Let's just win the pac this year so we can all die.

Golden One said:

---

BearinOC said:

---

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

How far the Pac-12 has fallen. Wasn't too many years ago that the rumors had Texas and Oklahoma joining the Pac-12.

What about the Pac-12 and the Big-10 getting together to form a second "super conference". If they went for 16 teams, the lineup could be ( 8 from each conference):

Ohio State
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Illinois
Iowa
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanfurd
Washington
Oregon
Colorado
Utah

That would be a pretty compelling lineup.

---

Why would Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, USC, UCLA, UW, UO and Wisconsin want to be saddled with the other schools you mentioned?

---

Cal and Stanfurd are at least the equal of UCLA in football, which is what counts.

---

Who are you kidding? Cal equal to UCLA in Football? Basketball? Softball? Volleyball? I will have what you're smoking

---

Who said anything about basketball, softball or volleyball? Certainly not me. And if you don't think Cal is the equal of UCLA in football, look at their respective records in recent history. Since 2003, UCLA's win-loss record is 112-109 and Cal's win-loss record during the same period is 115-103. So, actually in football, Cal is slightly better than UCLA. So, the fact is that I'm not at all kidding.

---

Dude, we don't just compete in football only against UCLA. What's wrong with you.

BearSD said:

---

C'mon, folks, don't try to win a Negabear contest.

The Pac-12 isn't a Frankenstein's monster like the $EC, but it is ahead of the ACC, whose football lineup is only Clemson and the 13 Dwarfs, and the Pac-12 isn't picking up any of the Big 12's unwanted scraps.

---

The ACC has Notre Dame, Clemson, No. Carolina, and a network backed by ESPN. The PAC-12 has USC, Oregon, Washington and a half-ass network backed by bailing wire and rubber bands.

Given the revenue gap between the two conferences, I suggest the ACC is leaving the P12 in the dust..

Scraps are the meal of choice for the P12. Why? As WIAFS noted, when the major conference ships sailed from the dock, Commodore Scott was staring in the mirror in his cabin making certain his tie matched his shirt.

Chabbear said:

---

What about Texas and their Longhorn Network? That has been an issue in the past.

---

Longhorn Network launched in 2011 with a 20-year contract with ESPN. What year is it?

BearinOC said:

---

Golden One said:

---

BearinOC said:

---

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

How far the Pac-12 has fallen. Wasn't too many years ago that the rumors had Texas and Oklahoma joining the Pac-12.

What about the Pac-12 and the Big-10 getting together to form a second "super conference". If they went for 16 teams, the lineup could be ( 8 from each conference):

Ohio State
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Illinois
Iowa
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanfurd
Washington
Oregon
Colorado
Utah

That would be a pretty compelling lineup.

---

Why would Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, USC, UCLA, UW, UO and Wisconsin want to be saddled with the other schools you mentioned?

---

Cal and Stanfurd are at least the equal of UCLA in football, which is what counts.

---

Who are you kidding? Cal equal to UCLA in Football? Basketball? Softball? Volleyball? I will have what you're smoking

---

Who said anything about basketball, softball or volleyball? Certainly not me. And if you don't think Cal is the equal of UCLA in football, look at their respective records in recent history. Since 2003, UCLA's win-loss record is 112-109 and Cal's win-loss record during the same period is 115-103. So, actually in football, Cal is slightly better than UCLA. So, the fact is that I'm not at all kidding.

---

Dude, we don't just compete in football only against UCLA. What's wrong with you.

---

I'm perfectly fine, Dude. Unlike you, I fully realize that football drives college athletics. Do you really think anyone in the SEC or the Big-10 gives a hoot about basketball or any of the other sports? Virtually all of the $$$ are in football, and this whole thing is about $$$. Get real!

wifeisafurd said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Golden One said:

---

How far the Pac-12 has fallen. Wasn't too many years ago that the rumors had Texas and Oklahoma joining the Pac-12.

What about the Pac-12 and the Big-10 getting together to form a second "super conference". If they went for 16 teams, the lineup could be ( 8 from each conference):

Ohio State
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Illinois
Iowa
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanfurd
Washington
Oregon
Colorado
Utah

That would be a pretty compelling lineup.

---

And make no economic sense for the Big 10. Lot of red ink in those Pac 12 schools to subsidize.

---

I disagree. The combined Big-10/Pac-12 super conference would have enormous economic power and would generate substantial additional revenue for all of the member schools.

---

A merger is DOA for reason discussed below, but a realignment is not.

