(07-03-2018 10:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The PAC 12 will go further behind when they can not get the Big 12 schools that they want. Oklahoma is flirting with the top 2 conferences right now of the Big 10 and SEC. Texas decided PAC 12 is a no deal either since Oklahoma do not want to go. T. Boone Pickens was blocking Oklahoma State from going to the PAC 12. He is lobbying the school Presidents to go SEC route.

If California lawmakers get their way? State that pushes discriminating bills against certain people would block the public California schools to play in those states. That could mean Texas and Oklahoma is a no go. The PAC 12 could be forces to take in schools from out west including Boise State. Sorry, but Boise State tv market is > Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/so forth. You can not claimed Spokane is Washington State's tv market since Boise State shares that market as well since Spokane covers parts of Idaho and western Montana. It seems in certain parts of the northwest? Boise State is top 3. Washington, Oregon, BYU, Utah and Boise State are the top 5 teams in most places. Boise State rules the whole state of Idaho, some parts of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and parts of Montana and northern Nevada. My point is that Boise State is stealing fans away from the PAC 12 as their fan base is growing because of them winning in football and basketball.

So the "Conference of Champions," with over $500 million in revenue last season, needs Boise State to save them? LOL! That is hilarious.
The Pac-12 led the nation in NCAA Championships for the 13th year in a row:

https://pac-12.com/article/2018/06/29/pa...h-year-row

Which conference is behind?

(07-03-2018 03:19 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 10:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The PAC 12 will go further behind when they can not get the Big 12 schools that they want. Oklahoma is flirting with the top 2 conferences right now of the Big 10 and SEC. Texas decided PAC 12 is a no deal either since Oklahoma do not want to go. T. Boone Pickens was blocking Oklahoma State from going to the PAC 12. He is lobbying the school Presidents to go SEC route.

If California lawmakers get their way? State that pushes discriminating bills against certain people would block the public California schools to play in those states. That could mean Texas and Oklahoma is a no go. The PAC 12 could be forces to take in schools from out west including Boise State. Sorry, but Boise State tv market is > Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/so forth. You can not claimed Spokane is Washington State's tv market since Boise State shares that market as well since Spokane covers parts of Idaho and western Montana. It seems in certain parts of the northwest? Boise State is top 3. Washington, Oregon, BYU, Utah and Boise State are the top 5 teams in most places. Boise State rules the whole state of Idaho, some parts of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and parts of Montana and northern Nevada. My point is that Boise State is stealing fans away from the PAC 12 as their fan base is growing because of them winning in football and basketball.

So the "Conference of Champions," with over $500 million in revenue last season, needs Boise State to save them? LOL! That is hilarious.
The Pac-12 led the nation in NCAA Championships for the 13th year in a row:

https://pac-12.com/article/2018/06/29/pa...h-year-row

Which conference is behind?

They trail in per team earnings and the gap is widening.

(07-02-2018 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 09:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 05:03 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 01:40 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  UT is the hottest sports property in college sports? That seems a bit of a stretch. I would admit that they are very profitable, with about $15 million per year through 2030 coming from the Longhorn Network. But the LHN is also one major obstacle to them joining the Pac-12. The LHN does not help the struggling Pac-12 Network and UT is tied to that LHN deal through 2030.

The other is that the Pac-12 really is not interested in expanding. It took a lot for Larry Scott to get the Pac-10 on board with adding Colorado and Utah. The Pac-12 will remain the "Conference of Champions" without Texas. The conference needs the LA schools to play better in football and basketball and they need to fix the Pac-12 Network.

While UT may not be the hottest sports property in college sports, they do offer much of what the PAC-12 wants when they finally do expand.

First, they offer the dominance (or at least 2nd) in a major state that has a population that could act as a counter-balance to California. This would allow the PAC-12 to go to a east-west divisional layout, and get the original PAC-8 into one division. This would make the Northwest and California Schools to be very happy.

If the PAC-12 was to expand to 16 teams, they would need to basically put all of the California Schools into one division (they would not have enough cross-divisional games to allow California to continue the protected schedules like they have now). They would need something to counter-act that population in the other division.

It's also a recruiting hotbed as well. The academics are there, and so is just about everything else. There's a reason why the PAC-12 wants Texas. (And they'd even probably offer some money to get out of the LHN deal if Texas wanted to). The problem is the Longhorn Network. The PAC-12 would probably offer some money to go towards the breach of contract phase. What Texas offered as an alternative to that was unacceptable. They wanted to keep the Longhorn Network money, have a full equal share of all other revenue (if the PAC-12 network money ever got to be above the LHN money, they'd want a distribution of that as well), and wanted the LHN rolled into the PAC-12 (becoming the PAC-12 Texas Station) so they'd get more programming on the LHN.

That was not going to happen.

The main thing I'd do on the PAC-12 network is get rid of half the networks. Combine PAC-12 Washington and PAC-12 Oregon into PAC-12 Northwest. Combine PAC-12 Northern California and PAC-12 Southern California into PAC-12 Golden State. Combine PAC-12 Arizona, and PAC-12 Mountain into PAC-12 Four Corners (or whatever you want to call it). That way you have programming from 4 schools to choose from.

I also would like to see the PAC-12 introduce some 4-team rivalry cups (based around those pods as well).

My theory is that ESPN would prefer Texas to stay Big XII but if Texas were committed to changing leagues ESPN would prefer to see the Horns in the Pac-12 in the hope of negotiating it's release of UT from LHN in exchange for equity in Pac-12 Network.

UT can go anywhere. Why would they join the one power conference making less money than the Big12? Why would they join the one conference that offers a less exposure and more travel than any other P5 option. The Big10 or ACC each makes more sense. That said, it seems to me that at the end of the day—-the Big12 is probably still UT’s best power conference option as long as Oklahoma remains.

WHAT are you saying ESPN's interests and UT's interests may not align?
Didn't say diddly about what UT wanted, just pointing out that if UT were to leave, Pac-12 is most beneficial to ESPN.

(07-03-2018 10:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The PAC 12 will go further behind when they can not get the Big 12 schools that they want. Oklahoma is flirting with the top 2 conferences right now of the Big 10 and SEC. Texas decided PAC 12 is a no deal either since Oklahoma do not want to go. T. Boone Pickens was blocking Oklahoma State from going to the PAC 12. He is lobbying the school Presidents to go SEC route.

If California lawmakers get their way? State that pushes discriminating bills against certain people would block the public California schools to play in those states. That could mean Texas and Oklahoma is a no go. The PAC 12 could be forces to take in schools from out west including Boise State. Sorry, but Boise State tv market is > Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/so forth. You can not claimed Spokane is Washington State's tv market since Boise State shares that market as well since Spokane covers parts of Idaho and western Montana. It seems in certain parts of the northwest? Boise State is top 3. Washington, Oregon, BYU, Utah and Boise State are the top 5 teams in most places. Boise State rules the whole state of Idaho, some parts of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and parts of Montana and northern Nevada. My point is that Boise State is stealing fans away from the PAC 12 as their fan base is growing because of them winning in football and basketball.

Let's break down your argument.

You're claiming that the Boise State TV Market is "bigger than Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/etc."

So, let's break down your argument. In terms of TV Households, you're wrong, blatently wrong. Every one of those teams have a primary TV market that is greater than Boise State's TV Market. Your suggestion is that the #9 Atlanta Market (Georgia's primary media market) with 2,449,460 TV households is greater than the Boise TV market which has 264,300 TV households.

Oregon State's primary media market is #22 Portland. Washington State's primary media market is #13 Seattle. Auburn's is #44 Birmingham. Oklahoma State's is #41 Oklahoma City. Iowa State's is #68 Des Moines. Kansas and Kansas State is #33 Kansas City. Georgia is #9 Atlanta, Clemson is #73 Charleston with inroads into the Charlotte area. Your argument is ridiculous.

You don't get the fact that the primary media market may not be the media market where they are located, but the media market where their graduates are located.

Idaho's entire state population of 1,716,913 (2017 estimate). That is not a lot of people. The Portland Metro area has that alone.

(07-03-2018 05:38 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 10:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The PAC 12 will go further behind when they can not get the Big 12 schools that they want. Oklahoma is flirting with the top 2 conferences right now of the Big 10 and SEC. Texas decided PAC 12 is a no deal either since Oklahoma do not want to go. T. Boone Pickens was blocking Oklahoma State from going to the PAC 12. He is lobbying the school Presidents to go SEC route.

If California lawmakers get their way? State that pushes discriminating bills against certain people would block the public California schools to play in those states. That could mean Texas and Oklahoma is a no go. The PAC 12 could be forces to take in schools from out west including Boise State. Sorry, but Boise State tv market is > Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/so forth. You can not claimed Spokane is Washington State's tv market since Boise State shares that market as well since Spokane covers parts of Idaho and western Montana. It seems in certain parts of the northwest? Boise State is top 3. Washington, Oregon, BYU, Utah and Boise State are the top 5 teams in most places. Boise State rules the whole state of Idaho, some parts of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and parts of Montana and northern Nevada. My point is that Boise State is stealing fans away from the PAC 12 as their fan base is growing because of them winning in football and basketball.

