It depends honestly for me. I can see the PAC 12 surviving if it's just the 4 corner schools leaving. They simply add San Diego State, Fresno state, Boise State, Nevada, UNLV and Hawaii (football only) with Gonzaga Olympic sports. To get back to 12. Hawaii might get a few games a year for basketball and other sports. Maybe a agreement that the new PAC 12 sends a team every year to the diamond head classic.

Losing Oregon, Stanford or Cal to the Big Ten would be a bigger problem as that's probably the first domino to fall .I think there's only 3 spots left in the Big Ten for a West coast team. As I think we'd get a 5 team pod as I think 20 teams is a cap for any conference. 9 conference games in football (4 games your pod and 5 against another) then a CCG against the other group) also 18 games against a set group of schools for basketball.

(12-15-2022 02:24 PM)46566 Wrote:  ... I think there's only 3 spots left in the Big Ten for a West coast team. As I think we'd get a 5 team pod ...

No pods, no divisions. Pods were mechanisms for coping with the "you need either a conference or a divisional round robin" requirement for a CCG. With the round robin requirement dropped, there's no driving force for adopting pods.

As handy as they may be for generating fantasy conference realignment scenarios, there is no reason to believe they will be a part of the Big Ten scheduling process going ahead.

________________

(12-15-2022 02:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 01:18 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Is independence a viable option for any of the remaining Pac-10 schools?

How does football scheduling work? What about every other sport on campus?

Stanford is the one school for which independence could be a viable option. They have a major late-season rivalry with Notre Dame that would easily continue into independence. I would be surprised if they did not have an annual game with Cal or if they did not play USC and UCLA more often than not. That's a solid schedule foundation for meaningful games that would attract TV's attention.

They would also be well-positioned to schedule 3 or 4 games per year with the other PAC schools and MWC schools. Throw in games here and there with Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Boston College and they would only need the occasional games against Army, UConn, and UMass and the annual FCS opponent to fill in the late-season schedule.

If the Big Ten adds Washington/Oregon and stops there, Stanford and Arizona State are the most valuable adds for the Big12, so the question is whether Stanford balks at joining a conference with schools that it would not allow into the PAC-12. I am skeptical that they would, but if they do balk, that seems like Cal and three of the four corners getting a Big12 invite & Stanford deciding whether to rebuild the PAC with Oregon State, Wazzou, (say) Colorado, 8 AAC/MWC call-ups (Hawaii FB-only if they are among the eight), or whether to play as an independent.

Seems like even if they turned up their nose at joining the Big12, they wouldn't turn up their nose at a three-five game including Cal scheduling agreement with the Big12, so that would be FB independent, a scheduling agreement with the Big12, and Olympic sports in the WCC, versus rebuilding a PAC with eight schools that all aren't P5 for good reason.

(12-15-2022 01:45 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Btw, I would not be shocked if rumors about Washington State and Oregon State to the Big 12 gain serious traction in the next month or so.

Other than that, if the Pac 10 stays together and get a new media contract, then we'll be back here debating this topic in six years.

Why would they do that? From either side

(12-15-2022 12:54 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  One?

Two?

Four?

Maybe everybody leaves except for the Cougs and the Beavs, but the MWC is absorbed/rebranded, life goes on and there's still a door to the CFP?

"Always two there are, no more, no less...a master and an apprentice."
- Jedi GM Yoda

(12-15-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 12:54 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  One?

Two?

Four?

Maybe everybody leaves except for the Cougs and the Beavs, but the MWC is absorbed/rebranded, life goes on and there's still a door to the CFP?

The PAC 12 as we have known it just lost 22% of its total value, and its largest market. The PAC 12 is Dead Man Walking. All it awaits is its execution date. They will not recover. Warren shot them in the head and while the heart still beats it is only the machinery which is keeping them alive. Now the Life Flights circle waiting to harvest organs for transplant.

