Got it! That is more flexible than pods, and I like it. fyi: I will be happy as long as ISU has protected rivalries with the old Big 8 teams in order of preference: Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Colorado.
Texas & Oklahoma leaving in 2024, period.
- Thread starter BigJCy
- Start date
If I'm honest with myself, I agree. I feel like the Oregon/Washington stuff gets overblown by those hoping for Armageddon (me included). It was reported that Warren pushed hard for further westward expansion, which put him at odds with many of the B1G presidents. I highly doubt they're going to replace him with someone who also wants that. And even if the new commish does, I highly doubt he'll be able to immediately come in and influence the presidents in a way that Warren couldn't.
Also, USC/UCLA doesn't want more expansion out west. So I just don't see any reason for the B1G to change course before the next round of media deals. This whole "Oregon is tough to work with" narrative is over blown too. With no B1G offer, and knowing how they (wrongly) look down at the Big 12, I don't think they're dumb enough to bully the other schools to the point that the conference collapses.
I'm predicting a 5 year, heavy streaming deal, worth less per team than the Big 12, but not enough less that pac-12 members will bail on everything they know and are comfortable with.
Long term, the conference is in trouble, but it ain't here yet. Hopefully I'm wrong.
A few old rumors I’ve heard, still make sense.
B1G wants the Big12 to add a few schools from the PAC first, so they don’t look like the bad guy and also helps them bring in who they want at a big discount, instead of full shares like USC/UCLA are getting. Nebraska and other previous expansion teams didn’t get a full share in the B1G for 7(?) or so years.
PAC wants to stay together, and obviously the ones who would be left out. Holding out until all the offers are on the table. Which the longer it goes on the more likely it seems like they aren’t getting the money they want from the networks.
Those were from early in the process, among several things thrown around… but still seem relevant. The playoffs expanding since then adds another wrench and reason to stay in the PAC though.
B1G wants the Big12 to add a few schools from the PAC first, so they don’t look like the bad guy and also helps them bring in who they want at a big discount, instead of full shares like USC/UCLA are getting. Nebraska and other previous expansion teams didn’t get a full share in the B1G for 7(?) or so years.
PAC wants to stay together, and obviously the ones who would be left out. Holding out until all the offers are on the table. Which the longer it goes on the more likely it seems like they aren’t getting the money they want from the networks.
Those were from early in the process, among several things thrown around… but still seem relevant. The playoffs expanding since then adds another wrench and reason to stay in the PAC though.
St. Thomas got kicked out of the MIAC - because they were too good and were dominating the conference.
I'm not kidding:
St. Thomas wins too much, kicked out of MIAC
St. Thomas was involuntarily removed from the MIAC because its dominance had upset the competitive balance in the league.
www.espn.com
St. Thomas had more resources than any other MIAC school including enrollment that was about double the next largest school and about triple many of the other schools.
The thing I believe to be most true and factual at this time: PAC will exist because of the new playoff format and access. A 10 team league with playoff access will be attractive, even if media $'s are less than big 12 (I don't think they will be much less anyway). 4 corners isn't happening.
This is all going to come down to how much each Pac 12 school gets from their new contract, and how much every school other than Udub and Oregon are going to throw into the pot to keep those to schools happy.
No way, do I see some of these schools locking themselves into a long-term deal with the conference, I would bet that Oregon, Washington, Utah and maybe Stanford are playing the waiting game, with the B10, and watching what the ACC is going to do over the next 10 years.
As others have said, the Arizona schools are the key, they have to realize that they are not going to end up in the B10 nor SEC, and if the conference wants them to take less money to appease Washington and Oregon, I could see them looking to jump and the dam breaking here.
No way, do I see some of these schools locking themselves into a long-term deal with the conference, I would bet that Oregon, Washington, Utah and maybe Stanford are playing the waiting game, with the B10, and watching what the ACC is going to do over the next 10 years.
