(02-13-2021 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 10:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 05:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I agree with Xlance on a couple of things here, not all of it. Thing about Oklahoma is they lack major markets and recruiting grounds. Regardless of where they go, if Texas isn't with them, they become more like Nebraska. Precisely why conference realignment is creating less parity and not more, at the top. OSU will still dominate the B1G, with or without Oklahoma, same could be said of Alabama dominating the SEC, with or without Texas and Oklahoma. Nebraska was on a downturn since the 90s anyways. None of the schools that has moved really increased their profiles since realignment ramped in in 02/03. TCU and Utah moved to better leagues but are more or less second tiet in their new conferences. For Texas and Oklahoma, I just think they have better chances to make the playoffs as sharks in their respective pond. Money is money. Just be careful what you ask for when dealing with the devil.

If there is further consolidation of branding the divisions will essentially become conferences and two conferences will actually exist under the umbrella of 1 as this eliminated duplicated administrative expense and leaves each school a smaller portion of overhead and therefore more available revenue.

In such a world 2 things happen. Texas and Oklahoma essentially have a much healthier conference assembled around them, but not necessarily with the most dominant programs of the conferences they join.

Let's say for the sake of argument that ESPN decided to take 70% of the total value of the Big 12 for the cost of 4 schools. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas represent 69.8% of the total value of the Big 12. Move them completely under ESPN and place them along with Missouri in the SEC West.

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

The East looks far more traditional SEC:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now you essentially have 2 nine team conferences which are extremely compact playing 8 divisional games, and 2 crossovers for a 10 game SEC schedule. The crossovers rotate annually flip home and home at the end of the cycle. Ole Miss and Miss State play as an OOC game which does not impact their divisional standings.

That's the first thing. Divisions become extremely regional round robin conferences.

The Second thing is the CFP is expanded to 8 schools and with 4 P conferences remaining each conference's champion is paired with another conferences #2 school for the first round to be played at the venue of the higher seed. This means every division winner regardless of whether or not they win their CCG is a lock for the 8 team CFP. Each P4 gets 2 schools in per year but each P4 must have two divisions of not less than 7 schools and not more than 9.

So expansion is implied for the PAC, not necessarily for the ACC but N.D. would have to join in full to be eligible for one of those two slots and two slots should be incentive enough for them to do so. The ACC picks up WVU and moves to two 8 team divisions.

The Big 10 stays competitive by remaining at 14.

The PAC has to add 2 to stay in the mix.

Now there is no disincentive for consolidations, in fact there is incentive. For the network there is incentive as well because the 8 team P only playoff is great for increased interest and for keeping all 4 regions of the country involved later into the season.

If we limited this for uniformity's sake then setting the divisions at no more and no less than 8 each would also work.

At that point, the pickings become slim from their standpoint. One thing they won't do is to promote a G5 program. So the likes of Boise State and San Diego State are out. The choices would be among the remnants of the B12 and BYU. Just for argument's sake, let's say it's BYU and Texas Tech:

Washington State, Washington, Stanford, Cal, BYU, Oregon State, Oregon

USC, UCLA, Utah, Arizona State, Arizona, Colorado, Texas Tech

If that's the price to get into the expanded playoffs then they'll do it but there will a lot of grumbling on the PAC side of things.

So how do you make it equitable?

1. The PAC sells out to ESPN.
2. The SEC moves to 16 with Texas and Baylor
3. The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia and Notre Dame
4. The Big PAC moves to 16 with Texas Tech and T.C.U., Kansas and Kansas State.
5. The Big 10 moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Iowa State

Nobody gets everything they want.

But the top 2 conferences take one each of the top two products. But the SEC takes in Baylor as the price of Texas and the Big 10 takes in AAU Iowa State as the price of Oklahoma.

The ACC formalizes with N.D. and manages to grasp the all sports impact of WVU.

The PAC gets a stud in Basketball in AAU Kansas. The get general entry into the Texas market with Texas Tech and specific presence in DFW with T.C.U. Their price is either Kansas State or Oklahoma State so I'm guessing KSU. If Vandy or Wake back out under NIL then OSU has a path back in.

With all of that said, you and I both know that there will be no attempt to balance the conferences and that everyone will act in their own self interest. Oklahoma's donors and alums already recognize that they are slipping versus schools with lesser pedigrees in the SEC and Big 10. They realize that Texas has the LHN as a perpetual advantage over them, and they see just how far Nebraska has fallen in the one thing that matters most to Oklahomans, wins and losses. Of all of the schools in the Big 12 poised to act in their own self interest none are as ready for a move as Oklahomans.

UT Austin will remain oblivious to the pressures to move unless Oklahoma bolts. Then they will be dancing as fast as the Texas Two Step will take them to find a paradigm that will save the UT business model with the closest approximation to status quo as they can find. So both Oklahoma and Texas will act in their own self interest, but Texas won't move first because they like the current set up. Kansas will jump the first opportunity in which they get a solid stable offer and for no other reason than they are likely weary of living in fear of what OU and UT will do next. The other 7 are like frightened quail hiding in the weeds hoping the danger will pass. But once the firework starts they will be playing every angle they can to try to find a landing spot.

You and I both know the PAC won't take anyone unless they want them. And we know that most of the Big 12 wouldn't fare well with a PAC association.

So the moment OU gets a bonified offer UT will positioning for its best possible outcome and asking to take another Texas school with them. Which school is going to be interesting. Tech is a state school, Baylor the most historic, and T.C.U. with the most attractive market and the former school of the present Texas A.D..

So I don't consider that there will be no realignment as the likeliest outcome in 2024. Somebody will make Oklahoma an offer they can't refuse and then the rest of the pieces will go into motion, including Texas. And that's how the real world works.

An off-the-wall idea but what if both the SEC and Big Ten move to 17 each:

Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss
Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky

Big 8: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa State, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Big 9: Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland

I could put Illinois in the West to be with Northwestern but I think they'd rather play the games against Ohio State than against Iowa. Otherwise, this type of lineup would avoid having to play OOC games, except for the RRR. Texas would have multiple division games in the state plus the RRR. The power in the East shifts to GA/FL/AL. One rivalry that is put in danger is Ole Miss/Vandy but it's only important for those two programs.

