|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2023 21:23:52 GMT -5
Believe what you want. They did not sign to be unequal revenue sharing members for the lifetime of their membership. I don't need to "believe" anything, I'm taking what you actually said at face value, which was that "any school agreeing to unequal revenue sharing would be going back in time, IMO. B1G has never done that". There wasn't any qualifiers in there like "lifetime". Your statement is false, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland all had at least 6 years on agreed unequal revenue sharing. And "lifetime" conference members is a fleeting concept anyway - clearly. Fine. Keep arguing with yourself then. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2023 21:24:46 GMT -5
"C U" tomorrow . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 26, 2023 22:04:43 GMT -5
When Colorado joined the PAC, it was under the condition that they would be in the same football division of the LA teams. They desperately wanted those recruiting games in the LA area. This was why the California schools ended up being split between the North and South divisions.
This means that with USC and UCLA leaving the conference, one of the prime reasons for Colorado to come to the PAC in the first place is disappearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2023 22:46:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2023 0:33:18 GMT -5
I noticed during Fox's Women's World Cup coverage that they were running commercials for the Colorado at TCU season opener. Coach Prime vs last season's national runner-ups was going to be interesting anyway, but Colorado's return to the Big 12 will likely dominate the conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jul 27, 2023 2:32:44 GMT -5
Wow…unanimous. Not even one “no” vote. Must be a big slap in the face to the PAC 12 when nobody in the Big 12 object to CU(a lousy CU also) coming in. You don’t normally see unanimous votes of “Yes” on a cellar dweller team. BIG 10 didn’t want to be seen as responsible for the death of the PAC 12. Well….the Big 12 will have that honor. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 27, 2023 4:29:03 GMT -5
BIG 10 didn’t want to be seen as responsible for the death of the PAC 12. Well….the Big 12 will have that honor. Nah, it was the Big 10. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 27, 2023 6:07:11 GMT -5
BIG 10 didn’t want to be seen as responsible for the death of the PAC 12. Well….the Big 12 will have that honor. Nah, it was the Big 10. Agreed. One only has to look at a map and see where Rutgers and UCLA are located to know the breadth of B1G aspirations. |
|
|
|
Post by milkmandan on Jul 27, 2023 6:31:43 GMT -5
BIG 10 didn’t want to be seen as responsible for the death of the PAC 12. Well….the Big 12 will have that honor. Nah, it was the Big 10. Honestly, I don't know why anyone in the Big Ten would even care if they're viewed as "killing" the Pac-12. The Big Ten is operating from a position of strength and whatever cocktail party sour grapes people would have toward (who exactly?) the Big Ten would disappear in two news cycles. The people who really killed the Pac-12 are an incompetent Larry Scott and every Pac-12 President and AD who enabled him and didn't adapt to an obviously shifting landscape. They got outmaneuvered by Kevin Warren and a bunch of land-grant administrators. I imagine getting worked by people they view as the Clampets probably irks Pac-12 admins, but as they say "winners win and losers lose." |
|
|
|
Post by vergyltantor on Jul 27, 2023 6:33:04 GMT -5
So, per the article you just posted - "Rutgers is not going to receive a full share of its revenue distribution until 2027"... which is 13 years after joining the conference. Seems to contradict your comment of: I have no idea when or even if the Big 10 is going to expand further west, but this idea that it can't or won't be at a reduced revenue doesn't carry much merit. We are in a new era of college sports, and before long, unless teams start agreeing to longer periods (perhaps indefinite) of unequal revenue sharing, you are going to see the bigger conferences shed the dead weight. I'll put good money on that. Believe what you want. They did not sign to be unequal revenue sharing members for the lifetime of their membership. IIRC Rutgers is receiving less money right now but only because they are repaying funds to the B1G that they received in advance to upgrade facilities. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 27, 2023 7:06:53 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know why anyone in the Big Ten would even care if they're viewed as "killing" the Pac-12. The Big Ten is operating from a position of strength and whatever cocktail party sour grapes people would have toward (who exactly?) the Big Ten would disappear in two news cycles. The people who really killed the Pac-12 are an incompetent Larry Scott and every Pac-12 President and AD who enabled him and didn't adapt to an obviously shifting landscape. They got outmaneuvered by Kevin Warren and a bunch of land-grant administrators. I imagine getting worked by people they view as the Clampets probably irks Pac-12 admins, but as they say "winners win and losers lose." Agreed. I think the “don’t want to kill the Pac-12” narrative simply comes from people trying to justify why the Big Ten isn’t interested in Washington and Oregon when the reality is that they just wouldn’t increase the per school payout. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,287 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 27, 2023 7:25:12 GMT -5
