(03-02-2023 04:56 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:41 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham and university president Kevin Guskiewicz discussed the idea of a merger between the ACC and the Pac-12 to text messages obtained by The News and Observer.

“Should we explore a partnership with the Pac 12(?)” Cunningham texted.
Guskiewicz replied: “We could have a super conference both athletically and academically. Probably would need to be called the Atlantic-Pacific Athletic Conference (APAC).”

Link
https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter...rger-talk/

Just call it the Intercoastal Conference.
Intercoastal: existing or done between sea coasts; involving two or more sea coasts. (Dictionary.com)

The ICC! I already hear people pronounce it that way so should be a smooth transition.

I think this only works as an alliance. None of the PAC schools are going to sign on to a GoR though '36. Even if they are not B1G candidates, I don't think they want a 12 year GoR.

I think this only works for football. I don't think it is feasible to ship Olympic teams cross country on weeknights. The expense would probably negate any potential revenue increase.

I am curious if this would eventually include the B12. They would fill in the central zone nicely.

(03-01-2023 10:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 03:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 07:09 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 06:51 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 02:20 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  How do you prevent members from slipping out the back door during the transition? I think OU and UW will go to the BigTen if given a chance and FSU and Clemson would go to the SEC.

Could ESPN/ABC air mostly tier 1 games, the APAC network and Apple TV air mostly tier 2 and 3 games?

How important is it to get into Texas with SMU and possibly others? Is this going to build excitement? I think Wake, Duke, BC, SU could develope some sort of synergy with SMU, Rice, Tulane, not sure if Stanford would. The home team would need to be real supportive in these matchups, I just don’t know if it’s going to do the trick.

Expanding does NOT open the GOR for existing members. The new members are just added to the GOR. That idea is an internet fantasy that has been repeated so many times that people believe it.

That still leaves UW and OU. If the BigTen decides that they need to act before the merger is finalized, is the Pac merger still worth the trouble?

UW and UO need to decide if they want to live on minimum wage while they hope that MAYBE the Big Ten gives them a call, or do they want to enjoy a solid middle-class income in the ACC for the next 13 years...

I wonder what ESPN would pay for this:

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Wake

Virginia, VaTech, Carolina, Duke, State

Clemson, GaTech, FSU, Miami, SMU

Colorado, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington

9-game schedule, 4-permanent rivals in your quad.

I wouldn't hate it. Though I would switch Colorado with Utah.

(03-02-2023 08:40 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I think this only works as an alliance. None of the PAC schools are going to sign on to a GoR though '36. Even if they are not B1G candidates, I don't think they want a 12 year GoR.

I think this only works for football. I don't think it is feasible to ship Olympic teams cross country on weeknights. The expense would probably negate any potential revenue increase.

I am curious if this would eventually include the B12. They would fill in the central zone nicely.

Here’s an idea. Don’t make a super conference. Don’t do an alliance. Do something completely different. Form a league under FBS with the two conferences. As an example, let’s call the new league the Intercoastal League. An under the league name you still have the ACC and the PAC12 as conferences much like the AFC and the NFC are in the NFL. So that way each conference retains their identity, history, etc., except now they agree to put the regular season champions from each conference against each other for the Intercoastal League championship each year. And also, in addition to that there could be crossover scheduling between the conferences. That way if it wasn’t working in 5-10 years, it would be easier to split back up by just disbanding the league. But also a league. and a championship between the two conferences could potentially bring in bigger media rights deals for both conferences under this type of format.

(03-02-2023 10:08 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 08:40 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I think this only works as an alliance. None of the PAC schools are going to sign on to a GoR though '36. Even if they are not B1G candidates, I don't think they want a 12 year GoR.

I think this only works for football. I don't think it is feasible to ship Olympic teams cross country on weeknights. The expense would probably negate any potential revenue increase.

I am curious if this would eventually include the B12. They would fill in the central zone nicely.