As others have said, the Arizona schools are the key, they have to realize that they are not going to end up in the B10 nor SEC, and if the conference wants them to take less money to appease Washington and Oregon, I could see them looking to jump and the dam breaking here.
Pods work well with a 20 team conference. Play 4 teams in your pod and the 5 teams in another and rotate that other pod. This keeps the schedules even for determining a championship game. The other proposals to play your pod and a mixture of the other pods ends up with unequal schedules. That's how you get undeserving teams into your CG (see Big10).
Anything less than 16, just play 7 + 2 interdiction games and rotate those. Perhaps only include the division record to pick your CG teams to keep it even.
Where this gets tricky is basketball. With 16, you can still play 14 division games + 8 interdivision games. But that's a lot of games. Again, 20 makes this easier with playing everyone once. But after having the double round robin, that would be a massive let down and really kill a lot of what makes this league so fun.
In the end, yes going bigger makes scheduling a bit easier. But 12 max still feels right with a 5 + 4 football schedule and a double round robin for basketball. I know 22 games is a lot, but it is absolutely worth it in my mind to lose some out of conference games and end up with an incredible conference season.
Not seeing any Pac teams leave either unless the Big 10 and SEC come calling first. Money will be about the same and they look down on the Big 12. I would like to see the 4 corners to help stability. But besides that big reason, they are too culturally different, too far away, and fan interest in the major sports sucks for most of them.
I was thinking more along the lines of Thurs. evenings, 9 or 10 pm kickoffs.
We're going to need to teach these Cincy fans how brackets are supposed to work. You don't put two of the top options going against each other in the first round while also having WSU and CU against each other. No one wants those two teams.
1 OU
2 UW
3 UA
4 UU
5 ASU
That's it folks. ASU could come as a partner, but not in their own merits.
Not sure how ASU isn't in the top 3. Phoenix is a top 10 media market. As long as our contract is ESPN/Fox - large media markets carry tremendous importance.
From a media rights value- I would think UA is 6th on the list, even behind CU. If Stanford and Cal change their priorities- then there is access to a great media market in the SF/SJ area and I would put having a Bay Area school more important than a 2nd team in AZ or UT.
I am in the minority, but I still think a Big12/Pac10 merger makes more sense than 2 separate conferences if the Pac12 deal ends up within $5M of the Big12 extension. I would look at a merger more like the AFC/NFC. If we play Cal, UCF, WSU, etc once a decade big deal. It would be having a 20-22 team League dominating territory west of the Mississippi River.
It’s safe to assume a merger doesn’t make sense. The Big12 wanted to two years ago and the PAC said no. The PAC wanted to last year and the Big12 said no. If the PAC comes close in money it’s because Amazon overpays, and still hurts them more in the long run. Fox declined to offer, espn lowballed then withdrew their offer.
The merger makes some sense but 22 teams might be hard to do. The Big 12 isn't cutting any schools out. I doubt the Pac does the same.
Football is really the only sport of interest. A football only conference/alliance could be a solution. They could offer some value the other needs. Pac has some brand names and Pacific time zone. Big 12: Central Time Zone, Fox/ESPN, and passionate fan bases. Both keep their commissioners and identity. Four divisions of 22 teams.
Of course, the new CFP awarding both conferences auto bids makes conference combination sort of hurtful on eliminating a bid.
For me the smart answer is Washington. Who knows about Oregon once father Nike dies. The fun answer is Arizona; bring the best basketball brand.
It’s getting to the point where some type of reset needs to happen. It’s unfortunate the NCAA lost its power and the conferences/networks hold all the cards now.
The best option at this point might be football conferences, men’s basketball conferences, then more regional conferences for the rest of the sports. Maybe some schools have all three in one, or some have all three in different conferences. Maybe because of some sports there are four or five affiliations.
USC/UCLA for example, it doesn’t make sense to send all their non profitable sports out to B1G country, Oklahoma might still be in the Big12 for wrestling, and so on.
