PAC 12 Dissolution

Donate To GopherHole
in terms of what's next:

first, the Pac-4 schools have to figure out their future - do they merge with the MWC, or try to entice schools to join them in a revamped version of the Pac-whatever?

and then the more long-term domino is the ACC. Can FSU or others actually find a legal way out of the GOR, or come up with the $$ to buy their way out of the conference? (that is a tall order - the GOR calls for a school to pony up a fee equal to three times its annual revenue).

I don't think the B1G makes another move until the ACC situation is settled - UNLESS something happens with Notre Dame (i.e. networks tell ND no more big bucks unless you join a conf.)
 

short ornery norwegian said:
in terms of what's next:

first, the Pac-4 schools have to figure out their future - do they merge with the MWC, or try to entice schools to join them in a revamped version of the Pac-whatever?

and then the more long-term domino is the ACC. Can FSU or others actually find a legal way out of the GOR, or come up with the $$ to buy their way out of the conference? (that is a tall order - the GOR calls for a school to pony up a fee equal to three times its annual revenue).

I don't think the B1G makes another move until the ACC situation is settled - UNLESS something happens with Notre Dame (i.e. networks tell ND no more big bucks unless you join a conf.)
Click to expand...
I think the B1G says "Yes" if Stanford asks. That will put additional pressure on Irish. I don't think they get the $60M they reportedly think they are worth, especially with the B1G locking up CBS and NBC for the most part.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
I don't think the B1G makes another move until the ACC situation is settled - UNLESS something happens with Notre Dame (i.e. networks tell ND no more big bucks unless you join a conf.)
Click to expand...
ACC and/or Notre Dame are next next most logical moves

I think Utah, Arizona State, and Colorado are better gets than Cal.
Stanford is unique and hard to analyze for me.
 

Looks like the ACC will discuss adding Cal and Stanford over the next 24 hours. We should trade them Penn State and Maryland for Cal and Stanford. I would suggest Rutgers and Maryland but that wouldn’t be a fair trade.

 


U2Gopher said:
Looks like the ACC will discuss adding Cal and Stanford over the next 24 hours. We should trade them Penn State and Maryland for Cal and Stanford. I would suggest Rutgers and Maryland but that wouldn’t be a fair trade.

Click to expand...
Will they change the name of the conference to just the CC?
 



U2Gopher said:
Looks like the ACC will discuss adding Cal and Stanford over the next 24 hours. We should trade them Penn State and Maryland for Cal and Stanford. I would suggest Rutgers and Maryland but that wouldn’t be a fair trade.

Click to expand...
Can't see this happening...jump into a conference with a low $$ media contract that has what, 12 years left? I'll be shocked. Guessing that the B1G will jump in if this has any real chance of happening.
 





So_Money said:
Whatever man. Not on me to explain capitalism to you. I certainly don't need to say anything more on it, I explained it accurately and anything more only acts to derail the thread.

That said the universally accepted definition is the same as it has always been... with no editorial.

capitalism
noun
cap·i·tal·ism ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm ˈkap-tə-
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Click to expand...
I mean, depends on the dictionary. That's from Merriam-Webster, but the Cambridge dictionary has the following definition:

"an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are controlled by private owners rather than by the state, with the purpose of making a profit"

So . . .
 





Cal will still be receiving up to $10M per year per UC regents (from UCLA) as penance for their part in predictably impoverishing the PAC 12 TV contract which careened into the ditch worse than many imagined possible.

The cross country flights (for all sports) cumulative total might be cost prohibitive for teams coming in at a likely reduced revenue share which isn’t spectacular to begin with. Maybe it still pencils out, but the absurdity factor is creeping in, guys.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Can't see this happening...jump into a conference with a low $$ media contract that has what, 12 years left? I'll be shocked. Guessing that the B1G will jump in if this has any real chance of happening.
Click to expand...
No, the Big Ten will not jump in. Those schools are money drains

The ACC is foolish for even considering them. It'll only add cost and complexity. There's no money to be made.

The ACC is trying to die
 


PMWinSTP said:
Can't see this happening...jump into a conference with a low $$ media contract that has what, 12 years left? I'll be shocked. Guessing that the B1G will jump in if this has any real chance of happening.
Click to expand...
It is absurd in the face of it, but no more absurd than Rutgers and UCLA being in the same conference. Thamel now reporting that ACC sources say they have been evaluating PAC-12 schools for over a year. I can see it happening. Academically, they are mostly on the same level. What choice do Cal and Stanford have at this point? There is no way they turn down an offer. Cal needs the money for their athletic department and it’s way more money than either of them would make as an independent or in the Mountain West. The only thing that would give me pause if I were them, would be the grant of rights in the ACC and how long it runs.
 

U2Gopher said:
It is absurd in the face of it, but no more absurd than Rutgers and UCLA being in the same conference. Thamel now reporting that ACC sources say they have been evaluating PAC-12 schools for over a year. I can see it happening. Academically, they are mostly on the same level. What choice do Cal and Stanford have at this point? There is no way they turn down an offer. Cal needs the money for their athletic department and it’s way more money than either of them would make as an independent or in the Mountain West. The only thing that would give me pause if I were them, would be the grant of rights in the ACC and how long it runs.
Click to expand...
I'll be shocked if it happens. B1G will go for Stanford. Both schools have huge endowments (especially Stanford).
 

