|
Post by bigjohn043 on Feb 11, 2023 21:40:12 GMT -5
My view of what is going on here: The B1G & SEC now have media deals that are 3x the other conferences. That is a huge imbalance that is going to continue to drive changes. That is too big a difference to be stable. So by conference: SEC - their expansion candidates are all caught up in the ACC long term GOR deal: FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami, maybe ND. So they are stuck for now and are in good shape so willing to wait. B1G - the one really good candidate they have is also stuck in the ACC deal: ND. They might also be interested in FSU or Miami but probably not. There is also probably real interest in Stanford & UW (maybe UO & cal). But no need to hurry until ND clarifies and my guess is they don't want to get blamed for totally blowing up the P12. ACC - they are fine for now but vulnerable in 10 years when their GOR is up. Waiting to see how things play out probably isn't crazy. The one move they could make is for Stanford, UW, cal & UO. Not a crazy idea but no hurry. Both the ACC and SEC want desperately in the states of Virginia and North Carolina; taking a combination of UNC, UVa, VaTech, NC State, or Duke would be very appealing to them geographically and academically). SEC could have had Miami /and/or FSU a long time ago, but they already had Florida (and a supposed gentleman's agreement not to admit any new members in states where a current member already existed; Texas broke that barrier if it was truly one, much to the dismay of Texas A&M). B1G has now broken their preference to have all member schools in contiguous states. First choice has always been ND; maybe one day if the ACC implodes. They could potentially be eyeing FSU and/or Miami (if their academics meet conference standards). Fifteen or so years ago, B1G flirted with Georgia Tech as getting into Atlanta was appealing. If they ever decide to reach in to the southeast, it would 2 of those 3 schools (with possible FSU on the outside looking in). Not sure I really agree with any of this. I see no evidence that the SEC desperately wants into NC/VA. And frankly I see no reason why they would. I think TV now drives these things so FL cannot block FSU or Miami. The idea that anyone wants GT is literally laughable. UGA is the school of Atlanta.....
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 21:48:05 GMT -5
Well, I’m going by what the Pac 12 has historically done for its members which is highly regarded private schools that are not religiously affiliated (and Stanford and USC are old timers) and the the large land grant state schools in the western footprint. SMU does not fit that mold. I certainly did not say nor do I believe that SMU is a poor academic school. What I said was that it’s not an elite academic school, and I stand by that. SMU has little prestige and recognition outside of the greater Texas area. The same isn’t said for programs like Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, or Duke. I’d bet my bottom dollar that if you ask 100 random people outside of a one state radius of Texas, most people don’t even know what SMU even means, and if you said Southern Methodist University, most people wouldn’t even know it’s located in Texas. Californians would likely conflate it with Saint Marys University. If it’s about dollars, I guess, but SMU simply does not fit the mold of the Pac 12 conference. Frankly, I’m a Pac 10 stalwart, and have only recently come around to Utah and Colorado being “one of us”. IMO I’d rather the larger schools sell their souls to the Big 10 for a smaller revenue cut (let’s be honest, if the powers that be had their way, half of the current Big 10 would be subject to revenue cuts and a few schools would get the boot) or the Big 12 before adding SMU to the mix for the Pac-12, but that’s just me. It’s obvious to me Washington and Oregon would say yes immediately to a Big 10 invitation. I have no idea what Stanford would do. There has to be a significant portion of their administration that wonders how far they’re willing to go to be legitimately competitive with the direction collegiate sports is heading. So far it’s been yes, but their compromises remain relatively minor. Who knows with Cal. They have that albatross of a debt obligation for that football stadium, but they forced out a coach who recently competed for a national championship after not being willing to give him the tools to recruit athletes woefully under qualified for Cal undergrad. I don’t understand how PAC remains a viable conference long term. I always figured geography would be their two edged sword - provide huge obstacles for national relevance, but distance and time zones protect them from poaching. The USC/UCLA move was way more ground breaking in a lot of ways than the OU/TX move, even if both of them were big in their own way. Even if they figure out how to survive in the short term, they’re a Big 10 invite away from distintegration. Or former Mountain West status, which amounts to the same thing. If they can’t join the Big 10/SEC mega money ranks, the only realistic option is for the strongest members to join the Big 12 as some kind of mega conference that proves an alternative to the Power 2. IMO the Big 12 is going to regret having Cincinnati and UCF as members (West Virginia, too, although