Pac12 dissolution discussion

[MADHAT1]

Once a PAC TV rights contract is signed, then well see some movement.
I doubt the PAC will be getting a premium price and read somewhere the CW network might be an option.
I would guess if the rights deal doesn't come close to what the B1G 12 can offer, ASU, UoA, Utah and Colorado will be headed there.

As for Washington,Oregon, Stanford and California , the B1G will wait for the duat to settle, then offer entrance at reduced rates and more years to become full revenue sharing members.
But it will still be better short term than what the PAC could offer and in the long run being B1G members would benefit the schools more than earning a little more in the B-12 while waiting for a full share of the B1G pot.

The Vitamin conference will get the first 4 because those schools aren't going to gamble the B1G won't be scooping up the rest of California and the B1G knows that and will use it to their advantage once the fleeing four make their move..

I really don't see the PAC getting a deal that will keep their better program, with what they'll get elsewhere.

 

[retired711]

Once a PAC TV rights contract is signed, then well see some movement.
I doubt the PAC will be getting a premium price and read somewhere the CW network might be an option.
I would guess if the rights deal doesn't come close to what the B1G 12 can offer, ASU, UoA, Utah and Colorado will be headed there.

As for Washington,Oregon, Stanford and California , the B1G will wait for the duat to settle, then offer entrance at reduced rates and more years to become full revenue sharing members.
But it will still be better short term than what the PAC could offer and in the long run being B1G members would benefit the schools more than earning a little more in the B-12 while waiting for a full share of the B1G pot.

The Vitamin conference will get the first 4 because those schools aren't going to gamble the B1G won't be scooping up the rest of California and the B1G knows that and will use it to their advantage once the fleeing four make their move..

I really don't see the PAC getting a deal that will keep their better program, with what they'll get elsewhere.

Your prognosis is reasonable. I think there is no possibility that the four northern Pacific schools would prefer the Big 12 to the Big Ten. At least the Big Ten has academic cachet, and offers having UCLA and USC as rivals again. But, as always, we'll have to see. I also think there is a chance (a *very* small one, but a chance) that Stanford and Cal (or one of them) will opt out of big-time athletics. Of course, as I have pointed out several times on the Cal board, there is no Ivy League alternative for them.

 

[airspace]

Your prognosis is reasonable. I think there is no possibility that the four northern Pacific schools would prefer the Big 12 to the Big Ten. At least the Big Ten has academic cachet, and offers having UCLA and USC as rivals again. But, as always, we'll have to see. I also think there is a chance (a *very* small one, but a chance) that Stanford and Cal (or one of them) will opt out of big-time athletics. Of course, as I have pointed out several times on the Cal board, there is no Ivy League alternative for them.

I agree with what you are saying. I believe Cal will come, it is Stanford that is the question mark. What do they do or not do. The Big Ten Academic Alliance should be attractive to both Cal and Stanford. And don't be surprised if the Big 10 took 3 (if Stanford said no), for over 15 years the Big 10 had 11 members and made it work.

The word is that one media source (I believe Fox) would be willing to negotiate for more games (or another window) but they want to wait until Warren is gone. I agree with you, that Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford would be offered lessor shares (unless the Big 10 can get a great deal) until the next contract when full shares would be offered. This has been the case with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. And I believe the amount offered would be more than what the PAC could/would give. I would estimate at least half of what Big 10 members get (approximately $40 to $50 Million). Depends on what the Big 10 can negotiate.

Remember, Amazon offered more than NBC and CBS paid for their slots, which was $350 Million a piece.

 

[retired711]

I agree with what you are saying. I believe Cal will come, it is Stanford that is the question mark. What do they do or not do. The Big Ten Academic Alliance should be attractive to both Cal and Stanford. And don't be surprised if the Big 10 took 3 (if Stanford said no), for over 15 years the Big 10 had 11 members and made it work.

The word is that one media source (I believe Fox) would be willing to negotiate for more games (or another window) but they want to wait until Warren is gone. I agree with you, that Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford would be offered lessor shares (unless the Big 10 can get a great deal) until the next contract when full shares would be offered. This has been the case with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. And I believe the amount offered would be more than what the PAC could/would give. I would estimate at least half of what Big 10 members get (approximately $40 to $50 Million). Depends on what the Big 10 can negotiate.

Remember, Amazon offered more than NBC and CBS paid for their slots, which was $350 Million a piece.

Thanks for your response. I agree with a lot of it. I'm not sure the Big Ten Academic Alliance has much to offer Cal and Stanford -- after all, they are two time zones away from the nearest Big Ten school, and Cal already cooperates with UCLA, a sister institution within the University of California.

Why do you think Stanford is the question mark? And why do you think Cal isn't?

Wasn't Rutgers due to get a full share after a number of years without regard to whether there was a new contract? Or are you saying that the initial time period for a full share was calculated to coincide with when there would be a new contract? You follow this more than I do, obviously, but didn't Rutgers started to get a full share even before the new contract was announced?

Are you saying that Amazon actually offered the Big Ten more than the networks, but that the Big Ten turned Amazon down --presumably to have the greater visibility that goes with being on "traditional" TV.

Sorry for all the questions!

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

...
Why do you think Stanford is the question mark? And why do you think Cal isn't?
...

I can take a crack at the Cal question. When CA politicians dropped the issue about UCLA joining.. my first thought was that was because they got some promises.

 

[retired711]

I can take a crack at the Cazl question. When CA politicians dropped the issue about UCLA joining.. my first thought was that was because they got some promises.

Perhaps. But I know there is a committee studying whether Cal should drop out of Division I (or whatever it's now called). I think the keys will be what that would mean for the Olympic sports and women's athletics. The answer, it seems to me, ought to be to stay in Division I for the sake of having quality competition -- but with Cal one never knows.

Let me add that it's hard to know what, if anything, the Big Ten promised the Regents in exchange for going along with UCLA joining. The financial benefit to UCLA of joining is so great that the Regents were limited in how much they reasonably could ask in return.

 

[oldtimer67]

You don't think a market with over 2 million TV households is a large TV market? Remember that, at least for now, having a team in a market raises the carriage fees considerably; that's why Rutgers got into the Big Ten. As for the rest of your comment you may have misinterpreted my question. I know a school has to be worth $80 million to be worth adding under the new TV contract, but how can you be so sure that U. Washington isn't, or that some other school is? Certainly Notre Dame is worth adding -- but aren't there other schools that are worth $80 million? And how do we know whether they are or not.

Did you just compare a TV market of 2 million to one of 10 million or more? UW vs RU?

 

[airspace]

Thanks for your response. I agree with a lot of it. I'm not sure the Big Ten Academic Alliance has much to offer Cal and Stanford -- after all, they are two time zones away from the nearest Big Ten school, and Cal already cooperates with UCLA, a sister institution within the University of California.

Why do you think Stanford is the question mark? And why do you think Cal isn't?

Wasn't Rutgers due to get a full share after a number of years without regard to whether there was a new contract? Or are you saying that the initial time period for a full share was calculated to coincide with when there would be a new contract? You follow this more than I do, obviously, but didn't Rutgers started to get a full share even before the new contract was announced?

Are you saying that Amazon actually offered the Big Ten more than the networks, but that the Big Ten turned Amazon down --presumably to have the greater visibility that goes with being on "traditional" TV.

Sorry for all the questions!

Not an issue with the questions. Just my take/belief on what I have heard over the years.

From what I get from the Cal boards, they believe that if offered (Big 10) they would take it. The California Board of Regents was trying awful hard to get the Big 10 to take Cal as well, thus why the long delay. Even one of the board members admitted they tried to get the Big 10 to take Cal. I get from their board, the administration realizes how important sports are BUT not real interested in putting in the bucks to be real competitive.

Also, from their boards, they even admit how quiet Stanford has been. They (Cal) question if Stanford wants to compete due to NIL. Thus why a question mark.

Again, not a 100% sure. But yes, the buy in coincided with the next contract for all three, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. They all got more than what they would get in their old conference. Then an equal share with the next contract.

Yes, if you check it out, Amazon offered more than CBS & NBC for a time slot. Problem was that it was for streaming vs Over The Air. Visibility was an issue, thus they went with CBS & NBC vs Amazon (even thou Amazon offered more). This might be an opportunity for Amazon to reenter talks for an additional window.

 

[retired711]

Did you just compare a TV market of 2 million to one of 10 million or more? UW vs RU?

Not at all. He said that Seattle was a small TV market, and both I and @WhichReligionIsRight questioned whether that was true. Neither of us said the market is as big as New York. But it is big enough that it is not "small."