I'm extremely disappointed if the Big Ten doesn't find a way to get Stanford.

I've made their case already but I don't know how any conference passes on the top athletic/academic school in the USA. One that went to more Rose Bowls than any Pac 12 school in their 12 team era. One that's in the Bay Area TV market and has tons of wealthy and influential alumni.

I like football and money as much as anyone but this is a big fail by the conference to put it so transparently ahead of anything else. Makes me wonder if TV execs are making all these calls.

Stanford is also a sleeping football giant because all it takes is one of their many super-wealthy alumni to start pumping "NIL" into the team and they are back in the top 5.
 

fmlizard said:
I'm extremely disappointed if the Big Ten doesn't find a way to get Stanford.

I've made their case already but I don't know how any conference passes on the top athletic/academic school in the USA. One that went to more Rose Bowls than any Pac 12 school in their 12 team era. One that's in the Bay Area TV market and has tons of wealthy and influential alumni.

I like football and money as much as anyone but this is a big fail by the conference to put it so transparently ahead of anything else. Makes me wonder if TV execs are making all these calls.

Stanford is also a sleeping football giant because all it takes is one of their many super-wealthy alumni to start pumping "NIL" into the team and they are back in the top 5.
Click to expand...
Oh, me too. Huge opportunity on many levels including athletics.
 

Some guy said:
Stanford had a really good stretch 2010-2017
Other than that stretch theyve been a pretty average program post 1990

2010-2017 (8 years)
7 top 20 finishes
6 10+ win seasons
0 losing seasons

1990-2009 + 2018-2023 (26 years)
2 top 20 finishes
1 10+ win season
16 losing seasons



In a lot of ways I think of them like a slightly worse Michigan state (in the bad years) but with a smaller fanbase and a better rowing team
Click to expand...
Athletic success isn't the issue with Stanford. The issue is nobody turns on the television to watch Stanford.
 

fmlizard said:
I'm extremely disappointed if the Big Ten doesn't find a way to get Stanford.

I've made their case already but I don't know how any conference passes on the top athletic/academic school in the USA. One that went to more Rose Bowls than any Pac 12 school in their 12 team era. One that's in the Bay Area TV market and has tons of wealthy and influential alumni.

I like football and money as much as anyone but this is a big fail by the conference to put it so transparently ahead of anything else. Makes me wonder if TV execs are making all these calls.

Stanford is also a sleeping football giant because all it takes is one of their many super-wealthy alumni to start pumping "NIL" into the team and they are back in the top 5.
Click to expand...
Stanford is boring. They don’t sell on tv, in any sport. If I’m the TV exec, making Businuess decisions based upon money, I am chasing after the best and most deep rooted fan based football programs possible.
 

Stanford is a financial loser. There's a reason they're not already in the Big Ten.

It shouldn't be hard to understand.
 

Taji34 said:
I mean, depends on the dictionary. That's from Merriam-Webster, but the Cambridge dictionary has the following definition:

"an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are controlled by private owners rather than by the state, with the purpose of making a profit"

So . . .
Click to expand...

No higher acidemic institution would use the Cambridge dictionary definition. For instance Capitalism isn't a political system.

Back when I was going for my degrees in finance and economics professors would lament some of these definitions were changing to inaccurate depictions. I provided a definition consistent with what is or was taught up to 2004 at least.

The thoughts on why for some reason both political and social elements have been added to some definitions is that it streamlines comparisons of Communism and Socialism which do have components in the political and social realm.

Any definition that pushes the profits angle should be questioned due to the fact it is editorializing and speaking for the varying private decisions of others likely due to an agenda.
 
Last edited:

alaska said:
Stanford is boring. They don’t sell on tv, in any sport. If I’m the TV exec, making Businuess decisions based upon money, I am chasing after the best and most deep rooted fan based football programs possible.
Click to expand...

This list indicates you're right. Stanford and California were the 45th and 47th most viewed teams last year in the regular season. What's even more surprising to me is that Arizona at 62 and ASU at 71 were even way behind that.


copy the URL, couldn't get the link to work:
...https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbd
 

Cal and Stanford will be in the B1G. It's a foregone conclusion.
This talk of FSU and Clemson is ridiculous!
B1G will only accept AAU schools.

There, I said it. Now you can mock me, but we will see the outcome.
 

So_Money said:
No higher acidemic institution would use the Cambridge dictionary definition. For instance Capitalism isn't a political system.

Back when I was going for my degrees in finance and economics professors would lament some of these definitions were changing to inaccurate depictions. I provided a definition consistent with what is or was taught up to 2004 at least.

The thoughts on why for some reason both political and social elements have been added to some definitions is that it streamlines comparisons of Communism and Socialism which do have components in the political and social realm.

Any definition that pushes the profits angle should be questioned due to the fact it is editorializing and speaking for the varying private decisions of others likely due to an agenda.
Click to expand...
This is hilarious.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom