(03-01-2022 02:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 05:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  If the B1G went west I think they go with Kansas, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA/Utah.
If it were me, I'm not sure that I would want to deal with a California state school and Utah would be my pick for #6.

The B1G would look to pair USC and Stanford, if no UCLA and Cal. California is a huge market and that move could bring an annual Notre Dame game to the TV contract (@USC or @Stanford).

UCLA and Cal would trump both Kansas and Utah. But, even you forego the California public schools, what about Arizona and ASU? Wouldn't those schools be higher on the B1G board than both Utah and Kansas?

Here's my ranking of Pac 12 schools as Big 10 expansion candidates: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925722.html

Where would Kansas rank?

Geographically they would be better than any Pac 12 school.

Academically they are AAU but sub 100 USN&WR. Plenty of Pac 12 schools rank higher.

Athletic wise they are about as bad in football as you can get but about as good in men's basketball as you can get. I'd rather take them than a school that's mediocre in both sports.

Population wise Kansas is as of the 2020 Census 36th, lower than every Pac 12 state. Kansas City is the 34th ranked Nielsen market according to this source (https://oaaa.org/Portals/0/Public%20PDFs...port.pdf), behind Los Angeles, San Fran, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego, and Salt Lake City, which is practically the entire Pac-12. Kansas/Kansas City certainly isn't an insignificant market or fan base but they would be small compared to most of the Pac 12 schools. The advantages would be a lot closer to Big Ten schools, especially those in the Western Division, and an amazing men's basketball team. Schools in the West might like an additional drivable opponent but schools in the East would have to fly to Los Angeles or Kansas City/Lawrence anyway and LA is certainly more fun even though it's a longer plane trip and further away.

Kansas lies between Washington State and Oregon State where it counts in the P12 - Research and Development.

(03-01-2022 04:40 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 05:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  If the B1G went west I think they go with Kansas, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA/Utah.
If it were me, I'm not sure that I would want to deal with a California state school and Utah would be my pick for #6.

The B1G would look to pair USC and Stanford, if no UCLA and Cal. California is a huge market and that move could bring an annual Notre Dame game to the TV contract (@USC or @Stanford).

UCLA and Cal would trump both Kansas and Utah. But, even you forego the California public schools, what about Arizona and ASU? Wouldn't those schools be higher on the B1G board than both Utah and Kansas?

Here's my ranking of Pac 12 schools as Big 10 expansion candidates: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925722.html

Where would Kansas rank?

Geographically they would be better than any Pac 12 school.

Academically they are AAU but sub 100 USN&WR. Plenty of Pac 12 schools rank higher.

Athletic wise they are about as bad in football as you can get but about as good in men's basketball as you can get. I'd rather take them than a school that's mediocre in both sports.

Population wise Kansas is as of the 2020 Census 36th, lower than every Pac 12 state. Kansas City is the 34th ranked Nielsen market according to this source (https://oaaa.org/Portals/0/Public%20PDFs...port.pdf), behind Los Angeles, San Fran, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego, and Salt Lake City, which is practically the entire Pac-12. Kansas/Kansas City certainly isn't an insignificant market or fan base but they would be small compared to most of the Pac 12 schools. The advantages would be a lot closer to Big Ten schools, especially those in the Western Division, and an amazing men's basketball team. Schools in the West might like an additional drivable opponent but schools in the East would have to fly to Los Angeles or Kansas City/Lawrence anyway and LA is certainly more fun even though it's a longer plane trip and further away.

Kansas lies between Washington State and Oregon State where it counts in the P12 - Research and Development.

Not sure where you found your info but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the World University Rankings (This was filtered to just USA institutions but this same URL using just the cwru.org will give you world rankings)

https://cwur.org/2021-22/country/usa.php

World Ranking shows KU at 185, OSU at 279 and WSU at 307.

Not sure of your definition of "between".

(03-01-2022 07:18 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 04:40 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 05:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  If the B1G went west I think they go with Kansas, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA/Utah.
If it were me, I'm not sure that I would want to deal with a California state school and Utah would be my pick for #6.

The B1G would look to pair USC and Stanford, if no UCLA and Cal. California is a huge market and that move could bring an annual Notre Dame game to the TV contract (@USC or @Stanford).

UCLA and Cal would trump both Kansas and Utah. But, even you forego the California public schools, what about Arizona and ASU? Wouldn't those schools be higher on the B1G board than both Utah and Kansas?

Here's my ranking of Pac 12 schools as Big 10 expansion candidates: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925722.html

Where would Kansas rank?

Geographically they would be better than any Pac 12 school.

Academically they are AAU but sub 100 USN&WR. Plenty of Pac 12 schools rank higher.

Athletic wise they are about as bad in football as you can get but about as good in men's basketball as you can get. I'd rather take them than a school that's mediocre in both sports.

Population wise Kansas is as of the 2020 Census 36th, lower than every Pac 12 state. Kansas City is the 34th ranked Nielsen market according to this source (https://oaaa.org/Portals/0/Public%20PDFs...port.pdf), behind Los Angeles, San Fran, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego, and Salt Lake City, which is practically the entire Pac-12. Kansas/Kansas City certainly isn't an insignificant market or fan base but they would be small compared to most of the Pac 12 schools. The advantages would be a lot closer to Big Ten schools, especially those in the Western Division, and an amazing men's basketball team. Schools in the West might like an additional drivable opponent but schools in the East would have to fly to Los Angeles or Kansas City/Lawrence anyway and LA is certainly more fun even though it's a longer plane trip and further away.

Kansas lies between Washington State and Oregon State where it counts in the P12 - Research and Development.

Not sure where you found your info but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the World University Rankings (This was filtered to just USA institutions but this same URL using just the cwru.org will give you world rankings)

https://cwur.org/2021-22/country/usa.php

World Ranking shows KU at 185, OSU at 279 and WSU at 307.

Not sure of your definition of "between".

Kansas' R&D output is $352 million which would put them 11th in the P12 behind #10 Wash St $369 million and #11 Oregon St 263 million.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

(03-01-2022 07:36 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:18 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 04:40 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  The B1G would look to pair USC and Stanford, if no UCLA and Cal. California is a huge market and that move could bring an annual Notre Dame game to the TV contract (@USC or @Stanford).

UCLA and Cal would trump both Kansas and Utah. But, even you forego the California public schools, what about Arizona and ASU? Wouldn't those schools be higher on the B1G board than both Utah and Kansas?

Here's my ranking of Pac 12 schools as Big 10 expansion candidates: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925722.html

Where would Kansas rank?

Geographically they would be better than any Pac 12 school.

Academically they are AAU but sub 100 USN&WR. Plenty of Pac 12 schools rank higher.

Athletic wise they are about as bad in football as you can get but about as good in men's basketball as you can get. I'd rather take them than a school that's mediocre in both sports.

Population wise Kansas is as of the 2020 Census 36th, lower than every Pac 12 state. Kansas City is the 34th ranked Nielsen market according to this source (https://oaaa.org/Portals/0/Public%20PDFs...port.pdf), behind Los Angeles, San Fran, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego, and Salt Lake City, which is practically the entire Pac-12. Kansas/Kansas City certainly isn't an insignificant market or fan base but they would be small compared to most of the Pac 12 schools. The advantages would be a lot closer to Big Ten schools, especially those in the Western Division, and an amazing men's basketball team. Schools in the West might like an additional drivable opponent but schools in the East would have to fly to Los Angeles or Kansas City/Lawrence anyway and LA is certainly more fun even though it's a longer plane trip and further away.

Kansas lies between Washington State and Oregon State where it counts in the P12 - Research and Development.

Not sure where you found your info but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the World University Rankings (This was filtered to just USA institutions but this same URL using just the cwru.org will give you world rankings)

https://cwur.org/2021-22/country/usa.php

World Ranking shows KU at 185, OSU at 279 and WSU at 307.

Not sure of your definition of "between".

Kansas' R&D output is $352 million which would put them 11th in the P12 behind #10 Wash St $369 million and #11 Oregon St 263 million.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

Appreciate your sourcing and stand corrected.

(03-03-2022 12:38 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:36 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:18 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 04:40 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 02:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Here's my ranking of Pac 12 schools as Big 10 expansion candidates: https://csnbbs.com/thread-925722.html

Where would Kansas rank?

Geographically they would be better than any Pac 12 school.

Academically they are AAU but sub 100 USN&WR. Plenty of Pac 12 schools rank higher.

Athletic wise they are about as bad in football as you can get but about as good in men's basketball as you can get. I'd rather take them than a school that's mediocre in both sports.

