(05-22-2023 01:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(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.

Oh I don't disagree with how insidious a move the USCLA addition was to the health of the PAC. If the PAC had taken the opportunity to cut the head off the snake back in 2021 Kliavkoff would be in a much different position to right the ship and sign a decent TV contract. None of this would mean that schools like Washington and Oregon might not want to bolt just that the PAC in some form would of had a better chance to survive. Not so much now.

(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)

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.

Do not confuse Cal and Stanford with Rutgers. They'd accept partial shares for a short period of time, but these are some of the best Academic Institutions in the world. 3 of them would immediately vault into the top 5 Academically in the B1G. UW and UO would challenge for Titles on day 1. They could take a little less, maybe 50-75% to start with it inching up to 100% by 2030, but that's about as low as it's going to get.

Of course, knowing the big 10 mentality of "haze them into the ground and destroy their value so we can get a few more W's on the field", you might be right. Why bring in some schools and help to elevate both them and Conference at the same time, when you can instead shoot off one of their feet and also one of your own?

(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.

They actually had a vote on TCU and UH, the 2 that they desired the most, and I think they only got 4 Yes votes from the Presidents. It's always been the Presidents at the heart of all the bad realignment decisions in the Pac. However, Kliavkoff's job was to convince them that all their past mistakes needed to be cleaned up, and grabbing TCU/UH was the first step in that direction. They'd have eventually hoovered up the best of the rest of the big 12's western flank, USCLA would have still left, but they'd at least be comfortable settled as C3 or 4 instead of on the brink of extinction.

(05-22-2023 01:16 PM)DC Texan Wrote:  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.

Nah man, I think that's Texas-centricism. Any valuable games would wholly in part be due to on the field product, ie) two teams ranked in the top 15.

Baylor, TCU, OSU are not very valuable by themselves. As a unit, they have a lot of synergy and command a lot of eyeballs in the region, but on a case by case basis, none of those legacy Pac members want to play them with any regularity.

If there is some doomsday scenario where CU/Zona leave and the B1G still isn't calling (I'd be shocked if this is the case), they will most certainly cobble some MWC schools and give it a go, just to ensure the playoff format doesn't change too much. Now if the Big 12 gets all 4C AND SDSU, I am certain all the left behind snobs, even Cal, will get into the B1G... 99% certain of that at least for UO/UW. Stanford/Cal may have to go independent for some time though, but they will not join the Big 12.

(05-22-2023 01:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(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.

Here's a fun thought. Full big 12/Pac merger, new name is Pac 22 but with offices in Irving and Yormark at the helm. The Pac name is more prestigious, the Pac schools literally don't go anywhere and get to keep the Pac name, while the big 12 schools all are in an even more stable and better situation than they were in since October last year. Almost all of the big 12 schools have yearned for the Pac for decades, give them what they want!

(05-22-2023 01:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(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.

Here's a fun thought. Full big 12/Pac merger, new name is Pac 22 but with offices in Irving and Yormark at the helm. The Pac name is more prestigious, the Pac schools literally don't go anywhere and get to keep the Pac name, while the big 12 schools all are in an even more stable and better situation than they were in since October last year. Almost all of the big 12 schools have yearned for the Pac for decades, give them what they want!

No thanks. The Big 12 needs to save some room for building out the eastern flank when the ACC inevitably collapses. I think 4 PAC schools is the right number to kill the conference, but I'd go up to 6 if Washington and Oregon were included. I have zero interest in Oregon St. and Washington St.

(05-22-2023 09:44 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  "What has long been assumed throughout the industry became a reality this week as ESPN appears to be out as an option to take the Pac-12's primary media rights as the conference continues to seek a new deal, multiple sources tell CBS Sports.

"[This is the] first time publicly [ESPN] said, 'We're not doing anything with the Pac-12,'" a Big 12 administrator aware of the exchange told CBS Sports under the condition of anonymity."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ia-rights/

Look who is lobbing the shots about ESPN and PAC 12 that they are not talking? It is coming from a source from the Big 12. Nobody in the Big 12 would know about what is going on. They are doing this to shake some PAC 12 schools to jump and that is what they are doing.

(05-22-2023 01:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Do not confuse Cal and Stanford with Rutgers. They'd accept partial shares for a short period of time, but these are some of the best Academic Institutions in the world. 3 of them would immediately vault into the top 5 Academically in the B1G. UW and UO would challenge for Titles on day 1. They could take a little less, maybe 50-75% to start with it inching up to 100% by 2030, but that's about as low as it's going to get.

Of course, knowing the big 10 mentality of "haze them into the ground and destroy their value so we can get a few more W's on the field", you might be right. Why bring in some schools and help to elevate both them and Conference at the same time, when you can instead shoot off one of their feet and also one of your own?