This whole "merger" thing is based on hype from the Atlantic supposedly being pushed by the USC AD over the last couple years based on the current friends with benefits arrangement between the two conferences. It is premised on Colorado, Utah, WSU, OSU, Cal and Furd not joining because their athletic departments a piles of red ink and would drag down the conference and screw-up scheduling (go see the March 4, 2020 article). No one's willingly to have their cash machine that is the Big Ten get dragged down by these programs.
UCLA which is dripping in debt gets a free ride in order to get the crown jewel, USC. A 20-team Big 10 (or whatever) without the drag of the other Pac 12 schools might be a coup, though I don't know how Stanford and Cal get left out, or if Oregon and Washington could leave their in-state brethren.

As noted by the Atlantic: cord-cutting, etc. has rendered territory acquisition for the sake of higher cable network subscriber fees, the reason for the last round of realignment, a fool's errand. If there is another major round of realignment it will be driven by brand names that can draw viewers from across the country: USC, Oregon, Washington and the Arizona schools. Not the losers mentioned above.

The latest from Wilner says the Pac 12 now last in in P5 revenue production, and the reasons lie at the feet of the undesirables: Furd, Cal, OSU, WSU and to a lesser degree Utah and Colorado. Apparently, Mike Bohn and Jen Cohen feel constrained by the conference losers, especially after the C-19 fiasco, and they are using threat of leaving to get the new Commish to push reforms.

The prior Big 10 expansion has met not playing three or 4 conference opponents a year. There are great rivalries among other Big Ten schools that will not play every year. If I'm an alu/ fan, I would rather play Michigan or TOSU more often than play Washington, USC or Oregon, clearly the top of the Pac-12 in football recently, not to mention the likes of say WSU. There's a lot of money from the Big Ten now, but that money is going toward flying to Corvallis on a regular basis. Notwithstanding the money drivers, Texas and Okie joining the SEC works because they are physically geographical in the SEC's footprint.

Beside the Pac 12's troubled assets issue and scheduling issues, is that the Pac-12 but it comes without the huge travel distances and costs. The betting by some other sources is that the Big 10 makes an arragement with the ACC (another realignment also with a lot of issues).

Most of the Big Ten's largest TV markets (Jersey/NY, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis) are east. Instead of catering to the larger and more important half of the Big Ten, the Big 10 now is going to favor far western markets? There are many teams in the Big Ten are more local to Big 12 country than anyone in the PAC-12, and it makes sense for most off the Big 12 to realign with the Big 10, if they can't get the top Pac schools.

Moving past realignment, we go to the utter fantasy of a merger. The Pac 12 conference itself cannot file bankruptcy, so a reduction in conference headquarters rent and absurd benefits, and the pile of red ink of the failing Pac 12 network would have to be negotiated. Read that as: how much do the Pac 12 teams AS A CONFERENCE PAY for the Big 10 to take on the Pac 12's liabilities? Then what happens between now and the end of 2024 when the Pac-12's horrible media rights deal and the accompanying Grant of Rights agreement finally expires. It is more easy for individual schools to leave the conference, but the huge burden of the Pac 12 deal stays with the conference with a merger. They can't get your questionable benefits on media until 2025 four seasons from now. But it gets even better: Scott's strategy to wait until 2024 backfired miserably as the SEC and Big 10 gobbled up a complete menu of future football and basketball broadcast windows on FOX, ABC, ESPN, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. So the incentive for the Big 10 money machine for the media boon to merge again is what?

Then there are the people. Which Commissioner and staff step aside? You think the Big 10 wants anyone from Larry Scott's office or some new guy who is an unkown quantity? These guys are going to negotiate their termination? Yes, there is the culture fit until you consider that Pac-12 refuses to invite religious schools, and California just keep finding ways to prevent their schools from going to certain states. Also lost in this discussion is how the misfires by Scott diminished the brand, performance and direction of the conference. It is not winning in football and basketball, and even the non-revenue sports in the "Conference of Championships" have taken some large hits (some of this is C-19 related). Geography and the disparate levels of fan engagement put the Pac behind the other power 5. Which leads back to the question again, how much are the Pac 12 teams willing to pay the Big 10 for a merger especially when specific desirable programs like USC simply can leave through realignment?

---

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31868545/source-oklahoma-sooners-texas-longhorns-verge-making-sec-move

A couple thoughts

1. The Athletic not The Atlantic
2. Now, an ACC AD is musing about the possibility of a 32 team Super Conference.

An idea starts as a concept thrown out for discussion. Most wind up in the dumper, some move towards thoughtful consideration, some then advance to analysis and a few of those gain credibly through further review. Finally, a tiny fraction are taken seriously enough and advance to implementation . IMO, the Super Conference idea has passed the dumper stage and is moving towards thoughtful consideration.

Cal could be a medium fish in a lesser pond.

I'd like to see the Pac12 expand to the Pac16 to include a third "East" division made up of Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, and Texas A&M (assuming they bolt the SEC after Texas and Oklahoma enter). We would need to be creative about a West division as, er, well, there's the ocean to our left.

I kind of wonder if Clemson might consider leaving for the SEC. They have no peers in the ACC at the moment and the Acc gets a lot less money.

Also, I think texas and oklahoma moving to the sec would cause the big ten to pick up an additional two acc schools. There really two monster conferences developing, the sec and big ten. Everyone else is second tier. That is where the fans are, that is where the audience is, that is where the money is.

I dont think the Pac-12 changes. There is already too much deadweight in the conference, and the leftovers of the big 12 wont add anything of quality.

BearoutEast67 said:

---

I'd like to see the Pac12 expand to the Pac16 to include a third "East" division made up of Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, and Texas A&M (assuming they bolt the SEC after Texas and Oklahoma enter). We would need to be creative about a West division as, er, well, there's the ocean to our left.

---

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31869605/pac-12-commissioner-george-kliavkoff-says-conference-not-looking-add-schools-foolish-not-listen

golden sloth said:

---

I kind of wonder if Clemson might consider leaving for the SEC. They have no peers in the ACC at the moment and the Acc gets a lot less money.

Also, I think texas and oklahoma moving to the sec would cause the big ten to pick up an additional two acc schools.

---

ACC has a grant of rights and a TV contract until 2036. Not going to be easy to poach a team from them unless the ACC chosens to allow it.

The ACC also has a relatively poor TV contract, with minimal opportunities for revenue expansion, aside from adding Texas and OU (which them going to the SEC prevents) or Notre Dame. The ACC could see a long slide into the 2nd tier over time, but it's not a completely terrible 2nd tier as they have guaranteed TV $$$ for 15 more years.

Geography is what holds the p12 back, but also what could hold it together.

I can't see these B12 leftovers having much value for the p12. As the Wilner article states, the goal is increase revenue per school. Just because the Pac has OSU and WSU, doesn't mean allowing any other a cool with a similar resume makes sense.

We really need to see if this 12 team playoff comes about. The p12 could have a virtually guaranteed entry every year with a no division 1 v 2 format like the B12 does now. That's likely much more appealing that the 16 team alternative that either has completely unbalanced divisions or splits CA.

Really all depends on if schools want to have a super conference that pays players directly IMO.

spitballin here, make a play for Notre Dame, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

spitballin here, make a play for Notre Dame, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

---

A school in South Bend and 3 heaps of crap?

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

C'mon, folks, don't try to win a Negabear contest.

The Pac-12 isn't a Frankenstein's monster like the $EC, but it is ahead of the ACC, whose football lineup is only Clemson and the 13 Dwarfs, and the Pac-12 isn't picking up any of the Big 12's unwanted scraps.

---

The ACC has Notre Dame, Clemson, No. Carolina, and a network backed by ESPN. The PAC-12 has USC, Oregon, Washington and a half-ass network backed by bailing wire and rubber bands.

Given the revenue gap between the two conferences, I suggest the ACC is leaving the P12 in the dust..

Scraps are the meal of choice for the P12. Why? As WIAFS noted, when the major conference ships sailed from the dock, Commodore Scott was staring in the mirror in his cabin making certain his tie matched his shirt.

---

Pac-12 has higher revenue per school than ACC. Even though the Pac is (for now) stuck with Larry's Folly while the ACCN is distributed by ESPN.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2020/07/10/power-five-conference-revenue-fiscal-year-2019/5414405002/

What are the chances USC or Oregon make the jump to the B1G and pull a school like UCLA or Washington with them?

A few things...

Texas & Oklahoma to the SEC is a "Tunguska Event" for college football. The landscape of college sports is going to be changed irrevocably. Every league and school outside of the SEC is panicking right now. The next few months are going to wild.

SEC may not stop at 16 schools. There is some chatter than ultimately they want to move to 20 teams or more, forming a Mega Conference that would look to add some combo of Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Ohio State, or Michigan.

Reading the tea leaves, the NCAA will eventually be thrown aside (NIL ensured that), and as mentioned in a post above, you could have up to 48 teams as part of a national super conference or a coalition of super leagues. Outside the SEC, everybody is scrambling, looking ahead into a murky future.

The Big XII is already in an "every man for himself" mode. TCU has contacted the Pac-12. Kansas is talking with the B1G. I would expect the Big XII either folds or expands but still becomes a Group of 5 level league.

B1G probably looks to move to 16. ACC as well, maybe by adding Notre Dame full time in football along with Big XII refugee West Virginia or maybe Cincinnati.

Where does this leave the Pac-12?

Speaking with a friend of mine who is directly connected into a Pac-12 athletic department, "everything is on the table". From a league perspective, the Pac-12 could try to expand to 16.

Problem is that there are currently only 3 golden tickets out there... Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame. Horns and Sooners are SEC bound. ACC is the obvious landing spot for the Irish.

