Pac-12 expansion?

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

not sure about this source but if true it's interesting

Some of that is NOT good news. The PAC may lose P5. The PAC must add teams quickly or will be automatically kicked out of P5. The the timing for PAC to add teams quickly from MW is horrible financially because of $34 million exit fees. It seems possible even after adding teams the PAC could still lose P5. I would assume being in LIMBO is NOT good for recruiting.

[mtrout]

The good news is....uh...Kliavkoff makes $3.5+ million per year and has 3 years left on his contract.

[ROCKNEPONY]

Agreed about mixed news. At least there is money, if they want to use it, to pay off or down exit fees for AAC and MWC teams (and comcast) if they decide to expand.

I also read that the PAC 12 owns 50% of the ROSE bowl so that's bowl money every year and when the ROSE host the national championship big $.

Seems like Stanford & Cal may be off to the ACC - at least in football. For the sake of OR-ST & WA-ST I hope they leave soon. It is likely thier attempt to get into the ACC is slowing down any expansion OR-ST & WA-ST want to do.

Expansion?
I think:
1. OR-ST
2. WA-ST

to save $ only these in 2024
3. SDSU - 2024
4. AIR FORCE

These MWC in 2025
5. BOISE
6. COLORADO ST.
7. FRESNO
8. UNLV football-bball school

ALL AAC Schools 2024 & ARMY
9. NAVY football- ZAGS
10. SMU
11. RICE
12. TULANE
13. MEMPHIS

14. ARMY football - bball school

2026?
15? Hawaii football-bball school
16? UTSA

This is a strong conference with a lot of TV appeal.

[rodrod5]

I think the four PAC schools are in a position to pick teams simply because teams want the perception of moving up even if it is baby steps.

Does this have to happen very quickly, or could we still be talking what-if in December?

Well I think the PAC 12 would get an NCAA waiver so they have some time. But I think they would just assume avoid all of that and add four teams as soon as possible which would be for the Fiscal Year 2024-25. This avoids any need for a waiver that they would get. This makes scheduling easier and this gets them back being active or perhaps even "proactive".

Once the PAC 12 is at 8 members things are much easier for them to take time to work out. I think the article posted just below your post is very questionable. It sounds like the PAC 12 is saying that although there is no exit fee for the conference there is some type of provision that deals with "unexpected expenses" to remaining members because of departing members. This seems like something that could drag out in court for 100 years especially when talking about $420 million. I am pretty sure that USC has the attitude at this point of "see ya bye" while UCLA is thinking "we need all we can get, but we want to just get". Oregon and UW are looking at reduced shares in the Big 10 that will be less than what a full share was for the last few years of the PAC 12, but more than what they were looking at getting from any new deal. I am not sure they will be happy to just leave a ton of their last two years of distributions behind. I think the 4 corners schools will not be too happy about that either especially when three of them can claim they were doing all they could to make it work, but Oregon and UW wrecked it for them.

Without seeing a contract and then having someone with a law degree that has a clue read it to me I have no idea if the PAC has any claims to money from the last two years of conference distributions or even a portion of it.

As to "autonomy" there is the P5 and G5 with the P5 having 10 NCAA votes now and the G5 having 5. If you take autonomy from the PAC 12 you now have 8 P4 votes on NCAA business and the G6 having 6 votes. So you went from an advantage of 2 to 1, 10 votes vs. 5 votes, to an advantage of only two votes. And you now have a very upset Stanford that hated the NIL, a broke Cal, and Oregon and WSU with horrible budget issues closer aligned to the G block than the P block. In addition it would take a vote of the NCAA members to strip that autonomy from the PAC 12. A vote that would include the Big 12 and the ACC. One conference that people thought was left for dead and another with buzzards overhead. Do either of them want to vote to strip a conference of autonomy when they were or are possibly faced with the same thing down the road?

As to the football playoff money the PAC still owns 50% of the Rose Bowl Game. The president of ASU made that clear in an interview just the other day. That ownership and the ownership of The Cotton by the Big 12 and the Sugar by the SEC is the basis of their larger playoff payouts. The ownership of the other half of the Rose Bowl by the Big 10 is the basis for theirs. So does the Big 10 want to try and tear down The Rose Bowl and the claimed playoff share based on ownership of that bowl game? The Rose Bowl in the last few months was the one that held out to sign off on the 12 team playoff expansion. So it still has power. I do not see the Big 10 or really the other P conferences wanting to go down the path of trying to strip the PAC 12 of their larger playoff share. That seems like an even worse idea when the playoffs are changing and that could easily give an opening to the G conferences making more demands. I think the P conferences are just fine with the PAC still getting a larger share especially if it means smooth sailing for them to claim a larger share of the much larger amount of money to come from playoff expansion.