Yeah, but full shares in real and nominal terms are very different things. If the pay goes up 15% in 2030, but we have 5-6% inflation compunded, maybe higher in real terms, and the networks believe they overvalued their content as CFB continues to wane in popularity, then that pay gap will be a lot less insurmountable in 2030.

I can see them getting full shares eventually, but it will be a very gradual process, and maybe the next contract looks completely different to where tOSU and UM espouse an unequal sharing model and there are murmurs of a Super League to capture a piece of an ever decreasing pie.

(05-22-2023 02:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Look who is lobbing the shots about ESPN and PAC 12 that they are not talking? It is coming from a source from the Big 12. Nobody in the Big 12 would know about what is going on. They are doing this to shake some PAC 12 schools to jump and that is what they are doing.

Why are you getting so worked up about this when your mid major schools are not even involved? Even if it's coming from a Big 12 source, they are free to speak their minds and spew BS. There isn't anything you can do about it and you are welcome to expose it, but don't take it personally. Boise St could end up in either conference (probably the lesser of the two when this realignment cycle finishes up), so it's not as if it hurts BSU or any other mid major schools besides the PAC12 schools.

(05-22-2023 01:25 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:16 PM)DC Texan Wrote:  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.

Nah man, I think that's Texas-centricism. Any valuable games would wholly in part be due to on the field product, ie) two teams ranked in the top 15.

Baylor, TCU, OSU are not very valuable by themselves. As a unit, they have a lot of synergy and command a lot of eyeballs in the region, but on a case by case basis, none of those legacy Pac members want to play them with any regularity.

If there is some doomsday scenario where CU/Zona leave and the B1G still isn't calling (I'd be shocked if this is the case), they will most certainly cobble some MWC schools and give it a go, just to ensure the playoff format doesn't change too much. Now if the Big 12 gets all 4C AND SDSU, I am certain all the left behind snobs, even Cal, will get into the B1G... 99% certain of that at least for UO/UW. Stanford/Cal may have to go independent for some time though, but they will not join the Big 12.

I kind of thought of Dallas as a confluence of Midwest, South and Southwest as a kid, but from looking at the following, I'll say that all of Texas is South or Southwest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re...ted_States

(05-22-2023 01:54 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(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.

Here's a fun thought. Full big 12/Pac merger, new name is Pac 22 but with offices in Irving and Yormark at the helm. The Pac name is more prestigious, the Pac schools literally don't go anywhere and get to keep the Pac name, while the big 12 schools all are in an even more stable and better situation than they were in since October last year. Almost all of the big 12 schools have yearned for the Pac for decades, give them what they want!

No thanks. The Big 12 needs to save some room for building out the eastern flank when the ACC inevitably collapses. I think 4 PAC schools is the right number to kill the conference, but I'd go up to 6 if Washington and Oregon were included. I have zero interest in Oregon St. and Washington St.

That's the issue with a full merger with the Pac, or even hoovering up more than 4 of them...it destabilizes Yormark's Eastern Flank. It would only happen with the full support of WV, Cincy and UCF, and the expectation that you guys would be adding a bunch of ACC castaways soon (a not-unreasonable assumption). Ie, no 9-3 votes in favor, it would have to be 12-0.

(05-22-2023 02:15 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Do not confuse Cal and Stanford with Rutgers. They'd accept partial shares for a short period of time, but these are some of the best Academic Institutions in the world. 3 of them would immediately vault into the top 5 Academically in the B1G. UW and UO would challenge for Titles on day 1. They could take a little less, maybe 50-75% to start with it inching up to 100% by 2030, but that's about as low as it's going to get.

Of course, knowing the big 10 mentality of "haze them into the ground and destroy their value so we can get a few more W's on the field", you might be right. Why bring in some schools and help to elevate both them and Conference at the same time, when you can instead shoot off one of their feet and also one of your own?

Yeah, but full shares in real and nominal terms are very different things. If the pay goes up 15% in 2030, but we have 5-6% inflation compunded, maybe higher in real terms, and the networks believe they overvalued their content as CFB continues to wane in popularity, then that pay gap will be a lot less insurmountable in 2030.

I can see them getting full shares eventually, but it will be a very gradual process, and maybe the next contract looks completely different to where tOSU and UM espouse an unequal sharing model and there are murmurs of a Super League to capture a piece of an ever decreasing pie.

I strongly feel that A&M coming into the SEC at a full share on day 1 was a huge deal for us and the Conference, and that Rutgers/MD/Nebraska coming in at partial shares significantly hurt all of your schools. Was A&M any bigger of a pickup for the SEC than Nebraska was for the B1G? Nebraska's brand has eroded so much in the past 13 years that many here would probably say yes, but I'm telling you guys right now that from my very Aggie-centric perspective, I thought that Nebraska to the B1G was a lot bigger deal. The B1G would have been much better off in the long run by paying all 3 of you full shares from day 1. Nebraska is still big, but they're not the NEBRASKA from the big 8 and big 12 days anymore. Rutgers was on a great run before getting run through the ringer in the early years of the B1G. How big would it be for you guys to be National Championship contenders and light a CFB enthusiasm fire under all of NJ and NYC? Perhaps the B1G has learned that lesson and that's why they've brought in USCLA on full shares, though, selfishly, I hope that you're right and the hazing of new members continues indefinitely.