They can reload with lesser brands, but the proud and unique conference is dead. Their poster child for hoops and their poster child for football ran off with the Rose Bowl visitors and will not be back.

Lorrie (Lorena) has run off with Jake Spoon and Bolivar will now burn the bar down around himself in grief. Lonesome Dove will never be the same!

Big 12 also lost their two biggest money makers, and nobody is calling them dead man walking. So if the PAC 12 is a dead man walking? So is the Big 12. There is already talks that some of the Big 12 teams are targets for the Big 10, SEC and ACC.

(12-15-2022 12:54 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  One?

Two?

Four?

Maybe everybody leaves except for the Cougs and the Beavs, but the MWC is absorbed/rebranded, life goes on and there's still a door to the CFP?

Depends on how one defines "crumbles."

But I said in a thread I started ages ago, that they could lose any one school except Washington, and nothing yet appears to have changed that.

(12-15-2022 02:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:24 PM)46566 Wrote:  ... I think there's only 3 spots left in the Big Ten for a West coast team. As I think we'd get a 5 team pod ...

No pods, no divisions. Pods were mechanisms for coping with the "you need either a conference or a divisional round robin" requirement for a CCG. With the round robin requirement dropped, there's no driving force for adopting pods.

As handy as they may be for generating fantasy conference realignment scenarios, there is no reason to believe they will be a part of the Big Ten scheduling process going ahead.

________________

(12-15-2022 02:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 01:18 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Is independence a viable option for any of the remaining Pac-10 schools?

How does football scheduling work? What about every other sport on campus?

Stanford is the one school for which independence could be a viable option. They have a major late-season rivalry with Notre Dame that would easily continue into independence. I would be surprised if they did not have an annual game with Cal or if they did not play USC and UCLA more often than not. That's a solid schedule foundation for meaningful games that would attract TV's attention.

They would also be well-positioned to schedule 3 or 4 games per year with the other PAC schools and MWC schools. Throw in games here and there with Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Boston College and they would only need the occasional games against Army, UConn, and UMass and the annual FCS opponent to fill in the late-season schedule.

If the Big Ten adds Washington/Oregon and stops there, Stanford and Arizona State are the most valuable adds for the Big12, so the question is whether Stanford balks at joining a conference with schools that it would not allow into the PAC-12. I am skeptical that they would, but if they do balk, that seems like Cal and three of the four corners getting a Big12 invite & Stanford deciding whether to rebuild the PAC with Oregon State, Wazzou, (say) Colorado, 8 AAC/MWC call-ups (Hawaii FB-only if they are among the eight), or whether to play as an independent.

Seems like even if they turned up their nose at joining the Big12, they wouldn't turn up their nose at a three-five game including Cal scheduling agreement with the Big12, so that would be FB independent, a scheduling agreement with the Big12, and Olympic sports in the WCC, versus rebuilding a PAC with eight schools that all aren't P5 for good reason.

And they are smart enough to figure out that, if they want pods, they don't all have to be the same number. You could do a 5-4-4-5 setup. But its probably irrelevant.

(12-15-2022 03:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 12:54 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  One?

Two?

Four?

Maybe everybody leaves except for the Cougs and the Beavs, but the MWC is absorbed/rebranded, life goes on and there's still a door to the CFP?

The PAC 12 as we have known it just lost 22% of its total value, and its largest market. The PAC 12 is Dead Man Walking. All it awaits is its execution date. They will not recover. Warren shot them in the head and while the heart still beats it is only the machinery which is keeping them alive. Now the Life Flights circle waiting to harvest organs for transplant.

They can reload with lesser brands, but the proud and unique conference is dead. Their poster child for hoops and their poster child for football ran off with the Rose Bowl visitors and will not be back.

Lorrie (Lorena) has run off with Jake Spoon and Bolivar will now burn the bar down around himself in grief. Lonesome Dove will never be the same!

Big 12 also lost their two biggest money makers, and nobody is calling them dead man walking. So if the PAC 12 is a dead man walking? So is the Big 12. There is already talks that some of the Big 12 teams are targets for the Big 10, SEC and ACC.

