(02-11-2023 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 11:35 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 09:54 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  So, with TX and OU's early exit confirmed, things are about to get interesting. The Big 12 is about to go hunting the PAC. And I think they've got a good chance of landing some.

If you're Arizona ASU, CO or Utah, and your prospective PAC TV package is no better, or barely better, than the B12's is now, why pledge to the PAC, knowing that Washington and Oregon are gone the second they get a B1G invite? Or possibly even an ACC invite?

They can wait it out and say "Well, the Big 12 will always be there"...but will it? If you kick the can down the road for six years or something, by then the ACC might be coming apart, and are you sure the Big 12 would choose the same PAC leftover schools over maybe being to pick over the ACC for VT, Louisville, Pitt, etc? Maybe, but maybe not. Those PAC programs could look even more hopeless after 5-6 years of hanging out on Amazon Prime exclusively, out of sight out of mind.

If the PAC starts coming apart...boy. Does Washington and Oregon join the Big 12 too out of no other choice? Does the B1G move on Washington and Oregon, since they won't be accused of "destroying a conference"? Do Washington and Oregon try to cobble together an 8- or 9-team PAC with some back fills, and then split 60% of the PAC revenue?

What a weird time.

Lou, word today is that there is still no interest in PAC 12 rights, even if they add San Diego State and SMU. And the conference needs 8 votes to add them and likely doesn't have the votes. And then they have the obstacle of signing a GOR which most pundits don't believe will be easy.

Yes, the Big 12 is about to go hunting and the PAC is suddenly not an unreasonable target with better options.

With Oklahoma and Texas skating out early for what was really little more than a year of media money considering the LHN and Oklahoma's T3 deal, I'd say that this event actually signals the beginning of more consolidation. If the Big 10 wants more of the PAC and the Big 12 gets to move first those dominoes will fall.

We'll see if what the Big 10 does, if they do it, triggers an SEC response. At 16 each I think it is likely that it would.

We'll see.

I do tend to think if the PAC starts disintegrating, the B1G would probably act on Oregon and Washington. If they let them go to the Big 12 (or ACC) and decide in 3-4 years they want them, it's 100 times harder to break them out.

Going to 18 is just a stopping point to 20, so those two spots being there would revive the ND to the B1G talk, which would get the ACC riled up again, etc.

I think you also start seeing the ACC schools looking at the deal the Big 12 got minus TX/OU, how they seem to have stabilized at a decently healthy TV contract, and start to wonder how long it's worth trying to hang on to schools that don't want to be there AND dwarf them in the conference.

You also now have the first precedent of schools/networks negotiating their way out of a GOR. Sure, it's only one year versus thirteen, but you're into the famous George Bernard Shaw quote at this point..."we've established what you are, now we are just negotiating."

Hell, the ACC is so under-compensated now, they could probably let FSU and Clemson go and still be kept near the same number, if ESPN was motivated. Many people are now talking about unequal revenue sharing on the horizon...some ACC schools might end up better off financially in a conference minus Clemson and FSU, than if those schools get their wish on unequal splits.

I think people are going to look at the Big 12 finally stabilizing and wonder how much longer it's worth staving off the inevitable, rather than getting on with a more sensible order.

Lou, I would bet that the calls made to the PAC from the B1G would be to Cal and Stanford instead.

If the Big 10 goes West again X, they will take 3 and move to 20. Washington, USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford make a division of 5. Then they can add Colorado or Kansas or Notre Dame and make it work out.

Correct JR.
If the goal of the B1G to get to twenty, Stanford and California would surely be included. Washington and Colorado would round out the adds.
Colorado would fit well with Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

(02-03-2023 03:04 AM)7thHeaven Wrote:  With the PAC 12s media contract not going well could the talks of a merger start again? Would it be beneficial for the ACC to consider or is it just far fetched? I could see West Coast broadcasting being beneficial for the ACC Network. Maybe have a kickoff game in Vegas or Florida?

ACC Network, and OOC games? YES! Merger? NO

Would an ACC / PAC merger be enough to entice Notre Dame? If ND would jump in, you would have a 25 team conference. You could have 4 permanent opponents in football and rotate 5 per year for a 9 game schedule.

In BB you could play each member once for a 24 game schedule. That would create a ton of inventory. You could merge the PAC 12 Network into the ACC Network and add 4 states to the in footprint carriage rates. With 10 member all the PAC schools would get west coast permanent opponents and that would help to minimize the travel for football.

The non revenue sports could continue to have predominantly opponents from the current conferences with a few cross over against the other side.

Rebrand the conference as the American Coasts Conference and you don't even have to change the letterhead.

If Notre Dame declines to join you could go with 3 permanent opponents and rotate 5 for an 8 game schedule in football. Still have a 24 game BB schedule. All else stay the same.

Merging the networks allows ESPN to add revenue without expense to bring the PAC revenues up to par.

ESPN would then have the option to run ACC programming all day. But unless this increases the ACC payouts, which I don't see, it is not beneficial to us.