As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

(03-02-2023 10:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Utah and Colorado wants the Big 10.

And the B10 say's

(03-03-2023 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

Utah has no chance. Maybe Boulder because of market, but only because there is a redundancy with Cal and Stanford, and Cal is on the outside looking in.

I think the Big 12 is the realistic option for both. If anything Stanford, UO, and UW would be added at 1/2 shares before they are. Then you can blindfold and pick either CU or Cal. I do think it's more likely Stanford and Cal get B1G invites rather than going independent, only because it helps tremendously with Olympic travel. Adding UO/UW doesn't really alleviate that for LA schools or rest of the B1G.

A friend of a friend who was right about USC/UCLA before it happened...

Safe to call this a Low Confidence rumor.

I'm still in 4 Corner to Big12 camp.

Huge if true! Will be interesting on what happens with the other PAC schools. Also a bad look for Tony (TJ) Altimore who made the PODCAST rounds defending the PAC Presidents, he might have been wrong when he said the PAC12 research money is bigger then Sports and Conf alignment and the PAC12 would survive and not change conf!

(03-03-2023 08:32 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

Utah has no chance. Maybe Boulder because of market, but only because there is a redundancy with Cal and Stanford, and Cal is on the outside looking in.

I think the Big 12 is the realistic option for both. If anything Stanford, UO, and UW would be added at 1/2 shares before they are. Then you can blindfold and pick either CU or Cal. I do think it's more likely Stanford and Cal get B1G invites rather than going independent, only because it helps tremendously with Olympic travel. Adding UO/UW doesn't really alleviate that for LA schools or rest of the B1G.

Utah is by far the better athletic brand of the two, and has been for many years. Their academics are no worse than Nebraska's. Consider this part of a bigger long-range plan. Go to 20 by also adding Washington and Arizona. Now you have added four more states (with 25 million people) in addition to California (39 million) and you've added two more Top 20 football programs in Utah and UW. That would give the B1G 8 of the Top 25 programs of the past decade, the same number as the SEC.

I don't see the infatuation with UTAH. Small market, Small state, and just 10 years ago they were a MWC school. I cant see any conference other than the BIG12 wanting them. Especially not the BIG10 or SEC.

Former Oregon head coach and athletic director Mike Bellotti says he believes the league could collapse with the pending departure of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten ahead of the 2024 football season.

"I have that impending sense of doom," he told CBS Sports.

"All my life, I've always been a West Coast guy... I can just see [the Pac-12] falling apart."

Bellotti added that the Pac-12 is "teetering on the brink."


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/c...77e0&ei=11

(03-02-2023 11:03 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Utah and Colorado wants the Big10.

Utah and Colorado willing to pay hefty ACC entrance fee to stay out of the BigXII.

What exactly are FSU and Clemson trying to share unequally again?

I would be shocked if the ACC has the votes to add any school that's currently on the table. Folks don't seem to understand this hurdle. And the potential negative impact if a school wasn't voted in unanimously at this point. I'm a hard-liner on not seeing any expansion path for the ACC until it has spots to backfill and something happens with the GoR (whether that's next week or '36).

(03-03-2023 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

I think Colorado has a chance for the B10.

I think Washington is a wildcard, since we can't be certain at this stage how much it matters that they are an outlier both to the contiguous schools, and to the incoming Cal schools.

But besides trying to figure out WA, I think Kansas, Colorado, and Stanford are the next best choices - ahead of Oregon, Utah, and the rest of the PAC.

(03-03-2023 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:32 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

Utah has no chance. Maybe Boulder because of market, but only because there is a redundancy with Cal and Stanford, and Cal is on the outside looking in.

I think the Big 12 is the realistic option for both. If anything Stanford, UO, and UW would be added at 1/2 shares before they are. Then you can blindfold and pick either CU or Cal. I do think it's more likely Stanford and Cal get B1G invites rather than going independent, only because it helps tremendously with Olympic travel. Adding UO/UW doesn't really alleviate that for LA schools or rest of the B1G.

Utah is by far the better athletic brand of the two, and has been for many years. Their academics are no worse than Nebraska's. Consider this part of a bigger long-range plan. Go to 20 by also adding Washington and Arizona. Now you have added four more states (with 25 million people) in addition to California (39 million) and you've added two more Top 20 football programs in Utah and UW. That would give the B1G 8 of the Top 25 programs of the past decade, the same number as the SEC.

Tend to agree, ken d. It really depends on (1) how big is too big for the BIG and (2) what financial arrangements will the BIG and their media partners find acceptable.

On the first front, I could easily see ASU/WSU/OSU heading to the Big 12 and the remaining seven PAC schools joining the BIG with, say Kansas, to go directly to 24. Three divisions of 8, stretched across the country in all time zones. Would add 8 AAU schools, 6 new states with several large markets. This would imply the BIG is either content staying at 24 or would consider 28 (or 32) with eastern expansion at some time down the road. The beauty is that at 24 they wouldn't need to expand further unless ND called and said they wanted in.

