Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

If it is indeed K-State over Texas Tech, then it's because no athletic conference wants to deal with the Texas State Legislature...and I certainly don't blame them.
It would be gloriously ironic if all of the political grandstanding done by tech, baylor, and tcu grads in response to us leaving backfired and made all three less attractive to other conferences.

I have no idea if there's any truth to that, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm going to go ahead and believe it's accurate.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sudden move to clamp down on expanding the playoff is being pushed by the ACC and Pac so they can hide how little depth those conferences have. Think about a hypothetical 12 team playoff what the conferences could muster.

SEC

#1 Alabama 

#2 Oklahoma 

#3 Georgia/Texas/Florida/LSU/A&M

The B1G can have a decent response with.

#1 OSU

#2 PSU

#3 Wisconsin/Michigan with a Iowa or MSU team popping up now and then.

 

When you get to the ACC things start to look a little bleak.

#1 Clemson

#2 FSU/Miami 

#3 VT/UNC/NCSU?

And then you get to the Pac12 and ooof.

#1 Oregon?

#2 USC/UW?

#3 Utah/Standford/CU/WSU?

That’s a big old yikes. The Pac12 and ACC have vested interest in keeping the playoff small so they only have to muster 1 title contender and not expose the rest of the conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the odds that this an orchestrated first move to cull the herd before a P-5 breakaway... 

Easy way of moving towards super conferences and avoiding messy litigations while shedding dead weight...  

All that is needed now is for the Pac and the Big 10 to decide the only way to compete is to join forces, leading to a new conference (big 12 style), leaving (certain) ACC schools "panicked" over being left behind causing them to formally apply to one of the other two  conferences. 

With no buy-ins or gor the SEC can probably shed its dead weight the easiest at leasure...  Or Texas can "destroy" its third conference, while in-fighting in the new Big-Pac splinters it, leading to 4 super conferences once the dust settles. Or keep two conferences with divisions loosely affiliated under one of the two banners to maximize monetary value and to keep things more balanced between the P5(-4-3-2.) 

With an expanded playoff, it is kind of silly for Texas and BlowU  to leave the Big 12.  The Big 12 could have easily gotten two in and often enough, three.  BlowU  practically had a permanent playoff spot and Texas had a ton of duck money left on a contract that was heavily back loaded.  So something big took place behind the scenes for us to be moving.

NOTE:. Personally I believe we made the move because the Big 12 was about to get left in the dust behind the SEC, B10, and the ACC over the next 10 years and it was going to hit OU really hard, forcing them to move, like it or not.  Add in a decade of ESPN cock gobbling the SEC, sending top talent from across the nation in masses to the (NFL Drafting Grounds) SEC, and it went way beyond just the money...  Not sure how Clemson has managed, but the talent disparity has taken a toll on everyone else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

 

That is the biggest issue is any of the three super best friends would have taken OU and Texas.. These three conferences are pitching a fit because Tex and OU went to the best conference,boo-hoo. The answer is not to throw a tantrum and cut access off, but to make yourself better. Weak-sauce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nd2003 said:

That is the biggest issue is any of the three super best friends would have taken OU and Texas.. These three conferences are pitching a fit because Tex and OU went to the best conference,boo-hoo. The answer is not to throw a tantrum and cut access off, but to make yourself better. Weak-sauce. 

Uhh the B1G was not about to take OU and their clown level academics in.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pimphand said:

Uhh the B1G was not about to take OU and their clown level academics in.....

I believe if Delaney were still commissioner they would have in a heartbeat if they knew what was to come. But this weak leader they (Big 10) have maybe not. But the ACC and the Pac would have.  And I still believe the Big would have strongly entertained the idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I think the worry is the SEC putting 4 and maybe 5 teams in a 12 teamer and for good reason.  Been a while since the Pac has had anyone worthwhile get in.

Right, but the logic seems to be "The current set up is good for the SEC and bad for us.  The new set up will be REALLY good for the SEC and good for us.  So let's do something that is not in our best interest so we can show the SEC that they can't have what is really good for them...even though it would also be better for us as well."

