Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
25,023
28,274
113
Behind you
JFC man, I get that you’re ignorant on this, I’m sure it’s comforting for you, but please have better comprehension.

Discussing whether the BIG is innocent or a saint is a fools errand.
He's 100% right. You're just posting a bunch of massive "ifs" that you pray will happen because you just hate all things B1G, nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonsin

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
3,564
1,360
113
I hate on the B1G all the time...can't stand the attention they get when it just doesn't feel performances are worthy (minus OSU, Mich and maybe PSU)...but in terms of expansion I think they acted more than fairly. Now I am not saying they were being charitable by "saving" Oregon and UW...it is all about the money. But the Big12 was acting in ways to preserve its existence...the B1G was not facing that situation at all.
LOL, they really acted fairly.

Fox (who holds all of the B10 FB TV rights and essentially controls the conference) with their significant USC influence orchestrated the destruction of an entire conference and made sure that their boy, USC, got an immediate full share along with their step brother, UCLA. Then Fox doesn't make an effort to bid on the PAC TV deal without USC/UCLA which leads to an even more depressed value for the PAC and that eventually enables them to expand with UO/UW at half the price for each.

And even before that, Fox/USC turned down an offer from Bowlsby to merge with the B12 knowing full well what they had up their sleeve.

And of course, Fox/B10 completely destroys ORSt and Washington ST in the process while the B12 bails out the 4Cs and provides them essentially full shares while B12 existing members take a pay cut in doing so.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Cloneon

1UNI2ISU

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,937
10,392
113
Waterloo
LOL, they really acted fairly.

Fox (who holds all of the B10 FB TV rights and essentially controls the conference) with their significant USC influence orchestrated the destruction of an entire conference and made sure that their boy, USC, got an immediate full share along with their step brother, UCLA. Then Fox doesn't make an effort to bid on the PAC TV deal without USC/UCLA which leads to an even more depressed value for the PAC and that eventually enables them to expand with UO/UW at half the price for each.

And even before that, Fox/USC turned down an offer from Bowlsby to merge with the B12 knowing full well what they had up their sleeve.

And of course, Fox/B10 completely destroys ORSt and Washington ST in the process while the B12 bails out the 4Cs and provides them essentially full shares while B12 existing members take a pay cut in doing so.
Maybe the Pac 12 should have taken the deal that was offered to them first (essentially the deal the Big 12 got) and not WAY overplayed their hand. The Pac 12s demise was 98% their own hubris and doing.

FOX and the Big Ten aren't the bad guys here no matter how much you want them to be. Had the Pac12 taken the deal they should have, USCLA would have signed the new GOR and wouldn't even have been available for the Big Ten to take.
 

cyfanatic

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
6,728
2,715
113
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
LOL, they really acted fairly.

Fox (who holds all of the B10 FB TV rights and essentially controls the conference) with their significant USC influence orchestrated the destruction of an entire conference and made sure that their boy, USC, got an immediate full share along with their step brother, UCLA. Then Fox doesn't make an effort to bid on the PAC TV deal without USC/UCLA which leads to an even more depressed value for the PAC and that eventually enables them to expand with UO/UW at half the price for each.

And even before that, Fox/USC turned down an offer from Bowlsby to merge with the B12 knowing full well what they had up their sleeve.

And of course, Fox/B10 completely destroys ORSt and Washington ST in the process while the B12 bails out the 4Cs and provides them essentially full shares while B12 existing members take a pay cut in doing so.

We were talking about the B1G being fair to Oregon and UW...so...yeah...my point stands.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
3,564
1,360
113
Maybe the Pac 12 should have taken the deal that was offered to them first (essentially the deal the Big 12 got) and not WAY overplayed their hand. The Pac 12s demise was 98% their own hubris and doing.

FOX and the Big Ten aren't the bad guys here no matter how much you want them to be. Had the Pac12 taken the deal they should have, USCLA would have signed the new GOR and wouldn't even have been available for the Big Ten to take.

Fox/USC never had any intent of staying in the PAC. USC/UCLA were essentially gone before that deal you reference was offered.
 

1UNI2ISU

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,937
10,392
113
Waterloo
Fox/USC never had any intent of staying in the PAC. USC/UCLA were essentially gone before that deal you reference was offered.
The PAC 12 was offered that deal in early 2021 and USCLA didn't accept an offer to move to the Big Ten until the summer of 2022. Every credible report said that the Pac12 presidents and chancellors were ready to sign but Kliavakoff assured them he could get them more. When he couldn't, that's when USCLA got wandering eyes.

The networks didn't even offer the deal to the Big 12 until a year later because they were sure the PAC 12 was going to come to its senses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic

RustShack

Chiefs Dynasty
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 27, 2010
13,568
7,887
113
Overland Park
The PAC 12 was offered that deal in early 2021 and USCLA didn't accept an offer to move to the Big Ten until the summer of 2022. Every credible report said that the Pac12 presidents and chancellors were ready to sign but Kliavakoff assured them he could get them more. When he couldn't, that's when USCLA got wandering eyes.

The networks didn't even offer the deal to the Big 12 until a year later because they were sure the PAC 12 was going to come to its senses.
They were offered the deal after it was announced USC UCLA were leaving. They weren’t in the negotiation window until after they left.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
3,564
1,360
113
Did they force UO/UW into the B1G? They didn't even want them...and again...UO/UW were more than happy to accept what the B1G offered...
Fox's long term plan was to move UO/UW to B10 on the cheap. That is why they never bid on the PAC. Their plan worked and the PAC died. Fox secured the 4 top PAC brands in their sole possession and away from ESPN while getting two of those brands at half price.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Die4Cy and HFCS

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
2,841
2,845
113
West Virginia
Fox/USC never had any intent of staying in the PAC. USC/UCLA were essentially gone before that deal you reference was offered.
This. I'm puzzled why people still speculate on them staying in the P12. They'd already voted against a GOR. Only reason for that is that they were looking for mobility. In other words they and the B1G were already in deep conversation. So, per my deep P12 source, let's lay that one to rest. And, of course, this is my speculation, but UW and OR had their backs against the wall and the B1G were licking their chops knowing that. It played out exactly as the B1G wanted. So, let's keep our eye on the ball and work with the ACC direction and quite yammering about what has already happened (not directed at you @cykadelic2 )
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
25,023
28,274
113
Behind you
LOL, they really acted fairly.

Fox (who holds all of the B10 FB TV rights and essentially controls the conference) with their significant USC influence orchestrated the destruction of an entire conference and made sure that their boy, USC, got an immediate full share along with their step brother, UCLA. Then Fox doesn't make an effort to bid on the PAC TV deal without USC/UCLA which leads to an even more depressed value for the PAC and that eventually enables them to expand with UO/UW at half the price for each.

And even before that, Fox/USC turned down an offer from Bowlsby to merge with the B12 knowing full well what they had up their sleeve.

And of course, Fox/B10 completely destroys ORSt and Washington ST in the process while the B12 bails out the 4Cs and provides them essentially full shares while B12 existing members take a pay cut in doing so.
Because they had to for the conference to survive.
 

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
2,841
2,845
113
West Virginia
Maybe the Pac 12 should have taken the deal that was offered to them first (essentially the deal the Big 12 got) and not WAY overplayed their hand. The Pac 12s demise was 98% their own hubris and doing.

FOX and the Big Ten aren't the bad guys here no matter how much you want them to be. Had the Pac12 taken the deal they should have, USCLA would have signed the new GOR and wouldn't even have been available for the Big Ten to take.
Actually, the discussions with USCLA were going on during that time so there was still no chance USCLA was going to sign a GOR. The writing was on the wall there. The only thing at that time which could've saved USCLA from departure was imbalanced revenue sharing. And we know that wasn't going to happen at that point because of marketing puff by the Pac12 Commish. Like it or not @cykadelic2 has it pretty much spot on.
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
25,023
28,274
113
Behind you
Did they force UO/UW into the B1G? They didn't even want them...and again...UO/UW were more than happy to accept what the B1G offered...
And the B1G offered UO/UW the same entry at a reduced share that the conference offered Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland. The idea that this kind of arrangement was unique to Oregon and Washington is nonsense.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cyfanatic

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
25,023
28,274
113
Behind you
Apples/oranges. Different circumstances.
Not really. The different circumstance was USC/UCLA, which delivered immediate, significant $$$ value to the B1G's media deal that was being negotiated. UO/UW came into the conference the same way Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland did, at a reduced share which will phase up over time.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
23,858
20,587
113
Not really. The different circumstance was USC/UCLA, which delivered immediate, significant $$$ value to the B1G's media deal that was being negotiated. UO/UW came into the conference the same way Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland did, at a reduced share which will phase up over time.

Are you suggesting that NY market that Rutgers brought wasn’t a significant $$$ value? Cause that’s what the Big10 commissioners said at the time as to reason to include Rutgers.
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
25,023
28,274
113
Behind you
Are you suggesting that NY market that Rutgers brought wasn’t a significant $$$ value? Cause that’s what the Big10 commissioners said at the time as to reason to include Rutgers.
Yeah, Rutgers didn't bring immediate, significant $$$ to the B1G's media deal that was being negotiated because the conference wasn't in the midst of negotiating a new media deal when Rutgers joined. Plus Rutgers was in massive debt which the B1G helped them dig out of by giving them advances on their future media revenue. Plus Rutgers isn't one of the most winning and popular blueblood football programs in the country.
 

MountainManHawk

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
157
121
43
44
There is an interesting paragraph at the end of this article, stating that money-losing bowl games are going to have to go away now that schools are forced to be more focused on the bottom line. We don’t know for sure what will replace them but elsewhere in the article is speculation that the conferences might set up post season games (non playoff) against each other that would be outside the bowl system.


And what of bowl games? It remains uncertain. But, as one leader told Yahoo Sports recently, “the days of schools losing money by playing in bowl games is over.”