Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

Why would they drop BYU?  It's the biggest brand outside of OU and Texas in the Big 12 with a national following.  And they actually also bring the SLC market.  

Stahp.

19 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

Nah utes own that market and are better team historically. 

F’real.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:


True, but given the ACC’s current TV contract, they’d be taking a bath financially and putting themselves in a league more likely to be poached.

Interesting comments from some ACC leaders.  Basically begging ESPN to give them money for nothing  https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2022/07/15/josh-heird-louisville-acc-looking-for-espn-to-look-at-media-rights-deal/65373480007/

 

"...University of Louisville interim president Dr. Lori Gonzalez declined an interview request from the Courier Journal on the subject, a spokesman said, because “she thinks there are too many unknowns at this time to speculate on the future of the ACC...."”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bullet said:

Interesting comments from some ACC leaders.  Basically begging ESPN to give them money for nothing  https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2022/07/15/josh-heird-louisville-acc-looking-for-espn-to-look-at-media-rights-deal/65373480007/

 

"...University of Louisville interim president Dr. Lori Gonzalez declined an interview request from the Courier Journal on the subject, a spokesman said, because “she thinks there are too many unknowns at this time to speculate on the future of the ACC...."”

ESPN has no motivation to renegotiate the ACC's media rights anytime soon. It was the best deal available when signed and they got fair market value. Otherwise, the deal wouldn't have been consummated. 

Get in bed with the devil...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Byu fans don't believe in facts. You're pissing into the wind. They get 10 million eyeballs on every game, Notre Dame is the only school that might....might, have a larger national following and Zach Wilson's moms bestie wants to soak with them. Just ask. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

Why would they drop BYU?  It's the biggest brand outside of OU and Texas in the Big 12 with a national following.  And they actually also bring the SLC market.  

With a pods/divisions the PAC4 (UW/UO/Stanford/Cal) can minimize their association with the Big2 schools that they find unappealing.  Throwing BYU in the mix messes with having PAC4/4corner division/pods and a SWC4/Big8-4 division/pods.

Having these schools all be members of the Big8/SWC also gives the conference more legitimacy as these school have national brand recognition and were long time conference members with (UT/OU/Mizzou/Nebraska) which is likely important in securing a NY6 bowl.  Not sure they could keep the Rose but locking down a spot in the Fiesta/Cotton opposite the B1G/SEC should be doable (PAC/Big12 and ACC get 2 spots, SEC/B1G get 3 spots, that leaves 1 bowl for the G5 champ and the best remaining at large).

I think the internal politics will also be important here as the PAC12 schools and Big 12 school will be split 50/50 at 8 each with possible swing votes coming from newer members with less loyalty to the old guard (Utah, Colorado, TCU, Houston)

Besides Stanford/Cal having to grudgingly accept Baylor (which may get bypasses after they talk with the TV executives) they worst thing about this conference is including both Kansas schools however the logical benefits of divisions/pods and their history likely makes this a moot point.

This conference could be very successful assuming they don’t tie up rights with a long term GOR as no borderline school will want to agree to that as they think the B1G/SEC could come calling.  They also should aggressively lock down long term contracts for OOC rivalry games to sell.

Apple Cup, Civil War, Bedlam, Border War, Holy War, UC/UCLA, USC/Stanford, Stanford/ND, Iowa/Iowa St, any TX school vs UT or aggy and even lesser games like CU/CSU, TCU/SMU, UH/Rice (though these should not count as their big OOC game) would help give the networks some inventory to sell, promote, generate interest. Anything they can do to get CBS or NBC to carry their tier 1 content on broadcast they need to do.  The whole Bill Snyder easy OOC scheduling will have to die. Nine conference game, a pair of power 5(4) matchup, and a single G5 game (no FCS) should be the new standard.

If they do this then this conference could thrive as it would have more eyeballs than anything the ACC could piece together and their schools could be more attractive for future SEC/B1G expansion than they currently are.  This shouldn’t be viewed as a long term marriage, it’s simply a marriage of convenience that gets the mid tier schools a chance to show their value and the lower tier schools a chance to improve their position so that they are better prepared for the next time realignment comes knocking.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

You can't run for president if you don't insert yourself into every single national news story. 

Here comes Newsom: Governor roasts UCLA for lack of transparency in Pac-12 to Big Ten move, vows UC regent action The Bruins will begin play in the Big Ten in 2024

By Jon Wilner | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: July 15, 2022 at 6:35 a.m. | UPDATED: July 15, 2022 at 3:44 p.m.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday blasted the lack of transparency behind UCLA’s move to the Big Ten conference and said the University of California Board of Regents is “looking into it.”

The Bruins announced on June 30 that they had accepted an invitation, along with USC, to join the Big Ten in 2024.

The stunning departure after a century in the Pac-12 has consequences for Cal and other universities in the state, both public and private.

“Trust me when I say this,” Newsom told FOX 11 Los Angeles, “we’re not going to be looking into it. We already are looking into it, within minutes after reading about this in the newspaper.”

The Hotline reported on Tuesday that UCLA’s move is on the agenda for the UC regents meeting in San Francisco on July 21.

As governor, Newsom is an ex officio member of the board, which oversees the prestigious university system’s 10 campuses.

When asked about the secretive process that culminated on June 30, Newsom said:

“No big deal, I’m the governor of the state of California. Maybe a bigger deal is I’m the chair of the UC regents. I read about it.

