(04-28-2023 01:10 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 01:00 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Yeah - clearly stated that the first priority is to integrate the new conference members. They're now even in the conference yet, and adding more members before they are is an obvious difference to that being the first priority.

After that, they'll look at expanding again. How long will that be? 1 year? 3 years? No idea, this is the first time they'll have west coast schools in there, gotta iron those kinks out.

The USC and UCLA announcement was almost 10 months ago.

It's not like the B1G office staff has been sitting on their hands since last summer, saying, "Let's wait til Kevin Warren quits and his replacement is hired before we get to work on the integration process."

That comment was a diversionary tactic away from what Rittenberg was asking. Petitti's statement about making sure "the conference is as strong in the present and future as it's always been" says it all imo

Yeah! He’ll probably poach the Bears from the National Football Conference. They’d be a travel partner with Northwestern.

(04-28-2023 03:38 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I was actually *at* this press conference, and I gotta say, you guys are reading way, way too much into this.

Petetti isn't ruling out expansion in the future. It isn't an immediate action item...he said this *multiple* times in the presser, and Dr. Jones at Illinois reiterated it. The 'integration' of USC and UCLA is the most important near-term action item. There are no Big Ten schedules drawn up with both schools. The Big Ten hasn't figured out a physical real estate solution in LA. There are a ton of academic, IP and bylaw questions left unanswered. This stuff takes *time*.

Could the Big Ten expand again in the future? Sure, it's possible. There are massive, massive questions about the college athletics industry that will come into focus over the next 20 months, and how things go with the transition away from amateurism could change how Big Ten presidents feel about expanding. Is it something they're going to do before July? No.

Won’t PAC teams have to sign a GOR within about six months, let alone 20 months? How long does the BIG seriously have to hem and haw about expansion?

If the BIG adds any more PAC teams before 2030ish, it will have to be within about six months. But, like Frank said, I don't think this comment is very meaningful, and it probably creates enough plausible deniability even if the commish really knows that Oregon and Washington will be added next Monday.

(04-29-2023 11:24 AM)JamesHowell Wrote:  > I don't think the B1G will expand with anyone that isn't currently in the ACC.

Not completely true. The number one target is, of course, Notre Dame. If they were able to get Notre Dame (still a big if), there is a reasonable chance that they pair Notre Dame with Stanford. In a 3/6/6/6 (22-team) model, that would give Notre Dame Purdue, USC, and Stanford as permanent rivals.

The number two targets are UNC and UVA.

They are "mostly" focused on the ACC, but not exclusively. If they get those four to get to 20, the other two are toss-ups, but getting into Florida would be huge.

I don't think ND is at the joining stage yet, but I agree that they are an obvious target.

And so inviting schools like Stanford and Miami, with the idea of it helping to "nudge" them towards thinking about joining, likely wouldn't hurt : )

(04-29-2023 11:53 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I don't think ND is at the joining stage yet

How long should we expect "yet" to last?

(04-29-2023 11:59 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 11:53 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I don't think ND is at the joining stage yet

How long should we expect "yet" to last?

I think the water could be up to their nose and they'll still find a way to continue to breathe free, independent air.

It's that important to them.

I feel like as long as their 100+ Schools playing on the same level along with the SEC & B1G, ND will remain independent.

CFB world would have to shrink exponentially for ND to join a conference

(04-29-2023 11:53 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ... And so inviting schools like Stanford and Miami, with the idea of it helping to "nudge" them towards thinking about joining, likely wouldn't hurt : )

The Big Ten ain't inviting any schools to "nudge" Notre Dame toward thinking about joining.

It is not going to invite schools with the primary motivation being getting Notre Dame, unless Notre Dame joins as part of the same move.

Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

I suggested as much a while back, but the implication in JW's tweet is the B1G presidents don't want (additional) blood on the conference's hands for the collapse of the Pac-12

If all or some of the Four Corners 4 leaves first for the Big XII, then UW and UO can leave claiming "we had no choice" as the door closes behind them on WSU and OSU.

A win-win that could help provide legal and political cover for both the B1G and the evacuees

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

Agree doesn’t make sense.

In which case , Oregon and Washington could simply catalyze movement by saying no to whatever deal Kliakoff negotiates.

(04-29-2023 11:46 AM)Poster Wrote:  Won’t PAC teams have to sign a GOR within about six months, let alone 20 months? How long does the BIG seriously have to hem and haw about expansion?

I mean, as long as they want, honestly. They already have the TV and revenue data on Oregon and Washington, and since the next Pac-12 TV deal is going to be short (if it ever even happens), the Big Ten could always extend an invite that kicks in once it becomes affordable to buy out of the GOR. It's not like they risk losing Oregon or Washington to other leagues if they want six months, nine months, a year.

Plus, every year they wait is another year that poaching from the ACC becomes more affordable and more politically possible.

If you're not going to kick anybody out of the league, and if logistics make expanding beyond 20 very difficult...what's the rush? If you wait nine months, you get clarity on the Pac-12 TV deal, you might get clarity on the Johnson case, you get more data on what Amazon and ESPN are doing post-CFB expansion...and the odds that somebody you might want comes off the table are minimal.

