(04-26-2023 04:47 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If Wilner is starting to concede on CU, and the recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC10 sweat, there is no way the Zonas aren't joining them. Then it comes down to SDSU or an Eastern school, and I think Yormark adds SDSU to finish off the PAC. Utes won't get in for playing games.

You'd have:

West: Zona, ASU, SDSU, BYU
Big 8: CU KU KSU ISU
SWC: Baylor, TCU TTech, OSU
East: Houston, WVU, UC UCF

Memphis and USF won't get in over SDSU as Yormark will urinate in SoCal to mark his territory. That's how I see that scenario unfolding.

Assuming no remaining PAC schools get a lifeline (they will try forming an ACC West), it will be:

Utah, OSU, WSU UO UW Cal Stanford plus CSU, SMU, Tulane/AFA/Rice. Honestly, the ACC west division would make more sense assuming all seven get in. And yes, they'd sign a GoR before becoming the aforementioned upgraded MWC. The ACC could go back to divisions:

1. PAC7
2. BC Cuse Miami VaTech UL Pitt GaTech
3. FSU Clemson UNC WF NCSU Duke UVa

I just don't see CU being the only team to bolt.
If the Zonas stay, I do think SDSU and two more will be added to the PAC-12.

The best 2 pickups for the big 12 would be CU and one of the Arizonas. 2nd Arizona school? Utah? Ok, if I'm Yormark I'd grab either of them, but if only one wanted in then I'd happily sit at 15 and wait on either more Pac schools or some ACC schools down the road. Probably both. SDSU? They're a good school, but the big 12 doesn't need any more g5s and would probably leave them for Pac backfill.

This shakeout amongst the M3 is still in the early stages. If one Conference can get 15 of them then that Conference would be in a very strong position going forward. Doesn't matter if it's the big 12 or Pac, though the big 12 is the more likely of the 2 to get there today.

(04-26-2023 07:16 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:35 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:56 PM)e-parade Wrote:  What recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC sweat? The one's the chancellor made? Or is there another set of comments out there that happened?

The chancellor ones don't make it sound like any move is impending at this moment, so unless you're reading that entirely differently, there would be others, right?

You should know better than to accept comments from administrators during a time of realignment. Our president at UNT chaired the C-USA board of Directors when we were privately pushing for our spot in the AAC. You need to pay attention to what these schools don't say.

That's not the same thing though. AAC is a step-up on the ladder, so everyone can reasonably assume a president is taking an AAC invitation if it comes, and any work on the C-USA expansion committee is insurance in case the AAC offer doesn't come.

Pac-12 and Big XII are on the same rung making it a close call to whether a P12 school would move, so a President's public comments hold more weight.

I don't believe they are on the same rung anymore. The B1G reaching from the east coast to the west coast has changed the math in a few ways people don't seem/want to realize.

1. The Big12 has a solid media deal in hand with mostly linear broadcasts (if the PAC could get something similar, they's have it by now).
2. The Big12 also creates a second coast-to-coast P5 conferences with any Pacific time zone additions (this is important because it would only increase the value of their current media deal).

(04-26-2023 09:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 07:16 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:35 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:56 PM)e-parade Wrote:  What recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC sweat? The one's the chancellor made? Or is there another set of comments out there that happened?

The chancellor ones don't make it sound like any move is impending at this moment, so unless you're reading that entirely differently, there would be others, right?

You should know better than to accept comments from administrators during a time of realignment. Our president at UNT chaired the C-USA board of Directors when we were privately pushing for our spot in the AAC. You need to pay attention to what these schools don't say.

That's not the same thing though. AAC is a step-up on the ladder, so everyone can reasonably assume a president is taking an AAC invitation if it comes, and any work on the C-USA expansion committee is insurance in case the AAC offer doesn't come.

Pac-12 and Big XII are on the same rung making it a close call to whether a P12 school would move, so a President's public comments hold more weight.

I don't believe they are on the same rung anymore. The B1G reaching from the east coast to the west coast has changed the math in a few ways people don't seem/want to realize.

1. The Big12 has a solid media deal in hand with mostly linear broadcasts (if the PAC could get something similar, they's have it by now).
2. The Big12 also creates a second coast-to-coast P5 conferences with any Pacific time zone additions (this is important because it would only increase the value of their current media deal).

