Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[RustShack]

Colorado is on the titanic and yet bashing their life boat.

**** it. Let them sink.

Colorado Administration Views the Big 12 as a 'JUCO League'

With conference realignment back in full swing, there has been plenty of speculation as to whether or not the Pac-12 could fall apart in the near future. If it does, could teams end up in the Big 12? One team that has come up as a possible future Big 12 team is Colorado, who of […]

www.heartlandcollegesports.com

If the Big12 is Juco then what’s the PAC? The Kansas level of juco?

 

[JP4CY]

If the Big12 is Juco then what’s the PAC? The Kansas level of juco?

So the PAC is better than TX!

 

[JP4CY]

The rumors on Reddit were $25-26 mil.

That's horrible. Woof city.

 

[Rods79]

They could up their offer to prevent them from going to the open market and say Apple out bidding them.

Seems like they don’t care if Apple outbids them for Tier 1, or else they would have locked them up by now. The only explanation for ESPN to hold out a higher number until the end is to see if anyone else defects, or to put pressure on others to defect…and in either case if you really wanted/needed that content, why play that game to risk it on the open market?

With the new expanded SEC, ACC, and AAC…maybe some Big12 sprinkled in there (hopefully not), they can blast their networks with content they already own. I don’t see how they absolutely need that weak PAC content…I also doubt Apple wants to pay over market for Tier 1 without USC/UCLA as their first solo venture.

It may just be the case that the market isn’t really digging the leftover PAC. ESPN’s offer of $25-$26 million might not be a lowball offer after all…it could be right on point.

 

[cyatheart]

Will be interesting to see what happens, problem is nobody thinks any of these teams are worth much, yet everyone wants to add several of them. So I really hope the Big 12 is very careful about who they add. We don't need two Arizona schools, we don't need another Utah school, and I really have no idea what Colorado brings other than another bankrupt athletic department and yet another apathetic fan base. The rest don't want to be here anyway so it's never going to work with those.

There just isn't much there.

I understand the need to kill the PAC, but it might be dead anyway without us taking anyone. but we also need to keep some spots for ACC schools that make sense when that inevitable blowup happens.

 

[RustShack]

Will be interesting to see what happens, problem is nobody thinks any of these teams are worth much, yet everyone wants to add several of them. So I really hope the Big 12 is very careful about who they add. We don't need two Arizona schools, we don't need another Utah school, and I really have no idea what Colorado brings other than another bankrupt athletic department and yet another apathetic fan base. The rest don't want to be here anyway so it's never going to work with those.

There just isn't much there.

I understand the need to kill the PAC, but it might be dead anyway without us taking anyone. but we also need to keep some spots for ACC schools that make sense when that inevitable blowup happens.

It’s funny this keeps coming up. We absolutely have room for two Arizona schools, and two Utah schools. This isn’t 2010 anymore. Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah all add multiple rivalries. They are all different fan bases. Utah is the best available besides Oregon, and debatable with Washington.

We don’t have the B1G network, or Fox backing it making sure people in those cities are buying it. So overlapping states is completely irrelevant.

 

[Boxerdaddy]

RE: Unequal Revenue sharing

Do you think we'll see some kind of performance based distribution from any conference?

Something like, if an equal distribution is $75 million per school with 16 teams, everyone instead gets 60 mil base, then rewarded for not being last.

e.g. 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88.

With title 9 I'm sure it can't entirely be based on football, but I'm sure they can run some formula to show the percentage return per sport and figure it out. So your football rank is like 90% of the calculation or whatever it is. Depending on the scale, this seems like a great way to reward success.

 

[RustShack]

It’s way past the point of return, but ideally the NCAA would hold all of the cards. Be able to organize the conferences as seen fit, as well as the playoffs. Everyone gets paid similarly, but you get a bump for your prime time games. Similar to the current 3 tier set up now for media rights.

But yeah the NCAA is far too ****** now that each P5 conference has more power than the NCAA.

 

[NWICY]

The rumors on Reddit were $25-26 mil.

Hmm, that doesn't seem very shiny.

 

[CascadeClone]

If the Big12 is Juco then what’s the PAC? The Kansas level of juco?

They are talking about academics not sports.

Still arrogant and insulting though.

 

[2speedy1]

30 mil per school, for the current 10. Well that was the projection, idk if ESPN’s lowball offer went that high.

FWIW, one of the Twitter rumors somewhere, a while back, was $220M for the 10 schools or $22M each if divided equally.

 

[simply1]

Yeah, places like Hawaii and California have a wider variety of outdoor things to do than other parts of the country and bigger cities across the country have more entertainment options than smaller cities. This puts college football lower down the totem poll for many. However, my experience has been that people find things to do no matter where they live so they make a choice to do one thing (I.e. play soccer with friends, swim in a lake or ocean, play tennis or go to a show) or they do something else like go to a rodeo, run a 10k or go to a football game. It helps that University of Hawaii football games usually start at 6pm, but in my years living here, as a football fan, I usually prefer going to UH games versus going to a show (if there is one) or whatever else. I grew up enjoying football and have continued enjoying it because FBS football is a great product. We'll see how fan interest changes, but for the time being, Hawaii football is a good entertainment option for me.

Where did you grow up?

 

[cyatheart]

It’s funny this keeps coming up. We absolutely have room for two Arizona schools, and two Utah schools. This isn’t 2010 anymore. Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah all add multiple rivalries. They are all different fan bases. Utah is the best available besides Oregon, and debatable with Washington.

