Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Dude we are the best bball conference in the country and will only get better. Football wise we are right there with the B10 and not far away from the SEC. If the Pac 12 schools want to mire in a wasteland then so be it, it would be a huge mistake but I don't care.
Right, I do not think that the point comes from our competition levels. It comes from people cherry picking football and brand names as the only things they care about. I completely agree with you on all that, I'm just saying that's not how outsiders are necessarily perceiving it, even if it might be in bad faith on their part
 
Great point. It seems like the Big12 wants to add teams quickly with OUT out. I’m assuming teams will be added before the next season (just an announcement not joining) but anyone think it will be in the next couple weeks/months?
We just found out about the April deadline(supposedly) that George was given. I'd say if nothing happens by then be on the lookout from mid April to the offseason for college athletics, which I believe starts after the college world series ends on June 25th/26th.

Texas and Oklahoma signed on with the SEC in late July IIRC while USC and UCLA went to the Big 10 around July 1st. So I feel like July is when we should probably be laser focused
 
Are their numbers good because Utah draws or good because Utah is good, and good teams draw? Actually question I do not know the answer either way
It’s tough to say for sure, but in general compared to similarly successful programs not in the BIG or SEC I would say they compare favorably.

I get the BYU overlap, but I’d rather go for viewership, and rivalries get eyeballs. UA-ASU, Cal-Stan, UW-WSU are the kind of games that see ratings jump for those teams.

BYU-Utah would be a hate fest.
 
We just found out about the April deadline(supposedly) that George was given. I'd say if nothing happens by then be on the lookout from mid April to the offseason for college athletics, which I believe starts after the college world series ends on June 25th/26th.

Texas and Oklahoma signed on with the SEC in late July IIRC while USC and UCLA went to the Big 10 around July 1st. So I feel like July is when we should probably be laser focused
Yeah i was thinking similar with a June/July.
 
It’s tough to say for sure, but in general compared to similarly successful programs not in the BIG or SEC I would say they compare favorably.

I get the BYU overlap, but I’d rather go for viewership, and rivalries get eyeballs. UA-ASU, Cal-Stan, UW-WSU are the kind of games that see ratings jump for those teams.

BYU-Utah would be a hate fest.
My dream scenario for a 20 team conference does include Utah so I don't hate them as an add. They and Colorado feel like less and less of a fun pick up as time goes on or at least not as much as I would like Arizona and Arizona State
 
Pretty good rivalry weekend potential if we add the four corners.

BYU-Utah
Arizona-ASU
Kansas-Colorado
Iowa State-Kansas State
TCU-Baylor
Oklahoma State-Texas Tech
UCF-Houston
Cincinnati-West Virginia

Add Oregon-Washington to the list if you want
 
Pretty good rivalry weekend potential if we add the four corners.

BYU-Utah
Arizona-ASU
Kansas-Colorado
Iowa State-Kansas State
TCU-Baylor
Oklahoma State-Texas Tech
UCF-Houston
Cincinnati-West Virginia

Add Oregon-Washington to the list if you want
And maybe Pitt-WV someday too.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cyIclSoneU
This Tweet on SDSU and SMU conveys information that was part of The Athletic's article earlier yesterday (the one I pointed out in post 11,566 how non-subscribers might read at the NY Times website).

When I first read that Athletic article, I figured SDSU and SMU were being looked at by the PAC to provide additional inventory for an interested streaming service (presumably Amazon) -- more inventory in addition to ALL current PAC teams. With the OuT exit announced after that article was published, it seems possible SDSU and SMU might also have been looked at then to provide more inventory in the event any more PAC teams leave the conference.

From the Tweet:

"Addition of SMU/SDSU does nothing from ESPN's perspective. It is solely for inventory reasons for streaming."

 
Last edited:
Wow someone got their feelings hurt. You ok?

It’s funny fans like you who can’t be a rationale or objective fan yet scream at the top of your lungs when the team or conference you cheer for gets “slighted”. To suggest the SEC is not the best hands down is just as idiotic as anyone who says the Big 12 in hoops isn’t clearly the best.