not in the same way) because their future is west, not east. All these schools being mentioned as expansion targets - SDSU, Fresno State, SMU, even Gonzaga, smack as a sort of desperation to me. Any decent program worth anything weat of the Mississippi River is already affiliated with the Big 12 or PAC. New affiliations of some sort seeking to maximize revenue and especially security seem inevitable. Is there a current PAC program better served by adding SDSU/Fresno State (a terrible academic school)/SMU than by a stronger affiliation with any other conference? Because I don’t think so. Other than the strong and legitimate interest in maintaining the PAC brand. To me it’s a little like the death of the SWC, although the remaining PAC schools are way more viable than the SWC had at their disposal after the departure of Arkansas/UT/A&M. But the same biggest issue - the lack of a broad enough TV market, and not enough eyeballs willing to tune into games compared to the rest of the country - is proving its doom. USC/UCLA didn’t want to be consigned to the second class citizen status PAC membership doomed them to, and they bailed. The numbers are going to be worse now, and adding SDSU/Fresno State/SMU won’t move the needle one whit. And that’s if you can get Cal and Stanford to uncrinkle their collective noses long enough to let them in. Which I find doubtful. I just don’t see a scenario where the PAC is viable long term. Their best chance was to grab the strongest members of the Big 12, but that’s now out of the picture. In a survival of the fittest I see the Big 12 clearly coming out on top. The faster the PAC seeks some kind of merger on favorable terms to me the better. With the knowledge the strongest programs of either conference will bolt at a moment’s notice if they ever get an invitation to one of the Power 2. I agree with you for the most part, but I disagree with the underlined. The Big 12's immediate future may be in the West, but they don't need that many schools to fill the ESPN "After Dark" slot. I really think the two Arizona schools would probably be enough, along with BYU. I'm sure the Big 12 would take Washington and Oregon if they were willing to come, but I don't think they want to add too many schools in the West, and then they'll wait for the ACC to collapse. Of course, a lot of this will come down to what ESPN and FOX want (i.e. how many additional schools do they want to pay for to fulfill their programming needs)?
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Feb 11, 2023 21:59:19 GMT -5
Both the ACC and SEC want desperately in the states of Virginia and North Carolina; taking a combination of UNC, UVa, VaTech, NC State, or Duke would be very appealing to them geographically and academically). SEC could have had Miami /and/or FSU a long time ago, but they already had Florida (and a supposed gentleman's agreement not to admit any new members in states where a current member already existed; Texas broke that barrier if it was truly one, much to the dismay of Texas A&M). B1G has now broken their preference to have all member schools in contiguous states. First choice has always been ND; maybe one day if the ACC implodes. They could potentially be eyeing FSU and/or Miami (if their academics meet conference standards). Fifteen or so years ago, B1G flirted with Georgia Tech as getting into Atlanta was appealing. If they ever decide to reach in to the southeast, it would 2 of those 3 schools (with possible FSU on the outside looking in). Not sure I really agree with any of this. I see no evidence that the SEC desperately wants into NC/VA. And frankly I see no reason why they would. I think TV now drives these things so FL cannot block FSU or Miami. The idea that anyone wants GT is literally laughable. UGA is the school of Atlanta..... You don't have to agree with it. If you didn't follow conference realignment 15-20 years ago, then you don't know which rumored schools the B1G and SEC courted. The states of North Carolina and Viginia have schools which offer great combinations of academics and athletics in greatly-populated areas.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 11, 2023 21:59:47 GMT -5
bbg95 The Big 12 will still have to take the ACC leavings after the Big 10 and the SEC pick off the best programs. We'll see what actually remains at that point. What will Wake Forest's home be, for example? They have a similar issue to SMU, except they don't have the Dallas market at their back. And the Big 12 itself will always be vulnerable to being poached. That's the reality for everyone that's not the Big 10/SEC. If one of those two conferences want a school that's not Notre Dame, they're going to get them. I don't even think Notre Dame will maintain their independent status forever.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 22:03:37 GMT -5
