For us old guys...they could call it The A & P. (for you younger folks, a lot of us used to shop there...lol)
Wasn't aware about SMU. As for Cal, perhaps, but travel has to weigh in--and I think it might hinge on PAC 10s response.
Pac-10? There is no Pac-10 (or 12) to respond. In my opinion, the only thing that would keep Cal and Stanford from accepting is if the Big-12 makes a last second offer to take the remaining 4 Pac-12 schools (Cal, Stanford, Wazzu and OSU) and there were rumors yesterday that the Big-12 might consider taking those 4. I could see if the Big-12 matched the ACC's 30% offer that the Big-12 might benefit Cal and Stanford for travel cost and logistics reasons. Plus they'd basically keep all their Pac-12 rivalries (minus USC and UCLA) and dramatically reduce the travel costs, athlete fatigue and fan travel costs. But I think Cal and Stanford may be far more concerned with academic reputation than what's best for their fans and athletes.
Holy @#$$@! My info way outdated. Hadn't heard about Az, ASU, UU, Oregon n Washington.... all bailing... Nm.
The BIG12 has no more pro-rata spots to add team at full payouts. Any team that gets added to the BIG12 now will only get in at a discounted rate. I don't think the BIG12 is really interested in WAZZU and Oregon State. The numbers don't add up. They don't add enough revenue when you take travel into consideration. Sad, because both are great schools. But college sports is a business now, first and foremost. Stanford and CAL have very little desire to ever go to the BIG12. They don't want to be in the same conference as BYU, Baylor, and TCU. The BIG12 also only has 5 AAU schools; Kansas, plus the 4-corner PAC schools that were just added. Stanford and CAL had very few options. Try and rebuild a PAC with WAZZU and Oregon State by adding G5 schools like Boise St, SDSU, Fresno State, and a few others. Or go ACC with the reduced payout. Money was likely very similar, and this way, Stanford gets to keep ties with Notre Dame, and the ivory tower types at both schools are at least not whining too much.
Not as difficult traveling for football once a week but the other sports and midweek games are going to suffer.
We agree. No way the Big-12 offers any of those schools a full share! But if they offered to match the ACC offer of $10M to Stanford and Cal and offered WSU and OSU maybe $5M (which is more than they'd get in MWC and keep them in a second tier power conference), I have to think they'd at least listen. But I think we also agree that Stanford and Cal bosses are probably more worried about the "academic prestige", as opposed to looking out for travel costs, the well being of their athletes (in all sports), having fans travel and keeping historical rivalries from the Pac-12 alive. Seems pretty short sighted to me.
This is horrible for student athletes. Imagine a conference where the schools are on opposite coasts. This has disaster written all over it.
The B1G will soon stretch from New Jersey to California. The BIG12 from West Virginia to Arizona. And the ACC from Miami to the Bay Area. May not make a huge difference in football, but for all other sports ,the SEC being in contiguous states in one region will be a recruiting advantage. Must less in-conference travel and kids can actually focus on academics, versus having to take two, 4-hour coast-to-coast plane rides just to play a conference foe.
It isn't so much about geography and sense regarding football and the new realities, it is mainly about football telling the golf and volleyball teams THEY have to spend enormous resources to play a conference opponent. Call football AAA pro league and separate it from the rest of the sports (including basketball) and administration, and everything settles down. Heck, I bristle that OUR teams have to travel to Missouri and Texas to "do what they have to do."
It's called the Grant of Rights and it would cost 120 million payout to get out. They are not shelling out that kind of money.
