(02-08-2017 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  Could the PAC get Oklahoma, without Texas, if there are sufficient other Central time zone schools?

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

NO THANKS, I'LL PASS

(02-08-2017 12:44 PM)p23570 Wrote:  The only thing that will fix the PAC network is adding rabid fan bases to the PACN. In the MTN and PAC time zones that meas BYU content. Outside of those time zones they need central time zone content.

I personally think the PAC and Big 12 are working together to solve the network issue as they both need each other at this point to survive. Big 12 adds BYU and 1 more (likely UConn) and partners with the PACN. At which point the carriage issue is solved instantly and the network can more forward. Boren gets his network, a CCG, and a conference with 12 members.

Maybe its time for the big boys from the PAC and Big 12 to consider forming a new conference in 2020.

The Super West Conference

West division-8
USC, UCLA, Stan, Cal, Ore, Wash, Ariz, Ariz St

Central division-8
Texas, TT, Ok, OkSt, Kan, Col, Utah, Iowa St

Left out-6
Wash St, Ore St, Baylor, TCU, Kan St, WV

(02-08-2017 09:24 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The revenue gap basically means the smaller PAC schools won't offer as many Olympic sports as the smaller B1G/SEC schools, and the bigger PAC schools won't be having spring camp in Italy.

This is a really great point.

When you look at what I assume to be the "Core, team sports" of the PAC conference: football, baseball, M/W bball, softball, W volleyball, maybe M/W soccer? .... the PAC schools aren't going to spare any expense that those teams need to be competitive on a national stage ... TV money gap be damned.

(02-08-2017 01:08 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:44 PM)p23570 Wrote:  The only thing that will fix the PAC network is adding rabid fan bases to the PACN. In the MTN and PAC time zones that meas BYU content. Outside of those time zones they need central time zone content.

I personally think the PAC and Big 12 are working together to solve the network issue as they both need each other at this point to survive. Big 12 adds BYU and 1 more (likely UConn) and partners with the PACN. At which point the carriage issue is solved instantly and the network can more forward. Boren gets his network, a CCG, and a conference with 12 members.

Maybe its time for the big boys from the PAC and Big 12 to consider forming a new conference in 2020.

The Super West Conference

West division-8
USC, UCLA, Stan, Cal, Ore, Wash, Ariz, Ariz St

Central division-8
Texas, TT, Ok, OkSt, Kan, Col, Utah, Iowa St

Left out-6
Wash St, Ore St, Baylor, TCU, Kan St, WV

Sounds fun bit probably won't happen.

What will happen is a partnership with the network which will end up being a win win. Might also see a scheduling alliance for a game per season which would be fun.

(02-08-2017 02:14 PM)p23570 Wrote:  What will happen is a partnership with the network which will end up being a win win. Might also see a scheduling alliance for a game per season which would be fun.

why would the pac relinquish 100% equity ...
change for change's sake ...

WIIFT (WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM)

(02-08-2017 12:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  Could the PAC get Oklahoma, without Texas, if there are sufficient other Central time zone schools?

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

NO THANKS, I'LL PASS

the basic problem was Oklahoma without Texas was not worth it. Still isn't. The Texas market is required. But there were other problems.Namely Oklahoma State was never vetted with P12 Presidents and Chancellors. It does not come close to the Academic standards and even further from the research standards of the Pac-12. When Boren tried to sell OSU and OU to Scott, he was told a quick no. The only way OSU is invited to another conference is in a package of 4 or more schools, and even then I doubt it. If it were KU and OU fine, or ISU and OU perhaps. As R1 schools go, TTU, UVW and K State are really marginal, only ahead of R2 schools like OSU, and Baylor as far as expansion choices go.

B12 value: 1) Texas ... gap ... 2) Oklahoma ... gap ... 3) Kansas
Iowa State and Texas Tech, even Texas Christian (not actually a faith school) for being in Dallas and being selective (despite R2 research level) are possible complimentary additions. The rest are stuck no matter what, as are at least two of the three in the "possible complimentary" category.

