Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025

[ahoelsken]

Agreed. It would be a lot of traveling, but it is doable. For what it’s worth, the SC faithful think it’s a terrific idea, and they’ll just keep playing in the PAC 12 for all the other sports.

Should USC consider leaving the PAC-12 and go independent?

Should the USC athletic department consider leaving the PAC-12 conference and going independent? We hear from LA Times sports columnist Bill Plaschke and Trojan athletic director Mike Bohn on the subject.

247sports.com

Of course they do-because they're stupid enough to think this conference would allow them to keep their other sports in this league. No ****ing way that happens.

Its like they think they're Texas or something. They're not.

 

[Alfred91]

Before we get too far into this, let's all remember that Bill Plaschke is a gigantic blowhard who is probably the only person in LA County that somehow is a homer for every team that plays there.

 

[ahoelsken]

Almost sorta. Slight difference is that the ACC actually has a team that is always is the Championship hunt (Clemson) and FSU rarely makes it to the conf championship…where as USC routinely does. Nevertheless, it’s not the Pac-12, per say, that is USC’s problem.

Routinely? They've won 3 of the 10 Pac 12 South division titles.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Didn't work, so why should they accept going forward that anyone gets as much as them when they're the most valuable property and have options?

Hell, if I'm USC my move would be to sit down with UT, bring in ESPN, and figure out the structure they'd like and who they would want to join them in a SW-Pac superconference.

Agree with this assuming you're serious

 

[Buffnik]

Agree with this assuming you're serious

100% even if it may not serve my personal interests as a fan. It's objectively the move I'd advise as a businessperson.

 

[MtnBuff]

100% even if it may not serve my personal interests as a fan. It's objectively the move I'd advise as a businessperson.

For those like college football the way it is they better get used to the idea that it won't be like this much longer.

It would be no surprise to see the big money programs completely re-organize dumping a lot of the programs that don't generate the level of revenues that they take out.

People keep saying that the big programs need the bottom programs to beat but they would rather be 9-5 than 12-2 (assuming longer seasons as well) if those three losses also come with an extra $10-15 million a year.

 

[Highlander]

It's a good thing. USC is applying pressure. The conference needs to show them the money and fix its problems.

Remember, USC was sold on 100% equal revenue sharing and giving up all its 2nd tier rights based on how a strong conference would generate record media revenue.

Didn't work, so why should they accept going forward that anyone gets as much as them when they're the most valuable property and have options?

Hell, if I'm USC my move would be to sit down with UT, bring in ESPN, and figure out the structure they'd like and who they would want to join them in a SW-Pac superconference.

Neither school has that kind of leverage in 2021. Maybe in a few years when they get their **** squared aware.

 

[BuffWarHog]

Routinely? They've won 3 of the 10 Pac 12 South division titles.

They’ve played in 2 less CCGs than FSU even though the ACC CG is 7 years older.
They have the second most in number of appearances in the Pac-12 and the most of any South team.
They’ve been there in 15, 17, 20; winning in 17. FSU hasn’t been there since 14.
Yeah, I’d call that routine.
But you do you.

 

[Alfred91]

For those like college football the way it is they better get used to the idea that it won't be like this much longer.

It would be no surprise to see the big money programs completely re-organize dumping a lot of the programs that don't generate the level of revenues that they take out.

People keep saying that the big programs need the bottom programs to beat but they would rather be 9-5 than 12-2 (assuming longer seasons as well) if those three losses also come with an extra $10-15 million a year.

I don't know - I see that going the same as the Euro Super League in soccer.

They would announce it to great fanfare, the fans would scream bloody murder, state governments would get involved, and the next thing you know, teams are pulling out right and left.

 

[MtnBuff]

I don't know - I see that going the same as the Euro Super League in soccer.

They would announce it to great fanfare, the fans would scream bloody murder, state governments would get involved, and the next thing you know, teams are pulling out right and left.

It will be a process to get there no doubt but in the end the money, both millions in profit and millions in cost, will win out.

There will be a bunch of schools who will insist that they belong in the upper rung who will find that they aren't willing to spend the money to be in the upper rung. At the same time unless a state has multiple state schools involved it won't be up to the state governments who gets invited and who gets left out.

Does Kansas make money on football now? They don't draw big crowds, they rarely get TV games that are in good slots.

When they have to start paying players and by title IX have to start paying all their scholarship athletes cost go way up. At the same time Texas and OU are going to be looking at that media share that goes to Kansas and think about how they could spend it themselves.