“Is it a good idea? Did we discuss the merits or demerits? I’m not aware that anyone did. So it was done in isolation. It was done without any regental oversight or support …

“I have strong opinions about this, for no other reason than as a member of the regents, we were never consulted, never asked for an opinion, and they didn’t even have the decency to provide (a) heads-up.”

In the July 21 agenda notice about UCLA on the regents’ website, the following description was included:

“Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code 92032(b)(5)]”

Section 92032 of the California education code broadly refers to procedural matters.

— Part “b” states:

“The Regents of the University of California may conduct closed sessions when they meet to consider or discuss any of the following matters:”

— Part “5” states:

“Matters involving litigation, when discussion in open session concerning those matters would adversely affect, or be detrimental to, the public interest.”

It was unclear whether the regents would attempt to block the move or whether they themselves could be facing litigation for allowing the Bruins to leave the conference that has been their home for more than a century.

Given Newsom’s comments, it appears the regents could be considering legal action.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

The Hotline also asked about the level of involvement, if any, of UC system president Michael Drake.

According to the spokesperson:

“UCLA leadership informed President Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations. UCLA remains best positioned to answer your questions as decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Here comes Newsom: Governor roasts UCLA for lack of transparency in Pac-12 to Big Ten move, vows UC regent action The Bruins will begin play in the Big Ten in 2024

By Jon Wilner | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: July 15, 2022 at 6:35 a.m. | UPDATED: July 15, 2022 at 3:44 p.m.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday blasted the lack of transparency behind UCLA’s move to the Big Ten conference and said the University of California Board of Regents is “looking into it.”

The Bruins announced on June 30 that they had accepted an invitation, along with USC, to join the Big Ten in 2024.

The stunning departure after a century in the Pac-12 has consequences for Cal and other universities in the state, both public and private.

“Trust me when I say this,” Newsom told FOX 11 Los Angeles, “we’re not going to be looking into it. We already are looking into it, within minutes after reading about this in the newspaper.”

The Hotline reported on Tuesday that UCLA’s move is on the agenda for the UC regents meeting in San Francisco on July 21.

As governor, Newsom is an ex officio member of the board, which oversees the prestigious university system’s 10 campuses.

When asked about the secretive process that culminated on June 30, Newsom said:

“No big deal, I’m the governor of the state of California. Maybe a bigger deal is I’m the chair of the UC regents. I read about it.

“Is it a good idea? Did we discuss the merits or demerits? I’m not aware that anyone did. So it was done in isolation. It was done without any regental oversight or support …

“I have strong opinions about this, for no other reason than as a member of the regents, we were never consulted, never asked for an opinion, and they didn’t even have the decency to provide (a) heads-up.”

In the July 21 agenda notice about UCLA on the regents’ website, the following description was included:

“Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code 92032(b)(5)]”

Section 92032 of the California education code broadly refers to procedural matters.

— Part “b” states:

“The Regents of the University of California may conduct closed sessions when they meet to consider or discuss any of the following matters:”

— Part “5” states:

“Matters involving litigation, when discussion in open session concerning those matters would adversely affect, or be detrimental to, the public interest.”

It was unclear whether the regents would attempt to block the move or whether they themselves could be facing litigation for allowing the Bruins to leave the conference that has been their home for more than a century.

Given Newsom’s comments, it appears the regents could be considering legal action.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

The Hotline also asked about the level of involvement, if any, of UC system president Michael Drake.

According to the spokesperson:

“UCLA leadership informed President Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations. UCLA remains best positioned to answer your questions as decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level.”

 

How does UCLA leadership not include on some level, the president of the UC system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 8:18 PM, Texas Wahoo said:

 

So apparently it only takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC conference?

If that's correct, that really changes things.  You can go 4 to the B1G and 4 to the SEC and networks could pretty much wash their hands of any future liabilities for the P12 or ACC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I do think Texas fortunate to have a Texas Ex in the governor’s mansion. An Aggy/Baylor/Tech/TCU governor would spend every waking moment trying to block Texas to the SEC. 

Yea, Wheels has been really good for UT so far. Especially restoring funding and ending that aggy cheerleader fuck's $10,000 degree shit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

So apparently it only takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC conference?

If that's correct, that really changes things.  You can go 4 to the B1G and 4 to the SEC and networks could pretty much wash their hands of any future liabilities for the P12 or ACC.

 

The problem being the SEC and Big 10 don’t want all 8, the B1G only seems to want UNC and UVA, the SEC seems to be less picky and would take UNC, UVA, Clemson, FSU and Miami with NC state or VT being a consolation prize if UNC and UVA go north. But that means at most only 7 schools are getting picked up if you include ND.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the UC president to expect to be part of decision making process  that has significant political and financial impacts on the state.

Exactly

No announcement should've been made without his review, input, or approval. How does that happen? Communication breakdown or UCLA broke protocol. Or maybe Cal went full aggy after the fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DFW Horn said:

Exactly

No announcement should've been made without his review, input, or approval. How does that happen? Communication breakdown or UCLA broke protocol. Or maybe Cal went full aggy after the fact?

Furtive communication between UCLA, USC and the B1G would be my guess.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Satchel said:

How does UCLA leadership not include on some level, the president of the UC system?

