(09-07-2022 04:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 03:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  With that being said, the SMU and SDSU to the PAC threads (and the threads claiming the Big 10 is done expanding) will probably continue on this website for about another week. Because some of this website will think the PAC isn’t finished until it’s officially announced in a week or so. People will act like Iowa’s opinion seriously matters in Big 10 expansion.

I think the scheduling concerns are significant. 3-6-6 is infinitely better than 3-7-7 for 18, or the 20-team setups where matchups go on a three year cycle.

Here's the thing, if the lower rung of the B1G (Rutgers, Illinois, NWU, Maryland) is content not playing USC/UCLA every 2 years, but 3+ years, then the scheduling can be mitigated with 18 or 20 schools. You can also cycle UM/USC/OSU/UCLA more often with a 3+2/2+4/4/4 with those cross pairs becoming biannual games. That's where the money is after all.

There may also be serious concerns for Olympic travel to the PNW, because you just can't hit UO and UW on the same flight, whereas it may be possible with the Bay and LA teams for Thursday/Saturday swing even in a sport like Men's BBall, and certainly for remaining Olympic Sports.

It's also contingent on the PN4 accepting less shares.

Lots of concerns any competent AD would have.

5-7/7 would be the best setup for 20 teams. Allows for 1-2 OOC rivals and no G5/FCS games.

There are 14 Saturdays between 8/26-11/26 in 2022. 1 or no byes is just fine.

(09-07-2022 07:06 PM)Poster Wrote:  I think the commissioner is speaking in the singular form about what actually are multiple PAC teams he’s going to add to the conference. People sometimes do speak that way even though it’s not proper English.


Frankly, the commish was talking at a press conference to probably at least five reporters, all at the same time. I’m not sure he even realized he was speaking improper English-it’s a lot easier to critique his English when we’re reading his comments from our houses.

If, SDSU and AU are added to the Big 12 preemptively (and I've argued since the beginning that Yormark needs to lob even more grenades, this being one such), that's a big **** you to every other PAC 9 school.

The result will be ASU potentially left out, or Utah, if additional PAC 10 schools leave for the B1G. More than likely the PAC will try to go on with 9 schools, but those admins are seriously playing with fire if they don't expand to 12 with SDSU, or they lose AU AND SDSU.

I could see Big 12 going to 18

6 West - BYU + 4 corners PAC schools + SDSU
6 Southwest - Houston, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, OK State, SMU
6 East - Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, Cincy, WVU, UCF

(09-07-2022 07:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see Big 12 going to 18

6 West - BYU + 4 corners PAC schools + SDSU
6 Southwest - Houston, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, OK State, SMU
6 East - Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, Cincy, WVU, UCF

Love it. Get it done.

(09-07-2022 07:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see Big 12 going to 18

6 West - BYU + 4 corners PAC schools + SDSU
6 Southwest - Houston, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, OK State, SMU
6 East - Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, Cincy, WVU, UCF

This would be a strong move....but can't imagine they would stick Cincy, WVU, and UCF with that travel. Seems like they would want to balance the geography some.

(09-07-2022 03:24 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 03:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  https://twitter.com/williams_justin/stat...8379209729

I like Brett Yormark's approach.

After all, a boxer can't beat his opponent without throwing punches.

Wonder if Vegas has a line on what happens first:

A) Pac school to B1G?

B) Pac school to Big 12 Conference #3, version 1.0?

Still think it's A, but maybe Yormark gets word from his BFF Kevin Warren that UW+UO is a go, so he reels in one or more of the Four Corners Four before the B1G's additions are announced.

That actually would be a win/win as far as optics go: Yormark scores an attention-grabblng and momentum-building knockout on his rival George K and the B1G avoids being saddled with all the blame for the Conference of Champions plunging to the bottom of the Pacific.

Yormark and Warren definitely have a more aggressive mindset than we typically see from Commissioners. Which is a really good thing for the big12 and B1G. I don't like either of them, or their conferences very much, but it's tough not to at least respect their attitudes.

The Pac and ACC would do well to find similar people to fill their soon-to-be-open Commissioner slots.

(09-07-2022 03:25 PM)Poster Wrote:  The Big 12 can't raid the current version of the PAC.

Strongly disagree. Or at least I'd add the addendum "unless they can offer a lot more money". $3-5m a year might not be enough for Stanford, and maybe not for Oregon/UW either, but for the 4C? At least one of them jumps at a few million extra bucks, and if it's over $5m then the b1g might get as many of the Pac leftovers as they want.

