CSNbbs

Full Version: Is the PAC 12 the new ACC?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Sorry for a somewhat confusing thread title.

In the first 39 years of the ACC (1953-1991, the seasons before Florida St joined) the ACC was always a bridesmaid and rarely a bride. They were an academic oriented conference with a country club feel that cared more about their conference title than being nationally relevant. And for the most part, they weren’t. Only 4 times in 39 years (1953, 1955, 1981, and 1990) did their champ rank in the top 5.

To me, this is what the PAC 12 is starting to become. They don’t invest in football and they aren’t relevant in the NC conversation most years. In the play off era they’ve struggled to put a team in the top 4. Barring some remarkable turnaround I think the PAC 12 is going to continue to struggle.

Is my comparison here accurate?
Time zone does isolate the Pac12
Right now they have to get people in seats
Which helps with donations, apparel, ratings, brand.
Pac12 network has to be fixed
Improve sch, 1AA games don't help anybody.
Expand with Houston n Hawaii (with Hawaii exemption) is 15 to 20 games
ND wants 13 data point vs best available Pac12 school in Vancouver on CCG wkend
PAC needs to work on bringing Texas over. If they can do that their problems would be solved.

Get Texas, Texas Tech then think about DFW and double down with TCU/SMU. Brings a good cross town rivalry to the PAC and more DFW exposure for UT.

Let the next TV deal for the PAC support the Longhorn network.
(06-10-2021 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]PAC needs to work on bringing Texas over. If they can do that their problems would be solved.

Get Texas, Texas Tech then think about DFW and double down with TCU/SMU. Brings a good cross town rivalry to the PAC and more DFW exposure for UT.

Let the next TV deal for the PAC support the Longhorn network.

Then in the 2030's-2040's at CSNBBS: Is the Pac 12 the new Big 12?
I don’t see the PAC 12 as a viable option for Texas.

There’s the geography.

There’s also the fact that Texas won’t be able to control the conference decision making the way they do now.

I don’t think there will be a huge revenue increase by doing so and if Texas was purely interested in money they’d join the SEC or Big 10.

I see the PAC 12, if the 12 team playoff goes through, as a conference that never advances to the semis and gets left out entirely once every 12-15 years.
(06-11-2021 06:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see the PAC 12 as a viable option for Texas.

There’s the geography.

There’s also the fact that Texas won’t be able to control the conference decision making the way they do now.

I don’t think there will be a huge revenue increase by doing so and if Texas was purely interested in money they’d join the SEC or Big 10.

I see the PAC 12, if the 12 team playoff goes through, as a conference that never advances to the semis and gets left out entirely once every 12-15 years.
how does Texas control the current Big 12 conference? This past decade has been terrible football wise..basketball is not far behind either.
(06-11-2021 09:17 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 06:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see the PAC 12 as a viable option for Texas.

There’s the geography.

There’s also the fact that Texas won’t be able to control the conference decision making the way they do now.

I don’t think there will be a huge revenue increase by doing so and if Texas was purely interested in money they’d join the SEC or Big 10.

I see the PAC 12, if the 12 team playoff goes through, as a conference that never advances to the semis and gets left out entirely once every 12-15 years.
how does Texas control the current Big 12 conference? This past decade has been terrible football wise..basketball is not far behind either.

Texas may not always win on the field/court but they control the decision making process. while feasibly the 8 schools who don’t play in the RRR could pass votes without the other 2, it’s a well known fact who the lucrative media properties are and if Texas and/or Oklahoma find themselves in the minority too many times or on a critical issue it would only take a phone call and either one could have a new conference home.
(06-11-2021 09:17 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 06:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see the PAC 12 as a viable option for Texas.

There’s the geography.

There’s also the fact that Texas won’t be able to control the conference decision making the way they do now.

I don’t think there will be a huge revenue increase by doing so and if Texas was purely interested in money they’d join the SEC or Big 10.

I see the PAC 12, if the 12 team playoff goes through, as a conference that never advances to the semis and gets left out entirely once every 12-15 years.
how does Texas control the current Big 12 conference? This past decade has been terrible football wise..basketball is not far behind either.

One thing Texas does control is the psychology of this message board. One surefire way of diverting the conversation of any topic (this one is supposedly about the Pac12 and the ACC) is to bring up Texas in any way. Comparing surlyhorns to this message board is always a culture shock to me - surly is an overly-pessimistic cynical diatribe about everything that is conceivably wrong with UT whereas here, regardless of how well the Longhorns actually do, UT is inherently and unquestionably the most powerful and influential entity on the planet, bar none, upon which everything revolves.

