Stanford and Cal are looking for a fourth non conf matchup so that's one option for them! Lol

JRL.02 said:

---

Stanford and Cal are looking for a fourth non conf matchup so that's one option for them! Lol

---

That probably is not going to happen, at least not with SMU and Cal .

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Stanford and Cal are looking for a fourth non conf matchup so that's one option for them! Lol

---

That probably is not going to happen, at least not with SMU and Cal .

---

I like what I think you are foreshadowing.

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Stanford and Cal are looking for a fourth non conf matchup so that's one option for them! Lol

---

That probably is not going to happen, at least not with SMU and Cal .

---

I like what I think you are foreshadowing.

---

Not a done deal yet, but we will see when the ACC schedule come out.

Usually the ACC football schedule is released in January. I know there have been multiple meetings per week to figure out new football scheduling since Sept 1 but I wonder if we get a schedule before January

What foreshadowing?

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

---

This again... I covered this above, here. OSU and WSU need 2024-25 schedules for all of their sports, not just football. The Pac-2 idea doesn't fly unless there is a workable solution for all of their sports.

OSU and WSU could pay the Big West or Big Sky to provide them with games or temporary conference membership in all sports other than football, but that assumes one of those conferences is willing to do that at a reasonably low price.

Even if they did that, what's the end game? Waiting a year or two and bringing most of the MWC into the New-Pac, just to keep two or three MWC teams out? Playing football as independents indefinitely while hoping the next wave of realignment creates openings for them in the Big 12?

---

That's what Canzano's article basically says: join the WCC or Big West in non-football sports and then do a special scheduling arrangement with the MWC and other west coast schools in football.

---

Why would the MWC do this, particularly since the revamped Pac won't eventually take a fair number of their teams? No super majority there to approve such a change. Or how can they do this? Right now they only play 8 conference games and their teams are contractually bound to play 4 other non-conference game already. They're also basically saying non-revenue athletes find another place to go of they go to the Big West. Just so we are clear they need at least 5 wins over division 1a teams to even be in post-season. If the both want to bowl eligible they need to play 5 other other division 1a teams and win all their games against them.

And my question continues to be: name the division 1A teams that have an open game next season? It won't be Furd, Cal or SMU for reasons I can't get into. The fact that Canzona says that there would be other west coast teams makes it obvious he is too lazy to look at schedules.

Then answer the question about a TV contract (the two school are not exactly Notre Dame and certainly a schedule of Big West schools will mean not coverage), the Power 4 taken their playoff spot and finally, after the Portal transfers to schools that provide a certain forum for (and not waiting for successful litigation), will they even become bowl eligible if their schedule is full of teams that no TV programmer wants?

While I'm sympathetic to OSU and WSU, they should go to State and get the equivalent of Calumony, then agree to a short term TV payout haircut and go to the Big 12, which appears to be showing an interest all of a suddent.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

---

This again... I covered this above, here. OSU and WSU need 2024-25 schedules for all of their sports, not just football. The Pac-2 idea doesn't fly unless there is a workable solution for all of their sports.

OSU and WSU could pay the Big West or Big Sky to provide them with games or temporary conference membership in all sports other than football, but that assumes one of those conferences is willing to do that at a reasonably low price.

Even if they did that, what's the end game? Waiting a year or two and bringing most of the MWC into the New-Pac, just to keep two or three MWC teams out? Playing football as independents indefinitely while hoping the next wave of realignment creates openings for them in the Big 12?

---

That's what Canzano's article basically says: join the WCC or Big West in non-football sports and then do a special scheduling arrangement with the MWC and other west coast schools in football.

---

Why would the MWC do this? Or how can they do this? Right now they only play 8 conference games and they are contractually bound to play 4 other non-conference game already. And my question continues to be: name 8 division 1 teams that have an open game next season? Then answer the question about a TV contract (the two school are not exactly Notre Dame), the Power 4 taken their playoff spot and finally, after the Portal transfers to schools that provide a certain forum for (and not through litigation), will they even become bowl eligible?

