8 Pac schools (leave out WSU and OSU) create new conference with 8 ACC schools (UNC, NCState, UVA, VaTech, FSU, Miami, Clemson, Pitt). You play 7 vs your division and just 2 vs the other division (so travel is not a big deal). Division champs square off.
Both conferences get to dump their baggage, leaving a strong list of teams and locations.
I'd go for this if you trade Red Wake Forest (NC state) for Georgia tech. Unc fans probably want duke first. Louisville is a hard one to leave out too. I'm sure all those teams would want to considering it would be a massive outlier academically.
The minute the ACC opens up its media deal Clemson and FSU and maybe Miami bolt to the SEC. They really can't change that conference at all without it falling apart.
Well, anything that speeds up that demise is good for the Pac-12. Clemson and FSU to the SEC would leave a handful of atttractive teams that would be interested in pairing up with the pac-10.
The Pac 10 brings very little to the ACC and vice versa. The marquee matchups (UO v Clemson, UW v MIAMI) could be fun but nobody in their footprint wants to watch any Pac 10 school except maybe UO. How many West Coast fans want to watch ACC schools?
I'm sure they'll hate that Arizona, duke basketball game that's scheduled this year. Probably why the scheduled it, just wanted to piss off the fans. The fans for their part are so mad they bought all the tickets! Like, Oregon State's bus can get lost on they way to the airport but the rest of the games are fun enough for this acc fan. I'd like to see the conferences dump the fcs games for these. Pac isn't as bad about that though.
Correct. And I'm quite turned off by the idea that *universities* that use *unpaid students* as their labor are in an arms race for media money - money that, in the end, is quite literally pocket change for most of these schools. USC, for example, has an annual budget of $6.5B. That means this $ is about 0.4% of their annual total. That's *nothing* - a rounding error.
So, all of this for what amounts to - at most - about 2.5% of a university budget, partially offset by decreased viewership and increased travel costs.
Part of the appeal of college sports is regional rivals. Maybe the Pac-12 should go it alone, let dust settle. Some big-time recruits will want no part of heading east. Sports is fickle. Smaller fish rise, shaking up scene. Ultimately, a 16-team playoff may result and, with it, room for all to win out. I think you are right about Knight. But again, the problem: corporate clubs that are above college institutions that used to be tied to state-government policies.
There is nothing in a 'loose partnership' with the ACC that appeals to me. Sounds like another version of The Alliance. If the Pac12 could lure KU, Houston, Baylor & TCU, I'll ride with that.
Why would the PAC take Baylor and TCU, even if those schools were willing to Go? The PAC has made it clear that they are superior to *gasp* religious schools and people.
I think you are either talking to the wrong sources or being played/used to promote their agenda or both. No one believes that most of the PAC (outside of OSU and Wazzu) s looking to stay together. It's every man for himself at this point.
True, but they aren't looking to jump to the big 12. That would be embarrassing considering how many times they rejected all of the current teams that applied including Texas (for LHN). Several northern teams think their big invitations are just tied up in the mail somewhere. Oregon is particularly delusional about this. It could destabilize the league and send some refuges to the left-behind conference, but it probably won't unless they get pissed off or panic.
Your assessment of who the PAC-12 should go after based on viewers is way off. TCU and Baylor are small schools and therefore have a small alumni base and student body. Texas Tech and OSU are much larger and a vast majority of alumni live in the largest markets. DFW and Houston.
I really don't see any more potential in a Pac/ACC partnership than what little a Pac/Big 12 partnership had to offer. Non-conference football scheduling opportunities are already few and far between with how far Power 5 teams contractually lock in these games in advance. Having conference champions meet up for a game is probably a no-go as far as the ACC is concerned (and I don't blame them). And I have a hard time understanding why the Pac would want their content on the branded network of another conference; talk about making yourself someone's red-headed stepchild.
I'm at the same place I've always been with this; the Pac's best option is to stick together as 10 and stay patient enough to reach the point where as many broadcasters as possible are able to submit their best offer. But it sounds like they are just going to take whatever crumbs ESPN throws at them, so hopefully that is enough to keep their top brands from being enticed into the Big 12.