(02-14-2021 02:17 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 10:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 05:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I agree with Xlance on a couple of things here, not all of it. Thing about Oklahoma is they lack major markets and recruiting grounds. Regardless of where they go, if Texas isn't with them, they become more like Nebraska. Precisely why conference realignment is creating less parity and not more, at the top. OSU will still dominate the B1G, with or without Oklahoma, same could be said of Alabama dominating the SEC, with or without Texas and Oklahoma. Nebraska was on a downturn since the 90s anyways. None of the schools that has moved really increased their profiles since realignment ramped in in 02/03. TCU and Utah moved to better leagues but are more or less second tiet in their new conferences. For Texas and Oklahoma, I just think they have better chances to make the playoffs as sharks in their respective pond. Money is money. Just be careful what you ask for when dealing with the devil.

If there is further consolidation of branding the divisions will essentially become conferences and two conferences will actually exist under the umbrella of 1 as this eliminated duplicated administrative expense and leaves each school a smaller portion of overhead and therefore more available revenue.

In such a world 2 things happen. Texas and Oklahoma essentially have a much healthier conference assembled around them, but not necessarily with the most dominant programs of the conferences they join.

Let's say for the sake of argument that ESPN decided to take 70% of the total value of the Big 12 for the cost of 4 schools. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas represent 69.8% of the total value of the Big 12. Move them completely under ESPN and place them along with Missouri in the SEC West.

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

The East looks far more traditional SEC:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now you essentially have 2 nine team conferences which are extremely compact playing 8 divisional games, and 2 crossovers for a 10 game SEC schedule. The crossovers rotate annually flip home and home at the end of the cycle. Ole Miss and Miss State play as an OOC game which does not impact their divisional standings.

That's the first thing. Divisions become extremely regional round robin conferences.

The Second thing is the CFP is expanded to 8 schools and with 4 P conferences remaining each conference's champion is paired with another conferences #2 school for the first round to be played at the venue of the higher seed. This means every division winner regardless of whether or not they win their CCG is a lock for the 8 team CFP. Each P4 gets 2 schools in per year but each P4 must have two divisions of not less than 7 schools and not more than 9.

So expansion is implied for the PAC, not necessarily for the ACC but N.D. would have to join in full to be eligible for one of those two slots and two slots should be incentive enough for them to do so. The ACC picks up WVU and moves to two 8 team divisions.

The Big 10 stays competitive by remaining at 14.

The PAC has to add 2 to stay in the mix.

Now there is no disincentive for consolidations, in fact there is incentive. For the network there is incentive as well because the 8 team P only playoff is great for increased interest and for keeping all 4 regions of the country involved later into the season.

If we limited this for uniformity's sake then setting the divisions at no more and no less than 8 each would also work.

At that point, the pickings become slim from their standpoint. One thing they won't do is to promote a G5 program. So the likes of Boise State and San Diego State are out. The choices would be among the remnants of the B12 and BYU. Just for argument's sake, let's say it's BYU and Texas Tech:

Washington State, Washington, Stanford, Cal, BYU, Oregon State, Oregon

USC, UCLA, Utah, Arizona State, Arizona, Colorado, Texas Tech

If that's the price to get into the expanded playoffs then they'll do it but there will a lot of grumbling on the PAC side of things.

So how do you make it equitable?

1. The PAC sells out to ESPN.
2. The SEC moves to 16 with Texas and Baylor
3. The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia and Notre Dame
4. The Big PAC moves to 16 with Texas Tech and T.C.U., Kansas and Kansas State.
5. The Big 10 moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Iowa State

Nobody gets everything they want.

But the top 2 conferences take one each of the top two products. But the SEC takes in Baylor as the price of Texas and the Big 10 takes in AAU Iowa State as the price of Oklahoma.

The ACC formalizes with N.D. and manages to grasp the all sports impact of WVU.

The PAC gets a stud in Basketball in AAU Kansas. The get general entry into the Texas market with Texas Tech and specific presence in DFW with T.C.U. Their price is either Kansas State or Oklahoma State so I'm guessing KSU. If Vandy or Wake back out under NIL then OSU has a path back in.

With all of that said, you and I both know that there will be no attempt to balance the conferences and that everyone will act in their own self interest. Oklahoma's donors and alums already recognize that they are slipping versus schools with lesser pedigrees in the SEC and Big 10. They realize that Texas has the LHN as a perpetual advantage over them, and they see just how far Nebraska has fallen in the one thing that matters most to Oklahomans, wins and losses. Of all of the schools in the Big 12 poised to act in their own self interest none are as ready for a move as Oklahomans.

UT Austin will remain oblivious to the pressures to move unless Oklahoma bolts. Then they will be dancing as fast as the Texas Two Step will take them to find a paradigm that will save the UT business model with the closest approximation to status quo as they can find. So both Oklahoma and Texas will act in their own self interest, but Texas won't move first because they like the current set up. Kansas will jump the first opportunity in which they get a solid stable offer and for no other reason than they are likely weary of living in fear of what OU and UT will do next. The other 7 are like frightened quail hiding in the weeds hoping the danger will pass. But once the firework starts they will be playing every angle they can to try to find a landing spot.

You and I both know the PAC won't take anyone unless they want them. And we know that most of the Big 12 wouldn't fare well with a PAC association.

So the moment OU gets a bonified offer UT will positioning for its best possible outcome and asking to take another Texas school with them. Which school is going to be interesting. Tech is a state school, Baylor the most historic, and T.C.U. with the most attractive market and the former school of the present Texas A.D..

So I don't consider that there will be no realignment as the likeliest outcome in 2024. Somebody will make Oklahoma an offer they can't refuse and then the rest of the pieces will go into motion, including Texas. And that's how the real world works.

