(07-17-2022 01:47 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 01:41 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The Big 12 is just not in a position to poach anyone from the P5 as of now. This was the case prior to USC/UCLA. Nothing has changed since that move. I understand it's the Big 12 forum, but the PAC or ACC could easily add 4-6 Big 12 schools just as the Big 12 can add 4-6 schools from the PAC or ACC. And the latter only in 36' assuming the ACC is severely weakened by then, because 14/14 ACC schools are going nowhere unless it's the B1G or SEC. We can revisit the situation after UNC, Clemson, FSU leave.

I don't see why the PAC wouldn't add KU, OSU, TCU/TTech, and Houston today... if the academics were better in those schools. The fact is, they would, if 2-4 schools were AAU and had solid football programs. We wouldn't be discussing which PAC10 schools get left behind, but which AAC/MWC schools the Big 12 would be backfilling with.

You just don't pass up a chance to be affiliated with Stanford and Cal, if you are Baylor, OSU or any other current Big 12 program. You take a full merger and partner up if that scenario is on the table.

I mean, you have like 80 million reasons to pass that up if you're any current XII program.

After 25'? There is only one dead year in 24' because USC/UCLA will be gone by then. GoR exit penalty doesn't apply if Big12 schools were to start PAC play in 25'.

If Yormark wants to be open to new ideas and all options are on the table as he says, maybe he pioneers the start of what has been postulated as a possible change down the road - the regionalization of non-revenue sports.

Let some combination of PAC schools bring their football, mens/womens basketball, and baseball/softball to the Big XII. Leave swimming/diving, tennis, etc in the PAC.

What value those sports have is likely maximized by current associations. Travel/expenses would not be expanded. So you get the most money you can get out of them without spending more.

While it’s true that even a minority of football or basketball players ever can make a living at their sport, it’s also true that many claim that they’re less genuinely interested in the academic opportunity than the athletic/trade one. So if you reduce travel for sports where a majority of athletes are likely to be genuinely interested in academics, then you do minimize disruption to the “STUDENT athletes”.

(07-17-2022 02:02 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 01:47 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 01:41 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The Big 12 is just not in a position to poach anyone from the P5 as of now. This was the case prior to USC/UCLA. Nothing has changed since that move. I understand it's the Big 12 forum, but the PAC or ACC could easily add 4-6 Big 12 schools just as the Big 12 can add 4-6 schools from the PAC or ACC. And the latter only in 36' assuming the ACC is severely weakened by then, because 14/14 ACC schools are going nowhere unless it's the B1G or SEC. We can revisit the situation after UNC, Clemson, FSU leave.

I don't see why the PAC wouldn't add KU, OSU, TCU/TTech, and Houston today... if the academics were better in those schools. The fact is, they would, if 2-4 schools were AAU and had solid football programs. We wouldn't be discussing which PAC10 schools get left behind, but which AAC/MWC schools the Big 12 would be backfilling with.

You just don't pass up a chance to be affiliated with Stanford and Cal, if you are Baylor, OSU or any other current Big 12 program. You take a full merger and partner up if that scenario is on the table.

I mean, you have like 80 million reasons to pass that up if you're any current XII program.

After 25'? There is only one dead year in 24' because USC/UCLA will be gone by then. GoR exit penalty doesn't apply if Big12 schools were to start PAC play in 25'.

Not "GoR exit penalty;" just exit fee. It lives on longer than the GOR.

(07-17-2022 01:41 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The Big 12 is just not in a position to poach anyone from the P5 as of now. This was the case prior to USC/UCLA. Nothing has changed since that move. I understand it's the Big 12 forum, but the PAC or ACC could easily add 4-6 Big 12 schools just as the Big 12 can add 4-6 schools from the PAC or ACC. And the latter only in 36' assuming the ACC is severely weakened by then, because 14/14 ACC schools are going nowhere unless it's the B1G or SEC. We can revisit the situation after UNC, Clemson, FSU leave.

