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

[Number Monkey]

The SEC meanwhile plays 9 conference games + one Big 12 game + 2 buy games , since the B1G/Pac/ACC aren't playing them anymore. ESPN and the leagues decide on the SEC/Big 12 opponents less than a year in advance to maximize the quality games (but Bedlam being one that always happens; Mizzou plays KU, KSU, ISU a lot; Texas and A&M play Tech/Baylor/TCU often).

One, I don't think they're not going to play the SEC any more. They're just going to agree on the rules they want. If the SEC doesn't like them they can negotiate or go it alone. I don't think anyone here is trying to distance themselves from the SEC, just ensure the playing field stays relatively even.

Two, the way things are going I'd imagine any scheduling agreement would be 2 games, whether its the SEC/Big12 or the "Alliance". If the concept is raising media revenues, you need home games for that. 1 game only gives you half the games. With two games the Big 12 could sell 8 SEC games a year over 4 and increase ticket sales in the process.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

One, I don't think they're not going to play the SEC any more. They're just going to agree on the rules they want. If the SEC doesn't like them they can negotiate or go it alone. I don't think anyone here is trying to distance themselves from the SEC, just ensure the playing field stays relatively even.

Two, the way things are going I'd imagine any scheduling agreement would be 2 games, whether its the SEC/Big12 or the "Alliance". If the concept is raising media revenues, you need home games for that. 1 game only gives you half the games. With two games the Big 12 could sell 8 SEC games a year over 4 and increase ticket sales in the process.

Not sure about #1 either - I guess it depends on what the scheduling looks like. The B1G and Pac-12 already play 9 conference games. Plenty of those schools demand 7 home games a year. That requires using 2/3 non-con slots for buy games that are always at home. They have room for one home-and-home series. If the Alliance involves even one game a year per team, then a lot of these teams are not going to play the SEC at all. Particularly the most desirable brands, who are the ones that most often play 7 games at home no matter what.

Media revenues has nothing to do with home games, if the media partner involved is working on both sides (which would be the case if ESPN is greasing the wheels for both the Big 12 and SEC). If the B1G/Pac/ACC Alliance was one game a year per school, that would be 20 games a season. The Big 12/SEC one I threw together is 16 games a season. Sure more games would mean more money but both of those are still a substantial number of games.

 

[Cyched]

 

[BCClone]

Not sure about #1 either - I guess it depends on what the scheduling looks like. The B1G and Pac-12 already play 9 conference games. Plenty of those schools demand 7 home games a year. That requires using 2/3 non-con slots for buy games that are always at home. They have room for one home-and-home series. If the Alliance involves even one game a year per team, then a lot of these teams are not going to play the SEC at all. Particularly the most desirable brands, who are the ones that most often play 7 games at home no matter what.

Media revenues has nothing to do with home games so I have no idea what you're talking about there, if the media partner involved is working on both sides (which would be the case if ESPN is greasing the wheels for both the Big 12 and SEC). If the B1G/Pac/ACC Alliance was one game a year per school, that would be 21 games a season. The Big 12/SEC one I threw together is 16 games a season. Sure more games would mean more money but both of those are still a substantial number of games.

PAC is considering dropping to 8 conference games.

 

[Number Monkey]

Media revenues has nothing to do with home games so I have no idea what you're talking about there, if the media partner involved is working on both sides (which would be the case if ESPN is greasing the wheels for both the Big 12 and SEC). If the B1G/Pac/ACC Alliance was one game a year per school, that would be 21 games a season. The Big 12/SEC one I threw together is 16 games a season. Sure more games would mean more money but both of those are still a substantial number of games.

Media revenues have everything to do with home games. You can only sell your home games to your media partner. For the Iowa/Iowa State series, the Big 12 gets the revenue one year and the Big Ten gets it the next.

Additionally conference games are worth more than non-conference games because conference games are known commodities. For non-con, a media partner doesn't know 8 years out of you're scheduling Alabama or St Mary's Institute of the Blind. Due to that, it is valued poorly. Less risk, higher revenue. A scheduling alliance exists so that each conference can take a guaranteed set of better games to their media partner to sell.

Those games are home games.

 

[Cyclonepride]

"Industry sources" sounds carefully worded to sound more important than they actually are.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Media revenues have everything to do with home games. You can only sell your home games to your media partner. For the Iowa/Iowa State series, the Big 12 gets the revenue one year and the Big Ten gets it the next.