An off-the-wall idea but what if both the SEC and Big Ten move to 17 each:

Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss
Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky

Big 8: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa State, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Big 9: Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland

I could put Illinois in the West to be with Northwestern but I think they'd rather play the games against Ohio State than against Iowa. Otherwise, this type of lineup would avoid having to play OOC games, except for the RRR. Texas would have multiple division games in the state plus the RRR. The power in the East shifts to GA/FL/AL. One rivalry that is put in danger is Ole Miss/Vandy but it's only important for those two programs.

We just need to rethink who we wish to be and work to that end. If the Big 10 wants half of its conference in the Northern Midwest and half of it East toward New England then that's what they need to do.

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

If the SEC wants to be half in the Southwest and half in the Southeast that's what they need to do.

Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M,

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt


The ACC should be more like this:
Boston College, Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, West Virginia

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech


And if the PAC wants a large market in the CTZ this is what they should do:

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech, Utah

Maybe the Cali schools can take it better if the old PAC 8 is a division and everyone else is the other one.

If you wanted to consider promotions to move to 18 each then perhaps these
would work:

ACC: Wake Forest / Central Florida
SEC: Tulane / South Florida
Big 10: Connecticut / Cincinnati
PAC: Brigham Young / Houston

This would include just about all of the top G5 earners.

So 64 or 72 reason could prevail if we could reshuffle a bit after everyone gets something they wanted in moving to 16.

so after reading all of this.. PAC is hopeless without convincing UT/OU to bolt the Big12?

Anyway, instead of trying to pillage each other's conference, is there an option where the PAC and Big12 can sell it's tier1 and tier 2 media rights as one?

maybe drop down to 8 conf games and the typical 9th game as a cross over game in the middle of the season (or late) to add some appeal like Oregon at Oklahoma in primetime? Or UT at SC at 3:30pm?

I think the best solution is to think outside the box if the current conference models want to work out long term.. because if not, there will be a lot of good programs on the outside looking in once UT and ou move on, together or apart. And for the PAC, it will be more of the same

(02-13-2021 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 10:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 05:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I agree with Xlance on a couple of things here, not all of it. Thing about Oklahoma is they lack major markets and recruiting grounds. Regardless of where they go, if Texas isn't with them, they become more like Nebraska. Precisely why conference realignment is creating less parity and not more, at the top. OSU will still dominate the B1G, with or without Oklahoma, same could be said of Alabama dominating the SEC, with or without Texas and Oklahoma. Nebraska was on a downturn since the 90s anyways. None of the schools that has moved really increased their profiles since realignment ramped in in 02/03. TCU and Utah moved to better leagues but are more or less second tiet in their new conferences. For Texas and Oklahoma, I just think they have better chances to make the playoffs as sharks in their respective pond. Money is money. Just be careful what you ask for when dealing with the devil.

If there is further consolidation of branding the divisions will essentially become conferences and two conferences will actually exist under the umbrella of 1 as this eliminated duplicated administrative expense and leaves each school a smaller portion of overhead and therefore more available revenue.

In such a world 2 things happen. Texas and Oklahoma essentially have a much healthier conference assembled around them, but not necessarily with the most dominant programs of the conferences they join.

Let's say for the sake of argument that ESPN decided to take 70% of the total value of the Big 12 for the cost of 4 schools. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas represent 69.8% of the total value of the Big 12. Move them completely under ESPN and place them along with Missouri in the SEC West.

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

The East looks far more traditional SEC:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now you essentially have 2 nine team conferences which are extremely compact playing 8 divisional games, and 2 crossovers for a 10 game SEC schedule. The crossovers rotate annually flip home and home at the end of the cycle. Ole Miss and Miss State play as an OOC game which does not impact their divisional standings.

That's the first thing. Divisions become extremely regional round robin conferences.

The Second thing is the CFP is expanded to 8 schools and with 4 P conferences remaining each conference's champion is paired with another conferences #2 school for the first round to be played at the venue of the higher seed. This means every division winner regardless of whether or not they win their CCG is a lock for the 8 team CFP. Each P4 gets 2 schools in per year but each P4 must have two divisions of not less than 7 schools and not more than 9.

So expansion is implied for the PAC, not necessarily for the ACC but N.D. would have to join in full to be eligible for one of those two slots and two slots should be incentive enough for them to do so. The ACC picks up WVU and moves to two 8 team divisions.

The Big 10 stays competitive by remaining at 14.

The PAC has to add 2 to stay in the mix.

Now there is no disincentive for consolidations, in fact there is incentive. For the network there is incentive as well because the 8 team P only playoff is great for increased interest and for keeping all 4 regions of the country involved later into the season.

If we limited this for uniformity's sake then setting the divisions at no more and no less than 8 each would also work.

At that point, the pickings become slim from their standpoint. One thing they won't do is to promote a G5 program. So the likes of Boise State and San Diego State are out. The choices would be among the remnants of the B12 and BYU. Just for argument's sake, let's say it's BYU and Texas Tech:

Washington State, Washington, Stanford, Cal, BYU, Oregon State, Oregon

USC, UCLA, Utah, Arizona State, Arizona, Colorado, Texas Tech

If that's the price to get into the expanded playoffs then they'll do it but there will a lot of grumbling on the PAC side of things.

So how do you make it equitable?

1. The PAC sells out to ESPN.
2. The SEC moves to 16 with Texas and Baylor
3. The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia and Notre Dame
4. The Big PAC moves to 16 with Texas Tech and T.C.U., Kansas and Kansas State.
5. The Big 10 moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Iowa State

Nobody gets everything they want.

But the top 2 conferences take one each of the top two products. But the SEC takes in Baylor as the price of Texas and the Big 10 takes in AAU Iowa State as the price of Oklahoma.

The ACC formalizes with N.D. and manages to grasp the all sports impact of WVU.

The PAC gets a stud in Basketball in AAU Kansas. The get general entry into the Texas market with Texas Tech and specific presence in DFW with T.C.U. Their price is either Kansas State or Oklahoma State so I'm guessing KSU. If Vandy or Wake back out under NIL then OSU has a path back in.

