OT: B10 expands/PAC B12 TBD
- Thread starter rutgersguy1_rivals
- Start date
No surprise and I’d guess Phil Knight would easily cover any extra 10M travel expense that UW is hesitant about.
It's not ideal but it is what it is. I've always thought this was expected sooner or later because of USC/UCLA. I don't think the B10 ever wanted them out there alone in perpetuity. If Oregon goes there's no way Washington is staying. They will tag along as well despite any travel cost hesitancy.
Still one potential fly in the ointment though. Not from mainstream CFB media but reading around from reporters on sites like this one for Arizona, rumor seems to be Arizona is going and is just on the cusp but the ASU prez is still holding out. Like I said above, he was a quite ardent supporter of the leadership and moves that led the PAC into an iceberg and he seems to want to do the same thing the Titanic captain did haha.
If he holds out the PAC can still hold together and just lose the 2 of Colorado and Arizona. I still think in the end he'll give in. Honestly, I don't know how they come to terms with the lack of exposure hurdle but we'll see.
It's over.....Arizona, ASU, and Utah will go to the Big12 and Oregon and Washington to the B1G. The only question now is does the ACC try to become buyers or just hold up and try to keep FSU and Clemson hostage.
If Arizona leaves I can't see what is left hanging on for too much longer. Do ASU, Oregon and Washington want to be relegated to a conference whose football games can only be streamed on Apple+ for a lousy $20 million a year? That conference isn't viable.
IMO Oregon and Washington were always going to leave. It's just a matter when not if. If it's not now my next guess would've been the tv deal expiration but USC/UCLA weren't going to be left out there on their own forever.
So given that what's the point of sticking around if you're ASU/Utah? The only thing I can think of is they don't want to see the PAC get taken out completely. Maybe they want to "stabilize" it, get schools from the MWC/AAC and then after that move on. Other than that kind of "sentimental" reason, I don't find any business reason to stick around.
ESPN purposely put LHN in there to throw a wrench in the gears of that big Larry Scott play. One of the former ESPN head honchos mentioned that in an interview a couple years ago. But you know if you're going to get Texas/OU and A&M just accept it and let everyone have their own network or something like that. It was a bold play, take it to its conclusion.
On a side note and I have no clue if this can come together quickly or if it's realistic even but if I'm the MWC I'd figure out a way to merge with the PAC leftovers and rebrand under the PAC. There are 11 schools in the MWC and 4 would be left behind in the PAC. Stanford could go independent I suppose but that could be 14 or 15 schools. If they can do that somehow, they could get all the NCAA credits of the PAC. More importantly they could get a larger CFP money share at least for the last 2 years and that's a bigger number too because of playoff expansion. As the MWC they only get a share of the G5 portion but if they're the PAC, they get a P5 portion which is larger. It would likely only be for those last 2 years but whatever. G5 would like it too because then as a "G4" there share would go up as well.
edit: MWC might be able to sneak their way into the Rose Bowl tie in too for whatever the length remaining on that deal is
edit: MWC might be able to sneak their way into the Rose Bowl tie in too for whatever the length remaining on that deal is
Even if what is left of the PAC after Arizona, Washington, and Oregon leave add teams from the MWC/AAC there is no way they will get a TV deal close to the $31 million Big 12 media deal, in fact it would probably be closer to the AAC $7 million media deal. Poor Washington State and Oregon State they seemed doomed to be relegated to the MWC. I don't know what Stanford and Cal will do, other than beg the B1G to take them and their whining faculty and administrations. Ugh, what a pain in the *** those two institutions will be, California woke in all its glory.
Dowling retired in 2016. There are, of course, faculty who openly disdain athletics, but so far as I know they haven't tried to organize themselves.
Well Washington/Oregon wouldn't leave...yet. B10 won't take them at the moment if it's only Arizona and Colorado. So it would be the current 8 (without Arizona/Colorado) and then whatever additions from the MWC/AAC. SDSU/SMU and you'd need more for sure to buttress against the future. What the current 8 plus those additions would make I don't know but as far as viewership and performance I'm not sure you're losing much with Arizona/Colorado. I don't know if it's true but I read the PAC is losing the only 2 teams that haven't made a Rose Bowl lol. Adding teams would cut into the money though because you'd have to go beyond the 10 teams to account for future losses of teams.
Then after stabilization Oregon/Washigton and ASU/Utah would leave at the next tv deal or whenever.
