Oregon & Washington to the B1G - Clemson & Florida State Next?

nic said:
Well that was nice of FOX. We got Oregon and Washington at a cheap price for 5 years.
Click to expand...


I mean, if our revenue doesn't change, it doesn't really benefit us. Really a net negative due to the added travel, and because it's harder to get a conference championship when there's more teams. As far as the conference goes, it feels like we're doing USC and UCLA a favor more than anything.

 
Toe said:
I mean, if our revenue doesn't change, it doesn't really benefit us. Really a net negative due to the added travel, and because it's harder to get a conference championship when there's more teams. As far as the conference goes, it feels like we're doing USC and UCLA a favor more than anything.
Click to expand...
Getting to Eugene is a b****. LA is $$$. And UW fans suck. 

 
I'd prefer Miami with Florida State instead of Clemson.  Built in rivalry with those two schools, excellent academic school, and history with many schools in the Big Ten like Nebraska, Ohio State, and Penn State.  Clemson and holy roller Dabo scream SEC culture to me.

 
Toe said:
I mean, if our revenue doesn't change, it doesn't really benefit us. Really a net negative due to the added travel, and because it's harder to get a conference championship when there's more teams. As far as the conference goes, it feels like we're doing USC and UCLA a favor more than anything.
Click to expand...
Revenue did change, right? Fox added 60 to 70 million per year for 5 years. Maybe I misread something. I originally thought the other 16 teams where giving up revenue for 5 years to add Oregon and Washington, but that doesn't seem like the case. Athletic departments expenses will go up for sure. I am also not sure USC or UCLA are actually happy about these additions. They may have voted no if they had a vote.

Edit: I guess you are saying no revenue increases for the 16 teams. Just more expense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both Oregon and Washington can get "loans" from future full shares to cover expenses that the $35 million won't cover.   Sounds like both teams are expected to receive around $50 million a year till 2031 and then they will start getting full shares minus what they "borrowed".    Both programs are still coming out way ahead of what they were projected to make.  

 
Cal and Stanford are gonna be in ACC move limbo until Clemson/FSU announce the Big Ten move.  If that falls through, the Mountain West could still pull a last minute move to get the remaining 4 from the PAC.  Kinda interesting to see how it'll shake out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Haha
Reactions: GSG
Redux said:
Cal and Stanford are gonna be in ACC move limbo until Clemson/FSU announce the Big Ten move.  If that falls through, the Mountain West could still pull a last minute move to get the remaining 4 from the PAC.  Kinda interesting to see how it'll shake out.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the ACC aren't interested in Cal or Stanford. 

I think the most likely scenario is a merger between the Pac4 and the Mountain West becoming the Pac16 with a TV deal better than what the MWC has, but nowhere near what the Pac4 are used to getting. 

MWC is currently getting around 4M/team/season from TV (they distributed 6.6M this year with NCAA hoops/bowl money).  The Pac4 schools are getting around 21M/year/team under the TV deal that expires next year. 

I would expect that the Pac16 could get somewhere in the range of the AAC (7M/year/team) or a little more (10M at most). 

They would still be a third-tier conference from a TV $$$ standpoint, but if they could keep the Pac in their name, they could argue that they would still be a "power" conference because by NCAA rules there are five "autonomy conferences" (B1G, SEC, ACC, Big12, Pac12) and everyone else is in the "Group of Five" which could become a "Group of Four".  I think it would be an uphill climb, but I'm sure they would make the argument.

 
ECisGod said:
They would still be a third-tier conference from a TV $$$ standpoint, but if they could keep the Pac in their name, they could argue that they would still be a "power" conference because by NCAA rules there are five "autonomy conferences" (B1G, SEC, ACC, Big12, Pac12) and everyone else is in the "Group of Five" which could become a "Group of Four".  I think it would be an uphill climb, but I'm sure they would make the argument.
Click to expand...
Unless the departing members vote to disband the Pac-12 before they leave.

 
BigRedBuster said:
If the Pac-12 legally disbands and no longer exists, then the label "Pac" isn't controlled by them anymore.
Click to expand...
But it would disband the entity referred to as the Pac-12 in the NCAA rules, even if someone reused the name it would be a different organization. I don't think the departing members would do that though. They'd just vote to restructure the NCAA rules instead.

 
RedDenver said:
Unless the departing members vote to disband the Pac-12 before they leave.
Click to expand...
I think the MWC would disband so they can "join" the Pac and avoid the 30M+ exit fee.  It would take 9 of the 12 MWC members voting to disband, but if it means joining the Pac, I think they'd do it.  San Diego State & Boise State would vote to disband in a heartbeat if it gave them even the slightest chance to be part of the "Power 5".

 
These aren't really conferences anymore. Loyalty, rivalries and geography made some sense, but this is pure cash grab. We're on the verge of two super-conferences.

So why not keep going? Let the 22 other mens and womens college sports getting f#&%ed over keep their local conferences and save their minimal budgets, and just declare college football as a separate media entity: U.S. College Football, featuring rotating throwback schedules and flex schedules to create high demand games that go out to a tiered TV and streaming network system (not unlike how it is already) that bid out game packages each season.  If you're worried about the Rutgers and Oregon State's of the world, just borrow some of the NFL and NBAs revenue sharing model.  If a Tulane, Troy, or Fresno State is becoming a spoiler program, they don't get punished by their conference arrangement, they get thrown to the big boys with a heftier paycheck. 

Technically there are NFL conferences and divisions, but you still have five networks (CBS, NBC, FOX, ESPN, NFL Network) covering the best games they can get, each paying billions into the larger NFL entity. Streaming services and ppv will be happy to pick up the cheaper pieces. That might be where this is all headed. 

 
ECisGod said:
Sounds like the ACC aren't interested in Cal or Stanford. 

I think the most likely scenario is a merger between the Pac4 and the Mountain West becoming the Pac16 with a TV deal better than what the MWC has, but nowhere near what the Pac4 are used to getting. 

MWC is currently getting around 4M/team/season from TV (they distributed 6.6M this year with NCAA hoops/bowl money).  The Pac4 schools are getting around 21M/year/team under the TV deal that expires next year. 

I would expect that the Pac16 could get somewhere in the range of the AAC (7M/year/team) or a little more (10M at most). 

They would still be a third-tier conference from a TV $$$ standpoint, but if they could keep the Pac in their name, they could argue that they would still be a "power" conference because by NCAA rules there are five "autonomy conferences" (B1G, SEC, ACC, Big12, Pac12) and everyone else is in the "Group of Five" which could become a "Group of Four".  I think it would be an uphill climb, but I'm sure they would make the argument.
Click to expand...


If the figure heads of the PAC and MW can work together and reach a merger disguised as a "dissolution" that sees the MW join the PAC, everyone will be better off for it.  But then again the PAC had the chance to merge with the B12 and scoffed at it, bet they wish they'd considered it now

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top