If I'm a Pac President, I'm looking to the future here. It's going to be VERY difficult to raid big 12 schools for a decade or so, what with their huge exit fees and likely aggressive GoR in a couple years, too. And with the long term growth trends favoring the Midwest/SW/SE parts of the country, the big 12 is likely to be in a stronger position in the future relative to the Pac than they are today. Perhaps we stay with 3 midmajors, but if there is consolidation down to 2 or 1 of them, the Pac is very likely to be the first casualty. These rump Pac schools can stay on the Titanic as its starting to sink, or get off now while the gettin' is good. And if there is an additional financial incentive on top of all of the other reasons then it's pretty close to a no-brainer.

(09-07-2022 05:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The fit description of nationally recognized screams Arizona. But the 4th time zone screams San Diego State (Arizona is on Mountain Time, but don't have daylight savings, so half the year on Pacific Time)

Yormark doesn't aim low. I bet he's talking about ASU/UW/UO, assuming the NW4 don't jump to the B1G ofc.

(09-07-2022 07:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see Big 12 going to 18

6 West - BYU + 4 corners PAC schools + SDSU
6 Southwest - Houston, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, OK State, SMU
6 East - Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, Cincy, WVU, UCF

That would be a smart move.

Also gives the California recruiting opportunity that certain schools have said they would like.

If the eastern3 leave, just add BSU for 16.

Or if KS leaves, move CO and add BSU.

(09-07-2022 05:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:51 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:45 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  But would SMU and SDSU head for a Pac12 like this----

Wash St
Oregon St
Possibly Cal if ND joins the Big10
SDSU
Fresno
Boise
Air Force
UNLV
SMU
UTSA
New Mexico
One of Wyoming, CSU, Tulsa, or Utah St. I'd also invite Wichita and Zags.

I think they would.

I see no reason why Cal wouldn’t get picked up by the Big 12 if they don’t get picked by the Big 10.


There seems to be some conflicting information about whether WSU and Oregon State could keep alive a 2 member PAC due to the NCAA tournament credit rules.

I don't know if Cal would ever even to the Big XII, even if the Big Ten invited Stanford w/o Cal. They are pretty stubborn regarding the eliteness of their academics.

I originally wondered if Stanford and Cal would be willing to join the Big 12 myself. But if the PAC loses Oregon and Washington, think about who their options to expand. San Diego State? Boise State? Would the Big 12 really be any worse academically than a PAC that includes those schools?

Stanford and Cal won’t be in any conference where BYU is a member. That’s about as close to an absolute as you’ll get in conference realignment.

Would be the height of irony if Stanford/Cal applied to the big 12 and were blocked by their old Nemesis...BYU. :)

(09-07-2022 06:16 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Don't like the idea of Cal/Stanford (even less than Oregon/Washington), but I can't see the Big Ten leaving those two in a terrible spot if they can help it for "academic" reasons.

A move is very likely, but I don't think as certain as many on here think. That the Big Ten is looking and Warren is on board I definitely believe, but it is a jump to say they have the support needed at the president level for sure. The last expansion made the Big Ten a clear power 2, added a lot of money, and assured complete control of the Rose Bowl if they want it. The next move would kill the PAC-12 completely, probably subtract money, mean fewer games vs biggest names, and the leave the Big Ten alone facing a 20 team super conference (added risks there if things don't work out down the line for the smaller schools). All of those are negatives and, while I think a move is still a strong possibility, it is definitely not certain yet in my view.

Nice analysis. The one thing that I would be concerned about as the B1G (and also as a fan of the SEC for that matter) is the Warren X factor. He's a dangerous foe to both the SEC and also to the B1G Presidents who are currently thwarting his Empire Building. He definitely doesn't want to sit back and wait for the SEC to add schools like A&M/OU/texas and have to respond with Rutgers/Maryland or even USC/UCLA again. He wants to strike first, then sit back and laugh as the SEC does nothing, or maybe adds NCState and GT as a feeble response.

(09-07-2022 08:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Yormark and Warren definitely have a more aggressive mindset than we typically see from Commissioners. Which is a really good thing for the big12 and B1G. I don't like either of them, or their conferences very much, but it's tough not to at least respect their attitudes.

The Pac and ACC would do well to find similar people to fill their soon-to-be-open Commissioner slots.

What, exactly, could even the world's most aggressive commissioners do to fix what ails the PAC and ACC?

The Big XII is better positioned mostly on account of its previous defections, leaving it with far fewer schools being eyeballed by the B1G or SEC and thus making it inherently more stable.

Yormark — like Kliavkoff before him — has talked a good game since becoming commissioner. His advantage is that unlike George K, he's actually in position to make some good things happen.

Meanwhile, the ACC's Jim Phillips is the Chip Diller of conference commissioners, telling us "remain calm, all is well" while checking his phone every 5 minutes to make sure none of his schools are making a break for the exit.

(09-07-2022 08:33 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 08:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Yormark and Warren definitely have a more aggressive mindset than we typically see from Commissioners. Which is a really good thing for the big12 and B1G. I don't like either of them, or their conferences very much, but it's tough not to at least respect their attitudes.

