Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
Author Message
p23570
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #161
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
(01-26-2017 10:23 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The LHN contract expires is 2031. The PAC won't be expanding without UT, and UT has no reason to move as long as it has the LHN. Fifteen years is a long time, and Athletics move at a much faster pace than academics while geography doesn't change.

LOL. No. The PAC schools are not all going to allow UT to make or break the conference.

It's funny how some of you have this fantasy about UT. UT will be under ESPN's control so any scenario with UT in the PAC is unrealistic to start with. Then you have to consider the fact that if the Big 12 is breaking up there would essentially be a divorce between OU and UT to some degree (while still playing RRR OOC). Politically OU is not going to tell the state we can't get UT to budge on expansion and a network so we are going to the PAC with UT. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The PACN will do just fine getting carriage if they add schools who have rabid fanbases. Then simply put a KU BB game on the network. Then put an OU FB game on the network. Carriage problem is solved. PACN could easily add OU, KU, KSU, OSU, ISU, and TCU to give the PACN North Texas, OKlahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and Parts of Missouri along with forcing Dish and other providers to pay up.

Then work out a deal to split up the $ fairly and everyone wins. I still think its' more likely the 2 conferences just partner with the network but if a breakup occurs I would expect to see OU, KU and friends in the PAC.
01-27-2017 10:40 AM
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,689
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #162
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
(01-27-2017 10:40 AM)p23570 Wrote:  
(01-26-2017 10:23 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The LHN contract expires is 2031. The PAC won't be expanding without UT, and UT has no reason to move as long as it has the LHN. Fifteen years is a long time, and Athletics move at a much faster pace than academics while geography doesn't change.

LOL. No. The PAC schools are not all going to allow UT to make or break the conference.

It's funny how some of you have this fantasy about UT. UT will be under ESPN's control so any scenario with UT in the PAC is unrealistic to start with. Then you have to consider the fact that if the Big 12 is breaking up there would essentially be a divorce between OU and UT to some degree (while still playing RRR OOC). Politically OU is not going to tell the state we can't get UT to budge on expansion and a network so we are going to the PAC with UT. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The PACN will do just fine getting carriage if they add schools who have rabid fanbases. Then simply put a KU BB game on the network. Then put an OU FB game on the network. Carriage problem is solved. PACN could easily add OU, KU, KSU, OSU, ISU, and TCU to give the PACN North Texas, OKlahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and Parts of Missouri along with forcing Dish and other providers to pay up.

Then work out a deal to split up the $ fairly and everyone wins. I still think its' more likely the 2 conferences just partner with the network but if a breakup occurs I would expect to see OU, KU and friends in the PAC.

You are aware that the current PAC network carriage footprint has twice the population of the central time zone footprint you're describing? So even if the PAC was able to maintain it's current carriage rate while playing second tier CTZ programs, the current PAC schools would have no increase in revenue with what you're proposing? There's no incentive to increase the number of mouths to feed 50% while only increasing revenue 50% and simultaneously increasing travel costs and weakening the academic brand of the conference.

UT is not joining the PAC, but it's not hard to see that the PAC has ZERO financial incentive to expand without UT. If there was money in it for the PAC to add a bunch of CTZ schools for the sole purpose of expanding the network footprint, it would have been done already. The barrier is that those schools in low population states don't collectively pay their way. That is why the BigXII has a power imbalance and is struggling as a conference. Adding those schools to the PAC would just provide the PAC with additional redundant mouths to feed. It's really not hard to get this.
01-27-2017 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
p23570
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #163
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
(01-27-2017 02:20 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(01-27-2017 10:40 AM)p23570 Wrote:  
(01-26-2017 10:23 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The LHN contract expires is 2031. The PAC won't be expanding without UT, and UT has no reason to move as long as it has the LHN. Fifteen years is a long time, and Athletics move at a much faster pace than academics while geography doesn't change.

LOL. No. The PAC schools are not all going to allow UT to make or break the conference.

It's funny how some of you have this fantasy about UT. UT will be under ESPN's control so any scenario with UT in the PAC is unrealistic to start with. Then you have to consider the fact that if the Big 12 is breaking up there would essentially be a divorce between OU and UT to some degree (while still playing RRR OOC). Politically OU is not going to tell the state we can't get UT to budge on expansion and a network so we are going to the PAC with UT. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The PACN will do just fine getting carriage if they add schools who have rabid fanbases. Then simply put a KU BB game on the network. Then put an OU FB game on the network. Carriage problem is solved. PACN could easily add OU, KU, KSU, OSU, ISU, and TCU to give the PACN North Texas, OKlahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and Parts of Missouri along with forcing Dish and other providers to pay up.

