As long as SEC/ACC/BIG followed suit, that’d be awesome
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)
- Thread starter Manti's woman
- Start date
The BIG already plays 9 conference games. It would just be the SEC/ACC.
I’m talking about the BIG and everyone else playing 11 P5 teams every year
I kinda wish the Pac-12, Big-12 and Big-10 would tell the other two conferences to go **** themselves and play a little hardball. Refuse to schedule them, tell them we are going to create our own playoff system without them with playoff and championship games at the Rose Bowl, Dallas, Pheonix and Vegas after the current contract is up if they don't agree to some sort of uniform scheduling rules. Obviously the SEC would be fine but the ACC is a top heavy conference that would be hurt in the long run.
Also saw a while back that the SEC would actually lose revenue from going to a 9 game conference schedule since they would lose inventory so they would have to flex their muscles to get anything done.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
Wow this would be so awesome. But this would benefit the fans more than it would benefit the schools. Sure, they would be able to negotiate a ridiculous TV contract but then they would be playing so many good teams we would be eliminating ourselves before it was even postseason time. To make it through that non-conference and conference schedule unscathed would be truly amazing.
It would be so nice to see something like this though. The NCAA forcing some parity in scheduling and forced conference scheduling. I wish they could do a round robin schedule but there is only 5 conferences. Expand to 6 and rotate every year like the NFL does with the NFC/AFC. Would be bad ass to know that every year you would see a different school at home and your team is visiting a new place as well. But that would cost money and resources and would be fun and benefit the fans so we’ll just stick to the current plan.
Tongue in cheek, if the PAC has to play only Big 12 teams in the non-conference, it seems both conferences would have much higher odds of losing a game or two than other conferences.
I don't trust anything Scott touches. He'll screw this up if given the chance. Everyone else is playing chess and he's still learning checkers.
And I'd rather CU schedule cupcakes and become bowl eligible. I could care less who they play in non-conference. Just give me 6 wins. Plus why throw the Big 12 a bone? Screw them. I hope they collapse in a few years. OU to the SEC. I'm sure Tex-ass would go independent. KU to Big 10. The rest can rot on a vine.
And I'd rather CU schedule cupcakes and become bowl eligible. I could care less who they play in non-conference. Just give me 6 wins. Plus why throw the Big 12 a bone? Screw them. I hope they collapse in a few years. OU to the SEC. I'm sure Tex-ass would go independent. KU to Big 10. The rest can rot on a vine.
This wouldn't be the Pac 12 throwing the Big 12 a bone. If anything, it's the other way around. The Pac 12 is in the worst position of any P5 conference as things stand today, and the thought of the Big 12 dissolving is a thing of the past and not looking likely anymore. If the Pac 12 can't find that $500m investor and then figure out a game changing media rights deal in a few years, I think there should be serious concern about the premier members looking to get out and join other conferences. Strategically aligning with another, more stable conference and working out the new media deals with whatever that conglomerate looks like would be wise for Scott and the Pac 12 Presidents to seriously consider.
The 8 game schedules that everyone else is scheduling will not be changing. Pac 12 is tying one hand behind their backs with this approach, IMO. You can still have a great schedule with 8 conference games.
I agree with most of this. But no way an investor gives 500MM for 10% of a losing product. That means the conference would need 5 billion dollars in profit, not revenue, before the investors get their money back. Ain't happening. I would look for 51% ownership at that number in order to gain control.
I also worry U$C and UCLA will finally say enough and look for greener pastures. Kind of surprised they haven't already.
As far as the Big 12, I think the Big 12 is always on verge of collapse because UT and OU hold all the cards. If one or both leaves, there isn't a conference left.
Okay but there are only two conferences with 8 game schedules though, so it isn't everyone else.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
I think most of the Big XII would be the stumbling block, if the proposal is ALL non-con games are tied to the PAC. That will simply never happen. Texas and OU both have existing contracts to play several high-profile teams, and OU has a much-desired contract to play Nebraska as well. Besides, it's obvious that the selection committee is valuing wins over SOS, and there is just no way the Big XII is going to sign on to playing TWELVE P5 games when they already play more (9 conference games) than the ACC or SEC (8 conference games), which are the two leagues most successful at getting into the playoffs.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Those two conferences tend to make the playoffs more often. It's obviously working for them.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
What do you have against checkers?
True, but those conferences won't change to a 9 game schedule.
Not really with the big 10. They missed it the last two years as well.
Anyway the issue in the pac 12 right now isn’t the 9 game schedule it’s that there isn’t a team good enough to navigate a mediocre at best schedule. We have two and three loss teams as the headliner in the conference, that isn’t going to work and isn’t because they had some killer schedule outside of usc and Stanford.
