Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[cyIclSoneU]

This is big coming from Dodd, seeing as how anti-Big 12 most of his content is.

This is significant coming from Dodd. There are others out there like Andy Staples who have written "every Big 12 school would accept a Pac-12 invite but not the other way around, therefore Pac-12 is better." Which manages to be doubly wrong, if not triply.

 

[JohnnyFive]

This is significant coming from Dodd. There are others out there like Andy Staples who have written "every Big 12 school would accept a Pac-12 invite but not the other way around, therefore Pac-12 is better." Which manages to be doubly wrong, if not triply.

Staples is a douche

 

[Clonefan94]

This is significant coming from Dodd. There are others out there like Andy Staples who have written "every Big 12 school would accept a Pac-12 invite but not the other way around, therefore Pac-12 is better." Which manages to be doubly wrong, if not triply.

I will never understand the hate and misinformation that is spread around about the Big 12. I just had a discussion with a Big 10 fan the other day who was going on about how the Big 12 was so far behind the Big 10 in money last year that he doesn't understand why anyone would stay in the conference. Of course I had to pull up the payouts and show him how he was wrong. I conceded that in a couple of years that probably wouldn't be the case, but the Big 12 has always made a good amount of money.

Honestly, the only conclusion I've come to is that the SEC and Big10 have always looked at the Big 12 as the other conference that could actually cut into their dominance. So destroy rather than share. And the other problem is the Big 12 never had the leadership to actually be pro-active in anything. It seems we are always playing the wait and see game. This is why I really hope that we still aren't doing that. We should be doing everything we can to get the remaining quality teams in the PAC. If we play the wait game, we'll be in major trouble again in a few years.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

John Canzano (Oregon journalist) just did a twitter spaces interview. I listened for a bit. He says he is hearing that this outcome is most likely:

ESPN pays the remaining Pac-12 enough to stick together. They agree to kill the Pac-12 Network. The ACC Network is rebranded as a channel for both ACC and Pac-12 content. The channel can show Pac-12 games late night ET.

The ACC and Pac-12 schedule a bunch of early season games. They also schedule games against each other on championship weekend. (So they would either hold their own conference title game a week early, or just crown a round robin champion in the Pac-12’s case like the Big 12 used to.) He thinks the winners and runners-up of each conference would play each other in Vegas, on ESPN.

He also mentioned the Pac-12 being in a position to poach from the Big 12 or SMU, because he thinks this Pac-12/ACC partnership would exceed the money the Big 12 is getting. But he also acknowledges that ESPN could lowball the Pac and drive the mountain schools to the B12. He just thinks that is not the most likely outcome because he understands that ESPN’s primary goal is to keep the ACC happy rather than the save the Pac-12 or Big 12.

I’m not seeing immediately why the ACC would agree to this unless ESPN could offer up some big money for it.

 

[RustShack]

John Canzano (Oregon journalist) just did a twitter spaces interview. I listened for a bit. He says he is hearing that this outcome is most likely:

ESPN pays the remaining Pac-12 enough to stick together. They agree to kill the Pac-12 Network. The ACC Network is rebranded as a channel for both ACC and Pac-12 content. The channel can show Pac-12 games late night ET.

The ACC and Pac-12 schedule a bunch of early season games. They also schedule games against each other on championship weekend. (So they would either hold their own conference title game a week early, or just crown a round robin champion in the Pac-12’s case like the Big 12 used to.) He thinks the winners and runners-up of each conference would play each other in Vegas, on ESPN.

He also mentioned the Pac-12 being in a position to poach from the Big 12 or SMU, because he thinks this Pac-12/ACC partnership would exceed the money the Big 12 is getting. But he also acknowledges that ESPN could lowball the Pac and drive the mountain schools to the B12. He just thinks that is not the most likely outcome because he understands that ESPN’s primary goal is to keep the ACC happy rather than the save the Pac-12 or Big 12.

I’m not seeing immediately why the ACC would agree to this unless ESPN could offer up some big money for it.

I believe multiple people have shot down the PAC ACC thing. Or at least said if they did it, it’s not adding any value.