 

[retired711]

Not an issue with the questions. Just my take/belief on what I have heard over the years.

From what I get from the Cal boards, they believe that if offered (Big 10) they would take it. The California Board of Regents was trying awful hard to get the Big 10 to take Cal as well, thus why the long delay. Even one of the board members admitted they tried to get the Big 10 to take Cal. I get from their board, the administration realizes how important sports are BUT not real interested in putting in the bucks to be real competitive.

Also, from their boards, they even admit how quiet Stanford has been. They (Cal) question if Stanford wants to compete due to NIL. Thus why a question mark.

Again, not a 100% sure. But yes, the buy in coincided with the next contract for all three, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. They all got more than what they would get in their old conference. Then an equal share with the next contract.

Yes, if you check it out, Amazon offered more than CBS & NBC for a time slot. Problem was that it was for streaming vs Over The Air. Visibility was an issue, thus they went with CBS & NBC vs Amazon (even thou Amazon offered more). This might be an opportunity for Amazon to reenter talks for an additional window.

I don't think you can take the Cal board seriously as a source either on what the Cal administration thinks or especially not on what Stanford thinks or might do. This is based on my long experience with the Cal board.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

I've heard similar in regard to the B10 and GT
Re. the B10 and FSU, I know they've been talking, but opinions differ on whether they have an official invite

My buddy who's big up in boosters says they do, and he's been right on most things re. expansion, so I'll take his word for it

It makes sense on all levels - but if offered by both the SEC / B1G, for FB related reasons, I'd prefer the SEC

However, the whispers are they (school, admins, prez. AD, coaches, etc.) majority prefer the B1G

The ENTIRE Georgia Tech thing comes out of an ESPN article in 2018.. yes, ESPN....... why would they have an agenda???

lolz......

it's, at best, a very optimistic reading of events......... Delaney was all in on Rutger for years.........

The logic of the ESPN article was somehow about 150 Ohio State fans show-up to watch Buckeye games in an Atlanta bar- so, they were going to sign the smallest school in Georgia.... rolf......

it's simply not accurate.... sorry.

 

[airspace]

I don't think you can take the Cal board seriously as a source either on what the Cal administration thinks or especially not on what Stanford thinks or might do. This is based on my long experience with the Cal board.

May I ask, what Cal board do you go to?

 

[retired711]

May I ask, what Cal board do you go to?

Bearinsider, which is the long-established board. I've been there on and off since about 2000.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Did you just compare a TV market of 2 million to one of 10 million or more? UW vs RU?

I forget how I came up with it.. but the TV markets are generally looked at in terms of HOUSEHOLDS, not population. I used some conservative guesses about how much of the NYC and Philly markets were actually NJ households and guessed that, should NJ be its own TV market it would come in at number 5 or so. Then, you'd have to figure out how much interest Rutgers would garner in its TV market compared to any other school you wish to compare in its TV market.

Of course, the household brands have some appeal in national markets. So that would be a different thing entirely.

Bottom line is, should Rutgers build a winner.. it could easily have a HUGE TV market at home to depend on and that would help get premium air time with which to build a national brand. When that starts, success will breed success.

 

[50 yd line RR]

I forget how I came up with it.. but the TV markets are generally looked at in terms of HOUSEHOLDS, not population. I used some conservative guesses about how much of the NYC and Philly markets were actually NJ households and guessed that, should NJ be its own TV market it would come in at number 5 or so. Then, you'd have to figure out how much interest Rutgers would garner in its TV market compared to any other school you wish to compare in its TV market.

Of course, the household brands have some appeal in national markets. So that would be a different thing entirely.

Bottom line is, should Rutgers build a winner.. it could easily have a HUGE TV market at home to depend on and that would help get premium air time with which to build a national brand. When that starts, success will breed success.

Your mouth to Gods ears!

 

[airspace]

Bearinsider, which is the long-established board. I've been there on and off since about 2000.

Yes, that is where I have been going for the last year. You are right about them being doomers, BUT I find a few connected people there who have a good idea of what is going on. I carefully, listen to wifeisafurd. He seems to be really connected and has a really good idea of what is happening.

One big advantage for Cal & Stanford is location. Being in Silicon Valley, all of those Big 10 alums in the area make it a very good place to use your team visiting as a fund raiser.

