The built a TV network and a piss poor conference at the same time
A work of art that continues to ripple across college athletics.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
The built a TV network and a piss poor conference at the same time
A work of art that continues to ripple across college athletics.
I am in the camp that OUT was never planning on leaving for the P12, and just wanted leverage and the LHN from the league.
I think that UT wanted the B10, but then saw the success in recruiting that aTm was getting as a member of the SEC and realized that joining the B10 was not going to achieve the same excitement for Texas recruits as being a member of the SEC was, even though the academics at the school wanted the B10.
OU was going broke and wanted to move onto playing teams with more national recognition and they saw themselves closer to the SEC schools than the B10 in terms of the commitment to athletics and less on education.
Last edited:
And? The Big10 got exactly what they wanted from that alliance. Then, they turned around and stabbed their allies in the back.
Pretty great interview from the Texas Tech President, who is chairman of the Big 12 board.
He makes it clear that expansion is being explored. I found it interesting that he double downed on Yormark’s comments that basketball is undervalued, and the conference wants to address that in the future.
I also found it interesting that he only mentioned one potential expansion candidate by name, and that’s Gonzaga.
He did say that they are monitoring the PAC-12, but mentioned no one by name.
He makes it clear that expansion is being explored. I found it interesting that he double downed on Yormark’s comments that basketball is undervalued, and the conference wants to address that in the future.
I also found it interesting that he only mentioned one potential expansion candidate by name, and that’s Gonzaga.
He did say that they are monitoring the PAC-12, but mentioned no one by name.
I still think Gonzaga is a stalking horse to "motivate" PAC teams to get off the pot.
I also found it interesting how he reiterated that the pro-rata clause only applies to ESPN, but that FOX’s portion of it is negotiable. So all these people who say that FOX won’t pay a cent more are full of it.
Another wild theory:
Since Fox does hold some cards. I wonder if they’ll back door to Yormark who they’re willing to pay up for. Perhaps they’ll use the Big 12 as an incubator to preserve whatever schools the Big 10 isn’t ready to add yet (ie Oregon and Washington) but may want the option of in the future. With this setup, ESPN still gets the late window they want. Fox still gets a piece of Oregon/Wash etc. and they can do it all without paying for the fat at the bottom of the PAC-12.
Just a thought. That wouldn’t be the worst thing ever for us…
Another wild theory:
Since Fox does hold some cards. I wonder if they’ll back door to Yormark who they’re willing to pay up for. Perhaps they’ll use the Big 12 as an incubator to preserve whatever schools the Big 10 isn’t ready to add yet (ie Oregon and Washington) but may want the option of in the future. With this setup, ESPN still gets the late window they want. Fox still gets a piece of Oregon/Wash etc. and they can do it all without paying for the fat at the bottom of the PAC-12.
Just a thought. That wouldn’t be the worst thing ever for us…
Well.....the Big 12 has been a defacto farm system for the SEC and Big.
So it makes sense to keep this arrangement
Just as long as they're willing to sign a GOR. Last thing we need is speculation for the next decade of when schools are going to leave.
Yormark said in interview with Wilner and Canzano everyone in the Big 12, has signed on to a new GOR so anyone joining would have to sign that same new GoR.
Tony Altimore, who is a douche, with not so kind words for our commish. Agree, it probably is BS but what are you going to do when someone asks a direct question where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You are in a bind. You say, "Yeah, we are looking at the Pac-12.", and all hell breaks loose. Maybe Yormark shouldn't have denied looking at the Pac-12 but say a general answer of looking at all schools.
I was mesmerized by Tony’s graphs when I first saw them, but then the more I followed him, the douchier I realized he is. Just another PAC-12 homer that cherry picks data to make him feel better about his conference’s failed leadership.
Anyway, I took Yormark’s comments to basically say, “It’s not personal, it’s business.” I’m sure he is cordial with George. Don’t forget that all these commissioners still need to dialogue with each other on NCAA committees and whatnot.
He didn’t take adding PAC schools off the table at all in my eyes, which I think is what he may be hinting at when he said he’ll “compete” with George.
It’s not like he can just come out and say that he intends to destroy the PAC-12. That’d not win him any goodwill at all and probably open him up to lawsuits.
