(09-22-2017 10:27 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The PAC needs more eastern programs in order to get earlier start times for better viewership. If they can get a grouping involving some of UT/OU/OK State/KU/TT/TCU/ISU/UH, they can increase their Midwestern presence, and get more content and time slots for Fox.

Slight side note, why Arizona/UCLA is not doing home/home in basketball is strange. Two biggest programs in the conference, and they only play once? Stupid.

(09-22-2017 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  With the earlier reports of Cal athletics losing $22 million last year & with the PAC schools only making $633k off of the PACN, how far are they falling behind & are they getting desperate? It's been assumed that geography will keep the PAC safe but is it also an impossible obstacle to overcome? Would bringing in B12 schools really solve their financial woes even if they could possibly raid them? Wouldn't a small group moving to the B1G be an instant fix for their financial struggles?

If USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Colorado head to the B1G, what happens to the PAC leftovers? How would the SEC respond? Would the PAC remainders merge with the B12 or would the SEC respond by grabbing Texas, Oklahoma, WV & Kansas? If so that would put the SEC at 18.

B1G
West: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon

Central: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska

North: Michigan, Mich State, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Indiana, Rutgers

B1G championship held at the Rose Bowl?

SEC
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi State

Central: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC, WV, Kentucky

ACC remains the same?

B12/PAC? Do they merge into a 12 team conference? Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State & TT, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State. Would they add BYU & another? Houston?

This is probably the best way to maximize the value for the B1G & the SEC. Is it possible that the PAC financial woes leads to it breaking up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-22-2017 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  With the earlier reports of Cal athletics losing $22 million last year & with the PAC schools only making $633k off of the PACN, how far are they falling behind & are they getting desperate? It's been assumed that geography will keep the PAC safe but is it also an impossible obstacle to overcome? Would bringing in B12 schools really solve their financial woes even if they could possibly raid them? Wouldn't a small group moving to the B1G be an instant fix for their financial struggles?

If USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Colorado head to the B1G, what happens to the PAC leftovers? How would the SEC respond? Would the PAC remainders merge with the B12 or would the SEC respond by grabbing Texas, Oklahoma, WV & Kansas? If so that would put the SEC at 18.

B1G
West: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon

Central: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska

North: Michigan, Mich State, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Indiana, Rutgers

B1G championship held at the Rose Bowl?

SEC
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi State

Central: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC, WV, Kentucky

ACC remains the same?

B12/PAC? Do they merge into a 12 team conference? Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State & TT, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State. Would they add BYU & another? Houston?

This is probably the best way to maximize the value for the B1G & the SEC. Is it possible that the PAC financial woes leads to it breaking up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-22-2017 11:36 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  The only question for the XII becomes would that conference be strong enough to warrant their own network?

(09-22-2017 10:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  With the earlier reports of Cal athletics losing $22 million last year & with the PAC schools only making $633k off of the PACN, how far are they falling behind & are they getting desperate? It's been assumed that geography will keep the PAC safe but is it also an impossible obstacle to overcome? Would bringing in B12 schools really solve their financial woes even if they could possibly raid them? Wouldn't a small group moving to the B1G be an instant fix for their financial struggles?

If USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Colorado head to the B1G, what happens to the PAC leftovers? How would the SEC respond? Would the PAC remainders merge with the B12 or would the SEC respond by grabbing Texas, Oklahoma, WV & Kansas? If so that would put the SEC at 18.

B12/PAC? Do they merge into a 12 team conference? Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State & TT, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State. Would they add BYU & another? Houston?

This is probably the best way to maximize the value for the B1G & the SEC. Is it possible that the PAC financial woes leads to it breaking up?

The Pac is safer than the ACC, even with their very very long GoR. Scott will be out and a new commish will negotiate their next TV deal and they will load up with Big XII schools with or without UT once their GoR runs out.

(09-22-2017 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The issue for the PAC is that they aren't concerned as much with the revenue war in football as the Eastern Conferences and part of that is that they are isolated and therefore not a major target.

But they are bleeding cash trying to maintain sports and their network has not been properly distributed or monetized.

So being happy with who they are they are reticent to expand.

The Big 12 is not sustainable as a marketplace. That is the locus of their insecurity. Yeah Texas is a pain in the neck, but having 40% of the conference based in one demographic delivered by just Texas is the problem. Oklahoma (4M), Kansas (2.8M), Iowa (3.3M), and WVU (1.8M) just don't entice advertisers like the East & West coast or the large alumni groups in the Big 10 and SEC. So they are supporting 10 schools off of what just 5 of them deliver.

The problem for the current Big 12 members is that they still basically like playing each other and don't want to be broken apart.

It is true that Texas and Oklahoma could make more in either the SEC or B1G, but then that may mean Texas not getting to play as many other Texas schools, or Oklahoma having to leave behind OSU and the other schools with which they have had a shared history.

