Yep, there's no doubt that this idea was kicked around a bit. But like I said, the most complicated solution is usually the least likely, and spinning up a whole new conference is indeed the most complicated way forward of all outcomes. My guess is that the PAC gets a decent enough deal that they get all schools to agree to it, but the exit barriers will be minimal. Do they add 2 to get back to 12? Probably not. If they do it'll be Boise and SDSU I imagine. A year later we'll get to see whether the Big 12's new deal will be enough to pry loose any PAC schools. Then we all just sit around and wait for either Notre Dame to move or the ACC's GOR to expire (so, a long quiet 10 year period). The Big 12 has to be super aggressive here. This is kill or be killed. If they can't raid the PAC now, they'll never get the chance, and will certainly be doomed come the next big earthquake in realignment (2035~).
Still thinking the 4 corner schools bolt to the Big 12 and could see it happening soon or right after the PAC's exclusive negotiating period ends (assuming nothing comes of it). Even if the PAC gets a decent enough deal to hold tight, without a strong GOR, it's basically a waiting game to see who leaves first. Funny to think that the Big 12 not really having a poach worthy team actually makes them seemingly the stronger conference. Pete Thamel also reported that Oregon and Washington are looking for unequal revenue sharing under any new tv deal. That would be another reason to bolt or not lock yourselves into anything if you have potential options.
It's funny but also not surprising at all. Inequality creates instability. This is why everyone said the Big 12 was a dead man walking when TAMU, NEB, CO, and MIZZ left. The conference had a relatively equal spread of power and resources. Some members were better or worse off, but each one of them had a peer institution that was within arms reach of them in terms of money and influence. When those 4 left, the conference got hollowed out and it became the UT and OU show. Not sustainable. If I'm the Big 12, I go hard to lock in the Corner 4 and I throw an exclusive "no exit penalty" offer to Oregon and Washington. If you know those two are destined for the B1G, you might as well extract what value you can out of them while you can. Yes 18 teams is weird, but if it kills the PAC so much the better. You can deal with their exit when/if it comes. The most important thing is getting as strong as you can today so that when the next storm hits you can survive it.
I'd also try to make a play for Boise State. Would the Pac consider adding Hawaii? Or is their weird geography too much of a deal breaker?
Boise doesn't make a lot of sense for the Big 12. The Corner 4 makes an even 16, and you have 5 schools in the mountain timezone so that's a decent amount of inventory for late night games for a network. I imagine Hawaii would be a last resort for the PAC.
That makes sense. When the PAC and ACC fall I wonder if the B1G will have three divisions. I could see the SEC doing something similar as well.
A lot of this depends on what happens with the playoff. With 4 spots it always felt inevitable we'd end up with 4 "power" conferences. Now I'm not so sure the contraction will stop at 4. If the B1G/SEC don't arbitrarily form their own playoff/championship, you can expect that the natural divide in resources between them and everyone else will create that separation naturally when the playoff ends up being 2 SEC and 2 B1G schools every year. Everybody in a position of knowledge or power seems to be hinting that the end-game situation is somewhere between 40-60 teams in a new division that will be considered the top echelon and compete with one another for a national title. Whether that consists of 4 or 2 conferences is TBD (it won't be 3 and certainly not 5). What is true is that this will all be driven by networks and so if your program is worth money, you will be included. There will be no hangers on or coattail riders.
I don't mind that, frankly. Not every school or fan base particularly cares about football and some schools have made an effort to improve their programs. We saw with Cincinnati, being a good enough team- even if you're not a traditional powerhouse - with a good schedule can get you places. Similarly, having two giant power conferences and less division restrictions means you can step up your game by scheduling harder opponents.
I don't mind it either, even if it means my team gets put into this second tier (which it likely will). I just want the lines drawn clearly and defined. We've been operating in this stupid mix of sports, money, and politics for way too long.
For sure. I like UGA and Rutgers. UGA has no business playing Mizzou and I don't care about that game. Similarly, it's not fun watching Rutgers get their ass beat by schools like Ohio State or Penn State. We'll basically end up with more teams getting revenue they otherwise wouldn't if we went back to having a million tiny conferences.
Well the Rutgers of the world aren't going anywhere. Part of their value proposition is their location and the TV households they sit on. There will always be teams like that whose performance on the field is not nearly as valuable as the market they reside in. But hey, value is value. If the networks will pay money for your rights that's all that matters.
Im interested though because even tho Rutgers sits in a big TV market theyre rarely on TV even locally. Most people there dont follow them
You might want to tell the B1G that then. Because that's the whole reason they got invited was the 598 bajillion tv sets in their zipcode. They wouldn't be where they are if the TV execs didn't value their property rights.
I see the vision, but oof...not even Rutgers students watch Rutgers football without being wasted. You cant beat fat sandwiches though
The sports, money. and politics mix isn't going anywhere. If you only have 50 teams, you'll still be dealing with haves and have-nots, and you'll have all the same problems - just with fewer teams. But in the future world, instead of Texas State and UTEP being the "bad" teams, it will be Texas Tech and UH. Nothing that's happening in college sports is improving things - if anything, the unregulated NIL is just making things worse for the sport (better for the players, though).
I tend to disagree. I think once you pair it down to those 50~ teams, politics will play a much, much smaller part in the sport. On top of the inequity decreasing, we're also stepping closer and closer to a "champion vs champion" style championship/playoff where on-field results dictate everything. I'm just tired of the glass ceiling nonsense where opinions and TV ratings dictate championships. Beyond stupid.
What do the 4 corners schools offer the Big 12? I can see AZ/AZ State but why go after Utah/Colorado when Stanford/Oregon improve the conference more? Geography doesn't seem to matter at all anymore in these realignment talks.
It's an order of operations problem. Oregon and Washington (and Stanford) aren't going anywhere unless one of two things happen. 1) The B1G or SEC come calling 2) The PAC 12 is no longer a viable conference #1 is beyond Big 12 control, #2 is not. How? The 4 corner schools. If you get them to commit to the Big 12, the PAC effectively becomes a prison for the remaining members and suddenly there's a lot more appetite from the bigger brands to be Big 12 members, however fleetingly. You can't land UO or UW outright. You have to twist their arms first.
