(03-07-2019 05:12 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 02:36 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  If you want to BALANCE CFB and keep it a national sport and there was some cooperation and the goal was not to continue to create 2 top heavy leagues in the SEC & B1G. I think there are two options, most have not thought of the 2nd. Each involve the B1G & SEC giving back a regional rival to UT & OU while picking up a traditional rival while the B1G picks up Virginia and the SEC NC St. I think it will be bad for the sport if the B1G & SEC continue to get even more top heavy than the rest of the leagues.

1.) B12/PAC merger where the B1G & SEC give back a traditional regional rival to UT & OU, while picking up a ACC property to replace(the ACC should be happy anything happens if they get ND).

Big 12/PAC (18):
UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT or TCU, OSU, ISU, KSU, Col., USC, UCLA, Az., ASU, Wash., OR., Cal, Stanford, Utah

SEC: lose Ark., Missouri(mutual parting due to geography).
add 4 of: NC St., WVU or USF, TCU or TT,

B1G: lose Neb
add: Va., Missouri, KS

ACC: ND, WVU if SEC doesn't take, 2 of Cincy, UH, UCF, maybe eve someone else to replace WF depending on Alston.

2.) PAC gets old Big 8 and ACC gets Texas part of B12 and Arkansas for UT

PAC(18): OU, Neb., KU, OSU, ISU, KSU
***OU gets Neb. rivalry back
***OU & Neb gets access to California recruiting
***PAC gets CST programming.

ACC (16): UT, ND, TT, Baylor, Arkansas, Cincy
***UT plays a lot of Texas schools and gets back the Arkansas rivalry.
***ACC benefits are obvious

SEC (16): loses Arkansas
adds: NC St., TCU, USF
***The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south, adds a market in NC, strengthens Dallas/Fort Worth, already got their homerun addition in A&M.

B1G (16): loses Nebraska
adds: Va., Missouri, UCONN
*** B1G does adds Virginia market to be able to potentially dominate Va/MD/DC area helping PSU especially. Missouri makes sense geographically. UCONN could help NE presence.

In option 2 nobody loses their status as P4 now and it gives a chance at a more balanced competition as ACC & PAC improved chance for top tier teams in football.

You can forget that cheese. Nobody is leaving the SEC or Big 10. There is no give back. The schools have to want to leave and they don't. A few message board fans perhaps may show interest, but not the administrations or trustees. They like the security of the two most powerful conferences.

The Big 12 will likely be parsed, the Big 10 and SEC will be competing for the top brands, and the ACC is locked up until 2037 and those are just cold hard facts.

Perhaps there is a chance for a Big 12 / PAC merger or formation of a new conference, but the money isn't there to make it happen and the action will follow the money.

The money isn't there for a Big 12/PAC merger? If Texas stays, then I'd think a league with Texas/USC would be worth alot. Maybe $40-45 million per team per year? I know that doesn't catch up with the Big 12/SEC but it gets close. If OK and Kansas stay then you have Texas/OK/USC in football, and Kansas/UCLA in basketball.

Not trying to start an argument, just curious as to why this wouldn't work. If it doesn't work, will the Big 10 make a move for PAC 12 parts? I really can't see Colorado being happy about moving west only to move back east, but if the money is there it works. Oregon/Washington/UCLA/USC/Stanford/Cal/Arizona?

Please explain to me how a league with USC/UCLA, USC/Stanford, USC/UW, UW/Ore, is going to magically make that much more from adding Texas.

Texas to the Big 10 adds about 3 million per school to that conference so in an expansion to 16 that would be a total of 45 million for schools not named Texas plus their travel partner taking the Big 10 to 16. And since Texas already makes what the Big 10 makes it would be an additional 3 million for Texas. So the total cost would be 48 million plus the difference in what the Texas travel companion presently makes and what the Big 10 pays (50.1 million).

Texas to the SEC with A&M already in the fold adds about 2.5 million per school to our conference. That's 35 million more for the SEC schools plus the difference between their travel companion's payout and the SEC payout, (46.1 million).

Texas at tops adds 5 million to the PAC payouts per school, tops! That brings the total PAC payout to maybe 38 or 39 million. Texas makes 50 million now with the 35 from the Big 12 T1 & T2 rights and the 15 million from the LHN. Not happening.

And then there is the network angle. Texas's value is exponentially more profitable as an ad rate draw vs the SEC schedule which costs the network less in overhead and more closely fits the current Texas business model. Their travel isn't as much for the SEC West as in the Big 10 West or PAC South. Plus we have their old rivals.

To say Texas woud add even 40 million to every PAC school's payout means that 560 million would have to be added to the present PAC payout. The most valuable product in college sports is the SEC and they are only talking about giving us 300 million for the whole T1 rights contract when renewed with CBS. Added to our T2/T3 contract with ESPN that would be the only way we would exceed that 560 million total which is what you are suggesting would be added to the existing PAC contract which is around 400 million.

So, that gets us back to the second part of your question. I'm not sure that the old core of the PAC ever moves anywhere. The simply aren't as invested in sports as the rest of us and their priorities are quite different with regard to sports because of it.

If anyone leaves the PAC it would be a Utah or Colorado, and possibly the Arizona schools. Colorado makes a lot of sense for the Big 10. Denver is a huge market get for them and Colorado and Oklahoma were more rivals with Nebraska than the other old Big 8 members.

So Kansas and Texas to the SEC give us a nice balance and Colorado and Oklahoma to the Big 10 do the same for them. Will it happen? Who knows? Could it happen? It is at least feasible financially in both cases.

What I fear will hamper that scenario is not simply a Colorado rejection, but rather a Texas legislature's insistence that if Texas heads to the SEC we must take Tech instead of Kansas.

So yes Colorado would be a target of interest for B1G expansion if they were inclined to leave the PAC. And no I don't think that Texas to the PAC makes any financial sense for Texas or the networks. And I don't think the old PAC 8 heads anywhere.