Oregon & Washington (OT)

[Renegade]

As Wiz mentioned above Oregon and Washington apparently got the short end of the stick from the Big 10 when it comes to media rights revenue. Here's what they get:

"Oregon and Washington will receive 50% shares of Big Ten media rights revenue to the tune of $30 million in 2024 with annual $1 million escalators until the completion of its new deal with CBS, Fox and NBC, according to ESPN and The Inside Zone's Matt Fortuna. Other Big Ten programs, including USC and UCLA, will receive $60 million or more annually. An Oregon official said Friday that the Ducks and Huskies would be in line for full shares once the next contract is signed well into the future."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/oregon-washington-join-big-ten-programs-depart-pac-12-in-2024-after-serving-as-charter-members-since-1915/

[JasonStern]

Jason Scheer who is an Arizona insider on twitter seems to be at the forefront on the ongoing
chaos in college football. It's felt the Pac 12 missed a golden opportunity when Texas/OU left
for the SEC to swallow up the remainder of the B12 to form the first 20 team conference

Pac-12 presidents voted a couple of years ago on whether or not to add several Big-12 teams to the PAC. Oregon's president voted yes. OSU and WSU presidents voted no. So did USC but then, they were covertly plotting to destroy the PAC

Oregon's president also was in favor of accepting the media deal that ESPN/FOX eventually offered the Big-12. Again, OSU/WSU/USC all said no

in other words, one of the reasons for the failure of the PAC was the hubris of OSU and WSU presidents. Oregon actually tried to save the PAC. But you won't hear that now as OSU and WSU are busy whining about what Oregon/Washington did. And the hubris may have consigned OSU/WSU to the Mountain West. Latest reporting is that the BIG-12 has no interest in OSU; and that the MWC is staying as is

when this first started to become clear last week, at first I was feeling bad for OSU. But as more info has come out and OSU power brokers and Beaver fans have ponted fingers at the UofO and spewed bile and venom at the Ducks, I've ended up being just fine with OSU sinking into the MWC swamp

The Texas/Oklahoma (plus Texas Tech/Oklahoma State) additions failed because Texas/Oklahoma demanded uneven revenue distribution and Texas demanded exclusive media rights for home events for their Longhorn Network. Equal revenue sharing was also why USC left, and eventually why UO/UW left. While I feel bad that Oregon State/Wazzu/Cal are probably Mountain West bound, they kind of did it to themselves. Any of those three can compete at a high level. But the sport is driven by the networks that are driven by ad revenue. And people 200 miles out of Corvallis/Pullman aren't interested in Oregon State/Wazzu football. And instead of taking a reduced share of a bigger pot, they're forced to find their own pot.

[JasonStern]

As Wiz mentioned above Oregon and Washington apparently got the short end of the stick from the Big 10 when it comes to media rights revenue. Here's what they get:

"Oregon and Washington will receive 50% shares of Big Ten media rights revenue to the tune of $30 million in 2024 with annual $1 million escalators until the completion of its new deal with CBS, Fox and NBC, according to ESPN and The Inside Zone's Matt Fortuna. Other Big Ten programs, including USC and UCLA, will receive $60 million or more annually. An Oregon official said Friday that the Ducks and Huskies would be in line for full shares once the next contract is signed well into the future."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/oregon-washington-join-big-ten-programs-depart-pac-12-in-2024-after-serving-as-charter-members-since-1915/

That's still $10M+ over what the Pac12 deal was. And the agreement is that they get a full share when the existing media contract expires. Sucks they didn't get the USC/UCLA deal, but it's on par with what Maryland/Rutgers got when they joined the conference.

