Conference Realignment, Naming Rights, Financing

#251      
IlliniSaluki
I just saw a comment on a YT video going over the PAC announcement.

"This news came in the most Pac-12 way, after dark."

lol so true
 
#253      
IlliniFaninHoosierLand
Cal and Stanford could be an option but just having left for the ACC might be a bit of an issue. Tulane and Memphis are seen as more realistic fits but they'd need a clearer picture of the financial picture of the Pac-12 before they would think about leaving the AAC. UTSA is also seen as a good fit based on their location.

The Pac-12 could look at UNLV but if they weren't in the first group of Mountain West schools to be asked to join, they might not end up getting the call. If they do, it could be at a lower media rights distribution deal similar to what Cal and Stanford have with the ACC. The other Mountain West school that could have some appeal to the Pac-12 is Air Force.
 
#254      
ChiefGritty
IlliniFaninHoosierLand said:
Cal and Stanford could be an option but just having left for the ACC might be a bit of an issue.
Click to expand...
This doesn't have the juice to pull them back.

The offer right now is a friendly, everybody-wins, let's-play-nice proposal for Cal and Stanford's non-revenue sports to join as associate members and spare both them and their ACC partners the senseless waste football has imposed on them.

That will start the pressure on the Big Ten traitors to do the same.

Patience. Play the long game.
 
#255      
Greensboro
ChiefGritty said:
This doesn't have the juice to pull them back.

The offer right now is a friendly, everybody-wins, let's-play-nice proposal for Cal and Stanford's non-revenue sports to join as associate members and spare both them and their ACC partners the senseless waste football has imposed on them.
Click to expand...
Where is this friendly offer coming from? The PAC6+ needs to get to 8 by 2026 & I see no reason why they wouldn't love to have CAL/Stanford back in the fold & it seems more than a coincidence that they only poached enough MWC to get to 6.

If ACC stays intact, PAC clearly won't have the juice to get Cal/Stanford back. But they are on a reduced ACC share for a number of years & with the pending Clemson & FSU lawsuits there is some uncertainty to the future of that ACC, to me it seems more likely the PAC is hoping for some instability in the ACC to happen and the ACC to fall down to make the PAC money competitive with the ACC at least for CAL/Stanford.
 
#256      
ChiefGritty
Greensboro said:
Where is this friendly offer coming from? The PAC6+ needs to get to 8 by 2026 & I see no reason why they wouldn't love to have CAL/Stanford back in the fold & it seems more than a coincidence that they only poached enough MWC to get to 6.

If ACC stays intact, PAC clearly won't have the juice to get Cal/Stanford back. But they are on a reduced ACC share for a number of years & with the pending Clemson & FSU lawsuits there is some uncertainty to the future of that ACC, to me it seems more likely the PAC is hoping for some instability in the ACC to happen and the ACC to fall down to make the PAC money competitive with the ACC at least for CAL/Stanford.
Click to expand...
Oh the PacX would take Cal/Stanford as full members in a heartbeat and if it were ME running Cal/Stanford I never would have left in the first place and would eagerly rejoin.

I just don't think that's remotely realistic in the immediate term, given that the attitude among Cal/Stanford leadership is that the ACC is their life raft to stay in "real" college football and running back to the Ghost of Conference Past would be admitting defeat. They were DESPERATE to make that move mere months ago, giving up this quickly won't happen.

The ACC will collapse of course, but it's very unlikely to happen by 2026.

But all of the above said, the non-revenue sports being a part of the ACC is a senseless disaster that everybody would like to avoid. That's where the friendly offer piece comes in. Everybody wins. And then when logistics are a nightmare for the B1G defectors, well, there's a model already set up to fix it...

The wisdom of the move OSU and WSU made is that it's the absolute bare minimum of association with minor league schools necessary to get them to the next hurdle. That's the right attitude. The long-term mission should be to bring their betrayers crawling back to them and re-form the Pac 10/12, and the low-hanging fruit of Cal/Stanford non-revenue sports is the first little step up that mountain.
 
#257      
Epsilon
ChiefGritty said:
Oh the PacX would take Cal/Stanford as full members in a heartbeat and if it were ME running Cal/Stanford I never would have left in the first place and would eagerly rejoin.

I just don't think that's remotely realistic in the immediate term, given that the attitude among Cal/Stanford leadership is that the ACC is their life raft to stay in "real" college football and running back to the Ghost of Conference Past would be admitting defeat. They were DESPERATE to make that move mere months ago, giving up this quickly won't happen.

The ACC will collapse of course, but it's very unlikely to happen by 2026.

But all of the above said, the non-revenue sports being a part of the ACC is a senseless disaster that everybody would like to avoid. That's where the friendly offer piece comes in. Everybody wins. And then when logistics are a nightmare for the B1G defectors, well, there's a model already set up to fix it...

The wisdom of the move OSU and WSU made is that it's the absolute bare minimum of association with minor league schools necessary to get them to the next hurdle. That's the right attitude. The long-term mission should be to bring their betrayers crawling back to them and re-form the Pac 10/12, and the low-hanging fruit of Cal/Stanford non-revenue sports is the first little step up that mountain.
Click to expand...
Betrayers seems like a strong word, at least in most cases. I’d maybe use that for some of the first southwest schools to drop but the reality is Kliakov failed in his responsibilities and things quickly devolved into musical chairs, and you can’t compete without the money. I don’t think this was a desired outcome for most former PAC12 schools, except USC and UCLA, and maybe Colorado with its delusions of grandeur.

Edit: I agree with your comment about adding the four MWC schools. Take the top 4 and it doesn’t degrade the product on offer really that much and hopefully it’s a bridge to something better.
 
#258      
WeWillWhen
ChiefGritty said:
But all of the above said, the non-revenue sports being a part of the ACC is a senseless disaster that everybody would like to avoid. That's where the friendly offer piece comes in. Everybody wins. And then when logistics are a nightmare for the B1G defectors, well, there's a model already set up to fix it... The wisdom of the move OSU and WSU made is that it's the absolute bare minimum of association with minor league schools necessary to get them to the next hurdle. That's the right attitude. The long-term mission should be to bring their betrayers crawling back to them and re-form the Pac 10/12, and the low-hanging fruit of Cal/Stanford non-revenue sports is the first little step up that mountain.
Click to expand...
Would the B1G be upset at all if UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington decided to pull their non-revenue sports and place them back in a West Coast based conference? That would save all the legacy B1G schools a ton of travel costs for THEIR non-revenue teams, too. As long as the former PAC-12 football (and to a much lesser extent basketball) teams stay in the conference, the TV revenue will remain the same. Level revenue minus millions of travel expenses would be a win. Right?
 
#259      
ChiefGritty
Epsilon said:
Betrayers seems like a strong word, at least in most cases.
Click to expand...
The Pac 12 was murdered, and USC, UCLA and the Big Ten are the murderers. None of it was inevitable, none of it "had" to happen.

Epsilon said:
the reality is Kliakov failed in his responsibilities
Click to expand...
The actual reality is the difference between Innovative Genius Brett Yormark and History's Biggest Idiot George Klivakoff is that the Big 12 membership accepted that their time at the top was over and the Pac 12 membership didn't.

WeWillWhen said:
Would the B1G be upset at all if UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington decided to pull their non-revenue sports and place them back in a West Coast based conference? That would save all the legacy B1G schools a ton of travel costs for THEIR non-revenue teams, too. As long as the former PAC-12 football (and to a much lesser extent basketball) teams stay in the conference, the TV revenue will remain the same. Level revenue minus millions of travel expenses would be a win. Right?
Click to expand...
The public face of the new B1G reality is super gung-ho, problems don't exist, we're still as unified as ever, this is going to work. It would be an embarrassment and pierce that bluster to back down, even for women's field hockey.

But yeah, essentially re-forming the Pac 12 for sports that don't draw attention or money would make life way easier for all parties and should be embraced.

My assumption is Cal and Stanford (and the ACC) are more willing to own up to that here in 2024 whereas the B1G schools will want to play make believe and justify the public-facing imperialism a bit longer. But the happiness and comfort of Cal/Stanford keeping their non-revenue sports local would loom larger as time goes on.

(FWIW, it's entirely possible even Cal/Stanford would refuse this offer currently out of an excess of pride. But the PacX should try.)
 
Last edited:
#260      
Bucktown
ChiefGritty said:
The Pac 12 was murdered, and USC, UCLA and the Big Ten are the murderers. None of it was inevitable, none of it "had" to happen.


The actual reality is the difference between Innovative Genius Brett Yormark and History's Biggest Idiot George Klivakoff is that the Big 12 membership accepted that their time at the top was over and the Pac 12 membership didn't.


The public face of the new B1G reality is super gung-ho, problems don't exist, we're still as unified as ever, this is going to work. It would be an embarrassment and pierce that bluster to back down, even for women's field hockey.

But yeah, essentially re-forming the Pac 12 for sports that don't draw attention or money would make life way easier for all parties and should be embraced.

My assumption is Cal and Stanford (and the ACC) are more willing to own up to that here in 2024 whereas the B1G schools will want to play make believe and justify the public-facing imperialism a bit longer. But the happiness and comfort of Cal/Stanford keeping their non-revenue sports local would loom larger as time goes on.

(FWIW, it's entirely possible even Cal/Stanford would refuse this offer currently out of an excess of pride. But the PacX should try.)
Click to expand...
A lot of what ifs there.

Yes USC, UCLA and the Big Ten killed the Pac 12, but it likely would have died anyway. Those parties just pulled the plug instead of keeping it on life support for another season or two while brain dead and on life support.

In my opinion, the Pac12's lack of a (meaningful) TV contract was going to relegate them. A lot of other schools were getting anxious. To its credit the Big Ten saw where it was going, struck first and put a bow on it with its new TV contract; hence solidifying its position as one of the top two conferences.

I don't think the Big Ten would accept football only members anytime in the foreseeable future.
 
#261      
ChiefGritty
Bucktown said:
A lot of what ifs there.

Yes USC, UCLA and the Big Ten killed the Pac 12, but it likely would have died anyway. Those parties just pulled the plug instead of keeping it on life support for another season or two while brain dead and on life support.

In my opinion, the Pac12's lack of a (meaningful) TV contract was going to relegate them. A lot of other schools were getting anxious. To its credit the Big Ten saw where it was going, struck first and put a bow on it with its new TV contract; hence solidifying its position as one of the top two conferences.

I don't think the Big Ten would accept football only members anytime in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
The Pac 12 could have lived indefinitely with a TV deal no different than the Big 12 has now. That's not me speculating, that is well reported and documented.

It's just that the deal the Big 12 has now is dramatically below the Big Ten and SEC. They willingly signed onto second-tier status.

That wasn't something the Pac 12 membership was prepared to accept. That's not shocking exactly, four of those members wound up with much more money than that deal would have offered, and four others ended up no worse off financially (and at least in Colorado's case happier in general). That's a majority of the league.

It's factually incorrect, and I think morally insidious, to say that pocketing a short term few million dollars and destroying college sports in the process is something that these century-old institutions were powerless to refuse. That's absurd. They made a choice, and a contemptible one, and one for which they will reap the whirlwind.
 
#262      
fuddrules
ChiefGritty said:
The Pac 12 could have lived indefinitely with a TV deal no different than the Big 12 has now. That's not me speculating, that is well reported and documented.

It's just that the deal the Big 12 has now is dramatically below the Big Ten and SEC. They willingly signed onto second-tier status.

That wasn't something the Pac 12 membership was prepared to accept. That's not shocking exactly, four of those members wound up with much more money than that deal would have offered, and four others ended up no worse off financially (and at least in Colorado's case happier in general). That's a majority of the league.

It's factually incorrect, and I think morally insidious, to say that pocketing a short term few million dollars and destroying college sports in the process is something that these century-old institutions were powerless to refuse. That's absurd. They made a choice, and a contemptible one, and one for which they will reap the whirlwind.
Click to expand...
They did have a choice but it was an incredibly easy choice. Other than ND, no one has declined a Big Ten or SEC offer. UCLA was in a very tough financial spot. They were not going to be able to continue as they were. USC didn't want to be at a massive financial disadvantage to the Big Ten or SEC schools. A simple, easy choice.
 
Back