The top ACC schools will go to the Big Ten and SEC and it makes no geographic sense to have a conference only located on the west and east coasts. The problem is the remaining Pac 12 schools don't have much value (which is why they are the only one without a TV contract). I imagine UO and UW will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten this time next year along with a couple of other Pac 12 schools and whats left of the Pac 12 will add MWC schools to fill the void. There isn't another plausible outcome, and it's ludicrous to think an all West/East coast conference flying cross country makes sense in any way.
I doubt something like this will happen as soon as next year, and I'm not so sure the demise of the Pac-12 is all that imminent, though I do agree UW & UofO have a significantly greater value than anyone else in the region, as do a select few ACC teams in their area, and eventually, consolidation of the most valuable properties is probably coming.
The problem is the costs of a lot of the ideas about how to rescue the rest of the conferences exceeds any gains to be had, and while expansion theorists aren't grounded in reality (or sound accounting), the ultimate decision makers at some point are.
The essentially automatic CFP bid coming with expansion makes the Pac-12 remain viable, as that, and a better shot at an at-large bid than currently exists for a NY6 at large bid, is more valuable to the Dawgs and Ducks than the increased media deal anywhere they will land would be.
The problem is even UO and UW start to lose value if they’re only seen on Amazon. This situation is already affecting UW’s recruiting and probably UO’s too. The longer it goes on the more jokes made nationally the more intolerable it’s going to become for everyone. If George doesn’t produce soon decisions are going to have to be made.
It wouldn’t be an exclusive Amazon deal. They will have a broadcast partner as well, likely ESPN. ESPN has them over a barrel, since none of the other networks seem all that interested.
The trick is finding a balance. "Only seen on Amazon" would be a ticket to the Big Sky, but the NFL on Thursday night on Amazon didn't hurt Kansas City.
Where is the price point that keeps the chartered flights and hotels booked but still retains relevance to the market? This problem befuddled the Pac-12 in particular the last time around (they really were trying to get it right, but still bungled it badly).
The answer probably also involves a much better job at managing some of the programs, and the realization that stakeholder accountability and a marketable and well marketed product might matter in the marketplace. I think we can see that some places are better at this than others.
That grant of rights is a huge poison pill so the Pac teams would want to be exempt. Travel expense and logistics are also major considerations, though I could see the two divisions mostly meeting in playoffs. Basically, it's more about pooling money than playing games.
Big10 should do a massive expansion, adding Cal, Furd, UW, WSU, Oregon, OSU, AZ, ASU, Utah and Colorado. But then they are so big that they'll need to split into divisions - East and West for example, with UCLA and USC joining the newly-added schools in the west. Of course, they'll need names for the divisions - for the East, for historical consistency, they could maintain the name "Big10". And for the West, they could use "Western 12", or maybe "Pacific 12", or "Pac12" for short.
Of course with such a big conference, a special championship game is needed. It could feature the winners of the East and West, and be played in Pasadena every January 1.
You mentioned Duke, which triggered a memory: Duke hosted the only Rose Bowl played outside Pasadena during WWII. I met a man who played in that game for Duke, later was a Japanese prisoner.
I hope he made it home ok. I wouldn't wish that suffering on anyone. My grandpap was in the Navy during WW2 (sub hunter in the Pacific out of Pearl Harbor) and he said that the torture the Japanese put on capture POW was ruthless
Sure. Coastal Conference is one idea. Thanks for laying that out. It also now seems that we are casting about over much wider possibilities. So I may as well throw yet another (admittedly kooky, but fiendishly simple) idea out there...
The Super Mega Western Conference League
21 Schools/Teams from 8 contiguous western states as follows:
AZ - Arizona, Arizona State
CA - California, Fresno State, San Diego State, San Jose State, Stanford
CO - Air Force, Colorado, Colorado State
ID - Boise State, Idaho
NV - Nevada, UNLV
OR - Oregon, Oregon State
UT - BYU, Utah, Utah State
WA - Washington, Washington State
Break it into two divisions if you like: North & South. Or 3: Coastal, Desert, Mountain
12 game schedule. Teams play certain rivals every year, but rotate through all other teams year by year with a sprinkle of OOC opponents each year. Best 8 teams bracket elimination playoff for league championship.