 

[retired711]

Yes, that is where I have been going for the last year. You are right about them being doomers, BUT I find a few connected people there who have a good idea of what is going on. I carefully, listen to wifeisafurd. He seems to be really connected and has a really good idea of what is happening.

One big advantage for Cal & Stanford is location. Being in Silicon Valley, all of those Big 10 alums in the area make it a very good place to use your team visiting as a fund raiser.

I am familiar with that individual's posts. I prefer not to comment on any individual as a poster.

Big Ten teams do visit Cal from time to time. I am not sure that it's an especially good place to do a fundraiser, but of course I don't know.

Edit: I will add only that I have never seen any evidence that anyone on the Cal board has any inside knowledge of the views of the Cal administration; that is, of how Chancellor Christ feels. They aren't plugged into the athletic department either, particularly because almost all despise AD Knowlton. (and Christ for giving him a long-term contract.) They have even less knowledge of what Stanford (or, as they would say, Stanfurd) is thinking. Posters on the Cal board are at least as emotional as here, and so , like virtually all posters, they see what they want to see.

 

[airspace]

I am familiar with that individual's posts. I prefer not to comment on any individual as a poster.

Big Ten teams do visit Cal from time to time. I am not sure that it's an especially good place to do a fundraiser, but of course I don't know.

Edit: I will add only that I have never seen any evidence that anyone on the Cal board has any inside knowledge of the views of the Cal administration; that is, of how Chancellor Christ feels. They aren't plugged into the athletic department either, particularly because almost all despise AD Knowlton. (and Christ for giving him a long-term contract.) They have even less knowledge of what Stanford (or, as they would say, Stanfurd) is thinking. Posters on the Cal board are at least as emotional as here, and so , like virtually all posters, they see what they want to see.

I only mentioned the one individual because he appears to be the most rational, yet has made comments that give the appearance that he is connected.

As I mentioned about Stanford, silence. Nobody on the Cal site as any knowledge (you would think they might have heard a peep). If you go to the Cardboard Board (Stanford), again nothing.

What might be going on, just speculation on my part. Silence from both Cal and Stanford. Stanford being private, they are immune from the Freedom of Information Act. Could it be that Cal and Stanford are going through Stanford to the Big 10. Both Cal and Stanford seem connected to each other. Just speculation on my part. Nothing to confirm one way or the other.

 

[retired711]

I only mentioned the one individual because he appears to be the most rational, yet has made comments that give the appearance that he is connected.

As I mentioned about Stanford, silence. Nobody on the Cal site as any knowledge (you would think they might have heard a peep). If you go to the Cardboard Board (Stanford), again nothing.

What might be going on, just speculation on my part. Silence from both Cal and Stanford. Stanford being private, they are immune from the Freedom of Information Act. Could it be that Cal and Stanford are going through Stanford to the Big 10. Both Cal and Stanford seem connected to each other. Just speculation on my part. Nothing to confirm one way or the other.

None of us (and that includes posters on the Cal board) really know. All we can do, as you say, is to speculate. So all of us should be modest in our predictions just as you are in this post.

 

[SF88]

Both Cal and Stanford are exceptional academic schools, but athletically what would they bring to the B1G? Most of Stanfords historical titles are in the “minor” sports, such as water polo, golf, volleyball, tennis, swimming and gymnastics. Their football history is better than ours, but they get mediocre fan support, even when playing well

Sure, SF is a large market, but neither is a national brand that will draw TV interest. Athletically, I would argue Utah-Colorado-Arizona are better brands with better success and support in the “major” sports. All are also AAU schools. Obviously, $$$s come into play and I don’t see how Cal or Stanford move the needle on a national scale. Washington and Oregon have a much wider appeal.

It will be interesting to see what metrics the B1G values most when the next expansion happens

 

[retired711]

Both Cal and Stanford are exceptional academic schools, but athletically what would they bring to the B1G? Most of Stanfords historical titles are in the “minor” sports, such as water polo, golf, volleyball, tennis, swimming and gymnastics. Their football history is better than ours, but they get mediocre fan support, even when playing well

Sure, SF is a large market, but neither is a national brand that will draw TV interest. Athletically, I would argue Utah-Colorado-Arizona are better brands with better success and support in the “major” sports. All are also AAU schools. Obviously, $$$s come into play and I don’t see how Cal or Stanford move the needle on a national scale. Washington and Oregon have a much wider appeal.