[Wizenheimer]

Jason Scheer who is an Arizona insider on twitter seems to be at the forefront on the ongoing
chaos in college football. It's felt the Pac 12 missed a golden opportunity when Texas/OU left
for the SEC to swallow up the remainder of the B12 to form the first 20 team conference

Pac-12 presidents voted a couple of years ago on whether or not to add several Big-12 teams to the PAC. Oregon's president voted yes. OSU and WSU presidents voted no. So did USC but then, they were covertly plotting to destroy the PAC

Oregon's president also was in favor of accepting the media deal that ESPN/FOX eventually offered the Big-12. Again, OSU/WSU/USC all said no

in other words, one of the reasons for the failure of the PAC was the hubris of OSU and WSU presidents. Oregon actually tried to save the PAC. But you won't hear that now as OSU and WSU are busy whining about what Oregon/Washington did. And the hubris may have consigned OSU/WSU to the Mountain West. Latest reporting is that the BIG-12 has no interest in OSU; and that the MWC is staying as is

when this first started to become clear last week, at first I was feeling bad for OSU. But as more info has come out and OSU power brokers and Beaver fans have ponted fingers at the UofO and spewed bile and venom at the Ducks, I've ended up being just fine with OSU sinking into the MWC swamp

The Texas/Oklahoma (plus Texas Tech/Oklahoma State) additions failed because Texas/Oklahoma demanded uneven revenue distribution and Texas demanded exclusive media rights for home events for their Longhorn Network. Equal revenue sharing was also why USC left, and eventually why UO/UW left. While I feel bad that Oregon State/Wazzu/Cal are probably Mountain West bound, they kind of did it to themselves. Any of those three can compete at a high level. But the sport is driven by the networks that are driven by ad revenue. And people 200 miles out of Corvallis/Pullman aren't interested in Oregon State/Wazzu football. And instead of taking a reduced share of a bigger pot, they're forced to find their own pot.

you're talking about a situation I didn't mention. That Texas/OK-->Pac-12 stuff happened 11-12 years ago. That wasn't what I was talking about

the Big-12 was reeling when Texas/OK announced they were departing for the SEC in 2021. Over the next few months, several remaining Big-12 schools contacted the Pac-12 and Kliavkoff asking to join the Pac-12. The Pac-12 could have had their pick of those schools. Kliavkoff arranged a meeting of Pac-12 presidents to discuss the issue. I know Oregon was in favor of additions and I believe UofW was in favor as well. OSU, WSU, and USC were among the schools who opposed. The USC president led the fight against adding Big-12 schools; less than 10 months later, USC left for the BIG. They knew what they were doing...they were trying to neuter the Pac-12, especially Oregon

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-07-29/usc-president-carol-folt-pac-12-expansion

anyway, there was a big opportunity lost

then, in the spring of 2022, Kilavkoff brought a proposal from ESPN, FOX, and Amazon that would have given the Pac-12 what was reported to be a little better deal than the Big-12 signed a couple of months later. But Pac-12 presidents, including those of OSU & WSU opposed the GOR. Once again, Oregon was in favor but was in the minority

another thing: among the Pac-2 presidents, the three biggest supporters of Larry Scott were the presidents of OSU, WSU, and ASU. It was Scott who pushed for the Pac-12 to go independent with the Pac-12 network. I have been told that both Rob Mullens and Phil Knight thought it was a bad idea to not have a broadcast partner. The Big-10 is partnered with FOX; the SEC is partnered with ESPN. If the Pac-12 had been a broadcast partner with ESPN (ESPN wanted it), they wouldn't have ended up in the situation they were in ever since the Big-12 took the last remaining major pool of media money about a year ago

this is why I have no sympathy for OSU; none. They were front & center (after USC) in the bad decisions the Pac-12 made

[JasonStern]

you're talking about a situation I didn't mention. That Texas/OK-->Pac-12 stuff happened 11-12 years ago. That wasn't what I was talking about

Well, I am old now. Sorry for the "Back in my day, the Pac-X existed and was trying to poach Texas and Oklahoma" rant.

But I completely agree that Brett Yormark outplayed the Pac-X at every single move possible. Other than temporarily adding Colorado and Utah, I really cannot think of a single move the Pac-X did during the Pac-12 era that made sense and wasn't outdone by another conference. But even then, the B1G added Nebraska. The SEC added Missouri. So it was more a parity move than anything.