Population wise Kansas is as of the 2020 Census 36th, lower than every Pac 12 state. Kansas City is the 34th ranked Nielsen market according to this source (https://oaaa.org/Portals/0/Public%20PDFs...port.pdf), behind Los Angeles, San Fran, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego, and Salt Lake City, which is practically the entire Pac-12. Kansas/Kansas City certainly isn't an insignificant market or fan base but they would be small compared to most of the Pac 12 schools. The advantages would be a lot closer to Big Ten schools, especially those in the Western Division, and an amazing men's basketball team. Schools in the West might like an additional drivable opponent but schools in the East would have to fly to Los Angeles or Kansas City/Lawrence anyway and LA is certainly more fun even though it's a longer plane trip and further away.

Kansas lies between Washington State and Oregon State where it counts in the P12 - Research and Development.

Not sure where you found your info but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the World University Rankings (This was filtered to just USA institutions but this same URL using just the cwru.org will give you world rankings)

https://cwur.org/2021-22/country/usa.php

World Ranking shows KU at 185, OSU at 279 and WSU at 307.

Not sure of your definition of "between".

Kansas' R&D output is $352 million which would put them 11th in the P12 behind #10 Wash St $369 million and #11 Oregon St 263 million.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

Appreciate your sourcing and stand corrected.

Research won't determine Kansas's fate. Leaving the NCAA and doubling your hoops value plus your football value places you at $847 million in impact value upon your market. That's ahead of UNC & Duke and 100 million behind N.D. Being AAU is all that is required for the B1G and the SEC will only care that you add value commercially.

(03-03-2022 12:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 12:38 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:36 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:18 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 04:40 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Kansas lies between Washington State and Oregon State where it counts in the P12 - Research and Development.

Not sure where you found your info but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the World University Rankings (This was filtered to just USA institutions but this same URL using just the cwru.org will give you world rankings)

https://cwur.org/2021-22/country/usa.php

World Ranking shows KU at 185, OSU at 279 and WSU at 307.

Not sure of your definition of "between".

Kansas' R&D output is $352 million which would put them 11th in the P12 behind #10 Wash St $369 million and #11 Oregon St 263 million.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

Appreciate your sourcing and stand corrected.

Research won't determine Kansas's fate. Leaving the NCAA and doubling your hoops value plus your football value places you at $847 million in impact value upon your market. That's ahead of UNC & Duke and 100 million behind N.D. Being AAU is all that is required for the B1G and the SEC will only care that you add value commercially.

JR: Thanks for your comments as always.
Actually I think I misconstrued the focus of the response I replied to. That was my error, hence my apology to the poster.
I frankly doubt there is much if any interest by KU in the Pac, and I think the lack of interest is probably mutual, research dollars notwithstanding.
I'm actually not particularly worried about KU. Hopefully KU would be attractive to the B1G or SEC. But if not, I don't think being in the Big XII would be all that bad. Certainly I think they would be one of the "leaders" of the conference. That would not be the case in either the B1G or SEC. Until KU gets it's football program straightened out (though I think they are in the process of doing that, it will take a several years at best) they may be more "competitive" in the Big XII than elsewhere.
Certainly KU would miss the additional money that the B1G and SEC would provide as well as the "security" such membership would provide, but few, if any, schools can have "everything."
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

(03-03-2022 09:02 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 12:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 12:38 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:36 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:18 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Not sure where you found your info but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the World University Rankings (This was filtered to just USA institutions but this same URL using just the cwru.org will give you world rankings)

https://cwur.org/2021-22/country/usa.php

World Ranking shows KU at 185, OSU at 279 and WSU at 307.

Not sure of your definition of "between".

Kansas' R&D output is $352 million which would put them 11th in the P12 behind #10 Wash St $369 million and #11 Oregon St 263 million.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

Appreciate your sourcing and stand corrected.

Research won't determine Kansas's fate. Leaving the NCAA and doubling your hoops value plus your football value places you at $847 million in impact value upon your market. That's ahead of UNC & Duke and 100 million behind N.D. Being AAU is all that is required for the B1G and the SEC will only care that you add value commercially.

JR: Thanks for your comments as always.
Actually I think I misconstrued the focus of the response I replied to. That was my error, hence my apology to the poster.
I frankly doubt there is much if any interest by KU in the Pac, and I think the lack of interest is probably mutual, research dollars notwithstanding.
I'm actually not particularly worried about KU. Hopefully KU would be attractive to the B1G or SEC. But if not, I don't think being in the Big XII would be all that bad. Certainly I think they would be one of the "leaders" of the conference. That would not be the case in either the B1G or SEC. Until KU gets it's football program straightened out (though I think they are in the process of doing that, it will take a several years at best) they may be more "competitive" in the Big XII than elsewhere.
Certainly KU would miss the additional money that the B1G and SEC would provide as well as the "security" such membership would provide, but few, if any, schools can have "everything."
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Out of curiosity, why do you think there is mutual dis-interest between KU and the PAC? I will not argue that landing in the B1G or SEC would be preferable but if your only option is the PAC or the NB12 I'm surprised you think staying is the best option.

(03-03-2022 10:19 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 09:02 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 12:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 12:38 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2022 07:36 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  Kansas' R&D output is $352 million which would put them 11th in the P12 behind #10 Wash St $369 million and #11 Oregon St 263 million.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

Appreciate your sourcing and stand corrected.

Research won't determine Kansas's fate. Leaving the NCAA and doubling your hoops value plus your football value places you at $847 million in impact value upon your market. That's ahead of UNC & Duke and 100 million behind N.D. Being AAU is all that is required for the B1G and the SEC will only care that you add value commercially.

JR: Thanks for your comments as always.
Actually I think I misconstrued the focus of the response I replied to. That was my error, hence my apology to the poster.
I frankly doubt there is much if any interest by KU in the Pac, and I think the lack of interest is probably mutual, research dollars notwithstanding.
I'm actually not particularly worried about KU. Hopefully KU would be attractive to the B1G or SEC. But if not, I don't think being in the Big XII would be all that bad. Certainly I think they would be one of the "leaders" of the conference. That would not be the case in either the B1G or SEC. Until KU gets it's football program straightened out (though I think they are in the process of doing that, it will take a several years at best) they may be more "competitive" in the Big XII than elsewhere.
Certainly KU would miss the additional money that the B1G and SEC would provide as well as the "security" such membership would provide, but few, if any, schools can have "everything."
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Out of curiosity, why do you think there is mutual dis-interest between KU and the PAC? I will not argue that landing in the B1G or SEC would be preferable but if your only option is the PAC or the NB12 I'm surprised you think staying is the best option.

This is only my opinion.....others may agree or disagree with all or parts of it. I do not claim any "inside" information.

First, KU has little history with the PAC. The only PAC team KU has played in football as far as I can find is WSU. KU played them in 1955, yearly 1970-1977, and scheduled again in 2027 & 2028. That's it (assuming you don't count Colorado when they were in leagues with KU--KU has not played Colorado since the have been in the PAC).
KU has played only a few B1G teams (Illinois is on the schedule in the late 2020s).
KU has actually played several few ACC teams [Duke 4x (including 2022), GT 2x, BC 2x]. KU has not played any SEC teams while the teams were in the SEC itself but played "hated" Mizzou over 100x (was the longest rivalry west of the Mississippi), OU over 75x+, TX 25x+, TAM 25x+,of course these were all in the Big VI and later up to and including the Big XII.
Second, there is a time zone problem. Most PAC teams are on PST whereas Kansas is CST (for the most part). That's a 2 hour difference. If a game was scheduled for 7:30pm PST, it probably wouldn't be over until almost midnight CST. Wouldn't do much for tv viewership in Kansas.
Third, Travel. It's a long way (and expensive) from KU to LA, SF, Eugene, Seattle, etc., especially for Olympic sports (which are neither prominent nor as extensive as the PAC), and water polo is NOT big in Kansas.
Fourth, Lifestyle. This is debatable but The PAC is full of major metro areas, not Kansas. The PAC has lots of manufacturing, mining and ocean, not Kansas. Even the types of agriculture are different. And, the PAC would probably run liberal while Kansas would run conservative.
I know these are some generalizations and don't always fit every PAC school but I'm using the "majority", not totality.
The (new) Big 12 offers KU lots of familiar schools, is still Great Plains oriented and while not as lucrative as the B1G or SEC would be (and possibly not even as the PAC might be) KU should be able to survive. So the familiar would, in my opinion, win out over the PAC.

