Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[MMW]

8 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

The PAC isn't retaining it's power 5 status, which is separate from autonomy status which they should keep. There's not a hard set definition but we can probably boil P5 status down to big tv money and an automatic NY6 bowl tie in. We can probably add voter perception in how the teams get treated in the polls but that's harder to quantify.

The TV money is going away. OSU/WSU were the only 2 PAC teams that the media powers didn't save in any of their other power conferences. Adding them to the existing MWC or some combination of a best of the rest will get you something a little more than the current AAC deal. Maybe $7M to $12M per team. Not awful but a gulf between that and the ACC/Big 12 and their $30M.

Next is the autobid. With the CFP expanding to 12, all the current NY6 bowls will now rotate between 4 being quarterfinals and 2 being semifinals every year. So the Rose Bowl as a regular bowl with PAC vs B1G tie ins won't exist anymore. 

For the playoff autobids, there's no set bids for specific leagues. It's not spelled out to be SEC champ, B1G champ, etc ... And G5 champ. It's just the highest 6 ranked champs. The goal is 1 for every P conference and 1 for the G5. But with the PAC 12 thoroughly raided, the CFP committee is now pushing for 5 champ bids instead of 6. Aka, they're acknowledging that there's now a P4 and not a P5. This still maintains the same structure of giving every P conference an unofficial slot and the G5 one shared slot. Unofficial because on paper, multiple G5 champs are eligible for those spots, but reality of how the voters rank the teams is that you'll only have 1 G5 champ in that range. The PAC 12 as P5 league is dead.

It would be great if they could have a league champ system with 4 at large teams.  

4 - P4

4 - G5

4 - @ Large

 

The @ large teams can play the G5 teams in the first round.  

[macphisto]

23 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

The PAC isn't retaining it's power 5 status, which is separate from autonomy status which they should keep. There's not a hard set definition but we can probably boil P5 status down to big tv money and an automatic NY6 bowl tie in. We can probably add voter perception in how the teams get treated in the polls but that's harder to quantify.

The TV money is going away. OSU/WSU were the only 2 PAC teams that the media powers didn't save in any of their other power conferences. Adding them to the existing MWC or some combination of a best of the rest will get you something a little more than the current AAC deal. Maybe $7M to $12M per team. Not awful but a gulf between that and the ACC/Big 12 and their $30M.

Next is the autobid. With the CFP expanding to 12, all the current NY6 bowls will now rotate between 4 being quarterfinals and 2 being semifinals every year. So the Rose Bowl as a regular bowl with PAC vs B1G tie ins won't exist anymore. 

For the playoff autobids, there's no set bids for specific leagues. It's not spelled out to be SEC champ, B1G champ, etc ... And G5 champ. It's just the highest 6 ranked champs. The goal is 1 for every P conference and 1 for the G5. But with the PAC 12 thoroughly raided, the CFP committee is now pushing for 5 champ bids instead of 6. Aka, they're acknowledging that there's now a P4 and not a P5. This still maintains the same structure of giving every P conference an unofficial slot and the G5 one shared slot. Unofficial because on paper, multiple G5 champs are eligible for those spots, but reality of how the voters rank the teams is that you'll only have 1 G5 champ in that range. The PAC 12 as P5 league is dead.

The PAC is retaining its status if it populates the conference by 2025. That's the deal and the CFP is limited in the changes it can make unless the PAC fails to fulfill this.  If the CFP changes these rules then the Playoff may not happen as stated as they would be violating their agreement and be in breach of contract.

Do you really think Washington State and Oregon State are fighting so hard for control just for asset retention?  They know the language of the deal and you don't. They have incentive to reform the conference and have said as much.

The AppleTV deal is still on the table if they can populate the conference valued at $25M per member.

 

[UCF_rustbucket]

17 minutes ago, MMW said:

It would be great if they could have a league champ system with 4 at large teams.  

4 - P4

4 - G5

4 - @ Large

 

The @ large teams can play the G5 teams in the first round.  

100%. Even though my team is P4 now, I still think a fair playoff bracket would give access to every conference's champ. 

[macphisto]

Should also note I work with a lot of the big players in college sports. They all believe Oregon State and Washington State will reform the conference in some way because they have massive incentive to do so based on bowl and CFP contract language and Apple still being very willing to spend, especially if the conference becomes more pan-American (which is the name they are considering if the courts clear them).

[UCF_rustbucket]

Just now, macphisto said:

The PAC is retaining its status if it populates the conference by 2025. That's the deal and the CFP is limited in the changes it can make unless the PAC fails to fulfill this.  If the CFP changes these rules then the Playoff may not happen as stated as they would be violating their agreement and be in breach of contract.

Do you really think Washington State and Oregon State are fighting so hard for control just for asset retention?  They know the language of the deal and you don't. They have incentive to reform the conference and have said as much.

The AppleTV deal is still on the table if they can populate the conference valued at $25M per member.

 

No, the PAC isn't retaining any P5 status. The 2 year window they have to repopulate is the NCAA grace period for having the minimum number of teams to simply exist as a conference, not a P conference. 

The current CFP contract runs only through the 25 football season. They need unanimous approval to change from 6+6 to 5+7, and the PAC 2 may block it. But from 26 onward they don't need unanimous approval so it's inevitable even if delayed.

The Apple TV deal is absolutely not on the table. They're not gonna pay a glorified MWC what they were going to pay the PAC 10. 

[UCF_rustbucket]

2 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Should also note I work with a lot of the big players in college sports. They all believe Oregon State and Washington State will reform the conference in some way because they have massive incentive to do so based on bowl and CFP contract language and Apple still being very willing to spend, especially if the conference becomes more pan-American (which is the name they are considering if the courts clear them).

I'm sure Apple still wants to break into college football but just look at it logically. Why would they pay $25M for the 2 lowest value PAC leftovers and a bunch of G5 replacements? They're not going to overpay. If they didn't even match ESPN's initial offer of $30M to the PAC 10 (which had only lost the LA schools) there's just no way they're gonna stick with $25M for what's left.

[macphisto]

8 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

No, the PAC isn't retaining any P5 status. The 2 year window they have to repopulate is the NCAA grace period for having the minimum number of teams to simply exist as a conference, not a P conference. 

The current CFP contract runs only through the 25 football season. They need unanimous approval to change from 6+6 to 5+7, and the PAC 2 may block it. But from 26 onward they don't need unanimous approval so it's inevitable even if delayed.

The Apple TV deal is absolutely not on the table. They're not gonna pay a glorified MWC what they were going to pay the PAC 10. 

Then why do schools like Ohio State, Georgia, Tennessee, etc that I work with say differently.  I think they know better than you.

[UCF_rustbucket]

8 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Then why do schools like Ohio State, Georgia, Tennessee, etc that I work with say differently.  I think they know better than you.

Yeah I don't know what to tell you but I'm strongly willing to bet that's incorrect.

 

If you're a USF fan then you should remember living it with the collapse of the Big East. The Big East was an AQ conference in the BCS but after losing 5/8 members and backfilling with mostly CUSA, it was not kept on a power conference in the CFP era. The Big East had a TV deal offer from ESPN for $130M a year for the whole conference. Turned it down, got raided, and the new offer shrunk down to $130M over 7 years.

 

Big East Conference, ESPN finalizing 7-year, $130 million media deal - ESPN

WWW.ESPN.COM

---

The Big East and ESPN are finalizing a seven-year media rights deal worth...

ESPN didn't keep the same offer after membership turned over a whole bunch, why would Apple?

 

[macphisto]

8 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

Yeah I don't know what to tell you but I'm strongly willing to bet that's incorrect.

 

If you're a USF fan then you should remember living it with the collapse of the Big East. The Big East was an AQ conference in the BCS but after losing 5/8 members and backfilling with mostly CUSA, it was not kept on a power conference in the CFP era. The Big East had a TV deal offer from ESPN for $130M a year for the whole conference. Turned it down, got raided, and the new offer shrunk down to $130M over 7 years.

 

Big East Conference, ESPN finalizing 7-year, $130 million media deal - ESPN

WWW.ESPN.COM

---

The Big East and ESPN are finalizing a seven-year media rights deal worth...

ESPN didn't keep the same offer after membership turned over a whole bunch, why would Apple?

 

The Big East did not have deals with the other major conferences.  Basically the B1G, ACC, B12, and SEC are willing to continue to acknowledge the PAC as a peer if it reforms. It's basically a gentleman's agreement, but it has been communicated to Oregon State and Washington State. There is still the court matter because not every outgoing PAC-12 member wants this to happen due to the perception they can get even more money in liquidation of assets, but I've heard it is primarily Oregon, Washington, and the Arizona schools that care about that.

As for Apple, they don't care which teams are in it as long as they are focused mostly on major metropolitan areas and give them programming from Noon to 10PM. Most other conferences are tied up in TV deals.  They want to add college football to their MLS offerings. They have deep pockets and they believe very strongly that they can increase subscriptions via their marketing ability. 

Tulane, USF, San Jose State, Georgia State (believe it or not) are all part of a list of targets. UTSA, Rice, etc are all on the list as well.  It may not happen and it certainly won't for 2024 - but they are discussing cancelling games and adjusting schedules with potential targets to give Oregon State and Washington State a full slate next year.

Fully possible it might not happen, but working with a bunch of Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Big 12 schools directly, I hear things. And the buzz is that the intention is to reform that league. Sizing is not determined yet. Apple is involved in the discussions and willing to grease some wheels if needed because they don't have many other ways into broadcasting college sports, especially football, for a couple of years.  I can tell you the MLS clubs I deal with have also heard Apple is vert aggressively pursuing a means to get college sports soon - and the MLS teams talk to Apple's broadcast side regularly.

[BDYZR]

8 minutes ago, macphisto said:

It's basically a gentleman's agreement

2¢ - 

Sorry, couldn't help it.

GO BULLS!