This is why I don't see the B12 going away after 2025, even if Texas and Oklahoma, and Kansas leave. Houston, Cincinnati, Brigham Young and Colorado State are available to back fill and bring it back to ten. Throw a Central Florida in there and you are at twelve. For the contract cycle that would take it into the middle of the 2030s, you probably have a Big East of 2004-2012 level deal, half the other power conferences, but light years ahead of the G5. Without a LHN they would be able to finally get a real digital network going, but again they'd be the fifth of five.

Why would any P12 school give up their equity holding for that future? At some point the P12 will have a sale of 50% to a media partner (as likely to be Google or Apple as ESPN, CBS or FOX) who will both improve the revenue flow and give schools a nice injection of at least $50m each, perhaps as much as $100m (and still hold 50% equity). Teir-1 and Teir-2 will also get a bump up before the B12 ever goes to the table. There is zero logic in the idea of moving to the B12.

(02-08-2017 03:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The only way OSU is invited to another conference

depends how bad the sec wants ou ...
political objection may necessitate ...
decision of such import not made in a vacuum ...

GREASE THE SKIDS

The difference will show where SEC and B1G schools continue assembling larger and larger coaching staffs despite the NCAA limit on coaches. Alabama has a whole extra coaching staff with quality control assistants, analysts, and other such titles. They're stepping in to do the job of the coaching staff except literally physically coaching the guys on the practice field. But they're doing a lot of the video work and coaching the kids on film. That's where the G5 schools are already behind - we can't afford that money, so our coaches have to do everything instead of being able to zero in very specifically.

(02-08-2017 02:14 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 01:08 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:44 PM)p23570 Wrote:  The only thing that will fix the PAC network is adding rabid fan bases to the PACN. In the MTN and PAC time zones that meas BYU content. Outside of those time zones they need central time zone content.

I personally think the PAC and Big 12 are working together to solve the network issue as they both need each other at this point to survive. Big 12 adds BYU and 1 more (likely UConn) and partners with the PACN. At which point the carriage issue is solved instantly and the network can more forward. Boren gets his network, a CCG, and a conference with 12 members.

Maybe its time for the big boys from the PAC and Big 12 to consider forming a new conference in 2020.

The Super West Conference

West division-8
USC, UCLA, Stan, Cal, Ore, Wash, Ariz, Ariz St

Central division-8
Texas, TT, Ok, OkSt, Kan, Col, Utah, Iowa St

Left out-6
Wash St, Ore St, Baylor, TCU, Kan St, WV

Sounds fun bit probably won't happen.

What will happen is a partnership with the network which will end up being a win win. Might also see a scheduling alliance for a game per season which would be fun.

That might help as a temporary fix, Until the big schools realize they need to split revenues 22 ways. That's too much dead weight to subsidize. The big schools in the Big 12 might as well just join the SEC or BigTen. The big schools in the PAC are then screwed.

The big schools in the PAC need to dump their dead weight and join with the Big schools of the Big 12 before its too late.

(02-08-2017 03:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  Could the PAC get Oklahoma, without Texas, if there are sufficient other Central time zone schools?

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

NO THANKS, I'LL PASS

the basic problem was Oklahoma without Texas was not worth it. Still isn't. The Texas market is required. But there were other problems.Namely Oklahoma State was never vetted with P12 Presidents and Chancellors. It does not come close to the Academic standards and even further from the research standards of the Pac-12. When Boren tried to sell OSU and OU to Scott, he was told a quick no. The only way OSU is invited to another conference is in a package of 4 or more schools, and even then I doubt it. If it were KU and OU fine, or ISU and OU perhaps. As R1 schools go, TTU, UVW and K State are really marginal, only ahead of R2 schools like OSU, and Baylor as far as expansion choices go.

B12 value: 1) Texas ... gap ... 2) Oklahoma ... gap ... 3) Kansas
Iowa State and Texas Tech, even Texas Christian (not actually a faith school) for being in Dallas and being selective (despite R2 research level) are possible complimentary additions. The rest are stuck no matter what, as are at least two of the three in the "possible complimentary" category.