I don't really see a reason to stick around other than "sentimental" ones to try and save the conference temporarily so it can find some footing.
I don't think so because they've never been mentioned in any credible report with regards to the B10. I think their prez is just an ardent PAC guy but he's provided bad leadership in sports from what I've read. Might be better on the academic side, I don't know. He's been there since the early 2000s IIRC.
My cynical guess: The Big Ten has told Washington and Oregon that it's not interested in them right now, and so they're going to stay in the Pac-x.
Wow Arizona might not even leave now. Accepting the money difference doesn't surprise me but accepting the lack of exposure does. Well maybe since they've lost 3 members they will all look to schedule more appealing road games or 1 and dones that can still get them on tv. No idea.
Lol their chances of B1G entry are Slim and None and Slim got hit by a bus.
Well that kind of lines up with the "sentimental" reasons I brought up above. Maybe they will just suck it up try to stabilize with additions from the AAC/MWC (but will those schools be happy with the lack of exposure) and then some schools may look to move on in the future.
No, most of ASU’s reluctance is their president not wanting to separate from the Pac12’s strong connection to California, because he thinks ASU has benefited greatly from an influx of better CA students versus their previous standing as a party school for kids who couldn’t get admitted to any of the CA state schools,
They may stay together, but I don’t know if you can call it a comeback if no one will see their games on Apple TV and they are making much less than the B12.
Great for WSU and OSU, but makes no sense for the 5 who could have gotten out because their brand will lose value over time.
Survival from the brink of extinction is a comeback assuming that's what happens.
It doesn't mean success or they will be thriving but they will exist. And like I've said a team like Oregon or maybe Washington can have an easier path to the expanded playoffs and that keeps them relevant. Just like FSU/Clemson in the ACC.
Maybe if reports are true an ACC PAC scheduling alliance helps on the periphery with exposure too.
Should also add just like it is for the B10, it probably is the same for the PAC schools. The opportunity will still be there to add schools or leave the conference in the future after you've stabilized its survival.
Like I said a "sentimental" move more than a business one.
They would be foolish not to accept. Their nightmare scenario is they decline and wind up in the Big 12 or worse. They are not a slam-dunk for the B1G and they B1G could stand pat, or replace Oregon/Wash with Stanford/Cal or UNC/UVA down the road.
The “four corners” will be in the Big 12 and Oregon/Wash will be in the B1G very soon.
Scott and Kliavkoff have destroyed the Pac 12 with their arrogance and apathy. They almost make Grunninger look like a mystic.
Short term decision is making almost always a disaster. Especially when factoring in the interests of a group vs your own. I can't imagine being a Pac 12 team with the opportunity to jump to the B1G or big 12 and turning it down. It is long term suicide. On par with the Pac 12 's failed attempt to raid the big 12 years ago when they had the chance, as well as the same thing a year ago. Had they been more forward looking on either, they wouldn't be in this place to begin with. Makes no sense to me from a school perspective. Jump when you can or deal with the consequences. Decision making should be about sustainability, not profits over the next few years.
Don't be so sure, keep reading on in thread lol. Seems quite a bit has changed overnight and this morning. Still a lot up in the air to know which way this is going
I'm glad to see this. I may be in the minority, but a conference spanning the PT and ET times zones is ridiculous, and puts a ridiculous strain on the student athletes.
And how did that decision/failure to act work out for the Pac 12?
Agree. But none of it makes any sense from a longer term perspective for the schools with a chance to move now.
USC/UCLA already make that time zone thing true regardless of Oregon/Washington. There may be a stay or reprieve for now but I still believe it will happen sooner or later. I've always said timetables are hard to predict, except tv deal expirations are often a good guess. So if not now, some time in the future it will still likely come to fruition.
IMO, the only way Oregon/Wash don’t join the B1G is if the B1G thinks they can get UNC/UVA and I can’t see that happening right now…unless they think FSU actually pulls the trigger and the ACC dominos start to fall.
Once the four corners go to the Big 12, Oregon and Washington lose any leverage they might have had and could accept even less from the B1G. I guess, if it’s too low, they might stick it out as indies or a MWC merge, or Big 12 but I don’t think those options make a lot of sense for them.
Should be interesting.
The comeback to that is there will be opportunities later. IMO, this is not a now or never decision to move. A short term decision to kill a historical conference with a 107 year history would be a bad short-term decision just to make a few extra bucks.