PAC 12 Realignment Talk Mega Thread (All 12 threads merged)

[southsideguy]

Wonder if any of the AAC that wanted to be in the PAC12 are having second thoughts. If Rice and SMU went to the Pac I would not miss them.

[El Paso Eagle]

It's not over till it's over.

I think many of us overlook how arrogant some of these Presidents are and how they believe their schools are too good to be in a conference like the Big 12 "truckstop" conference. The sales pitch seems to be -

Yes, we will get less money, and not too many people will watch our games, but it will make it easier to get to the playoffs?

[ColoradoEagle]

7 hours ago, NT80 said:

No current P5 would volunteer to lose that status and go to a G5 conference.

Any G5 would volunteer to join any current P5 conference, even a dying PAC. 

I think there's a big difference between joining a raided P5, and joining a former P5 that doesn't have the minimum number of teams required for conference play and is starting over from almost scratch on a media contract. Not to mention that any potential school invited would have to pay an exit fee from their current conference and the Pac's balance sheet is currently either -$50m or -$70m (can't remember exactly).

If it gets down to 4 teams, the conference doesn't make it out of 2024.

[wardly]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:04 PM, meanrob said:

It would be dumb to take Stanford and Cal. 

Why? Just asking.

[El Paso Eagle]

Things might get messy in Arizona. 

 

 

 

[wardly]

11 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

This implicates them as worthy. What have they done? USF has been dog water in everything since the early 00s. I don't think either usf or Memphis own their football stadium and I believe both are off campus. Memphis certainly doesn't their basketball arena. And smus only grace is their money and their consistency to inconsistency. And smu hasn't accomplished a single nationally relevant thing in anything. 

Yes, Memphis has pretty good basketball... being played in an arena not near them. They made their bed. 

USF plays in the Bucs stadium and Memphis in the Liberty Bowl, although the Bulls are trying to build an on campus football stadium. As long as attendance is good I don't see what difference it makes.

[El Paso Eagle]

I realize all most think of is football, but Stanford has won the Directors' Cup for the overall highest-performing Athletic department almost every year for the past 20 years.

[Tommy Gadberry]

11 hours ago, Victorygreen04 said:

Can someone please tell me what button I press to embed a tweet like this one? I cant figure it out smh! 

I can share what works for me. On desktop you open the tweet, meaning click it so it is the main thing on the page.  They copy the address bar and paste here.

on mobile iphone you open it and click 

and then click copy link and paste here.

[wardly]

50 minutes ago, Travis said:

Expect a mountain west pac 10 merge. 

When the smoke clears it looks like only Washing State and Oregon State will be left in the PAC 12. It's really not a merger with the MWC as much as a lifeline for the "left behinds" unless they go independent. I wonder how many fans would show up in Spokane to watch their football team play New Mexico or San Jose State?

[NorthTexasWeLove]

9 minutes ago, wardly said:

USF plays in the Bucs stadium and Memphis in the Liberty Bowl, although the Bulls are trying to build an on campus football stadium. As long as attendance is good I don't see what difference it makes.

Have you ever watched a usf game? Attendance is no bueno. 

[Tommy Gadberry]

 

[Tommy Gadberry]

1 minute ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Have you ever watched a usf game? Attendance is no bueno. 

Have you seen their record the past few years?   Why is it so hard for people to understand that losing teams = shitty attendance? That applied to Texas, A&M, Notre Dame etc.

[wardly]

16 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Things might get messy in Arizona. 

 

 

 

My understanding is that the Arizona BOR can't dictate that Arizona and Arizona State must be a package deal but they strongly prefer that they stay together. Again, all I know is what I read.

[meanrob]

25 minutes ago, wardly said:

Why? Just asking.

Cal brings nothing to the table. They aren’t a national brand, don’t travel, and haven’t been relevant on the field in a long time. Are people in the Bay Area tuning in in big numbers to a Cal vs Purdue game? I don’t think so. I think they averaged less than 40k at home last year. 
 

Stanford is a different animal but would you take them alone? They certainly aren’t a big enough brand to drag Cal with them. 
 

I know we’ve been saying this for a while but with the decline of ESPN, are we at a tipping point with tv revenue? Why add more teams to a pot that might not increase? Will Ohio State want to get the same share as Cal down the road? 
 

If Stanford doesn’t get better, does a 3-6 Stanford team versus a 4-5 Illinois team draw any viewers? It means nothing standings-wise and zero rivalry interest that similar Purdue vs Indiana game would bring. It just seems bringing on Stanford and Cal is just watering down the product. You can’t bring on everybody  

 

 

[meangreenfaninno]

 

[meanrob]

20 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I realize all most think of is football, but Stanford has won the Directors' Cup for the overall highest-performing Athletic department almost every year for the past 20 years.

So you’d bring them on for sports that don’t provide revenue and would just be more competition for those non-revenue sports? Just for a little name clout? They should be in competition for the directors cup, i think they have 30+ sports. 
 

36 to be exact. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by meanrob

[meangreenfaninno]

 

[meanrob]

27 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Things might get messy in Arizona. 

 

 

 

Seems Crow was a fan of Larry Scott to the very end. No wonder he wants to stay on a sinking ship. 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

16 minutes ago, Tommy Gadberry said:

Have you seen their record the past few years?   Why is it so hard for people to understand that losing teams = shitty attendance? That applied to Texas, A&M, Notre Dame etc.

Sure. But even in their decent years they can't make an oversized stadium even look reapectable. Point is, they deserve nothing. They haven't committed to their facilities and they haven't had any success of note in anything. 

[meangreenfaninno]

 

[ColoradoEagle]

 

[Cougar King]

What a roller coaster. This was all a ploy by Washington and Oregon to get more money from the Big 10. 

[meangreenbob]

16 minutes ago, meangreenfaninno said:

 

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY………….MONEY. 

[wardly]

Let's look at the PAC options from a different perspective. Oregon and Washington to the BIG 10, the Four Corner Schools to the BIG 12, leaving Cal, Stanford, OSU and WSU. These 4 programs keep the PAC 12 alive and reload with programs from the MWC plus SMU. Lets give them SDSU, Fresno St. ,Colorado State, Boise St., AFA, UNLV, and Utah St. It's quite a fall from grace for the 4 Pac 12 "left behinds" but better than a poke in the eye. SJSU, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada Reno, and Wyoming poach from the WAC and Big Sky or combine with CUSA ot the AAC. I don't see anything attractive for the AAC but CUSA would take Ft. Worth Paschal High School if they could.

[keith]

On 8/2/2023 at 7:05 PM, NT93 said:

I did see a graphic on ESPN about a week ago listing possible ACC targets and SMU was listed.  It was very odd, even more so since I haven’t seen anything else about it.  I expected to come on here the day after I saw the graphic and see a dozen threads about it.  Almost makes me think it was one of those very realistic dreams and it never actually happened.

SMU is almost always mentioned as a potential "move-up" target.  Whether true or not, they seem to be top of mind for a lot of people.  Compare that to how many times UNT is included in the conversation, any conversation...never?  I dislike SMU as much as everyone here, but they've been able to position themselves well.