CSNbbs

Interesting article from ESPN on a few candidates for commissioner as well as some objectives that need to be met

Three major issues

I’ve always seen the PAC as in a similar place as the ACC. The schools have formed a generally cohesive athletic conference with comparable missions. There is a lot good competition, equity and success. Nevertheless, the conference wants to benchmark itself against higher revenue conferences such as the SEC and BIG.

It’s not surprising that Ohio State and Alabama’s ADs are named as potential candidates for conference commissioners. It just indicates that revenue generation and football are deemed as the major areas of need.

The PAC 12 is going to have to do something and probably something big to get themselves back in a competitive position with their peer conferences.

Is a partial merger with the Big 12 a nuclear option they’d be willing to take?

(01-21-2021 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 is going to have to do something and probably something big to get themselves back in a competitive position with their peer conferences.

Is a partial merger with the Big 12 a nuclear option they’d be willing to take?

I have always viewed that as unlikely just because most of the PAC 12 schools don't seem to be compatible with most of the Big 12 schools.

I think it's one thing if we're talking about Texas or Oklahoma or Kansas, but I just don't think most of the PAC leaders would be agreeable.

The Big 12, Big 10 and Pac-12 is a classic case of fast, cheap, good - pick any two.

The Big 10/Pac-12 would be the "good" in that they're institutionally similar and complement each other in geographical areas but it won't be "cheap" due to travel concerns, market issues, recruiting and desire to play key programs from the other P conferences.

PAC/Big 12 would be the "cheap" and "fast" but probably not "good" due to cultural differences between progressive institutions on the left coast and their counterparts in the plains states. And that's not getting to the money issue. Same could be said for a hypothetical Big 12/Big 10 combo.

(01-22-2021 01:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2021 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 is going to have to do something and probably something big to get themselves back in a competitive position with their peer conferences.

Is a partial merger with the Big 12 a nuclear option they’d be willing to take?

I have always viewed that as unlikely just because most of the PAC 12 schools don't seem to be compatible with most of the Big 12 schools.

I think it's one thing if we're talking about Texas or Oklahoma or Kansas, but I just don't think most of the PAC leaders would be agreeable.

If forced to, I think the PAC 12 might jettison Wash St and Ore St (both non-AAU while 9 of the other 10 are) in order to merge with 6 Big 12 schools.

This is the nuclear option though.

What I think the PAC 12 would rather do is jointly negotiate their rights with say the Big 12, so that they are a package deal—all 22 schools on the same tv contracts.

(01-22-2021 01:56 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]The Big 12, Big 10 and Pac-12 is a classic case of fast, cheap, good - pick any two.

The Big 10/Pac-12 would be the "good" in that they're institutionally similar and complement each other in geographical areas but it won't be "cheap" due to travel concerns, market issues, recruiting and desire to play key programs from the other P conferences.

PAC/Big 12 would be the "cheap" and "fast" but probably not "good" due to cultural differences between progressive institutions on the left coast and their counterparts in the plains states. And that's not getting to the money issue. Same could be said for a hypothetical Big 12/Big 10 combo.

I'm not following here.. what do you mean progressive? You mean schools that didn't want to play football during the covid 19 epidemic? The same schools who went ahead and had a delayed season?

(01-22-2021 11:00 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2021 01:56 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]The Big 12, Big 10 and Pac-12 is a classic case of fast, cheap, good - pick any two.

The Big 10/Pac-12 would be the "good" in that they're institutionally similar and complement each other in geographical areas but it won't be "cheap" due to travel concerns, market issues, recruiting and desire to play key programs from the other P conferences.

PAC/Big 12 would be the "cheap" and "fast" but probably not "good" due to cultural differences between progressive institutions on the left coast and their counterparts in the plains states. And that's not getting to the money issue. Same could be said for a hypothetical Big 12/Big 10 combo.

