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: 12,500
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 10, 2023 10:13:12 GMT -5
Yes - everything is speculation at this point, we don't know. Of course, that doesn't stop us from speculating. It seems to me that OR/WA are in a curious position right now. If the PAC was to implode now and they were to go to the B1G (which some speculate would end up happening) - then it is very possible that they would become financially an unequal member of the B1G. Some reports have them receiving as little as half of the rest of the members. This would still bring in more than any other school not in the B1G/SEC/ND. It would also - all but guarantee them in the future big college football realignment. But, I don't think this is what they would see as being in their best interest. If the PAC survives for now - OR/WA would make less money than even the 50% portion from the B1G - and less money than every school in the B12. But it likely wouldn't be significantly worse (at least that is the hope until a contract is signed). But what it would give them is a much easier path to the CFP for the next 5 years. This would be a big deal and a big consideration. On the other end - there is some talk that the PAC will engage in unequal revenue under the new contract. What is it worth to the rest of the PAC to keep OR/WA? But - is there even enough money to make this possible. There would have to be enough to keep AZ/ASU around - so would there be 3 tiers of revenue payouts? I assume that OR/WA is exploring/talking/negotiating some kind of unequal payout - since they are the two programs that are going to bring in the most money and have leverage. What is the best way to position OR/WA for the big seismic shift in college football conferences - when those ACC schools are on the table? I will be shocked if the PAC deal is longer than 5 years unless there is an easy out. UO/UW don't have an invite to the B1G right now. At any split of the revenue. If they did, they would likely already be gone. I have not heard any talk about the new split of the revenue being unequal. The B12 used to do this to keep UT happy but I think they are now equal. The only time the splits are unequal currently is for new members. That is fine for the first contract but generally the new members get an equal split over time. I also believe that UO & UW are in different positions. UW is in a much bigger MSA. While UO is the flashier team right now, UW has more potential. UOs academics would also place them in the bottom of the B1G and that is important for the conference. FWIW, I continue to believe that Stanford is probably the most preferred P12 schools for the B1G. Much bigger MSA than either UO or UW. Better academics. The B1G would love their connections to tech and the valley. IMO, UW is second and my guess is that UO is a distant third behind even cal potentially. It is natural to pair UO and UW but in the end I don't think that is likely. And nothing likely happens for the next decade. That is why the P12 is going to sign a new deal with the current conference staying intact for the next decade. www.outkick.com/big-ten-expansion-oregon-washington-pac-12-collapse-report/I see reports like this come up - where WA/OR would be offered a reduced rate to join the B1G. And a LOT of articles about this would never even happen unless the PAC imploded with some corner schools leaving for the B12. I hear very little about any B1G interest in Stanford.
|
|
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: 12,500
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 10, 2023 10:17:37 GMT -5
Not a chance. There is ZERO chance that UO or UW would accept anything except what was offered to USC and UCLA. They would rather join the Mountain West or something than get humiliated like that. That's an interesting perspective. My read on most Washington and Oregon football fans is that they are very much willing to take a smaller share. You could be right about the administrations, though. But going to the Mountain West would basically be a death sentence for their athletic programs. I was literally going to say the exact same thing. There may be zero chance of UW/OR leaving right now for less than a full share, but given the choice between that (which would still be more money than Clemson, Florida State among others) and the Mountain West - MWC would be athletic suicide for those two programs. Fortunately for them - that is not a decision as long as the PAC exists.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 10, 2023 10:22:08 GMT -5
UO/UW don't have an invite to the B1G right now. At any split of the revenue. If they did, they would likely already be gone. I have not heard any talk about the new split of the revenue being unequal. The B12 used to do this to keep UT happy but I think they are now equal. The only time the splits are unequal currently is for new members. That is fine for the first contract but generally the new members get an equal split over time. I also believe that UO & UW are in different positions. UW is in a much bigger MSA. While UO is the flashier team right now, UW has more potential. UOs academics would also place them in the bottom of the B1G and that is important for the conference. FWIW, I continue to believe that Stanford is probably the most preferred P12 schools for the B1G. Much bigger MSA than either UO or UW. Better academics. The B1G would love their connections to tech and the valley. IMO, UW is second and my guess is that UO is a distant third behind even cal potentially. It is natural to pair UO and UW but in the end I don't think that is likely. And nothing likely happens for the next decade. That is why the P12 is going to sign a new deal with the current conference staying intact for the next decade. www.outkick.com/big-ten-expansion-oregon-washington-pac-12-collapse-report/I see reports like this come up - where WA/OR would be offered a reduced rate to join the B1G. And a LOT of articles about this would never even happen unless the PAC imploded with some corner schools leaving for the B12. I hear very little about any B1G interest in Stanford. So I think Oregon has easily the best football brand of the remaining Pac-12 schools, but it's behind Stanford, Cal and Washington in areas like academics and market size. And while it's a strong football brand, it pales in comparison to the true massive brand in the West, which is USC. Stanford is in a big market and has great academics and Olympic sports success, but it's pretty much irrelevant in football. Washington is in between those two (apologies to Cal, but I think it's pretty much inferior Stanford). The net result of all of that is that I don't think the Big Ten is particularly enthused about any of them.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 10, 2023 11:47:51 GMT -5
UO/UW don't have an invite to the B1G right now. At any split of the revenue. If they did, they would likely already be gone. I have not heard any talk about the new split of the revenue being unequal. The B12 used to do this to keep UT happy but I think they are now equal. The only time the splits are unequal currently is for new members. That is fine for the first contract but generally the new members get an equal split over time. I also believe that UO & UW are in different positions. UW is in a much bigger MSA. While UO is the flashier team right now, UW has more potential. UOs academics would also place them in the bottom of the B1G and that is important for the conference. FWIW, I continue to believe that Stanford is probably the most preferred P12 schools for the B1G. Much bigger MSA than either UO or UW. Better academics. The B1G would love their connections to tech and the valley. IMO, UW is second and my guess is that UO is a distant third behind even cal potentially. It is natural to pair UO and UW but in the end I don't think that is likely. And nothing likely happens for the next decade. That is why the P12 is going to sign a new deal with the current conference staying intact for the next decade. www.outkick.com/big-ten-expansion-oregon-washington-pac-12-collapse-report/I see reports like this come up - where WA/OR would be offered a reduced rate to join the B1G. And a LOT of articles about this would never even happen unless the PAC imploded with some corner schools leaving for the B12. I hear very little about any B1G interest in Stanford. Stanford's path is Notre Dame deciding to join the Big Ten and requiring that Stanford come along. I think the Big Ten would happily go for that.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 10, 2023 12:04:18 GMT -5
Stanford's path is Notre Dame deciding to join the Big Ten and requiring that Stanford come along. I think the Big Ten would happily go for that. Notre Dame could get a lot of schools added as a plus one. I doubt Notre Dame really cares about Stanford to the point that they would demand that Stanford get added (they can just play UCLA in LA in the years that they don't play at USC). And that's only if Notre Dame wants to join the Big Ten, which I doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Ons Jabeur on May 10, 2023 17:13:59 GMT -5
I will be shocked if the PAC deal is longer than 5 years unless there is an easy out. I am thinking a 3 year deal
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 10, 2023 18:05:20 GMT -5
Stanford's path is Notre Dame deciding to join the Big Ten and requiring that Stanford come along. I think the Big Ten would happily go for that. Notre Dame could get a lot of schools added as a plus one. I doubt Notre Dame really cares about Stanford to the point that they would demand that Stanford get added (they can just play UCLA in LA in the years that they don't play at USC). And that's only if Notre Dame wants to join the Big Ten, which I doubt. There are plenty of ND alumni, including my wife, who think Stanford sucks. That hatred has been fueled by the especially obnoxious and irreverent behavior of the Stanford Band when Notre Dame football has played road games at Stanford. The Stanford Band has been banned at Notre Dame home games with the Card since 1930, which tells you that the bands bad behavior travels, or at least used to travel to South Bend.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on May 10, 2023 18:37:29 GMT -5
Notre Dame could get a lot of schools added as a plus one. I doubt Notre Dame really cares about Stanford to the point that they would demand that Stanford get added (they can just play UCLA in LA in the years that they don't play at USC). And that's only if Notre Dame wants to join the Big Ten, which I doubt. There are plenty of ND alumni, including my wife, who think Stanford sucks. That hatred has been fueled by the especially obnoxious and irreverent behavior of the Stanford Band when Notre Dame football has played road games at Stanford. The Stanford Band has been banned at Notre Dame home games with the Card since 1930, which tells you that the bands bad behavior travels, or at least used to travel to South Bend. Sounds like the aggies and the MOB (Rice band).