While I'm sympathetic to OSU and WSU, they should go to State and get the equivalent of Calumony, then agree to a short term TV payout haircut and go to the Big 12, which appears to be showing an interest all of a suddent.

---

Why? Because the MWC would have a possible path to merging with the PAC-2 in 2025 or 2026 and possibly retaining the PAC's P5 status. Possibly more money, more prestige and nothing to lose. Why wouldn't they?

How? That is easy. They revise their 2024 conference schedule the same way they would do if OSU and WSU joined. The same way the B-12 is revising their schedules to include the Four Corners, the same way the ACC is revising their schedules to include Cal, Stanford and SMU. The MWC could count those games in their standings, play fewer "conference games" or teams could drop their body bag FCS games to add them. Moreover, any team playing at Hawaii can add a 13th game and play in week zero. With MWC support it is easy, and the MWC is motivated.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

---

This again... I covered this above, here. OSU and WSU need 2024-25 schedules for all of their sports, not just football. The Pac-2 idea doesn't fly unless there is a workable solution for all of their sports.

OSU and WSU could pay the Big West or Big Sky to provide them with games or temporary conference membership in all sports other than football, but that assumes one of those conferences is willing to do that at a reasonably low price.

Even if they did that, what's the end game? Waiting a year or two and bringing most of the MWC into the New-Pac, just to keep two or three MWC teams out? Playing football as independents indefinitely while hoping the next wave of realignment creates openings for them in the Big 12?

---

That's what Canzano's article basically says: join the WCC or Big West in non-football sports and then do a special scheduling arrangement with the MWC and other west coast schools in football.

---

Why would the MWC do this? Or how can they do this? Right now they only play 8 conference games and they are contractually bound to play 4 other non-conference game already. And my question continues to be: name 8 division 1 teams that have an open game next season? Then answer the question about a TV contract (the two school are not exactly Notre Dame), the Power 4 taken their playoff spot and finally, after the Portal transfers to schools that provide a certain forum for (and not through litigation), will they even become bowl eligible?

While I'm sympathetic to OSU and WSU, they should go to State and get the equivalent of Calumony, then agree to a short term TV payout haircut and go to the Big 12, which appears to be showing an interest all of a suddent.

---

Why? Because the MWC would have a possible path to merging with the PAC-2 in 2025 or 2026 and possibly retaining the PAC's P5 status. Possibly more money, more prestige and nothing to lose. Why wouldn't they?

How? That is easy. They revise their 2024 conference schedule the same way they would do if OSU and WSU joined. The same way the B-12 is revising their schedules to include the Four Corners, the same way the ACC is revising their schedules to include Cal, Stanford and SMU. The MWC could count those games in their standings, play fewer "conference games" or teams could drop their body bag FCS games to add them. Moreover, any team playing at Hawaii can add a 13th game and play in week zero. With MWC support it is easy, and the MWC is motivated.

---

Did you think this out? Each school needs 5 times 2 or 10 Division 1A teams it can beat to be post-season eligible. The really need more since they may not beat everyone of the D1 opponents, especially after Portal transfers. The view the MWC is motivated to do a merger is not what their Commissioner is saying. She said the MWC could offer OSU and WSU an invitation to join the MWC, and that joining the Pac was unlikely and faced legal and timing challenges.

Having just read a thread where there our discussions about the "new" Pac not taking many MWC terms, they won't have have the supermajority vote required for a merger. This also ignores the issue that the MWC teams probably don't want to take on the potentially large liabilities of the Pac. Sure maybe that gets taken care of with 2 years of litigation, or maybe not. Neither the Pac 2 or a combined MWC conference will be a power conference and won't likely have an automatic birth into to playoffs when the P4 forces changes in the rules by simply leaving the playoffs and doing their own playoffs which the other conferences will then join sans the Pac 2. Moreover, OSU and WSU are going to lose a ton of players to the Power 4 through the Portal. And who is the TV provider that is going to pay any decent bucks to see these teams play? And I suspect the MWC doesn't think it gets much benefit from joining a Pac 2 that is composed of WSU and OSU. Certainly they don't bring much to the table from a TV standpoint.

