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

[jdoggivjc]

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.

Unless I’m reading this wrong, this has to be one of the dumbest takes on this whole expansion thing. Actually arguing that accepting fate and going to the AAC is a better option than the dream scenario of going to the Big 10? First, even with buy-ins and reduced compensation, the Big 10 money will always be better than AAC money. Second, if ISU is in the AAC, it means ESPN and the SEC won and they both control college football. At that point, why the hell would they even play ball with the AAC in terms of playoff? They don’t have to if they control everything. Which means ISU’s chance at even the expanded playoff is zero as a member of the expanded AAC. If ISU is forced to join the AAC Cyclone athletics will be effectively dead within a decade.

 

[BCClone]

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.

To me the big ten is more about security, at least at this point. If the uneven sharing does happen, then security is on shaky ground. Moneywise, it is very possible that if the CFP goes through with estimated payouts, we could pull a couple from the AAC and be about the same payout as a reduced in the Big 10, I've done the math previously off what bowlsby and other people more knowledgeable than me have mentioned.

I love the round robin approach, you honestly get better rivals that way. If the big 10 goes 16, along with 2 games from the other conferences, I could see there being no cross overs or just one, and then is that really a conference? It almost leads to a position where security could be damaged due to one side saying our media rights are worth more than the other side; because you have to admit that the east is more valuable than the west.

 

[KidSilverhair]

I love the round robin approach, you honestly get better rivals that way. If the big 10 goes 16, along with 2 games from the other conferences, I could see there being no cross overs or just one, and then is that really a conference?

Nope. It’s two ”conferences” with a scheduling agreement. I’ve been saying that for years. Twelve-team conferences are workable; 14 teams are unwieldy; 16 is really problematic, and anything more than that is an unmanageable cluster-f.

Ten is ideal for scheduling purposes, but that doesn’t seem to be profitable enough for today’s “what’s the bottom line?” attitude.

It’s absolutely insane to me that the talk about expanding to mega-conferences is also including discussion of reducing the number of conference games. What the hell is your conference for if you’re not competing against the other members?

 

[Gonzo]

To me the big ten is more about security, at least at this point. If the uneven sharing does happen, then security is on shaky ground. Moneywise, it is very possible that if the CFP goes through with estimated payouts, we could pull a couple from the AAC and be about the same payout as a reduced in the Big 10, I've done the math previously off what bowlsby and other people more knowledgeable than me have mentioned.

I love the round robin approach, you honestly get better rivals that way. If the big 10 goes 16, along with 2 games from the other conferences, I could see there being no cross overs or just one, and then is that really a conference? It almost leads to a position where security could be damaged due to one side saying our media rights are worth more than the other side; because you have to admit that the east is more valuable than the west.

The reduced share wouldn't be a forever thing. Once ISU arrived at the full share, I'm guessing they'd think it was worth it.

 

[BCClone]

The reduced share wouldn't be a forever thing. Once ISU arrived at the full share, I'm guessing they'd think it was worth it.

Depends what the amount and requirements are. If we have to add several sports and such and the reduced amount is less than we make now and we have to dig a hole, it could affect other programs as well. Why do people think of UCF and Cincy as good teams, because they dominated their conference. TCU did that also. I know it sounds irrational, but if money isn't excessively different, and you can be the dominant team in a conference, there is something to that also. The big thing is if that conference has a good shot at the playoffs and their exposure is solid. Cincy and UCF have had good recruiting classes per rankings so it's not like they are getting way inferior players than ISU or Iowa at this point.

The other issue with anything but the big ten is travel. Even if we hold the R8 together, the teams we bring in would be much further. The r8 teams aren't that bad of a trip as of now, but that is the limits honestly. Waco does suck, but Ft worth, Kansas schools and Okie schools are okay travel. I just can't imagine a UCF type trip.

 

[Gonzo]

Depends what the amount and requirements are. If we have to add several sports and such and the reduced amount is less than we make now and we have to dig a hole, it could affect other programs as well. Why do people think of UCF and Cincy as good teams, because they dominated their conference. TCU did that also. I know it sounds irrational, but if money isn't excessively different, and you can be the dominant team in a conference, there is something to that also. The big thing is if that conference has a good shot at the playoffs and their exposure is solid. Cincy and UCF have had good recruiting classes per rankings so it's not like they are getting way inferior players than ISU or Iowa at this point.

The other issue with anything but the big ten is travel. Even if we hold the R8 together, the teams we bring in would be much further. The r8 teams aren't that bad of a trip as of now, but that is the limits honestly. Waco does suck, but Ft worth, Kansas schools and Okie schools are okay travel. I just can't imagine a UCF type trip.

Yeah but UCF was left out of the CFP when it went undefeated in 2017. That's the price of playing in a second tier conference.

 

[BCClone]

Yeah but UCF was left out of the CFP when it went undefeated in 2017. That's the price of playing in a second tier conference.

Agree, but the current language says the top five conference champs get an auto bid to the CFP if it happens, besides there being 12 teams. Then it was only 4.

 

[Gonzo]

Agree, but the current language says the top five conference champs get an auto bid to the CFP if it happens, besides there being 12 teams. Then it was only 4.

I get that but think you're still playing with fire assuming a reduced Big 12/AAC champ will be viewed anywhere near the same level, and that expanded CFP criteria is still light years away from being solidified.