I "hate" Texas as the Evil Empire because I'm a Frog fan and, even though 99.9% of the Longhorns that I know barely even acknowledge TCU's existence, you're a rival. But Longhorns are normal people (i.e., not Aggies or Baylor fans) and are generally not even as annoying as Mustang fans. The way Texas is treated by the college sports world is endlessly fascinating and amusing to me.
(06-10-2021 03:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for a somewhat confusing thread title.

In the first 39 years of the ACC (1953-1991, the seasons before Florida St joined) the ACC was always a bridesmaid and rarely a bride. They were an academic oriented conference with a country club feel that cared more about their conference title than being nationally relevant. And for the most part, they weren’t. Only 4 times in 39 years (1953, 1955, 1981, and 1990) did their champ rank in the top 5.

To me, this is what the PAC 12 is starting to become. They don’t invest in football and they aren’t relevant in the NC conversation most years. In the play off era they’ve struggled to put a team in the top 4. Barring some remarkable turnaround I think the PAC 12 is going to continue to struggle.

Is my comparison here accurate?

In 1962 the ACC demphasized football with the 800 SAT minimum rule. The PCAA/Big 5/Pac 6/9/10/12 never did this. That's the fundamental difference between the SoCon/ACC and the PAC but it is a big difference. In addition to geography, their current problem is that the underlying socio-cultural context of the West Coast has changed away from college football as the end all be all. That's difficult to overcome. The ACC still has three states - Florida, Georgia, and SC where football continues to be the end all be all, and three others where it is a good second - NC, Va, and PA. Their nine game conference schedule with just 12 schools is stupid. Remove that 9th game and some of the P12 become instantly more competitive from the eyeball standpoint.
(06-11-2021 11:33 AM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]Their nine game conference schedule with just 12 schools is stupid. Remove that 9th game and some of the P12 become instantly more competitive from the eyeball standpoint.

Wow.

Should the Big 10 and Big 12 also remove their 9th conference game as well?

Most Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 schools don't have a permanent non conference game they can play every year like ACC and SEC schools do. Heck, at least half of the ACC and SEC teams don't either. If it weren't for Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, etc, everyone could (and should) play 9 conference games.
(06-11-2021 11:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 09:17 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 06:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see the PAC 12 as a viable option for Texas.

There’s the geography.

There’s also the fact that Texas won’t be able to control the conference decision making the way they do now.

I don’t think there will be a huge revenue increase by doing so and if Texas was purely interested in money they’d join the SEC or Big 10.

I see the PAC 12, if the 12 team playoff goes through, as a conference that never advances to the semis and gets left out entirely once every 12-15 years.
how does Texas control the current Big 12 conference? This past decade has been terrible football wise..basketball is not far behind either.

Texas may not always win on the field/court but they control the decision making process. while feasibly the 8 schools who don’t play in the RRR could pass votes without the other 2, it’s a well known fact who the lucrative media properties are and if Texas and/or Oklahoma find themselves in the minority too many times or on a critical issue it would only take a phone call and either one could have a new conference home.

What "critical issue" is Texas in the minority on? If there was one, it would only take a phone call from CDC to ADJD to resolve it.
(06-10-2021 03:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for a somewhat confusing thread title.

In the first 39 years of the ACC (1953-1991, the seasons before Florida St joined) the ACC was always a bridesmaid and rarely a bride.They were an academic oriented conference with a country club feel that cared more about their conference title than being nationally relevant. And for the most part, they weren’t. Only 4 times in 39 years (1953, 1955, 1981, and 1990) did their champ rank in the top 5.

To me, this is what the PAC 12 is starting to become. They don’t invest in football and they aren’t relevant in the NC conversation most years. In the play off era they’ve struggled to put a team in the top 4. Barring some remarkable turnaround I think the PAC 12 is going to continue to struggle.

Is my comparison here accurate?

This is a true statement.
(06-11-2021 12:03 PM)Jared7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 11:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 09:17 AM)Thiefery Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 06:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see the PAC 12 as a viable option for Texas.

There’s the geography.

There’s also the fact that Texas won’t be able to control the conference decision making the way they do now.

I don’t think there will be a huge revenue increase by doing so and if Texas was purely interested in money they’d join the SEC or Big 10.