Here’s an idea. Don’t make a super conference. Don’t do an alliance. Do something completely different. Form a league under FBS with the two conferences. As an example, let’s call the new league the Intercoastal League. An under the league name you still have the ACC and the PAC12 as conferences much like the AFC and the NFC are in the NFL. So that way each conference retains their identity, history, etc., except now they agree to put the regular season champions from each conference against each other for the Intercoastal League championship each year. And also, in addition to that there could be crossover scheduling between the conferences. That way if it wasn’t working in 5-10 years, it would be easier to split back up by just disbanding the league. But also a league. and a championship between the two conferences could potentially bring in bigger media rights deals for both conferences under this type of format.

nah ...
we have the power ...
we have the long-term deal ...
we have the dedicated network ...
we have the singular bowl of yore ...
we’re calling the shots here ...

INTERLOPER

(03-02-2023 10:08 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 08:40 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I think this only works as an alliance. None of the PAC schools are going to sign on to a GoR though '36. Even if they are not B1G candidates, I don't think they want a 12 year GoR.

I think this only works for football. I don't think it is feasible to ship Olympic teams cross country on weeknights. The expense would probably negate any potential revenue increase.

I am curious if this would eventually include the B12. They would fill in the central zone nicely.

Here’s an idea. Don’t make a super conference. Don’t do an alliance. Do something completely different. Form a league under FBS with the two conferences. As an example, let’s call the new league the Intercoastal League. An under the league name you still have the ACC and the PAC12 as conferences much like the AFC and the NFC are in the NFL. So that way each conference retains their identity, history, etc., except now they agree to put the regular season champions from each conference against each other for the Intercoastal League championship each year. And also, in addition to that there could be crossover scheduling between the conferences. That way if it wasn’t working in 5-10 years, it would be easier to split back up by just disbanding the league. But also a league. and a championship between the two conferences could potentially bring in bigger media rights deals for both conferences under this type of format.

This is something the AAC and MWC should do, heck they could move around a few programs to better align the geography. But almost definitely have the playoff at large bid wrapped up.

One of many major problem with when P5 conferences do this is that you go from 2 or 3 playoff spots locked up down to 1. That’s a lot of money lost.



Alternatively (it won’t happen) is that the ACC, Big12, Pac 12 form 4 divisions of 9. Combined the 3 conferences have 36+ND. The ACC will be the one to mostly split, something like this:

Colorado, BYU, TTU, TCU, Baylor, ISU, KSU, Kansas, OSU

WVU, UH, UC, UCF, FSU, UL, VT, UM, Pitt

The rest you can figure out.

Each division winner gets a playoff spot. So instead of 3 playoff spots combined, it’s 4.

(02-27-2023 02:58 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  As a Pitt fan living on the west coast I'd enjoy seeing Pitt games in Oregon and Washington.... but at the same time, um.... why? I see this benefitting teams out west than the teams out east. Bulk of the west isn't thriving with recruits worth tapping into nor is that late night time slot really worth that much. Nobody will be rushing to see FSU play at Oregon at 10PM EST. FSU at Oregon at 5PM PST is a much better timeslot for all but is that really adding anything when that's a prime-time game that could be scheduled as a non-conference game week 1. Not a knock on either school. I see the WC as even more worthless than New England. It's just not a college market, nor is it worth tapping into. I'd much rather cherry pick the 4 corner schools, Oregon and Washington, and call it a day. Standford and Cal = meh and if the B1G really wants them, so be it. But even that's pushing it. PAC just might as well go the way that the Ivy League did.

This is true. PAC schools should be pushing for this, not ACC schools. The ACC would wind up subsidizing the PAC, and neither of them will be better off financially.

(02-26-2023 08:41 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham and university president Kevin Guskiewicz discussed the idea of a merger between the ACC and the Pac-12 to text messages obtained by The News and Observer.

“Should we explore a partnership with the Pac 12(?)” Cunningham texted.
Guskiewicz replied: “We could have a super conference both athletically and academically. Probably would need to be called the Atlantic-Pacific Athletic Conference (APAC).”

Link
https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter...rger-talk/

Conversations like this, and those between individuals within conferences and between schools in different conferences are just spitballing, just like we do on this forum every day. They mean nothing more than that.