But let's get back to scheduling, and the silly notion about the P2 following what the realigned P4 conferences are doing. All the Power conference are incorporating new teams into their conference, which means sufficient teams and games, and in the ACC you also have an independent member, non-conference games with ACC members (also the BYU-Utah will continue to be a non-conference game for reasons I don't understand). There are sufficient number of games to play the required number of conference games. In contrast, and this should be obvious, the Pac 2 has lost all their other conference opponents, and they need to add 8 new games from outside the conference. So no, they can't do what do what the other conferences can do. Just do the math.

Here are the D1 teams that have an open game:

Auburn (expected to be filled by a FCS local school)
Boston college (expected to be filled by a non-conference game with a new ACC school)
BYU (expected to be filled with a non-confence game with Utah)
Cal (expected to be filled by a non-conerfence game with an ACC team or Notre Dame)
SMU (see Cal)
Stanford (expected to be filled by a non-conerfence game with an ACC team - they already play Notre Dame)
Florida Atlantic (expected to be filled by a FCS team)
Miss. State (open question, normally would be filed be an FCS team, but with new the playoff football playoff format they may want a tougher opponent).
Notre Dame (see Cal and SMU)
TCU (expected to be filled by a FCS team)
Utah State (expected to play USC)
Washington (we may have a winner here especially if WSU applies political pressure)
Army (this is possible, but probably they pick a FCS team)
Rice (this is possible)
Utah (see BYU)
USC (see Utah St)

The numbers really don't add up financially or scheduling wise unless something changes.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Do y'all think Cal and Stanford will be in the ACC for the long haul? Does ESPN try and help the ACC build out a more fulsome western wing in 2030/2031 when the Big12 deal is up and ASU, Zona, and Utah are free agents again?

---

It's unclear if the ACC will even be around for the long haul. I think most of us just see this as a way to stay alive until the next realignment spree.

---

One theory I heard was from David Shaw that the TV money will be so much less, that the teams will start moving back to regional conferences.

---

once the streaming giants disrupt the archaic boomer tv model with DTC then, yes, things will reorganize regionally

BarcaBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Do y'all think Cal and Stanford will be in the ACC for the long haul? Does ESPN try and help the ACC build out a more fulsome western wing in 2030/2031 when the Big12 deal is up and ASU, Zona, and Utah are free agents again?

---

It's unclear if the ACC will even be around for the long haul. I think most of us just see this as a way to stay alive until the next realignment spree.

---

One theory I heard was from David Shaw that the TV money will be so much less, that the teams will start moving back to regional conferences.

---

once the streaming giants disrupt the archaic boomer tv model with DTC then, yes, things will reorganize regionally

---

Nah. That's just wishful thinking on Shaw's part. The teams that have used realignment to gain what they think is elevation above local rivals are not going back to a regional model just to give their volleyball teams shorter road trips.

What if the gender equity crowd sues?

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Oregon State and Washington State may decide to play as the "Pac-2" in 2024.

I spoke with college football's scheduling mastermind today.

"It can be done," he said.

Column: https://t.co/Q8N9irt660

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2023

---

This again... I covered this above, here. OSU and WSU need 2024-25 schedules for all of their sports, not just football. The Pac-2 idea doesn't fly unless there is a workable solution for all of their sports.

OSU and WSU could pay the Big West or Big Sky to provide them with games or temporary conference membership in all sports other than football, but that assumes one of those conferences is willing to do that at a reasonably low price.

Even if they did that, what's the end game? Waiting a year or two and bringing most of the MWC into the New-Pac, just to keep two or three MWC teams out? Playing football as independents indefinitely while hoping the next wave of realignment creates openings for them in the Big 12?

---

That's what Canzano's article basically says: join the WCC or Big West in non-football sports and then do a special scheduling arrangement with the MWC and other west coast schools in football.

---

Why would the MWC do this? Or how can they do this? Right now they only play 8 conference games and they are contractually bound to play 4 other non-conference game already. And my question continues to be: name 8 division 1 teams that have an open game next season? Then answer the question about a TV contract (the two school are not exactly Notre Dame), the Power 4 taken their playoff spot and finally, after the Portal transfers to schools that provide a certain forum for (and not through litigation), will they even become bowl eligible?

