(08-04-2021 01:04 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  The best thing for the Big XII remnants is to go to 16 by taking all of the Americans Large Markets and trimming the low hanging fruit and duplicate markets.

Big XII Current Members:

ISU, Kansas, Kansas St., OSU, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor and W.Va..

Teams taken from the American:

Houston, UC, Memphis, Tulane, USF, UCF, Navy and Temple.

That gives you all the large markets and the Larger Enrolment Schools. You drop ECU as North Carolina already has 4 teams in a Power Conference there. You drop Tulsa a small private school near OSU and you drop SMU which is in DFW with TCU.

I doubt they do it but, that's their best course of action. I believe that BYU will eventually wind up in the PAC so, why take it and BSU isn't a fit. It's too far west. In then end, they probably get picked apart do to no planning and inaction.

Ive been saying since this started that could be a very interesting concept. The AAC has always outperformed ratings expectations and I suspect its because the AAC getting reasonable traction in these same large media markets. With the even more well known B12 brands---I suspect the same effect would play out for the Big12 if they were regualrly playing teams from those big media markets.

Dodd got this from a USC contact: "We're listening [to what's going on elsewhere]," a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. "We're just trying to listen and learn like everybody else."

Dodd must be drinking the USC kool-aid. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 12 seasons. They have not made a Final Four since 1954. Their once great baseball program has made the NCAA Tournament once in the past 15 years. Now it looks like they lost a starting wide receiver over a domestic violence charge.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nce-arrest

For a school that is located in LA, with all of the talent in Southern California at their doorstep, they have not been very impressive. In 2018-2019, they averaged 3,590 fans for their basketball games. They are telling Dodd how great they are and Dodd is buying it. But the truth is they have been an underperforming athletic department and they have not helped the Pac-12 much in recent years.

(08-04-2021 04:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 01:04 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  The best thing for the Big XII remnants is to go to 16 by taking all of the Americans Large Markets and trimming the low hanging fruit and duplicate markets.

Big XII Current Members:

ISU, Kansas, Kansas St., OSU, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor and W.Va..

Teams taken from the American:

Houston, UC, Memphis, Tulane, USF, UCF, Navy and Temple.

That gives you all the large markets and the Larger Enrolment Schools. You drop ECU as North Carolina already has 4 teams in a Power Conference there. You drop Tulsa a small private school near OSU and you drop SMU which is in DFW with TCU.

I doubt they do it but, that's their best course of action. I believe that BYU will eventually wind up in the PAC so, why take it and BSU isn't a fit. It's too far west. In then end, they probably get picked apart do to no planning and inaction.

Ive been saying since this started that could be a very interesting concept. The AAC has always outperformed ratings expectations and I suspect its because the AAC getting reasonable traction in these same large media markets. With the even more well known B12 brands---I suspect the same effect would play out for the Big12 if they were regualrly playing teams from those big media markets.

This is what I see could be.

Texas Division:
Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech.

Plains Division:
Kansas, Kansas St., OSU, ISU.

Patriot Division:
UC, W.Va., Navy, Temple.

Rebel Division:
Memphis, Tulane, USF, UCF.

That would be as close to regional divisions as possible. The names aren't bad either. The conference could play a 9 game conference schedule for football and play either N/S or E/W divisions for Olympic sports.

A semi-wacky thought occurred to me. Go to 12 for the cost of a little more than 10. Add Houston and all three service academies. Balance the divisions by adding Oklahoma State and TCU to these four. Each of the academies get a half share, with Army and Navy in for FB only (the Big 12 makes as much geographic sense for other sports as the MWC does for AFA).

(08-04-2021 01:04 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  The best thing for the Big XII remnants is to go to 16 by taking all of the Americans Large Markets and trimming the low hanging fruit and duplicate markets.

Big XII Current Members:

ISU, Kansas, Kansas St., OSU, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor and W.Va..

Teams taken from the American:

Houston, UC, Memphis, Tulane, USF, UCF, Navy and Temple.

That gives you all the large markets and the Larger Enrolment Schools. You drop ECU as North Carolina already has 4 teams in a Power Conference there. You drop Tulsa a small private school near OSU and you drop SMU which is in DFW with TCU.

I doubt they do it but, that's their best course of action. I believe that BYU will eventually wind up in the PAC so, why take it and BSU isn't a fit. It's too far west. In then end, they probably get picked apart do to no planning and inaction.

16 seems to big. 12 is more reasonable. BYU is not getting in the PAC 12 and is a program that should be on the Big 12’s wishlist, right at the top.

