(01-31-2023 11:39 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Cincy and WVU to the ACC would have made a lot of sense 10 years ago but the uncertainty around what schools will still be in the ACC after the next decade makes the move a non-starter now.

The ACC was foolish not to invite both schools along with Louisville when they had the chance. The big-time ACC schools won't pay a price, but Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, etc. certainly might in the future.

The snobs in places like Chapel Hill, Durham, Chestnut Hill, Charlottesville, Coral Gables, Syracuse, Winston-Salem, etc dont wanna be associated with Cincy and WVU. You just know they hated adding Louisville and were forced to. Why do you think WV never got a sniff from the ACC even though it makes geographical sense. Total snobbery.

(01-31-2023 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 08:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I would get creative and use OUT early exit money to move WVU UC and UCF to the ACC and complete a merger with Yormark. Brush the egos aside. If both conferences are getting comparable money, it's no longer dilutive to merge. I think it stabilizes things quite a bit long term. SDSU could still be added as the 20th team. Maybe 4 five team divisions.

The bolded is the point that so many want to believe can be glossed over in conference realignment, yet we see it rear its head time-and-time again. This is why (at least to me) the college sports business is fascinating: it's NOT as easy as a straight-forward Adam Smith maximum economic value exercise. If it were as simple as "Conference A makes more money than Conference B, which means that *everyone* in Conference B must want to go to Conference A", conference realignment would be a whole lot simpler. However, we see that's not the case for a whole host of reasons.

Egos don't get brushed aside in academia. Some schools might base it on egos in academic prestige. Others might base it on egos wanting to maintain an advantage over an in-state or regional rival. Some others might see it as egos wanting a certain branding image.

The Pac-12 simply doesn't see itself as subservient to the Big 12 on any level and that's something that they firmly believe. The Pac-12 obviously thinks of themselves better academically and if you were to list out which schools have the most TV, branding and conference realignment value between the two leagues, everyone in the Pac-12 besides Washington State and Oregon State would rank ahead of everyone in the Big 12 except for maybe Kansas. So, the Pac-12 looks at itself as having a minimum of 8 of the top 9 most valuable schools between the two leagues. That's the whole basis of why the Pac-12 is more vulnerable in conference realignment than the Big 12 in the first place: the Big 12 has already lost everyone that the Big Ten and SEC want, whereas the Pac-12 still has valuable brands.

That doesn't even get into the fact that several Pac-12 schools will full stop not ever allow themselves to be in the same league as BYU (and it's not just Stanford and Cal, but likely Washington and Oregon, too). Utah has its own in-state rival issues with BYU on a whole multitude of historical and cultural factors. Colorado has zero desire to come crawling back to a worse-off Big 12 that it had left 13 years ago unless they're at the point where their athletic department would become extinct if they don't move.

To be sure, brushing aside egos can certainly have a price. Texas has the biggest ego of them all and was outwardly hostile toward the thought of itself in the SEC for many generations. At a certain point, the money in the SEC (or more to the point for Texas, the money in the SEC that generated an entrenched recruiting advantage for the league) was too great for UT to stay in a Big 12 that it could completely rule.

So, that's not to say that if a Pac-12/Big 12 merger would double or triple their TV money that everyone would start becoming a lot more friendly with each other. However, if we're only talking about a 5-10% or even a 25% raise in TV money for a merger, no one is buying out any egos at that price.

To reinforce the ego comments, I remember an anonymous quote from a Big 12 president during the Big 12 expansion derby 5 or 6 years back, "A conference with Memphis in it is a conference I wouldn't want to be in."

But Frank, I think you are making the same mistake the Pac 10 is making about the Big 12. They are confusing academic ranking with athletic ranking. If you look at any athletic metric except for the Director's Cup, the R8 of the Big 12 are better than the Pac 10. Better in football. Better in basketball. Better attendance. Better average TV ratings (marginally). And the nBig 12 even with the 4 callups is comparable to the Pac 10 in those measures except for basketball where they are clearly better.

The Pac 12 looked down on schools summer before last who could have helped them athletically.

(01-31-2023 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The depth of the ACC in conference realignment terms is being severely underrated by a lot of people here.

