(09-23-2022 12:16 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What happens next?

Nicely played, P-Chop.

This probably is an attempt to try to get the Big 10 to invite Cal, but I think a more likely outcome is that this will actually make the Big 10 mad at Cal and possibly prevent Cal from ever being invited to the Big 10. (Cal's already seemed to be #4 on the Big 10 invite list, anyway.)

The BOR doesn't seem to realize how this might backfire.

(09-23-2022 01:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:34 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:26 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

^^This^^

Why? Those schools aren’t nearly as valuable as USC and UCLA. That is why they’re still in the Pac 12. If they were really a good get, they wouldn’t be 3-5th choice.

USC is clearly the most valuable team in the PAC. I've never really seen a lot of evidence that UCLA is the PAC's second most valuable team, but they certainly are better for travel costs in non-revenue sports, since teams can visit USC and UCLA with just one flight.

I think it does matter that the Big Ten is able to claim a college sports monopoly over the LA market because the league is looked at as a single source for college sports in the nation's largest markets. It also starves a ton of the oxygen of the Pac-12 in media rights deals. The Pac-12 that still has the LA market (even just UCLA) is a much more viable backup for TV networks or other potential partners (e.g. Amazon) than the Pac-12 without any presence in the LA market at all... and that creates at least a little more inertia in the Big Ten being able to take more Pac-12 schools down the road (whereas there's zero inertia right now).

Also, I still don't think people quite understand just how gargantuan the LA market is in terms of size. It has a larger population by itself than every state other than Texas, Florida and New York. So, getting both USC and UCLA has extra value together where it is more like the value of having both Texas and Texas A&M to cover the State of Texas or Florida and Florida State to cover the State of Florida than it is like, say, taking Kansas and Kansas State to cover the State of Kansas or even Cal and Stanford to cover the Bay Area TV market. Think of Los Angeles as its own gargantuan state (not just a city) and it makes a lot more sense that if you have the opportunity to truly own it ALL, then you need to take it. This isn't a "we take just one school from here and totally have this market" type of location.

(09-23-2022 01:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  This probably is an attempt to try to get the Big 10 to invite Cal, but I think a more likely outcome is that this will actually make the Big 10 mad at Cal and possibly prevent Cal from ever being invited to the Big 10. (Cal's already seemed to be #4 on the Big 10 invite list, anyway.)

The BOR doesn't seem to realize how this might backfire.

Chess vs. checkers, man.

Warren and Delany did their recon before the UCLA and USC presidents signed the paperwork. The commissioner and his predecessor knew who of significance was likely to kick up a fuss or try to throw a wrench in the plans when the move was mad public.

These threats from the UC system's Board of Regents — much less Crazy George — weren't gonna have any effect on the B1G's plans. It's also no accident UC-Berkeley's key administrators have kept their mouths shut on this matter since July 1.

(09-23-2022 02:12 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 01:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  This probably is an attempt to try to get the Big 10 to invite Cal, but I think a more likely outcome is that this will actually make the Big 10 mad at Cal and possibly prevent Cal from ever being invited to the Big 10. (Cal's already seemed to be #4 on the Big 10 invite list, anyway.)

The BOR doesn't seem to realize how this might backfire.

Chess vs. checkers, man.

Warren and Delany did their recon before the UCLA and USC presidents signed the paperwork. The commissioner and his predecessor knew who of significance was likely to kick up a fuss or try to throw a wrench in the plans when the move was mad public.

These threats from the UC system's Board of Regents — much less Crazy George — weren't gonna have any effect on the B1G's plans. It's also no accident UC-Berkeley's key administrators have kept their mouths shut on this matter since July 1.

I don't think the Big 10 knew for sure that the California Board of Regents would throw a fit. I think what the Big 10 knew was that once the paperwork was signed, people might throw a fit, but nobody could actually stop the move.

Oregon or Utah leave.

(09-23-2022 02:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Oregon or Utah leave.

Utah? This is literally the first time I've heard them mentioned as a potential Big 10 candidate.

UO UW Stanford is a much more deadly combo for the B1G and still kills the PAC 12.

You could argue Yormark ends up with a bonanza in UCLA+Cal & 4 corners. However, those schools may request schools like WVU and UC, perhaps BYU and UCF, be excluded. I don't see how that could come about unless some massive exit fees go to the schools left behind.

