Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113
Chuck Neinas said on 365 Sports (great site focusing on Big 12) that for expansion, the college must want to move. I know that is obvious. But right now, all the Pac teams would rather be in the Pac. Kliavkoff said he is getting numerous emails/texts forwarded to him. They wouldn't forward on if they were considering moving to the Big 12.

The revenue difference would have to substantial. Even if the Big 12 gets $40 million tv compared to $20 million for the Pac, I don't think they move. You have to consider travel, attendance, donations, etc.

Take Washington. Say their travel is $2 million more per year in the Big 12 for all sports. Say attendance falls 4,000 per football game playing teams with no history. Assume $175 revenue a person per game revenue x 7 games = $4.9 million per year just in football. Washington received $684 million donations in 2019. Assume just a 1% decrease and that is $6.8 million. The 1% decrease is being generous too. Just these 3 areas nets $13.7 million. So the total revenue difference gets a lot closer.

This feels like 2010. Remember when we were rumored to go to the Big East if Texas and others left? I was not excited. Far away, junior league perception, no history, and it would be a forced move. Sounds like the Pac perspective from their forums and team writers.

Only way we get any Pac teams is if the Big 10 raids 2 others.

It is not like going from the big 12 to big east in 2011.

As your notion that they’d pass on $40 million in favor of $20 million exemplifies, this is nothing but wounded pride and emotion. The Big 12 isn’t a junior league to the PAC, it’s a peer in revenue and has long been its superior in performance.

If the PAC is sticking together for less revenue and considering adding Cal St G5, Boise, 3rd most popular small religious school in Texas…it is just butthurt
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,643
63,707
113
Not exactly sure.
Chuck Neinas said on 365 Sports (great site focusing on Big 12) that for expansion, the college must want to move. I know that is obvious. But right now, all the Pac teams would rather be in the Pac. Kliavkoff said he is getting numerous emails/texts forwarded to him. They wouldn't forward on if they were considering moving to the Big 12.

The revenue difference would have to substantial. Even if the Big 12 gets $40 million tv compared to $20 million for the Pac, I don't think they move. You have to consider travel, attendance, donations, etc.

Take Washington. Say their travel is $2 million more per year in the Big 12 for all sports. Say attendance falls 4,000 per football game playing teams with no history. Assume $175 revenue a person per game revenue x 7 games = $4.9 million per year just in football. Washington received $684 million donations in 2019. Assume just a 1% decrease and that is $6.8 million. The 1% decrease is being generous too. Just these 3 areas nets $13.7 million. So the total revenue difference gets a lot closer.

This feels like 2010. Remember when we were rumored to go to the Big East if Texas and others left? I was not excited. Far away, junior league perception, no history, and it would be a forced move. Sounds like the Pac perspective from their forums and team writers.

Only way we get any Pac teams is if the Big 10 raids 2 others.
Chuck had also previously said that he thought the big XII would be 20-30MM behind the P2s. That would put us in that 70-80MM average area. So that would mean a 45-55 MM difference.

Chuck has been out for awhile and things have been changing bigly. Why Bowlsby got caught with his pants down.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,620
3,569
113
The 4 corners may be delusional enough to pass on more money in a Big 16. But it could cost them a spot imo

The Big 10 is going to kill off the PAC at some point fairly soon. You don’t say this , plus leak targets, unless you DGAF

Warren's words:

"Where expansion goes? I don’t know. … I’m embracing change,” Warren explained, “I’m going to be very aggressive. We want to be aggressive in how we build this. We’re in a stage of probably a five-year period of change.”

“We’re in a five-year period of transformation,” Warren said. “Just because these are some of the moves on the front end of the transformation, we won’t really know that until we get toward a conclusion. I think over the next couple of years, it will settle down — the movement between conferences. How many are there? How many are not there? The structure will become clear.

As for Warren’s “five-year transformation period,” he’s unsure how many power conferences will remain.