Would the Big 12 be interested in Oregon and Washington? Geographical doesn’t make sense but if the Big 12 had any interest in being a coast to coast conference, UO and UW make sense more than SDSU. I am pretty sure that the B12 and Oregon have been at least talking for months. The B12 would be absolutely crazy not to want Oregon (IMO) - and I do think there is a scenario where Oregon joins the B12. Oregon is probably looking at this in terms of their football program and the expanded college playoffs after this year. An 8 or 9 team PAC conference would actually be good for Oregon football - but if the PAC looks to implode and there is nothing from the B1G - the B12 may end up being their best option. I don't know about Washington - I believe they would have more resistance to joining the B12 and I don't know that they have even been talking to the B12. That said - I think the B12 would have interest and likely that Washington wouldn't have interest. Stanford/Cal - I wouldn't say 'no' interest, but I don't see any likely real interest in either of these schools - not to mention those schools will never have interest in the B12. Oregon State/Washington State - no chance. I don't get the B12 interest in Colorado by itself. This puts the conference with an odd # of teams - why would the B12 do this (potentially stop here for even one season)? This isn't like adding Penn State - or adding Notre Dame - where having an odd number of teams is worth it. Colorado doesn't do this for the B12? |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,287
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 27, 2023 7:30:50 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't know why anyone in the Big Ten would even care if they're viewed as "killing" the Pac-12. The Big Ten is operating from a position of strength and whatever cocktail party sour grapes people would have toward (who exactly?) the Big Ten would disappear in two news cycles. The people who really killed the Pac-12 are an incompetent Larry Scott and every Pac-12 President and AD who enabled him and didn't adapt to an obviously shifting landscape. They got outmaneuvered by Kevin Warren and a bunch of land-grant administrators. I imagine getting worked by people they view as the Clampets probably irks Pac-12 admins, but as they say "winners win and losers lose." Agreed. I think the “don’t want to kill the Pac-12” narrative simply comes from people trying to justify why the Big Ten isn’t interested in Washington and Oregon when the reality is that they just wouldn’t increase the per school payout. I don't disagree with this - but I have seen it reported in multiple sources on the Colorado move - that the B12 doesn't want to put itself in legal liability for killing the P12. This makes me think there is some truth to this - or why would they continue to say this in the context of the Colorado and the B12 and not just OR/WA and the B1G? |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 27, 2023 7:44:35 GMT -5
Would the Big 12 be interested in Oregon and Washington? Geographical doesn’t make sense but if the Big 12 had any interest in being a coast to coast conference, UO and UW make sense more than SDSU. I am pretty sure that the B12 and Oregon have been at least talking for months. The B12 would be absolutely crazy not to want Oregon (IMO) - and I do think there is a scenario where Oregon joins the B12. Oregon is probably looking at this in terms of their football program and the expanded college playoffs after this year. An 8 or 9 team PAC conference would actually be good for Oregon football - but if the PAC looks to implode and there is nothing from the B1G - the B12 may end up being their best option. I don't know about Washington - I believe they would have more resistance to joining the B12 and I don't know that they have even been talking to the B12. That said - I think the B12 would have interest and likely that Washington wouldn't have interest. Stanford/Cal - I wouldn't say 'no' interest, but I don't see any likely real interest in either of these schools - not to mention those schools will never have interest in the B12. Oregon State/Washington State - no chance. I don't get the B12 interest in Colorado by itself. This puts the conference with an odd # of teams - why would the B12 do this (potentially stop here for even one season)? This isn't like adding Penn State - or adding Notre Dame - where having an odd number of teams is worth it. Colorado doesn't do this for the B12? I highly doubt the Big 12's plan is to solely bring in Colorado. One school has to be the first domino to fall. Colorado was the Big 12 school who got happy feet many years ago for fear of being left out (or replaced by Baylor) of the block of Big 12 schools set to join the PAC. Their reputation for abandoning ship first in the past is probably why they were targeted first this time around. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 27, 2023 7:48:07 GMT -5
Agreed. One only has to look at a map and see where Rutgers and UCLA are located to know the breadth of B1G aspirations. For many years, the B1G took pride in that all their member schools were located in contiguous states. So, although they coveted Texas for many years, I honestly don't think they ever really had realistic plans to add schools from the far away West coast; that only happened as the reaction to the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma and becoming a 16-member conference. |
|
