Let's assume the Pac media deal ends up being too low to hold the conference together, and it looks like chaos leading to the complete dissolution of the Pac is about to ensue.

If I were the Pac commissioner, at that point I might try pitching a radical option to the membership: let's stay together as a non-football conference.

I don't think that would prevent Colorado and possibly Arizona from jumping to the Big 12 as full members, but it could be appealing to the remaining eight Pac schools. It would allow Washington and Oregon to join the Big 10 as football affiliates, Cal and Stanford and Utah and Arizona State to join the Big 12 or ACC as football affiliates, and Washington State and Oregon State to join the MWC as football affiliates (apologies to the Cougs and Beavers but that might be your only option), while allowing them all to keep playing their Olympic sports together with no conference road trips further east than Salt Lake City.

Assuming some expansion is desired to fill out Olympic sports schedules, it would be easy to get back to ten members by bringing in two from among Gonzaga, Hawaii, and the Big West UCs.

This option would also leave the door open to USC and UCLA eventually moving their Olympic sports back to the Pac, if they so desire and if the Big 10 is willing to convert them to football-only members.

I don’t see the Big Ten taking any football affiliates.

(06-28-2023 04:26 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  I don’t see the Big Ten taking any football affiliates.

Maybe a year or two of their members having to send their Olympic sports teams on road trips to Los Angeles will change their view.

(06-28-2023 04:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 04:26 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  I don’t see the Big Ten taking any football affiliates.

Maybe a year or two of their members having to send their Olympic sports teams on road trips to Los Angeles will change their view.

Yep. Turns out BigTen tv contract is still having the details ironed out. So for anyone to say “BigTen wouldn’t…” isn’t getting what’s going on in college football lately.

But yeah, it’s a good idea you have there, HIMongoose. Not sure about Gonzaga, tho. Doing what you propose would give PAC even more leverage to not get non-elite academic schools. Which is stupid to me, but I get who the PAC members are, so…

(06-28-2023 05:13 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 04:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 04:26 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  I don’t see the Big Ten taking any football affiliates.

Maybe a year or two of their members having to send their Olympic sports teams on road trips to Los Angeles will change their view.

Yep. Turns out BigTen tv contract is still having the details ironed out. So for anyone to say “BigTen wouldn’t…” isn’t getting what’s going on in college football lately.

But yeah, it’s a good idea you have there, HIMongoose. Not sure about Gonzaga, tho. Doing what you propose would give PAC even more leverage to not get non-elite academic schools. Which is stupid to me, but I get who the PAC members are, so…

Thanks. I know a lot of folks are averse to the concept of split conference membership. However it's worked pretty well for Hawaii, and I think it could become more common in the future as big money imperatives drive conference affiliation in football while geographic realities impose a different calculus for non-football sports.

(06-28-2023 04:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 04:26 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  I don’t see the Big Ten taking any football affiliates.

Maybe a year or two of their members having to send their Olympic sports teams on road trips to Los Angeles will change their view.

I agree that the Big Ten would fight this idea kicking and screaming just because it goes against their self-image. They would do that despite the travel pain that will surely be borne out as truly a negative, despite their efforts to publicly minimize their concern. The question will ultimately come down to how long they will be willing to suffer that pain.

The premise in the OP is not far-fetched. It could happen if for no other reason than that it makes sense. Ultimately, it could lead to football being separated from the NCAA entirely and the NCAA agreeing to change the way they distribute the revenue generated by the NCAAT in exchange for being allowed to survive as an institution.

Another option for the Big Ten is to bring in 5 more PAC schools as football only affiliates, taking them to 21 members for FB and going to three scheduling blocs/pods of 7 teams each. The west coast pod becomes: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, UW, OU and Arizona State.

The 14 schools in the central and eastern pods would only have to play a total of 21 games against the west each year, only half of which are road games. So they all average less than one western trip each season.

That leaves Utah, Colorado, Arizona and SDSU available to the Big 12 if they want to go to 16. Sorry, OSU and WSU.

The Big Ten isn’t taking any football affiliates. PERIOD.

If it doesn’t work for the Big Ten as a full member for football (e.g. we’re not talking about hockey or lacrosse), then they’re not getting invited in the first place. Washington and Oregon not getting invited to the Big Ten as of now isn’t because of worries about travel. They’re not getting adding because they aren’t bringing enough athletic value (80% of which is allocated to football).

Look at the alumni concentration maps that I analyzed for the Big Ten a few years ago: LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Denver actually had higher concentrations of Big Ten alums than any market in the Midwest other than Chicago (not including home state alums, e.g. Wisconsin alums in Milwaukee). These aren’t outposts to the Big Ten - these are the places where Big Ten alums LIVE.

