|
|
Post by aztecx on Oct 14, 2024 11:20:21 GMT -8
The 70 million or so that UCLA gets each year from joining the B10, will allow them to suck in the B10 for awhile. Cal on the other hand i am not sure how long they can last. Cal and Standford getting 30% shares and having to do most of the travel will be tough. UCLA will be fine, Vanderbilt has been at the bottom of the SEC for decades, they seem to be fine. College teams get the same rights payment regardless of how competitive they are. UCLA has always been cheap with football in favor of investing in the Olympic sports (which they tend to dominate in) so this is nothing new. I just cannot see Ohio State, Mich, Georgia, USC, Alabama etc. letting the lesser schools in the Big10/SEC get the same Media payout as them. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 14, 2024 11:41:21 GMT -8
Would think the Big12 would pickoff a UCLA, CAL, ASU, UU ....... before the NPac would get them. They don't want Cal. They would take UCLA but I don't think UCLA comes back until they are left behind when the B1G and SEC form their own league. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 14, 2024 11:42:45 GMT -8
My bet is CAL comes back, and if they do Stanford may have no choice but to come back with them. UCLA isn't in as dire a situation as CAL, but it could become dire if they continue to be a 2-4 win team each year. And the PAC will gladly take them all back. Well, maybe. There may be some price to pay for helping to blow up the conference (kind of like the price we had to pay to go crawling back to the MWC afte the Big East deal blew up). My bet is Cal terminates the football program before they rejoin the PAC. A typical Cal student could give a rat's ass about 'cro-magnon, toxic masculinity' sports like football and for much of organized/traditional sports in general; it ain't their jam. The people who do still care about Cal football and trad sports are aging and dying off. For that matter, IMO, it's only a matter of time until California bans football with helmets and pads for CTE/safety reasons. I would not be surprised for that banning to happen within the next 10 years. Their stadium won't be paid off for more than 50 years so they pretty much need to keep FB around. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 14, 2024 11:43:59 GMT -8
My bet is CAL comes back, and if they do Stanford may have no choice but to come back with them. UCLA isn't in as dire a situation as CAL, but it could become dire if they continue to be a 2-4 win team each year. And the PAC will gladly take them all back. Well, maybe. There may be some price to pay for helping to blow up the conference (kind of like the price we had to pay to go crawling back to the MWC afte the Big East deal blew up). They signed the ACC GOR so they can't comeback until 2035 unless something major happens like the ACC falling apart. ESPN would have to let them out of the contract, which they have no incentive to do since they are only paying them 30% of the value. The panic move to the ACC will really come back to haunt them. Pretty sure the ACC and ESPN would let them leave if they are just not competitive and, in Cal's case, they simply cannot afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by dlangford9 on Oct 14, 2024 11:48:58 GMT -8
A possible chain of events I could see happening are....
Currently, the Pac-7 is seeking bids for TV contracts with possible member options....
Step 1) bid includes the 4 AAC teams, so that if the bid is enough, the Pac-7 (plus Gonz) could bring in 4 AAC teams to have 11 football teams
Step 2) bid accounts for 2025 changes if ACC allows FSU / Clemson to leave for SEC, and UNC / Duke to leave for BIG 10, then...... bid option accounts for Cal / Stanford / SMU additions to get to 14 football teams. Now you could also have east / west divisions which saves on travel
|
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 14, 2024 11:49:27 GMT -8
This thread is very close to what MW fans are saying about the PAC 12 bolters. Difference is PAC12 makes geographic sense. Cal/Stanford to the ACC makes no geographic sense. If it was the SEC or Big10, geography doesn't matter. For the ACC ..... The PAC could have survived even Oregon and UDub leaving: OSU Wazzu Cal Stanford Utah ASU Zona SDSU Right there are 8 FB programs and still a P5 conference. Then add Gonzaga for BB. If they could put way their pride and add Fresno and Boise that would have been more than enough for a $20M or so media rights contract regionally based. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 14, 2024 11:52:02 GMT -8
This thread is very close to what MW fans are saying about the PAC 12 bolters. Difference is PAC12 makes geographic sense. Cal/Stanford to the ACC makes no geographic sense. If it was the SEC or Big10, geography doesn't matter. For the ACC ..... As we get through the current FB season with the new travel, I suspect teams in the B1G and ACC are realizing that geography does matter which is why I don't think the B1G will add more wester teams. SEC doesn't have a geography problem, but the "smarter" conferences evidently skipped geography class. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 14, 2024 12:00:56 GMT -8
