The PAC-12 had admitted that it needs games in the central time zone to maximize value. They stated last year that based on their internal valuations, strategically scheduling games within alliance would give them same value as expanding. therefore, they chose not to expand at the time.
That strategy has clearly not panned out primarily due to BIG retaining 9 its conference games.
The conference is heading into media negotiations without a solid strategy for games in the central time zone. They can choose stay at 12, limit themselves to the west coast, leave money on the table.
Alternatively, they can strategically expand eastward, selecting few pieces that gives them new markets in the central time zone. It isn’t that new. The pac12 began a slow but methodical creep eastward with Arizona, and Arizona State. Moved on to Utah, Colorado. They can choose bring in UH, OSU, Kansas and TCU/ Tech in this iteration.
It’s their choice, expansion is remote but will not completely rule it out until pac-12 new valuations are in.
Let’s just put aside UH to Pac12 dreams for a moment.
I don’t know how anyone can say that the pac12 is not considering expansion when Jon Wilner, the most plugged in pac12 guy for the past 20 years, is literally saying they’re still assessing it given media negotiations.
I would give more weight to what Wilner says about the pac12 than mcmurphy.
Yea, I disagree. I think people will watch USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Utah, Washington. You’ve got to remember the last few times we’ve played Washington we didn’t bring a lot of buzz either.
I don’t think we need a scheduling alliance because I don’t think there is a shortage of P5 teams that would be willing to play us since The Alliance fell apart, and we only have three OOC games.
What we should do, and won’t do, is enter TV negotiations jointly. 24 teams in four time zones. The two conferences together would make Turner Sports and/or Amazon a college sports powerhouse. and/or provide instant relevance to Peacock, Paramount+. The negotiation leverage would be incredible, adn we’d be worth way more together than either of us would get separately.
I don’t see the PAC expanding. They had their chance and chose not to. There will always be some level of protection with PAC having “preferred access” to top Cali recruits and being isolated by themselves on the west coast. Once Riley brings back USC to national prominence in the next couple of years it will be the same ole PAC that has survived forever. Big 12 is where we are going, should be very stable, will allow us opportunity to compete at the national level in football, and will be a great challenge for us to win in with a ton of solid schools in football and basketball.
I think it is important for now for the Big 12 to exist for the Pac because it is one of 5 autonomous voting conferences. Otherwise you get a 2-2 split giving the B1G and SEC more control. They need the Big 12 to be able to vote against the P2 conferences. Might be why they talk about stabilizing the Big 12.
If the Big 12 went away tomorrow, the “split” wouldn’t be 2-2. It would be 3-1 since the Big 10 and SEC aren’t in lockstep.
The reason the PAC-12 didn’t expand is simple: it doesn’t think that any of the candidates brings enough value to clear the ~34 million per member payout that the PAC-12 currently has in place.
Disagree. The B1G and SEC will vote to create an environment where they have rules in their favor based upon how much more money they make than the PAC and ACC. Thus they are not aligned with the other two. They (B1G) have also specifically said the alliance is dead which shows them separating themselves from the other two conferences. It will break down to the money levels as both of those two conferences have shown over and over, they will do what they have to to give themselves an advantage before ever getting on the field.
As far as PAC expansion, they never said they were not expanding. It was always “not expanding at this time”.
I expect they will wait until they are past their exclusive media negotiation period (all conferences seem to have a period where only their existing TV providers can negotiate first, then open up to others) and can freely talk to all media options. Once they can openly discuss options, then they will have a real dollar value for what teams, if any, will be worth their while. Plus any potential invite will have a real number to decide with compared to their current conference contract. About the same time, the Big 12 members should be starting contract negotiations and will have an idea of what the Big 12 will be worth with real dollars and not various bloggers estimates.
Will they expand? Maybe, maybe not, but they are probably doing their real due diligence and not inviting teams based upon speculation of what might happen, but what will happen.
Once the Pac 12 and Big 12 sign their new media contracts, we will have a few years of no expansion talks. Then the ACC comes up.
As I told another poster here on another string. You may be overestimating the B1G’s willingness to cooperate with the SEC.
The B1G doesn’t exactly like the SEC or consider it to be a potential ally. That’s why they tried to create an “Alliance” against the SEC.
Having received a Bachelor’s degree in B1G country, and having received a Master’s from a B1G school, I can tell you that the B1G considers the SEC to be a rival, not a partner.