BYU isn’t leaving the Big 12 but otherwise that could be somewhat plausible. I doubt it would make any more than the existing Pac 12 though because none of the additional schools have brands big enough to increase payouts.
As a parent of teenagers who might someday soon want to attend a UC school, I've started to think of the on-going campus support to athletics as not so much a petty embarrassment and more as an utterly indefensible use of resources. At the same time, its pretty clear (isn't it?) that the lifeline we seem to want in the form of conference consolidation and richer tv contracts is a game that Cal can't win. So what's the goal? What are we even doing here?
It's about excellence at everything and anything. The Pac-12 is responsible for a disgustingly large percentage of Olympic medals as a result. Academic success is important, but focusing entirely on academics doesn't create well-rounded adults.
The goal of Cal should be to be represented at the highest levels of all forms of achievement, which is what the budget is meant for. It's also why I support the current method of giving football what it needs (we do, just need better leadership) while also making sure our non-revenue sports aren't ignored. We have the student body, tuition, and donations to make this happen and we shouldn't settle for less.
Not a sports fan, huh? When done correctly, the revenue sports generate money for the school. Cal can absolutely win this game, but they need better leadership at the top. Replace Carol Christ and Jim Knowlton, and make better hires, and things will turn around. It's not rocket science, and it's not undoable, despite all the excuse making about how Cal can't do it.
You can't jettison college athletics...it's vital to the all-around college experience.
Good for them, but I'm/we're talking about Cal, not one of those small liberal arts colleges. And I'm not advocating for an athletic department to have to be winning championships.
The initial comment claimed that Cal's athletic budget was potentially an utterly indefensible use of resources, which is kind of silly, as a vast majority of schools do have an athletic presence...even University of Chicago...there's gonna be pushback on that anti-athletics claim, especially on a Cal sports forum.
If our only option is to downgrade to G5, we should absolutely downsize significantly. HC shouldn't be paid more than $300K a year and we don't need nearly as many assistants and administrators
If Christ goes, and the next chancellor decides it's not in the university's best interest to be pumping $25M/ year into the athletics dept, then nothing else you are wishing for will come true.
Well then she should. I mean, she and idiot Knowlton are already doing their best to kill Cal athletics…so why keep up the pretenses. Just nix the entire thing….the two idiots are well on their way.
ACC has the same problem the Pac-10 does. We have programs that are attractive to the B1G/SEC. A complete lack of any brand power whatsoever is what is saving the Big 12. Joining forces doesn't really change this unless the network revenue basically doubles as a result (unlikely), because the moment an invite comes for $80-$100M/year that school is gone.
The survival of the Pac-x probably hinges on the end of the long-standing equal revenue sharing model. Retaining the attractive schools like Washington & Oregon is more likely if they get a larger share of the distributions, especially if the distribution of CFP/Bowl & Basketball tournament proceeds is also altered to give a greater share to whomever earns it, be it UW & UO or Utah & WSU.
That won't be popular with some of the have-nots, but it may also prove to be the best of very few actually available alternatives.
Unequal revenue models don't protect anything. Smaller schools getting less revenue puts them at a competitive disadvantage, lowering the overall performance of the conference. And then Texas leaves for more money anyway.
In the end, it really just comes down to revenue maximization and most of that comes down to things off the field. Namely, are you lucky enough to be a university that invested in athletics decades ago and cemented themselves as a Blue Blood? We're seeing that no matter how much money you throw at it, you can't enter those ranks as a modern university (Oregon, Clemson).
(Significantly) Unequal revenue (and political) models don't generally work long time, I agree. That's what caused the PCC to disintegrate, and when its demise proved to not leave a viable scenario, the Pac-8 was (re)formed. And the powers that existed at the time learned from that, and at least started down the road to more equally shared revenue and exposure. And yet here we are again, thinking of repeating that exercise.
But in the short term, unequal sharing can sort of work for a while, until the unsustainable discrepancies eventually become untenable. Which is why it is gaining some traction in the short term, at a time where greed (and unrealistic expectations) is leaving limited options available.
You are right it is going to come down to revenue maximization, and that's already been a non-starter concept in some places.
I'd ask you to show us a case where it lasted long term. The only time it's generally accepted is like a Rutgers/Maryland situation where you have to earn a full share over time. Generally speaking from what I can see, the other times there were unequal revenue sharing were when individual universities had outsized representation in the conference, which eventually leads to instability anyway. Obvious example is Texas and every conference they've been in.
Agree, but then it was the big money maker that left. I'm not worried about the big money makers leaving the PAC12, because right now the two teams with the biggest media value left in the PAC12 are CAL and Stanfurd. The schools with lesser values are not going to get better deals jumping to the Big12 or BIG10, IMHO, and I think that is why they haven't jumped yet.
Southwest Conference, Big 12 conference. The Big 12 actually had a 3 tier unequal at one point where Texas, Oklahoma got the most. OK St, Tx Tech the middle, and the rest got the least. That was agreed on when it almost broke up in 2010 but since then changed to all schools being allowed to strike their own third tier rights.
It won’t work when the schools making less have options, and UA/ASU/CU have options.
I'll politely disagree. Only the two schools in the Big12 that had the most media value jumped ship. I think the current PAC12 agreement stands for current members, but I think the teams we add will get lesser shares and still come out ahead. I think in todays world, unless a team has a big media market and rating none of the conferences are going to over pay to pull them away. It makes no financial sense to dilute your paycheck.
The Pac12 should work with the ACC. If that doesn't pan out, Pac12 should expand to SMU, Rice, and Tulane. The Pac12 should also work on getting a team in Los Angeles. How? UCSD, UCIrvine, UCSB, and UCRiverside should field one football team. It would play either at SOFI / LA Coliseum / Rose Bowl / or any of the 2 MLS stadiums in L.A. The enrollment for the 4 schools > 100,000. The amount of their alumni in SoCal is huge. All football athletes will enroll at UCSB or UCSD. Olympic teams will stay respectively with their schools. L.A. market is huge. The Clippers and Charges left for L.A. Raiders went to L.A. for a spell. Rams are back in L.A. Anaheim Angels are called Los Angeles. In order to survive as a standalone entity, the Pac12 needs to be in L.A. UCB are the Golden Bears, UCLA are Bruins, this entity will be called the Grizzly Bears. This team can sport different tints of Blue and Gold from Cal and UCLA.
The top ACC schools will go to the Big Ten and SEC and it makes no geographic sense to have a conference only located on the west and east coasts. The problem is the remaining Pac 12 schools don't have much value (which is why they are the only one without a TV contract). I imagine UO and UW will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten this time next year along with a couple of other Pac 12 schools and whats left of the Pac 12 will add MWC schools to fill the void. There isn't another plausible outcome, and it's ludicrous to think an all West/East coast conference flying cross country makes sense in any way.
I doubt something like this will happen as soon as next year, and I'm not so sure the demise of the Pac-12 is all that imminent, though I do agree UW & UofO have a significantly greater value than anyone else in the region, as do a select few ACC teams in their area, and eventually, consolidation of the most valuable properties is probably coming.
The problem is the costs of a lot of the ideas about how to rescue the rest of the conferences exceeds any gains to be had, and while expansion theorists aren't grounded in reality (or sound accounting), the ultimate decision makers at some point are.
The essentially automatic CFP bid coming with expansion makes the Pac-12 remain viable, as that, and a better shot at an at-large bid than currently exists for a NY6 at large bid, is more valuable to the Dawgs and Ducks than the increased media deal anywhere they will land would be.