If a main benefit of any sort of arrangement between the PAC and ACC is to add to a potential media partner's inventory of late night games, pretty much by definition that's going to be dilutive from a revenue point of view. It's no secret that fewer people are watching TV very late at night than at earlier times, and fewer viewers means lower ad rates. No merger or alliance is going to supplant SEC and B1G games in the prime viewing slots.

here are a few issues I see

1. I think there is no value in "tonnage" or "a mass of content".....ESPN and others are not looking for reasons to pay more money for content they already own or content they can currently get for less....they are not paying less for content or making lower offers for content because "there is not enough of it" or because "they want that team in a different conference than their current one"

teams are on the chopping block period and the Big 12 already made a mistake "calling up" 4 when they could have done with zero (and fought off the rabid dogs in the media and on forums like these) and stuck together realizing currently none of them are getting a call from the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC period

the Big 12 was not "saved" by adding 4 teams way too soon it was just made more limited in who they could possibly add from the PAC 12 when USC and UCLA left and low ball media deal offered started to roll in

remember just like has been stated here with the ACC the media deal is there for the ACC and better than what the PAC 12 is being offered....and the GOR.....well the Big 12 had the GOR still in place for a year AFTER the PAC 12 would have to have signed anew deal.....and the Big 12 has the exit fee for 88 more years in place

the PAC 12 had neither of those so that is why USC and UCLA could say "smell ya later we are gone" and why the PAC 12 even with a very similar or slightly better media deal would have a hard time getting a Big 12 team or teams.....because the Big 12 still had a deal in place for another year.....exit fees in place for 88 more years, and a GOR in place for an extra year

it is clear now ESPN and Fox wanted the Big 12 content more than PAC 12 content......and that should make it clear in hind sight that those two partners would have preferred to watch select teams walk from the PAC 12 (free and clear of exit fees or GORs) to the PAC 12......but the Big 12 crapped the bed and called up 4 teams and now ESPN and fox are paying for that

and that means that some PAC 12 teams may well be on the chopping block.....I think it does not remotely mean that ESPN is wishing to get a lot of those PAC 12 teams (or even a majority) of them into the ACC and start paying every one more

heads are on the chopping block.....the only thing worse is talking about calling up more teams from the AAC or MWC

2. you simply cannot add an "extra two conference CCG game"....I guess of two conferences wanted to ditch their own CCGs and play a CCG between the two of them they could.....but that sounds like a great way to cost a conference a slot in the football playoffs

lets not even discuss the implication for auto bids in Olympic sports with a full on MERGER......good bye two auto bids hello one auto bid for a much larger conference....BAD MOVE

3. as stated in another thread.....yea conference "alliances" have worked out well lately

4. I do not think this idea will ever happen especially for the ACC, but the real way to hurt the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC and drop their value is the conferences that are not the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC have to be much much much more selective in how they schedule OOC games with the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC

this is of course difficult for the ACC in particular with SC/Clemson. UGA/GT, and Florida/Miami/FSU

but the reality is if conferences not in the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC start making it hard for the top teams in those conferences to get top OOC games and instead those top teams have to result to weak OOC scheduling and the ACC, Big 10, and PAC 12 start to move in on weaker Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC teams that are more beatable (and beat them) well those lower level teams dragging that loss back to their conference hurts that conference overall....so their top teams have 8 or 9 conference games against weaker teams and they also start to struggle to get top OOC games

the issue of course is with the money differential even those lower level teams can move away from that and buy in G5 games

it is similar to what I said the Big 12 needed to do and that was move to 7 conference games and then top big 12 teams can schedule to make the playoffs, mid tier teams can schedule to build up, and lower level teams can simply schedule to win

it is a proven mathematical fact that 9 conference games harms a conference and even proven that replacing a random conference game with a VERY WEAK OOC game benefits the conference overall especially the top teams in the conference