The media deal is a pig-in-a-poke at this point--maybe it'll be okay, as the PAC presidents are saying. Or maybe it will be terrible, as seems more likely.

I don't think you get a cookie just for being a coast-to-coast conference. I'm not even sure that the fourth window increases the per-school value of hte Big 12 deal.

(04-26-2023 04:47 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If Wilner is starting to concede on CU, and the recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC10 sweat, there is no way the Zonas aren't joining them. Then it comes down to SDSU or an Eastern school, and I think Yormark adds SDSU to finish off the PAC. Utes won't get in for playing games.

You'd have:

West: Zona, ASU, SDSU, BYU
Big 8: CU KU KSU ISU
SWC: Baylor, TCU TTech, OSU
East: Houston, WVU, UC UCF

Memphis and USF won't get in over SDSU as Yormark will urinate in SoCal to mark his territory. That's how I see that scenario unfolding.

Assuming no remaining PAC schools get a lifeline (they will try forming an ACC West), it will be:

Utah, OSU, WSU UO UW Cal Stanford plus CSU, SMU, Tulane/AFA/Rice. Honestly, the ACC west division would make more sense assuming all seven get in. And yes, they'd sign a GoR before becoming the aforementioned upgraded MWC. The ACC could go back to divisions:

1. PAC7
2. BC Cuse Miami VaTech UL Pitt GaTech
3. FSU Clemson UNC WF NCSU Duke UVa

I just don't see CU being the only team to bolt.
If the Zonas stay, I do think SDSU and two more will be added to the PAC-12.

1) Swap Wake and GT. GT should play FSU, Clemson, and UVA annually.
2) Don’t you still need a 22nd school if you want to have a 9 game conference slate, which presumably ESPN would require? If so, is it San Diego State, Tulane, SMU, Navy, or another school?

(04-26-2023 04:24 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 03:52 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  Fresno and Boise already play like a “power” program on G5 revenue.

Being there will be 69 “power conferences” teams starting this fall, Fresno and Boise are definitely top 50 on average football performance-wise since 2000. Fresno is in a top 60 market and Boise gets eyeballs. Both as a package would do wonders for an M3 conference. But perception is skewed against them for some reason. Imagin what Fresno and Boise could do with just 50% M3 revenue!

Academics and market! What do they bring to the table in those areas.

Boise State do draw nationally. They almost beat a ranked Oklahoma State 2 years ago on live tv. They are very competitive and do draw outside of their media market. Big 12 does not have the academics to really woe PAC 12 teams to join.

(04-26-2023 05:02 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:56 PM)e-parade Wrote:  What recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC sweat? The one's the chancellor made? Or is there another set of comments out there that happened?

The chancellor ones don't make it sound like any move is impending at this moment, so unless you're reading that entirely differently, there would be others, right?

Then I don't know what you're reading. When someone says, "we are waiting on the TV deal" or "we expect to be in the top 3 in revenue"... as opposed to tweeting, "Give me a break", coming out of Utah regarding Big 12 rumors? That's a problem. Fluguar's take was absolutely right in that you don't publicly put the pressure on your commissioner. That all reads as a serious bifurcation among members.

I take Fluguar's words with a grain of salt.

(04-27-2023 04:19 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:24 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 03:52 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  Fresno and Boise already play like a “power” program on G5 revenue.

Being there will be 69 “power conferences” teams starting this fall, Fresno and Boise are definitely top 50 on average football performance-wise since 2000. Fresno is in a top 60 market and Boise gets eyeballs. Both as a package would do wonders for an M3 conference. But perception is skewed against them for some reason. Imagin what Fresno and Boise could do with just 50% M3 revenue!

Academics and market! What do they bring to the table in those areas.

Boise State do draw nationally. They almost beat a ranked Oklahoma State 2 years ago on live tv. They are very competitive and do draw outside of their media market. Big 12 does not have the academics to really woe PAC 12 teams to join.

Ratings only show Boise drawing a large viewing audience if their opponent has a large following. Boise by itself isnt a national brand.

(04-27-2023 06:47 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(04-27-2023 04:19 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:24 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 03:52 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  Fresno and Boise already play like a “power” program on G5 revenue.