 

[psychlones]

I believe multiple people have shot down the PAC ACC thing. Or at least said if they did it, it’s not adding any value.

College football and its relationship with its media partners has definitely turned into a "tail wagging the dog" situation. So while I agree with you, at this point almost nothing about this surprises me anymore!

 

[WhoISthis]

John Canzano (Oregon journalist) just did a twitter spaces interview. I listened for a bit. He says he is hearing that this outcome is most likely:

ESPN pays the remaining Pac-12 enough to stick together. They agree to kill the Pac-12 Network. The ACC Network is rebranded as a channel for both ACC and Pac-12 content. The channel can show Pac-12 games late night ET.

The ACC and Pac-12 schedule a bunch of early season games. They also schedule games against each other on championship weekend. (So they would either hold their own conference title game a week early, or just crown a round robin champion in the Pac-12’s case like the Big 12 used to.) He thinks the winners and runners-up of each conference would play each other in Vegas, on ESPN.

He also mentioned the Pac-12 being in a position to poach from the Big 12 or SMU, because he thinks this Pac-12/ACC partnership would exceed the money the Big 12 is getting. But he also acknowledges that ESPN could lowball the Pac and drive the mountain schools to the B12. He just thinks that is not the most likely outcome because he understands that ESPN’s primary goal is to keep the ACC happy rather than the save the Pac-12 or Big 12.

I’m not seeing immediately why the ACC would agree to this unless ESPN could offer up some big money for it.

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canza...a-friend?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

• ADs who have been on regular calls with Pac-12 headquarters and the various university presidents and chancellors maintain that the 10 remaining members of the conference are currently galvanized. I’m still hearing this from multiple campuses. It suggests that the Pac-12 is determined to spin out of this mess in one piece.

• Will ESPN and Fox really take the entire 30-day negotiating window? It depends. The Pac-12 official I spoke with told me, “We’re working closely with our media partners; they have their timeline.”

• If the Pac-12 and ESPN reach an agreement before the end of the 30-day window, they’ll still have to wait for Fox to either bid or waive its rights.

• The defection of USC and UCLA comes with a $200 million-a-year hit to the conference’s media rights value. Bob Thompson, the former Fox Sports Network president, told me he expected the Pac-12 would get about $500 million a year prior to the departures. Now, that estimate is $300 million.

• The conference went from 12 members to 10. The pie is being split with fewer entities, so the actual estimated distribution went from $41.6 million per university to ~$30 million. That’s “only” a 28 percent hit. But I wonder if that $11.6 million gap can be closed with some new and creative ideas.

• ESPN needs Pacific Time Zone college football inventory and it also loves college basketball programming. ESPN has the potential with a “loose partnership” to marry the Pac-12 to the ACC, another of its partners. Everyone knows Clemson, Miami, Florida State and others are restless. The Pac-12’s current plight presents ESPN with an opportunity to generate additional revenue.

• I know. I know. Another “alliance.” Except, this one comes with a contract. One forged by ESPN. Better than Kevin Warren’s handshake, isn’t it?

• With a partnership, ESPN would add significant new subscriber revenue for the newly named ACC Network. This would allow ESPN to pay the ACC schools more. The best football and basketball games would be carried on ESPN/ABC. Under that scenario, ESPN+ would get the Pac-12’s Olympic sports and the Pac-12 Networks probably goes away.

• I’d expect a “loose partnership” between the ACC and Pac-12 would likely include some annual early-season crossover football games between the two conferences (i.e. Oregon vs. Miami? Or Utah vs. Clemson? Or how about Washington vs. Florida State?).

• I was told by one insider that if the partnership happens, the Pac-12 and ACC would likely still play a normal regular-season schedule against its own conference. The aim is to reach the College Football Playoff and make a pile of money. A crossover “championship game” between the winner of the ACC and the Pac-12 champ could help that effort. It presumably would take the place of the traditional Pac-12 title game that is now played in Las Vegas.