Then work out a deal to split up the $ fairly and everyone wins. I still think its' more likely the 2 conferences just partner with the network but if a breakup occurs I would expect to see OU, KU and friends in the PAC.

You are aware that the current PAC network carriage footprint has twice the population of the central time zone footprint you're describing? So even if the PAC was able to maintain it's current carriage rate while playing second tier CTZ programs, the current PAC schools would have no increase in revenue with what you're proposing? There's no incentive to increase the number of mouths to feed 50% while only increasing revenue 50% and simultaneously increasing travel costs and weakening the academic brand of the conference.

UT is not joining the PAC, but it's not hard to see that the PAC has ZERO financial incentive to expand without UT. If there was money in it for the PAC to add a bunch of CTZ schools for the sole purpose of expanding the network footprint, it would have been done already. The barrier is that those schools in low population states don't collectively pay their way. That is why the BigXII has a power imbalance and is struggling as a conference. Adding those schools to the PAC would just provide the PAC with additional redundant mouths to feed. It's really not hard to get this.

Most of the BIg 12 schools have bigger AD budgets than the PAC schools so second tier is probably a better description for the schools who are broke and have fan support issues.

The population in the PAC footprint is huge, unfortunately they do not care about the PAC. They are not rabid college sports fans who eat sleep and drink college sports. So there goes your argument.

And currently the PACN is not even on Direct TV so if you do not see how there could possibly be an upside to the current setup you have not been paying attention. The PACN is a complete flop compared to other networks. The PAC tied and failed miserably becasue their fans are different than fans in SEC and B1G country. They have to do something. Here is some reading material for you so you dont' embarass yourself further.
http://www.thepostgame.com/road-saturday...tournament

http://coacheshotseat.com/chsblog/archives/1453

The reality is the PAC has much less $ per AD and much less attendance per game across the board compared to the Big 12. You can pretend all you want but AD budgets are easy to look up as it attendance. Heck Bedlam almost beat the PAC CCG in TV ratings so again there goes your massive population/footprint when 2 entire time zones can barely muster more fans than 1 little state of Oklahoma. LOL.

Do some research before you go spouting off about how great the PAC is. The PAC is either going to be #4 or #5 P-5 conference moving forward with a large financial gap between them and other p-5 programs.

You are welcome.
01-27-2017 06:48 PM
p23570
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #164
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
Here is the reality of the situation. Utah has less $ than the entire Big 12. Also has the highest subsidy of the group.

Please tell me again which school is second tier?

2 Texas Big 12 $183,521,028 $173,248,133 $0 0.0
8 Oklahoma Big 12 $134,269,349 $123,017,251 $0 0.00
26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13
28 Kansas Big 12 $91,860,673 $92,207,877 $1,960,129 2.13
31 West Virginia Big 12 $90,523,565 $87,265,473 $4,403,165 4.86
41 Texas Tech Big 12 $79,979,481 $76,525,961 $4,261,291 5.33
46 Kansas State Big 12 $75,323,278 $67,316,209 $862,680 1.15
47 Iowa State Big 12 $75,283,516 $75,209,309 $2,044,400 2.72
52 Utah Pac-12 $62,441,552 $58,734,014 $8,799,939 14.09
01-27-2017 06:55 PM
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,689
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #165
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
(01-27-2017 06:55 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Here is the reality of the situation. Utah has less $ than the entire Big 12. Also has the highest subsidy of the group.

Please tell me again which school is second tier?

