Strategic thinking RE: Pac-10/12 future alignment
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
I think it depends on what the future league looks like. If the consolidated future league only has 48 teams, we are definitely left out of the conversation. If there are 64 teams.....we'll have a shot.
When you look at the future of college football, the following teams are virtually guaranteed inclusion:
ACC (8): Clemson, FSU, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Big 12 (4) : Texas, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, KU
Big 10 (7): Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Pac-12 (8): USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, Stanford, Colorado
SEC (12) : Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Florida, LSU, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi St, Arkansas, Auburn, Texas A&M
Ind (1): Notre Dame
All of the above have the football tradition/market/history/whatever that would mean that they are all part of the club if everything goes to hell in a hand basket and loyalty and conference affiliation means nothing. Vandy and Missouri are the only two in danger from the SEC and one would argue that they are safe. That's 40 teams so far without them.
Teams that would probably have the best remaining chance to get in at 48?:
ACC (3): NC State, Boston College, Pitt
Big 12 (4): KSU, TCU, Baylor, West Virginia
Big 10 (5): Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota
Pac-12 (2): Arizona, Cal
SEC (2): Vandy and Missouri
Ind (1): BYU
That's 17 more teams so it's pretty obvious that only 48 teams in a super conference is going to be tough. That would mean that seven more teams make the cut into a 64 team league. The "realistic" options are:
American: UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Navy, Memphis
ACC: Syracuse, Louisville, Wake Forest
Big 12: Iowa State, Texas Tech
Big 10: Northwestern, Rutgers
Mountain West: Boise State, Fresno State, SDSU, UNLV, Air Force
Pac-12: Oregon State, WSU
Ind: Army
The good news is that I don't see WSU being snubbed for any Group of 5 teams. The bad news is that there are nine Power 5 teams for the last seven spots. Does WSU get in over Iowa State or Texas Tech? We've certainly been more relevant in the national discussion than either of them...at least intermittently. What about the ACC teams? Again, I don't see us having a realistic shot at bumping any team out of the Top 48 if we are looking at radical changes, but we would at least be in the conversation at 64 teams. Go with 68 teams and we are golden.
Considering the number of games we play after dark and on Pac-12 network with crappy distribution, we actually draw pretty well on TV. We're in the middle of the Pac-12 for viewership, and we're ahead of most of the (new) Big 12 teams.
You aren't completely wrong but the old saying, "If you aren't growing, you're dying" is very relevant in today's environment. Adding teams is probably not going to change the inevitable future that is coming, but staying stagnant virtually guarantees the death of our conference. Adding SDSU and SMU isn't going to fluff up a lot of skirts, but sitting on our asses waiting for the Big 12 to poach ASU, UA, Utah and CU is the surest way to get UW and Oregon to beg into the Big 10 at a negotiated lower rate to start with.
When the Big Ten makes cuts Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, etc will be looking for friends. Maybe Wiscy and Iowa make the cut, maybe they don’t.
I'm not sure why you think the Arizona schools, Cal, and Stanford are likely winners. None of them have a large or loyal following. They don't even pull many viewers in their local area, forget about national draw.
The Arizonas have geographic proximity to Big 12 territory, but they'll be below average in the viewer share.
Stanford has their name, and them & Cal would hit around the average viewership of the remaining Big 12 teams, but they're way behind most of the SEC and Big 10. If Oregon & UW aren't worth the Big 10's time, Stanford and Cal aren't even close.
Looking at a superconference, the only thing that matters is the money. I don't think they're going to come up with 48 teams that meet that criteria, forget about 64. Only way that happens is if those schools leave the NCAA entirely and form their own concern.
Solid post. In all fairness, Scott tried like hell to get to the mountain top two years in a row. He almost pulled it off - Texas, TT, Oklahoma, and Kansas [replacing Oklahoma St.] to the PAC. It was very close. Then in 2012 or 13, I can't remember which, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. thought they were going to the PAC, but the PAC presidents and chancellors would not give Scott the votes. No Texas, no votes. To say that ship has sailed is an understatement.
Watch UCF and Houston thrive. Both are located in the two, absolute best recruiting grounds in the country with football crazy off the charts high school programs that develop the players. They will play second fiddle to Florida, Texas, Texas A&M, and LSU, but there are plenty of high ranked 3*s to go around.