So the only attraction that the PAC has for the Big 12 or the Big 12 has for the PAC are based in their deficits, and their desires to stay together as a group, but groups somewhat segregated from one another.

The Big 12 gives the PACN the largest CTZ exposure they can acquire. The PAC gives the Big 12 a chance to remain largely intact and secure.

So if the PAC raids the Big 12 I look for them to offer 6 to 8 schools and for the two to treat it like a marriage in which each spouse continues to live in their own house.

Yes they would function as a conference but would likely keep their present divisions.

If 6 moved they would form a third division. If 8 moved Utah and Colorado would likely be used to form a third and fourth division of 5 schools each.

While this is good in theory, the financial reward would be less than optimal for Texas and Oklahoma. Therefore any chance of this happening depends on how desperately those two schools desire to provide coattails to their other state schools.

And that raises another question. I seriously doubt that the Big 10 would take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech to land Texas and Oklahoma. But would the SEC? I think the SEC would, but only if the SEC was absolutely sure that the ACC was secure.

The SEC would not want to spend two slots on Tech and the Pokes unless they were absolutely confident that the ACC would not be poached by the Big 10 in the future. Keeping at least 4 potential slots open should the ACC suffer a breach would be crucial to defending the SEC brand and position in the deep South.

And similarly, the Big 10 would gladly offer up two slots to Texas and Oklahoma for the content and increased valuation of the Big 10 as a sports commodity, but would also be reticent not only because of academics, but for defensive purposes to keep open at least four slots with which to consolidate their grip on New England and the Northern Mid Atlantic if the ACC's revenue gap was not closed and should movement in that region become possible as a result of that.

In an odd sort of way should the SEC and Big 10 look only to offer two slots to the same two Big 12 members they may create the very climate the PAC needs to succeed with a fairly substantial move with the Big 12. And ironically that would leave the Big 10 and SEC with only one focus and that directed to the Eastern Seaboard where their mutual interests may vary enough to make the two of them a substantial threat to the stability of the ACC.

So the reasons that we've not pushed beyond the current P5 has more to do with long range defensive strategies than with long range offensive strategies. And the multiple partition of the Big 12 becomes the most advantageous outcome for the ACC in that the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 might be sated out of it provided none of them gain both Texas and Oklahoma. If the PAC takes the lion's portion it leaves a hungry Big 10 and SEC looking East. If the SEC lands the Texa-homa four it still leaves the Big 10 looking East and if nothing happens it still leaves the PAC, Big 12 and ACC vulnerable. The PAC would be vulnerable to continued revenue losses, and the Big 12 and ACC open to the continued desires of the B1G and SEC in a market place where TV revenue may have peaked and the only boosts to earnings would come from content additions.

So if the PAC lands 6 to 8 of the Big 12 schools to form a much broader conference then we may be looking at the Big 10 and SEC moving in concert with much larger war chests against the ACC. And for a large % of the Big 10 ESPN may see the logic in that.

Now let me throw out a hypothetical move that would solve most rivalry issues and would correct some difficult fits in realignment.

What if the PAC added these six from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. And they were able to persuade the Big 10 let Nebraska go and the SEC to let Missouri go if both wanted to be reunited with their traditional rivals in the large PAC movement. Now you would have a PAC that looked like this:
PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Consequently the Big 10 and SEC would now have 7 slots each open for a move to 20.

B1G:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Those two divisions form the old Big 10 and reunite a lot of games those fan bases prefer and in the Big 10 East:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

So by letting Nebraska return to their roots in competition the Big 10 returns to its Northern MidWestern roots and expands fully into the populated areas its alums inhabit and with schools that for that region are compatible.

Likewise the SEC looks like this:
Kentucky, (Louisiville or West Virgina), N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Whether you love it or hate it something like this is the outcome if the PAC takes the bulk of value from the Big 12.

Now I say all of that to make this point. If you want 4 conferences to survive the next set of moves then FOX and ESPN and the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and PAC will all have to work together to absorb, and divide the value of, the Big 12 almost in total.

That means not everyone gets just what they want. Everyone should get something of value and make room for 1 more, or in the case of the PAC a few more.

So you tell me what the odds are we cooperate, or what the odds are we act in our self interests and greater movement happens because of it?

(09-22-2017 01:22 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  With the earlier reports of Cal athletics losing $22 million last year & with the PAC schools only making $633k off of the PACN, how far are they falling behind & are they getting desperate? It's been assumed that geography will keep the PAC safe but is it also an impossible obstacle to overcome? Would bringing in B12 schools really solve their financial woes even if they could possibly raid them? Wouldn't a small group moving to the B1G be an instant fix for their financial struggles?

If USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Colorado head to the B1G, what happens to the PAC leftovers? How would the SEC respond? Would the PAC remainders merge with the B12 or would the SEC respond by grabbing Texas, Oklahoma, WV & Kansas? If so that would put the SEC at 18.