“That is a question that remains to be seen,” Warren said. “Think of how much more we know today than we did a year ago. Then think a year from now. It will become crystal clear as far as what is the right fit. The market will dictate where things should settle.”


Regarding expansion, … it may include future expansion. But it will be done for the right reasons, at the right time,” “When I say add value: value is important, I just look at the fit,” Warren told Action Network Tuesday at Big Ten Media Days. “A fit has to be there academically, has to be there athletically. All those things are really important."




The fit and right reason comments scream they are coming back for more PAC, even though the money is not as good, particularly with Cal and Stanford.
The "market will dictate" comments kind of hint at something like the 4 corners leaving first, then the Big 10 coming in and finishing up the PAC, and seeing what they can shake free from the ACC imo.

And it is impossible to ignore that the BIG/FOX have basically tried drive the 4 corners out of the PAC via making a black whole in the most important market and stoking mass uncertainty thereafter. And not a political whimper for two weeks that UCLA left? That is more than apathy. If you wanted to get 4 corners to leave, you'd block off southern CA, tell them "no" and continually flirt with UW and Oregon, while also leaking Stanford is ND's actual preferred choice. Did UW and Oregon really apply? That almost never happens unless it is likely to be a 'yes'. Someone had reason to feel optimistic.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,989
113
63
Chuck had also previously said that he thought the big XII would be 20-30MM behind the P2s. That would put us in that 70-80MM average area. So that would mean a 45-55 MM difference.

Chuck has been out for awhile and things have been changing bigly. Why Bowlsby got caught with his pants down.
Greata article yesterday in the Athletic about college schools moving conferences, the jest of the article is that Bowlsby and the rest did not get caught with their pants down, that in every case, the Big East raids by the ACC, the moves of Rutgers and Maryland to the B10 and the B12 movements. In all cases, it was a need to know basis, and few actually knew what was being talked about.
That way it kept elected officals from stopping the move. They had a great quote from the AD of Maryland, that had been the right hand man for the ACC on taking teams from the Big East, then engineered his own move to the B10, when he meets the ACC commish for the first time, after the announced move, and the ACC commish wanted to know why he was not given a heads up, the guy just told him, "I learned everything from you, that is why I did not give you a heads up. "
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,643
63,707
113
Not exactly sure.
George K is worried for his job. Let’s hire him away, give him a 3-5 year contract with a one year termination payout, and have him do a non public job. Have him pull a few schools from the PAC in the first month and then can him as soon as they agree. May cost us a couple million as a conference, but it would finally kill this whole thing off. I’m guessing George is fighting for his job so that’s a good part of this whole hold up. Give him a false sense of security.
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,643
63,707
113
Not exactly sure.
Greata article yesterday in the Athletic about college schools moving conferences, the jest of the article is that Bowlsby and the rest did not get caught with their pants down, that in every case, the Big East raids by the ACC, the moves of Rutgers and Maryland to the B10 and the B12 movements. In all cases, it was a need to know basis, and few actually knew what was being talked about.
That way it kept elected officals from stopping the move. They had a great quote from the AD of Maryland, that had been the right hand man for the ACC on taking teams from the Big East, then engineered his own move to the B10, when he meets the ACC commish for the first time, after the announced move, and the ACC commish wanted to know why he was not given a heads up, the guy just told him, "I learned everything from you, that is why I did not give you a heads up. "
I don’t think bob is very aggressive. Never had been. Seems to be the kind to try to put out fires instead of being out front and leading. When ESPN decided not to renegotiate, that should have flipped a switch that something is off. That the big 12 has a situation and we need action, he didn’t really push anything from what we hear.

I understand that he is beholden to the universities, but it seems the big 12 was the only one sitting on their hands the last five years and reacting. People give bob credit for the last TV deal, actually Neinas had it ironed out and Bob basically signed it.

This is where I think bob failed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CascadeClone

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,878
13,956
113
It is not like going from the big 12 to big east in 2011.

