(05-22-2023 10:29 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  If the 4Cs leave the PAC and the B10 does not expand, what does the rest of the PAC membership do? Obviously they expand or join the B12, right?

That puts the PAC at 6. I think California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington join the XII. Oregon St and Washington St join the MWC.

(05-22-2023 09:38 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

This is the song that never ends. It goes on and on my friend.

The Road Goes on Forever, and the Party Never Ends. Unless you're Kliavkoff. He's done a masterful job of stalling to this point, but he appears to be running short on time.

(05-22-2023 11:30 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It’s looking more and more like the end game is imminent.

I’ve held fast to the assumption that somehow the Pac will ultimately pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat. But every day that goes by without a deal being announced diminishes the likelihood of that happening. This latest tidbit has me feeling at least one 4C school must be close to finally cracking and opting for the comparative safety of the Big 12.

Very close.

Both of your leagues need to be ready to pounce.

(05-22-2023 12:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:29 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  If the 4Cs leave the PAC and the B10 does not expand, what does the rest of the PAC membership do? Obviously they expand or join the B12, right?

That puts the PAC at 6. I think California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington join the XII. Oregon St and Washington St join the MWC.

I have been thinking this for weeks. Why add ASU, Colorado, UTAH or Arizona if BIG12/ESPN can land California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington.

I would be surprised in the BIG12 lands California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Arizona or ASU and (Colorado)

(05-22-2023 12:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:29 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  If the 4Cs leave the PAC and the B10 does not expand, what does the rest of the PAC membership do? Obviously they expand or join the B12, right?

That puts the PAC at 6. I think California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington join the XII. Oregon St and Washington St join the MWC.

Not all of those would have an invite to Big 12. ESPN doesn’t need 8 PAC schools in Big 12 to fill late window

It’s debatable whether all 4C do as well, at least an unconditional offer

If OR and UW beat ASU and Utah out the door, whenever that may be, the latter two will be at risk of being in a Mountain West version of PAC

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship? I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU all go to the BigXII and ESPN pays the pro rata plus a little more. I know that sounds counter intuitive but the ad dollars they can get for having a contract with a conference that spans 4 time zones and can fill all time slots will go up substantially with 4c schools plus SDSU. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems very strange for ESPN to give up on a PAC contract when they value the 4th time slot. We'll see...

That's the clincher. They do value that 4th time slot, but not for $300m++ per year. ESPN didn't force USCLA to join the B1G. I haven't even heard that they knew about it before the rest of us did. This is kind of like Kliavkoff blaming the big 12 for throwing grenades at the Pac 12, when really it's been the B1G all along.

Kliavkoff has always been stuck in a box here. He needs a whole lot of money to keep things together. Unfortunately, his asking price has been so far above what media companies are willing to pay that he's pushed everybody away. It's not his fault that the Pac Presidents turned their noses up at expansion for 35 years. It's not his fault USCLA departed. It's not his fault that Larry Scott drove the league into the ground. However, he was brought in to fix this mess, and, fairly or not, it IS his fault that we're where we are now.

(05-22-2023 10:36 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship? I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU all go to the BigXII and ESPN pays the pro rata plus a little more. I know that sounds counter intuitive but the ad dollars they can get for having a contract with a conference that spans 4 time zones and can fill all time slots will go up substantially with 4c schools plus SDSU. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems very strange for ESPN to give up on a PAC contract when they value the 4th time slot. We'll see...

Why the BigXII?

ESPN has to coordinate with FOX to make B12 expansion happen (no pro rata clause for the FOX portion of the contract). And would have to negotiate with FOX for selection of programming priority.

ESPN doesn’t generate any additional subscriber revenue with the B12 as there is no B12 network.

Conversely, the ACC’s pro rata clause is completely under the umbrella of ESPN. And ESPN’s ACCN would automatically pick up additional subscriber revenue. And it would lock programs in until 2036.

So if ESPN were trying to corral PAC programs into another conference, why the B12?

ACC teams are added at pro rata terms, which are nearly double that of the big 12 after you factor in that ESPN is only on the hook for about $20m a year pro rata there. Also, Arizona, Colorado and Utah don't exactly put the pedal to the metal on population, they would add about 40% of what 1 California school would to the ACCN (which is only for a few years, anyway).

