Pac-12 to decide whether to expand within a couple weeks

[k123]

Except if you are to believe most of the media the last couple days about the so called alliance. This alliance is in part an agreement to not poach teams from each other. So if that is the case and they stick to that agreement, then if any of those 3 conferences do want to expand they are going to be looking hard at the Big 12.

And why expand you ask, none of the remaining teams would equal OU/TU as far as $$$ but when it comes to the playoff and that $$, the SEC will say we have more teams we deserve more spots. Its simply a way to say we are all equal. Not to mention the PAC needs to do something to come up with a way to increase $$$ in some way. And even though the schools left in the Big 12 arent high value, being a complete new area and new time zone, allows them a much bigger impact on that conference, especially in needing a boost the PACNet.

I personally find it difficult to believe that we will see any of the West Coast schools in the B1G proper, at least not in the near future, as long as there are traditional conferences as we know them. I believe its much more likely to see the Big 12 divided up between the other 4 in some way, with that lasting for another Decade or so until close to the next media deals, when we will see some more strangeness. Which at that point you could see some form of full on mergers of the B1G/PAC and the SEC/ACC or other craziness.

I agree and like it.

It seems like the Alliance would help ISU get a better landing in Big 10 vs being crowded out by a Cream of Pac 12 to Big 10. Makes more sense to keep a strong Pac 12 vs Big 10 being greedy, I just see most of this as driven by institutional "status clubs" as much as athletics or TV.

Sucks to be TxTech/TCU/Baylor but they're probably just lucky the Texas legislature made the Big 12 take them in from the cold all those years ago. Hopefully they saved some money from the fat years for the lean years. Could still suck for us and we end up in the leftover conference but I'd rather be ISU and KU than them.

 

[HouClone]

I agree and like it.

It seems like the Alliance would help ISU get a better landing in Big 10 vs being crowded out by a Cream of Pac 12 to Big 10. Makes more sense to keep a strong Pac 12 vs Big 10 being greedy, I just see most of this as driven by institutional "status clubs" as much as athletics or TV.

Sucks to be TxTech/TCU/Baylor but they're probably just lucky the Texas legislature made the Big 12 take them in from the cold all those years ago. Hopefully they saved some money from the fat years for the lean years. Could still suck for us and we end up in the leftover conference but I'd rather be ISU and KU than them.

I won't get my hopes up too high until we actually land in the Big 10 or Pac 12. But if we do, I would rather we wait and stick it to OU and Texas and not screw over our other conference brethren. Plus, we would have the exit fee. I know this is way ahead a good problem.

 

[MartyFine]

 

[jakemcilroy]

If I were leading Iowa State I'd partern with Kansas and aggressively try to get in the Pac-12. I'd rather be in the Big 10 but they have no reason to take us unless they're just being nice. We don't grow the pot large enought to rationalize our slice of the pie.

While the same might be true for the Pac-12, we do offer something. We offer the central time zone, good FB, good MBB (historically), and aligned academics. There will alwasy be a west coast associated conference, even if USC bolts someday and I think we have a MUCH more realistic chance of getting in for all of the above reasons + the fact that they only have 12 and not 14 like the Big 10 does.

 

[clone52]

There is a reason for the Big 10 to expand. Just inventory. If the Big 12 completely dissolves, then Fox loses a pretty decent chunk of games they televise. They aren't losing money on those time slots, so while Iowa State might not be as valuable as Texas to them, they may still want to fill them with major conference games. Only way to do that is to make the major conferences bigger.

 

[knowlesjam]

So, to summarize the OOC agreement, Iowa plays Oregon State and Wake Forest...right? Or maybe Cal and Georgia Tech. Obviously they can't play Oregon or Clemson...

 

[cyIclSoneU]

So, to summarize the OOC agreement, Iowa plays Oregon State and Wake Forest...right? Or maybe Cal and Georgia Tech. Obviously they can't play Oregon or Clemson...

They’ll pair the elite brands, the middle class, and the tag-alongs. So we will see Ohio State vs USC, Iowa vs Colorado, and Rutgers vs Oregon State. The Hawks will also get the NC States and Pitts in the ACC. Every fanbase thinks they will get to play at UCLA when in reality that might happen every three decades or so.

