Jump to content
Warbow

PAC 16 -- 2020

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, HighNTight_SD said:

I know this was not directed at me ... but I will conjecture that the same immutable conditions will have to be met.

1. academics - will the additions dilute the academic branding of the conference?

2. athletics - can the programs added compete (primarily in football, basketball & baseball) and will they increase bowl revenue & ncaa credits?

3. media/market - will the institutions added increase media revenue?

4. travel/schedule - what will be the overall effect of the locations added? 

 

#2 is an overstated condition.  Given P5 money and recruiting, almost any school can have their programs at a P5 level in a short time.  To me, 1 & 3 are going to be the biggies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

Yes.  They will do 1 home-and-home with the P5 or Notre Dame.

And try and get 2 1-and-done games to fill out their schedules.  The MWC will mostly just travel to their place.

But, I see your point with a scheduling agreement.  It would only work with an 8 game conference schedule.

The way I read the tea leaves of the committee -- the need to prove you can win quality games out of conference and away from home hold a lot of cache ... Pac needs games beyond the 1 and done body bag games at home and the MWC will provide that.

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

#2 is an overstated condition.  Given P5 money and recruiting, almost any school can have their programs at a P5 level in a short time.  To me, 1 & 3 are going to be the biggies.

There is no doubt that athletics are the most flexible condition -- teams can obviously have up and down years ... but the program should be be consistently in the upper half of the FBS & D1 (basketball & baseball).

That being said ... the teams added have to be able to compete not just for their own post-season, but to increase the chances of their fellow conference members to do so as well. An addition that can compete right away is going to be more attractive than one that will take time to increase their level of play.

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any of you guys ever read what the PAC presidents and the elitist influential faculty folks have to say about expansion? If you haven't, you should. I read an article a while ago that quoted those folks from CAL, Stanford and UCLA, and it was a real eye opener. But these people that make expansion decisions see it primarily what a school can add academically to their portfolio of schools making things happen with research. 

These people are just like us accept they geek out over how much better they're doing academically than the other conferences. They have their little cocktail parties and talk about the latest break through in research that one of their schools is having, and talk about how great their PAC fraternity of schools is over other conferences. It's like academics is sports to them. 

So if you really want to know what these decision makers are really thinking, you might want to pay attention to that instead of convincing yourself that these people see it your way. When expansion is brought up, they want to know what research and other academics you have to offer to their incredible conference. They don't even mention athletics except as an after thought at the end of their discussion. Medical research gives them the biggest boner, so that's how you'll have to impress as a little shiit G5. 

I really couldn't believe how snobbish and arrogant they are. So if you're interested in reality, you'll know what you're up against just to get a wiff of interest. If you don't have any great research for them to add to their greatness, then just give it a rest. You won't even be considered. If you do have what they want, then they'll let the athletic analysis begin. It's a tough cookie to crack.

When I hear about SDSU, Boise St., UNLV being so qualified to get in by some posters here, it is just insane. I don't think Hawaii will get any interest because when it gets to the athletic analysis part, travel will be too much. CSU is the most qualified in the MWC by a slim margin, and then there are a couple more such as Nevada that could potentially pass the academic scrutiny eventually with all the good research going on there. But when we get looked at for athletics, we still have a ways to go with facilities, etc. But it's at least going in the right direction. And the same applies to maybe another 1 or 2 MWC schools. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, UTAlrightGuy said:

I've always thought that was a short sighted approach. While Texas does like to have it's own prestige and money, it would be disadvantageous to go independent for a TV channel that is in all likelihood getting dropped or significantly reduced (in pay and probably exposure) after the current contract. I don't think Texas would let a 10 year decision affect a 100 year one. Texas knows it eventually needs to move and if the next round passes it by with OU, Kansas, and others leaving, leverage is lost for Texas in realignment.  I don't foresee Texas reducing itself to play smaller schools in its non football conference, just so it can schedule a few decent football games (that are limited by expanding conference schedules) while watching its TV channel get cut and  Purdue, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and such make more money than it in their TV contracts. Some say Texas pride is too big to join a conference on equal terms. I'd say Texas pride is too big to relegate its self importance, by clinging to a channel, limiting its further choices and allowing other smaller, less prestigious schools make more money, play better schools, have equal exposure and such by being in the Big Ten or SEC. 

