PAC and the universities that comprise it are in a bind to make a decision soon.

The PAC GOR ends June 30th 2024. To give 1 year notice that would require putting in a notice by June 30th 2023, a more formal 2 year notice June 30th 2022.

That means PAC has realistically 6 to 9 months to decide to either bolt to the B1G or add schools from the XII. Both could potentially happen.

XII comparatively has a little more time if they don't have to invite teams in until 2023 once the PAC's situation is sorted out. The plan according to Mike Gundy is to keep the conference intact until 2024.

That is Plan A. Plan B is having the XII reload with AAC/XII programs which nobody really wants to do.

(07-30-2021 05:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  PAC and the universities that comprise it are in a bind to make a decision soon.

The PAC GOR ends June 30th 2024. To give 1 year notice that would require putting in a notice by June 30th 2023, a more formal 2 year notice June 30th 2022.

That means PAC has realistically 6 to 9 months to decide to either bolt to the B1G or add schools from the XII. Both could potentially happen.

XII comparatively has a little more time if they don't have to invite teams in until 2023 once the PAC's situation is sorted out. The plan according to Mike Gundy is to keep the conference intact until 2024.

That is Plan A. Plan B is having the XII reload with AAC/XII programs which nobody really wants to do.

It is going to be a very interesting year behind closed doors in the PAC-12. I'm sure Kliavkoff will be hosting plenty of off the record meetings with network executives to figure out what will be the most profitable for the conference.

I think the order of likelihood is as follows;

1) Stay at 12 and sell the existing PAC12 network to the highest bidder along with all tier1 and tier2 rights. Enter into an agreement with the B1G to have an annual B1G vs PAC football weekend.

2) Expand with 4 teams and get to 16, this of course would all be predicated on having the information from a major network that they will be compensated accordingly. B1G agreement is also apart of this.

3) Major expansion of 8 teams to get to 20, everything from number 2 applies here.

4) 6 of the existing PAC members break away for greener pastures in the B1G. This option although the least likely in my opinion, will become the most likely if their next television deal is as bad as the one they currently have.

If a school wanted to leave there is such a short amount of time before the GOR expires that it would no longer serve as a deterrent to keep them from leaving. They would already be paying the 2 year exit penalty and by then the GOR would be on its last year and thats if someone left tomorrow.

Why weaken your partner and raid the PAC if you are the B1G? And it’s not the same as SEC raiding the Big 12. I really hope the PAC12 sticks it out. 2 super conferences is lame.

(07-30-2021 06:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Why weaken your partner and raid the PAC if you are the B1G? And it’s not the same as SEC raiding the Big 12. I really hope the PAC12 sticks it out. 2 super conferences is lame.

The Big Ten might not "raid" the PAC-12, but on the other hand, they would have a tougher time turning down an application if it were a compelling set of schools and they saw a way to make it work.

If it's brewing, look for movement on the CCG regulations.

(07-30-2021 06:30 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 06:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Why weaken your partner and raid the PAC if you are the B1G? And it’s not the same as SEC raiding the Big 12. I really hope the PAC12 sticks it out. 2 super conferences is lame.

The Big Ten might not "raid" the PAC-12, but on the other hand, they would have a tougher time turning down an application if it were a compelling set of schools and they saw a way to make it work.

If it's brewing, look for movement on the CCG regulations.

The B1G is not doing any raiding, it'll be the SEC doing the raiding.

(07-30-2021 06:35 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 06:30 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 06:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Why weaken your partner and raid the PAC if you are the B1G? And it’s not the same as SEC raiding the Big 12. I really hope the PAC12 sticks it out. 2 super conferences is lame.

The Big Ten might not "raid" the PAC-12, but on the other hand, they would have a tougher time turning down an application if it were a compelling set of schools and they saw a way to make it work.

If it's brewing, look for movement on the CCG regulations.

The B1G is not doing any raiding, it'll be the SEC doing the raiding.

SEC about to target PAC schools?

Now I've heard everything.

(07-30-2021 06:06 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I think the order of likelihood is as follows;

1) Stay at 12 and sell the existing PAC12 network to the highest bidder along with all tier1 and tier2 rights. Enter into an agreement with the B1G to have an annual B1G vs PAC football weekend.

2) Expand with 4 teams and get to 16, this of course would all be predicated on having the information from a major network that they will be compensated accordingly. B1G agreement is also apart of this.

