(08-03-2022 09:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 08:54 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The situation remains fluid.

I've forgotten. Was that quote from the Dude of WV or Chip Brown?!

Dude in WV it seems a lot.

Reports are saying that Colorado, Arizona State and Utah wants to stay and keep the PAC 12 together, but you have Big 12 people trolling those schools trying to cause issues.

So, basically what everyone knew a month ago? Breaking news, everything is the same as it was!

(08-03-2022 09:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 09:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 08:54 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The situation remains fluid.

I've forgotten. Was that quote from the Dude of WV or Chip Brown?!

Dude in WV it seems a lot.

Reports are saying that Colorado, Arizona State and Utah wants to stay and keep the PAC 12 together, but you have Big 12 people trolling those schools trying to cause issues.

It's not just Big 12 people, DavidSt. It's Big Ten people also.

Yes, Notre Dame + Stanford in '26 or nothing at all. The Big Ten doesn't like the idea of bringing in schools at 50% payouts, a two tier system. Before teams took less to buy equity in the BTN. But they sold 10% of it to Fox (from 51% to 61%) making everyone whole, and not needing to withhold from UCLA or USC. But new schools don't nring enough value, so would have to take reduced shares. So no sale to the CEOs of the 14 B1G schools.

Come '30, '31 or '32 it could be different as the ACC schools will start to be available and your 20 school end games come into view. Networks like NBC (by 2030 we will be saying all the really big money players who are just dabbling now in Meta, Google, Amazon and Apple, all of who can buy with cash on hand NBC, Disney and CBS and still have plenty to go around) want the NFL of college football, and that will drive the clean up and round out. But right now we haven't gotten there.

I wonder how long the Big Ten contract will be? 2036 is when the ACC ends. So I imagine another 6 years with a renewal or open for 2030 so that they can align with the ACC GOR expiration. I suspect the SEC will do similar.

The B1G is going to rush into anything. They don't "need" Oregon. Oregon won't be going anywhere else. IMO the B1G and SEC are waiting to see what they can do about the ACC GOR. If that takes 2 years or 15,if the ACC is part of he plan they will wait

If it does end up being ND and Stanford (in a few years) and no one else, I think the PAC can survive that. Would still have the big brands of Oregon and Washington, plus the 4 corners, as a good nucleus. Cal is still a brand name, even if they're not knocking on the championship doors any time soon.

(08-04-2022 07:22 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  The B1G is going to rush into anything. They don't "need" Oregon. Oregon won't be going anywhere else. IMO the B1G and SEC are waiting to see what they can do about the ACC GOR. If that takes 2 years or 15,if the ACC is part of he plan they will wait

The P2 doesn't "need" anyone from the ACC either except UNC. That's the only program that fits the SEC like a glove, but is still debatable for the B1G. I'd argue UO/WU is a far better add than UNC/Duke or UNC/UVa for the B1G. UNC/FSU would be a slightly better get for the B1G and UNC/GaTech would be a push vs UO/WU.

If the model is and continues to be conferences and presidents milking the networks, expansion will pretty much be done sans a ND/eleventh hour type of move. Even so, that would only involve one additional power school moving with them. 18 is the max number.

The SEC will target UNC with perhaps UVa/Duke, or it will settle on FSU/Clemson. Any pair of Miami/GaTech/FSU doesn't really move the needle for either the B1G or SEC at this point.

I just don't see the impetus for a 64 team breakaway at the moment unless these conferences are incentivized to move to 24 or 32 team conferences. At the very least, four 16 team conferences.

What's most probable, is that the Big 12 builds up its brands over the course of its next contract, both on and off the field. If those institutions can become a lot more respectable academically and continue to win, I could see the PAC and ACC divvying up the Big 12's eastern and western flanks. Of course, some programs will be left behind from that. But that to me is a more likely outcome than the SEC and B1G divvying up the ACC and jumping to 20 team leagues each.

(08-03-2022 09:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 09:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 08:54 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The situation remains fluid.

I've forgotten. Was that quote from the Dude of WV or Chip Brown?!

Dude in WV it seems a lot.

Reports are saying that Colorado, Arizona State and Utah wants to stay and keep the PAC 12 together, but you have Big 12 people trolling those schools trying to cause issues.