There is always talks and there will always be talks. In that regard, nothing is new for the Big 12. As long as the Big 12 exists on a structural and financial "second tier" their member programs will seek out opportunities to "move up". Whether those materialize, and for who, remains to be seen. In the meantime, it is about making the Big 12 as comfortable of a home as possible. It isn't a Penthouse kind of life, but it is a house in the suburbs. I don't believe the PAC is a "dead man walking" but I do think they have a rocky road ahead that is made rockier with their institutional preference and stark realities coming to bear.

The main difference between the Big 12 and the PAC 12 right now are as follows:

1. The Big 12 has a media agreement in hand with FOX and ESPN. The Big 12's future exposure is guaranteed. The PAC still needs to present a satisfactory media deal to their members. With concerns about unequal revenue sharing, signing a GOR, potential B1G expansion, Big 12 interest, exposure, money amounts, potential PAC expansion. There is going to be a lot of work for the PAC to get to an agreement that gets everyone to the table. I think their preference will be stick together until they can't.

2. The Big 12 lost Texas and OU, but it did not lose its primary markets. The loss of Texas and OU as brands, bluebloods, and eyeballs can't be understated. However, the Big 12 is still going to be a prominent figure and entity in all of its traditional major markets. Some of that is assisted by the addition of Houston. The Big 12 also expanded the number of markets it is present in with BYU, Cincy, and UCF. These don't entirely offset the loss of the OU and Texas but they do pull the floor higher for the Big 12 and give it some decent sale points. The PAC lost USC/UCLA but more than that it lost the LA market. A market that is terribly fickle. They have no direct presence in that market and if they don't add SDSU then they will lose their SoCal presence entirely. There is no remedy for the PAC like Houston in replacing direct market access to LA. SDSU can be a mitigation measure for SoCal. The PAC needs more eyeballs to compensate for the loss and their western options are not as strong as the Big 12's options were/are. After Boise St., there is a substantial drop off in national interest for the remaining western brands available to the PAC.

3. The Big 12 has some demonstrated hard data for continued interest in their programs outside of Texas and OU. The past two conference championship games featuring Baylor/OSU and TCU/KSU drew extremely well and the general draw of non-Texas/OU games have been an encouraging mark for media partners who might question in the interest in Big 12 outside of Texas and OU. The PAC should also have some draw, but geography seems to work against them in this regard. Some of those teams would draw much better if they were regularly playing CST and EST teams.

One: sucking chest wound
Two: life-support (depending on the two)
Four: coroner

This will come down to media deals (if the Four Corners can make more in the BXII they-gone) or if the B1G cherry picks out west again.

(12-15-2022 01:29 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  I think the 6 + 6 playoff format keeps the PAC 10-to-12 together. UW, Oregon, and Utah have better odds of making the playoffs in a 10 or 12 team PAC than a 16 team B12. I imagine that the new media deal will be close enough to what the B12 is offering to not make the extra travel, etc. worth leaving.

I agree that the new playoff will certainly help keep the PAC together. However, while the competition in the B10 is most certainly better, the money is so much greater that the PAC schools most commonly mentioned would be hard-pressed to turn it down.

If the B12 can offer even a small (approx. $10M) increase for the "four corner" schools they would not only make more money but would face similar levels of competition. If I'm the PAC I am almost more worried about being raided by the B12 for this very reason.

(12-15-2022 02:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:24 PM)46566 Wrote:  ... I think there's only 3 spots left in the Big Ten for a West coast team. As I think we'd get a 5 team pod ...

No pods, no divisions. Pods were mechanisms for coping with the "you need either a conference or a divisional round robin" requirement for a CCG. With the round robin requirement dropped, there's no driving force for adopting pods.

As handy as they may be for generating fantasy conference realignment scenarios, there is no reason to believe they will be a part of the Big Ten scheduling process going ahead.