John, most have cited the Bay Area market as 2.6 million. Why is it that Sacramento is not included? As you know, conventionally Sacramento has been considered, along with the Bay Area, a part of "Northern California"; and now with so many people moving from the Bay to Sacto, shouldn't the 1.4 million be added to result in 4.0 million? I'm surprised the TV execs don't seem to consider this math from what I've read. Appreciate all your reporting and insight in all this!
The problem with a potential Pac 12 - ACC merger is the SEC eventually will have their eyes on Clemson, Miami and FSU. Then we go through this all over again. Insanity prevails.
True, but you gotta do what you can until SEC/ESPN decides what happens next for everyone. At some point, you have to think there will be one big superconference.
The best teams from the Pac and the ACC should leave their conferences to form a 16-team conference as a way to position themselves for that day.
Sam Cooper of espn posted a similar story. Also talked about big conferences actively 'poaching' schools. “We will leave no stone unturned to drive value for the conference,” Yormark said at Big 12 media days. “Exploration and optionality is at the forefront of what we are focused on. Everything we do must create momentum for these [media rights] negotiations.”
John, I don't understand how the Pac-10 can undergo effective television negotiations in their current state of instability. Whatever "loose alliance" or partnership they make can only be short-term given the changing dynamics of college sports and the top school's (Oregon, Stanford, WA, Utah) reluctance to commit long-term to anything that jeopardizes their future options. Whatever the conference ends up looking like this year seems short-lived and "stop-gap." With that setup, why would ESPN be interested beyond a mere minimalist offer?
ESPN has to worry about the restless ACC members. Getting them more money in the short term helps. Also, not convinced the schools you mentioned are going to have good options. All of this planning should be in 5-year increments anyway.
Lots of moving pieces here. Thanks for keeping track of them all. It is almost a full time job.
8 Pac schools (leave out WSU and OSU) create new conference with 8 ACC schools (UNC, NCState, UVA, VaTech, FSU, Miami, Clemson, Pitt). You play 7 vs your division and just 2 vs the other division (so travel is not a big deal). Division champs square off.
Both conferences get to dump their baggage, leaving a strong list of teams and locations.
I'd go for this if you trade Red Wake Forest (NC state) for Georgia tech. Unc fans probably want duke first. Louisville is a hard one to leave out too. I'm sure all those teams would want to considering it would be a massive outlier academically.
The minute the ACC opens up its media deal Clemson and FSU and maybe Miami bolt to the SEC. They really can't change that conference at all without it falling apart.
It's really a big assumption that these conferences want very many ACC schools. Maybe UNC as both have flirted with that before.
Well, anything that speeds up that demise is good for the Pac-12. Clemson and FSU to the SEC would leave a handful of atttractive teams that would be interested in pairing up with the pac-10.
A decent proposal. Not bad at all.
The Pac 10 brings very little to the ACC and vice versa. The marquee matchups (UO v Clemson, UW v MIAMI) could be fun but nobody in their footprint wants to watch any Pac 10 school except maybe UO. How many West Coast fans want to watch ACC schools?
I'm sure they'll hate that Arizona, duke basketball game that's scheduled this year. Probably why the scheduled it, just wanted to piss off the fans. The fans for their part are so mad they bought all the tickets! Like, Oregon State's bus can get lost on they way to the airport but the rest of the games are fun enough for this acc fan. I'd like to see the conferences dump the fcs games for these. Pac isn't as bad about that though.
The “100% about TV revenue” line is just killing me. None of this makes any sense at all. None.
It only makes sense in an arms race that requires ever more money.
Correct. And I'm quite turned off by the idea that *universities* that use *unpaid students* as their labor are in an arms race for media money - money that, in the end, is quite literally pocket change for most of these schools. USC, for example, has an annual budget of $6.5B. That means this $ is about 0.4% of their annual total. That's *nothing* - a rounding error.
So, all of this for what amounts to - at most - about 2.5% of a university budget, partially offset by decreased viewership and increased travel costs.
Just stupid.
And what do you think your ESPN subscription rates are going to be in the future?
Part of the appeal of college sports is regional rivals. Maybe the Pac-12 should go it alone, let dust settle. Some big-time recruits will want no part of heading east. Sports is fickle. Smaller fish rise, shaking up scene. Ultimately, a 16-team playoff may result and, with it, room for all to win out. I think you are right about Knight. But again, the problem: corporate clubs that are above college institutions that used to be tied to state-government policies.
"Some big-time recruits will want no part of heading east."