B12/PAC? Do they merge into a 12 team conference? Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State & TT, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State. Would they add BYU & another? Houston?

This is probably the best way to maximize the value for the B1G & the SEC. Is it possible that the PAC financial woes leads to it breaking up?

The Pac is safer than the ACC, even with their very very long GoR. Scott will be out and a new commish will negotiate their next TV deal and they will load up with Big XII schools with or without UT once their GoR runs out.

Why would any of the BIG 12 schools want to go west and lose money in the PAC? Don't feel like the BIG 12 has anything to worry about from the PAC....

(09-22-2017 02:02 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The issue for the PAC is that they aren't concerned as much with the revenue war in football as the Eastern Conferences and part of that is that they are isolated and therefore not a major target.

But they are bleeding cash trying to maintain sports and their network has not been properly distributed or monetized.

So being happy with who they are they are reticent to expand.

The Big 12 is not sustainable as a marketplace. That is the locus of their insecurity. Yeah Texas is a pain in the neck, but having 40% of the conference based in one demographic delivered by just Texas is the problem. Oklahoma (4M), Kansas (2.8M), Iowa (3.3M), and WVU (1.8M) just don't entice advertisers like the East & West coast or the large alumni groups in the Big 10 and SEC. So they are supporting 10 schools off of what just 5 of them deliver.

The problem for the current Big 12 members is that they still basically like playing each other and don't want to be broken apart.

It is true that Texas and Oklahoma could make more in either the SEC or B1G, but then that may mean Texas not getting to play as many other Texas schools, or Oklahoma having to leave behind OSU and the other schools with which they have had a shared history.

So the only attraction that the PAC has for the Big 12 or the Big 12 has for the PAC are based in their deficits, and their desires to stay together as a group, but groups somewhat segregated from one another.

The Big 12 gives the PACN the largest CTZ exposure they can acquire. The PAC gives the Big 12 a chance to remain largely intact and secure.

So if the PAC raids the Big 12 I look for them to offer 6 to 8 schools and for the two to treat it like a marriage in which each spouse continues to live in their own house.

Yes they would function as a conference but would likely keep their present divisions.

If 6 moved they would form a third division. If 8 moved Utah and Colorado would likely be used to form a third and fourth division of 5 schools each.

While this is good in theory, the financial reward would be less than optimal for Texas and Oklahoma. Therefore any chance of this happening depends on how desperately those two schools desire to provide coattails to their other state schools.

And that raises another question. I seriously doubt that the Big 10 would take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech to land Texas and Oklahoma. But would the SEC? I think the SEC would, but only if the SEC was absolutely sure that the ACC was secure.

The SEC would not want to spend two slots on Tech and the Pokes unless they were absolutely confident that the ACC would not be poached by the Big 10 in the future. Keeping at least 4 potential slots open should the ACC suffer a breach would be crucial to defending the SEC brand and position in the deep South.

And similarly, the Big 10 would gladly offer up two slots to Texas and Oklahoma for the content and increased valuation of the Big 10 as a sports commodity, but would also be reticent not only because of academics, but for defensive purposes to keep open at least four slots with which to consolidate their grip on New England and the Northern Mid Atlantic if the ACC's revenue gap was not closed and should movement in that region become possible as a result of that.

In an odd sort of way should the SEC and Big 10 look only to offer two slots to the same two Big 12 members they may create the very climate the PAC needs to succeed with a fairly substantial move with the Big 12. And ironically that would leave the Big 10 and SEC with only one focus and that directed to the Eastern Seaboard where their mutual interests may vary enough to make the two of them a substantial threat to the stability of the ACC.

So the reasons that we've not pushed beyond the current P5 has more to do with long range defensive strategies than with long range offensive strategies. And the multiple partition of the Big 12 becomes the most advantageous outcome for the ACC in that the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 might be sated out of it provided none of them gain both Texas and Oklahoma. If the PAC takes the lion's portion it leaves a hungry Big 10 and SEC looking East. If the SEC lands the Texa-homa four it still leaves the Big 10 looking East and if nothing happens it still leaves the PAC, Big 12 and ACC vulnerable. The PAC would be vulnerable to continued revenue losses, and the Big 12 and ACC open to the continued desires of the B1G and SEC in a market place where TV revenue may have peaked and the only boosts to earnings would come from content additions.

So if the PAC lands 6 to 8 of the Big 12 schools to form a much broader conference then we may be looking at the Big 10 and SEC moving in concert with much larger war chests against the ACC. And for a large % of the Big 10 ESPN may see the logic in that.

Now let me throw out a hypothetical move that would solve most rivalry issues and would correct some difficult fits in realignment.