I see the PAC 12, if the 12 team playoff goes through, as a conference that never advances to the semis and gets left out entirely once every 12-15 years.
how does Texas control the current Big 12 conference? This past decade has been terrible football wise..basketball is not far behind either.

Texas may not always win on the field/court but they control the decision making process. while feasibly the 8 schools who don’t play in the RRR could pass votes without the other 2, it’s a well known fact who the lucrative media properties are and if Texas and/or Oklahoma find themselves in the minority too many times or on a critical issue it would only take a phone call and either one could have a new conference home.

What "critical issue" is Texas in the minority on? If there was one, it would only take a phone call from CDC to ADJD to resolve it.

We’re talking hypotheticals. Texas is always in the majority when the Big 12 goes to vote on things. Too many schools know that they need to give into Texas/Oklahoma or else they could get left behind.
(06-11-2021 11:47 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 11:33 AM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]Their nine game conference schedule with just 12 schools is stupid. Remove that 9th game and some of the P12 become instantly more competitive from the eyeball standpoint.

Wow.

Should the Big 10 and Big 12 also remove their 9th conference game as well?

Most Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 schools don't have a permanent non conference game they can play every year like ACC and SEC schools do. Heck, at least half of the ACC and SEC teams don't either. If it weren't for Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, etc, everyone could (and should) play 9 conference games.

12 schools playing 9 games means means that the probability of laying an extra loss on a Pac 12 school by a Pac 12 school is much higher than 14 schools playing 9 games. They have maximized the risk of that second conference loss that will disqualify them from the playoff or relevance.
The PAC 12 conference certainly doesn’t help matters. The odds of a rematch in the CCG are pretty high.

Dropping the 9th conference game doesn’t make the PAC 12 instantly fixed but it would help a lot.

If schools are going to belly ache about CA presence and CA recruiting there’s Fresno St, San Diego St, and San Jose St they can schedule.
(06-11-2021 11:33 AM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2021 03:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for a somewhat confusing thread title.

In the first 39 years of the ACC (1953-1991, the seasons before Florida St joined) the ACC was always a bridesmaid and rarely a bride. They were an academic oriented conference with a country club feel that cared more about their conference title than being nationally relevant. And for the most part, they weren’t. Only 4 times in 39 years (1953, 1955, 1981, and 1990) did their champ rank in the top 5.

To me, this is what the PAC 12 is starting to become. They don’t invest in football and they aren’t relevant in the NC conversation most years. In the play off era they’ve struggled to put a team in the top 4. Barring some remarkable turnaround I think the PAC 12 is going to continue to struggle.

Is my comparison here accurate?

In 1962 the ACC demphasized football with the 800 SAT minimum rule. The PCAA/Big 5/Pac 6/9/10/12 never did this. That's the fundamental difference between the SoCon/ACC and the PAC but it is a big difference. In addition to geography, their current problem is that the underlying socio-cultural context of the West Coast has changed away from college football as the end all be all. That's difficult to overcome. The ACC still has three states - Florida, Georgia, and SC where football continues to be the end all be all, and three others where it is a good second - NC, Va, and PA. Their nine game conference schedule with just 12 schools is stupid. Remove that 9th game and some of the P12 become instantly more competitive from the eyeball standpoint.

Thanks for the insight. 1962 almost perfectly correlated to when the ACC virtually disappears from the AP poll.
(06-12-2021 08:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 conference certainly doesn’t help matters. The odds of a rematch in the CCG are pretty high.

Dropping the 9th conference game doesn’t make the PAC 12 instantly fixed but it would help a lot.

If schools are going to belly ache about CA presence and CA recruiting there’s Fresno St, San Diego St, and San Jose St they can schedule.

The odds of a rematch in the Big 12 Championship game is 100%. Should the Big 12 go to 8 conference games or fewer to avoid rematches? Should Oklahoma avoid playing the projected top team to avoid rematches? Is a rematch in the conference championship really a bad thing? Will the world end if Florida and Alabama play in the SEC Championship this year?
(06-11-2021 11:33 AM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2021 03:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for a somewhat confusing thread title.

In the first 39 years of the ACC (1953-1991, the seasons before Florida St joined) the ACC was always a bridesmaid and rarely a bride. They were an academic oriented conference with a country club feel that cared more about their conference title than being nationally relevant. And for the most part, they weren’t. Only 4 times in 39 years (1953, 1955, 1981, and 1990) did their champ rank in the top 5.