I guess moving the championship game to Vegas was a win. Having it in the Bay area in December when it was always raining sucked.

[JasonStern]

Rumors are that Stanford has a Big Ten invite if they can find a partner school that doesn't lose the conference money. Ideally Notre Dame, which again has zero interest. No idea what Cal did. But at the same point, I get that Cal doesn't drive revenue. Smart move is probably to play independent for a few years, then wait for the ACC to implode. Big Ten probably grabs Stanford and three ACC teams at that point.

Oregon State, Wazzu, and Cal all have landing spots in the Mountain West. Not what their fans want, but hear me out. Much easier conference that currently has an auto-bid to the playoffs. Beat Boise State. Beat SDSU. Beat the Pac-X defectors. And you've got a playoff bid. Oregon has to go through Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, USC, UCLA, etc.

I don't see how the Pac-X survives. You've got to get to 8(?) teams to be a conference. Poaching the Mountain West makes sense until you realize each team has a $30M buyout. And the Apple+ deal with UO/UW was $20M/school per year. I don't see how you come up with $120M to add SDSU, UNLV, Boise State, and whatever fourth school. Not sure the buyout on AAC schools, but that just increases travel costs while having to accept a much lesser TV deal.

[PDXKnight]

As Wiz mentioned above Oregon and Washington apparently got the short end of the stick from the Big 10 when it comes to media rights revenue. Here's what they get:

"Oregon and Washington will receive 50% shares of Big Ten media rights revenue to the tune of $30 million in 2024 with annual $1 million escalators until the completion of its new deal with CBS, Fox and NBC, according to ESPN and The Inside Zone's Matt Fortuna. Other Big Ten programs, including USC and UCLA, will receive $60 million or more annually. An Oregon official said Friday that the Ducks and Huskies would be in line for full shares once the next contract is signed well into the future."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/oregon-washington-join-big-ten-programs-depart-pac-12-in-2024-after-serving-as-charter-members-since-1915/

That's still $10M+ over what the Pac12 deal was. And the agreement is that they get a full share when the existing media contract expires. Sucks they didn't get the USC/UCLA deal, but it's on par with what Maryland/Rutgers got when they joined the conference.

I think the Oregon/UW to B1G holdup was, as mentioned by canzano, the fully guaranteed on the next TV deal. That wasn't being offered initially and I think all along if that ever came on the table oregon was ready to leap. It was offered 10-20 minutes before the pac 12 meeting more than likely meaning oregon and uw used the pac for leverage as any school would in that situation. If that deal isnt offered the pac 12 lives another day. The interim 7 years until that point were secondhand imo, as soon as Oregon got offered full menbership on the next tv deal oregon wouldve been willing to leap probably for less than the pac 12 deal even if need be so long as full membership would eventually happen in 7 years

What does full membership mean for oregon and UW? Realistically 3 times the tv and or streaming revenue they would've been able to have before this point and remaining relevant as a program. Oregon and UW wanted to be on this boat and so in a sense this is "buying their future."

[Norm2953]

I've heard there is a lot of twitter talk of a lawsuit against Fox/Disney led by the #1 law school college
in the country (Stanford) over their efforts to dismantle the Pac12, ACC for the super conference.

The goal would be to not go to trial but to leverage the networks to order the various remaining
conference to get the remaining Pac4 schools go where they wish to go. Remember the SEC, B1G and
now the Big12 do whatever Fox/Disney tells them to do.

[PDXKnight]

I've heard there is a lot of twitter talk of a lawsuit against Fox/Disney led by the #1 law school college
in the country (Stanford) over their efforts to dismantle the Pac12, ACC for the super conference.

The goal would be to not go to trial but to leverage the networks to order the various remaining
conference to get the remaining Pac4 schools go where they wish to go. Remember the SEC, B1G and
now the Big12 do whatever Fox/Disney tells them to do.