• That kind of late-season match-up would be attractive to ESPN, who could utilize the event to make it rain cash for the restless ACC members. Also, the added game would give both conference champions an opportunity for one more “showcase” moment in front of the playoff selection committee.

• The second-place teams from each conference might also play head-to-head on the same day in a Las Vegas football double-header. This would create an additional inventory asset for ESPN, an additional payday for both conferences, and one last-ditch chance for the second-place teams in the conference to make their playoff case.

• Men’s basketball also presents some interesting opportunities for ESPN. The country never gets tired of seeing ACC powers such as North Carolina and Duke on television. With a “loose partnership” ESPN could schedule some lucrative, mid-season crossover games against the most attractive Pac-12 programs (See: Arizona, Oregon, etc.)

• What happens if ESPN lowballs the Pac-12? That’s a fair question. The network is essentially playing kingmaker in this 30-day negotiating window. It’s bidding against itself in this round of negotiations because Fox isn’t likely interested. Under a lowball scenario, I believe a few Pac-12 universities — particularly Arizona State — might become frustrated and consider alternate options (Read: Big 12).

• The Big 12 question is a big one. If the ACC and Pac-12 loosely partner, would the Pac-12 then covet Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State or maybe even BYU as expansion members? The first two get you into the state of Texas and the other two could help fortify your conference. The only way the Pac-12 could even consider this is if the media valuation of the members far exceeds the annual $30 million-a-year estimated distribution I mentioned above. Either that, or the newcomers take less than a full share.

• How about SMU as an expansion target? San Diego State? Fresno State? Boise State? The same math applies. The Pac-12 has to justify any addition with the number of television households each would bring. SMU gets you a tiny footprint in a robust DFW market (2.9 million TV households). San Diego State gets your product into a potential of 1.1 million homes in Southern California. Fresno State covers an untapped swath of real estate between Los Angeles and San Francisco. And Boise State has a decent brand, but there are only 517,000 TV households in Idaho.

 

[CascadeClone]

John Canzano (Oregon journalist) just did a twitter spaces interview. I listened for a bit. He says he is hearing that this outcome is most likely:

ESPN pays the remaining Pac-12 enough to stick together. They agree to kill the Pac-12 Network. The ACC Network is rebranded as a channel for both ACC and Pac-12 content. The channel can show Pac-12 games late night ET.

The ACC and Pac-12 schedule a bunch of early season games. They also schedule games against each other on championship weekend. (So they would either hold their own conference title game a week early, or just crown a round robin champion in the Pac-12’s case like the Big 12 used to.) He thinks the winners and runners-up of each conference would play each other in Vegas, on ESPN.

He also mentioned the Pac-12 being in a position to poach from the Big 12 or SMU, because he thinks this Pac-12/ACC partnership would exceed the money the Big 12 is getting. But he also acknowledges that ESPN could lowball the Pac and drive the mountain schools to the B12. He just thinks that is not the most likely outcome because he understands that ESPN’s primary goal is to keep the ACC happy rather than the save the Pac-12 or Big 12.

I’m not seeing immediately why the ACC would agree to this unless ESPN could offer up some big money for it.

Getting a single network to cover 2 conferences and thus more subscribers and less cost to run does have some logic to it. But taken all of this "master plan" together, it's quite a Rube Goldberg machine they are assembling. Really reaching for a solution.

What it DOES seem like to me, is that ESPN is trying to stake out its position for the 3rd conference (future "B" League) by tying the PAC and ACC together. Will be interesting to see if FOX makes a counter of some kind to tie the Big12 and Pac12 together instead.

Honestly, to me it makes a lot more sense to tie the Big12 and Pac12 (in any of a dozen different formats), if for no other reason than geography and reduced travel. And other than the big academic schools (Cal, Stanford, UW) the rest of the conference fits the Big12 really well.

 

[Clonedogg]

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canza...a-friend?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

• ADs who have been on regular calls with Pac-12 headquarters and the various university presidents and chancellors maintain that the 10 remaining members of the conference are currently galvanized. I’m still hearing this from multiple campuses. It suggests that the Pac-12 is determined to spin out of this mess in one piece.