We don’t have the B1G network, or Fox backing it making sure people in those cities are buying it. So overlapping states is completely irrelevant.

It is relevant if the teams you are adding have really poor numbers and there are only a few spots. We don't need 6 teams that nobody watches. And we certainly don't need two teams in Arizona that nobody watches. If there were two teams in Arizona that had great numbers and followings then by all means take both, but that isn't the case.

 

[HawaiiClone]

Where did you grow up?

Hawaii

 

[WhoISthis]

It’s funny this keeps coming up. We absolutely have room for two Arizona schools, and two Utah schools. This isn’t 2010 anymore. Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah all add multiple rivalries. They are all different fan bases. Utah is the best available besides Oregon, and debatable with Washington.

We don’t have the B1G network, or Fox backing it making sure people in those cities are buying it. So overlapping states is completely irrelevant.

That's generally not a great way to entice them to jump.

The bottom line is if another conference finishes off the PAC for us, we can be selective. In that situation, if the networks say we'll make more at 20, but with only 2-4 more schools in the west and the rest eventually coming from the east. we can do that. And the PAC schools we'd be passing on would be available whenever we wanted, as I don't see the ACC adding just 1-2 PAC schools.

This is the only time these 4 are all for sure takes as a group. Nearly any other scenario in which the PAC folds has risk of them not being together. And staying together and all 4 leaving also dictates they are with Oregon and UW on their terms, while preventing more schools feeding in California, like SDSU/Fresno.

AZ, ASU, CU etc do not gain from SDSU being a peer in CA, able to offer the same recruits a chance to stay home. Only the conference itself and those at risk of being left out if they leave gain. If those three leave for BIG leading to the Big18 we want, it means they keep SDSU and Fresno out of their shopping cart, while also pushing WSU and Oregon St out. Maybe Cal too.

It is harsh, but those 6 schools benefit from culling college football in the west. Keeps G5 programs from joining the leftover party, removes 2-3 former peers from the party. Maybe, maybe they could argue to keep Cal and Stanford for access- a Big 20. But Stanford would rather go independent imo, and is BIG bound eventually, and when that happens, I think you could just make Cal a Mountain West school.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

RE: Unequal Revenue sharing

Do you think we'll see some kind of performance based distribution from any conference?

Something like, if an equal distribution is $75 million per school with 16 teams, everyone instead gets 60 mil base, then rewarded for not being last.

e.g. 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88.

With title 9 I'm sure it can't entirely be based on football, but I'm sure they can run some formula to show the percentage return per sport and figure it out. So your football rank is like 90% of the calculation or whatever it is. Depending on the scale, this seems like a great way to reward success.

I doubt it. The Big 12's original iteration of unequal revenue sharing was based on how often you played on TV.

I could see a conference going that way, with something like $X per Tier 3 game played, $X+Y per Tier 2, and $X+Y+Z for each Tier 1 game your school played in.

Of course that doesn't work here, because if Oregon and Washington get more, everybody else gets less, and "less" in the Pac-12 is not gonna be better than equality in the Big 12.

 

[RustShack]

Don't tell them that.
The bottom line is if another conference finishes off the PAC for us, we can be selective. In that situation, if the networks say we'll make more at 20, but with only 2-4 more schools in the west and the rest eventually coming from the east. we can do that. And the PAC schools we'd be passing on would be available whenever we wanted, as I don't see the ACC adding just 1-2 PAC schools.

Ideally we’d get to 16 asap, just like the B1G SEC. Once they raid the ACC, they aren’t going to leave us a bunch of schools better then some PAC options. If we don’t raid the PAC now of the best 4-6, then we just set those schools back a decade that maybe we end up going back for.

You want to stay at 12-14 and pick up the pieces after the p2 goes to 20-24?

 

[2speedy1]

They are talking about academics not sports.

Still arrogant and insulting though.

For what it is worth, he didn't say someone in the administration actually said that. It was more like his opinion on how the CU administrators think.

Do they actually think that, or something similar, maybe. Maybe he exaggerated a bit.

 

[WhoISthis]

The rumors on Reddit were $25-26 mil.

Damn, Oregon St and WSU are going to be below American money to make that conference stay together

 

[WhoISthis]

Ideally we’d get to 16 asap, just like the B1G SEC. Once they raid the ACC, they aren’t going to leave us a bunch of schools better then some PAC options. If we don’t raid the PAC now of the best 4-6, then we just set those schools back a decade that maybe we end up going back for.

You want to stay at 12-14 and pick up the pieces after the p2 goes to 20-24?

No one is saying don't raid. The opposite. It helps our ability to raid if the risks that this is a one time offer are known.

Imo the number should be dependent on how many are in the P2. The bigger the P2, the smaller we need to be. The smaller the P2, the bigger the 3rd conference will need to be in order to get exclusivity on the "other guy" role.

I'd love a Big 18, leaving 6 spots for ACC.

But that does no good in leveraging the PAC schools. And there is legitimately a high risk this is the only time/chance all 4 can dictate what unfolds next in realignment. There are many ways that not all will have a Big 12 offer in the future, or frankly, any of them have an offer at all. It is non-zero that the ESPN finds a way to **** the Big 12 in order to make the ACC the base of 3rd conference. In which case it is 22 schools trying to get 10 spots. Not good for some PAC schools. Do they want that risk, or do they want to be on the selection committee of the 3rd super conference.

And I think that Big 18+6 is likely to be less, given that Big 18 has some risk of losing 2-3 schools to P2. For that reason I think a Big 20 is doable- I just don't see Stanford being in the 3rd super conference more than to help Cal out.