Almost every school that left the Big 12 since 2011 could say they left the "familiar" for the "unknown" and "rivals they have played all their lives" for "new teams". How much of a history did Colorado have with then Pac 10 teams before they left? Nebraska with Big Ten teams? Texas A&M and Missouri with SEC teams? None of them had to make two time zone jumps but Nebraska had to adjust to playing many teams in the Eastern Time Zone and 11am CT football starts (although the Big 12 now has their share of those as well these days too) as did Texas A&M and Missouri. Until West Virginia joined the Big 12, the Big 12 had no members in the Eastern Time Zone or East of the Mississippi and if all of those schools stayed West Virginia never gets invited to the Big 12. Colorado was negligible, it was either one time zone later or earlier (Pacific or Central). In terms of leaving the familiar now, Kansas's "old Big 8 rivals" remaining in the Big 12 are now just Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State. Do they have the same loyalty to Texas Tech and Baylor? I'd be shocked if they have any loyalty to TCU and West Virginia.

If money weren't a factor, of course Kansas would stay in the Big 12. But if money weren't a factor, Texas and Oklahoma would have stayed in the Big 12 as well. The question is will the networks pay more for the Pac 12 in the next cycle than the Big 12, will it be enough for Kansas to want to join the Pac 12, and will the Pac 12 be interested? What does the Pac 12 really gain for bringing in Kansas? I'm not sure I really care to bring them in if I'm the Pac 12.

(03-05-2022 07:20 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Almost every school that left the Big 12 since 2011 could say they left the "familiar" for the "unknown" and "rivals they have played all their lives" for "new teams". How much of a history did Colorado have with then Pac 10 teams before they left? Nebraska with Big Ten teams? Texas A&M and Missouri with SEC teams? None of them had to make two time zone jumps but Nebraska had to adjust to playing many teams in the Eastern Time Zone and 11am CT football starts (although the Big 12 now has their share of those as well these days too) as did Texas A&M and Missouri. Until West Virginia joined the Big 12, the Big 12 had no members in the Eastern Time Zone or East of the Mississippi and if all of those schools stayed West Virginia never gets invited to the Big 12. Colorado was negligible, it was either one time zone later or earlier (Pacific or Central). In terms of leaving the familiar now, Kansas's "old Big 8 rivals" remaining in the Big 12 are now just Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State. Do they have the same loyalty to Texas Tech and Baylor? I'd be shocked if they have any loyalty to TCU and West Virginia.

If money weren't a factor, of course Kansas would stay in the Big 12. But if money weren't a factor, Texas and Oklahoma would have stayed in the Big 12 as well. The question is will the networks pay more for the Pac 12 in the next cycle than the Big 12, will it be enough for Kansas to want to join the Pac 12, and will the Pac 12 be interested? What does the Pac 12 really gain for bringing in Kansas? I'm not sure I really care to bring them in if I'm the Pac 12.

Though I don't specifically disagree with what you have said, I think many of the teams that left the Big XII all had reasons other than money. Nebraska was afraid the Big XII was collapsing and left for security. Pretty much the same for Mizzou. TA&M wanted to get out of the shadow of Texas and establish there own ID (which may only have worked until now). Colorado has always looked west and almost 12% of the student body is from California!!
I certainly agree about WVU but since the Big XII is almost 20 years old even schools like Baylor & TTU are now the "familiar" foes.
As to money, of course every school wants to have more. But the need for money in the cases of OU & UT I believe was more about "national aspirations" they have in football (an expensive sport), which is not shared by KU. I believe KU would be satisfied with only respectable football and is not aiming for a "national" football program.
Obviously KU is and seeks to be a "national" school in basketball which certainly requires dollars, but a lot fewer than football to maintain.
I agree with your conclusion on the KU/PAC mutual interest.....the just isn't much there on either side nor do I think it will change regardless of the new PAC contract (if the PAC gets more money, why would they want/need KU?). KU's longtime rivals already are (or will be) in the SEC, and to a lesser degree the B1G. Colorado was in a league(s) with KU but I don't think either KU or CU thought of each other as "rivals" but just more as league-mates and not much more.
It appears your conclusion agrees with mine...not much mutual interest or attraction between KU and the PAC.

(03-05-2022 12:41 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 07:20 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Almost every school that left the Big 12 since 2011 could say they left the "familiar" for the "unknown" and "rivals they have played all their lives" for "new teams". How much of a history did Colorado have with then Pac 10 teams before they left? Nebraska with Big Ten teams? Texas A&M and Missouri with SEC teams? None of them had to make two time zone jumps but Nebraska had to adjust to playing many teams in the Eastern Time Zone and 11am CT football starts (although the Big 12 now has their share of those as well these days too) as did Texas A&M and Missouri. Until West Virginia joined the Big 12, the Big 12 had no members in the Eastern Time Zone or East of the Mississippi and if all of those schools stayed West Virginia never gets invited to the Big 12. Colorado was negligible, it was either one time zone later or earlier (Pacific or Central). In terms of leaving the familiar now, Kansas's "old Big 8 rivals" remaining in the Big 12 are now just Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State. Do they have the same loyalty to Texas Tech and Baylor? I'd be shocked if they have any loyalty to TCU and West Virginia.

If money weren't a factor, of course Kansas would stay in the Big 12. But if money weren't a factor, Texas and Oklahoma would have stayed in the Big 12 as well. The question is will the networks pay more for the Pac 12 in the next cycle than the Big 12, will it be enough for Kansas to want to join the Pac 12, and will the Pac 12 be interested? What does the Pac 12 really gain for bringing in Kansas? I'm not sure I really care to bring them in if I'm the Pac 12.

Though I don't specifically disagree with what you have said, I think many of the teams that left the Big XII all had reasons other than money. Nebraska was afraid the Big XII was collapsing and left for security. Pretty much the same for Mizzou. TA&M wanted to get out of the shadow of Texas and establish there own ID (which may only have worked until now). Colorado has always looked west and almost 12% of the student body is from California!!
I certainly agree about WVU but since the Big XII is almost 20 years old even schools like Baylor & TTU are now the "familiar" foes.
As to money, of course every school wants to have more. But the need for money in the cases of OU & UT I believe was more about "national aspirations" they have in football (an expensive sport), which is not shared by KU. I believe KU would be satisfied with only respectable football and is not aiming for a "national" football program.
Obviously KU is and seeks to be a "national" school in basketball which certainly requires dollars, but a lot fewer than football to maintain.
I agree with your conclusion on the KU/PAC mutual interest.....the just isn't much there on either side nor do I think it will change regardless of the new PAC contract (if the PAC gets more money, why would they want/need KU?). KU's longtime rivals already are (or will be) in the SEC, and to a lesser degree the B1G. Colorado was in a league(s) with KU but I don't think either KU or CU thought of each other as "rivals" but just more as league-mates and not much more.
It appears your conclusion agrees with mine...not much mutual interest or attraction between KU and the PAC.

JR already told you why any conference would be interested in KU above, The breakaway of college basketball from the NCAA would make KU's value top 5. The PAC if they decide to expand would look to find contiguous states to bridge to Texas, Kansas is contiguous with Colorado and Oklahoma, they're a natural bridge. Academically (which I hate to use because I don't think it matters at this point) they are very much in alignment with the PAC schools. Add in the potential money difference and I don't see how it would be possible for them not to have mutual interest.

Again, joining the SEC or B1G would obviously be their preferred choice but I am unsure of the interest of the two behemoths in Kansas. I know JR likes them and for good reason but it seems to me these two mega conferences are more interested in the Atlantic coast than the midwest.

If the PAC were to expand and go after Kansas it wouldn't be them alone, it will be for a combination of 3-6 BigXII schools, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston... I guess my point in saying that is they won't feel any less at home than in the other conferences. The B1G, SEC, and PAC would have old friends and rivals.

It was only a few short years ago that a lot of folks thought that Kansas was going to be left out and destined to follow TCU to the Big East.
While I certainly can't question JR on Kansas' value, realignment is and has been about football. ESPN can afford to pay $75 Million a year for Texas and Oklahoma because the Mouse will get a return on their investment, but I just can't see them paying football money for a basketball school with a small football following.

