Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[KennyPratt42]

Let's assume:
-the Pac media deal is poor enough that teams want to exit
-UA/ASU/Utah are not tied together
-Washington & Oregon would sign a grant of rights through the end of the Big 12 media deal
-its known the Big 10 has some interest in Wash/Ore but other factors would determine if/when they might fit into their plans
-FOX/ESPN are fine with going to 16
-Arizona has joined the Big 12

Would you rather;

A. Have Arizona St. and Utah join
B. Have Oregon and Washing join with the known Big 10 interest

 

[MJ271]

Tried it. Maybe I did it wrong, but if I didn't, I was able to do it.

(Oops, noticed errors and fixed them):
T
E
A
M:
1: 23456789 10

2: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3: 456789 10,11,1

4: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1,2

5: 6789 10 11 123

6: 789 10 11 1,2,3,4

7: 89 10 11 1,2,3,4,5

8: 9 10 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

9: 10, 11, 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7

10: 11, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

11: 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Your edited post has Team 9 playing Team 10, but it doesn't have Team 10 playing Team 9.

 

[Cloneon]

Some of it is probably generational as well. Sports fandom has grown a lot over the last 2 decades with the internet and social media. I think some of the older crowd just haven't adapted and still primarily follow what happens on the field and pretty much tune it out after that.

Sometimes I wonder if it'd be healthier to be part of the 'some'.

 

[clone52]

If 13 teams each play 9 games and you add up their wins and losses, there would be a total of 117 games played. Since 2 teams play in each game, that would mean there would be 58.5 games played. Since you can't play half a game, that means its mathematically impossible. If its 11 teams with nine games, you have 99 total wins and losses which would mean 49.5 games.

You only list 11 teams in your example, but some of them play team 12. You missed team 12's schedule.

Fixed it:

T
E
A
M:
1: 23456789 10

2: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3: 456789 10,11,1

4: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1,2

5: 6789 10 11 123

6: 789 10 11 1,2,3,4

7: 89 10 11 1,2,3,4,5

8: 9 10 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

9: 10, 11, 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7

10: 11, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

11: 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

(Had accidentally put games against a team 12 down).
[/QUOTE]

You have team 1 playing team 2, but team 2 does not play team 1.
Same for team 2 playing team 3, but team 3 does not play team 2.
So on and so forth.

 

[PickSix]

Let's assume:
-the Pac media deal is poor enough that teams want to exit
-UA/ASU/Utah are not tied together
-Washington & Oregon would sign a grant of rights through the end of the Big 12 media deal
-its known the Big 10 has some interest in Wash/Ore but other factors would determine if/when they might fit into their plans
-FOX/ESPN are fine with going to 16
-Arizona has joined the Big 12

Would you rather;

A. Have Arizona St. and Utah join
B. Have Oregon and Washing join with the known Big 10 interest

Option A for me. The fact that every team is rowing in the same direction is special, and something I'd want to preserve for as long as possible.

Oregon and Washington will see themselves as "above" everybody else in the conference.

 

[Malty Flannel]

Let's assume:
-the Pac media deal is poor enough that teams want to exit
-UA/ASU/Utah are not tied together
-Washington & Oregon would sign a grant of rights through the end of the Big 12 media deal
-its known the Big 10 has some interest in Wash/Ore but other factors would determine if/when they might fit into their plans
-FOX/ESPN are fine with going to 16
-Arizona has joined the Big 12

Would you rather;

A. Have Arizona St. and Utah join
B. Have Oregon and Washing join with the known Big 10 interest

Oregon and Wash. I don't think they'd be any worse for conference chemistry than ASU and Utah, who have stopped just short of publicly ridiculing the BXII during this whole alignment process. UOWA provide instant national prestige to the conference

 

[RustShack]

13x9 then divide by 2 is a lot easier way to find out it doesn’t work lol.

 

[theshadow]

With an odd number of teams, you have one team with a bye each week, but it seems like you can still schedule 9 games for each team. Big 10 had 11 teams for awhile and they still were able to schedule enough conference games.

Because the Big Ten was playing 8-game schedules.
11 x 8 / 2 = 44

13 x 9 / 2 = 58.5
You cannot have half a game.

 

[Stormin]

Let's assume:
-the Pac media deal is poor enough that teams want to exit
-UA/ASU/Utah are not tied together
-Washington & Oregon would sign a grant of rights through the end of the Big 12 media deal
-its known the Big 10 has some interest in Wash/Ore but other factors would determine if/when they might fit into their plans
-FOX/ESPN are fine with going to 16
-Arizona has joined the Big 12

Would you rather;

A. Have Arizona St. and Utah join
B. Have Oregon and Washing join with the known Big 10 interest

B. As long as we have GOR we are good. And everyone gets equal shares. IMO Oregon would absolutely thrive in the Big 12. Washington also. They might try the Big 12 and like it. Fox will pay for them. No doubt. Strengthens the Conference more. Especially Oregon.

 

[HawaiiClone]

If 13 teams each play 9 games and you add up their wins and losses, there would be a total of 117 games played. Since 2 teams play in each game, that would mean there would be 58.5 games played. Since you can't play half a game, that means its mathematically impossible. If its 11 teams with nine games, you have 99 total wins and losses which would mean 49.5 games.

You only list 11 teams in your example, but some of them play team 12. You missed team 12's schedule.

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. Maybe I missed something with my chart.

 

[MeanDean]

It isn't mathematically possible to have a 9 game conference schedule with an odd number of teams. Try to chart it out, you can't do it.

Going to throw this out there.

Being creative it is possible to work around the odd number. We know our commissioner can be creative.

You force (work out the details-alternate teams by year, etc.) one conference member to count their highest ranked out-of-conference foe as a conference game. It's just one game and if it affects conference standings so-be-it.