The article indicates the president of the UC system was kept informed. It would have been up to the president of the UC System to inform the Board of Regents. However, from what I can tell there is no oversight role for the regents of campus athletic programs and their individual contracts. doesn't seem to be within the role of the Regents.
The UC System is enormous. 10 UC campuses, 5 large public hospitals, numerous large research entities like Lawrence Livermore and even Los Alamos, so it's not surprising that certain roles are delegated. 

Quote

 

21.9 Role of Regents.

It is the responsibility of the Board to set policy and the responsibility of the University administration to implement and carry out policy, which includes responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the University. Except as requested by the President of the University, individual Regents shall not involve themselves in day-to-day administrative matters, such as specific personnel, contract, investment or other operational decisions, other than serving on search committees for senior leadership positions, or as otherwise specified in the Bylaws...

 

The Board of Regents has a number of Committees that help them establish statewide policies. But none of those committees pertains to athletics. The BOR's role in governance and a full list of the BOR committees is here

.

 
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Exactly

No announcement should've been made without his review, input, or approval. How does that happen? Communication breakdown or UCLA broke protocol. Or maybe Cal went full aggy after the fact?

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Edited by Wade
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wade said:

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Because it’s a pretty big political issue that has caught the attention of the governor who could very well gum up the works, politically speaking, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Not a Sock said:

The problem being the SEC and Big 10 don’t want all 8, the B1G only seems to want UNC and UVA, the SEC seems to be less picky and would take UNC, UVA, Clemson, FSU and Miami with NC state or VT being a consolation prize if UNC and UVA go north. But that means at most only 7 schools are getting picked up if you include ND.

The Big Ten would take new markets with academics.  Outside of ND, the other candidates are Miami and GT (Atlanta) in addition to UNC, Duke, UVA and they could even make a BC just for the market alone and there is an outside shot they look at Syracuse (NY state) again like they reportedly did last time.

Unofficially I could see a handshake deal where the Big Ten gets gets ND/Miami while SEC get UNC/UVA.

B1G: ND, Miami, GT, and BC (ND and 3 top 10 metros in top 15 states; put the B1G in 8 of the top 10 metros missing only Houston and DFW)(if they go to 24 they could add Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco and have 14 of the top 16).

SEC: UNC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson (2 fb powers and the flagships of the only two Southern states missing from the SEC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Wade said:

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Seems odd.  One man is empowered to sign away billions in state assets?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Seems odd.  One man is empowered to sign away billions in state assets?

 

There's the AD. There's the president of UCLA. As the article mentions, they kept the president of the UC System advised. That's not "one man" and additionally there would have been several other high-level UCLA officials involved.

And "sign away billions in state assets" -- what are you talking about? The responsibility of the UCLA president is to UCLA. The responsibility of the president of the UC System is to all UC schools. The only other UC school impacted by the b10 move is UC-Berkeley. What are their media rights worth? "Billions" as you say?? LOL. (oh shit I just realized I'm responding to catholic aggy) Won't they eventually either come out ahead or decide to disband football? Even if you assume they've lost all of their media value (a huge stretch) the impact is slightly negative to Berkeley and a huge plus overall to the UC System.

Edited by Chopper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The Big Ten would take new markets with academics.  Outside of ND, the other candidates are Miami and GT (Atlanta) in addition to UNC, Duke, UVA and they could even make a BC just for the market alone and there is an outside shot they look at Syracuse (NY state) again like they reportedly did last time.

Unofficially I could see a handshake deal where the Big Ten gets gets ND/Miami while SEC get UNC/UVA.

B1G: ND, Miami, GT, and BC (ND and 3 top 10 metros in top 15 states; put the B1G in 8 of the top 10 metros missing only Houston and DFW)(if they go to 24 they could add Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco and have 14 of the top 16).

SEC: UNC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson (2 fb powers and the flagships of the only two Southern states missing from the SEC)

UVA was reportedly very interested in the B1G back when the B1G added Maryland, and I think UVA/UNC go together either way.  If the B1G wants to get to that national footprint, extending it all the way to Florida would make sense, and ironically, once you get to 24, you can create geographic 6 school divisions and get back to a semi-geographical model.  I think the B1G would make a hard push for UVA/UNC if they went that route though.

If all it takes is 8 votes to dissolve the ACC, you could send UVA/UNC/GT/Miami to the B1G, FSU/Clemson/Va Tech/Duke to the SEC - then I could see the B1G rounding out west coast travel partners for USC/UCLA - adding Stanford/Oregon/Washington to finish off the P12 (with ND) to get to 24.  With 6 school divisions, you'd pretty much have to go to 11 conference games, but the networks would also probably be willing to pay more for that, and that's probably where we're headed anyway.

It feels to me more likely that the B1G could go to 24 and the SEC could go to 20 IF the money would work, and I wonder if it could should BOTH the PAC12 & ACC contracts basically get nuked, then a third 20-ish school conference forms between the desirable left behinds in the P12/B12/ACC.  Basically take your current expanded B12, add Utah, Az, ASU, Colorado + Lousiville, Syracuse, Pitt, NC State?  That gives you a third 20 school conference that would be competitive and interesting and gets you to 64 total schools in the top division.  The only ones that get left out of the above scenario would be:

- Oregon State

- Washington State

- California

- Boston College

- Wake Forest

They would have been replaced in the final alignment by schools with more recent football success and/or better demographics, but if we get to a place where the ACC can be dissolved, we might get to a final alignment that looks something like the above more quickly than we would have previously thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The Big Ten would take new markets with academics.  Outside of ND, the other candidates are Miami and GT (Atlanta) in addition to UNC, Duke, UVA and they could even make a BC just for the market alone and there is an outside shot they look at Syracuse (NY state) again like they reportedly did last time.