 

[CyDan]

If we do go to the Big 10, I likely see a shift where there aren't equal slices of pie. Saw this theorized elsewhere. To say we aren't worth adding depends on the price.

This also could incentivize the big guys to stay and not run to the SEC...

 

[Clark]

They’ll pair the elite brands, the middle class, and the tag-alongs. So we will see Ohio State vs USC, Iowa vs Colorado, and Rutgers vs Oregon State. The Hawks will also get the NC States and Pitts in the ACC. Every fanbase thinks they will get to play at UCLA when in reality that might happen every three decades or so.

In a perfect world they'll schedule it like they do the Big 10/ACC challenge in basketball where they schedule the offseason before and try to get the best matchups for the next season.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

If we do go to the Big 10, I likely see a shift where there aren't equal slices of pie. Saw this theorized elsewhere. To say we aren't worth adding depends on the price.

This also could incentivize the big guys to stay and not run to the SEC...

I think a model where you get paid based on which media rights tier you play on makes sense. Say a conference has games on FOX, FS1, and BTN. You get more money for getting your game on a higher tier, based on your perceived value by the media rights holder. If Kansas joins the B1G and gets all of its games on BTN then it’s not taking a slice of the pie that’s too big for its 0-12 program.

 

[WooBadger18]

They would be subtracting a conference game and adding two non conference games (one Pac 12, one ACC)

IF this deal actually went through as advertised
IF ISU was still not in the Pac 12, Big 10, or ACC

then the ISU/Iowa game will be no more unless ISU agrees to play in Kinnick every year.

Those are some very big ifs however, I wouldn't get too concerned yet

Right, and at that point there is no reason for Iowa State to agree to that, so it won't happen.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

If we do go to the Big 10, I likely see a shift where there aren't equal slices of pie. Saw this theorized elsewhere. To say we aren't worth adding depends on the price.

This also could incentivize the big guys to stay and not run to the SEC...

Are you talking after the buy in years, or just up front. I would think no one would have a problem with 5 to 10 buy in years, where KU and ISU is not getting a full share.

Now if that is ISU and KU getting 50% from starting going forward, then how long before Ohio State and Michigan start saying they desire even more than a share and want the other schools to receive 85% of the total so they can get more?

 

[BigJCy]

Big 12 dealt the biggest blow
The biggest tangible takeaway from Tuesday may be what bad news this is for the Big 12. (While Kliavkoff told Yahoo Sports that the Pac-12 would announce this week whether or not they were expanding, multiple sources indicated there’s virtually no chance of the Pac-12 taking action.)

That leaves the eight remaining Big 12 schools on the outside looking in. While there was speculation for years that there’d be 64 teams remaining in the four super leagues, the reality is that we’re headed toward an era with four power conferences and 57 teams. That doesn’t roll off the tongue or fit in a bracket, but the alliance widens the moat between the haves and the have-nots. And the remaining Big 12 schools are have-nots. There could be additions to the 57, but the leagues will be judicious about adding outsiders and dividing up their revenue pie to do so.

One industry source summed it up this way: “There’s your Super League. I don’t see that number going up (from 57) anytime soon. I could see [AAC commissioner Mike Aresco] and others fighting it. And maybe the best one or two schools could break in with significant and repeated success. There was never magic to 64. It looks good and it’s an even number. But you’re not going to sacrifice tens of millions of dollars to get to some number that doesn’t really matter. You don’t need 64 for scheduling or the College Football Playoff. It’s a big round number people like, but it’s just not needed.”

Big Ten unlikely to expand
Perhaps the most notable big-picture takeaway was that the Big Ten appears committed to not expanding. Obviously, nothing was signed. But it’s hard to believe that the presidents and chancellors would agree to this extended Kumbaya chorus if the Big Ten planned on poaching a few Pac-12 schools or breaking the ACC’s grant of rights in the next year or two.

That could all change if the league’s alphas – Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin – change course. But for now, the hymn of solidarity is being sung loudly. When asked specifically if this meant the Big Ten had no interest in expansion, commissioner Kevin Warren told Yahoo Sports: “We feel very comfortable in the Big Ten that we’re in good position where we are.”