That'll be a tough one forcing a different legal entity like the B1G to take schools they don't want. They'd likely have more success suing for libel damages

[Norm2953]

[quote="PDXKnight"][quote="Norm2953"]I've heard there is a lot of twitter talk of a lawsuit against Fox/Disney led by the #1 law school college
in the country (Stanford) over their efforts to dismantle the Pac12, ACC for the super conference.

The goal would be to not go to trial but to leverage the networks to order the various remaining
conference to get the remaining Pac4 schools go where they wish to go. Remember the SEC, B1G and
now the Big12 do whatever Fox/Disney tells them to do.[/quote]

That'll be a tough one forcing a different legal entity like the B1G to take schools they don't want. They'd likely have more success suing for libel damages[/quote]

It's likely the CFB landscape will be radically different when the ACC implodes. Marginal B1G, SEC schools might be
shown the door and it might be interesting to see if Oregon/UW make the cut in revamped B1G, SEC. CFB would then
look like the NFL with an AFC (schools outside of the South) and NFC (Southern schools). It's what Fox/Disney want
but it's be interesting to see if the leftover schools form their own conferences all out of the auspices of the NCAA.

[JasonStern]

I think the Oregon/UW to B1G holdup was, as mentioned by canzano, the fully guaranteed on the next TV deal. That wasn't being offered initially and I think all along if that ever came on the table oregon was ready to leap. It was offered 10-20 minutes before the pac 12 meeting more than likely meaning oregon and uw used the pac for leverage as any school would in that situation. If that deal isnt offered the pac 12 lives another day. The interim 7 years until that point were secondhand imo, as soon as Oregon got offered full menbership on the next tv deal oregon wouldve been willing to leap probably for less than the pac 12 deal even if need be so long as full membership would eventually happen in 7 years

What does full membership mean for oregon and UW? Realistically 3 times the tv and or streaming revenue they would've been able to have before this point and remaining relevant as a program. Oregon and UW wanted to be on this boat and so in a sense this is "buying their future."

Oregon was never staying in the Pac-X and taking an equal revenue share $21M/year Apple deal. They had a $31M/year deal with the Big 12. Big 12 has a weird contract with ESPN where they can add "Power 5" schools and they will cover the $31M. Works for ESPN. Big 12 paid significantly less than the SEC and Big Ten. Cap the remaining content at around $30M/school.

The Pac-X had a ~$30M deal on the table for the Pac-X, but they shot it down. Per Clownzano, they demanded $50M/school and were told "Goodbye!"

The Big Ten was always the goal. Big 12 wouldn't uneven revenue share. Big Ten eventually agreed to meet or exceed the Big 12.

Again, the whole thing is driven by TV ratings. Oregon came in 12th. Lossington came in 35th. Those are value adds. Permanently taking less revenue was never going to happen. It was just a matter of negotiating the best contract, and pitting Big Ten/Big 12/Pac-X against each other to do so.

[JasonStern]

The end goal of all of this is to have a 32-team FOX conference. And a 32-team ESPN conference. And the winner of those play for the championship (sponsored by Dr. Pepper). G5 (read small TV market) teams will get their own playoff, and have their own "division 2" championship. Will probably take a decade or so. The ACC is next to be dismantled. But that's where we are heading.

BuT OrEgOn StAtE iS gOoD aT fOoTbAlL!

Completely agree. But most people don't know because nobody watches. And that's the reality of modern football.

And I'm fine with this. We're going to get bowl tier games every week. I get tradition, but I have no sentimental attachment to the GoDaddy of them all - the Belk Bowl. But if Oregon can play Wisconsin every year? You know I'm in.

[PDXKnight]

I think the Oregon/UW to B1G holdup was, as mentioned by canzano, the fully guaranteed on the next TV deal. That wasn't being offered initially and I think all along if that ever came on the table oregon was ready to leap. It was offered 10-20 minutes before the pac 12 meeting more than likely meaning oregon and uw used the pac for leverage as any school would in that situation. If that deal isnt offered the pac 12 lives another day. The interim 7 years until that point were secondhand imo, as soon as Oregon got offered full menbership on the next tv deal oregon wouldve been willing to leap probably for less than the pac 12 deal even if need be so long as full membership would eventually happen in 7 years

What does full membership mean for oregon and UW? Realistically 3 times the tv and or streaming revenue they would've been able to have before this point and remaining relevant as a program. Oregon and UW wanted to be on this boat and so in a sense this is "buying their future."

