(08-03-2021 07:09 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 06:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Believe me, if the B1G took Rutgers, they would take Kansas. They just need a Maryland type of pair. But I don’t think markets will drive it will all the cord cutting of late. I think they’d target Mizzou and CU but they could settle on ISU by default.

If the B1G gets CU for the PAC, I could see the PAC taking TCU, which would open the door for SMU to the neo Big 12. More likely they stay at 11 or take CSU at some discounted price.

PAC won't take just one in that situation. I'd say they'd take at least 3, OSU, TT, TCU.

That leaves the AAC with KSU, ISU, WVU, Baylor. Could they rebuild with 4 I don't know.

Again, a PAC 14 would create huge imbalance with the Cal and Pacific Northwest scheduling. It has to be pods to maintain some continuity, and I don’t know how that works with two seven team divisions.

It’s much more likely they stay at 11 or just take one sub for CU. TCU would be interesting. No other options as far as I can tell. Maybe TCU, OSU, KSU, TTech and I/CSU to 16? Yeah, crazy talk, I know.

(08-03-2021 07:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 07:09 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 06:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Believe me, if the B1G took Rutgers, they would take Kansas. They just need a Maryland type of pair. But I don’t think markets will drive it will all the cord cutting of late. I think they’d target Mizzou and CU but they could settle on ISU by default.

If the B1G gets CU for the PAC, I could see the PAC taking TCU, which would open the door for SMU to the neo Big 12. More likely they stay at 11 or take CSU at some discounted price.

PAC won't take just one in that situation. I'd say they'd take at least 3, OSU, TT, TCU.

That leaves the AAC with KSU, ISU, WVU, Baylor. Could they rebuild with 4 I don't know.

Again, a PAC 14 would create huge imbalance with the Cal and Pacific Northwest scheduling. It has to be pods to maintain some continuity, and I don’t know how that works with two seven team divisions.

It’s much more likely they stay at 11 or just take one sub for CU. TCU would be interesting. No other options as far as I can tell. Maybe TCU, OSU, KSU, TTech and I/CSU to 16? Yeah, crazy talk, I know.

PAC could go divisionless with permanent rivals. Might be best since one division tends to dominate. At 14, 3 rivals and switch the other 10 at 5 per year.

(08-03-2021 07:26 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 07:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 07:09 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 06:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Believe me, if the B1G took Rutgers, they would take Kansas. They just need a Maryland type of pair. But I don’t think markets will drive it will all the cord cutting of late. I think they’d target Mizzou and CU but they could settle on ISU by default.

If the B1G gets CU for the PAC, I could see the PAC taking TCU, which would open the door for SMU to the neo Big 12. More likely they stay at 11 or take CSU at some discounted price.

PAC won't take just one in that situation. I'd say they'd take at least 3, OSU, TT, TCU.

That leaves the AAC with KSU, ISU, WVU, Baylor. Could they rebuild with 4 I don't know.

Again, a PAC 14 would create huge imbalance with the Cal and Pacific Northwest scheduling. It has to be pods to maintain some continuity, and I don’t know how that works with two seven team divisions.

It’s much more likely they stay at 11 or just take one sub for CU. TCU would be interesting. No other options as far as I can tell. Maybe TCU, OSU, KSU, TTech and I/CSU to 16? Yeah, crazy talk, I know.

PAC could go divisionless with permanent rivals. Might be best since one division tends to dominate. At 14, 3 rivals and switch the other 10 at 5 per year.

Do three permanent rivals work for every team or would someone have to double up or have only two permanent rivals?

Let’s say Cal schools play every year (3)… Pacific NW schools (3). ASU, AU, Utes (no CU) with two permanent rivals. Then TCU, Tech, OSU (two rivals). Do some teams end up with one less conference game or can you fill everyone evenly? I’m not sure.

(08-03-2021 07:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Again, a PAC 14 would create huge imbalance with the Cal and Pacific Northwest scheduling. It has to be pods to maintain some continuity, and I don’t know how that works with two seven team divisions.

Pod scheduling would be 4/3/3/4 or 3/4/4/3

A:B/C:D home and away, then A:C/B:D home and away.

With 4/3/3/4, A and D play through out of division with one skip every year, B and C play through completely, out of division, every year.

The fact that the pods with 3 in them play each other completely in out of division games opens up the possibility of:

A: Pacific Northwest (4)
B: California, UCLA and Arizona State
C: Stanford, USC and Arizona
D: Colorado, Utah, two adds (TCU & Kansas?)