Big 12 fans (especially ones like Texas fans) could not get over the idea that Baylor and KU would then schedule 5 D1-AA teams in the OOC.....but of course those same fans hoped that Baylor especially would lose every OOC game and laughed at Kansas sucking then complained about how bad the competition was in the Big 12 and how weak it was (while generally not winning the conference and never making the playoffs)

they could not grasp the proven mathematical fact that Baylor getting even a weak OOC win was better for the overall conference strength of schedule than a "good loss" nor could they grasp the fact that with 5 OOC games Texas was free to have a really great schedule as long as their AD went out and signed those games....so who cares what Baylor and KU do

never mind the reality that a conference can always make rules for at least one P5 OOC, no D1-AA at all ect if they move to 5 OOC games

so again the point is the Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 are in a position where if they al act fast they can catch the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC off guard and make them eat themselves and really drive down some of the lower level teams in the conference and that will drive down the top teams eventually too

the alternative is for the ACC is forget an alliance and simply start crafting a better OOC schedule and use the desperation of the PAC 12 against them and further drive them into the ground

this is heads on the chopping block not a rearrangement of deck chairs so somehow everyone ends up more comfortable while college sports heads for the iceberg

(03-02-2023 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  If a main benefit of any sort of arrangement between the PAC and ACC is to add to a potential media partner's inventory of late night games, pretty much by definition that's going to be dilutive from a revenue point of view. It's no secret that fewer people are watching TV very late at night than at earlier times, and fewer viewers means lower ad rates. No merger or alliance is going to supplant SEC and B1G games in the prime viewing slots.

bingo ...
status quo untenable though ...
fsu athletic director says so ...
speaking as a fan ...
I agree ...
new league in lieu of sec or b1g invite ...
sounds intriguing ...

KEEPING IT GREEN

(03-02-2023 10:32 AM)green Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 10:08 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 08:40 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I think this only works as an alliance. None of the PAC schools are going to sign on to a GoR though '36. Even if they are not B1G candidates, I don't think they want a 12 year GoR.

I think this only works for football. I don't think it is feasible to ship Olympic teams cross country on weeknights. The expense would probably negate any potential revenue increase.

I am curious if this would eventually include the B12. They would fill in the central zone nicely.

Here’s an idea. Don’t make a super conference. Don’t do an alliance. Do something completely different. Form a league under FBS with the two conferences. As an example, let’s call the new league the Intercoastal League. An under the league name you still have the ACC and the PAC12 as conferences much like the AFC and the NFC are in the NFL. So that way each conference retains their identity, history, etc., except now they agree to put the regular season champions from each conference against each other for the Intercoastal League championship each year. And also, in addition to that there could be crossover scheduling between the conferences. That way if it wasn’t working in 5-10 years, it would be easier to split back up by just disbanding the league. But also a league. and a championship between the two conferences could potentially bring in bigger media rights deals for both conferences under this type of format.

nah ...
we have the power ...
we have the long-term deal ...
we have the dedicated network ...
we have the singular bowl of yore ...
we’re calling the shots here ...

INTERLOPER

You have the power until you don’t. The PAC is on shaky ground for sure. I am sure they never thought they would be in this position. Don’t get too comfortable in thinking you are safe. I would be exploring all options. Together you are stronger.

(03-02-2023 01:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  here are a few issues I see

1. I think there is no value in "tonnage" or "a mass of content".....ESPN and others are not looking for reasons to pay more money for content they already own or content they can currently get for less....they are not paying less for content or making lower offers for content because "there is not enough of it" or because "they want that team in a different conference than their current one"
....

You know 'tonnage' is a quote, don't you? It comes from a report about PAC discussions with Amazon. PAC officials were told that the streaming service 'would like to add more tonnage'—that is, more content—for streaming purposes. Hence, reports about bringing SMU on board with San Diego, etc.

It's of course valid to argue that ESPN doesn't need quantity because it's got it. The observation you're attempting to refute, though, is just a reference to factual reports on the ground. ESPN is not the only player. Others are looking for quantity. And others like Amazon do count. Content can be sublicensed. Streaming is set for growth relative to OTA and cable. We already know this is one factor in a complex picture.