A possible chain of events I could see happening are.... Currently, the Pac-7 is seeking bids for TV contracts with possible member options.... Step 1) bid includes the 4 AAC teams, so that if the bid is enough, the Pac-7 (plus Gonz) could bring in 4 AAC teams to have 11 football teams Step 2) bid accounts for 2025 changes if ACC allows FSU / Clemson to leave for SEC, and UNC / Duke to leave for BIG 10, then...... bid option accounts for Cal / Stanford / SMU additions to get to 14 football teams. Now you could also have east / west divisions which saves on travel JD Wicker said early on he could be fine with 10 FB schools but 9 was ideal. If we add from the AAC, here is my preference: 1. Memphis 2. Tulane Too be honest, I think you get none or both as they make good travel partners. If those two come and they want one more AAC school to come with them, then a tie: 3. USF (Football Only - Sorry, travel too much for Olympic sports) or: 3. UTSA If we don't get Memphis or Tulane then: 1. UTSA 2. UNT And if we get no AAC schools then: 1. TexSt at a reduced share until they meet certain financial commitments. The ACC? I don't see anything happening until 2030 with them. Calford may bounce back earlier with Cal much more likely than Stanford. No way in hell do I want to be in a conference with SMU. Even though cheating is legal now, they will still push the limits and likely surpass them. |
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Oct 14, 2024 12:10:05 GMT -8
Difference is PAC12 makes geographic sense. Cal/Stanford to the ACC makes no geographic sense. If it was the SEC or Big10, geography doesn't matter. For the ACC ..... OSU Wazzu Cal Stanford Utah ASU Zona SDSU Right there are 8 FB programs and still a P5 conference. Then add Gonzaga for BB. If they could put way their pride and add Fresno and Boise that would have been more than enough for a $20M or so media rights contract regionally based. At the time that was still possible, if not likely, I always felt that UCLA would return within 5 years to the PAC. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 14, 2024 12:25:42 GMT -8
The PAC could have survived even Oregon and UDub leaving:OSU Wazzu Cal Stanford Utah ASU Zona SDSU Right there are 8 FB programs and still a P5 conference. Then add Gonzaga for BB. If they could put way their pride and add Fresno and Boise that would have been more than enough for a $20M or so media rights contract regionally based. At the time that was still possible, if not likely, I always felt that UCLA would return within 5 years to the PAC. Yep, I agree. They certainly weren't FOX's first choice. That was Oregon but USC didn't want Oregon so FOX decided locking ESPN out of LA was a good move to they pivoted to UCLA. UCLA is the little sister to USC in FB in LA. |
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Oct 14, 2024 13:37:57 GMT -8
At the time that was still possible, if not likely, I always felt that UCLA would return within 5 years to the PAC. Yep, I agree. They certainly weren't FOX's first choice. That was Oregon but USC didn't want Oregon so FOX decided locking ESPN out of LA was a good move to they pivoted to UCLA. UCLA is the little sister to USC in FB in LA. I no longer expect UCLA to return to the PAC. More likely the Big 12 since it's still a Power conference and the travel would be a little better then it is now for them. The current PAC is probably too far below their lofty station. |
|
|
|
Post by sdaztec4life on Oct 14, 2024 16:05:08 GMT -8
A possible chain of events I could see happening are.... Currently, the Pac-7 is seeking bids for TV contracts with possible member options.... Step 1) bid includes the 4 AAC teams, so that if the bid is enough, the Pac-7 (plus Gonz) could bring in 4 AAC teams to have 11 football teams Step 2) bid accounts for 2025 changes if ACC allows FSU / Clemson to leave for SEC, and UNC / Duke to leave for BIG 10, then...... bid option accounts for Cal / Stanford / SMU additions to get to 14 football teams. Now you could also have east / west divisions which saves on travel JD Wicker said early on he could be fine with 10 FB schools but 9 was ideal. If we add from the AAC, here is my preference: 1. Memphis 2. Tulane Too be honest, I think you get none or both as they make good travel partners. If those two come and they want one more AAC school to come with them, then a tie: 3. USF (Football Only - Sorry, travel too much for Olympic sports) or: 3. UTSA If we don't get Memphis or Tulane then: 1. UTSA 2. UNT And if we get no AAC schools then: 1. TexSt at a reduced share until they meet certain financial commitments. The ACC? I don't see anything happening until 2030 with them. Calford may bounce back earlier with Cal much more likely than Stanford. No way in hell do I want to be in a conference with SMU. Even though cheating is legal now, they will still push the limits and likely surpass them. In your scenario, if USF comes to the PAC for Football ONLY, where do you expect their Olympic sports to play? The AAC is NOT going to let the OLY sports play in the league if FB bolts. That becomes an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Oct 14, 2024 16:10:48 GMT -8
The 70 million or so that UCLA gets each year from joining the B10, will allow them to suck in the B10 for awhile. Cal on the other hand i am not sure how long they can last. I heard it was $80 - $100 million. A year. Indeed, they can suck for quite awhile - but some of that windfall will go to Cal. ($10 million for three years as Calimony ) |
|
|
|
Post by Snohomie-Aztec on Oct 14, 2024 17:06:33 GMT -8
As we get through the current FB season with the new travel, I suspect teams in the B1G and ACC are realizing that geography does matter which is why I don't think the B1G will add more wester teams. SEC doesn't have a geography problem, but the "smarter" conferences evidently skipped geography class. Ask Michigan and Ohio State about that. The time zone thing seems to be having some impact on teams coming this way. I think this is somewhat unexpected. |
|
|
|
Post by 94sdsu on Oct 15, 2024 5:45:05 GMT -8
Difference is PAC12 makes geographic sense. Cal/Stanford to the ACC makes no geographic sense. If it was the SEC or Big10, geography doesn't matter. For the ACC ..... The PAC could have survived even Oregon and UDub leaving: OSU Wazzu Cal Stanford Utah ASU Zona SDSU Right there are 8 FB programs and still a P5 conference. Then add Gonzaga for BB. If they could put way their pride and add Fresno and Boise that would have been more than enough for a $20M or so media rights contract regionally based. Why would any of the teams that left for a P4 conference stayed at only 20 million a year? The ACC and big 12 schools are all getting more now or will be in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 15, 2024 6:48:54 GMT -8
JD Wicker said early on he could be fine with 10 FB schools but 9 was ideal. If we add from the AAC, here is my preference: 1. Memphis 2. Tulane Too be honest, I think you get none or both as they make good travel partners. If those two come and they want one more AAC school to come with them, then a tie: 3. USF (Football Only - Sorry, travel too much for Olympic sports) or: 3. UTSA If we don't get Memphis or Tulane then: 1. UTSA 2. UNT And if we get no AAC schools then: 1. TexSt at a reduced share until they meet certain financial commitments. The ACC? I don't see anything happening until 2030 with them. Calford may bounce back earlier with Cal much more likely than Stanford. No way in hell do I want to be in a conference with SMU. Even though cheating is legal now, they will still push the limits and likely surpass them. In your scenario, if USF comes to the PAC for Football ONLY, where do you expect their Olympic sports to play? The AAC is NOT going to let the OLY sports play in the league if FB bolts. That becomes an issue. That is why they are tied for 3rd in my choices. I don't want our BB team flying 5 hours to play one game a year on the East Coast. If USF wants in, they will have to find somewhere for their Oly sports. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 15, 2024 6:52:00 GMT -8
The PAC could have survived even Oregon and UDub leaving: OSU Wazzu Cal Stanford Utah ASU Zona SDSU Right there are 8 FB programs and still a P5 conference. Then add Gonzaga for BB. If they could put way their pride and add Fresno and Boise that would have been more than enough for a $20M or so media rights contract regionally based. Why would any of the teams that left for a P4 conference stayed at only 20 million a year? The ACC and big 12 schools are all getting more now or will be in the near future. Calford would be making more without all the travel. The other schools would have less travel and the league would have an auto-berth to the CFP. If the new PAC can get $15M, then I expect this PAC format would get close to $25M. The nPAC also is rewarding teams for success. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Oct 15, 2024 7:08:19 GMT -8
As we get through the current FB season with the new travel, I suspect teams in the B1G and ACC are realizing that geography does matter which is why I don't think the B1G will add more wester teams. SEC doesn't have a geography problem, but the "smarter" conferences evidently skipped geography class. Ask Michigan and Ohio State about that. The time zone thing seems to be having some impact on teams coming this way. I think this is somewhat unexpected. Yes, that is exactly why I made the comment. Imagine this, Clemson is undefeated going into the last week and have to play at 4 win Cal at their place. They lose and it knocks their CFP seeding way back. Or, lets say Penn St,. is in the same situation and have to travel to 3 win UCLA the final week and lose. We get the same thing when we travel to Wyoming for BB. If we win, it's expected, but we lose and it is a "bad loss" with no consideration of the travel or destination. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecPhil on Oct 15, 2024 9:14:42 GMT -8
Personally, the way the NCAA is currently structured, I do not see Washington, USC or UCLA returning to the Pacific Athletic Conference.
Who know, though, perhaps one of the large TV companies will want a strong Pacific conference and all marbles will be back on the table.
I don't feel Cal can survive in the ACC due to both the expense not justifying the revenue and academic disruptions, especially for the Olympic sports.
Stanford can survive the financial issues, yet may have a problem with the academic issues for their athletes.
As to the Arizona schools, it is just about the money, right now, if the PAC were to be competitive, financially they may jump ship, again.
|
|
|
|
Post by couldashoulda on Oct 15, 2024 9:36:15 GMT -8
Difference is PAC12 makes geographic sense. Cal/Stanford to the ACC makes no geographic sense. If it was the SEC or Big10, geography doesn't matter. For the ACC ..... As we get through the current FB season with the new travel, I suspect teams in the B1G and ACC are realizing that geography does matter which is why I don't think the B1G will add more wester teams. SEC doesn't have a geography problem, but the "smarter" conferences evidently skipped geography class. Let's say you meet a great woman (or man, if that's your thing) online, and she lives in Ohio. I mean, Ohio can be nice at certain times of the year, and it's only a 5 hour plane ride, or 33 hour non-stop car ride. The pay off is that there is this beautiful woman at the end of the trip. You get together once a month for awhile, the sex is great, and you think how wonderful life is. 6 months in, you realize that you have spent about $15k on trips back and forth, and she's really not a very nice person. She still looks great, but looks aren't everything. It becomes a cost/benefit situation. What looked great 6 months ago, now looks like something that you need to figure out how to get out of. In this analogy, I put the 6 month time frame at somewhere around 3 year mark for schools like Cal. The shine WILL rub off! |
|