It will be interesting to see what metrics the B1G values most when the next expansion happens

Everything you say is true or at least reasonable. What I wonder is how many schools really are national brands (other than Notre Dame, or maybe Army/Navy). Has Alabama's success in football made it a national brand? Does anyone watch Alabama just because it's Alabama? My sense is that people will watch games that are competitive -- no one wants to watch blowouts -- and have the best athletes regardless of the name of the school. Having a name like Alabama or USC helps in that people expect them to have the best athletes because of their past success, but any school can become attractive just by being good for a reasonably long period. If Cal or Stanford or for that matter Rutgers becomes consistently good, then they will attract eyeballs. So IMHO (and it is a humble opinion) whether a team is successful right now is not the key.

 

[airspace]

Everything you say is true or at least reasonable. What I wonder is how many schools really are national brands (other than Notre Dame, or maybe Army/Navy). Has Alabama's success in football made it a national brand? Does anyone watch Alabama just because it's Alabama? My sense is that people will watch games that are competitive -- no one wants to watch blowouts -- and have the best athletes regardless of the name of the school. Having a name like Alabama or USC helps in that people expect them to have the best athletes because of their past success, but any school can become attractive just by being good for a reasonably long period. If Cal or Stanford or for that matter Rutgers becomes consistently good, then they will attract eyeballs. So IMHO (and it is a humble opinion) whether a team is successful right now is not the key.

Not every addition has to be a triple or home run.

Since 2012, the following teams have represented the Big Ten West - Nebraska, Iowa, NW, Purdue and Wisconsin. Leaving out Illinois and Minnesota. Minnesota has been close and with Bilema at Illinois they will be challenging soon.

In the Big Ten East, aka Murders Row, you have Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan and Michigan State. Leaving Indiana, Maryland and Rutgers.

Going division less, it will be interesting on how they setup a playoff within the Big 10. How much money could be generated with a 4 team playoff? How about 6 or 8? The NCAA will not determine how it is done BUT the Big 10.

And going back to California and Stanford, who is not to say they can build a team to challenge every 3 or 4 years. I have seen NW do it, Purdue has done, Minnesota has been close and I have seen Schiano come close to competing.

And you need those single and double teams to fill out your conference. And they can be surprising. It is not always about the WOW factor. California and Stanford add a lot (can you imagine from the academic side what collaborating with them would do for your university?)

 

[50 yd line RR]

A lot of good posts in this thread. Do you think it will still be going when the BIG actually expands?

 

[retired711]

Not every addition has to be a triple or home run.

Since 2012, the following teams have represented the Big Ten West - Nebraska, Iowa, NW, Purdue and Wisconsin. Leaving out Illinois and Minnesota. Minnesota has been close and with Bilema at Illinois they will be challenging soon.

In the Big Ten East, aka Murders Row, you have Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan and Michigan State. Leaving Indiana, Maryland and Rutgers.

Going division less, it will be interesting on how they setup a playoff within the Big 10. How much money could be generated with a 4 team playoff? How about 6 or 8? The NCAA will not determine how it is done BUT the Big 10.

And going back to California and Stanford, who is not to say they can build a team to challenge every 3 or 4 years. I have seen NW do it, Purdue has done, Minnesota has been close and I have seen Schiano come close to competing.

And you need those single and double teams to fill out your conference. And they can be surprising. It is not always about the WOW factor. California and Stanford add a lot (can you imagine from the academic side what collaborating with them would do for your university?)

Cal went from being 1-10 in 2001 to being a contender for a BCS bowl in just a few years. So you're right -- it can be done. And every conference needs a few awful teams to make it easier for the best team to qualify for a chance to play for a national championship. (Yes, I know that's a cynical thing to say.)

 

[retired711]

A lot of good posts in this thread. Do you think it will still be going when the BIG actually expands?

Your post makes me smile. I think the answer depends on the outcome of the Pac-10's media negotiations. If the Pac-10 doesn't get a good deal, then there will be even more discussion of what the conference's future will be.

 

[MADHAT1]

Your post makes me smile. I think the answer depends on the outcome of the Pac-10's media negotiations. If the Pac-10 doesn't get a good deal, then there will be even more discussion of what the conference's future will be.

Agree wholeheartedly and think we'll be seeing the B-12 scoop up a few Pac members and this thread will be mainly speculating when the B1G will make their move .