________________

(12-15-2022 02:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 01:18 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Is independence a viable option for any of the remaining Pac-10 schools?

How does football scheduling work? What about every other sport on campus?

Stanford is the one school for which independence could be a viable option. They have a major late-season rivalry with Notre Dame that would easily continue into independence. I would be surprised if they did not have an annual game with Cal or if they did not play USC and UCLA more often than not. That's a solid schedule foundation for meaningful games that would attract TV's attention.

They would also be well-positioned to schedule 3 or 4 games per year with the other PAC schools and MWC schools. Throw in games here and there with Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Boston College and they would only need the occasional games against Army, UConn, and UMass and the annual FCS opponent to fill in the late-season schedule.

If the Big Ten adds Washington/Oregon and stops there, Stanford and Arizona State are the most valuable adds for the Big12, so the question is whether Stanford balks at joining a conference with schools that it would not allow into the PAC-12. I am skeptical that they would, but if they do balk, that seems like Cal and three of the four corners getting a Big12 invite & Stanford deciding whether to rebuild the PAC with Oregon State, Wazzou, (say) Colorado, 8 AAC/MWC call-ups (Hawaii FB-only if they are among the eight), or whether to play as an independent.

Seems like even if they turned up their nose at joining the Big12, they wouldn't turn up their nose at a three-five game including Cal scheduling agreement with the Big12, so that would be FB independent, a scheduling agreement with the Big12, and Olympic sports in the WCC, versus rebuilding a PAC with eight schools that all aren't P5 for good reason.

I think they may be useful for scheduling or protecting at least some conference matchups every year. They're going to want Ohio State vs Michigan every year or Michigan vs Michigan State every year. Pods are useful for conference games you want every year. In this scenario USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford and Oregon play each other every year then a rotation of other groups the following years. Even if the term pod isn't used I think something will be used to protect what they view as money earner conference games.

(12-15-2022 02:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 01:45 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Btw, I would not be shocked if rumors about Washington State and Oregon State to the Big 12 gain serious traction in the next month or so.

Other than that, if the Pac 10 stays together and get a new media contract, then we'll be back here debating this topic in six years.

Why would they do that? From either side

Tying in to Gonzaga in order to build up the fourth time zone that Yormark has talked about, recently.

Conference-USA has 18 former all-sports members, plus another 18 former affiliate members, and C-USA continually reinvents itself. The B12 has lost half of its original members and remains solidly as an Autonomy-5 conference. The PAC has a much longer history than either of the B12 or C-USA. Crumbling isn’t a likely outcome for the PAC…the only way that the PAC dissolves is if it merges with a bigger conference (similar to the SWC in the 1990s).

(12-15-2022 03:45 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:24 PM)46566 Wrote:  ... I think there's only 3 spots left in the Big Ten for a West coast team. As I think we'd get a 5 team pod ...

No pods, no divisions. Pods were mechanisms for coping with the "you need either a conference or a divisional round robin" requirement for a CCG. With the round robin requirement dropped, there's no driving force for adopting pods.

As handy as they may be for generating fantasy conference realignment scenarios, there is no reason to believe they will be a part of the Big Ten scheduling process going ahead. ...

I think they may be useful for scheduling or protecting at least some conference matchups every year. They're going to want Ohio State vs Michigan every year or Michigan vs Michigan State every year. Pods are useful for conference games you want every year. ...

The thing is, there is absolutely no need for a pod set-up in order to protect specific conference match-ups. Simply have the Buckeyes and that School Up North play every year, and have that School Up North play Michigan State. There really is no pressing reason why that needs to mean that the Buckeyes play Michigan State every year, as a pod set-up would require.

(12-15-2022 04:16 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Conference-USA has 18 former all-sports members, plus another 18 former affiliate members, and C-USA continually reinvents itself. The B12 has lost half of its original members and remains solidly as an Autonomy-5 conference. The PAC has a much longer history than either of the B12 or C-USA. Crumbling isn’t a likely outcome for the PAC…the only way that the PAC dissolves is if it merges with a bigger conference (similar to the SWC in the 1990s).