With all of that said, you and I both know that there will be no attempt to balance the conferences and that everyone will act in their own self interest. Oklahoma's donors and alums already recognize that they are slipping versus schools with lesser pedigrees in the SEC and Big 10. They realize that Texas has the LHN as a perpetual advantage over them, and they see just how far Nebraska has fallen in the one thing that matters most to Oklahomans, wins and losses. Of all of the schools in the Big 12 poised to act in their own self interest none are as ready for a move as Oklahomans.

UT Austin will remain oblivious to the pressures to move unless Oklahoma bolts. Then they will be dancing as fast as the Texas Two Step will take them to find a paradigm that will save the UT business model with the closest approximation to status quo as they can find. So both Oklahoma and Texas will act in their own self interest, but Texas won't move first because they like the current set up. Kansas will jump the first opportunity in which they get a solid stable offer and for no other reason than they are likely weary of living in fear of what OU and UT will do next. The other 7 are like frightened quail hiding in the weeds hoping the danger will pass. But once the firework starts they will be playing every angle they can to try to find a landing spot.

You and I both know the PAC won't take anyone unless they want them. And we know that most of the Big 12 wouldn't fare well with a PAC association.

So the moment OU gets a bonified offer UT will positioning for its best possible outcome and asking to take another Texas school with them. Which school is going to be interesting. Tech is a state school, Baylor the most historic, and T.C.U. with the most attractive market and the former school of the present Texas A.D..

So I don't consider that there will be no realignment as the likeliest outcome in 2024. Somebody will make Oklahoma an offer they can't refuse and then the rest of the pieces will go into motion, including Texas. And that's how the real world works.

The one fallacy in that thinking is your position on Texas.
Texas' business model is based on the Longhorns being able to dominate their conference. The 'horns problem is not revenue, but being able to get in front of Oklahoma. There is absolutely no way that Texas puts themselves in a conference that they have less of a chance to dominate than in their current situation.
Texas will move, but to either the east or west coast.
In order to get Oklahoma, the SEC will have to give up Missouri to the B1G and most likely Kentucky to the ACC (to pair with West Virginia...Notre Dame remains with the status quo).
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Baylor to the SEC.
Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and Kansas to the PAC where Texas should have an east time to be able to dominate their division that also includes Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools). That is Texas' business model.

So Texas will only want a place where they can "dominate". ummm are you familiar with Texas history in football? Texas will not go to the ACC.. They may go to the Pac or SEC.. but them worrying about dominating or "staying in front" of ou is a joke. Texas will be fine wherever it lands

(02-13-2021 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So how do you make it equitable?

1. The PAC sells out to ESPN.
2. The SEC moves to 16 with Texas and Baylor
3. The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia and Notre Dame
4. The Big PAC moves to 16 with Texas Tech and T.C.U., Kansas and Kansas State.
5. The Big 10 moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Iowa State

Nobody gets everything they want.

The ACC formalizes with N.D. and manages to grasp the all sports impact of WVU.

The PAC gets a stud in Basketball in AAU Kansas. The get general entry into the Texas market with Texas Tech and specific presence in DFW with T.C.U. Their price is either Kansas State or Oklahoma State so I'm guessing KSU. If Vandy or Wake back out under NIL then OSU has a path back in.

With all of that said, you and I both know that there will be no attempt to balance the conferences and that everyone will act in their own self interest. Oklahoma's donors and alums already recognize that they are slipping versus schools with lesser pedigrees in the SEC and Big 10. They realize that Texas has the LHN as a perpetual advantage over them, and they see just how far Nebraska has fallen in the one thing that matters most to Oklahomans, wins and losses. Of all of the schools in the Big 12 poised to act in their own self interest none are as ready for a move as Oklahomans.

UT Austin will remain oblivious to the pressures to move unless Oklahoma bolts. Then they will be dancing as fast as the Texas Two Step will take them to find a paradigm that will save the UT business model with the closest approximation to status quo as they can find. So both Oklahoma and Texas will act in their own self interest, but Texas won't move first because they like the current set up. Kansas will jump the first opportunity in which they get a solid stable offer and for no other reason than they are likely weary of living in fear of what OU and UT will do next. The other 7 are like frightened quail hiding in the weeds hoping the danger will pass. But once the firework starts they will be playing every angle they can to try to find a landing spot.

You and I both know the PAC won't take anyone unless they want them. And we know that most of the Big 12 wouldn't fare well with a PAC association.

So the moment OU gets a bonified offer UT will positioning for its best possible outcome and asking to take another Texas school with them. Which school is going to be interesting. Tech is a state school, Baylor the most historic, and T.C.U. with the most attractive market and the former school of the present Texas A.D..

So I don't consider that there will be no realignment as the likeliest outcome in 2024. Somebody will make Oklahoma an offer they can't refuse and then the rest of the pieces will go into motion, including Texas. And that's how the real world works.

No one gets everything they want but they all get at least something they desire.... except for the Pac-12. Overall from the Pac-12 perspective this would be just another spiced up suggestion of the Pac-12 inviting the little brothers of the Big-12 to clear up any potential in state political ruckus so that OU/UT and the Big Ten/SEC don't have to deal with it.

Kansas is good, they would be the only school on that list that would have a chance of being invited into the conference on their own merit but they aren't big enough to tether three additional schools to them. Texas Tech would require one of Texas or Oklahoma to come with them and TCU the same and even then that might not be enough as TCU is just so far behind.

Could try to spin it where they took Baylor (non-starter) or Oklahoma State or Kansas State or Iowa State.... but you still run into the same problem (1) the money isn't there to make it work and (2) you will never convince current schools to trade games in California for games in Iowa, Kansas & Oklahoma.

Yeah it's a tough sell to trade games in CA to play in KS/Iowa.. however it's an easier sell if you offer 8-12 mil more than what they are currently getting?

(02-14-2021 12:02 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Yeah it's a tough sell to trade games in CA to play in KS/Iowa.. however it's an easier sell if you offer 8-12 mil more than what they are currently getting?

None of those schools would provide an 8-12 million pay bump.

(02-14-2021 11:57 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So how do you make it equitable?