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on May 10, 2023 19:23:28 GMT -5
Stanford's path is Notre Dame deciding to join the Big Ten and requiring that Stanford come along. I think the Big Ten would happily go for that. Notre Dame joining the B1G by itself increases everyone's annual payout. Bringing Stanford along would lessen ND's slice of the pie as it would for all other member schools.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on May 10, 2023 19:27:10 GMT -5
That's an interesting perspective. My read on most Washington and Oregon football fans is that they are very much willing to take a smaller share. You could be right about the administrations, though. But going to the Mountain West would basically be a death sentence for their athletic programs. I was literally going to say the exact same thing. There may be zero chance of UW/OR leaving right now for less than a full share, but given the choice between that (which would still be more money than Clemson, Florida State among others) and the Mountain West - MWC would be athletic suicide for those two programs. Fortunately for them - that is not a decision as long as the PAC exists. That concept sounds familiar. Oh, yeah -- "unequal revenue" among member schools. Seems like every conference has gone to equal revenue sharing among member schools over the last 10-15 years. Didn't USC publicly state a few years ago that they should be earning a larger portion of the PAC 12 pie than the other 11 member schools? Guess if the other schools (like Oregon and Washington) had given in to USC's demands, they might not have bolted for the B1G . . .
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on May 10, 2023 19:30:37 GMT -5
Yes - everything is speculation at this point, we don't know. Of course, that doesn't stop us from speculating. It seems to me that OR/WA are in a curious position right now. If the PAC was to implode now and they were to go to the B1G (which some speculate would end up happening) - then it is very possible that they would become financially an unequal member of the B1G. Some reports have them receiving as little as half of the rest of the members. This would still bring in more than any other school not in the B1G/SEC/ND. It would also - all but guarantee them in the future big college football realignment. But, I don't think this is what they would see as being in their best interest. If the PAC survives for now - OR/WA would make less money than even the 50% portion from the B1G - and less money than every school in the B12. But it likely wouldn't be significantly worse (at least that is the hope until a contract is signed). But what it would give them is a much easier path to the CFP for the next 5 years. This would be a big deal and a big consideration. On the other end - there is some talk that the PAC will engage in unequal revenue under the new contract. What is it worth to the rest of the PAC to keep OR/WA? But - is there even enough money to make this possible. There would have to be enough to keep AZ/ASU around - so would there be 3 tiers of revenue payouts? I assume that OR/WA is exploring/talking/negotiating some kind of unequal payout - since they are the two programs that are going to bring in the most money and have leverage. What is the best way to position OR/WA for the big seismic shift in college football conferences - when those ACC schools are on the table? I will be shocked if the PAC deal is longer than 5 years unless there is an easy out. UO/UW don't have an invite to the B1G right now. At any split of the revenue. If they did, they would likely already be gone. I have not heard any talk about the new split of the revenue being unequal. The B12 used to do this to keep UT happy but I think they are now equal. The only time the splits are unequal currently is for new members. That is fine for the first contract but generally the new members get an equal split over time. I also believe that UO & UW are in different positions. UW is in a much bigger MSA. While UO is the flashier team right now, UW has more potential. UOs academics would also place them in the bottom of the B1G and that is important for the conference. FWIW, I continue to believe that Stanford is probably the most preferred P12 schools for the B1G. Much bigger MSA than either UO or UW. Better academics. The B1G would love their connections to tech and the valley. IMO, UW is second and my guess is that UO is a distant third behind even cal potentially. It is natural to pair UO and UW but in the end I don't think that is likely. And nothing likely happens for the next decade. That is why the P12 is going to sign a new deal with the current conference staying intact for the next decade. Might want to get your facts straight. It was actually Nebraska, A&M, OU, and Texas who led the charge for unequal revenue sharing when the Big 12 was formed. All member schools had one vote each on that issue, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 10, 2023 20:15:07 GMT -5