"Big 12 people", the people trolling CU are former athletes and boosters who would like to see the program be relevant again. I've said it before, in Colorado the move to the PAC by CU is largely seen as a huge failure. The glory days are long gone, and they will never come back. Most see the PAC eventually becoming a G5 league

(08-04-2022 08:50 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 09:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 09:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 08:54 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The situation remains fluid.

I've forgotten. Was that quote from the Dude of WV or Chip Brown?!

Dude in WV it seems a lot.

Reports are saying that Colorado, Arizona State and Utah wants to stay and keep the PAC 12 together, but you have Big 12 people trolling those schools trying to cause issues.

"Big 12 people", the people trolling CU are former athletes and boosters who would like to see the program be relevant again. I've said it before, in Colorado the move to the PAC by CU is largely seen as a huge failure. The glory days are long gone, and they will never come back. Most see the PAC eventually becoming a G5 league

With UCLA and USC leaving, they’re almost there. And there are people out there that think adding G5 schools to the PAC will somehow make it more attractive as a power conference, as if that would attract prospective B12 schools thinking about joining the PAC.

(08-03-2022 06:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 04:26 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  “After the anxiety caused last week regarding further Big Ten expansion, industry sources have indicated the Big Ten is no longer as interested in adding California, Oregon, Stanford and Washington. Rightsholders were balking at paying the same amount for those schools as the 16 Big Ten schools going forward ($80 million-$100 million).”

"No one has ever gone in and gutted a conference," Benson added [OP note: I guess he doesn’t remember the Big East] "If the Big Ten gutted a conference and took Washington and Oregon, if I was Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, I might pursue antitrust action there."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...oned-well/

The Airport 5 gutted the WAC 16. And then they eventually destroyed what remained. I would think Benson would remember that. And the ACC gutted the Big East over time.

The SEC tried to kill the SWC, but they just mortally wounded it. The Big 8 finished the job. Then the SEC gutted the Big XII.

The Big East gutted the A10. Everybody talks about the Big East like some noble casualty when it fact it started by gutting northeastern basketball and traditional rivalries for TV purposes. It's one of the first conference "products".

(08-04-2022 09:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 06:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 04:26 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  “After the anxiety caused last week regarding further Big Ten expansion, industry sources have indicated the Big Ten is no longer as interested in adding California, Oregon, Stanford and Washington. Rightsholders were balking at paying the same amount for those schools as the 16 Big Ten schools going forward ($80 million-$100 million).”

"No one has ever gone in and gutted a conference," Benson added [OP note: I guess he doesn’t remember the Big East] "If the Big Ten gutted a conference and took Washington and Oregon, if I was Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, I might pursue antitrust action there."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...oned-well/

The Airport 5 gutted the WAC 16. And then they eventually destroyed what remained. I would think Benson would remember that. And the ACC gutted the Big East over time.

The SEC tried to kill the SWC, but they just mortally wounded it. The Big 8 finished the job. Then the SEC gutted the Big XII.

The Big East gutted the A10. Everybody talks about the Big East like some noble casualty when it fact it started by gutting northeastern basketball and traditional rivalries for TV purposes. It's one of the first conference "products".

As I recall NCAA changes to how the northeastern basketball schools would be selected to the tourney is what led to the formation of the Big East conference. So the conference coming into existence at all was a by-product of the NCAA and its own changes in the rules.

But your point about the Big East gutting the A10 later on is true. It's a reminder that college athletics has never truly been about the athletes or the fans.

Cheers,
Neil

(08-03-2022 11:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Yes, Notre Dame + Stanford in '26 or nothing at all. The Big Ten doesn't like the idea of bringing in schools at 50% payouts, a two tier system. Before teams took less to buy equity in the BTN. But they sold 10% of it to Fox (from 51% to 61%) making everyone whole, and not needing to withhold from UCLA or USC. But new schools don't nring enough value, so would have to take reduced shares. So no sale to the CEOs of the 14 B1G schools.

Come '30, '31 or '32 it could be different as the ACC schools will start to be available and your 20 school end games come into view. Networks like NBC (by 2030 we will be saying all the really big money players who are just dabbling now in Meta, Google, Amazon and Apple, all of who can buy with cash on hand NBC, Disney and CBS and still have plenty to go around) want the NFL of college football, and that will drive the clean up and round out. But right now we haven't gotten there.