Being there will be 69 “power conferences” teams starting this fall, Fresno and Boise are definitely top 50 on average football performance-wise since 2000. Fresno is in a top 60 market and Boise gets eyeballs. Both as a package would do wonders for an M3 conference. But perception is skewed against them for some reason. Imagin what Fresno and Boise could do with just 50% M3 revenue!

Academics and market! What do they bring to the table in those areas.

Boise State do draw nationally. They almost beat a ranked Oklahoma State 2 years ago on live tv. They are very competitive and do draw outside of their media market. Big 12 does not have the academics to really woe PAC 12 teams to join.

Ratings only show Boise drawing a large viewing audience if their opponent has a large following. Boise by itself isnt a national brand.

I would agree, Boise brings nothing to a big 12 media deal. No network will be willing to pay any additional $ for a Boise add.

(04-26-2023 06:20 PM)bearcat1970 Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:02 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:56 PM)e-parade Wrote:  What recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC sweat? The one's the chancellor made? Or is there another set of comments out there that happened?

The chancellor ones don't make it sound like any move is impending at this moment, so unless you're reading that entirely differently, there would be others, right?

Then I don't know what you're reading. When someone says, "we are waiting on the TV deal" or "we expect to be in the top 3 in revenue"... as opposed to tweeting, "Give me a break", coming out of Utah regarding Big 12 rumors? That's a problem. Fluguar's take was absolutely right in that you don't publicly put the pressure on your commissioner. That all reads as a serious bifurcation among members.

It's pretty much the same thing the Arizona president said a month ago.

"we expect to be in the top 3 in revenue"
“None of us aspire to win a bronze medal,” Robbins said, “but I think we solidly got a bronze medal in this thing. I think we’ll be the third-best deal out of the (Power) 5 leagues.”

And
"we are waiting on the TV deal"
“Until we see it in a contract, we don’t really know,” he said, “but we’ve got a pretty good soft circle number.” ... We’ve got to see what deal we’re getting, and then I’ll be able to make an informed decision.

I agree with these posters 100%. I have been saying all along that this is basically the presidents , chancellors etc throwing their commissioner under the bus. They know damn well the numbers are not going to make them #3 and this their way of saying “we would love to stay but the money isn’t good enough so we are out of here “

(04-26-2023 10:36 PM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:47 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If Wilner is starting to concede on CU, and the recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC10 sweat, there is no way the Zonas aren't joining them. Then it comes down to SDSU or an Eastern school, and I think Yormark adds SDSU to finish off the PAC. Utes won't get in for playing games.

You'd have:

West: Zona, ASU, SDSU, BYU
Big 8: CU KU KSU ISU
SWC: Baylor, TCU TTech, OSU
East: Houston, WVU, UC UCF

Memphis and USF won't get in over SDSU as Yormark will urinate in SoCal to mark his territory. That's how I see that scenario unfolding.

Assuming no remaining PAC schools get a lifeline (they will try forming an ACC West), it will be:

Utah, OSU, WSU UO UW Cal Stanford plus CSU, SMU, Tulane/AFA/Rice. Honestly, the ACC west division would make more sense assuming all seven get in. And yes, they'd sign a GoR before becoming the aforementioned upgraded MWC. The ACC could go back to divisions:

1. PAC7
2. BC Cuse Miami VaTech UL Pitt GaTech
3. FSU Clemson UNC WF NCSU Duke UVa

I just don't see CU being the only team to bolt.
If the Zonas stay, I do think SDSU and two more will be added to the PAC-12.

1) Swap Wake and GT. GT should play FSU, Clemson, and UVA annually.
2) Don’t you still need a 22nd school if you want to have a 9 game conference slate, which presumably ESPN would require? If so, is it San Diego State, Tulane, SMU, Navy, or another school?

I left WF in there for balance, but they've been a decent program as of late.

Yes... the ACC could go 3+6/6/6, but that's too prohibitive with the travel unless those 6/6/6 games are evened out with the traveling. That would be football only too... who would be the 22nd school if the Big 12 lands at least three PAC schools?

ACC could look at Tulane and SMU. Or they could convince CU to join. Zonas both go to the Big 12.

