|
|
Post by milk12 on Aug 5, 2023 7:45:13 GMT -5
Couple questions about all of this realignment:
1. Is there a limit? How many teams can (and should) be in a conference? At this point, I’m thinking go to 20/21 so volleyball and basketball have 19/20 game conferences.
2. I know it’s all about football, but how does this impact the other sports (volleyball obviously being on the forefront of my mind). Divisions? Conference tournament? What would you do if you were calling the shots for the volleyball season.
|
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Aug 5, 2023 7:47:51 GMT -5
Couple questions about all of this realignment: 1. Is there a limit? How many teams can (and should) be in a conference? At this point, I’m thinking go to 20/21 so volleyball and basketball have 19/20 game conferences. 2. I know it’s all about football, but how does this impact the other sports (volleyball obviously being on the forefront of my mind). Divisions? Conference tournament? What would you do if you were calling the shots for the volleyball season. To me it's starting to look like a pro-league and all their divisional races. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 5, 2023 8:20:50 GMT -5
Couple questions about all of this realignment: 1. Is there a limit? How many teams can (and should) be in a conference? Yes. The limit is when all the top football programs are in the same conference. It is inaccurate to call this "realignment". It is clearly a wave of consolidation. Happens in a lot of industries. For example: Boeing: Boeing McDonnell Douglas Rockwell Lockheed-Martin: Lockheed Martin Marietta General Dynamics Aerospace Northrup-Grumman: Northrup Grumman TRW Orbital ATK |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 5, 2023 9:43:57 GMT -5
I've said this before, but I think Washington is better off not taking an invite than to take one that is not a full share. That would mean having to compete in a league where everybody else is getting more money and also spending less on travel. It's a recipe for disaster -- as Rutgers and Maryland have found out. I disagree. To start with - Washington is competing with all NCAA teams, not just teams from the B1G. CFP, March Madness, NCAA Volleyball tournament - these things are more important than conference games. Relevance in those tournaments are very important. By going to the B1G now - OR/WA will get more money than if they had stayed. And even at 50% - that money will be significant compared to Florida State, Clemson, Maimi (it will be more). They stay 'closer' to the other B1G schools and schools from the SEC. They most likely will improve recruiting opportunities and have a better opportunity to be relevant. And maybe most important - this most likely assures their place at the table long term. They will be full share after several years - and this will put them on an even footing with the top programs in the country. They are now in way better position for a next big realignment. Then you have - Washington's current athletic budget - debt service will increase from $9.8M per year to $17.7M per year in 2026 due to the resumption of principal payments on ICA loans. The Washington athletic department was facing a money crisis in a couple years that could have been disaster with where the PAC was going. I agree with you in the long term, but I think Mike is right that the reduced payouts will definitely have an impact. The funny thing is that Washington and Oregon ultimately are the ones who dealt the fatal blow to the Pac-12. It was reported early yesterday morning that they were on the verge of staying and keeping the remaining nine schools together, but Washington had problems with the Apple deal, so they went back to the Big Ten and took the reduced shares. Arizona State and Utah clearly didn't want to leave the Pac-12 and only did so when they had no other option. I really think that if Washington and Oregon had stayed, the conference could have survived even if Arizona also left (and they may well have stayed with Oregon and Washington still in the fold). |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 5, 2023 10:18:38 GMT -5
I disagree. To start with - Washington is competing with all NCAA teams, not just teams from the B1G. CFP, March Madness, NCAA Volleyball tournament - these things are more important than conference games. Relevance in those tournaments are very important. By going to the B1G now - OR/WA will get more money than if they had stayed. And even at 50% - that money will be significant compared to Florida State, Clemson, Maimi (it will be more). They stay 'closer' to the other B1G schools and schools from the SEC. They most likely will improve recruiting opportunities and have a better opportunity to be relevant. And maybe most important - this most likely assures their place at the table long term. They will be full share after several years - and this will put them on an even footing with the top programs in the country. They are now in way better position for a next big realignment. Then you have - Washington's current athletic budget - debt service will increase from $9.8M per year to $17.7M per year in 2026 due to the resumption of principal payments on ICA loans. The Washington athletic department was facing a money crisis in a couple years that could have been disaster with where the PAC was going. I agree with you in the long term, but I think