Big10 - Pac12 - ACC Merger
- Thread starter Beach_Tornado
- Start date
This, and I would suspect that all 8 will ultimately find agreeable spots somewhere
In my opinion, yes. What does the Big 12 represent, other than the collective best interests of the associated schools? At this point, that may be exactly what is in the best interests of those schools (or a large majority of them). If enough of them find landing spots, then they can and will dissolve it.
The problem could be there are not 8 spots open unless the ACC is not counting ND as one of its schools.
ACC 15 with ND, would only have 1/2 spot, Do they want to go to 17 for their other sports to get to 16 in football?
Big 10 currently 14 so 2 schools to get to 16
SEC currently at 16 with OUT
Pac 12, currently at 12, so they could add 4 to get to 16.
So there may only be 7 spots of 8 teams from the Big 12.
Baylor will do well in the AAC. Maybe TCU as well if the PAC would rather have Houston.
When you say allow the other conferences to get their media deals worked out first, I'm assuming you also mean 'hypothetical' scenarios as well. Like 'if we add ISU what would be the contract upgrade?' Right?
So that would be something the member schools do, not Bowlsby? I have a hard time seeing BB and the rest of the conference administrators just voluntarily caving and not doing whatever they can to keep some semblance of the Big 12 together.
It simply is not a logical statement that NONE of the Big 12 leftovers (particularly ISU and Okie St.) would bring value as a PAC member. You either have to believe that TV viewership is nearly meaningless (which is absurd) or you have to draw the conclusion that they would have value to the PAC.
Comparing regular season games on Fox, ESPN and ABC between USC, Oregon and ISU, even if you exclude the Texas and Oklahoma games, ISUs viewership per game was 86% of that of USC and 89% of that of Oregon for those games.
As a comparison, doing the same comparison of some of the best "others" to Ohio State, Wisconsin, who has emerged as a clear #4 behind OSU, Michigan and PSU, had a viewership in comparable games that was 77% of OSUs. Iowa's was 30% of OSUs. For the record, ISUs direct comp. of games even without OU and UT were higher than Iowa's (1.93 mil vs. 1.67 mil).
To clarify, despite less than stellar years, the same games had Michigan and PSU slightly above Wisconsin.
Now keep in mind, I'm not trying to say that ISU has more value than Wisconsin or even Iowa. What I'm saying is you can't on one hand say Wisconsin brings significant value to the big 3 of the Big 10 without saying Iowa State as a PAC member would be a boost to overall PAC average game viewership, and therefore would bring value to the members of the conference.
Ever see people working at a going out of business sale? It's like that, except probably with better parachutes.
Dangerous game to play when the SEC can just drag things out to the point where Big 12 teams have to cut bait and in the end OuT end up paying nothing.
I would think that would be one of the scenarios these conferences are looking at. How much money if we stay pat? How much money if we expand and with this list of schools?
It comes to a couple simple idea, none of these conference HAVE to expand, but by not doing so, are they opening themselves up to also be raided in the future like the Big 12 was. Pac 12 schools going to the Big 10 for instance.
It just makes too much sense for the Pac 12 not to expand, when they have schools coming free and in a region of the country that supports football better than their own. If the Pac 12 brings in ISU, OSU, TT and one of KU/KSU the value of the contract will increase more than standing pat. The biggest problem the Pac 12 has it still has not gotten a package on Direct TV, picking up the four former Big 12 teams might make that possible.
Once the Pac 12 decide to expand, then the Big 10 has to make a choice, do we jump in and try to get the best of the remaining schools or stand pat at 14. Standing pat is the safe move, but perception is reality in today's world, by doing nothing, they have basically said to the SEC and the Football world as a whole, "the SEC is the best football conference in the country, and we are now 2nd best." Does the Big 10 want to take that chance, who knows?
The Pac 12 is the key, what the ACC does or doesn't do really does not affect ISU one way or another, because they are never going to take us when they could have WV or KU for basketball.
Last edited:
You're ignoring their debt situation. Don't think the latest contract with the SEC didn't figure in OuT. The SEC needs that income and are probably leaning on OuT to pay out the 'obligation' out-of-pocket. Just my opinion, but the SEC is 'motivated' to bring them in sooner than later.
The SEC has already stated they want the two teams to join as soon as they can, but one would think that ESPN wants them in the league when they take over the broadcasting rights in 2024/25. The SEC can only start making money off the OUT brands when they are in the league, showing their games, just not coming into the league.
They can quietly negotiate landing spots in the meantime, and if OU and UT want to stay out the term of the contract, so be it (but they won't). At any rate, there are few options that aren't dangerous given the situation.
Makes sense. But what I'm saying is if OuT and the SEC stiff the Big 12 and drag things out until the point where the Big 12 doesn't exist anymore, would they have to pay at all? Who would they write the check to? It took two years for the ACC and Maryland to settle up after Maryland joined the B1G.
In that case there would be no check coming to any of the remaining big 12 schools, but by staying the length of the contract it also guarantees the payout of the remaining years of the TV contract.
The conference is dead one way or another after the 2024/25 calendar year in terms of making decent money from the networks.
I don't think OuT will stay the length of the contract. I'd bet they'll leave after this season, the Big 12 will say pay us our money, OuT will say we'll see you in court, and that's where it drags out. Meanwhile if the other members try finding landing spots and the Big 12 implodes while it lingers in court and before it settles up, OuT gets out scot free.
I doubt they want this to play out in the courts. They'd have more legal fees, and might risk a much larger settlement with the way this thing played out.
Well we can’t really cut bait and leave before 2025, unless most of the conference does. Most of the conference isn’t going to dissolve the Big12, unless they have a better landing spot. If there’s no landing spot besides the AAC or expanding the Big12 with AAC schools… why leave the Big12 earlier to make less money?
