FanFromAfar

That is not what was contended. What was claimed is even after losing 5 schools to P2, it should be similar, if not slightly better, to PAC. Particularly with PAC unwilling to sign long GOR, which can cap the step-change, as the networks normally make their money on the backend (hence big jumps between deals). The Big 12 had a lead over the PAC. Losing OUT eats into that, but somewhat offset by PAC losing USC/UCLA Both were in line for a jump. I don't think the methodology behind Navigate's projections is very sophisticated, but they had the escalation of rights (thanks TINA) offsetting the hit. Put it this way, the Big 12 was comfortably 3rd and in line for a big jump with OUT. Now, they should be around the same. That will depend on who is in on the BIG deal. If NBC is out, or NBC and CBS are out of BIG deal, it is good news for other conferences. But you missed the main point. Whatever these two conferences get on their own, adding 4-6 PAC to Big 12 will be more. For many reasons, including simply there is less competing supply. I am a realignment fan, with contacts at USF and Big 12, as well as other entities. I do have to defend the Big 12 here because there is a lot of ignorance. For example, things like flagships. That carries no weight with the networks. There is a huge difference between brand schools, and brand programs. The BIG as a P2 is not as beholden to the networks, and can afford to spend on such relics of last century conference structure, but leftover realignment will be about the networks. Many reasons for the ignorance, but as you should now see, the movement of 2010, 2011, and 2021 were not really Big 12 issues, as the economics behind them were true for PAC and ACC as well. That's why the ACC leadership wanted the ridiculously long GOR and why the PAC was trying to make a P3 back in 2010. The Big 12 as never anything more than a corporate marriage, and hence more easily succumbed to the economics driving consolidation.

The comparison isn't PAC vs Big 12, it is Pac vs Big 16 or Big 18. Whatever each of these conferences can get on their own, a Big 16 or Big 18 will do better. More T1 games, bigger footprint, better ability to do both late night and conventional slots. Exporting the PAC brands to parts of the nation less apathetic, etc. The PAC is at risk because of many reasons, many related to why even the failure that was Larry Scott tried to make the PAC less PAC starting as early as 2010. It is why despite those efforts, only CU has gone west. Regrettably for them, I must add. It has effectively set their athletics back to the point they are no longer a leading candidate for P2. The Big 12 on the other hand is 5-deep into losing schools to the P2, and yet, will have equal or slightly better contract. Flyover states and Texas, although I'd never live there, care greatly about their college athletics. Which is all good news for USF. A PAC based P4 isn't taking USF. Basically, the PAC's easily foreseen demise has removed Oregon St, WSU, and maybe Cal from the conversation, with USF candidate #1 to replace them. Some could argue SDSU, but not if the Big 12 has its way. That would only occur if the 4 corners/PAC leverage it. But why would they? Adding SDSU is not going to make the PAC or Big 16/18 recruit SoCal tangibly better, it will just mean SDSU is one more peer trying to get P2 scraps, and one with a location advantage. And unlike USF, no one else is taking SDSU if not the PAC/Big 16.

Not quite. The BIG doesn't need to add more schools, just flirt with the idea. The PAC is on the clock for their Tv deal, and right now not all schools are wiling to commit. The PAC doesn't really have an anchor school if what you say is true about the BIG not adding more- that is a contradiction. Look at the PAC ratings- their title game was horrible. PAC VS PAC games even when in good spots don't do well. Add in the uncertainty, and the need for schools to go east, and it is dead. Now, or next round.

Since the PAC lost USC, UCLA, and the Big 10 is intentionally toying with taking more. The Big 12, for the first time in over 12 years, isn’t the most unstable P5. Schools don’t go to high risk setups. Pac10 is extreme risk.

Disagree, the home game designation is how most GORs work. And likely the ACC's too. You're suggesting the ACC has rights to all FSU away games right now? I have not heard that. So when FSU plays at UF, FSU has the rights to that game? Pretty easy to manufacture those ACC schools not being in the SEC, just having an SEC schedule! Form Pete Thamel of ESPN: By extending their grant of rights in 2016, ACC schools did what the legal phrase says: They granted the rights to all their home games to the ACC until the league's television contract with ESPN expires in 2036. After granting them, schools are finding complications in the legal quagmire of the exploration of getting them back. First, any lawyer that tells you a contract is ironclad and there is no risk in court, is foolish. There is no such thing as settled law. Second, going around the GOR is not the same as challenging it. Road games for example. There are always battle of attrition, madman tactics, in which the 4-5 P2 hopefuls suddenly have a COVID season and let the conference know they deem it best to sit out all ACC games. They have $800 million to borrow against, but the others? They have no windfall coming. In essence, all the P2 hopefuls need to do is shift the risk of costs- their plan does not need to be 100% certain of success, just risky enough that the risk averse leftovers take a reasonable offer. Third, and likely the most important, is the ACC leftovers are just as much wanting to get a settlement out of the GOR. A school like BC on a death march with 2016 era TV rights to the American conference in 2036 is extracting no value from the GOR. Realignment value or monetary value. It would be complete negligence by their leadership. Their leverage to get accommodations due to the GOR goes down every year. The best they can do in court in trying to uphold the GOR is "not lose" in realignment, with a court room victory simply meaning the ACC forced back together, with the leftovers in an even weaker position, because now ESPN has little ability to prepare for the exit of schools come 2036. Say 4 schools move to SEC. What would happen is ESPN would air the SEC games at the former ACC schools, and the ACC would want that revenue. And that revenue would will be settled, or FSU would never play at "home". The utility exchanged by FSU in the settlement likely to be based in whatever costs FSU incurs by playing neutral site games for home games. If that costs the former ACC schools $60-$80 million/year, then the remaining schools likely get that on some type of amortization, plus some exit fees. Likely also getting ESPN to refresh their TV deal to current TV rights market if it is advantageous, and potentially getting ESPN to execute a bait and switch in building the ACC as the 3rd super conference. So the leftovers likely are looking at millions more than their ACC deal, plus a better position to make the eventual 3rd super conference. Or they could live out the GOR for less, and some become unwanted free agents.

