B1G/PAC Merger Idea | The Boneyard

B1G/PAC Merger Idea

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
1,416
Reaction Score
1,816
I would be surprised if there wasn't any talk of this at some point in the last ten years. From a distance, even taking into consideration the problems of travel for all sports, it makes all kinds of sense. The profiles are quite similar: State flagship or high-quality state schools and the private schools are quasi Ivies like Stanford and Northwestern. Combined endowments would be through the roof even when averaged out. The CIC would salivate over the likes of USC or UDub joining. Even Colorado and Arizona.

The biggest obstacle, obviously, is overcoming regional pride and egos such a proposed combination would run into. Here's how I see the way to do it:

Anything must first start in California. That is where the top schools are and a major recruiting state. The Rose Bowl would be the major prize (the Big Ten truly prize that bowl above all else) in any negotiation. Should the Cali 4 join almost certainly Washington follows. With Washington you probably have to include Oregon (BTN goes basic in Portland) in the mix. So half the conference already out and PAC on death bed. Colorado and Arizona to connect West Coast to Nebraska, forming a bridge. Arizona State would have to join as well to sew up the Phoenix market. So you need one more to get to 24. Best candidate left would be Utah (Salt Lake City market). Voilà. Most of PAC absorbed into the B1G.

UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, UA, ASU
UU, CU, UNL, IA, MN, WI, NU, IL
PU, IU, MSU, UM, OSU, PSU, MD, RU

Truly a behemoth if it ever happens. The ACC nor the SEC/XII would be able to match the academic profile of such a grouping. Probably why it won't happen.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
121
Reaction Score
152
This was attempted before the MD/RU expansion. B1G pushed hard for it. The Pac-12 decided against playing ball.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
This was attempted before the MD/RU expansion. B1G pushed hard for it. The Pac-12 decided against playing ball.


Wasn't that the attempt to have a scheduling alliance?

I can see that sort of action....
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
429
Reaction Score
514
Didn't C-USA and Mountain West float this idea a few years back?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,374
Reaction Score
16,572
Yes. There were extensive discussions of a "scheduling alliance" NOT a merger several years ago.

What's changed?

The BTN is a huge success. The Pac 12 Network moderate success. It doesn't seem that BTN needs the other 14 schools for content. I simply can't imagine how scale and strategic niche fits for additional incremental revenue for both. But, they are friendly.
 

huskypantz

All posts from this user are AI-generated
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
7,055
Reaction Score
10,188
One school could win their division and not make it to the B1G champ game (or the playoff). It would be interesting to see how they would parse that out with a 4 team playoff versus an 8 team playoff.
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
17,954
Reaction Score
129,153
The two conferences conceived a scheduling alliance.

The Big Ten viewed it as a way to stay at an eight-game conference schedule. The problem was that the Pac 12 was already at nine games - adding a mandatory Big Ten game every year would have made some rough sledding. About a third of the Pac 12 simply refused to accept a mandatory game and the alliance died.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
1,108
Reaction Score
1,868
Delany said something to the effect that it was a way to obtain some of the benefits of conference expansion without expanding.

PAC struggles with strength of schedule combined with the East-coast bias, and so at least a couple coaches came out against the idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
506
Guests online
3,192
Total visitors
3,698

Forum statistics

Threads
155,760
Messages
4,030,674
Members
9,864
Latest member
leepaul


Top Bottom