UO/UW don't have an invite to the B1G right now. At any split of the revenue. If they did, they would likely already be gone. I have not heard any talk about the new split of the revenue being unequal. The B12 used to do this to keep UT happy but I think they are now equal. The only time the splits are unequal currently is for new members. That is fine for the first contract but generally the new members get an equal split over time. I also believe that UO & UW are in different positions. UW is in a much bigger MSA. While UO is the flashier team right now, UW has more potential. UOs academics would also place them in the bottom of the B1G and that is important for the conference. FWIW, I continue to believe that Stanford is probably the most preferred P12 schools for the B1G. Much bigger MSA than either UO or UW. Better academics. The B1G would love their connections to tech and the valley. IMO, UW is second and my guess is that UO is a distant third behind even cal potentially. It is natural to pair UO and UW but in the end I don't think that is likely. And nothing likely happens for the next decade. That is why the P12 is going to sign a new deal with the current conference staying intact for the next decade. Might want to get your facts straight. It was actually Nebraska, A&M, OU, and Texas who led the charge for unequal revenue sharing when the Big 12 was formed. All member schools had one vote each on that issue, IIRC. I'd also like to note where the unequal revenue sharing numbers came from. The tier 1 rights revenue was split equally, but the schools kept their own tier 3 rights, as opposed to putting them in a pool and divvying the revenue equally, as does happen in other conferences. So everyone was free to maximize their own revenue stream from their tier 3 rights. It was put to a vote and passed. KU is another school that has benefited financially from being able to maximize the revenue from their tier 3 men's basketball rights. Nebraska, A&M, and OU were able to put some of their tier 3 programming on pay per view, which ended up bringing in substantial revenue. Later OU sold their tier 3 programming as a package, which provided a windfall. That said, no program benefited more than UT, which packaged their tier 3 rights and sold them as part of the Longhorn Network for an average of $15m per year over 20 years. When the vote was made, no one who voted for allowing schools to sell their tier 3 rights separately thought UT would be able to generate that kind of income for them. The Southwest Conference, on the other hand, did have unequal revenue, with schools being paid for each TV appearance. With A&M and Texas both guaranteed the most TV slots since they drew the highest ratings, they made the most. But the other schools were Rice, UH, Texas Tech, TCU, SMU, and Baylor, so they really didn't have any choice. Didn't matter in the end. Unequal revenue sharing for all intents and purposes is a stop gap. Once a conference has to go that route it's time to play musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic. That would have been just as true for USC if the Pac 12 had gone that path. Of course, in that instance I thought geography would save the Pac 12, and I'm sure a number of people involved in the decision making thought the same way. Turns out it didn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Ons Jabeur on May 10, 2023 20:25:34 GMT -5
I was literally going to say the exact same thing. There may be zero chance of UW/OR leaving right now for less than a full share, but given the choice between that (which would still be more money than Clemson, Florida State among others) and the Mountain West - MWC would be athletic suicide for those two programs. Fortunately for them - that is not a decision as long as the PAC exists. That concept sounds familiar. Oh, yeah -- "unequal revenue" among member schools. Seems like every conference has gone to equal revenue sharing among member schools over the last 10-15 years. Didn't USC publicly state a few years ago that they should be earning a larger portion of the PAC 12 pie than the other 11 member schools? Guess if the other schools (like Oregon and Washington) had given in to USC's demands, they might not have bolted for the B1G . . . Texas and Oklahoma paying 100 million to join the SEC
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 10, 2023 20:30:37 GMT -5
Not a chance. There is ZERO chance that UO or UW would accept anything except what was offered to USC and UCLA. They would rather join the Mountain West or something than get humiliated like that. That's an interesting perspective. My read on most Washington and Oregon football fans is that they are very much willing to take a smaller share. You could be right about the administrations, though. But going to the Mountain West would basically be a death sentence for their athletic programs. Accepting a part share of Big10 money would be too. They would have much higher expenses than most Big10 schools, be getting a lot less money than most Big10 schools, and thus be unable to compete. Like, you know Maryland and Rutgers. It would be a formula for turning into the perennial cellar-dwellers of the Big10. Nah, better to form a new Western conference of which they would be among the powerhouses. But anyway, I believe that, as I said, they would refuse to swallow the disrespect of being treated as inferior to USC and UCLA, their formerly co-equal conference members of the last 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 10, 2023 20:56:27 GMT -5
Notre Dame could get a lot of schools added as a plus one. I doubt Notre Dame really cares about Stanford to the point that they would demand that Stanford get added (they can just play UCLA in LA in the years that they don't play at USC). And that's only if Notre Dame wants to join the Big Ten, which I doubt. There are plenty of ND alumni, including my wife, who think Stanford sucks. That hatred has been fueled by the especially obnoxious and irreverent behavior of the Stanford Band when Notre Dame football has played road games at Stanford. The Stanford Band has been banned at Notre Dame home games with the Card since 1930, which tells you that the bands bad behavior travels, or at least used to travel to South Bend. It seems that almost everyone dislikes the Stanford band.
|
|