Mike is right that the reduced payouts will definitely have an impact. The funny thing is that Washington and Oregon ultimately are the ones who dealt the fatal blow to the Pac-12. It was reported early yesterday morning that they were on the verge of staying and keeping the remaining nine schools together, but Washington had problems with the Apple deal, so they went back to the Big Ten and took the reduced shares. Arizona State and Utah clearly didn't want to leave the Pac-12 and only did so when they had no other option. I really think that if Washington and Oregon had stayed, the conference could have survived even if Arizona also left (and they may well have stayed with Oregon and Washington still in the fold). Oregon isn’t worried about reduced payouts over a five-year span. The fundraising campaign writes itself (I think there’s a misconception that Oregon just has blank checks from its boosters - it doesn’t and they need to be sold on the intent - so tapping them for this may not even lessen the pot they have for other things). It’s telling that Arizona had a Big XII invite and still waited on the NW schools to pull the trigger. For Oregon, I understand it came down to recruiting, “exposure”, and a general sense of wanting to avoid appearing demoted in the face of realignment winning out over an easier playoff path. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 5, 2023 11:15:49 GMT -5
I agree with you in the long term, but I think Mike is right that the reduced payouts will definitely have an impact. The funny thing is that Washington and Oregon ultimately are the ones who dealt the fatal blow to the Pac-12. It was reported early yesterday morning that they were on the verge of staying and keeping the remaining nine schools together, but Washington had problems with the Apple deal, so they went back to the Big Ten and took the reduced shares. Arizona State and Utah clearly didn't want to leave the Pac-12 and only did so when they had no other option. I really think that if Washington and Oregon had stayed, the conference could have survived even if Arizona also left (and they may well have stayed with Oregon and Washington still in the fold). Oregon isn’t worried about reduced payouts over a five-year span. The fundraising campaign writes itself (I think there’s a misconception that Oregon just has blank checks from its boosters - it doesn’t and they need to be sold on the intent - so tapping them for this may not even lessen the pot they have for other things). It’s telling that Arizona had a Big XII invite and still waited on the NW schools to pull the trigger. For Oregon, I understand it came down to recruiting, “exposure”, and a general sense of wanting to avoid appearing demoted in the face of realignment winning out over an easier playoff path. Do we know the actual terms of the reduced payout yet? I wouldn't be surprised if a reduced Big Ten payout is still more than a full Pac-12 payout. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 5, 2023 11:25:08 GMT -5
Oregon isn’t worried about reduced payouts over a five-year span. The fundraising campaign writes itself (I think there’s a misconception that Oregon just has blank checks from its boosters - it doesn’t and they need to be sold on the intent - so tapping them for this may not even lessen the pot they have for other things). It’s telling that Arizona had a Big XII invite and still waited on the NW schools to pull the trigger. For Oregon, I understand it came down to recruiting, “exposure”, and a general sense of wanting to avoid appearing demoted in the face of realignment winning out over an easier playoff path. Do we know the actual terms of the reduced payout yet? I wouldn't be surprised if a reduced Big Ten payout is still more than a full Pac-12 payout. I've heard it's $30 million per year with an increase of $1 million per year. And yes, that's likely more than what the Pac-12 payout would have been. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 5, 2023 11:49:46 GMT -5
Oregon isn’t worried about reduced payouts over a five-year span. The fundraising campaign writes itself (I think there’s a misconception that Oregon just has blank checks from its boosters - it doesn’t and they need to be sold on the intent - so tapping them for this may not even lessen the pot they have for other things). It’s telling that Arizona had a Big XII invite and still waited on the NW schools to pull the trigger. For Oregon, I understand it came down to recruiting, “exposure”, and a general sense of wanting to avoid appearing demoted in the face of realignment winning out over an easier playoff path. Do we know the actual terms of the reduced payout yet? I wouldn't be surprised if a reduced Big Ten payout is still more than a full Pac-12 payout. It is. So it's also not a budget "cut" for the Athletic Dept. either. Yeah, more money is always better, but Oregon got what it needed (and can cover with booster funds that may not necessarily have been available otherwise). |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 5, 2023 12:12:02 GMT -5