(05-22-2023 02:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:54 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  [quote='bryanw1995' pid='18947523' dateline='1684780236']
No thanks. The Big 12 needs to save some room for building out the eastern flank when the ACC inevitably collapses. I think 4 PAC schools is the right number to kill the conference, but I'd go up to 6 if Washington and Oregon were included. I have zero interest in Oregon St. and Washington St.

That's the issue with a full merger with the Pac, or even hoovering up more than 4 of them...it destabilizes Yormark's Eastern Flank. It would only happen with the full support of WV, Cincy and UCF, and the expectation that you guys would be adding a bunch of ACC castaways soon (a not-unreasonable assumption). Ie, no 9-3 votes in favor, it would have to be 12-0.

Yes, I've been saying this since late last week, WVU is a large source of the most headwinds for the 4C. Something like a three-way swap SDSU to the PAC, CU to the Big 12, and WVU to the ACC, assuming ESPN eventually does sign onto some form of PAC distribution rights, would restore some juice in Cuse'/BC/Pitt football for the long haul.

ACC/ESpin win out by adding a WVU and perhaps UConn at reduced shares along with a 9th conference game. 4C go into a more appealing conference travel wise. The more 12 noon ET kickoffs you remove, the more appealing a move would be.

I think the Presidents can put their foot down and draw a line in the sand if they wanted to, as far as Yormark's northeast aspirations. The two are incompatible. It didn't work up until this point in the ACC, how the hell would it work in the Big 12???

I think Yormark would prefer to add Louisville, Pittsburgh, VTech, and Miami if available to the Big 12. If Miami gets a P2 spot (which I think is likely), then you target NC State, GTech, or Duke.

Feels like he's just restating what was already known. The responses to Dodd's article a little while back seemed more like CYAs from ESPN sources. It seems the most likely route is an MLS-type deal with Apple. But are schools like UO and UW just using that as a way to delay the deal till they can leave?

(05-22-2023 02:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:54 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-22-2023 01:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(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.

Here's a fun thought. Full big 12/Pac merger, new name is Pac 22 but with offices in Irving and Yormark at the helm. The Pac name is more prestigious, the Pac schools literally don't go anywhere and get to keep the Pac name, while the big 12 schools all are in an even more stable and better situation than they were in since October last year. Almost all of the big 12 schools have yearned for the Pac for decades, give them what they want!

No thanks. The Big 12 needs to save some room for building out the eastern flank when the ACC inevitably collapses. I think 4 PAC schools is the right number to kill the conference, but I'd go up to 6 if Washington and Oregon were included. I have zero interest in Oregon St. and Washington St.

That's the issue with a full merger with the Pac, or even hoovering up more than 4 of them...it destabilizes Yormark's Eastern Flank. It would only happen with the full support of WV, Cincy and UCF, and the expectation that you guys would be adding a bunch of ACC castaways soon (a not-unreasonable assumption). Ie, no 9-3 votes in favor, it would have to be 12-0.

B12 can take 3 western teams and 1 eastern to balance things out. 4 western teams should be enough for the late window.

Apple will still loan games out. They need a trusted production partner. Is the PAC Network really that good? Who even works the booths? Do they have enough talent to produce Tier 1 games? I’d wager one game a week loaned to ESPN as a production partner. I also don’t think it bodes well for PAC expansion/Apple unless there is a partnership with a linear provider looking to fill the fourth window.

I know Monty reported it first, but I’m not sure what’s possibly changed since CW was last ruled out.

(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.

Wasn't the PAC a PAC-6 once (or was that the PCC)? Anyway, I think the relic we call the NCAA requires 8 teams for an autonomous conference, so the remaining 6 teams could add SDSU and one other; possibly just one other, if one of the 4C don't jump (I'm thinking Utah).

(05-22-2023 02:55 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I think Yormark would prefer to add Louisville, Pittsburgh, VTech, and Miami if available to the Big 12. If Miami gets a P2 spot (which I think is likely), then you target NC State, GTech, or Duke.

It’s wishful thinking. The ACC realistically has to lose six schools to the P2, otherwise the ACC will keep backfilling with AAC or possibly Big 12 teams.

The way to kill the ACC is to poach 5-6 teams in one fell swoop. Only the SEC would be willing to even entertain that. Otherwise, once FSU Clemson leave…. UCF will backfill. UNC? WVU and UC will still be willing partners. BY really has to hope the SEC goes in for the kill, and that is exceedingly less likely when both conferences share the same distribution partner (but would be akin to something like Larry Scott’s PAC16 debacle).