Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

1UNI2ISU

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
9,036
12,149
113
Waterloo
I think the Rose Bowl will ditch the Pac alliance once USC and UCLA move to the B1G. They care more about the B1G end anyway (TVs and Tourism), AND they have the L.A. schools. I bet the Rose ties the other end with the SEC (which has a nice Rose Bowl history before the B1G tien-in), and / or keeps it open.
The Rose is a permanent quarterfinal/semifinal in the new playoff. They were losing B1G/Pac anyway.
 

Cyclonsin

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 4, 2020
2,381
4,918
113
36
Savannah, GA
The only downside I can think of is the program falling out of relevance after Few is no longer the coach. As long as that program continues as a top basketball brand, I don't really see a downside.
Even then I think they'd be a valuable and respected brand for a long time. Just look at MBB programs like Syracuse or Louisville. They're still given a lot of respect. And Gonzaga has been a huge national brand for decades. I had a friend in high school who would regular wear a Zags t shirt despite living in Wisconsin and that was 20 years ago. They're not becoming irrelevant any time soon.
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
45,473
14,346
113
Even then I think they'd be a valuable and respected brand for a long time. Just look at MBB programs like Syracuse or Louisville. They're still given a lot of respect. And Gonzaga has been a huge national brand for decades. I had a friend in high school who would regular wear a Zags t shirt despite living in Wisconsin and that was 20 years ago. They're not becoming irrelevant any time soon.

Money is preferable to respect. I’d rather have Johnny’s Cash than Charley’s Pride.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
14,322
15,011
113

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
14,322
15,011
113
Trading money for a lower national profile. Not sure there are many long term thinkers in that group.
Kliavkoff can sell it as having the ‘potential’ to exceed the B12 numbers. The question is going to be how you measure exposure. There are rumors the coaches and ADs are dead set against any deal that relies heavily on streaming. And the university presidents will value their input in making their decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonepride

knowlesjam

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2012
4,325
4,776
113
Papillion, NE
Kliavkoff can sell it as having the ‘potential’ to exceed the B12 numbers. The question is going to be how you measure exposure. There are rumors the coaches and ADs are dead set against any deal that relies heavily on streaming. And the university presidents will value their input in making their decisions.
I do see the flexibility if the PAC plan is for 5 years, but open to moves after 3 years. Maybe Oregon and Washington are willing to go three years at $30M per year...maybe not. Maybe the contract gives each a $10M incentive per year to stay...pushing them to $40M. That reduces the other 8 teams to $27.5M...I would think the smalls...WSU, OSU, Cal, Stanford would be willing...if it meant they could stay. But the others...Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah...are they willing? I think all will stay if the money is close to the Big 12...but even then the Oregon-Wash bomb is ticking...
 

PickSix

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2013
865
1,369
93
The dumbest part of realignment Twitter is the PAC 12 dork reporters saying “Big 12 sources are using reporters for their own motives” as they turn around and post rumors from PAC 12 sources.
It's about as dumb as the faction of PAC fans who think adding SMU will somehow catapult them past the Big 12... as if the Big 12 hasn't vetted and turned SMU down multiple times already.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: clonehome

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,507
74,254
113
Ankeny
The dumbest part of realignment Twitter is the PAC 12 dork reporters saying “Big 12 sources are using reporters for their own motives” as they turn around and post rumors from PAC 12 sources.

projection​

[ pruh-jek-shuhn ]

11. Psychology.
  1. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.