I'm not following here.. what do you mean progressive? You mean schools that didn't want to play football during the covid 19 epidemic? The same schools who went ahead and had a delayed season?

I believe he is trying to honestly discuss cultural and political differences without crossing a taboo on this board. So without getting into those I think it is fair to acknowledge that most of the Big 12 is very different than most of the PAC in this regard and that most of the Big 12 is more in line with, though not absolutely, the Southeast. And while these matters don't impact relationships between Universities so much they do with attitude toward athletics and certainly do where the attitudes of big money donors are concerned.

For these reasons and more importantly the overall financial outlook which he doesn't get into, I think a merger or union between the Big 12 and PAC is much less likely now than it was in 2012.

(01-22-2021 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2021 11:00 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2021 01:56 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]The Big 12, Big 10 and Pac-12 is a classic case of fast, cheap, good - pick any two.

The Big 10/Pac-12 would be the "good" in that they're institutionally similar and complement each other in geographical areas but it won't be "cheap" due to travel concerns, market issues, recruiting and desire to play key programs from the other P conferences.

PAC/Big 12 would be the "cheap" and "fast" but probably not "good" due to cultural differences between progressive institutions on the left coast and their counterparts in the plains states. And that's not getting to the money issue. Same could be said for a hypothetical Big 12/Big 10 combo.

I'm not following here.. what do you mean progressive? You mean schools that didn't want to play football during the covid 19 epidemic? The same schools who went ahead and had a delayed season?

I believe he is trying to honestly discuss cultural and political differences without crossing a taboo on this board. So without getting into those I think it is fair to acknowledge that most of the Big 12 is very different than most of the PAC in this regard and that most of the Big 12 is more in line with, though not absolutely, the Southeast. And while these matters don't impact relationships between Universities so much they do with attitude toward athletics and certainly do where the attitudes of big money donors are concerned.

For these reasons and more importantly the overall financial outlook which he doesn't get into, I think a merger or union between the Big 12 and PAC is much less likely now than it was in 2012.

I never got the politics in these types of discussions. But I guess everything is divided.

Without all that.. Does the PAC 12 realistically get a bigger deal this round of negotiations than the Big12 does? I know overall it should be the Pac with having 12 schools compared to just 10 for the Big12.. But as far as individual payouts, will the Big12 continue to exceed them?

(01-22-2021 12:47 PM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]Without all that.. Does the PAC 12 realistically get a bigger deal this round of negotiations than the Big12 does? I know overall it should be the Pac with having 12 schools compared to just 10 for the Big12.. But as far as individual payouts, will the Big12 continue to exceed them?

The one huge advantage the PAC has over the Big 12 is an already established television network.
We have seen that it takes several years to fully implement a conference network and with cable on the wane it does not seem likely any entity would invest in a Big 12 network today.

Texas will always have a market. Huge state school with a large state population....there will always be plenty of Texas fans. The Big 12's problem is that the current star of their show, Oklahoma, has no built in fan base that could sustain them over a down period.

The PAC will survive, the jury is still out on the Big 12.

(01-22-2021 01:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2021 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 is going to have to do something and probably something big to get themselves back in a competitive position with their peer conferences.

Is a partial merger with the Big 12 a nuclear option they’d be willing to take?

I have always viewed that as unlikely just because most of the PAC 12 schools don't seem to be compatible with most of the Big 12 schools.

I think it's one thing if we're talking about Texas or Oklahoma or Kansas, but I just don't think most of the PAC leaders would be agreeable.

I think its extremely unlikely any Big 12 schools would join the Pac 12. The Big 12 schools have bigger fan bases, generate more internal revenue and have more success in the two revenue sports. And the Pac 12 creates a lot more travel. The only way it happens is if the networks try to force it by low-balling the conferences. And they fought it happening in 2010. I don't see why they would favor it now.

And with their reliance on California, the only Pac 12 schools that might leave would be the California schools. For academic reasons, I don't think that is likely. They wouldn't leave 5 AAU members behind for a conference with 3.