Pac-12 options for expansion aren't great. Geography is an issue. So are the available candidates. It's slim pickings... Texas Tech. OK State. Houston. TCU. UNLV or Nevada. Boise St. Due to the league's current standing in the Power 5, saddled with an awful conference network and TV deal, you aren't raiding other leagues for elite teams.

The other issue here is that Pac-12 member schools are not unified. Again, "everything is on the table", not just for the league, but for member schools.

According to my connect, there are member institutions who have had discussions already about a future outside the Pac-12. He said his school has spoken with 3 other members about leaving the league together. Cal and Stanford are not part of these discussions.

What does that mean? Could be they become football only members of the B1G, or join that league as football and men's basketball only members. Again, for these schools, "everything is on the table".

Buckle up. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Sounds like Cal might not like the outcome of this realignment.

OskiBear11Math said:

---

Sounds like Cal might not like the outcome of this realignment.

---

Unless the PAC-12 stays fixed, we don't have many great options going to 16, unless Texas decides to give us another look. Tech is the cherry on the crap sandwich, but if we are really looking at all options, might need to consider Houston for the TV market (Dallas has no good options, only SMU and TCU, which are both non-starters).

The 20-team super conference is a bit too stupid. Even in a worst-case scenario, we and Furd together have enough clout to stick around somewhere with the non-revenue sports.

Strykur said:

---

OskiBear11Math said:

---

Sounds like Cal might not like the outcome of this realignment.

---

Unless the PAC-12 stays fixed, we don't have many great options going to 16, unless Texas decides to give us another look. Tech is the cherry on the crap sandwich, but if we are really looking at all options, might need to consider Houston for the TV market (Dallas has no good options, only SMU and TCU, which are both non-starters).

The 20-team super conference is a bit too stupid. Even in a worst-case scenario, we and Furd together have enough clout to stick around somewhere with the non-revenue sports.

---

I mean at this point with college football essentially being professional now, might as well just add BYU(football only) and bring in the huge mormon audience. It's not like anybody in the pac-12 has an aversion to scheduling them and the Sunday games wouldn't be an issue.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Strykur said:

---

OskiBear11Math said:

---

Sounds like Cal might not like the outcome of this realignment.

---

Unless the PAC-12 stays fixed, we don't have many great options going to 16, unless Texas decides to give us another look. Tech is the cherry on the crap sandwich, but if we are really looking at all options, might need to consider Houston for the TV market (Dallas has no good options, only SMU and TCU, which are both non-starters).

The 20-team super conference is a bit too stupid. Even in a worst-case scenario, we and Furd together have enough clout to stick around somewhere with the non-revenue sports.

---

I mean at this point with college football essentially being professional now, might as well just add BYU(football only) and bring in the huge mormon audience. It's not like anybody in the pac-12 has an aversion to scheduling them and the Sunday games wouldn't be an issue.

---

I'd rather not have Cal players regularly lining up against BYUs 28-year-olds.

I think the other big thing to consider is what the networks want. The money is still being paid by the networks and apparently they stepped in last time to prevent a super conference, i dont see why they wouldn't do the same now. The basic question from the networks is twofold:

1. Is it cheaper to pay 4 or 5 competing conferences, or 1 or 2 super conferences?

2. Which set up allows for more marquee matchups throughout the season?

I dont know the answers.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

spitballin here, make a play for Notre Dame, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

---

If Notre Dame joins a conference for football, they have only one choice - ACC. They signed a contract stipulating that outcome several years ago.

Having said that, there is some speculation that the ACC and P12 may consider some kind of an agreement regarding their respective futures.

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Golden One said:

---

How far the Pac-12 has fallen. Wasn't too many years ago that the rumors had Texas and Oklahoma joining the Pac-12.

What about the Pac-12 and the Big-10 getting together to form a second "super conference". If they went for 16 teams, the lineup could be ( 8 from each conference):

Ohio State
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Illinois
Iowa
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanfurd
Washington
Oregon
Colorado
Utah

That would be a pretty compelling lineup.

---

And make no economic sense for the Big 10. Lot of red ink in those Pac 12 schools to subsidize.

---

I disagree. The combined Big-10/Pac-12 super conference would have enormous economic power and would generate substantial additional revenue for all of the member schools.

---

A merger is DOA for reason discussed below, but a realignment is not.

This whole "merger" thing is based on hype from the Atlantic supposedly being pushed by the USC AD over the last couple years based on the current friends with benefits arrangement between the two conferences. It is premised on Colorado, Utah, WSU, OSU, Cal and Furd not joining because their athletic departments a piles of red ink and would drag down the conference and screw-up scheduling (go see the March 4, 2020 article). No one's willingly to have their cash machine that is the Big Ten get dragged down by these programs.
UCLA which is dripping in debt gets a free ride in order to get the crown jewel, USC. A 20-team Big 10 (or whatever) without the drag of the other Pac 12 schools might be a coup, though I don't know how Stanford and Cal get left out, or if Oregon and Washington could leave their in-state brethren.

