http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Quote:Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009

The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.

Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.

The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.

(12-18-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Quote:Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009

The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.

Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.

The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.

It ain't over yet!

We should know a lot within the next 3-4 years.

(12-18-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Quote:Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009

The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.

Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.

The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.

Well..., I think we've passed the period of polite formality. I suspect if/when it happens again there will be little to no public notice prior to the announcements and because of GOR's notification of other conferences will be nil as departures will likely be timed with contract and GOR expiration. I also expect that serving notice will be bypassed simply because the conferences suffering losses will withhold funds to the departing anyway. So an announcement followed by immediate departure with the forfeiture of one year's revenue will probably be M.O.. But as with all things we'll see.

Fun times. Some good memories hypothesizing what the Big Ten would end up doing. Mizzouri was often tossed around (as was Rutgers). Nebraska, at the time, was a surprise since it was rumored they could go out west to the PAC. And, who can forget, it sparked the Syracuse/Pitt move to the ACC - and the rest is history.

(12-18-2017 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Quote:Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009

The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.

Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.

The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.

Well..., I think we've passed the period of polite formality. I suspect if/when it happens again there will be little to no public notice prior to the announcements and because of GOR's notification of other conferences will be nil as departures will likely be timed with contract and GOR expiration. I also expect that serving notice will be bypassed simply because the conferences suffering losses will withhold funds to the departing anyway. So an announcement followed by immediate departure with the forfeiture of one year's revenue will probably be M.O.. But as with all things we'll see.

We'll know something is up if the Big 12 GOR is not extended before it expires. They'll start talking about extending the GOR and their TV deals about 2 years before the expiration date. If a school or schools is stalling on committing to an extension, that news will leak out. Or, they'll just sign an extension and that will be that.

(12-18-2017 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Quote:Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009

The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.

Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.

The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.

Well..., I think we've passed the period of polite formality. I suspect if/when it happens again there will be little to no public notice prior to the announcements and because of GOR's notification of other conferences will be nil as departures will likely be timed with contract and GOR expiration. I also expect that serving notice will be bypassed simply because the conferences suffering losses will withhold funds to the departing anyway. So an announcement followed by immediate departure with the forfeiture of one year's revenue will probably be M.O.. But as with all things we'll see.

We'll know something is up if the Big 12 GOR is not extended before it expires. They'll start talking about extending the GOR and their TV deals about 2 years before the expiration date. If a school or schools is stalling on committing to an extension, that news will leak out. Or, they'll just sign an extension and that will be that.

Well, they held their first vote on this matter last year and voted "no" to extending the GOR, but I'm sure it will come up again in a couple of years.

(12-18-2017 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Quote:Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009

The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.

Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.

The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.

Well..., I think we've passed the period of polite formality. I suspect if/when it happens again there will be little to no public notice prior to the announcements and because of GOR's notification of other conferences will be nil as departures will likely be timed with contract and GOR expiration. I also expect that serving notice will be bypassed simply because the conferences suffering losses will withhold funds to the departing anyway. So an announcement followed by immediate departure with the forfeiture of one year's revenue will probably be M.O.. But as with all things we'll see.

We'll know something is up if the Big 12 GOR is not extended before it expires. They'll start talking about extending the GOR and their TV deals about 2 years before the expiration date. If a school or schools is stalling on committing to an extension, that news will leak out. Or, they'll just sign an extension and that will be that.

It should be an interesting next few years. If the stories being posted about grumblings happening in the PAC are true, it could be a game changer for realignment. Factor in the recent Fox/Disney merger and we could be looking a whole new ballgame. The way it sounds the new Fox will be focusing more on sports and news which could mean more $$$ thrown at conferences and conference programming.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rupert-murd...1513280513

Let the rumors begin!

(12-18-2017 11:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Quote:Big Ten Statement on Expansion
Dec. 15, 2009

The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.

Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner's office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.

The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner's recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.

Well..., I think we've passed the period of polite formality. I suspect if/when it happens again there will be little to no public notice prior to the announcements and because of GOR's notification of other conferences will be nil as departures will likely be timed with contract and GOR expiration. I also expect that serving notice will be bypassed simply because the conferences suffering losses will withhold funds to the departing anyway. So an announcement followed by immediate departure with the forfeiture of one year's revenue will probably be M.O.. But as with all things we'll see.

We'll know something is up if the Big 12 GOR is not extended before it expires. They'll start talking about extending the GOR and their TV deals about 2 years before the expiration date. If a school or schools is stalling on committing to an extension, that news will leak out. Or, they'll just sign an extension and that will be that.

