Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

jakemcilroy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 26, 2006
1,229
668
113
48
Colorado might be the most vulnerable and open to join the Big12, from what I've gathered.
Pretty much the same thing. Get 2, cripple the league, then decide if you want to more.

Only difference is Colorado’s elitist mentality but at this point beggars can’t be choosers. Need to cripple their league while ensuring our long-term disability.
 

scyclonekid

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2008
9,414
3,879
113
No merger good, go get pac teams and now a possible affiliation with ND also good. I get explore all options, but in the end I’m confident we add teams crippling the PAC.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113


Arizona 247 guy says that Pac-12 sources are saying three outcomes are in the mix:

1. Big 12 gets aggressive and tries to add schools ASAP, tries to make it official very soon.
2. The ten in the Pac-12 stick together on a short-term media contract.
3. The Pac-12 expands with Mountain West or AAC options in order to have more inventory for negotiations.

He thinks (1) is the most likely, but different people had different thoughts on which was the most likely. But he says that (3) is picking up steam as an option among the Pac-12.

Both (2) and (3) suggest that the TV $$$ numbers coming in for the ten-team league are not very good. So they don't want to commit to a long-term deal with that conference structure. Either do short term for survival and then revisit it soon, or expand and then go back to the market with a conference that looks different.

It seems like in the fairly near future we will know which way this has shaken out. For what it's worth Scheer did not mention the Pac-12 poaching the Big 12 as an option.


So a conference that was already behind the Big 12 adds G5 the Big 12 didn’t want? Not ideal for anyone. Further makes the non-P2 level closer to G5 than P2.

And Cal and Stanford want to be with Boise and Cal St?

All this, passing on revenue, and playing mid level G5, while some of these schools will never have a better chance to control their position and chance at being in eventual P3.

It would be making a decision on nothing but emotion.

4-5 going independent backed by ESPN is more rational than that.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,655
63,717
113
Not exactly sure.
So a conference that was already behind the Big 12 adds G5 the Big 12 didn’t want? Not ideal for anyone. Further makes the non-P2 level closer to G5 than P2.

And Cal and Stanford want to be with Boise and Cal St?

All this, passing on revenue, and playing mid level G5, while some of these schools will never have a better chance to control their position and chance at being in eventual P3.

It would be making a decision on nothing but emotion.

4-5 going independent backed by ESPN is more rational than that.
And we don’t need 2-4 teams that add value (now), we just need 2-4 that won’t really cut value, or very much, to cripple the PAC.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dormeezy

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,878
13,962
113
Pretty much the same thing. Get 2, cripple the league, then decide if you want to more.

Only difference is Colorado’s elitist mentality but at this point beggars can’t be choosers. Need to cripple their league while ensuring our long-term disability.

inigiomontoyayoukeepusingthatword.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: MeanDean

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113
And we don’t need 2-4 teams that add value (now), we just need 2-4 that won’t really cut value, or very much, to cripple the PAC.
Right but the question i,s do 2-3 schools that don’t add value now, cripple PAC?

And I think they are already crippled. We are looking to mortally wound it. End it, and as soon as possible

Boise St could add more value to the PAC deal than any of CU, AZ, or ASU. SDSU gets them so level of presence in LA, and is not that different than CU for PAC12.

If not for emotion we would have a Big 18 imo. But given how delusional the PAC (and nation) is about the Big 12 compared to PAC, you could see the 7 remaining schools be a rump conference for awhile, which is good for no one except the mountain west schools that are in it, including Cal, Oregon St, and WSU
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,655
63,717
113
Not exactly sure.
Right but the question i,s do 2-3 schools that don’t add value now, cripple PAC?

And I think they are already crippled. We are looking to mortally wound it. End it, and as soon as possible

Boise St could add more value to the PAC deal than any of CU, AZ, or ASU. SDSU gets them so level of presence in LA, and is not that different than CU for PAC12.

If not for emotion we would have a Big 18 imo. But given how delusional the PAC (and nation) is about the Big 12 compared to PAC, you could see the 7 remaining schools be a rump conference for awhile, which is good for no one except the mountain west schools that are in it, including Cal, Oregon St, and WSU
They may not add value to us, but do to the PAC. If they are 45-50 MM schools, that is what we are expecting. The PAC is supposed to be 30 MM average so we would take their better than average team which is average to us.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113
They may not add value to us, but do to the PAC. If they are 45-50 MM schools, that is what we are expecting. The PAC is supposed to be 30 MM average so we would take their better than average team which is average to us.

But are they 45-50 MM schools? That seems extremely unlikely. The ex-Fox Sports executive had Oregon at 30 million, which I don't buy, but would mean AZ, CU, and ASu are far from 45-50.

They are the schools just above WSU and Oregon St in value. Which is why they have interest in being proactive in locking in a spot and why they are the best chance we have at getting some movement
 

Clonedogg

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2009
2,511
1,860
113
CR, IA
biblehub.com
But are they 45-50 MM schools? That seems extremely unlikely. The ex-Fox Sports executive had Oregon at 30 million, which I don't buy, but would mean AZ, CU, and ASu are far from 45-50.

They are the schools just above WSU and Oregon St in value. Which is why they have interest in being proactive in locking in a spot and why they are the best chance we have at getting some movement
ASU actually looks pretty good in many metrics, AZ and CU I agree with you.
 
Last edited:

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,613
10,102
113
38
I recall reading similar to what you say, the schools get the gear for free for athletic use. However, aren't there licensing agreements for commercially sold apparel to fans that the schools get?
I know for sure there used to be but I am not sure if that is still going on or not. One of the big deals about it is that most athletes (all scholarship, club is hit or miss) are expected to only wear the school branded athletic gear around campus. At Michigan a lot of players hated when they switched over to addidas because of it because they were no longer able to wear the nike gear they had accumulated and vice versa when they went back to Nike.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,634
7,487
113

Free gear, millions depending on school.

Iowa State latest deal


Actually looks like important apparel negotiations coming up in 2024…
This is what i was wondering if Nike could give a bigger deal like this to the schools in the Big 10. Say an extra 5-10 Mil per year for like 10 years each for the entire Big 10 to buy Oregons way into the conference.

Wondering if that would be enough to get them in, and would work. Nike gets the marketing etc that they already do, but at a higher cost, for those in the Big 10, but it gets Knights pet team into the conference.

Say they average $3M per year per Big 10 team now, they agree to pay $10M per year per team for 10 years?
Would Knight do that? Would It work?