While I'm sympathetic to OSU and WSU, they should go to State and get the equivalent of Calumony, then agree to a short term TV payout haircut and go to the Big 12, which appears to be showing an interest all of a suddent.

---

Why? Because the MWC would have a possible path to merging with the PAC-2 in 2025 or 2026 and possibly retaining the PAC's P5 status. Possibly more money, more prestige and nothing to lose. Why wouldn't they?

How? That is easy. They revise their 2024 conference schedule the same way they would do if OSU and WSU joined. The same way the B-12 is revising their schedules to include the Four Corners, the same way the ACC is revising their schedules to include Cal, Stanford and SMU. The MWC could count those games in their standings, play fewer "conference games" or teams could drop their body bag FCS games to add them. Moreover, any team playing at Hawaii can add a 13th game and play in week zero. With MWC support it is easy, and the MWC is motivated.

---

Did you think this out? Each school needs 5 times 2 or 10 Division 1A teams it can beat to be post-season eligible. The really need more since they may not beat everyone of the D1 opponents, especially after Portal transfers. The view the MWC is motivated to do a merger is not what their Commissioner is saying. She said the MWC could offer OSU and WSU an invitation to join the MWC, and that joining the Pac was unlikely and faced legal and timing challenges.

Having just read a thread where there our discussions about the "new" Pac not taking many MWC terms, they won't have have the supermajority vote required for a merger. This also ignores the issue that the MWC teams probably don't want to take on the potentially large liabilities of the Pac. Sure maybe that gets taken care of with 2 years of litigation, or maybe not. Neither the Pac 2 or a combined MWC conference will be a power conference and won't likely have an automatic birth into to playoffs when the P4 forces changes in the rules by simply leaving the playoffs and doing their own playoffs which the other conferences will then join sans the Pac 2. Moreover, OSU and WSU are going to lose a ton of players to the Power 4 through the Portal. And who is the TV provider that is going to pay any decent bucks to see these teams play? And I suspect the MWC doesn't think it gets much benefit from joining a Pac 2 that is composed of WSU and OSU. Certainly they don't bring much to the table from a TV standpoint.

---

Exactly, "P5" means nothing to the NCAA, which calls them Autonomous conferences, i.e,., they have more flexibility in what they can offer student athletes. The only thing that Pac2 have is the current rules that 'guarantee' the Pac12 a seat in the CFB for the next two years. But the Sankey of the SEC has already hinted at that they won't go along with any contract renewal if the Pac2 keeps that guaranteed slot. The BiG, B12 and ACC will also vote to cancel it, and share more money for themselves. Sure, Wazzou has a vote, and changes are supposed to be unanimous, but two years is a short time for lawyers. Much easier just to offer Wassou and OSU a fee in lieu of the CFB playoff slot.

In any event, no way the CFB gives the winner of the Pac2 a shot in the playoffs.

movielover said:

---

What if the gender equity crowd sues?

---

men's sports are just as impacted by the travel, including football. In fact, most Cal sports won't be materially impacted. There are a vaielty of reasons, such as golf plays almost entirely in multi-conferecne tournaments or water polo in in a different conference. But the bottom line is the travel in not gender related. The poster could have said men's soccer rather than women's volleyball.

Money is the only thing that matters. God Bless.

Metallica - Enter Sandman Live (Stranger in Moscow, Moscow Russia 1991) - YouTube

UC regents meeting/met today on Cal & ACC

calumnus said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

In my opinion, a "rebuilt" Pac-12 that consisted of Wash State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal + Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Memphis, Air Force, and Tulane could have retained power conf status in football.

