There is not much value in the remaining 8 for the PAC. And the rumored expansion targets don’t help at all. Logically the B12 goes to either 16 (add the four corners) or 18 (plus WSU and OSU) by taking PAC schools. If they go to 18 then it gives a perfect setup to also grab Gonzaga for basketball since they are close to WSU and OSU. And if they were real aggressive they could get to 20 by taking some of the rumored PAC expansion targets (Tulane, SDSU, CSU, SMU). Then Cal and Stanford can also try for BIG with reduced shares as a lifeline. And BIG goes to 20 which gives them 6 out west for better scheduling. And then everyone else sits tight at what they have…for now. ** Edited by HokieAl at 3/6/2023, 2:36:18 PM

With a little more detail please describe Step2: paying the new members. Realignment isn't just choosing-up sides for playground hoops. Show me the money.

1. If PAC goes away then any contract they would have gotten can then shift to spend on the BIG and B12. The content of games is still there as a way for media to make money from advertising. So it would just be another contract for a bundle of games. 2. Streaming services could potentially be creative and offer schools directly. Purely hypothetical, but what if Utah and Colorado left the PAC and didn’t join the B12 for a week. During that week they are independent and sign a deal for home games directly with Amazon (knowing they will be joining the B12). That helps supplement them getting reduced B12 money for a few years. This enables the current B12 to not have reduced payouts. And Amazon gets B12 content. The B12 won’t be getting SEC or BIG level money, but they will guarantee survival and a seat at the big table due to size and number of markets.

These conferences are on a slippery slope legally in decimating these other conferences sheerly for the money. The B1G very easily could have an unannounced Commish in action behind the scenes. That even perfectly fits the sneaky aspect that has historically been a part of these conference expansions. I remember they were ridiculously sneaky all those years ago in 1990 with that first SEC expansion. No comment statements by anyone official for many months. That FSU presser was far from the norm.

Not sure if that's correct, though, but would allow this to make more sense.

It is common practice for expansion schools to receive less than a full share for a few years after admission to a new conference. It happened for WVU and TCU in the Big 12 and will happen again for BYU, UCF, Cincy and Houston. Maryland and Rutgers also did not get full shares right away. Schools like Texas and OU may command full shares, but even then some of the costs of expansion typically come out of the new members' pockets.

However, the less than is STILL More than current or projected funds of PAC 10 I'm sure Big 10 would offer a graduated scale over 15 years to get to full funding. (Nebraska just got into full funding last year) Oregon and Washington will jump on it FAST. just wait after emergency PAC 10 meeting with presidents/AD this week.

When/if the ACC implodes schools like VT may well be offered, but we will be subsidizing the rest of the new conference for a long time. Bargain basement liquidation sale. ** Edited by Vippie1 at 3/6/2023, 8:48:49 AM

Unless VT can somehow restore its football reputation, I don't see an invitation forthcoming for us. If Clemson and FSU left, the crippled remains of the ACC would no longer be relevant and a spot with the BIG12 might become the only good landing place. ** Edited by El Paso Hokie at 3/6/2023, 11:49:52 PM

I heard it was for 2 years. The article said it had to do withdrawing that $100 Million penalty they owe for leaving the Big-12. It will not be a drawn out graduating system like Nebraska just completed.

The question is, is there a declining decrease over time, and if so, what is the time?

But the initial fees is larger than your current or projected revenue from the PAC 10 or Big 12 they are gone.....

If we let the 4 corners go to Yappy, shame on us. We could even throw in SMU to get Dallas and have 3 divisions of 7 with 9 or 10 conference games. ACC leadership is sorely lacking in backbone and grit, so I'd deem this highly unlikely. ** Edited by ren_hoek at 3/6/2023, 8:48:11 AM

I see Big-12 fans excited all over YouTube about annexing those schools. The ACC needs to get on the ball. I doubt Stanford, Cal, Washington State & Oregon State would move the needle much in revenue for the ACC. Those latter four will be all of the Pac that is left.

that the Big12 doesn't? Longer travel?

1. East Coast and Deep South exposure. 2. MAYBE more money/upside (getting the ACCN in more states is more money) 3. Academics 4. Several elite programs to play (Clemson and FSU, and Notre Dame OOC) And as you said, geography is in the XII's favor, as is GOR length. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 3/6/2023, 9:01:22 PM

The money part is suspect, as I don't think any of the P3 conferences will get P2 type of money, so any difference will not be significant enough for any of the schools to jump conferences - unless it's to the P2. Academics have been thrown overboard. Texas is one of the top academic Universities in the nation, and they just threw in with Mississippi State, Alabama, and some others for the football money. If the PAC implodes, and it might, and if the ACC implodes, and it might, it will be the geography of the current Big12 that would prevail, but. not because they have better institutions, fans, recruiting, or money.

as an opponent that has proven capable of competing for the championship.

The Big-12 territory is contiguous to those states. It is obvious that gives the Big-12 a big advantage. Academics is the only ACC talking point.

You asked a fair question. Moreover, WarHog is a Razorback, no? Not an ACC or VT guy. All views welcome. We get a lot of posters from other schools and conferences, and we like it that way.

I frequented NOVA many years long ago. Had relatives living there in Arlington just across the Potomac from DC. Hadn't been up there but several times in last 1/2 dozen years but surely made my last trip last spring. My youngest sister retired and wanted to return to Arkansas after 30 years. I helped her move last spring. Still a couple of nephews up there, a lot more Virginians than Arkansans. However my age, no more trips for me. That is my attachment to the Hokies. I am actually not much more a homer here than you.