 

[RUTGERS95]

The ENTIRE Georgia Tech thing comes out of an ESPN article in 2018.. yes, ESPN....... why would they have an agenda???

lolz......

it's, at best, a very optimistic reading of events......... Delaney was all in on Rutger for years.........

The logic of the ESPN article was somehow about 150 Ohio State fans show-up to watch Buckeye games in an Atlanta bar- so, they were going to sign the smallest school in Georgia.... rolf......

it's simply not accurate.... sorry.

I already told them GT was a no and laughed. so much ridiculous conjecture by seemingly intelligent people

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

We can all debate...... the answer is soooooooooooooooooo simple. why people make complex, I don't know.

a) 16 is the answer
b) Notre Dame is the answer - they get 1 last shot...
c) if they say yes, it's ND and ONE West coast team (you need 3 teams out west)
Oregon first, Washington second, Stanford thrid. You can debate what they do/don't bring -but that's it. All 3 want it... any will take it.

d) if ND says 'no' - then you go 1 West Coast and 1 ACC (don't tell me GOR... its no longer the handcuff it was - a team can leave... the GOR is a one-way handcuff--- teams don't make any money UNLESS they leave.

you try Clemson (who will say 'no' and bolt for SEC) then you take UNC.

So, Oregon and UNC.

done.

no, it's NOT Cal, not it's not FSU.... just stop........

 

[SF88]

Don't we already have 16 with USC/UCLA?
so 18 is the magic number? My guess is 18, then 20, then ND on the clock over time.
ND won't go until they have no place for their olympic sports. that is when the ACC teams bolt, or GOR expires, whichever comes first. I that is not for 12 more years, I can't believe the B1G plan is to leave USC/UCLA isolated for that long

 

[MADHAT1]

Don't we already have 16 with USC/UCLA?
so 18 is the magic number? My guess is 18, then 20, then ND on the clock over time.
ND won't go until they have no place for their olympic sports. that is when the ACC teams bolt, or GOR expires, whichever comes first. I that is not for 12 more years, I can't believe the B1G plan is to leave USC/UCLA isolated for that long

I don't believe USC & UCLA will be left alone on the W3est Coast for long.
Once the PAC TV rights deal is made and the revenue sharing proves to be
comparable to a G-5 conference, the rush to leave the PAC will begin and the B1G will pick up the programs the conference wants at a bargain entry rate
and more years to the full share timeline that Rutgers and Maryland had.

I think ND will have the Big East to fall back on , for basketball and olympic sports, if the ACC becomes undesirable to them.
I believe will keep being an independent football program as long as the overall revenue they make if fairly close to what they would receive in the B1G or any other P-5 they placed football in.

 

[krup]

We can all debate...... the answer is soooooooooooooooooo simple. why people make complex, I don't know.

a) 16 is the answer
b) Notre Dame is the answer - they get 1 last shot...
c) if they say yes, it's ND and ONE West coast team (you need 3 teams out west)
Oregon first, Washington second, Stanford thrid. You can debate what they do/don't bring -but that's it. All 3 want it... any will take it.

d) if ND says 'no' - then you go 1 West Coast and 1 ACC (don't tell me GOR... its no longer the handcuff it was - a team can leave... the GOR is a one-way handcuff--- teams don't make any money UNLESS they leave.

you try Clemson (who will say 'no' and bolt for SEC) then you take UNC.

So, Oregon and UNC.

done.

no, it's NOT Cal, not it's not FSU.... just stop........

How many times does it need to be pointed out that, until someone makes a legal breakthrough that invalidates the force of a GOR and removes the huge risk of GOR teams to leave, Notre Dame and the ACC teams are not available until 2036?

 

[airspace]

I don't believe USC & UCLA will be left alone on the W3est Coast for long.
Once the PAC TV rights deal is made and the revenue sharing proves to be
comparable to a G-5 conference, the rush to leave the PAC will begin and the B1G will pick up the programs the conference wants at a bargain entry rate
and more years to the full share timeline that Rutgers and Maryland had.

I think ND will have the Big East to fall back on , for basketball and olympic sports, if the ACC becomes undesirable to them.
I believe will keep being an independent football program as long as the overall revenue they make if fairly close to what they would receive in the B1G or any other P-5 they placed football in.

Amen. ND will stay independent until they no longer can (and even longer). It is part of their DNA and who they are.