There really is no rush. If the Big Ten doesn't add somebody until 2028, it hurts the Big Ten exactly zero percent.

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

Bad connections. The Big 10 is actually going to base its decisions on what the Big 12 does?!

(04-29-2023 03:37 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 11:46 AM)Poster Wrote:  Won’t PAC teams have to sign a GOR within about six months, let alone 20 months? How long does the BIG seriously have to hem and haw about expansion?

I mean, as long as they want, honestly. They already have the TV and revenue data on Oregon and Washington, and since the next Pac-12 TV deal is going to be short (if it ever even happens), the Big Ten could always extend an invite that kicks in once it becomes affordable to buy out of the GOR. It's not like they risk losing Oregon or Washington to other leagues if they want six months, nine months, a year.

Plus, every year they wait is another year that poaching from the ACC becomes more affordable and more politically possible.

If you're not going to kick anybody out of the league, and if logistics make expanding beyond 20 very difficult...what's the rush? If you wait nine months, you get clarity on the Pac-12 TV deal, you might get clarity on the Johnson case, you get more data on what Amazon and ESPN are doing post-CFB expansion...and the odds that somebody you might want comes off the table are minimal.

There really is no rush. If the Big Ten doesn't add somebody until 2028, it hurts the Big Ten exactly zero percent.

I don't see anyone better from the ACC but ND and FSU.

Washington is a much better football brand and much better TV draw than UNC and every bit as elite academically and the state is similar in population.

(04-29-2023 03:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

Bad connections. The Big 10 is actually going to base its decisions on what the Big 12 does?!

It doesn't make much sense from a neutral standpoint, but sometimes groupthink works like that. Somehow if the Big 12 takes some PAC 12 schools, then it's not the Big Ten destroying the PAC 12, ignoring the loss of USC and UCLA and southern California that made the PAC's position untenable.

(04-29-2023 03:37 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

Agree doesn’t make sense.

In which case , Oregon and Washington could simply catalyze movement by saying no to whatever deal Kliakoff negotiates.

Seems like that would be a high stakes gamble. But if the deal threatens to starve the Pac of sufficient resources and exposure to stay competitive with the other power conferences, and creates a tangible risk that Oregon and Washington could drop off the A-list for eventual addition to the B1G, it would be the smart play.

(04-29-2023 03:37 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 11:46 AM)Poster Wrote:  Won’t PAC teams have to sign a GOR within about six months, let alone 20 months? How long does the BIG seriously have to hem and haw about expansion?

I mean, as long as they want, honestly. They already have the TV and revenue data on Oregon and Washington, and since the next Pac-12 TV deal is going to be short (if it ever even happens), the Big Ten could always extend an invite that kicks in once it becomes affordable to buy out of the GOR. It's not like they risk losing Oregon or Washington to other leagues if they want six months, nine months, a year.

Plus, every year they wait is another year that poaching from the ACC becomes more affordable and more politically possible.

If you're not going to kick anybody out of the league, and if logistics make expanding beyond 20 very difficult...what's the rush? If you wait nine months, you get clarity on the Pac-12 TV deal, you might get clarity on the Johnson case, you get more data on what Amazon and ESPN are doing post-CFB expansion...and the odds that somebody you might want comes off the table are minimal.

There really is no rush. If the Big Ten doesn't add somebody until 2028, it hurts the Big Ten exactly zero percent.

Nine months from now is February 1, 2024. The PAC TV deal expires on roughly July 1, 2024. PAC teams will have had to sign a GOR locking themselves into the conference until 2028-2030 before February 1. So PAC schools would be off the table by then.

Honestly, even the six months I was talking about was a pretty generous timeline. It's realistically probably more like 4 months.

(04-29-2023 03:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

Bad connections. The Big 10 is actually going to base its decisions on what the Big 12 does?!

Dennis Dodds has suggested that possibility in one or two articles before.

(04-29-2023 03:37 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

Agree doesn’t make sense.

In which case , Oregon and Washington could simply catalyze movement by saying no to whatever deal Kliakoff negotiates.

It seems like that might be exactly what's been happening for, eh, about nine months now.

Oregon and Washington refusing every TV deal, but the Four Corners still refusing to move.


If this goes on for much longer, I’m pretty sure, but not positive, that signing a TV deal without a GOR is only a standard conference issue that would require approval from 75% (8 out of 10) conference members. So I don’t think that Oregon and Washington could literally threaten to leave the PAC without a TV deal for 2024.

But a GOR does require unanimous consent, and it’s generally speculated that a TV deal without a GOR wouldn’t be very valuable.

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

So this news describes the potential fate of 4 of the 10, but what of Cal, Stanford, Wash St, and Ore St? The later 2 seem inevitably MWC bound, but what of the Bay duo?

(04-29-2023 04:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 03:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not sure if this was already posted:

Doesn’t make much sense to me but JW seems to be connected.

So this news describes the potential fate of 4 of the 10, but what of Cal, Stanford, Wash St, and Ore St? The later 2 seem inevitably MWC bound, but what of the Bay duo?

If the Big Ten only takes two, then Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU start plucking Mountain West and AAC teams for a reduced PAC. SDSU, SMU, plus Rice, Tulane, Colorado State, maybe Air Force.....