(08-03-2022 03:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:19 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Guy walks into a bar....

Guy: Hey I realize this is a matchup of two ranked BXII teams, but is it alright if we turn it to Cal v. Stanford? Those two have the better Computer Science programs.

Yep, no bias here.


Why couldnt it be a game with 2 ranked PAC schools?

You're missing the point.

But, I'll play. A group of guys from Las Vegas, Dallas, Chicago and Atlanta walk into a bar. They can choose one of two tables, each exclusively showing one of two college football games, both of which are about to kickoff.

Who do the guys choose between #9 Baylor versus #16 UCF or #8 Stanford and #17 Cal?

(08-03-2022 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 11:46 AM)Tigerblud Wrote:  Staying at 10 would be a mistake. You need to build the conference for the future. Just go ahead and grab SDSU and SMU.

I think 8 of those 10 schools aren’t in this for the long haul so I don’t see them trying to fill out the ranks.

Good point. Maximizing revenue will the main goal for at least 3 schools who have realistic BIG10 hopes within the next few years. Thats enough to block any additions.

And not expanding may hurt your conference just like the Big 12 when OUT left. There is no guerentee you will have a landing spot until 2036. Kansas thinks they have a spot in either the Big 10 or SEC, but they do not have none at all. Many of the Big 12 think they can join the Big 10 or SEC, and they don't. You can't wait it out hoping for you to get an invite. If ND gets the $75 million from NBC? They will stick with the ACC. Big 10 won't expand unless they get ND first. That will be a stalemate that will keep the conferences from expanding past 16.

(08-03-2022 03:32 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

People dont watch football based on how smart the schools are. Football is valuable because people care about it. If your located in a market where people dont care about it---your value has a cap. If your located in an area where only 20% of he nations TVs are located---you're ceiling is less than if you are located in an area where 80% of the TV's are located. The one thing the Pac12 has that is unique is late night P5 programming---but that has a cap because 80% of the TV's are asleep at that point---so nobody is going to overpay too much for that unique content. Still---thats always created some premium because the Pac12 was the only supplier of late night P5 western content. But is that still true? The fact is the Pac12 has already lost its unique stranglehold on that late night P5 programming with the exit of USC and UCLA. The Big10 can now offer some late night P5 inventory. BYU joining the Big12 added another conference that can potentially offer late night P5 programming. I think the amount of late night P5 content either of these alternative P5 sources can supply is still fairly limited----but if the Big12 nabs 2 to 4 Pac12 schools---the Pac12's position as the only substantial supplier of "unique" late night western P5 content would be significantly undermined.

That said---I dont think there will be much difference in contract values---assuming all stays "as is" for now. However, if the Pac12 loses more---that could quickly change. Where I think the HUGE difference comes is if you compare the value of the current Pac-10 to a potential Big16. I think there is a synergistic premium to be had there.

Let me state it another way. The estimates are that Texas and Oklahoma were worth between 65-70% of the B12 media package. They are leaving. If B12 was paying out $37 million per school, losing 65% would leave the payout at about $13 million per school. I dont think the B12 will get a paycut that deep, but you get the picture that it doesnt look too good for the B12.
Cincy, Houston, UCF and BYU will not close that gap. They are all great schools that play really good football. Cincy has been incredible the way they lose coaches and come back even better with a new coach. Houston, UCF and BYU have been amazing the last 5-10 years as well. But they dont come close to replacing the prestige of Texas and Oklahoma. Outside of WV and Kansas, all the B12 schools coming or going are not even the top schools in their respective States. Many of them are second or third or worse in popularity in their respective States. This just does not command big time media money.

Now regarding the PAC, these are all Big State schools or well respected popular privates, in Stanfords case. Almost all of them are first in their respective States. That means that they dominate their respective States tv eyeballs. Many of the States that the PAC works in, has not just the #1 school, but also the second most popular school in their respective States. The networks make their money by attracting large audiences. Which League do you think will have the larger audiences. The PAC losing USC and UCLA hurts but not as much as losing Texas/Oklahoma for the B12, since the PAC still have some Big names left in the league.

You're basing your analysis on the numbers from a 2012 TV deal. The Big 12's value for its next TV deal would be significantly more than $35-40M per team per year if Texas and Oklahoma had remained.

The Navigate report (published in Spring 2022) estimated about equal PAC and B12 future TV deals (starting at $35-40M per team) AFTER accounting for the loss of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC but BEFORE knowing of or accounting for the loss of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten.