Unofficially I could see a handshake deal where the Big Ten gets gets ND/Miami while SEC get UNC/UVA.

B1G: ND, Miami, GT, and BC (ND and 3 top 10 metros in top 15 states; put the B1G in 8 of the top 10 metros missing only Houston and DFW)(if they go to 24 they could add Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco and have 14 of the top 16).

SEC: UNC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson (2 fb powers and the flagships of the only two Southern states missing from the SEC)

The Big 10 is signing their own death warrant if they take even more garbage programs like GT, BC, Cal, and ASU or they take wild cultural outliers like Duke and Miami all in the pursuit cable boxes. It’s not 2010 cord cutting is eating into that pie and cable adoption is basically zero and reaching the point when the average cable subscriber is 60 and the only ad revenue is from Medicaid supplement insurance companies. At that point the networks will derive most their value from the ad space they can sell in big match ups, OSU vs USC or UM vs ND is something that the networks will be willing to payout the ass for. But what happens when 50% of the inventory the Big 10 is trying to sell the networks is worthless garbage like Rutgers vs GT or Boston College vs Cal? Now these teams do nothing but eat into the pie that OSU, PSU, UM, ND, USC generate as they bring nothing to the table as programs themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold predictions:

I think the SEC and BIG will stay at 16. ESPN makes the money work to keep the PAC 10 afloat. ESPN+ could have some interesting programming with the PAC 10 and Big 12’s second and third tier game. The top ACC teams have to eat shit until 2036. Notre Dame makes a deal with one of Fox and ESPN’s competitors, and remains independent. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler

Secret meetings and survival mode: Inside the stunning USC-UCLA move and the chaos it caused

Two weeks ago, many of college sports' most powerful people gathered at the Mandalay Bay Resort in Las Vegas for the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, countless athletic directors and other power brokers from around the country participated in panels, networked and mingled.

Just before the featured session on June 28, NACDA honored its athletic directors of the year, including Wake Forest's John Currie, NC State's Boo Corrigan, Arkansas' Hunter Yurachek and USC's Mike Bohn. All four took the stage before a packed ballroom of more than 1,000.

In a video honoring the winners, Bohn said, "Every day, I am more and more inspired by the collaboration of my peers across the entire intercollegiate athletics enterprise to build for a bright future. This is also a great opportunity to reflect on why we all do what we do. It's an incredible privilege to work each day to make our program the best it can be for our student-athletes, supporters and the broader university community."

Unbeknownst to nearly everyone in attendance, Bohn and others had been working quietly for months on a stunning move that would throw the future of the college sports landscape into flux. USC, which joined the Pacific Coast Conference in 1922 and had been in the league that would become the Pac-12 ever since, was set to uproot and join the Big Ten. The Trojans would leave with crosstown rival UCLA, a Pac-12 member since 1928.

Editor's PicksConference partnerships? Expansion? Answering realignment's remaining questions

7dPete Thamel

Would Notre Dame actually consider relinquishing its historic independent status?

9dHeather Dinich

The SEC-Big Ten battle for college football supremacy is just beginning

16dRyan McGee

2 Related

Around the same time as the NACDA awards, Big Ten athletic directors held a call to discuss the possibility of USC and UCLA joining the league. And then after a unanimous vote by Big Ten presidents and chancellors last Thursday, the league announced USC and UCLA will join on Aug. 2, 2024. For the second straight summer, college athletics was rocked by realignment, after Texas and Oklahoma announced last year they would be leaving the Big 12 for the SEC.

"Another stunner," one Power 5 athletic director said the day moves were announced.

The USC-UCLA-Big Ten courtship accelerated so quickly that many across the country -- especially inside the Pac-12 -- were caught completely off guard. Some ADs learned about the moves on their flights home from NACDA. One described a "Holy s---, shock and awe" moment when he got word via text message.

Ahead of the Fourth of July holiday, many college athletics power brokers were on vacation, including Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, who found out while in Montana.

On the heels of the SEC power move the year before, and with the Big Ten on the cusp of a multibillion-dollar TV deal, it served as the final, clear warning to everyone in college football that there were two powers in town.

"We wanted to operate in a position of strength, and that was the Big Ten," UCLA AD Martin Jarmond told ESPN.

"I don't believe there's a college administrator in the country that didn't recognize that clearly there were two conferences that were separating themselves from everyone else," Bohn said to the Los Angeles Times. "That particular [Oklahoma-Texas] move further emphasized that."

While the immediate fallout from Texas-Oklahoma was mostly contained to the Big 12 -- the league responded by adding UCF, BYU, Houston and Cincinnati -- and the Group of 5 conferences, the Big Ten's move shook things up for everyone outside the Power 2. Within the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12, talk immediately turned to survival and expansion, often at the same time.

"No one wants the land from under them to be pulled out," a Big Ten source said. "So everyone has to be nimble. One day, you might be saying one thing, and you mean it from the bottom of your heart. And the next day you have to flip, based on economics, based on governance, based on something."