What if the PAC added these six from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. And they were able to persuade the Big 10 let Nebraska go and the SEC to let Missouri go if both wanted to be reunited with their traditional rivals in the large PAC movement. Now you would have a PAC that looked like this:
PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Consequently the Big 10 and SEC would now have 7 slots each open for a move to 20.

B1G:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Those two divisions form the old Big 10 and reunite a lot of games those fan bases prefer and in the Big 10 East:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

So by letting Nebraska return to their roots in competition the Big 10 returns to its Northern MidWestern roots and expands fully into the populated areas its alums inhabit and with schools that for that region are compatible.

Likewise the SEC looks like this:
Kentucky, (Louisiville or West Virgina), N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Whether you love it or hate it something like this is the outcome if the PAC takes the bulk of value from the Big 12.

Now I say all of that to make this point. If you want 4 conferences to survive the next set of moves then FOX and ESPN and the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and PAC will all have to work together to absorb, and divide the value of, the Big 12 almost in total.

That means not everyone gets just what they want. Everyone should get something of value and make room for 1 more, or in the case of the PAC a few more.

So you tell me what the odds are we cooperate, or what the odds are we act in our self interests and greater movement happens because of it?

What becomes of Baylor, TCU, Iowa State and possibly WVU (I see you have them as an and/or with Louisville to the SEC)?

(09-22-2017 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:02 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The issue for the PAC is that they aren't concerned as much with the revenue war in football as the Eastern Conferences and part of that is that they are isolated and therefore not a major target.

But they are bleeding cash trying to maintain sports and their network has not been properly distributed or monetized.

So being happy with who they are they are reticent to expand.

The Big 12 is not sustainable as a marketplace. That is the locus of their insecurity. Yeah Texas is a pain in the neck, but having 40% of the conference based in one demographic delivered by just Texas is the problem. Oklahoma (4M), Kansas (2.8M), Iowa (3.3M), and WVU (1.8M) just don't entice advertisers like the East & West coast or the large alumni groups in the Big 10 and SEC. So they are supporting 10 schools off of what just 5 of them deliver.

The problem for the current Big 12 members is that they still basically like playing each other and don't want to be broken apart.

It is true that Texas and Oklahoma could make more in either the SEC or B1G, but then that may mean Texas not getting to play as many other Texas schools, or Oklahoma having to leave behind OSU and the other schools with which they have had a shared history.

So the only attraction that the PAC has for the Big 12 or the Big 12 has for the PAC are based in their deficits, and their desires to stay together as a group, but groups somewhat segregated from one another.

The Big 12 gives the PACN the largest CTZ exposure they can acquire. The PAC gives the Big 12 a chance to remain largely intact and secure.

So if the PAC raids the Big 12 I look for them to offer 6 to 8 schools and for the two to treat it like a marriage in which each spouse continues to live in their own house.

Yes they would function as a conference but would likely keep their present divisions.

If 6 moved they would form a third division. If 8 moved Utah and Colorado would likely be used to form a third and fourth division of 5 schools each.

While this is good in theory, the financial reward would be less than optimal for Texas and Oklahoma. Therefore any chance of this happening depends on how desperately those two schools desire to provide coattails to their other state schools.

And that raises another question. I seriously doubt that the Big 10 would take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech to land Texas and Oklahoma. But would the SEC? I think the SEC would, but only if the SEC was absolutely sure that the ACC was secure.

The SEC would not want to spend two slots on Tech and the Pokes unless they were absolutely confident that the ACC would not be poached by the Big 10 in the future. Keeping at least 4 potential slots open should the ACC suffer a breach would be crucial to defending the SEC brand and position in the deep South.

And similarly, the Big 10 would gladly offer up two slots to Texas and Oklahoma for the content and increased valuation of the Big 10 as a sports commodity, but would also be reticent not only because of academics, but for defensive purposes to keep open at least four slots with which to consolidate their grip on New England and the Northern Mid Atlantic if the ACC's revenue gap was not closed and should movement in that region become possible as a result of that.

In an odd sort of way should the SEC and Big 10 look only to offer two slots to the same two Big 12 members they may create the very climate the PAC needs to succeed with a fairly substantial move with the Big 12. And ironically that would leave the Big 10 and SEC with only one focus and that directed to the Eastern Seaboard where their mutual interests may vary enough to make the two of them a substantial threat to the stability of the ACC.

So the reasons that we've not pushed beyond the current P5 has more to do with long range defensive strategies than with long range offensive strategies. And the multiple partition of the Big 12 becomes the most advantageous outcome for the ACC in that the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 might be sated out of it provided none of them gain both Texas and Oklahoma. If the PAC takes the lion's portion it leaves a hungry Big 10 and SEC looking East. If the SEC lands the Texa-homa four it still leaves the Big 10 looking East and if nothing happens it still leaves the PAC, Big 12 and ACC vulnerable. The PAC would be vulnerable to continued revenue losses, and the Big 12 and ACC open to the continued desires of the B1G and SEC in a market place where TV revenue may have peaked and the only boosts to earnings would come from content additions.