I could maybe see 14:

BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis

Any more would be superfluous.

(08-05-2021 11:32 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 01:04 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  The best thing for the Big XII remnants is to go to 16 by taking all of the Americans Large Markets and trimming the low hanging fruit and duplicate markets.

Big XII Current Members:

ISU, Kansas, Kansas St., OSU, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor and W.Va..

Teams taken from the American:

Houston, UC, Memphis, Tulane, USF, UCF, Navy and Temple.

That gives you all the large markets and the Larger Enrolment Schools. You drop ECU as North Carolina already has 4 teams in a Power Conference there. You drop Tulsa a small private school near OSU and you drop SMU which is in DFW with TCU.

I doubt they do it but, that's their best course of action. I believe that BYU will eventually wind up in the PAC so, why take it and BSU isn't a fit. It's too far west. In then end, they probably get picked apart do to no planning and inaction.

16 seems to big. 12 is more reasonable. BYU is not getting in the PAC 12 and is a program that should be on the Big 12’s wishlist, right at the top.

I could maybe see 14:

BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis

Any more would be superfluous.

16 Teams protects them from future poaching and allows them to utilize the 4 pod/div concept which allows for regional play and ease of scheduling. It also give the conference more inventory to sell. It's a win for everyone.

(08-04-2021 06:37 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Dodd got this from a USC contact: "We're listening [to what's going on elsewhere]," a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. "We're just trying to listen and learn like everybody else."

Dodd must be drinking the USC kool-aid. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 12 seasons. They have not made a Final Four since 1954. Their once great baseball program has made the NCAA Tournament once in the past 15 years. Now it looks like they lost a starting wide receiver over a domestic violence charge.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nce-arrest

For a school that is located in LA, with all of the talent in Southern California at their doorstep, they have not been very impressive. In 2018-2019, they averaged 3,590 fans for their basketball games. They are telling Dodd how great they are and Dodd is buying it. But the truth is they have been an underperforming athletic department and they have not helped the Pac-12 much in recent years.

Okay but how is that different from UCLA and what does it have to do with realignment?

(08-05-2021 12:30 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 06:37 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Dodd got this from a USC contact: "We're listening [to what's going on elsewhere]," a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. "We're just trying to listen and learn like everybody else."

Dodd must be drinking the USC kool-aid. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 12 seasons. They have not made a Final Four since 1954. Their once great baseball program has made the NCAA Tournament once in the past 15 years. Now it looks like they lost a starting wide receiver over a domestic violence charge.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nce-arrest

For a school that is located in LA, with all of the talent in Southern California at their doorstep, they have not been very impressive. In 2018-2019, they averaged 3,590 fans for their basketball games. They are telling Dodd how great they are and Dodd is buying it. But the truth is they have been an underperforming athletic department and they have not helped the Pac-12 much in recent years.

Okay but how is that different from UCLA and what does it have to do with realignment?

Right - USC would be *insanely* valuable for conference realignment purposes. Their recent on-the-field/court records are irrelevant with respect to conference realignment just as they are irrelevant for Texas: they have an elite national brand combined with one of the most important markets in the country (with great academics on top of it all). USC would still be a top conference realignment pick even if they went winless in football for the next 5 years.

That being said, I don't think USC is going anywhere. The only place that could ever conceivably make sense is the Big Ten and, while I'm sure the Big Ten would be interested, it's so hard to imagine that happening unless there's virtually a full-on Big Ten/Pac-12 merger (which might benefit the Pac-12 schools a lot, but makes a lot less economic sense for the Big Ten schools that are already making a lot more money).

(08-06-2021 12:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 12:30 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 06:37 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Dodd got this from a USC contact: "We're listening [to what's going on elsewhere]," a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. "We're just trying to listen and learn like everybody else."

Dodd must be drinking the USC kool-aid. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 12 seasons. They have not made a Final Four since 1954. Their once great baseball program has made the NCAA Tournament once in the past 15 years. Now it looks like they lost a starting wide receiver over a domestic violence charge.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nce-arrest

For a school that is located in LA, with all of the talent in Southern California at their doorstep, they have not been very impressive. In 2018-2019, they averaged 3,590 fans for their basketball games. They are telling Dodd how great they are and Dodd is buying it. But the truth is they have been an underperforming athletic department and they have not helped the Pac-12 much in recent years.

Okay but how is that different from UCLA and what does it have to do with realignment?