For recruits it has nothing to do with geography but everything to do with exposure. They'll play anywhere that gets them on TV.
There is nothing in a 'loose partnership' with the ACC that appeals to me. Sounds like another version of The Alliance. If the Pac12 could lure KU, Houston, Baylor & TCU, I'll ride with that.
Except, ESPN is the glue here.
Why would the PAC take Baylor and TCU, even if those schools were willing to Go? The PAC has made it clear that they are superior to *gasp* religious schools and people.
Tcu isn't quite Baylor on the religion stuff and Baylor isn't anything like byu. Notre dame is still religious.
I think you are either talking to the wrong sources or being played/used to promote their agenda or both. No one believes that most of the PAC (outside of OSU and Wazzu) s looking to stay together. It's every man for himself at this point.
Remember, they're currently in negotiations for their TV contract. Of course they're going to posture as a cohesive front. Makes sense.
And posturing is exactly what it is. Unless ESPN is willing to way overpay to save the conference the PAC it is done.
True, but they aren't looking to jump to the big 12. That would be embarrassing considering how many times they rejected all of the current teams that applied including Texas (for LHN). Several northern teams think their big invitations are just tied up in the mail somewhere. Oregon is particularly delusional about this. It could destabilize the league and send some refuges to the left-behind conference, but it probably won't unless they get pissed off or panic.
You are living in a dream world if you really believe that.
You are delusional...
Your assessment of who the PAC-12 should go after based on viewers is way off. TCU and Baylor are small schools and therefore have a small alumni base and student body. Texas Tech and OSU are much larger and a vast majority of alumni live in the largest markets. DFW and Houston.
Facts, Facts and more facts. Very interesting how the landscape continues to change.Thanks for all your archaeologist digs.
I really don't see any more potential in a Pac/ACC partnership than what little a Pac/Big 12 partnership had to offer. Non-conference football scheduling opportunities are already few and far between with how far Power 5 teams contractually lock in these games in advance. Having conference champions meet up for a game is probably a no-go as far as the ACC is concerned (and I don't blame them). And I have a hard time understanding why the Pac would want their content on the branded network of another conference; talk about making yourself someone's red-headed stepchild.
I'm at the same place I've always been with this; the Pac's best option is to stick together as 10 and stay patient enough to reach the point where as many broadcasters as possible are able to submit their best offer. But it sounds like they are just going to take whatever crumbs ESPN throws at them, so hopefully that is enough to keep their top brands from being enticed into the Big 12.
John, most have cited the Bay Area market as 2.6 million. Why is it that Sacramento is not included? As you know, conventionally Sacramento has been considered, along with the Bay Area, a part of "Northern California"; and now with so many people moving from the Bay to Sacto, shouldn't the 1.4 million be added to result in 4.0 million? I'm surprised the TV execs don't seem to consider this math from what I've read. Appreciate all your reporting and insight in all this!
The problem with a potential Pac 12 - ACC merger is the SEC eventually will have their eyes on Clemson, Miami and FSU. Then we go through this all over again. Insanity prevails.
True, but you gotta do what you can until SEC/ESPN decides what happens next for everyone. At some point, you have to think there will be one big superconference.
The best teams from the Pac and the ACC should leave their conferences to form a 16-team conference as a way to position themselves for that day.
Sam Cooper of espn posted a similar story. Also talked about big conferences actively 'poaching' schools. “We will leave no stone unturned to drive value for the conference,” Yormark said at Big 12 media days. “Exploration and optionality is at the forefront of what we are focused on. Everything we do must create momentum for these [media rights] negotiations.”
John, I don't understand how the Pac-10 can undergo effective television negotiations in their current state of instability. Whatever "loose alliance" or partnership they make can only be short-term given the changing dynamics of college sports and the top school's (Oregon, Stanford, WA, Utah) reluctance to commit long-term to anything that jeopardizes their future options. Whatever the conference ends up looking like this year seems short-lived and "stop-gap." With that setup, why would ESPN be interested beyond a mere minimalist offer?
ESPN has to worry about the restless ACC members. Getting them more money in the short term helps. Also, not convinced the schools you mentioned are going to have good options. All of this planning should be in 5-year increments anyway.
OK, makes sense. But in this Wild West shuffling, 5 years seems like eternity to tie oneself into a financial/structural commitment.