So, from what we have seen, ESPN is kind of interested in a 4th time slot, but not for a huge inve$tment. It's reasonably good content, and they'd like it at a reasonably good price. Everyone else either shot their load on the B1G deal or is keeping their powder dry for the NBA, leaving ESPN as the clear choice for the Pac if they want to be OTA. If they send 4 schools to the ACC that's $160m or so per year and it's a huge PITA for everyone to organize and pay for travel. However, what will the Secret 7 have to say about diluting their votes and thwarting their plans to unhinge the ACC? They won't have the votes unless there's an extra $10-15m a year in it for all of them. That's not happening. The next choice? 4 teams to the Big 12, $80m, heck maybe $90m a year for that, 4th time slot blanketed, plenty of good content, and they got it for a bargain on top of that.

(05-22-2023 12:22 PM)DC Texan Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 12:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:29 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  If the 4Cs leave the PAC and the B10 does not expand, what does the rest of the PAC membership do? Obviously they expand or join the B12, right?

That puts the PAC at 6. I think California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington join the XII. Oregon St and Washington St join the MWC.

I have been thinking this for weeks. Why add ASU, Colorado, UTAH or Arizona if BIG12/ESPN can land California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington.

I would be surprised in the BIG12 lands California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Arizona or ASU and (Colorado)

Unless PAC is able to vote out schools, the only way espn gets just those 6 at incremental cost is in another conference

It’s simple. ESPN will only spend a certain amount to fill its available windows. That can be on a handful of PAC schools to Big 12, or 10+ schools in PAC. The former is a better offer for said PAC schools, and George is trying to figure out how to make up the difference

(05-22-2023 10:41 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship?

Jim Delany, Greg Sankey, Burke Magnus (ESPN) and Mark Silverman (FOX) are running the show.

Brett Yormark is serving as Chief Instigator.

We're a couple dominoes away from the P5 as we know it collapsing

That ship sailed when Nebraska joined the B1G. It's just taken a LONG time to start sinking.

(05-22-2023 12:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship? I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU all go to the BigXII and ESPN pays the pro rata plus a little more. I know that sounds counter intuitive but the ad dollars they can get for having a contract with a conference that spans 4 time zones and can fill all time slots will go up substantially with 4c schools plus SDSU. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems very strange for ESPN to give up on a PAC contract when they value the 4th time slot. We'll see...

That's the clincher. They do value that 4th time slot, but not for $300m++ per year. ESPN didn't force USCLA to join the B1G. I haven't even heard that they knew about it before the rest of us did. This is kind of like Kliavkoff blaming the big 12 for throwing grenades at the Pac 12, when really it's been the B1G all along.

Kliavkoff has always been stuck in a box here. He needs a whole lot of money to keep things together. Unfortunately, his asking price has been so far above what media companies are willing to pay that he's pushed everybody away. It's not his fault that the Pac Presidents turned their noses up at expansion for 35 years. It's not his fault USCLA departed. It's not his fault that Larry Scott drove the league into the ground. However, he was brought in to fix this mess, and, fairly or not, it IS his fault that we're where we are now.

again I hate to agree with a Aggie, but he is spot on.

(05-22-2023 12:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship? I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU all go to the BigXII and ESPN pays the pro rata plus a little more. I know that sounds counter intuitive but the ad dollars they can get for having a contract with a conference that spans 4 time zones and can fill all time slots will go up substantially with 4c schools plus SDSU. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems very strange for ESPN to give up on a PAC contract when they value the 4th time slot. We'll see...

That's the clincher. They do value that 4th time slot, but not for $300m++ per year. ESPN didn't force USCLA to join the B1G. I haven't even heard that they knew about it before the rest of us did. This is kind of like Kliavkoff blaming the big 12 for throwing grenades at the Pac 12, when really it's been the B1G all along.

Kliavkoff has always been stuck in a box here. He needs a whole lot of money to keep things together. Unfortunately, his asking price has been so far above what media companies are willing to pay that he's pushed everybody away. It's not his fault that the Pac Presidents turned their noses up at expansion for 35 years. It's not his fault USCLA departed. It's not his fault that Larry Scott drove the league into the ground. However, he was brought in to fix this mess, and, fairly or not, it IS his fault that we're where we are now.

1. Kliavkoff has not done a masterful job of stalling. The stall is natural. Nobody is interested at the money the PAC wants. That is the long and short of their situation.

2. The stall is not even about ESPN or FOX. It's about whether anyone else from the PAC 12 will be included in the Super Two lineups of the SEC or Big 10 and since the Big 10 is far more likely to invite another PAC school, and has their own total cluster of a problem to deal with concerning NBC, and since they want to know what will happen and when in the ACC, they aren't doing a danged thing until the inhouse contractual mess is sorted with NBC, and further developments occur in the ACC which would indicate potential movement.

3. I'd say the networks are quite content with the status quo because it is ramping up the pressure for the those who see their current situations as critical to make some concessions prior to doing what the networks may wish them to do. If the Networks truly want to form a Super Two these are the perfect conditions and collective angst they need to get it done.

