The dominos have started falling

[Nevermore]

I'm surprised there's no topic about this. (or did I just somehow miss it?)

I just got back online after moving and I see that Nebraska has officially joined the Big '10' and Colorado has joined the Pac '10'?  And it's seeming all but certain that Texas (and possibly others) will be headed west as well, all but dooming the Big 12?  

That leads to all kinds of other questions:  Will the Big 10 stop at 12?  If they expand further, will the ACC and SEC expand as well?  How many teams will the Pac 10 end up taking?  Will the Mountain West fill the void left by the implosion of the Big 12?  Did the Big East really escape unscathed?  Could they actually get stronger by possibly picking up a Kansas (making them even stronger in basketball) and/or a Missouri (which seems to have been spurned by the Big 10)?

So, seems like plenty of rumors and speculation to discuss.  What else have I missed about this while I was offline?

Edit:  So here's one I missed:  Boise State has officially joined the Mountain West?

[ghost]

I think further Big Ten expansion hinges on Notre Dame.  If they want to join, the Big Ten will take it further.  I also don't really see the SEC picking anyone up unless it is UNC or maybe Texas A and M, although I would like to see them go after Missouri and Kansas.  The Pac whatever is going to be dominated by the new teams until USC picks it back up. 

[Trippy]

The Pac whatever is going to be dominated by the new teams until USC picks it back up. 

That depends if Texas moves over.

[Nevermore]

Apparently USC just got hit with a 2 year bowl ban, 4 years of probation and a loss of 30 scholarships.  So they might not be picking it back up again anytime soon.

[Ingmar]

The theoretical breakdown of a Pac-16 is the teams from the old Pac-8 in one division, and the Arizonas moving over to a 2nd division with the various Big 12 teams:

West
====

Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Oregon
Oregon St.
Washington
Washington St.

East
====

UA
ASU
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Texas A&M (or Utah if A&M goes to the SEC)

I've heard that they'll try to push for two automatic BCS slots, too.

As a Cal fan I'm pretty neutral on this. Nobody really gives a shit if we play the Arizona schools in anything except maybe basketball vs. UA; UA/ASU have only been in the league since 78 anyway and we've never really developed any kind of interesting rivalries with them, so losing regular games against them is no big deal. If it really does turn into a new TV deal that gets us more money to support all the non-money sports then fine. If it doesn't include A&M then so much the better. The caveat is that I think rednecky Texas/Oklahoma type fans are a bad fit for the conference, but there's really nowhere else we could expand that actually adds new TV markets.

[ghost]

The Pac whatever is going to be dominated by the new teams until USC picks it back up. 

That depends if Texas moves over.

True.  I was making the assumption that the rumors I'm hearing down here in Tejas are true and they are going.  It sounds very likely T this point, but things could change.

[Paelos]

The caveat is that I think rednecky Texas/Oklahoma type fans are a bad fit for the conference, but there's really nowhere else we could expand that actually adds new TV markets.

Nothing about the regions colliding in terms of fan base makes any sense, so that's going to be a non-issue I think. What this move would do is bring some actual competition/validity to the PAC-10 as a football conference. Which is sort of a shame because other programs were just starting to emerge on their own before the USC bitchslapping. However, you'll see more games get air-time in the new order, so that's a good thing.

In 50 years, USC won or shared half the championships. I mean when you let that sink in, for the past 50 years it was a coin flip between USC and someone else. For seven years in a row, until the last one, USC had top spot. This move will finally take away some of that ridiculous dominance by letting the insanity that is Texas football into the mix. I think it's a great move for the new PAC-10 to absolutely deserve it's rank as a top conference, something it did not have before.

I would say though, even with all the TV dollars, be careful letting Texas or OU into your house. They can steal a lot of glory.

