BaylorGuy314

Stanford's elitism was a big part of the problem. In some ways, I actually feel some sympathy for Kliavkoff- not that dissimilar from some of the former Big 12 Commissioners. When the opportunity to make a big move was there, his hands were tied and certain programs basically convinced him not to make those moves. Then he was dealt a crap hand with the departure of USC/UCLA. And over the last 9 months, he's been dealing with differing motives and demands from his membership. Oregon and UW wanted short term GORs in case the B1G came calling. TV wasn't going to pay up with short term GORs. Other schools wanted guaranteed viewership on linear. He couldn't find any network willing to guarantee the needed volume for a fair rate. He was also somewhat limited by geography (a known variable) - the PAC is limited to only late media windows with the 10 teams it had. His biggest failure- that was his responsibility- was not trying to immediately stabilize things after USC/UCLA's departure. Had he quickly circled the wagons and got a media deal signed, it could've been the Big 12 that was in this position. He also set unrealistic expectations for the membership on contract value that, once the Big 12 signed their deal early, were impossible to meet. Delaying the inevitable on hope created more fracturing than wouldn't have occurred had he just ripped the Band-aid off. The fracturing allowed those conversations with the B1G and B12 to flourish. But...had Stanford been willing to do a deal with the Big 12 two years prior, none of this would've happened. Perhaps USC/UCLA/UO/UW still go to the B1G but there would be a PAC 16 comprised of the eight remaining PAC 12 members (12 less USC/UCLA/UO/UW) with the addition of the eight remaining of the Big 12 post-UT/OU departure. Stanford and Cal thought they were too good to associate with that group and now they are in a serious bind. And they were pulling strings on Kliavkoff much of the time.

No one asked but I am not excited about the death of a conference. Baylor has been on that precipice many times and it's an absolute gut wrenching feeling. I truly feel horrible for the remaining PAC members. Selfishly, I am excited that the Big 12 has someone at the helm that is a visionary and not reactionary for once. Until Yormark - and since 2010 - we've been taking orders from Texas and our commissioner has been UT's "Yes Man" at the detriment of the membership.

Here is the issue I'm seeing. The PAC has, what, about 65 football games to sell (45 conference games, 20 non-conf games)? Let's assume that tier one goes to a linear producer and they use it for a Friday night push of the top P12 matchup that week. That leaves 53 games remaining. Let's say Apple+ wants two per Saturday (24). That leaves 29 games or roughly 2.5/week for P12 Network. Ok, that could work for getting all the games out there. Let's assume that the linear partner pays a lot for those primo Friday night games because they can handpick the most attractive matchups and not have a lot to compete with on Friday night, sports-wise. If that happens, I don't see Apple+ overpaying for Tier 2. In this situation, they've lost the best games to tier 1 and most of the linear networks are only looking for maybe 1/week in that slot. So the linear networks may push Apple+ to pay a little more but if Apple is taking 24 and the others only want 12 then Apple has no incentive to massively overpay. They could, in theory, overpay for 12 to beat the linears and underpay for the next 12 because they aren't really competing with anyone for those. The rest falls down to the P12 Network which isn't generating a ton of money for the schools. Overall, it's hard to see the numbers work out competitively here. But, even if the math works out to a similar amount as the Big 12, you have the issue of visibility. With only 12 linear games/season , that means that some teams may never play on linear networks once in the year. And under that proposed arrangement, someone who doesn't have Apple TV or P12 Networks (which is a vast majority of people) are unlikely to see a PAC game all season unless they happen to tune in Friday night. That's not good for the brand or recruiting IMO.

I could make an argument that, as a member of a league, you want the league to stay competitive recognizing that a perpetual bottom feeder isn't good and unequal revenue sharing can exacerbate the gap.

Big news. Going to be similar to Autzen when it's done!