So how did the deal come together as quickly as it did, and what type of chaos ensued in the days that followed? Andrea Adelson, Kyle Bonagura and Adam Rittenberg spoke with more than 30 athletic directors, industry sources and officials from schools and conferences across the country to provide a window into what happened.

'This would have been unimaginable a short time ago'

In early May, the Hyatt Regency Scottsdale in Arizona became the perfect setting for potential realignment discussions. The Big Ten and Pac-12 held their spring meetings there, along with the Big 12 and the Mountain West. Representatives from Fox, ESPN and other media partners also attended to meet with athletic directors, commissioners and coaches.

Negotiations for the Big Ten's media rights agreement had been progressing. On May 2, commissioner Kevin Warren told ESPN reporters he hoped to get the basic parameters of a deal, expected to be worth roughly $1 billion annually, finalized by Memorial Day, or soon thereafter.

"We're right exactly where I thought we would be, looking at the next 30 days or so being the critical time period," Warren said at the time. "But there's many, many hours left this month to make sure we get everything negotiated properly and come to some term sheets or a memorandum of understanding."

As the Big Ten moved closer toward a deal, USC and UCLA were evaluating their futures.

The Big Ten and commissioner Kevin Warren shook up the college sports world by adding USC and UCLA to the league. Robert Goddin-USA TODAY Sports

"The urgency was there for both of them," a Pac-12 source said. "It would have been much more difficult if one tried to move by themselves."

Memorial Day came and went without any major leak or announcement about the Big Ten's media rights deal. The weeks went by in June, and things remained quiet. Had the negotiations stalled? Did the Big Ten want to get more media partners involved?

Fox would remain the Big Ten's lead media partner, having increased its stake in the Big Ten Network. CBS also had emerged as a strong candidate, according to sources. But the Big Ten's decades-long partnership with ESPN appeared to be in doubt, according to sources. Regardless of where the media deal ends up, there's no question adding the Trojans and Bruins makes it more attractive.

USC and UCLA brought plenty to the table: brand power, a major media market of Los Angeles and academic profiles that suit the Big Ten (both are members of the Association of American Universities, which Big Ten presidents and chancellors prioritize). But both presented challenges, including a location nowhere near the Big Ten footprint that would create travel issues, especially for Olympic sports programs. Both also were in the Pac-12, the Big Ten's strongest and most historic ally.

That relationship was best signified by the Rose Bowl, which has mostly paired teams from the two conferences since the end of World War II. Longtime Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany often called the Rose Bowl the league's most important external partner. USC has made 34 Rose Bowl appearances, 14 more than any other school, while UCLA has made the bowl game 12 times and plays its home games in Pasadena at the Rose Bowl stadium. Warren and Kliavkoff both voted against the most recent College Football Playoff expansion push for reasons that included uncertainty about what would happen with the Rose Bowl.

The uncertainty about the future of the Rose Bowl's place in the postseason ecosystem likely made concerns about the impact on the game from USC and UCLA's moves less pertinent. The thought being that if the playoff is going to expand as expected, the Rose Bowl was already going to be forced to reinvent itself in order to maintain a meaningful presence.

In a letter sent Friday to volunteer members of the Tournament of Roses, which includes the Rose Bowl Game and Rose Parade, Amy Wainscott, the tournament's 2023 president and chairman of the board, acknowledged the game's murky future.

"We know we must be flexible and open to changes as we work to ensure that the tradition of the Rose Bowl Game will continue into the future of college football," she said.

The Big Ten had added brand-name programs before -- Penn State in 1990, Nebraska in 2010 -- but the USC and UCLA moves carried more "collateral damage," a term used by both Big Ten and Pac-12 sources after the announcement.

One Big Ten administrator said USC and UCLA created "a hard conversation" because of the Pac-12 and Rose Bowl relationships, and even the fledgling alliance with the Pac-12 and ACC. The source added: "In some ways, it was hypocritical, but if we didn't move, someone else was going to. Was it worth a missed opportunity and regret later?"

"People understand both the magnitude of the opportunity and the ramifications," another Big Ten administrator said. "We were very mindful. It was a great day for the Big Ten, and we're happy to welcome those two schools, but it marked a terrible day for many of our colleagues around the country in a conference that has been a strong partner to us for a long, long time. This would have been unimaginable a short time ago."

During the final weekend of June, things began to move quickly. On the morning of June 28, Big Ten presidents and chancellors, who sources said largely directed the realignment push, held a call about USC and UCLA.

"I was surprised by the pace at which it accelerated at the end," a Big Ten administrator said. "The two schools were dictating their own timeline."

By June 29, when the Big Ten ADs got on another call for more discussions -- with Warren joining from London, where he had a previously scheduled trip -- one source indicated "the cake was baked."

"There really wasn't much of a debate," the source said. "Kevin did a really good job of framing what this move would mean for everything, revenue and getting us in the L.A. market. The finances are still not done, so no one knows, but he was very confident in what the numbers would look like."

That source also said USC and UCLA were the only schools positioned to be considered by the Big Ten at that point. The two new additions, especially USC, revitalized Big Ten energy around longtime expansion target Notre Dame, a top rival of USC. But the Big Ten is in "a pause period," according to a source, who added, "It's not open season."

If Notre Dame doesn't change course, the Big Ten might remain at 16 members.

"Everybody in that room was pretty happy and excited about what this looks like," a league administrator said. "Now you get to roll your sleeves up and get to work."