So if the PAC lands 6 to 8 of the Big 12 schools to form a much broader conference then we may be looking at the Big 10 and SEC moving in concert with much larger war chests against the ACC. And for a large % of the Big 10 ESPN may see the logic in that.

Now let me throw out a hypothetical move that would solve most rivalry issues and would correct some difficult fits in realignment.

What if the PAC added these six from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. And they were able to persuade the Big 10 let Nebraska go and the SEC to let Missouri go if both wanted to be reunited with their traditional rivals in the large PAC movement. Now you would have a PAC that looked like this:
PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Consequently the Big 10 and SEC would now have 7 slots each open for a move to 20.

B1G:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Those two divisions form the old Big 10 and reunite a lot of games those fan bases prefer and in the Big 10 East:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

So by letting Nebraska return to their roots in competition the Big 10 returns to its Northern MidWestern roots and expands fully into the populated areas its alums inhabit and with schools that for that region are compatible.

Likewise the SEC looks like this:
Kentucky, (Louisiville or West Virgina), N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Whether you love it or hate it something like this is the outcome if the PAC takes the bulk of value from the Big 12.

Now I say all of that to make this point. If you want 4 conferences to survive the next set of moves then FOX and ESPN and the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and PAC will all have to work together to absorb, and divide the value of, the Big 12 almost in total.

That means not everyone gets just what they want. Everyone should get something of value and make room for 1 more, or in the case of the PAC a few more.

So you tell me what the odds are we cooperate, or what the odds are we act in our self interests and greater movement happens because of it?

What becomes of Baylor, TCU, Iowa State and possibly WVU (I see you have them as an and/or with Louisville to the SEC)?

Iowa State was in. T.C.U., Baylor, Wake Forest, Kansas State, and one of Louisville / West Virginia were out.

It might be that another private somewhere is dropped and both Louisville and WVU get in. It's a template in work, not set prediction. But those being dropped have the smallest market penetration other than WVU and Louisville which as it stands would be a victim of re-division. It's possible that both would surpass Miami as far as the SEC is concerned. But with 7 slots available and failing asking an existing member to go (Vandy) it would merely come down to N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and two of Miami, Louisville, West Virginia.

(09-22-2017 02:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 01:22 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  With the earlier reports of Cal athletics losing $22 million last year & with the PAC schools only making $633k off of the PACN, how far are they falling behind & are they getting desperate? It's been assumed that geography will keep the PAC safe but is it also an impossible obstacle to overcome? Would bringing in B12 schools really solve their financial woes even if they could possibly raid them? Wouldn't a small group moving to the B1G be an instant fix for their financial struggles?

If USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Colorado head to the B1G, what happens to the PAC leftovers? How would the SEC respond? Would the PAC remainders merge with the B12 or would the SEC respond by grabbing Texas, Oklahoma, WV & Kansas? If so that would put the SEC at 18.

B12/PAC? Do they merge into a 12 team conference? Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State & TT, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State. Would they add BYU & another? Houston?

This is probably the best way to maximize the value for the B1G & the SEC. Is it possible that the PAC financial woes leads to it breaking up?

The Pac is safer than the ACC, even with their very very long GoR. Scott will be out and a new commish will negotiate their next TV deal and they will load up with Big XII schools with or without UT once their GoR runs out.

Why would any of the BIG 12 schools want to go west and lose money in the PAC? Don't feel like the BIG 12 has anything to worry about from the PAC....

Because the most valuable schools (UT and OU) have already jumped ship and they rather head west than back fill with AAC schools. Also the Pac has already taken from the XII and had others asking for membership in the recent past. I think you underestimate how your fellow conference members feel about the Pac. Also the next TV deal wont pay you for 12 schools when you sit at 10.

(09-22-2017 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  With the earlier reports of Cal athletics losing $22 million last year & with the PAC schools only making $633k off of the PACN, how far are they falling behind & are they getting desperate? It's been assumed that geography will keep the PAC safe but is it also an impossible obstacle to overcome? Would bringing in B12 schools really solve their financial woes even if they could possibly raid them? Wouldn't a small group moving to the B1G be an instant fix for their financial struggles?

If USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Colorado head to the B1G, what happens to the PAC leftovers? How would the SEC respond? Would the PAC remainders merge with the B12 or would the SEC respond by grabbing Texas, Oklahoma, WV & Kansas? If so that would put the SEC at 18.

B1G
West: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon

Central: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska

North: Michigan, Mich State, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Indiana, Rutgers

B1G championship held at the Rose Bowl?

SEC
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi State

Central: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC, WV, Kentucky

ACC remains the same?

B12/PAC? Do they merge into a 12 team conference? Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State & TT, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State. Would they add BYU & another? Houston?