 

I hope the Pac-16 interest died with the prior Texas administration and AD. I personally have no interest in 1)worse game times, 2) schools with no connections to Texas, 3) No history, 4) worse travel among other things. 

Texas, at the time the network was created, branded itself as a school everyone wants to see and actually thought about trying to do what BYU did when they went independent. That was probably mostly the previous adminstration however some of those same feelings could still be around for them. When i heard during the previous round robin between conferences.......when hearing Pac-12 was going for Texas, Oklahoma and others thought it would be a bad idea because they really would never fit in the conference. No rivalries, on connections or anything like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Wasn't "the prior Texas administration" interested in going to the Pac mainly to improve the university's academic image?

I don't really think you can improve the academic image of Texas.... much but that is what they partly what they said.

 

If that's the case, the Big Ten is a better academic conference and has the CIC on top of having a much better athletic media deal, better time zones for travel, and more interest in their sports programs among other things. I think the Texas administration was forecasting a renaissance for the Pac-12 that never came. I think they thought the Pac-12 media model was going to be a smashing success, that they'd have more of a say in conference, the PAC-12 would have more interest nationwide, they'd pick their travel buddies and I'm not sure what else. In turn, the media has been terrible, the interest nationally is solid but flat (not SEC or Big Ten level), A&M has risen in stature, and the PAC has 2 less schools that UT can choose. I (as a Texan) never saw the interest in the PAC-12, but that's my own personal opinion. I mean I understand the MWC interest in the PAC-12. Your programs live side by side, commingle as such. Our (Texans) focus is East mostly.

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

The PAC12 wants to have a football and basketball scheduling agreement with the Big12 or Big Ten.  Look for them to partner with the Big12 on some future TV opportunities.  Both conferences would benefit.

I read an article that was written last year about Pac-12 and Big 12 and some talks about a scheduling agreement between the two conferences......it would start in football and then expand to other sports betwen the two conferences. However because of logistical issues, mainly in football, talks never went that far. Now if the two went into something for basketball or other sports...I think that could done before doing something for football right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

Texas, at the time the network was created, branded itself as a school everyone wants to see and actually thought about trying to do what BYU did when they went independent. That was probably mostly the previous adminstration however some of those same feelings could still be around for them. When i heard during the previous round robin between conferences.......when hearing Pac-12 was going for Texas, Oklahoma and others thought it would be a bad idea because they really would never fit in the conference. No rivalries, on connections or anything like that.

 

Texas IS a school everyone wants to see..... when they are winning like most other big brands. 10 years of football, basketball and baseball success created a somewhat inflated sense of self worth as did being courted by a lot of conferences during the realignment. Then ESPN offered the money. 

Plus I think some of that is walk the line talk. You're not going to say, "We are a normal school that they offered too much money to refuse." You have to pump the brand (as obnoxious as I find that to say) in order to create the attention and interest that you want. 

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

I read an article that was written last year about Pac-12 and Big 12 and some talks about a scheduling agreement between the two conferences......it would start in football and then expand to other sports betwen the two conferences. However because of logistical issues, mainly in football, talks never went that far. Now if the two went into something for basketball or other sports...I think that could done before doing something for football right now.

Didn't we have the Big 12-Pac 10 challenge in basketball years ago?

 

I find it interesting that as much as talking heads love to talk about the relationship between the PAC-12 and Big Ten, that they don't have a basketball, baseball or anything else sort of challenge or connection. Does the Big Ten really care about the PAC-12 other than the Rose Bowl? 

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UTAlrightGuy said:

Didn't we have the Big 12-Pac 10 challenge in basketball years ago?

 

I find it interesting that as much as talking heads love to talk about the relationship between the PAC-12 and Big Ten, that they don't have a basketball, baseball or anything else sort of challenge or connection. Does the Big Ten really care about the PAC-12 other than the Rose Bowl? 

I don't know anything about Big 10.............I was just talking about the article I read about the Big 12 and how they did talk at one time but it wasn't a long talk but wouldn't be surprised if they came back to revisit things for basketball....baseball and such. But for football I don't think it will happen mainly because Pac 12 has three OOC games a year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

So come clean. Assuming the Pac has no choice but to expand to 16 because TV partners, the other power conferences, God, the Devil, Beavis & Butthead or whomever mandates the Pac do so, what four schools would you predict will be added? And please explain your rationale.