The Pac and ACC would do well to find similar people to fill their soon-to-be-open Commissioner slots.

What, exactly, could even the world's most aggressive commissioners do to fix what ails the PAC and ACC?

The Big XII is better positioned mostly on account of its previous defections, leaving it with far fewer schools being eyeballed by the B1G or SEC and thus making it inherently more stable.

Yormark — like Kliavkoff before him — has talked a good game since becoming commissioner. His advantage is that unlike George K, he's actually in position to make some good things happen.

Meanwhile, the ACC's Jim Phillips is the Chip Diller of conference commissioners, telling us "remain calm, all is well" while checking his phone every 5 minutes to make sure none of his schools are making a break for the exit.

What can Jim Phillips really do? He has a horrific TV deal signed by his predecessor that he can't fix.

(09-07-2022 07:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see Big 12 going to 18

6 West - BYU + 4 corners PAC schools + SDSU
6 Southwest - Houston, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, OK State, SMU
6 East - Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, Cincy, WVU, UCF

I could absolutely get on board an SDSU add if I was in the big 12, but SMU is a hard pass. They're a homeless mans TCU driving a gold Trans-am. Maybe Memphis, but if the Pac is wide open then you can make a case that WSU or OSU are both more desirable.

(09-07-2022 08:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:51 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:45 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  I see no reason why Cal wouldn’t get picked up by the Big 12 if they don’t get picked by the Big 10.


There seems to be some conflicting information about whether WSU and Oregon State could keep alive a 2 member PAC due to the NCAA tournament credit rules.

I don't know if Cal would ever even to the Big XII, even if the Big Ten invited Stanford w/o Cal. They are pretty stubborn regarding the eliteness of their academics.

I originally wondered if Stanford and Cal would be willing to join the Big 12 myself. But if the PAC loses Oregon and Washington, think about who their options to expand. San Diego State? Boise State? Would the Big 12 really be any worse academically than a PAC that includes those schools?

Stanford and Cal won’t be in any conference where BYU is a member. That’s about as close to an absolute as you’ll get in conference realignment.

Would be the height of irony if Stanford/Cal applied to the big 12 and were blocked by their old Nemesis...BYU. :)

I think, as part of a package, they might get in. I dunno if they would want to. I dunno if they'd even ask to be invited.

I know people in this forum like to talk about academic schools dropping football, and some argue against it, due to the money involved. But in this case, I dunno.

I think Stanford ends up in the B10. But I could see Cal dropping out of fbs, if the PAC went away.

(09-07-2022 08:33 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 08:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Yormark and Warren definitely have a more aggressive mindset than we typically see from Commissioners. Which is a really good thing for the big12 and B1G. I don't like either of them, or their conferences very much, but it's tough not to at least respect their attitudes.

The Pac and ACC would do well to find similar people to fill their soon-to-be-open Commissioner slots.

What, exactly, could even the world's most aggressive commissioners do to fix what ails the PAC and ACC?

The Big XII is better positioned mostly on account of its previous defections, leaving it with far fewer schools being eyeballed by the B1G or SEC and thus making it inherently more stable.

Yormark — like Kliavkoff before him — has talked a good game since becoming commissioner. His advantage is that unlike George K, he's actually in position to make some good things happen.

Meanwhile, the ACC's Jim Phillips is the Chip Diller of conference commissioners, telling us "remain calm, all is well" while checking his phone every 5 minutes to make sure none of his schools are making a break for the exit.

I'm not the Pac or ACC Commissioner (thank God!), but I can think of a few innovative things they should both be looking at.

1. A true ACC/Pac Alliance, not the BS one that Warren used to stab the Pac in the back but a true partnership.
2. Both Conferences go to an 8 game slate with 2 games against the other Conference. Some potential synergies with combining the PacN and ACCn.
3. Stage a 4 team joint Championship Playoff between the 2 conferences. 2 highest ranked from each conference, semifinals at top 2 teams, Final at the Rose Bowl.
4. Streaming Streaming Streaming. Even reach out to Apple/Amazon/etc, if you're not already talking them. We know they are interested in getting more into sports, first mover advantage could potentially help both conferences like the BTN helped the B1G 15 yrs ago.
5. Stage your own 4 team conference semi/finals if you're the ACC, and allow ND to participate. That would potentially be worth quite a bit.
6. Kliavkoff does deserve the benefit of the doubt, he inherited a terrible hand and we don't know that he's not working on a bunch of great things in the background, but Ethelred the Unready needs to go.

I just thought about this for about 10 minutes. Presumably, the Pac/ACC offices have had a lot more time to think about things and could/should have better ideas.