Media reports indicate that USC and UCLA account for a significant chunk of the PAC TV value (together, significantly more valuable than their proportionate shares).

So the juicy tidbit..is the Pac-12 could expand..or not.

Boy these west coast journalists are clinging on for dear life aren't they? The PAC may very well keep their remaining 10 and add SDSU and SMU, but it sure the heck isn't poaching any BIG XII schools.

The commissioner states that their is only one threat, and that is the BIG10. I certainly don't have a degree in journalism (that's weird that the author even included that), but I can most certainly tell you if the BIG10 takes 4 more of your schools that the BIG XII will be taking what the they want from the others remaining. So yes, the BIG XII is definitely a threat.

If I am the BIG XII commissioner then I give the 4 corner schools an ultimatum. Join us now or the invitation closes forever. Let them gamble on their future with Washington, Oregon, and Stanford having one foot out the door.

(08-03-2022 01:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

He is either operating fully on emotion or a simpleton that is out of touch with the realities of today.

You know what is worth even less than $5 million, conference pride between rump conferences. The only tenable path forward is getting a 3rd super conference of P5 leftovers ASAP.


Regardless of which conference name survives, the leftovers need consolidation as much as the P2.

It just so happens to be that the PAC the worst positioned for that. It is simply false that a school's valuation is static. The PAC schools are worth more the less PAC they become, due to some pretty basic econometrics.
Then there is the risk and uncertainty of the BIG continuing to remind the PAC it is nothing more than fodder. Waiting on the BIG to finish the PAC is not risk free for the 4 corners.

He talks about that. That is his point about potentially there being a 48 team top division and a leaky boat. He talks about some seeing safety in numbers. He doesn't think it helps.

If thats what he believes---he's wrong. On the other hand, if the thinks the ability to keep up expense wise with the Big10/SEC will be impacted---well yeah. The G5 is very familiar with that. The reality is it doesnt have to mean what he thinks it does.

(08-03-2022 03:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:19 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Guy walks into a bar....

Guy: Hey I realize this is a matchup of two ranked BXII teams, but is it alright if we turn it to Cal v. Stanford? Those two have the better Computer Science programs.

Yep, no bias here.


Why couldnt it be a game with 2 ranked PAC schools?

You're missing the point.

But, I'll play. A group of guys from Las Vegas, Dallas, Chicago and Atlanta walk into a bar. They can choose one of two tables, each exclusively showing one of two college football games, both of which are about to kickoff.

Who do the guys choose between #9 Baylor versus #16 UCF or #8 Stanford and #17 Cal?

I'm a neutral Chicago Big Ten guy: if we're just basing it on school brand name and historical connotations (and not something where a school has a phenom like Baylor with RGIII or Stanford with Andrew Luck a decade ago), it's Stanford-Cal for me, particularly with the rivalry aspect in play.

Frankly, if it was Stanford vs. another #17 Pac-12 school, I'd almost certainly still choose it. I know that the reference to the computer science programs was a joke, but it honestly *is* more intriguing to me to see a super elite school like Stanford when it's in the top 10. I don't think I'm alone - the ratings actually bore this out with Stanford getting ratings in the same range as Oregon and Washington over the past several years. Also, any Pac-12 matchup is going to *feel* like a traditional matchup because that league did make institutional and geographic sense. (To that point, I might have felt differently if it was #9 Baylor vs. #16 TCU or Houston where there is a lot more history there.)

I'm sure the Dallas person would choose Baylor-UCF. The Vegas and Atlanta guys are wild cards.

(08-03-2022 03:48 PM)GreenDaddy Wrote:  Boy these west coast journalists are clinging on for dear life aren't they? The PAC may very well keep their remaining 10 and add SDSU and SMU, but it sure the heck isn't poaching any BIG XII schools.

The commissioner states that their is only one threat, and that is the BIG10. I certainly don't have a degree in journalism (that's weird that the author even included that), but I can most certainly tell you if the BIG10 takes 4 more of your schools that the BIG XII will be taking what the they want from the others remaining. So yes, the BIG XII is definitely a threat.

If I am the BIG XII commissioner then I give the 4 corner schools an ultimatum. Join us now or the invitation closes forever. Let them gamble on their future with Washington, Oregon, and Stanford having one foot out the door.

Big 10 WILL NOT EXPAND UNTIL THEY LAND NOTRE DAME. If Notre Dame gets what they want from NBC? They will be staying in the ACC until 2036. Until then, Stanford, oregon and Washington can whine all they want, but they will not get in the Big 10 in the near future. Utah, Arizona State, Colorado, California, Oregon State and Washington State are committed to keep the PAC 12 to stay together.