Let's say that the ACC were to get totally thrashed and lose all of FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, and UVA.

IMHO, the remainder is still in a better position to be poaching the Big 12 or even the Pac-12…

I don’t know why his idea evades so many people. With how much revenue the B1G and SEC are making, it becomes increasingly likely that the ACC gets decapitated a la USCLA rather than completely pillaged.

There is still going to be meat on the ACC bones after the ACC gets raided by the B1G/SEC. Comparable to the PAC or BigXII. The most important factor at that point is which conference has the least baggage/dead weight and that is also going to be pretty similar between the three although the BigXII looks a little suspect in that aspect.

People also seem to neglect that there is a lot of institutional similarity between some of these PAC and ACC left-behinds which will make them gravitate towards each other.

Right. The more likely potential merger to me in the very long-term is whoever is left in the Pac-12 and ACC to come together and then maybe add a few Big 12 schools like Kansas and TCU. I don't see just a mass annexation to the Big 12 as-is.

One very large issue with hoping for a XII exodus into either the BE, ACC or PAC: $80M exit fee (on TOP of the media rights issues that would also cost money if they choose to leave prior to the TV deal expiring). Texas was frustrated with schools leaving the XII (mainly due to being ticked off at Texas) and promoted the exit fee to force schools to stay. I doubt they ever expected the SEC and B1G to gain enough of a jump, monetarily, on the other 3 conferences that it would entice THEM to make the move, but they did.

So, on top of the $80M exit fee, a year's worth of TV monies are also at stake should OUT leave for the 2024 season. I'd suggest the full amount of the exit fee will be due, but the TV monies could, apparently, be negotiated down to the 60-65% so noted. I could see Kansas going to the B1G. I could see no one else leaving unless OK State can get the SEC's attention.

But, the ACC, Big East and PAC will not, in the forseeable future, get far enough ahead to counter that $80M hit. And, the commitment lasts until 2099. The other way around is far more likely.

Plus, it is my understanding the 4 new schools have already signed onto the 2099 deal... I'm not sure about the media rights deal Yormark has set up, but I doubt any of the new teams will be leaving either.

(01-31-2023 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The depth of the ACC in conference realignment terms is being severely underrated by a lot of people here.

Let's say that the ACC were to get totally thrashed and lose all of FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, and UVA.

IMHO, the remainder is still in a better position to be poaching the Big 12 or even the Pac-12…

I don’t know why his idea evades so many people. With how much revenue the B1G and SEC are making, it becomes increasingly likely that the ACC gets decapitated a la USCLA rather than completely pillaged.

There is still going to be meat on the ACC bones after the ACC gets raided by the B1G/SEC. Comparable to the PAC or BigXII. The most important factor at that point is which conference has the least baggage/dead weight and that is also going to be pretty similar between the three although the BigXII looks a little suspect in that aspect.

People also seem to neglect that there is a lot of institutional similarity between some of these PAC and ACC left-behinds which will make them gravitate towards each other.

Right. The more likely potential merger to me in the very long-term is whoever is left in the Pac-12 and ACC to come together and then maybe add a few Big 12 schools like Kansas and TCU. I don't see just a mass annexation to the Big 12 as-is.

An ACC/Pac merger makes zero financial sense. The ADs would knock some sense into the Presidents before that happened. There isn't enough money and there aren't enough brands to justify anything like the Big 10 did. At some point fiscal reality and geography trumps ego.

(01-31-2023 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  To reinforce the ego comments, I remember an anonymous quote from a Big 12 president during the Big 12 expansion derby 5 or 6 years back, "A conference with Memphis in it is a conference I wouldn't want to be in."

I totally believe it. I dont think Memphis fans realize what a poor perception their school and their city has outside of their world. Then we had the recent tragedy there in the news and there was another big one before that. Again, nothing to do with the University but stuff like this doesnt help. No P5 for Memphis anytime soon.

(01-31-2023 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The depth of the ACC in conference realignment terms is being severely underrated by a lot of people here.

Let's say that the ACC were to get totally thrashed and lose all of FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, and UVA.