The Rose Bowl was the strongest sign of the Big Ten-Pac-12 partnership, but the changing face of the sport led to the poaching of USC and UCLA. Alika Jenner/Getty Images

'Our best option is to keep the league together'

Roughly 24 hours after the news broke, the Pac-12 CEO group, which includes university presidents and chancellors, held an emergency meeting with Kliavkoff. By this point, UCLA and USC had officially announced they were leaving, so Kliavkoff started by acknowledging the obvious in a "matter-of-fact" tone, a high-ranking university official told ESPN.

That led to the obvious question from the group: "What's that mean for all of us?" the source said.

It is a question that, more than a week later, doesn't have a definitive answer and likely won't for some time. Since then, the conference has made two announcements: That it will explore all expansion options and immediately begin negotiations on its next media rights agreement. The remaining schools have all given indications -- for whatever that's worth in this climate -- that they would prefer to stay in the conference, and both steps work toward making that possible.

"Our best option is to keep this league together," a Pac-12 athletic director said. "What the next move is will determine the future of the league. We're all unified to get there. Everyone wants this thing to work."

In several conversations with ESPN, league sources did not direct anger toward UCLA and USC for leaving the conference. The prevailing reaction was one of disappointment for the uncertainty it brings for those left behind but also of understanding for why they did. One administrator said he wasn't surprised by USC's departure, noting the brand power USC carries in football.

There was more surprise, according to sources, that UCLA was able to depart considering its close relationship with Cal as part of the University of California system. Cal and UCLA are the highest-profile schools in the system, and both regularly rank among the nation's best public universities.

"The mystery to me is how the regents allowed UCLA to go and leave Cal ... wounded," one source said. "This is not good for Cal or anybody else in the Pac-10."

As the president of the University of California, Dr. Michael Drake oversees 10 campuses, but prior to his appointment in June 2020, he served as the president of Ohio State for nearly seven years (Jarmond, a former assistant/deputy athletic director at Ohio State, overlapped with Drake for roughly four years before leaving to become the AD at Boston College in 2017.) Drake ostensibly would not have needed to be educated on the merits of Big Ten membership.

Drake's office denied a request from ESPN to interview Drake about his involvement in UCLA's move or the ramifications it will have on Cal. ESPN's request to speak with Cal athletic director Jim Knowlton was also denied.

Kirby Lee/USA TODAY Sports

"UCLA leadership informed President Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations," a spokesperson for the University of California Office of the President told ESPN in an email. "... decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level. There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President."

Although the UC regents didn't need to formally approve UCLA's conference separation from Cal, UCLA likely needed support from key regents to make a move that, while helping itself, could hurt its sister school.

"You have to think UCLA didn't do this in a vacuum without the [UC] regents knowing," a Pac-12 source said.

Setting aside the Cal ties, UCLA's move to the Big Ten, especially with the league on the brink of a historic media rights agreement, is easy to understand. The Los Angeles Times reported in January that UCLA's athletic department posted a record $62.5 million deficit for the 2021 fiscal year, bringing the department's three-year debt to $102.8 million. An inability to host fans during the 2020-21 football and basketball seasons, coupled with limited revenue from playing at the Rose Bowl and Under Armour reneging on a 15-year, $280 million apparel sponsorship agreement left UCLA in dire financial straits.

"They're in such tough shape financially," a Power 5 athletic director said. "They were desperate."

"I inherited a deficit with UCLA athletics," Jarmond said. "So when you have a significant financial challenge, it's difficult to just maintain, never mind to invest. This move not only preserves the programs we have now but also allows us to invest in them in levels that can lead to more competitive success."

Multiple sources told ESPN that USC and UCLA approached the Big Ten about membership, not the other way around. The Big Ten wasn't active in pursuing expansion candidates and had been focused on its media rights negotiations.

Although administrators had heard "some rumblings" about realignment in the spring, the league kept a tight circle around the potential additions until the final days, deferring mostly to its presidents and chancellors.

"It was a lot smoother than maybe I would have anticipated," the source said.

'There would be a hell of a court fight'

The ripple effects of the move were felt immediately for anyone outside the Power 2.

In the ACC, Phillips held an emergency call July 1, first with ACC presidents and then athletic directors, to once again go over a long-term strategy. Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick was on the call because the Irish have all their sports aside from football inside the ACC.

ACC sources felt a sense of deja vu going back to last year, when questions about the long-term viability of the conference grew louder after the Texas and Oklahoma moves. The ACC has had strategy conversations like these ever since, including whether it was financially beneficial to expand with schools like West Virginia or, yes, USC.

"We looked at everybody," one source said. "What do you do? I don't think coast to coast was an appetite that the presidents wanted. I think that perspective would have changed if they had known."

Whether presidents feel differently now about a possible partnership with the schools that remain in the Pac-12 remains to be seen. The league has had two more calls since July 1, with a number of scenarios under discussion. In addition, the ACC has fielded calls from interested schools, including Memphis, one source said. Multiple sources in the league kept coming back to the same central question: "Where is the financial value?"

In addition to those calls, informal conversations have been going on between schools and other leagues as a way to gauge both their value and where future expansion might be headed. Nothing appears to be imminent. What makes officials in the league office believe they are in a position of strength is its grant of rights, which ties member schools to the ACC through 2036.