Another option is the 4 corners plus Cal and UCLA convince 6-8 Big 12 schools to disband the conference to form a closer knit conference. The 80 million exit fee could be negotiated down in the next TV deal:

West: UCLA Cal 4 corners OSU WSU
East: Midwest 8 (Big 12)

Would anyone but WVU stand to collect the exit fees from departing Big 12 memebers? Exit fees which could be negotiated down in the next cycle?

(09-23-2022 12:33 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  AP Sportswriter Ralph D. Russo answers your question:

https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP/status...eQzNUrAAAA

https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP/status...HZytUrAAAA

This is a point.

Pragmatically, if the Big Ten is "undecided what to do", it means they are looking at two school moves. Through in the above tweets, and it could be a three corner deadlock between Not Adding Anybody / Adding Pair 1 / Adding Pair 2.

And there there is a credible risk, even if less than 50%, that any move that takes Washington leads to a collapse of the PAC ... and the two most likely two school moves are Washington / Stanford and Washington / Oregon.

But the reason the PAC is so shaky is because of the high value that Arizona State, Arizona and Colorado place on access to Southern California. Even if it only really worked out as hoped for one of the three (and perhaps it worked out for them because they were cheating), that was what they were aiming at.

Swap USC/UCLA+2/PNW4, with USC+Stanford/Washington/Oregon, and the remaining PAC-8 is more stable, and at less risk of falling apart. If Cal/UCLA can swallow their pride and invite SDSU, plus perhaps Hawaii FB-only plus the Zags in Olympic Sports, that seems like it would stabilize their membership in the face of a four school Big Ten raid.

As far as which outcome looks more likely if UCLA is blocked ... looked at from the other side of the Great Divide, both Stanford and Cal are dream schools for academics and "a stadium in which to play in SF" as far as the big money sports of FB/BB goes. It is hard to see the point of adding both Stanford and Cal if there are any schools interested the per school media value of the contract in the long term.

That is why it would be unsurprising the Big Ten is having a problem making up its mind because there is a minority who want to stand pat at USC/UCLA, a minority who want Washington/Oregon, and a minority who want Washington/Stanford. 4/4/6* would be a deadlock.

UCLA staying would turn those three corners into 10-4 in favor of adding Washington/Oregon/Stanford.

_______________
* The traditional six academic snobs are That School Up North, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern and Purdue. If That School Up North has takdn a temperature of the group, they might all move as a block. If they were moving as a block toward no move at all, it seems like it might have been decided already ... which points toward that six possibly being in the Washington+Stanford camp (and Washington is also higher status academically than any of the six academic snobs).
* Beside the School Up North, the other "Big Stadium Schools" are the Buckeyes, Penn State, Michigan State and Nebraska, all of whom might prefer to add the pair of schools from the PNW that promise the greatest likelihood of keeping demand for tickets high.
* By implication, that leaves the "Hey, c'mon, maybe we don''t want to kill the PAC-10?" schools at Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana and Iowa.

I think it will still be UCLA going, but with a price. Cal, OSU, WA,Stanford must come along even at an adjustable rate for 20. Then it's up to the B1G if They want to play that game

There are going to be quite a few posters here and UC System Regents — not to mention a governor with big ambitions — who will insist that this political theater is why Cal got in the B1G.

All the while ignoring all the things UC-Berkeley brings to the conference besides CFP rankings and March Madness appearances.

They’ll probably cut a couple of sports.. I believe this was referenced by the AD in articles around the time they moved.

(09-23-2022 12:09 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

1) USC .... they likely do not change course, go to the B1G.

2) PAC .... the PAC is IMO likely "saved" from losing members to the nB12. With UCLA back, even if Stanford or Oregon or Washington leaves to replace them in the B1G, the PAC deal is likely considerably higher than it will be without them.

3) The B1G .... They will want to fill the hole, and with a team that doesn't hurt their new TV deal. IMO, that means Stanford, then Oregon, then Washington, in that order of preference. So what do those schools do?

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

Oregon or Washington - IMO, if Stanford somehow decides to remain in the PAC, one of these two is picked up by the B1G, and either one will go, 90% chance in my view.