This is why I don't see the B12 going away after 2025, even if Texas and Oklahoma, and Kansas leave. Houston, Cincinnati, Brigham Young and Colorado State are available to back fill and bring it back to ten. Throw a Central Florida in there and you are at twelve. For the contract cycle that would take it into the middle of the 2030s, you probably have a Big East of 2004-2012 level deal, half the other power conferences, but light years ahead of the G5. Without a LHN they would be able to finally get a real digital network going, but again they'd be the fifth of five.

Why would any P12 school give up their equity holding for that future? At some point the P12 will have a sale of 50% to a media partner (as likely to be Google or Apple as ESPN, CBS or FOX) who will both improve the revenue flow and give schools a nice injection of at least $50m each, perhaps as much as $100m (and still hold 50% equity). Teir-1 and Teir-2 will also get a bump up before the B12 ever goes to the table. There is zero logic in the idea of moving to the B12.

As described in the article, P12 is falling behind in revenue. A major problem that it faces is that it is a distant 4th behind the SEC, B1G and ACC in population within its conference footprint (although it is way ahead of the B12 in this metric). Adding Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would move it ahead of both the B1G and SEC in this metric, as well as the ACC if you ignore ND. In addition, adding Central Time Zone schools would allow it to offer games with a noon ET kickoff.

The P10 attempted to add Texas back at the breakup of the SWC. It attempted to add Texas and Oklahoma five years ago. The dynamic remains the same. It will do so again. Its current TV contract is up after the 2023-24 season and the B12 GOR is up after the 2024-25 season. The LHN will still have a few years left, until 2031, but at that point it may be affordable to buyout the contract. Sometime around 2022 or 2023, the P12 is going to make another run at Texas.

I agree, though, that even if the P12 gets its target, the B12 is not going away. It has status as an Autonomy Conference under NCAA rules and as having a Contract Bowl in the CFP. Even with 6 remaining members, it will be able to attract its choice of schools from the AAC, MWC and BYU. With the CFP deal up after the 2025-26 season, as well as the B12's contract with the Sugar Bowl, the B12 could probably still pick up a Contract Bowl in the next iteration of the CFP/NY6, although certainly at a reduced payout as compared to the other P5 conferences.

(02-08-2017 03:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  Could the PAC get Oklahoma, without Texas, if there are sufficient other Central time zone schools?

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

NO THANKS, I'LL PASS

the basic problem was Oklahoma without Texas was not worth it. Still isn't. The Texas market is required. But there were other problems.Namely Oklahoma State was never vetted with P12 Presidents and Chancellors. It does not come close to the Academic standards and even further from the research standards of the Pac-12. When Boren tried to sell OSU and OU to Scott, he was told a quick no. The only way OSU is invited to another conference is in a package of 4 or more schools, and even then I doubt it. If it were KU and OU fine, or ISU and OU perhaps. As R1 schools go, TTU, UVW and K State are really marginal, only ahead of R2 schools like OSU, and Baylor as far as expansion choices go.

B12 value: 1) Texas ... gap ... 2) Oklahoma ... gap ... 3) Kansas
Iowa State and Texas Tech, even Texas Christian (not actually a faith school) for being in Dallas and being selective (despite R2 research level) are possible complimentary additions. The rest are stuck no matter what, as are at least two of the three in the "possible complimentary" category.

This is why I don't see the B12 going away after 2025, even if Texas and Oklahoma, and Kansas leave. Houston, Cincinnati, Brigham Young and Colorado State are available to back fill and bring it back to ten. Throw a Central Florida in there and you are at twelve. For the contract cycle that would take it into the middle of the 2030s, you probably have a Big East of 2004-2012 level deal, half the other power conferences, but light years ahead of the G5. Without a LHN they would be able to finally get a real digital network going, but again they'd be the fifth of five.

Why would any P12 school give up their equity holding for that future? At some point the P12 will have a sale of 50% to a media partner (as likely to be Google or Apple as ESPN, CBS or FOX) who will both improve the revenue flow and give schools a nice injection of at least $50m each, perhaps as much as $100m (and still hold 50% equity). Teir-1 and Teir-2 will also get a bump up before the B12 ever goes to the table. There is zero logic in the idea of moving to the B12.