As noted by the Atlantic: cord-cutting, etc. has rendered territory acquisition for the sake of higher cable network subscriber fees, the reason for the last round of realignment, a fool's errand. If there is another major round of realignment it will be driven by brand names that can draw viewers from across the country: USC, Oregon, Washington and the Arizona schools. Not the losers mentioned above.

The latest from Wilner says the Pac 12 now last in in P5 revenue production, and the reasons lie at the feet of the undesirables: Furd, Cal, OSU, WSU and to a lesser degree Utah and Colorado. Apparently, Mike Bohn and Jen Cohen feel constrained by the conference losers, especially after the C-19 fiasco, and they are using threat of leaving to get the new Commish to push reforms.

The prior Big 10 expansion has met not playing three or 4 conference opponents a year. There are great rivalries among other Big Ten schools that will not play every year. If I'm an alu/ fan, I would rather play Michigan or TOSU more often than play Washington, USC or Oregon, clearly the top of the Pac-12 in football recently, not to mention the likes of say WSU. There's a lot of money from the Big Ten now, but that money is going toward flying to Corvallis on a regular basis. Notwithstanding the money drivers, Texas and Okie joining the SEC works because they are physically geographical in the SEC's footprint.

Beside the Pac 12's troubled assets issue and scheduling issues, is that the Pac-12 but it comes without the huge travel distances and costs. The betting by some other sources is that the Big 10 makes an arragement with the ACC (another realignment also with a lot of issues).

Most of the Big Ten's largest TV markets (Jersey/NY, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis) are east. Instead of catering to the larger and more important half of the Big Ten, the Big 10 now is going to favor far western markets? There are many teams in the Big Ten are more local to Big 12 country than anyone in the PAC-12, and it makes sense for most off the Big 12 to realign with the Big 10, if they can't get the top Pac schools.

Moving past realignment, we go to the utter fantasy of a merger. The Pac 12 conference itself cannot file bankruptcy, so a reduction in conference headquarters rent and absurd benefits, and the pile of red ink of the failing Pac 12 network would have to be negotiated. Read that as: how much do the Pac 12 teams AS A CONFERENCE PAY for the Big 10 to take on the Pac 12's liabilities? Then what happens between now and the end of 2024 when the Pac-12's horrible media rights deal and the accompanying Grant of Rights agreement finally expires. It is more easy for individual schools to leave the conference, but the huge burden of the Pac 12 deal stays with the conference with a merger. They can't get your questionable benefits on media until 2025 four seasons from now. But it gets even better: Scott's strategy to wait until 2024 backfired miserably as the SEC and Big 10 gobbled up a complete menu of future football and basketball broadcast windows on FOX, ABC, ESPN, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. So the incentive for the Big 10 money machine for the media boon to merge again is what?

Then there are the people. Which Commissioner and staff step aside? You think the Big 10 wants anyone from Larry Scott's office or some new guy who is an unkown quantity? These guys are going to negotiate their termination? Yes, there is the culture fit until you consider that Pac-12 refuses to invite religious schools, and California just keep finding ways to prevent their schools from going to certain states. Also lost in this discussion is how the misfires by Scott diminished the brand, performance and direction of the conference. It is not winning in football and basketball, and even the non-revenue sports in the "Conference of Championships" have taken some large hits (some of this is C-19 related). Geography and the disparate levels of fan engagement put the Pac behind the other power 5. Which leads back to the question again, how much are the Pac 12 teams willing to pay the Big 10 for a merger especially when specific desirable programs like USC simply can leave through realignment?

---

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31868545/source-oklahoma-sooners-texas-longhorns-verge-making-sec-move

A couple thoughts

1. The Athletic not The Atlantic
2. Now, an ACC AD is musing about the possibility of a 32 team Super Conference.

An idea starts as a concept thrown out for discussion. Most wind up in the dumper, some move towards thoughtful consideration, some then advance to analysis and a few of those gain credibly through further review. Finally, a tiny fraction are taken seriously enough and advance to implementation . IMO, the Super Conference idea has passed the dumper stage and is moving towards thoughtful consideration.

---

I always get those A things mixed-up.

A super-conference is an option, though not inevitable. Economics may dictate a super-conference approach. There are issues with geography, culture, possible state action (e.g., bans on state visits won't cut it), and other factors that mitigate against just one conference. Certainly a realignment and assessments by colleges as fo the role of sports is coming. These are interesting times.

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

C'mon, folks, don't try to win a Negabear contest.

The Pac-12 isn't a Frankenstein's monster like the $EC, but it is ahead of the ACC, whose football lineup is only Clemson and the 13 Dwarfs, and the Pac-12 isn't picking up any of the Big 12's unwanted scraps.

---

The ACC has Notre Dame, Clemson, No. Carolina, and a network backed by ESPN. The PAC-12 has USC, Oregon, Washington and a half-ass network backed by bailing wire and rubber bands.

Given the revenue gap between the two conferences, I suggest the ACC is leaving the P12 in the dust..

---

Things aren't so rosy in the ACC. Due to geography, they are susceptible to losing teams to the SEC or the B1G. Also, this is from ESPN on their financial issues...

The SEC and Big Ten remain the dominant financial forces in college football. From TV deals, merchandising, league championship games and bowl revenue, the two conferences sent member schools about $45 million and $54 million, respectively, in 2018-19 (the last year for which data is publicly available). The ACC, meanwhile, distributed at least $27 million to each school that year.


The Big 12 distributed an average of $37 million to its 10 schools, which represented a small decrease from the previous year. The futures of its TV deals, including the Longhorn Network, represent a clear inflection point on the horizon that has led some athletic directors to again ponder the possibility of another round of conference realignment, which nearly toppled the Big 12 a decade ago.

The Pac-12 saw a small increase in total revenue for 2018-19 and distributed about $3 million more per team than the ACC, despite failing to place a team in the College Football Playoff for four straight seasons and commissioner Larry Scott stepping down in June. While the league has had its own concerns over revenue and its struggling TV network, one Pac-12 administrator suggested there was obvious room for growth, while the ACC had flatlined. A number of ACC coaches and athletic directors who spoke to ESPN for this story agreed with that assessment.

"If we don't get our TV contract in the ballpark of [the SEC and Big Ten], there will be no level playing field in the Power 5," said one ACC coach, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There will not be a Power 5 anymore, in my opinion."

Isn't the right question, "which maximizes viewership in the most lucrative markets?"

golden sloth said:

---

I think the other big thing to consider is what the networks want. The money is still being paid by the networks and apparently they stepped in last time to prevent a super conference, i dont see why they wouldn't do the same now. The basic question from the networks is twofold:

1. Is it cheaper to pay 4 or 5 competing conferences, or 1 or 2 super conferences?

2. Which set up allows for more marquee matchups throughout the season?

I dont know the answers.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Isn't the right question, "which maximizes viewership in the most lucrative markets?"

golden sloth said:

---

I think the other big thing to consider is what the networks want. The money is still being paid by the networks and apparently they stepped in last time to prevent a super conference, i dont see why they wouldn't do the same now. The basic question from the networks is twofold:

1. Is it cheaper to pay 4 or 5 competing conferences, or 1 or 2 super conferences?

2. Which set up allows for more marquee matchups throughout the season?

I dont know the answers.

---

---

It is a good question if you ignore streaming and some other trends, and also appreciate that the most lucrative markets for college football may differ from most people perceptions.

College Football's Top 25 Highest-Rated Markets ...https://espnpressroom.com press-releases 2012/08

Southern markets dominated ESPN's college football TV ratingshttps://www.saturdaydownsouth.com SEC Football

College football TV ratings, 2020 edition - Sports Media Watchhttps://www.sportsmediawatch.com college-football-t...

A great example is that the Bay Area is a good sized media market, but that Cal and Furd have very little of that market.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwii2v7frfzxAhWK_J4KHaWyA08QFjAGegQICBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsmediawatch.com%2Fcollege-football-tv-ratings%2F&usg=AOvVaw2zfjwT5egiod_yKK1P0ziN][/url]

This Is really about the future of all college sports. If there is no common financial ground, the non-revenue sports are in serious financial danger at most schools. The SEC is looking out for itself, while basically shoving the future of college non-revenue sports off of the cliff.

BigDaddy said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

C'mon, folks, don't try to win a Negabear contest.

The Pac-12 isn't a Frankenstein's monster like the $EC, but it is ahead of the ACC, whose football lineup is only Clemson and the 13 Dwarfs, and the Pac-12 isn't picking up any of the Big 12's unwanted scraps.

---

The ACC has Notre Dame, Clemson, No. Carolina, and a network backed by ESPN. The PAC-12 has USC, Oregon, Washington and a half-ass network backed by bailing wire and rubber bands.

Given the revenue gap between the two conferences, I suggest the ACC is leaving the P12 in the dust..

---

Things aren't so rosy in the ACC. Due to geography, they are susceptible to losing teams to the SEC or the B1G. Also, this is from ESPN on their financial issues...

The SEC and Big Ten remain the dominant financial forces in college football. From TV deals, merchandising, league championship games and bowl revenue, the two conferences sent member schools about $45 million and $54 million, respectively, in 2018-19 (the last year for which data is publicly available). The ACC, meanwhile, distributed at least $27 million to each school that year.