Wild card .... Maybe the B1G decides it doesn't need a west coast partner for USC, and instead looks at the nB12, for Kansas? Not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility either. Kansas would of course trip over themselves heading for the nB12 exit.

What do you think?

Well, maybe nothing.

The B10 could just decide not to make a decision on anyone right now, since usc doesn't leave til 2024.

But I think Stanford is the obvious choice. Not part od the Cal system - so avoids that current mess. But is a travel partner for usc.

I used to like the idea of Arizona state, but with their current NCAA investigations, I think they're on hold at least for awhile.

The B10 could stop there, but I think they'll also take Colorado while the opportunity is there - before agreements are signed.

Doing it this way, leaves the PAC with OR, WA, San Francisco area, LA area, arizona and utah. And the PAC can backfill with forum favourite SDSU. to get back to 10. And that's enough different markets - and still includes the LA market - that they should get a decent media deal.

The Big goes to 18 by adding Stanford as UCLA's replacement, and then boosting their western flank by adding CO and Kansas. Which should be a boon to Nebraska too.

This also stops the SEC from adding those two schools - pretty much the SEC's main options, until ACC schools become available. Which helps nudge the SEC east, instead of west.

Big10 adds:
USC
Stanford
Colorado
Kansas

Big10 - 18
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern

Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, USC, Stanford.

Yeah, who wouldn't want Colorado and Kansas when UO and UW are ripe for the picking?

(09-23-2022 12:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the BOR is successful in blocking UCLA from going to the B1G they would be incredibly foolish. But believing that they are foolish isn't much of a stretch. The B1G was committed to bringing the Bruins in will a full revenue share. I wouldn't rule out using their media contract, which assumed UCLA was in, as an excuse to add all three of Stanford, UW and Oregon at less than full shares to replace the Bruins and reduce USC's isolation. Avoiding the headache of California politics is a real plus.

That would still leave the PAC at 8 members, and I like the suggestion someone else made of adding SDSU for all sports plus Hawaii-FB/Gonzaga-OS to bring them to 10 members for all sports.

I hope that they would add Stanford/UO/UW/CO/ASU and just completely gut the Pac. Let the California schools play with fresno st and sdsu for a couple decades and see how they like that.

(09-23-2022 03:27 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I think it will still be UCLA going, but with a price. Cal, OSU, WA,Stanford must come along even at an adjustable rate for 20. Then it's up to the B1G if They want to play that game

I can't imagine the Board will care if Oregon, Washington or even Stanford gets invited to the Big 10. The Board will only care if Cal is invited to the Big 10- the Board does not have the duty to care about anybody except California public schools.

And I think that the BOR pressure is at least as likely to anger the Big Ten and cause the Big Ten to blackball Cal from consideration as it is to cause the Big Ten to invite Cal.

(09-23-2022 01:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 01:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:34 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:26 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  If it happens the Big needs to go HAM on the Pac. Grab,Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. Send a good basket of fruit to the UC board of regents.

^^This^^

Why? Those schools aren’t nearly as valuable as USC and UCLA. That is why they’re still in the Pac 12. If they were really a good get, they wouldn’t be 3-5th choice.

USC is clearly the most valuable team in the PAC. I've never really seen a lot of evidence that UCLA is the PAC's second most valuable team, but they certainly are better for travel costs in non-revenue sports, since teams can visit USC and UCLA with just one flight.

I think it does matter that the Big Ten is able to claim a college sports monopoly over the LA market because the league is looked at as a single source for college sports in the nation's largest markets. It also starves a ton of the oxygen of the Pac-12 in media rights deals. The Pac-12 that still has the LA market (even just UCLA) is a much more viable backup for TV networks or other potential partners (e.g. Amazon) than the Pac-12 without any presence in the LA market at all... and that creates at least a little more inertia in the Big Ten being able to take more Pac-12 schools down the road (whereas there's zero inertia right now).

Also, I still don't think people quite understand just how gargantuan the LA market is in terms of size. It has a larger population by itself than every state other than Texas, Florida and New York. So, getting both USC and UCLA has extra value together where it is more like the value of having both Texas and Texas A&M to cover the State of Texas or Florida and Florida State to cover the State of Florida than it is like, say, taking Kansas and Kansas State to cover the State of Kansas or even Cal and Stanford to cover the Bay Area TV market. Think of Los Angeles as its own gargantuan state (not just a city) and it makes a lot more sense that if you have the opportunity to truly own it ALL, then you need to take it. This isn't a "we take just one school from here and totally have this market" type of location.