(09-07-2022 08:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 08:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:51 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:45 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  I don't know if Cal would ever even to the Big XII, even if the Big Ten invited Stanford w/o Cal. They are pretty stubborn regarding the eliteness of their academics.

I originally wondered if Stanford and Cal would be willing to join the Big 12 myself. But if the PAC loses Oregon and Washington, think about who their options to expand. San Diego State? Boise State? Would the Big 12 really be any worse academically than a PAC that includes those schools?

Stanford and Cal won’t be in any conference where BYU is a member. That’s about as close to an absolute as you’ll get in conference realignment.

Would be the height of irony if Stanford/Cal applied to the big 12 and were blocked by their old Nemesis...BYU. :)

I think, as part of a package, they might get in. I dunno if they would want to. I dunno if they'd even ask to be invited.

I know people in this forum like to talk about academic schools dropping football, and some argue against it, due to the money involved. But in this case, I dunno.

I think Stanford ends up in the B10. But I could see Cal dropping out of fbs, if the PAC went away.

Cal is in a very weird spot. I almost feel like they only use their football as a funding source for the stuff they REALLY care about; ie, everything else. However, with the imminent CFP expansion and the steadily-increasing conference rights deals, I think that they're going to want to stay in major college football, and they'd join the big 12 if that's the best path forward for them. Stanford, however, might just decide to go independent with an eye longer-term on the B1G.

(09-07-2022 08:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 08:33 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 08:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Yormark and Warren definitely have a more aggressive mindset than we typically see from Commissioners. Which is a really good thing for the big12 and B1G. I don't like either of them, or their conferences very much, but it's tough not to at least respect their attitudes.

The Pac and ACC would do well to find similar people to fill their soon-to-be-open Commissioner slots.

What, exactly, could even the world's most aggressive commissioners do to fix what ails the PAC and ACC?

The Big XII is better positioned mostly on account of its previous defections, leaving it with far fewer schools being eyeballed by the B1G or SEC and thus making it inherently more stable.

Yormark — like Kliavkoff before him — has talked a good game since becoming commissioner. His advantage is that unlike George K, he's actually in position to make some good things happen.

Meanwhile, the ACC's Jim Phillips is the Chip Diller of conference commissioners, telling us "remain calm, all is well" while checking his phone every 5 minutes to make sure none of his schools are making a break for the exit.

I'm not the Pac or ACC Commissioner (thank God!), but I can think of a few innovative things they should both be looking at.

1. A true ACC/Pac Alliance, not the BS one that Warren used to stab the Pac in the back but a true partnership.
2. Both Conferences go to an 8 game slate with 2 games against the other Conference. Some potential synergies with combining the PacN and ACCn.
3. Stage a 4 team joint Championship Playoff between the 2 conferences. 2 highest ranked from each conference, semifinals at top 2 teams, Final at the Rose Bowl.
4. Streaming Streaming Streaming. Even reach out to Apple/Amazon/etc, if you're not already talking them. We know they are interested in getting more into sports, first mover advantage could potentially help both conferences like the BTN helped the B1G 15 yrs ago.
5. Stage your own 4 team conference semi/finals if you're the ACC, and allow ND to participate. That would potentially be worth quite a bit.
6. Kliavkoff does deserve the benefit of the doubt, he inherited a terrible hand and we don't know that he's not working on a bunch of great things in the background, but Ethelred the Unready needs to go.

I just thought about this for about 10 minutes. Presumably, the Pac/ACC offices have had a lot more time to think about things and could/should have better ideas.

As an FSU fan, I like most of your ideas. While serving out our ACC sentence, I'd much rather get some variety and play some PAC teams instead of more dull games against lackluster ACC opponents. I think the problem for both the PAC & ACC though is that none of these ideas are going to generate enough money or interest to keep anyone with options around any longer than they have to be.

If Cal and Stanford get invited to the Big 10, it's a moot point. But if the PAC takes Oregon and Washington, I think that staying out of a conference that includes BYU will be one of the last concerns for Stanford and Cal.

Frank is stuck in 2010, when Cal and Stanford didn't want BYU in the PAC because the PAC had other options, and the PAC was seemingly about to expand all the way to 16 teams with Texas, Oklahoma and possibly Texas A&M. (And Cal and Stanford demanded Utah over BYU as the backup for Texas A&M if they went to the SEC rather than the PAC.) I don't know why Frank thinks that's remotely comparable to the current situation.

(09-07-2022 05:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Stanford and Cal won’t be in any conference where BYU is a member. That’s about as close to an absolute as you’ll get in conference realignment.

I agree that's the last thing in the world they want to do. But if the only thing left of the PAC is them, Wazzou and Oregon State, they're going to have to associate with a lot of schools they don't want to, and for a lot less money and prestige. Principle can only take you so far before reality sets in.