As your notion that they’d pass on $40 million in favor of $20 million exemplifies, this is nothing but wounded pride and emotion. The Big 12 isn’t a junior league to the PAC, it’s a peer in revenue and has long been its superior in performance.

If the PAC is sticking together for less revenue and considering adding Cal St G5, Boise, 3rd most popular small religious school in Texas…it is just butthurt

Oh, there is some number that is "close enough" to what they would get in the Big12 that would make it worth staying in the Pac10. It's not half, or $20M less. But if it was $2M less annually, and you kept your conference and independence, you'd stay in the PAC10. Somewhere in between is the real number. That number is probably a little different for different schools, too, based on how they view future raiding by B1G.

There's also a chance PAC12 goes for a staggered withdrawal strategy. If they "know" that some/all of UW, Stanford, Cal, OU are getting poached in a year or 3, then they might agree to add some G5 schools just for critical mass now. Maybe go to 14 or even 16(!) so that when/if the B1G raids them again, with likely follow-on raiding by Big12, there is something left for OSU & WSU, and anyone else leftover to hang on to. The elites would be OK with it because they know they are going soon enough anyway. And for the truly left behind, it's still marginally better to lift up the best MWC teams into a PAC-lite conference, than to just flat out drop down to MWC. Sort of like bringing AAC teams UP to the Big12 rather than dropping Big12 teams DOWN to the AAC.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,878
13,956
113
George K is worried for his job. Let’s hire him away, give him a 3-5 year contract with a one year termination payout, and have him do a non public job. Have him pull a few schools from the PAC in the first month and then can him as soon as they agree. May cost us a couple million as a conference, but it would finally kill this whole thing off. I’m guessing George is fighting for his job so that’s a good part of this whole hold up. Give him a false sense of security.

Is he worth paying at this point? Other than just throwing the PAC into chaos, I don't think he provides much based on performance for the PAC to date. He got Bowlsby-ed, that's his biggest accomplishment to date. Plus the PAC may actually hire someone better to replace him. Nah, let him captain the ship right to the bottom of the ocean. Pacific ocean in this case.
 

Jer

CF Founder, Creator
Feb 28, 2006
23,580
23,427
10,030
I don’t think bob is very aggressive. Never had been. Seems to be the kind to try to put out fires instead of being out front and leading. When ESPN decided not to renegotiate, that should have flipped a switch that something is off. That the big 12 has a situation and we need action, he didn’t really push anything from what we hear.

I understand that he is beholden to the universities, but it seems the big 12 was the only one sitting on their hands the last five years and reacting. People give bob credit for the last TV deal, actually Neinas had it ironed out and Bob basically signed it.

This is where I think bob failed.

I think everybody failed - including the Presidents and ADs (yes even our Pollard). Bowlsby was largely taking orders or carrying forth the sentiment of the league - and there was very little appetite by anybody involved to grow. That was a bad mistake, but one that in a vacuum at the time probably made sense. I honestly don't think they thought things would evolve as big or quickly as they have - just like NIL seemed to catch everybody off guard even though it was inevitable.

While Yarmack may be more aggressive naturally, he still would have to have the backing of the Presidents and ADs and he only has that now because of recent events - otherwise his hands would have been largely tied like Bowlsby's were.
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,643
63,707
113
Not exactly sure.
Is he worth paying at this point? Other than just throwing the PAC into chaos, I don't think he provides much based on performance for the PAC to date. He got Bowlsby-ed, that's his biggest accomplishment to date. Plus the PAC may actually hire someone better to replace him. Nah, let him captain the ship right to the bottom of the ocean. Pacific ocean in this case.
He sucks, but just throwing out wildass ideas. With some of the dumb stuff out there, it’s not any worse of an idea.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CascadeClone

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,989
113
63
Is he worth paying at this point? Other than just throwing the PAC into chaos, I don't think he provides much based on performance for the PAC to date. He got Bowlsby-ed, that's his biggest accomplishment to date. Plus the PAC may actually hire someone better to replace him. Nah, let him captain the ship right to the bottom of the ocean. Pacific ocean in this case.
The Pac 12 Commish had a background as a TV executive and that is the reason, he got the job. The P12 network has been a failure because the last Commish did not partner the network up with one of the broadcasting companies like the B10 did with FOX or the SEC and ACC with ESPN. The P12 owns the whole thing, and never got the network on Direct TV. So only the West Coast cable stations broadcast much of the content.