The heat is on these conferences and the whole "player mental state" and other nonsense is ramping up. Criticism of media companies and their hand in all of this is ramping up. I do not see now as a good time for P conferences to try and start taking autonomy and taking P level playoff shares from the PAC because that to me just invites a lot of questions about autonomy and calls for more equal playoff revenue sharing. And the P conferences and media partners need to be smarter than to give that more ammo especially now and especially to cut down the PAC after all that has gone on.

[Hoofprint]

not sure about this source but if true it's interesting:

With Pac-12 losing P5 status, $420 million is at the disposal of the forgotten four to cover "additional costs and damages": Reports

https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-foo ... es-reports

Will be interesting to see how that money is handed out ... and who gets to decide how much goes to which schools and for what.

[mtrout]

https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/stat ... 44960?s=20

[Dukie]

As to "autonomy" there is the P5 and G5 with the P5 having 10 NCAA votes now and the G5 having 5. If you take autonomy from the PAC 12 you now have 8 P4 votes on NCAA business and the G6 having 6 votes. So you went from an advantage of 2 to 1, 10 votes vs. 5 votes, to an advantage of only two votes. And you now have a very upset Stanford that hated the NIL, a broke Cal, and Oregon and WSU with horrible budget issues closer aligned to the G block than the P block. In addition it would take a vote of the NCAA members to strip that autonomy from the PAC 12. A vote that would include the Big 12 and the ACC. One conference that people thought was left for dead and another with buzzards overhead. Do either of them want to vote to strip a conference of autonomy when they were or are possibly faced with the same thing down the road?

As to the football playoff money the PAC still owns 50% of the Rose Bowl Game. The president of ASU made that clear in an interview just the other day. That ownership and the ownership of The Cotton by the Big 12 and the Sugar by the SEC is the basis of their larger playoff payouts. The ownership of the other half of the Rose Bowl by the Big 10 is the basis for theirs. So does the Big 10 want to try and tear down The Rose Bowl and the claimed playoff share based on ownership of that bowl game? The Rose Bowl in the last few months was the one that held out to sign off on the 12 team playoff expansion. So it still has power. I do not see the Big 10 or really the other P conferences wanting to go down the path of trying to strip the PAC 12 of their larger playoff share. That seems like an even worse idea when the playoffs are changing and that could easily give an opening to the G conferences making more demands. I think the P conferences are just fine with the PAC still getting a larger share especially if it means smooth sailing for them to claim a larger share of the much larger amount of money to come from playoff expansion.

I don't think NCAA votes work like that--the P5 have autonomy to set P5-specific rules, rather than having just automatically double-counted votes for all matters. And I am quite certain no one owns the bowls but their own host committees. Usually those are named for the bowl itself, though the Rose Bowl is owned by the Tournament of Roses. There's not even a continuing PAC contract/guarantee to continue playing in the Rose Bowl. I do, however, think you may have a point about continued playoff money, but I'm not sure of the specifics and I'm not sure it's guaranteed to continue.

[rodrod5]

As to "autonomy" there is the P5 and G5 with the P5 having 10 NCAA votes now and the G5 having 5. If you take autonomy from the PAC 12 you now have 8 P4 votes on NCAA business and the G6 having 6 votes. So you went from an advantage of 2 to 1, 10 votes vs. 5 votes, to an advantage of only two votes. And you now have a very upset Stanford that hated the NIL, a broke Cal, and Oregon and WSU with horrible budget issues closer aligned to the G block than the P block. In addition it would take a vote of the NCAA members to strip that autonomy from the PAC 12. A vote that would include the Big 12 and the ACC. One conference that people thought was left for dead and another with buzzards overhead. Do either of them want to vote to strip a conference of autonomy when they were or are possibly faced with the same thing down the road?