I don't see why the PAC wouldn't add KU, OSU, TCU/TTech, and Houston today... if the academics were better in those schools. The fact is, they would, if 2-4 schools were AAU and had solid football programs. We wouldn't be discussing which PAC10 schools get left behind, but which AAC/MWC schools the Big 12 would be backfilling with.

You just don't pass up a chance to be affiliated with Stanford and Cal, if you are Baylor, OSU or any other current Big 12 program. You take a full merger and partner up if that scenario is on the table.

I don't agree with this at all. The Big 12 is in a much better position right now to add from the PAC-12 than the opposite, and there are myriad reasons for this that have been discussed here and elsewhere at length.

The issue isn't the ability to poach. The issue is who could the Big 12 add from the PAC-12 that wouldn't reduce the annual TV split for the Big 12's current members.

So it basically comes down to what Dodd says in his latest piece. Is a merged Big 12 and PAC-12 more lucrative for all members than some configuration that results in one 16-18 team league? I think it could be, if it's done correctly. It would just require some creative scheduling that maximizes the best aspects of both leagues and improves the inventory for both.

Keep in mind that Yormark's job is to add value to the Big 12.

What schools add value to the league? Quite a few definately don't.

I had read about a possible Friday or Thursday night TV package? What schools would welcome 2 or 3 of their home games to be on Friday night?

Another possibility, merge with 5 protected rivals +4/4/4/4. That way you wouldn't have to add two G5 schools and hit everyone every four years while playing annual rivals, and just pit the top two teams in the CCG although you can still do a 4-team playoff:

Stanford: Cal UO WU Utah ASU
Cal: Stanford WU UO CO AU
UO: WSU WU OSU Cal Stanford
WU: WSU UO OSU Cal Stanford
WSU: UO, WU, OSU, CO, BYU
OSU: UO, WU, WSU, Utah, CO
Utah: Stanford OSU CO BYU ASU
CO: Utah, WSU, AU, OSU Cal
ASU: AU, TTech, Utah, TCU, Stanford
AU: ASU, TTech, CO, BYU, Cal
BYU: Utah, AU, TTech, Ok St, WSU
TTech: ASU, AU, BYU, TCU, Ok St
TCU: TTech, ISU, Baylor, Houston, ASU
OkSt: BYU, TTech, ISU, KU, KSU
ISU: Ok St KU KSU TCU UC
KU: KSU Ok St ISU UCF WVU
KSU: ISU Ok St KU UC Baylor
WVU: UC UCF, Houston, KU, Baylor
UC: WVU UCF ISU KSU Houston
UCF: UC WVU KU Houston Baylor
Baylor: Houston, TCU KSU UCF WVU
Houston: Baylor, TCU UCF, UC, WVU

(07-17-2022 04:01 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Another possibility, merge with 5 protected rivals +4/4/4/4. That way you wouldn't have to add two G5 schools and hit everyone every four years while playing annual rivals, and just pit the top two teams in the CCG although you can still do a 4-team playoff:

Stanford: Cal UO WU Utah ASU
Cal: Stanford WU UO CO AU
UO: WSU WU OSU Cal Stanford
WU: WSU UO OSU Cal Stanford
WSU: UO, WU, OSU, CO, BYU
OSU: UO, WU, WSU, Utah, CO
Utah: Stanford OSU CO BYU ASU
CO: Utah, WSU, AU, OSU Cal
ASU: AU, TTech, Utah, TCU, Stanford
AU: ASU, TTech, CO, BYU, Cal
BYU: Utah, AU, TTech, Ok St, WSU
TTech: ASU, AU, BYU, TCU, Ok St
TCU: TTech, ISU, Baylor, Houston, ASU
OkSt: BYU, TTech, ISU, KU, KSU
ISU: Ok St KU KSU TCU UC
KU: KSU Ok St ISU UCF WVU
KSU: ISU Ok St KU UC Baylor
WVU: UC UCF, Houston, KU, Baylor
UC: WVU UCF ISU KSU Houston
UCF: UC WVU KU Houston Baylor
Baylor: Houston, TCU KSU UCF WVU
Houston: Baylor, TCU UCF, UC, WVU

I don't like this at all. I don't want a 24-team conference. I want two 12-team regional conferences that can stand alone for every sport but football. This makes way more sense than a true merger that rips apart and combines two perfectly viable conferences.

(07-17-2022 05:19 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 04:01 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Another possibility, merge with 5 protected rivals +4/4/4/4. That way you wouldn't have to add two G5 schools and hit everyone every four years while playing annual rivals, and just pit the top two teams in the CCG although you can still do a 4-team playoff:

Stanford: Cal UO WU Utah ASU
Cal: Stanford WU UO CO AU
UO: WSU WU OSU Cal Stanford
WU: WSU UO OSU Cal Stanford
WSU: UO, WU, OSU, CO, BYU
OSU: UO, WU, WSU, Utah, CO
Utah: Stanford OSU CO BYU ASU
CO: Utah, WSU, AU, OSU Cal
ASU: AU, TTech, Utah, TCU, Stanford
AU: ASU, TTech, CO, BYU, Cal
BYU: Utah, AU, TTech, Ok St, WSU
TTech: ASU, AU, BYU, TCU, Ok St
TCU: TTech, ISU, Baylor, Houston, ASU
OkSt: BYU, TTech, ISU, KU, KSU
ISU: Ok St KU KSU TCU UC
KU: KSU Ok St ISU UCF WVU
KSU: ISU Ok St KU UC Baylor
WVU: UC UCF, Houston, KU, Baylor
UC: WVU UCF ISU KSU Houston
UCF: UC WVU KU Houston Baylor
Baylor: Houston, TCU KSU UCF WVU
Houston: Baylor, TCU UCF, UC, WVU

I don't like this at all. I don't want a 24-team conference. I want two 12-team regional conferences that can stand alone for every sport but football. This makes way more sense than a true merger that rips apart and combines two perfectly viable conferences.

Makes sense so it will not happen.

(07-17-2022 05:19 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I don't like this at all. I don't want a 24-team conference. I want two 12-team regional conferences that can stand alone for every sport but football. This makes way more sense than a true merger that rips apart and combines two perfectly viable conferences.

That's fine, I like that setup too, but it is somewhat dilutive because the PAC has to add two G5s and there are no programs that don't dilute that conference and both conferences remain well behind the P2.

But the feel I get here (albeit a Big 12 forum) is some Baylor fans think they are in a position to pick and choose. Just as it is convenient for OSU/WSU to be dropped in some 16 or 20 team setup, it is equally convenient for Stanford Cal to drop WVU/Baylor/KSU types if it suits their preferences. No programs are going to be dropped so that the above average programs can coalesce into some "grander" conferences that is third behind the P2. I know you didn't explicitly state that, but the Big 12 is not in a position to cherry pick in the least.

We can also discuss setups where Stanford Cal, even UO and WU leave outright to the B1G or independence. But none of those setups seem realistic or more likely than a full merger or scheduling collaboration at the very least.

(07-17-2022 05:24 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 05:19 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 04:01 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Another possibility, merge with 5 protected rivals +4/4/4/4. That way you wouldn't have to add two G5 schools and hit everyone every four years while playing annual rivals, and just pit the top two teams in the CCG although you can still do a 4-team playoff:

Stanford: Cal UO WU Utah ASU
Cal: Stanford WU UO CO AU
UO: WSU WU OSU Cal Stanford
WU: WSU UO OSU Cal Stanford
WSU: UO, WU, OSU, CO, BYU
OSU: UO, WU, WSU, Utah, CO
Utah: Stanford OSU CO BYU ASU
CO: Utah, WSU, AU, OSU Cal
ASU: AU, TTech, Utah, TCU, Stanford
AU: ASU, TTech, CO, BYU, Cal
BYU: Utah, AU, TTech, Ok St, WSU
TTech: ASU, AU, BYU, TCU, Ok St
TCU: TTech, ISU, Baylor, Houston, ASU
OkSt: BYU, TTech, ISU, KU, KSU
ISU: Ok St KU KSU TCU UC
KU: KSU Ok St ISU UCF WVU
KSU: ISU Ok St KU UC Baylor
WVU: UC UCF, Houston, KU, Baylor
UC: WVU UCF ISU KSU Houston
UCF: UC WVU KU Houston Baylor
Baylor: Houston, TCU KSU UCF WVU
Houston: Baylor, TCU UCF, UC, WVU

I don't like this at all. I don't want a 24-team conference. I want two 12-team regional conferences that can stand alone for every sport but football. This makes way more sense than a true merger that rips apart and combines two perfectly viable conferences.

Makes sense so it will not happen.

Yes, I think you sign an 8 year GoR contract to keep the PAC schools in the fold and secure a H&H round robin with everyone. You merge as soon as the B1G inks its new deal with the current 16 schools. Target merger date for Fall 25', and then reevaluate the setup once the ACC deal is close to expiration. At that point, spots may reopen in the SEC/B1G and the Big 22 can actually add a pair of ACC teams should they come available.

This is an interesting idea..having multiple divisions and conference semi final to get to the championship game

Jackson

I like the 12 we have. If we can poach 4 good ones, great! If not, no thanks.

(07-17-2022 01:41 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You just don't pass up a chance to be affiliated with Stanford and Cal, if you are Baylor, OSU or any other current Big 12 program. You take a full merger and partner up if that scenario is on the table.

So glad the New Big 12 Commish escaped your area...as he clearly stated the Big 12 will not expand if any new additions DILUTES the payments to the current members.

Big 12 is in a solid position and with dregs like Washington State and Oregon State valued at pennies on the dollar (even Cal too despire their market), you don't take EVERYONE when it will dilute payments to your current members.

(07-17-2022 08:06 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  So glad the New Big 12 Commish escaped your area...as he clearly stated the Big 12 will not expand if any new additions DILUTES the payments to the current members.

Big 12 is in a solid position and with dregs like Washington State and Oregon State valued at pennies on the dollar (even Cal too despire their market), you don't take EVERYONE when it will dilute payments to your current members.

Well, by putting that statement out there (which every new commissioner does when realignment is on the table), we can only assume he's gotten the cold shoulder from the corner 4 for a couple weeks and counting. That tells you what his bargaining power is at the moment. What's he going to say? If they do merge, he'll say "I'm the new CO-commissioner of this game changing merger that will revolutionize CFB." Behind closed doors, it'll be, "actually, the Berkley folks are only giving me "Partner" title for now, so they must like me!"

i like mandel's proposal.

(07-17-2022 10:15 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 08:06 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  So glad the New Big 12 Commish escaped your area...as he clearly stated the Big 12 will not expand if any new additions DILUTES the payments to the current members.

Big 12 is in a solid position and with dregs like Washington State and Oregon State valued at pennies on the dollar (even Cal too despire their market), you don't take EVERYONE when it will dilute payments to your current members.

Well, by putting that statement out there (which every new commissioner does when realignment is on the table), we can only assume he's gotten the cold shoulder from the corner 4 for a couple weeks and counting. That tells you what his bargaining power is at the moment. What's he going to say? If they do merge, he'll say "I'm the new CO-commissioner of this game changing merger that will revolutionize CFB." Behind closed doors, it'll be, "actually, the Berkley folks are only giving me "Partner" title for now, so they must like me!"

The 4Cs likely want to see what the money would be if they stayed before deciding. This is both appropriate and expected course. This isn’t the cold shoulder.

Well, there is an impetus to get this done for play by Fall 24' so there is not an unlimited amount of time. Although they could wait a year if OUT stay through 24' perhaps 25', in which case, Pac schools contemplating the jump have some time. But a year without USC/UCLA on the schedule is painful to say the least. Maybe everyone just plays a 9 game PAC conference schedule in 24' as a last hoorah.