[01101010]

As long as the SEC keeps chugging along, I'm good. And Nebraska in the Big 10? Ugh... I guess it works, but ugh. I'd love to have seen Texas make the move to the Big 10 and give that conference a shot in the OSU arm. What will get real interesting is other sports and the realignment. Miami was just starting to get there feet under them when the school decided they'd like to run in the ACC - great! Oh wait, we have to play Duke and UNC now? 

[Trippy]

The Pac whatever is going to be dominated by the new teams until USC picks it back up. 

That depends if Texas moves over.

True.  I was making the assumption that the rumors I'm hearing down here in Tejas are true and they are going.  It sounds very likely T this point, but things could change.

Big 12: Hey Texas if we let you make a ton of money will you stay?
Texas: Sure

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_sp_ot/big12_texas

[Paelos]

Good for them, tbh. The deal only made sense for the PAC-10, UT and OU, and it would have screwed over pretty much every other team. I'd like to see the PAC-10 continue to develop organically as a competetive conference over the next two years with USC on the sidelines.

[ghost]

The new deal pretty much screwed over every team but UT, OU and A and M.  Of course, I'm a UT fan so I'm okay with that.

[Paelos]

The Big 12 is UT and OU. The other teams shouldn't be splitting the pot equally. A reorganization with that in mind was only fair in terms of who actually brings money into the conference.

That being said, the PAC-10 is the huge loser in this about-face by Texas. Their commissioner was gunning to create the first superconference and renegotiate a TV deal that would rival the SEC. Now, he has no leg to stand on when he goes to the TV heads to push his product. He'll likely spin this as a positive thing that they will have 12 teams and can have a conference championship and blah blah blah. It doesn't disguise the fact that the PAC-10 has almost no teams with national appeal for TV slots.

USC? Maybe before they took the horrible hit from the NCAA. Now they aren't even a consideration for two years.

Oregon? Sure, except your starting QB was dismissed from the team for being a total dilinquent, and your best RB was arrested in March, oh AND four other players were kicked off the team in the off-season. 


Oregon State? They are only cool because I like saying GO BEAVERS!!

[01101010]

Its going to be real lonely being in the B-12 with only two teams.

[Sjofn]

Poor Cal, never loved. 

[Teleku]

I don't really pay attention that closely, so I'm not sure, but I thought Cal had pretty broad appeal.  I see Cal fans everywhere, even when outside of California.  I'd think they have some bigger national appeal for TV.

[Sjofn]

I think people still have trouble trusting Cal not to totally blow it out the ass, maybe?

[Paelos]

I don't really pay attention that closely, so I'm not sure, but I thought Cal had pretty broad appeal.  I see Cal fans everywhere, even when outside of California.  I'd think they have some bigger national appeal for TV.

http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Second+Quarter+Rankings+2009-2010

Here's a link for schools that sell the most licensed merchandise nationwide. That's just one quarter, but the underlying statistic is true about the national sales for college products. It's a fairly accurate barometer for who has the type of fans TV markets would want to target to sell shit (ie - large fanbases that spend money on college shit). Also, note that these were sales that fell during the football season this year.

Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, North Carolina, Penn State, OU, and Notre Dame. Those are your top 10.
Cal's the top PAC-10 school at 31. There are 9 other SEC programs ahead of that. There's a reason the SEC gets the TV contracts.

[ghost]

I actually agree that the Big 12 will be stronger without the two division system.  The Big 12 North was a wasteland for much of the existence of the conference and it usually came down to OU/UT anyway. 

I wonder how much of UNC is actually the team's "fans".  That is a university that has certainly made a good brand name out of itself.

[Paelos]

The beauty of it is that TV doesn't care if you are a fan or not, only if you're watching/buying.  

But seriously, I do think that the PAC-10 is becoming more of a national player, and if they can capitalize on a unique opportunity to present another non-USC champion that fares well in the BCS, they will gain a lot of momentum. As it currently stands, they really need to compete with the Big 10 for national exposure, not the Big 12, given the natural Rose Bowl rivalry.