IMHO, the remainder is still in a better position to be poaching the Big 12 or even the Pac-12…

I don’t know why his idea evades so many people. With how much revenue the B1G and SEC are making, it becomes increasingly likely that the ACC gets decapitated a la USCLA rather than completely pillaged.

There is still going to be meat on the ACC bones after the ACC gets raided by the B1G/SEC. Comparable to the PAC or BigXII. The most important factor at that point is which conference has the least baggage/dead weight and that is also going to be pretty similar between the three although the BigXII looks a little suspect in that aspect.

People also seem to neglect that there is a lot of institutional similarity between some of these PAC and ACC left-behinds which will make them gravitate towards each other.

Right. The more likely potential merger to me in the very long-term is whoever is left in the Pac-12 and ACC to come together and then maybe add a few Big 12 schools like Kansas and TCU. I don't see just a mass annexation to the Big 12 as-is.

Maybe I am wrong, but its not like Kansas, ISU, Baylor are academic bottom dwellers. Yes Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas St & Houston aren't IVY League but its not like they are any worse than NCst, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Kentucky, LSU, MSU, ole Miss, Missouri, USC, Tennessee, BC, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, Colorado, NEB, ASU, Arizona, Utah, Oregon St or Washington st.

(01-31-2023 01:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The depth of the ACC in conference realignment terms is being severely underrated by a lot of people here.

Let's say that the ACC were to get totally thrashed and lose all of FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, and UVA.

IMHO, the remainder is still in a better position to be poaching the Big 12 or even the Pac-12…

I don’t know why his idea evades so many people. With how much revenue the B1G and SEC are making, it becomes increasingly likely that the ACC gets decapitated a la USCLA rather than completely pillaged.

There is still going to be meat on the ACC bones after the ACC gets raided by the B1G/SEC. Comparable to the PAC or BigXII. The most important factor at that point is which conference has the least baggage/dead weight and that is also going to be pretty similar between the three although the BigXII looks a little suspect in that aspect.

People also seem to neglect that there is a lot of institutional similarity between some of these PAC and ACC left-behinds which will make them gravitate towards each other.

Right. The more likely potential merger to me in the very long-term is whoever is left in the Pac-12 and ACC to come together and then maybe add a few Big 12 schools like Kansas and TCU. I don't see just a mass annexation to the Big 12 as-is.

An ACC/Pac merger makes zero financial sense. The ADs would knock some sense into the Presidents before that happened. There isn't enough money and there aren't enough brands to justify anything like the Big 10 did. At some point fiscal reality and geography trumps ego.

Oh - I agree. However, I don't think a Big 12/Pac-12 merger makes financial sense, either. So, these schools/conferences outside of the Big Ten and SEC are going to be getting relatively the same money, in which case it becomes more of a "Who do I want to hang out with?" question than a pure financial question (and could very well point to simply not making any conference moves at all).

(01-31-2023 07:37 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Locked on Pac-12 Podcast: The Pac-12 may be better off focusing on the 10 remaining schools, rather than chasing uncertainty in expansion.

https://www.9news.com/article/sports/loc...a3e50b62bd

Ive always thought this was their best short term option. The number two best option---and the BEST option for the "long term" survival of the Pac12---was adding SDSU and SMU.

(01-31-2023 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The depth of the ACC in conference realignment terms is being severely underrated by a lot of people here.

Let's say that the ACC were to get totally thrashed and lose all of FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, and UVA.

IMHO, the remainder is still in a better position to be poaching the Big 12 or even the Pac-12…

I don’t know why his idea evades so many people. With how much revenue the B1G and SEC are making, it becomes increasingly likely that the ACC gets decapitated a la USCLA rather than completely pillaged.

There is still going to be meat on the ACC bones after the ACC gets raided by the B1G/SEC. Comparable to the PAC or BigXII. The most important factor at that point is which conference has the least baggage/dead weight and that is also going to be pretty similar between the three although the BigXII looks a little suspect in that aspect.

People also seem to neglect that there is a lot of institutional similarity between some of these PAC and ACC left-behinds which will make them gravitate towards each other.

Right. The more likely potential merger to me in the very long-term is whoever is left in the Pac-12 and ACC to come together and then maybe add a few Big 12 schools like Kansas and TCU. I don't see just a mass annexation to the Big 12 as-is.

An ACC/Pac merger makes zero financial sense. The ADs would knock some sense into the Presidents before that happened. There isn't enough money and there aren't enough brands to justify anything like the Big 10 did. At some point fiscal reality and geography trumps ego.

Oh - I agree. However, I don't think a Big 12/Pac-12 merger makes financial sense, either. So, these schools/conferences outside of the Big Ten and SEC are going to be getting relatively the same money, in which case it becomes more of a "Who do I want to hang out with?" question than a pure financial question (and could very well point to simply not making any conference moves at all).

I would push back a little on the B12-P12 merger. At least a B12/P12 merger has geography that works and there probably are some synergies and negotiation leverage that would come with controlling most of the P5 inventory west of the Mississippi. Such a merger might even make the Pac-Net worthwhile. Would it make a huge difference in "per team" value---probably not---but I think it would cement the merged league's position as a conference with a future in whatever the top level of college football the P2 end up creating.

(01-31-2023 01:23 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  The snobs in places like Chapel Hill, Durham, Chestnut Hill, Charlottesville, Coral Gables, Syracuse, Winston-Salem, etc dont wanna be associated with Cincy and WVU. You just know they hated adding Louisville and were forced to. Why do you think WV never got a sniff from the ACC even though it makes geographical sense. Total snobbery.

This is why I don't want to be a snob. Too many people in the club.

I mean, they just let anybody in.

(01-31-2023 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 08:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I would get creative and use OUT early exit money to move WVU UC and UCF to the ACC and complete a merger with Yormark. Brush the egos aside. If both conferences are getting comparable money, it's no longer dilutive to merge. I think it stabilizes things quite a bit long term. SDSU could still be added as the 20th team. Maybe 4 five team divisions.

The bolded is the point that so many want to believe can be glossed over in conference realignment, yet we see it rear its head time-and-time again. This is why (at least to me) the college sports business is fascinating: it's NOT as easy as a straight-forward Adam Smith maximum economic value exercise. If it were as simple as "Conference A makes more money than Conference B, which means that *everyone* in Conference B must want to go to Conference A", conference realignment would be a whole lot simpler. However, we see that's not the case for a whole host of reasons.

Egos don't get brushed aside in academia. Some schools might base it on egos in academic prestige. Others might base it on egos wanting to maintain an advantage over an in-state or regional rival. Some others might see it as egos wanting a certain branding image.

The Pac-12 simply doesn't see itself as subservient to the Big 12 on any level and that's something that they firmly believe. The Pac-12 obviously thinks of themselves better academically and if you were to list out which schools have the most TV, branding and conference realignment value between the two leagues, everyone in the Pac-12 besides Washington State and Oregon State would rank ahead of everyone in the Big 12 except for maybe Kansas. So, the Pac-12 looks at itself as having a minimum of 8 of the top 9 most valuable schools between the two leagues. That's the whole basis of why the Pac-12 is more vulnerable in conference realignment than the Big 12 in the first place: the Big 12 has already lost everyone that the Big Ten and SEC want, whereas the Pac-12 still has valuable brands.

That doesn't even get into the fact that several Pac-12 schools will full stop not ever allow themselves to be in the same league as BYU (and it's not just Stanford and Cal, but likely Washington and Oregon, too). Utah has its own in-state rival issues with BYU on a whole multitude of historical and cultural factors. Colorado has zero desire to come crawling back to a worse-off Big 12 that it had left 13 years ago unless they're at the point where their athletic department would become extinct if they don't move.

To be sure, brushing aside egos can certainly have a price. Texas has the biggest ego of them all and was outwardly hostile toward the thought of itself in the SEC for many generations. At a certain point, the money in the SEC (or more to the point for Texas, the money in the SEC that generated an entrenched recruiting advantage for the league) was too great for UT to stay in a Big 12 that it could completely rule.