1. The PAC sells out to ESPN.
2. The SEC moves to 16 with Texas and Baylor
3. The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia and Notre Dame
4. The Big PAC moves to 16 with Texas Tech and T.C.U., Kansas and Kansas State.
5. The Big 10 moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Iowa State

Nobody gets everything they want.

The ACC formalizes with N.D. and manages to grasp the all sports impact of WVU.

The PAC gets a stud in Basketball in AAU Kansas. The get general entry into the Texas market with Texas Tech and specific presence in DFW with T.C.U. Their price is either Kansas State or Oklahoma State so I'm guessing KSU. If Vandy or Wake back out under NIL then OSU has a path back in.

With all of that said, you and I both know that there will be no attempt to balance the conferences and that everyone will act in their own self interest. Oklahoma's donors and alums already recognize that they are slipping versus schools with lesser pedigrees in the SEC and Big 10. They realize that Texas has the LHN as a perpetual advantage over them, and they see just how far Nebraska has fallen in the one thing that matters most to Oklahomans, wins and losses. Of all of the schools in the Big 12 poised to act in their own self interest none are as ready for a move as Oklahomans.

UT Austin will remain oblivious to the pressures to move unless Oklahoma bolts. Then they will be dancing as fast as the Texas Two Step will take them to find a paradigm that will save the UT business model with the closest approximation to status quo as they can find. So both Oklahoma and Texas will act in their own self interest, but Texas won't move first because they like the current set up. Kansas will jump the first opportunity in which they get a solid stable offer and for no other reason than they are likely weary of living in fear of what OU and UT will do next. The other 7 are like frightened quail hiding in the weeds hoping the danger will pass. But once the firework starts they will be playing every angle they can to try to find a landing spot.

You and I both know the PAC won't take anyone unless they want them. And we know that most of the Big 12 wouldn't fare well with a PAC association.

So the moment OU gets a bonified offer UT will positioning for its best possible outcome and asking to take another Texas school with them. Which school is going to be interesting. Tech is a state school, Baylor the most historic, and T.C.U. with the most attractive market and the former school of the present Texas A.D..

So I don't consider that there will be no realignment as the likeliest outcome in 2024. Somebody will make Oklahoma an offer they can't refuse and then the rest of the pieces will go into motion, including Texas. And that's how the real world works.

No one gets everything they want but they all get at least something they desire.... except for the Pac-12. Overall from the Pac-12 perspective this would be just another spiced up suggestion of the Pac-12 inviting the little brothers of the Big-12 to clear up any potential in state political ruckus so that OU/UT and the Big Ten/SEC don't have to deal with it.

Kansas is good, they would be the only school on that list that would have a chance of being invited into the conference on their own merit but they aren't big enough to tether three additional schools to them. Texas Tech would require one of Texas or Oklahoma to come with them and TCU the same and even then that might not be enough as they are just so far behind.

Could try to spin it where they took Baylor (non-starter) or Oklahoma State or Kansas State or Iowa State.... but you still run into the same problem (1) the money isn't there to make it work and (2) you will never convince current schools to trade games in California for games in Iowa, Kansas & Oklahoma.

Please carefully explain to me why the PAC, currently 5th among the P5 in perception, and either last, tied for last or barely 4th in any statistical category, including but not limited to attendance, gross revenue, TV ratings, WSJ valuations, and most importantly participation in championships in revenue sports, should get any considerations for what they want?

If not for old associations, history, and the past reputations of the schools the conference would be a top G6 contender.

When people suggest what the options are for PAC expansion it's not a matter of doling out the leftovers, it's a matter of priority. Top schools like Texas and Oklahoma are going to abandon their own fiefdom to make less, be watched less, and to hitch their future to a falling star? They are going to look for the greatest amount of revenue that requires the fewest change to their existing programs so that they have more with which to deal with an uncertain future.

Right now any A.D. of a stable P5 school who urged joining the PAC 12 should and would be fired. I'm sure West Coasters have an appropriate love of their Universities, but looking at them through the bias of affection and under the stone sober examination of contractual relations is starkly different.

The boycott this and that state who doesn't agree with us mentality of the PAC's political atmosphere is so out of touch with reality as to be laughable. So when I read posts like yours what stands out to me is the disconnect West Coasters have with the business reality of college sports and it further illustrates exactly why the PAC 12 finds itself in this awful situation. In a country where freedom of religion is supposedly a right the PAC 12 stonewalls B.Y.U., one of the few Western universities which could add to the PAC's bottom line.

Your conference suffers because it feels set apart from the rest of the country instead as a part of it. Frankly I think the PAC will stick at 12 until schools like Colorado and Utah cry uncle and leave. And that is probably more likely to happen than Kansas and a few others looking for shelter.

I don't think Kansas has much to worry about. Nor do I think if the Big 12 imploded that many would be left out, at least ultimately. But if the Big 12 goes, and the PAC continues to be the PAC in performance and politics, then I can see a time when nobody back East considers them relevant anymore.

And for the record, I often contrast the social Darwinism of the marketplace realities with the "Let's balance things for fairness" aspect of college football. When college sports fell under the auspices of multinational corporations and became for profit businesses, all collegiality went out the window as far as trying to make things fair. It's not what I like, but the reality is under the current business model for college sports the weaker schools from a for profit stand point will ultimately be left behind. I'm not sure what the corporate sweet spot will be but aside from football clearly you need more basketball participation than just 65 schools, and for baseball you will need even more to keep it interesting. So 72, 64, 56? I think we wind up somewhere in that range in a closed system for the upper tier. The easy compromise might be 56 top tier football programs with another 16 top notch basketball only schools. That formula doesn't hurt the profitability of the top football programs or drag down the content match ups for TV. But, it does add to the completeness of an upper tier hoops tournament.

(02-14-2021 12:15 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:02 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Yeah it's a tough sell to trade games in CA to play in KS/Iowa.. however it's an easier sell if you offer 8-12 mil more than what they are currently getting?

None of those schools would provide an 8-12 million pay bump.

They might even cause existing PAC schools to take a haircut instead of a raise.

Although unlikely, there is a worst case scenario for the SEC: the PAC, Big Ten and ACC cooperating to take programs from the SEC and Big 12. How? By picking off the two most vulnerable programs to pair with one B12 program each.