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

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

What? Why the fuck would I subtract those #s? None of the PAC schools, currently, are at risk of leaving the PAC, so why do I need to re-evaluate what Oregon versus Oregon State does in regards to being attractive for the Beavers to join another conference?

Oklahoma State is trying to sell what THEY offer to another conference. And what they sell no longer includes their two by far biggest viewership games of the year. Period. They don't get to sell that. And on the other end. UCLA isn't at risk from losing their games from their two biggest conference mates and trying to sell themselves to the Big 10 so there isn't some fuck all apples to apples to comparison you need to construct. There aren't two sides to this coin. 

His point was that they are the tallest midget. It may be a boring point, but it's still logically valid -- Okie State would bring more TV value to the PAC than Wazzou, more than likely.

I will readily stipulate your "so fucking what" objection, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it completely reasonable to say that Oklahoma State is a better TV draw than the average Pac-12 team after the viewership review I did a while back. It's kind of funny that some people here posit undesirable matchups with lower tier Pac-12 teams to try to point out that nobody would watch that. Well yeah, because the lower tier Pac-12 teams have terrible audiences. That's the entire point. 

Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Colorado, Stanford, Cal, Arizona

There's half the conference and those 6 don't draw dick for TV numbers. 

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

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I find it completely reasonable to say that Oklahoma State is a better TV draw than the average Pac-12 team after the viewership review I did a while back. It's kind of funny that some people here posit undesirable matchups with lower tier Pac-12 teams to try to point out that nobody would watch that. Well yeah, because the lower tier Pac-12 grams have terrible audiences. That's the entire point. 

Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Colorado, Stanford, Cal, Arizona

There's half the conference and those 6 don't draw dick for TV numbers. 

This is true for most of the teams in this new Alliance as well. Name all the ACC teams that generate interest outside of Clemson, Florida State, and Miami. Name all the Big 10 teams that generate interest outside of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, maybe Wisconsin, and Nebraska (arguable as they're so mediocre). A lot of these conference are more top heavy than the SEC.

To this Alliance, Clemson playing Ohio State is awesome. Michigan against USC is cool. But am I going to get interested in Illinois playing Wake Forest? Or a lopsided matchup like Florida State playing Oregon State?

Edited by mdmost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 6th Street said:

Still laughing at that has been Dave Wannstedt thinking he knows shit 

Come on, you know those USC fans are just champing at the bit to fly into Wichita or Kansas City and rent a car to drive up to Manhattan, KS for a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Come on, you know those USC fans are just champing at the bit to fly into Wichita or Kansas City and rent a car to drive up to Manhattan, KS for a game. 

LA to Manhattan makes too much sense. And Oklahoma State gives the Pac a massive boost in wrestling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of you were doubting that the move to the SEC was a good one, think about what this scheduling alliance means compared to the conference schedule of the SEC. These conferences might move to 4 OOC games so they can squeeze in games against the other Alliance conferences in 2032. The SEC is most likely moving to 9 conference games so more SEC teams can play other SEC teams more frequently. And most of those matchups will be as entertaining as anything the Alliance can throw out that doesn't involve the top dogs of each conference. If you're the Pac 12 and you're going from 9 conference games to 8, that means you know your conference sucks. Same with the ACC. 

And yes, I know this is more a move to block the SEC in the playoff expansion. 

Edited by mdmost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tex-19 said:

I wasn't evaluating Oregon St joining another conference. I'm evaluating OK St value to the PAC (are they an above-average contributor to the pie).

Including USC viewers for ASU (as an example) while excluding UT viewers for OkSt is apples to oranges. ASU includes the viewer boost from the power program, while OSU's are basically "organic" viewers.

Alternatively, you could think about it this way: OSU loses UT/OU, which brings their numbers down. But then they gain USC, Oregon, etc which brings the average back up some (probably not equal, but some). What do their numbers look like then?