[Hoax]

I don't really pay attention that closely, so I'm not sure, but I thought Cal had pretty broad appeal.  I see Cal fans everywhere, even when outside of California.  I'd think they have some bigger national appeal for TV.

http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Second+Quarter+Rankings+2009-2010

Here's a link for schools that sell the most licensed merchandise nationwide. That's just one quarter, but the underlying statistic is true about the national sales for college products. It's a fairly accurate barometer for who has the type of fans TV markets would want to target to sell shit (ie - large fanbases that spend money on college shit). Also, note that these were sales that fell during the football season this year.

Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, North Carolina, Penn State, OU, and Notre Dame. Those are your top 10.
Cal's the top PAC-10 school at 31. There are 9 other SEC programs ahead of that. There's a reason the SEC gets the TV contracts.

Those numbers are clearly suspect as fuck. Cal above USC? Ohio State not even listed? Not going to bother figuring out why but those numbers are clearly bullshit.

[Ingmar]

I think it is rated by royalty dollars rather than raw sales, maybe Ohio State doesn't license their logo to 3rd party companies?

[Trippy]

I don't really pay attention that closely, so I'm not sure, but I thought Cal had pretty broad appeal.  I see Cal fans everywhere, even when outside of California.  I'd think they have some bigger national appeal for TV.

http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Second+Quarter+Rankings+2009-2010

Here's a link for schools that sell the most licensed merchandise nationwide. That's just one quarter, but the underlying statistic is true about the national sales for college products. It's a fairly accurate barometer for who has the type of fans TV markets would want to target to sell shit (ie - large fanbases that spend money on college shit). Also, note that these were sales that fell during the football season this year.

Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, North Carolina, Penn State, OU, and Notre Dame. Those are your top 10.
Cal's the top PAC-10 school at 31. There are 9 other SEC programs ahead of that. There's a reason the SEC gets the TV contracts.

Those numbers are clearly suspect as fuck. Cal above USC? Ohio State not even listed? Not going to bother figuring out why but those numbers are clearly bullshit.

USC isn't listed either -- Cal is above UCLA. Presumably not all schools license through CLC.

[ghost]

I believe USC does their own thing on this. 

[Paelos]

I don't really pay attention that closely, so I'm not sure, but I thought Cal had pretty broad appeal.  I see Cal fans everywhere, even when outside of California.  I'd think they have some bigger national appeal for TV.

http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Second+Quarter+Rankings+2009-2010

Here's a link for schools that sell the most licensed merchandise nationwide. That's just one quarter, but the underlying statistic is true about the national sales for college products. It's a fairly accurate barometer for who has the type of fans TV markets would want to target to sell shit (ie - large fanbases that spend money on college shit). Also, note that these were sales that fell during the football season this year.

Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, North Carolina, Penn State, OU, and Notre Dame. Those are your top 10.
Cal's the top PAC-10 school at 31. There are 9 other SEC programs ahead of that. There's a reason the SEC gets the TV contracts.

Those numbers are clearly suspect as fuck. Cal above USC? Ohio State not even listed? Not going to bother figuring out why but those numbers are clearly bullshit.

Don't know what to tell you except...CLC is the sponsored license partner of the NCAA as it clearly says on their site.

However, Ohio State and USC license their stuff through Licensing Resource Group (LRG), along with 9 other large schools. Not sure why they felt the need to be beautiful and unique snowflakes, but they don't get their stuff done through the NCAA's outlets. Still, the numbers sans those teams are totally accurate, and my point stands about why the television dollars go to other conferences besides the PAC-10

[Abagadro]

Wooooo, Utes in the PAC-10 baby!

[Abagadro]

Oh, and I don't need any numbers to tell me that the fanaticism about football between SEC country/Texas and the West Coast is an order of magnitude apart.  Don't really care though as UTES ARE IN THE PAC-12 BABY!

[Paelos]

Wooooo, Utes in the PAC-10 baby!