(03-05-2022 01:12 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:41 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 07:20 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Almost every school that left the Big 12 since 2011 could say they left the "familiar" for the "unknown" and "rivals they have played all their lives" for "new teams". How much of a history did Colorado have with then Pac 10 teams before they left? Nebraska with Big Ten teams? Texas A&M and Missouri with SEC teams? None of them had to make two time zone jumps but Nebraska had to adjust to playing many teams in the Eastern Time Zone and 11am CT football starts (although the Big 12 now has their share of those as well these days too) as did Texas A&M and Missouri. Until West Virginia joined the Big 12, the Big 12 had no members in the Eastern Time Zone or East of the Mississippi and if all of those schools stayed West Virginia never gets invited to the Big 12. Colorado was negligible, it was either one time zone later or earlier (Pacific or Central). In terms of leaving the familiar now, Kansas's "old Big 8 rivals" remaining in the Big 12 are now just Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State. Do they have the same loyalty to Texas Tech and Baylor? I'd be shocked if they have any loyalty to TCU and West Virginia.

If money weren't a factor, of course Kansas would stay in the Big 12. But if money weren't a factor, Texas and Oklahoma would have stayed in the Big 12 as well. The question is will the networks pay more for the Pac 12 in the next cycle than the Big 12, will it be enough for Kansas to want to join the Pac 12, and will the Pac 12 be interested? What does the Pac 12 really gain for bringing in Kansas? I'm not sure I really care to bring them in if I'm the Pac 12.

Though I don't specifically disagree with what you have said, I think many of the teams that left the Big XII all had reasons other than money. Nebraska was afraid the Big XII was collapsing and left for security. Pretty much the same for Mizzou. TA&M wanted to get out of the shadow of Texas and establish there own ID (which may only have worked until now). Colorado has always looked west and almost 12% of the student body is from California!!
I certainly agree about WVU but since the Big XII is almost 20 years old even schools like Baylor & TTU are now the "familiar" foes.
As to money, of course every school wants to have more. But the need for money in the cases of OU & UT I believe was more about "national aspirations" they have in football (an expensive sport), which is not shared by KU. I believe KU would be satisfied with only respectable football and is not aiming for a "national" football program.
Obviously KU is and seeks to be a "national" school in basketball which certainly requires dollars, but a lot fewer than football to maintain.
I agree with your conclusion on the KU/PAC mutual interest.....the just isn't much there on either side nor do I think it will change regardless of the new PAC contract (if the PAC gets more money, why would they want/need KU?). KU's longtime rivals already are (or will be) in the SEC, and to a lesser degree the B1G. Colorado was in a league(s) with KU but I don't think either KU or CU thought of each other as "rivals" but just more as league-mates and not much more.
It appears your conclusion agrees with mine...not much mutual interest or attraction between KU and the PAC.

JR already told you why any conference would be interested in KU above, The breakaway of college basketball from the NCAA would make KU's value top 5. The PAC if they decide to expand would look to find contiguous states to bridge to Texas, Kansas is contiguous with Colorado and Oklahoma, they're a natural bridge. Academically (which I hate to use because I don't think it matters at this point) they are very much in alignment with the PAC schools. Add in the potential money difference and I don't see how it would be possible for them not to have mutual interest.

Again, joining the SEC or B1G would obviously be their preferred choice but I am unsure of the interest of the two behemoths in Kansas. I know JR likes them and for good reason but it seems to me these two mega conferences are more interested in the Atlantic coast than the midwest.

If the PAC were to expand and go after Kansas it wouldn't be them alone, it will be for a combination of 3-6 BigXII schools, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston... I guess my point in saying that is they won't feel any less at home than in the other conferences. The B1G, SEC, and PAC would have old friends and rivals.

I'll comment on this post but then "shut up" as I think this thread has unintentionally been hijacked into a KU/PAC thread rather than it's title topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion with anyone interested if they wish to start a new thread.

We have a disagreement on the PAC. I see no reason why they would expand. I don't understand, when the could have had OU/OSU, why they would now be happy to take the schools you suggested which are non AAU schools that are at best the second, third or fourth in their states. The famous PAC attempted "raid" on the Big XII fell apart when just Texas said "no." To me this means if they can't get Texas (which they didn't/can't) they didn't really want/need the other schools. Is a "combination" of TCU, Baylor & TT going to come even close to that of UT alone for "Texas exposure?". I think the answer is a resounding "no." I just don't see much potential benefit, especially financial but also academically, that those schools would bring to the PAC.

I do agree with you that both the B1G & SEC are salivating over the prospect of getting some ACC schools, much more than a school like KU. Again, the big question may be "when", not "if." Can an ACC school successfully break the GOR, and if so, on what terms? If not, are the B1G and/or SEC willing to wait until the 2030s or so? I certainly don't have the answers to those questions either.

I understand what JR said. The concern I have is the same as the above...."when"...a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, five years from now...you get the idea, or maybe even "never.". Would the B1G or SEC take a chance on KU before that happens or simply "wait" to see IF it happens? Do both the B1G & SEC have enough "strong" football teams that they don't really need another "strong" football team but want to round out their basketball power? Does KU sign a new GOR in 2025 and if so under what terms and for what duration? I don't have the answers to those questions either.

Again, if anyone wants to continue the discussion just start another thread with a descriptive title and I'll respond as best as I can.

1. GOR's: They originated in the entertainment industry where perhaps the best examples of their use and efficacy were in the recording business and in the concert tour circuits. When law changes impacted either the concert circuits (local law prohibiting outdoor or indoor performances) or the mode of transmission for record sales or royalties were altered, and existing pay arrangements changed in such a way that one or both parties substantively had their profit side of the equation altered the GOR's were voided, and new contracts required.

So, if the SCOTUS rules for pay for play the equation of the old contracts definitely change as amateurism ceases and pay for play increases overhead dramatically on one side of the contract without impacting the other making adherence to new law inequitable between the contracted parties. And some contracted schools may choose to opt out, while others remain in. And there is debate as to whether the creation of a pay for play tier actually creates an opportunity for amateurism to legally continue since a paid alternative exists. And this ambiguity also necessitates the voiding of GOR's and other related contracts.

Herein resides the out for GORs and the SCOTUS could rule on this matter as early as this Summer or by Summer of 2023.

So, there's your how and when.

2. This will impact everyone and all revenue sports of which basketball is one.

Kansas has a hoops valuation from the WSJ of 400 million and a football valuation of 200 million (This isn't revenue but the scope of generated income in regions impacted by these sports. But it is a strong indicator of brand value). Currently, the NCAA holds over half of each tourney's revenue and pays out what they do in shares distributed over 3 year cycles.

Separate hoops from the NCAA and let schools keep the bulk of tourney money and hoops values more than double. If the WSJ adjusted for that added revenue impact upon your school and it's community then Kansas, crappy as football has been, jumps in value to over 800 million which is second to ND's nearly 1 billion.

North Carolina and Duke aren't worth as much because they split similarly impacted markets which they share with N.C. State and Wake Forest.

3. It is the need to distinguish yourself by abandoning 2nd, 3rd, and 4th state or private schools in order to maximize value which has impacted decisions like those made by Texas and Oklahoma. Kansas has a nationally recognized name and history in hoops. KState really doesn't. For this reason Kansas alone makes sense in the world which is coming. Creating a new upper tier achieves this distinction and frees schools to share a larger media pie with schools they don't have to carry, and which constitute fewer shares of the pie.

Being a strong draw in a large state, even if you are #2 makes a difference here. Texas and A&M have massive value for the SEC. Florida and FSU would have the same. Clemson not so much though they meet other desired metrics like attendance, revenue, sports offered, strong regional appeal, etc.

Duke is a national brand. This is why they are in the mix and NC State really isn't.

Viginia is a midsized state with no national brands. So, it's a tossup between UVa and Va Tech.

4. The SEC and B1G should be fine because they hold the most value and provide healthy nuclei to build around. This is why 2 super leagues is very possible. Top brands in the ACC & PAC will have some deep thinking to do should the court rule for pay for play, should GOR's be voided as a result, and should the B1G and SEC decide to cash in on their positions of strength.


Edit:

5. The SEC is in a stronger position to acquire schools than the B1G. Why? At least 15 of the future 16 presidents are in agreement to move to pay for play and the 16th likely is as well. In the Big 10 Ohio State has gotten out in front on this with PSU, Iowa, and Nebraska all likely in agreement. As a conference they haven't yet agreed in full to do so.

Duke, North Carolina, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville and possibly the Virginia schools, Georgia Tech and NC State could make the move, but no outward declaration has been forthcoming. What Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and ND do?

Politically I see the PAC on board but they haven't officially said yet.