SMU is much like Colorado. Kids from all over the country with money, who cannot pull Ivy or other top schools. For the most part they have little passion for their schools, especially in sports. They go and they leave.
As far a BB goes, the Big 12 is hands down the best conference in the nation. If you can't get an offer of membership in one of the two P2 conferences, the Big 12 is your next best option for good competition.
Ummm, no. Stanford and Cal excel at sports. In fact, they're among the top-rated collegiate athletic programs in the Nation in all-sports. Stanford & Cal are the "sexiest" programs remaining in the P10 conference.
I don’t think the PAC12 has any choice but to add SMU and SDSU for a couple of reasons. The first one being if the conference wants to have a TV deal, then it needs to show that it is willing to do what it takes to survive and that means taking on new members. For months we heard that the PAC12 will not take on new members until after the new deal is signed. Now the PAC 12 commissioner is seriously looking hard at both schools and visiting the campuses.
The second reason is when UCLA and USC leave, we will be down to ten members. If the PAC12 stands pat with ten teams, that will signify to the remaining schools that it is time to take care of themselves and work out whatever deal they can at that point. I read somewhere that if membership gets down to six schools, then the PAC12 will either have to grab what schools it can to get its numbers up or it will be finished as a conference.
I would much rather have the PAC12 extend invitations to programs of their choice such as SMU and SDSU who can quickly become viable power five teams so it can stay a viable power five conference rather then become another bigger version of the MWC by basically merging with them to survive in name only or see the conference outright die like the Big East or SWC. I think the PAC12 is at the point to where it has to extend offers to the most viable and available schools possible or it will get a very watered down TV deal and we will see multiple schools leave as a result of that.
The second reason is when UCLA and USC leave, we will be down to ten members. If the PAC12 stands pat with ten teams, that will signify to the remaining schools that it is time to take care of themselves and work out whatever deal they can at that point. I read somewhere that if membership gets down to six schools, then the PAC12 will either have to grab what schools it can to get its numbers up or it will be finished as a conference.
I would much rather have the PAC12 extend invitations to programs of their choice such as SMU and SDSU who can quickly become viable power five teams so it can stay a viable power five conference rather then become another bigger version of the MWC by basically merging with them to survive in name only or see the conference outright die like the Big East or SWC. I think the PAC12 is at the point to where it has to extend offers to the most viable and available schools possible or it will get a very watered down TV deal and we will see multiple schools leave as a result of that.
There's no way Wisconsin, which has borderline top 10 revenues, some measure of tradition and excellence in the revenue sports, and a lot of money (its endowment is essentially equivalent to the other UW) wouldn't. Even Minnesota is sneaky bigger and wealthier than one would think. No competition in-state (Minnesota State, as featured on Coach, was fictional), the Twin Cities are a decent market, and it has an endowment greater than UW, UNC, and some others -- it's in the top 10 for public schools.
I am of the opinion that we aren't moving to some exclusive super league. It ruins current tradition. I don't think most university presidents want to move in this direction - which is why I think Warren went to the Bears - and more likley than not, what we have today is what is gonig to be in place.
I do think that the playoffs will get expanded. I think you could end games on thanksgiving weekend and eliminate the championship games. You replace championship games with the first round of playoffs. Ratings will be through the roof, which is what the networks want.
I do think that the playoffs will get expanded. I think you could end games on thanksgiving weekend and eliminate the championship games. You replace championship games with the first round of playoffs. Ratings will be through the roof, which is what the networks want.
Frankly, I think Cal and Arizona are barely above WSU and OSU in any kind of discussion. You are absolutely correct. I just think that they get serious consideration before us in particular. WSU's biggest problem is our geographical location. We draw decent on TV and have for years, but when a CEO looks at a map, he sees a college that might as well be on the moon.
The Pac-12 bought Larry Scott's "monorail" sales pitch last time, they just shouldn't listen to Chicken Little this time.
He are the facts: the Big 12 is expected to ink a 6 year 2.28 billion dollar TV deal. Split 14 ways, that is a little over 27 million per school, per year. If that is then split 16 ways, say the Zonas bolt, it is only 23.75 million per school. Our old deal gave each school 21 million. Disappointing yes, but that was a decade ago. So I just don't see more Pac-10 schools leaving unless they can hit a homer, i.e. Big-10/SEC.