I love the whole remove Bama and Georgia thing. Ok so then do it for every other conference. The Big 12 sucks removing OU and I guess Oklahoma State or Baylor? The Big Ten is a walking joke without Ohio State and Michigan. The ACC do I even have to make that case especially since Clemson has come back down to Earth a bit. And the PAC-12…USC is leaving and they have been trash for some time aside from a year here and there and I guess Utah or Oregon would be the others and Utah can’t seem to win the Rose Bowl after winning that crap conference that is the PAC-12.

Meanwhile you take away Bama and Georgia and I do believe LSU just won the national championship just a few seasons ago. They have teams that dip in and out but you can’t say a conference is always top heavy when they’ve had multiple schools rise up to go along with Georgia and Bama in the last 15-20 years. Top heavy is OU and Ohio State winning the conference on repeat for many years.
We're all so caught up in the end results (ie NCs), yet the meat of this thread are the $$$s influencing the very shape of conferences. IMO, there's one thing which can't be refuted. Week in and week out the B12 has the most competitive football conference (thank you KS, for now making that true). Any team in the B12 can lose (or win) on a given night. That can't be said for any other conference at this time because they're too imbalanced. If I turn on the TV, I ask myself, "For out-of-my-conference viewing, would I rather watch a lopsided game, or a competitive game?". And even within the same conference other B12 teams will watch other B12 teams because of the parity. That's why we got the contract we did. Yes. Of course the increased impending playoff format will be a major game changer in yearly $$$$, but until that format happens, the B12 as a whole is still a major player for eyeballs. Let's just look at solid examples everyone on here has experienced. Stadium attendance sustains itself as long as the record allows for 'hope'. Same goes for TV viewership. A conference with top half heavy, by midseason is already losing eyeballs because the weaker opponents have lost faith. But, where teams are 6-4 vs 4-6, all fans are still in ... PLUS all the other conference fans.
My point? Don't invite bottom dwellers because no matter the metropolitan incentives, if they're persistently bad, it's worse for the conference.
 
Last edited:
We're all so caught up in the end results (ie NCs), yet the meat of this thread are the $$$s influencing the very shape of conferences. IMO, there's one thing which can't be refuted. Week in and week out the B12 has the most competitive football conference (thank you KS, for now making that true). Any team in the B12 can lose (or win) on a given night. That can't be said for any other conference at this time because they're too imbalanced. If I turn on the TV, I ask myself, "For out-of-my-conference viewing, would I rather watch a lopsided game, or a competitive game?". And even within the same conference other B12 teams will watch other B12 teams because of the parity. That's why we got the contract we did. Yes. Of course the increased impending playoff format will be a major game changer in yearly $$$$, but until that format happens, the B12 as a whole is still a major player for eyeballs. Let's just look at solid examples everyone on here has experienced. Stadium attendance sustains itself as long as the record allows for 'hope'. Same goes for TV viewership. A conference with top half heavy, by midseason is already losing eyeballs because the weaker opponents have lost faith. But, where teams are 6-4 vs 4-6, all fans are still in ... PLUS all the other conference fans.
My point? Don't invite bottom dwellers because no matter the metropolitan incentives, if they're persistently bad, it's worse for the conference.
Yes and No. You have to have teams competing to be top 4-5, if all the teams are fairly equal they be beat up on each other and you get the champ having 2 losses and no shot at the playoff or a high seed. The SEC and Big ten has done pretty much the opposite of what you have suggested and look at what has happened. They are taking in huge chunks coin.
 
A lot of discussion on overlap with Utah, since we have BYU. I still take Utah. I know our basketball is dynamite, but I don't want to lose being relevant in football. Oregon, Washington, Utah in particular are all teams that help elevate the football side of things. To a lesser extent, Stanford and Arizona St are worthy looks too....even if we double up with having Arizona. If football drives 70-80% of the contract, we want good football schools.
 
Yes and No. You have to have teams competing to be top 4-5, if all the teams are fairly equal they be beat up on each other and you get the champ having 2 losses and no shot at the playoff or a high seed. The SEC and Big ten has done pretty much the opposite of what you have suggested and look at what has happened. They are taking in huge chunks coin.
I agree with your point for a conference to be elite it needs a top 5 team. And I would add it needs 1 or 2 teams ranked 6-15.

