Wild idea, new B12/PAC12 super conf ... after 2025

Discussion in 'Big XII Conference' started by Deleted member 39238, Jun 2, 2018.

  1. Deleted member 39238

    +0 / 0 / -0
    Wrote this up a couple of weeks ago and decided to post it last nite in a different thread. Did it piecemeal and didn't get much traction ... so thought I would post it again as its own thread. This is just an idea thrown out there for discussion ...

    Part I:

    Started thinking of this because of the thread on the B10 going to 8 conf games ... so the good teams can get some easy wins to pad their resume for playoff/bowl consideration ... like what the SEC does. That made it clear that Quality is not of the utmost importance, wins are. Wins and eyeballs. In the context of cord cutting and move to online streaming/pay per view things are going to be changing between now and 2023-25 when all TV contracts expire/renew. Changing big time. Cable and the payouts ... when renewed ... will be the same (not going up) or maybe even going down, in my opinion anyway. Streaming and pay per view ... will be going up. A lot. Maybe hugely. Amazon. Netflix. Facebook. Twitter. Somebody is going to want to stream football games and will pay a lot to do it.

    So my thoughts initially were along some sort of merger alliance of the B12 and PAC12. But I just couldn't the teams/numbers to work out. So ... the B1G 8 Conf games thing ... kinda sunk in and I thought ... that instead of playing out of conference mediocre teams why not invite these teams into the conference but structure the payouts based on how many eyeballs they brought. Teams that maybe shouldn't belong would get less, a lot less. Unless they brought a lot of eyeballs ... in streaming. More eyeballs they bring ... the more they get in revenue. And the new ... first ... super conference would really be an alliance of 2 conferences. 2 16 team conferences in an alliance ... spanning every timezone with good/great matchups ... every weekend, all day long. Could something like that work ??? How could you make it work ? That's what I dove into. So ... here goes.

    Maximize eyeballs. Good teams/schools with large alumni bases get priority.
    Prioritize regional/historical matchups.
    Name and "State" schools are kept together for in-state rivalries.
    Set up interesting inter-regional matchups or culture mis-matches ... private vs public, commuter vs land grant, east coast vs west coast, etc.
    Future potential may trump existing legacy.
    Make sure the blue bloods/elites are happy, otherwise its a no go.
    May have to include teams to make it politically acceptable.
    In order to be "bowl eligible" some lesser teams will be invited. Grant wins for Elite teams to make sure they are considered for CFP. SEC has been doing this via out-of-conference scheduling, B1G is considering doing it too. This is the same thing but within-conference (keeps $$$ close to home).
    Divisions will be organized with some elites, some good teams, and a bad team or two in each.
    This does not imply parity between divisions !!!
    Divisions will NOT be balanced or equal; that's ok !!!

    Conference will span EVERY TIMEZONE
    TV/Bowl game revenue is not split evenly. Legacy B12/PAC teams get full equal share. New invites get 1/2. This is not a phase in ... its permanent.
    Conference network may be created based on existing UT network or merger with PAC network ... with an emphasis on streaming.
    Streaming revenue per school is based on #subscribers for that school. School keeps streaming revenue.
    Pay per view events for major matchups ???

    Specifics: new 32 team conference.
    4 divisions of 8 teams ... North, South, East, West
    Teams are the B12 + PAC12, with a mix of Mtn West and AAC teams.
    Divisions are not balanced nor equal.
    Divisions have specific alliances.
    North is allied to South, East is allied to West
    These alliances are hugely important !!!

    Read on to see how that would work.

    New teams added:
    San Diego State - 34K
    Colorado State - 33K
    New Mexico - 26K
    BYU - 33K

    Cinci - 44K
    UCF - 66K
    USF - 49K
    Memphis - 21K
    Houston - 45K
    UConn - 32K
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Deleted member 39238

    +0 / 0 / -0
    Now on to the meat ... remember Divisional Alliances are hugely important.


    North Division (historical big 8 plus CSU and BYU) 2 time zones.
    OU, OSU
    KU, KSU
    CU, CSU
    BYU, ISU

    South Division (3 TX B12 teams plus 3 PAC12 teams, SDSU means 1 socal team).
    SDSU, Stanford (originally had Cal ... but changed)
    UA, ASU
    UT, TT, BAY

    West Division (PAC originals + Utah, no religious schools)
    OR, OSU
    Wash, WSU

    East Division (After this realignment, Mtn West and AAC will be destroyed ... UCONN couldn't be left out politically)
    TCU, Houston
    UCF, USF
    WV, Cinci, Memphis
    UCONN (outlier)

    Overall analysis.
    North is solid. 5 B12 teams + CU, BYU + CSU.
    South is solid. 3 TX teams + 2 AZ teams + 2 Cali teams + UNM.
    West is solid. Core PAC + Utah.
    East is the most questionable and easiest. TCU and WV best teams in FB, Cinci & Memphis are decent.