3) Major expansion of 8 teams to get to 20, everything from number 2 applies here.

4) 6 of the existing PAC members break away for greener pastures in the B1G. This option although the least likely in my opinion, will become the most likely if their next television deal is as bad as the one they currently have.

Option 1 is the easiest to pull off. Sale of the network would be a one-time cash infusion. If the B1G is willing to cooperate, the football weekend would be a good thing, as well. The previous scheduling agreement was a great idea that fell apart.

If the Pac wants new members, they will need to relax their academic standards. There are only two AAU members that are reasonably available: Kansas and Iowa State.

If the Pac ends up with the status quo, option 4 will happen. USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington become the West Wing of the B1G.

(07-30-2021 06:39 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 06:35 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 06:30 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 06:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Why weaken your partner and raid the PAC if you are the B1G? And it’s not the same as SEC raiding the Big 12. I really hope the PAC12 sticks it out. 2 super conferences is lame.

The Big Ten might not "raid" the PAC-12, but on the other hand, they would have a tougher time turning down an application if it were a compelling set of schools and they saw a way to make it work.

If it's brewing, look for movement on the CCG regulations.

The B1G is not doing any raiding, it'll be the SEC doing the raiding.

SEC about to target PAC schools?

Now I've heard everything.

For the proposed Super League? Yes, schools on the West Coast will listen.

(07-30-2021 06:41 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  For the proposed Super League? Yes, schools on the West Coast will listen.

The question is, why would the SEC expand beyond 16 out of the West Coast when there are several really tempting properties right on their doorstep, as the GOR is ticking down to the "end of the GOR end game" period.

I recall the last realignment that ended up with 14/14/14/12/10 when this and other boards were full of discussions of 16 and 18 school conferences. Now years later we have our first power conference 16, based on the addition of two genuine Kings, and the discussion is appearing of 20 and 24 school conferences.

(07-30-2021 09:24 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 06:41 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  For the proposed Super League? Yes, schools on the West Coast will listen.

The question is, why would the SEC expand beyond 16 out of the West Coast when there are several really tempting properties right on their doorstep, as the GOR is ticking down to the "end of the GOR end game" period.

I recall the last realignment that ended up with 14/14/14/12/10 when this and other boards were full of discussions of 16 and 18 school conferences. Now years later we have our first power conference 16, based on the addition of two genuine Kings, and the discussion is appearing of 20 and 24 school conferences.

If it came down to 1 “super league” then it would no longer be the SEC calling the shots, the power conferences at that point would be nothing more than yes men to ESPN/Fox whomever was paying for it and those are the people who would not allow a system to exist where near a 3rd of the country was ignored.

Just one problem with all you east coasters (those of you east of the 32nd parallel) speculating on this. There is not a single University CEO in the Pac-12 with the slightest interest in this, and not many fans or alumni.

But he east coasters, keep telling us out west what we are thinking and wanting to do. I'm sure we can come up with a beer pong game based on the things you guys say about us.

(07-30-2021 10:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Just one problem with all you east coasters (those of you east of the 32nd parallel) speculating on this. There is not a single University CEO in the Pac-12 with the slightest interest in this, and not many fans or alumni.

But he east coasters, keep telling us out west what we are thinking and wanting to do. I'm sure we can come up with a beer pong game based on the things you guys say about us.

If you support Ohio State that means you are a Columbus boy.

(07-30-2021 10:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 10:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Just one problem with all you east coasters (those of you east of the 32nd parallel) speculating on this. There is not a single University CEO in the Pac-12 with the slightest interest in this, and not many fans or alumni.

But he east coasters, keep telling us out west what we are thinking and wanting to do. I'm sure we can come up with a beer pong game based on the things you guys say about us.

If you support Ohio State that means you are a Columbus boy.

Yeah, when I was 13 living in Columbus ... 48 years ago

(07-30-2021 05:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That means PAC has realistically 6 to 9 months to decide to either bolt to the B1G or add schools from the XII. Both could potentially happen.

Where does this stuff come from? These are quotes from Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff from the Pac-12 Media Day on Tuesday:
1. We don't think there's any risk at staying at 12 teams.

2. We believe the move by Texas and Oklahoma from the Big 12 to the SEC strengthens our unique position as the only Power 5 conference with teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. We have a stable, highly successful, and well positioned membership with a high bar to entry. Given our investments in football and men's basketball, our historic domination of other sports, we do not think expansion is required to continue to compete and thrive.