A Big 12 move would likely result in a pay cut assuming the Pac-10 ESPN/Amazon deal goes through, which would pay the Pac-10 27-29 million per school, per year.
So there little need anyone to get their "knickers in a twist" if you are willing to step back and look at the numbers. While they can talk a great game, their is no money in the Big 12, that is why all the big boys (6 schools) have left.
It will probably mean that Big 10 and Big 12 won't take UW because they would also have to take WSU.
That's if the law passed, and I think it will pass, but you never know with WA legislature.
If it passes it probably won't get WSU a seat with UW. It would just prevent UW from leaving the PAC 12.
As far as what Oregon legislature will do don't know.
But as of this time Oregon Legislators have not been drafting a law similar to WA law, that would tie Oregon and Ore St together.
At least if they have been working on such a law, it's not been in media, like WA's law, that is being worked on, voted on, etc.
They may not successfully pass the law, get enough votes.
But the law is being worked on by NUMEROUS WA STATE LEGISLATORS according to Seattle times, Spokesman Review, local and national network TV news, etc.
According to those sources the draft law will be voted on. Whether it gets enough votes or not to pass, remains to be seen.
If it is truly a blue blood league they are borderline at best, leaning no. Could depend on how many spots the “haves” decide they want in the league. Ohio State and Michigan don't get up in the morning worried about Wisconsin or Minnesota.
Would be interesting to see what happens if there is conference realignment into super conferences. There are 64 Power 5 teams, toss in ND to make it 65. If cuts are made to 2 leagues of 10-12 there will be teams like Utah or Wiscy that have had success being told no.
Time zones and inventory are worth considering, though. Although the Pac-12 doesn't need additional exposure in places like Fresno or Boise, one of the few things it has working in its favor vis-a-vis the Big 12 is having inventory in the Pacific time zone, and its competition having none. Tough thing, though, is that instead of one or two marginal candidates out west, there are more like four (SDSU, UNLV, Fresno, and Boise). SDSU pretty clearly is the best of that lot. Even if the Pac-12 grabs SDSU and SMU, that doesn't foreclose the Big 12 from grabbing UNLV. It does, however, make it harder for the Big 12 to get two schools out west, not just one, as would be its preference. I doubt the Big 12 would want Fresno, but I could see it getting Boise State (it's on MT, not PT, but MT is good enough for nighttime inventory) and UNLV. I'd rather have SMU than UNLV, but I could see going with SDSU and UNLV to make it less likely the Big 12 tries to come out west.
There is upside to it and I explained logically why, with better Media Deal, making for a BIGGER PIE TO SHARE because of Expansion, and with the expansion teams IMPROVING in TIME, and with EXPANSION teams TAKING A SMALLER SHARE, PIECE OF PIE THEN the other PAC teams, and with the RECRUITING HOTBED GAINED, and by NOT getting knocked down to PAC 7/5 if they don't expand.
What you don't get is that if the PAC does NOT expand, they will become PAC 7/5, so either way if your right that expansion would cause teams to leave PAC, then either way, expand or not the PAC LOSES.
At least if the PAC expands with SDSU, SMU, the PAC will get a BIGGER, BETTER MEDIA DEAL PIE TO SPLIT MORE WAYS, then the media deal the PAC would get if it does not expand.
And then after expansion the PAC/ACC could do a JOINT ALLIANCE MEDIA DEAL.
And then after that the PAC could get ISU, then TTU, then KSU, then Okie St, and then TCU, something they would not be able to do if they did not expand, and if went after Okie St, TCU FIRST.
And then after get big 12 teams, like ISU, TTU, etc, PAC gets even bigger, better media deal pie to split.
You just can't only look at the immediate now impact of expanding, and have to look at the long term chain of events, cause and effect, doors of opportunity opening, closing, etc, from either expanding, or not expanding, stabilizing.
Let me put it in as BLUNTLY as can.
IF THE PAC DOES NOT EXPAND BY GETTING SDSU, SMU, etc, THEN THE PAC IS DEAD.