I wonder how long the Big Ten contract will be? 2036 is when the ACC ends. So I imagine another 6 years with a renewal or open for 2030 so that they can align with the ACC GOR expiration. I suspect the SEC will do similar.

I love watching how greed is destroying the P5 as they eat themselves into oblivion. Schools that used to go 8-4 and 9-3 will find themsleves going 5-7 and 4-8 after they break away from the G5 and FCS schools. The chaos that will cause will be hilarious. Coaches will be getting fired left and right, players will be transferring in and out and eveyone's heads will be spinning. But hey they get to keep their 4 team CFP.. I mean Invitational Tournament that has the same 2 or 3 teams in it every year. Then they'll be scratching their heads wondering why no one cares to watch anymore.

(08-03-2022 05:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-th...ingIn=true
From John Canzano (The Oregonian):
The ADs I spoke with said they haven’t seen any potential revenue numbers yet.
Said one AD, “The dialogue, candor, and environment have been positive. Everyone is moving in the same direction.”
Are there still threats out there?
Sure.
Said the AD: “It’s a singular threat — the Big Ten and the Big Ten only. That’s it. The Big 12 threat is laughable.”

I floated that Oregon-Washington-Stanford question to a current Big Ten Conference athletic director, who waved it off. "I think Stanford might be interesting to our conference presidents just because of the academic piece,” he said, “but unless Notre Dame is coming in too, I don’t think further expansion happens in this cycle.”

Camzano has unnamed sources for quotes in every propaganda piece he churns out. Every single time.

ESPN vs FOX.
SEC vs B1G.

But how many more media companies need to put their foot on the scale for the B1G before a B1G goes after SEC properties?

The B1G made short work of one of its alliance partners. But is the suspected SEC/B1G alliance to carve out a mutually agreeable P2 any different?

I still think the B1G’s primary targets for 17/18 are ND and UT. That’s where this talk of NFL of CFB stems from. I doubt they’ll pull it off but Ali don’t doubt the ambition.

If the big 10 is going to stop at 18 with ND + X I like the pool of 1 from Miami, Syracuse or Kansas a lot more than the combo of ND + Stanford to get to 18. Obviously, ND + Texas would be the greatest pick up for the big 10 to get to 18 but that’s unlikely. Getting ND + Kansas would seem to be the easiest with regards to the GOR

(08-04-2022 11:06 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  ESPN vs FOX.
SEC vs B1G.

But how many more media companies need to put their foot on the scale for the B1G before a B1G goes after SEC properties?

The B1G made short work of one of its alliance partners. But is the suspected SEC/B1G alliance to carve out a mutually agreeable P2 any different?

I still think the B1G’s primary targets for 17/18 are ND and UT. That’s where this talk of NFL of CFB stems from. I doubt they’ll pull it off but Ali don’t doubt the ambition.

The B1G and SEC are on far more equal footing than the so-called "Alliance" was. Unlike the lesser conferences neither the B1G nor SEC can dominate the other and just impose their will (not off the field, at least). They'll ultimately agree on a playoff format because it is in both of their interests to do so, and both want to have the other one involved so the playoff has credibility. Ideally the lesser conferences are involved too, but they aren't essential like the P2. Ultimately they'll take what access they are offered, and say thank you to their overlords in Chicago & Birmingham.

(08-04-2022 11:56 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 11:06 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  ESPN vs FOX.
SEC vs B1G.

But how many more media companies need to put their foot on the scale for the B1G before a B1G goes after SEC properties?

The B1G made short work of one of its alliance partners. But is the suspected SEC/B1G alliance to carve out a mutually agreeable P2 any different?

I still think the B1G’s primary targets for 17/18 are ND and UT. That’s where this talk of NFL of CFB stems from. I doubt they’ll pull it off but Ali don’t doubt the ambition.

The B1G and SEC are on far more equal footing than the so-called "Alliance" was. Unlike the lesser conferences neither the B1G nor SEC can dominate the other and just impose their will (not off the field, at least). They'll ultimately agree on a playoff format because it is in both of their interests to do so, and both want to have the other one involved so the playoff has credibility. Ideally the lesser conferences are involved too, but they aren't essential like the P2. Ultimately they'll take what access they are offered, and say thank you to their overlords in Chicago & Birmingham.