Half the Pac 12 doesn't come close to UW, CU and the California schools.

Oklahoma St. is certainly on a par with WSU and Pac 12 OSU.

(02-08-2017 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 03:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  Could the PAC get Oklahoma, without Texas, if there are sufficient other Central time zone schools?

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

NO THANKS, I'LL PASS

the basic problem was Oklahoma without Texas was not worth it. Still isn't. The Texas market is required. But there were other problems.Namely Oklahoma State was never vetted with P12 Presidents and Chancellors. It does not come close to the Academic standards and even further from the research standards of the Pac-12. When Boren tried to sell OSU and OU to Scott, he was told a quick no. The only way OSU is invited to another conference is in a package of 4 or more schools, and even then I doubt it. If it were KU and OU fine, or ISU and OU perhaps. As R1 schools go, TTU, UVW and K State are really marginal, only ahead of R2 schools like OSU, and Baylor as far as expansion choices go.

B12 value: 1) Texas ... gap ... 2) Oklahoma ... gap ... 3) Kansas
Iowa State and Texas Tech, even Texas Christian (not actually a faith school) for being in Dallas and being selective (despite R2 research level) are possible complimentary additions. The rest are stuck no matter what, as are at least two of the three in the "possible complimentary" category.

This is why I don't see the B12 going away after 2025, even if Texas and Oklahoma, and Kansas leave. Houston, Cincinnati, Brigham Young and Colorado State are available to back fill and bring it back to ten. Throw a Central Florida in there and you are at twelve. For the contract cycle that would take it into the middle of the 2030s, you probably have a Big East of 2004-2012 level deal, half the other power conferences, but light years ahead of the G5. Without a LHN they would be able to finally get a real digital network going, but again they'd be the fifth of five.

Why would any P12 school give up their equity holding for that future? At some point the P12 will have a sale of 50% to a media partner (as likely to be Google or Apple as ESPN, CBS or FOX) who will both improve the revenue flow and give schools a nice injection of at least $50m each, perhaps as much as $100m (and still hold 50% equity). Teir-1 and Teir-2 will also get a bump up before the B12 ever goes to the table. There is zero logic in the idea of moving to the B12.

Half the Pac 12 doesn't come close to UW, CU and the California schools.

Oklahoma St. is certainly on a par with WSU and Pac 12 OSU.

LOL. REally? WSU and OrSU combined barely have more money than OkSU. Even worse if you take out the over 10% subsidies those schools require just to operate.