Yeah, agreed on most of that. It really depends on how "super conferences" are defined and whether it matters or not to already be in the Big Ten or SEC. If we are talking only about the top 24 blue bloods and adjacent programs, or something close, you would have a lot of schools currently sitting pretty like Purdue, Mississippi State, Vandy, Iowa, etc. who would be left out, and that could include Minnesota. Could be Wiscy, too, but those guys have a lot more going on than many realize. The other thing is that if the current status quo holds for 10 years or so, with the Big Ten and SEC getting twice as much cash as everyone else, you could see some of those non-elite but pretty solid schools in those conferences like Wisconsin use that cash to build themselves into schools more likely to get into that elite club, too.
There is, are the following ways the PAC DIES without expansion.
1. Either the Big 12 raids PAC.
2. Big 10 raids PAC(Less likely because they said not interested in Oregon, UW)
3. The PAC stays at 10 teams and becomes the newest G5,G6, mid major, non power 5, COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, DEAD PAC 10.
The Pac-12's problem is we to look at the G5 and see how makes the most sense for TV. Then we move on to fit.
SMU is a sleeping giant. Their alums know this. They could be a premier football team overnight. They have deep pockets.
I frankly think the same about UNLV. Vegas would love better match-ups at UNLV. Vegas and NIL are made for each other. What Vegas doesn't have; a large TV market we want. Solution: pay them a lower amount.
And you watch, the Pac-12 will overlook Vegas, Big-12 will pick them up, and they will be successful.
SMU is a sleeping giant. Their alums know this. They could be a premier football team overnight. They have deep pockets.
I frankly think the same about UNLV. Vegas would love better match-ups at UNLV. Vegas and NIL are made for each other. What Vegas doesn't have; a large TV market we want. Solution: pay them a lower amount.
And you watch, the Pac-12 will overlook Vegas, Big-12 will pick them up, and they will be successful.
4. The Big-12 expands further on the west coast and adds programs like UNLV and Fresno St. They then have "late game" programming which dilutes the Pac-12 after dark ratings and viewership. Pac-12 loses future media value.
We've sat on our hands too long and it's time to be bold.
Good point.
Thank Goodness the PAC 12 commissioner is visiting SMU and PERSONALLY negotiating SMU joining the PAC 12, and not listening to all the DO NOTHINGS THAT HAVE PUT PAC 12 INTO THIS PREDICAMENT to begin with by DOING NOTHING, and NOT adding Texas Tech, and not adding Ok State, and not adding TCU, and not adding Houston, when had chance, etc, etc.
Or Big 12 scoops up SMU and they end up wildly successful in TIME.
People FORGET that SMU was BIG TIME COLLEGE FOOTBALL in the SAME CONFERENCE as Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and that the ONLY reason SMU is where they are at now, is because Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Oklahoma left the conference and left SMU STRANDED, and went and started up the Big 12, and didn't take SMU with them.
Otherwise SMU would have been a BIG TIME PROGRAM IN THE BIG 12.
SMU is a sleeping giant that once, if joins either the PAC 12 or Big 12, SMU will be big time again, it's just a matter of TIME, as a sleeping giant.
Houston has joined the Big 12. That Houston joining PAC 12 Ship sailed when the DO NOTHING, USC president vetoed, talked others into vetoing Houston joining PAC 12, about 9 months before USC left PAC 12.
Here is some more stuff of interest regarding SMU. I hope the Pac-12 is able to get it.
Expanding SMU’s Gerald J. Ford Stadium
The Garry Weber Foundation gives $50 million – the largest gift in the history of SMU Athletics – to create the Garry Weber End Zone Complex. The foundation established by former Mustang football letterman Garry A. Weber ’58 made the commitment in support of a $100 million drive for a new...
www.smu.edu
If the next SEC tv deal is the numbers Ive seen rumored…. $75,000,000 per school, per year…
Schools like Mississippi State, Missouri, Arkansas, etc are gonna climb the ladder real fast. In 10 years what does $750,000,000 do for those schools?
The rich are going to get richer very quickly. The pace they stack chips will be too much to overcome for some other schools.
The Pac 12 refuses to acknowledge this is a money grab and now they’re f’cked.
I've been grudgingly on board with SDSU and UNLV as the best of the bad options. Now that SMU is firmly in the mix, I've re-evaluated.
I don't really like the idea, but if it's SDSU and SMU, I think we need 2 more.