Is it ideal? No. But better than promoting yet another G5 to the big time.

 

[nwcat]

Let's assume:
-the Pac media deal is poor enough that teams want to exit
-UA/ASU/Utah are not tied together
-Washington & Oregon would sign a grant of rights through the end of the Big 12 media deal
-its known the Big 10 has some interest in Wash/Ore but other factors would determine if/when they might fit into their plans
-FOX/ESPN are fine with going to 16
-Arizona has joined the Big 12

Would you rather;

A. Have Arizona St. and Utah join
B. Have Oregon and Washing join with the known Big 10 interest

With BYU and UA (assuming) already in the B12, then UU and ASU don't add much. So I'd take B. Ore and UW since they bring more value than either UU or ASU and if they leave it will be part of the ACC breakup and then take better ACC teams.

 

[HawaiiClone]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, this doesn't work. You've got team 1 schedule showing they're playing team 2 but team 1 is not on team 2's schedule. Same for 2 and 3; same for 3 & 4, etc. etc

You're right. Thanks for catching that.

 

[NWICY]

F*ck them they wanted us gone a few yrs back.

 

[Acylum]

I think I saw somewhere that today is also Arizona’s FB media day. So I wouldn’t expect much in the way of a reaction to the meeting out of them right away. Probably wouldn’t have anyway.

 

[PickSix]

With BYU and UA (assuming) already in the B12, then UU and ASU don't add much. So I'd take B. Ore and UW since they bring more value than either UU or ASU and if they leave it will be part of the ACC breakup and then take better ACC teams.

I guess I disagree.

You'd be getting the Holy War, which always draws well, as a conference game. Along with the ASU/UA game. I think we're coming into an era where there will be a premium on quality matchups and rivalry games to draw eyeballs.

It makes loads of sense logistically too to have those 4 teams in a pod, and not far from Lubbock to lower travel burdens.

To be fair, I get that Oregon and Washington are massive brands, but Utah and ASU are not nothing. I like the idea that they will probably be in for the long haul too, so we can just focus on building up the best conference we can as opposed to constantly looking over our shoulder for the OR/WA shoe to drop.

 

[PickSix]

I think I saw somewhere that today is also Arizona’s FB media day. So I wouldn’t expect much in the way of a reaction to the meeting out of them right away. Probably wouldn’t have anyway.

In Scheer I trust. He'll get the scoop.

 

[KidSilverhair]

I don’t mean to keep beating this poor horse’s corpse, but I’m getting out my stick anyway …

If USC/UCLA don’t bail on the PAC12, the B12 would most likely have been satisfied with the “new 12” for the time being. Things stay basically status quo between PAC/B12/ACC as they eye each other warily and try to position themselves down the road as Conference #3.

Now, maybe in this scenario, the PAC12 gets their media deal done before the B12, and then it’s the B12 left scrambling to make a deal as big time TV carriers pull back on their spending. Could’ve happened. Maybe Yormark would’ve still tried to cut the line, maybe Yormark gets an innovative streaming deal, maybe the PAC goes shopping in the B12. There’s no way to know for sure, but if USC/UCLA don’t leave, we’re probably not changing things much.

But they did leave. Yormark was smart enough to grab the opportunity to jump the line and get media dollars before the weakened PAC could negotiate. Now the PAC is on the ropes, struggling to get a competitive package for their schools, and there’s blood in the water.

The continued uncertainty of what the PAC will get from TV increases its instability. Yormark talks to some of its members, using that instability as a wedge with the Corner 4, at least.

So that’s brought us to last week. The entire reason behind the backstage wheeling and dealing is about the future of the B12 and its chances to be that Conference #3, chances that are definitely on the rise with the PAC’s instability. Expanding now is all about that - and the best way to help solidify those chances is to make the PAC a shadow of its former self. Colorado was just a first step, to make that count you’ve got to get at least one more PAC member to come over. Colorado alone doesn’t do enough to drop the PAC and elevate the B12.

And that’s why Colorado and UConn would be a dribbler past the shortstop instead of a home run. I don’t care that it continues to lift the B12 in basketball … they’re most likely gonna be there later, I don’t see them being a smart 14th. You’ve gotta grab this opportunity to kneecap the PAC and strengthen your chances of being that Conference #3 … and even the guy quoted a few posts back talking about the relevance of basketball literally said “it’s football driving the realignment bus,” which it is.

Now, if no other PAC teams are willing to come over, if Kliavkoff’s announced deal is somehow good enough to hold the 9 remaining, well … I suppose we welcome UConn to the B12. But to me it’s a failure to fully capitalize on the opportunity that became possible when USC/UCLA told the PAC “smell ya later.” This expansion possibility was almost totally based on the chance to pull a massive one over on the PAC, and Colorado alone doesn’t do that.

 

[CoachHines3]

Let's assume:
-the Pac media deal is poor enough that teams want to exit
-UA/ASU/Utah are not tied together
-Washington & Oregon would sign a grant of rights through the end of the Big 12 media deal
-its known the Big 10 has some interest in Wash/Ore but other factors would determine if/when they might fit into their plans
-FOX/ESPN are fine with going to 16
-Arizona has joined the Big 12

Would you rather;

A. Have Arizona St. and Utah join
B. Have Oregon and Washing join with the known Big 10 interest

I think I'd rather just take AZ to get to 14 and stand pat until 2030.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Yikes. This take is really good. I agree about the hok fans wanting ISU to disappear. You nailed it.

I mean, I said if I really wanted to sink time into it I could travel the depths of the rabbit hole of my imagination and come up with some really despair-filled worst case scenarios… or really funny ones, because nobody would ever take them seriously.