Of course, the "Big Bang" version of this is where the PAC-14 gives a scheduling alliance to the "Big-14", on the strength of which the Remaining Six raid the AAC for Seven, plus BYU. The Big14 wouldn't need any fancy pods, it could just be two divisions of 7: the Remaining Six except WVU plus BYU and Navy/Wichita, and WVU, Houston, UC, Memphis, USF, UCF, Temple

(08-03-2021 07:09 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 06:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Believe me, if the B1G took Rutgers, they would take Kansas. They just need a Maryland type of pair. But I don’t think markets will drive it will all the cord cutting of late. I think they’d target Mizzou and CU but they could settle on ISU by default.

If the B1G gets CU for the PAC, I could see the PAC taking TCU, which would open the door for SMU to the neo Big 12. More likely they stay at 11 or take CSU at some discounted price.

PAC won't take just one in that situation. I'd say they'd take at least 3, OSU, TT, TCU.

That leaves the AAC with KSU, ISU, WVU, Baylor. Could they rebuild with 4 I don't know.

If it’s just those 4 an AAC+Big12 merger makes a lot more sense.

And again, if this "Scheduling Merger" is what is agreed to, then C-USA and MWC better raise holy hell with the NCAA, since they suggested a 'scheduling alliance" long before, but were told they would have to give up basketball credits.

If something like this is flat out permitted, it just goes to show that the NCAA is "looking out" for their bigger programs and the rest of us are just screwed.

Any news yet on the outcome of the meeting?

(08-04-2021 08:40 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  And again, if this "Scheduling Merger" is what is agreed to, then C-USA and MWC better raise holy hell with the NCAA, since they suggested a 'scheduling alliance" long before, but were told they would have to give up basketball credits.

If something like this is flat out permitted, it just goes to show that the NCAA is "looking out" for their bigger programs and the rest of us are just screwed.

The MWC and CUSA were talking full-on merger of 20+ schools where two entities become one...not just a scheduling alliance. Single conference schedule, single champion, single commissioner, etc.

A scheduling alliance is the coordination of out-of-conference games but is not a merger. Each of the PAC 12 and Big 12 would continue to exist separately, but they would play a bunch of out-of-conference games against each other and potentially even pool some TV rights and share some media contracts. But, still two separate entities.

No merger. The PAC-12 just takes 2-4 and splits into 2 divisions - Pacific Coast and East / Desert / Mountain / Plains Divisions. Otherwise the PAC-12 offers a scheduling alliance to get into the Central Time Zone. Helps the Little 8 stay viable as a conference with a chance at a semi decent TV contract for a few years until something else happen to the Little 8 or other members leave. The Little 8 will still be there down the road for cherry picking if the PAC-12 just offers a scheduling alliance.

(08-04-2021 10:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

So the Pac was not predatory with CU and Utah. The Big 10 was not predatory with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. The ACC was not predatory with Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.

Do they not understand how ridiculous they sound?

The Big 10 set this is motion with their expansion talk and then with taking Nebraska, taking one of the Big 12 anchors. The Pac basically destroyed the MWC (which is now more WAC than MWC). The ACC pretty deliberately destroyed the Big East. None of them have any room to criticize.

(08-04-2021 10:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

So the Pac was not predatory with CU and Utah. The Big 10 was not predatory with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. The ACC was not predatory with Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.

Do they not understand how ridiculous they sound?

The Big 10 set this is motion with their expansion talk and then with taking Nebraska, taking one of the Big 12 anchors. The Pac basically destroyed the MWC (which is now more WAC than MWC). The ACC pretty deliberately destroyed the Big East. None of them have any room to criticize.

And don't forget the BE/AAC destroyed CUSA. I know CUSA is small potatoes to everyone else but it's important to us.

(08-04-2021 10:51 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

So the Pac was not predatory with CU and Utah. The Big 10 was not predatory with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. The ACC was not predatory with Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.

Do they not understand how ridiculous they sound?

The Big 10 set this is motion with their expansion talk and then with taking Nebraska, taking one of the Big 12 anchors. The Pac basically destroyed the MWC (which is now more WAC than MWC). The ACC pretty deliberately destroyed the Big East. None of them have any room to criticize.

And don't forget the BE/AAC destroyed CUSA. I know CUSA is small potatoes to everyone else but it's important to us.

Although at least the BE/AAC was reacting, not initiating. Still, things might have worked out better if they had been deliberate instead of picking CUSA apart piecemeal, one or two schools at a time. There would be no Sun Belt as a lot of the recent moveups would have had no place to go.

I did forget the MWC. They did an airport meeting splitting the WAC. Then they made a deliberate, conscious effort to destroy the WAC after the WAC tried to get BYU. Fortunately they got payback from the Pac and had to give all of the WAC schools a home other than NMSU and those who went to CUSA.

So Washington State thinks the SEC is "predatory"?

For what, not saying "no" when two blue-blood schools called and asked to be invited?

But then he also says that expansion for the PAC is on the table. Won't the PAC be "predatory" too if it takes schools from other conferences?

Hoping the B1G guts the PAC12 and WSU is left out just to shove it to this fool.

