Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Rocky Style]

2 hours ago, Cubanbull said:

You want to keep playing to show competitiveness and the tv value of the game. With that said wouldn’t be surprised if they decide not to play us for awhile 

Sweet!  Let's win this one and they can go lose to someone else.

[BULLSHTR]

9 hours ago, Eric Ruby said:

After 2036, all hell breaks loose.

Well, MIT says there will be complete societal collapse by 2040, so I think this is the most accurate thing said in this thread.

I just want to see USF win some games until then.

 

[Friscobull]

23 minutes ago, BULLSHTR said:

Well, MIT says there will be complete societal collapse by 2040, so I think this is the most accurate thing said in this thread.

I just want to see USF win some games until then.

 

Most of academia says the human race will perish due to global warming by then as well so let’s live for today.  

[Eric Ruby]

2 hours ago, puc86 said:

It says word for word that it only covers the rights that would be covered in that contract, there isn’t anything to interpret if the named contract changes there is nothing granted. In an otherwise pretty undefined contract that is clear and repeated.

It’s a grant of rights, not a TV contract. It grants the media rights for every school thru 2036 to the ACC, no matter where they go. The whole point of it was to make it virtually impossible to get out of. I never say never, but it’s been looked at and nobody is challenging it. It’s this:

1. ACC Grant if Rights - ACC owns TV media rights to all schools thru 2036

2. ESPN TV contract buyout. $35 mil per every year left on the contract thru 2036z

3. Exit fee of $120 million 

 

 

[NewEnglandBull]

11 hours ago, Bull Daly said:

The AAC is life boats from the sunken ship know as Big East football. The Big 12 is a sinking ship that will soon need lifeboats aka Big East 2.0

Nope

[NewEnglandBull]

3 hours ago, Bull Daly said:

Exactly. Big Ten won’t be adding more PAC12 schools anytime soon. I don’t see PAC 12 schools leaving the Oregon/Nike money train.  PAC 12 still has that anchor school and Rose Bowl while the Big 12 has no anchor schools left after Texas & OU head to SEC.

In five years the PAC won’t exist. 

[FanFromAfar]

3 hours ago, Bull Daly said:

Exactly. Big Ten won’t be adding more PAC12 schools anytime soon. I don’t see PAC 12 schools leaving the Oregon/Nike money train.  PAC 12 still has that anchor school and Rose Bowl while the Big 12 has no anchor schools left after Texas & OU head to SEC.

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. 

[Eric Ruby]

44 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

In five years the PAC won’t exist. 

Yup

[FanFromAfar]

4 hours ago, Cubanbull said:

The PAC is only at risk because of BigTen and because it has more valuable members than the Big12.

Bottomline if the BigTen doesn’t add anyone for now, you can expect neither one to poach the other. And in next two years we will get to see what each tv contract it’s worth. I predict they are both going to be similar.

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. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by FanFromAfar

[Brad]

Hard to believe, but this is the thread of the day!  The old realignment thread.  Real good discussion on here from MANY.  It’s been great insight,  Thank you!