Right - USC would be *insanely* valuable for conference realignment purposes. Their recent on-the-field/court records are irrelevant with respect to conference realignment just as they are irrelevant for Texas: they have an elite national brand combined with one of the most important markets in the country (with great academics on top of it all). USC would still be a top conference realignment pick even if they went winless in football for the next 5 years.

That being said, I don't think USC is going anywhere. The only place that could ever conceivably make sense is the Big Ten and, while I'm sure the Big Ten would be interested, it's so hard to imagine that happening unless there's virtually a full-on Big Ten/Pac-12 merger (which might benefit the Pac-12 schools a lot, but makes a lot less economic sense for the Big Ten schools that are already making a lot more money).

This makes sense:

ACC adds USC + Stanford + Notre Dame + Navy as a group, puts them all together.
At this point the ACC has captured the value of 4 Notre Dame games per year (half of 8), even if they remain independent.

Maybe get USC and Stanford to join the WCC for all sports but football and ACC football only. Than invite navy football only

Atlantic

UVA, VTech, UNC, duke, wake, NC state, Clemson, G tech, FSU

Coastal

BC, Cuse, Pitt, Louisville, Miami, ND, navy, Usc, Stanford

(08-05-2021 12:30 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 06:37 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Dodd got this from a USC contact: "We're listening [to what's going on elsewhere]," a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. "We're just trying to listen and learn like everybody else."

Dodd must be drinking the USC kool-aid. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 12 seasons. They have not made a Final Four since 1954. Their once great baseball program has made the NCAA Tournament once in the past 15 years. Now it looks like they lost a starting wide receiver over a domestic violence charge.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nce-arrest

For a school that is located in LA, with all of the talent in Southern California at their doorstep, they have not been very impressive. In 2018-2019, they averaged 3,590 fans for their basketball games. They are telling Dodd how great they are and Dodd is buying it. But the truth is they have been an underperforming athletic department and they have not helped the Pac-12 much in recent years.

Okay but how is that different from UCLA and what does it have to do with realignment?

What does it have to do with realignment? I just don't buy any of this fantasy realignment with the Pac-12 schools. I don't think they are adding, and I don't think they are leaving. They have a new commissioner that they like a lot and a new TV deal coming in just a few years. It does not make sense for a Pac-12 school to leave.

Unless networks are offering a boat load of money for additional schools, expansion makes no sense. It makes no sense to fly across the country for conference athletic events and the University Presidents would not support it. They may do very well with their new TV contract, which would make the whole point of schools leaving pointless.

In some of these realignment scenarios, USC's name is being tossed around like they are the best athletic program in the Pac-12. They are not. I think they are tied to the other three California Pac-12 schools and will remain right where they are at.

(08-06-2021 04:01 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 12:30 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 06:37 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Dodd got this from a USC contact: "We're listening [to what's going on elsewhere]," a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. "We're just trying to listen and learn like everybody else."

Dodd must be drinking the USC kool-aid. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 12 seasons. They have not made a Final Four since 1954. Their once great baseball program has made the NCAA Tournament once in the past 15 years. Now it looks like they lost a starting wide receiver over a domestic violence charge.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nce-arrest

For a school that is located in LA, with all of the talent in Southern California at their doorstep, they have not been very impressive. In 2018-2019, they averaged 3,590 fans for their basketball games. They are telling Dodd how great they are and Dodd is buying it. But the truth is they have been an underperforming athletic department and they have not helped the Pac-12 much in recent years.

Okay but how is that different from UCLA and what does it have to do with realignment?

What does it have to do with realignment? I just don't buy any of this fantasy realignment with the Pac-12 schools. I don't think they are adding, and I don't think they are leaving. They have a new commissioner that they like a lot and a new TV deal coming in just a few years. It does not make sense for a Pac-12 school to leave.

Unless networks are offering a boat load of money for additional schools, expansion makes no sense. It makes no sense to fly across the country for conference athletic events and the University Presidents would not support it. They may do very well with their new TV contract, which would make the whole point of schools leaving pointless.

In some of these realignment scenarios, USC's name is being tossed around like they are the best athletic program in the Pac-12. They are not. I think they are tied to the other three California Pac-12 schools and will remain right where they are at.

USC is far and away the most valuable program in the Pac 12. I agree they are tied to the other 3 California schools. While I think its likely they stay, money possibly could convince the 4 California schools to join the Big 10 + 4 + 4 + probably 2 more.

(08-05-2021 12:03 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  16 Teams protects them from future poaching and allows them to utilize the 4 pod/div concept which allows for regional play and ease of scheduling. It also give the conference more inventory to sell. It's a win for everyone.