It should be an interesting next few years. If the stories being posted about grumblings happening in the PAC are true, it could be a game changer for realignment. Factor in the recent Fox/Disney merger and we could be looking a whole new ballgame. The way it sounds the new Fox will be focusing more on sports and news which could mean more $$$ thrown at conferences and conference programming.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rupert-murd...1513280513

Let the rumors begin!

If that's what you are thinking, think again. Here are a few reasons:
1. Most of the buyout was in Disney stock. Is FOX going to do anything to undermine their holdings?
2. Murdoch wasn't bullish on sports. FS1, FS2, and the BTN probably weren't on the auction block because they might have tipped the definition of monopoly against the deal.
3. Look for greater cooperation between FOX and ESPN moving forward. If so look for more collectivization among the P5 as they try to gain bargaining leverage.

The Big 10 isn't going to be hurt by this move, but thy won't be helped either. And that is true for all of the conferences. If anything all this does is to remove the bidding tension for our rights.

I look for realignment to occur a few years from the current contract expiration so that the networks (FOX and ESPN) can use renegotiation clauses to lock in the top conferences before they come up for bid again. If so look for contracts into the 2040's to take their place.

I also find the Skipper resignation to be an interesting one. (a) It is what it is. (b) He groped a woman while drunk 30 years ago and doesn't want to go through that mess. (I'm not serious here but given the current climate who knows?) © The realignment plans for the future might violate his loyalties and they are coming sooner rather than later. (d.) Some or all of the above.

It will be fascinating to watch this soap opera play out.

But no matter what, the way this move was monetized it is more of an unofficial partnership between FOX and Disney than anything else. They have financially made turned their self interest into a mutual interest and have done so to prepare against the onslaught to the tech companies streaming threat, and to cut overhead by not bidding against one another. I see absolutely nothing here to indicate their aggressive movement for any sports rights.

On the surface, their transparency looks old-school and honorable, but, it ain't fooling this guy. Given the landscape of D1 at that time, before GoR's, massive buy-out's, and before these dedicated networks were hammered out, a-n-y-o-n-e could have been a candidate for consideration when the Big Ten did this. And, yeah, this was the Big Ten fishing for new schools. How many would take the bait?

It was the same with Hopkins fishing their lacrosse program for a conference. Could you expect a call from them, or was the offer so hot you had to call them?

Until PSU leaked their membership vote, that whole courtship wasn't a lot unlike the UMD and Rutgers additions, coming out of utter nowhere, and done under strict confidentiality. And then again with Notre Dame hockey. There is no reason (for me, at least) to believe any future expansion won't be like this. You may hear some leaking just before the move happens; it's utter silence until then.

I can't stand how the Big Ten handled that expansion back in 2009. I still believe they leaked their candidate pool (the Missouri, Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, etc. "story") to lure a ringer, like Nebraska, when their process backfired and didn't draw out the UNC's, Virginia's, and Texas' it thought it should have grabbed. And the way the conference gagged UMD's Board only validated that suspicion...the Big Ten will do whatever it takes to get what it wants the way they want things done when it wants it. Folks can be total fanboys for their schools' conferences...it's a bunch of tax-exempt jack***es acting like they're in a James Bond movie. Grow up.

Would not be surprised to see one last attempt at some kind of merger/new conference founded between the PAC and the L10 as it is the only solution to both conferences problem of geography and population

New PAC (Plains And Coast) Tens

Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
Cal
Stanford
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
(WSU/OSU out)


Plus the current L10 with possibility of kicking out Baylor for someone more palatable

(12-18-2017 01:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Would not be surprised to see one last attempt at some kind of merger/new conference founded between the PAC and the L10 as it is the only solution to both conferences problem of geography and population

New PAC (Plains And Coast) Tens

Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
Cal
Stanford
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
(WSU/OSU out)


Plus the current L10 with possibility of kicking out Baylor for someone more palatable

I would think current PAC + XII (- Baylor & West Virginia). Nothing against the Mountaineers, but they belong in the ACC or SEC. The PAC schools and West Virginia won't like the travel.

North: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, California, Stanford
West: Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona St, USC, UCLA
East: Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Colorado, Utah
South: Texas, Texas, Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St

The PAC 12 has totally boxed itself in geographically. Should have come down off their ivory tower and invited OU and OSU. What other options to they have in the Pacific/Mountain time zones?