He added: “We feel like we have an incredibly powerful group of 14 institutions. We like the number where are right now in the Big Ten.”

6 takeaways on the 'alliance' that could shake up college football

There's still plenty to be skeptical about when it comes to the alliance between the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12. Here are the six biggest takeaways.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[CyDan]

Are you talking after the buy in years, or just up front. I would think no one would have a problem with 5 to 10 buy in years, where KU and ISU is not getting a full share.

Now if that is ISU and KU getting 50% from starting going forward, then how long before Ohio State and Michigan start saying they desire even more than a share and want the other schools to receive 85% of the total so they can get more?

Was talking after the buy in, but you do make a valid point. I see reasoning for the larger schools getting more, but also reasoning that it should be an objective sharing (if possible) with checks and balances of some sort.

I just see something like this being necessary to provide the dollars to the large schools without the SEC or other poaching.

 

[aeroclone]

I think a model where you get paid based on which media rights tier you play on makes sense. Say a conference has games on FOX, FS1, and BTN. You get more money for getting your game on a higher tier, based on your perceived value by the media rights holder. If Kansas joins the B1G and gets all of its games on BTN then it’s not taking a slice of the pie that’s too big for its 0-12 program.

Isn't this pretty much the exact model that blew up the B12 the first time?

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Isn't this pretty much the exact model that blew up the B12 the first time?

For what it’s worth CW said he heard that industry sources expect the B1G and Pac to negotiate some sort of uneven revenue split with their new deals that come up in a few years. Maybe not what I described but something that gives USC and Ohio State more money than Oregon State and Rutgers.

 

[HawaiiClone]

If that happens I bet we would play 10 or even 11 conference games in a new-look Big 12, because the B1G/Pac/ACC would be only playing itself plus buy games and the SEC would likely be doing something similar - only playing itself plus buy games. So there wouldn’t be non-con options that would be good for us. We could expand to 12 and play a round robin with room for one buy-game tune-up. CFB could look very very different soon.

Nick Saban said he thinks Bama should only play against P5 opponents and starting in 2027 their non conference schedule only has P5 teams so maybe he is good at his word in influencing that kind of schedule. This is just food for thought regarding whether SEC teams will be playing G5 or FCS teams in the future.

 

[Cloneon]

Are you talking after the buy in years, or just up front. I would think no one would have a problem with 5 to 10 buy in years, where KU and ISU is not getting a full share.

Now if that is ISU and KU getting 50% from starting going forward, then how long before Ohio State and Michigan start saying they desire even more than a share and want the other schools to receive 85% of the total so they can get more?

I find this whole 'buy in' to be frustrating. Is it better to be in a league expanded with AAC teams and have more money to apply or be in a league where you're fiscally penalized from the get go. One would put you at an advantage of league titles (and a CFP position) while the other puts you behind the 8 ball. Throw in the risk of even the B1G can be poached by the wolves at the door and I have a hard time jumping on the buy in bandwagon.

 

[Gonzo]

I find this whole 'buy in' to be frustrating. Is it better to be in a league expanded with AAC teams and have more money to apply or be in a league where you're fiscally penalized from the get go. One would put you at an advantage of league titles (and a CFP position) while the other puts you behind the 8 ball. Throw in the risk of even the B1G can be poached by the wolves at the door and I have a hard time jumping on the buy in bandwagon.

There's no guarantee an expanded Big 12 with AAC additions would be positioned very well for CFP, even with a league title. The buy-in/reduced share from joining the B1G would be no different than what Nebby, Maryland, Rutgers had. And the B1G is not going to be poached.

 

[AuH2O]

Isn't this pretty much the exact model that blew up the B12 the first time?

It had nothing to do with the model and everything to do with OU and UT. It’s not like if the model was worse for OU and UT it would’ve made them happier and more likely to stay. The only possible way that may have been the case is if even money would’ve raised the Big12 so much overall that they saw a high ceiling a la the SEC. But that’s doubtful. It’s just been a conference with too many big egos and short-sighted people like Osborne, Boren and well, the entirety of UT.

The big boys in the Big 10 for over a decade have been OK with even revenue. With a bit of an extra slice they will be in a great spot.