The second point is where this all blows up, as it is unlikely those 8 teams will generate an additional $500 to $600 million in annual revenue. Would the BIG be willing to accept a slight decrease in annual distributions to accomplish a strategic goal if they see it as additive to the conference in other ways? I tend to think yes, as long as it is slight. This is what forward thinking organizations do. So, what would FOX/NBC/CBS pay for access to these eight schools? How about a deal with Amazon for an exclusive Friday night game at 8 pm (BIG FRIDAY NIGHT)? Would ESPN buy 13 or more Saturday night games in the 10 pm slot?

(03-03-2023 10:27 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:32 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

Utah has no chance. Maybe Boulder because of market, but only because there is a redundancy with Cal and Stanford, and Cal is on the outside looking in.

I think the Big 12 is the realistic option for both. If anything Stanford, UO, and UW would be added at 1/2 shares before they are. Then you can blindfold and pick either CU or Cal. I do think it's more likely Stanford and Cal get B1G invites rather than going independent, only because it helps tremendously with Olympic travel. Adding UO/UW doesn't really alleviate that for LA schools or rest of the B1G.

Utah is by far the better athletic brand of the two, and has been for many years. Their academics are no worse than Nebraska's. Consider this part of a bigger long-range plan. Go to 20 by also adding Washington and Arizona. Now you have added four more states (with 25 million people) in addition to California (39 million) and you've added two more Top 20 football programs in Utah and UW. That would give the B1G 8 of the Top 25 programs of the past decade, the same number as the SEC.

Tend to agree, ken d. It really depends on (1) how big is too big for the BIG and (2) what financial arrangements will the BIG and their media partners find acceptable.

On the first front, I could easily see ASU/WSU/OSU heading to the Big 12 and the remaining seven PAC schools joining the BIG with, say Kansas, to go directly to 24. Three divisions of 8, stretched across the country in all time zones. Would add 8 AAU schools, 6 new states with several large markets. This would imply the BIG is either content staying at 24 or would consider 28 (or 32) with eastern expansion at some time down the road. The beauty is that at 24 they wouldn't need to expand further unless ND called and said they wanted in.

The second point is where this all blows up, as it is unlikely those 8 teams will generate an additional $500 to $600 million in annual revenue. Would the BIG be willing to accept a slight decrease in annual distributions to accomplish a strategic goal if they see it as additive to the conference in other ways? I tend to think yes, as long as it is slight. This is what forward thinking organizations do. So, what would FOX/NBC/CBS pay for access to these eight schools? How about a deal with Amazon for an exclusive Friday night game at 8 pm (BIG FRIDAY NIGHT)? Would ESPN buy 13 or more Saturday night games in the 10 pm slot?

I that they'd want to leave room for at least 2 if not 4, ACC schools, in the future.

But drop Cal, and move Utah and Oregon to the B12, and that sounds plausible.

(03-03-2023 10:34 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:27 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:32 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

Utah has no chance. Maybe Boulder because of market, but only because there is a redundancy with Cal and Stanford, and Cal is on the outside looking in.

I think the Big 12 is the realistic option for both. If anything Stanford, UO, and UW would be added at 1/2 shares before they are. Then you can blindfold and pick either CU or Cal. I do think it's more likely Stanford and Cal get B1G invites rather than going independent, only because it helps tremendously with Olympic travel. Adding UO/UW doesn't really alleviate that for LA schools or rest of the B1G.

Utah is by far the better athletic brand of the two, and has been for many years. Their academics are no worse than Nebraska's. Consider this part of a bigger long-range plan. Go to 20 by also adding Washington and Arizona. Now you have added four more states (with 25 million people) in addition to California (39 million) and you've added two more Top 20 football programs in Utah and UW. That would give the B1G 8 of the Top 25 programs of the past decade, the same number as the SEC.

Tend to agree, ken d. It really depends on (1) how big is too big for the BIG and (2) what financial arrangements will the BIG and their media partners find acceptable.

On the first front, I could easily see ASU/WSU/OSU heading to the Big 12 and the remaining seven PAC schools joining the BIG with, say Kansas, to go directly to 24. Three divisions of 8, stretched across the country in all time zones. Would add 8 AAU schools, 6 new states with several large markets. This would imply the BIG is either content staying at 24 or would consider 28 (or 32) with eastern expansion at some time down the road. The beauty is that at 24 they wouldn't need to expand further unless ND called and said they wanted in.