26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13

51 Oregon State Pac-12 $64,876,006 $72,557,984 $6,942,549 10.70

53 Washington State Pac-12 $54,112,604 $67,386,939 $6,112,056 11.30

Guess which one OSU is
2015 $21,126,079 $21,621,715 $36,165,660 $3,176,102 $4,619,109 $9,223,074 $95,931,739
2014 $23,756,815 $37,027,350 $31,935,018 $3,103,680 $4,417,795 $17,562,644 $117,803,302
2013 $22,927,357 $26,714,907 $29,313,545 $2,606,182 $4,730,260 $7,372,086 $93,664,337
2012 $23,082,628 $25,997,402 $30,103,618 $1,921,359 $4,363,328 $1,802,263 $87,270,598
2011 $22,672,580 $26,978,331 $20,129,813 $1,897,820 $4,289,513 $6,663,858 $82,631,915
2010 $23,640,296 $51,877,388 $21,141,254 $1,809,123 $3,844,083 $4,049,984 $106,362,128
2009 $20,197,401 $29,270,695 $16,590,859 $1,855,696 $2,872,244 $14,833,498 $55,953,397
2008 $17,528,662 $54,923,758 $14,072,171 $1,934,812 $2,709,205 $7,705,484 $98,874,092
2007 $16,301,284 $18,915,844 $11,791,258 $2,018,352 $2,603,906 $5,890,978 $57,521,622
2006 $13,538,595 $211,023,155 $10,517,885 $2,047,664 $2,482,472 $1,755,135 $241,364,906
2005 $13,982,295 $18,016,645 $13,088,527 $1,989,184 $2,185,103 $1,988,992 $51,250,746
2015 $6,806,955 $6,617,601 $30,798,983 $1,131,902 $4,980,154 $3,777,009 $54,112,604
2014 $5,888,263 $7,017,691 $27,015,259 $990,402 $9,114,236 $4,400,967 $54,426,818
2013 $6,786,655 $8,274,561 $23,640,976 $1,065,849 $5,449,845 $1,973,354 $47,191,240
2012 $6,547,079 $7,855,037 $16,878,837 $1,123,849 $7,668,378 $2,656,368 $42,729,548
2011 $5,101,745 $7,108,305 $13,129,810 $1,608,068 $9,923,573 $3,111,981 $39,983,482
2010 $5,181,093 $6,754,924 $12,687,841 $1,862,522 $7,487,283 $5,378,433 $39,352,096
2009 $5,981,037 $7,726,529 $11,107,277 $1,870,506 $8,093,399 $3,515,007 $38,293,755
2008 $6,751,773 $7,512,105 $11,800,989 $1,115,799 $7,974,705 $4,465,689 $39,621,060
2007 $5,664,783 $6,713,178 $9,975,576 $1,078,202 $7,173,628 $3,622,930 $34,228,297
2006 $5,698,411 $5,946,515 $8,933,355 $946,716 $6,854,522 $3,549,174 $31,928,693
2005 $4,491,465 $4,515,272 $9,070,331 $878,370 $6,684,773 $2,750,842 $28,391,053
2015 $10,978,823 $9,817,033 $34,235,884 $2,502,549 $4,440,000 $2,901,717 $64,876,006
2014 $10,080,314 $10,670,196 $28,044,856 $2,502,831 $9,782,622 $2,220,975 $63,301,794
2013 $10,909,633 $12,658,820 $27,385,484 $2,565,348 $9,704,893 $2,243,792 $65,467,970
2012 $9,541,151 $9,816,920 $17,034,026 $2,442,222 $16,285,197 $3,587,321 $58,706,837
2011 $10,389,424 $9,535,722 $15,039,448 $2,277,720 $14,688,891 $3,612,810 $55,544,015
2010 $9,525,756 $16,439,009 $14,860,469 $2,142,702 $8,817,914 $3,827,495 $55,613,345
2009 $10,139,347 $11,829,544 $16,197,375 $2,113,218 $9,325,885 $3,537,520 $53,142,889
2008 $8,469,533 $16,614,611 $13,325,497 $1,203,903 $8,995,105 $4,266,690 $52,875,339
2007 $8,986,521 $15,646,473 $11,544,737 $1,494,984 $12,664,890 $2,133,822 $52,471,427
2006 $6,995,844 $12,596,548 $10,106,640 $1,494,984 $19,621,476 $2,786,451 $53,601,943
2005 $6,224,823 $13,348,937 $9,007,612 $1,495,296 $5,072,056 $2,096,632 $37,245,356


Over the last decade OkSU has put more money in it's AD than OrSu and WSU combined. So how are they about equal?

TCU is absolutely a faith school. They simply changed the name on the degrees to say brite divinity. Kids are in the same dorms, same classes, same campus, campus ID gets you into football games. The whole 9 yards.

Probably he meant academics which is true.

I guess he's talking about value to a TV network.

I will definitely say that Okla State has more money than I thought. $900M+ endowment. Wonder how much of that is directly because TBP has poured millions of dollars of his own wealth into the school?


Academics, not sure, but research wise, Oklahoma St (and U of Oklahoma, for that matter) is fairly well behind both Oregon St and Washington St.

(02-08-2017 05:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess he's talking about value to a TV network.

I will definitely say that Okla State has more money than I thought. $900M+ endowment. Wonder how much of that is directly because TBP has poured millions of dollars of his own wealth into the school?


Academics, not sure, but research wise, Oklahoma St (and U of Oklahoma, for that matter) is fairly well behind both Oregon St and Washington St.

TV ratings OSU will blow those schools away. OkSU gives you big time FB games and WSU and OrSU simply don't.

TV ratings.