(01-22-2021 12:47 PM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]Without all that.. Does the PAC 12 realistically get a bigger deal this round of negotiations than the Big12 does? I know overall it should be the Pac with having 12 schools compared to just 10 for the Big12.. But as far as individual payouts, will the Big12 continue to exceed them?

The Big 12 gets better ratings. And that has been with Texas in a down cycle. While the Pac 12 has more TVs, they aren't getting people to tune in. Logically, the Big 12 should get a little more per game, but both will remain behind the Big 10 and SEC.

(01-24-2021 10:17 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2021 12:47 PM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]Without all that.. Does the PAC 12 realistically get a bigger deal this round of negotiations than the Big12 does? I know overall it should be the Pac with having 12 schools compared to just 10 for the Big12.. But as far as individual payouts, will the Big12 continue to exceed them?

The Big 12 gets better ratings. And that has been with Texas in a down cycle. While the Pac 12 has more TVs, they aren't getting people to tune in. Logically, the Big 12 should get a little more per game, but both will remain behind the Big 10 and SEC.

oh yeah, they will trail those other two conferences but they need to stay somewhat in the same area of those two.

If the Big12 stays, and I think they will, I am hopeful that they can poach 2 schools from anywhere. Need to make 2 divisions once again in order to help a school like KU in football. But they should continue having the top 2 schools face off in the CCG, regardless of div.

(01-24-2021 10:36 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-24-2021 10:17 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2021 12:47 PM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]Without all that.. Does the PAC 12 realistically get a bigger deal this round of negotiations than the Big12 does? I know overall it should be the Pac with having 12 schools compared to just 10 for the Big12.. But as far as individual payouts, will the Big12 continue to exceed them?

The Big 12 gets better ratings. And that has been with Texas in a down cycle. While the Pac 12 has more TVs, they aren't getting people to tune in. Logically, the Big 12 should get a little more per game, but both will remain behind the Big 10 and SEC.

oh yeah, they will trail those other two conferences but they need to stay somewhat in the same area of those two.

If the Big12 stays, and I think they will, I am hopeful that they can poach 2 schools from anywhere. Need to make 2 divisions once again in order to help a school like KU in football. But they should continue having the top 2 schools face off in the CCG, regardless of div.

The Big 12 has better fan support and more eyeballs than the PAC, but fewer people to sell product to.
A good portion of the revenue generated by the B1G, SEC and now the ACC comes from their own networks. I can not see that any entity will pony up massive increases for the Big 12 for so few customers.
As to being able to poach two teams, that might depend of whether ESPN or FOX shows the most interest. If it's FOX and the Rose Bowl bonds hold true, perhaps Colorado and Nebraska would return to the fold. Neither the PAC or the B1G would miss either.
ESPN would be a little trickier. The logical adds to the Big 12 would be Missouri from the SEC (which they wouldn't miss at all) and Louisville from the ACC with Notre Dame sliding into their spot.
Missouri may not they problem, Louisville might be. They seem quite content in the ACC, Plus Notre Dame may not be ready to make a full time commitment. Then there would be the problem of having only 13 teams in the SEC and ESPN may be counting in the St. Louis and Kansas City markets with the SEC's big new contract. We already know the nets aren't overjoyed with any of the G5 schools that the Big 12 could acquire.
Once all of the options have been exhausted, the schools that have value and outside possibilities will eventually take them, and the Big 12 as we know know it will cease to exist.

(01-24-2021 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-24-2021 10:36 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-24-2021 10:17 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2021 12:47 PM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]Without all that.. Does the PAC 12 realistically get a bigger deal this round of negotiations than the Big12 does? I know overall it should be the Pac with having 12 schools compared to just 10 for the Big12.. But as far as individual payouts, will the Big12 continue to exceed them?