More inventory to sell does not guarantee the value goes up in proportion to the number of teams ... if a 12 team Big12 places 6 games OTA, there's no guarantee that a 16 team Big12 places 8 games OTA ... the extra inventory may be going into FS2, and while it adds some modest amount to the total, the average value per school drops.

And they can be poached as easily at 16 as they can be at 12, it's just that at 12 they can postpone the drop in average value from adding the next four schools until the raid, while at 16, they get to take the drop in average value up front.

The quads concept offers a way to cope with the difficulties of scheduling 16 schools, but not expanding to 16 is an alternative that simply avoids the difficulties of scheduling 16 schools.

It's a win for everyone in your tally by virtue of omitting the downsides of 16 schools ... but those downsides remain.

Stanford, USC and UCLA are, hands down, the most valuable Pac-12 properties regarding the combo of athletics, academics and locations. No. 4: maybe Washington?

And I do not foresee any of the three "leaving" the Pac-12 any time soon.

(08-06-2021 08:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 12:03 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  16 Teams protects them from future poaching and allows them to utilize the 4 pod/div concept which allows for regional play and ease of scheduling. It also give the conference more inventory to sell. It's a win for everyone.

More inventory to sell does not guarantee the value goes up in proportion to the number of teams ... if a 12 team Big12 places 6 games OTA, there's no guarantee that a 16 team Big12 places 8 games OTA ... the extra inventory may be going into FS2, and while it adds some modest amount to the total, the average value per school drops.

And they can be poached as easily at 16 as they can be at 12, it's just that at 12 they can postpone the drop in average value from adding the next four schools until the raid, while at 16, they get to take the drop in average value up front.

The quads concept offers a way to cope with the difficulties of scheduling 16 schools, but not expanding to 16 is an alternative that simply avoids the difficulties of scheduling 16 schools.

It's a win for everyone in your tally by virtue of omitting the downsides of 16 schools ... but those downsides remain.

To be honest, none of us know what that groups true value will be or if it will go up or down do to numbers. It's all speculation. My point was, with 16 teams you have more large markets to draw ticket sales from. You'll have more markets for players NIL rights and the 4 pod system is easier to schedule. Face it, beyond the to 10 to 15 schools, it's all a crap shoot.

(08-04-2021 11:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, the key points in the article were:

1) Nobody in the L8 adds value to the PAC.

2) It doesn't make sense for any other P stretching across the country to poach a PAC school.

So what by omission does that tell you about who it is that would be on the Big 10's menu? I had already run the PAC numbers and adjusted them up 15.5 million as a media revenue differential since the Big 10 average payout of 52.1 million was off the PAC average about that much. 54.3 is what vested B10 members made dragged down by the buy in totals. And PAC total revenues varied some as well.

At that rate Washington, Stanford, Southern Cal, and UCLA were the only ones who could add value and that value was minimal since Washington essentially would enter the B10 in 7th earning position and the rest were lower.

The best pairing for B10 profitability is with N.D and FSU, when adjusted for academics it becomes N.D. and Miami.

Everyone's eyes in the ACC will be on Texas and Oklahoma's GOR handling. So if the GOR proves its teeth realignment is now over for at least a decade or a bit longer. If OU and UT wiggle out for just a settlement there will be ACC schools willing to risk it at 35 to 40 million difference in potential media revenue.

At current payouts Kansas and TCU would add to the PAC's bottom line. I don't know if that would be true when the PAC gets a raise with a new contract.

As things stand now I think the PAC, ACC and B1G stand pat and we wait a year to see how Texas and Oklahoma handle their escape. If they are in the SEC for 2022 then the ACC will be in the news when the B1G starts making offers. And for the record Kansas and Missouri do not come close to adding to the B1G's bottom line at 52.1 or 54.3 million let alone 60.

(08-06-2021 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 04:01 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  In some of these realignment scenarios, USC's name is being tossed around like they are the best athletic program in the Pac-12. They are not. I think they are tied to the other three California Pac-12 schools and will remain right where they are at.

USC is far and away the most valuable program in the Pac 12. I agree they are tied to the other 3 California schools. While I think its likely they stay, money possibly could convince the 4 California schools to join the Big 10 + 4 + 4 + probably 2 more.