Week 1
None
Week 2
0.3 519K CMU
Oklahoma St. MAC
Big 12 11:59 AM FS1
Week 3
0.6 1.000M Pittsburgh
Oklahoma State ACC
Big 12 3:29 PM ESPN
Week 4
Hey they made it on TV, Because of Boise ST, LOL.
0.2 372K Boise St.
Oregon St. MWC

Pac-12 3:29 PM FS1
1.1 1.747M Oklahoma St.
Baylor Big 12 7:36 PM* FOX
Week 5
2.4 3.799M Texas
Oklahoma St. Big 12 12:01 PM ABC
Week 6
1.05 1.754M Wash. St.
Stanford Pac-12 10:46 PM ESPN
659K Iowa St.
Oklahoma St. Big 12 3:39 PM ESPNU
Week 7
0.9 1.311M UCLA
Wash. St. Pac-12 10:54 PM ESPN
Week 8
0.3 454K Oklahoma St.
Kansas Big 12 12:04 PM FS1
Week 9
0.5 815K Wash. St.
Oregon St. Pac-12 10:58 PM ESPN2
1.3 1.963M West Virginia
Oklahoma St. Big 12 12:06 PM FOX
Week 10
1.7 2.595M SYR/CLEM or
OKST/KST ACC
Big12 3:30 PM ABC
0.4 592K Oregon St.
Stanford Pac-12 4:20 PM FS1
Week 11
0.7 1.005M Cal
Wash. St. Pac-12 10:32 PM ESPN
0.6 901K Texas Tech
Okla. St. Big 12 3:52 PM FS1
Week 12
2.3 3.825M Oklahoma St.
W. Virginia Big 12 8:07 PM ABC
1.3 2.114M Wash. St.
Colorado Pac-12 3:36 PM FOX
Week 13
1.7 2.818M Washington
Wash. St. Pac-12 3:36 PM FOX
Week 14
3.1 4.817M Oklahoma
Oklahoma St. Big 12 12:36 PM FOX


It's really amazing how few times OrSU and WSU are even on national TV. Any way you slice it (total appearances or average audience, combined audience) OkSU is worth more than OrSU and WSU. The ratings are quite clear. There is a reason Fox and ESPN don't put those schools on national TV very often.

(02-07-2017 11:48 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Lets be real. The PAC has been down for a while. So bad that Stanford has turned into the dominant program in many ways. Washington and Colorado were both blown off the field in bowl games and were completely outmatched from a talent standpoint. Stanford was able to play at an elite level with a once in a lifetime QB a few years back, and still lost to OkSU. Oregon has never really lived up to expectations even with elite talent which is not there anymore. USC is the conference's only shot at an elite team right now. Maybe Washington can get there but they have a long way to go if they plan to knock off Bama/Clemson. PAC FB attendance is only better than the ACC and that is only by a couple thousand fans per game.

Basketball is abysmal not close to p-5 levels.

Schools like CAL are struggling financially to keep up with facilities and coaches salaries, as is most of the PAC who require larger subsidies than the rest of the p-5 which is due to lacking fan support in donations and ticket sales as well as the PACN being a complete flop not even being carried by the major carriers. Schools like WSU, OSU, Utah, and Colorado are among the poorest AD's in the p-5.

Washington State and Oregon State have both done poor jobs of selling their programs. Everyone in their marketing department should be fired or just about everyone, IMO, and they both need to start over. What both them need to do is what the SEC used to do back in the day. Back in the day, Georgia used to play in Columbus and Atlanta a lot (UGa still plays in Atlanta at least once a year, thanks to the GT game, but UGa used to play Auburn in Atlanta too), Ole Miss & Miss. State used to play in Jackson a lot, Auburn used to play in Columbus and Atlanta a lot, Florida used to play in Tampa & Orlando, Alabama used to play in Birmingham, etc. While this may sound dumb now, I think it may have played an early role in the development of those teams' humongous fan bases. If I were Washington State and Oregon State, I would be trying to play some games at the Seattle Seahawks stadium and at PGE Park (or whatever it is called now, maybe Jeld-Wen Stadium?) on a regular basis to get more casual fans interested in their programs. Yes, their campuses would lose $$'s for awhile, but they would start making that with new fans and better marketing in their old and new territories. Eventually, they could move the games back to campus if they wanted, IMO. Utah has gotten lazy IMO, and needs to do what they used to do as a MWC team. Colorado is just going to take time, because their state is just as wild about the Broncos as Pittsburgh is for the Steelers. I'm sure Pitt fans can relate to how Colorado Buffalo fans feel.