I have no idea. It would not be that scenario. 

I doubt the schools in the PAC12 will allow espn or any other broadcast entity to dictate terms of conference membership.

If pushed too far I could see them deciding that less is acceptable. I could see them dropping espn and going with google or something similar. 

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, are you still a moron?"

"Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag and there's nothing I can't do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

I don't know anything about Big 10.............I was just talking about the article I read about the Big 12 and how they did talk at one time but it wasn't a long talk but wouldn't be surprised if they came back to revisit things for basketball....baseball and such. But for football I don't think it will happen mainly because Pac 12 has three OOC games a year

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12/Pac-10_Hardwood_Series

 

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just going to put this here.

From my understanding here in B12 country there is a lot of pressure from OU fans to leave the B12.  Those voices have quieted a little but most OU fans I have talked to want to go to the B1G.  The PAC12 they pretty much feel burned by and have very little interest in going west now.  Of course these are fans and not the administration so who knows what might go down.  My bet is Oklahoma will make an effort to go to the B1G or possibly the SEC. 

Texas I think is pretty content with what the LHN brings it. 

The P12 powers like USC, UCLA, and Stanford will not want to expand unless it creates more value.  SDSU I believe would be a great addition, but I do not know the politics involved. A USC @ SDSU game will get huge ratings in the area.  Much better ratings than what Utah or Colorado could give.  A winning SDSU squad in the PAC12 would bring in 50k easy in attendance.  UNLV I just don't see the academics getting them in.  UNM I think is the only other wildcard in PAC12 expansion.  They offer a solid basketball fan base and a nice regional fit if the PA12 were to grab Okla St and TTech or TCU. 

 

SDSU in the P12 would be a great move by the P12.  I just don't know that the politics will allow for that.  Outside of Texas and Oklahoma I don't know of a better addition.  BYU won't get the invite because of politics and academics so not worth the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, suralexander said:

 

From my understanding here in B12 country there is a lot of pressure from OU fans to leave the B12.  Those voices have quieted a little but most OU fans I have talked to want to go to the B1G.  The PAC12 they pretty much feel burned by and have very little interest in going west now.  Of course these are fans and not the administration so who knows what might go down.  My bet is Oklahoma will make an effort to go to the B1G or possibly the SEC. 

 

And since neither of those conferences (B10 or SEC) have much interest in Oklahoma....

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RSF said:

And since neither of those conferences (B10 or SEC) have much interest in Oklahoma....

Good chance the B1G will grab them up.  Along with KU IMO.  Oklahoma has a pretty good following in the Dallas market.  Not Texas, but OU is a good move for B1G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, suralexander said:

Good chance the B1G will grab them up.  Along with KU IMO.  Oklahoma has a pretty good following in the Dallas market.  Not Texas, but OU is a good move for B1G.

Dude, the scenarios you posit lately are highly improbable. Some are downright ridiculous. 

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, are you still a moron?"

"Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag and there's nothing I can't do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, suralexander said:

Good chance the B1G will grab them up.  Along with KU IMO.  Oklahoma has a pretty good following in the Dallas market.  Not Texas, but OU is a good move for B1G.

 

Chances are low.  Big 10 wants - or wanted - to go east.  But the ACC schools are no longer available.  The paradigm that drove Big 10 expansion was the subscription rates for BTN.  OU doesnt get them increased rates in Texas (they could argue OU is 'in market' in DFW but all the in-state providers are already on the hook for LHN) and not enough of them in Oklahoma to justify it.  Fox owns half of BTN (and Fox already pays OU big bucks for their Tier 3 rights) andFox now has the Big 10 and Big 12 so they have little incentive to drive OU from one to the other.  And BTN has gotten big enough that even a 'name brand' like OU may not necessarily pay for itself.  Same problems apply for OU to the SEC too.

 

 

And while the fans may feel 'burned' by the Pac 12 (which makes no sense, since OU was a tag along with UT), the simple fact is OU makes more money in the Big 12.  Pac12Nets pay less to the P12 schools than OU gets from Fox for their Tier 3 rights.  A lot less.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know its hard to accept, but the PACs only option is to add MW schools or BYU. They have no pull in terms of fan support or $$$ that is going to gain the interest of any of the top B12 programs. It seems insane now, but it's only a matter of time, no matter how triggered Utes are over it, it will happen.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...