The overlying problem with the P12 is that they start their games so late in the night, that most people will only watch a half at most and then want to go to bed, after watching all the other football all day long. That is why the conference was kicking around the idea of starting games a noon eastern, but that means playing at 9 or 10 local time. Those times would kill the crowds.

Second, most people on the West Coast just do not care about college football, more pro teams, and way too much to do outside on a Saturday, rather than stay inside and watch football all day long.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
9,131
7,731
113
Dubuque
Chuck Neinas said on 365 Sports (great site focusing on Big 12) that for expansion, the college must want to move. I know that is obvious. But right now, all the Pac teams would rather be in the Pac. Kliavkoff said he is getting numerous emails/texts forwarded to him. They wouldn't forward on if they were considering moving to the Big 12.

The revenue difference would have to substantial. Even if the Big 12 gets $40 million tv compared to $20 million for the Pac, I don't think they move. You have to consider travel, attendance, donations, etc.

Take Washington. Say their travel is $2 million more per year in the Big 12 for all sports. Say attendance falls 4,000 per football game playing teams with no history. Assume $175 revenue a person per game revenue x 7 games = $4.9 million per year just in football. Washington received $684 million donations in 2019. Assume just a 1% decrease and that is $6.8 million. The 1% decrease is being generous too. Just these 3 areas nets $13.7 million. So the total revenue difference gets a lot closer.

This feels like 2010. Remember when we were rumored to go to the Big East if Texas and others left? I was not excited. Far away, junior league perception, no history, and it would be a forced move. Sounds like the Pac perspective from their forums and team writers.

Only way we get any Pac teams is if the Big 10 raids 2 others.
I think Chuck is missing the point. Obviously, Big12 or Pac12 schools shouldn't combine in some fashion if it doesn't benefit schools at a fundamental level- because we aren't adding schools to create an economic juggernaut like the Big10 and SEC.

That's why the original Big12 targets were CU, UU, ASU & UA. Travel costs would be less with geographic based divisions.

Second, attendance shouldn't decline, but improve because of:
  • Proximity of division opponents.
  • Transplants from current Big12 schools living in CO, UT & AZ
  • Initial excitement of new road trip locations
I would agree 100% that the NoCal, OR & WA schools are not a great fit with Big12, especially if $ are only 20-30% better in Big12. But the reality is OR & UW would be in a division with the the 4 corner schools.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,611
10,101
113
38
The Pac 12 Commish had a background as a TV executive and that is the reason, he got the job. The P12 network has been a failure because the last Commish did not partner the network up with one of the broadcasting companies like the B10 did with FOX or the SEC and ACC with ESPN. The P12 owns the whole thing, and never got the network on Direct TV. So only the West Coast cable stations broadcast much of the content.

The overlying problem with the P12 is that they start their games so late in the night, that most people will only watch a half at most and then want to go to bed, after watching all the other football all day long. That is why the conference was kicking around the idea of starting games a noon eastern, but that means playing at 9 or 10 local time. Those times would kill the crowds.

Second, most people on the West Coast just do not care about college football, more pro teams, and way too much to do outside on a Saturday, rather than stay inside and watch football all day long.
But didn’t you hear? The late notice spots are invaluable to ESPN! It’s why the offered so much money a week ago for their media deal!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

scyclonekid

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2008
9,414
3,879
113
The 4 corners should just leave or we aggressively go after them like those two guys said in the Utes podcast. Others can say what they want our conference shows up period. Then hopefully get UW/OU as well. It’s gonna interesting to see how it all falls into place.