Oregon is the most valuable football program in the Pac-12 at this time. USC is a blueblood in football, they have won 11 national championships, they are in the LA media market. They are a known brand. They even had the No. 7 ranked recruiting class in the nation. But Oregon had the No. 6 ranked recruiting class in the nation. Both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal have listed Oregon as the most valuable football program in the Pac-12. Oregon according to 247sports has the No. 2 rated football facilities in the country behind Clemson:
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/co...160189814_

Oregon has the best athletic facilities in the conference and the rest of the conference is trying to catch up. Stanford, UCLA, and Oregon have the best overall athletic programs. Stanford is loaded with money and they will always do what they need to do to keep up or stay ahead. UCLA has always been a popular place for athletes to work out and for celebrities to hang out. Tom Brady has been a regular at UCLA practices since they opened their new $65 million Wassrman Football Center in 2017:
https://www.si.com/college/ucla/football...iting-ucla
"Ironically, Brady wasn't the only big name on campus on this day over two years ago. Former First Lady Michelle Obama was speaking at Pauley Pavilion just a couple feet away from Wasserman. John Legend and Usher were also spotted on campus that day – nothing too crazy by UCLA standards, all things considered."

The point is, these are competitive athletic programs and they would laugh at the idea that USC was "far and away the most valuable program in the Pac 12." USC and UCLA are in the LA market and that brings a lot of value, but Stanford is in the 6th largest market in the nation and they have easily the largest endowment of any power conference school in America. Oregon just finished a $270 million renovation of their track & field stadium, Hayward Field, the top track & field stadium in America.
https://www.insider.com/oregons-270-mill...ium-2021-3

Stanford has won 128 NCAA championships, UCLA 119 championships and USC 110. The most of any schools in the nation. The Pac-12 is a competitive conference and a tight conference. There is no one school in this conference that is the center of power. I agree, no schools are leaving for the Big Ten. People that think that could happen don't know the Pac-12 schools or the west coast.

(08-04-2021 06:37 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Dodd got this from a USC contact: "We're listening [to what's going on elsewhere]," a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. "We're just trying to listen and learn like everybody else."

Dodd must be drinking the USC kool-aid. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 12 seasons. They have not made a Final Four since 1954. Their once great baseball program has made the NCAA Tournament once in the past 15 years. Now it looks like they lost a starting wide receiver over a domestic violence charge.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nce-arrest

For a school that is located in LA, with all of the talent in Southern California at their doorstep, they have not been very impressive. In 2018-2019, they averaged 3,590 fans for their basketball games. They are telling Dodd how great they are and Dodd is buying it. But the truth is they have been an underperforming athletic department and they have not helped the Pac-12 much in recent years.

I don't know why, but for some reason USCw seems to remind me of the Miami Hurricanes pre- Mark Richt, with that description that you gave me SoCalBobcat. Maybe that's what USC needs: a West Coast version of Mark Richt??? Don't know who really fits that bill though.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(08-06-2021 09:09 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  To be honest, none of us know what that groups true value will be or if it will go up or down do to numbers. It's all speculation. My point was, with 16 teams you have more large markets to draw ticket sales from. You'll have more markets for players NIL rights ...

And you have more mouths to feed. The size of the markets doesn't matter, what matters it the number of viewers you draw in the market. Drawing 40% of the viewers from a 300K market and 4% of the viewers from a 3m market are equivalent values.

Adding the four schools that provide the best additional value per school will be more total value per school than going ahead and adding the next four, which do not add as much value per school or else they would have been part of the first four.

Quote: ... and the 4 pod system is easier to schedule.

And this is bollocks ... a 12 school, 2 division system is easy to schedule and easy to follow. Play your division home and away and half of the other division home and away, then play your division home and away and the other half of the other division home and away, repeat.

The 4 quad system is a way of coping with the difficulties of scheduling 16 schools, but it confuses regular followers ... and even easier than the 4 quad system is avoiding the problem altogether by not admitting 16 schools.

(08-08-2021 01:09 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2021 04:01 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  In some of these realignment scenarios, USC's name is being tossed around like they are the best athletic program in the Pac-12. They are not. I think they are tied to the other three California Pac-12 schools and will remain right where they are at.

USC is far and away the most valuable program in the Pac 12. I agree they are tied to the other 3 California schools. While I think its likely they stay, money possibly could convince the 4 California schools to join the Big 10 + 4 + 4 + probably 2 more.

Oregon is the most valuable football program in the Pac-12 at this time.

There is a big difference between which is the "best" program and which is the "most valuable" program. I think most experts would agree that USC is a more valuable property than Oregon.

That being said, nobody in the PAC is going anywhere in the absence of game changing legislation. Since we don't seem to be able to get any meaningful legislation passed on important issues, I doubt we'll get any on something as unimportant as college athletics any time soon.