(04-26-2023 09:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 09:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 07:16 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:35 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:56 PM)e-parade Wrote:  What recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC sweat? The one's the chancellor made? Or is there another set of comments out there that happened?

The chancellor ones don't make it sound like any move is impending at this moment, so unless you're reading that entirely differently, there would be others, right?

You should know better than to accept comments from administrators during a time of realignment. Our president at UNT chaired the C-USA board of Directors when we were privately pushing for our spot in the AAC. You need to pay attention to what these schools don't say.

That's not the same thing though. AAC is a step-up on the ladder, so everyone can reasonably assume a president is taking an AAC invitation if it comes, and any work on the C-USA expansion committee is insurance in case the AAC offer doesn't come.

Pac-12 and Big XII are on the same rung making it a close call to whether a P12 school would move, so a President's public comments hold more weight.

I don't believe they are on the same rung anymore. The B1G reaching from the east coast to the west coast has changed the math in a few ways people don't seem/want to realize.

1. The Big12 has a solid media deal in hand with mostly linear broadcasts (if the PAC could get something similar, they's have it by now).
2. The Big12 also creates a second coast-to-coast P5 conferences with any Pacific time zone additions (this is important because it would only increase the value of their current media deal).

The media deal is a pig-in-a-poke at this point--maybe it'll be okay, as the PAC presidents are saying. Or maybe it will be terrible, as seems more likely.

I don't think you get a cookie just for being a coast-to-coast conference. I'm not even sure that the fourth window increases the per-school value of hte Big 12 deal.

Thats my sense as well. I think the B12 might be interested in a coast to coast move if ESPN really made it worh the effort--but I suspect there is more interest in just a more geographically reasonable B12 westward expansion into the Mountain Time Zone. Grab the Arizona schools, Colorado, and Utah. If Utah isnt interested, thats the only time I could potentially see an SDSU, Fresno, Memphis type G5 coming into the picture to round out the expansion move. The Big12 might value an "in footprint" Memphis over a big out of footprint reach to California. Even then, as existing P5's---Oregon St and Washington St---would have to get some consideration---as well as the option of soldiering on with an odd number for a few years just to see how things play out with the rest of the Pac12 (and the ACC for that matter).

(04-27-2023 03:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 09:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 09:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 07:16 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:35 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  You should know better than to accept comments from administrators during a time of realignment. Our president at UNT chaired the C-USA board of Directors when we were privately pushing for our spot in the AAC. You need to pay attention to what these schools don't say.

That's not the same thing though. AAC is a step-up on the ladder, so everyone can reasonably assume a president is taking an AAC invitation if it comes, and any work on the C-USA expansion committee is insurance in case the AAC offer doesn't come.

Pac-12 and Big XII are on the same rung making it a close call to whether a P12 school would move, so a President's public comments hold more weight.

I don't believe they are on the same rung anymore. The B1G reaching from the east coast to the west coast has changed the math in a few ways people don't seem/want to realize.

1. The Big12 has a solid media deal in hand with mostly linear broadcasts (if the PAC could get something similar, they's have it by now).
2. The Big12 also creates a second coast-to-coast P5 conferences with any Pacific time zone additions (this is important because it would only increase the value of their current media deal).

The media deal is a pig-in-a-poke at this point--maybe it'll be okay, as the PAC presidents are saying. Or maybe it will be terrible, as seems more likely.

I don't think you get a cookie just for being a coast-to-coast conference. I'm not even sure that the fourth window increases the per-school value of hte Big 12 deal.

Thats my sense as well. I think the B12 might be interested in a coast to coast move if ESPN really made it worh the effort--but I suspect there is more interest in just a more geographically reasonable B12 westward expansion into the Mountain Time Zone. Grab the Arizona schools, Colorado, and Utah. If Utah isnt interested, thats the only time I could potentially see an SDSU, Fresno, Memphis type G5 coming into the picture to round out the expansion move. The Big12 might value an "in footprint" Memphis over a big out of footprint reach to California. Even then, as existing P5's---Oregon St and Washington St---would have to get some consideration---as well as the option of soldiering on with an odd number for a few years just to see how things play out with the rest of the Pac12 (and the ACC for that matter).