For all practical purposes, ND let the train leave the depot. As NIL guidelines are defined and written into Big 10 rules and regulations, the further behind ND is (how do you change what the other parties in the Big 10 have established and set?). When the Big 10 and the SEC both split from the NCAA, ND will be left at the depot seeing the last train depart.

 

[Queztastic]

Notre Dame has played Stanford almost every year since 1988. If ND accepting an invite is dependent on Stanford tagging-along and that seals the deal, then it will be Stanford over Oregon, Washington or Cal.

 

[MADHAT1]

Notre Dame has played Stanford almost every year since 1988. If ND accepting an invite is dependent on Stanford tagging-along and that seals the deal, then it will be Stanford over Oregon, Washington or Cal.

ND has been playing USC every year since 1926 and both programs will probably continue to do so.
I don't think that ND would join to just keep playing Stanford and might not want to join so it could continue playing USC every year instead of hoping the B1G would consider it as a permanent rivalry game.

 

[airspace]

A little off topic. Found this through Greg Flugaur. Talks about visibility and coverage.

Analysis of TV Window Options for the PAC 12 in Current Negotiations

Our Brian Ethridge and Sam Bradshaw (S11) take a deep look into the specifics of time slots and viewership that the PAC 12 has to contend with in media deal negotiations.

sicem365.com

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

How many times does it need to be pointed out that, until someone makes a legal breakthrough that invalidates the force of a GOR and removes the huge risk of GOR teams to leave, Notre Dame and the ACC teams are not available until 2036?

It only takes one.

sorry if I laugh at this...........

(a) you act like no contract has ever been broken

(b)we live in a world where USC just left the PAC10 (sic) to join a conference with Rutgers......... rules are mere spedbumps.......

the only thing proven by Clemson and UNC still being in the ACC is that no one has given a firm offer..... not that GOR matters......

 

[krup]

It only takes one.

sorry if I laugh at this...........

(a) you act like no contract has ever been broken

(b)we live in a world where USC just left the PAC10 (sic) to join a conference with Rutgers......... rules are mere spedbumps.......

the only thing proven by Clemson and UNC still being in the ACC is that no one has given a firm offer..... not that GOR matters......

a) the downside risk for a team leaving and losing the court battle over the GOR is immense, so don’t hold your breath waiting for that one school. If it were that easy to get out of a GOR, a school would have done it already because the upside benefit of getting out is also big (but about half of the downside risk) and no one what has taken a shot.

b) you embarrassed yourself with the USC analogy. USC is only joining the B1G when the current PAC12 contracts end. They are breaking “no rules” to leave, so you only strengthened my point.

 

[RUTGERS95]

It only takes one.

sorry if I laugh at this...........

(a) you act like no contract has ever been broken

(b)we live in a world where USC just left the PAC10 (sic) to join a conference with Rutgers......... rules are mere spedbumps.......

the only thing proven by Clemson and UNC still being in the ACC is that no one has given a firm offer..... not that GOR matters......

whoa slow down as pac didn't have a GOR. If the GOR was easy to break away from, we'd of already had college football realignment and 2 superconferences

so uh, where are we now?

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

a) the downside risk for a team leaving and losing the court battle over the GOR is immense, so don’t hold your breath waiting for that one school. If it were that easy to get out of a GOR, a school would have done it already because the upside benefit of getting out is also big (but about half of the downside risk) and no one what has taken a shot.

b) you embarrassed yourself with the USC analogy. USC is only joining the B1G when the current PAC12 contracts end. They are breaking “no rules” to leave, so you only strengthened my point.

If there's anyone around here we can trust to hold it, I'll bet as much as you want on the under........

2036...................ROLF...............

I should ask for 3:1, since you have... "the law" on your side... I'll settle for 2:1

 

[krup]

If there's anyone around here we can trust to hold it, I'll bet as much as you want on the under........

2036...................ROLF...............

I should ask for 3:1, since you have... "the law" on your side... I'll settle for 2:1

There will be teams announced as leaving as early as 3-4 years before 2036, but they will have to negotiate terms (like OU and Texas just did) to get out a few years early. Given that the ACC dies when teams start leaving, those terms won’t be cheap.

I would give 3-1 on an ACC team just leaving for another conference and challenging the GOR in court, risking not having their TV rights, PLUS paying a $120 million exit fee PLUS paying $30 million X the number of years left on the GOR.