Oregon was never staying in the Pac-X and taking an equal revenue share $21M/year Apple deal. They had a $31M/year deal with the Big 12. Big 12 has a weird contract with ESPN where they can add "Power 5" schools and they will cover the $31M. Works for ESPN. Big 12 paid significantly less than the SEC and Big Ten. Cap the remaining content at around $30M/school.

The Pac-X had a ~$30M deal on the table for the Pac-X, but they shot it down. Per Clownzano, they demanded $50M/school and were told "Goodbye!"

The Big Ten was always the goal. Big 12 wouldn't uneven revenue share. Big Ten eventually agreed to meet or exceed the Big 12.

Again, the whole thing is driven by TV ratings. Oregon came in 12th. Lossington came in 35th. Those are value adds. Permanently taking less revenue was never going to happen. It was just a matter of negotiating the best contract, and pitting Big Ten/Big 12/Pac-X against each other to do so.

Just to be clear I'm on the same page here, uo was gonna go big 10 one way or the other, the pac 12 just blew any hail mary possibility over and over again and especially they blew it in the case of the la schools which marked the beginning of the end

[Norm2953]

The end goal of all of this is to have a 32-team FOX conference. And a 32-team ESPN conference. And the winner of those play for the championship (sponsored by Dr. Pepper). G5 (read small TV market) teams will get their own playoff, and have their own "division 2" championship. Will probably take a decade or so. The ACC is next to be dismantled. But that's where we are heading.

BuT OrEgOn StAtE iS gOoD aT fOoTbAlL!

Completely agree. But most people don't know because nobody watches. And that's the reality of modern football.

And I'm fine with this. We're going to get bowl tier games every week. I get tradition, but I have no sentimental attachment to the GoDaddy of them all - the Belk Bowl. But if Oregon can play Wisconsin every year? You know I'm in.

I think it far more likely there will less seats at the super conference level with two 16 teams in a B1G and SEC
super conference,

The marginal current SEC/B1G teams would be dumped for the FSU, Clemson and Miami's of the world who
are clamoring to get out of the ACC. ND's independent status would be interesting...

We could then have a second tier level of conferences for the Oregon State's of the world and the
rest of the pack

This is of course all for football

[JasonStern]

Just to be clear I'm on the same page here, uo was gonna go big 10 one way or the other, the pac 12 just blew any hail mary possibility over and over again and especially they blew it in the case of the la schools which marked the beginning of the end

And while the partial revenue share thing sucks, especially when UCLA gets a full share. Oregon and Lossington got at least as much as the Big 12 was offering. And that was significantly more than the Pac-X was offering. And it's more than the ACC and their horrific grant of rights could have offered. So other than joining the SEC in football only and dropping other sports to the Mountain West/WCC, this was the best possible outcome. And honestly, Oregon vs. Auburn or Oregon vs. Wisconsin as a new blood rivalry doesn't really matter to me. That said, Oregon has some Big Ten OOC games that need to be rethought/replaced.

CIVIL WAR!

Sure. Just not Stanford. Please not Stanford.

[PDXKnight]

The end goal of all of this is to have a 32-team FOX conference. And a 32-team ESPN conference. And the winner of those play for the championship (sponsored by Dr. Pepper). G5 (read small TV market) teams will get their own playoff, and have their own "division 2" championship. Will probably take a decade or so. The ACC is next to be dismantled. But that's where we are heading.

BuT OrEgOn StAtE iS gOoD aT fOoTbAlL!

Completely agree. But most people don't know because nobody watches. And that's the reality of modern football.

And I'm fine with this. We're going to get bowl tier games every week. I get tradition, but I have no sentimental attachment to the GoDaddy of them all - the Belk Bowl. But if Oregon can play Wisconsin every year? You know I'm in.

I think it far more likely there will less seats at the super conference level with two 16 teams in a B1G and SEC
super conference,

The marginal current SEC/B1G teams would be dumped for the FSU, Clemson and Miami's of the world who
are clamoring to get out of the ACC. ND's independent status would be interesting...

We could then have a second tier level of conferences for the Oregon State's of the world and the
rest of the pack

This is of course all for football

ND wouldn't be excluded. I think the number is more like 40 given there's schools not in the realignment but soon to be within 5 years like the aforementioned ND, clemson, unc, miami fsu, then a lower tier that is still maybe in the convo oklahoma state Texas tech Stanford, baylor, tcu, stanford cal, Utah, Zona schools etc. There would be addition by subtraction for sure but I still think there's maybe 40 schools that make the cut, scheduling will just need to be rethought out as things move ahead

I'd like to think more than just Rutgers could be cut out such as MSST Minnesota northwestern Indiana Vanderbilt Purdue Illinois but unfortunately in some of those cases there's a ton of fortunate (for them) historic ties to blue bloods in their respective conferences so it may be harder to destroy than in the case of the pac 12 where the big 10 cherry picked and sort of left the others in the dust. Not saying it can't or won't happen but it feels less sure than the pac 12 folding after the la schools left

[Wizenheimer]

I can't see either the Big-10 or SEC kicking teams out of the conference. That would be a real difficult task politically and may not survive legal challenges...and there would be legal challenges

however, I could certainly see a situation where the blue bloods...Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, maybe Oregon, maybe Mich State push really really hard for a bigger share of revenue over Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. The blue bloods are the ones getting the big ratings which in turn drives media contracts.

Same thing in the SEC....Georgia and Alabama should be getting a bigger share than Vanderbilt

[PDXKnight]

I can't see either the Big-10 or SEC kicking teams out of the conference. That would be a real difficult task politically and may not survive legal challenges...and there would be legal challenges

however, I could certainly see a situation where the blue bloods...Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, maybe Oregon, maybe Mich State push really really hard for a bigger share of revenue over Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. The blue bloods are the ones getting the big ratings which in turn drives media contracts.

Same thing in the SEC....Georgia and Alabama should be getting a bigger share than Vanderbilt

yeah i’ve often wondered this same issue myself, there is an obvious discrepancy between media market value of ohio state and northwestern and a split pie isn’t fair. Eventually the big schools who carry the television weight will inevitably demand it be a more fair system that recognizes the value that big names bring to a conference and those conferences will need to account for that in a quick way or suffer a death similar to the pac even if it meant the better brands build their own super conference free from the dead weights. Ultimately i think this scenario will be avoided as the blue bloods will get paid, and maybe once that money issue becomes more apparent schools like rutgers realizing the money won’t be there for them like it was and the losing hasn’t gotten any funner… will voluntarily go to another conference. But bare minimum no doubt they won’t get equal revenue at least if the Big 10 or SEC don’t have a death wish

[Wizenheimer]

I can't see either the Big-10 or SEC kicking teams out of the conference. That would be a real difficult task politically and may not survive legal challenges...and there would be legal challenges

however, I could certainly see a situation where the blue bloods...Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, maybe Oregon, maybe Mich State push really really hard for a bigger share of revenue over Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. The blue bloods are the ones getting the big ratings which in turn drives media contracts.

Same thing in the SEC....Georgia and Alabama should be getting a bigger share than Vanderbilt

yeah i’ve often wondered this same issue myself, there is an obvious discrepancy between media market value of ohio state and northwestern and a split pie isn’t fair. Eventually the big schools who carry the television weight will inevitably demand it be a more fair system that recognizes the value that big names bring to a conference and those conferences will need to account for that in a quick way or suffer a death similar to the pac even if it meant the better brands build their own super conference free from the dead weights. Ultimately i think this scenario will be avoided as the blue bloods will get paid, and maybe once that money issue becomes more apparent schools like rutgers realizing the money won’t be there for them like it was and the losing hasn’t gotten any funner… will voluntarily go to another conference. But bare minimum no doubt they won’t get equal revenue at least if the Big 10 or SEC don’t have a death wish