I think you have it backwards. What could sort of work is if the AAWU came back as a FB-only conference while those schools parked their Olympic sports in the B1G.

AAWU: UW, UO, CAL, FURD, UU, CU, AZ, ASU.

B1G Olympic sports membership pays something like $10M/yr. Each B1G FB team plays and annual game vs AAWU (16/8= 2 games for each AAWU). AAWU makes its own football media contract aided by the B1G football partnership. Olympic sports get regional scheduling to defray travel burden.

Why the OP brought it up in the first place, I don't know? But this idea is DOA with any conference.

I have proposed the PAC moving to a non-football league and ESPN/ACC adding the PAC schools for a Western Division for football-only (it is probably cleaner to leave Washington State and Oregon State behind, but legally easier to just take the remaining ten). This would get the ACC schools a pay bump for the immediate future (in addition to the unequal revenue sharing), keeps the PAC schools together with a likely pay bump as well, and kicks the can down the road closer to the 2030s until more radical movement can take place.

(06-30-2023 10:18 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I have proposed the PAC moving to a non-football league and ESPN/ACC adding the PAC schools for a Western Division for football-only (it is probably cleaner to leave Washington State and Oregon State behind, but legally easier to just take the remaining ten). This would get the ACC schools a pay bump for the immediate future (in addition to the unequal revenue sharing), keeps the PAC schools together with a likely pay bump as well, and kicks the can down the road closer to the 2030s until more radical movement can take place.

What is it about this that would give the ACC a pay bump? Or the PAC for that matter?

(06-30-2023 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 10:18 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I have proposed the PAC moving to a non-football league and ESPN/ACC adding the PAC schools for a Western Division for football-only (it is probably cleaner to leave Washington State and Oregon State behind, but legally easier to just take the remaining ten). This would get the ACC schools a pay bump for the immediate future (in addition to the unequal revenue sharing), keeps the PAC schools together with a likely pay bump as well, and kicks the can down the road closer to the 2030s until more radical movement can take place.

What is it about this that would give the ACC a pay bump? Or the PAC for that matter?

1) there is no legal entanglements binding OSU/WSU to the other PAC schools. The GOR is about to expire and there is no exit fee.

2a) the ACCN has an automatic in-footprint fee escalation when any new state is added to the ACC.
2b) the current ACC Raycom deal is basically a buy-back of content from ESPN. Whatever excess content there is between ESPN’s after dark window and some late ACCN content would be available for a buy-back from ESPN using that existing framework. Whatever entities the PAC is negotiating with could be more interested in hybrid PAC/ACC content. Essentially ESPN/ABC would get tier 1, ACCN tier 3, and if there is a buyer for the middle tier content, then there’s a potential extra revenue stream.

(06-30-2023 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big Ten isn’t taking any football affiliates. PERIOD.

If it doesn’t work for the Big Ten as a full member for football (e.g. we’re not talking about hockey or lacrosse), then they’re not getting invited in the first place. Washington and Oregon not getting invited to the Big Ten as of now isn’t because of worries about travel. They’re not getting adding because they aren’t bringing enough athletic value (80% of which is allocated to football).

Look at the alumni concentration maps that I analyzed for the Big Ten a few years ago: LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Denver actually had higher concentrations of Big Ten alums than any market in the Midwest other than Chicago (not including home state alums, e.g. Wisconsin alums in Milwaukee). These aren’t outposts to the Big Ten - these are the places where Big Ten alums LIVE.

So, by the same token, the B1G isn't going to allow any member to drop football, even the B1G would stand to profit by doing so, Frank the Tank?? Basically, what I am saying is if Indiana & Illinois wanted to ditch football, the B1G would refuse to allow them to stay as Omympic-only members??

(07-01-2023 09:36 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big Ten isn’t taking any football affiliates. PERIOD.

If it doesn’t work for the Big Ten as a full member for football (e.g. we’re not talking about hockey or lacrosse), then they’re not getting invited in the first place. Washington and Oregon not getting invited to the Big Ten as of now isn’t because of worries about travel. They’re not getting adding because they aren’t bringing enough athletic value (80% of which is allocated to football).

Look at the alumni concentration maps that I analyzed for the Big Ten a few years ago: LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Denver actually had higher concentrations of Big Ten alums than any market in the Midwest other than Chicago (not including home state alums, e.g. Wisconsin alums in Milwaukee). These aren’t outposts to the Big Ten - these are the places where Big Ten alums LIVE.

So, by the same token, the B1G isn't going to allow any member to drop football, even the B1G would stand to profit by doing so, Frank the Tank?? Basically, what I am saying is if Indiana & Illinois wanted to ditch football, the B1G would refuse to allow them to stay as Omympic-only members??

Thats not going to happen. Im not sure how or why these hypotheticals and what-if scenarios always come up for discussion.

(07-01-2023 09:36 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big Ten isn’t taking any football affiliates. PERIOD.

If it doesn’t work for the Big Ten as a full member for football (e.g. we’re not talking about hockey or lacrosse), then they’re not getting invited in the first place. Washington and Oregon not getting invited to the Big Ten as of now isn’t because of worries about travel. They’re not getting adding because they aren’t bringing enough athletic value (80% of which is allocated to football).

Look at the alumni concentration maps that I analyzed for the Big Ten a few years ago: LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Denver actually had higher concentrations of Big Ten alums than any market in the Midwest other than Chicago (not including home state alums, e.g. Wisconsin alums in Milwaukee). These aren’t outposts to the Big Ten - these are the places where Big Ten alums LIVE.

So, by the same token, the B1G isn't going to allow any member to drop football, even the B1G would stand to profit by doing so, Frank the Tank?? Basically, what I am saying is if Indiana & Illinois wanted to ditch football, the B1G would refuse to allow them to stay as Omympic-only members??

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. This is asking about something that would absolutely, positively, 100% never happen. It’s like asking, “What if Disney just gave away the IP for Mickey Mouse for free?”

Illinois and Indiana aren’t ever dropping football. These are the flagship universities that have the largest alumni bases of any school in Chicago and Indianapolis, respectively, so don’t let a lack of on-the-field football prowess be mistaken that the Big Ten would “profit” from them dropping the sport (as Chicago in particular is the single most important market for the Big Ten).

And yes, even if there somehow a world where those schools would be so idiotic enough to shoot themselves in the face and drop football, they would no longer serve the same purpose to the Big Ten. The Big Ten doesn’t even want Notre Dame as a non-football member - why on Earth would they want Illinois and Indiana in that situation? It makes no sense.

(06-30-2023 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big Ten isn’t taking any football affiliates. PERIOD.

If it doesn’t work for the Big Ten as a full member for football (e.g. we’re not talking about hockey or lacrosse), then they’re not getting invited in the first place. Washington and Oregon not getting invited to the Big Ten as of now isn’t because of worries about travel. They’re not getting adding because they aren’t bringing enough athletic value (80% of which is allocated to football).

Look at the alumni concentration maps that I analyzed for the Big Ten a few years ago: LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Denver actually had higher concentrations of Big Ten alums than any market in the Midwest other than Chicago (not including home state alums, e.g. Wisconsin alums in Milwaukee). These aren’t outposts to the Big Ten - these are the places where Big Ten alums LIVE.

From a financial and travel perspective the optimal scenario would have been to bring USCLA as football-only members.

Once people quit thinking of conferences as scheduling bodies (what historic conferences primarily functioned as) and start thinking of them as media enterprises, and take into account that their is complete deregulation of scheduling at the modern conference level, one realizes that distinct scheduling bodies (plural) can exist within a single conference.

Not that it is realistic, but as conferences are currently constructed, having USCLA join the B1G as FB-only members and keep Olympic sports in the PAC would be the same in regular season play as inviting USCLA as full members and a bunch of other PAC schools as Olympic-only members. There is no requirement that USCLA’s conference schedule include eastern teams. The only effect is a combined post-season and media deal for Olympic sports.

Basically you could add the 8 AAU PAC schools as no -FB members and have the west play its own Olympic sports schedule (except hockey and lax) thereby decreasing Olympic sport travel demands.

(06-28-2023 05:19 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 05:13 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 04:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(06-28-2023 04:26 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  I don’t see the Big Ten taking any football affiliates.

Maybe a year or two of their members having to send their Olympic sports teams on road trips to Los Angeles will change their view.

Yep. Turns out BigTen tv contract is still having the details ironed out. So for anyone to say “BigTen wouldn’t…” isn’t getting what’s going on in college football lately.

But yeah, it’s a good idea you have there, HIMongoose. Not sure about Gonzaga, tho. Doing what you propose would give PAC even more leverage to not get non-elite academic schools. Which is stupid to me, but I get who the PAC members are, so…

Thanks. I know a lot of folks are averse to the concept of split conference membership. However it's worked pretty well for Hawaii, and I think it could become more common in the future as big money imperatives drive conference affiliation in football while geographic realities impose a different calculus for non-football sports.

Football-only, or perhaps football and basketball-only, makes a LOT of sense for non-regional groupings of high value programs. I like the SEC in part because we get to play the best and everyone is still regional, especially now that Texas and OU have followed Big Brother. But if we had joined the B1G, or perhaps the Pac 15 years ago, I'd hate to think about the cost and needless hassle of sending our other programs across the country for Conference road trips.