• Will ESPN and Fox really take the entire 30-day negotiating window? It depends. The Pac-12 official I spoke with told me, “We’re working closely with our media partners; they have their timeline.”

• If the Pac-12 and ESPN reach an agreement before the end of the 30-day window, they’ll still have to wait for Fox to either bid or waive its rights.

• The defection of USC and UCLA comes with a $200 million-a-year hit to the conference’s media rights value. Bob Thompson, the former Fox Sports Network president, told me he expected the Pac-12 would get about $500 million a year prior to the departures. Now, that estimate is $300 million.

• The conference went from 12 members to 10. The pie is being split with fewer entities, so the actual estimated distribution went from $41.6 million per university to ~$30 million. That’s “only” a 28 percent hit. But I wonder if that $11.6 million gap can be closed with some new and creative ideas.

• ESPN needs Pacific Time Zone college football inventory and it also loves college basketball programming. ESPN has the potential with a “loose partnership” to marry the Pac-12 to the ACC, another of its partners. Everyone knows Clemson, Miami, Florida State and others are restless. The Pac-12’s current plight presents ESPN with an opportunity to generate additional revenue.

• I know. I know. Another “alliance.” Except, this one comes with a contract. One forged by ESPN. Better than Kevin Warren’s handshake, isn’t it?

• With a partnership, ESPN would add significant new subscriber revenue for the newly named ACC Network. This would allow ESPN to pay the ACC schools more. The best football and basketball games would be carried on ESPN/ABC. Under that scenario, ESPN+ would get the Pac-12’s Olympic sports and the Pac-12 Networks probably goes away.

• I’d expect a “loose partnership” between the ACC and Pac-12 would likely include some annual early-season crossover football games between the two conferences (i.e. Oregon vs. Miami? Or Utah vs. Clemson? Or how about Washington vs. Florida State?).

• I was told by one insider that if the partnership happens, the Pac-12 and ACC would likely still play a normal regular-season schedule against its own conference. The aim is to reach the College Football Playoff and make a pile of money. A crossover “championship game” between the winner of the ACC and the Pac-12 champ could help that effort. It presumably would take the place of the traditional Pac-12 title game that is now played in Las Vegas.

• That kind of late-season match-up would be attractive to ESPN, who could utilize the event to make it rain cash for the restless ACC members. Also, the added game would give both conference champions an opportunity for one more “showcase” moment in front of the playoff selection committee.

• The second-place teams from each conference might also play head-to-head on the same day in a Las Vegas football double-header. This would create an additional inventory asset for ESPN, an additional payday for both conferences, and one last-ditch chance for the second-place teams in the conference to make their playoff case.

• Men’s basketball also presents some interesting opportunities for ESPN. The country never gets tired of seeing ACC powers such as North Carolina and Duke on television. With a “loose partnership” ESPN could schedule some lucrative, mid-season crossover games against the most attractive Pac-12 programs (See: Arizona, Oregon, etc.)

• What happens if ESPN lowballs the Pac-12? That’s a fair question. The network is essentially playing kingmaker in this 30-day negotiating window. It’s bidding against itself in this round of negotiations because Fox isn’t likely interested. Under a lowball scenario, I believe a few Pac-12 universities — particularly Arizona State — might become frustrated and consider alternate options (Read: Big 12).

• The Big 12 question is a big one. If the ACC and Pac-12 loosely partner, would the Pac-12 then covet Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State or maybe even BYU as expansion members? The first two get you into the state of Texas and the other two could help fortify your conference. The only way the Pac-12 could even consider this is if the media valuation of the members far exceeds the annual $30 million-a-year estimated distribution I mentioned above. Either that, or the newcomers take less than a full share.

• How about SMU as an expansion target? San Diego State? Fresno State? Boise State? The same math applies. The Pac-12 has to justify any addition with the number of television households each would bring. SMU gets you a tiny footprint in a robust DFW market (2.9 million TV households). San Diego State gets your product into a potential of 1.1 million homes in Southern California. Fresno State covers an untapped swath of real estate between Los Angeles and San Francisco. And Boise State has a decent brand, but there are only 517,000 TV households in Idaho.

