Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
If the MWC brings in remaining PAC schools, I sure do hope they keep their names. Part of me wants to vomit thinking the MWC brings in the remaining schools and then is forced to change their conference name because - you know the all high and mighty PAC is superior to all obviously.
+10000
If they do well in the SEC, they will raise a stink that they are "better" than everyone else and bring the viewers.
They won't even need to do well lol. They'll be claiming that regardless.
I'm a bit surprised at the reactions to this round of realignment. This really sucks for OSU, WSU, Cal, and Stanford but overall, I see the TV execs seeing quite a bit of value in most of the power conference teams.
TV partners were willing to pony up about $30M/year for 6 Pac teams in Big 10/12 or $180M total, yet weren't willing to pay $200M for the entire Pac-9/10 (except for Apple).
It strikes me that the TV people think the Pac schools have an outside viewing interest problem. They think by adding Pac schools to the Big 10 and Big 12, they'll get a lot more interest in those schools' games and have significantly more value. And I think they're right. Many people on here say they watch ISU first and Big 12 second. And in my experience that's even more extreme with Big 10 fans. So ASU and Utah just added a lot more Big 12 eyeballs and Oregon and Washington get more Big 10 eyeballs.
While the trend is for coast-to-coast conferences spanning time zones, I see a push to 1 or 2 super conferences and cutting out more teams as unlikely. Although some games are no longer out of conference, it's still super easy to get big name matchups between SEC/Big 10/Big 12/ACC and there's a lot of conference rivalry there to drive value. I also think the calculus of an Alabama and Ohio St is totally different than it was for OU or USC. While greed might drive some of the movement, I think the fear of being left behind was a stronger drive for OU and USC. Being top dog in a top paying conference is different than being top dog in a conference not keeping up in media deals.
TV partners were willing to pony up about $30M/year for 6 Pac teams in Big 10/12 or $180M total, yet weren't willing to pay $200M for the entire Pac-9/10 (except for Apple).
It strikes me that the TV people think the Pac schools have an outside viewing interest problem. They think by adding Pac schools to the Big 10 and Big 12, they'll get a lot more interest in those schools' games and have significantly more value. And I think they're right. Many people on here say they watch ISU first and Big 12 second. And in my experience that's even more extreme with Big 10 fans. So ASU and Utah just added a lot more Big 12 eyeballs and Oregon and Washington get more Big 10 eyeballs.
While the trend is for coast-to-coast conferences spanning time zones, I see a push to 1 or 2 super conferences and cutting out more teams as unlikely. Although some games are no longer out of conference, it's still super easy to get big name matchups between SEC/Big 10/Big 12/ACC and there's a lot of conference rivalry there to drive value. I also think the calculus of an Alabama and Ohio St is totally different than it was for OU or USC. While greed might drive some of the movement, I think the fear of being left behind was a stronger drive for OU and USC. Being top dog in a top paying conference is different than being top dog in a conference not keeping up in media deals.
You aren’t reading my posts then, I have talked about Iowas quarter of a billion debt for awhile now.
HoopsTournament
Well-Known Member
First. I don’t have to agree with you about anything. Second, why is it so important to you that I agree with you? I have explained my reasons. You don’t agree with them. That is fine. You have a right to your opinion. But guess what? So do I. You don’t have a right to tell me that I have to change mine to match yours. So if that is your goal, then I am done discussing this with you. Have a good day.
The ******* "A" word. Might as well bend over and grab our ankles now.
Hmm, Could the ACC add enough schools to make the Stan, Cal add make sense?
They already at 15 for football. So more than 3 puts them at moving to 20.
Stan, Cal, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, SDSU, OSU, Wazzu... Finding schools that create a bridge to the West that are worth it, and that dont have the MTW 34M buyout for next year is hard. Although they could add a few next year then more in 2 years, lowering the buyout.
What I know and have heard recently is the ACC media deal is $17M, then about $5M from ACCN. Totaling $23M. I have heard that speculation is that they will make up to $30M next year, assuming they speculate that the ACCN income will increase, but more than doubling the income for next year appears optimistic.
Really seems like desperation for both the ACC and the PAC4.
I’m surprised FSU would agree to this. Seems like these adds would be dilutive more than anything
SDSU is denying this, but I believe there is some truth to this.
So with that, who are the best choices from the AAC and MTW, to go along with the PAC4 and make up a 12-16 member conference?
This actually seems like the best outcome for the PAC4.
So with that, who are the best choices from the AAC and MTW, to go along with the PAC4 and make up a 12-16 member conference?
This actually seems like the best outcome for the PAC4.
San Diego State
Washington State
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal
UNLV
Colorado State
Boise State
Fresno State
SMU
Tulane
Memphis
Rice
USF
Navy and Air Force as football affiliates
