Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Why not let the discussion of possible names go on for a bit? You ended it before it could even get started.
With 18 (like if UW and Oregon join), you could protect 2 or 3 games and then play 7 of the remaining 15 or 6 of 14, for something close to playing everyone once per 2 seasons and never less than once per 3 seasons. That’s a lot more reasonable to me than once per 6!
I left out the most obvious 1 protected plus 8/8 rotation - but either KU or ISU loses the K-State rivalry in that so i don’t like it.
Last edited:
Also keeps some cool records intact without idea of starting over.
Looking up and down basketball records it is cool to see Monte and Georges so high in so many stats. Monte is top 3 in a ton of career stats.
In football the past few years have helped our guys get in that record book too. Breece and Brock all over the offensive records. Will McDonald almost sure to be Big 12 career sack leader, Bailey is top 10. I like seeing those guys ahead of Nebraska's Suh.
A couple of general points should be established around the future of the PAC and discussions of possibilities:
- The PAC isn't going to raid the Big XII or the ACC because:
- Unless estimates are way off, sticking with the PAC over moving to the Big XII or ACC means passing up on $15-$20m per year. Somewhere between 4 and 7 PAC schools will have this offer on the table, and I don't think they all pass it up.
- Backfilling with MWC or other G5 teams isn't going to help close that gap and may just dilute conference revenues further.
- The ACC or Big XII aren't going to absorb the PAC in its entirety unless the sum of the combined conference is worth more than the parts of the conferences individually. As it stands, each member of the absorbing conference would be giving up ~$10m per year. More importantly, the absorbing conference would be $10m/school/year behind the conference that didn't absorb the PAC and make itself vulnerable to be raided by the other conference.
The reason to add SDSU would be that conference success will be based on having schools that can do more with less revenue wise. A school in southern California could be that, as similar to UCF, Cincinnati, and Houston. And, in some ways, the fall of the PAC12 is SDSU’s gain. If only USC/UCLA are in a P2 on the west coast, and the rest of the top of PAC in Big 12, SDSU in the Big 12 just jumped over most schools on the west coast.
I can see why the current Big 12 schools would want them, but leftover PAC schools wouldn’t
Conversely, that could also be a negotiating tactic to get the Mountain 4 nervous. Who knows.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...som-e2-80-99s-involvement-and-more/ar-AAZCnJs
“..What we believe at this moment could be rendered moot by developments an hour from now, but here’s our guess on the outcomes:
— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together but with either expansion or a partnership with the ACC or Big 12. Likelihood: 40 percent
— At least eight schools merge with the Big 12 to form a western division of a super-conference. (In this scenario, Oregon State and Washington State could be left behind.) Likelihood: 30 percent
— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together without mergers, acquisitions or partnerships. Likelihood: 20 percent
— Six schools (Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and Washington) are poached by the Big 12, sparking the complete dissolution of the conference. Likelihood: 10 percent
The situation could get resolved in the next few days. But multiple sources have indicated the more likely outcome is a prolonged process — at least weeks and perhaps months...."
Lots of other stuff further down in the article.
“..What we believe at this moment could be rendered moot by developments an hour from now, but here’s our guess on the outcomes:
— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together but with either expansion or a partnership with the ACC or Big 12. Likelihood: 40 percent
— At least eight schools merge with the Big 12 to form a western division of a super-conference. (In this scenario, Oregon State and Washington State could be left behind.) Likelihood: 30 percent
— The remaining 10 schools are given a compelling reason to stick together without mergers, acquisitions or partnerships. Likelihood: 20 percent
— Six schools (Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and Washington) are poached by the Big 12, sparking the complete dissolution of the conference. Likelihood: 10 percent
The situation could get resolved in the next few days. But multiple sources have indicated the more likely outcome is a prolonged process — at least weeks and perhaps months...."
Lots of other stuff further down in the article.
Its been said a bunch in here but put me in the camp as we don't really need Utah and BYU. Its a state with the same population as Iowa. The B1G wants nothing to do with us because they already have an Iowa School. Big12 already has the bigger richer Utah school. I've seen lots of Ute posts belittling Big12, ISU, Midwest. Just seems like they've gotten a bit big for their britches for being a WAC team a decade ago. I do get the "it adds a natural rival for BYU" stance but why must we make sure every noob has its natural rival and continue to make us and WVU the rival-less schools?