(03-06-2022 12:11 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:12 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:41 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 07:20 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Almost every school that left the Big 12 since 2011 could say they left the "familiar" for the "unknown" and "rivals they have played all their lives" for "new teams". How much of a history did Colorado have with then Pac 10 teams before they left? Nebraska with Big Ten teams? Texas A&M and Missouri with SEC teams? None of them had to make two time zone jumps but Nebraska had to adjust to playing many teams in the Eastern Time Zone and 11am CT football starts (although the Big 12 now has their share of those as well these days too) as did Texas A&M and Missouri. Until West Virginia joined the Big 12, the Big 12 had no members in the Eastern Time Zone or East of the Mississippi and if all of those schools stayed West Virginia never gets invited to the Big 12. Colorado was negligible, it was either one time zone later or earlier (Pacific or Central). In terms of leaving the familiar now, Kansas's "old Big 8 rivals" remaining in the Big 12 are now just Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State. Do they have the same loyalty to Texas Tech and Baylor? I'd be shocked if they have any loyalty to TCU and West Virginia.

If money weren't a factor, of course Kansas would stay in the Big 12. But if money weren't a factor, Texas and Oklahoma would have stayed in the Big 12 as well. The question is will the networks pay more for the Pac 12 in the next cycle than the Big 12, will it be enough for Kansas to want to join the Pac 12, and will the Pac 12 be interested? What does the Pac 12 really gain for bringing in Kansas? I'm not sure I really care to bring them in if I'm the Pac 12.

Though I don't specifically disagree with what you have said, I think many of the teams that left the Big XII all had reasons other than money. Nebraska was afraid the Big XII was collapsing and left for security. Pretty much the same for Mizzou. TA&M wanted to get out of the shadow of Texas and establish there own ID (which may only have worked until now). Colorado has always looked west and almost 12% of the student body is from California!!
I certainly agree about WVU but since the Big XII is almost 20 years old even schools like Baylor & TTU are now the "familiar" foes.
As to money, of course every school wants to have more. But the need for money in the cases of OU & UT I believe was more about "national aspirations" they have in football (an expensive sport), which is not shared by KU. I believe KU would be satisfied with only respectable football and is not aiming for a "national" football program.
Obviously KU is and seeks to be a "national" school in basketball which certainly requires dollars, but a lot fewer than football to maintain.
I agree with your conclusion on the KU/PAC mutual interest.....the just isn't much there on either side nor do I think it will change regardless of the new PAC contract (if the PAC gets more money, why would they want/need KU?). KU's longtime rivals already are (or will be) in the SEC, and to a lesser degree the B1G. Colorado was in a league(s) with KU but I don't think either KU or CU thought of each other as "rivals" but just more as league-mates and not much more.
It appears your conclusion agrees with mine...not much mutual interest or attraction between KU and the PAC.

JR already told you why any conference would be interested in KU above, The breakaway of college basketball from the NCAA would make KU's value top 5. The PAC if they decide to expand would look to find contiguous states to bridge to Texas, Kansas is contiguous with Colorado and Oklahoma, they're a natural bridge. Academically (which I hate to use because I don't think it matters at this point) they are very much in alignment with the PAC schools. Add in the potential money difference and I don't see how it would be possible for them not to have mutual interest.

Again, joining the SEC or B1G would obviously be their preferred choice but I am unsure of the interest of the two behemoths in Kansas. I know JR likes them and for good reason but it seems to me these two mega conferences are more interested in the Atlantic coast than the midwest.

If the PAC were to expand and go after Kansas it wouldn't be them alone, it will be for a combination of 3-6 BigXII schools, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston... I guess my point in saying that is they won't feel any less at home than in the other conferences. The B1G, SEC, and PAC would have old friends and rivals.

I'll comment on this post but then "shut up" as I think this thread has unintentionally been hijacked into a KU/PAC thread rather than it's title topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion with anyone interested if they wish to start a new thread.

We have a disagreement on the PAC. I see no reason why they would expand. I don't understand, when the could have had OU/OSU, why they would now be happy to take the schools you suggested which are non AAU schools that are at best the second, third or fourth in their states. The famous PAC attempted "raid" on the Big XII fell apart when just Texas said "no." To me this means if they can't get Texas (which they didn't/can't) they didn't really want/need the other schools. Is a "combination" of TCU, Baylor & TT going to come even close to that of UT alone for "Texas exposure?". I think the answer is a resounding "no." I just don't see much potential benefit, especially financial but also academically, that those schools would bring to the PAC.

I do agree with you that both the B1G & SEC are salivating over the prospect of getting some ACC schools, much more than a school like KU. Again, the big question may be "when", not "if." Can an ACC school successfully break the GOR, and if so, on what terms? If not, are the B1G and/or SEC willing to wait until the 2030s or so? I certainly don't have the answers to those questions either.

I understand what JR said. The concern I have is the same as the above...."when"...a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, five years from now...you get the idea, or maybe even "never.". Would the B1G or SEC take a chance on KU before that happens or simply "wait" to see IF it happens? Do both the B1G & SEC have enough "strong" football teams that they don't really need another "strong" football team but want to round out their basketball power? Does KU sign a new GOR in 2025 and if so under what terms and for what duration? I don't have the answers to those questions either.

Again, if anyone wants to continue the discussion just start another thread with a descriptive title and I'll respond as best as I can.

Just so you understand and don't write revisionist history, The PAC rejected Texas not the other way around.

https://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/21/2...homa-texas

Texas wanted to have the Longhorn network, PAC said no, ESPN said yes.... Oddly enough Texas is now in a conference owned by ESPN... No that is not a coincidence.

As far as Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are concerned, that is more of a reflection of Larry Scott's horrible leadership and lack of vision than anything else. Larry thought that they could still get the longhorns at a later date, he underestimated the money and influence ESPN had.

Now, Larry has "Moved on", and ESPN has influenced Texas to move to the SEC.

(03-06-2022 01:40 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 12:11 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:12 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:41 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 07:20 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Almost every school that left the Big 12 since 2011 could say they left the "familiar" for the "unknown" and "rivals they have played all their lives" for "new teams". How much of a history did Colorado have with then Pac 10 teams before they left? Nebraska with Big Ten teams? Texas A&M and Missouri with SEC teams? None of them had to make two time zone jumps but Nebraska had to adjust to playing many teams in the Eastern Time Zone and 11am CT football starts (although the Big 12 now has their share of those as well these days too) as did Texas A&M and Missouri. Until West Virginia joined the Big 12, the Big 12 had no members in the Eastern Time Zone or East of the Mississippi and if all of those schools stayed West Virginia never gets invited to the Big 12. Colorado was negligible, it was either one time zone later or earlier (Pacific or Central). In terms of leaving the familiar now, Kansas's "old Big 8 rivals" remaining in the Big 12 are now just Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State. Do they have the same loyalty to Texas Tech and Baylor? I'd be shocked if they have any loyalty to TCU and West Virginia.

If money weren't a factor, of course Kansas would stay in the Big 12. But if money weren't a factor, Texas and Oklahoma would have stayed in the Big 12 as well. The question is will the networks pay more for the Pac 12 in the next cycle than the Big 12, will it be enough for Kansas to want to join the Pac 12, and will the Pac 12 be interested? What does the Pac 12 really gain for bringing in Kansas? I'm not sure I really care to bring them in if I'm the Pac 12.

Though I don't specifically disagree with what you have said, I think many of the teams that left the Big XII all had reasons other than money. Nebraska was afraid the Big XII was collapsing and left for security. Pretty much the same for Mizzou. TA&M wanted to get out of the shadow of Texas and establish there own ID (which may only have worked until now). Colorado has always looked west and almost 12% of the student body is from California!!
I certainly agree about WVU but since the Big XII is almost 20 years old even schools like Baylor & TTU are now the "familiar" foes.
As to money, of course every school wants to have more. But the need for money in the cases of OU & UT I believe was more about "national aspirations" they have in football (an expensive sport), which is not shared by KU. I believe KU would be satisfied with only respectable football and is not aiming for a "national" football program.
Obviously KU is and seeks to be a "national" school in basketball which certainly requires dollars, but a lot fewer than football to maintain.
I agree with your conclusion on the KU/PAC mutual interest.....the just isn't much there on either side nor do I think it will change regardless of the new PAC contract (if the PAC gets more money, why would they want/need KU?). KU's longtime rivals already are (or will be) in the SEC, and to a lesser degree the B1G. Colorado was in a league(s) with KU but I don't think either KU or CU thought of each other as "rivals" but just more as league-mates and not much more.
It appears your conclusion agrees with mine...not much mutual interest or attraction between KU and the PAC.

