|
Post by horns1 on Jun 5, 2023 20:43:41 GMT -5
There is a lot of smoke right now - including Arizona along with Colorado. But much of this is coming from a single source (Swaim)- and I am rather confused by this critical sentence: <<Colorado and Arizona are the schools planning to leave the Pac-12 and join the Big 12 Conference, according to a report from The Swaim Show, which notes that although "nothing becomes official until the Pac-12 gets their TV deal finalized," all signs point to the schools making the move.>> Nothing happens until Pac-12 gets their TV deal finalized - since it doesn't sound like this is close to happening (like today) - then it wouldn't seem like there would be a move (like today or this week)? More from Swaim:
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jun 5, 2023 20:57:50 GMT -5
BYU to the big 12.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 10, 2023 10:23:02 GMT -5
This is not immediately relevant, but Greg Sankey shot down the idea that the SEC has a policy against adding schools in states already within the SEC footprint (e.g. Clemson, Florida State). We already knew this was true because they just added Texas despite already having A&M.
Sankey also laughably suggested that everyone else should just stay where they are. Pretty rich coming from the guy who started this cycle.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jun 10, 2023 12:50:33 GMT -5
This is not immediately relevant, but Greg Sankey shot down the idea that the SEC has a policy against adding schools in states already within the SEC footprint (e.g. Clemson, Florida State). We already knew this was true because they just added Texas despite already having A&M. Can't say I ever heard/read it referred to as a "policy". What I had read was it referred to as a "gentlemen's agreement" among those SEC schools (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, LSU) who would vote in a block if their in-state rivals (Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Tulane) would ever be up for an invitation to join the SEC. In some ways, it held true up until 2 years ago as none of those schools ever had their rivals join conference. A&M believed that would be the case if Texas ever wanted to join the SEC. The fact that the SEC commissioner kept A&M out of the loop that Texas was going to be invited kind of suggests that things had to be kept on the low-down so no one (like A&M) would object.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 10, 2023 13:41:43 GMT -5
This is not immediately relevant, but Greg Sankey shot down the idea that the SEC has a policy against adding schools in states already within the SEC footprint (e.g. Clemson, Florida State). We already knew this was true because they just added Texas despite already having A&M. Can't say I ever heard/read it referred to as a "policy". What I had read was it referred to as a "gentlemen's agreement" among those SEC schools (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, LSU) who would vote in a block if their in-state rivals (Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Tulane) would ever be up for an invitation to join the SEC. In some ways, it held true up until 2 years ago as none of those schools ever had their rivals join conference. A&M believed that would be the case if Texas ever wanted to join the SEC. The fact that the SEC commissioner kept A&M out of the loop that Texas was going to be invited kind of suggests that things had to be kept on the low-down so no one (like A&M) would object. From what I was told there were a number of people on the UT side of things that preferred the Big 10. Eltife was not among them, but he approached them anyway. One of the big reasons it was chosen to go forward with the SEC is Sankey promised a behind the curtains process that would result in a fait accompli invitation and membership, whereas the Big 10 wanted more transparency that may or may not have resulted in an invitation. Which seems silly now with what went down with USC/UCLA, but I do feel like that dynamic was heavily impacted by the UT/OU departure for the SEC. Eltife was allegedly way more concerned about the Texas legislature and potential threats to the PEF than he was A&M opposition within the SEC itself, given his experience as a state senator and knowing the background of what happened when the Big 12 was formed. He was determined to avoid those kinds of shenanigans, and the best way to do that was to present it as a done deal during an off year for the legislative body, while making sure an alum was governor and so wouldn’t call a special session. Not that A&M wasn’t a threat, but they were seen as a bigger threat in the legislature helping to form a block with other schools in the state to keep UT from leaving. It was A&M that leaked the move through an alum at the Houston Chronicle, but by then it was already too late.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 10, 2023 14:22:03 GMT -5
This is not immediately relevant, but Greg Sankey shot down the idea that the SEC has a policy against adding schools in states already within the SEC footprint (e.g. Clemson, Florida State). We already knew this was true because they just added Texas despite already having A&M. Can't say I ever heard/read it referred to as a "policy". What I had read was it referred to as a "gentlemen's agreement" among those SEC schools (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, LSU) who would vote in a block if their in-state rivals (Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Tulane) would ever be up for an invitation to join the SEC. In some ways, it held true up until 2 years ago as none of those schools ever had their rivals join conference. A&M believed that would be the case if Texas ever wanted to join the SEC. The fact that the SEC commissioner kept A&M out of the loop that Texas was going to be invited kind of suggests that things had to be kept on the low-down so no one (like A&M) would object. Well, according to both the Florida and Florida State fans on Reddit, Florida has sponsored Florida State for membership multiple times. And Florida State chose to join the ACC over the SEC. So I'm a bit skeptical of any gentlemen's agreement, though perhaps things changed at some point.