4. Kliavkoff is a patsy. He's getting paid to look like a deer in the headlights and hold things together through inaction until all parts know their final destinations and are ready to move. He got gutted by Alliance buddy Warren, is being put off by the networks, and is dog paddling until the final wave hits. In short there is nothing for him to do and doing nothing he does well.

5. The Big 10 ultimately takes more from the PAC 12 because they'll need not only the inventory to make selections each week palatable for 3 media partners, which I've stated from the beginning, but now will apparently need the time slots to boot. The Big 10 can't risk having NBC back out, or placating NBC screwing up CBS or FOX. The quickest fix is more PAC schools. And they may as well do that anyway because whatever ESPN decides to do with the ACC will likely be handled in house since dissolution or no dissolution ESPN holds those rights until 2036.

6.. And for those who think FOX would block moves of ACC schools to the Big 12, why? They've never had a chance to market the East Coast, they'll take whatever they can get and for half price they'll love it.

(05-22-2023 12:22 PM)DC Texan Wrote:  I have been thinking this for weeks. Why add ASU, Colorado, UTAH or Arizona if BIG12/ESPN can land California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington.

I would be surprised in the BIG12 lands California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Arizona or ASU and (Colorado)

The B1G will scoop all four up because they will get them at a heavy discount. Stanford and Cal know this implicitly. They'd take 33% shares. Cal would take 25% with a UCLA tax. These programs would never consider the Big 12.

UO and UW might on a 3-4 year basis. And Yormark could take a rental. But as we disagreed in another thread, I think he has to add 8/10 PAC members so that UO and UW can largely avoid midwest trips to Waco and Lubbock.

(05-22-2023 10:53 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:36 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Why the BigXII?

ESPN has to coordinate with FOX to make B12 expansion happen (no pro rata clause for the FOX portion of the contract). And would have to negotiate with FOX for selection of programming priority.

ESPN doesn’t generate any additional subscriber revenue with the B12 as there is no B12 network.

Conversely, the ACC’s pro rata clause is completely under the umbrella of ESPN. And ESPN’s ACCN would automatically pick up additional subscriber revenue. And it would lock programs in until 2036.

So if ESPN were trying to corral PAC programs into another conference, why the B12?

The idea of a PAC-ACC merger is quite laughable. ESPN would have to pay the PAC MORE money to broker a merger versus being on the hook for $40M-$80M per year to bring 2-4 PAC schools under the Big 12 umbrella. At the end of the day, ESPN is simply trying to fill 2-3 broadcasting windows. The cheapest option for them to do that is either A) the PAC agrees to a T1 TV deal that pays substantially less money than the Big 12 or B) move some properties into the Big 12 at pro rata ($20M per school).

The ACCN and PACN are losers and won't be around for much longer as cable continues its slow decline. ESPN is planning for the future and is competing to become THE ecosystem for streaming sports. Some future iteration of ESPN+ is likely the future of digital sports streaming whether we like it or not.

The ACCN could end up making everybody a bunch of money. It's the natural network for Conference 3, and will remain relevant for quite a while to come if the big realignment Singularity can just hurry up and get here.

(05-22-2023 12:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship? I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU all go to the BigXII and ESPN pays the pro rata plus a little more. I know that sounds counter intuitive but the ad dollars they can get for having a contract with a conference that spans 4 time zones and can fill all time slots will go up substantially with 4c schools plus SDSU. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems very strange for ESPN to give up on a PAC contract when they value the 4th time slot. We'll see...

That's the clincher. They do value that 4th time slot, but not for $300m++ per year. ESPN didn't force USCLA to join the B1G. I haven't even heard that they knew about it before the rest of us did. This is kind of like Kliavkoff blaming the big 12 for throwing grenades at the Pac 12, when really it's been the B1G all along.

Kliavkoff has always been stuck in a box here. He needs a whole lot of money to keep things together. Unfortunately, his asking price has been so far above what media companies are willing to pay that he's pushed everybody away. It's not his fault that the Pac Presidents turned their noses up at expansion for 35 years. It's not his fault USCLA departed. It's not his fault that Larry Scott drove the league into the ground. However, he was brought in to fix this mess, and, fairly or not, it IS his fault that we're where we are now.

I couldn't agree more, you are spot on. One thing to add is that I hold Kliavkoff accountable for not making the move that could have saved the conference when OUT was announced. The PAC had an opportunity to nab at least 4 schools from the BigXII and up to the entire conference and he balked on the advice of USC which exited stage left a year later. I'm not saying he should have known USC was leaving but coming from an entertainment background it was incumbent on him to recognize and understand the sports/media world we were heading into. He failed miserably and the BigXII has righted their ship while the PAC is actively sinking.