You had me until you compared USCLA to A&M/texas. Either A&M OR texas is worth as much as USCLA. USCLA cover LA about as well as Baylor covers Dallas.

(09-23-2022 03:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  UO UW Stanford is a much more deadly combo for the B1G and still kills the PAC 12.

You could argue Yormark ends up with a bonanza in UCLA+Cal & 4 corners. However, those schools may request schools like WVU and UC, perhaps BYU and UCF, be excluded. I don't see how that could come about unless some massive exit fees go to the schools left behind.

Another option is the 4 corners plus Cal and UCLA convince 6-8 Big 12 schools to disband the conference to form a closer knit conference. The 80 million exit fee could be negotiated down in the next TV deal:

West: UCLA Cal 4 corners OSU WSU
East: Midwest 8 (Big 12)

Would anyone but WVU stand to collect the exit fees from departing Big 12 memebers? Exit fees which could be negotiated down in the next cycle?

What makes you think the leftovers of the Pac would have any bargaining power at all if the nbig12 sends them a lifeline? Yormark would be laughing before they could even get halfway through that request.

edit: this is a play way out of left field, but I wonder what Sankey thinks of all of this? Could we see the B1G regroup with UO/UW/Stanford, then the SEC grabs UCLA/ASU? I'd be happy to put UCLA in the SEC up against USC in the B1G, we'd smoke those turkeys.

(09-23-2022 04:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 01:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 01:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:34 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:26 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  ^^This^^

Why? Those schools aren’t nearly as valuable as USC and UCLA. That is why they’re still in the Pac 12. If they were really a good get, they wouldn’t be 3-5th choice.

USC is clearly the most valuable team in the PAC. I've never really seen a lot of evidence that UCLA is the PAC's second most valuable team, but they certainly are better for travel costs in non-revenue sports, since teams can visit USC and UCLA with just one flight.

I think it does matter that the Big Ten is able to claim a college sports monopoly over the LA market because the league is looked at as a single source for college sports in the nation's largest markets. It also starves a ton of the oxygen of the Pac-12 in media rights deals. The Pac-12 that still has the LA market (even just UCLA) is a much more viable backup for TV networks or other potential partners (e.g. Amazon) than the Pac-12 without any presence in the LA market at all... and that creates at least a little more inertia in the Big Ten being able to take more Pac-12 schools down the road (whereas there's zero inertia right now).

Also, I still don't think people quite understand just how gargantuan the LA market is in terms of size. It has a larger population by itself than every state other than Texas, Florida and New York. So, getting both USC and UCLA has extra value together where it is more like the value of having both Texas and Texas A&M to cover the State of Texas or Florida and Florida State to cover the State of Florida than it is like, say, taking Kansas and Kansas State to cover the State of Kansas or even Cal and Stanford to cover the Bay Area TV market. Think of Los Angeles as its own gargantuan state (not just a city) and it makes a lot more sense that if you have the opportunity to truly own it ALL, then you need to take it. This isn't a "we take just one school from here and totally have this market" type of location.

You had me until you compared USCLA to A&M/texas. Either A&M OR texas is worth as much as USCLA. USCLA cover LA about as well as Baylor covers Dallas.

USCw is probably comparable to Texas A&M in terms of value to a conference. USCw is not quite as valuable as Texas. I'm sure that USCw carries the Los Angles tv market better than Baylor carries the Waco tv market, let alone the Dallas TV market.

UCLA is definitely less valuable than Texas and Texas A&M.

(09-23-2022 04:28 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 03:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  UO UW Stanford is a much more deadly combo for the B1G and still kills the PAC 12.

You could argue Yormark ends up with a bonanza in UCLA+Cal & 4 corners. However, those schools may request schools like WVU and UC, perhaps BYU and UCF, be excluded. I don't see how that could come about unless some massive exit fees go to the schools left behind.

Another option is the 4 corners plus Cal and UCLA convince 6-8 Big 12 schools to disband the conference to form a closer knit conference. The 80 million exit fee could be negotiated down in the next TV deal:

West: UCLA Cal 4 corners OSU WSU
East: Midwest 8 (Big 12)

Would anyone but WVU stand to collect the exit fees from departing Big 12 memebers? Exit fees which could be negotiated down in the next cycle?

What makes you think the leftovers of the Pac would have any bargaining power at all if the nbig12 sends them a lifeline? Yormark would be laughing before they could even get halfway through that request.

edit: this is a play way out of left field, but I wonder what Sankey thinks of all of this? Could we see the B1G regroup with UO/UW/Stanford, then the SEC grabs UCLA/ASU? I'd be happy to put UCLA in the SEC up against USC in the B1G, we'd smoke those turkeys.

In all likelihood, game theory-ing this thing out. Let's say those three go along with USC. The 4 corners are going to the Big 12. Then the PAC is left with UCLA/Cal & OSU and WSU. The most likely scenario is UCLA and UC suck it up and go to the B1G at less shares. Either way, UCLA comes out a loser if they somehow get **** blocked.

But what I can't see is UCLA and Cal joining a Big 16 straight. It's possible, but there is a slight chance that those remaining 8 are able to lure some of the public universities in the Big 12 like Houston and KU. But the most likely scenario is the Cal schools have to force their way back into the B1G because of the spiteful people at Berkley.

(09-23-2022 04:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 12:09 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2022 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have dismissed the idea of UCLA remaining in the PAC via BOR fiat, but the issue seems to be lingering longer than I thought, so while I still fully expect UCLA to join the B1G on schedule, why not play what if? So my take:

1) USC .... they likely do not change course, go to the B1G.

2) PAC .... the PAC is IMO likely "saved" from losing members to the nB12. With UCLA back, even if Stanford or Oregon or Washington leaves to replace them in the B1G, the PAC deal is likely considerably higher than it will be without them.

3) The B1G .... They will want to fill the hole, and with a team that doesn't hurt their new TV deal. IMO, that means Stanford, then Oregon, then Washington, in that order of preference. So what do those schools do?

Stanford .... I think it something like 55/45 that they join the B1G. It will be a close call though, because a PAC with UCLA is IMO a lot more appealing to them.

Turning down the B1G would still mean turning down massive money, so I think Stanford goes, but Stanford has plenty of money, and as a private may not be as constrained in how they use compared to public schools. If any school this side of the Ivy League, Notre Dame or Texas can afford to turn down $50m a year, it's Stanford.

Oregon or Washington - IMO, if Stanford somehow decides to remain in the PAC, one of these two is picked up by the B1G, and either one will go, 90% chance in my view.

Wild card .... Maybe the B1G decides it doesn't need a west coast partner for USC, and instead looks at the nB12, for Kansas? Not likely, but not out of the realm of possibility either. Kansas would of course trip over themselves heading for the nB12 exit.

What do you think?

Well, maybe nothing.

The B10 could just decide not to make a decision on anyone right now, since usc doesn't leave til 2024.

But I think Stanford is the obvious choice. Not part od the Cal system - so avoids that current mess. But is a travel partner for usc.

I used to like the idea of Arizona state, but with their current NCAA investigations, I think they're on hold at least for awhile.

The B10 could stop there, but I think they'll also take Colorado while the opportunity is there - before agreements are signed.

Doing it this way, leaves the PAC with OR, WA, San Francisco area, LA area, arizona and utah. And the PAC can backfill with forum favourite SDSU. to get back to 10. And that's enough different markets - and still includes the LA market - that they should get a decent media deal.

The Big goes to 18 by adding Stanford as UCLA's replacement, and then boosting their western flank by adding CO and Kansas. Which should be a boon to Nebraska too.

This also stops the SEC from adding those two schools - pretty much the SEC's main options, until ACC schools become available. Which helps nudge the SEC east, instead of west.

Big10 adds:
USC
Stanford
Colorado
Kansas

Big10 - 18
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern

Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, USC, Stanford.

Yeah, who wouldn't want Colorado and Kansas when UO and UW are ripe for the picking?

Taking Washington will kill the PAC. And we are starting to hear/read info suggesting that there are some, at least, in the B10 who might like to avoid that.

So if the PAC is to survive, then the B10 really can only take one or two more that aren't named WA or OR.

So taking USC, Stanford, Colorado, and Kansas, covers the bases, without killing the PAC.