Probably not.
However, had Iowa State been given a vote, Iowa likely wouldn't have voted no.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Probably not.
However, had Iowa State been given a vote, Iowa likely wouldn't have voted no.
Its to add another team for a late night time slot in case we cant land enough of the 4 corners.
Tbh, I don't see why San Diego State is lesser than Cal, who sucks at everything, nobody watches, and is very openly not even trying to field decent teams either in this scenario
No one cares about SDSU either, not even within their own city. Its also not like anyone is really suggesting the big 12 go after Cal, so its a rather poor comparison. The big 12's targets are limited to the 4 corners schools and UO\UW (if the big 10 doesn't go after them).
This is like version 8 of "cyclonefanatic members just want a vacation destination game".
Yeah but what if the Big 12 has had a few beers? Then they might start looking pretty good.....
I feel like they would be more likely to throw chairs out windows and want to hear everyone cheer than bang ugly chicks.
And what if the Big 12 was on a dry streak and hadn’t ‘expanded’ in a long time? And SDSU was wearing that red dress the Big12 really likes that’s high cut along the leg?
Why didn't the BXII take SDSU when they added Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and BYU last year? Probably because they were, at best, the 5th best option behind those four.
Why has the PAC not added them to get to 11 (on their way back to 12)? Probably because they don't bring in enough to even justify a partial PAC share. Last I checked, the PAC is slated to bring in less than the BXII. If they don't bring in enough to earn a partial PAC share, how would that be different in the BXII?
It wouldn't. Rule of expansion going forward is no G5 schools unless we lose some schools.
Agree. I think the only way SDSU may make sense is if there is a curve ball by the Big10 or the SEC adds Pac12 schools.
If the Big10 adds 4 more Pac12 schools the media focus has been on Oregon, Washington, Stanford & Cal. But what if the Big10 can get more from it's TV partners in adding ASU or UU instead of adding both Cal & Stanford?
I would think the Big12 & its TV Partners would prefer Cal over SDSU, but who knows if the other teams the Big12 added are CU, Utah and Arizona.
Gut feel. They say they care about other factors besides money. And I think they have enough money that they can afford to care too. Of course they will push for what is best for them, but they aren't out to destroy everyone else as a strategy like ESPN.
Its more me arguing against the point of we cant take anymore G5 teams because G5. Theres a small handful of teams from the G5 id easily take over the bottom Pac 12 teams
And that was a PRIVATE school, not a public one. Connections were the key there, period.
Man, sometimes the state of Texas is so good-ole-boy corruptish.
Don't use recent success or lack thereof as your only criteria for who is better. You are comparing one of the world's great universities with probably the 6th best college in it's own state.
One of these things is NOT like the other-
Endowment: $7B to $350M
Students: 45,000 to 35,000
Academics: AAU to R2
Nobel winners: 107 to zero
Varsity sports: 30 to 18
Hell, Cal is a land grant institution! Yeah Cal's AD is a mess right now, but they are a large state school and could be good if they wanted to. Cal has been good at things in the past. They just need their own JP to come in and get it put right and make good hires.
Last thing I will say is that Cal right now is better than ISU was in the late 80s / early 90s. And look at us now! See past the fact they are .500 the past 5 years, and see the POTENTIAL.
All that said, I'm not advocating them as a good add for the Big12, and they probably don't make much travel sense without ORWA and some kind of semi-merger scenario.
Honestly SDSU might not even be too 10 in the state, lot of good private universities also
Their GOR is separate from their media contract. In the hypothetical scenario of the ACC adding teams:
The way I have read and understand it. In the case of adding schools if it is a school/s at or similar value to their current teams. That team/s would be added to the current contract and they would increase the pay for that team/s. So if they are getting 40M per team per year, adding 1 team of similar value would increase the contract, by that same value and that team would then get 40M per year same as everyone, it would not reduce everyone by a percentage of 1 share. 10 teams at 40M = 400M per year. 11 teams at 40M per year = 440m per year.
Next, if they add team/s that significantly change the value of the contract it would open the contract for negotiation. NOT THE GOR. So if they added say ND, WVU, ISU, and OKST, and their current deal is paying 40M Per year. And those 4 schools were deemed to be valued at 70M per year, and is a significant change to the value of the conference it would open their media deal up for renegotiation. A benefit for the ACC.
That being said any school joining the ACC would be required to sign their current GOR until the end of the term of that GOR, as that is separate and apart of their media contract, and held by the conference, not the media company.
This round of realignment could be an eye opener for some university administrations that give lip service to supporting college athletics, but enjoy the revenue and visibility from being P5. If they don't walk the walk they risk being dropped to G5 or at a minimum find themselves earning half the revenue. Cal and CU are 2 such schools.
The B12 should have expanded last year with SDSU instead of Houston. With the Chargers out of town and their new stadium, they would have been more of an attendance and TV draw than UH will ever be. SDSU already kicks UH’s ass in MBB attendance and will do likewise in FB, especially once Brady Hoke runs out his welcome there soon.