Grats! I await the opportunity for yall to prove yourselves at the next level. I've always thought highly of the Utah program.

[ghost]

Oh, and I don't need any numbers to tell me that the fanaticism about football between SEC country/Texas and the West Coast is an order of magnitude apart.  Don't really care though as UTES ARE IN THE PAC-12 BABY!

My father in law is a huge SC fan.  People turn out in droves to go to the games wherever he goes to see games in the Pac 10 except for Stanford.  I think the west coast supports football better than people give it credit for.  There's still a market there, even if it isn't quite as stout as Bammer and Lewsiana.

[Teleku]

Football isn't the only thing there is to do here.   

[ghost]

Football isn't the only thing there is to do here.   

Having been to Alabama, I can tell you that about all there is to do there other than football is make babies and scare the livestock.

[Hoax]

I don't really pay attention that closely, so I'm not sure, but I thought Cal had pretty broad appeal.  I see Cal fans everywhere, even when outside of California.  I'd think they have some bigger national appeal for TV.

http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Second+Quarter+Rankings+2009-2010

Here's a link for schools that sell the most licensed merchandise nationwide. That's just one quarter, but the underlying statistic is true about the national sales for college products. It's a fairly accurate barometer for who has the type of fans TV markets would want to target to sell shit (ie - large fanbases that spend money on college shit). Also, note that these were sales that fell during the football season this year.

Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, North Carolina, Penn State, OU, and Notre Dame. Those are your top 10.
Cal's the top PAC-10 school at 31. There are 9 other SEC programs ahead of that. There's a reason the SEC gets the TV contracts.

Those numbers are clearly suspect as fuck. Cal above USC? Ohio State not even listed? Not going to bother figuring out why but those numbers are clearly bullshit.

Don't know what to tell you except...CLC is the sponsored license partner of the NCAA as it clearly says on their site.

However, Ohio State and USC license their stuff through Licensing Resource Group (LRG), along with 9 other large schools. Not sure why they felt the need to be beautiful and unique snowflakes, but they don't get their stuff done through the NCAA's outlets. Still, the numbers sans those teams are totally accurate, and my point stands about why the television dollars go to other conferences besides the PAC-10

The PAC-10 as a conference has a deal with LRG whatever that means but if you go to their site that have a shitton of schools listed. It doesn't surprise me if the pac-10 uses a competitor for some/most/whoknows? of its licensing that they aren't ranked for shit by your CLC site.  LRG's list is mostly mid majors and nowhere schools including two of the basketball conferences but some decent Div1 schools as well. Your numbers from CLC mean nothing because clearly they don't count everybody or count the schools they do count equally. This is not me saying that somebody sells more shit than Texas just that your numbers are bogus and prove nothing since clearly many many schools work outside of CLC.  Btw, Ohio State is not listed from my quick scan on LRG's client list drop down.

So I'm not sure where you get the 9 big schools just wanting to be unique snowflakes and using this one particular alternative bit but that appears to be total crap too.

[Paelos]

Yeah Hoax, get pissed at those fucking numbers!  

Who gives a shit about whether you believe them in totality or not? It's a small part of a larger whole. You still can't refute the point that the PAC-10 doesn't draw dick from TV deals, and they still won't with the realignment choices. The SEC and Big 10 bring in practically 3-4x what any other conference makes. That's why everyone thought Texas and OU would bail on the Big 12, because they only made $10M in TV revenues while Vanderbilt made $17M by simply existing in the SEC.

Throw in the time differences, the national markets, and the fact the PAC-10 hasn't been competitive for the better half of a decade, and people stopped giving a shit. Most of their national games were on Fox Sports XXX or Versus, or late ESPN. Hell, maybe it is that the weather is nice, or they are all fucking models on Saturday afternoons while us poor rednecks are sitting in dirt in front of the TV.

We'll still kick some west coast ass in football any day of the week.