(08-03-2021 07:36 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(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.

You can make it work, it would just look messy and unbalanced once you found a way to also protect CA access for the other P12 schools.

(08-04-2021 10:28 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(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.

Not quite YNot.. that's why they were so adamant about calling it an "Alliance" originally. It was a MWC - C-USA scheduling agreement and a sharing of some network resources, but each conference was keeping their own identity, their own tournaments, and so on, with one possible extra post-season game of MWC champ vs. C-USA champ.

But the powers that be said "we're calling it a full on merger"...

(08-04-2021 02:47 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:28 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(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.

Not quite YNot.. that's why they were so adamant about calling it an "Alliance" originally. But the powers that be said "we're calling it a full on merger"...

The alliance asked the NCAA specifically about how a "full on merger" would affect their tournament bids and bball credits/shares.

The alliance also petitioned for an extra game, like a conference championship game that all the other conferences were holding...

Once the NCAA alerted them that they would forfeit some or all of the bball credits and exit fees and that the merger would only get a single NCAA autobid, the idea lost its shine.

Call it what you want, but thy weren't proposing a simple scheduling alliance for some coordinated OOC games.

http://collegesportsinfo.com/2012/04/18/...scussions/

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...conference

There wont be any Big XII / Pac-12 alliance. There is no benefit for the Pac-12. Iowa State, West Virginia, Texas Tech, K State, Kansas and Oklahoma State don't move the needle at all, would not put anymore fans in the stands than Utah State, Colorado State or UNLV as an opponent. TCU and Baylor represent obscure sects in California (Protestants are obscure in California, which is 58% Catholic, and splintered into dozens of denominations such that none are of any significance), but everyone knows Mormons, everyone knows BYU.

There just isn't any value in those Big XII schools for the Pac-12. Maybe for a basketball challenge, but little else.

(08-04-2021 02:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(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. 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 ***

PAC12 could also be thinking about BYU as fb only. Methodically, it would be an easy transition since BYU is fb independent.

As to the B12, the PAC could take a couple or so as full members, and one or two as fb only. That could leave the B12 as not sponsoring fb on one extreme, to the B12 adding new members trying to remain viable, hoping to retain power status, barely or reduced.

No on BYU, Stop

Guessing a merger isn't happening (and KU is not going to the B1G). Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall just asked the US attorney general to investigate ESPN for possible anti-trust violations in the Texas-OU migration.

(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.

That wasnt what CUSA was doing. CUSA was merging with the MW to form a 16 or 18 team league (dont remember the exact number anymore) and wanted a mini-playoff to determine the merged league football champion. A scheduling alliance just means you will work out a deal for regular OOC games. They arent the same thing.

(08-04-2021 03:08 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 02:47 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 10:28 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(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.

Not quite YNot.. that's why they were so adamant about calling it an "Alliance" originally. But the powers that be said "we're calling it a full on merger"...

The alliance asked the NCAA specifically about how a "full on merger" would affect their tournament bids and bball credits/shares.

The alliance also petitioned for an extra game, like a conference championship game that all the other conferences were holding...

Once the NCAA alerted them that they would forfeit some or all of the bball credits and exit fees and that the merger would only get a single NCAA autobid, the idea lost its shine.

Call it what you want, but thy weren't proposing a simple scheduling alliance for some coordinated OOC games.

http://collegesportsinfo.com/2012/04/18/...scussions/

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...conference

THIS^^^^^

Didnt see this post before I responded to the same post.

When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join.

*** SMUstang ***

(08-05-2021 02:34 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join.

*** SMUstang ***

It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

(08-05-2021 02:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:34 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join.

*** SMUstang ***

It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

(08-05-2021 02:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:34 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join.

*** SMUstang ***

It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

Yeah my first thought is that it doesn’t make sense when viewed through traditional realignment lens. I do think as the weakest power conference with geographic limitations, thinking outside the box is something that makes sense for the PAC-12. Doubt it will be a merger but something in between a merger and status quo? I can see why they are listening. They have to be at least uneasy with the status quo.

(08-05-2021 07:25 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:34 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join. The PAC 12 would become the PAC 18.

