IMO, Washington and Oregon would be valued around 50 each. The 4 Corner schools and Stanford around 30 each. Cal around 20. OSU and Wazzu around 15 each.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I wouldn't take more than 4. My 4 would be Stanford, NCSU, VT and Pitt.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
I’d say Pitt has a bit more value because of their rivalry with WVU. Having that in the same conference means something … not a lot, but there’s some value there.
Duke would bring another basketball power to the conference, which also has value.
I’ve never thought much of Syracuse - any institution that builds a dome named after the “father” of air conditioning but then doesn’t put A/C in that dome seems a bit sketchy to me.
I think Washington State and Oregon State are good cultural fits, but I’m leery about a conference stretching from Orlando to Pullman. I just don’t think that’s smart. Same thing with Cal and Stanford … they’re classy institutions with very, very occasional decent teams (whenever they get an Andrew Luck or an Aaron Rodgers or a Joe Kapp), which can mean something to a conference, but location outweighs that in my mind.
Frankly … there’s nothing good about any more potential moves for any conference at this point (Notre Dame being the sole exception but they’re not going anywhere). I think there’s gotta be a very compelling argument before you start expanding past 18, especially while the ACC still lives. Seems to me any moves to grow at this point, be it the B12 or the ACC, would be out of fear and desperation about what the other one is doing, which isn’t a good reason.
Duke would bring another basketball power to the conference, which also has value.
I’ve never thought much of Syracuse - any institution that builds a dome named after the “father” of air conditioning but then doesn’t put A/C in that dome seems a bit sketchy to me.
I think Washington State and Oregon State are good cultural fits, but I’m leery about a conference stretching from Orlando to Pullman. I just don’t think that’s smart. Same thing with Cal and Stanford … they’re classy institutions with very, very occasional decent teams (whenever they get an Andrew Luck or an Aaron Rodgers or a Joe Kapp), which can mean something to a conference, but location outweighs that in my mind.
Frankly … there’s nothing good about any more potential moves for any conference at this point (Notre Dame being the sole exception but they’re not going anywhere). I think there’s gotta be a very compelling argument before you start expanding past 18, especially while the ACC still lives. Seems to me any moves to grow at this point, be it the B12 or the ACC, would be out of fear and desperation about what the other one is doing, which isn’t a good reason.
Thats probably close, I think the top and bottom there might be a bit closer together. Maybe the bottom worth 20.
I think you could pick several schools in the ACC that are only valued at 15-20 too. With several in that 30 range.
But what if we are able to get the 4 corners for 20M each, and ESPN is willing to pay that. So you are getting Stan for cheap, Cal for even money, and taking the extra 10 and splitting it to Wazzu and OSU, to give all 4, 20M each.
Say we say we will give you 20M for the life of the contract, the rest get the current 30-31, or whatever it is now.
Even better what if ESPN or ESPN with another partner says they will give us a bump. Say we are able to give them 20, and the other 16 a 5M bump, say we are able to get 160M total between ESPN and Amazon or something. In that scenario you wouldnt take the 4 at a discount and give us an extra bump?
If you want to see something interesting look at the teams in the Big 12 wrestling conference.
In my mind, we don't know for sure which ACC teams will get scooped up by the SEC and B1G. But we do know the Pac 4 aren't getting scooped up. So we might as well wait to see who all is available before deciding how many and who we take.
I can agree with that too...but if the people paying the bills say so, we do what they say. Just like all realignment moves. The ones pulling the strings are the ones paying. Which is why we didnt take the full pro rata...to appease them.
Like I said I dont necessarily like adding anyone else right now either. But I would rather go back to the OG Big 8 too, and that isnt happening ever again either. So in the end if those making the decisions and those paying the bills say we should add anyone, then I guess we do it. At this point im pretty indifferent to adding anyone, no one we have or will have the opportunity to add will be amazing adds, just like the last 8 have not been home runs really either. But they have been necessary to stabilize our conference, so I guess its fine.
This isnt about bettering the game, just like the new rule to have a continuous clock isnt. It is about making the money people happy and making them money.
I agree that we are at a hold point. Nothing that is available at this time will help the Big 12 either from a financial or competitive standpoint. (No PAC4) (No MW) (No AAC)
That is not to say that Yormark does not need to keep his ear to the ground and be ready to strike if the right schools start complaining or sniffing around. OuT was secret/under the table until it was a done deal. This is how our next moves will happen.
From a holistic view: No west coast time zone. No up state New York. Prime Basketball schools OK. Sucky Football schools NOT. West Virginia needs friends. Central Florida needs friends. We've got enough Texas. If Nebraska wants back, think about it.
I wouldn't take the Pac 4 even at a discount because there would be an expectation that revenue would be split equally after the next contract. Plus, I don't think a conference should have more than 20 teams (and we need to save room for Eastward expansion). I don't think scheduling works well when you get above 20 teams.
Media rights value has zero to do with academics. If Alabama was ranked #15 in FB and #300 academics- the TV folks would pay for Bama. Likewise, all sports ranking are meaningless, ESPN cares about half-dozen sports for TV purposes.
Academics matter for Presidents and All-Sports rankings are bragging rights for AD's. Stanford has a big advantage in the All Sports because of the # of sports it offers AND because it's a private school with a huge endowment. For Stanford they effectively don't have partial scholarships- they'll provide financial aid for full cost of attendance.
Look at FSU's TV viewership #'s- that's what media folks care about and their FB brand.
I am struggling making sense of the Big12 adding the Pac4.
Maybe ESPN paying $20M annually to each Stanford & Cal make sense for ESPN Sat After Dark, Maybe. But not seeing why they would want WSU & OSU.
The 2 AZ schools are effectively Pacific time for 10 of 13 weeks during the season. BYU is Mountain time, but has played late home games on ESPN in prior years.
If Big12 & ACC money are comparable, the Big12 would make more sense for Stanford and Cal from a travel standpoint with UA, ASU, UU, BYU and CU.
The other media money variable are the 12 team playoffs. If each school receives $20M+ annually starting in 2026, it could be the ACC is only giving Stanford & Cal partial amounts to keep FSU, Clemson, etc. happy.
Maybe ESPN paying $20M annually to each Stanford & Cal make sense for ESPN Sat After Dark, Maybe. But not seeing why they would want WSU & OSU.
The 2 AZ schools are effectively Pacific time for 10 of 13 weeks during the season. BYU is Mountain time, but has played late home games on ESPN in prior years.
If Big12 & ACC money are comparable, the Big12 would make more sense for Stanford and Cal from a travel standpoint with UA, ASU, UU, BYU and CU.
The other media money variable are the 12 team playoffs. If each school receives $20M+ annually starting in 2026, it could be the ACC is only giving Stanford & Cal partial amounts to keep FSU, Clemson, etc. happy.
Can't the B12 go to 20 for basketball only? Conferences adding affiliates in some sports and not others is not an unprecedented thing.
Unless we're not seeing something. It might be as simple as a marketing analysis saying Pac teams when tied to other time zones are more valuable (which personally I don't see), or repackaging conference/media deals for selling a media company, or down the road packages which over time have more value, or repositioning for mega realignment. There are so many options above my pay grade.
Way more eastern eyeballs than out west.
and university value has nothing to do with streaming appeal of a football program. Like someone mentions, stanford isnt above FSU or any of the current big 12 schools except maybe kansas.
2 acc schools even if it is just louisville and pitt, add rivalry games. wvu v pitt last year had over 3 million viewers and was highest rated Thursday night game in 5 years.
cinn v louisville are rivals.
big 12 will want rivalry games.
vt and nc state would both be homeruns bc of vt v wvu rivalry and virginia/dc eyeballs, and nc eyeballs from nc state.
bottom 4 pac teams add nothing but travel cost. nothing.
and university value has nothing to do with streaming appeal of a football program. Like someone mentions, stanford isnt above FSU or any of the current big 12 schools except maybe kansas.
2 acc schools even if it is just louisville and pitt, add rivalry games. wvu v pitt last year had over 3 million viewers and was highest rated Thursday night game in 5 years.
cinn v louisville are rivals.
big 12 will want rivalry games.
vt and nc state would both be homeruns bc of vt v wvu rivalry and virginia/dc eyeballs, and nc eyeballs from nc state.
bottom 4 pac teams add nothing but travel cost. nothing.
Not to mention the state employee travel ban that California passed in 2016. It covers the entire conference, except for Colorado. Cal would need private funding for their other sports to be able to have away games.
I can think of so many ways that'll eventually be escalated to SCOTUS when it creates enough of burden.
I would have loved to add WSU and OSU (despite Canzano pushing anit-Big 12 propaganda at one of those schools direction) if we hadn't already taken 2 of Cincy, CFU, and Houston (no offense to them). WSU and OSU are probably the best cultural fits to us and the Big 12 than any of the new additions but don't add value when being added to a new conference (which sadly matters more). Cincy, CFU, and Houston were still desperation adds to fend off ESPN and the AAC trying to poach some teams from the Big 12.
Time and time again people mention this, but it has been in affect forever, and has never come up as a problem for any California schools athletics. SDSU goes to Idaho all the time, for example. It's not an issue for athletics programs.