3. in a few years, thanks to the foresight of our presidents and chancellors, we will be in a unique and enviable position, unlike many other conferences, we still own all of our media rights. This gives us unlimited flexibility in how to structure new deals beginning in 2024. In fact, we believe our media rights will be even more valuable if there is further consolidation among the FBS conferences in the next two to three years. Given the proliferation of bundled media services and the unique and very limited nature of live sports, I believe we will have a large and diverse group of bidders for our media rights.

4. All of the press reports where someone writes an article completely unfounded about schools going here, schools going there, everyone picks it up, that becomes a news cycle. It's interesting, curious, fun for the fans, fun for the media. It's not based in reality if you're sitting in the rooms that I'm sitting in.

5. We feel very comfortable with our current membership.

The coaches do not support the 9 AM games, something Stanford coach David Shaw has been particularly vocal about. The Big Ten merger is a pipe dream and any expansion has got to be about dollars. Bigger is not always better.

If 2 super leagues are to come about then Fox merges the B1G and the PAC and ESPN merges the SEC and the ACC and both divide up the remaining Big 12 schools equally

You realize that the Big 12 commissioner said very similar things two weeks ago before Teaxoma’s departure, right?

PAC should jump to 14 immediately

PAC 14

N: Wash, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado, Kansas

S: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, ASU, Texas tech

6-1-2 football format

With a goal of getting to 16 eventually thus, the old pac 8 can have their division. Yet, I would take KU now and pair them with Texas tech to get into the Texas market...that would be the end of the big 12 which can’t hurt the pac either

(07-30-2021 10:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Yeah, when I was 13 living in Columbus ... 48 years ago

That kind of emigration is one reason the Big Ten likes Bowl Games in Arizona. Some of its traveling fan base is traveling there from Phoenix and Scottsdale.

I don't know whether the next round of realignment will hold enough incentives for USC to move, but I don't see it happening at this time, and if USC stays put, the PAC-12 has no reason to do anything substantial other than fix the hubris of trying to have 6 PAC-12 Network subchannels and winnow them down to Pacific NW, California, and "Mountain Time".

If the coming Big Ten and PAC-12 contracts include an 11 P5 game requirement, that opens up the opportunity again for a Big Ten / PAC-12 scheduling agreement. There are a lot easier ways to handle the numbers imbalance than the PAC-12 adding two schools ... for instance, the PAC-12 could nominate six Big Ten schools it wants to play annually, and the remaining eight cycle through skipping two a year on a four year cycle.

(07-30-2021 11:16 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 05:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  That means PAC has realistically 6 to 9 months to decide to either bolt to the B1G or add schools from the XII. Both could potentially happen.

Where does this stuff come from? These are quotes from Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff from the Pac-12 Media Day on Tuesday:
1. We don't think there's any risk at staying at 12 teams.

2. We believe the move by Texas and Oklahoma from the Big 12 to the SEC strengthens our unique position as the only Power 5 conference with teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. We have a stable, highly successful, and well positioned membership with a high bar to entry. Given our investments in football and men's basketball, our historic domination of other sports, we do not think expansion is required to continue to compete and thrive.

3. in a few years, thanks to the foresight of our presidents and chancellors, we will be in a unique and enviable position, unlike many other conferences, we still own all of our media rights. This gives us unlimited flexibility in how to structure new deals beginning in 2024. In fact, we believe our media rights will be even more valuable if there is further consolidation among the FBS conferences in the next two to three years. Given the proliferation of bundled media services and the unique and very limited nature of live sports, I believe we will have a large and diverse group of bidders for our media rights.

4. All of the press reports where someone writes an article completely unfounded about schools going here, schools going there, everyone picks it up, that becomes a news cycle. It's interesting, curious, fun for the fans, fun for the media. It's not based in reality if you're sitting in the rooms that I'm sitting in.

5. We feel very comfortable with our current membership.

The coaches do not support the 9 AM games, something Stanford coach David Shaw has been particularly vocal about. The Big Ten merger is a pipe dream and any expansion has got to be about dollars. Bigger is not always better.

Note I said the PAC could "potentially" see some movement.

I didn't say it was going to happen.

Further, in his comments he said the PAC would be in a better position with consolidation of the power conferences, which the PAC may have to engage in to make happen.