Expansion candidates that made the cut in 2016

[Cyclones1969]

Too many for G5 status. Barely enough for the B1G

You have to have 14 to be D1, at least 7 of those being women’s sports.

we are barely above there now. Cutting sports have consequences

 

[Win5002]

I was more hopeful about this pre-Alliance. But it's still true that the Pac-12 GOR is even shorter than ours, only through 2023-24, and the reports last year were that USC and UCLA declined to sign an extension.

Maybe the OU/UT move, followed by the B1G lending the Pac-12 a hand via the Alliance, will head that off for a while. But I doubt very much it would mean long-term stability. At best, the Pac-12 would link arms until around the time the ACC GOR expires (in 2036) to tee up a potentially enormous round of realignment then.

Everything is complicated by OU and UT being here until 2025, but not really expected to be here until then. If they actually were committed, we could wait and see what the Pac-12 does and react to that. If the Pac-12 stuck together, we move ahead with our BYU/Cincinnati/UCF plan - if the Pac-12 got raided, then we could take the original Plan A of merging with whatever's left of the Pac-12. Everyone's favorite Athletic writer Andy Staples proposed the B1G grab six Pac-12 schools - we could easily merge with the leftovers (although West Virginia makes it unwieldy) for a 14-team conference that would be solidly 4th best in the country.

And the stick together and expand plan should be built with an eye toward the mid-2030s - knowing that if the SEC and B1G go on expansion sprees, we could be in a position to either merge with, or get absorbed by, or absorb ourselves, either or both of the ACC or Pac-12 remnants. I think the main goal until then is to keep our conference profile as high as possible by winning, making the CFP, and keeping up on the $$$ side, so that we are perceived as close to (or better than) whoever doesn't get plucked by the B1G and SEC out of those leagues.

I'm not sure there will be much value left in a PAC that lost teams to the B1G. Although, I'm beginning to wonder if the B1G can even pull more than 4 teams from the PAC and make it worth it to them. USC, UW, OR, UCLA or Col.

The PAC schools that are left are not worth that much IMO. I don't know if they are any better than the new additions the B12 would make now, they just are perceived better because they are in an existing P5. ASU would be good because they are in a growing area and a big student body but they don't have huge ratings. I'm not sure Cal & Stanford alone would join the B12 schools or just drop down a level. If the league found value in them they could go to 18 anyway.

 

[Cyclones1969]

Every single one of the potential expansion teams mentioned would blow the MAC away in every way, shape and form. Any conference with the remaining Big 8 teams (with or without additions) would be the best non-power conference and not anywhere near the MAC (which should be an FCS conference akin to the MVC). Iowa State's floor is the AAC or the MWC (which both blow the doors off of the MAC too).

I don’t think you’re really understanding what you’re asserting here.

there’s a huge difference between the aac and mwc, and the power 4 conferences. It may as well be the Mac at that point

i know the people on here are trying to forward their weeks long troll by talking about how great this will be. But that doesn’t mean this won’t be the end of Iowa State athletics as it’s currently known.

now one of them is trying to pretend everything will be fine, and that big 10 invite will be there in 2035.

 

[AuH2O]

I was more hopeful about this pre-Alliance. But it's still true that the Pac-12 GOR is even shorter than ours, only through 2023-24, and the reports last year were that USC and UCLA declined to sign an extension.

Maybe the OU/UT move, followed by the B1G lending the Pac-12 a hand via the Alliance, will head that off for a while. But I doubt very much it would mean long-term stability. At best, the Pac-12 would link arms until around the time the ACC GOR expires (in 2036) to tee up a potentially enormous round of realignment then.

Everything is complicated by OU and UT being here until 2025, but not really expected to be here until then. If they actually were committed, we could wait and see what the Pac-12 does and react to that. If the Pac-12 stuck together, we move ahead with our BYU/Cincinnati/UCF plan - if the Pac-12 got raided, then we could take the original Plan A of merging with whatever's left of the Pac-12. Everyone's favorite Athletic writer Andy Staples proposed the B1G grab six Pac-12 schools - we could easily merge with the leftovers (although West Virginia makes it unwieldy) for a 14-team conference that would be solidly 4th best in the country.

