CaliforniaEternal said:

---

Dang it, I was hoping for the Playboy channel. The pregame and postgame content would be very popular.

---

Whole new meaning to Pac12 after dark?

tequila4kapp said:

---

On the BI side someone who knows these things asserts that SC was promised a pod.

The B10 has said they are done expanding for now. "For now" is broad enough to encompass the opportunity I describe above.

Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.

---

What makes you say NYC is a terrible college football market? Huge population, across all demographics, and probably the greatest collection of alumni from any school outside of that school's home region.

tequila4kapp said:

---

On the BI side someone who knows these things asserts that SC was promised a pod.

The B10 has said they are done expanding for now. "For now" is broad enough to encompass the opportunity I describe above.

Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.

---

Agreed, the B10 only said they are done "for now." Their lawyers have strong antitrust liability concerns if they are the ones taking the initiative to poach more teams and break up the PAC-12.

Thus, the initiative has to come from the PAC-10 schools or the PAC-10 itself. Reportedly some have asked but the answer was "not now" or "not at full price." However, if PAC-10 schools come to them and the Big 10 REFUSES to consider admission ever, at ANY price (called a "refusal to deal") then they may open themselves up to even bigger antitrust concerns, especially if it means the demise of any PAC-10 football programs. They would quite arguably be operating as a trust or cartel with the clear intent of monopolizing college football revenues. That is why "for now" is helpful to them. They also have the helpful excuse of not having a commissioner right now.

I do think they (especially USC and UCLA who are now part of "they") would like to have the West Coast pod to have a coast to coast conference, but at a lower price so it does not dilute existing revenues and they want it without legal problems. That would have to come from either of two options: 1) Cal, Stanford, UW and Oregon work with USC and UCLA (and the Big 10 and it's media partners) to split off and make it happen or 2) Kliavkoff negotiates a merger with the Big 10 and its media partners, perhaps adding a streaming partner for additional content and revenues.

Not saying the above will happen, especially not immediately. We clearly do not have smart, visionary leaders, certainly not at Cal. Kliavkoff is determined to preserve "the PAC-12" and his job. Hopefully we survive as a viable program long enough to be part of the Big 10s eventual West Coast expansion.

Econ141 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

On the BI side someone who knows these things asserts that SC was promised a pod.

The B10 has said they are done expanding for now. "For now" is broad enough to encompass the opportunity I describe above.

Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.

---

What makes you say NYC is a terrible college football market? Huge population, across all demographics, and probably the greatest collection of alumni from any school outside of that school's home region.

---

NYC is widely known to be a not college football city. MLB, NBA, NHL, NGL, even college hoops. Not college football.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

On the BI side someone who knows these things asserts that SC was promised a pod.

The B10 has said they are done expanding for now. "For now" is broad enough to encompass the opportunity I describe above.

Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.

---

What makes you say NYC is a terrible college football market? Huge population, across all demographics, and probably the greatest collection of alumni from any school outside of that school's home region.

---

NYC is widely known to be a not college football city. MLB, NBA, NHL, NGL, even college hoops. Not college football.

---

OTOH, like the Bay Area, NYC has a ton of BiG alums working/living there. So, while the locals may not follow Rutgers, when Michigan or Northwestern are in town....

ION is on channels 16 and 711 on my Comcast/Xfinity service.

Econ141 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

On the BI side someone who knows these things asserts that SC was promised a pod.

The B10 has said they are done expanding for now. "For now" is broad enough to encompass the opportunity I describe above.

Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.

---

What makes you say NYC is a terrible college football market? Huge population, across all demographics, and probably the greatest collection of alumni from any school outside of that school's home region.

---

NYC is widely known to be a not college football city. MLB, NBA, NHL, NGL, even college hoops. Not college football.

---

Interesting, wouldn't have guessed that. Lived there from 2007-2011 and always remembered the bars being packed watching cfb.

---

People in NYC do not attend college football games, and there is not a predominant favorite team, but people definitely watch college football on TV.

From the hinter lands of ohio

Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.