What happens to teams like Clemson as the SEC and Big Ten separate themselves from the rest of the sport? Jeff Blake-USA TODAY Sports

The grant of rights guarantees a school's media rights and the revenue associated with it stay within the conference. That means schools would forfeit their TV money and the ability to have all their conference-controlled content -- in all sports -- air on television.

Multiple schools have already investigated whether it would be feasible to get out of the grant of rights without a monumental financial penalty. Last February, one ACC AD described the grant of rights as "a really good legal document" and questioned whether anyone could challenge it. "That's really a $300 million question. There would be a hell of a court fight, I will tell you that."

That sentiment held firm among those who spoke to ESPN after USC and UCLA joined the Big Ten. Without going the legal route, there is the exit fee -- which is triple the conference's operating budget -- of roughly $120 million at the moment. Then there are the media rights that would be forfeited through 2036.

Multiple sources conceded that at some point, a school with an offer to leave would have to legally challenge the grant of rights unless they are nearing the end of the current contract.

"The concern is, do Clemson and Florida State and Miami try to get out and then they fight it?" one source said. "So they lawyer up and see if they can get out? But that grant of rights is pretty rock solid."

Beyond convincing Notre Dame to join the conference, there is little the league can do to raise its financial profile to get into the same ballpark as the Big Ten and SEC -- and that includes some sort of partnership with the remaining Pac-12 members.

While those inside the league remain confident in Phillips, there's also an acknowledgement that he walked into an almost impossible situation, one that could grow untenable in the years to come.

The day before the USC and UCLA moves became official, the Big 12 announced the hiring of new commissioner Brett Yormark. Although Yormark doesn't officially start until Aug. 1, he launched right into the realignment puzzle.

The Big 12 presidents and chancellors almost immediately began eying potential additions from the weakened Pac-12, according to sources.

"We're going to look under every rock," a Big 12 administrator said. "We're going to do what we think is best for us.

There is also a belief that the Big 12 is working from a position of strength and should be aggressive in securing its future. One league source pointed to new media markets with the additions of Cincinnati and UCF, its reach across three time zones and the addition of an independent in BYU that makes the league more appealing as a landing spot for some of the Pac-12 schools as compared to the ACC.

"Don't sleep on the new Big 12," the source said. "I can tell you that right now."

The mood around the league is dramatically different from July 2021, when it felt much like the Pac-12 did last week, blindsided by the departures of key members.

"You felt more like the hunted than being the entity doing the hunting," a Big 12 source said. "It's just ironic how one year later, the Big 12, our solidarity is at an all-time high. We're just in a different position."

The Big 12 can also sell prospective Pac-12 schools on its own experience of hoping to hold a conference together based on the whims of its two biggest properties. After Texas flirted with leaving in 2011, the Longhorns came back with a sweetheart deal that included their own television network. Yet, when they had a shot to jump to the SEC, they took it. That's a big warning to Pac-12 schools that Oregon and Washington, the biggest prizes left on the West Coast, might want to save the conference now but could jump if a better deal comes along. And schools like Utah, Arizona and Arizona State already recruit Texas heavily.

Beyond the other Power 5 conferences, the movement reverberated on Group of 5 campuses, too, especially in the Mountain West. The way multiple Mountain West sources see it, there are two primary scenarios to account for: Pac-12 expansion and Pac-12 dissolution.

As one Mountain West athletic director put it, "Every one of us would jump at the chance to be in the Pac-12." The day after USC and UCLA announced they were leaving, the Fresno State athletic department touted the size of its media market on Twitter, making a not-so-subtle case as an expansion candidate.

The other obvious candidates would be Boise State, San Diego State, Colorado State and UNLV, all of which have redeeming qualities a new-look Pac-12 could find attractive.

But there is also the flip side. One high-ranking Mountain West source outlined a scenario -- realistic or not -- in which the Pac-12 falls apart. In one hypothetical, he asked what would happen if Oregon and Washington were to also depart for the Big Ten? "Would the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah go to the Big 12? Then what? I could see Washington State and Oregon State in the Mountain West. They would be good fits."

To be certain, dealing in hypotheticals is part of what schools and conferences are almost required to do at this point. "I can think of 10 different scenarios right now with 10 different outcomes," one Power 5 AD said.

Because USC and UCLA will not be the last schools reshaping realignment. They are only the latest.

All conferences must now prepare for what comes next.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pac 12 without significant representation from the southern half of California is boring af and seems worth very little to a broadcaster.  Also it's more valuable and a better fit for the b12 to add some p12 schools than it would be for the p12 to add schools from the b12. Perhaps ESPN overpays the p12 to keep it together but I think they'll prefer to beef up the b12 and force the hand of the ACC schools to separate sooner rather than later. Prediction: The sun will soon set on the p10/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Bold predictions:

I think the SEC and BIG will stay at 16. ESPN makes the money work to keep the PAC 10 afloat. ESPN+ could have some interesting programming with the PAC 10 and Big 12’s second and third tier game. The top ACC teams have to eat shit until 2036. Notre Dame makes a deal with one of Fox and ESPN’s competitors, and remains independent. 

