Division 1 College Conference Realignment

[SeaTac]

Kind of an arrogant statement by Wilner but Stanford does have a massive endowment but it's mostly for research.

 

 

[WestCoastBias]

4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Why should they get screwed over?  They've been hosed enough over the years, especially Houston.

 

Because if my team that has over 100 years of history playing against its fellow Pac-12 members is going to get screwed over than I don't want happiness for anyone else anymore. 

[See Red]

48 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Great point. If UCLA was just barely scraping by, WTF are they doing with a big-time football program?

 

You know that graphic that shows the #1 paid public employee in most states is a football coach? It would be nice if that weren't the case for any state. It's absurd to take money -- at a time of rampant income inequality -- from people who don't have any and give it to sports programs.

 

I'd wager their athletic program would be worse off if they cut out the sport brining in 2/3 of their athletic revenue. The football program itself is probably profitable, even if marginally so.

[WestCoastBias]

54 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

I’m starting to wonder if these moves are going to compel some of the bigger schools to eventually do something that’s probably completely surprising to all of us right now and just cut their football programs altogether. Like, how much enthusiasm does a school like UC Berkeley really have for football? Could an institution like Colorado look at the numbers and think they may be better off spending their limited sports money elsewhere? I know out west at least in places like the Bay Area there is basically nothing coming from people other than apathy on the recent PAC 12 moves. Why bother keeping something so expensive when you can’t even fill your stadiums for games against teams like Notre Dame (Which I’ve seen at Stanford games)? 

 

I bet Cal would seriously think about it but they spent too much on renovating Memorial Stadium to just get rid of football now. That's really the main issue with dropping football, what do you do with the massive stadiums that every school in the conference has invested millions into in the past 10 years? Stanford has a enough money probably to just tear it down and not care but everyone else has spent way too much money to just stop now. 

 

Ironically, UCLA is the only one that could easily drop football since they don't have a stadium to worry about, that ain't happening now though. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

4 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

I bet Cal would seriously think about it but they spent too much on renovating Memorial Stadium to just get rid of football now. That's really the main issue with dropping football, what do you do with the massive stadiums that every school in the conference has invested millions into in the past 10 years? Stanford has a enough money probably to just tear it down and not care but everyone else has spent way too much money to just stop now. 

 

Every one of these schools should be smart enough to recognize the sunk cost fallacy. And even without big-time football, there's still value in having a leasable asset on campus. There's a new minor league football franchise coming out of the woods every other month, plus soccer leagues springing up too. Maybe they can't fill 40,000 seats, but they can probably fill some dates.

[FiddySicks]

2 hours ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

I bet Cal would seriously think about it but they spent too much on renovating Memorial Stadium to just get rid of football now. That's really the main issue with dropping football, what do you do with the massive stadiums that every school in the conference has invested millions into in the past 10 years? Stanford has a enough money probably to just tear it down and not care but everyone else has spent way too much money to just stop now. 

 

Ironically, UCLA is the only one that could easily drop football since they don't have a stadium to worry about, that ain't happening now though. 

Yeah this is exactly it. Cal has NEVER liked actually fielding a football team, it seems. There have been talks for decades about how necessary that expense is. But what do you do now that you’ve invested all of that money? Bad optics to cut it at this point, but give it 10-20 years. It’ll probably be less painful of a loss by then. 

 

And you’re point about UCLA is spot on, too. It would be such an easy drop for them, and outside of UCLA grads, nobody would care. 

[SeaTac]

I wonder with the move if UCLA is going to try and play a few home games at The Palace of Kroenke unless they're completely tied to the Rose Bowl. 

[WestCoastBias]

17 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

Yeah this is exactly it. Cal has NEVER liked actually fielding a football team, it seems. There have been talks for decades about how necessary that expense is. But what do you do now that you’ve invested all of that money? Bad optics to cut it at this point, but give it 10-20 years. It’ll probably be less painful of a loss by then. 

 

And you’re point about UCLA is spot on, too. It would be such an easy drop for them, and outside of UCLA grads, nobody would care. 

 

Yeah, no one would really care except for grads. Same goes for Cal and Stanford. The majority of Californians don't go to these schools so they could care less about their football teams, it's also why no one goes to their games. USC would probably be the only one that people would care due to their history and more bandwagon fanbase. 

[DCarp1231]

 

[Germanshepherd]

That report originally comes from a swimming reporter, so I’m quite dubious of it. 

[Red Wolf]

This is definitely a topic full of really random, nonsensical reporting from dodgy sources. At the same time, there are now two LA schools in a mostly Midwestern conference, and we came really close to Boise and San Diego having teams in the Big East. So sure, anything is possible I guess.

[DCarp1231]

The Big 12 is reportedly considering adding up to six PAC 12 teams or even an all out merger. This includes at least Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

 

https://theathletic.com/news/big-12-pac-12/xr0KkM54sW9e/?amp=1

[BBTV]

Big 12 new TV deal starts in 2024 - is that renegotiable?  I'm not sure I see the benefit of an alliance vs a merger.  Alliances can be broken very easily, carry very complicated money splits, and may not preserve the "power 5" status of either entity (not that power 5 is really a thing anymore - the best they can probably hope for is a power 4 - if they merge.)

 

They could quibble over the name, but a Big Pac conference could maintain geographical divisions (sorta... sorry WVU) and call itself a super conference with one or two more additions (my math would put it at 16 if they brought in 6 Pac 10 schools, so maybe another two would be helpful.)

 

Not sure how many good markets are still out there, so they may need to focus on the actual athletic contributions of the schools and just take the best deal they can get (assuming the contract can be renegotiated.  If the contract is locked in stone, then I don't know the legality of any of this.)

[CrimsonBull9584]

So the WAC lost Lamar today. What is going on with the WAC? Schools keep leaving so quickly but there's been no real reason that I can find. Anyone know what's up?

[SeaTac]

Pac-12 should add BYU, Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU & SMU.

 

 

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I mean, without UCLA, USC, UW, Arizona, Arizona State, and Oregon, is the Pac 12 really the Pac 12 anymore?

[SeaTac]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

I mean, without UCLA, USC, UW, Arizona, Arizona State, and Oregon, is the Pac 12 really the Pac 12 anymore?

 

Distressed 6

[McCall]

8 hours ago, EskimoAldus said:

Pac-12 should add BYU, Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU & SMU.

Why would they go to the Pac-12 if the Pac-12 schools may be coming to the Big XII and possibly dissolving?

[Burmy]

The SEC will stay put at 16 teams for now.

[DCarp1231]

Big 12 can retain its name if they add those six teams

 

All the teams would be present in 12 states