(03-22-2023 11:14 AM)Gitanole Wrote: (03-22-2023 09:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: Well Pete, I think we both know the answer to that question. It is rhetorical of course, but it is because California, Stanford, Oregon and Washington need the illusion of the inability of the 4 corners to leave for the Big 12 in order to bolster their bargaining position with the Big 10.
They know the 4 corners prefer their current association to one with the Big 12 because of the elevation of their status in the PAC 12. So, the haves are working like hell to secure exit visas to the Big 10 and telling the four corners schools that the moisture they are feeling is the dripping sweat of their efforts to secure a media deal and preserve the PAC 12. Wilner and Canzano are useful tools for keeping up this appearance. Meanwhile it is just another case of the haves whizzing on the hopefuls. In South Alabama parlance they would say, "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining!" Too bad it takes common sense to distinguish between ample perspiration and micturition.
PAC presidents hardly 'need an illusion.' Every PAC president knows the score.
First choice: B1G (Choice 1A: SEC). Remember your old friends when you get there.
Second choice: PAC. Repair the clubhouse and make it work for all who need it.
Third choice: ACC—but boy, do we have a lot to talk about first.
Fourth choice: B12. Smile through the tears and stock up on camo.
Fifth: Drawing board. Independence, G5, drop football, etc.
Everyone at the table is playing the same game. Everyone knows everyone else is playing the same game. No illusions necessary.
What presidents need now is details.
I think this is correct. In my opinion, if Oregon and Washington don't see what they like and can get to the B1G leaving behind Cal and Stanford, then if I'm Cal, Stanford, and the 4C schools, I talk to the ACC (assuming the PAC can't be saved), and see if they'd (and ESPN) be willing to expand. I can see a scenario where the 6 are taken (rather than just a full merger with the PAC) to go to 20/21.
Football goes to 9 games playing 4 protected rivals annually and everyone else once every 3 years (PAC schools could play just 1 protected rival annually to play the other 4 PAC schools twice every 3 years).
I'd also try to see if ND is willing to go to 6 games vs. ACC schools, but offer them an extra game against Cal and Stanford to play against a California school once a year (to go with USC), and still play everyone else (including the 4C schools) once every 3 years (roughly the same for the current ACC schools) and doesn't impact ND's schedule much (USC, Navy, Cal/Stanford, 5 ACC games, 4 other games). If ND would rather stay at 5 games, then they'd rotate through everyone once every 4 years.
For basketball, the current ACC schools would play 4 rivals twice annually, rotate 8 of the remaining 10 ACC schools once, and rotate 4 of the 6 PAC schools once for 20 conference games. The 6 PAC schools would play each other twice annually and 10 of the 15 ACC schools once annually for twenty conference games.
The biggest question is would ESPN pay the additional inventory and would there be an increase in value that's satisfactory for the ACC (especially the 4 vocal schools about uneven distribution and ND)? Obviously, it wouldn't be enough to catch the B1G/SEC, but would you pass the Big 12 by a good margin (even if the 6 PAC schools came in at a discount initially) or survive as a conference once the B1G/SEC come raiding?
/
Where are the comments from leadership at Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford?