I would think an uneven share distribution would still leave the 'tier 2' schools in a much better situation than being in any other conference

for instance, the BIG will be getting a new media deal in 2030. For the sake of argument, assume a static number of teams (I think there will be further expansion, but it's math I don't want to perform right now)

say that the first year base share for 18 teams is 75M/school. I can see a situation where the BIG says, according to the media partner (for example), there are 10 tier-2 teams an 8 tier-1 teams (being an Oregon fan of course I assume Oregon is tier 1)

so the BIG does a 'merit' split of payout where all 10 tier-2 teams get 10M less dropping them to 65M base 1st year. And the 8 tier-1 teams split the 100M taken from tier-2, 12.5M per school. Meaning tier-2 schools get a 65M payout which is just about guaranteed to be 25-30M more than they could get anywhere else. Meanwhile, the tier-1 schools will start with a 1st year base of 87-88M

it likely wouldn't be that wide of a gap, at least not 1st year; and the formula will likely be a lot more complicated. There might even be relegation where there was a process a tier-2 school could move up, and a tier 1 school could drop

[JasonStern]

ND wouldn't be excluded. I think the number is more like 40 given there's schools not in the realignment but soon to be within 5 years like the aforementioned ND, clemson, unc, miami fsu, then a lower tier that is still maybe in the convo oklahoma state Texas tech Stanford, baylor, tcu, stanford cal, Utah, Zona schools etc. There would be addition by subtraction for sure but I still think there's maybe 40 schools that make the cut, scheduling will just need to be rethought out as things move ahead

I'd like to think more than just Rutgers could be cut out such as MSST Minnesota northwestern Indiana Vanderbilt Purdue Illinois but unfortunately in some of those cases there's a ton of fortunate (for them) historic ties to blue bloods in their respective conferences so it may be harder to destroy than in the case of the pac 12 where the big 10 cherry picked and sort of left the others in the dust. Not saying it can't or won't happen but it feels less sure than the pac 12 folding after the la schools left

It is all TV driven. End game is two 32-team super conferences - FOX and ESPN. Two 16 team playoffs. Champions face off. Probably have to switch between FOX and ESPN/ABC every year. But it's a new era. NIL. Transfer Portal. etc.

Second tier of teams, which includes Oregon State and Wazzu, play in a separate 64 team lesser division for a lesser championship.

That's the TV model. That's mostly how the NFL works. And it's kind of how men's basketball works (NIT).

Notre Dame is weird outlier. Unlike the NFL, where all teams collectively bargain for media rights, Notre Dame just is free to do whatever it wants. Rumors are NBC has a contract offer with them when their deal expires worth $75M. For SIX home games. And don't get me wrong. I don't hate Notre Dame. Not a fan, but not a hater. But if you can get paid $75M/year to play USC/Stanford, some revolving ACC teams, and filler games like Middle Tennessee State and Central Michigan, why would you join a conference? And as long as they drive that kind of revenue, and if FOX/ESPN don't force them into a conference...

If anything, I imagine it'd be more a final 4 with Notre Dame getting an auto-bid if they're ranked in the top ~8? And some lesser division school getting an auto-bid. But the networks don't want that. Nobody wanted USC/Tulane. They wanted USC/Texas (which lowly Lossington beat) or USC/Florida (which, semi-ironically, Oregon State humiliated).

Cutting crap programs from existing conferences is dicey. Take a bad progrum - Illinois. That's still exposure to the Chicago market. And to kick someone out, it varies from conference to conference, but you need a nearly unanimous vote from the chancellors - not the athletic directors. I am sure that FOX/ESPN would love to pick their 32 team super conferences. But unless they were willing to work together and pay money that they don't want to pay, that's not happening.

Regarding the Pac-12, Larry Scott might be the only person less competent in sports than Neil Olshey. And that's saying a lot.