(08-26-2021 02:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote: To the surprise of only a few, the PAC is not expanding.
There is just no value-added in the L8 schools.
I expected the same, but for different reasons.
1. There is no need to rush and I'm sure they feel not taking them now somehow pressures Texas, Oklahoma, ESPN and the SEC. It doesn't really affect the latter two entities at all and only fails to mitigate UT and OU's buyout for now.
2. The PAC likely starts negotiating a new contract after football season. Initial valuations on a PAC payout with no substantive changes will be more than they have been making but still underwhelming. You will likely see a serious change of direction on this subject mid negotiation.
3. Unscheduled future OOC games will not be a major factor, if a factor at all.
4. While a scheduling alliance between the ACC North and the Big 10 could add value for the ACC, one with the PAC likely won't be a ratings bonanza and travel is an issue. And what besides some recruiting exposure does the B1G gain from it? They make more playing a buy game at home and don't risk having a CFP contender take it on the chin from a middle of the pack ACC school.
5. So for the PAC I can't see more than an industry inflation adjustment for what essentially is the same old stuff. And remember B10/PAC games early season can also screw up the mystery of a good Rose Bowl pairing if they've already played.
Look, if it was a great idea it would have been done years ago. And it was to a degree and just didn't ring any bells. So "alliance" is just business as usual, only dressed up with a name.