2 Texas Big 12 $183,521,028 $173,248,133 $0 0.0
8 Oklahoma Big 12 $134,269,349 $123,017,251 $0 0.00
26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13
28 Kansas Big 12 $91,860,673 $92,207,877 $1,960,129 2.13
31 West Virginia Big 12 $90,523,565 $87,265,473 $4,403,165 4.86
41 Texas Tech Big 12 $79,979,481 $76,525,961 $4,261,291 5.33
46 Kansas State Big 12 $75,323,278 $67,316,209 $862,680 1.15
47 Iowa State Big 12 $75,283,516 $75,209,309 $2,044,400 2.72
52 Utah Pac-12 $62,441,552 $58,734,014 $8,799,939 14.09

Utah is in the PAC-12 because of favorable geography, the 12 team CCG requirement, because CU needed a travel partner, and because its $519M research budget fit the PAC profile. Utah was not going to the PAC 12 except as part of a larger strategic move that brought the conference more money. None of those BigXII schools sans UT, OU, and KU have a prayer except as part of a larger strategic move that includes UT.

Why you continue to think that $10M in athletic budgets matter as much to university presidents as $200M research in research spending (KU is second in the BigXII at $311M, $208M behind Utah) is beyond me. Athletics are a means to promote the university, not an ends to themselves. I don't know think anyone cares if Utah spends less money to have more athletic success than those second tier BigXII schools. That's just being efficient.
01-27-2017 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
p23570
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #166
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
(01-27-2017 10:56 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(01-27-2017 06:55 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Here is the reality of the situation. Utah has less $ than the entire Big 12. Also has the highest subsidy of the group.

Please tell me again which school is second tier?

2 Texas Big 12 $183,521,028 $173,248,133 $0 0.0
8 Oklahoma Big 12 $134,269,349 $123,017,251 $0 0.00
26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13
28 Kansas Big 12 $91,860,673 $92,207,877 $1,960,129 2.13
31 West Virginia Big 12 $90,523,565 $87,265,473 $4,403,165 4.86
41 Texas Tech Big 12 $79,979,481 $76,525,961 $4,261,291 5.33
46 Kansas State Big 12 $75,323,278 $67,316,209 $862,680 1.15
47 Iowa State Big 12 $75,283,516 $75,209,309 $2,044,400 2.72
52 Utah Pac-12 $62,441,552 $58,734,014 $8,799,939 14.09

Utah is in the PAC-12 because of favorable geography, the 12 team CCG requirement, because CU needed a travel partner, and because its $519M research budget fit the PAC profile. Utah was not going to the PAC 12 except as part of a larger strategic move that brought the conference more money. None of those BigXII schools sans UT, OU, and KU have a prayer except as part of a larger strategic move that includes UT.

Why you continue to think that $10M in athletic budgets matter as much to university presidents as $200M research in research spending (KU is second in the BigXII at $311M, $208M behind Utah) is beyond me. Athletics are a means to promote the university, not an ends to themselves. I don't know think anyone cares if Utah spends less money to have more athletic success than those second tier BigXII schools. That's just being efficient.

It's always funny to watch folks like yourself. You talk about how worthless all these other schools are until faced with the reality of those school having more $ and better facilites.

Then you talk about population until faced with the reality that the PAC 12 CCG barely had better TV ratings than a regular season in state rivalry called bedlam.

Then finally you end up resorting to academics.

I hate to break it to you but Utah really doesn't outperform anyone in the Big 12 as far as athletics. Meyer had a nice run there and I do appreciate your fan support but what has Utah really accomplished?

Very impressive Gymnastics run in the 80-'s and 90's along with Skiing. LOL.

NCAA team championships[edit]
Utah has 20 NCAA team national championships.[4]

Men's (2)
Basketball (1): 1944
Skiing (1): 1981
Women's (9)
Gymnastics (9): 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995
Co-ed (9)
Skiing (9): 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2003

And to your last assertion lets take a look at this. B1G has one non AAU member, added in the last round of realignment. ACC and all it's public ivy with massive endowment added Louiville for god's sakes. LOL. So forgive me if I don't think a conference of schools that include Washington St and Oregon St might admit Texas Tech or Iowa State.
01-27-2017 11:48 PM
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #167
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
The PAC 10 identified three potential expansion targets in 1990. They were Texas, Colorado and Utah.
01-28-2017 08:42 AM
Find all posts by this user
shizzle787 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,212
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 103
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #168
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
Add Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. If they bend over a little for Texas and let them keep the Longhorn Network and play games earlier now that the conference would be in the Central time zone, I would say go for it.
04-02-2017 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,176
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #169
RE: Expansion: What the PAC 12 should do...
Shizzle., this bump is the definition of trolling 05-nono 04-chairshot
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 09:18 PM by Stugray2.)
04-02-2017 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.