The second point is where this all blows up, as it is unlikely those 8 teams will generate an additional $500 to $600 million in annual revenue. Would the BIG be willing to accept a slight decrease in annual distributions to accomplish a strategic goal if they see it as additive to the conference in other ways? I tend to think yes, as long as it is slight. This is what forward thinking organizations do. So, what would FOX/NBC/CBS pay for access to these eight schools? How about a deal with Amazon for an exclusive Friday night game at 8 pm (BIG FRIDAY NIGHT)? Would ESPN buy 13 or more Saturday night games in the 10 pm slot?

I that they'd want to leave room for at least 2 if not 4, ACC schools, in the future.

But drop Cal, and move Utah and Oregon to the B12, and that sounds plausible.

I agree with you Skyhawk, in that I also think they would want 2 to 4 spots on the east coast. Not sure I see a difference between 24 and 28 at that point, so they could still have room under the scenario I mentioned above. My other thought was that taking all seven AAU schools from the PAC was easier than trying to leave Cal behind or otherwise having to arrange for the BIG 12 to take more.

Hey, who knows. I'm guessing like everyone else...

(03-03-2023 10:40 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:34 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:27 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:32 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Utah has no chance. Maybe Boulder because of market, but only because there is a redundancy with Cal and Stanford, and Cal is on the outside looking in.

I think the Big 12 is the realistic option for both. If anything Stanford, UO, and UW would be added at 1/2 shares before they are. Then you can blindfold and pick either CU or Cal. I do think it's more likely Stanford and Cal get B1G invites rather than going independent, only because it helps tremendously with Olympic travel. Adding UO/UW doesn't really alleviate that for LA schools or rest of the B1G.

Utah is by far the better athletic brand of the two, and has been for many years. Their academics are no worse than Nebraska's. Consider this part of a bigger long-range plan. Go to 20 by also adding Washington and Arizona. Now you have added four more states (with 25 million people) in addition to California (39 million) and you've added two more Top 20 football programs in Utah and UW. That would give the B1G 8 of the Top 25 programs of the past decade, the same number as the SEC.

Tend to agree, ken d. It really depends on (1) how big is too big for the BIG and (2) what financial arrangements will the BIG and their media partners find acceptable.

On the first front, I could easily see ASU/WSU/OSU heading to the Big 12 and the remaining seven PAC schools joining the BIG with, say Kansas, to go directly to 24. Three divisions of 8, stretched across the country in all time zones. Would add 8 AAU schools, 6 new states with several large markets. This would imply the BIG is either content staying at 24 or would consider 28 (or 32) with eastern expansion at some time down the road. The beauty is that at 24 they wouldn't need to expand further unless ND called and said they wanted in.

The second point is where this all blows up, as it is unlikely those 8 teams will generate an additional $500 to $600 million in annual revenue. Would the BIG be willing to accept a slight decrease in annual distributions to accomplish a strategic goal if they see it as additive to the conference in other ways? I tend to think yes, as long as it is slight. This is what forward thinking organizations do. So, what would FOX/NBC/CBS pay for access to these eight schools? How about a deal with Amazon for an exclusive Friday night game at 8 pm (BIG FRIDAY NIGHT)? Would ESPN buy 13 or more Saturday night games in the 10 pm slot?

I that they'd want to leave room for at least 2 if not 4, ACC schools, in the future.

But drop Cal, and move Utah and Oregon to the B12, and that sounds plausible.

I agree with you Skyhawk, in that I also think they would want 2 to 4 spots on the east coast. Not sure I see a difference between 24 and 28 at that point, so they could still have room under the scenario I mentioned above. My other thought was that taking all seven AAU schools from the PAC was easier than trying to leave Cal behind or otherwise having to arrange for the BIG 12 to take more.

Hey, who knows. I'm guessing like everyone else...

lol me too : )

I think most everyone agrees that, between them, the B10 and the B12 could probably invite most of the PAC and call this over.

But the problems are exactly as you state above:

Quote:It really depends on (1) how big is too big for the BIG and (2) what financial arrangements will the BIG and their media partners find acceptable.

(03-03-2023 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:32 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  As far-fetched as this may sound, I wonder if the B1G would consider adding these two at a deep discount - maybe even half shares deep.

The reason both of these schools wanted to be in the PAC was because their alumni and student recruiting is oriented toward California, and specifically LA. They could help USCLA with travel, be a nice bridge between the midwest and west coast, and their departure wouldn't be the fatal blow to the PAC, which would still have 8 schools.

Their addition wouldn't do any damage to the B1G's academic reputation, and they probably add much of the Mountain Time Zone in terms of broad fan interest (eyeballs).

Utah has no chance. Maybe Boulder because of market, but only because there is a redundancy with Cal and Stanford, and Cal is on the outside looking in.