Consider: Oklahoma and Missouri to Big Ten; Kentucky or South Carolina with West Virginia to the ACC.

If it happens then it would be because the Big Ten is able to offer incentives, like greater access to academic resources through research grants, lobbying for federal dollars, etc. And the ACC could promise to do the same, plus offer a better sports fit for either Kentucky or SC.

Then Texas and Kansas go West with a tag along each.

Everyone benefits except the leftover B12 and the SEC gets a bit embarrassed but remain a very strong conference.

(02-14-2021 12:51 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Although unlikely, there is a worst case scenario for the SEC: the PAC, Big Ten and ACC cooperating to take programs from the SEC and Big 12. How? By picking off the two most vulnerable programs to pair with one B12 program each.

Consider: Oklahoma and Missouri to Big Ten; Kentucky or South Carolina with West Virginia to the ACC.

If it happens then it would be because the Big Ten is able to offer incentives, like greater access to academic resources through research grants, lobbying for federal dollars, etc. And the ACC could promise to do the same, plus offer a better sports fit for either Kentucky or SC.

Then Texas and Kansas go West with a tag along each.

Everyone benefits except the leftover B12 and the SEC gets a bit embarrassed but remain a very strong conference.

What dollars? We were 19 trillion in debt when Trump offered relief package #1. We were over 23 trillion in debt after it and nearly 26 trillion in debt before #2 with the COVID investment for PPE and other measures. After #2 we are closer to 28 trillion in debt and if Biden finally gets Relief #3 passed we will be north of 32 trillion in debt.

There is no Big 10 academic boost. Nebraska has declined academically since joining the Big 10 and the population is moving South and West. The real reason the Big 10 wants into North Carolina and Virginia is to maintain a voting advantage on appropriations which is more political than either academic or athletic. The AAU provides all any school needs with peer associations. So that old hackneyed selling point is lost.

The football movement is about accessing recruits to keep the money flowing. The Southeast is an entity unto itself in terms of exposure nationally, championships won, and it is because for boys in the South football is still a religion. And nothing the Big 10, PAC or ACC north of South Carolina can do anything about.

I suggested Kentucky because culturally they are now a better fit with the ACC basketball first schools and they are north of the recruiting line. I suggested South Carolina as a more natural geographical fit.

The vast majority of championships won in the last 30 years are by teams located in South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. Ohio State is very Southeastern in love of Football. And Georgia in spite of not winning a championship continues to be a top state for recruits.

In the last 20 years the grouping is even tighter. Heck California stars who want exposure sign with East Coast teams.

So there is absolutely nothing the SEC has to fear with regard to its position as it relates to college football, and as we pour more resources into basketball the improvement there is coming. The SEC has the lure of geography, a tighter cultural fit with alumni, and recruiting without which the other powers begin to wane.

For College football the SEC is best positioned period. Corporate money will replace Federal Academic grants at some point in the near future and that won't be a good thing for intellectual property rights, nor for schools whose M.O. has been to pool together for Federal money.

(02-14-2021 12:15 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:02 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Yeah it's a tough sell to trade games in CA to play in KS/Iowa.. however it's an easier sell if you offer 8-12 mil more than what they are currently getting?

None of those schools would provide an 8-12 million pay bump.

(02-14-2021 12:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:15 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:02 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Yeah it's a tough sell to trade games in CA to play in KS/Iowa.. however it's an easier sell if you offer 8-12 mil more than what they are currently getting?

None of those schools would provide an 8-12 million pay bump.

They might even cause existing PAC schools to take a haircut instead of a raise.

I was thinking more like Big 12 being the greener pasture for Colorado/Utah/AZ/ASU

(02-14-2021 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:51 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Although unlikely, there is a worst case scenario for the SEC: the PAC, Big Ten and ACC cooperating to take programs from the SEC and Big 12. How? By picking off the two most vulnerable programs to pair with one B12 program each.

Consider: Oklahoma and Missouri to Big Ten; Kentucky or South Carolina with West Virginia to the ACC.

If it happens then it would be because the Big Ten is able to offer incentives, like greater access to academic resources through research grants, lobbying for federal dollars, etc. And the ACC could promise to do the same, plus offer a better sports fit for either Kentucky or SC.

Then Texas and Kansas go West with a tag along each.

Everyone benefits except the leftover B12 and the SEC gets a bit embarrassed but remain a very strong conference.

What dollars? We were 19 trillion in debt when Trump offered relief package #1. We were over 23 trillion in debt after it and nearly 26 trillion in debt before #2 with the COVID investment for PPE and other measures. After #2 we are closer to 28 trillion in debt and if Biden finally gets Relief #3 passed we will be north of 32 trillion in debt.

There is no Big 10 academic boost. Nebraska has declined academically since joining the Big 10 and the population is moving South and West. The real reason the Big 10 wants into North Carolina and Virginia is to maintain a voting advantage on appropriations which is more political than either academic or athletic. The AAU provides all any school needs with peer associations. So that old hackneyed selling point is lost.

The football movement is about accessing recruits to keep the money flowing. The Southeast is an entity unto itself in terms of exposure nationally, championships won, and it is because for boys in the South football is still a religion. And nothing the Big 10, PAC or ACC north of South Carolina can do anything about.

I suggested Kentucky because culturally they are now a better fit with the ACC basketball first schools and they are north of the recruiting line. I suggested South Carolina as a more natural geographical fit.

The vast majority of championships won in the last 30 years are by teams located in South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. Ohio State is very Southeastern in love of Football. And Georgia in spite of not winning a championship continues to be a top state for recruits.

In the last 20 years the grouping is even tighter. Heck California stars who want exposure sign with East Coast teams.

So there is absolutely nothing the SEC has to fear with regard to its position as it relates to college football, and as we pour more resources into basketball the improvement there is coming. The SEC has the lure of geography, a tighter cultural fit with alumni, and recruiting without which the other powers begin to wane.

For College football the SEC is best positioned period. Corporate money will replace Federal Academic grants at some point in the near future and that won't be a good thing for intellectual property rights, nor for schools whose M.O. has been to pool together for Federal money.