I don't get the reasoning in the Paragraph about the Pac expanding by adding Big12 schools. The only thing I can think is, he has no idea what the estimates the Big12 contract is getting. Why would someone leave to get a partial share of 30m a yr, vs a full share of 45-50m a yr, headscratcher.

 

[Jeffrey Scott]

I will never understand the hate and misinformation that is spread around about the Big 12. I just had a discussion with a Big 10 fan the other day who was going on about how the Big 12 was so far behind the Big 10 in money last year that he doesn't understand why anyone would stay in the conference. Of course I had to pull up the payouts and show him how he was wrong. I conceded that in a couple of years that probably wouldn't be the case, but the Big 12 has always made a good amount of money.

Honestly, the only conclusion I've come to is that the SEC and Big10 have always looked at the Big 12 as the other conference that could actually cut into their dominance. So destroy rather than share. And the other problem is the Big 12 never had the leadership to actually be pro-active in anything. It seems we are always playing the wait and see game. This is why I really hope that we still aren't doing that. We should be doing everything we can to get the remaining quality teams in the PAC. If we play the wait game, we'll be in major trouble again in a few years.

Yes. Classic Big talking point and attitude, especially from the hok fans because that's all they have. I've been through this for decades with those guys in Iowa City. Many of those hok fans don't believe ISU should even exist and that SUI should have gotten the land grant designation in addition to everything else. The arrogance of that base is colossal.

BTW, at one time the official name of that school in Iowa City was the State University of Iowa so that's why I call it SUI...they really don't like that. I don't know if that's still the name today, but I use it anyway to annoy them.

 

[theshadow]

BTW, at one time the official name of that school in Iowa City was the State University of Iowa so that's why I call it SUI...they really don't like that. I don't know if that's still the name today, but I use it anyway to annoy them.

It is still SUI, in all Regents material.

 

[CrossCyed]

This is significant coming from Dodd. There are others out there like Andy Staples who have written "every Big 12 school would accept a Pac-12 invite but not the other way around, therefore Pac-12 is better." Which manages to be doubly wrong, if not triply.

You haven't been listening or reading Staples much lately, have you?

 

[cyIclSoneU]

You haven't been listening or reading Staples much lately, have you?

Who would?

 

[Zyklon]

At some point the mountain schools have to realize they are being kept around to prop up OR/Wash/Stanford's chances of being picked up by the Power2. If the money is equal, I think at least some of them make the jump over.

 

[HFCS]

This is significant coming from Dodd. There are others out there like Andy Staples who have written "every Big 12 school would accept a Pac-12 invite but not the other way around, therefore Pac-12 is better." Which manages to be doubly wrong, if not triply.

Our 12 vs their 10 the Big 12 has a slight edge. If they add some MWC schools that edge could only increase because there's not a Utah or BYU out there anymore, or even a TCU or Houston.

When you consider every Big 12 program is probably staying and no longer a poaching target, while 2-4 Pac teams think they can/should be going to Big Ten with UCLA/USC, the Big 12 is obviously in better position unless they totally **** up.

It could be a stalemate if Washington, Oregon and Stanford stay forever. It's that, or it's Pac going through more rounds of what Big 12 alreayd went through and Big 12 absorbs other teams it likes.

 

[HFCS]

At some point the mountain schools have to realize they are being kept around to prop up OR/Wash/Stanford's chances of being picked up by the Power2. If the money is equal, I think at least some of them make the jump over.

IIRC Texas and OU were actually getting pay raises after the first two rounds of B12 shuffles, OU was not far off of SEC and Big Ten money and Texas was actually making more money than the SEC or Big Ten.

Oregon and Washington aren't getting a raise out of this relative to the rest of college football.

Neither of them are going to have the #1 media revenue in all of college sports like Texas did after first round of Big 12 realignment. If Texas and OU had fallen behind radically during the first Big 12 shakeup they'd have bolted, they stayed because at least for the short term the money was still good and they were in charge, also the playoff path was easier than in the SEC.