JR already told you why any conference would be interested in KU above, The breakaway of college basketball from the NCAA would make KU's value top 5. The PAC if they decide to expand would look to find contiguous states to bridge to Texas, Kansas is contiguous with Colorado and Oklahoma, they're a natural bridge. Academically (which I hate to use because I don't think it matters at this point) they are very much in alignment with the PAC schools. Add in the potential money difference and I don't see how it would be possible for them not to have mutual interest.

Again, joining the SEC or B1G would obviously be their preferred choice but I am unsure of the interest of the two behemoths in Kansas. I know JR likes them and for good reason but it seems to me these two mega conferences are more interested in the Atlantic coast than the midwest.

If the PAC were to expand and go after Kansas it wouldn't be them alone, it will be for a combination of 3-6 BigXII schools, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston... I guess my point in saying that is they won't feel any less at home than in the other conferences. The B1G, SEC, and PAC would have old friends and rivals.

I'll comment on this post but then "shut up" as I think this thread has unintentionally been hijacked into a KU/PAC thread rather than it's title topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion with anyone interested if they wish to start a new thread.

We have a disagreement on the PAC. I see no reason why they would expand. I don't understand, when the could have had OU/OSU, why they would now be happy to take the schools you suggested which are non AAU schools that are at best the second, third or fourth in their states. The famous PAC attempted "raid" on the Big XII fell apart when just Texas said "no." To me this means if they can't get Texas (which they didn't/can't) they didn't really want/need the other schools. Is a "combination" of TCU, Baylor & TT going to come even close to that of UT alone for "Texas exposure?". I think the answer is a resounding "no." I just don't see much potential benefit, especially financial but also academically, that those schools would bring to the PAC.

I do agree with you that both the B1G & SEC are salivating over the prospect of getting some ACC schools, much more than a school like KU. Again, the big question may be "when", not "if." Can an ACC school successfully break the GOR, and if so, on what terms? If not, are the B1G and/or SEC willing to wait until the 2030s or so? I certainly don't have the answers to those questions either.

I understand what JR said. The concern I have is the same as the above...."when"...a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, five years from now...you get the idea, or maybe even "never.". Would the B1G or SEC take a chance on KU before that happens or simply "wait" to see IF it happens? Do both the B1G & SEC have enough "strong" football teams that they don't really need another "strong" football team but want to round out their basketball power? Does KU sign a new GOR in 2025 and if so under what terms and for what duration? I don't have the answers to those questions either.

Again, if anyone wants to continue the discussion just start another thread with a descriptive title and I'll respond as best as I can.

Just so you understand and don't write revisionist history, The PAC rejected Texas not the other way around.

https://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/21/2...homa-texas

Texas wanted to have the Longhorn network, PAC said no, ESPN said yes.... Oddly enough Texas is now in a conference owned by ESPN... No that is not a coincidence.

As far as Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are concerned, that is more of a reflection of Larry Scott's horrible leadership and lack of vision than anything else. Larry thought that they could still get the longhorns at a later date, he underestimated the money and influence ESPN had.

Now, Larry has "Moved on", and ESPN has influenced Texas to move to the SEC.

Now who is the revisionist? Yes ESPN was trying to brand Bevo, but UT and A&M first approached the SEC back in '87. UT and OU knew what to demand to be rejected and merely used the PAC for leverage. Nothing makes a suitor comply quite like the babe flirting with another. That said, all parties privy to each negotiation, failed and successful need to be in one room to write the history. Denial, gloss, face saving, back room deals, and betrayals seldom see the light of day free of revisionism and the varnish of a single point of view.

(03-06-2022 02:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 01:40 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 12:11 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:12 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 12:41 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Though I don't specifically disagree with what you have said, I think many of the teams that left the Big XII all had reasons other than money. Nebraska was afraid the Big XII was collapsing and left for security. Pretty much the same for Mizzou. TA&M wanted to get out of the shadow of Texas and establish there own ID (which may only have worked until now). Colorado has always looked west and almost 12% of the student body is from California!!
I certainly agree about WVU but since the Big XII is almost 20 years old even schools like Baylor & TTU are now the "familiar" foes.
As to money, of course every school wants to have more. But the need for money in the cases of OU & UT I believe was more about "national aspirations" they have in football (an expensive sport), which is not shared by KU. I believe KU would be satisfied with only respectable football and is not aiming for a "national" football program.
Obviously KU is and seeks to be a "national" school in basketball which certainly requires dollars, but a lot fewer than football to maintain.
I agree with your conclusion on the KU/PAC mutual interest.....the just isn't much there on either side nor do I think it will change regardless of the new PAC contract (if the PAC gets more money, why would they want/need KU?). KU's longtime rivals already are (or will be) in the SEC, and to a lesser degree the B1G. Colorado was in a league(s) with KU but I don't think either KU or CU thought of each other as "rivals" but just more as league-mates and not much more.
It appears your conclusion agrees with mine...not much mutual interest or attraction between KU and the PAC.

JR already told you why any conference would be interested in KU above, The breakaway of college basketball from the NCAA would make KU's value top 5. The PAC if they decide to expand would look to find contiguous states to bridge to Texas, Kansas is contiguous with Colorado and Oklahoma, they're a natural bridge. Academically (which I hate to use because I don't think it matters at this point) they are very much in alignment with the PAC schools. Add in the potential money difference and I don't see how it would be possible for them not to have mutual interest.

Again, joining the SEC or B1G would obviously be their preferred choice but I am unsure of the interest of the two behemoths in Kansas. I know JR likes them and for good reason but it seems to me these two mega conferences are more interested in the Atlantic coast than the midwest.

If the PAC were to expand and go after Kansas it wouldn't be them alone, it will be for a combination of 3-6 BigXII schools, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston... I guess my point in saying that is they won't feel any less at home than in the other conferences. The B1G, SEC, and PAC would have old friends and rivals.

I'll comment on this post but then "shut up" as I think this thread has unintentionally been hijacked into a KU/PAC thread rather than it's title topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion with anyone interested if they wish to start a new thread.

We have a disagreement on the PAC. I see no reason why they would expand. I don't understand, when the could have had OU/OSU, why they would now be happy to take the schools you suggested which are non AAU schools that are at best the second, third or fourth in their states. The famous PAC attempted "raid" on the Big XII fell apart when just Texas said "no." To me this means if they can't get Texas (which they didn't/can't) they didn't really want/need the other schools. Is a "combination" of TCU, Baylor & TT going to come even close to that of UT alone for "Texas exposure?". I think the answer is a resounding "no." I just don't see much potential benefit, especially financial but also academically, that those schools would bring to the PAC.

I do agree with you that both the B1G & SEC are salivating over the prospect of getting some ACC schools, much more than a school like KU. Again, the big question may be "when", not "if." Can an ACC school successfully break the GOR, and if so, on what terms? If not, are the B1G and/or SEC willing to wait until the 2030s or so? I certainly don't have the answers to those questions either.

I understand what JR said. The concern I have is the same as the above...."when"...a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, five years from now...you get the idea, or maybe even "never.". Would the B1G or SEC take a chance on KU before that happens or simply "wait" to see IF it happens? Do both the B1G & SEC have enough "strong" football teams that they don't really need another "strong" football team but want to round out their basketball power? Does KU sign a new GOR in 2025 and if so under what terms and for what duration? I don't have the answers to those questions either.

Again, if anyone wants to continue the discussion just start another thread with a descriptive title and I'll respond as best as I can.

Just so you understand and don't write revisionist history, The PAC rejected Texas not the other way around.

https://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/21/2...homa-texas

Texas wanted to have the Longhorn network, PAC said no, ESPN said yes.... Oddly enough Texas is now in a conference owned by ESPN... No that is not a coincidence.

As far as Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are concerned, that is more of a reflection of Larry Scott's horrible leadership and lack of vision than anything else. Larry thought that they could still get the longhorns at a later date, he underestimated the money and influence ESPN had.

Now, Larry has "Moved on", and ESPN has influenced Texas to move to the SEC.

Now who is the revisionist? Yes ESPN was trying to brand Bevo, but UT and A&M first approached the SEC back in '87. UT and OU knew what to demand to be rejected and merely used the PAC for leverage. Nothing makes a suitor comply quite like the babe flirting with another. That said, all parties privy to each negotiation, failed and successful need to be in one room to write the history. Denial, gloss, face saving, back room deals, and betrayals seldom see the light of day free of revisionism and the varnish of a single point of view.

https://www.si.com/college/2016/08/16/bi...swc-merger

Fascinating read for those who do not understand the merger of the Big 8 and SWC.