Point is, if we're evaluating their standing within the PAC, it's apples to oranges to take out the major Big 12 opponents without adjusting the PAC comparisons or without adding in the big PAC opponents to OSU.

Let me try this another way. Oklahoma State is using an extra 6 million eyeballs averaged into their numbers because of UT and  OU, who they will never play again. Yes, they'll get an addition by another game with the likes of USC...But by the Pac 12's point of view, that bump is because of USC. NOT because of OSU. They'll take those numbers as USC numbers, not something special OSU brought to the table...because almost any school is going to get better numbers against the USC's of the world. 

Take out Texas, Take out OU, and you have a more accurate view of what they bring to the table. If you want to take out Oregon and USC from everyone else's average and compare then to ASU and Cal, well ok. I bet what you're looking ends up sucking donkey dick regardless. 

51 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

His point was that they are the tallest midget. It may be a boring point, but it's still logically valid -- Okie State would bring more TV value to the PAC than Wazzou, more than likely.

I will readily stipulate your "so fucking what" objection, however.

I mean...yeah. But bringing more to than Wazzu is irrelevant. It's more TV viewers to facilitate college contracts with TV studios. That's what this is about. Like it or not, Wazzu has a place at the table, as does fucksticks like Rutgers, Maryland, Wake Forest. Does OSU bring more money to the Pac? Will their presence improve the next round of TV contracts by 10 million a school? How about 5? How about 1? Because every metric we've seen thus far is that they'd likely be a net negative and just be splitting a slightly larger pie into two more pieces. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Still laughing at that has been Dave Wannstedt thinking he knows shit 

This sounds more like he was given a script, to kick the irate 8 into gear to find new homes. 

Deals need to get done, and these fuckers sitting on the fence waiting for somebody to come save them as a conference, is wasting time, and is really kinda pathetic. Not aggy reaction to Texas coming to the SECx3. But close. 

Nobody in the Irate 8 can trust any of the other teams in the conference to not be making a deal behind closed doors. All its gonna take is one more to cut and run, and the whole thing collapses. 

The Networks want that to happen. And the fact they left  Tech out of the Pac12 list is a targeted message to them. " move, and move now, or enjoy the AAC"

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

I think Fox is probably behind "The Alliance". It improves their inventory at little to no additional cost. It pisses off ESPN, and maybe it leaves enough meat on the bone for Fox to bid on the 12 Team Playoff. 

The ACC goes along with it as a passive aggressive middle finger while ESPN isn't looking to show displeasure in their TV contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I think Fox is probably behind "The Alliance". It improves their inventory at little to no additional cost. It pisses off ESPN, and maybe it leaves enough meat on the bone for Fox to bid on the 12 Team Playoff. 

The ACC goes along with it as a passive aggressive middle finger while ESPN isn't looking to show displeasure in their TV contract. 

This.   I think its all about taking the playoffs out to bid and maybe the Pac wanting 8 conference games and more OOC out of the west coast, but mostly the playoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hilarious part of this is that the PAC 12 has 43 OOC games scheduled with the SEC through 2022-2033, by far the most they have with any conference.  The PAC and B1G only have 25 games scheduled with each other through the same period. And the PAC/ACC (excluding Norte Dame)? 6 whole games.

So maybe the PAC and SEC are already in some sort of super-secret scheduling alliance?

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

This "Alliance" is a joke.  Remember when the B1G and Pac12 had a scheduling alliance?  How long did that last, 1 year?  Not only is this a bunch of nothing, but these 3 conferences are stupid af if they don't want to expand the playoffs.  I guess they forgot that ESPN runs the playoff.  It'll be easy to see many upcoming playoffs look like Texas-Bama-Clemson-Notre Dame or some variation.  B1G and Pac12 get left out.  It's a very short-sighted move by those two conferences.  Also, what the fuck is the ACC thinking?  You want to send Clemson and FSU away to the SEC, this is a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m all for creating/reinstating more power 4 rivalries.  UNC/SC, Pitt/Pedo St, Oklahoma/Nebraska, Missouri/Illinois, UVA/Maryland, Duke/Vandy but that doesn’t seem like what they are trying to do here.  They are simply creating more OOC games  through the conferences instead of the individual schools.  Was that really a problem that needed to be addressed?  Lots of buzzwords but basically this whole thing…

image.gif.310474ed67b8549485b8e954a6f27de4.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NorLa Horns said:

This sounds more like he was given a script, to kick the irate 8 into gear to find new homes. 