Pulling SMU is obviously raiding Big 12 territory, and if we leave the door open they'll raid right back. The obvious play is to poach the Arizona schools, which will hurt us a lot more than us grabbing SMU hurts them. Even if they don't get ASU/UA, the door is open to UNLV and Fresno. So we have to grab one of them...and I'd grab UNLV first for the money, the destination, and the market.
With SDSU, SMU, and UNLV in the fold, I think we look for another team in the southern Mountain/Central time zone to pair with SMU.
I think in this model, I make a run at the more desirable Big 12 teams - Oklahoma State, TCU, Kansas, Texas Tech, Houston - and maybe even Arkansas and Nebraska. None of those conversations will take long, but I try anyway. Then I call Colorado State and try to pull them in. There are a handful I'd consider behind them, but I think they're the next best option. Fresno remains viable as a fallback, but I like the idea of firming up the inland toehold, rather than leaving SMU as the isolated outpost.
Maybe the biggest big shots completely copy the NFL? One league, 32 teams split into North/South or East/West conferences like NFL has? Home and home games within the divisions on a rotational basis, fill out the schedule with the leftover CFB losers. NFL College and USFL College.
That should give them some killer TV ratings. Who knows where this will all end up?
Once SDSU and SMU are in the Pac 12, and once that leads to a better media deal, and a joint scheduling, media alliance deal with ACC, then PAC 12 can go after ISU, TTU, to start.
If PAC 12 starts with any other Big 12 team like Ok St, TCU, etc, those teams won't leave the BIG 12 and join the PAC 12 at first.
BUT if PAC 12 gets TTU or ISU first, then they can get the other ISU or TTU, then they can get KSU, then and only then after that could PAC 12 get Ok St, and TCU.
The PAC 12 has to start SMALL, GRADUALLY move up the food chain from SMU to TTU to ISU to KSU to Ok St, to TCU, etc.
If the PAC 12 starts at the Top of the food chain with TCU, Ok St, FIRST, the answer is NO that TCU, OK St would say no.
But if the PAC 12 gradually moves up to Ok St, TCU, they will eventually say yes to the PAC 12.
Also the Big 12 either won't care or won't care as much if the PAC 12 gets SMU, ISU, TTU.
But Big 12 would care a lot about Ok St, TCU , and would fight to keep them, whereas they probably wouldnt fight to keep ISU.
The PAC 12 has to NIBBLE AROUND, ON the BOTTOM, WORST of the Big 12, before PAC 12 gets to feast on Ok St, TCU.
That's the only chance PAC 12 has.
The NCAA gave the Pony Express the green light to do what they have been wanting to do since the 80’s.
If SMU decides it’s time to play football, they will get it done.
There was a time in Vegas when the payday would be… go to this casino on this floor to this slot machine….. winner!
Now they can just pay kids. Imagine your recruiting trip to UNLV if you have a 6 figure NIL offer in hand?
It’s not me, but if it were me… Im offering UNLV and Nevada Reno. Let’s see what the local casinos can do. Add SMU and the Pony Express. SDSU for SoCal location.
The reality is there are only so many large markets in the Western US. Try and make the focus on exciting football as much as you can.
Pretty sad that we have come to this in the US. All about the money. And why? because we pay the Sabans and Fishers $10 million a year, assistants now make a million or more, and every greedy University that pays their bloated administration way too much needs the money. I think I want to move to Costa Rica with spongebob. Well next door anyway. He's not much to look at, and probably weighs as much as Biggs and/or his brother by now.
I would love to be listening in on the conversation at the moment the PAC commish invited the president/chancellor of Nebraska or Arkansas to leave the BIG and SEC and join the PAC. Talk about a stunned silence.
The PAC is in an awful position where its top income producing schools will be on the next flight to Chicago to meet with the BIG if they get the invite, and that won't change. Getting those schools to agree to a strong, binding GOR will be a real challenge, unless they know there is no chance of a BIG invite. Keep an eye on Arizona, they could get happy feet since the cool kids - USC and UCLA - have left the party and Washington and Oregon are trying to.
Your figures are mistaken. If Arizona joins the Big 12, that will increase the Big 12 media dollars. You are counting on Arizona not adding one penny to the pot. How much is the question. Do they pay for themselves and even add to each schools payout like BYU? I don't think they do, but it would be close to the same payout to each Big 12 school if they joined. ASU, Colorado...not so sure. Not a great deal of value there. BYU was the catch.
