late 1950's with payment scandals at UCLA, Washington, and others. Stanford moved to expel UCLA. In 1959 Washington, Cal, UCLA, and USC started the AAWU, Stanford came along a few months later. Those five didn't want to have to travel to Idaho, Pullman, Eugene, or Corvallis, but over the next 3 years WSU, then the Oregon schools were admitted. Idaho never "reapplied".

Because the PAC 8 retained the PCC's and AAWU's records they look more cohesive outside the core 5 schools than they really are. I wouldn't say Oregon or OSU were left behind. Left behind is what happened to Virginia Tech in 1954 and to Houston, SMU, and TCU in 1996.

You forgot Missoula. David St will have you know Montana is a likely target for Pac 12 expansion.

Montana left on their own a decade earlier in 1950.

(03-06-2020 10:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm having a hard time with that as well. I'm also having a hard time imagining the California schools splitting from Washington and Oregon. But I could imagine those six splitting off from the rest of the PAC12.

Question: Does the PAC have an exit fee, and if so, how much is it?

Another question: Which conference would these six schools want to be a part of, and would that conference take them?

I'm not sure it would make financial sense for the B1G to take all six if they all received an equal share of conference revenues. That would likely dilute the payments current members now receive. Would they offer to bring those six in at some amount between what they are now getting and what B1G members are now getting? Would they agree to move without being given equal shares?

The Big XII could probably afford to bring them all in. And, they would still only be at 16 members if they did. But would those six schools want to be part of a conference they probably don't consider academic peers?

There doesn't seem to be a scenario I can imagine that makes everybody happy (or at least happier than they are now). Which is why I've believed for some time now that the current alignment might last for a long time barring some complete game changer.

They left Oregon behind in the 60s along with Idaho, WSU and OSU. But they did bring UW along.

The old PCC started falling apart in the late 1950's with payment scandals at UCLA, Washington, and others. Stanford moved to expel UCLA. In 1959 Washington, Cal, UCLA, and USC started the AAWU, Stanford came along a few months later. Those five didn't want to have to travel to Idaho, Pullman, Eugene, or Corvallis, but over the next 3 years WSU, then the Oregon schools were admitted. Idaho never "reapplied".

Because the PAC 8 retained the PCC's and AAWU's records they look more cohesive outside the core 5 schools than they really are. I wouldn't say Oregon or OSU were left behind. Left behind is what happened to Virginia Tech in 1954 and to Houston, SMU, and TCU in 1996.

You forgot Missoula. David St will have you know Montana is a likely target for Pac 12 expansion.

Montana left on their own a decade earlier in 1950.

(03-06-2020 08:46 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I thought it was the Big 12 TV partners who said that the TCU/WVU combination was what was acceptable to them following the TAMU/Mizzou departures.

Yes.

WVU is a really valuable property in the east. They were a national power in the 90s and 00s. During the BCS era, they had more BCS bowl wins than the entire ACC. They were an upset loss in the final game in 2007 from a #1 ranking. They were unbeaten going into their bowl game in 88 and 93. 88 was essentially a national title game vs. Notre Dame. They've improved the Big 12's coverage in the east. Part of it is their football successs. Part is that people have to leave WV to find jobs.

(03-06-2020 08:42 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

The Big 12 taking WV was the best move they could make under the circumstances. It wasn't something they wanted to do, it was something they pretty much had to do. The Big 12 had just bled out a lot of football value, and they needed football power, and at the time, WV was a football power, having won multiple Big East titles and BCS bowl titles in the previous few years. They had also already added TCU from the ranks of the non-power schools.

So who else was available? The only western school that could possibly have been an option was Utah, as they were a state flagship with good football too. But of course Utah had just moved to the PAC.

As a state flagship with good football and basketball, WV was clearly the best choice in a bad situation.

Louisville. They eventually won a national championship in men's basketball (at least before it was vacated), that could have been the Big 12's. They would have been in a larger market. The Big 12 could have also taken both West Virginia and Louisville and Cincinnati or two of them and BYU. Them staying at 10 makes them clearly a target to get raided (although I'm not sure if there's any extra schools the Big 12 could have added that would have changed that chance).

Nah, both WV and Louisville are bad fits for the Big 12, but as a desperation hire at least WV hasn't been the embarrassment for the Big 12 that UL has been for the ACC.

(03-05-2020 06:15 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ugh.

Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money. The Pac-12 schools actually *like* each other beyond just a revenue arrangement. It is arguably the most academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned out of all of the power conferences. No school was force-fitted into the Pac-12 as a pure revenue grab (and I say that wrote a lot about the importance of that revenue grab when it comes to conference realignment).

That captures it. These schools are very tight knit. In football, USC's biggest rivals are UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford. For UCLA, it is USC and Cal. These four California schools are not breaking up. Then the eight out-of-state schools are very tied to California. It is common to hear the term UC Arizona or Cal State Tempe or UC Oregon or Cal State Corvallis. Oregon has about 5,000 students from California and Arizona has about the same number. ASU has 10 recruiters based throughout California. Arizona has three. Colorado has five alumni chapters in California.

I disagree that all of the PAC-12 schools are "academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned"

The 4 CA schools and Washington? Absolutely. They are peers in every respect.

Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit in. But none of the 5 core members would look to them as a source of best practices in the way that, say, Illinois would try look at Ohio State or Indiana.

ASU, OSU, and especially WSU do not align institutionally with the rest of the conference. ASU is an urban research school that seeks to serve its metro, much like Cincinnati or Houston. (rather than serving the world like UCLA, Washington, or Ohio State).

WSU in the PAC-12 is a worse institutional fit than Nebraska in the Big 10.

Geographically? It's got more geographical/cultural diversity than the ACC. Seattle and Phoenix are as different as Boston and Clemson, SC. Going from San Francisco to LA is akin to crossing the Mason-Dixon line. And then there's the Mountain States - U of Utah is 37% Mormon, and Colorado is over 1000 miles away from every former Pac-8 member.

So much wrong in this post.

ASU has a global reach now. At the level of the others? Not quite yet, but getting there.

Seattle and Phoenix are far more similar than Boston and even say, Philadelphia.
NorCal and SoCal, while they hate each other, are still very similar.

Utah and Colorado look west. Denver/Phoenix/Seattle and California aren't that different, culturally.

I agree. A lot wrong with that post. They are all good schools academically and they are all R1 research universities. They are all western schools. The Pac-12 North schools have been in the same conference together since 1919. I don't see what Rutgers has in common with Nebraska or Maryland with Minnesota.

All P5 schools are R-1 except Baylor, TCU, and Wake Forest, so that's not saying much.

"Western" isn't much of a similarity.

Texas and St. Louis "look West" too. That doesn't make them West Coast.

More importantly, the West Coast views Arizona and Utah the same way they view Texas.

The very fact that you feel the need to state "The Pac-12 North schools have been in the same conference since 1919" proves there's not much there. Because a) the cultural difference isn't within the PAC North; it's between the North and the rest. And b) it's not true.

When the PCC broke up in 1959, the 5 core schools (the 4 CA schools and Washington) tried to exclude the other 3. They tried to form a national conference with Notre Dame and the service academies. It fell apart when the service academies backed out. But it still took the CA schools 6 years to invite WSU, OSU, and Oregon back in.

More importantly, UCLA and USC didn't schedule the other Pac-12 North schools during that time. Other than USC-OSU, UCLA and USC went 8 years without playing WSU, OSU, or Oregon (they didn't play for 3 years even after those 3 rejoined the conference).

This continued into the 80s. Most years USC and UCLA didn't play all the Pac-12 North teams. UCLA only played OSU once from 1979-1983.

So someone from Cincinnati is more of an expert about the west than the people that actually live there...

(03-06-2020 10:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

I guess Sankey is sitting on the details until the Spring meeting. It is possible (from some rumors) that the SEC is renegotiating their T2 valuations and possibly might see some change to the T3. The T1 was not renegotiated. It is a new contract.

Terminology wasn't correct, but they negotiated a new contract 4 years early. It was due to expire in 2025 as the Big 12 deal does. And they may be changing the CBS deal early.

Neither are your facts. The SEC contract with CBS expires after the 2024 football season's CCG. CBS requested the contract be renewed early. The SEC hired a sports rights negotiating firm to handle the process. CBS offered 300 million. ABC was rumored to have offered 335-345 million. In January FOX made a bid. ABC/ESPN countered. ABC/ESPN is trying to buy out the last 3 years of the CBS contract '22, '23, & '24.
We'll see how that goes.

So the SEC will be making minimally 67 million plus escalators either by the end of 2022 or the end of 2025 and we might well be making over 70 million. The Big 10 renews in 2024 and a 10% bump takes them to 60 million with escalators and a 15% bump (which I don't consider likely) takes them to 64 plus escalators.

It will be a new paradigm.

My facts are fine. The contract expired in 2025 like the Big 12. The Big 12's expires June 30, 2025. I don't know who initiated the early renewal talks (and you probably don't either), but the SEC chose to do it and it was a good move strategically.

No Bullet you are dead wrong and on more than one issue here. The CBS contract actually expires at the end of the 2023 football season and is counted as 2024 simply because football ends after the bowls and CFP which don't affect the contract at all, so the 2023-4 season. The SEC will be making at least 67 million by the end of the 2024-5 season.

Google "when does the SEC's contract with CBS expire" and it is there in black and white.

And while you are at it there are articles quoting the CBS head of sports broadcasting stating that he wanted to get the renewal with the SEC wrapped up early. CBS initiated the early talks.

If you don't know something you shouldn't assume someone else doesn't, especially when a little fact check solves the issue.

https://awfulannouncing.com/cbs/sec-on-c...tions.html

This link is not the clearest one out there on who started the negotiations but it is clear enough. The request to start early came in a presser from the Head of CBS Sports. But this article clearly indicates that CBS wanted to get it done early and it contains the expiration date of the contract 2023-4 because it ends after football season.

But just in case you don't catch the expiration date of the contract in a sub-link here you go:

https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/cbss-...pens-next/

(03-06-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:42 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

The Big 12 taking WV was the best move they could make under the circumstances. It wasn't something they wanted to do, it was something they pretty much had to do. The Big 12 had just bled out a lot of football value, and they needed football power, and at the time, WV was a football power, having won multiple Big East titles and BCS bowl titles in the previous few years. They had also already added TCU from the ranks of the non-power schools.

So who else was available? The only western school that could possibly have been an option was Utah, as they were a state flagship with good football too. But of course Utah had just moved to the PAC.

As a state flagship with good football and basketball, WV was clearly the best choice in a bad situation.

Louisville. They eventually won a national championship in men's basketball (at least before it was vacated), that could have been the Big 12's. They would have been in a larger market. The Big 12 could have also taken both West Virginia and Louisville and Cincinnati or two of them and BYU. Them staying at 10 makes them clearly a target to get raided (although I'm not sure if there's any extra schools the Big 12 could have added that would have changed that chance).

Nah, both WV and Louisville are bad fits for the Big 12, but as a desperation hire at least WV hasn't been the embarrassment for the Big 12 that UL has been for the ACC.

Quo, I assume you mean UL has been an embarrassment to the ACC in football. In men's and women's basketball and baseball I believe (maybe I'm wrong) UL has contributed nicely to the league.

(03-06-2020 12:28 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:42 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I always thought it was a mistake by the XII to expand with WVU instead of BYU and go more toward a western strategy. They said at the time they believed it made more sense to grab a slice of the eastern time zone then to do anything out west.

This makes going west for Arizona St or USC uncomfortable. The PAC at the same time inched further East with Utah and Colorado. That is why despite the current financial numbers it still makes sense for an expanded PAC.

The Big 12 taking WV was the best move they could make under the circumstances. It wasn't something they wanted to do, it was something they pretty much had to do. The Big 12 had just bled out a lot of football value, and they needed football power, and at the time, WV was a football power, having won multiple Big East titles and BCS bowl titles in the previous few years. They had also already added TCU from the ranks of the non-power schools.

So who else was available? The only western school that could possibly have been an option was Utah, as they were a state flagship with good football too. But of course Utah had just moved to the PAC.

As a state flagship with good football and basketball, WV was clearly the best choice in a bad situation.

Louisville. They eventually won a national championship in men's basketball (at least before it was vacated), that could have been the Big 12's. They would have been in a larger market. The Big 12 could have also taken both West Virginia and Louisville and Cincinnati or two of them and BYU. Them staying at 10 makes them clearly a target to get raided (although I'm not sure if there's any extra schools the Big 12 could have added that would have changed that chance).

Nah, both WV and Louisville are bad fits for the Big 12, but as a desperation hire at least WV hasn't been the embarrassment for the Big 12 that UL has been for the ACC.

Quo, I assume you mean UL has been an embarrassment to the ACC in football. In men's and women's basketball and baseball I believe (maybe I'm wrong) UL has contributed nicely to the league.

Louisville has also held their own in football with the exception of 2018 and they made a bowl game this past season.