The problem is even UO and UW start to lose value if they’re only seen on Amazon. This situation is already affecting UW’s recruiting and probably UO’s too. The longer it goes on the more jokes made nationally the more intolerable it’s going to become for everyone. If George doesn’t produce soon decisions are going to have to be made.
It wouldn’t be an exclusive Amazon deal. They will have a broadcast partner as well, likely ESPN. ESPN has them over a barrel, since none of the other networks seem all that interested.
The trick is finding a balance. "Only seen on Amazon" would be a ticket to the Big Sky, but the NFL on Thursday night on Amazon didn't hurt Kansas City.
Where is the price point that keeps the chartered flights and hotels booked but still retains relevance to the market? This problem befuddled the Pac-12 in particular the last time around (they really were trying to get it right, but still bungled it badly).
The answer probably also involves a much better job at managing some of the programs, and the realization that stakeholder accountability and a marketable and well marketed product might matter in the marketplace. I think we can see that some places are better at this than others.
YAWN.
If the Coastal Conference/Alliance can keep up us from group of 5 tier then I’m interested!
Welcome to the PACC + ND
This will save the ACC, PAC12 & ND
DIVISION 1:
Syracuse
B.C.
Notre Dame
Pitt
Lville
Cincy
DIVISION 2:
VA
VA Tech
N.C.
Duke
Navy
FSU
DIVISION 3:
G.T.
Clemson
Miami
Wake Forest
Memphis
N.C. St.
DIVISION 4:
Stanford
Cal
Oregon
Washington
Wash. St.
Oregon St.
DIVISION 5:
Colorado
Utah
AZ
AZ St.
San Diego St.
UNLV
5 division games per year
4 division cross-over games per year
3 out of conference games per year
PACC Playoff:
Round 1: 2 vs. 5
3 vs. 4
Round 2: winner vs. winner
Round 3: winner vs. 1
This IS a money maker for ESPN. IT'S COMING SOON.
That grant of rights is a huge poison pill so the Pac teams would want to be exempt. Travel expense and logistics are also major considerations, though I could see the two divisions mostly meeting in playoffs. Basically, it's more about pooling money than playing games.
As long as we're throwing out ideas:
Big10 should do a massive expansion, adding Cal, Furd, UW, WSU, Oregon, OSU, AZ, ASU, Utah and Colorado. But then they are so big that they'll need to split into divisions - East and West for example, with UCLA and USC joining the newly-added schools in the west. Of course, they'll need names for the divisions - for the East, for historical consistency, they could maintain the name "Big10". And for the West, they could use "Western 12", or maybe "Pacific 12", or "Pac12" for short.
Of course with such a big conference, a special championship game is needed. It could feature the winners of the East and West, and be played in Pasadena every January 1.
Not a well thought out idea. Coast to coast travel? Good - bye TV/streaming service money. There won't be any leftover for the Olympic sports.
You mentioned Duke, which triggered a memory: Duke hosted the only Rose Bowl played outside Pasadena during WWII. I met a man who played in that game for Duke, later was a Japanese prisoner.
I hope he made it home ok. I wouldn't wish that suffering on anyone. My grandpap was in the Navy during WW2 (sub hunter in the Pacific out of Pearl Harbor) and he said that the torture the Japanese put on capture POW was ruthless
When I met him, he was a gray-haired, slender man. You'd never know he was once a lineman for Duke football. He lost that weight in a Japanese prison.
Sure. Coastal Conference is one idea. Thanks for laying that out. It also now seems that we are casting about over much wider possibilities. So I may as well throw yet another (admittedly kooky, but fiendishly simple) idea out there...
The Super Mega Western Conference League
21 Schools/Teams from 8 contiguous western states as follows:
AZ - Arizona, Arizona State
CA - California, Fresno State, San Diego State, San Jose State, Stanford
CO - Air Force, Colorado, Colorado State
ID - Boise State, Idaho
NV - Nevada, UNLV
OR - Oregon, Oregon State
UT - BYU, Utah, Utah State
WA - Washington, Washington State
Break it into two divisions if you like: North & South. Or 3: Coastal, Desert, Mountain
12 game schedule. Teams play certain rivals every year, but rotate through all other teams year by year with a sprinkle of OOC opponents each year. Best 8 teams bracket elimination playoff for league championship.
I would watch this league.
BYU isn’t leaving the Big 12 but otherwise that could be somewhat plausible. I doubt it would make any more than the existing Pac 12 though because none of the additional schools have brands big enough to increase payouts.
Well...that might be because they are not YET part of the Super Mega Western Conference League. 😁
As Gretzky said, ya gotta "skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been."
Having one or two games a season with ACC teams is not a bad idea, one at home and one away for each, if it nets us a lot more money.
As a parent of teenagers who might someday soon want to attend a UC school, I've started to think of the on-going campus support to athletics as not so much a petty embarrassment and more as an utterly indefensible use of resources. At the same time, its pretty clear (isn't it?) that the lifeline we seem to want in the form of conference consolidation and richer tv contracts is a game that Cal can't win. So what's the goal? What are we even doing here?
It's about excellence at everything and anything. The Pac-12 is responsible for a disgustingly large percentage of Olympic medals as a result. Academic success is important, but focusing entirely on academics doesn't create well-rounded adults.
The goal of Cal should be to be represented at the highest levels of all forms of achievement, which is what the budget is meant for. It's also why I support the current method of giving football what it needs (we do, just need better leadership) while also making sure our non-revenue sports aren't ignored. We have the student body, tuition, and donations to make this happen and we shouldn't settle for less.
Not a sports fan, huh? When done correctly, the revenue sports generate money for the school. Cal can absolutely win this game, but they need better leadership at the top. Replace Carol Christ and Jim Knowlton, and make better hires, and things will turn around. It's not rocket science, and it's not undoable, despite all the excuse making about how Cal can't do it.
You can't jettison college athletics...it's vital to the all-around college experience.
Plenty of liberal arts colleges have mediocre or no collegiate athletic programs, but their student experience is nonetheless fulfilling
Good for them, but I'm/we're talking about Cal, not one of those small liberal arts colleges. And I'm not advocating for an athletic department to have to be winning championships.
The initial comment claimed that Cal's athletic budget was potentially an utterly indefensible use of resources, which is kind of silly, as a vast majority of schools do have an athletic presence...even University of Chicago...there's gonna be pushback on that anti-athletics claim, especially on a Cal sports forum.
If our only option is to downgrade to G5, we should absolutely downsize significantly. HC shouldn't be paid more than $300K a year and we don't need nearly as many assistants and administrators
Lol
They should just eliminate sports completely then.
But that’s not their only option. It’s the only option for academics, I suppose.
If Christ goes, and the next chancellor decides it's not in the university's best interest to be pumping $25M/ year into the athletics dept, then nothing else you are wishing for will come true.
It’s not a reasonable scenario, especially cause we’re paying for that stadium for the rest of each of our lives.
You will see a list of the biggest UC donors disappear if that happens. Over time CAL will become a second rate school.
Good luck getting that past the UC Regents.
Nowhere does it say anything other than this being the Chancellor's call.
Well then she should. I mean, she and idiot Knowlton are already doing their best to kill Cal athletics…so why keep up the pretenses. Just nix the entire thing….the two idiots are well on their way.
ACC has the same problem the Pac-10 does. We have programs that are attractive to the B1G/SEC. A complete lack of any brand power whatsoever is what is saving the Big 12. Joining forces doesn't really change this unless the network revenue basically doubles as a result (unlikely), because the moment an invite comes for $80-$100M/year that school is gone.
The survival of the Pac-x probably hinges on the end of the long-standing equal revenue sharing model. Retaining the attractive schools like Washington & Oregon is more likely if they get a larger share of the distributions, especially if the distribution of CFP/Bowl & Basketball tournament proceeds is also altered to give a greater share to whomever earns it, be it UW & UO or Utah & WSU.
That won't be popular with some of the have-nots, but it may also prove to be the best of very few actually available alternatives.
Unequal revenue models don't protect anything. Smaller schools getting less revenue puts them at a competitive disadvantage, lowering the overall performance of the conference. And then Texas leaves for more money anyway.
In the end, it really just comes down to revenue maximization and most of that comes down to things off the field. Namely, are you lucky enough to be a university that invested in athletics decades ago and cemented themselves as a Blue Blood? We're seeing that no matter how much money you throw at it, you can't enter those ranks as a modern university (Oregon, Clemson).
(Significantly) Unequal revenue (and political) models don't generally work long time, I agree. That's what caused the PCC to disintegrate, and when its demise proved to not leave a viable scenario, the Pac-8 was (re)formed. And the powers that existed at the time learned from that, and at least started down the road to more equally shared revenue and exposure. And yet here we are again, thinking of repeating that exercise.
But in the short term, unequal sharing can sort of work for a while, until the unsustainable discrepancies eventually become untenable. Which is why it is gaining some traction in the short term, at a time where greed (and unrealistic expectations) is leaving limited options available.
You are right it is going to come down to revenue maximization, and that's already been a non-starter concept in some places.
Who says they don't work long term? Can you provide empirical data for any of the major conferences that have tried it where it failed?
I'd ask you to show us a case where it lasted long term. The only time it's generally accepted is like a Rutgers/Maryland situation where you have to earn a full share over time. Generally speaking from what I can see, the other times there were unequal revenue sharing were when individual universities had outsized representation in the conference, which eventually leads to instability anyway. Obvious example is Texas and every conference they've been in.
Agree, but then it was the big money maker that left. I'm not worried about the big money makers leaving the PAC12, because right now the two teams with the biggest media value left in the PAC12 are CAL and Stanfurd. The schools with lesser values are not going to get better deals jumping to the Big12 or BIG10, IMHO, and I think that is why they haven't jumped yet.
Southwest Conference, Big 12 conference. The Big 12 actually had a 3 tier unequal at one point where Texas, Oklahoma got the most. OK St, Tx Tech the middle, and the rest got the least. That was agreed on when it almost broke up in 2010 but since then changed to all schools being allowed to strike their own third tier rights.
It won’t work when the schools making less have options, and UA/ASU/CU have options.
I'll politely disagree. Only the two schools in the Big12 that had the most media value jumped ship. I think the current PAC12 agreement stands for current members, but I think the teams we add will get lesser shares and still come out ahead. I think in todays world, unless a team has a big media market and rating none of the conferences are going to over pay to pull them away. It makes no financial sense to dilute your paycheck.
Pac whatever sucks!!! SEC SEC SEC
Pac whatever sucks!!! SEC SEC SEC
ATLANTIC – PACIFIC ATHLETIC CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech
CAROLINA
Clemson, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
SOUTH
Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Rice, SMU, Tulane
WEST
Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
SOUTHWEST
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado Long Beach State, SDSU, Utah
The Pac12 should work with the ACC. If that doesn't pan out, Pac12 should expand to SMU, Rice, and Tulane. The Pac12 should also work on getting a team in Los Angeles. How? UCSD, UCIrvine, UCSB, and UCRiverside should field one football team. It would play either at SOFI / LA Coliseum / Rose Bowl / or any of the 2 MLS stadiums in L.A. The enrollment for the 4 schools > 100,000. The amount of their alumni in SoCal is huge. All football athletes will enroll at UCSB or UCSD. Olympic teams will stay respectively with their schools. L.A. market is huge. The Clippers and Charges left for L.A. Raiders went to L.A. for a spell. Rams are back in L.A. Anaheim Angels are called Los Angeles. In order to survive as a standalone entity, the Pac12 needs to be in L.A. UCB are the Golden Bears, UCLA are Bruins, this entity will be called the Grizzly Bears. This team can sport different tints of Blue and Gold from Cal and UCLA.