The Big 12 gets better ratings. And that has been with Texas in a down cycle. While the Pac 12 has more TVs, they aren't getting people to tune in. Logically, the Big 12 should get a little more per game, but both will remain behind the Big 10 and SEC.

oh yeah, they will trail those other two conferences but they need to stay somewhat in the same area of those two.

If the Big12 stays, and I think they will, I am hopeful that they can poach 2 schools from anywhere. Need to make 2 divisions once again in order to help a school like KU in football. But they should continue having the top 2 schools face off in the CCG, regardless of div.

The Big 12 has better fan support and more eyeballs than the PAC, but fewer people to sell product to.
A good portion of the revenue generated by the B1G, SEC and now the ACC comes from their own networks. I can not see that any entity will pony up massive increases for the Big 12 for so few customers.
As to being able to poach two teams, that might depend of whether ESPN or FOX shows the most interest. If it's FOX and the Rose Bowl bonds hold true, perhaps Colorado and Nebraska would return to the fold. Neither the PAC or the B1G would miss either.
ESPN would be a little trickier. The logical adds to the Big 12 would be Missouri from the SEC (which they wouldn't miss at all) and Louisville from the ACC with Notre Dame sliding into their spot.
Missouri may not they problem, Louisville might be. They seem quite content in the ACC, Plus Notre Dame may not be ready to make a full time commitment. Then there would be the problem of having only 13 teams in the SEC and ESPN may be counting in the St. Louis and Kansas City markets with the SEC's big new contract. We already know the nets aren't overjoyed with any of the G5 schools that the Big 12 could acquire.
Once all of the options have been exhausted, the schools that have value and outside possibilities will eventually take them, and the Big 12 as we know know it will cease to exist.

I was thinking more of maybe AZ schools.. maybe CO.. NE won't return because of the money. Mizzu won't leave the SEC unless the BIG came knocking.

(01-24-2021 09:55 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Texas will always have a market. Huge state school with a large state population....there will always be plenty of Texas fans. The Big 12's problem is that the current star of their show, Oklahoma, has no built in fan base that could sustain them over a down period.

Oklahoma has a huge built in fan base. They survived 10 down years after Switzer was fired in 1989, under Gary Gibbs who was fired, then Howard Schnellenbeger who was fired, then John Blake who was fired, until they hired Bob Stoops in 1999. They have a very long waiting list for season ticket purchases

I think the PAC 12 just needs to stay the course. Just a 6-7 years ago we all were busting on the ACC and to a lesser extent B10. Things go in cycles. USC has the resources to be a national player in football again and the same could be said of UCLA in basketball. Oregon is fairly capable of running the table in football as well. The PAC has its owm region locked up. I think what hurts the PAC the most is timezones.

(01-25-2021 03:04 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: [ -> ]I think the PAC 12 just needs to stay the course. Just a 6-7 years ago we all were busting on the ACC and to a lesser extent B10. Things go in cycles. USC has the resources to be a national player in football again and the same could be said of UCLA in basketball. Oregon is fairly capable of running the table in football as well. The PAC has its owm region locked up. I think what hurts the PAC the most is timezones.

I agree, but a lot will depend on the next media deal. If they get something similar to what they are already receiving, then I can see a school or two test the waters of going elsewhere.

(01-25-2021 08:46 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-25-2021 03:04 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: [ -> ]I think the PAC 12 just needs to stay the course. Just a 6-7 years ago we all were busting on the ACC and to a lesser extent B10. Things go in cycles. USC has the resources to be a national player in football again and the same could be said of UCLA in basketball. Oregon is fairly capable of running the table in football as well. The PAC has its owm region locked up. I think what hurts the PAC the most is timezones.

I agree, but a lot will depend on the next media deal. If they get something similar to what they are already receiving, then I can see a school or two test the waters of going elsewhere.

One thing I could see is Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, OSU, USC, Oregon and Clemson doing is joining the ranks of Notre Dame as Independents. In terms of branding, each of these schools have outgrown the need of a conference.