I agree that the 4c would all get invites before SDSU, but I don't see much reason to group SDSU w/ the other G5 (maybe USF has nearly as much appeal in terms of markets/demographics/recruiting, albeit not athletics). If anything, SDSU has a more secure moderate-to-long-term future than WSU/OSU/Wake/BC... ESPN surely would rather give pro-rata for SDSU than have Yormark invoke the P5 pro-rata clause for one of those four schools.

(04-26-2023 09:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 09:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 07:16 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:35 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 04:56 PM)e-parade Wrote:  What recent comments out of Boulder should make the rest of the PAC sweat? The one's the chancellor made? Or is there another set of comments out there that happened?

The chancellor ones don't make it sound like any move is impending at this moment, so unless you're reading that entirely differently, there would be others, right?

You should know better than to accept comments from administrators during a time of realignment. Our president at UNT chaired the C-USA board of Directors when we were privately pushing for our spot in the AAC. You need to pay attention to what these schools don't say.

That's not the same thing though. AAC is a step-up on the ladder, so everyone can reasonably assume a president is taking an AAC invitation if it comes, and any work on the C-USA expansion committee is insurance in case the AAC offer doesn't come.

Pac-12 and Big XII are on the same rung making it a close call to whether a P12 school would move, so a President's public comments hold more weight.

I don't believe they are on the same rung anymore. The B1G reaching from the east coast to the west coast has changed the math in a few ways people don't seem/want to realize.

1. The Big12 has a solid media deal in hand with mostly linear broadcasts (if the PAC could get something similar, they's have it by now).
2. The Big12 also creates a second coast-to-coast P5 conferences with any Pacific time zone additions (this is important because it would only increase the value of their current media deal).

The media deal is a pig-in-a-poke at this point--maybe it'll be okay, as the PAC presidents are saying. Or maybe it will be terrible, as seems more likely.

I don't think you get a cookie just for being a coast-to-coast conference. I'm not even sure that the fourth window increases the per-school value of hte Big 12 deal.

I disagree. I think a coast-to-coast P5 would automatically hold more value. Nationally televised games would pull higher ratings due to sizable fan bases beyond the normal regions following conference games. Plus, ESPN would be able to drive the lesser games to ESPN+ and increase their number of subscribers.

(04-27-2023 03:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 09:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 09:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 07:16 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:35 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  You should know better than to accept comments from administrators during a time of realignment. Our president at UNT chaired the C-USA board of Directors when we were privately pushing for our spot in the AAC. You need to pay attention to what these schools don't say.

That's not the same thing though. AAC is a step-up on the ladder, so everyone can reasonably assume a president is taking an AAC invitation if it comes, and any work on the C-USA expansion committee is insurance in case the AAC offer doesn't come.

Pac-12 and Big XII are on the same rung making it a close call to whether a P12 school would move, so a President's public comments hold more weight.

I don't believe they are on the same rung anymore. The B1G reaching from the east coast to the west coast has changed the math in a few ways people don't seem/want to realize.

1. The Big12 has a solid media deal in hand with mostly linear broadcasts (if the PAC could get something similar, they's have it by now).
2. The Big12 also creates a second coast-to-coast P5 conferences with any Pacific time zone additions (this is important because it would only increase the value of their current media deal).

The media deal is a pig-in-a-poke at this point--maybe it'll be okay, as the PAC presidents are saying. Or maybe it will be terrible, as seems more likely.

I don't think you get a cookie just for being a coast-to-coast conference. I'm not even sure that the fourth window increases the per-school value of hte Big 12 deal.

Thats my sense as well. I think the B12 might be interested in a coast to coast move if ESPN really made it worh the effort--but I suspect there is more interest in just a more geographically reasonable B12 westward expansion into the Mountain Time Zone. Grab the Arizona schools, Colorado, and Utah. If Utah isnt interested, thats the only time I could potentially see an SDSU, Fresno, Memphis type G5 coming into the picture to round out the expansion move. The Big12 might value an "in footprint" Memphis over a big out of footprint reach to California. Even then, as existing P5's---Oregon St and Washington St---would have to get some consideration---as well as the option of soldiering on with an odd number for a few years just to see how things play out with the rest of the Pac12 (and the ACC for that matter).

I agree. They probably don't really want the west coast states. And while Florida is nice to have, they probably wouldn't be terribly disturbed if UCF eventually went to the ACC.