It is going to take some time to shake out and there will be a lot of teams that try to stay at the top that eventually drop or are forced to drop but it will happen. A number of schools will try to use politics (Baylor) and historic connections (Okie Lite, Washington State,) to stick on top but eventually they will be dropped unless they can prove they have the ability to generate the money needed to play at that level, and a lot of schools just can't.

It is one thing for a school like CSU to subsidize football $15-20 million a year so they can say they play at the top level (even when everyone knows they don't.) What happens when that $15-20 million becomes $45-60 million in times of tightening budgets.

 

[AeroBuff99]

Every public school is controlled by their state legislature whether they like it or not. If a state threatens to pull funding that will greatly outweigh any football related tv money.

 

[Buffnik]

Every public school is controlled by their state legislature whether they like it or not. If a state threatens to pull funding that will greatly outweigh any football related tv money.

Even when tax dollars don't directly provide a lot of funding (CU), the advantages of being a state entity are huge (i.e., employees on state retirement plan). But I don't think the state governments are as motivated to involve themselves in athletics trying to maximize revenue & exposure as many here seem to believe.

 

[ahoelsken]

They’ve played in 2 less CCGs than FSU even though the ACC CG is 7 years older.
They have the second most in number of appearances in the Pac-12 and the most of any South team.
They’ve been there in 15, 17, 20; winning in 17. FSU hasn’t been there since 14.
Yeah, I’d call that routine.
But you do you.

Florida State's not the right comp for USC. Clemson should be because USC should be dominating this division like the way Clemson dominates their half of the ACC. They're a blue blood like Clemson arguably is. They have resources like nobody in it does....and yet-they don't.

Maybe Southern Cal should shut the **** up about going independent until they can win more than one conference title a decade?

 

[MtnBuff]

Every public school is controlled by their state legislature whether they like it or not. If a state threatens to pull funding that will greatly outweigh any football related tv money.

Two things.

The state legislatures can't force an independent organization of colleges and universities to invite them. If that were the case Boise and BYU would be in P5 conferences right now.

Second thing is that those schools where football is important enough that a legislature would get that involved already are high enough revenue that they would likely be included.

For the others it becomes an interesting question of are they willing to fund or extract from other programs the tens of millions of dollars a year to keep up with the top of the game. Some states might, I'd bet that some states would pass when they see the price tag.

 

[Not Sure]

Florida State's not the right comp for USC. Clemson should be because USC should be dominating this division like the way Clemson dominates their half of the ACC. They're a blue blood like Clemson arguably is. They have resources like nobody in it does....and yet-they don't.

Maybe Southern Cal should shut the **** up about going independent until they can win more than one conference title a decade?

Mmmmmmm. Maybe. Clemson is in a small town in a small state and would never in a bajillion years even consider the idea of going independent. There are a lot of differences between those two schools in terms of pedigree, history, national prestige, etc. so while I’ll agree with the similarities you point out, I don’t think the two schools are comparable.

 

[ahoelsken]

Mmmmmmm. Maybe. Clemson is in a small town in a small state and would never in a bajillion years even consider the idea of going independent. There are a lot of differences between those two schools in terms of pedigree, history, national prestige, etc. so while I’ll agree with the similarities you point out, I don’t think the two schools are comparable.

Yeah-maybe but I think USC should be dominating this division the way Clemson dominates theirs. They don't. Until they do, they should shut the **** up about going independent.

 

[josef]

Two things.

The state legislatures can't force an independent organization of colleges and universities to invite them. If that were the case Boise and BYU would be in P5 conferences right now.

Second thing is that those schools where football is important enough that a legislature would get that involved already are high enough revenue that they would likely be included.

For the others it becomes an interesting question of are they willing to fund or extract from other programs the tens of millions of dollars a year to keep up with the top of the game. Some states might, I'd bet that some states would pass when they see the price tag.

They can’t force conferences to accept teams but they can block teams from leaving and breaking up conferences. This would likely happen in both oregon and Washington.

 

[BuffWarHog]

Florida State's not the right comp for USC. Clemson should be because USC should be dominating this division like the way Clemson dominates their half of the ACC. They're a blue blood like Clemson arguably is. They have resources like nobody in it does....and yet-they don't.

Maybe Southern Cal should shut the **** up about going independent until they can win more than one conference title a decade?

I was originally commenting on the comparison between FSU and USC from an earlier post, which you then commented on and tried to ridicule my statement. Now you are saying FSU is not the appropriate comparison. Cool repartee.

 

[MtnBuff]

They can’t force conferences to accept teams but they can block teams from leaving and breaking up conferences. This would likely happen in both oregon and Washington.

If the PAC12 ceased to exist then there would be no conference to block.

Yes the Oregon State and Washington State fans and their politically connected supporters would be angry, they would probably even try to go to court. In the end it wouldn't matter.

Most likely they are faced with a choice. Washington and Oregon go to the new "football powers" organization alone or they don't go. When it gets to that point in the end those "traditional ties" will dissolve like toilet tissue in a flood.

In the end the money will be the deciding factor, not politics, not fan anger.

 

[Alfred91]

If the PAC12 ceased to exist then there would be no conference to block.

Yes the Oregon State and Washington State fans and their politically connected supporters would be angry, they would probably even try to go to court. In the end it wouldn't matter.

Most likely they are faced with a choice. Washington and Oregon go to the new "football powers" organization alone or they don't go. When it gets to that point in the end those "traditional ties" will dissolve like toilet tissue in a flood.

In the end the money will be the deciding factor, not politics, not fan anger.

But we've already been through this: OU can't go anywhere without Okie Lite. KU can't go anywhere without K State. If these things are happening in small Midwestern states, what happens when Alabama tries to leave Auburn behind, or Michigan tries to leave Michigan State?

Plus, you're going with the idea that other conferences would collapse before the creation of a super league, when that clearly wouldn't be the case. We've seen the opposite take place in the Big East, Conference USA, and others. They diminished in stature, sure, but they didn't stop existing.

In the Pac-12's case, say USC, UCLA, UO, and UW left. There would still be 8 viable athletic programs left. They're not going to go anywhere else. So your argument that Washington legislators and Oregon legislators wouldn't have a leg to stand on doesn't hold water.

In the end, the pickings of top notch programs free to form a super league would be pretty small: Notre Dame, Clemson, Georgia, LSU, Ohio State*, Texas*, and USC. I starred OSU and UT because I don't think they'd break up their age old rivalries with schools that couldn't go.

So then they're stuck inviting teams that don't match that profile, or trying to schedule games with other teams that would have no incentive to play them.

 

[hokiehead]

...OU can't go anywhere without Okie Lite. KU can't go anywhere without K State....

We have good reason to believe that was true 15 years ago. I'm not sure we have reason to be so confident it still holds today.

 

[Not Sure]

I find the idea of a super league almost impossible. Every league needs bottom feeders. You put Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Texas, Ohio State, Georgia, USC, Oregon, ND and Oklahoma in a league, who finishes in last place? I can see a league with around 32 teams, spread out nationwide, divided into smaller divisions that could compete for a “super” championship. Oh wait, we already have that. It’s called the NFL.

 

[Alfred91]

We have good reason to believe that was true 15 years ago. I'm not sure we have reason to be so confident it still holds today.

As long as they have alumni in powerful positions in state government, it will hold true.

Which reminds me, you guys think ****bailer is going to let Texas go without a fight?

 

[Alfred91]

I find the idea of a super league almost impossible. Every league needs bottom feeders. You put Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Texas, Ohio State, Georgia, USC, Oregon, ND and Oklahoma in a league, who finishes in last place? I can see a league with around 32 teams, spread out nationwide, divided into smaller divisions that could compete for a “super” championship. Oh wait, we already have that. It’s called the NFL.

I think you'd find that none of these big boy schools would think they are going to be "that" school. They're all used to winning, and they'd rationalize going in why they're going to succeed. But you're right - if you were to succeed in getting this thing off the ground, it's simple logic that somebody is going to go 3-8, 2-9, 4-7, that isn't used to that. And after a couple of coaching changes, new ADs, etc, they're going to be pushing for changes really fast.

 

[MtnBuff]

But we've already been through this: OU can't go anywhere without Okie Lite. KU can't go anywhere without K State. If these things are happening in small Midwestern states, what happens when Alabama tries to leave Auburn behind, or Michigan tries to leave Michigan State?

Plus, you're going with the idea that other conferences would collapse before the creation of a super league, when that clearly wouldn't be the case. We've seen the opposite take place in the Big East, Conference USA, and others. They diminished in stature, sure, but they didn't stop existing.

In the Pac-12's case, say USC, UCLA, UO, and UW left. There would still be 8 viable athletic programs left. They're not going to go anywhere else. So your argument that Washington legislators and Oregon legislators wouldn't have a leg to stand on doesn't hold water.

In the end, the pickings of top notch programs free to form a super league would be pretty small: Notre Dame, Clemson, Georgia, LSU, Ohio State*, Texas*, and USC. I starred OSU and UT because I don't think they'd break up their age old rivalries with schools that couldn't go.

So then they're stuck inviting teams that don't match that profile, or trying to schedule games with other teams that would have no incentive to play them.