The reasons Texas/OU did stay put for a decade are completely different than any reason Oregon or Washington would try to stay longer in Pac. It's simply a case of whenever they are asked, they leave. I'm not as sure on Stanford/Cal situation, you just don't hear as much in any way.

 

[Jeffrey Scott]

It is still SUI, in all Regents material.

Good. I'll really hammer it home now! Thanks for the back-up.

 

[Rods79]

I don't get the reasoning in the Paragraph about the Pac expanding by adding Big12 schools. The only thing I can think is, he has no idea what the estimates the Big12 contract is getting. Why would someone leave to get a partial share of 30m a yr, vs a full share of 45-50m a yr, headscratcher.

Yeah, this dude is something else...he outlines the main issue holding this whole scheme back right in his column, but ignores it.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but ESPN making it "rain cash" and ESPN "bidding against themselves" does not compute.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I will never understand the hate and misinformation that is spread around about the Big 12. I just had a discussion with a Big 10 fan the other day who was going on about how the Big 12 was so far behind the Big 10 in money last year that he doesn't understand why anyone would stay in the conference. Of course I had to pull up the payouts and show him how he was wrong. I conceded that in a couple of years that probably wouldn't be the case, but the Big 12 has always made a good amount of money.

Honestly, the only conclusion I've come to is that the SEC and Big10 have always looked at the Big 12 as the other conference that could actually cut into their dominance. So destroy rather than share. And the other problem is the Big 12 never had the leadership to actually be pro-active in anything. It seems we are always playing the wait and see game. This is why I really hope that we still aren't doing that. We should be doing everything we can to get the remaining quality teams in the PAC. If we play the wait game, we'll be in major trouble again in a few years.

Guy is probably getting his information confused because while the BIG made more it wasn't by an insane amount. People stay in the big12 because they don't have a landing spot in the BIG or SEC but after those two the Big12 is a solid 3rd. Give it a couple more years and the media dollars are going to have the BIG in a dominant position but right now its not a game breaker.

I can tell you that no big ten or SEC fan is worried about the Big12 cutting into their dominance. There is still the wrong perception that the Big12 plays no defense. Also not putting guys into the NFL for the Big12 is a major problem for perception as last year they were the only P5 conference to not have a first round draft pick. The year before they only had 22 players drafted in total and that is including OUT. That is going to be the big battle moving forward to change perception, recruiting and putting guys in the NFL. Currently there isn't a single 5 star committed to a big 12 program and the top 5 recruiting classes for the new big12 are averaging only two 4 star recruits which is Northwestern territory.

Good news is that you guys have Campbell who has a pretty great record of putting guys in the NFL and I would expect your recruting (as well as baylors) to consistently rise as the new hierarchy of the Big12 is established.

 

[HFCS]

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canza...a-friend?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

• ADs who have been on regular calls with Pac-12 headquarters and the various university presidents and chancellors maintain that the 10 remaining members of the conference are currently galvanized. I’m still hearing this from multiple campuses. It suggests that the Pac-12 is determined to spin out of this mess in one piece.

• Will ESPN and Fox really take the entire 30-day negotiating window? It depends. The Pac-12 official I spoke with told me, “We’re working closely with our media partners; they have their timeline.”

• If the Pac-12 and ESPN reach an agreement before the end of the 30-day window, they’ll still have to wait for Fox to either bid or waive its rights.

• The defection of USC and UCLA comes with a $200 million-a-year hit to the conference’s media rights value. Bob Thompson, the former Fox Sports Network president, told me he expected the Pac-12 would get about $500 million a year prior to the departures. Now, that estimate is $300 million.

• The conference went from 12 members to 10. The pie is being split with fewer entities, so the actual estimated distribution went from $41.6 million per university to ~$30 million. That’s “only” a 28 percent hit. But I wonder if that $11.6 million gap can be closed with some new and creative ideas.

• ESPN needs Pacific Time Zone college football inventory and it also loves college basketball programming. ESPN has the potential with a “loose partnership” to marry the Pac-12 to the ACC, another of its partners. Everyone knows Clemson, Miami, Florida State and others are restless. The Pac-12’s current plight presents ESPN with an opportunity to generate additional revenue.