I feel the money aspect diverges between SEC & Big10. The SEC is based on football being a way of live down south.

With the Big10 it's more of a legacy effect and fact the Big10 contains some very large state universities. They still enjoy some of the afterglow from the rustbelt era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jctisu
A lot of discussion on overlap with Utah, since we have BYU. I still take Utah. I know our basketball is dynamite, but I don't want to lose being relevant in football. Oregon, Washington, Utah in particular are all teams that help elevate the football side of things. To a lesser extent, Stanford and Arizona St are worthy looks too....even if we double up with having Arizona. If football drives 70-80% of the contract, we want good football schools.
I agree, I think UO, UW, UU and then AZ with basketball are my top 4 adds, if "brands" was the only criteria. I think that would maximize contract value.
The four corners look great on a map for logistics, and that should not be taken for granted.
 
This Tweet regarding SDSU and SMU conveys information that was part of The Athletic's article earlier yesterday -- which I pointed out in post number 11,566 how non-subscribers might access and read at the NY Times website.

When I first read that Athletic article, I figured SDSU and SMU were being looked at by the PAC -- to provide additional inventory for an interested streaming service (presumably Amazon) -- that is, more inventory in addition to ALL current PAC teams.

With the OuT exit announced after that article was published, it seems possible SDSU and SMU might also have been being looked at then to provide more inventory in the event any more PAC teams leave the conference.

From the Tweet:

"Addition of SMU/SDSU does nothing from ESPN's perspective. It is solely for inventory reasons for streaming."



Yes and No. You have to have teams competing to be top 4-5, if all the teams are fairly equal they be beat up on each other and you get the champ having 2 losses and no shot at the playoff or a high seed. The SEC and Big ten has done pretty much the opposite of what you have suggested and look at what has happened. They are taking in huge chunks coin.
Yes. Fewer playoff reps. But, the new format will guarantee at least 1. BBall, though apples to oranges, somewhat reveals parity in a conference may not hinder invites as much as one might think. It all comes down to marketing.
 
Great point. It seems like the Big12 wants to add teams quickly with OUT out. I’m assuming teams will be added before the next season (just an announcement not joining) but anyone think it will be in the next couple weeks/months?
I feel there is a small chance we could hear something in the next couple of weeks, but more likely April/May. I doubt we hear anything once the Conference Hoops Tournaments start through the Final 4.

I have to believe that before the Big12 adds any teams, that Yormark needs to line up a broader media rights package than the Fox/ESPN extension in place for 2026-31. The Big12 has it's streaming partner in ESPN+, so it would be getting ESPN to step up financially for Thu/Fri primetime and Sat late time slots. Plus an additional Sat slot on Fox, CBS, NBC or ABC.
 
A lot of discussion on overlap with Utah, since we have BYU. I still take Utah. I know our basketball is dynamite, but I don't want to lose being relevant in football. Oregon, Washington, Utah in particular are all teams that help elevate the football side of things. To a lesser extent, Stanford and Arizona St are worthy looks too....even if we double up with having Arizona. If football drives 70-80% of the contract, we want good football schools.
I agree, but with a slight spin.

Rather than "good football schools" I would frame it as "big state schools" that are both capable of being really good at football, as well as bringing a good amount of alumni and media interest. They might not be the elites, but they have high floors and a certain amount of respectability just based on size and name.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isucy86
I think there's a misconception that's out there that people expect to move to a world where everything is only on streaming. As long as ESPN/Fox and the main broadcast networks exist, they're gonna televise live sports. If you're the Pac, it's going to be even easier for your games to get lost on a Saturday crowded with games if people can't get it on a TV without a lot of hassle.

Yes, people expect to be able to stream things. But a lot of what that means is if someone already has ESPN, they expect to be able to stream it without hassle since they already pay for it. If I'm in an airport in Idaho, it should be no issue to stream any Iowa State game if its on a channel I already subscribe to on cable or that I would have on something like Hulu or YouTube TV. People aren't going to passively be on Prime every day and happen upon a Cal-Wazzu game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickSix

Help Support Us

Become a patron