Anyone considering Rice needs to go the other way, full stop. I respect Rice as a university very, very much but their athletics program will never be P5. They are an Ivy league school playing FBS sports. Would be in the Ivy league already if they were more geographically aligned. I've been to numerous games at Rice Stadium, Tudor Fieldhouse, and Reckling Park. There are high schools in Texas that draw better and I am not exaggerating. On the whole, a very, very small amount of their alumni care about sports at all, much less college sports, much less Rice sports. The academic side of the university generally craps on athletics because they feel like it's a distraction to the mission. I don't see Rice ever wanting to make the commitment to be a P5 program and their VERY small alumni base has the resources but not the willingness outside of a few generous benefactors. They frequently get support for athletics only by packaging it with an academic project. Rice gets no traction in Houston whatsoever. That's a professional sports town first, A&M/UT/LSU town second, UH town third. You are likely to get more press in Houston on the sports front by inviting Katy HS to join a conference and I'm not joking. Again, I have a lot of respect for Rice on a lot of fronts but, if I was a gambling man, I'd put substantially more money on Rice dismantling athletics or dropping down to D3 before they put the resources and commitment into becoming P5.

I don't believe anything will happen on the PAC front until those teams have a better idea of what their deal would be to stay in the PAC. It's probably a huge frustration for GK because not everyone wants the same things. A longer GOR = more money but not everyone wants a longer GOR. Additional games on linear may be doable but may not command the same money. That's probably ok with some schools and not ok with others. Crafting a deal that checks everyone's boxes is likely the holdup. Technically, schools have to notify by June 30 if they aren't going to be playing in the PAC in Fall 2024. The media deal doesn't expire until summer of 2024, so they could ride with it past June 30 2023 but, at some point over the next 14 months, a media deal with a GOR requirement will be put in front of them and if they don't sign it, they may not be able to leave for the Fall 2024 season if they don't notify by June 30 2023. Thus, I'd expect anyone considering leaving (whether that is their preference or not) will start doing what is necessary to get the authority and support to make that decision over the next 30 days so that, if a satisfactory deal isn't presented by mid-June, they will have the ability to act quickly as opposed to potentially getting a deal pushed in front of them at the 11th hour to sign that they aren't happy with and having to go round up support/authority to leave in just a few days time. That's what I believe the Colorado meeting was about, for example. It wasn't a vote to stay or go. It was a "Hey, if we get shoved a deal in front of us at the 11th hour that doesn't at least meet X, I want to make sure we are all in agreement that we will accept an invitation to the Big 12. And if the deal does meet X, we'll stay." That way, they can move quickly when and if needed.

Universities should make every possible attempt to make sure academics pays for academics and athletics for athletics. Interweaving the two is a fool's errand because you can't make decisions that are best for your athletes, fans, and overall program if you are hamstrung by academics. Nor should you be forced to make decisions that jeopardize the academic integrity of the university simply because of how it might affect athletics. That's obviously easier said than done because many universities have to feed athletics to an extent and once you've made that commitment to athletics, you don't want to back out on it due to sunk cost and marketing opportunities. But it needs to be treated as such. From what I understand, programs like the Big Ten Academic Alliance which boasts a lot of research for it's members is mostly marketing. A couple of B1G universities will pull together for a grant (instead of one university going after it solo) and then, if they receive it, the BTAA will scream "Look how much research we pulled in for our members!" That said, universities collaborate all the time independent of athletic alignment and it's usually based on which universities and programs are pursuing what types of research. If two universities are looking into the same thing and the economics of their work or workload could be improved by their collaboration, then they will. Baylor has tons of research partnerships with other universities and I know many of the public schools have even more because of easier access to state funds. Arizona and Oklahoma State recently announced a large medical partnership in the field of chronic pain, for example. Ultimately, I don't think academics should impact athletic conference affiliation. The ones that remain steadfast on that are, to me, doing it mostly for perception and not because of substance.