As to the football playoff money the PAC still owns 50% of the Rose Bowl Game. The president of ASU made that clear in an interview just the other day. That ownership and the ownership of The Cotton by the Big 12 and the Sugar by the SEC is the basis of their larger playoff payouts. The ownership of the other half of the Rose Bowl by the Big 10 is the basis for theirs. So does the Big 10 want to try and tear down The Rose Bowl and the claimed playoff share based on ownership of that bowl game? The Rose Bowl in the last few months was the one that held out to sign off on the 12 team playoff expansion. So it still has power. I do not see the Big 10 or really the other P conferences wanting to go down the path of trying to strip the PAC 12 of their larger playoff share. That seems like an even worse idea when the playoffs are changing and that could easily give an opening to the G conferences making more demands. I think the P conferences are just fine with the PAC still getting a larger share especially if it means smooth sailing for them to claim a larger share of the much larger amount of money to come from playoff expansion.

I don't think NCAA votes work like that--the P5 have autonomy to set P5-specific rules, rather than having just automatically double-counted votes for all matters. And I am quite certain no one owns the bowls but their own host committees. Usually those are named for the bowl itself, though the Rose Bowl is owned by the Tournament of Roses. There's not even a continuing PAC contract/guarantee to continue playing in the Rose Bowl. I do, however, think you may have a point about continued playoff money, but I'm not sure of the specifics and I'm not sure it's guaranteed to continue.

What you are saying is correct. The P5 cannot make other conferences do as they wish, but the P5 can do as they wish and other conferences can then choose to follow along or not. So not exactly the same as what I said because other conferences have a choice to not follow along.

As for The Rose Bowl the president of ASU states in this video at 7:53 that the PAC 12 owns half of the Rose Bowl Game. The do not own the stadium of course, but they own the game. Similar to how Dallas owns the Cotton Bowl stadium, but the Cotton Bowl game is played at Jerry World because the owners of the game wanted the better venue and the Jerry Bucks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_lLLKVgIg

In addition there are older articles that state the Tournament of Roses gives the PAC 12 and Big 10 about $18 million each from ticket sales and other advertising ect. Those articles are older so the amount is probably larger now, but the Big 10 and PAC 12 are in control of that bowl.

Back to the NCAA votes it still makes it much more tricky for the P conferences to pass things without the PAC 12. In addition the way the legislation is written when I looked it up now it has specific % of conferences and player reps that are needed for legislation to pass. With those specifics it seems there is no way to change the PAC being a part of that or to change how the voting would work with one fewer P conference. Opening that up and trying to change it could create more issues than it is worth. People can say that eventually the Big 10 and SEC will break away, perhaps with a few more from other conferences, but they are clearly nowhere close to ready for that now. And if they go trying to change things up too much with all that has just happened they might find themselves sitting there looking around realizing they are on their own. That would be a major issue for a lot of their programs that are not ready to be the yearly 2-10 teams.

[mrydel]

Once again, the last PAC/Big 10 Rose Bowl has been played. The Rose Bowl is folded into the 12 team playoff and teams will be seeded accordingly.

[Charleston Pony]

I would expect the "abandoned" PAC 4 will look for a way to retain the bulk of whatever the PAC-12 might earn this year and minimize what gets distributed to the programs bailing out from the PAC. Who knows whether they will try to cherry pick from the MWC and possibly try to expand into the Central Time Zone but there will undoubtedly be conflict between athletic and academic relationships with any future conference mates. Rice is a perfect example of a school that Stanford & Cal might like to be aligned with from the academic side but let's face it...Rice athletics does nothing to move the needle athletics wise. Oregon State and Washington State are the schools that are really being slighted and my guess is their administrations will want to align with the strongest football programs regardless of their academic standing.

[Water Pony]

Stanford, the ultimate victim of college sports hypocrisy per the Houston Chronicle

As a Non-revenue sports guy, I share this view.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/texas- ... 292898.php

[BUS]

You have to buy it.
Anyway, to read without subscription?

[bubba pony]

I miss this conference

[PK]

^^^^^^^^^
DITTO

[mtrout]

You have to buy it.
Anyway, to read without subscription?

Yeah open the link on your phone or tablet and go into airplane mode as soon as you can after the text of the website first loads.

Or on a computer browser do Ctrl+Shift+i at the same time. On the tools window that pops up, go to the "Network" section and where it says "No throttling", change that to "Slow 3G". Go to the houstonchronicle link and as soon as the text of the website first loads, set "Slow 3G" to "Offline". This will prevent the paywall popup from loading.