To me, this is what the PAC 12 is starting to become. They don’t invest in football and they aren’t relevant in the NC conversation most years. In the play off era they’ve struggled to put a team in the top 4. Barring some remarkable turnaround I think the PAC 12 is going to continue to struggle.

Is my comparison here accurate?

In 1962 the ACC demphasized football with the 800 SAT minimum rule. The PCAA/Big 5/Pac 6/9/10/12 never did this. That's the fundamental difference between the SoCon/ACC and the PAC but it is a big difference. In addition to geography, their current problem is that the underlying socio-cultural context of the West Coast has changed away from college football as the end all be all. That's difficult to overcome. The ACC still has three states - Florida, Georgia, and SC where football continues to be the end all be all, and three others where it is a good second - NC, Va, and PA. Their nine game conference schedule with just 12 schools is stupid. Remove that 9th game and some of the P12 become instantly more competitive from the eyeball standpoint.

The 800 rule also required a student athlete project a 2.0 GPA. A 2.0 GPA was and still is a requirement for graduation.
The NCAA standard at the time was 640 SAT minimum and a 1.6 GPA projection. What this meant was that the NCAA was allowing students to enroll that really had no chance of ever graduating, which was great for "football factory" schools.
The ACC took a stand and said that students shouldn't be admitted unless they can do the work and graduate, which is why they went to college to begin with.
Some suggest that the 800 rule was racial motivated, while others believe that it was based on sound educational principals.
(06-12-2021 10:52 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2021 11:33 AM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2021 03:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for a somewhat confusing thread title.

In the first 39 years of the ACC (1953-1991, the seasons before Florida St joined) the ACC was always a bridesmaid and rarely a bride. They were an academic oriented conference with a country club feel that cared more about their conference title than being nationally relevant. And for the most part, they weren’t. Only 4 times in 39 years (1953, 1955, 1981, and 1990) did their champ rank in the top 5.

To me, this is what the PAC 12 is starting to become. They don’t invest in football and they aren’t relevant in the NC conversation most years. In the play off era they’ve struggled to put a team in the top 4. Barring some remarkable turnaround I think the PAC 12 is going to continue to struggle.

Is my comparison here accurate?

In 1962 the ACC demphasized football with the 800 SAT minimum rule. The PCAA/Big 5/Pac 6/9/10/12 never did this. That's the fundamental difference between the SoCon/ACC and the PAC but it is a big difference. In addition to geography, their current problem is that the underlying socio-cultural context of the West Coast has changed away from college football as the end all be all. That's difficult to overcome. The ACC still has three states - Florida, Georgia, and SC where football continues to be the end all be all, and three others where it is a good second - NC, Va, and PA. Their nine game conference schedule with just 12 schools is stupid. Remove that 9th game and some of the P12 become instantly more competitive from the eyeball standpoint.

The 800 rule also required a student athlete project a 2.0 GPA. A 2.0 GPA was and still is a requirement for graduation.
The NCAA standard at the time was 640 SAT minimum and a 1.6 GPA projection. What this meant was that the NCAA was allowing students to enroll that really had no chance of ever graduating, which was great for "football factory" schools.
The ACC took a stand and said that students shouldn't be admitted unless they can do the work and graduate, which is why they went to college to begin with.
Some suggest that the 800 rule was racial motivated, while others believe that it was based on sound educational principals.

Just so we are clear, I’m not saying the SAT requirement was a bad thing. It’s something I think that the NCAA should have mandated across the board. Universities are first and foremost academic institutions but college sports have been plagued from the very beginning with schools enlisting the talents of athletes that have no business being enrolled to gain a competitive advantage.
(06-12-2021 09:46 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2021 08:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 conference certainly doesn’t help matters. The odds of a rematch in the CCG are pretty high.

Dropping the 9th conference game doesn’t make the PAC 12 instantly fixed but it would help a lot.

If schools are going to belly ache about CA presence and CA recruiting there’s Fresno St, San Diego St, and San Jose St they can schedule.

The odds of a rematch in the Big 12 Championship game is 100%. Should the Big 12 go to 8 conference games or fewer to avoid rematches? Should Oklahoma avoid playing the projected top team to avoid rematches? Is a rematch in the conference championship really a bad thing? Will the world end if Florida and Alabama play in the SEC Championship this year?

The Big 12 doesn’t suffer from the same absence of having multiple good teams at the top of the standings and in the national conversation that the PAC 12 has so I think their set up isn’t as problematic
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's