(07-17-2022 11:28 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  That's literally what I just laid out earlier^^^ not sure BSU makes the cut though but they have as good a chance as anyone. Also believe BYU needs to be moved with Utah/BSU for the scheduling to work out, although it is challenging breaking up the Big 12 into two separate divisions regardless.

The problem is moving BYU into a division where they'd play Stanford and Cal more often. That's one stumbling block I see, but it's not a huge one. There is also the challenge of scheduling a 4-team playoff and adding two G5 teams, and ultimately how it all factors into the playoff.

To setup the playoff, Big 24 league champ gets autobid into a SF game on NYD. B1G and SEC champs also get autobids. The last bid would go to ACC vs ND/G5 QF playoff game. I think that's the most practical way to give everyone access.

lmao the sec and bigten aren't concerned one whit about 'giving everyone access'.....

the idea that the sec and bigten aren't going to pretty much completely control the playoff in the future is a non-starter. Thats especially true if ND leaves and whenever clemson manages to break free. Because the sec and bigten and cleaning up the mess with those schools- there are NO teams outside the sec and bigten at that point that people would care about if they don't have access to the playoff and the playoff would have full legitimacy with those teams. Now to get the cherry on top the sec and bigten may do something like allow a spot for the highest non-power 2 team if they meet certain standards, but make no mistake- the big12 and sec are going to do what they want with the playoff down the road.

(07-17-2022 01:41 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The Big 12 is just not in a position to poach anyone from the P5 as of now. This was the case prior to USC/UCLA. Nothing has changed since that move. I understand it's the Big 12 forum, but the PAC or ACC could easily add 4-6 Big 12 schools just as the Big 12 can add 4-6 schools from the PAC or ACC. And the latter only in 36' assuming the ACC is severely weakened by then, because 14/14 ACC schools are going nowhere unless it's the B1G or SEC. We can revisit the situation after UNC, Clemson, FSU leave.

I don't see why the PAC wouldn't add KU, OSU, TCU/TTech, and Houston today...

I'd do this right now every day and twice on sunday. Get to be in a conference with oregon, washington, stanford, utah.....that works. Still no anchor program, but we would no longer be in a soon to be conference with a bunch of mid majors.....

Orangepower would be at least 80 percent supportive of an idea. Not for next year because we still get to play Oklahoma and Texas next year and the mid majors are not here yet....but after that? Sure, sign us up......

(07-18-2022 10:11 AM)okiestate1979 Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 11:28 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  That's literally what I just laid out earlier^^^ not sure BSU makes the cut though but they have as good a chance as anyone. Also believe BYU needs to be moved with Utah/BSU for the scheduling to work out, although it is challenging breaking up the Big 12 into two separate divisions regardless.

The problem is moving BYU into a division where they'd play Stanford and Cal more often. That's one stumbling block I see, but it's not a huge one. There is also the challenge of scheduling a 4-team playoff and adding two G5 teams, and ultimately how it all factors into the playoff.

To setup the playoff, Big 24 league champ gets autobid into a SF game on NYD. B1G and SEC champs also get autobids. The last bid would go to ACC vs ND/G5 QF playoff game. I think that's the most practical way to give everyone access.

lmao the sec and bigten aren't concerned one whit about 'giving everyone access'.....

the idea that the sec and bigten aren't going to pretty much completely control the playoff in the future is a non-starter. Thats especially true if ND leaves and whenever clemson manages to break free. Because the sec and bigten and cleaning up the mess with those schools- there are NO teams outside the sec and bigten at that point that people would care about if they don't have access to the playoff and the playoff would have full legitimacy with those teams. Now to get the cherry on top the sec and bigten may do something like allow a spot for the highest non-power 2 team if they meet certain standards, but make no mistake- the big12 and sec are going to do what they want with the playoff down the road.

You're right. We should all just demolish our stadiums.