They're on an equal footing sure, but it remains to be seen if they will have broad agreement on governance ce issues. Might be a fault line, might not.

(08-04-2022 10:57 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 05:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-th...ingIn=true
From John Canzano (The Oregonian):
The ADs I spoke with said they haven’t seen any potential revenue numbers yet.
Said one AD, “The dialogue, candor, and environment have been positive. Everyone is moving in the same direction.”
Are there still threats out there?
Sure.
Said the AD: “It’s a singular threat — the Big Ten and the Big Ten only. That’s it. The Big 12 threat is laughable.”

I floated that Oregon-Washington-Stanford question to a current Big Ten Conference athletic director, who waved it off. "I think Stanford might be interesting to our conference presidents just because of the academic piece,” he said, “but unless Notre Dame is coming in too, I don’t think further expansion happens in this cycle.”

Camzano has unnamed sources for quotes in every propaganda piece he churns out. Every single time.

First, the guy is one of the top sports journalists in the country. He is a 12-time Associated Press Sports Editors (APSE) award winner. He's won APSE awards in four different writing categories (column, investigative reporting, enterprise and projects). Secondly, if you want to believe that it is a "propaganda piece" then you are not going to believe anything he says. He was at the Pac-12 Media Day last Friday and had multiple interviews with Pac-12 officials on the record, including Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff.

Guys like Jason Scheer are not sitting down for interviews with the Commissioner, they are not at the Pac-12 Media Day, they are not award winning journalists and they only work with unnamed sources. I think I will trust Canzano over Scheer.

(08-03-2022 04:26 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  “After the anxiety caused last week regarding further Big Ten expansion, industry sources have indicated the Big Ten is no longer as interested in adding California, Oregon, Stanford and Washington. Rightsholders were balking at paying the same amount for those schools as the 16 Big Ten schools going forward ($80 million-$100 million).”

"No one has ever gone in and gutted a conference," Benson added [OP note: I guess he doesn’t remember the Big East] "If the Big Ten gutted a conference and took Washington and Oregon, if I was Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, I might pursue antitrust action there."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...oned-well/

There's a better article out there which aptly points out that the liability would be in collusion, not antitrust. If the B1G moved in concert with 4 more PAC schools it could look like the 5 entities conspired to end the PAC. So they'll back off, let things simmer down, and move piecemeal.

(08-04-2022 01:07 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 10:57 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 05:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-th...ingIn=true
From John Canzano (The Oregonian):
The ADs I spoke with said they haven’t seen any potential revenue numbers yet.
Said one AD, “The dialogue, candor, and environment have been positive. Everyone is moving in the same direction.”
Are there still threats out there?
Sure.
Said the AD: “It’s a singular threat — the Big Ten and the Big Ten only. That’s it. The Big 12 threat is laughable.”

I floated that Oregon-Washington-Stanford question to a current Big Ten Conference athletic director, who waved it off. "I think Stanford might be interesting to our conference presidents just because of the academic piece,” he said, “but unless Notre Dame is coming in too, I don’t think further expansion happens in this cycle.”

Camzano has unnamed sources for quotes in every propaganda piece he churns out. Every single time.

First, the guy is one of the top sports journalists in the country. He is a 12-time Associated Press Sports Editors (APSE) award winner. He's won APSE awards in four different writing categories (column, investigative reporting, enterprise and projects). Secondly, if you want to believe that it is a "propaganda piece" then you are not going to believe anything he says. He was at the Pac-12 Media Day last Friday and had multiple interviews with Pac-12 officials on the record, including Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff.

Guys like Jason Scheer are not sitting down for interviews with the Commissioner, they are not at the Pac-12 Media Day, they are not award winning journalists and they only work with unnamed sources. I think I will trust Canzano over Scheer.

He's become a joke. He's the new Mhver

He posts quotes from unnamed sources.. that's how he reports most of this. He could be making everything up. Hard to tell when it's all "I've been told by a current PAC AD...."

It's utterly worthless journalism in the guise of twitter clickbait to drive up his numbers on his own personal news website endeavor.