The PCC/AAWU/Pac 8-10-12 has seen some membership changes as well.

(12-15-2022 03:45 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:24 PM)46566 Wrote:  ... I think there's only 3 spots left in the Big Ten for a West coast team. As I think we'd get a 5 team pod ...

No pods, no divisions. Pods were mechanisms for coping with the "you need either a conference or a divisional round robin" requirement for a CCG. With the round robin requirement dropped, there's no driving force for adopting pods.

As handy as they may be for generating fantasy conference realignment scenarios, there is no reason to believe they will be a part of the Big Ten scheduling process going ahead. ...

I think they may be useful for scheduling or protecting at least some conference matchups every year. They're going to want Ohio State vs Michigan every year or Michigan vs Michigan State every year. Pods are useful for conference games you want every year. ...

The thing is, there is absolutely no need for a pod set-up in order to protect specific conference match-ups. Simply have the Buckeyes and that School Up North play every year, and have that School Up North play Michigan State. There really is no pressing reason why that needs to mean that the Buckeyes play Michigan State every year, as a pod set-up would require. Similarly, Penn State could play the Buckeyes annually without necessarily playing that School Up North annually.

(12-15-2022 03:32 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 03:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 12:54 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  One?

Two?

Four?

Maybe everybody leaves except for the Cougs and the Beavs, but the MWC is absorbed/rebranded, life goes on and there's still a door to the CFP?

The PAC 12 as we have known it just lost 22% of its total value, and its largest market. The PAC 12 is Dead Man Walking. All it awaits is its execution date. They will not recover. Warren shot them in the head and while the heart still beats it is only the machinery which is keeping them alive. Now the Life Flights circle waiting to harvest organs for transplant.

They can reload with lesser brands, but the proud and unique conference is dead. Their poster child for hoops and their poster child for football ran off with the Rose Bowl visitors and will not be back.

Lorrie (Lorena) has run off with Jake Spoon and Bolivar will now burn the bar down around himself in grief. Lonesome Dove will never be the same!

Big 12 also lost their two biggest money makers, and nobody is calling them dead man walking. So if the PAC 12 is a dead man walking? So is the Big 12. There is already talks that some of the Big 12 teams are targets for the Big 10, SEC and ACC.

There is always talks and there will always be talks. In that regard, nothing is new for the Big 12. As long as the Big 12 exists on a structural and financial "second tier" their member programs will seek out opportunities to "move up". Whether those materialize, and for who, remains to be seen. In the meantime, it is about making the Big 12 as comfortable of a home as possible. It isn't a Penthouse kind of life, but it is a house in the suburbs. I don't believe the PAC is a "dead man walking" but I do think they have a rocky road ahead that is made rockier with their institutional preference and stark realities coming to bear.

The main difference between the Big 12 and the PAC 12 right now are as follows:

1. The Big 12 has a media agreement in hand with FOX and ESPN. The Big 12's future exposure is guaranteed. The PAC still needs to present a satisfactory media deal to their members. With concerns about unequal revenue sharing, signing a GOR, potential B1G expansion, Big 12 interest, exposure, money amounts, potential PAC expansion. There is going to be a lot of work for the PAC to get to an agreement that gets everyone to the table. I think their preference will be stick together until they can't.

2. The Big 12 lost Texas and OU, but it did not lose its primary markets. The loss of Texas and OU as brands, bluebloods, and eyeballs can't be understated. However, the Big 12 is still going to be a prominent figure and entity in all of its traditional major markets. Some of that is assisted by the addition of Houston. The Big 12 also expanded the number of markets it is present in with BYU, Cincy, and UCF. These don't entirely offset the loss of the OU and Texas but they do pull the floor higher for the Big 12 and give it some decent sale points. The PAC lost USC/UCLA but more than that it lost the LA market. A market that is terribly fickle. They have no direct presence in that market and if they don't add SDSU then they will lose their SoCal presence entirely. There is no remedy for the PAC like Houston in replacing direct market access to LA. SDSU can be a mitigation measure for SoCal. The PAC needs more eyeballs to compensate for the loss and their western options are not as strong as the Big 12's options were/are. After Boise St., there is a substantial drop off in national interest for the remaining western brands available to the PAC.