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

yeah, so you are who you are, ORWA value won't change whether they are in the B1G of Pac12?

$5mil may not seem a lot but add to that stability and better exposure. don't even talk unequal revenue sharing yet.

(08-03-2022 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 01:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

He is either operating fully on emotion or a simpleton that is out of touch with the realities of today.

You know what is worth even less than $5 million, conference pride between rump conferences. The only tenable path forward is getting a 3rd super conference of P5 leftovers ASAP.


Regardless of which conference name survives, the leftovers need consolidation as much as the P2.

It just so happens to be that the PAC the worst positioned for that. It is simply false that a school's valuation is static. The PAC schools are worth more the less PAC they become, due to some pretty basic econometrics.
Then there is the risk and uncertainty of the BIG continuing to remind the PAC it is nothing more than fodder. Waiting on the BIG to finish the PAC is not risk free for the 4 corners.

He talks about that. That is his point about potentially there being a 48 team top division and a leaky boat. He talks about some seeing safety in numbers. He doesn't think it helps.

If thats what he believes---he's wrong. On the other hand, if the thinks the ability to keep up expense wise with the Big10/SEC will be impacted---well yeah. The G5 is very familiar with that. The reality is it doesnt have to mean what he thinks it does.

Yes, it does mean exactly that. The PAC 12 and Big 12 have been nuked. The plan is in motion and the Golden Warren and Sankey Wonka tickets will be all which is needed to finish with the PAC and B12. The ACC will be ESPN's issue to solve. There is too much money on the table for FOX and ESPN and the Big Ten and SEC will acquiesce. Resistance is so far behind the event horizon it will be accomplished before anyone gets organized. It's almost 2/3rds completed now.

54.6% of the Big 12 value and all of their current nattys gone wih 2 schools. 21.7% of PAC value and their largest market gone and 45% more of it's value on the target list with 4 more schools. And of those 5 of the top 6 in value. When the ACC is targeted it will be the top 1/3d in value and the N. Carolina schools. Included in all will be all recent (30 years) of championship winners.

This establishes legitimacy for championships in the 48 school breakaway.

(08-03-2022 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC need to sit down and consolidate into two. The Big and SEC are at 16 and making tons more. There is benefit in consolidation to counter that power.
If they don't, some of their members will be left behind.

There are a lot of vulnerable schools-Oregon St., Washington St., Utah, possibly even Cal, WVU, UCF, Cincinnati, Iowa St., Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech. Any of them could be left out depending on how things shake out. That's why the 3 conferences need to consolidate now (or at least once Notre Dame and the Big 10 reach decisions and stopping points this fall).

Exactly. There is always going to be some playoff worthy teams that emerge from that group of 48.....and while there may not be any Bama's or Ohio States in that group-----there will be a lot of interest in the markets and regions that those "other" schools cover. The same people keep making the same erroneous assumption. If Texas Tech fans get booted from the big boys----there is absolutely no reason to think those TTU fans will suddenly become avid UT or Aggie fans. Those 48 schools may not equal the value of the big boys----but thats entirely different from thinking they dont add value or that a big boy league without them would be more valuable.

(08-03-2022 03:48 PM)GreenDaddy Wrote:  Boy these west coast journalists are clinging on for dear life aren't they? The PAC may very well keep their remaining 10 and add SDSU and SMU, but it sure the heck isn't poaching any BIG XII schools.

The commissioner states that their is only one threat, and that is the BIG10. I certainly don't have a degree in journalism (that's weird that the author even included that), but I can most certainly tell you if the BIG10 takes 4 more of your schools that the BIG XII will be taking what the they want from the others remaining. So yes, the BIG XII is definitely a threat.

If I am the BIG XII commissioner then I give the 4 corner schools an ultimatum. Join us now or the invitation closes forever. Let them gamble on their future with Washington, Oregon, and Stanford having one foot out the door.

While that works in theory, it will be more of a case where it's, "they need us, we need them." In the unlikely event the PAC4 leave, all four of those schools are getting invites and it won't be at lesser shares. Their may be issues with Utah, but they are not passing on ASU and their huge alumni base.

Big 12 is that chick that sleeps with everyone and their mother's friends... ala Zack Wilson/BYU/Jets QB.

(08-03-2022 03:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:19 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Guy walks into a bar....

