Are We Headed Towards 4 Conferences?

Donate To GopherHole
TruthSeeker said:
Why would the Big Ten want that? It would only add cost to everyone.

No thanks.
Click to expand...
I missed-read this post and thought Stanford ONLY wanted to add football to B1G which I think would be great! Leave the other sports as regional since there is no money in them. Like many have said, football should just be spun off as it's own entity, but then what happens to Title IX?
 




This is basically what Notre Dame does with the ACC. Adding Stanford as an affiliate in non-revenue sports would make sense for the other 4 W. Coast schools from a travel and rivalry perspective. I don't know how basketball plays into the revenue pool or if that would make them unacceptable for doing what Notre Dame does with the ACC.
 


I keep seeing people on Twitter claiming that Stanford and Cal - and possibly SMU - are making a big push to get into the ACC. some of them claim that Stanford and Cal would be willing to join with a very limited media share or even no media share for a few years.

If this is true, it says something about how badly Stanford and Cal apparently do Not want to be part of a revamped PAC, or wind up in some merger with the MWC or AAC.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I keep seeing people on Twitter claiming that Stanford and Cal - and possibly SMU - are making a big push to get into the ACC. some of them claim that Stanford and Cal would be willing to join with a very limited media share or even no media share for a few years.

If this is true, it says something about how badly Stanford and Cal apparently do Not want to be part of a revamped PAC, or wind up in some merger with the MWC or AAC.
Click to expand...
If they are making that offer to the ACC, did they not make it to the B1G? Hard to think we wouldn't take them if that kinda thing was on the table.
 

Taji34 said:
If they are making that offer to the ACC, did they not make it to the B1G? Hard to think we wouldn't take them if that kinda thing was on the table.
Click to expand...
My bet is they did, but I also think Fox from this point on is going to have a huge say, if not a majority say, on who gets in the Big10 next. If there is any possibility of the ACC fracturing in the next 2-3 years, why offer Stanford and Cal? There are more attractive options in the ACC than those two and if I’m Fox and I’ve got to write a bigger check, it’s not gonna be for two more west coast teams. While Stanford has a great overall athletic program, they don’t move the needle from a viewing standpoint. And as for Cal, it may be the most dysfunctional, apathetic, poorly run athletic program in the country on any level. To supposedly be the smartest institution in the country, they have an athletic program saddled with massive debt that the administration doesn’t know how to run and doesn’t fully support. No need to hitch our wagon to that.
 

U2Gopher said:
My bet is they did, but I also think Fox from this point on is going to have a huge say, if not a majority say, on who gets in the Big10 next. If there is any possibility of the ACC fracturing in the next 2-3 years, why offer Stanford and Cal? There are more attractive options in the ACC than those two and if I’m Fox and I’ve got to write a bigger check, it’s not gonna be for two more west coast teams. While Stanford has a great overall athletic program, they don’t move the needle from a viewing standpoint. And as for Cal, it may be the most dysfunctional, apathetic, poorly run athletic program in the country on any level. To supposedly be the smartest institution in the country, they have an athletic program saddled with massive debt that the administration doesn’t know how to run and doesn’t fully support. No need to hitch our wagon to that.
Click to expand...
I think NBC would be in the driver's seat.
 



The answer to the thread title is: No. We were at 10 FBS conferences, and we will likely continue to be at 10 FBS conferences in 2024 and moving forward.

Obviously they meant "Power" conferences. Again however, the answer was always going to be: No. There are two "Power" conferences in 2024 and moving forward, the Big Ten and the SEC.

Is the PAC conference going away? Once more, the answer is: No. It will be "rebuilt". The rebuilt league will be some fractional step higher than the Mountain West and AAC confs, and a fractional step lower than the new Big 12.


Even after Stanford's latest, awful and pathetic attempt to join the ACC by offering to take zero money from the conference for several years (likely until 2036), which I am very much hoping will be shot down, as it should be, the above is still true.