And the stick together and expand plan should be built with an eye toward the mid-2030s - knowing that if the SEC and B1G go on expansion sprees, we could be in a position to either merge with, or get absorbed by, or absorb ourselves, either or both of the ACC or Pac-12 remnants. I think the main goal until then is to keep our conference profile as high as possible by winning, making the CFP, and keeping up on the $$$ side, so that we are perceived as close to (or better than) whoever doesn't get plucked by the B1G and SEC out of those leagues.

PAC stability is dependent on USC and to a lesser extent Oregon being happy. The Alliance does nothing for them. They can and do schedule about any non-con game they want. The Big 10 saying they won't poach those two brands (thus eliminating a prime opportunity for them to make good media money) sure doesn't do anything for them.

In short the Big 10 got a unified voice against the SEC. The lower 3/4 to 1/2 of the PAC teams get some short-term stability and probably a boost in non-con games. The top of the PAC gets nothing except the removal of an opportunity to leave for greener pastures.

The root cause of instability in the PAC is not only not addressed, it's probably exacerbated by the Alliance. We saw a ton of people suggesting that part of the alliance was to not schedule SEC in non-con. Then USC turns right around and schedules LSU for 2024. I think that's a bit of a flex by USC. I understand that USC and LSU surely had been in talks for quite some time. But I also understand that if USC decides they are going to swap out a non-con game, they will have zero problem lining up almost anybody they want.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

PAC stability is dependent on USC and to a lesser extent Oregon being happy. The Alliance does nothing for them. They can and do schedule about any non-con game they want. The Big 10 saying they won't poach those two brands (thus eliminating a prime opportunity for them to make good media money) sure doesn't do anything for them.

In short the Big 10 got a unified voice against the SEC. The lower 3/4 to 1/2 of the PAC teams get some short-term stability and probably a boost in non-con games. The top of the PAC gets nothing except the removal of an opportunity to leave for greener pastures.

The root cause of instability in the PAC is not only not addressed, it's probably exacerbated by the Alliance. We saw a ton of people suggesting that part of the alliance was to not schedule SEC in non-con. Then USC turns right around and schedules LSU for 2024. I think that's a bit of a flex by USC. I understand that USC and LSU surely had been in talks for quite some time. But I also understand that if USC decides they are going to swap out a non-con game, they will have zero problem lining up almost anybody they want.

I agree that the Alliance doesn’t do anything for USC but it might take their best option off the table. If they wanted to go to the B1G and the B1G says no expansion, then they either stay put, go independent, or call the SEC. And maybe staying put is now the best option. I don’t know.

Also that USC-LSU game had to have been in the works since well before the Alliance so I wouldn’t really read anything into it.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I'm not sure there will be much value left in a PAC that lost teams to the B1G. Although, I'm beginning to wonder if the B1G can even pull more than 4 teams from the PAC and make it worth it to them. USC, UW, OR, UCLA or Col.

The PAC schools that are left are not worth that much IMO. I don't know if they are any better than the new additions the B12 would make now, they just are perceived better because they are in an existing P5. ASU would be good because they are in a growing area and a big student body but they don't have huge ratings. I'm not sure Cal & Stanford alone would join the B12 schools or just drop down a level. If the league found value in them they could go to 18 anyway.

Say the B1G added the six schools that Staples proposed: the four California schools plus Oregon and Washington.

There would be value in the eight-school Big 12 snapping up Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah at a minimum. Maybe Washington State and Oregon State get left out here and end up in the Mountain West. But those first four are solidly P5 level programs, and the only option available to the Big 12 otherwise at a P5 level of interest is BYU.

The below Big 12 is a lot better than the reconstituted-league options that we are talking about right now, IMO.

West
Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
Colorado
Texas Tech
Utah

East
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
West Virginia

BYU would be a good fit in this league for $$$ and performance as well. Point is there are some options here that IMO are better than adding UCF, Cincinnati, and someone like Houston or Memphis, so I hope the B1G does raid the Pac-12 and soon (if it is not going to take us first).

 

[AuH2O]

I agree that the Alliance doesn’t do anything for USC but it might take their best option off the table. If they wanted to go to the B1G and the B1G says no expansion, then they either stay put, go independent, or call the SEC. And maybe staying put is now the best option. I don’t know.

Also that USC-LSU game had to have been in the works since well before the Alliance so I wouldn’t really read anything into it.