(05-22-2023 12:00 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:39 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  This is just my opinion but I believe this would also benefit FOX as well, not only do they also get what I previously stated they also pick up 2 very strong basketball brands in SDSU and Arizona. Maybe I'm wrong though

The networks WANT consolidation, while the Presidents are trying to stave it off. The networks don't care about culture or academics. They care about brands, markets, and compelling matchups. The want to get some Corner schools to jump to take it out of their hands. It will take at least two schools to set off the dominos.

I don't think it is coincidence that we are hearing chatter of ACC expansion too, even if it is a loophole for a quick money grab by the ACC top dogs. ESPN/Fox may pay a premium, but they will control more schools for longer. We know how that worked out for ESPN, locking up P2 potential schools on the cheap until 36'.

Au contraire, the networks have benefited from some consolidation, but it's reasonable to argue that further consolidation will not be particularly helpful to anybody except the schools themselves. The SEC and B1G have 16 teams each and they're both stocked with major brands. Does it really matter to ESPN if it's UGA, Bama, OU, Florida, A&M, or LSU at the top of the heap? Would a Clemson, UNC or FSU in the SEC even really add much to the Conference for ESPN at this point? However, with those schools anchoring a strong ACC, they're able to get a lot more of the limelight and significantly boost ratings for smaller brands.

Consolidation from the Nebraska move up until OUT involved a whole lot of ESPN meddling, but now it's more about schools angling to get that big, guaranteed payday every year. And fewer, larger Conferences will be able to band together and extract more $$ on average per school. Eventually we will reach diminishing returns there, which is why there's so much discussion about whether the P2 will end up at 16, 18, 20, 24, etc etc. Conference 3, perhaps a Conference 4, will follow the P2's lead. So, we could look up in 10 years and see the following, basically a continuation of the status quo:

SEC 16
B1G 16
Pac 12
big 12
ACC 14

But that seems pretty unlikely. Something more like this is what I expect:

SEC 20
B1G 20
Conference 3 28

Though another strong possibility is:

SEC 24
B1G 24
C 3 20

Or maybe even:

SEC 18
B1G 18
Conference 3: 16-18
C4: 16-18

(05-22-2023 01:00 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 12:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship? I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU all go to the BigXII and ESPN pays the pro rata plus a little more. I know that sounds counter intuitive but the ad dollars they can get for having a contract with a conference that spans 4 time zones and can fill all time slots will go up substantially with 4c schools plus SDSU. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems very strange for ESPN to give up on a PAC contract when they value the 4th time slot. We'll see...

That's the clincher. They do value that 4th time slot, but not for $300m++ per year. ESPN didn't force USCLA to join the B1G. I haven't even heard that they knew about it before the rest of us did. This is kind of like Kliavkoff blaming the big 12 for throwing grenades at the Pac 12, when really it's been the B1G all along.

Kliavkoff has always been stuck in a box here. He needs a whole lot of money to keep things together. Unfortunately, his asking price has been so far above what media companies are willing to pay that he's pushed everybody away. It's not his fault that the Pac Presidents turned their noses up at expansion for 35 years. It's not his fault USCLA departed. It's not his fault that Larry Scott drove the league into the ground. However, he was brought in to fix this mess, and, fairly or not, it IS his fault that we're where we are now.

I couldn't agree more, you are spot on. One thing to add is that I hold Kliavkoff accountable for not making the move that could have saved the conference when OUT was announced. The PAC had an opportunity to nab at least 4 schools from the BigXII and up to the entire conference and he balked on the advice of USC which exited stage left a year later. I'm not saying he should have known USC was leaving but coming from an entertainment background it was incumbent on him to recognize and understand the sports/media world we were heading into. He failed miserably and the BigXII has righted their ship while the PAC is actively sinking.

Expansion decisions are made by the member institutions, not by the commissioner. Adding schools wasnt his decision to make.

(05-22-2023 01:00 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I couldn't agree more, you are spot on. One thing to add is that I hold Kliavkoff accountable for not making the move that could have saved the conference when OUT was announced. The PAC had an opportunity to nab at least 4 schools from the BigXII and up to the entire conference and he balked on the advice of USC which exited stage left a year later. I'm not saying he should have known USC was leaving but coming from an entertainment background it was incumbent on him to recognize and understand the sports/media world we were heading into. He failed miserably and the BigXII has righted their ship while the PAC is actively sinking.