I think the Big 12 is the realistic option for both. If anything Stanford, UO, and UW would be added at 1/2 shares before they are. Then you can blindfold and pick either CU or Cal. I do think it's more likely Stanford and Cal get B1G invites rather than going independent, only because it helps tremendously with Olympic travel. Adding UO/UW doesn't really alleviate that for LA schools or rest of the B1G.

Utah is by far the better athletic brand of the two, and has been for many years. Their academics are no worse than Nebraska's. Consider this part of a bigger long-range plan. Go to 20 by also adding Washington and Arizona. Now you have added four more states (with 25 million people) in addition to California (39 million) and you've added two more Top 20 football programs in Utah and UW. That would give the B1G 8 of the Top 25 programs of the past decade, the same number as the SEC.

Not at all.

Utah has been a better football team for the last dozen years or so. And do have a better basketball program. But that doesn't offset CU's MNC and years near the top. It doesn't mean Utah is a better "brand."

(03-03-2023 09:55 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 11:03 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Utah and Colorado wants the Big10.

Utah and Colorado willing to pay hefty ACC entrance fee to stay out of the BigXII.

What exactly are FSU and Clemson trying to share unequally again?

I would be shocked if the ACC has the votes to add any school that's currently on the table. Folks don't seem to understand this hurdle. And the potential negative impact if a school wasn't voted in unanimously at this point. I'm a hard-liner on not seeing any expansion path for the ACC until it has spots to backfill and something happens with the GoR (whether that's next week or '36).

The ACC already asked ESPN to show them the dollars on how having a loose partnership would help. From my understanding it wasn't much per school payout. So the ACC ask Commish Phillips to discuss what a value increase there would be if they added any Pac Schools.

Basically what we saw was the FSU AD, saying we need $$$, so when the ACC prez's get back together with ESPN the can say "SHOW US the MONEY".

Going to be interesting how this shakes out!

I think some conditions have likely changed from prior discussions:
1) with tHe B1G losing their expansion champion UW and UO have lost confidence in their B1G prospects. It increasingly looks like the next round of expansion hinges on the ACC GOR, so UW and UO are now stuck waiting out the ACC GOR regardless of what conference or GOR they are under.

2) PAC schools are probably now willing to come in with phased in shares provided it’s equal to what the P12 contract looks like.

3) The bottom tier ACC schools have to recognize that their long-term prospects are jeopardized by having the BigXII pick up these PAC programs and become the de facto top M conference. If there are PAC buy ins they’re probably more willing now to split that revenue unequally.

(03-02-2023 10:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Utah and Colorado wants the Big 10.

And I want to win the PowerBall. Mick can explain further.

(03-03-2023 12:41 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 09:55 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 11:03 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Utah and Colorado wants the Big10.

Utah and Colorado willing to pay hefty ACC entrance fee to stay out of the BigXII.

What exactly are FSU and Clemson trying to share unequally again?

I would be shocked if the ACC has the votes to add any school that's currently on the table. Folks don't seem to understand this hurdle. And the potential negative impact if a school wasn't voted in unanimously at this point. I'm a hard-liner on not seeing any expansion path for the ACC until it has spots to backfill and something happens with the GoR (whether that's next week or '36).

The ACC already asked ESPN to show them the dollars on how having a loose partnership would help. From my understanding it wasn't much per school payout. So the ACC ask Commish Phillips to discuss what a value increase there would be if they added any Pac Schools.

Basically what we saw was the FSU AD, saying we need $$$, so when the ACC prez's get back together with ESPN the can say "SHOW US the MONEY".

Going to be interesting how this shakes out!

The ACC could ask ESPN to pay them more money to add schools but what makes you think ESPN has any interest in saying yes? At best, the additions would be pro rata for T1/T2 and maybe a slight increase in ACCN carriage fees distribution per school over time with the added markets and hopefully new carrier contracts.

If negotiations between the ACC/ESPN are opened up to deal with additions and FSU/Clemson do not see a significant revenue increase, there will likely be a lot of turmoil. The ACC contract is basically pandora's box from now until 2034. No sense in ESPN opening the box until they need to.

Let’s say that ESPN is at $25/school for the PAC 10 so $250M total.

Assume they take 7 to the ACC for $250M that’s $36M/school which covers the ACC pro-rata.

Assume that 4 of the schools agree to a phased buy-in that hits full revenue at year 6 but averages $30M over those first 6 years. That’s $36M for each buy-in that goes to the ACC for a total $144M.

At $10M per school over 6 years that’s peanuts. But if it’s shared unequally and FSU or Clemson gets $60M over 6 years that’s a meaningful revenue boost.

So ESPN gets ACCN in-market rates for at least 6 top-30 DMAs for nothing more than what they were going to pay the PAC anyway. The bottom ACC schools break even but place the ACC in clear top position for surviving further P2 expansion. The top ACC schools get a modest pay bump. The middle tier PAC schools get to retain their favored affiliations and academic branding.