Additionally conference games are worth more than non-conference games because conference games are known commodities. For non-con, a media partner doesn't know 8 years out of you're scheduling Alabama or St Mary's Institute of the Blind. Due to that, it is valued poorly. Less risk, higher revenue. A scheduling alliance exists so that each conference can take a guaranteed set of better games to their media partner to sell.

Those games are home games.

Yeah I know how that works but that was not what I was describing with an ESPN-Big 12-SEC deal on 16 games per year. Which not coincidentally addresses the risk that you describe in paragraph 2. It would be MORE valuable for ESPN rather than less if they knew that every year, they got to have a hand in assigning the 16 SEC schools to the eight Big 12 ones and trying to create the most valuable TV matchups. Meanwhile the Big 12 continues to have 9 games that are out of the school's individual hands and (ideally) they get good $$$ from ESPN. And the SEC continues to have a solid non-con option in the case that the B1G/ACC/Pac end up freezing them out. It's another thing I don't expect to happen but it wouldn't really shock me if it did, in the case that the Alliance conferences do not expand and the SEC is trying to win the fight at the inter-conference level about which CFP expansion proposal to go with. They could basically prop up the Big 12 as a vote on their side, too.

 

[Cyched]

"Industry sources" sounds carefully worded to sound more important than they actually are.

 

[KidSilverhair]

You know, those 7 home games every year are something else I hadn’t thought of. If the blue bloods are all going to group together, playing each other for big TV money while cutting out the teams with “no value” (I‘m getting to hate that phrase, it’s such ********), how do they ALL expect to keep that sweet 7th home game? They won’t get their blue blood buddies to give up a game at home - heck, those guys are angling for 7 home games too.

Yeah, I know, they’ll just keep buying extra home games from FCS teams while still ignoring the “no value” FBS schools. Unless they actually do have a rule saying wins over FCS teams don’t count for the play-off, this is the only way they can keep raking in tickets for 7 home games every year.

It’s funny, it’s almost like these greedy bastards didn’t think this all the way through when they decided to consolidate the top 30 or 40 teams into the Super Conferences To End All Conferences …

 

[BCClone]

You know, those 7 home games every year are something else I hadn’t thought of. If the blue bloods are all going to group together, playing each other for big TV money while cutting out the teams with “no value” (I‘m getting to hate that phrase, it’s such ********), how do they ALL expect to keep that sweet 7th home game? They won’t get their blue blood buddies to give up a game at home - heck, those guys are angling for 7 home games too.

Yeah, I know, they’ll just keep buying extra home games from FCS teams while still ignoring the “no value” FBS schools. Unless they actually do have a rule saying wins over FCS teams don’t count for the play-off, this is the only way they can keep raking in tickets for 7 home games every year.

It’s funny, it’s almost like these greedy bastards didn’t think this all the way through when they decided to consolidate the top 30 or 40 teams into the Super Conferences To End All Conferences …

Vandy and Kentucky will play 11 road games. Will get one home for homecoming.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I think it's rather naive to not consider the idea that people who don't want expansion might try to shape the story to help pressure other people who might see the benefit to it.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I think it's rather naive to not consider the idea that people who don't want expansion might try to shape the story to help pressure other people who might see the benefit to it.

There are certain people who either ignore all of these reports, or think that they mean whatever they want them to mean, and are acting like there is a secret master plan that will all be revealed when the time is right. Not to send this to the Cave but it is reminiscent of some total wackos who are divorced from reality and also act like every single event that happens in the world is a piece of evidence supporting their theory of what will happen next. At a certain point, every single report saying "We don't want you" might mean just that. We will find out pretty soon.

 

[Cyclonepride]

There are certain people who either ignore all of these reports, or think that they mean whatever they want them to mean, and are acting like there is a secret master plan that will all be revealed when the time is right. Not to send this to the Cave but it is reminiscent of some total wackos who are divorced from reality and also act like every single event that happens in the world is a piece of evidence supporting their theory of what will happen next. At a certain point, every single report saying "We don't want you" might mean just that. We will find out pretty soon.

I really haven't seen all sorts of reports saying "we don't want you". I've seen a whole lot of reports linking the same, limited set of public statements and interpreting it to mean that. We shall see, but it's quite obvious that the PAC 12, standing pat, is in little better position than a reconstituted Big 12.

 

[Cyched]

You guys need to lighten up. Of course no one knows anything. The speculation is part of the fun.