I liked 10 to be honest. Playing every team, every year made the group tighter knit. Playing everyone twice in basketball home and away was fantastic. Overall, just an ideal setup. I would've loved to take BYU and Cincinnati and stay at 10. Nothing against UH and UCF - but I feel like UCF is just such an outlier and with Tech, TCU, and Baylor in the conference already, UH was duplicative. Again, I don't want to come off as disrespectful for what those schools have done (and the consistency with which they've done it) under the limitations of G5 budgets. Just seemed like a stretch to me. But I do think there is some strength in numbers and the Big 12 was tired of - for years - being seen as small, isolated, and vulnerable. The 8 remaining - most of which desired expansion for years - were clear they wanted to grow the brand nationwide so here we are. To answer your question directly, I think I'd need to see the big picture. I've always been a fan of somewhat regionalized conferences. I think they are better for the game but, obviously, they aren't as good for TV and money which has become a crucial element. I've been told the Big 12 wants to be a conference that stretches coast-to-coast and we want games in all four time slots - from 11cst to 9cst to appeal to a nationwide audience and maximize brand recognition and marketing opportunities. If that strategy is sound and is the goal, you won't accomplish it unless you get to at least 16 and probably need 18-20. That's not a conference to me, personally- that's a whole league. But I suppose that's where the B1G and SEC are inevitably headed...so onward we go. If I had to have 18-20 teams in the big picture, I would be making a hard pitch to almost any of the PAC schools, SDSU, and Boise because those are (potentially) available now. I think the PAC schools have the P5 acclaim (justified or not, it's there) and most have major markets in which they have a lot of influence and baked-in support so they'd be target #1. SDSU obviously has done really well on a lot of fronts. And Boise has done well with brand recognition. I'd need to see what combinations of schools kept the TV deal equal as I'm not sure you can slide too much further backwards monetarily. I think it would probably be easier to sell SDSU if they were a package with AZ, ASU, and CU, for example than just the additions of, say, SDSU and Boise alone. Ultimately, if nationwide coverage is the goal and you need 18-20 teams, I think you need to get to at least 14 and probably 16 with west coast schools (ideally a couple in MST and a few in PST) and then wait for 2-4 EST schools to become available to help fill in. If the ACC implodes, I could see schools like NCState, Pitt, Louisville, and maybe GaTech as good targets. I believe FSU, UNC, UVA, and Clemson will end up in the SEC/B1G.

The Big 12 tried the MBB tournament in both OKC and Dallas (can't recall the years) and while it didn't do horribly, it didn't do near as well as Kansas City. I have heard virtually nothing about UNLV regarding expansion up to this point. Maybe there is some legs to it but it could be Yormark playing a bit of chicken. It is clear some of the PAC schools are flirting with him and Kliavkoff simultaneously to keep both options open, hoping that GK can pull something out of his hat but trying to keep the door open to the Big 12 if the end result deal isn't up to snuff. Frankly, I don't blame them but I do think Yormark has a bigger plan for Big 12 MBB as he sees that as the next revenue opportunity for the conference. However, he needs some certainty regarding which, if any, PAC schools might come as that impacts that plan substantially.

It's one of the stupidities of concentration in the P2, especially in the SEC. Oklahoma could've continued to have a long run of success in the Big 12. With the expanded playoffs, they would've had plenty of exposure and money opportunities. I'm not saying they won't be good in the SEC but I could see them being a consistent 8-9 win team with some 11-1 years and some 7-5 type years. But...they will be getting paid a lot more than in the Big 12 so maybe that's a nice consolidation prize. When Texas made up their mind they were going, it just seems like OU felt like they had to as well. A lot of Oklahoma fans I've talked to aren't enamored with the move. They understand it but felt like there was an opportunity to be kings of a medium sized pond with regular access to the playoffs and may become just another medium sized fish in an even bigger pond. I guess we'll see how that works out for them. As for the PAC, I think they will lose a couple of additional programs. Maybe in the next couple of months, maybe in the next couple of years, maybe in a decade. Maybe they lose them to the Big 12. Maybe the Big 12 isn't even a factor and it's the B1G. Ultimately, one P5 is gonna fall. I don't WANT that to happen because I don't think it's good for the sport at all but I think it will because there are enough P5 programs left in the ACC/PAC/B12 that there is going to be a conglomeration of those remaining programs in an effort to go against the B1G/SEC duopoly.

I see you fishing

I think so. Conference realignment has historically been based on media markets and getting on cable TV and OTA in those areas to get guaranteed viewership. As streaming increases, people will have to go look for what they want to watch which means markets become less of a thing and universities that draw eyeballs independent of market become a bigger deal. That's a question I'm not very qualified to answer as I imagine it is highly variable. If I'm reading you correctly, you are asking if it's better to have 1MM viewers in, say, California alone vs 500K in California and 500K in, say, Utah? I generally think the latter would be preferred assuming equal viewership because you can pitch more advertising that way. However, what if it's 800K in California and only 200K in Utah? It would seem like that scenario might not be equal as you've stretched your conference footprint (increasing travel cost, lost out on the opportunity cost of regionality, etc) and you probably aren't getting as much monetary benefit from a TV perspective for those 200K viewers. Arguably so. Streaming is going to continue to eat into cable/OTA but there will also be a lot of consolidation in the streaming world. Inevitably, we are going to end up with a handful of streaming platforms that encompass many of the current ones which will end up simulating some of the capacity of the cable/OTA networks. Streamers will want whatever draws eyeballs and care less about general markets unless your market penetration is high. As to whether streamers will be on par by 2030- I'm not so sure. I think we will continue to see some additional streaming pop up over the next few years and then there will be a few rounds of consolidation but that could take an additional few years before we know the true winners/losers in the streaming wars. I would assume as cable/OTA networks start to stabilize after streaming, they will go heavy after the big names (mostly P2 conferences) and other major events (like the playoffs), leaving a big chunk of the rest of the P5/G5 behind. For example, I could see them paying high premiums for the best of the B12's games (as an example) but paying a lot less for the rest. The problem is that streamers aren't going to want the crappy games because no one will seek those out to watch except the diehards so those games won't be that valuable. They just want whatever will draw eyeballs. Playoffs generate more interest than a normal game. The visibility for a game between Baylor and, say, Hawaii on the gridiron would not be high. But if Baylor and Hawaii were playing in the first round of the playoffs? Much more appeal. Ultimately, the goal is to increase the playoffs to get as many big name schools into a highly publicized event as possible, just like the NCAA tournament. They want Ohio State, USC, Michigan, LSU, Alabama, etc all playing each other for a few weeks - it would be worth a crap ton. The good news for the non-bluebloods is that expanding the playoffs still gives us a seat at the table. Maybe not the seat we would prefer but it's better than the P2 just breaking off and doing their own NFL-model (which also may be coming but probably still a long way off given the massive steps needed to undertake that politically, contractually, logistically, etc). I think conferences will still be valuable for a while. Conferences lessen the risk to the networks (streamers or cable) and they maximize the dollars to the schools. I'm not a fan of unequal revenue sharing, generally. We saw that in the B12 for years and while it kept Texas around for a bit longer than they might have been otherwise, it was at the overall detriment to the conference. However, there may be situations where it's a necessary evil.

The problem with drivable games - which was the demise of the SWC - is that it's great for fans and horrible for media deals. You end up with a strong presence but in only one market area. The rest of the country doesn't give a damn and (generally) won't tune in. For example, the SWC - if it were still in existence - would've dominated the Texas media market. No one else would've cared. The Big 8 also had that problem in the 80s and early 90s. There was some good football was being played there but even people in Texas - one state away - didn't watch or keep up. Hence, why the SWC/Big 8 merged. That's why I would be a fan of more regionalized conferences for all but football and basketball. Those other sports don't bring in the money so there is no reason that Baylor Women's Tennis needs to be traveling half way across the country to play a conference game in fronts of 10s of fans. Baseball/softball even more so given squad size and game frequency. Play some fun non-conference tournaments then roll into something more regional. But, again, I think that ship sailed 25 years ago.

I wasnt implying it wasn't important. Just saying that Nebraska - as an example - got their AAU certification because of research and over the years it drifted to such a concentration of ag that their AAU certification got pulled. It's not as if them having - or losing- that certification changed the quality of the undergrad education suddenly. The university didn't become worse when they lost it because the research was the same before and after.