(08-04-2021 11:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:51 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

So the Pac was not predatory with CU and Utah. The Big 10 was not predatory with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. The ACC was not predatory with Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.

Do they not understand how ridiculous they sound?

The Big 10 set this is motion with their expansion talk and then with taking Nebraska, taking one of the Big 12 anchors. The Pac basically destroyed the MWC (which is now more WAC than MWC). The ACC pretty deliberately destroyed the Big East. None of them have any room to criticize.

And don't forget the BE/AAC destroyed CUSA. I know CUSA is small potatoes to everyone else but it's important to us.

Although at least the BE/AAC was reacting, not initiating. Still, things might have worked out better if they had been deliberate instead of picking CUSA apart piecemeal, one or two schools at a time. There would be no Sun Belt as a lot of the recent moveups would have had no place to go.

And of course a good deal of blame on CUSA on how they rebuilt and the timing of that. There are always situations like ECU wanting nearby schools and then bolting once it happens. Lots of chaos.

That WSU President doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore,, expansion history and/or how the process works.

He can call the SEC predatory as he pleases, but his narrow-minded labeling effort is not going to stop schools across the country from seeking to join conferences that provide them with more revenue, security, prestige, and better scheduling. With broadcast media taking a more assertive role in shaping content and membership, it is not a single entity (such as the SEC as referenced) that is the force to propel shifts.

Here’s a direct link to Wilner’s complete article:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/04/w...potential/

There’s a fair amount to unpack here and some of it is pretty interesting. This is what stood out to me:

When asked specifically whether the Pac-12’s current membership is satisfied, Schulz said:

“People are saying they like the affiliation that we all have geographically and from the standpoint of being research institutions. All the conversations I’ve had have been really positive, that this is a good footprint. But we need to ask ourselves where we’ll be as a conference in five years.”

For that reason, Schulz reached out to new Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff to offer advice in the wake of the Texas and Oklahoma news.

“I called George and told him that I’ve been through it before. I wanted to make sure we weren’t sitting on the sideline. And he said, ‘I have six options for us.’

“He’s thinking deeply about these things. Should we be in the acquisition mode? Should we look to add members? Should they be football-only members? Should we consider a schedule alliance?

“I am so glad George is at the helm. We’re not resting on our laurels. He’s looking at options and what we can do to maximize our football brand. He’s the right leader at the right time.”

It hadn’t occurred to me that the Pac-12 would even consider expanding with football-only members, but these remarks imply that’s one of the options Kliavkoff has put on the table for the presidents to think about. It would be a way for the conference to expand without geography being a significant consideration and without setting the academic bar as high as it would be for adding a full member, thereby making schools like Iowa State and TCU more viable candidates for inclusion in an expansion.

It makes me wonder what would happen if, say, the Pac-12 offered full memberships to Kansas and Oklahoma State and football-only memberships to Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU.

(08-04-2021 01:38 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Here’s a direct link to Wilner’s complete article:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/04/w...potential/

There’s a fair amount to unpack here and some of it is pretty interesting. This is what stood out to me:

When asked specifically whether the Pac-12’s current membership is satisfied, Schulz said:

“People are saying they like the affiliation that we all have geographically and from the standpoint of being research institutions. All the conversations I’ve had have been really positive, that this is a good footprint. But we need to ask ourselves where we’ll be as a conference in five years.”

For that reason, Schulz reached out to new Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff to offer advice in the wake of the Texas and Oklahoma news.

“I called George and told him that I’ve been through it before. I wanted to make sure we weren’t sitting on the sideline. And he said, ‘I have six options for us.’

“He’s thinking deeply about these things. Should we be in the acquisition mode? Should we look to add members? Should they be football-only members? Should we consider a schedule alliance?

“I am so glad George is at the helm. We’re not resting on our laurels. He’s looking at options and what we can do to maximize our football brand. He’s the right leader at the right time.”

It hadn’t occurred to me that the Pac-12 would even consider expanding with football-only members, but these remarks imply that’s one of the options Kliavkoff has put on the table for the presidents to think about. It would be a way for the conference to expand without geography being a significant consideration and without setting the academic bar as high as it would be for adding a full member, thereby making schools like Iowa State and TCU more viable candidates for inclusion in an expansion.

It makes me wonder what would happen if, say, the Pac-12 offered full memberships to Kansas and Oklahoma State and football-only memberships to Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU.

Or possibly offering a full membership to Kansas and a football only membership to Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, TCU and Baylor. The Big 12 would remain a conference but not offer football any more. Not sure what would happen to West Virginia if they weren't offered a membership somewhere else, maybe they could get a football only membership in the ACC, or go independent in football. Also perhaps the Big 12 could add some MVC or A10 non football schools.

It may be significant that Bowlsby and Kliavkoff met first before anyone else made a move.

*** SMUstang ***