The Big 12 distributed an average of $37 million to its 10 schools, which represented a small decrease from the previous year. The futures of its TV deals, including the Longhorn Network, represent a clear inflection point on the horizon that has led some athletic directors to again ponder the possibility of another round of conference realignment, which nearly toppled the Big 12 a decade ago.

The Pac-12 saw a small increase in total revenue for 2018-19 and distributed about $3 million more per team than the ACC, despite failing to place a team in the College Football Playoff for four straight seasons and commissioner Larry Scott stepping down in June. While the league has had its own concerns over revenue and its struggling TV network, one Pac-12 administrator suggested there was obvious room for growth, while the ACC had flatlined. A number of ACC coaches and athletic directors who spoke to ESPN for this story agreed with that assessment.

"If we don't get our TV contract in the ballpark of [the SEC and Big Ten], there will be no level playing field in the Power 5," said one ACC coach, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There will not be a Power 5 anymore, in my opinion."

---

That information is out of date. Since that time, the ACC has rolled out its conference network in partnership with ESPN. The revenue being generated from that partnership is significant. Due to disastrous decisions made by the previous commissioner, the P12 is in deep water relative to its P5 brethren.

71Bear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

C'mon, folks, don't try to win a Negabear contest.

The Pac-12 isn't a Frankenstein's monster like the $EC, but it is ahead of the ACC, whose football lineup is only Clemson and the 13 Dwarfs, and the Pac-12 isn't picking up any of the Big 12's unwanted scraps.

---

The ACC has Notre Dame, Clemson, No. Carolina, and a network backed by ESPN. The PAC-12 has USC, Oregon, Washington and a half-ass network backed by bailing wire and rubber bands.

Given the revenue gap between the two conferences, I suggest the ACC is leaving the P12 in the dust..

---

Things aren't so rosy in the ACC. Due to geography, they are susceptible to losing teams to the SEC or the B1G. Also, this is from ESPN on their financial issues...

The SEC and Big Ten remain the dominant financial forces in college football. From TV deals, merchandising, league championship games and bowl revenue, the two conferences sent member schools about $45 million and $54 million, respectively, in 2018-19 (the last year for which data is publicly available). The ACC, meanwhile, distributed at least $27 million to each school that year.


The Big 12 distributed an average of $37 million to its 10 schools, which represented a small decrease from the previous year. The futures of its TV deals, including the Longhorn Network, represent a clear inflection point on the horizon that has led some athletic directors to again ponder the possibility of another round of conference realignment, which nearly toppled the Big 12 a decade ago.

The Pac-12 saw a small increase in total revenue for 2018-19 and distributed about $3 million more per team than the ACC, despite failing to place a team in the College Football Playoff for four straight seasons and commissioner Larry Scott stepping down in June. While the league has had its own concerns over revenue and its struggling TV network, one Pac-12 administrator suggested there was obvious room for growth, while the ACC had flatlined. A number of ACC coaches and athletic directors who spoke to ESPN for this story agreed with that assessment.

"If we don't get our TV contract in the ballpark of [the SEC and Big Ten], there will be no level playing field in the Power 5," said one ACC coach, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There will not be a Power 5 anymore, in my opinion."

---

That information is out of date. Since that time, the ACC has rolled out its conference network in partnership with ESPN. The revenue being generated from that partnership is significant. Due to disastrous decisions made by the previous commissioner, the P12 is in deep water relative to its P5 brethren.

---

Is it? The story it's drawn from is from April 2021, addressing the issues facing the new ACC commissioner. Things have changed that much since then? Whatever the Pac-12's problems are, let's not confuse the ACC with a SEC/B1G Jr.

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Isn't the right question, "which maximizes viewership in the most lucrative markets?"

golden sloth said:

---

I think the other big thing to consider is what the networks want. The money is still being paid by the networks and apparently they stepped in last time to prevent a super conference, i dont see why they wouldn't do the same now. The basic question from the networks is twofold:

1. Is it cheaper to pay 4 or 5 competing conferences, or 1 or 2 super conferences?

2. Which set up allows for more marquee matchups throughout the season?

I dont know the answers.

---

---

It is a good question if you ignore streaming and some other trends, and also appreciate that the most lucrative markets for college football may differ from most people perceptions.

College Football's Top 25 Highest-Rated Markets ...https://espnpressroom.com press-releases 2012/08

Southern markets dominated ESPN's college football TV ratingshttps://www.saturdaydownsouth.com SEC Football

College football TV ratings, 2020 edition - Sports Media Watchhttps://www.sportsmediawatch.com college-football-t...

A great example is that the Bay Area is a good sized media market, but that Cal and Furd have very little of that market.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwii2v7frfzxAhWK_J4KHaWyA08QFjAGegQICBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsmediawatch.com%2Fcollege-football-tv-ratings%2F&usg=AOvVaw2zfjwT5egiod_yKK1P0ziN][/url]

---

Some of that is chicken and egg. ESPN partnered with the SEC, so ESPN features and promotes the SEC and as a result the SEC dominates ESPN's ratings. That was not true before cable and does not have to be true in the future, but is the the current landscape. It will take someone with vision and savvy to get the PAC-12 (and Cal) into a good position, at least we are rid of Scott.