My understanding is the ACC would only get the rights from the home games of those schools. Which means they'd still be ahead given how much the P2 will make. And they could play neutral games to avoid it, and be way ahead. A battle of attrition is hard to win against schools set to make $800 million more in next 14 years if in P2. If you're hoping for USF to get added, you DON'T want the GOR to hold. That means Miami and FSU are not leaving anytime soon, which means USF is not added anytime soon. Adding schools, if those two can't get out, likely means P5s- either PAC (4 corners) or Big 12 (6-10, aka at least R8 dissolution plus Cincy, Houston). But the GOR won't hold the ACC together imo. And I don't think any additions will appease some in the ACC. It is not for perpetuity, so leftovers come 2036 will be looking to settle to improve their post-GOR position. Which should not be hard given the 2016 era TV deal is bad. They'll be able to get parity or a premium to the next 14 years in ACC, in exchange for letting schools leave. This is USF's best bet. Miami and FSU leave, now you're in play one way or another. First, the Big 12 route- If the BIG/FOX moves first, taking more PAC. This would mean a Big 16 or Big 18, which makes it tough for ESPN to both move FSU and Miami while making ACC third conference. So if a Big 16 happens, look for momentum for the Big 12 to add USF or Memphis to pick up, to get ahead of the ACC and show commitment to eastern members. There is a faction that wants USF now regardless, but the PAC targets are in denial about the P5 era being over. If all 4 corners stay with PAC, it will get crazy imo.... Second, the "ACC" route- without adding PAC, it is not unfathomable to see enough Big 12 schools band together, with ESPN as a benefactor, to go to the ACC and get dissolution. 6 of the 8 left by OU/UT need to vote for dissolution I believe, and Cincy and Houston appealing for ACCN considerations. If this was brokered by ESPN in exchange for the non-P2 schools letting FSU, Miami, Clemson, VT to SEC, then I'd expect those 8 Big 12 schools plus UCF and USF added to replace FSU and Miami. That's 20. My guess is two of Kansas St, Iowa St, and TT would be out, along with BYU. Maybe the R8 Big 12 schools band together in that case to get all included. Maybe it stays at 20 until 4 corners are available. Maybe P2 go 24 schools each, and any P5 not named Oregon St and WSU are in the ACC, plus Memphis. that's my long winded way to say, USF will end up moving up. If FSU and Miami end up in P2 it is certain imo. But even if that is not for awhile, I'd expect the Big 12/16 will get ahead and add USF imo. it’s been a good summer for USF. Any notion of a western based P4 is out (western P3 conference never made sense Imo). If BIG takes 4 more, the west won’t be contributing much to whatever forms below P2. Basically, Oregon st, WSU, SDSU are trending down or out, and USF up.

Stay the course. Keep getting locals to invest in USF, and USF will end up in the tier below P2. Winning never hurts either. The 3 weaker conferences will be forced to adjust their reality, that their old peer group is done, and it is time to go with schools set-up to win this less. Many G5s are better setup for that than 5-10 former P5. The Big 12 was the first forced/willing to accept this. The objective is to get a P3 setup that is too large and has too many schools that can compete even without equal funding. Which does not mean Wake and BC, but does mean adding another school in FL that can have great success even on AAC money. 3 if Miami is available, which is unlikely at this point. UCF, USF, WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Pitt, NC St, GT, VT, and Miami looks rather familiar, right? Possible in a 24 team P3 that forces its way to getting autos to the expanded CFP. On the other side is Utah, BYU, AZ, ASU, CU, KU, OK St, Baylor, TCU, TT, Houston, KSU, ISU. Clearly a lot of possible deviations, but the main point is the Big 12 rather have USF than 3-4 ACC schools, and rather have USF than 3 PAC schools. As long as the Big 12 or ACC are the base of the P3, USF should be in. The sooner the PAC is done the better for USF imo, although rump P5s fading from the view of P2 is still relative improvement. I'm in Big 12 circles, so if just 4-6 PAC schools go to the Big 12, USF would have just gotten closer to an invite. If we can sell the PAC on UCF, we can sell them on USF. And I know there is a faction that would want to invite USF soon, in preparation to corral the upcoming ACC leftovers, but media is less thrilled about that. Some still love the Boise ratings (ugh) and SDSU market, but the media doesn't care about what is best long term for the conference or surviving in P2 era. Don't get me wrong, a MWC with Oregon St, WSU, SDSU, Boise etc is more formidable than any want, but going west makes getting a P3 harder. One could argue that 3rd super conference splitting up into 2, but the value in the P3 setup is being the "other guy" to the BIG and SEC. That is a role. Multiple "other guys" is not. Keep investing, keep working on growing your base. Keep winning. Good luck, I hope to see you in the conference soon.

Not a USF fan, but I look forward to watching you all join the P5 or P3 soon. Building an OCS is just another sign that USF belongs at the top level. Miami and FSU must be pissing themselves at the thought of you and UCF being at their level. Would not take long before they only could offer ancient history over you. I was in Tampa recently and was surprised with how your city embraces the university. Even with several successful pro sports teams. I noticed a lot of redevelopment downtown, assuming part of the Vinik play? As an outsider, that would be a real fun location for a 40k-45k stadium. I've been on U of Tampa's campus to for bowl prep, and always thought it would be amazing if USF bought that school back in the day. Apologies, back on topic. Hopefully you can get more P5 teams to schedule you in the meantime.