Yep, everyone but the Big 10 and Fox benefits from ND staying independent. The SEC, ACC and ESPN are going to fight to keep ND from ending up in the B1G and any path for an independent ND opens up a path for the Big 12 and Pac as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pac 12 without significant representation from the southern half of California is boring af and seems worth very little to a broadcaster.  Also it's more valuable and a better fit for the b12 to add some p12 schools than it would be for the p12 to add schools from the b12. Perhaps ESPN overpays the p12 to keep it together but I think they'll prefer to beef up the b12 and force the hand of the ACC schools to separate sooner rather than later. Prediction: The sun will soon set on the p10/12.

The issue for the Pac12 if they lose Az, Azs, Utah, and Co to Big12 is the TV reality vs TV potential market. The cold hard facts are that the only draw for TV is it’s time slot; folks watching late games because nothing else is on. These schools don’t draw shit for eyeballs or attendance in their markets. It’s easily solved by paying teams a bonus in other conferences for late kickoffs. Guarantee Memphis and Arkansas State or ilk will play at 11pm for an extra $50.

The real deal is that more folks will watch the Big12 games than a mini Pac12 game. The decision makers in LA and NY have a hard time with this reality of flyover country. Same reason they hated Duck Dynasty and Live PD. Eventually money wins out.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Chopper said:

The pac 12 without significant representation from the southern half of California is boring af and seems worth very little to a broadcaster.  Also it's more valuable and a better fit for the b12 to add some p12 schools than it would be for the p12 to add schools from the b12. Perhaps ESPN overpays the p12 to keep it together but I think they'll prefer to beef up the b12 and force the hand of the ACC schools to separate sooner rather than later. Prediction: The sun will soon set on the p10/12.

ESPN allegedly wants more games on West Coast. They’re looking at scheduling alliances with the ACC to get it done, with a defacto play in game in Vegas between the top ACC and PAC 10 teams. 
 

Seems a little awkward, but it would be fun to watch Oregon/U Dub vs Clemson in Vegas. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wade said:

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Ah, so hair gel Newsom is just howling at the moon. Big surprise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Bold predictions:

I think the SEC and BIG will stay at 16. ESPN makes the money work to keep the PAC 10 afloat. ESPN+ could have some interesting programming with the PAC 10 and Big 12’s second and third tier game. The top ACC teams have to eat shit until 2036. Notre Dame makes a deal with one of Fox and ESPN’s competitors, and remains independent. 

So, NBC keeps Notre Dame and CBS gets the Big 12's T1 rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

ESPN allegedly wants more games on West Coast. They’re looking at scheduling alliances with the ACC to get it done, with a defacto play in game in Vegas between the top ACC and PAC 10 teams. 
 

Seems a little awkward, but it would be fun to watch Oregon/U Dub vs Clemson in Vegas. 

Maybe! I don't see Clemson, FSU or Miami being excited about that but it's just my feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not a Sock said:

The Big 10 is signing their own death warrant if they take even more garbage programs like GT, BC, Cal, and ASU or they take wild cultural outliers like Duke and Miami all in the pursuit cable boxes. It’s not 2010 cord cutting is eating into that pie and cable adoption is basically zero and reaching the point when the average cable subscriber is 60 and the only ad revenue is from Medicaid supplement insurance companies. At that point the networks will derive most their value from the ad space they can sell in big match ups, OSU vs USC or UM vs ND is something that the networks will be willing to payout the ass for. But what happens when 50% of the inventory the Big 10 is trying to sell the networks is worthless garbage like Rutgers vs GT or Boston College vs Cal? Now these teams do nothing but eat into the pie that OSU, PSU, UM, ND, USC generate as they bring nothing to the table as programs themselves.

While this isn’t 2010’s cable market, multiple media analysts still confirm that new states and markets matter.  USC/UCLA are bringing in over $100 million revenue just by converting existing Big Ten Network fees in Southern California from out-of-region charge which is less than $1, to in-region which is more than $3.  They add more when more local cable providers pick up the network, and that doesn’t include the inventory bump (which is why this was such a great move).

Miami is a TV/streaming draw, not sure why you’re down on them. Yes their fan base doesn’t attend games when they aren’t great but the rating show that they watch. Miami vs any of the bluebloods would bring eyeballs. They’d be a second level B1G similar to Michigan St, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa.

BC and GT would be market plays but these are two areas of the country with lots of B1G grads.  I personally wouldn’t like this approach but it seems on brand for the Big Ten expansion mindset.

Cal would only make it if ND requires Stanford and they in turn require Cal, or the state pulls something over on UCLA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

So, NBC keeps Notre Dame and CBS gets the Big 12's T1 rights?

The Big 12 on CBS is a win-win for both sides.  CBS gets a good product that they don't have to pay a ton for, and a partner that will be flexible about CBS's other TV obligations.  CBS would also get a bigger share of arguably the best CBB conference in the country - which would be a good lead in for the  March  Madness tourney they host on their network.  The Big 12 gets a ton of positive exposure and promotion. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

CBS has the best production value and announcers. 

Yeah, and it makes sense that they'd want CFB inventory. But, Disney & FOX have the ACC, SEC, and B1G locked up. Leaves the PAC and and Big 12, maybe both, for the 3:30 EST afternoon slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Yeah, and it makes sense that they'd want CFB inventory. But, Disney & FOX have the ACC, SEC, and B1G locked up. Leaves the PAC and and Big 12, maybe both, for the 3:30 EST afternoon slot.

Somebody said upthread CBS is trying to get a BIG game of the week. I’d imagine FOX will have first pick regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...