I respect you greatly JR but I am not a revisionist. Texas always wanted to go west, A&M always wanted to go east. The reason Texas didn't leave the SWC for the PAC 10 was because of the state of Texas politics and a school president. Of course they seriously considered the SEC at that time but the fact remains, the PAC 10 is where they wanted to go.

Also in 2011, Texas used their leverage to get money out of ESPN. The PAC almost pulled off the "Texahoma" addition, Texas let the cat out of the bag to ESPN and ESPN did what they do, showered them with money and a network to stay. Texas in their most Texas way countered the PAC asking for concessions and a network, The PAC said no. To be clear, Larry Scott and the PAC 10 was wrong, they should have done what ever it took, instead they let ESPN do that and now the mouse has moved them to their premier product the SEC.

In a way I think the real answer to the SEC or PAC preference for Texas had nothing to do with either conference, it had everything to do with the Mouse's wallet.

To everyone else, read that article I posted a link to, it really is an interesting story.

(03-06-2022 12:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 02:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 01:40 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 12:11 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 01:12 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  JR already told you why any conference would be interested in KU above, The breakaway of college basketball from the NCAA would make KU's value top 5. The PAC if they decide to expand would look to find contiguous states to bridge to Texas, Kansas is contiguous with Colorado and Oklahoma, they're a natural bridge. Academically (which I hate to use because I don't think it matters at this point) they are very much in alignment with the PAC schools. Add in the potential money difference and I don't see how it would be possible for them not to have mutual interest.

Again, joining the SEC or B1G would obviously be their preferred choice but I am unsure of the interest of the two behemoths in Kansas. I know JR likes them and for good reason but it seems to me these two mega conferences are more interested in the Atlantic coast than the midwest.

If the PAC were to expand and go after Kansas it wouldn't be them alone, it will be for a combination of 3-6 BigXII schools, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston... I guess my point in saying that is they won't feel any less at home than in the other conferences. The B1G, SEC, and PAC would have old friends and rivals.

I'll comment on this post but then "shut up" as I think this thread has unintentionally been hijacked into a KU/PAC thread rather than it's title topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion with anyone interested if they wish to start a new thread.

We have a disagreement on the PAC. I see no reason why they would expand. I don't understand, when the could have had OU/OSU, why they would now be happy to take the schools you suggested which are non AAU schools that are at best the second, third or fourth in their states. The famous PAC attempted "raid" on the Big XII fell apart when just Texas said "no." To me this means if they can't get Texas (which they didn't/can't) they didn't really want/need the other schools. Is a "combination" of TCU, Baylor & TT going to come even close to that of UT alone for "Texas exposure?". I think the answer is a resounding "no." I just don't see much potential benefit, especially financial but also academically, that those schools would bring to the PAC.

I do agree with you that both the B1G & SEC are salivating over the prospect of getting some ACC schools, much more than a school like KU. Again, the big question may be "when", not "if." Can an ACC school successfully break the GOR, and if so, on what terms? If not, are the B1G and/or SEC willing to wait until the 2030s or so? I certainly don't have the answers to those questions either.

I understand what JR said. The concern I have is the same as the above...."when"...a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, five years from now...you get the idea, or maybe even "never.". Would the B1G or SEC take a chance on KU before that happens or simply "wait" to see IF it happens? Do both the B1G & SEC have enough "strong" football teams that they don't really need another "strong" football team but want to round out their basketball power? Does KU sign a new GOR in 2025 and if so under what terms and for what duration? I don't have the answers to those questions either.

Again, if anyone wants to continue the discussion just start another thread with a descriptive title and I'll respond as best as I can.

Just so you understand and don't write revisionist history, The PAC rejected Texas not the other way around.

https://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/21/2...homa-texas

Texas wanted to have the Longhorn network, PAC said no, ESPN said yes.... Oddly enough Texas is now in a conference owned by ESPN... No that is not a coincidence.

As far as Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are concerned, that is more of a reflection of Larry Scott's horrible leadership and lack of vision than anything else. Larry thought that they could still get the longhorns at a later date, he underestimated the money and influence ESPN had.

Now, Larry has "Moved on", and ESPN has influenced Texas to move to the SEC.

Now who is the revisionist? Yes ESPN was trying to brand Bevo, but UT and A&M first approached the SEC back in '87. UT and OU knew what to demand to be rejected and merely used the PAC for leverage. Nothing makes a suitor comply quite like the babe flirting with another. That said, all parties privy to each negotiation, failed and successful need to be in one room to write the history. Denial, gloss, face saving, back room deals, and betrayals seldom see the light of day free of revisionism and the varnish of a single point of view.

https://www.si.com/college/2016/08/16/bi...swc-merger

Fascinating read for those who do not understand the merger of the Big 8 and SWC.

I respect you greatly JR but I am not a revisionist. Texas always wanted to go west, A&M always wanted to go east. The reason Texas didn't leave the SWC for the PAC 10 was because of the state of Texas politics and a school president. Of course they seriously considered the SEC at that time but the fact remains, the PAC 10 is where they wanted to go.

Also in 2011, Texas used their leverage to get money out of ESPN. The PAC almost pulled off the "Texahoma" addition, Texas let the cat out of the bag to ESPN and ESPN did what they do, showered them with money and a network to stay. Texas in their most Texas way countered the PAC asking for concessions and a network, The PAC said no. To be clear, Larry Scott and the PAC 10 was wrong, they should have done what ever it took, instead they let ESPN do that and now the mouse has moved them to their premier product the SEC.

In a way I think the real answer to the SEC or PAC preference for Texas had nothing to do with either conference, it had everything to do with the Mouse's wallet.

To everyone else, read that article I posted a link to, it really is an interesting story.

1. What is said publicly is for perception, not necessarily intended to be factual. Discerning truth is difficult at best.

2. Realignment, all of it since 1983 has been a move by corporate networks to reshape the game to their ends (hostile takeover). Trace the terminology. Fan base became market footprint and tied to subscriptions for cable TV. Conferences were labeled so as to create a tier of schools in which history was replaced by brand. When "Power" became a designation, it implied those not labeled "Power" were inferior. Why? A desire to attain "P" status would necessitate growth which we call realignment which networks call product placement. Good match ups became "content" games. When brand plays brand that is called synergy. Why? It multiplies the viewers beyond what each school brings on their own. This is all industry lingo, not sports lingo. College sports no longer exists for schools and alumni and the broader fan base, but all of it exists as a product organized to maximize advertising revenue. And now the killer change. It is no longer college sports, it is now an entertainment industry.

That 2016 SI article was expressing how "networks" looked at the product and brands. The coaches and AD's were still looking at fit and revenue. Well fit is almost gone and revenue dictates terms. This is why what a school wanted to do is largely irrelevant. Monye won. The SEC merely wound up aligned with the biggest shark in the tank.

So, you are blindfolded and simply feeling your way around the same elephant I am describing from the other side. All I'm saying differently is what is discussed at networks and in presidents' meetings with commissioners, and what is reported in the press are two wholly different things. The reality is in the board and conference rooms and the fairy tale is in the press.

The vernacular used always tells you who is in control. We aren't speaking college sports vernacular anymore. We now speak network lingo. When Mr. X becomes the defendant he knows he's screwed. Ditto when college sports becomes an entertainment industry, a term I heard Sankey use for the first time this year. Chills went down my spine!

(03-06-2022 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 12:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 02:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 01:40 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 12:11 AM)ICThawk Wrote:  I'll comment on this post but then "shut up" as I think this thread has unintentionally been hijacked into a KU/PAC thread rather than it's title topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion with anyone interested if they wish to start a new thread.

We have a disagreement on the PAC. I see no reason why they would expand. I don't understand, when the could have had OU/OSU, why they would now be happy to take the schools you suggested which are non AAU schools that are at best the second, third or fourth in their states. The famous PAC attempted "raid" on the Big XII fell apart when just Texas said "no." To me this means if they can't get Texas (which they didn't/can't) they didn't really want/need the other schools. Is a "combination" of TCU, Baylor & TT going to come even close to that of UT alone for "Texas exposure?". I think the answer is a resounding "no." I just don't see much potential benefit, especially financial but also academically, that those schools would bring to the PAC.

I do agree with you that both the B1G & SEC are salivating over the prospect of getting some ACC schools, much more than a school like KU. Again, the big question may be "when", not "if." Can an ACC school successfully break the GOR, and if so, on what terms? If not, are the B1G and/or SEC willing to wait until the 2030s or so? I certainly don't have the answers to those questions either.