JR, a deficit to the US government is wealth to the holders of the treasuries that are issued to cover those debts. If the country was run like a household where budgets had to be balanced, there would be considerably less wealth in this country.

I think both Republicans and Democrats are thinking more along these lines:

https://stephaniekelton.com/book/

The Deficit Myth
Vice-president Dick Cheney famously boasted, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” He was wrong.

Deficits do matter, but not the way we’ve been taught to believe. We’ve been told that China is our banker and that Social Security and Medicare are pushing us into crisis. We’re told the U.S. could end up like Greece and that deficits will burden future generations. These are all myths.

Deficits can be used for good or evil. They can enrich a small segment of the population, driving income and wealth inequality to new heights, while leaving millions behind. They can fund unjust wars that destabilize the world and cost millions their lives. Or they can be used to sustain life and build a more just economy that works for the many and not just the few.

I think Texas will be fine. I believe Oklahoma needs Texas more than Texas needs Oklahoma. Oklahoma/Oklahoma State can go to the B10 and the B12 replaces them and Texas is still one of the most profitable schools in the country.

As for what JR said bout the SEC. I agree. Due to population increase alone in the south, the SEC is gaining viewers without the need for expansion. If all the other conferences expanded and the SEC didn't. The SEC will still be having payouts comparable or higher than the B1G.

The schools of the PAC in the Mt time zone heading to the B12 is an intriguing scenario, and one that I never pondered. It actually does make some sense to me, a lot of sense actually.

(02-14-2021 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Please carefully explain to me why the PAC, currently 5th among the P5 in perception, and either last, tied for last or barely 4th in any statistical category, including but not limited to attendance, gross revenue, TV ratings, WSJ valuations, and most importantly participation in championships in revenue sports, should get any considerations for what they want?

If not for old associations, history, and the past reputations of the schools the conference would be a top G6 contender.

When people suggest what the options are for PAC expansion it's not a matter of doling out the leftovers, it's a matter of priority. Top schools like Texas and Oklahoma are going to abandon their own fiefdom to make less, be watched less, and to hitch their future to a falling star? They are going to look for the greatest amount of revenue that requires the fewest change to their existing programs so that they have more with which to deal with an uncertain future.

Right now any A.D. of a stable P5 school who urged joining the PAC 12 should and would be fired. I'm sure West Coasters have an appropriate love of their Universities, but looking at them through the bias of affection and under the stone sober examination of contractual relations is starkly different.

The boycott this and that state who doesn't agree with us mentality of the PAC's political atmosphere is so out of touch with reality as to be laughable. So when I read posts like yours what stands out to me is the disconnect West Coasters have with the business reality of college sports and it further illustrates exactly why the PAC 12 finds itself in this awful situation. In a country where freedom of religion is supposedly a right the PAC 12 stonewalls B.Y.U., one of the few Western universities which could add to the PAC's bottom line.

Your conference suffers because it feels set apart from the rest of the country instead as a part of it. Frankly I think the PAC will stick at 12 until schools like Colorado and Utah cry uncle and leave. And that is probably more likely to happen than Kansas and a few others looking for shelter.

I don't think Kansas has much to worry about. Nor do I think if the Big 12 imploded that many would be left out, at least ultimately. But if the Big 12 goes, and the PAC continues to be the PAC in performance and politics, then I can see a time when nobody back East considers them relevant anymore.

I never mentioned that the needs of the Pac should be taken into consideration ahead of the desires of the other conference. I simply stated that the Pac-12 was not going to take other schools just because it makes it easier for OU/Texas and the B1G/SEC to profit themselves from it. You're suggestion was the Pac-12 be used to save those that the ACC/Big Ten/SEC determined to not have enough value when the fact is if Oklahoma & Texas head to the Big Ten/SEC then a few members of the Big 12 are going to be left behind.

Unless you actually explain how the Pac-12 would benefit from adding Kansas State or TCU or Oklahoma State's of the Big-12?

- They don't improve the Pac-12 financially, best case scenario would be a wash and then you have to deal with having schools sacrifice trips to where they recruit and where their alumni bases are located so they can play games in Kansas/Oklahoma and western Texas.
- You mentioned they gain exposure in the CTZ but if the the Pac-12 is truly the after thought people make it out to be what exactly are they gaining? If Oklahoma & Texas make up (what was is 70%?) of the value of the Big12 then where is the value in adding schools that don't add much currently? If people aren't invested in watching Kansas State vs Texas Tech or Utah vs Washington State why would the public be clamoring for Kansas State vs Arizona

Pac-12 doesn't have a problem with religion, USC was founded a religious institution and they would unanimously welcome Notre Dame as is if they ever desired to affiliate with the conference. Pac-12's problem with BYU is its censorship of academic research. If you like to think of college athletics as a business well the Pac-12 primary forum of business is in research so someone like BYU that likes to limit what can and can't be done in that realm is going to drawn significant red flags.

A few thoughts to ponder:

Would raising the PAC 12 enrich the value of the Big 12?

Who in the PAC 12 would be willing to go?

Who would the Big 12 want?

(02-14-2021 02:01 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Please carefully explain to me why the PAC, currently 5th among the P5 in perception, and either last, tied for last or barely 4th in any statistical category, including but not limited to attendance, gross revenue, TV ratings, WSJ valuations, and most importantly participation in championships in revenue sports, should get any considerations for what they want?

If not for old associations, history, and the past reputations of the schools the conference would be a top G6 contender.

When people suggest what the options are for PAC expansion it's not a matter of doling out the leftovers, it's a matter of priority. Top schools like Texas and Oklahoma are going to abandon their own fiefdom to make less, be watched less, and to hitch their future to a falling star? They are going to look for the greatest amount of revenue that requires the fewest change to their existing programs so that they have more with which to deal with an uncertain future.

Right now any A.D. of a stable P5 school who urged joining the PAC 12 should and would be fired. I'm sure West Coasters have an appropriate love of their Universities, but looking at them through the bias of affection and under the stone sober examination of contractual relations is starkly different.