Research is a factor in quality of education but that is highly variable. Nebraska earned their AAU qualifications initially based on research in agriculture. That's not exactly helpful for most of the student population as a major university. IMO, research quantity vs quality is as important as application. Its been 25 years ago now but I was accepted to Texas, A&M, Tulane, Baylor, and Colorado School of Mines. I decided CSM was too far and visited all the others. The class sizes at Texas and A&M were measured in the hundreds and led by TAs. At Baylor, i was given my professors cell phone number and the class size was <30. That was an important factor for me at the undergrad level and - I feel- led to a far better education than I would've gotten at say, A&M, where they've created a diploma mill that does a lot of research to boost the university reputation. That's obviously a personal opinion and everyone's mileage will vary on that. My point is that research is important but so are a lot of factors in determining quality. All methodology has flaws and you really have to take the aggregate of a lot of measures to determine overall profile. I think those universities you mentioned are fantastic but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are suddenly superior based on beginning with usnwr rankings and then arbitrarily adjusting for research volume. Frankly, entry test scores of freshman classes may be the best indicator of the quality of students coming in. I have no idea where Baylor or others stand in that but even thatis flawed methodology.

Based on what rankings?

A gross overreaction. Deion just wants an additional cannibas vending machine installed in the recruiting lounge.

Some of my fondest memories are of the Southwest Conference era. Baylor had some really good teams back then and some really bad ones but it was fun because every major program in the state was playing each other on a Saturday and no matter where you lived in Texas (east, south, north, west), if you were talking college football, you were talking SWC football. Maybe throw in Oklahoma or LSU on occasion just due to proximity. With a little Notre Dame because they were on TV the most. I rode with my grandfather to a bunch of conference road games back then - think we hit them all up except Tech (which I didn't take a road trip to until college). The regionality and ease of travel made it really tight knit and a helluva lot of fun even if it wasn't frequently one of the top conferences nationwide. I'd love for that type of environment again (sans the epic level of cheating in the 80s) but, like I said, that ain't ever coming back. Still wish we could implement it for olympic sports (baseball, volleyball, softball, and the like) and just let basketball and football travel half way cross the country. Seems like the networks rarely take too much of that inventory anyways as part of their Tier 3 rights but that's a conversation for another thread.

Let's be real - they didn't do it for research. That's a selling point to the academia crowd but all major universities have collaborations with tons of other universities. The B1G Academic Alliance, for example, is merely a collaboration of the B1G universities pulling towards common goals that helps win them (as a group) funding and grants. I'm not discounting the value in that but it's not why you join an athletic conference- it's a nice cherry on top. The reason USC/UCLA went B1G was for money and exposure. The reason Texas/OU went to the SEC is money and exposure. Playing against larger, established fanbases of name-brand schools more often brings more money in at the gate, brings it in more from TV, brings it in more from advertising, alumni giving, etc. At the end of the day, as expenses continue to rise to stupidly insane levels in NCAA sports, you've got to be thinking of how you bring in additional revenue (both on a micro level basis at each university and a macro level as a conference) and how you are going to continue to evolve your brand awareness and marketing/revenue opportunities (again, at a micro/macro level).

That's a fair point although I'd argue that when you're insanely rich, you can afford to be pickier. Only two conferences meet that definition and the SEC isn't setting the world on fire, academically.

Now hold on one cotton pickin minute. I have bathed in that there water since I was a youngin and its done me just fine, ya hear me? You hustle back up north to that there fake cowboy town with your shiny city slicker boots. We will be just fine down here, thank you kindly.

I personally believe the days of academics as a factor in athletic conferences are behind us. There was a beautiful time when conferences were geographically and/or academically aligned. It made a lot of sense when the entertainment options were fewer and the scope was smaller. The money wasn't enough to sway schools away from those important factors. But college athletics is a business now- and a massive one at that. I'd gladly put the genie back in the bottle but it won't happen with as much as is at stake. Chasing academics or focusing too much on geography will get you left behind. It's all about maximizing revenue and maximizing brand recognition. Realignment over the last 10 years bears this out with plenty of moves by long standing conference mates that were done to either protect revenue streams, improve them, or increase exposure. I am not saying it's good and I am not saying it it's right but it is truth.

The tweet has been deleted but I believe it said a vote would occur at the next meeting. To which the AD responded that there was no truth to that. My experience watching conference realignment is that these things are decided long before BOR meetings. Those BOR votes are a mere formality.