---

It would only retain status to the extent the other power conferences allowed it to by not voting them out. I suspect the Big 10 and SEC would instantly take the 'weakening' of the PAC (perceived or legit) as an opportunity seize more power and influence on the direction of college football and particularly the CFB Playoffs (how many auto-bids to power conferences, at large bids etc). The question is would one of the ACC or Big 12 join those two to vote to ouster the PAC. There's some reasoning for them to resist ceding more power to the Power '2', and keeping a voting bloc that can check them 3-2, but short term $ increases by splitting the pie 4 ways vs 5 could cause them to vote to boot the PAC - even to their long-term detriment.

---

P5 ("Autonomous") conference status is an NCAA designation and I don't see the NCAA going anywhere near that consequential a decision as long as the conference continues to exist with some of the original members. I think that is why certain powers are pushing so hard for the 10 schools leaving to burn down the house and dissolve the conference prior to their departure. It is the only sure way to consolidate to a P4.

---

That is exactly right. The money the PAC 12 gets is money that the rest of the Big 5 would want. However, with the PAC 12 in place and the authority the NCAA has given it, as well as the way that the playoff is set up, they would have to have a real battle to strip the PAC 12 of that authority. I would even say that if they did that to the PAC 12, they could easily do that to the Big 12 at the same time. Klavikoff is voting there - that is why he went. They decided to not take a vote because of that. The playoff committee already said they would abide bu the NCAA rules about that (and by playoff committee I mean Sankey).

What they will do is allocate Playoff money in the next cycle based on number of conference teams. So the 18, 20 team conferences will get more than the smaller ones based on total number of teams, rather than splitting it evenly 5 ways, which is how it was.

Two things: 1) the Board of Managers (Presidents) vote on all big football stuff, not teh AD's' and 2) the CFP is under its own rules, not under NCAA. Autonomous conference (which is an NCAA designation) does not mean playoff spot (which is awarded by the CFP). They are separate issues. If teh CFP could figure out a way to dump the Pac2, they'd be gone in a nanosecond.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/4/3/governance.aspx

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

From comments on this board, it seems like Carol Christ felt that we were easily worth 30+ mm.

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

Oski87 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

In my opinion, a "rebuilt" Pac-12 that consisted of Wash State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal + Boise State, Fresno State, SMU, Memphis, Air Force, and Tulane could have retained power conf status in football.

---

It would only retain status to the extent the other power conferences allowed it to by not voting them out. I suspect the Big 10 and SEC would instantly take the 'weakening' of the PAC (perceived or legit) as an opportunity seize more power and influence on the direction of college football and particularly the CFB Playoffs (how many auto-bids to power conferences, at large bids etc). The question is would one of the ACC or Big 12 join those two to vote to ouster the PAC. There's some reasoning for them to resist ceding more power to the Power '2', and keeping a voting bloc that can check them 3-2, but short term $ increases by splitting the pie 4 ways vs 5 could cause them to vote to boot the PAC - even to their long-term detriment.

---

P5 ("Autonomous") conference status is an NCAA designation and I don't see the NCAA going anywhere near that consequential a decision as long as the conference continues to exist with some of the original members. I think that is why certain powers are pushing so hard for the 10 schools leaving to burn down the house and dissolve the conference prior to their departure. It is the only sure way to consolidate to a P4.

---

That is exactly right. The money the PAC 12 gets is money that the rest of the Big 5 would want. However, with the PAC 12 in place and the authority the NCAA has given it, as well as the way that the playoff is set up, they would have to have a real battle to strip the PAC 12 of that authority. I would even say that if they did that to the PAC 12, they could easily do that to the Big 12 at the same time. Klavikoff is voting there - that is why he went. They decided to not take a vote because of that. The playoff committee already said they would abide bu the NCAA rules about that (and by playoff committee I mean Sankey).

What they will do is allocate Playoff money in the next cycle based on number of conference teams. So the 18, 20 team conferences will get more than the smaller ones based on total number of teams, rather than splitting it evenly 5 ways, which is how it was.

---

Wow, is that wrong.

The NCAA has no authority. There is no NCAA championship for Division 1A football. The NCAA doesn't sponsor D1A (FBS) Football. That is why we had no formal champions in the past, and we ended up with conferences putting together the wonderful BCS. Being an autonomous member in the NCAA constitution is important for many reasons, but has no sway on on Division 1A football playoffs. My guess is you misinterpreted the article I'm attaching, where Sankey wants to do away with the NCAA providing rights to the Power 5 power conferences, which is not related to the FBS football playoffs, but other sports such basketball.