Why is Rutgers getting $60 Million vs the rest of the Big 10?

https://www.nj.com/rutgers/2022/08/heres-how-much-money-rutgers-will-get-from-big-ten-and-when-following-1-billion-media-rights-deal.html

In a 2018 internal report, Rutgers projected the Big Ten's annual distribution to range between $58 million and $69.2 million between 2023 and 2029. It also noted that Rutgers wouldn't receive the same distribution as most of the other Big Ten schools because the athletics department secured two separate loans totaling $48 million five years ago.

also in the article

Hobbs told NJ Advance Media top officials at Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska are working with the Big Ten in order to address the previous financial inequities going forward.

"We're actually looking at all of that right now," he said. "Obviously the conference, in the financial integration for USC and UCLA, made the decision that it was in the best interest of the conference to bring them in as full-share members. Ourselves, Maryland and Nebraska came in under a financial integration model and there were things done then in order to try to make sure that we could be competitive. In the interest of fairness and equity, the conference, along with the presidents and chancellors, are taking a look at Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska specifically to make sure that in this new (16-team) world that we have that some level of fairness and equity gets returned to Rutgers and those two schools."

Keep hope alive - good luck.

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

If anything, expanding with more teams, thus capturing a larger market share and larger percentage of Division I FBS teams, would put the B1G in danger of being charged with violating antitrust laws. Besides, how often have antitrust laws been enforced in the last two years?

I agree, the B1G does not want us, and that includes USC in particular. Their president blocked proposed expansion a few years ago, because it would dilute their brand. They chose to leave us behind and did so surreptitiously right before the deadline, giving us little time to recover.

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

---

The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.

Cal would kill for that $60M state that Rutgers is being said to get.

I had heard that USC doesn't want Oregon. I had not heard that they don't want Cal.

Its not like USC has ever lost many recruiting battles to Cal. Desean Jackson is the only one I can think of and if they are still holding a grudge on that...

On the flipside, their alumni have been vocal about missing Stanford, and while I highly doubt USC really cares one way or the other about Cal, UCLA has financial incentives to try to get us in.

And when it comes to all sports not football USC/UCLA have a lot of reasons to want a west coast pod.

The real story at this point is the B1G has ZERO reason to rush into ANY additions. The worse our media deal is the better it is for them if they do want to poach schools. A dream scenario for them would be we end up worse off than the Big12, the corner schools bolt for the Big12, bringing it down to the pac6 which instead decides to just dissolve the conference with Oregon/Washington/Stanford/Cal willing to accept virtually anything just to be part of a relevant conference. That could even include a permanently reduced share of future contracts, instead of becoming full members at the next media cycle. If its that or mountain west what does Cal say? They don't have a ton of leverage now and would have even less if the Pac12 deal comes out as bad as it looks.

The only reason to rush would be if the B1G really really really wanted a west coast pod and they were concerned we might get too much money from the Pac12 contract and to get schools as cheaply as possible. Not only does it not seem like the Pac12 will get a huge offer (especially with Fox not bidding at all now that they got USC/UCLA with the B1G), I don't know that the B1G would be that upset if we DID get a decent contract and hung around until the ACC breaks free of their GoR anyways.

For the B1G its wait and see and win either way.

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

The word is the LA schools don't want Oregon. Oregon is known to cheat.

MrGPAC said:

---

I had heard that USC doesn't want Oregon. I had not heard that they don't want Cal.

Its not like USC has ever lost many recruiting battles to Cal. Desean Jackson is the only one I can think of and if they are still holding a grudge on that...

On the flipside, their alumni have been vocal about missing Stanford, and while I highly doubt USC really cares one way or the other about Cal, UCLA has financial incentives to try to get us in.

And when it comes to all sports not football USC/UCLA have a lot of reasons to want a west coast pod.

The real story at this point is the B1G has ZERO reason to rush into ANY additions. The worse our media deal is the better it is for them if they do want to poach schools. A dream scenario for them would be we end up worse off than the Big12, the corner schools bolt for the Big12, bringing it down to the pac6 which instead decides to just dissolve the conference with Oregon/Washington/Stanford/Cal willing to accept virtually anything just to be part of a relevant conference. That could even include a permanently reduced share of future contracts, instead of becoming full members at the next media cycle. If its that or mountain west what does Cal say? They don't have a ton of leverage now and would have even less if the Pac12 deal comes out as bad as it looks.