Guy: Hey I realize this is a matchup of two ranked BXII teams, but is it alright if we turn it to Cal v. Stanford? Those two have the better Computer Science programs.

Yep, no bias here.


Why couldnt it be a game with 2 ranked PAC schools?

You're missing the point.

But, I'll play. A group of guys from Las Vegas, Dallas, Chicago and Atlanta walk into a bar. They can choose one of two tables, each exclusively showing one of two college football games, both of which are about to kickoff.

Who do the guys choose between #9 Baylor versus #16 UCF or #8 Stanford and #17 Cal?

Easy choice since the Pac matchup is on espn classic

(08-03-2022 03:46 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:32 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

People dont watch football based on how smart the schools are. Football is valuable because people care about it. If your located in a market where people dont care about it---your value has a cap. If your located in an area where only 20% of he nations TVs are located---you're ceiling is less than if you are located in an area where 80% of the TV's are located. The one thing the Pac12 has that is unique is late night P5 programming---but that has a cap because 80% of the TV's are asleep at that point---so nobody is going to overpay too much for that unique content. Still---thats always created some premium because the Pac12 was the only supplier of late night P5 western content. But is that still true? The fact is the Pac12 has already lost its unique stranglehold on that late night P5 programming with the exit of USC and UCLA. The Big10 can now offer some late night P5 inventory. BYU joining the Big12 added another conference that can potentially offer late night P5 programming. I think the amount of late night P5 content either of these alternative P5 sources can supply is still fairly limited----but if the Big12 nabs 2 to 4 Pac12 schools---the Pac12's position as the only substantial supplier of "unique" late night western P5 content would be significantly undermined.

That said---I dont think there will be much difference in contract values---assuming all stays "as is" for now. However, if the Pac12 loses more---that could quickly change. Where I think the HUGE difference comes is if you compare the value of the current Pac-10 to a potential Big16. I think there is a synergistic premium to be had there.

Let me state it another way. The estimates are that Texas and Oklahoma were worth between 65-70% of the B12 media package. They are leaving. If B12 was paying out $37 million per school, losing 65% would leave the payout at about $13 million per school. I dont think the B12 will get a paycut that deep, but you get the picture that it doesnt look too good for the B12.
Cincy, Houston, UCF and BYU will not close that gap. They are all great schools that play really good football. Cincy has been incredible the way they lose coaches and come back even better with a new coach. Houston, UCF and BYU have been amazing the last 5-10 years as well. But they dont come close to replacing the prestige of Texas and Oklahoma. Outside of WV and Kansas, all the B12 schools coming or going are not even the top schools in their respective States. Many of them are second or third or worse in popularity in their respective States. This just does not command big time media money.

Now regarding the PAC, these are all Big State schools or well respected popular privates, in Stanfords case. Almost all of them are first in their respective States. That means that they dominate their respective States tv eyeballs. Many of the States that the PAC works in, has not just the #1 school, but also the second most popular school in their respective States. The networks make their money by attracting large audiences. Which League do you think will have the larger audiences. The PAC losing USC and UCLA hurts but not as much as losing Texas/Oklahoma for the B12, since the PAC still have some Big names left in the league.

You're basing your analysis on the numbers from a 2012 TV deal. The Big 12's value for its next TV deal would be significantly more than $35-40M per team per year if Texas and Oklahoma had remained.

And the PAC's numbers are all from a deal signed in 2011.

Quote:The Navigate report (published in Spring 2022) estimated about equal PAC and B12 future TV deals (starting at $35-40M per team) AFTER accounting for the loss of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC but BEFORE knowing of or accounting for the loss of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten.

Then Navigate are damn fools. Consultant reports are a dime a dozen. It doesn't pass the sniff test that the PAC-12--with USC and UCLA mind you--would only see a slight bump in their new TV contract from 2011 values to 2024, but the Big 12 value holds steady while losing UT and OU.

Quote:Media reports indicate that USC and UCLA account for a significant chunk of the PAC TV value (together, significantly more valuable than their proportionate shares).

Yes. Just like OU and UT accounted for a significant chunk of Big 12 TV value.

It doesn't make any sense that it would be gloom and darkness for the PAC while it's sunshine and rainbows for the Big 12. They're in the same neighborhood, they're going to see the same weather.

(08-03-2022 03:56 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

yeah, so you are who you are, ORWA value won't change whether they are in the B1G of Pac12?

$5mil may not seem a lot but add to that stability and better exposure. don't even talk unequal revenue sharing yet.