Couple questions about all of this realignment: 1. Is there a limit? How many teams can (and should) be in a conference? Yes. The limit is when all the top football programs are in the same conference. It is inaccurate to call this "realignment". It is clearly a wave of consolidation. Happens in a lot of industries. For example: Boeing: Boeing McDonnell Douglas Rockwell Lockheed-Martin: Lockheed Martin Marietta General Dynamics Aerospace Northrup-Grumman: Northrup Grumman TRW Orbital ATK I actually think this is the best way to think about it. Not sure it dovetails with fan interests that well, which is motive force behind the money. I do wonder if the NCAA as an institution slowly becomes less relevant as the bodies that it regulates start to consolidate and accrete power. Does any challenge to control reach beyond football. Do the universities/consolidated conferences want to take on the role the NCAA plays? |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 5, 2023 12:18:11 GMT -5
Yes. The limit is when all the top football programs are in the same conference. It is inaccurate to call this "realignment". It is clearly a wave of consolidation. Happens in a lot of industries. For example: Boeing: Boeing McDonnell Douglas Rockwell Lockheed-Martin: Lockheed Martin Marietta General Dynamics Aerospace Northrup-Grumman: Northrup Grumman TRW Orbital ATK I actually think this is the best way to think about it. Not sure it dovetails with fan interests that well, which is motive force behind the money. I do wonder if the NCAA as an institution slowly becomes less relevant as the bodies that it regulates start to consolidate and accrete power. Does any challenge to control reach beyond football. Do the universities/consolidated conferences want to take on the role the NCAA plays? Having seen the utter ineffectiveness of the NCAA over the past thirty years, coupled with its severe favoritism of certain programs and arbitrarily harsh punishments elsewhere, do we really want the NCAA regulating more before we fix the NCAA? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2023 12:37:19 GMT -5
It’s in the works.
Stanford and Notre Dame.
B1G 20
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Aug 5, 2023 12:47:09 GMT -5
It’s in the works. Stanford and Notre Dame. B1G 20 Says who? |
|
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: 13,346 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 5, 2023 12:50:14 GMT -5
I agree with you in the long term, but I think Mike is right that the reduced payouts will definitely have an impact. The funny thing is that Washington and Oregon ultimately are the ones who dealt the fatal blow to the Pac-12. It was reported early yesterday morning that they were on the verge of staying and keeping the remaining nine schools together, but Washington had problems with the Apple deal, so they went back to the Big Ten and took the reduced shares. Arizona State and Utah clearly didn't want to leave the Pac-12 and only did so when they had no other option. I really think that if Washington and Oregon had stayed, the conference could have survived even if Arizona also left (and they may well have stayed with Oregon and Washington still in the fold). Oregon isn’t worried about reduced payouts over a five-year span. The fundraising campaign writes itself (I think there’s a misconception that Oregon just has blank checks from its boosters - it doesn’t and they need to be sold on the intent - so tapping them for this may not even lessen the pot they have for other things). It’s telling that Arizona had a Big XII invite and still waited on the NW schools to pull the trigger. For Oregon, I understand it came down to recruiting, “exposure”, and a general sense of wanting to avoid appearing demoted in the face of realignment winning out over an easier playoff path. Demoted vs. easier CFP path seemed to be the decision competition. Keeping the PAC together was the best path to the CFP, but I still think a subset of the appearance of the demotion is that Oregon is now firmly setup for the long run, where staying in the PAC for 5 more years didn't have the same long-term certainty for the next big realignment. As for Arizona - I think the only hangup with Arizona was their association with ASU. They might have stayed in the PAC had OR/WA committed - but I think their preference had turned to leaving. OR/WA leaving clearly triggered ASU and Utah to leaving. I think there was a clear divide going on between AZ and ASU - while desiring to stay together. |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 5, 2023 13:00:38 GMT -5
It’s in the works. Stanford and Notre Dame. B1G 20 Well, no doubt some calls were made: Stanford called ND to ask what they were thinking after their TV contract ends. I mean, it never hurts. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 5, 2023 13:03:17 GMT -5
I actually think this is the best way to think about it. Not sure it dovetails with fan interests that well, which is motive force behind the money. I do wonder if the NCAA as an institution slowly becomes less relevant as the bodies that it regulates start to consolidate and accrete power. Does any challenge to control reach beyond football. Do the universities/consolidated conferences want to take on the role the NCAA plays? Having seen the utter ineffectiveness of the NCAA over the past thirty years, coupled with its severe favoritism of certain programs and arbitrarily harsh punishments elsewhere, do we really want the NCAA regulating more before we fix the NCAA? Wasn't defending the NCAA, but it's sole purpose is regulation - setting and enforcing standards. Just wondering if there might be a change in power that changes who performs that function. |
|
