Conference Realignment

[RondaeShimmy]

Great ESPN deal doesn't look promising

[UAEebs86]

^^^ E$PN: You're now the Mountain West - our bid will accordingly reflect that.

[UAEebs86]

[Merkin]

Have to throw out ntOSU and WSU for lack of academic standards, outside of their poor facilities too.

That's why the talk to get SDSU, Fresno State and UNLV has always been ridiculous. But I still see it constantly.

[AzCatFan2]

Have to throw out ntOSU and WSU for lack of academic standards, outside of their poor facilities too.

That's why the talk to get SDSU, Fresno State and UNLV has always been ridiculous. But I still see it constantly.

Fresno and UNLV. Yes. But SDSU? They are the jewel of the CAL State system. Academically not on par with UC schools, but not that far behind. Probably in line with ASu, WSU, and Oregon State. And facilities? New basketball arena, baseball stadium, and brand spanking new football stadium that we'll be part of the debut of in just over a month. If ever the PAC is going to allow a CAL State, it's SDSU, and it's now.

SDSU and UNLV would also be interesting additions to the BIG 12 if the 4 Corner PAC schools do end up there. Would be an interesting pod with SDSU, UNLV, ASu, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado. Not my first choice, but if there are no other options, there are certainly worse fates.

[azcat49]

Can anyone explain to me (maybe Merk) how UCLA ( A state school) will use funds to travel in states that California as banned state employee paid travel? Also, how are those coaches going to get paid? I know there are at least three states in the B1G that are banned by that rule

[84Cat]

Athletics doesn't use state funds so they can travel wherever they want

[azcat49]

So the California law doesn’t exempts your sports or athletics?

[KillerKlown]

Why do we hate UO and UDub?

[Merkin]

Fresno and UNLV. Yes. But SDSU? They are the jewel of the CAL State system. .

Well, academically Cal Poly SLO is the jewel, athletically SDSU most certainly is.

However, CSU schools end instruction at masters level programs. The UC system has the mandates to provide PhDs and MDs, and therefor are research institutions.

PAC-12 presidents have historically only offered research institutions to be members, such as the desirability of AAU membership.

Do the California law doesn’t extent your sports or athletics?

You can still travel, you just can't use state funds to do so to regressive states. UC and CSU schools do not use state funds to travel to banned states, they have to use AD funds.

https://www.csustan.edu/financial-suppo ... -bill-1887

The following is a comprehensive list of states subject to California's ban on state-funded and state-sponsored travel:

Alabama
Arizona *Effective September 28, 2022
Arkansas
Florida
Idaho
Indiana *Effective July 1, 2022
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana *Effective August 1, 2022
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah *Effective July 1, 2022
West Virginia

[84Cat]

SEC

[UAEebs86]

Keeler: Get out, CU. If the Big 12 offers Buffs lifeline out of lying, dying Pac-12, they’d be crazy not to take it.


https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/21/c ... ealignment


"But the Pac-12 you signed up for is gone. It’s over, financially and competitively."

[Merkin]

[AzCatFan2]

If the PAC survives and invites SDSU, would make for an interesting recruiting pitch to S. Cal players. Come to San Diego, play in a brand new stadium in front of 50,000 Aztec fans, followed by a quick trip to Arizona the next week. Or, play in a 100-year old stadium in front of 50,000 Ohio State fans, followed by a trip to Bloomington, Indiana the next week. Your choice.

The SDSU rumor to the SEC is unlikely to to happen, but could be a sign the SEC is looking at west coast expansion. Which makes sense, if they were to expand. ACC teams are stuck for another decade plus with their contract, and top ACC teams, Clemson, FSU, and Miami really don't add additional TV markets. UNC is the exception. But adding teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones will.

[pc in NM]

If the PAC survives and invites SDSU, would make for an interesting recruiting pitch to S. Cal players. Come to San Diego, play in a brand new stadium in front of 50,000 Aztec fans, followed by a quick trip to Arizona the next week. Or, play in a 100-year old stadium in front of 50,000 Ohio State fans, followed by a trip to Bloomington, Indiana the next week. Your choice.

The SDSU rumor to the SEC is unlikely to to happen, but could be a sign the SEC is looking at west coast expansion. Which makes sense, if they were to expand. ACC teams are stuck for another decade plus with their contract, and top ACC teams, Clemson, FSU, and Miami really don't add additional TV markets. UNC is the exception. But adding teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones will.

FYI, the capacity of Ohio Stadium is 104,944

[AzCatFan2]

If the PAC survives and invites SDSU, would make for an interesting recruiting pitch to S. Cal players. Come to San Diego, play in a brand new stadium in front of 50,000 Aztec fans, followed by a quick trip to Arizona the next week. Or, play in a 100-year old stadium in front of 50,000 Ohio State fans, followed by a trip to Bloomington, Indiana the next week. Your choice.

The SDSU rumor to the SEC is unlikely to to happen, but could be a sign the SEC is looking at west coast expansion. Which makes sense, if they were to expand. ACC teams are stuck for another decade plus with their contract, and top ACC teams, Clemson, FSU, and Miami really don't add additional TV markets. UNC is the exception. But adding teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones will.

FYI, the capacity of Ohio Stadium is 104,944

I know. I'm just imagining an Ohio State at USC or UCLA game, with 50,000 Buckeye fans in the stands.

[pc in NM]

If the PAC survives and invites SDSU, would make for an interesting recruiting pitch to S. Cal players. Come to San Diego, play in a brand new stadium in front of 50,000 Aztec fans, followed by a quick trip to Arizona the next week. Or, play in a 100-year old stadium in front of 50,000 Ohio State fans, followed by a trip to Bloomington, Indiana the next week. Your choice.

The SDSU rumor to the SEC is unlikely to to happen, but could be a sign the SEC is looking at west coast expansion. Which makes sense, if they were to expand. ACC teams are stuck for another decade plus with their contract, and top ACC teams, Clemson, FSU, and Miami really don't add additional TV markets. UNC is the exception. But adding teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones will.

FYI, the capacity of Ohio Stadium is 104,944

I know. I'm just imagining an Ohio State at USC or UCLA game, with 50,000 Buckeye fans in the stands.

So are UCLA and USC - $$$$

[RondaeShimmy]

If the PAC survives and invites SDSU, would make for an interesting recruiting pitch to S. Cal players. Come to San Diego, play in a brand new stadium in front of 50,000 Aztec fans, followed by a quick trip to Arizona the next week. Or, play in a 100-year old stadium in front of 50,000 Ohio State fans, followed by a trip to Bloomington, Indiana the next week. Your choice.

The SDSU rumor to the SEC is unlikely to to happen, but could be a sign the SEC is looking at west coast expansion. Which makes sense, if they were to expand. ACC teams are stuck for another decade plus with their contract, and top ACC teams, Clemson, FSU, and Miami really don't add additional TV markets. UNC is the exception. But adding teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones will.

It was an obvious troll post

[azcat49]

One has to wonder if Oregon is really looking at this thing in a way that best suits them.

It’s been long said that Ph Knight wants a championship in his lifetime so the key is having access to the playoffs. It appears the SEC and B1G are trying to create a monopoly on both the football and basketball tournaments.

If they stay in the PAC AND we expand the playoffs to 8 or 12 teams, they would likely be regular visitors from our conference and could take their shot.

It seems to me that if they go to the B1G, they will receive more $ but they likely will have far fewer trips to the promised land for uncle Phil.

[AzCatFan2]

Of course USC and UCLA are looking at the $$. But butts in seats is small potatoes versus the tv money. And if SDSU can find it's way into a P5 conference with close travel partners, they could really build something.

And I can see the SEC poaching teams out west for a west coast division. It would be a counter move to increase the SEC to be coast to coast, just like the BIG 10. Grabbing west coast AAU schools would also limit the schools the BIG 10 could invite, and I doubt the BIG 10 leaves the LA schools on an island. There's nothing more than Oregon would like to stick it to the LA schools by joining the SEC with a school like SDSU, which would give Oregon a continued in with S Cal players.

I don't see Stanford or CAL aligning with the SEC, but if the SEC is looking west, imagine them adding a 3-team PAC NW pod with Oregon, Washington, and Boise State, and a 3-team PAC SW with SDSU and the two Arizona teams. This leaves the Bay Area schools, Utah, and Colorado to join the BIG 10.

A move like this wouldn't increase per school revenue in the SEC, but would establish the SEC on both coasts and all time zones. The move would also leave the the BIG 12 and ACC in a tough spot, especially with the ACC contract. These two would likely have to merge or die, and there would be few west coast teams of any value to try and become a third power conference. And the BIG 10? It limits their west expansion by taking some AAU schools from the PAC.

Improbable? Yes. Impossible? I don't think so. Stranger things have happened.

[KillerKlown]

Yes, now Bosie St to the SEC. Now you're guaranteed to be a troll.

[dmjcat]

AZ Board of Regents holding a special meeting next week.....its regarding the U of A Global Campus (it may have nothing to do with realignment)

https://public.azregents.edu/Public%20N ... Notice.pdf

[AzCatFan2]

Yes, now Bosie St to the SEC. Now you're guaranteed to be a troll.

It's all about football. Boise St. has name recognition. And the SEC doesn't care about academics, and only care about other sports that aren't played during football season so they have something to cheer about until football starts. If, and it's a huge if, the SEC wants to add a west coast pod, Oregon and UW are the top two targets. If the Bay Area schools tell the SEC no, and you're the SEC, do you add WSU and/or Oregon State to have more than 2 schools in the NW? Or do you add a name like Boise State?

And if the SEC wants to move west, SDSU or Fresno State may be the only options, if again, the Bay Areas say no. And SDSU > Fresno State. And again, the SEC will be looking for travel partners. The two Arizona schools are close, and offer about the same monetary value to a conference as Colorado and Utah.

Again, stranger things have happened. Who predicted OU and TX to the SEC? Or USC and UCLA to the BIG 10?

[KillerKlown]

Now Fresno St.

[AzCatFan2]

Now Fresno St.

If the SEC wants to expand west, wants a school in the CA for the fertile recruiting grounds, and Stanford/CAL say no, what schools are left? Will Fresno State get an invite to the SEC if the SEC want a presence in CA? Not before Stanford, CAL, and SDSU, that's for sure.

Who knows what the SEC or the BIG 10 is thinking when it comes to west coast expansion, other than the LA schools are already committed to the BIG 10. After that, we can only assume the BIG 10 doesn't intend on leaving the LA schools out on an island with the closest conference rival being Nebraska.

After that, it's working with facts, like the top three valuable schools in the west are Washington, Stanford, and Oregon, and the BIG 10 won't invite non-AAU schools no named Notre Dame.

[1stNGrant Frys]

Now Fresno St.

If the SEC wants to expand west, wants a school in the CA for the fertile recruiting grounds, and Stanford/CAL say no, what schools are left? Will Fresno State get an invite to the SEC if the SEC want a presence in CA? Not before Stanford, CAL, and SDSU, that's for sure.

Who knows what the SEC or the BIG 10 is thinking when it comes to west coast expansion, other than the LA schools are already committed to the BIG 10. After that, we can only assume the BIG 10 doesn't intend on leaving the LA schools out on an island with the closest conference rival being Nebraska.

After that, it's working with facts, like the top three valuable schools in the west are Washington, Stanford, and Oregon, and the BIG 10 won't invite non-AAU schools no named Notre Dame.

Here are the top 5 reasons, using logic, why it would be better to go with me to the prom rather than these guys.

These are facts and it just makes sense when you think about it.

[Merkin]

CU!

Good luck in the reformulated WAC.

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/ ... uZ8YR7z-lI

Keeler went on to add, “Here’s the kicker, I think the administration is 70-30 Pac-12. They want the money, they want the comfort, they want the politics, they want the caviar, they want the prestige, air quotes. The administration at CU views the Big 12 as a JUCO league. They don’t want to be in that. And the fans absolutely do.”

[KillerKlown]

Snobbing it up behind some greek pillars as the city burns to the ground. Funny in some sad way...

[ASUHATER!]

I mean the Colorado admin are right, prestige wise and academic-wise and culture-wise and honestly road trip wise and for every other metric besides making money in sports the pac-12 is a much much more desirable situation. But since all that matters in college anymore is money from sports then the Big 12 it is in order to survive.

[KillerKlown]

Keyword: much

[KillerKlown]

Keyword: much

[azcat49]

Time to put the animal down. Apply to the Big 12 already

[PHXCATS]

Keep in mind who Scheer's sources are.....

[azcat49]

I have no idea who they are? Wilner? Canazano? Heeke? Fisch?

[AzCatFan2]

Disappointing but not unexpected, if the ESPN numbers are true. Remember, they are a business and want to profit. And they are currently in a time period where they and FOX are the only ones bidding for PAC TV rights--and FOX has decided not to bid. Why would ESPN's first offer be high in this instance? They are going to start low and see if they can get the late night games they want on the cheap.

Things may change when the 30-day window ends. This will allow Apple and Amazon to potentially enter and the competition may drive the price up. This is where a partnership with the ACC may come in. The PAC alone isn't worth streaming, especially since we rarely have early, east coast live content. And live content is what is what all TV broadcasters want, as it's the most profitable. A deal that allows Apple or Amazon to carry both the ACC and PAC networks, plus a full day's slate of football games may be worth more than $30 million per PAC school, and bump up the ACC per schools payout without breaking their ESPN contract.

If none of this works out, we still have the BIG 12 option.

[ChooChooCat]

Disappointing but not unexpected, if the ESPN numbers are true. Remember, they are a business and want to profit. And they are currently in a time period where they and FOX are the only ones bidding for PAC TV rights--and FOX has decided not to bid. Why would ESPN's first offer be high in this instance? They are going to start low and see if they can get the late night games they want on the cheap.

Things may change when the 30-day window ends. This will allow Apple and Amazon to potentially enter and the competition may drive the price up. This is where a partnership with the ACC may come in. The PAC alone isn't worth streaming, especially since we rarely have early, east coast live content. And live content is what is what all TV broadcasters want, as it's the most profitable. A deal that allows Apple or Amazon to carry both the ACC and PAC networks, plus a full day's slate of football games may be worth more than $30 million per PAC school, and bump up the ACC per schools payout without breaking their ESPN contract.

If none of this works out, we still have the BIG 12 option.

Apple is focused on the B1G's TV rights as well as landing the Sunday Ticket and they barely entered the B1G's TV rights sweepstakes after they announced the LA schools joining, so I wouldn't count on their involvement at all. Amazon maybe I guess, but they're also bidding for a piece of the B1G as well. As far as carrying both the ACC and PAC Networks, wtf are you talking about? ESPN owns the ACC Network and will until 2036. I guess Apple/Amazon could theoretically buy the PAC 12 Network and air our Tier 3 games, but why? There's no money in that for them. It's Tier 3.

You live in a fantasy world man.

[PHXCATS]

I have no idea who they are? Wilner? Canazano? Heeke? Fisch?

I doubt he speaks to any of them

[azgreg]

[azcat49]

I have no idea who they are? Wilner? Canazano? Heeke? Fisch?

I doubt he speaks to any of them

OK, So who is he talking to?

[AzCatFan2]

Disappointing but not unexpected, if the ESPN numbers are true. Remember, they are a business and want to profit. And they are currently in a time period where they and FOX are the only ones bidding for PAC TV rights--and FOX has decided not to bid. Why would ESPN's first offer be high in this instance? They are going to start low and see if they can get the late night games they want on the cheap.

Things may change when the 30-day window ends. This will allow Apple and Amazon to potentially enter and the competition may drive the price up. This is where a partnership with the ACC may come in. The PAC alone isn't worth streaming, especially since we rarely have early, east coast live content. And live content is what is what all TV broadcasters want, as it's the most profitable. A deal that allows Apple or Amazon to carry both the ACC and PAC networks, plus a full day's slate of football games may be worth more than $30 million per PAC school, and bump up the ACC per schools payout without breaking their ESPN contract.

If none of this works out, we still have the BIG 12 option.

Apple is focused on the B1G's TV rights as well as landing the Sunday Ticket and they barely entered the B1G's TV rights sweepstakes after they announced the LA schools joining, so I wouldn't count on their involvement at all. Amazon maybe I guess, but they're also bidding for a piece of the B1G as well. As far as carrying both the ACC and PAC Networks, wtf are you talking about? ESPN owns the ACC Network and will until 2036. I guess Apple/Amazon could theoretically buy the PAC 12 Network and air our Tier 3 games, but why? There's no money in that for them. It's Tier 3.

You live in a fantasy world man.

Any streaming service isn't bidding on Tier 1 rights. FOX will own Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights for the BIG 10 to put games on their OTA and FS cable channels. Heck, even Sunday Ticket isn't considered Tier 1, as those broadcast rights are OTA for FOX, CBS, and ESPN for night games.

Apple and Amazon are looking to enter the live sports market more because even Tier 3 live content is more profitable that almost anything else they can stream. And while ESPN owns the ACC network, it's not like streaming content can't be shared. No reason a game can't be streamed on both ESPN+ and Amazon Prime or AppleTV at the same time. Here's where the creative thinking comes in.

ESPN pays $300 million a year for Tier 1 and some Tier 2 rights. Amazon or Apple (who will want as much live content as possible), pays for a split of the Tier 2 rights, plus Tier 3 for the PAC. All ACC games are on ESPN, but Apple/Amazon gets to stream some Tier 3 games too. As for PAC games, ESPN can stream Tier 2 on ESPN+, but Tier 3 content is Apple/Amazon only.

ESPN would get more live content for ESPN+ without paying for it. Apple/Amazon gets its live content and could show a full day's worth of games over their streaming service, and both PAC and ACC schools get some extra dollars we so desperately need.

Lots of moving parts. Lots of backroom discussions that the public may never know about. And yes, a ton of speculation by everyone, because at this point, that's all we can do. Speculate, because nobody knows what is going to happen. All we know is there aren't any schools available, except Notre Dame, that will move BIG 10 or SEC needles in a positive, money flow direction. FOX owns Tier 1 BIG 10 rights and ESPN owns SEC Tier 1 rights. The rest? There are valuable scraps to be had, and who knows how it will look in the end.

[PHXCATS]

I have no idea who they are? Wilner? Canazano? Heeke? Fisch?

I doubt he speaks to any of them

OK, So who is he talking to?

I don’t know for sure but likely assistant coaches and AD employees not named Heeke. They get info for sure but they are not completely in the know. They also have their goals and wants. As does Wilner's sources as does Canzano's sources (who are higher up AD and PAC-12 employees and head coaches).

I am not saying Scheer is wrong or does a bad job in any way. I am just saying you gotta keep in mind who is sources likely are and what they actually know and what they want out of all of this. Just keep it in mind

[ChooChooCat]

The sole explanation to this is we play on ESPN when nobody else is playing. Big 12 also had a shit ton of games on FS1 and a lot of people are watching ESPN instead. It's really not that complicated.

[ChooChooCat]

No reason a game can't be streamed on both ESPN+ and Amazon Prime or AppleTV at the same time.

Hey you were living in reality until you made this statement and then you went completely off the railing. No streaming service is going to share with another streaming service. Get off my lawn and talk about unicorns somewhere else.

[RondaeShimmy]

[azgreg]

I have no idea who they are? Wilner? Canazano? Heeke? Fisch?

I doubt he speaks to any of them

OK, So who is he talking to?

The Ooh Aah man.

[Merkin]

Ace Thakore.

The sole explanation to this is we play on ESPN when nobody else is playing.

Exactly.

[RondaeShimmy]

From that Athletic article

[AzCatFan2]

No reason a game can't be streamed on both ESPN+ and Amazon Prime or AppleTV at the same time.

Hey you were living in reality until you made this statement and then you went completely off the railing. No streaming service is going to share with another streaming service. Get off my lawn and talk about unicorns somewhere else.

Why? ESPN, Amazon, and Apple are all businesses. If the numbers work, and sharing Tier 3 rights across multiple streaming platforms is profitable for both partners, what would stop them from sharing? Tier 3 rights don't move needles, but any live sporting event is likely to be more profitable than almost all other programming at that time period. There are more and more cord cutters on a daily basis, and the next generation of of TV viewers graduating college is unlikely to ever subscribe to a cable service. It might, and I stress might because I don't know the numbers, make sharing live content across more than one streaming platform profitable enough for both to share.

[ChooChooCat]

No reason a game can't be streamed on both ESPN+ and Amazon Prime or AppleTV at the same time.

Hey you were living in reality until you made this statement and then you went completely off the railing. No streaming service is going to share with another streaming service. Get off my lawn and talk about unicorns somewhere else.

Why? ESPN, Amazon, and Apple are all businesses. If the numbers work, and sharing Tier 3 rights across multiple streaming platforms is profitable for both partners, what would stop them from sharing? Tier 3 rights don't move needles, but any live sporting event is likely to be more profitable than almost all other programming at that time period. There are more and more cord cutters on a daily basis, and the next generation of of TV viewers graduating college is unlikely to ever subscribe to a cable service. It might, and I stress might because I don't know the numbers, make sharing live content across more than one streaming platform profitable enough for both to share.

Businesses aren't in the business of sharing money when they are direct competitors. Stop it. Get some help.

[AzCatFan2]

No reason a game can't be streamed on both ESPN+ and Amazon Prime or AppleTV at the same time.

Hey you were living in reality until you made this statement and then you went completely off the railing. No streaming service is going to share with another streaming service. Get off my lawn and talk about unicorns somewhere else.

Why? ESPN, Amazon, and Apple are all businesses. If the numbers work, and sharing Tier 3 rights across multiple streaming platforms is profitable for both partners, what would stop them from sharing? Tier 3 rights don't move needles, but any live sporting event is likely to be more profitable than almost all other programming at that time period. There are more and more cord cutters on a daily basis, and the next generation of of TV viewers graduating college is unlikely to ever subscribe to a cable service. It might, and I stress might because I don't know the numbers, make sharing live content across more than one streaming platform profitable enough for both to share.

Businesses aren't in the business of sharing money when they are direct competitors. Stop it. Get some help.

ESPN and FOX share PAC TV rights under the current contract. Aren't they in direct competition with each other? Why did all parties agree? Please explain why if something is mutually beneficial for all parties, even those that compete, why they wouldn't agree to it? They key, of course, is being mutually beneficial for all parties.