Ourland
Heisman
Posts: 6,632
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 307
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location: Galveston
|
RE: 2018 College Football coaching carousel
(01-16-2019 03:58 PM)ruowls Wrote: (01-16-2019 02:55 PM)Ourland Wrote: (01-16-2019 01:44 PM)ruowls Wrote: (01-15-2019 06:37 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote: Even though Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, and Washington had been in some sort of confederation since the 1920s, the official PAC-8 didn't emerge until 1968, making it a relatively young conference. When the PAC-8 admitted two WAC programs (Arizona and Arizona State) in 1978, I don't believe Arizona or ASU were notable for their academics or athletics at the time, but Arizona was a very fast-growing state. The PAC-8 made the correct calculation that Arizona and ASU would grow into their roles as members of the PAC-10. Now, some might say ASU has never quite realized its academic potential, but it is in Phoenix, a rapidly growing city: a smaller, drier version of Houston. The additions of Colorado and Utah brought fast-growing Denver and Salt Lake City, respectively.
If Rice and UT joined to create the PAC-14, it would be understood that Rice is already academically well-developed, and further development of athletics would be assumed over time. UT is the prize in terms of athletics, but Rice adds the Houston venue/access and the academic punch. The PAC-14 would have the top private university and the top public university in Texas, and that's real value to the reputation of a conference. Remember the "Ivy League" is nothing but an athletic conference, but we ascribe so much more to being a member of the "Ivy League". Cornell and Brown benefit enormously from being part of the "Ivy League", yet one could argue several other private colleges in the Northeast are actually better academically. The PAC wants to be a club of academic heavyweights as well, and Rice helps in that endeavor. UH, Tech, etc don't...
What Rice needs is a plan for where it wants to go with athletics, and that requires leadership. Having CDC at UT has strategic value if the contact is used properly. I don't believe Leebron is capable of effective leadership (why is he still around at his exorbitant salary???), and Leebron was central to the hiring of Greenspan as AD, a disastrous decision. Rice needs to improve its athletic performance, but it's more important that Rice has a strategic vision for where it is going. I think angling to get into the PAC-12 is the best strategy/vision, and it's not a crazy idea. Rice just doesn't play its cards properly.
I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.
ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.
I don't believe the PAC12 will fall apart either, but it's hurting. Eight years ago, they knew they needed to expand their territory and inventory, but they couldn't pull it off. I don't see how they do it now as the least rich power conference.
Texas can see all this. Meanwhile, it's own income is going up, as is the income of every other conference member. Texas runs the B12 and it has it's own network. It's not giving it up.
In my opinion, the two conferences should form a scheduling and media alliance. They could pool their inventory and renegotiate a TV deal as one entity. Create some interesting matchups in football and basketball, while allowing each conference to keep it's name and membership. A conglomerate like that would control bigtime college athletics from the mid south to the west coast.
But I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope the PAC12 can see how adding just Texas and Rice benefits them more than doing anything else.
There are multiple paths everyone can take. The conglomeration has merit. The one thing is doesn't address is increasing access to the CFP. In fact, it would dilute it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 both play 9 conference games. Throw in some guaranteed Pac/Big matchups and you increase the risk of knocking off the CFP contender. The matchups may be better but they would further the inequality in conference schedules and decrease the likelihood of both the Pac and Big qualifying for the CFP. The LHN was losing money for ESPN and that won't last forever. UT wants to run that out but then improve their position if it goes away.
I don't know how this will all shake out. But the general thinking is 4 16 team leagues with standardized scheduling between them. It would make it easier to compare the teams. Another option is to increase the CFP to 8 teams and do 5 conference champions, 2 at large and highest ranked G5. Who knows where this goes. I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.
We'll definitely see an eight-team playoff in the future, and the only fair way to do it is to take the five conference champions, the G5 representative, and two at-large, just like you mention. Four superconferences aren't needed anymore, particularly when the playoff expands to eight. There will be conferences sending multiple members, and the rich will get richer. It will water down the playoff, but the G5 would have a spot. As a Rice fan, that's all that matters to me.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2019 05:20 PM by Ourland.)
|
|