The boycott this and that state who doesn't agree with us mentality of the PAC's political atmosphere is so out of touch with reality as to be laughable. So when I read posts like yours what stands out to me is the disconnect West Coasters have with the business reality of college sports and it further illustrates exactly why the PAC 12 finds itself in this awful situation. In a country where freedom of religion is supposedly a right the PAC 12 stonewalls B.Y.U., one of the few Western universities which could add to the PAC's bottom line.

Your conference suffers because it feels set apart from the rest of the country instead as a part of it. Frankly I think the PAC will stick at 12 until schools like Colorado and Utah cry uncle and leave. And that is probably more likely to happen than Kansas and a few others looking for shelter.

I don't think Kansas has much to worry about. Nor do I think if the Big 12 imploded that many would be left out, at least ultimately. But if the Big 12 goes, and the PAC continues to be the PAC in performance and politics, then I can see a time when nobody back East considers them relevant anymore.

I never mentioned that the needs of the Pac should be taken into consideration ahead of the desires of the other conference. I simply stated that the Pac-12 was not going to take other schools just because it makes it easier for OU/Texas and the B1G/SEC to profit themselves from it. You're suggestion was the Pac-12 be used to save those that the ACC/Big Ten/SEC determined to not have enough value when the fact is if Oklahoma & Texas head to the Big Ten/SEC then a few members of the Big 12 are going to be left behind.

Unless you actually explain how the Pac-12 would benefit from adding Kansas State or TCU or Oklahoma State's of the Big-12?

- They don't improve the Pac-12 financially, best case scenario would be a wash and then you have to deal with having schools sacrifice trips to where they recruit and where their alumni bases are located so they can play games in Kansas/Oklahoma and western Texas.
- You mentioned they gain exposure in the CTZ but if the the Pac-12 is truly the after thought people make it out to be what exactly are they gaining? If Oklahoma & Texas make up (what was is 70%?) of the value of the Big12 then where is the value in adding schools that don't add much currently? Is the public going to be clamoring for that Kansas State vs Arizona football game anymore than they already would be for an Arizona vs Oregon State?

Pac-12 doesn't have a problem with religion, USC was founded a religious institution and they would unanimously welcome Notre Dame as is if they ever desired to affiliate with the conference. Pac-12's problem with BYU is its censorship of academic research. If you like to think of college athletics as a business well the Pac-12 primary forum of business is in research so a some one that likes to limit what can and can't be done in that realm is going to drawn significant red flags.

I get your position, and acknowledge that you didn't state that they necessarily deserved better options. I also agree with your conclusion. I'm merely stating that with the GOR's expiring there is no need on behalf of Texas and Oklahoma to have to take care of other schools. It's not like we are trying to dissolve a conference by placing enough schools to hit a targeted number that triggers dissolution.

My point is that in the eventuality that Texas and Oklahoma do move all that would be left to the PAC are those schools, whether they take them or not would be the PAC's business. The likeliest outcome would be they would have a kind of merger with the AAC, keep the Big 12 name, and move on.

When discussing the Big 12 it is peculiar, but it is the only conference where the taking of 4 schools covers 70% of the value of the conference. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas effectively delivers the value of the Big 12 with the efficiency of 4 schools, and I am speaking of athletic value, not academic value. To maximize the deal for the PAC academically Texas, Kansas, Iowa State, and likely Oklahoma would be the four and of course that wouldn't be likely due to athletic revenue losses for the Big 12 schools.

If the Big 10 made a play for value, and kept within their guidelines then around 66% of the total value could be had by taking Iowa State in place of Oklahoma State.

To be able to make a raid that is that efficient in value acquired is going to make for some tempting offers. The PAC should have pulled the trigger on the Texa-homa deal in 2010-1.

As things stand should the SEC acquire Texas and Oklahoma or one of them with Kansas I should think the prime candidate, or target prospect, for the Big 10 to pair with the other school would be Colorado. Now whether the Buffs have any interest would be another matter. But my point is that eventually fringe PAC acquisitions will have some thinking to do.

(02-14-2021 01:17 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:15 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:02 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Yeah it's a tough sell to trade games in CA to play in KS/Iowa.. however it's an easier sell if you offer 8-12 mil more than what they are currently getting?

None of those schools would provide an 8-12 million pay bump.

(02-14-2021 12:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:15 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:02 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Yeah it's a tough sell to trade games in CA to play in KS/Iowa.. however it's an easier sell if you offer 8-12 mil more than what they are currently getting?

None of those schools would provide an 8-12 million pay bump.

They might even cause existing PAC schools to take a haircut instead of a raise.

I was thinking more like Big 12 being the greener pasture for Colorado/Utah/AZ/ASU

As long as the California schools are in the Pac-12 there isn't anything the Big-12 could offer the mountain schools to get them to leave.

(02-14-2021 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A few thoughts to ponder:

Would raising the PAC 12 enrich the value of the Big 12?

Who in the PAC 12 would be willing to go?

Who would the Big 12 want?

What isn't discussed enough is their unique opportunity to simply let the GOR's expire within a couple of months of each other and reform a brand new conference. it's cold hearted but perfectly doable.

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Arizona, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah

That conference would be the academic alignment the Cali schools would want, and the would have athletic gravitas.

It could be expanded profitably to 14 by adding Arizona to the Cali division and Arizona State and Notre Dame to the Texas division.

People say it would be hard for Notre Dame to extricate themselves from the ACC. Not really. They are obligated for 5 ACC games, but in alternating years they are responsible for 2 games and 3 games that the proceeds go to the ACC (N.D.'s away ACC games) They could pay the exit fee and honor those games until 2037 if the new conference only required 8 games.. That still leaves them room for Navy annually if they wish to keep that and every other year leaves them room for another game of their choosing.

But either way you cut it since both conference's have GOR's expiring roughly at the same time such a move is possible. Move to 14 with ASU and N.D. and your revenues could hit mid 50's in millions.

It is the ultimate survival move for the Cali schools and for UT and OU to maintain some control while catching up enough to the SEC and Big 10 to remain competitive in their own right.