3. The Big 12 has some demonstrated hard data for continued interest in their programs outside of Texas and OU. The past two conference championship games featuring Baylor/OSU and TCU/KSU drew extremely well and the general draw of non-Texas/OU games have been an encouraging mark for media partners who might question in the interest in Big 12 outside of Texas and OU. The PAC should also have some draw, but geography seems to work against them in this regard. Some of those teams would draw much better if they were regularly playing CST and EST teams.

I agree with your 3 points. I would merely add, I said Dead Man Walking because they have no prospects remotely capable of filling the gap left by the departures, or of even equaling the MEAN value of the remaining 10 schools. Geography and travel are against them. The Big 12 has schools in all directions which can approach their MEAN value and that flexibility is why they have not been mortally wounded.

(12-15-2022 01:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 12:54 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  One?

Two?

Four?

Maybe everybody leaves except for the Cougs and the Beavs, but the MWC is absorbed/rebranded, life goes on and there's still a door to the CFP?

2.

There just aren't good replacements. If UW and Oregon go to the Big 10, its done.
Should, less likely, Arizona and Arizona St. first decide to head to the Big 12, it crumbles.

They could survive 2 possibly, but it would need to be something like UArizona and OSU. And then it would just be a matter of time.

(12-15-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-15-2022 12:54 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  One?

Two?

Four?

Maybe everybody leaves except for the Cougs and the Beavs, but the MWC is absorbed/rebranded, life goes on and there's still a door to the CFP?

The PAC 12 as we have known it just lost 22% of its total value, and its largest market. The PAC 12 is Dead Man Walking. All it awaits is its execution date. They will not recover. Warren shot them in the head and while the heart still beats it is only the machinery which is keeping them alive. Now the Life Flights circle waiting to harvest organs for transplant.

They can reload with lesser brands, but the proud and unique conference is dead. Their poster child for hoops and their poster child for football ran off with the Rose Bowl visitors and will not be back.

Lorrie (Lorena) has run off with Jake Spoon and Bolivar will now burn the bar down around himself in grief. Lonesome Dove will never be the same!

They are definitely mortally wounded, the question is how long it takes them to bleed out. I think this is akin to the Big East in 2003. The damage is done but I think the patient clings to life for a few years.

The Big 10 will eventually come back for Washington and Oregon, and then it’s a race to the Big 12 for the rest.

Maybe I'm clueless, but I simply don't see any Pac-10 program wanting to leave for the Big 12. And, similarly, I don't see the Pac-10 adding San Diego State (though the school is qualified for inclusion). The 10 remaining universities operate, collectively and individually, at a very high level of prestige and attractiveness in terms of a combination of academics, athletics and locations.

In contrast, the Big 12 includes two low-populations states (Kansas and WVa) and a "hodge-podge" of members (which I find quirky and kind of cool — but not necessarily prestigious or cohesive). As such, I can more easily visualize Cincinnati and Houston (urban public schools), UCF (which not that long ago was a "directional school" in terms of perception and prestige) and BYU (a private religious school) in the Big 12 than I can Boise, Gonzaga or SDSU in the Pac-10. That's not a slap at UC (for which I follow due to family reasons) or any of the other schools I mention. It simply is the reality that the Pac-10 and Big 12 are two very different animals. The former is conventional/traditional, while the latter is not.

All this to say: I would think the Four Corners schools would have zero interest in joining the Big 12 as long as the other six Pac-10 members stay put. Eventually, however, there will be more realignment. And all my points could be rendered moot.