BigDaddy said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

C'mon, folks, don't try to win a Negabear contest.

The Pac-12 isn't a Frankenstein's monster like the $EC, but it is ahead of the ACC, whose football lineup is only Clemson and the 13 Dwarfs, and the Pac-12 isn't picking up any of the Big 12's unwanted scraps.

---

The ACC has Notre Dame, Clemson, No. Carolina, and a network backed by ESPN. The PAC-12 has USC, Oregon, Washington and a half-ass network backed by bailing wire and rubber bands.

Given the revenue gap between the two conferences, I suggest the ACC is leaving the P12 in the dust..

---

Things aren't so rosy in the ACC. Due to geography, they are susceptible to losing teams to the SEC or the B1G. Also, this is from ESPN on their financial issues...

The SEC and Big Ten remain the dominant financial forces in college football. From TV deals, merchandising, league championship games and bowl revenue, the two conferences sent member schools about $45 million and $54 million, respectively, in 2018-19 (the last year for which data is publicly available). The ACC, meanwhile, distributed at least $27 million to each school that year.


The Big 12 distributed an average of $37 million to its 10 schools, which represented a small decrease from the previous year. The futures of its TV deals, including the Longhorn Network, represent a clear inflection point on the horizon that has led some athletic directors to again ponder the possibility of another round of conference realignment, which nearly toppled the Big 12 a decade ago.

The Pac-12 saw a small increase in total revenue for 2018-19 and distributed about $3 million more per team than the ACC, despite failing to place a team in the College Football Playoff for four straight seasons and commissioner Larry Scott stepping down in June. While the league has had its own concerns over revenue and its struggling TV network, one Pac-12 administrator suggested there was obvious room for growth, while the ACC had flatlined. A number of ACC coaches and athletic directors who spoke to ESPN for this story agreed with that assessment.

"If we don't get our TV contract in the ballpark of [the SEC and Big Ten], there will be no level playing field in the Power 5," said one ACC coach, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There will not be a Power 5 anymore, in my opinion."

---

That information is out of date. Since that time, the ACC has rolled out its conference network in partnership with ESPN. The revenue being generated from that partnership is significant. Due to disastrous decisions made by the previous commissioner, the P12 is in deep water relative to its P5 brethren.

---

Is it? The story it's drawn from is from April 2021, addressing the issues facing the new ACC commissioner. Things have changed that much since then? Whatever the Pac-12's problems are, let's not confuse the ACC with a SEC/B1G Jr.

---

The data you cited is out of date.

The 2019-20 distribution was within a million (P12 $33M v. ACC $32M) with the ACC expected to surpass the P12 in 2020-21 and open the gap further in future years.

Note: The actual total revenue in 2019-20 was ACC $497M v. P12 $403M.

The data I summarized was published in May 2021.

Note: no one is confusing the ACC with the SEC or B10. Those conferences are light years ahead of their three colleagues in the P5. The pecking order is:

SEC/B10




ACC





P12/B12

annarborbear said:

---

This Is really about the future of all college sports. If there is no common financial ground, the non-revenue sports are in serious financial danger at most schools. The SEC is looking out for itself, while basically shoving the future of college non-revenue sports off of the cliff.

---

In recent years the SEC has become fairly dominant in non-revenue sports like track&field, baseball and softball (where Texas and OU will further add stature). The money gusher their football programs have generated give them resources other leagues can only dream of to support these non generators.

OskiBear11Math said:

---

What are the chances USC or Oregon make the jump to the B1G and pull a school like UCLA or Washington with them?

---

This just in from Ohio State: USC, UCLA, Oregon and Colorado (yes Colorado), requesting consideration to join Big 10. So much for mergers. Two big super-conferences?

Unable to post link. Can someone?

wifeisafurd said:

---

OskiBear11Math said:

---

What are the chances USC or Oregon make the jump to the B1G and pull a school like UCLA or Washington with them?

---

This just in from Ohio State: USC, UCLA, Oregon and Colorado (yes Colorado), requesting consideration to join Big 10. So much for mergers. Two big super-conferences?

Unable to post link. Can someone?

---

No surprise. I have been saying for a while that SC, UCLA, UO and UW would be quite desirous when others come looking. 3 outta 4 ain't bad

The newest conference in our part of the world:

The Coastal Conference -

Cal
Stanford
San Jose
Sacramento St.
UC Davis
Fresno
Nevada
UNLV
Cal Poly
San Diego St.

Finally, a conference in which Cal will be competitive..