(02-08-2017 05:51 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Probably he meant academics which is true.

Yes, academics.

On Athletic finances, Oklahoma St. would be near the top of the Pac 12.

is college football a lost cause?

(02-09-2017 10:58 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  is college football a lost cause?

Water from a rock at this point. The kids will get paid at some point, and the ratings and attendance suggest apathy.

NCAA and the schools have no answer or shame about ever-rising costs, other than trying to fight any student athlete equity initiative in the courts.

(02-08-2017 05:41 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 03:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  Could the PAC get Oklahoma, without Texas, if there are sufficient other Central time zone schools?

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

NO THANKS, I'LL PASS

the basic problem was Oklahoma without Texas was not worth it. Still isn't. The Texas market is required. But there were other problems.Namely Oklahoma State was never vetted with P12 Presidents and Chancellors. It does not come close to the Academic standards and even further from the research standards of the Pac-12. When Boren tried to sell OSU and OU to Scott, he was told a quick no. The only way OSU is invited to another conference is in a package of 4 or more schools, and even then I doubt it. If it were KU and OU fine, or ISU and OU perhaps. As R1 schools go, TTU, UVW and K State are really marginal, only ahead of R2 schools like OSU, and Baylor as far as expansion choices go.

B12 value: 1) Texas ... gap ... 2) Oklahoma ... gap ... 3) Kansas
Iowa State and Texas Tech, even Texas Christian (not actually a faith school) for being in Dallas and being selective (despite R2 research level) are possible complimentary additions. The rest are stuck no matter what, as are at least two of the three in the "possible complimentary" category.

This is why I don't see the B12 going away after 2025, even if Texas and Oklahoma, and Kansas leave. Houston, Cincinnati, Brigham Young and Colorado State are available to back fill and bring it back to ten. Throw a Central Florida in there and you are at twelve. For the contract cycle that would take it into the middle of the 2030s, you probably have a Big East of 2004-2012 level deal, half the other power conferences, but light years ahead of the G5. Without a LHN they would be able to finally get a real digital network going, but again they'd be the fifth of five.

Why would any P12 school give up their equity holding for that future? At some point the P12 will have a sale of 50% to a media partner (as likely to be Google or Apple as ESPN, CBS or FOX) who will both improve the revenue flow and give schools a nice injection of at least $50m each, perhaps as much as $100m (and still hold 50% equity). Teir-1 and Teir-2 will also get a bump up before the B12 ever goes to the table. There is zero logic in the idea of moving to the B12.

Half the Pac 12 doesn't come close to UW, CU and the California schools.

Oklahoma St. is certainly on a par with WSU and Pac 12 OSU.

LOL. REally? WSU and OrSU combined barely have more money than OkSU. Even worse if you take out the over 10% subsidies those schools require just to operate.