My view of what is going on here: The B1G & SEC now have media deals that are 3x the other conferences. That is a huge imbalance that is going to continue to drive changes. That is too big a difference to be stable. So by conference: SEC - their expansion candidates are all caught up in the ACC long term GOR deal: FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami, maybe ND. So they are stuck for now and are in good shape so willing to wait. B1G - the one really good candidate they have is also stuck in the ACC deal: ND. They might also be interested in FSU or Miami but probably not. There is also probably real interest in Stanford & UW (maybe UO & cal). But no need to hurry until ND clarifies and my guess is they don't want to get blamed for totally blowing up the P12. ACC - they are fine for now but vulnerable in 10 years when their GOR is up. Waiting to see how things play out probably isn't crazy. The one move they could make is for Stanford, UW, cal & UO. Not a crazy idea but no hurry. B12 - their strength is none of their schools is really attractive for another conference. Expanding to try to blow up the P12 would be smart. I think their general approach is to just get bigger. They clearly aren't at the B1G/SEC level but above the group of 5. P12 - I think the big problem is their best schools (UW, Stanford) are almost certainly shopping themselves. The logical thing would be to get bigger. The problem is all of the candidates probably near term don't help their media. The academic snobs in the conference don't like the idea of SDSU. I have read that neither SDSU or SMU has the votes or it would already be done. My guess is UA, ASU, CO & Utah are trying to use the threat of leaving to get the others to agree to SDSU and/or SMU. Not really sure it will work. The B12 is not a good destination for them. All four schools get a huge chunk of their student bodies from CA and the west coast with very little from Texas or the SW. The media deal might force the situation but I could also see the conference standing pat. So I agree with a lot of this. With the Big Ten, I'm not convinced that they're interested in Stanford and Washington. I think Kevin Warren was interested in them (and Oregon and Cal), but he's gone, and I think most of the current Big Ten schools don't want to expand again soon unless Notre Dame becomes available. As for the Four Corners schools, I don't think they are monolithic in their thinking. I definitely think Utah doesn't want to go to the Big 12 under any circumstances. I don't think Colorado wants to either because it's like going back to a job that you quit. But I think the Arizona schools are more open to it. Supposedly, Arizona State wants to stay but has become upset with Kliavkoff's inability to get a good media deal so far. And I think Arizona probably wants to go to the Big 12, but they don't want to go without Arizona State. They are a basketball school, and the Big 12 is the best basketball conference in the country.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 11, 2023 22:07:58 GMT -5
Not sure I really agree with any of this. I see no evidence that the SEC desperately wants into NC/VA. And frankly I see no reason why they would. I think TV now drives these things so FL cannot block FSU or Miami. The idea that anyone wants GT is literally laughable. UGA is the school of Atlanta..... You don't have to agree with it. If you didn't follow conference realignment 15-20 years ago, then you don't know which rumored schools the B1G and SEC courted. The states of North Carolina and Viginia have schools which offer great combinations of academics and athletics in greatly-populated areas. There's an impending implosion of Regional Sports Networks facing major league baseball that's going to have a drastic impact on their revenue stream. I'm curious what the fall out of that is going to be, and how it will affect the BTN and SECN. Or, more importantly, how it will impact it in the future, especially in terms of expansion. Streamers are beginning to make a difference with the legacy systems, with people moving away from paying for programming they're not going to watch - which was the bread and butter for regional sports networks. Obviously the billion dollar plus levels of revenue those two conferences are commanding is making it a non issue at the moment, but I do wonder what the future holds. More importantly, what metrics are used to value bringing new members in - or not bringing new members in, as the case may be.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 22:08:32 GMT -5
bbg95 The Big 12 will still have to take the ACC leavings after the Big 10 and the SEC pick off the best programs. We'll see what actually remains at that point. What will Wake Forest's home be, for example? They have a similar issue to SMU, except they don't have the Dallas market at their back. And the Big 12 itself will always be vulnerable to being poached. That's the reality for everyone that's not the Big 10/SEC. If one of those two conferences want a school that's not Notre Dame, they're going to get them. I don't even think Notre Dame will maintain their independent status forever. The Big 12 "has to" take the ACC leftovers? I don't think they have to take anyone they don't want. And I don't think every ACC school will get an invite. You are right that the Big 12 will be vulnerable to poaching pretty much forever, but they're relatively safe for now because no one adds enough value to get poached. It seems to me that the last remaining big prizes are all in the ACC--Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Notre Dame. If someone in the Big 12 starts winning national championships in football, then they'll become more valuable (Clemson wouldn't be in a great spot pre-Dabo).