The legislators could force schools to stay in their existing conferences. That doesn't help if they aren't invited into the "big boys" new organization. At that point those legislators are faced with a decision of having one "big time" program in the state or zero.

The PAC would certainly still exist just like the MWC (formerly known as the Western Athletic Conference before splitting off to leave behind a bunch of schools they didn't want to carry financially) exist as an FBS conference.

In some cases there wouldn't be a conflict. Pretty easy to see that both Auburn and Alabama would be included in the schools willing to commit and contribute at that level. Michigan State as well may be Michigan's little brother but look at what they generate and their willingness to do what it takes to compete.

In a case like Kansas there is no guarantee that either school would get an invite. Neither is a producer in terms of ratings or attendance compared to the schools listed above. If one of them got invited and the politicians tried to force things the new organization would be free to say "We told you one or none, you have picked none. Maybe in a couple years we will let you kiss up enough to get one in, maybe."

Again the determination will be based on money. The schools that get in will be the schools that add value to the whole. The schools on the outside will be those that take a bigger slice than what they add. Fans, politicians, etc. can get mad but the dollar will rule.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I think you'd find that none of these big boy schools would think they are going to be "that" school. They're all used to winning, and they'd rationalize going in why they're going to succeed. But you're right - if you were to succeed in getting this thing off the ground, it's simple logic that somebody is going to go 3-8, 2-9, 4-7, that isn't used to that. And after a couple of coaching changes, new ADs, etc, they're going to be pushing for changes really fast.

The elite programs aren't dumb. Any super league would absolutely consist of programs that the blue bloods can beat up on. However, if KU or CU were those programs, how long until they were able to recruit relatively well enough to compete?

Basically, you're reducing the amount of programs in contention for elite talent. Bama and some of those blue bloods are already at the top of the mountain for recruiting, but even the door mats would start pulling in 4 and 5* talent because they are part of that league. It would eventually lead to an NFL style league

 

[MtnBuff]

The elite programs aren't dumb. Any super league would absolutely consist of programs that the blue bloods can beat up on. However, if KU or CU were those programs, how long until they were able to recruit relatively well enough to compete?

Basically, you're reducing the amount of programs in contention for elite talent. Bama and some of those blue bloods are already at the top of the mountain for recruiting, but even the door mats would start pulling in 4 and 5* talent because they are part of that league. It would eventually lead to an NFL style league

Most likely they will invite the big money losers.

Schools like Nebraska that can't get out of it's own way but still sells out home and away and gets solid TV ratings. Another one would be a Tennessee, again selling 100,000 seats for a sub .500 program. Michigan State, Florida State, etc.

As posted before they will accept a few more losses if it means another $10-20 million per year for each participating program.

 

[Bison]

How Texas A&M and the SEC proved to be a 'perfect fit'

Texas A&M lost its biggest rival, Texas, but gained a huge revenue stream when it left the Big 12 for the SEC.

www.espn.com

I think it's fair to say that Texas A&M is the biggest realignment winner. The money they raised was just astounding.

That year, between Sept. 1, 2012, and Aug. 31, 2013, the Aggies raised $740 million, more than $300 million over their previous record. It was the most ever raised by a Texas university. That allowed Loftin and the 12th Man Foundation, the school's athletics fundraising arm, to press on with a goal they'd long envisioned: a renovation of the school's storied Kyle Field.

 

[BuffWarHog]

How Texas A&M and the SEC proved to be a 'perfect fit'

Texas A&M lost its biggest rival, Texas, but gained a huge revenue stream when it left the Big 12 for the SEC.

www.espn.com

I think it's fair to say that Texas A&M is the biggest realignment winner. The money they raised was just astounding.

But wait, I was emphatically assured that this was incorrect…that UT was still the big dog and A&M was still second fiddle.

Post in thread 'Tim Brando calling out the Pac 12 as a whole.'
https://www.allbuffs.com/threads/tim-brando-calling-out-the-pac-12-as-a-whole.148180/post-3076418

 

[Trufflesauce]

But wait, I was emphatically assured that this was incorrect…that UT was still the big dog and A&M was still second fiddle.

Post in thread 'Tim Brando calling out the Pac 12 as a whole.'
https://www.allbuffs.com/threads/tim-brando-calling-out-the-pac-12-as-a-whole.148180/post-3076418

View attachment 45620

Moving to the SEC was definitely helpful for A&M to get somewhat out of UT's shadow, even though I hated that they wouldn't have rivalry games anymore.

While Jalapeno's post illustrates that it was a good move monetarily for them, if you're trying to compare their finances with UT's, well... They're still not close. https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019