The College Football Playoff presently is administered by the FBS conferences and the University of Notre Dame which are members of CFP Administration, LLC. The entity manages the College Football Playoff National Championship, makes all rules and policies for playoffs, and identifies the bowl games that host the Playoff Semifinals. What exact rules are you talking about when you say the CFP will follow? The CFB governance is through a Board of Governors (or Managers as they are sometimes called) compose of ADs, Presidents or Commissioners from each conference. The Pac Commissioner is not on the CFB Board of Governors and thus Klaviikoff doesn't have a vote on anything about the playoffs (nor does Shankey for that matter - the Pac and SEC are represented by school Presidents). I do not know where you sourced your commentary, but the journalist that said that doesn't know what they are talking about. To change the rules on who makes the playoffs would take unanimous consent. The distribution in 2024 have not been fully set, especially the distribution among the P5 or P4 schools.

None of that really matters. If the SEC and/or large conferences walk out and start another playoff entity, leaving out the Pac 2, rest assured all the other conferences will follow. ESPN which holds the TV rights to the playoff is not about to let two teams from the Pac screw everything-up. More ominous is Sankey's comment in the linked article about we will see how many Power conferences there are in 30 to 60 days from now. Was the hell does that mean - OSU and WSU to the Big 12 or more conference realignment?
Playoff composition, revenue sharing, NCAA influence up ...CBS Sportshttps://www.cbssports.com college-football news

BTW, none of this speaks to the issue about how OSU and WSU schedule sufficient number of games with the D1 programs to even become eligible for the postseason play.

Econ141 said:

---

> From comments on this board, it seems like Carol Christ felt that we were easily worth 30+ mm.

---

Malignant Melanoma? signed, oldfort unable to guess contextual 30+ mm
https://www.abbreviations.com/abbreviations/MM

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona? If the add-ons were Oregon and Washington, clearly it would have been a different story?

I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about how things shake down for us in 5-7 years. Major part of that is obviously Cal not getting its house in order. Totally non-transparent, non-engaged, admin. But I digress...

smh said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

> From comments on this board, it seems like Carol Christ felt that we were easily worth 30+ mm.

---

Malignant Melanoma? signed, oldfort unable to guess contextual 30+ mm
https://www.abbreviations.com/abbreviations/MM

---

Each "m" is a 1,000 - not sure if you were being sarcastic?

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona? If the add-ons were Oregon and Washington, clearly it would have been a different story?

I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about how things shake down for us in 5-7 years. Major part of that is obviously Cal not getting its house in order. Totally non-transparent, non-engaged, admin. But I digress...

---

I took it to mean that they could expand the league and get a full share from the networks for up to 16 teams. Any additional expansion would not get any additional funds from the networks. I believe those terms are stated in their media contracts.

Econ141 said:

---

Each "m" is a 1,000 - not sure if you were being sarcastic?

---

news to me, thanks. i thought K stood for a thousand / M a millionaire.
# things change

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Mine also. I also agree with your other comment about timing among programs. A lot of schools got lucky.

Next round of contracts the TV money is falling a ton ,as ESPN and Fox sports revenues slide. Certain programs clearly are worth a lot: TOSU for example. The non-elites are not. If this happened a few years ago, the Pac would not have broken-up. He should have negotiated with ESPN earlier. The longer Commissioner George waited the worst it got. My understanding is not that this is not entirely his fault, but that one Pac President and his professor did some bad analysis and the other CEOs all went for the ride. We need to gt our act togeither in football if we want our non-revenue sports to be able to compete at the highest level.

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

SMU was G5. If the three of us combined are worth more than $120 million to ESPN, I'm pretty sure Cal and Stanford are worth something north of $40 million each. Now a sizable chunk of our value will be retained by the other ACC schools, but that was the price of admission especially due to 4 schools having leverage and our bad negotiating position.

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this