This is probably the best way to maximize the value for the B1G & the SEC. Is it possible that the PAC financial woes leads to it breaking up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-23-2017 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:02 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The issue for the PAC is that they aren't concerned as much with the revenue war in football as the Eastern Conferences and part of that is that they are isolated and therefore not a major target.

But they are bleeding cash trying to maintain sports and their network has not been properly distributed or monetized.

So being happy with who they are they are reticent to expand.

The Big 12 is not sustainable as a marketplace. That is the locus of their insecurity. Yeah Texas is a pain in the neck, but having 40% of the conference based in one demographic delivered by just Texas is the problem. Oklahoma (4M), Kansas (2.8M), Iowa (3.3M), and WVU (1.8M) just don't entice advertisers like the East & West coast or the large alumni groups in the Big 10 and SEC. So they are supporting 10 schools off of what just 5 of them deliver.

The problem for the current Big 12 members is that they still basically like playing each other and don't want to be broken apart.

It is true that Texas and Oklahoma could make more in either the SEC or B1G, but then that may mean Texas not getting to play as many other Texas schools, or Oklahoma having to leave behind OSU and the other schools with which they have had a shared history.

So the only attraction that the PAC has for the Big 12 or the Big 12 has for the PAC are based in their deficits, and their desires to stay together as a group, but groups somewhat segregated from one another.

The Big 12 gives the PACN the largest CTZ exposure they can acquire. The PAC gives the Big 12 a chance to remain largely intact and secure.

So if the PAC raids the Big 12 I look for them to offer 6 to 8 schools and for the two to treat it like a marriage in which each spouse continues to live in their own house.

Yes they would function as a conference but would likely keep their present divisions.

If 6 moved they would form a third division. If 8 moved Utah and Colorado would likely be used to form a third and fourth division of 5 schools each.

While this is good in theory, the financial reward would be less than optimal for Texas and Oklahoma. Therefore any chance of this happening depends on how desperately those two schools desire to provide coattails to their other state schools.

And that raises another question. I seriously doubt that the Big 10 would take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech to land Texas and Oklahoma. But would the SEC? I think the SEC would, but only if the SEC was absolutely sure that the ACC was secure.

The SEC would not want to spend two slots on Tech and the Pokes unless they were absolutely confident that the ACC would not be poached by the Big 10 in the future. Keeping at least 4 potential slots open should the ACC suffer a breach would be crucial to defending the SEC brand and position in the deep South.

And similarly, the Big 10 would gladly offer up two slots to Texas and Oklahoma for the content and increased valuation of the Big 10 as a sports commodity, but would also be reticent not only because of academics, but for defensive purposes to keep open at least four slots with which to consolidate their grip on New England and the Northern Mid Atlantic if the ACC's revenue gap was not closed and should movement in that region become possible as a result of that.

In an odd sort of way should the SEC and Big 10 look only to offer two slots to the same two Big 12 members they may create the very climate the PAC needs to succeed with a fairly substantial move with the Big 12. And ironically that would leave the Big 10 and SEC with only one focus and that directed to the Eastern Seaboard where their mutual interests may vary enough to make the two of them a substantial threat to the stability of the ACC.

So the reasons that we've not pushed beyond the current P5 has more to do with long range defensive strategies than with long range offensive strategies. And the multiple partition of the Big 12 becomes the most advantageous outcome for the ACC in that the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 might be sated out of it provided none of them gain both Texas and Oklahoma. If the PAC takes the lion's portion it leaves a hungry Big 10 and SEC looking East. If the SEC lands the Texa-homa four it still leaves the Big 10 looking East and if nothing happens it still leaves the PAC, Big 12 and ACC vulnerable. The PAC would be vulnerable to continued revenue losses, and the Big 12 and ACC open to the continued desires of the B1G and SEC in a market place where TV revenue may have peaked and the only boosts to earnings would come from content additions.

So if the PAC lands 6 to 8 of the Big 12 schools to form a much broader conference then we may be looking at the Big 10 and SEC moving in concert with much larger war chests against the ACC. And for a large % of the Big 10 ESPN may see the logic in that.

Now let me throw out a hypothetical move that would solve most rivalry issues and would correct some difficult fits in realignment.

What if the PAC added these six from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. And they were able to persuade the Big 10 let Nebraska go and the SEC to let Missouri go if both wanted to be reunited with their traditional rivals in the large PAC movement. Now you would have a PAC that looked like this:
PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Consequently the Big 10 and SEC would now have 7 slots each open for a move to 20.

B1G:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Those two divisions form the old Big 10 and reunite a lot of games those fan bases prefer and in the Big 10 East:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

So by letting Nebraska return to their roots in competition the Big 10 returns to its Northern MidWestern roots and expands fully into the populated areas its alums inhabit and with schools that for that region are compatible.

Likewise the SEC looks like this:
Kentucky, (Louisiville or West Virgina), N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Whether you love it or hate it something like this is the outcome if the PAC takes the bulk of value from the Big 12.

Now I say all of that to make this point. If you want 4 conferences to survive the next set of moves then FOX and ESPN and the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and PAC will all have to work together to absorb, and divide the value of, the Big 12 almost in total.

That means not everyone gets just what they want. Everyone should get something of value and make room for 1 more, or in the case of the PAC a few more.

So you tell me what the odds are we cooperate, or what the odds are we act in our self interests and greater movement happens because of it?

What becomes of Baylor, TCU, Iowa State and possibly WVU (I see you have them as an and/or with Louisville to the SEC)?

Iowa State was in. T.C.U., Baylor, Wake Forest, Kansas State, and one of Louisville / West Virginia were out.

It might be that another private somewhere is dropped and both Louisville and WVU get in. It's a template in work, not set prediction. But those being dropped have the smallest market penetration other than WVU and Louisville which as it stands would be a victim of re-division. It's possible that both would surpass Miami as far as the SEC is concerned. But with 7 slots available and failing asking an existing member to go (Vandy) it would merely come down to N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and two of Miami, Louisville, West Virginia.

You have stated before that we are no longer in a market model & that content is the key, why not drop NC State & take both WV & Louisville? In addition, would you really want a school that is controlled by another school in your rival conference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-23-2017 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:02 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The issue for the PAC is that they aren't concerned as much with the revenue war in football as the Eastern Conferences and part of that is that they are isolated and therefore not a major target.

But they are bleeding cash trying to maintain sports and their network has not been properly distributed or monetized.

So being happy with who they are they are reticent to expand.

The Big 12 is not sustainable as a marketplace. That is the locus of their insecurity. Yeah Texas is a pain in the neck, but having 40% of the conference based in one demographic delivered by just Texas is the problem. Oklahoma (4M), Kansas (2.8M), Iowa (3.3M), and WVU (1.8M) just don't entice advertisers like the East & West coast or the large alumni groups in the Big 10 and SEC. So they are supporting 10 schools off of what just 5 of them deliver.

The problem for the current Big 12 members is that they still basically like playing each other and don't want to be broken apart.

It is true that Texas and Oklahoma could make more in either the SEC or B1G, but then that may mean Texas not getting to play as many other Texas schools, or Oklahoma having to leave behind OSU and the other schools with which they have had a shared history.

So the only attraction that the PAC has for the Big 12 or the Big 12 has for the PAC are based in their deficits, and their desires to stay together as a group, but groups somewhat segregated from one another.

The Big 12 gives the PACN the largest CTZ exposure they can acquire. The PAC gives the Big 12 a chance to remain largely intact and secure.

So if the PAC raids the Big 12 I look for them to offer 6 to 8 schools and for the two to treat it like a marriage in which each spouse continues to live in their own house.

Yes they would function as a conference but would likely keep their present divisions.

If 6 moved they would form a third division. If 8 moved Utah and Colorado would likely be used to form a third and fourth division of 5 schools each.

While this is good in theory, the financial reward would be less than optimal for Texas and Oklahoma. Therefore any chance of this happening depends on how desperately those two schools desire to provide coattails to their other state schools.

And that raises another question. I seriously doubt that the Big 10 would take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech to land Texas and Oklahoma. But would the SEC? I think the SEC would, but only if the SEC was absolutely sure that the ACC was secure.

The SEC would not want to spend two slots on Tech and the Pokes unless they were absolutely confident that the ACC would not be poached by the Big 10 in the future. Keeping at least 4 potential slots open should the ACC suffer a breach would be crucial to defending the SEC brand and position in the deep South.

And similarly, the Big 10 would gladly offer up two slots to Texas and Oklahoma for the content and increased valuation of the Big 10 as a sports commodity, but would also be reticent not only because of academics, but for defensive purposes to keep open at least four slots with which to consolidate their grip on New England and the Northern Mid Atlantic if the ACC's revenue gap was not closed and should movement in that region become possible as a result of that.

In an odd sort of way should the SEC and Big 10 look only to offer two slots to the same two Big 12 members they may create the very climate the PAC needs to succeed with a fairly substantial move with the Big 12. And ironically that would leave the Big 10 and SEC with only one focus and that directed to the Eastern Seaboard where their mutual interests may vary enough to make the two of them a substantial threat to the stability of the ACC.

So the reasons that we've not pushed beyond the current P5 has more to do with long range defensive strategies than with long range offensive strategies. And the multiple partition of the Big 12 becomes the most advantageous outcome for the ACC in that the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 might be sated out of it provided none of them gain both Texas and Oklahoma. If the PAC takes the lion's portion it leaves a hungry Big 10 and SEC looking East. If the SEC lands the Texa-homa four it still leaves the Big 10 looking East and if nothing happens it still leaves the PAC, Big 12 and ACC vulnerable. The PAC would be vulnerable to continued revenue losses, and the Big 12 and ACC open to the continued desires of the B1G and SEC in a market place where TV revenue may have peaked and the only boosts to earnings would come from content additions.