Your value can change when you move up (or down, like SMU, Houston, TCU and Rice after the SWC dissolved), but probably doesn't change with a lateral move. Are Pitt, Syracuse and West Virginia any more or less valuable than they were in 2013? Probably not, and if they are it's becasue Syracuse can't get their football program together.

Houston in the Big 12 or PAC is more valuable than Houston in the AAC. It's not clear that Houston in the PAC is more valuable than Houston in the Big 12, and Houston very much likes being in the Big 12 with old Southwest Conference schools and Oklahoma State (and maybe some American Athletic Conference semi-rivals)

It's not at all clear that Colorado or Utah or Arizona State is more valuable in the Big 12, or TCU or Oklahoma State more valuable in the PAC. I suspect Kansas might be more valuable in the ACC basketball conference, but exit fees and the ACC's clouded long-term future make that a non-starter.

(08-03-2022 04:13 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:56 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

yeah, so you are who you are, ORWA value won't change whether they are in the B1G of Pac12?

$5mil may not seem a lot but add to that stability and better exposure. don't even talk unequal revenue sharing yet.

Your value can change when you move up (or down, like SMU, Houston, TCU and Rice after the SWC dissolved), but probably doesn't change with a lateral move. Are Pitt, Syracuse and West Virginia any more or less valuable than they were in 2013? Probably not, and if they are it's becasue Syracuse can't get their football program together.

Houston in the Big 12 or PAC is more valuable than Houston in the AAC. It's not clear that Houston in the PAC is more valuable than Houston in the Big 12, and Houston very much likes being in the Big 12 with old Southwest Conference schools and Oklahoma State (and maybe some American Athletic Conference semi-rivals)

It's not at all clear that Colorado or Utah or Arizona State is more valuable in the Big 12, or TCU or Oklahoma State more valuable in the PAC. I suspect Kansas might be more valuable in the ACC basketball conference, but exit fees and the ACC's clouded long-term future make that a non-starter.

just pointing out the erroneous statement by Hill.
question thus is it a lateral move.

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

Current proposal is rumored at between $22M and $24M. Are you saying the Big 12 gets in the teens? Won't happen. My guess, Big 12 and Pac 12 will get about the same.

(08-03-2022 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC need to sit down and consolidate into two. The Big and SEC are at 16 and making tons more. There is benefit in consolidation to counter that power.
If they don't, some of their members will be left behind.

There are a lot of vulnerable schools-Oregon St., Washington St., Utah, possibly even Cal, WVU, UCF, Cincinnati, Iowa St., Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech. Any of them could be left out depending on how things shake out. That's why the 3 conferences need to consolidate now (or at least once Notre Dame and the Big 10 reach decisions and stopping points this fall).

They should but the reality is why. Once the B1G and SEC have taken who they want, the 3 leagues will be the second level of college football. The PAC can backfill to 12 with the top G5. AAC can fill if needed and the Big is likely intact as is.

(08-03-2022 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC need to sit down and consolidate into two. The Big and SEC are at 16 and making tons more. There is benefit in consolidation to counter that power.
If they don't, some of their members will be left behind.

There are a lot of vulnerable schools-Oregon St., Washington St., Utah, possibly even Cal, WVU, UCF, Cincinnati, Iowa St., Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech. Any of them could be left out depending on how things shake out. That's why the 3 conferences need to consolidate now (or at least once Notre Dame and the Big 10 reach decisions and stopping points this fall).

This is the smartest and most unrealistic proposal that's been discussed ad nauseum here. It's amazing how incompetent the leaders are, and how much "being like the cool kids" really matters to them. Shameful.

(08-03-2022 03:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:19 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Guy walks into a bar....

Guy: Hey I realize this is a matchup of two ranked BXII teams, but is it alright if we turn it to Cal v. Stanford? Those two have the better Computer Science programs.

Yep, no bias here.


Why couldnt it be a game with 2 ranked PAC schools?

You're missing the point.

But, I'll play. A group of guys from Las Vegas, Dallas, Chicago and Atlanta walk into a bar. They can choose one of two tables, each exclusively showing one of two college football games, both of which are about to kickoff.

Who do the guys choose between #9 Baylor versus #16 UCF or #8 Stanford and #17 Cal?

I live in Texas, so I would care about Baylor-UCF. Maybe not enough to watch it at a sports bar, but I'd be interested in it.

But the other guys don't give a flying rat's behind about Baylor or UCF, even at #9 in the nation. Stanford has a national name brand, partly having to do with being brainy guys that play sports well. The other guys would choose Stanford-Cal.