The PAC has to do something. They have needed to make a move to survive, but they've been such a trainwreck, they have not been attractive enough to poach anyone worthwhile. Finally, the Big 12 even bigger trainwreck gives them an opening to do it.
Believe it or not, I think the most realistic fate is being brought into the PAC along with at least KU, if not OSU and TTU. I think this is the most efficient for the PAC in terms of media value. People argue why the PAC shouldn't do this or that, or why they won't take team X or Y, but the reality is the PAC HAS to make serious moves or it will die. People also argue that the PAC should just do a partnership with the Big 12 leftovers as some sort of trial. I think they might as well just take on the highest value members in terms of media (which I think are ISU, KU, OSU and TTU), require them to forgo some media dollars for a few years. This gives several advantages:
- Gets PAC games more viewership and attention in the plains and Texas, which has tremendous passion for college football
- Allows them to have more inventory to keep networks satisfied
- Keeps enough teams and a good enough league to have an argument for any autobids in a playoff system that has a 16 team SEC, 14 (or more) Big 10 and ACC
- Makes for a big enough total media package that some uneven distribution to USC and Oregon in future deals can be manageable for the other schools while keeping the flagships happy.
Not to mention, I think the PAC (or Big 10 for that matter) can look at adding teams for dramatically reduced payouts for a few years with the expectation that conferences as a whole blow up by the time added schools reach full payout. That's the one reason I think the Big 10 would not totally dismiss the idea of adding ISU or KU.
I'd rank the outcomes for ISU from most to least likely being, and my guess at the chance each happens:
1. Becoming member of the PAC at reduced rights for a period (40%)
2. Staying as part of an 8 team Big 12 with a media and scheduling agreement with the PAC (30%)
3. Staying as part of a Big 12 that adds 4-8, trying like hell to include BYU with the balance being AAC teams (20%)
4. Take it in the shorts in terms of media dollars and is taken in to the Big 10 (5%)
5. USC and Oregon (maybe UW, UCLA, Stanford, Cal) leave the PAC, and the remaining Big 12 and PAC create one conference. (4%)
6. Join the existing AAC (1%) - This would be the absolute fallback of all fallback positions.
I really don't know what is best. I think #5 and #6 would be absolute disasters. The rest have pros and cons, and I'm not sure which is the best. Intuition says the Big 10, but I think the price will be INCREDIBLY steep, and I'm not confident enough in conferences being around long enough for ISU to ever see the payoff.
Completely agree with you Goldwater. No one can know for sure, but using logic, "follow the money", and trying to put yourself in commissioners' shoes, you can make a decent guess.
FWIW, I think they would take the 4 teams, going to 16 total. Makes decent divisions, 8 on coast, 8 inland, and feels like 16 is becoming a magic number for table stakes.