So, that's not to say that if a Pac-12/Big 12 merger would double or triple their TV money that everyone would start becoming a lot more friendly with each other. However, if we're only talking about a 5-10% or even a 25% raise in TV money for a merger, no one is buying out any egos at that price.

To reinforce the ego comments, I remember an anonymous quote from a Big 12 president during the Big 12 expansion derby 5 or 6 years back, "A conference with Memphis in it is a conference I wouldn't want to be in."

But Frank, I think you are making the same mistake the Pac 10 is making about the Big 12. They are confusing academic ranking with athletic ranking. If you look at any athletic metric except for the Director's Cup, the R8 of the Big 12 are better than the Pac 10. Better in football. Better in basketball. Better attendance. Better average TV ratings (marginally). And the nBig 12 even with the 4 callups is comparable to the Pac 10 in those measures except for basketball where they are clearly better.

The Pac 12 looked down on schools summer before last who could have helped them athletically.

Not just on the field success, but better TV rankings as well. Many people on this board have this belief that ESPN/FOX give some sort of bonus on the media rights deal due to "academics". Look, the PAC12 fans can look down on UCF, UH, Cincinnati, WVU, Kansas State, TX Tech, etc. as trailer-park trash all they want, but those schools draw comparable and at times superior TV ratings.

(01-31-2023 11:39 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Cincy and WVU to the ACC would have made a lot of sense 10 years ago but the uncertainty around what schools will still be in the ACC after the next decade makes the move a non-starter now.

The ACC was foolish not to invite both schools along with Louisville when they had the chance. The big-time ACC schools won't pay a price, but Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, etc. certainly might in the future.

No doubt......While getting back with UofL and PITT, plus easy roadies to UVA and VT and GT to watch the Bearcats play football would be attractive, I think the overwhelming majority of Bearcat fans are very happy to be landing in the BIG12. And, we ain't even talking about the basketball side of things. If the BIG12 GOR is strong enough to keep Texas and Oklahoma on the hook til the BIG12's done with em', then the BIG12's GOR is pretty damn strong.

My take is San Diego state and UNLV are the best pac additions. Great cities to visit, excellent football and basketball facilities and easy to fly into. Those 2 pickups also put any pac leftovers if anybody left for the big 10 clearly above the MWC. If the pac 12 wanted to enter Texas or focus on academics, jumping to 14 with SMU and either rice or Tulane works

(01-31-2023 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The depth of the ACC in conference realignment terms is being severely underrated by a lot of people here.

Let's say that the ACC were to get totally thrashed and lose all of FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, and UVA.

IMHO, the remainder is still in a better position to be poaching the Big 12 or even the Pac-12…

I don’t know why his idea evades so many people. With how much revenue the B1G and SEC are making, it becomes increasingly likely that the ACC gets decapitated a la USCLA rather than completely pillaged.

There is still going to be meat on the ACC bones after the ACC gets raided by the B1G/SEC. Comparable to the PAC or BigXII. The most important factor at that point is which conference has the least baggage/dead weight and that is also going to be pretty similar between the three although the BigXII looks a little suspect in that aspect.

People also seem to neglect that there is a lot of institutional similarity between some of these PAC and ACC left-behinds which will make them gravitate towards each other.

Right. The more likely potential merger to me in the very long-term is whoever is left in the Pac-12 and ACC to come together and then maybe add a few Big 12 schools like Kansas and TCU. I don't see just a mass annexation to the Big 12 as-is.

An ACC/Pac merger makes zero financial sense. The ADs would knock some sense into the Presidents before that happened. There isn't enough money and there aren't enough brands to justify anything like the Big 10 did. At some point fiscal reality and geography trumps ego.

Oh - I agree. However, I don't think a Big 12/Pac-12 merger makes financial sense, either. So, these schools/conferences outside of the Big Ten and SEC are going to be getting relatively the same money, in which case it becomes more of a "Who do I want to hang out with?" question than a pure financial question (and could very well point to simply not making any conference moves at all).

I can't disagree with that. I don't think a merger brings immediate TV value.

But there is the same argument made when the Big 12 looked at expanding before, being at 10, when others are larger and more wealthy is not a good place to be. So the Big 12, Pac and ACC might be better off as 2 conferences of 16 to 18 rather than 3 smaller conferences when the P2 are 16 to 18 with huge TV contracts.