(03-02-2023 01:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  here are a few issues I see

1. I think there is no value in "tonnage" or "a mass of content".....ESPN and others are not looking for reasons to pay more money for content they already own or content they can currently get for less....they are not paying less for content or making lower offers for content because "there is not enough of it" or because "they want that team in a different conference than their current one"

teams are on the chopping block period and the Big 12 already made a mistake "calling up" 4 when they could have done with zero (and fought off the rabid dogs in the media and on forums like these) and stuck together realizing currently none of them are getting a call from the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC period

the Big 12 was not "saved" by adding 4 teams way too soon it was just made more limited in who they could possibly add from the PAC 12 when USC and UCLA left and low ball media deal offered started to roll in

remember just like has been stated here with the ACC the media deal is there for the ACC and better than what the PAC 12 is being offered....and the GOR.....well the Big 12 had the GOR still in place for a year AFTER the PAC 12 would have to have signed anew deal.....and the Big 12 has the exit fee for 88 more years in place

the PAC 12 had neither of those so that is why USC and UCLA could say "smell ya later we are gone" and why the PAC 12 even with a very similar or slightly better media deal would have a hard time getting a Big 12 team or teams.....because the Big 12 still had a deal in place for another year.....exit fees in place for 88 more years, and a GOR in place for an extra year

it is clear now ESPN and Fox wanted the Big 12 content more than PAC 12 content......and that should make it clear in hind sight that those two partners would have preferred to watch select teams walk from the PAC 12 (free and clear of exit fees or GORs) to the PAC 12......but the Big 12 crapped the bed and called up 4 teams and now ESPN and fox are paying for that

and that means that some PAC 12 teams may well be on the chopping block.....I think it does not remotely mean that ESPN is wishing to get a lot of those PAC 12 teams (or even a majority) of them into the ACC and start paying every one more

heads are on the chopping block.....the only thing worse is talking about calling up more teams from the AAC or MWC

2. you simply cannot add an "extra two conference CCG game"....I guess of two conferences wanted to ditch their own CCGs and play a CCG between the two of them they could.....but that sounds like a great way to cost a conference a slot in the football playoffs

lets not even discuss the implication for auto bids in Olympic sports with a full on MERGER......good bye two auto bids hello one auto bid for a much larger conference....BAD MOVE

3. as stated in another thread.....yea conference "alliances" have worked out well lately

4. I do not think this idea will ever happen especially for the ACC, but the real way to hurt the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC and drop their value is the conferences that are not the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC have to be much much much more selective in how they schedule OOC games with the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC

this is of course difficult for the ACC in particular with SC/Clemson. UGA/GT, and Florida/Miami/FSU

but the reality is if conferences not in the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC start making it hard for the top teams in those conferences to get top OOC games and instead those top teams have to result to weak OOC scheduling and the ACC, Big 10, and PAC 12 start to move in on weaker Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC teams that are more beatable (and beat them) well those lower level teams dragging that loss back to their conference hurts that conference overall....so their top teams have 8 or 9 conference games against weaker teams and they also start to struggle to get top OOC games

the issue of course is with the money differential even those lower level teams can move away from that and buy in G5 games

it is similar to what I said the Big 12 needed to do and that was move to 7 conference games and then top big 12 teams can schedule to make the playoffs, mid tier teams can schedule to build up, and lower level teams can simply schedule to win

it is a proven mathematical fact that 9 conference games harms a conference and even proven that replacing a random conference game with a VERY WEAK OOC game benefits the conference overall especially the top teams in the conference

Big 12 fans (especially ones like Texas fans) could not get over the idea that Baylor and KU would then schedule 5 D1-AA teams in the OOC.....but of course those same fans hoped that Baylor especially would lose every OOC game and laughed at Kansas sucking then complained about how bad the competition was in the Big 12 and how weak it was (while generally not winning the conference and never making the playoffs)

they could not grasp the proven mathematical fact that Baylor getting even a weak OOC win was better for the overall conference strength of schedule than a "good loss" nor could they grasp the fact that with 5 OOC games Texas was free to have a really great schedule as long as their AD went out and signed those games....so who cares what Baylor and KU do

never mind the reality that a conference can always make rules for at least one P5 OOC, no D1-AA at all ect if they move to 5 OOC games

so again the point is the Big 12, ACC and PAC 12 are in a position where if they al act fast they can catch the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC off guard and make them eat themselves and really drive down some of the lower level teams in the conference and that will drive down the top teams eventually too

the alternative is for the ACC is forget an alliance and simply start crafting a better OOC schedule and use the desperation of the PAC 12 against them and further drive them into the ground

this is heads on the chopping block not a rearrangement of deck chairs so somehow everyone ends up more comfortable while college sports heads for the iceberg