Anyway, I took Yormark’s comments to basically say, “It’s not personal, it’s business.” I’m sure he is cordial with George. Don’t forget that all these commissioners still need to dialogue with each other on NCAA committees and whatnot.
He didn’t take adding PAC schools off the table at all in my eyes, which I think is what he may be hinting at when he said he’ll “compete” with George.
It’s not like he can just come out and say that he intends to destroy the PAC-12. That’d not win him any goodwill at all and probably open him up to lawsuits.
Somehow Altimore has good academic background, but whether it's his massive reports that are complete dogcrap, or the fact that he completely misunderstood Yormark's comments, the guy is either completely dishonest or frankly not very smart.
Yormark said Big 12 and Pac 12 weren't going after each other. With any ounce of context and common sense, it's clear he meant the two leagues' goal wasn't simply wrecking the other, but in NO way was trying to say that they would not poach or discuss membership with PAC teams.
Altimore's like the dork that makes some super complex model that ends up being complete dogcrap at predicting anything because he make some idiotic assumption.
This is the guy that claims Rutgers and Maryland are valuable to the Big 10 moving forward because Presidents like to meet donors in NY and DC. As if even 5% of what donors and presidents do has anything to do with sports. As if a prospective donor is going to be influenced by "getting" to slog his way to f'ing Piscataway to talk business instead of flying to Ann Arbor on a private jet.
Altimore is like the kid in debate club that draws the absolute worst stance on a topic. "Oooh, sorry Tony. You drew 'make the case that Rutgers is valuable to the Big 10 in the future.' You now have 3 minutes to formulate your arguments before opening arguments."
I
At one point Fox/Shanks wanted more PAC, and Armageddon level realignment as it likely would lead to them getting more market share under BIG, without having to pay for it.
Perhaps they’ll be willing to give Yormark some backing in his pursuit of PAC, as any PAC to B12 likely kicks things off again. An easier sell to BIG Presidents to “save” Stanford and/or Cal than it is to kill PAC. And we know they’d have no issues poaching them from B12
He was projecting with his salesman “insult”. Altimore is the late night infomercial type flashing an Ivy degree to the establish authority on an issue they don’t grasp, conning and swindling, unfortunately with greater reach because of Twitter
I'm guilty of this myself.
As an ISU/Big 12 fan...I don't throw out tons of numbers or data or graphs when talking college basketball lately. I simply laugh at the notion that any conference is even close to the Big 12 in hoops. It's so obvious there's no need for that sort of thing. Any moron who can't see it can tilt at windmills for our enjoyment.
In some other fan debates, whether it's ISU/Iowa, or Big 12 football or comparing my favorite NBA teams/players I will bust out all sorts of info trying to prove myself right. Sometimes it probably does show I have the right idea, other times it's just rationalizing to myself or one's self.
Don’t forget, Yormark said the B12 is “open for business” and then Kliavkoff went out of his way at PAC media days to imply that they were going to go shopping and poach the B12 instead.
Everyone has focused their ire for realignment on the B12 but very few are willing to openly blame the SEC, the B1G, OUT, and LA schools for their hand in all this.
First it was that “there’s no value left in the R8.” Then it they critiqued the 4 schools we added. Then they said we took a lowball media deal. Now… well the PAC is all out of options.
There’s unity in the collective callus we all have in our ass after a decade of this. The PAC is getting a taste and they don’t like it.
Everyone has focused their ire for realignment on the B12 but very few are willing to openly blame the SEC, the B1G, OUT, and LA schools for their hand in all this.
First it was that “there’s no value left in the R8.” Then it they critiqued the 4 schools we added. Then they said we took a lowball media deal. Now… well the PAC is all out of options.
There’s unity in the collective callus we all have in our ass after a decade of this. The PAC is getting a taste and they don’t like it.
One could argue its playing with words, but i'd agree. If the big 12 gets some pac 12 schools to flip, it won't be about "going after" the pac 12. It will be about securing the big 12 as the strongest possible conference it can be. Its just that the best options for doing that right now are in the PAC
He isn't wrong. I listened to that 365 podcast right after the Wilner podcast and I was laughing as some of the contradictory answers.