I understand what JR said. The concern I have is the same as the above...."when"...a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, five years from now...you get the idea, or maybe even "never.". Would the B1G or SEC take a chance on KU before that happens or simply "wait" to see IF it happens? Do both the B1G & SEC have enough "strong" football teams that they don't really need another "strong" football team but want to round out their basketball power? Does KU sign a new GOR in 2025 and if so under what terms and for what duration? I don't have the answers to those questions either.

Again, if anyone wants to continue the discussion just start another thread with a descriptive title and I'll respond as best as I can.

Just so you understand and don't write revisionist history, The PAC rejected Texas not the other way around.

https://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/21/2...homa-texas

Texas wanted to have the Longhorn network, PAC said no, ESPN said yes.... Oddly enough Texas is now in a conference owned by ESPN... No that is not a coincidence.

As far as Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are concerned, that is more of a reflection of Larry Scott's horrible leadership and lack of vision than anything else. Larry thought that they could still get the longhorns at a later date, he underestimated the money and influence ESPN had.

Now, Larry has "Moved on", and ESPN has influenced Texas to move to the SEC.

Now who is the revisionist? Yes ESPN was trying to brand Bevo, but UT and A&M first approached the SEC back in '87. UT and OU knew what to demand to be rejected and merely used the PAC for leverage. Nothing makes a suitor comply quite like the babe flirting with another. That said, all parties privy to each negotiation, failed and successful need to be in one room to write the history. Denial, gloss, face saving, back room deals, and betrayals seldom see the light of day free of revisionism and the varnish of a single point of view.

https://www.si.com/college/2016/08/16/bi...swc-merger

Fascinating read for those who do not understand the merger of the Big 8 and SWC.

I respect you greatly JR but I am not a revisionist. Texas always wanted to go west, A&M always wanted to go east. The reason Texas didn't leave the SWC for the PAC 10 was because of the state of Texas politics and a school president. Of course they seriously considered the SEC at that time but the fact remains, the PAC 10 is where they wanted to go.

Also in 2011, Texas used their leverage to get money out of ESPN. The PAC almost pulled off the "Texahoma" addition, Texas let the cat out of the bag to ESPN and ESPN did what they do, showered them with money and a network to stay. Texas in their most Texas way countered the PAC asking for concessions and a network, The PAC said no. To be clear, Larry Scott and the PAC 10 was wrong, they should have done what ever it took, instead they let ESPN do that and now the mouse has moved them to their premier product the SEC.

In a way I think the real answer to the SEC or PAC preference for Texas had nothing to do with either conference, it had everything to do with the Mouse's wallet.

To everyone else, read that article I posted a link to, it really is an interesting story.

1. What is said publicly is for perception, not necessarily intended to be factual. Discerning truth is difficult at best.

2. Realignment, all of it since 1983 has been a move by corporate networks to reshape the game to their ends (hostile takeover). Trace the terminology. Fan base became market footprint and tied to subscriptions for cable TV. Conferences were labeled so as to create a tier of schools in which history was replaced by brand. When "Power" became a designation, it implied those not labeled "Power" were inferior. Why? A desire to attain "P" status would necessitate growth which we call realignment which networks call product placement. Good match ups became "content" games. When brand plays brand that is called synergy. Why? It multiplies the viewers beyond what each school brings on their own. This is all industry lingo, not sports lingo. College sports no longer exists for schools and alumni and the broader fan base, but all of it exists as a product organized to maximize advertising revenue. And now the killer change. It is no longer college sports, it is now an entertainment industry.

That 2016 SI article was expressing how "networks" looked at the product and brands. The coaches and AD's were still looking at fit and revenue. Well fit is almost gone and revenue dictates terms. This is why what a school wanted to do is largely irrelevant. Monye won. The SEC merely wound up aligned with the biggest shark in the tank.

So, you are blindfolded and simply feeling your way around the same elephant I am describing from the other side. All I'm saying differently is what is discussed at networks and in presidents' meetings with commissioners, and what is reported in the press are two wholly different things. The reality is in the board and conference rooms and the fairy tale is in the press.

The vernacular used always tells you who is in control. We aren't speaking college sports vernacular anymore. We now speak network lingo. When Mr. X becomes the defendant he knows he's screwed. Ditto when college sports becomes an entertainment industry, a term I heard Sankey use for the first time this year. Chills went down my spine!

I've been referring to college football as entertainment for a few years, now.

(03-06-2022 02:15 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 12:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 02:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 01:40 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Just so you understand and don't write revisionist history, The PAC rejected Texas not the other way around.

https://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/21/2...homa-texas

Texas wanted to have the Longhorn network, PAC said no, ESPN said yes.... Oddly enough Texas is now in a conference owned by ESPN... No that is not a coincidence.

As far as Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are concerned, that is more of a reflection of Larry Scott's horrible leadership and lack of vision than anything else. Larry thought that they could still get the longhorns at a later date, he underestimated the money and influence ESPN had.

Now, Larry has "Moved on", and ESPN has influenced Texas to move to the SEC.

Now who is the revisionist? Yes ESPN was trying to brand Bevo, but UT and A&M first approached the SEC back in '87. UT and OU knew what to demand to be rejected and merely used the PAC for leverage. Nothing makes a suitor comply quite like the babe flirting with another. That said, all parties privy to each negotiation, failed and successful need to be in one room to write the history. Denial, gloss, face saving, back room deals, and betrayals seldom see the light of day free of revisionism and the varnish of a single point of view.

https://www.si.com/college/2016/08/16/bi...swc-merger

Fascinating read for those who do not understand the merger of the Big 8 and SWC.

I respect you greatly JR but I am not a revisionist. Texas always wanted to go west, A&M always wanted to go east. The reason Texas didn't leave the SWC for the PAC 10 was because of the state of Texas politics and a school president. Of course they seriously considered the SEC at that time but the fact remains, the PAC 10 is where they wanted to go.

Also in 2011, Texas used their leverage to get money out of ESPN. The PAC almost pulled off the "Texahoma" addition, Texas let the cat out of the bag to ESPN and ESPN did what they do, showered them with money and a network to stay. Texas in their most Texas way countered the PAC asking for concessions and a network, The PAC said no. To be clear, Larry Scott and the PAC 10 was wrong, they should have done what ever it took, instead they let ESPN do that and now the mouse has moved them to their premier product the SEC.

In a way I think the real answer to the SEC or PAC preference for Texas had nothing to do with either conference, it had everything to do with the Mouse's wallet.

To everyone else, read that article I posted a link to, it really is an interesting story.

1. What is said publicly is for perception, not necessarily intended to be factual. Discerning truth is difficult at best.

2. Realignment, all of it since 1983 has been a move by corporate networks to reshape the game to their ends (hostile takeover). Trace the terminology. Fan base became market footprint and tied to subscriptions for cable TV. Conferences were labeled so as to create a tier of schools in which history was replaced by brand. When "Power" became a designation, it implied those not labeled "Power" were inferior. Why? A desire to attain "P" status would necessitate growth which we call realignment which networks call product placement. Good match ups became "content" games. When brand plays brand that is called synergy. Why? It multiplies the viewers beyond what each school brings on their own. This is all industry lingo, not sports lingo. College sports no longer exists for schools and alumni and the broader fan base, but all of it exists as a product organized to maximize advertising revenue. And now the killer change. It is no longer college sports, it is now an entertainment industry.

That 2016 SI article was expressing how "networks" looked at the product and brands. The coaches and AD's were still looking at fit and revenue. Well fit is almost gone and revenue dictates terms. This is why what a school wanted to do is largely irrelevant. Monye won. The SEC merely wound up aligned with the biggest shark in the tank.

So, you are blindfolded and simply feeling your way around the same elephant I am describing from the other side. All I'm saying differently is what is discussed at networks and in presidents' meetings with commissioners, and what is reported in the press are two wholly different things. The reality is in the board and conference rooms and the fairy tale is in the press.

The vernacular used always tells you who is in control. We aren't speaking college sports vernacular anymore. We now speak network lingo. When Mr. X becomes the defendant he knows he's screwed. Ditto when college sports becomes an entertainment industry, a term I heard Sankey use for the first time this year. Chills went down my spine!

I've been referring to college football as entertainment for a few years, now.

That happens when you feel less emotionally and less financially invested in it. I once gave a half scholarship annually. When the luxury boxes went in I told my wife, "It's no longer about the kids. It's now about mostly corporate donors showing off." That was the last year we gave a half scholarship which in those days was $2,500. I'd say after that I knew it was entertainment, but I still hated to hear Sankey say it.