One thing that might keep USC put is that they aren't nearly as dependent on media $ as most teams in the country. Still, they could easily make a go at it as an independent, and if it wasn't working every conference would be tripping over themselves to add them.

The SEC seems like a weird fit academically, but in terms of geography it makes more sense than the Big 10. The SEC has a higher percentage of teams in the central time zone than the Big 10.

Now that I see that the USC-LSU game is going to be in Vegas, I changed my mind - that would be very difficult to get out of and reschedule I'm sure than a typical non-con.

 

[KennyPratt42]

What I think is the most likely scenario in the short to mid term.

There is a negotiated buyout between the Big 12 and Texas/OU to leave next year. ESPN agrees to keep the payout similar for the remaining 8 schools through '25 if BYU (who has an ESPN deal) and an AAC school (no grant of rights) is added. Total conference payout goes down because the two new schools get less than the current per school payout (but probably more than they get now). Fox gets some or maybe most of the savings until '25 (but they need content still so they agree) and ESPN avoids litigation.

Then its anyone's guess how things change in the middle of the decade.

 

[deadeyededric]

Say the B1G added the six schools that Staples proposed: the four California schools plus Oregon and Washington.

There would be value in the eight-school Big 12 snapping up Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah at a minimum. Maybe Washington State and Oregon State get left out here and end up in the Mountain West. But those first four are solidly P5 level programs, and the only option available to the Big 12 otherwise at a P5 level of interest is BYU.

The below Big 12 is a lot better than the reconstituted-league options that we are talking about right now, IMO.

West
Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
Colorado
Texas Tech
Utah

East
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
West Virginia

BYU would be a good fit in this league for $$$ and performance as well. Point is there are some options here that IMO are better than adding UCF, Cincinnati, and someone like Houston or Memphis, so I hope the B1G does raid the Pac-12 and soon (if it is not going to take us first).

The idea that any of those are going to leave the PAC-12 to join the new lousy Big 12 is laughable. You aren't poaching anyone from a power conference to join the 8 teams left from the Big 12.

 

[galactawitz]

I think the Arizona schools should be talked about more as it is. They have long been rumored to not be happy with the PAC-12. I know money is a factor but in a way, not having Texas and Oklahoma can be a plus for them in the Big-12 from a competition standpoint. They may be willing to come to the Big 12 and replace those schools. Maybe Colorado and BYU have interest too. Then you would have a solid contingent in the West that gets us back to 12. Just a thought and something that I know had been talked about in the past in regards to Arizona schools and their interest in the BIG 12.

 

[Cyclones1969]

The idea that any of those are going to leave the PAC-12 to join the new lousy Big 12 is laughable. You aren't poaching anyone from a power conference to join the 8 teams left from the Big 12.

You would think that the logic pretzels have to hurt after a while

 

[Win5002]

The idea that any of those are going to leave the PAC-12 to join the new lousy Big 12 is laughable. You aren't poaching anyone from a power conference to join the 8 teams left from the Big 12.

Did you even read his whole post? He said if the B1G took 6 teams from the PAC in expansion around 2024/25. Of course those teams would have joined the B12.

 

[WhoISthis]

No sure what you mean by chase wins?

If ISU would end up in a G5 conference- a higher SOS will put the conference champion in a better place for a Playoff Bid or NY Day Bowl.

If that means playing 10 conference games plus 1 P5 then that's what it takes. Remember the Playoff's will be a big deal if they expand to 12 teams. The 12 team playoff was expected to earn $2B in media rights. Under the current playoff system 20% goes to G5 conferences.. The playoff alone could award each G5 schools around $7M if playoff $ are distributed evenly. If playoff share isn't evenly split- more $ could go to top level G5 programs.

remember when Baylor got left out while in the Big 12? Will playing 9 games in this conference plus two P2 games nonconference actually get an invite? Perception matters more than actual SOS.


The worst case scenario is to actually have a difficult schedule to collect wins, say 11 games against solid teams (9 conference plus Iowa and the purposed SEC game) but never getting credit because of being in the worst P4/P5 or the best G6.

 

[WhoISthis]

The idea that any of those are going to leave the PAC-12 to join the new lousy Big 12 is laughable. You aren't poaching anyone from a power conference to join the 8 teams left from the Big 12.