Just looking for a different perspective from the echo chamber of the Big12, not an argument.

I didn't make that "This is an ACC Board " statement to imply someone does not belong here. I just meant that I had made that previous post from an ACC perspective. I think the destination of those four corner schools is relatively easy to analyze. The Big-12 is the most likely destination just due to being contiguous. I read something about close proximity being the most necessary element in the formation of rivalries between college football teams. I also think the fact that both fan bases can travel to all the games is also very involved in that. Those schools going to the ACC would be an academic thing.

Big 12 pro rata allows new P5 members $20 million guaranteed and G5 members exactly zero. Anything more must be squeezed out of Fox or ESPN unless the current Big12 members wish to fund the additions from their own payouts as they will be doing for BYU, Cincy. etc. Still think expansion is a slam dunk?

I assume a pro rata in The ACC. Don't Know for sure. ESPN current Big 12 contract pays $0.00 while the new contract will pay $20 million for Arizona. In either case ASU will pay an exit fee to PAC. I often repeat that adding schools isn't the same as adding positive income or wealth. New members have to be paid. A suggestion: When you get an idea for expansion, examine the transaction from the perspective each party involved. Does each party get an acceptable benefit (not just better travel distance.) Consider each party's downside; is it worth the benefit or cost? Can you project into the future and see these benefits in the long term? Consider Arizona's other choices. Maybe The Big 12 looks like the safe haven for now, but will it be the place you want to be in six, seven, years? Starving for a few years in The PAC is scary, but the future is a crap shoot. Might as well aim for the future you prefer rather the give that up for a gamble on, what... $20 million a year. I'm not saying AZ should stay in The PAC; not saying leave The PAC. Not easy. The language we use when we're talking realignment is silly: B1G 12 should "take" these three schools," "ESPN should move these two schools." Nobody "takes" a school; nobody "moves a school." These schools, these conferences, these media moguls, they are all constrained in what they do, and when, by contracts, varying objectives, and cultural conflicts. Yes, a certain amount of money, at a certain time and place can be persuasive. But every one of the parties has choices to make. It's extremely complex. This late in the game can anyone say for sure why The B1G has not adopted Oregon and Washington? We all believe it will happen, that it should have happened already. I think it somehow has to do with Notre Dame. But I'm not sure. When we find out it still may not make sense, because it's damn complicated. ** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 3/6/2023, 9:01:32 PM

It was a big move to get UCLA and USC, and they probably had to do some lobbying and negotiating to turn them from the PAC. Getting UO and UW today, the B10 could dictate terms. I'm not saying they ripped them off, but I'd be surprised if the entry terms for UCLA / USC are identical to UO and UW.

was ~ ‘$10 million per school, which sounds about right because it was $8 million the year before.

I also would take Oregon State and Washington State. Just like Virginia Tech, you need to look at their numbers for the whole state and not just for the town of Blacksburg so to speak. These are decent size state Universities with alums and fans all over the state. It would also help ESPN compete against Fox in those states. The American Coastal Conference could be born and get us new money with new states.

Remember commish Warren's self-congratulating speech last year about taking a bunch of B1G athletes to Selma, and then using it as a springboard to talk about all the "opportunities" there will be for B1G athletes in cherry picking the best teams from the Pac-12 (and destroying 10 other athletic departments including his father's ASU)? It was a humiliating spectacle. No conscience. Utterly tone deaf. He attempted to couch his robber baron tactics in the language of the civil rights movement. Just disgusting. I'd have had more respect for him if he just said, "We are going totally gangster. And we don't care what anyone thinks. We are going to get ours." Anyway, I realize the member schools own part of the B1G network and new members need to buy into it. But didn't USC and UCLA come in at a full share? But it's actually a pretty fraudulent tactic if you ask me, weaken the UO's and UW's conference, then offer them to join you at a discount. UO and UW almost have no choice but to take it. We'll see if the story is accurate. I'm not sure about Colin Cowherd. But the rationale certainly makes sense, sadly.

Playing his race card to benefit himself. People of race are way all too often guilty of that in this country. You can blame this system that rewards that type behavior instead of ignoring it as the presently unjustified action which it actually is. How far does a white man get in this country drawing attention to the past history of his race? Robber Baron is a strong term but it fits the people actually pulling the strings in acknowledging those race cards. It is part of a plan to divide the races. We need to get along, not forever harp about injustices of years past.

But he was acting like all this "change" in college football was going to be a liberating experience akin to the civil rights movement. When in fact, it was going to ruin far more people than it helps. And it is all being done for money without consequence to the culture and foundation of the sport(s). He made the comments at last year's pre-football season B1G Media Days IIRC.

Blacks were not even allowed to much extent to participate in major collegiate football until the late 1960's. I see the SEC first black football player was in 1965. Were all the white football players in the many decades before that also not liberated? Collegiate football players not being properly financially compensated is not a racial issue. Anyone making it a civil rights issue is wrong. Call that using a race card or whatever.

USC and UCLA are getting full shares. ND is the only school specifically named in the Big Ten TV deals, with the dollar value already calculated.

I don't even know. But if anyone deserved to come in on a discount, it's them. Notre Dame might just go in the opposite direction. They'll want 10 percent of everyone's take. Ten percent for the big guy will be the refrain. LOL.

IF ND joins the Big Ten, it will be a full share add due to the excess value ND brings to the Big Ten.

reduced share, but they can maintain the NBC contract until full shares kick in. Why not, then they can claim no special treatment was given.