There is still a chance that political powers that be will "force" the ACC to take Stanford, Cal, and SMU. It got voted down, but determined powerful people sometimes aren't so easily dissuaded. We'll see on that. Even still, in that scenario, the PAC will be "rebuilt" by Oregon St and Washington St. Doesn't matter about MW and AAC buyouts. They'll be paid and probably negotiated down a bit.

Absolute worst case, if we're going to lose one FBS conference: then it should be the Mountain West. Not the PAC. The PAC has been around for 108 years?? The Mountain West was concocted by uppity WAC members in what, 1998?

But that won't happen either, because Wyoming isn't wanted by anyone. Hence why their president tired to get out in front of everyone to denounce any moves. They know the MW is their ceiling. So if several MW teams leave, they too will "rebuild" the MW conference. Even if they have to *shock, horror* add NDSU and SDSU.
 
Last edited:

Couple other unsolicited thoughts:

- Colorado never mattered. Not a single iota. It really is funny how much attention and hyperbole was centered on them a couple months ago. They haven't done jack s__t in PAC football (or basketball, for that matter), save for one season. I laughed my ass off when the Oregon coach this year at PAC media days made fun of how "bad" it was that they were leaving, given how awful they are. Only reason they were anything to anyone couple months ago is Deon. That school had literally sold its soul in the hopes that Prime will do something to shock them back to the glory days. Of course, as anyone can see, literally as soon as he has success he'll be gone and they'll be back to square one. Hey, at least they'll have their so cherished games against Kansas, K-State, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State from the Big 8 days, amiright?

- Even after everything that happened, after all of it ... the PAC conference was going to stick together. The 9 teams, I mean. It was a done deal. Not a great deal, by any means, but good enough. And then .... Washington and Oregon spit in everyone's faces and turned their backs on 108 years of history, prostituting themselves out for a small fractional share to the Big Ten. They deserve a curse upon them both. I hope they don't win a single Big Ten title in any sport that matters for the next 20 years. IE, Nebraska. Same type of "adds".

- Of course the Big Ten took them .... at that fire sale price. As was always correct from the beginning: the Big Ten knew that those two were not worth full shares. Of course they weren't. They could've been added at the same time as USC/UCLA, but they weren't. Because they weren't worth it. Never were, still aren't. It's the same exact thing as adding Maryland and Rutgers, from a value point of view. I hope their vesting period is that long too, or longer. As long as we could get it.

- This all gets at the major issue: there's a huge fundamental reason why West Coast college football is so relatively worthless to TV. That is, casual fans. The people who make up the bulk of TV ratings for any major ratings game. These people are already asleep or are off enjoying their evenings by the time that West Coast prime time games get going. And there were already so many other great games in the Central and Eastern timezones to watch. So, they don't tune in, and it's just the hardcore alumni/fans who watch. Not bad ratings, but not great ratings. That's why what we're seeing here happened, ultimately.

- It's all for TV, and that ultimately is driven by casual fans. People who actually care, and particularly people who care enough to actually go to games, get screwed over. What a world
 


MplsGopher said:
Couple other unsolicited thoughts:

- Even after everything that happened, after all of it ... the PAC conference was going to stick together. The 9 teams, I mean. It was a done deal. Not a great deal, by any means, but good enough. And then .... Washington and Oregon spit in everyone's faces and turned their backs on 108 years of history, prostituting themselves out for a small fractional share to the Big Ten. They deserve a curse upon them both. I hope they don't win a single Big Ten title in any sport that matters for the next 20 years. IE, Nebraska. Same type of "adds".
Click to expand...

Look - you have a right to your opinion. and I know there are lots of opinions about what happened with the PAC. But from everything I've read, in the end, Kliavkoff simply could not present a media deal that was good enough to make the PAC teams want to stick together. Colorado got tired of waiting for a deal and jumped first. as far as Washington and Oregon - well, money talks, and exposure matters. The BIG offered more money and more national linear exposure. If that makes them prostitutes, then you could say the same thing about all of the other teams that have switched conferences, including Texas and Oklahoma.
 



MplsGopher said:
The answer to the thread title is: No. We were at 10 FBS conferences, and we will likely continue to be at 10 FBS conferences in 2024 and moving forward.

Obviously they meant "Power" conferences. Again however, the answer was always going to be: No. There are two "Power" conferences in 2024 and moving forward, the Big Ten and the SEC.

Is the PAC conference going away? Once more, the answer is: No. It will be "rebuilt". The rebuilt league will be some fractional step higher than the Mountain West and AAC confs, and a fractional step lower than the new Big 12.


Even after Stanford's latest, awful and pathetic attempt to join the ACC by offering to take zero money from the conference for several years (likely until 2036), which I am very much hoping will be shot down, as it should be, the above is still true.

There is still a chance that political powers that be will "force" the ACC to take Stanford, Cal, and SMU. It got voted down, but determined powerful people sometimes aren't so easily dissuaded. We'll see on that. Even still, in that scenario, the PAC will be "rebuilt" by Oregon St and Washington St. Doesn't matter about MW and AAC buyouts. They'll be paid and probably negotiated down a bit.

Absolute worst case, if we're going to lose one FBS conference: then it should be the Mountain West. Not the PAC. The PAC has been around for 108 years?? The Mountain West was concocted by uppity WAC members in what, 1998?

But that won't happen either, because Wyoming isn't wanted by anyone. Hence why their president tired to get out in front of everyone to denounce any moves. They know the MW is their ceiling. So if several MW teams leave, they too will "rebuild" the MW conference. Even if they have to *shock, horror* add NDSU and SDSU.
Click to expand...
So you're back? With the alt account.
 


MplsGopher said:
Couple other unsolicited thoughts:

- Colorado never mattered. Not a single iota. It really is funny how much attention and hyperbole was centered on them a couple months ago. They haven't done jack s__t in PAC football (or basketball, for that matter), save for one season. I laughed my ass off when the Oregon coach this year at PAC media days made fun of how "bad" it was that they were leaving, given how awful they are. Only reason they were anything to anyone couple months ago is Deon. That school had literally sold its soul in the hopes that Prime will do something to shock them back to the glory days. Of course, as anyone can see, literally as soon as he has success he'll be gone and they'll be back to square one. Hey, at least they'll have their so cherished games against Kansas, K-State, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State from the Big 8 days, amiright?

- Even after everything that happened, after all of it ... the PAC conference was going to stick together. The 9 teams, I mean. It was a done deal. Not a great deal, by any means, but good enough. And then .... Washington and Oregon spit in everyone's faces and turned their backs on 108 years of history, prostituting themselves out for a small fractional share to the Big Ten. They deserve a curse upon them both. I hope they don't win a single Big Ten title in any sport that matters for the next 20 years. IE, Nebraska. Same type of "adds".

- Of course the Big Ten took them .... at that fire sale price. As was always correct from the beginning: the Big Ten knew that those two were not worth full shares. Of course they weren't. They could've been added at the same time as USC/UCLA, but they weren't. Because they weren't worth it. Never were, still aren't. It's the same exact thing as adding Maryland and Rutgers, from a value point of view. I hope their vesting period is that long too, or longer. As long as we could get it.

- This all gets at the major issue: there's a huge fundamental reason why West Coast college football is so relatively worthless to TV. That is, casual fans. The people who make up the bulk of TV ratings for any major ratings game. These people are already asleep or are off enjoying their evenings by the time that West Coast prime time games get going. And there were already so many other great games in the Central and Eastern timezones to watch. So, they don't tune in, and it's just the hardcore alumni/fans who watch. Not bad ratings, but not great ratings. That's why what we're seeing here happened, ultimately.

- It's all for TV, and that ultimately is driven by casual fans. People who actually care, and particularly people who care enough to actually go to games, get screwed over. What a world
Click to expand...
You covered a lot of ground. I agree with some and disagree with others.

Colorado: Their move to the Big 12 was all Deion. Before he was hired, they were happy to be in the Pac-12.

West Coast media value: The Pac-12 screwed the pooch for over 10 years. Their insistence to have their own TV network, and then not getting it on all cable and satellite services, devalued their worth. A while ago I posted that the west coast has the lowest percentage of college football game views than any other region. Yes, there are a lot of entertainment options, but so do most other places. I put most of the blame on the Pac-12 network for not having every game easy to watch.

Pac-12 dysfunction: There were many important votes that did not pass because a few schools for various reasons voted no. The last two commissioners were heavily supported by Oregon and they failed to right the sinking ship. It was so bad USC wanted out and just so they had at least one conference school close in distance, they too UCLA with them. And yes, the rumors of USC irritated with Oregon have some truth.

Washington and Oregon: Once Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools left, and the media deal fell completely apart, WA and OR had to leave. And it was pretty much set in stone when the Big 12 signed the media deal that left no money available for the Pac.

Washington has always been a top school both for both academics and athletics. They are by far at the top of PNW schools. They are not going to accept being relegated to a tier 2 status in any category.

Oregon got lucky. They have are a small school with limited resources. They spend under $200 million annually in research, they have smallest enrollment (22,000 total) compared to B1G schools (NU and UN are almost as small), and are 2 hours away from a small media market. Right now, they depend on Nike money, but someday getting a full B1G share will remove that dependence.

These certainly are issues with many sides.
 


MplsGopher said:
Couple other unsolicited thoughts:

- Colorado never mattered. Not a single iota. It really is funny how much attention and hyperbole was centered on them a couple months ago. They haven't done jack s__t in PAC football (or basketball, for that matter), save for one season. I laughed my ass off when the Oregon coach this year at PAC media days made fun of how "bad" it was that they were leaving, given how awful they are. Only reason they were anything to anyone couple months ago is Deon. That school had literally sold its soul in the hopes that Prime will do something to shock them back to the glory days. Of course, as anyone can see, literally as soon as he has success he'll be gone and they'll be back to square one. Hey, at least they'll have their so cherished games against Kansas, K-State, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State from the Big 8 days, amiright?

- Even after everything that happened, after all of it ... the PAC conference was going to stick together. The 9 teams, I mean. It was a done deal. Not a great deal, by any means, but good enough. And then .... Washington and Oregon spit in everyone's faces and turned their backs on 108 years of history, prostituting themselves out for a small fractional share to the Big Ten. They deserve a curse upon them both. I hope they don't win a single Big Ten title in any sport that matters for the next 20 years. IE, Nebraska. Same type of "adds".

- Of course the Big Ten took them .... at that fire sale price. As was always correct from the beginning: the Big Ten knew that those two were not worth full shares. Of course they weren't. They could've been added at the same time as USC/UCLA, but they weren't. Because they weren't worth it. Never were, still aren't. It's the same exact thing as adding Maryland and Rutgers, from a value point of view. I hope their vesting period is that long too, or longer. As long as we could get it.

- This all gets at the major issue: there's a huge fundamental reason why West Coast college football is so relatively worthless to TV. That is, casual fans. The people who make up the bulk of TV ratings for any major ratings game. These people are already asleep or are off enjoying their evenings by the time that West Coast prime time games get going. And there were already so many other great games in the Central and Eastern timezones to watch. So, they don't tune in, and it's just the hardcore alumni/fans who watch. Not bad ratings, but not great ratings. That's why what we're seeing here happened, ultimately.

- It's all for TV, and that ultimately is driven by casual fans. People who actually care, and particularly people who care enough to actually go to games, get screwed over. What a world
Click to expand...

So we are just going to pretend that everything you said before your banning didn't happen? Nice try...

Everyone told you what was happening, you spammed and whined none of it was true, it all came to pass and here you are pretending you didn't get panted all over this site with egg on your face gor good measure. Talk about sad...

Take the L...crow doesn't taste that bad.
 

Well, the ACC is meeting on Tuesday. if you believe the online sources, conference realignment will be discussed - but disclaimer - no way to know if another vote might be taken on adding Cal and Stanford.

with the season kicking off next week, I think the ACC would want to put this behind them once and for all - so vote yes or vote no, but settle the issue.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Well, the ACC is meeting on Tuesday. if you believe the online sources, conference realignment will be discussed - but disclaimer - no way to know if another vote might be taken on adding Cal and Stanford.

with the season kicking off next week, I think the ACC would want to put this behind them once and for all - so vote yes or vote no, but settle the issue.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you would call a meeting if you were going to vote no. FWIW, the Cal board has been saying since Saturday that word behind the scenes is that things were looking optimistic for them and Stanford for a Tuesday vote….and low and behold, one is now scheduled.
 

U2Gopher said:
I don’t know why you would call a meeting if you were going to vote no. FWIW, the Cal board has been saying since Saturday that word behind the scenes is that things were looking optimistic for them and Stanford for a Tuesday vote….and low and behold, one is now scheduled.
Click to expand...
At their last meeting, didn't they decide to not even vote?
 
Last edited:

PMWinSTP said:
At their last meeting, didn't they decide to not even vote?
Click to expand...
Correct. At least not an official vote. The “chatter” is that after a discussion there were 4 clear votes against. About a week ago word was there wouldn’t be another meeting for a vote unless there had been some movement among the 4 no votes. The Cal board started speculating Saturday that this has happened. I think there is some talk that UNC and NC State might be yes votes now. Guess we will know by this time tomorrow night.

EDIT: This, supposedly from an ACC Fan on the Cal board a short while ago….

ACC insider here: the NC schools flipped. You're in with stanford. Just be aware what an awful mistake you've made. The acc has a contract with ESPN with a composition clause that allows ESPN to renegotiate payouts with schools, but not the acc to negotiate for more money. FSU and Clemson are going to slice the throat of the ACC sometime in the next year. ESPN will slash the payout to the bone after Clemson and FSU leave and the ACC will crumble if 8 schools find landing spots.


Also, prepare to get absolutely hosed on every single call in every single sport whenever you play a school from tobacco road. Pac 12 refs are like little children compared to the game rigging masters at work in the ACC.


That being said,
welcome aboard.
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher said:
Couple other unsolicited thoughts:

- This all gets at the major issue: there's a huge fundamental reason why West Coast college football is so relatively worthless to TV. That is, casual fans. The people who make up the bulk of TV ratings for any major ratings game. These people are already asleep or are off enjoying their evenings by the time that West Coast prime time games get going. And there were already so many other great games in the Central and Eastern timezones to watch. So, they don't tune in, and it's just the hardcore alumni/fans who watch. Not bad ratings, but not great ratings. That's why what we're seeing here happened, ultimately.

- It's all for TV, and that ultimately is driven by casual fans. People who actually care, and particularly people who care enough to actually go to games, get screwed over. What a world
Click to expand...
Without USC/UCLA as well no longer having the Rose Bowl tethered to the PAC-whatever Champion is what really devalued any any bargaining power the conference had.

Also without the Rose Bowl there really wasn't any need for a quasi Big 10-PAC alliance, so the Big 10 cherry picked the best of what was left.

In hindsight, makes too much sense that every school with an option has run for cover.
 

If those rumors come to fruition and the Bay schools join the ACC, that will be disappointing. But nothing is surprising anymore. Can you even call yourself a prostitute if you give yourself away for free??

Still doesn’t matter: the PAC will survive. Exit fees for MWC and AAC don’t matter. One of those confs, respectively concocted in 1998 and 2013, should be the one to bite the dust if we’re going to lose a conf. Not the 108 year history of the PAC. Nope

Wazzou, OSU, San Diego St, Fresno St, Hawaii/Gonzaga, Colo State, New Mexico, UNLV, Boise, Rice, Tulane, SMU if not also ACC.

Plenty good enough
 

as it turns out, the scheduled ACC meeting was not held. so no vote.

another day in limbo for the PAC-4.

it certainly appears as if Stanford and Cal have different priorities compared to Wash State and Oregon State.

as far as what happens, well, that is still going to be up to the TV networks/streamers.

schools are not going to leave the MWC or AAC for a rebuilt PAC without knowing how much TV money they would receive. and the TV networks are not going to make firm offers without knowing which schools would be in the rebuilt PAC. classic definition of a catch-22.
 

MplsGopher said:
If those rumors come to fruition and the Bay schools join the ACC, that will be disappointing. But nothing is surprising anymore. Can you even call yourself a prostitute if you give yourself away for free??

Still doesn’t matter: the PAC will survive. Exit fees for MWC and AAC don’t matter. One of those confs, respectively concocted in 1998 and 2013, should be the one to bite the dust if we’re going to lose a conf. Not the 108 year history of the PAC. Nope

Wazzou, OSU, San Diego St, Fresno St, Hawaii/Gonzaga, Colo State, New Mexico, UNLV, Boise, Rice, Tulane, SMU if not also ACC.

Plenty good enough
Click to expand...
It feels like you are describing a situation akin to musical act that might have been big in the 60s/70s that has replaced every member (or all but 1, e.g. Temptations) that used to tour arena-large theater venues and are now relegated to amusement parks or county fairs.

Call it whatever you want, but it's gone.
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian said:
as it turns out, the scheduled ACC meeting was not held. so no vote.

another day in limbo for the PAC-4.

it certainly appears as if Stanford and Cal have different priorities compared to Wash State and Oregon State.

as far as what happens, well, that is still going to be up to the TV networks/streamers.

schools are not going to leave the MWC or AAC for a rebuilt PAC without knowing how much TV money they would receive. and the TV networks are not going to make firm offers without knowing which schools would be in the rebuilt PAC. classic definition of a catch-22.
Click to expand...
I'm SHOCKED.
 

Ope3 said:
It feels like you are describing a situation akin to musical act that might have been big in the 60s/70s that has replaced every member (or all but 1, e.g. Temptations) that used to tour big arena-large theater venues and are now relegated to amusement parks or county fairs.

Call it whatever you want, but it's gone.
Click to expand...
It's just another post by mplsgopher moving the goal posts.
 

MplsGopher said:
If those rumors come to fruition and the Bay schools join the ACC, that will be disappointing. But nothing is surprising anymore. Can you even call yourself a prostitute if you give yourself away for free??

Still doesn’t matter: the PAC will survive. Exit fees for MWC and AAC don’t matter. One of those confs, respectively concocted in 1998 and 2013, should be the one to bite the dust if we’re going to lose a conf. Not the 108 year history of the PAC. Nope

Wazzou, OSU, San Diego St, Fresno St, Hawaii/Gonzaga, Colo State, New Mexico, UNLV, Boise, Rice, Tulane, SMU if not also ACC.

Plenty good enough
Click to expand...
Mighty cocksure considering your assurances Colorado wouldn't leave, the other 4 corner schools wouldn't leave, Wash and OR wouldn't leave. lNope, they weren't going to leave the PAC, history and all that.
 

another day, another narrative:

Pete Thamel at ESPN is out with a long story - the highlights:

The ACC is again seriously considering the potential additions of Stanford, California and SMU, multiple sources told ESPN on Wednesday.

A series of meetings will be held this week to further vet and discuss different financial models that would come with the additions, sources said.

The inclusion of all three schools is being heavily discussed, in part, because they would come with significant financial concessions from each of the schools, according to sources. The conversations within the ACC this week revolved around how that additional money would be distributed among conference members.

SMU's concessions are expected to be different from those of Stanford and Cal, including a willingness for the school to take no broadcast media revenue for the first seven years it is in the league, sources told ESPN. The concessions for Cal and Stanford will include taking a reduced share of the ACC payout, sources said; both schools are expected to receive the same reduced share.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom