I guess no one wants to talk about no DirecTV or a mega long term deal that will get lapped twice.
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!
The Pac-12 Is Increasingly A Have-Not
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
Frankly, I think our only hope on the new deal being competitive is if there is a new round of realignment that starts in 2023.
Big Ten -- deal expires after 2022-23
SEC -- 2023-24
Pac-12 -- 2023-24
We need the B1G and SEC to decide to go to 16 teams.
That would likely cause the Pac-12 to expand to 16 by adding 4 teams from the Big 12 the way that the Big 12 formed out of the Big 8.
Ideal scenario:
B1G takes Kansas and Missouri
SEC, needing 3 now, takes some mix of teams that takes TCU or Baylor from the Big 12.
ACC jumps on the opportunity to take West Virginia
Pac-12 is positioned as the only conference that can satisfy the stakeholders by taking 4 teams (OU, OSU, UT, TTU).
By then those other schools will each have earned $60mm more than the P12 schools. Colorado staying in the P12 is not going to keep CU long term competitive.
This is so far off the rails into the deep woods of Fantasy Land I cannot even begin to fathom this ever becoming a reality.
nm
I would bet that there's no way in hell the Pac-12 presidents would approve Boise State even if Idaho had a 10x population explosion. Which still makes them more likely than BYU. I also don't think San Diego State has a chance.
From within our current geography, I think only the Tier 1 research universities on Carnegie ratings would even be discussed: Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, CSU and New Mexico. I could see the value in adding the state of NV, but that's a stretch based on those programs and/or facilities.
Which is why I bring up a Big 12 collapse driven by B1G/SEC/ACC as our best hope for competitive revenue.
If the B1G wanted to go to 16 and offered CU + KU, I think that we'd have to say yes.
In an instant and without looking back. The PAC12 is lost.
USC athletic director Mike Bohn clarifies stance on Trojans' future in the Pac-12 conference
Bohn previously stated 'everything is on the table' regarding USC's conference affiliation
www.cbssports.com
Let it all burn to the ground. I wouldn't miss the pac.
At least we'd see @sweaty teets more. God that would suck
01Buff
Well-Known Member
There’s 64 P5 schools currently. There’s no advantage to adding to that roster, otherwise Boise, Houston, BYU, Cinncy maybe the Lambs would have had their turn, already. Any 2 of these wanna-be G5’s does not add $10M per-year, per-conference member. Nevermind, the $ necessary to even bring them in and keep the current revenue per school as is.
Zero doubt we should say yes to a B1G offer
Kuratz
Well-Known Member
In a hypothetical situation whereby Texas switches conferences, it sure as hell isn't going to the PAC (at least not in its current form until Larry gets canned and someone stellar comes in to right the ship). Texas is an ego-dominated, stupid program but they aren't that stupid to join what is now a lower prestige conference with a downward trajectory and abhorrent $ and exposure compared to the SEC. The SEC already has one of their natural rivals and Texas would delude itself into thinking it could be the big fish in the big pond. And to address the UT/TT/OU/OSU thing, the way around that is to send Mizzou who hasn't been as strong of a fit as TA&M to the BIG with Kansas or whatever in order to secure both UT and OU.
All that to say that I really don't think another round of significant realignment is going to be a net positive for the PAC so long as that dumbass/corrupt Larry Scott is in the picture. CU could potentially benefit and land somewhere better but if they got stuck in limbo with an even more watered-down PAC/Big12/MWC misfit hybrid that would be awful. It pains me to say it but we need a combo of USC/Oregon to return to legitimate top 5 programs (USC plays Bama next year) and obviously fire the commish in the meantime so someone with a brain can pull us out of this mess.
All that to say that I really don't think another round of significant realignment is going to be a net positive for the PAC so long as that dumbass/corrupt Larry Scott is in the picture. CU could potentially benefit and land somewhere better but if they got stuck in limbo with an even more watered-down PAC/Big12/MWC misfit hybrid that would be awful. It pains me to say it but we need a combo of USC/Oregon to return to legitimate top 5 programs (USC plays Bama next year) and obviously fire the commish in the meantime so someone with a brain can pull us out of this mess.
in a New York minute.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Two. Texas vs Arkansas was a huuuuge rivalry back in the SWC, and that hate is alive and well on both sides. A good chunk of pig fans still consider Texas their primary rival, despite the long breakup.