The only reason to rush would be if the B1G really really really wanted a west coast pod and they were concerned we might get too much money from the Pac12 contract and to get schools as cheaply as possible. Not only does it not seem like the Pac12 will get a huge offer (especially with Fox not bidding at all now that they got USC/UCLA with the B1G), I don't know that the B1G would be that upset if we DID get a decent contract and hung around until the ACC breaks free of their GoR anyways.

For the B1G its wait and see and win either way.

---

The reason they should do this now is the P12 is at its low point. Timing for the tv deal is horrible. Our biggest market teams are leaving. Blah, blah, blah. There is nowhere to go but up. Realize that we will get at least 1 team into the playoffs every year from now on. If the conference is smart about scheduling it can see numerous teams finish the season with good records. SMU and SDSU can take the same path as Utah. There is a path forward where things look better. They may never get other west coast teams and they'll never get them cheaper. This is one of those moments that is an opportunity to them.

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

That would be quite unprecedented, if not incredible, that one or more schools of the Pac10 were to request admission to an athletic conference, be denied, and then sue to force admission. I think, this too, is far fetched. No school with any sense of pride or fear of embarrassment would do such a thing.

Also, comparing the Big 10 to a cartel as a mechanism of/for monopoly isn't realistic. Who's to say, with that rationale, we shouldn't join the SEC? It is, after all, the best conference in terms of teams and market value.

I think a poster on page 9 indicated that USC and UCLA didn't want us in the B1G and I agree. They left the Pac12 and got away from us for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that USC felt they brought most of the value without being compensated for it. Whether we would go in as full or even half shares, they wouldn't want us. It would dilute their brand. They would once again have to share recruitment ground with us.

It is better for the B1G to stand pat, wait to see what happens to the P10 in 4-5 years and if it collapses, they can then pick who they want. This is different from the Big12 who are trying to press for expansion now and likely hasten the P10's demise.

---

With the Supreme Court affirming that the laws of commerce, especially the antitrust laws, apply to college sports, we are in a brave new world. Paying players above the table was unprecedented too. But here we are.

The issue will be if the PAC-12 craters and schools are locked out of TV contracts and membership in the conferences that have contracts. It is not "suing to get in" it is the risk of being sued for damages if they are excluded and suffer irreparable harm as a result.

---

The problem with your analysis is that you think a court is going to rule that we belong in the B1G when we have the MWC available. The fact is our football and basketball teams do not perform up to the B1G standards and are far below USC and Southern Branch. How about Air Force? How about Nevada? How about Idaho? How about Montana? How about Fresno? There are many schools (many with teams that out perform ours) that could also whine that they were excluded.

---

First, MWC schools have not been impacted at all by B1G actions. It is much tougher for them to claim damages. It is tough for them to claim they fit the B1G academic profile.

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision. What is their criteria? Their schools are largely land grant public schools in relatively populous states that are their state's flagship school with good academics. Same as the PAC-12, but not the same as the MWC, which is why the PAC-12 is having trouble finding replacements. The B1G used to only have Midwest schools but now the have Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA. The B1G can argue WSU and OSU don't fit, and easily argue MWC teams don't fit, but they cannot argue Cal and UW don't fit. They can only argue we are not worth full membership $. They cannot argue our value is zero. If they offer less, and we walk because we only want full membership $, then they are off tge hook, they did not refuse to deal, we did.

Similarly, if Cal does not ask to get in, and try to negotiate, we will have no basis to claim they refused to deal with us. For the reasons I stated above, the initiative needs to come from our side, working with Stanford, UCLA and USC especially, plus, UW and Oregon. Or the entire PAC-10.

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

---

---

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision.

---

No, they won't. The Southwest Conference died. Big East football died. In both cases, some of the members found "better" conferences, and some ended up in "lesser" conferences. No one had to pay zillions of dollars to the "left out" athletic programs.

It will be the same if the Pac-12 doesn't make it.

FWIW:

https://saturdayoutwest.com/pac-12/hayes-sources-convinced-big-ten-isnt-finished-raiding-the-pac-12/

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

---

---

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision.

---

No, they won't. The Southwest Conference died. Big East football died. In both cases, some of the members found "better" conferences, and some ended up in "lesser" conferences. No one had to pay zillions of dollars to the "left out" athletic programs.

It will be the same if the Pac-12 doesn't make it.