    - 11 conference games
    - Play every team in your division - 7 games, rotate home/away.
    - Play half the teams in the division you are allied with - 4 games.
    - Will play every team in your allied division every 2 years; home/away.

    - 2 game conference playoff
    - North winner plays South winner, East winner plays West winner
    - N/S winner vs E/W winner plays in Dallas for conference championship.

    Could just leave it as co-champions and let the CFP pick one or both.

    - 19 conference games
    - Play every team in your division - 7 games, rotate home/away.
    - Play 1/2 of each other division - 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 games
    (for each non allied division play 4 each year, 2 at home, 2 away. The next year ... you play the other 4, 2 home, 2 away. In a 4 yr span you will play every non allied team twice; once at home and once on the road, prevents long gaps between playing a team within your own conference. Within your division ... you play every team twice in 2 yrs ... once at home, once away)

    Conf BB tourney includes all 32 teams.
    Opening 2 rounds is divisional and regional. For example West division tourny in SanFran. South in Dallas. North in Denver.
    Divisional round 1: each division: 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 ... winners advance.
    Divisional round 2: game 1 winner vs game 4 winner, game 2 winner vs game 3 winner
    Advancing : the top 2 teams in each division ... go to tourney in KC.

    KC Conf tourney - 8 teams, top 2 teams in each division
    Conference round 1:
    - #1 north vs #2 south, #1 south vs #2 north
    - #1 east vs #2 west, #1 west vs #2 east,
    Conference round 2:
    - N/S game 1 winner vs N/S game 2 winner
    - E/W game 1 winner vs E/W game 2 winner

    Conference championship: best team in N/S vs best team in E/W
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Deleted member 39238

    +0 / 0 / -0
    Part III: Discussion points.

    1) Stanford to the South isn't a given ... frankly any of the Cali teams to the South Division might work. A norcal team would probably be best ... can you imagine a UT/Stanford matchup or UT/USC or UT/UCLA every year ? Would make up for UT/OU moving to every other year ... they get an elite matchup to make up for it. Pick another Cali team if Stanford doesn't work, I don't know enough about them to know if one would make sense over another; I'm a B12 guy.

    2) BYU and the West teams.

    This is where the Divisional Alliances come into play. BYU is in the North; unless they win the North, then win the N/S Championship game ... they'd never play anyone from the West in football. EVER. Rumor had it those schools didn't want to play BYU and in this setup, baring a miracle, lol, they never will. Same goes with Baylor buried in the South ... they'd never play them. The only religious school any of the West teams would play would be TCU and as far as I know nobody has a real problem with TCU's religious policies. In fact, TCU is a very good FB school and would be a challenge for any of the West teams so it could introduce some new rivalries. I considered moving TCU to the South so they could avoid all religious schools but the East needed an elite FB team there and didn't think UT would go for being moved to East; gotta keep the blue bloods happy or none of this would work.

    As for basketball and BYU ... the West teams would play BYU every other year and every other time they play it would be at home. So West teams would get BYU at home once every 4 years. The same for all the religious schools. So its not a lot. Want some new rivalries ... we just made some.

    3) The East Division ... is a real hodgepodge. 2 TX schools, 2 FLA schools, Cinci and UWV are a good tandem along with Memphis. UCONN is an outlier. After this realignment, the AAC and MTN West will be gutted, so politically, UCONN probably can't be left out because they'd die; so they are in whether they are a good fit or not. From a basketball perspective having Cinci, WV, and UCONN in the same 8 team division guarantees some pretty good basketball play and Memphis will be on the upswing under Penny. Football, not looking so good ... TCU/WV, Cinci, Memphis ... Houston & UCF have shown they can be good with the right coach.

    But lets talk the makeup of the new EYEBALLS the East teams have. TCU brings Dallas ... now we add Houston ... 4th largest city in the US; that brings lots of eyeballs from TX. The two FLA teams bring Orlando and Tampa ... the state of Florida loves football and when you have some elite teams coming in on a regular basis ... I would think there would be an upswing in interest. UCONN, Cinci, Memphis bring fairly large metro areas. Basically, lots of new EYEBALLS ... to purchase streaming subscriptions. It also expands the footprint of the combined conference immensely. You'd now have solid games to market ALL DAY LONG; it covers every time zone in the US.

    Final thoughts:

    People are going to freak out and say why are we adding all these crappy teams and sharing revenue. And I look at it like this ... take your typical B12 or PAC12 team ... they play 3 non con games anyway and usually 1-2 are easy wins and play 1 good matchup. What you're doing is taking most of these games and moving them IN-CONFERENCE. Keeping the money at home ... part of the revenue would go to the team you beat.