Who is the 'we' (in the top quote) referring to? I ask because credibility is what counts. Thanks!
Thing is: I am not a gamer, have never even seen TECMO Bowl and didn't know it existed until continual references on here.
Yes: I am old.
You can’t really compare the B1G to the Big12. We need quality programs and Utah is one of the best available. We aren’t poaching Notre Dame, the SEC, or B1G. Who cares what state they are in. The B1G wouldn’t be taking Iowa State right now if Iowa were in the ACC or SEC either.
I think we take ASU (or AZ) and either Colorado or Washington. Then take the left over of Colorado and Washington if Oregon comes.
Feels like he's trying really hard to protect Cal's feelings.
You have to look at the available programs in the Pac, and for program value, growth, viewership, attendance, revenue etc. Utah is solidly the 3rd place team in the Pac. Behind Oregon, and basically now tied with Washington overall.
You have to take Utah, for these reasons. The other reason is the intense rivalry with BYU would be a money maker for the conference as well.
The old, "we already have that Media area" doesnt really work. Because most Utah fans probably dont watch BYU and vice versa. Similarly I would guess a lot of Iowa fans dont watch ISU and vice versa. (even though everyone claims they do) And with the new streaming model, linear cable is becoming less of a dynamic.
Wilner, a well connected PAC journalist.
He’s not a homer, although obviously he’ll present a PAC pov because that’s who he is talking to.
It confirms the negotiating is ongoing and as of now unlikely we don’t see more moves. Someone is getting some PAC is the most likely outcome. The PAC has factions that want it to be all.
A change from the ignorant initial reaction by those that assumed a rump PAC would add Big 12 schools, even while not even knowing which schools would be in the PAC
8 schools to Big 12 is okay. Still leaves 4 spots for ACC. The main objective is complete in that PAC is done, and Big 12 is too strong for ESPN to easily liquidate in 3 years. And a good chance some are eventually gone anyway.
Full merger seems premature unless ACC/ESPN is serious about top of PAC to ACC.
The Big 12 needs to work the mountain 4 on how confident are they in making the eventual P3 if it’s the ACC that is the base. There are then 22 schools hoping to get in for 10 spots. A big risk not all mountain 4 make it, and even if so, likekly to just end up in a conference built on leftover ACC like BC, Wake, Cuse. This is the only chance they can dictate they are in the P3, one that is sort of based around them
I just talked to neighbor who works in sports media rights in LA, is dialed into Pac/Big 12 and alum of one of the rumored adds, kind of guy who followed Big 12 media days for his job. Sure sounds like the 4 mountain schools still very excited to come on board.
Houston, Cincy, and UCF were desperation adds at a time when we didn't have any better options. It was last call and that was all we had left. The hope is they have potential and grow, but that isn't for sure. If we could have gotten a current P5 school instead we would have taken just about any of them over the schools we added.
We are in a stronger place now, we don't have to go dumpster diving. None of these G5 schools add more than they dilute from current members. Hell, a lot of lower P5 schools are a net negative, hence why OSU and WSU look like they could be left on the outside. Maybe Cal and Stanford as well.
Anyone suggesting a merger is still on the table is a moron.
How a Pac-12/Big 12 conference merger would play football
Here's how to organize and schedule a Big 12/Pac-12 merged conference. Looks pretty good!theathletic.com
Stew is terrible and still thinks the Pac has the upper hand, but decided to write about a full merger possibility.
He proposes adding San Diego State and SMU and then forming four 6-team divisions.
I am just glad the most prominent Big 12 despisers like Mandel are now confronting the reality that the league is likely to survive and thrive.
Generally I agree. But if the TV people bidding on the next contract say SDSU has accretive value, then they get promoted.
Like I said, I am skeptical- but a TV network may see value in having a SoCal school.
Similar to why Houston was added to Big12, TV folks like access to the largest media markets.