There are plenty of coaches and administrators in those conferences that want a 9 game schedule and to limit the cup cakes but it isn’t hard for them to get a consensus going because they are benefitting from it all right now. Plenty of people have spoken out about it. I would actually guess that the majority of acc school want a 9 game schedule because they don’t have crazy fanbases and those cupcake games hurt their bottom line but that conference caters to the top 2 programs so it never goes anywhere.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
? The Big Ten schedules 9 conference games. The SEC and ACC schedule 8.
Yes? I thought you were saying the big 12 and big 10 make it more often?
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Ah, apologies for any confusion. No, I was saying the two conferences which make it the most are the ACC and SEC, which schedule 8 conference games.
I think you mean 2 P5 conferences, not 2 comferenfes
Yes.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
Some kind of scheduling alliance with the Big XII during the regular season (especially if it extended to hoops) isn't a bad idea in general. But not for all of the OOC games in football. The part of the proposal that I think is the bigger stumbling block is that he suggests having the Rose Bowl/Cotton Bowl as a rotating "championship game" between the two conference champions. That would be the biggest issue, IMO and effectively limits the two conferences to only getting 1 team into the playoffs but also introducing another tough matchup that could eliminate a team just as likely as it would be to elevate one.
No way that the Rose Bowl would go for that either. And the Big Ten partnership with the Pac-12 would be affected as well.
Much more likely that you would see a Big XII-ACC-Notre Dame type of scheduling alliance and the B1G-P12 doing something similiar. They already have an "unofficial" one with lots of OOC games between the two.
I don't get why the Pac-12 just doesn't merge media rights with the B1G and package that negotation together with 26 teams worth of content and media markets ranging from NYC to Chicago to LA with all 4 time zones represented. Let the B1G drive the bus (since the Pac-12 has little leverage by itself) and get carriage on every platform and provider. I'm sure the Pac-12 could elevate their average school payout an extra $10 million per year just by doing that alone. It has already been proven that scale drives the revenue and negotiating power in the favor of the conferences; especially in a thin bidder pool.
No way that the Rose Bowl would go for that either. And the Big Ten partnership with the Pac-12 would be affected as well.
Much more likely that you would see a Big XII-ACC-Notre Dame type of scheduling alliance and the B1G-P12 doing something similiar. They already have an "unofficial" one with lots of OOC games between the two.
I don't get why the Pac-12 just doesn't merge media rights with the B1G and package that negotation together with 26 teams worth of content and media markets ranging from NYC to Chicago to LA with all 4 time zones represented. Let the B1G drive the bus (since the Pac-12 has little leverage by itself) and get carriage on every platform and provider. I'm sure the Pac-12 could elevate their average school payout an extra $10 million per year just by doing that alone. It has already been proven that scale drives the revenue and negotiating power in the favor of the conferences; especially in a thin bidder pool.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Probably because such an arrangement would decrease the per team payouts to the B1G schools. The ugly truth is that the PAC content is valued much lower than the B1G, Big XII, or SEC content, and thus financially we currently bring nothing to the table for such partnerships.
In before the raid. I recall something like this before CU left for the Pac-12. Anyone up for reuniting with Nebraska in the B1G?
Does CU offer a lot to the B1G?
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
If you just look at what they get now, yes. But if you leveraged all 26 schools' content in a single package across 4 time zones with 2 CCG in football then the $/school would increase for everyone. Not to mention that the conferences' OOC games would now be on the collective distribution for both home AND away teams (CU vs Nebraska/Minnesota; Michigan-Washington/UCLA; Washington-Ohio State/Michigan State; Wisconsin-UCLA/Washington State; Oregon-Ohio State/Michigan State).
Anytime you consolidate the control of the content you will drive up the value/price. That is exactly what has been happening in the last 12 years of realignment (and in many industries); and even though the media companies are changing the delivery methods; the value in live sports will always be there whatever the medium.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
More TV eyeballs and better recruiting than either Nebraska or Iowa!
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
I agree with you in principle but every principle has a breaking point as well. I love the PAC, it our content currently sucks (in the media’s eyes). The gap between the content value of the PAC and Big XII (especially considering the flexibility the XII bow has in exploring non-traditional avenues with their tier 3) is such that it may not be plausible to join the two leagues and bring all 22 schools (majority PAC) up to and beyond current Big XII payouts. There’s little incentive for the Big XII to pursue things. Their model is working financially and in getting teams to the CFP. They have individual rights to their tier 3. And they’re a much smaller, easier to control and get great scheduling benefits from their arrangement.
But, we’ll see.