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Jun 16, 2023 17:17:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 16, 2023 18:07:19 GMT -5
Lol, apparently SDSU asked for an extension on the deadline to announce its intention to leave but wanted the Mountain West to give it a one-month extension I guess because they're waiting to see if the Pac-12 signs a new TV deal in July. The Mountain West has no reason to do that.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 16, 2023 18:20:18 GMT -5
The Mountain West has no reason to do that. Well ... maybe. If the Mountain West really wants SDSU to stay, it may be in their best interests to not force them to make a decision right now, when the only decision on the table is "leave". If that's the only path to keeping SDSU in the conference, even if it's an unlikely path, then maybe they take it. In the case of the tweet, if "honey" really doesn't want the marriage to end, then perhaps "honey" does allow the "open marriage" for a month just in case the new mistress actually doesn't work out.
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jun 16, 2023 18:49:29 GMT -5
The Mountain West has no reason to do that. Well ... maybe. If the Mountain West really wants SDSU to stay, it may be in their best interests to not force them to make a decision right now, when the only decision on the table is "leave". If that's the only path to keeping SDSU in the conference, even if it's an unlikely path, then maybe they take it. In the case of the tweet, if "honey" really doesn't want the marriage to end, then perhaps "honey" does allow the "open marriage" for a month just in case the new mistress actually doesn't work out. Pandora’s box will blow open if they allow SDSU an extension. What if Boise is in this situation later? Will the conference allow an extension for them too? Also, the conference could use the money SDSU have to fork over so the conference needs to be firm and show some backbone. It’s a given the MW conference wants SDSU but if SDSU does not reciprocate the love, then the conference needs to think about what is good for their own members. SDSU leaving will disrupt the conference. There need to be a price paid.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jun 16, 2023 18:53:43 GMT -5
Was the Big 12 showing interest in SDSU? I can't imagine SDSU helps increase the TV revenue per school which has been offered to the PAC 12.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 16, 2023 19:19:52 GMT -5
Was the Big 12 showing interest in SDSU? I can't imagine SDSU helps increase the TV revenue per school which has been offered to the PAC 12. The commissioner has indicated an interest in Pacific time zone football slots.
|
|
|
Post by clivehusker on Jun 16, 2023 20:21:28 GMT -5
why do you need Purdue when you have Illinois, Indiana, Notre Dame in all the same basic market? Anyone that thinks Notre Dame is the same basic market just because of location, doesn't understand Notre Dame fandom at all. And I know this is old, but couldn't let that go twice. Not even a Notre Dame fan and even I understand they aren't a just a geo-located market. Just wow at anyone thinking they are.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 16, 2023 21:11:00 GMT -5
The Mountain West has no reason to do that. Well ... maybe. If the Mountain West really wants SDSU to stay, it may be in their best interests to not force them to make a decision right now, when the only decision on the table is "leave". If that's the only path to keeping SDSU in the conference, even if it's an unlikely path, then maybe they take it. In the case of the tweet, if "honey" really doesn't want the marriage to end, then perhaps "honey" does allow the "open marriage" for a month just in case the new mistress actually doesn't work out. I mean, if SDSU has an invite to a P5, they'll leave regardless. So they leave and pay the exit fees. That's it. Apparently, the Mountain West actually accepted their withdrawal and noted that they would be withholding their TV distribution per the bylaws, but SDSU said they're not actually withdrawing. They're just wondering if they can get an extension on the deadline to announce their withdrawal, if they can reduce the exit fee and/or if they can pay in installments. Again, I don't see what motivation the Mountain West would have to accommodate them. And the Mountain West doesn't seem to be so inclined.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 16, 2023 22:16:15 GMT -5
Was the Big 12 showing interest in SDSU? I can't imagine SDSU helps increase the TV revenue per school which has been offered to the PAC 12. Yes - they have talked, but nothing serious (is what I have heard). If Colorado was to bolt to the B12 (and only them) - the PAC will invite SDSU instantly. If the PAC stays intact (all 10) - then it seems like a good shot that SDSU (and probably SMU) will be invited anyway. I think they like their chances - but the delay of the PAC TV contract past this month is going to cost SDSU real money. I could see the B12 having some interest - but per their TV contract with ESPN - only current P5 schools joining the B12 would increase the $'s so that each school gets the same amount (making the 4 corner schools as no brainers for the B12 being interested). I don't know that the B12 could invite SDSU and get the same money - unless they were to have them with an unequal share? That said - there seems to be a lot of noise about UConn and the Big 12 (also not a P5 school) - so I don't know how that works in terms of money - other than the B12 thinking they can make it up with basketball. I believe SDSU has a strong basketball program - but nothing like UConn/Gonzaga? SDSU getting a one month extension to exit the league could save them around $16M. They still have until the end of the month. Not a lot of negotiating power here for SDSU - but there may be a settlement to be had that could save SDSU some money.
|
|