If the SEC got OU, there's just no way Texas could turn down being in a division with Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas A&M.
MCskid
Well-Known Member
Wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the Big 12 raiding the PAC for 6 schools is probably the most realistic scenario. I think they end up with Oregon, Washington, USC, ASU, CU and either UCLA or CAL. Best case would be for the PAC and Big 12 to combine to 16 teams and jettison the K, Iowa, Oregon, Wash. States.
What's the general consensus for how big a conference could be? 16?
if we went up to 20 it could be interesting to just combine B12 + P12, leaving behind a few little brothers
if we went up to 20 it could be interesting to just combine B12 + P12, leaving behind a few little brothers
No football conference greater than 14 has ever survived very long.
Not that it couldn't change, but if history is a guide...
And like cardinality has never driven expansion either. I don't understand the mindset that "if the B1G goes to 16 teams, all the other will do the same"
I agree with the prior bowl system being better for the whole of college football, as each team in a bowl had their big super-bowl to end the year, regardless of overall standing. I remember planning and traveling to any bowl game, and it had a huge weight for us even if we weren’t in the top four. Now, everything is about the playoff, and everyone else in a bowl is just sort of going through the motions.
unbiasedtruth
Well-Known Member
OU/Texas wont join the any conference where more than 1 game is played in Moutain or Pacific time zone.... death sentence for teams to be successful.... no TV exposure, not from lack of TV, majority of college football fans due to be being east of the Rockies read about west coast football on Sunday morning what little coverage there is written. People move on to other activities by early afternoon in the east and midwest on Saturdays in the fal. Factor in logistics, financially disastrous for any school to travel from the heartland to Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene, even Boulder. Its all a pipe dream to think any major football program in a P5 conference will bolt to the Pac XII as there are really no major adavantages over the conference they are already are part of today.
Oh btw... to deal with saxeT, you win... not cry and moan... 13/26 conference championships speaks volumes when dealing with saxeT....
Oh btw... to deal with saxeT, you win... not cry and moan... 13/26 conference championships speaks volumes when dealing with saxeT....
The big 12 is going to have a hard time adding anyone and making more money per school.
SeanMSan
Well-Known Member
I like this, it is crazy, but sometimes crazy gets **** done right. There are a great deal of resources located in the P12 territory. To go rogue from the NCAA would be bold! Apple, Nike, adopt and implement the CA “pay for play” act. Since there is pay for play, adopt what the NBA is doing and put small “sponsoring” company logos on jerseys, and let the revenue drip in.
the NCAA makes so much money off of the backs of these kids, that put their bodies on the line...where an injury could put them in a place where their professional future and continued education are in jeopardy. Might as well be in a place to get some revenue share from the cash cow of college athletics.
Unfortunately, there are too many people out there that would keep from this from lifting off. So, I will keep this in the back of my mind...it sounds like a fantastic idea, and could be a trailblazing notion in college sports/entertainment.
Yep. Unless they went with the AAC model and started adding programs like UCF, but I'm pretty sure that would be against what the TX/OK fans like about the conference. SWC and Big 12 have given generations at least 9 games a year that were either at home or in easy road trip distance.
On that note, I think this is the main thing that gives the Pac-12 more potential than many think to get UT in the next round of realignment. We can actually offer 4 TX/OK programs. No one else looks like they can do that.
Basically, what we need is an East with UT as the anchor/elite program and a West with USC as the anchor/elite program in a Pac-16. And we'd have to make it so that revenue sharing was not 100% equal.
Plus it would get the Pac into the Central time zone, an important factor.
01Buff
Well-Known Member
This. On paper, there any number of realignment strategies that make sense, but college football is an emotional endeavor.
Remember, Wacko had enough swag in the Texas capital building to block the creation of the Big12 by state law if they weren’t included, circa ‘94.
Can you explain this? I've followed college conference realignment closely for a long time and never heard anyone outside of Allbuffs cite timezones as a factor.
That’s because it’s never been an issue for 4/5 power 5 conferences. Time zones matter because it means more eye balls watching the games. Many Pac 12 games don’t start until 10pm ET and that’s a problem.