|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 18:16:41 GMT -5
Kansas joins the club here too in this scenario. And media market isn’t irrelevant. It’s not the same trump card it was in the “let’s add Maryland/Rutgers” days, but it’s not a non-factor. Once you’re past 16, it makes more sense to go to 24/25 than 20 given the current conference footprints. Agree to disagree. The more schools you take, the more you dilute the revenue shares of the existing members. And I don't believe I said that media market was completely "irrelevant." I said that it isn't nearly as important as it was in the last round of realignment. These aren’t dilutive moves… especially if you remove the two revenue negs to the PAC and move the P12 network into the Foxverse - the PAC’s fundamentals weren’t that bad, just execution, and despite other doom-and-gloom propaganda, PAC was still out earning the ACC.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 26, 2021 18:17:53 GMT -5
I strongly disagree that taking 10 Pac-12 schools makes more sense than taking 4-6. If AAU status was that important (it matters--just not nearly as much as football branding does), then the Big Ten could take in Kansas, which is a more natural geographic fit and at least has a great basketball brand. People keep mentioning Kansas but I don't think they appreciate what a mess Kansas is. The basketball team has major NCAA infractions pending which they have spent over $3.5 million on lawyers to defend themselves. Adidas has been made to stop paying recruits and Kansas blamed their dismal 2020 basketball recruiting class on the NCAA issues not being settled faster - but apparently not being able to pay players has nothing to do with it. They rewarded the cheating coach with a lifetime contract. As bad as basketball is, Football is worse, primarily because they are losers. But if that isn't enough... Football had a handful of players dealing drugs, abusing animals, "bullying" a teammate (if you call unfastening the lugnuts on a tire and threatening him and his parents with a gun "bullying"). Les Miles and the compliance office asked them to stop, and then paid the "bullied" player $50,000 not to go to the press - with money that was paid by the athletic department, not some intermediary. It's one thing if these issues are in your conference already, but for a conference to invite them in would really be something. As Mark Emmert said a week or two ago, compliance is going to be turned over, increasingly, to the conferences, and NOBODY wants to get in bed with a school that is so blatant about their disregard for rules and authority. If they brought enough to the table, it's not impossible, but Kansas doesn't offer that much.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 18:36:26 GMT -5
Agree to disagree. The more schools you take, the more you dilute the revenue shares of the existing members. And I don't believe I said that media market was completely "irrelevant." I said that it isn't nearly as important as it was in the last round of realignment. These aren’t dilutive moves… especially if you remove the two revenue negs to the PAC and move the P12 network into the Foxverse - the PAC’s fundamentals weren’t that bad, just execution. They are dilutive past a certain point. Suppose the Big 10 takes in 10 more schools and goes to 24 while the SEC stays at 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Suppose that both conferences get TV contracts worth $1 billion per year each. The SEC's payout per school would be $62.5 million, while the Big 10's would be about $41.7 million. So that's a difference of over $20 million per school per year. In order for the Big 10 to keep up, they would need a TV contract of $1.5 billion to get that same $62.5 million payout that the SEC would be getting. Now, these numbers aren't the exact contracts, but would this new Big 10/Pac-12 conglomerate really be worth 50% more than the SEC with Texas and Oklahoma would? I highly doubt it. Moreover, all the new additions would not be adding an equal amount of value. USC would be way more valuable than Arizona (or Kansas). I don't think Ohio State and Michigan even like sharing with Northwestern. They don't want to bring in more schools that won't increase their own payouts. This is the same reason that the Pac-12 likely isn't interested (or at least they shouldn't be interested if they don't want USC to leave) in adding any of the remaining Big 12 schools. It's not about increasing the size of the pie. It's about increasing the size of the shares of the existing members of the conference. Anyway, I don't think I'm going to change your mind on this, which is fine. We'll just have to see what happens. From what I've heard, we could know who the Big 10 intends to take--if anyone--in a matter of weeks or months, not years, as both the Big 10's and Pac-12's contracts end soon.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2021 19:06:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jul 26, 2021 21:43:36 GMT -5
This whole thread makes me sad.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 26, 2021 21:55:43 GMT -5
This whole thread makes me sad. Then you haven't been paying attention for the last several years.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2021 23:32:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jackson5vb on Jul 27, 2021 6:51:58 GMT -5
I can see CUSA or AAC raiding the leftovers. I don't think B1G wants any of the leftover Bxii colleges.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Jul 27, 2021 7:55:05 GMT -5
This whole thread makes me sad. Then you haven't been paying attention for the last several years. Could he not have been fully aware the past few years AND be sad about this thread?
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 27, 2021 11:44:37 GMT -5
Thought about something today... California has a travel ban on 17 states with LGBTQ policies that they don't approve of... including Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Alabama, etc.
So as the Pac 12 looks at it's options, could UCLA and Cal even be in a conference with Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Iowa, etc?
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 27, 2021 11:48:44 GMT -5
Thought about something today... California has a travel ban on 17 states with LGBTQ policies that they don't approve of... including Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Alabama, etc. So as the Pac 12 looks at it's options, could UCLA and Cal even be in a conference with Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Iowa, etc? UCLA just played in the softball CWS at Norman, OK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2021 11:55:06 GMT -5
Thought about something today... California has a travel ban on 17 states with LGBTQ policies that they don't approve of... including Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Alabama, etc. So as the Pac 12 looks at it's options, could UCLA and Cal even be in a conference with Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Iowa, etc? what
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jul 27, 2021 12:16:54 GMT -5
California will be the first state to ban football.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jul 27, 2021 12:53:25 GMT -5
I find it really really hard to believe that any of the Pac-12 schools would bolt for the Big-10. I think that is about as likely as OSU, PSU & UM leaving for SEC. None of this is going to happen even if that is where the money is.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,367
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 27, 2021 13:07:21 GMT -5
Thought about something today... California has a travel ban on 17 states with LGBTQ policies that they don't approve of... including Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Alabama, etc. So as the Pac 12 looks at it's options, could UCLA and Cal even be in a conference with Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Iowa, etc? This was brought up elsewhere. There are workarounds, something maybe about public money not being allowed? Stanford is playing VB this year in Texas, so there is a way to get around this.
|
|