    Of particular note would be the PAC teams ... playing the East as proposed ... why would they want to do it ? Well most of the PAC teams would get 2 relatively easy wins each year. Which just elevates their playoff and bowl game chances. They got shut out of the CFP this year ... this makes it more likely they'll get in (SEC model). They would play 4 teams in the East every year, two would likely be decent games and two not so good. Of those 4 games, only 2 would be on the road. Yes ... long travel times but only 2 road games a year ... which they might do in the non-con anyway. Lets say on average they have 1 additional road game. But ... at least 1 of those 2 would be in a desirable location like Orlando, Tampa, Houston, Memphis, etc. I'm sure scheduling could be worked out so each West team would play 1 road game against a warm climate team (FLA, TX) and 1 road game against a cold climate team (UCONN, WV, Cinci) and even have the cold game be early in the year.

    One of the biggest things for the West teams ... right now they are bottled up on the west coast and nobody on the east side of the country cares about the PAC ... so this would open up a whole new audience. Lots of big metro areas too and I'm sure there are lots of PAC alumni in those areas. For example if UCLA is playing UCONN at UCONN (not a desirable game)... UCLA alumni in the NY metro would get to see their team play ... whereas before ... they never would. NYC would bring lots of eyeballs and instead of being a meaningless non-conf game ... at least they are playing a conference foe. So even the crappy games have some meaning and the potential for earning additional $$$s.

    As for the revenue sharing ... that would have to be figured out. As I indicated ... existing B12 and PAC12 teams would likely get full shares of TV revenue to ensure their $$$s don't go down. The new invites get 1/2 share which would be better than what they are getting now, a lot better. In addition, the online streaming revenues would go to the individual schools, not the conference. As for the Longhorn network, that would have to be addressed ... like merging with the PAC12 network. Or if UT gets to keep their online streaming revenue ... maybe its big enough to ensure they buy into the new model. Given so many teams and the geography ... pretty much most of the US ... I'd think a lot of people would pay for that and that it would have enough content to get eyeballs with key matchups all day long.

    Just spitballing I'd say something like the following. When you sign up with the conference network (for streaming) you have to indicate your "Home" team ... they get most of your revenue. So for $9.99 you get to stream every one of your teams games. For $12.99 you get your teams games and one other ... say an in-state rival. For $15.99 you get to stream every game in your division. For 19.99 every game in the conference. Something like that anyway.

    The future is coming quick and cord cutting will soon be impacting the bottom line of companies like ESPN. I don't think the growth in revenues that conferences have been seeing is going to continue. Streaming is the future ... the question is how do we organize ourselves to best take advantage of that.

    Anybody got access to Jamie P ? Would be interesting to get this before someone who actually has a say ... this sounds crazy ... but maybe it isn't. Food for thought anyway.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  4. farminclone

    farminclone Well-Known Member

    Nov 16, 2009
    +4,728 / 234 / -17
    I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a trilogy of novels posted on CF. Wow.
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Funny Funny x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. CycloneErik

    CycloneErik Well-Known Member

    Jan 31, 2008
    Grad Student
    +26,451 / 927 / -16
    New idea in 2008 becomes a blog in 2018.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  6. farminclone

    farminclone Well-Known Member

    Nov 16, 2009
    +4,728 / 234 / -17
    I didn’t read all of that but it seems way too complex and geographically unorganized to make any sense.

    I think our 10 team conference is the model that others should follow - if we get some type of national TV contract/revenue contract we may be able to get to the point that conferences are willing to back off on numbers just for getting “eyeballs” or geographical presence.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Clonehomer

    Clonehomer Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    +4,422 / 275 / -3
    So if the PAC12 can't support their own network and is making far less than the Big12 in revenue, why would it be in the best interest of the Big12 to merge? Seems like those teams would be an anchor that'll end up blowing up the whole thing. We're better off staying at 10 and doing our best to keep pace with the SEC and Bog10.
    • Agree Agree x 6
  8. CyCrazy

    CyCrazy Well-Known Member

    Dec 17, 2008
    +5,529 / 339 / -3
  9. aeroclone

    aeroclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 30, 2006
    +2,171 / 75 / -7
    My much shorter analysis: we are the stronger conference, we don't need them. At most we cherry pick 2 teams to get to 12. The PAC is a mess right now.
    • Winner Winner x 8
  10. brokenloginagain

    brokenloginagain Well-Known Member

    Jul 25, 2006
    +1,300 / 57 / -2
    Part I: TLDR

    Part II: TLDR

    Part III: TLDR
    • Winner Winner x 9
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 3
  11. mtowncyclone13

    mtowncyclone13 Well-Known Member

    Oct 10, 2012
    grundy center
    +8,627 / 522 / -14
    Hey guys, Target should merge with Kmart. Here's why...
    • Funny Funny x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Cyched

    Cyched Well-Known Member

    May 8, 2009
    Mall Santa
    +19,365 / 308 / -0
    That was wild
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. CloneGuy8

    CloneGuy8 Well-Known Member

    Mar 20, 2017
    +10,567 / 259 / -3
    I just don't see West Virginia traveling to Los Angeles or Pullman. If anything, I could see the Big 12 cherry picking Arizona and Arizona State.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Deleted member 39238

    +0 / 0 / -0
    Seems some people are misunderstanding my post (or just plain not reading it). It was intended to address the situation coming 2023-25 when the B12 and all the other major conference TV deals expire and have to be renewed. This is not for today ... its for several years down the road ... when things like cord cutting and online streaming have changed the landscape dramatically.

    The GOR expires in 2025. Why the hell should TX or OU want to include ISU at all ? What scenario might keep them in the fold ? What happens if ESPN offers the B12 a new TV contract that is 1/2 of what it gets today ... given most of ESPN's subscribers have already left ... to streaming ... in 2025 ?

    My post was not about today ... it was about a potential future and how we might respond to it.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. LivntheCyLife

    LivntheCyLife Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2006
    St. Louis, MO
    +439 / 9 / -0
    No way I can see half share teams serving as bottom feeders in the same division as top teams. I could see a scheduling alliance or else maybe unequal revenue based on appearances that can grow or shrink. But no way can I see it working to have fixed, permanent inequality when competing for the same titles.
  16. HFCS

    HFCS Well-Known Member

    Aug 13, 2010
    Art Director
    LA LA Land
    +19,830 / 615 / -11
    Best thing regarding the Pac is they have gone from a league that can poach us to a league that cannot. A decade ago any movement would have been from our league to theirs and now it would be the opposite, although not likely.

    The other leagues don't seem thrilled at the idea of expanding past 14/15 and the ACC isn't in the financial benefits position to raid us either.

    I think we all realize now that a 16 team conference would really be two conferences with a CCG between the two. The 14 team leagues barely play the other division with a 9 game schedule (ACC/B10) and the SEC is already effectively two small 7 team conferences sticking with their 8 game farce.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  17. LivntheCyLife

    LivntheCyLife Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2006
    St. Louis, MO
    +439 / 9 / -0
    I used to think cord cutting would change things more than I do now. The live tv streaming services like youtube.tv, directTV, Sling ect seem to be replacing the cable companies but they aren't a totally different model like netflix or something like twitter/facebook. It's an open question to me how much conferences should go with ESPN or form their own channel to sell to the streaming services. But I think the model will remain non-exclusive live streaming services rather some exclusive deal with one online company.
  18. aeroclone

    aeroclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 30, 2006
    +2,171 / 75 / -7
    The Pac 12 is less valuable in the cord cutting future than it is today. The future will be about loyal and engaged fanbases more than media markets and population. The B12 crushes the Pac in that regard as well. We are well positioned as the third conference behind the SEC and B1G. We are in a position to be very selective moving forward.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. MeanDean

    MeanDean Well-Known Member

    Jan 5, 2009
    Retired Civil Engineer
    Clarence IA-Jensen Beach FL
    +5,762 / 27 / -0
    I like the write up and the concepts are very interesting to ponder.
    It's obvious you put a lot of thought into it.

    I also think it could work with a few tweaks, but I can't see us getting there in one fell swoop. Too many moving parts... Big XII and PAC combine. Add all these schools who all agree with the arrangement in time to pull it together. Crushing two existing conferences (this I actually see as not that hard if the will is there for the BXII and PXII players would agree).

    I also see the 1/2 financial distribution as a permanent second class citizen idea as a very very hard pill to swallow for those schools. I could see a variation where it starts out that way but then is recalculated based on viewership/subscription from the fan bases at a future date.
  20. Deleted member 39238

    +0 / 0 / -0
    Originally I posted this in another thread which had a link to the following article: https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/Article/Conference-Re-alignment-future-football-Ohio-State-Texas-Oklahoma-Notre-Dame-Alabama-Michigan-SEC-Pac-12-Big-10-ACC--118642101

    And here is a quote from that article:
    "Most Power Five grant-of-rights agreements begin to expire in 2023, (the SEC's Tier 1 deal with CBS runs through 2023-24). The Big Ten’s agreement with Fox and ESPN runs through 2022-23; the Pac-12 deal expires after the 2023-24 sports year, and the Big 12's ends in 2025."

    The article basically says that when this happens ... its every man for himself ... a the top 30-40 programs will win and will take it all and everyone else will be cast aside. And it even mocks conferences that try to stick together ... which I believe is wrong. Anyway ... that's a good article and why I posted this. There are some huge changes coming ... how it all works out ... nobody knows. What sounds crazy today ... might not 6 yrs from now. Just sayin.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1

Share This Page