Good post, and I agree, I don’t want to slap a bunch of content into the league hoping it makes more money by sheer volume. Ironically, Texas was the only team I thought was worthwhile until they joined the SEC. I figured some combination of two Texas schools might help for the network, but I guess the honchos didn’t see it that way. I sort of feel that way about the Pac schools, but geography is not our friend here.


The Big Ten has a great scheduling model: the big brands schedule powder puff teams out of conference, then beat up on the soft underbelly of their conference creating EPIC games vs their top brands towards the end of the season. This is how they’ve done it for years. Except now, they can’t crush a soft Pac team in the Rose Bowl and share a national championship.

Perhaps the APAC can find an audience with people who are willing to stay up 1 extra hour to see the ending to a good game? Here’s the scenario:

It’s Saturday and the ESPN networks start their games at 12:00ET, 4:00ET, 8:00ET. The APAC network instead starts theirs at 1:00ET, 5:00ET, 9:00ET. If you are a college football fan and you are watching SEC at 8:00 and by the time it’s over, you notice that APAC game is closely contested, so you fight sleep and tough it out 1 more hour. If that said SEC game becomes uninteresting earlier, then that fan on his couch has the option of switching over sooner.

John Skipper talking about the ACC - Pac merger at around 36 minute mark.

https://t.co/hkPrttgG2g

(03-02-2023 09:34 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  here are a few issues I see

1. I think there is no value in "tonnage" or "a mass of content".....ESPN and others are not looking for reasons to pay more money for content they already own or content they can currently get for less....they are not paying less for content or making lower offers for content because "there is not enough of it" or because "they want that team in a different conference than their current one"
....

You know 'tonnage' is a quote, don't you? It comes from a report about PAC discussions with Amazon. PAC officials were told that the streaming service 'would like to add more tonnage'—that is, more content—for streaming purposes. Hence, reports about bringing SMU on board with San Diego, etc.

It's of course valid to argue that ESPN doesn't need quantity because it's got it. The observation you're attempting to refute, though, is just a reference to factual reports on the ground. ESPN is not the only player. Others are looking for quantity. And others like Amazon do count. Content can be sublicensed. Streaming is set for growth relative to OTA and cable. We already know this is one factor in a complex picture.

most of what I have seen was Amazon wanting only the top conference games

and most people talking about how ESPN "needs" those west coast time games (they really do not)

also in the context of a PAC 12 ACC merger (what this thread is specifically about) and one in 5 years well ESPN would be the media partner in that deal since ESPN owns 100% of the ACC content for well past 5 years

so what some feel that a streaming partner (one besides Amazon) might want in terms of bulk content is not really meaningful in this particular thread about a merger with the ACC in 5 years that would have ESPN controlling the full content of that merger

(03-02-2023 11:43 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  John Skipper talking about the ACC - Pac merger at around 36 minute mark.

https://t.co/hkPrttgG2g

skipper echoes most of my comments ...
however ...
24 5/8 members is nuts ...
where we diverge ...

GOOD FIND

Podcast link...

At 13+ minute mark, dude announces that his buddy that was given news early about USC/UCLA, now has told him this week that Utah & Colorado are out from PAC, and the news will be coming soon....

http://pac12podcast.com/podcast-of-champ...las-vegas/

(03-03-2023 07:22 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Podcast link...

At 13+ minute mark, dude announces that his buddy that was given news early about USC/UCLA, now has told him this week that Utah & Colorado are out from PAC, and the news will be coming soon....

http://pac12podcast.com/podcast-of-champ...las-vegas/

I would be very surprised to see Colorado voluntarily join the Big XII with other options on the table. Utah too, as they would tuck tail and join BYU. Great for rivalries though.