I like the big 10 jumping to 24 with 10 pac 12 schools, no WSU and OSU. Than create 3 separate 8 team divisions. Send WSU and osu to the mwc and get some rule changes for large leagues so each division can act as a stand-alone conference.

(12-18-2017 05:52 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I like the big 10 jumping to 24 with 10 pac 12 schools, no WSU and OSU. Than create 3 separate 8 team divisions. Send WSU and osu to the mwc and get some rule changes for large leagues so each division can act as a stand-alone conference.

Arizona St and Utah don't have the academics to get into the Big Ten.

Substitute them for Kansas and Oklahoma (Sooner's lack the academics too but much can be forgiven to land a blue blood).

West: Wash, Ore, Cal, Stan, USC, UCLA, Ariz, Colo
Central: Okla, Kan, Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Minn, NW, Ill
East: Purdue, Ind, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Penn St, M'land, Rut

December 15th, 2009, a date which will live in infamy. The united college football world was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Big 10.

(12-18-2017 06:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  December 15th, 2009, a date which will live in infamy. The united college football world was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Big 10.

Yes they took silos...........filled with corn with the help of an insider named Osborne.

(12-18-2017 12:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121509aaa.html

Well..., I think we've passed the period of polite formality. I suspect if/when it happens again there will be little to no public notice prior to the announcements and because of GOR's notification of other conferences will be nil as departures will likely be timed with contract and GOR expiration. I also expect that serving notice will be bypassed simply because the conferences suffering losses will withhold funds to the departing anyway. So an announcement followed by immediate departure with the forfeiture of one year's revenue will probably be M.O.. But as with all things we'll see.

We'll know something is up if the Big 12 GOR is not extended before it expires. They'll start talking about extending the GOR and their TV deals about 2 years before the expiration date. If a school or schools is stalling on committing to an extension, that news will leak out. Or, they'll just sign an extension and that will be that.

It should be an interesting next few years. If the stories being posted about grumblings happening in the PAC are true, it could be a game changer for realignment. Factor in the recent Fox/Disney merger and we could be looking a whole new ballgame. The way it sounds the new Fox will be focusing more on sports and news which could mean more $$$ thrown at conferences and conference programming.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rupert-murd...1513280513

Let the rumors begin!

If that's what you are thinking, think again. Here are a few reasons:
1. Most of the buyout was in Disney stock. Is FOX going to do anything to undermine their holdings?
2. Murdoch wasn't bullish on sports. FS1, FS2, and the BTN probably weren't on the auction block because they might have tipped the definition of monopoly against the deal.
3. Look for greater cooperation between FOX and ESPN moving forward. If so look for more collectivization among the P5 as they try to gain bargaining leverage.

The Big 10 isn't going to be hurt by this move, but thy won't be helped either. And that is true for all of the conferences. If anything all this does is to remove the bidding tension for our rights.

I look for realignment to occur a few years from the current contract expiration so that the networks (FOX and ESPN) can use renegotiation clauses to lock in the top conferences before they come up for bid again. If so look for contracts into the 2040's to take their place.

I also find the Skipper resignation to be an interesting one. (a) It is what it is. (b) He groped a woman while drunk 30 years ago and doesn't want to go through that mess. (I'm not serious here but given the current climate who knows?) © The realignment plans for the future might violate his loyalties and they are coming sooner rather than later. (d.) Some or all of the above.

It will be fascinating to watch this soap opera play out.

But no matter what, the way this move was monetized it is more of an unofficial partnership between FOX and Disney than anything else. They have financially made turned their self interest into a mutual interest and have done so to prepare against the onslaught to the tech companies streaming threat, and to cut overhead by not bidding against one another. I see absolutely nothing here to indicate their aggressive movement for any sports rights.

Everything will depend on what the Murdochs decide to do with the remaining assets. If they decide to reform what's left and form a new company, they're not going to simply let that die a slow death of mediocrity. They're going to put that company in the best position to be successful. To think that won't spend money on something like college sports because of Disney/ESPN would be like saying they won't spend money on the news division because of Disney/ABC.

My guess is that with the holdover divisions and their contracts with the NFL, UFC, etc, would be worth MORE if they were to lock in an expanded B1G or B1G/PAC alliance, which might bring the likes of Amazon, Apple, or Google sniffing around. What better way to maximize the selling price of the new company with the holdover divisions?

(12-18-2017 06:48 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well..., I think we've passed the period of polite formality. I suspect if/when it happens again there will be little to no public notice prior to the announcements and because of GOR's notification of other conferences will be nil as departures will likely be timed with contract and GOR expiration. I also expect that serving notice will be bypassed simply because the conferences suffering losses will withhold funds to the departing anyway. So an announcement followed by immediate departure with the forfeiture of one year's revenue will probably be M.O.. But as with all things we'll see.

We'll know something is up if the Big 12 GOR is not extended before it expires. They'll start talking about extending the GOR and their TV deals about 2 years before the expiration date. If a school or schools is stalling on committing to an extension, that news will leak out. Or, they'll just sign an extension and that will be that.

It should be an interesting next few years. If the stories being posted about grumblings happening in the PAC are true, it could be a game changer for realignment. Factor in the recent Fox/Disney merger and we could be looking a whole new ballgame. The way it sounds the new Fox will be focusing more on sports and news which could mean more $$$ thrown at conferences and conference programming.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rupert-murd...1513280513

Let the rumors begin!

If that's what you are thinking, think again. Here are a few reasons:
1. Most of the buyout was in Disney stock. Is FOX going to do anything to undermine their holdings?
2. Murdoch wasn't bullish on sports. FS1, FS2, and the BTN probably weren't on the auction block because they might have tipped the definition of monopoly against the deal.
3. Look for greater cooperation between FOX and ESPN moving forward. If so look for more collectivization among the P5 as they try to gain bargaining leverage.

The Big 10 isn't going to be hurt by this move, but thy won't be helped either. And that is true for all of the conferences. If anything all this does is to remove the bidding tension for our rights.

I look for realignment to occur a few years from the current contract expiration so that the networks (FOX and ESPN) can use renegotiation clauses to lock in the top conferences before they come up for bid again. If so look for contracts into the 2040's to take their place.

I also find the Skipper resignation to be an interesting one. (a) It is what it is. (b) He groped a woman while drunk 30 years ago and doesn't want to go through that mess. (I'm not serious here but given the current climate who knows?) © The realignment plans for the future might violate his loyalties and they are coming sooner rather than later. (d.) Some or all of the above.

It will be fascinating to watch this soap opera play out.

But no matter what, the way this move was monetized it is more of an unofficial partnership between FOX and Disney than anything else. They have financially made turned their self interest into a mutual interest and have done so to prepare against the onslaught to the tech companies streaming threat, and to cut overhead by not bidding against one another. I see absolutely nothing here to indicate their aggressive movement for any sports rights.

Everything will depend on what the Murdochs decide to do with the remaining assets. If they decide to reform what's left and form a new company, they're not going to simply let that die a slow death of mediocrity. They're going to put that company in the best position to be successful. To think that won't spend money on something like college sports because of Disney/ESPN would be like saying they won't spend money on the news division because of Disney/ABC.

The Murdochs run Fox. But they will also be the largest shareholders of the company that owns ESPN and ABC. Either they'll give up management of the remaining Fox assets, or, more likely, they'll sell them after the Disney deal goes through.

dang! Time flies....I didn't it was that long ago.

(12-18-2017 05:52 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I like the big 10 jumping to 24 with 10 pac 12 schools, no WSU and OSU. Than create 3 separate 8 team divisions. Send WSU and osu to the mwc and get some rule changes for large leagues so each division can act as a stand-alone conference.

Already made a map if it ever happens:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000004&z=5

While it's still a far fetched idea I think as time goes by and with the major changes going on in media there may be some combinations in the future that would become necessary to account for future challenges in the college sports world. Money concerns will still be in the minds of presidents as the political situation continues to change, so athletics will be tasked to bring in more of the money. The complaints from people at Cal, USC and UCLA may be a foreshadowing of things to come.

By the way, both U of U and ASU aren't bad schools. They're not AAU. However, Utah is already Carnegie R1 (highest classification), the public flagship school in a growing state, and over $1 billion in endowment. It would be part of a bridge to the West Coast. ASU sits in the Phoenix market, has a huge undergrad population, but with an endowment a little more than half of U of U. The bigger question would be whether they'd be redundant with U of A in the same state but the relative isolation of the Western states would've to be taken into consideration. If there's to be an expansion West then they'd have to go B1G in order to have regional travel. The PAC may have a more stringent standard for accession than even the Big Ten. Remember, all PAC schools are Carnegie R1 (among them 8 AAU).

But if ASU and U of U can't be accepted then a simpler move to 20, which is just the AAU schools on the coast, may be the deal and the interior West schools would go to replenish the Big XII.