• I know. I know. Another “alliance.” Except, this one comes with a contract. One forged by ESPN. Better than Kevin Warren’s handshake, isn’t it?

• With a partnership, ESPN would add significant new subscriber revenue for the newly named ACC Network. This would allow ESPN to pay the ACC schools more. The best football and basketball games would be carried on ESPN/ABC. Under that scenario, ESPN+ would get the Pac-12’s Olympic sports and the Pac-12 Networks probably goes away.

• I’d expect a “loose partnership” between the ACC and Pac-12 would likely include some annual early-season crossover football games between the two conferences (i.e. Oregon vs. Miami? Or Utah vs. Clemson? Or how about Washington vs. Florida State?).

• I was told by one insider that if the partnership happens, the Pac-12 and ACC would likely still play a normal regular-season schedule against its own conference. The aim is to reach the College Football Playoff and make a pile of money. A crossover “championship game” between the winner of the ACC and the Pac-12 champ could help that effort. It presumably would take the place of the traditional Pac-12 title game that is now played in Las Vegas.

• That kind of late-season match-up would be attractive to ESPN, who could utilize the event to make it rain cash for the restless ACC members. Also, the added game would give both conference champions an opportunity for one more “showcase” moment in front of the playoff selection committee.

• The second-place teams from each conference might also play head-to-head on the same day in a Las Vegas football double-header. This would create an additional inventory asset for ESPN, an additional payday for both conferences, and one last-ditch chance for the second-place teams in the conference to make their playoff case.

• Men’s basketball also presents some interesting opportunities for ESPN. The country never gets tired of seeing ACC powers such as North Carolina and Duke on television. With a “loose partnership” ESPN could schedule some lucrative, mid-season crossover games against the most attractive Pac-12 programs (See: Arizona, Oregon, etc.)

• What happens if ESPN lowballs the Pac-12? That’s a fair question. The network is essentially playing kingmaker in this 30-day negotiating window. It’s bidding against itself in this round of negotiations because Fox isn’t likely interested. Under a lowball scenario, I believe a few Pac-12 universities — particularly Arizona State — might become frustrated and consider alternate options (Read: Big 12).

• The Big 12 question is a big one. If the ACC and Pac-12 loosely partner, would the Pac-12 then covet Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State or maybe even BYU as expansion members? The first two get you into the state of Texas and the other two could help fortify your conference. The only way the Pac-12 could even consider this is if the media valuation of the members far exceeds the annual $30 million-a-year estimated distribution I mentioned above. Either that, or the newcomers take less than a full share.

• How about SMU as an expansion target? San Diego State? Fresno State? Boise State? The same math applies. The Pac-12 has to justify any addition with the number of television households each would bring. SMU gets you a tiny footprint in a robust DFW market (2.9 million TV households). San Diego State gets your product into a potential of 1.1 million homes in Southern California. Fresno State covers an untapped swath of real estate between Los Angeles and San Francisco. And Boise State has a decent brand, but there are only 517,000 TV households in Idaho.

Interesting read, a lot of this depends on a basic "super league" of ACC/Pac 12 and the value of having west coast time slots/inventory.

I feel like that 99% falls apart if 4-6 top targets of ACC move to the SEC/Big Ten. Would this 16-22 team two coasts league minus all the top brands be better per team payout than new 12 team Big 12? No, probably not. It grandfathers in WSU, Oregon St, Wake Forest, Syracuse.

In that likely reality, in what way is either of these conferences more valuable than the Big 12? Why would those two automatically be better partners and not all 3 or not Big 12 and one of them?

The ACC doesn't have much outside eastern time zone and it won't have brands after it gets raided.

The strongest 3rd league that could come out of a poached ACC is the Big 12 expanding a little east and west. That'd be stronger than 2 conferences (that currently suck at football, and weaker in hoops) taking a few Big 12 teams. Maybe that point is moot because it's not like a 3rd viable strong conference is even what a lot of people seem to want.