(01-31-2023 02:58 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 08:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I would get creative and use OUT early exit money to move WVU UC and UCF to the ACC and complete a merger with Yormark. Brush the egos aside. If both conferences are getting comparable money, it's no longer dilutive to merge. I think it stabilizes things quite a bit long term. SDSU could still be added as the 20th team. Maybe 4 five team divisions.

The bolded is the point that so many want to believe can be glossed over in conference realignment, yet we see it rear its head time-and-time again. This is why (at least to me) the college sports business is fascinating: it's NOT as easy as a straight-forward Adam Smith maximum economic value exercise. If it were as simple as "Conference A makes more money than Conference B, which means that *everyone* in Conference B must want to go to Conference A", conference realignment would be a whole lot simpler. However, we see that's not the case for a whole host of reasons.

Egos don't get brushed aside in academia. Some schools might base it on egos in academic prestige. Others might base it on egos wanting to maintain an advantage over an in-state or regional rival. Some others might see it as egos wanting a certain branding image.

The Pac-12 simply doesn't see itself as subservient to the Big 12 on any level and that's something that they firmly believe. The Pac-12 obviously thinks of themselves better academically and if you were to list out which schools have the most TV, branding and conference realignment value between the two leagues, everyone in the Pac-12 besides Washington State and Oregon State would rank ahead of everyone in the Big 12 except for maybe Kansas. So, the Pac-12 looks at itself as having a minimum of 8 of the top 9 most valuable schools between the two leagues. That's the whole basis of why the Pac-12 is more vulnerable in conference realignment than the Big 12 in the first place: the Big 12 has already lost everyone that the Big Ten and SEC want, whereas the Pac-12 still has valuable brands.

That doesn't even get into the fact that several Pac-12 schools will full stop not ever allow themselves to be in the same league as BYU (and it's not just Stanford and Cal, but likely Washington and Oregon, too). Utah has its own in-state rival issues with BYU on a whole multitude of historical and cultural factors. Colorado has zero desire to come crawling back to a worse-off Big 12 that it had left 13 years ago unless they're at the point where their athletic department would become extinct if they don't move.

To be sure, brushing aside egos can certainly have a price. Texas has the biggest ego of them all and was outwardly hostile toward the thought of itself in the SEC for many generations. At a certain point, the money in the SEC (or more to the point for Texas, the money in the SEC that generated an entrenched recruiting advantage for the league) was too great for UT to stay in a Big 12 that it could completely rule.

So, that's not to say that if a Pac-12/Big 12 merger would double or triple their TV money that everyone would start becoming a lot more friendly with each other. However, if we're only talking about a 5-10% or even a 25% raise in TV money for a merger, no one is buying out any egos at that price.

To reinforce the ego comments, I remember an anonymous quote from a Big 12 president during the Big 12 expansion derby 5 or 6 years back, "A conference with Memphis in it is a conference I wouldn't want to be in."

But Frank, I think you are making the same mistake the Pac 10 is making about the Big 12. They are confusing academic ranking with athletic ranking. If you look at any athletic metric except for the Director's Cup, the R8 of the Big 12 are better than the Pac 10. Better in football. Better in basketball. Better attendance. Better average TV ratings (marginally). And the nBig 12 even with the 4 callups is comparable to the Pac 10 in those measures except for basketball where they are clearly better.

The Pac 12 looked down on schools summer before last who could have helped them athletically.

Not just on the field success, but better TV rankings as well. Many people on this board have this belief that ESPN/FOX give some sort of bonus on the media rights deal due to "academics". Look, the PAC12 fans can look down on UCF, UH, Cincinnati, WVU, Kansas State, TX Tech, etc. as trailer-park trash all they want, but those schools draw comparable and at times superior TV ratings.

And the reality is that UCF, UH and Cincinnati are notably tougher to get into than most of the SEC, but they aren't worth nearly as much to ESPN.

I wouldn't read too much into that video because he's done a series of these videos where he also makes the case for individual schools.