*** SMUstang ***

It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

Think about it from a college president’s perspective. The Big XII football teams remain power teams. They earn more money than they would with any other proposal out there. The conference no longer sponsors football after 2025. They stay together as a conference and collect any exit fees due them. Kansas should probably just drop football altogether and concentrate on basketball. West Virginia should either go independent in football or join the ACC as a “football only” member complementing Notre Dame being “All Sports except football”. They would be the only power conference west of the Mississippi. The Big XII would remain an excellent basketball conference. It would do well in the NCAA tournament. They have more potential to grow by adding schools that don’t sponsor football, such as St Louis. The PAC 12 would become the PAC 18.

*** SMUstang ***

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...ainst-sec/

A Pac-12 President said that Texas and OU's move to the SEC has united all of the conferences (Probably means the other P5's) against the SEC. If that is true then I could see the Pac-12 being open to a scheduling agreement that helps the Big 12 stay afloat and is somewhat beneficial to the Pac-12.

(08-05-2021 07:49 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:25 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:34 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join. The PAC 12 would become the PAC 18.

*** SMUstang ***

It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

Think about it from a college president’s perspective.

OK, I'm the President of Oregon State or Arizona State. Bringing in K-State, West Viriginia, Oklahoma State doesnt grow the pie enough to pay 8 football shares.

(08-05-2021 08:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:49 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:25 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:34 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join. The PAC 12 would become the PAC 18.

*** SMUstang ***

It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

Think about it from a college president’s perspective.

OK, I'm the President of Oregon State or Arizona State. Bringing in K-State, West Viriginia, Oklahoma State doesnt grow the pie enough to pay 8 football shares.

I'm talking Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas St and Iowa St., 6 "football only" teams. Granted the Pac 12 may choose not to expand. But if they do want to get into Texas and the central time zone they will never have a better opportunity.

*** SMUstang ***

(08-05-2021 09:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 08:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:49 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:25 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

Think about it from a college president’s perspective.

OK, I'm the President of Oregon State or Arizona State. Bringing in K-State, West Viriginia, Oklahoma State doesnt grow the pie enough to pay 8 football shares.

I'm talking Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas St and Iowa St., 6 "football only" teams. Granted the Pac 12 may choose not to expand. But if they do want to get into Texas and the central time zone they will never have a better opportunity.

*** SMUstang ***

Using the numbers from the 2011 deals, PAC schools are taking in $20M a year from ESPN and Fox. (1) The Little 8 is estimated to be worth $10-$20M a year. So how are lower-tier P5 schools supposed to RAISE the PAC-12 average payout?

If they want to get into Texas and the central time zone, they *might* decide to carry 2 semi-dead-weight schools that are located in the right spots-- the Houston (UH > Rice) and DFW (TCU > SMU) markets. There's no reason to waste revenue-shares on cornfields and cattle ranches in Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma plus Lubbock. That doesn't grow the pie.

The Big 8 didn't really want Texas Tech and Baylor 25 years ago (or TCU), but Texas state politics forced them in. So why do you think the PAC wants them now?

(1) Yes, it's more now because it's backloaded, and the existing arrangements generate roughly $0 from the PAC-12 Network rights. A new PAC-12 deal gets them more, but that makes the gap between the PAC-12 average and the Little 8 bigger, not smaller.

The Big 12 gets $90 or so million a year from the CFP/NY6. That number will go up with the new deal. Splitting the pot 4 ways instead of 5 is a motivation for the Big 10 and Pac 12 to expand, especially the Pac 12. Its also something that will help hold the Big 12 together if only 1 or 2 leave.

(08-05-2021 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 12 gets $90 or so million a year from the CFP/NY6. That number will go up with the new deal. Splitting the pot 4 ways instead of 5 is a motivation for the Big 10 and Pac 12 to expand, especially the Pac 12. Its also something that will help hold the Big 12 together if only 1 or 2 leave.

Now that might make some kind of sense. Normally you don't get a cookie for killing off another conference (something realignment junkies miss, because we get a huge rush out of contemplating the chaos). But this is a situation where the P4 *would* get a cookie for killing off another conference.