 

[BCClone]

I get that but think you're still playing with fire assuming a reduced Big 12/AAC champ will be viewed anywhere near the same level, and that expanded CFP criteria is still light years away from being solidified.

I know, but all we can do now is over analyze every option until OU and UT throw some money out.

 

[CascadeClone]

The reduced share wouldn't be a forever thing. Once ISU arrived at the full share, I'm guessing they'd think it was worth it.

Yeah, I think its a no-brainer to take $20M from the B1G for 10 years, which then goes to $80M or something afterwards. Rather than $20M (or even $25 or $30M) from an inherently unstable Big12/AAC mashup forever.

 

[BCClone]

Yeah, I think its a no-brainer to take $20M from the B1G for 10 years, which then goes to $80M or something afterwards. Rather than $20M (or even $25 or $30M) from an inherently unstable Big12/AAC mashup forever.

If the big ten is at 80 when we join, I would say we would need to be at our current level for 5 years or so. 20 would be a 75% cut and way more than other team was cut going in. You can't use Rutgers and Maryland as examples since their ADs were in bk area when they joined. We are financially healthy right now.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Agree, but the current language says the top five conference champs get an auto bid to the CFP if it happens, besides there being 12 teams. Then it was only 4.

It actually says top six. The intent was to create G5 access, assuming the P5 champs took five of the six spots reserved for conference champs. Then six at-large bids for a total of 12.

That is why I think the Alliance will have a tough time shrinking back from a similar 12-team proposal. All of the G5 leagues, plus the SEC, plus the Big 12, will want something like top six champs get in. That is 7 votes and the Alliance only has 3.

 

[Cloneon]

Unless I’m reading this wrong, this has to be one of the dumbest takes on this whole expansion thing. Actually arguing that accepting fate and going to the AAC is a better option than the dream scenario of going to the Big 10? First, even with buy-ins and reduced compensation, the Big 10 money will always be better than AAC money. Second, if ISU is in the AAC, it means ESPN and the SEC won and they both control college football. At that point, why the hell would they even play ball with the AAC in terms of playoff? They don’t have to if they control everything. Which means ISU’s chance at even the expanded playoff is zero as a member of the expanded AAC. If ISU is forced to join the AAC Cyclone athletics will be effectively dead within a decade.

Let me make something clear. I'd prefer the B1G, but I don't want to lift our skirts to do it. It's pretty clear the previous B1G buy-ins haven't amounted to much at all in the conference. There could be many reasons, but one, to me, is the disparity in checks. My dream scenario is hold out for B12 settlement, and use that to reduce (or eliminate) our buy-in to the B1G.

 

[MeanDean]

If the big ten is at 80 when we join, I would say we would need to be at our current level for 5 years or so. 20 would be a 75% cut and way more than other team was cut going in. You can't use Rutgers and Maryland as examples since their ADs were in bk area when they joined. We are financially healthy right now.

And from what I've read the Big 10 gave Maryland and Rutgers financial aid to get them up to snuff. There's no reason if they want us we couldn't ask for similar media sourced funding to match our existing as a starting point and extend the buy-in period. Also, if there is big $$$ from the OuT shenanigans we can use that to help bridge the funding gap.

 

[BCClone]

And from what I've read the Big 10 gave Maryland and Rutgers financial aid to get them up to snuff. There's no reason if they want us we couldn't ask for similar media sourced funding to match our existing as a starting point and extend the buy-in period. Also, if there is big $$$ from the OuT shenanigans we can use that to help bridge the funding gap.

Agree. We should be able to find a way (either by using traitor money or straight up big money) to be status quo on money. I think five years would be similar to Nebraska. Maryland and Rutgers is as you say. Nebraska gave the big ten a black eye by losing their AAU status. So we would be the cleanest team they picked up if nothing happens between now and then.

KU has the bb investigation going, so they would have some filth on them if chosen.

 

[Cydkar]

Agree, but the current language says the top five conference champs get an auto bid to the CFP if it happens, besides there being 12 teams. Then it was only 4.

Hasn't been adopted. That was before OU and UT split.

 

[BCClone]

Hasn't been adopted. That was before OU and UT split.

I know, but we are probably having something happen when this is all done and that was the last proposal.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I think the Alliance will realize they want a 12-team playoff just as much as the next guy; they only want to break apart those 11 games instead of handing them all to ESPN. Maybe they will also push for some cap on the number of teams per conference, like no more than 3 or 4 from any one league. But there is no benefit to the Alliance leagues to expand the CFP to only 6 or 8. In those cases, they’d get one team each while the SEC got multiple. With 12, you can expect the Alliance leagues to get multiple teams most years. Not going to 12 just means less money for everyone. And the 12-team CFP also can come with 6 slots reserved for conference champions, which will keep the G5 (and Big 12) happy.

 

[Cydkar]

I know, but we are probably having something happen when this is all done and that was the last proposal.

Fair. I just think there will be much more conversation.

 

[Cloneon]

And from what I've read the Big 10 gave Maryland and Rutgers financial aid to get them up to snuff. There's no reason if they want us we couldn't ask for similar media sourced funding to match our existing as a starting point and extend the buy-in period. Also, if there is big $$$ from the OuT shenanigans we can use that to help bridge the funding gap.

Was the financial aid in the form of loans during a time when interest rates were at or near their 50 year lows? I'd love to be wrong, but those days of cheap borrowing are history. And, completely agree about the OuT $$$.