---

The Southwest Conference existed before the Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Regents of the University of Oklahoma which started the big TV revenue push. Members left to the SEC, Big 12 and PAC-12, but the question you need to ask is who made less money than they did in the SWC? And was there an entity that CAUSED the harm to those schools? Similarly, the question you need to answer is who killed Big East football and who was harmed and by how much? Plus universities really resisted arguing that their football programs were businesses and should be treated as such.

Again, the recent Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Alston has blown the lid off any idea that college football is not a business and has affirmed that the Sherman Act and other laws relating to commerce fully apply. You cannot say what will happen after Alston based on what happened before Alston.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision.

---

No, they won't. The Southwest Conference died. Big East football died. In both cases, some of the members found "better" conferences, and some ended up in "lesser" conferences. No one had to pay zillions of dollars to the "left out" athletic programs.

It will be the same if the Pac-12 doesn't make it.

---

The Southwest Conference existed before the Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Regents of the University of Oklahoma which started the big TV revenue push. Members left to the SEC, Big 12 and PAC-12, but the question you need to ask is who made less money than they did in the SWC? And was there an entity that CAUSED the harm to those schools? Similarly, the question you need to answer is who killed Big East football and who was harmed and by how much? Plus universities really resisted arguing that their football programs were businesses and should be treated as such.

Again, the recent Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Alston has blown the lid off any idea that college football is not a business and has affirmed that the Sherman Act and other laws relating to commerce fully apply. You cannot say what will happen after Alston based on what happened before Alston.

---

It was a horrible decision that ultimately will end interscholastic athletics particularly at many schools. Nevertheless, even if you view interscholastic athletics as a business rather that a student activity, the B1G is not the only game (excuse the pun) in town. There is the SEC, Big 12, MWC, Big Sky Conference, West Coast Conference, WAC, the Big West Conference, and more. There is also the opportunity to compete as an independent.

Based upon our demonstrated commitment (or lack thereof) to major athletics, I think the B1G can effectively argue that the MWC, Big Sky, or Big West are better fits for us. In fact, the Big West has five other UCs (and 2 of them beat us this last season). Seems like a good fit, and I bet many among the Cal faculty and administration would agree.

Quote:

---

The Southwest Conference existed before the Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Regents of the University of Oklahoma which started the big TV revenue push.

---

The Supreme Court decided NCAA v. Oklahoma in 1984.

The Southwest Conference died after the 1995-96 school year, due to the Big 8, in 1994, inviting 4 SWC members to join effective in fall 1996.

That's more than a decade after the SCOTUS decision.

Quote:

---

And was there an entity that CAUSED the harm to those schools?

---

Your argument is that the Big Ten will harm Pac members by inviting USC and UCLA but not the rest.

By that logic, the Big 8 harmed the un-invited SWC members (Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU) by not adding them along with Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, and Texas Tech. Yet, no one sued the Big 8 after the SWC dissolved, let alone collected damages.

Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU all moved to second-tier or third-tier conferences when the SWC ended, though after many years and many millions of donor dollars pumped into football, and a few departures from the Big 12, Houston and TCU managed to get into the Big 12 (only beginning fall 2023, in Houston's case).

The Big 8 chose to add 4 SWC members but not all 8. The Big Ten has added 2 Pac-12 members, and may or may not add a few more eventually, but there is NFW that all 12 will end up in the Big Ten. If the Pac eventually dissolves, at least 2 members will end up in either the Mountain West or a conference called the Pac-X that is largely made up of teams that are now in the MWC.

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision.

---

No, they won't. The Southwest Conference died. Big East football died. In both cases, some of the members found "better" conferences, and some ended up in "lesser" conferences. No one had to pay zillions of dollars to the "left out" athletic programs.

It will be the same if the Pac-12 doesn't make it.

---

The Southwest Conference existed before the Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Regents of the University of Oklahoma which started the big TV revenue push. Members left to the SEC, Big 12 and PAC-12, but the question you need to ask is who made less money than they did in the SWC? And was there an entity that CAUSED the harm to those schools? Similarly, the question you need to answer is who killed Big East football and who was harmed and by how much? Plus universities really resisted arguing that their football programs were businesses and should be treated as such.

Again, the recent Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Alston has blown the lid off any idea that college football is not a business and has affirmed that the Sherman Act and other laws relating to commerce fully apply. You cannot say what will happen after Alston based on what happened before Alston.