Deals need to get done, and these fuckers sitting on the fence waiting for somebody to come save them as a conference, is wasting time, and is really kinda pathetic. Not aggy reaction to Texas coming to the SECx3. But close. 

Nobody in the Irate 8 can trust any of the other teams in the conference to not be making a deal behind closed doors. All its gonna take is one more to cut and run, and the whole thing collapses. 

The Networks want that to happen. And the fact they left  Tech out of the Pac12 list is a targeted message to them. " move, and move now, or enjoy the AAC"

I don't think there's much any of these teams can do except sit by the phone and hope for a call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last 3...  (Agree to Work as a Group)

  • Future structure of the NCAA
  • Federal legislative efforts
  • Postseason championships and future formats

Most of those items are public relations-speak; only the last three are the real reasons for the alliance. The conferences feel the SEC is consolidating far too much power to control the course of college football, the Playoff format, and athletics more broadly. By forming this union, the Big Ten, ACC, and Pac-12 hope they can counter that influence and tilt things more in their direction.

But how much?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Let me try this another way. Oklahoma State is using an extra 6 million eyeballs averaged into their numbers because of UT and  OU, who they will never play again. Yes, they'll get an addition by another game with the likes of USC...But by the Pac 12's point of view, that bump is because of USC. NOT because of OSU. They'll take those numbers as USC numbers, not something special OSU brought to the table...because almost any school is going to get better numbers against the USC's of the world. 

Take out Texas, Take out OU, and you have a more accurate view of what they bring to the table. If you want to take out Oregon and USC from everyone else's average and compare then to ASU and Cal, well ok. I bet what you're looking ends up sucking donkey dick regardless. 

I mean...yeah. But bringing more to than Wazzu is irrelevant. It's more TV viewers to facilitate college contracts with TV studios. That's what this is about. Like it or not, Wazzu has a place at the table, as does fucksticks like Rutgers, Maryland, Wake Forest. Does OSU bring more money to the Pac? Will their presence improve the next round of TV contracts by 10 million a school? How about 5? How about 1? Because every metric we've seen thus far is that they'd likely be a net negative and just be splitting a slightly larger pie into two more pieces. 

In fairness Oklahoma has committed to keep playing Okie St in all sports including football so they’re only really losing Texas.  Honestly that’s a huge deal in their favor in conference realignment since they bring those extra 2-3 million eyeballs every other year.

The B1G and the SEC have a permanent seat at the table.  The PAC and ACC might keep theirs but it’s no sure thing.  Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, and Mississippi State are safe.  Wazzu, Oregon St, Arizona St, Wake Forest are only a step or two above the  remaining Big12 schools.

Your point is correct, no schools left in the Big12 will increase the TV money for any conference (WVU might not lose money for the ACC, but I doubt they bring in anymore to its members).  The only team outside the power 4 that will bring in more money is Notre Dame.  That being said if the PAC can add Central time zone schools and increase their visibility and numbers in order to not be the smallest conference, it might be worth losing a few million in the short term.

Still this is why contraction is the future of realignment.  No school can bring more money so adding to increase revenue isn’t an option anymore.  Subtracting your weakest schools that bring nothing competitively (in sports that matter) in bad or duplicate markets is the only way to significantly increase revenue.  If the PAC12 cut Washington State and Oregon State from their conference they’d have more games with Oregon/Washington versus USC/UCLA which would increase their value and increase everyone’s slice of pie at the same time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
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...