 

[cykadelic2]

For Texas and Oklahoma, it was not, not matter what anyone says. You could remove all of the media revenues that Texas makes in a year and they would still be in the top five of total revenues. Their football team alone makes over $140m a year with only $40m in expenses. They are also in no threat to lose money any time soon with the support structure they have built into their university. So if it isn't money, why?

Exposure and Recruiting.

While TCU could make the argument, I don't think its a secret that the only school that really benefited massively from realignment in 2010 was A&M. Their wins and exposure have shot through the roof and that has impacted recruiting, where they are nabbing more of the 5 stars that Texas used to strong arm by just saying "we are Texas". Now its "Play for the SEC"

On Texas' end, there are two recent lost recruiting battles with high profile in-state recruits that IMO were "last straws" from the overreactive folks running the show for them. One recruit was Quinn Ewers who grew up a UT fan, committed to them and then decommitted for Ohio St. The other was Tommy Brockermeyer, a legacy who committed to Alabama. Both highlighted the perception that if UT was in the SEC, they would have signed both.

And I also think A&M's "success" in the SEC has been overblown especially given their best team so far in the SEC was with B12 recruits when Johnny Football was their QB.

 

[CyCrazy]

There are certain people who either ignore all of these reports, or think that they mean whatever they want them to mean, and are acting like there is a secret master plan that will all be revealed when the time is right. Not to send this to the Cave but it is reminiscent of some total wackos who are divorced from reality and also act like every single event that happens in the world is a piece of evidence supporting their theory of what will happen next. At a certain point, every single report saying "We don't want you" might mean just that. We will find out pretty soon.

You should step away for awhile.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

On Texas' end, there are two recent lost recruiting battles with high profile in-state recruits that IMO were "last straws" from the overreactive folks running the show for them. One recruit was Quinn Ewers who grew up a UT fan, committed to them and then decommitted for Ohio St. The other was Tommy Brockermeyer, a legacy who committed to Alabama. Both highlighted the perception that if UT was in the SEC, they would have signed both.

And I also think A&M's "success" in the SEC has been overblown especially given their best team so far in the SEC was with B12 recruits when Johnny Football was their QB.

If Texas had kept Ewers and had made that FG against us last fall (and ultimately won the game), decent chance they don’t leave the conference. My UT fan friends thought the Ewers decommit in particular really stung.

 

[FallOf81]

If Texas had kept Ewers and had made that FG against us last fall (and ultimately won the game), decent chance they don’t leave the conference. My UT fan friends thought the Ewers decommit in particular really stung.

 

[Die4Cy]

Even if the PAC comes right out in two weeks and says they are not planning to expand at this time, it doesn't mean all that much.

The scenario to be concerned with is the one where they do decide to expand, but ISU is not included among the teams being considered. At that point you are just hanging on for a B1G invite that may never come, or oblivion.

 

[k123]

If the Pac moves to expand, they'll probably need to look at adding more than 4. I doubt the B1G will sit around and just watch it happen. Wouldn't be surprised if that move by the Pac is followed by a similar move by the B1G with USC, UCLA, Oregon, Wash.

I think this is right - this clique of Pac-12 bluebloods don't want to associate with riff-raff like Oklahoma State without Oklahoma, Texas Tech without Texas or A&M, Iowa State, K-State or UNLV, Utah and Colorado were their consolation prizes back in 2010.

(Edit - my hope is that ISU and KU are barely prestigious/regional enough to join them in Big10. I don't like the snobbishness but would rather be in a majority midwestern conference than a revamped Pac-12+SWAC+BYU or a weird alignment w directional Florida schools and city unis down in the old Confederacy trying to remember difference between Tulsa and Tulane.)

If they can go to the "prestigious" "Peer institutions" in a nationwide Big10 they'd be gone in a heartbeat, and Big10 will likely want those flagship institutions which they will say makes sense since they're "tied together in Rose Bowl History" but especially since their tied together in "Class" and endowment size, alumni and faculty networks, etc. Donor level alumni from Northwestern like to know and work with donor level alumni from Stanford, both are less interested in Oklahoma State and were resistance to Nebraska, but suggestion of prestigious history and TV$ won out on that one.

The best we can hope for is a strong "WestOfTheMIssissippi20" conference made out of these leftovers after Big10 and SEC finish picking the top and to balance as one of the four mega conferences w Big10, SEC, and ACC.