PonyFans.com

I don't know. Losing USC and UCLA ripped the guts out of the Pac. Now I'm hearing that Wazoo's athletic dept is sucking wind. Just not a good vibe IMO.

orguy wrote:Tramel is a UO alum and not considered objective. A few years ago he wrote
a collum extolling UO's academic virtues and stated that SMU was not a good
school because we lack AAU status. Why this dimestore hack cares anything
about the fate of the Big 12 or the PAC is a mystery. Unlikely he has any info
of substance regarding Colorado's plans.

You are confusing “OU” (Oklahoma, and what you meant here) and “UO” (Oregon).

Apologies for any confusion but prefer "uo". Not to diss Oregon. Great school.
Context of my post makes it clear though.

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:I don't know. Losing USC and UCLA ripped the guts out of the Pac. Now I'm hearing that Wazoo's athletic dept is sucking wind. Just not a good vibe IMO.

Losing UT, OU, Colorado, Nebraska, A&M and Nebraska sucked the wind out of the Big 12. Whether the PAC remains viable for a few years remains a question that will be resolved by a media deal. If the PAC unravels then the networks may find a way to extract the most valuable ACC teams from their GOR. That would leave us and a bunch of others suddenly in reduced circumstances. Meanwhile our NIL program is putting together a nice roster.

That makes sense Topper. Good to remember that no matter how things shake out there will be somewhere for us to land that would probably be an upgrade.

Hi, long time no see.

Northwestern's new president, who came from Oregon, said this week that the B1G needs more west coast schools to make travel easier now that we have USC and UCLA.

https://247sports.com/college/utah/Arti ... 210657008/

SMU Pom Mom wrote:Hi, long time no see.

Northwestern's new president, who came from Oregon, said this week that the B1G needs more west coast schools to make travel easier now that we have USC and UCLA.

https://247sports.com/college/utah/Arti ... 210657008/

It is inevitable that there will be two super conferences that will gobble up schools with big tv fan bases. The SEC and the Big 10. I think a C-USA style conference with teams like Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, Tulane, Rice, SMU, Stanford and Cal should be considered and could compete favorably on the field against the likes of the Big 12.

Are you assuming that the likes of NC State, the U, Louisville, Utah, CO, AZ and ASU will head to the Big XII? Or are you making new Ivy League.? I'd probably add Navy in that group as well. They have a National following as does Army. Then you have Oregon State and Wazzu sitting out there as well.

EastStang wrote:Are you assuming that the likes of NC State, the U, Louisville, Utah, CO, AZ and ASU will head to the Big XII? Or are you making new Ivy League.? I'd probably add Navy in that group as well. They have a National following as does Army. Then you have Oregon State and Wazzu sitting out there as well.

I didn't mention everone that will be left hanging but I certainly think that the Big 12 wants the 4 corner schools and that they would probably accept an invitation. But the Big 12 could add any or all of the leftovers once Oregon, Washington, Florida State and Clemson and it will still not be a super football conference. I think that on a per school basis they are probably being way overpaid for their GOR. Duke and Gonzaga would make the Big 12 a fantastic BB league however.

EastStang wrote:Are you assuming that the likes of NC State, the U, Louisville, Utah, CO, AZ and ASU will head to the Big XII? Or are you making new Ivy League.? I'd probably add Navy in that group as well. They have a National following as does Army. Then you have Oregon State and Wazzu sitting out there as well.

It depends on a number of factors who'll be raiding who.

- How good of a contract would whatever remains of the ACC be able to draw? They presumably would lose the schools that drive 90% of their currently national broadcast games as so many games get shoved onto ACCN, regional syndication, and ESPN+. Big 12 figures to have more exposure between now and then and how does that impact valuation if some brands grow/shrink?
- Years left on contract/GOR
- Estimated exit fees beyond that. Big 12 has a 99 year agreement to stay or pay exit fees in addition to GOR and ACC I believe has similar language with different terms.
- ESPN vs FOX vs CBS vs NBC etc - What benefits them? ESPN is all in on the ACC right now but if the ACCN is a liability due to cord cutting as 2036 approaches or if it's a money maker then we could see dramatically different incentives from networks for instance.
- How the new playoff revenue is split
- What schools are taken from the ACC by the big two
- If the Big 12 succeeds on raiding the PAC (Big 12 with Zona/CU possibly plus 2 is much tougher to raid IMO)
- What revenue the next Big 12 contract gets for the 2031-2036 years as the ACC is locked in until 2036
- Possible basketball revenue distribution changes that would help both leagues and again which schools are in each at the time of the debate

It could go either way IMO. I like the odds for the Big 12 but time will tell.

I'm to young to remember. But all this realignment talk has me wondering about when the SWC broke up why did half the teams that didn't make it to the Big 12. Go to the WAC and the others half go to the C-USA. Was there a perceived difference between them at the time? Was there a reason they didn't stick together? Why did SMU leave for C-USA later?

The clock is ticking for SDSU --

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-05-26/san-diego-state-sdsu-aztecs-power-conference-relignment-pac-12-big-12-mountain-west-june-30-deadline

Hopple Popple wrote:I'm to young to remember. But all this realignment talk has me wondering about when the SWC broke up why did half the teams that didn't make it to the Big 12. Go to the WAC and the others half go to the C-USA. Was there a perceived difference between them at the time? Was there a reason they didn't stick together? Why did SMU leave for C-USA later?

As I recall, SMU, TCU & Rice hooked on with the WAC as their best available option but Houston went with CUSA because they had very few football members at the time. It allowed Houston more flexibility and more non-conference football games. The original CUSA football members had come from the "Metro" conference and included Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville and I think even Tulane. I think Houston joined as only the 5th or 6th football member at the time.

I think that’s right. And then just a couple of years after we joined the WAC, a bunch of members like BYU, Utah, etc suddenly left and formed the Mountain West. At that point the WAC was a dead duck and C-USA was suddenly more attractive. TCU did a spin in C-USA before we got in.

Hopple Popple wrote:I'm to young to remember. But all this realignment talk has me wondering about when the SWC broke up why did half the teams that didn't make it to the Big 12. Go to the WAC and the others half go to the C-USA. Was there a perceived difference between them at the time? Was there a reason they didn't stick together? Why did SMU leave for C-USA later?

The replies above are generally correct but it wasn’t 50-50, it was 75-25 (SMU, TCU, Rice to WAC & UH to CUSA). They would’ve been better off sticking together but everyone was blindsided and there was more than a little panic. Even the Big 8 folks have said they showed up for merger meetings at DFW not knowing if the idea was that the full SWC and full Big 8 merge, versus what happened.

SMU (Pye) is a lot to blame but mostly the Whorns…