---

It was a horrible decision that ultimately will end interscholastic athletics particularly at many schools. Nevertheless, even if you view interscholastic athletics as a business rather that a student activity, the B1G is not the only game (excuse the pun) in town. There is the SEC, Big 12, MWC, Big Sky Conference, West Coast Conference, WAC, the Big West Conference, and more. There is also the opportunity to compete as an independent.

Based upon our demonstrated commitment (or lack thereof) to major athletics, I think the B1G can effectively argue that the MWC, Big Sky, or Big West are better fits for us. In fact, the Big West has five other UCs (and 2 of them beat us this last season). Seems like a good fit, and I bet many among the Cal faculty and administration would agree.

---

That would be the B1G's (and especially co-defendants Fox and ESPN) argument in court, no doubt. However, in 2021 the Supreme Court in Alston vs the NCAA made it abundantly clear that the antitrust laws fully apply to college athletics. The case was about and has most impacted athlete compensation, but read it, tge decision is centered in the Sherman Antitrust Act, which MOST effects the behavior of trusts, cartels, agreements in the case the NCAA but certainly the conferences.

The actions of the B1G, with Fox and ESPN as co-conspirators, will have effectively taken the "Power 5" to the "Power 4" with a strong move to "Power 2." That could be a per se violation in of itself, something the Justice Department could look at. As you point out, teams that were in P5 are excluded from P4 then the conferences will need good reasons to defend themselves from civil antitrust claims. Because the financial impact is huge. If a business is on Amazon and then is unreasonably excluded from Amazon, Amazon cannot say "you can sell your product on Craigslist." Amazon needs to have a good reason for excluding you or can be sued.

People act like the world of college athletics before Alston is precedent, it is not. With that Supreme Court decision everything has changed.

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

The Southwest Conference existed before the Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Regents of the University of Oklahoma which started the big TV revenue push.

---

The Supreme Court decided NCAA v. Oklahoma in 1984.

The Southwest Conference died after the 1995-96 school year, due to the Big 8, in 1994, inviting 4 SWC members to join effective in fall 1996.

That's more than a decade after the SCOTUS decision.

Quote:

---

And was there an entity that CAUSED the harm to those schools?

---

Your argument is that the Big Ten will harm Pac members by inviting USC and UCLA but not the rest.

By that logic, the Big 8 harmed the un-invited SWC members (Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU) by not adding them along with Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, and Texas Tech. Yet, no one sued the Big 8 after the SWC dissolved, let alone collected damages.

Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU all moved to second-tier or third-tier conferences when the SWC ended, though after many years and many millions of donor dollars pumped into football, and a few departures from the Big 12, Houston and TCU managed to get into the Big 12 (only beginning fall 2023, in Houston's case).

The Big 8 chose to add 4 SWC members but not all 8. The Big Ten has added 2 Pac-12 members, and may or may not add a few more eventually, but there is NFW that all 12 will end up in the Big Ten. If the Pac eventually dissolves, at least 2 members will end up in either the Mountain West or a conference called the Pac-X that is largely made up of teams that are now in the MWC.

---

Ok, I wasn't clear. NCAA vs Regents set off the gold rush which has greatly enriched former SWC members. My question to you was "Who caused the breakup of the SWC?" and "Who was harmed by the breakup of the SWC? " Did schools end up making less money? Because otherwise there is no case.

However, my MAIN point is that all of the previous history of college athletics happened before the 2021 Supreme Court decision in Alston vs NCAA. The entire decision is based on the full application of the Sherman Antitrust Act to college athletics. That changed everything. Compensation for players was the immediate impact, but anyone familiar with Sherman knows that it mostly deals with "trusts" ie organizations between firms, agreements, cartels, which is what the NCAA and the conferences are.

Alston neutered the NCAA, but the conferences are just as vulnerable, and Fox and ESPN probably more so. Their behavior will now be subject to the full power of the antitrust laws, both criminal and civil (with deep pockets and treble damages). Just like the fact NCAA used to be able to punish players and schools if a player received compensation before Alston, the fact conferences (in partnership with ESPN and Fox) could act in violation of the antitrust laws before 2021 is irrelevant. It is a new world.

Looks like merger between P12 and ACC is a possibility. From Twitter anyway.

philly1121 said:

---

Looks like merger between P12 and ACC is a possibility. From Twitter anyway.

---

It would make a lot of sense and create a lot of value with East Coast teams playing in the last time slots on the West Coast. Allows ACC to renegotiate their contract. Even potentially includes Notre Dame.

philly1121 said:

---

Looks like merger between P12 and ACC is a possibility. From Twitter anyway.

---

I've been advocating that since the two LA schools announced their secession. Add some teams from the west (UNLV, Reno, SDSU, etc.) and we would have a great coast to coast conference with two divisions.

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

If the PAC-12 dies, the B1G, Fox and ESPN will be easily be portrayed as the perpetrators and probably as part of a conspiracy. If the B1G refuses to admit, at any value, the left over PAC-10 teams, and those teams are forced to drop down to a much lower revenue level, there will be a basis for damages and the B1G will need to have a good basis for their decision.

---

No, they won't. The Southwest Conference died. Big East football died. In both cases, some of the members found "better" conferences, and some ended up in "lesser" conferences. No one had to pay zillions of dollars to the "left out" athletic programs.

It will be the same if the Pac-12 doesn't make it.

---

The Southwest Conference existed before the Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Regents of the University of Oklahoma which started the big TV revenue push. Members left to the SEC, Big 12 and PAC-12, but the question you need to ask is who made less money than they did in the SWC? And was there an entity that CAUSED the harm to those schools? Similarly, the question you need to answer is who killed Big East football and who was harmed and by how much? Plus universities really resisted arguing that their football programs were businesses and should be treated as such.

Again, the recent Supreme Court ruling in NCAA vs Alston has blown the lid off any idea that college football is not a business and has affirmed that the Sherman Act and other laws relating to commerce fully apply. You cannot say what will happen after Alston based on what happened before Alston.

---

It was a horrible decision that ultimately will end interscholastic athletics particularly at many schools. Nevertheless, even if you view interscholastic athletics as a business rather that a student activity, the B1G is not the only game (excuse the pun) in town. There is the SEC, Big 12, MWC, Big Sky Conference, West Coast Conference, WAC, the Big West Conference, and more. There is also the opportunity to compete as an independent.

Based upon our demonstrated commitment (or lack thereof) to major athletics, I think the B1G can effectively argue that the MWC, Big Sky, or Big West are better fits for us. In fact, the Big West has five other UCs (and 2 of them beat us this last season). Seems like a good fit, and I bet many among the Cal faculty and administration would agree.

---

That would be the B1G's (and especially co-defendants Fox and ESPN) argument in court, no doubt. However, in 2021 the Supreme Court in Alston vs the NCAA made it abundantly clear that the antitrust laws fully apply to college athletics. The case was about and has most impacted athlete compensation, but read it, tge decision is centered in the Sherman Antitrust Act, which MOST effects the behavior of trusts, cartels, agreements in the case the NCAA but certainly the conferences.

The actions of the B1G, with Fox and ESPN as co-conspirators, will have effectively taken the "Power 5" to the "Power 4" with a strong move to "Power 2." That could be a per se violation in of itself, something the Justice Department could look at. As you point out, teams that were in P5 are excluded from P4 then the conferences will need good reasons to defend themselves from civil antitrust claims. Because the financial impact is huge. If a business is on Amazon and then is unreasonably excluded from Amazon, Amazon cannot say "you can sell your product on Craigslist." Amazon needs to have a good reason for excluding you or can be sued.

People act like the world of college athletics before Alston is precedent, it is not. With that Supreme Court decision everything has changed.

---

By your logic, a USFL team would have a right to join the NFL. Cal has alternatives. Yu doon't like them but the B1G does not see us as a viable member of their conference. Maybe we should demand to joint the Ivy League and sue them for antitrust if they deny us.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Looks like merger between P12 and ACC is a possibility. From Twitter anyway.

---

It would make a lot of sense and create a lot of value with East Coast teams playing in the last time slots on the West Coast. Allows ACC to renegotiate their contract. Even potentially includes Notre Dame.

---

FWIW there's some unsubstantiated chatter that the ACC GOR contains a termination clause for select teams if their compensation falls too far out of line with other conferences to stay competitive. It's clear FSU is making noise about this disparity already. Should be interesting to watch.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/11axafk/comment/j9vznz1/