So you can’t read? They wouldn’t be leaving the Pac 12, they’d be leaving the corpse of the Pac 12, which was already the worst P5 BEFORE losing any programs to the BIG.

 

[Cyclones1969]

remember when Baylor got left out while in the Big 12?
Perception matters more than actual SOS.


The worst case scenario is to actually have a difficult schedule to collect wins, say 11 games against solid teams (9 conference plus Iowa and the purposed SEC game) but never getting credit because of being in the worst P4/P5 or the best G6.

I know people have convinced themselves that we will still be able to make the playoffs, but do people seriously think the new big 12 with BYU and Cincinnati will still have their second tier bowls be something equivalent to the Alamo?

 

[Win5002]

Say the B1G added the six schools that Staples proposed: the four California schools plus Oregon and Washington.

There would be value in the eight-school Big 12 snapping up Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah at a minimum. Maybe Washington State and Oregon State get left out here and end up in the Mountain West. But those first four are solidly P5 level programs, and the only option available to the Big 12 otherwise at a P5 level of interest is BYU.

The below Big 12 is a lot better than the reconstituted-league options that we are talking about right now, IMO.

West
Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
Colorado
Texas Tech
Utah

East
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
West Virginia

BYU would be a good fit in this league for $$$ and performance as well. Point is there are some options here that IMO are better than adding UCF, Cincinnati, and someone like Houston or Memphis, so I hope the B1G does raid the Pac-12 and soon (if it is not going to take us first).

Even if the B1G wants some west coast schools, I'm not sure how many pays for itself. I'm inclined to say 4 instead of 6 now. Even if 6 could work I think there is some push back that all 4 California schools need included and I don't think you can take both northern California schools. Even UCLA looks weaker after this last weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if the B1G is taking a long term approach and waiting for the ACC schools and ND. So I don't think I would base B12 expansion on waiting for those teams.

But lets say the B1G took the 6 you mentioned. I really don't think ASU/AZ/Utah & Colorado do any better ratings wise than BYU/UCF/Cincy & UH in an elevated league. There may be a PERCEPTION those schools are better because they are already in a P5 but they don't draw that great.

If the B12 went to even 12 now, I wouldn't be opposed to adding those 4 schools to go to 16 but I don't think they are significantly better and I wouldn't hold off my expansion counting on them. Even in the extreme circumstance the B12 went to 14, a conference of 18 with those wouldn't be horrible.

 

[BCClone]

What I think is the most likely scenario in the short to mid term.

There is a negotiated buyout between the Big 12 and Texas/OU to leave next year. ESPN agrees to keep the payout similar for the remaining 8 schools through '25 if BYU (who has an ESPN deal) and an AAC school (no grant of rights) is added. Total conference payout goes down because the two new schools get less than the current per school payout (but probably more than they get now). Fox gets some or maybe most of the savings until '25 (but they need content still so they agree) and ESPN avoids litigation.

Then its anyone's guess how things change in the middle of the decade.

Or the two new teams come in for 15/year

 

[WhoISthis]

I know people have convinced themselves that we will still be able to make the playoffs, but do people seriously think the new big 12 with BYU and Cincinnati will still have their second tier bowls be something equivalent to the Alamo?

Will any bowls besides those part of the playoffs really matter?
I barely care about 2nd tier bowls now, let alone in an expanded playoffs. Couldn’t tell you any bowl outside of Iowa St.

 

[Win5002]

I know people have convinced themselves that we will still be able to make the playoffs, but do people seriously think the new big 12 with BYU and Cincinnati will still have their second tier bowls be something equivalent to the Alamo?

When the bowl games are renegotiated the B12 will lose status unfortunately. Most of the bowls won't provide much income unfortunately to the league after travel expense is taken out. Hopefully, the CFP revenue increases to help some of that.

 

[Win5002]

Will any bowls besides those part of the playoffs really matter?
I barely care about 2nd tier bowls now, let alone in an expanded playoffs. Couldn’t tell you any bowl outside of Iowa St.

Bowl games are utterly useless. I never watch ANY of them anymore outside of the game ISU & IA are in.

I don't even watch a 4 team playoff. I'm tired of a committee picking and choosing a field using the criteria they want to get essentially the same brands in year in and year out. If there was a process those teams played their way in, then fine but when its chosen I'm glad there is the NFL to have a true conclusion to a season instead of engineered outcomes.