So if the PAC lands 6 to 8 of the Big 12 schools to form a much broader conference then we may be looking at the Big 10 and SEC moving in concert with much larger war chests against the ACC. And for a large % of the Big 10 ESPN may see the logic in that.

Now let me throw out a hypothetical move that would solve most rivalry issues and would correct some difficult fits in realignment.

What if the PAC added these six from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. And they were able to persuade the Big 10 let Nebraska go and the SEC to let Missouri go if both wanted to be reunited with their traditional rivals in the large PAC movement. Now you would have a PAC that looked like this:
PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Consequently the Big 10 and SEC would now have 7 slots each open for a move to 20.

B1G:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Those two divisions form the old Big 10 and reunite a lot of games those fan bases prefer and in the Big 10 East:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

So by letting Nebraska return to their roots in competition the Big 10 returns to its Northern MidWestern roots and expands fully into the populated areas its alums inhabit and with schools that for that region are compatible.

Likewise the SEC looks like this:
Kentucky, (Louisiville or West Virgina), N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Whether you love it or hate it something like this is the outcome if the PAC takes the bulk of value from the Big 12.

Now I say all of that to make this point. If you want 4 conferences to survive the next set of moves then FOX and ESPN and the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and PAC will all have to work together to absorb, and divide the value of, the Big 12 almost in total.

That means not everyone gets just what they want. Everyone should get something of value and make room for 1 more, or in the case of the PAC a few more.

So you tell me what the odds are we cooperate, or what the odds are we act in our self interests and greater movement happens because of it?

What becomes of Baylor, TCU, Iowa State and possibly WVU (I see you have them as an and/or with Louisville to the SEC)?

Iowa State was in. T.C.U., Baylor, Wake Forest, Kansas State, and one of Louisville / West Virginia were out.

It might be that another private somewhere is dropped and both Louisville and WVU get in. It's a template in work, not set prediction. But those being dropped have the smallest market penetration other than WVU and Louisville which as it stands would be a victim of re-division. It's possible that both would surpass Miami as far as the SEC is concerned. But with 7 slots available and failing asking an existing member to go (Vandy) it would merely come down to N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and two of Miami, Louisville, West Virginia.

You have stated before that we are no longer in a market model & that content is the key, why not drop NC State & take both WV & Louisville? In addition, would you really want a school that is controlled by another school in your rival conference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because by the time this is done NC State will likely have joined AAU and the SEC academics know that. And because the SEC would then be paid 1.30 for each subscription in the State of North Carolina instead of just .25 cents.

(09-23-2017 09:40 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 01:22 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  With the earlier reports of Cal athletics losing $22 million last year & with the PAC schools only making $633k off of the PACN, how far are they falling behind & are they getting desperate? It's been assumed that geography will keep the PAC safe but is it also an impossible obstacle to overcome? Would bringing in B12 schools really solve their financial woes even if they could possibly raid them? Wouldn't a small group moving to the B1G be an instant fix for their financial struggles?

If USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Colorado head to the B1G, what happens to the PAC leftovers? How would the SEC respond? Would the PAC remainders merge with the B12 or would the SEC respond by grabbing Texas, Oklahoma, WV & Kansas? If so that would put the SEC at 18.

B12/PAC? Do they merge into a 12 team conference? Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State & TT, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State. Would they add BYU & another? Houston?

This is probably the best way to maximize the value for the B1G & the SEC. Is it possible that the PAC financial woes leads to it breaking up?

The Pac is safer than the ACC, even with their very very long GoR. Scott will be out and a new commish will negotiate their next TV deal and they will load up with Big XII schools with or without UT once their GoR runs out.

Why would any of the BIG 12 schools want to go west and lose money in the PAC? Don't feel like the BIG 12 has anything to worry about from the PAC....

Because the most valuable schools (UT and OU) have already jumped ship and they rather head west than back fill with AAC schools. Also the Pac has already taken from the XII and had others asking for membership in the recent past. I think you underestimate how your fellow conference members feel about the Pac. Also the next TV deal wont pay you for 12 schools when you sit at 10.

Why would Texas & Oklahoma want to head west? The B1G & SEC offer far more $. I would think that the PAC schools see that as well. Why wouldn't USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon & Washington not be enticed by joining up with their buddies in the B1G? Why wouldn't the B1G be enticed by it? That would open the door for possibly Arizona, Arizona State, Utah & Colorado to go to the B12 & that possibly could be enough to satisfy Texas & Oklahoma. With a bit more shuffling you could divide the ACC into the B1G & SEC.

How much financial value do you think any B12 school, outside of the Longhorns & Sooners, offer the PAC?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk