Memphians in Cali, OR, and WA. Just the thought of that makes me laugh.
SDSU and UNLV seem like the most obvious adds if PAC adds 2. SoCal and Vegas presence. And yes I know UNLV sucks
UNLV just doesnāt have the performance credibility the PAC needsā¦
They actually most need to add Boise, IMO, but wonāt for academic reasons. (Academics likely an issue for Big 12, too, TBF)
It did go down a bit thought. The TV payout in the 1st year of the new contract is more than $2M less (per team) than the current contracts final year payout.
However thanks to increased playoff and NCAA payouts, Big 12s total per team payout will be close to $50M per year. So total payout will be about $5M - $8M a year higher, even though the media payout will be lesser.
The other place where Big 12 loses is that so far the Conference gets 20% (even though it has 10 teams) of total base playoff payout. But under the new playoff payout formula instead of the base payout being split equally among all P5 conferences, it will be on a per team basis.
Currently each P5 gets $60M in base payout annually. Big 12 splits it 10 way, while SEC, ACC, PAC, B1G split it among a higher number of teams. That will change in the next contract. SEC and B1G demanded this change.
Also we donāt know if the SEC-Big 12 challenge will be renewed, or whether the Sugar Bowl will renew its contract with the Big 12, that is currently worth a lot of money too
Thatās a fair point, which reinforces my point. As in all natural things brands attract emerging brands.
The AAC is a prime example. Schools that rose to the top of that conference are now in the big12.
Similarly, any school that emerges as a brand in the new big12 will be in the SEC or BIG in next round of realignment
There is a reason the new grant of rights is only 5 years. Every single school still wants out.
The big12 is only as secure as the BIG and SEC wants it to be, no different than the Pac12.
The 60 million base is due to power conference having contract agreements with the three contract bowls, Rose, Orange and Sugar.
The big12 would need to renew with Sugar Bowl or it loses that 60 million (or higher) future base payout.
1 Like
Stability is all relative. Every school wants out of every conference but two. The questions are (a) how likely are they to get out, and (b) how much would it hurt if they leave.
The Big 12 not only has fewer teams on the SECās or B1Gās radar^, but losing them hurts less. There are no two teams we could lose that would hurt us nearly as much as losing Washington and Oregon would hurt the Pac-12. Would it hurt if the Big 12 lost TCU and Kansas^^? For sure, but it is something the conference would as likely as not (more likely than not, IMO) survive. It would be more comparable to losing Nebraska/Colorado or Mizzou/A&M than to losing UT/OU (or the Pac-12 losing Oregon/Washington).
The lack of standout teams is the conferenceās curse, but also its blessing.
^ - A comparable situation at the G5 level is the Sun Belt. A competitive conference full of teams other conferences donāt especially want.
^^ - You can replace these two with any two schools that could go. That it is so hard to even pick two teams is indicative of the situation.
1 Like
Also we donāt know if the SEC-Big 12 challenge will be renewed, or whether the Sugar Bowl will renew its contract with the Big 12, that is currently worth a lot of money too
I think it has already been announced the challenge wonāt be renewed, though there is talk of a challenge with the B1G replacing it (B1Gās challenge with the ACC is also ending). Loudmouth Huggins is saying they donāt want it replaced, though. The one with the Big East has been extended by a couple years.
The Sugar Bowl thing doesnāt likely matter, though, since that entire system/rationalization is going to be replaced. The Bowls are positioned to be semi-finals.
On the broader subject, there is no question that the conference is worse off without UT and OU than it would be with them. Fortunately it didnāt do nearly the damage that was initially projected, though, and has come with some upsides (the conference is presenting a degree of unity and forward-thinking that it has always lacked).
1 Like
Losing USC and UCLA was a far bigger loss to the PAC than OU and UT was for the Big 12.
Easier to make up for.
1 Like
Here you go againā¦no way UCLA is a bigger brand than Texas or Oklahoma.
UCLA canāt even get their own fans to attend their games, let alone interest as a National brand.
UCLA was a travel partner for USC who would not have agreed to the move without them.
And to counter your upcoming argument about UCLA basketball, which is coming, something youāve said a million times:
Football drives the bus in realignment, not basketball.
Sorry, but the UCLA Bruins football program is NOT a huge national brand.
Texas + Oklahoma, collectively, were the bigger losses
1 Like
He did not say UCLA/USC was bigger overall brandā¦ just that they mean more to Pac than OUT means to Big 12. Remaining PAC needs them more than we need OUT. The remaining Pac has a lot of dead weight vs Big 12.
In which case, it would be fair to surmise that the conference does not need pac12 schools to move forward. It has a media deal agreement, an automatic bid in the college football playoffs and satisfactorily projected revenue stream.
What then is driving this four corners discussion other than bragging rights.
Only a couple more months until 10K at this pace!
I donāt think the conference needs the schools in any urgent sense. I donāt think the conference thinks it does. They just think it will improve things if they do.
I can think of all sorts of reasons, ranging from the good (building for the future, thinking past the current TV contract, working to make the conference an indispensable part of the national college sports landscape) to understandable (overcorrection for previous failure to expand, believing 16 is the new 12, hedging against possible future losses) to bad (Yormark wants to make a splash to position himself to be the next NHL commissioner or whatever).
Let me get this straight
The following #1 State flagship public schools, in the following states
Arizona
Colorado
California
Oregon
Utah
Washington
need those two schools from Los Angeles MORE than the 8 Big 12 leftovers, which consisted of two #1 flagship public schools from the small states of Kansas and West Virginia, the #2 public school in Oklahoma, the #2 public school in Kansas, the #2 public school in Iowa, the #4 largest public school in Texas and two small private Christian schools in Texas needed the highest revenue producing brand in all of college football ( Texas) and perennial playoff team and #1 public school in Oklahoma ā¦
in which that duo plays in the highest rated game in YOUR conference every season AT the Texas State Fair!
I get we are happy to be in the Big 12 butā¦come on!
1 Like
Of all of those schools, only SDSU has any real benefit. Tulane was a senior laden one hit wonder.
Rice? Come on man.
1 Like
Okā¦then which 4 schools should the PAC add?
I only gave the whole list but Iād add SMU + SDSU + Memphis + Tulane if I were them.
Remember we were a one hit wonder also- the 2016 Peach Bowl was our only NY6 appearance.
Apparently so, the market has spoken. 
I think a key pt is looking at the depth of the 2 conferences. Pac has worse bottem half teams coupled with lower population/later time zones/general apathy towards college sports on west coast.
ā¦ESPN has a particular amount they will pay them nowā¦You think that number stays the same if adding THOSE g5s? ESPN has a conference number and it ISNT going to go upā¦10 they have now get a certain amountā¦Adding g5 lightweights would only decrease the share for every school already inā¦PAC cuts their losses and stays the sameā¦SD State is only school you memtion who actually brings something they need. Other 3 all all liabilities and would reflect that, TV contract wiseā¦PAC is considerably more worried about losing more members than adding questionable new ones.