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 11, 2023 22:12:32 GMT -5
bbg95 The Big 12 will still have to take the ACC leavings after the Big 10 and the SEC pick off the best programs. We'll see what actually remains at that point. What will Wake Forest's home be, for example? They have a similar issue to SMU, except they don't have the Dallas market at their back. And the Big 12 itself will always be vulnerable to being poached. That's the reality for everyone that's not the Big 10/SEC. If one of those two conferences want a school that's not Notre Dame, they're going to get them. I don't even think Notre Dame will maintain their independent status forever. The Big 12 "has to" take the ACC leftovers? I don't think they have to take anyone they don't want. And I don't think every ACC school will get an invite. You are right that the Big 12 will be vulnerable to poaching pretty much forever, but they're relatively safe for now because no one adds enough value to get poached. "I'm sure the Big 12 would take Washington and Oregon if they were willing to come, but I don't think they want to add too many schools in the West, and then they'll wait for the ACC to collapse." You're the one who brought up the ACC vis a vis the Big 12. Not me. I'm saying if they wait until the ACC collapses they're not going to get any prime targets from there, either.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 22:16:32 GMT -5
The Big 12 "has to" take the ACC leftovers? I don't think they have to take anyone they don't want. And I don't think every ACC school will get an invite. You are right that the Big 12 will be vulnerable to poaching pretty much forever, but they're relatively safe for now because no one adds enough value to get poached. "I'm sure the Big 12 would take Washington and Oregon if they were willing to come, but I don't think they want to add too many schools in the West, and then they'll wait for the ACC to collapse." You're the one who brought up the ACC vis a vis the Big 12. Not me. I'm saying if they wait until the ACC collapses they're not going to get any prime targets from there, either. They're not going to get Florida State, but that doesn't mean that there won't be other ACC schools that they would be interested in. The Big 12 was never going to get USC, but they are definitely interested in some of the Pac-12 schools. I just don't think they're interested in all of them. Same for the ACC. If Boston College gets left out, would the Big 12 feel obligated to extend them an invite just because they were in the ACC? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 22:23:45 GMT -5
My view of what is going on here: The B1G & SEC now have media deals that are 3x the other conferences. That is a huge imbalance that is going to continue to drive changes. That is too big a difference to be stable. So by conference: SEC - their expansion candidates are all caught up in the ACC long term GOR deal: FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami, maybe ND. So they are stuck for now and are in good shape so willing to wait. B1G - the one really good candidate they have is also stuck in the ACC deal: ND. They might also be interested in FSU or Miami but probably not. There is also probably real interest in Stanford & UW (maybe UO & cal). But no need to hurry until ND clarifies and my guess is they don't want to get blamed for totally blowing up the P12. ACC - they are fine for now but vulnerable in 10 years when their GOR is up. Waiting to see how things play out probably isn't crazy. The one move they could make is for Stanford, UW, cal & UO. Not a crazy idea but no hurry. B12 - their strength is none of their schools is really attractive for another conference. Expanding to try to blow up the P12 would be smart. I think their general approach is to just get bigger. They clearly aren't at the B1G/SEC level but above the group of 5. P12 - I think the big problem is their best schools (UW, Stanford) are almost certainly shopping themselves. The logical thing would be to get bigger. The problem is all of the candidates probably near term don't help their media. The academic snobs in the conference don't like the idea of SDSU. I have read that neither SDSU or SMU has the votes or it would already be done. My guess is UA, ASU, CO & Utah are trying to use the threat of leaving to get the others to agree to SDSU and/or SMU. Not really sure it will work. The B12 is not a good destination for them. All four schools get a huge chunk of their student bodies from CA and the west coast with very little from Texas or the SW. The media deal might force the situation but I could also see the conference standing pat. This is pretty good - but I think the PAC future is more dire than this. Washington and Oregon want out - as they are facing too big of a financial problem with USC/UCLA gone. If (or when) WA/OR bolt - the 4 corner schools are stuck in a bad conference. To make things worse - any of them will make less money staying put with the PAC vs. joining the B12 (which is more stable right now). They could force a GOR that would 'keep' OR/WA put - but again it is becoming a risky option for them to stay in the PAC. SDSU and SMU would reportedly get a small share - so as not to dilute the revenue for the other schools - and potentially provide longer term stability for the conference. But this is where the B12 could be more attractive for SDSU and potentially get one or more corner schools to join the B12. All of these things are tremendous risks to the PAC surviving. The existing 10 schools in the PAC can survive if they all stick together. They can add teams for stability (create unequal share so as not to dilute their revenue) - but at the end of the day - it all crumbles once someone leaves. And at this point - there could be no trust within the conference. Last one to move is left behind - and no school is going to risk that. B12 is in better shape than the ACC. The ACC is stuck in a bad long term TV contract - where the B12 will get more revenue than the ACC. In addition - the ACC goes away once the GOR is finished, and schools start exiting. It would also appear that the B12 has a savvy commissioner that is thinking long term revenue streams (for example streaming revenue through basketball) that potentially keeps the conference relevant. That said - the B1G and SEC will have tremendous advantages over all other conferences. Pretty much agree with all of this. So far, it appears that the Big 12 hit a home run by hiring Brett Yormark.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 11, 2023 22:25:06 GMT -5
"I'm sure the Big 12 would take Washington and Oregon if they were willing to come, but I don't think they want to add too many schools in the West, and then they'll wait for the ACC to collapse." You're the one who brought up the ACC vis a vis the Big 12. Not me. I'm saying if they wait until the ACC collapses they're not going to get any prime targets from there, either. They're not going to get Florida State, but that doesn't mean that there won't be other ACC schools that they would be interested in. The Big 12 was never going to get USC, but they are definitely interested in some of the Pac-12 schools. I just don't think they're interested in all of them. There's not a single PAC school that wouldn't fit within the parameters of the schools already in the conference. I don't think of Oregon State or Washington State as incredible catches from a Power Conference perspective, but they're a heck of a lot better profile in a number of ways than UCF. Especially if it's within the confines of adding Washington and Oregon as well. Among Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, and Arizona State, there's not a school in that group that the Big 12 should snub their nose over. The bigger question is whether they'd actually want to join the Big 12. My supposition is there's some inevitability there's going to be a change in conference affiliation. Better to get the best deal possible rather than wait until you're desperate and have to take any kind of deal like a drowning man being tossed a piece of driftwood.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 22:33:29 GMT -5
They're not going to get Florida State, but that doesn't mean that there won't be other ACC schools that they would be interested in. The Big 12 was never going to get USC, but they are definitely interested in some of the Pac-12 schools. I just don't think they're interested in all of them. There's not a single PAC school that wouldn't fit within the parameters of the schools already in the conference. I don't think of Oregon State or Washington State as incredible catches from a Power Conference perspective, but they're a heck of a lot better profile in a number of ways than UCF. Especially if it's within the confines of adding Washington and Oregon as well. Among Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, and Arizona State, there's not a school in that group that the Big 12 should snub their nose over. The bigger question is whether they'd actually want to join the Big 12. My supposition is there's some inevitability there's going to be a chance in conference affiliation. Better to get the best deal possible rather than wait until you're desperate and have to take any kind of deal like a drowning man being tossed a piece of driftwood. So you think the Big 12 should add any/all of the Pac-12 schools that want to come? I am very doubtful that the Big 12 wants to do that. I think the main advantage that WSU and OSU have over UCF is that they've been in a power conference for a lot longer, but I think UCF has more potential long term. If UCF had been in the ACC or Big East (back when it was still a power conference in football) for a couple decades, I think they'd outperform other P5 schools. I mean, look at Utah. They were in the WAC/Mountain West until like 12 years ago, but they became competitive in the Pac-12 relatively quickly. TCU spent about 15 years in the wilderness after the SWC collapsed, but they played for the national championship just over a decade after joining the Big 12. At any rate, the opinions that matter most are those of FOX and ESPN. I don't think the Big 12 adds anyone that those networks don't give the green light to.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 11, 2023 22:40:07 GMT -5
The biggest question as to the future of the PAC is whether Stanford and Cal "want" to do big-time football in the era of NIL and the transfer portal. And it appears their admins actually do want to step back -- but their alumni and donors most likely would not let them get away with that.
If Stanford and Cal stay in, PAC will likely stay together through this round because a B1G invite isn't imminent for UO/UW. The money difference will likely not be enough for UW/UO to justify moving to the Big XII, and a switch to eat-what-you-kill for CFP/March Madness may actually have them netting out higher.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Feb 11, 2023 22:42:45 GMT -5
The biggest question as to the future of the PAC is whether Stanford and Cal "want" to do big-time football in the era of NIL and the transfer portal. And it appears their admins actually do want to step back -- but their alumni and donors most likely would not let them get away from that. I agree that this is a big question. I'm not sure on Cal, but we already saw this dynamic play out when Stanford tried to cut 11 sports. They were basically forced to back off when the donors and alumni revolted. I'm not sure if USC's departure has changed anything on that front. Edit: A big question but not the biggest question for the Pac-12. The biggest question is whether anyone else leaves.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 11, 2023 22:57:18 GMT -5
The biggest question as to the future of the PAC is whether Stanford and Cal "want" to do big-time football in the era of NIL and the transfer portal. And it appears their admins actually do want to step back -- but their alumni and donors most likely would not let them get away with that. If Stanford and Cal stay in, PAC will stay together through this round because a B1G invite isn't coming from UO/UW. The money difference will likely not be enough for UW/UO to justify moving to the Big XII, and a switch to eat-what-you-kill for CFP/March Madness may actually have them netting out higher. I think I read Stanford is now willing to accept 4 transfers into the football program per year. That's hardly revelatory for anyone else in college football, but that's a big deal for The Tree. I'm sure it will be an academically rigorous acceptance in a way no other program has to face, but even that admission is huge. I said it already, but Sonny Dykes ran from Cal because he couldn't recruit the players he needed to in order to be successful. He was putting his name out there for any job available before SMU hired him. Basically a "You can't fire me. I quit!" scenario. He just coached a team in the national championship. I mean, if that guy can't make it work at Cal, who is going to? It just feels like a house of cards right now, to me. If all 10 stay together, they won't be eminently successful financially, but they can survive. But if any one jumps - and the chances of it seem really good to me - then what? There's no one out there that matches the criteria many of the members hold dear that makes the conference affiliation worthwhile. I think one of the reasons SMU is thrown around is that it's a pretty good academic school. It's not amazing. No one in Texas looks at an SMU degree in awe. The folks in Highland Park hold it in a lot higher esteem than anyone else in the world. But it's certainly not a bad undergrad or grad school degree. But it's not exactly an amazing research institution. It has a small student body and alumni base. And the city of Dallas doesn't really care that much how they do. Frankly, if that's a big part of the criteria Rice would be a much better fit. And I think Rice would be a terrible fit. At least Rice has a huge on campus football stadium that once hosted a Super Bowl, much like Stanford.
|
|