26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13

51 Oregon State Pac-12 $64,876,006 $72,557,984 $6,942,549 10.70

53 Washington State Pac-12 $54,112,604 $67,386,939 $6,112,056 11.30

Guess which one OSU is
2015 $21,126,079 $21,621,715 $36,165,660 $3,176,102 $4,619,109 $9,223,074 $95,931,739
2014 $23,756,815 $37,027,350 $31,935,018 $3,103,680 $4,417,795 $17,562,644 $117,803,302
2013 $22,927,357 $26,714,907 $29,313,545 $2,606,182 $4,730,260 $7,372,086 $93,664,337
2012 $23,082,628 $25,997,402 $30,103,618 $1,921,359 $4,363,328 $1,802,263 $87,270,598
2011 $22,672,580 $26,978,331 $20,129,813 $1,897,820 $4,289,513 $6,663,858 $82,631,915
2010 $23,640,296 $51,877,388 $21,141,254 $1,809,123 $3,844,083 $4,049,984 $106,362,128
2009 $20,197,401 $29,270,695 $16,590,859 $1,855,696 $2,872,244 $14,833,498 $55,953,397
2008 $17,528,662 $54,923,758 $14,072,171 $1,934,812 $2,709,205 $7,705,484 $98,874,092
2007 $16,301,284 $18,915,844 $11,791,258 $2,018,352 $2,603,906 $5,890,978 $57,521,622
2006 $13,538,595 $211,023,155 $10,517,885 $2,047,664 $2,482,472 $1,755,135 $241,364,906
2005 $13,982,295 $18,016,645 $13,088,527 $1,989,184 $2,185,103 $1,988,992 $51,250,746
2015 $6,806,955 $6,617,601 $30,798,983 $1,131,902 $4,980,154 $3,777,009 $54,112,604
2014 $5,888,263 $7,017,691 $27,015,259 $990,402 $9,114,236 $4,400,967 $54,426,818
2013 $6,786,655 $8,274,561 $23,640,976 $1,065,849 $5,449,845 $1,973,354 $47,191,240
2012 $6,547,079 $7,855,037 $16,878,837 $1,123,849 $7,668,378 $2,656,368 $42,729,548
2011 $5,101,745 $7,108,305 $13,129,810 $1,608,068 $9,923,573 $3,111,981 $39,983,482
2010 $5,181,093 $6,754,924 $12,687,841 $1,862,522 $7,487,283 $5,378,433 $39,352,096
2009 $5,981,037 $7,726,529 $11,107,277 $1,870,506 $8,093,399 $3,515,007 $38,293,755
2008 $6,751,773 $7,512,105 $11,800,989 $1,115,799 $7,974,705 $4,465,689 $39,621,060
2007 $5,664,783 $6,713,178 $9,975,576 $1,078,202 $7,173,628 $3,622,930 $34,228,297
2006 $5,698,411 $5,946,515 $8,933,355 $946,716 $6,854,522 $3,549,174 $31,928,693
2005 $4,491,465 $4,515,272 $9,070,331 $878,370 $6,684,773 $2,750,842 $28,391,053
2015 $10,978,823 $9,817,033 $34,235,884 $2,502,549 $4,440,000 $2,901,717 $64,876,006
2014 $10,080,314 $10,670,196 $28,044,856 $2,502,831 $9,782,622 $2,220,975 $63,301,794
2013 $10,909,633 $12,658,820 $27,385,484 $2,565,348 $9,704,893 $2,243,792 $65,467,970
2012 $9,541,151 $9,816,920 $17,034,026 $2,442,222 $16,285,197 $3,587,321 $58,706,837
2011 $10,389,424 $9,535,722 $15,039,448 $2,277,720 $14,688,891 $3,612,810 $55,544,015
2010 $9,525,756 $16,439,009 $14,860,469 $2,142,702 $8,817,914 $3,827,495 $55,613,345
2009 $10,139,347 $11,829,544 $16,197,375 $2,113,218 $9,325,885 $3,537,520 $53,142,889
2008 $8,469,533 $16,614,611 $13,325,497 $1,203,903 $8,995,105 $4,266,690 $52,875,339
2007 $8,986,521 $15,646,473 $11,544,737 $1,494,984 $12,664,890 $2,133,822 $52,471,427
2006 $6,995,844 $12,596,548 $10,106,640 $1,494,984 $19,621,476 $2,786,451 $53,601,943
2005 $6,224,823 $13,348,937 $9,007,612 $1,495,296 $5,072,056 $2,096,632 $37,245,356


Over the last decade OkSU has put more money in it's AD than OrSu and WSU combined. So how are they about equal?

TCU is absolutely a faith school. They simply changed the name on the degrees to say brite divinity. Kids are in the same dorms, same classes, same campus, campus ID gets you into football games. The whole 9 yards.

TCU is associated with the Disciples of Christ church, but is not run by them. The Brite Divinity school is now no longer a part of TCU. They are their own entity. All of the student information is separate as are the endowments. Brite pays TCU rent for use of space and facilities.