I don't think expansion would have made the slightest difference, except for Colonel K... who would have been the guy at the helm of the same conference instead of someone named Yormark (only with the PAC branding instead of the Big 12).

USCLA was the most devastating move in realignment history. No conference was going to recover from that. The only other comparable move would be the SEC taking tOSU and UM before USCLA was announced, and even then, it's not entirely the same.

He should have bribed the Cal BoR to block UCLA. That was the only move. Buy the votes and block them, because they had a decent backfill in hand to USC. And it's not inconceivable they could have still invited schools like KU and Houston to the PAC long term.

You lost the LA market. Game set ****ing match. Don't over think it with the revisionist history.

(05-22-2023 12:22 PM)DC Texan Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 12:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:29 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  If the 4Cs leave the PAC and the B10 does not expand, what does the rest of the PAC membership do? Obviously they expand or join the B12, right?

That puts the PAC at 6. I think California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington join the XII. Oregon St and Washington St join the MWC.

I have been thinking this for weeks. Why add ASU, Colorado, UTAH or Arizona if BIG12/ESPN can land California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington.

I would be surprised in the BIG12 lands California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Arizona or ASU and (Colorado)

Oregon and UW are great risk/reward aspirational goals for Yormark, in large part because NOBODY knows what's in store for them. B1G invites in 6 days? Pac limbo for 13 years? Big 12? ACC? Independent? 13 years with UO and UW is worth the risk. But Cal/Stanford don't bring so much for the big 12, they've had outsized voices in the Pac as it's been run into the ground, and they're almost as far away as UO/UW. If I was Yormark and had my pick of Pac schools in order, I think I'd go with this:

1. UW
2. UO
3. ASU
4. Stanford
5. CU
6. UArizona
7. Utah - just b/c of overlap with BYU, no insult to Utah meant at all
8. Cal
9/10. WSU and OSU

Would Yormark go with more than 4 if he had his pick of the entire Pac? I think his Presidents would trust him to make the right decision b/c everything he touches turns to gold and he'd take the top 8. Would he settle for just the 4c if that's all he can get? Absolutely. Would he take all 10 if his only options were to take them all or leave them all? I feel very strongly that he should as long as all the big 12 schools are on board, but I'm not certain that he'd have the votes from his Presidents, and it's possible that it would introduce an opportunity for future ACC poaching on his Eastern Flank.

(05-22-2023 12:46 PM)DC Texan Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 12:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 10:22 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  At what point do people start thinking that ESPN is trying to push schools to jump ship? I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU all go to the BigXII and ESPN pays the pro rata plus a little more. I know that sounds counter intuitive but the ad dollars they can get for having a contract with a conference that spans 4 time zones and can fill all time slots will go up substantially with 4c schools plus SDSU. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems very strange for ESPN to give up on a PAC contract when they value the 4th time slot. We'll see...

That's the clincher. They do value that 4th time slot, but not for $300m++ per year. ESPN didn't force USCLA to join the B1G. I haven't even heard that they knew about it before the rest of us did. This is kind of like Kliavkoff blaming the big 12 for throwing grenades at the Pac 12, when really it's been the B1G all along.

Kliavkoff has always been stuck in a box here. He needs a whole lot of money to keep things together. Unfortunately, his asking price has been so far above what media companies are willing to pay that he's pushed everybody away. It's not his fault that the Pac Presidents turned their noses up at expansion for 35 years. It's not his fault USCLA departed. It's not his fault that Larry Scott drove the league into the ground. However, he was brought in to fix this mess, and, fairly or not, it IS his fault that we're where we are now.

again I hate to agree with a Aggie, but he is spot on.

LOL, thanks man.

I'm not your typical Aggie. 4 years in the Corps, but I have tons of Texas-ex friends and I have a lot of respect for UT as an institution of higher learning.

(05-22-2023 12:50 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 12:22 PM)DC Texan Wrote:  I have been thinking this for weeks. Why add ASU, Colorado, UTAH or Arizona if BIG12/ESPN can land California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington.

I would be surprised in the BIG12 lands California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Arizona or ASU and (Colorado)

You got it all wrong. The B1G will scoop all four up because they will get them at a heavy discount. Stanford and Cal know this implicitly. They'd take 33% shares. Cal would take 25% with a UCLA tax. These programs would never consider the Big 12.

UO and UW might on a 3-4 year basis. And Yormark could take a rental. But as we disagreed in another thread, I think he has to add 8/10 PAC members so that UO and UW can largely avoid midwest trips to Waco and Lubbock.

Mid-West? Waco? I think they would considered south or southwest. Waco is in central Texas, not too far from DFW & Austin. Kind of like College Station.