Let's break down your argument.

You're claiming that the Boise State TV Market is "bigger than Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/etc."

So, let's break down your argument. In terms of TV Households, you're wrong, blatently wrong. Every one of those teams have a primary TV market that is greater than Boise State's TV Market. Your suggestion is that the #9 Atlanta Market (Georgia's primary media market) with 2,449,460 TV households is greater than the Boise TV market which has 264,300 TV households.

Oregon State's primary media market is #22 Portland. Washington State's primary media market is #13 Seattle. Auburn's is #44 Birmingham. Oklahoma State's is #41 Oklahoma City. Iowa State's is #68 Des Moines. Kansas and Kansas State is #33 Kansas City. Georgia is #9 Atlanta, Clemson is #73 Charleston with inroads into the Charlotte area. Your argument is ridiculous.

You don't get the fact that the primary media market may not be the media market where they are located, but the media market where their graduates are located.

Idaho's entire state population of 1,716,913 (2017 estimate). That is not a lot of people. The Portland Metro area has that alone.

Well markets are terribly over-rated but one need only look up the viewership for Boise to see it doesn't hold water to think they are a top draw.

(07-03-2018 05:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 05:38 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 10:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The PAC 12 will go further behind when they can not get the Big 12 schools that they want. Oklahoma is flirting with the top 2 conferences right now of the Big 10 and SEC. Texas decided PAC 12 is a no deal either since Oklahoma do not want to go. T. Boone Pickens was blocking Oklahoma State from going to the PAC 12. He is lobbying the school Presidents to go SEC route.

If California lawmakers get their way? State that pushes discriminating bills against certain people would block the public California schools to play in those states. That could mean Texas and Oklahoma is a no go. The PAC 12 could be forces to take in schools from out west including Boise State. Sorry, but Boise State tv market is > Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/so forth. You can not claimed Spokane is Washington State's tv market since Boise State shares that market as well since Spokane covers parts of Idaho and western Montana. It seems in certain parts of the northwest? Boise State is top 3. Washington, Oregon, BYU, Utah and Boise State are the top 5 teams in most places. Boise State rules the whole state of Idaho, some parts of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and parts of Montana and northern Nevada. My point is that Boise State is stealing fans away from the PAC 12 as their fan base is growing because of them winning in football and basketball.

Let's break down your argument.

You're claiming that the Boise State TV Market is "bigger than Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/etc."

So, let's break down your argument. In terms of TV Households, you're wrong, blatently wrong. Every one of those teams have a primary TV market that is greater than Boise State's TV Market. Your suggestion is that the #9 Atlanta Market (Georgia's primary media market) with 2,449,460 TV households is greater than the Boise TV market which has 264,300 TV households.

Oregon State's primary media market is #22 Portland. Washington State's primary media market is #13 Seattle. Auburn's is #44 Birmingham. Oklahoma State's is #41 Oklahoma City. Iowa State's is #68 Des Moines. Kansas and Kansas State is #33 Kansas City. Georgia is #9 Atlanta, Clemson is #73 Charleston with inroads into the Charlotte area. Your argument is ridiculous.

You don't get the fact that the primary media market may not be the media market where they are located, but the media market where their graduates are located.

Idaho's entire state population of 1,716,913 (2017 estimate). That is not a lot of people. The Portland Metro area has that alone.

Well markets are terribly over-rated but one need only look up the viewership for Boise to see it doesn't hold water to think they are a top draw.

Boise St's market is as a "giant killer" from the G5. If they are in the P5 Idaho is their market. If they are in the PAC tell me why I care if they beat Oklahoma as a person from Massachusetts?

I've watched their bowl games with tons of people in Massachusetts, we were all cheering for Boise. If it's P5 against P5 and it's not playoff ehhh. Or at the very least I don't care who wins.

(07-03-2018 05:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 09:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 05:03 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 01:40 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  UT is the hottest sports property in college sports? That seems a bit of a stretch. I would admit that they are very profitable, with about $15 million per year through 2030 coming from the Longhorn Network. But the LHN is also one major obstacle to them joining the Pac-12. The LHN does not help the struggling Pac-12 Network and UT is tied to that LHN deal through 2030.

The other is that the Pac-12 really is not interested in expanding. It took a lot for Larry Scott to get the Pac-10 on board with adding Colorado and Utah. The Pac-12 will remain the "Conference of Champions" without Texas. The conference needs the LA schools to play better in football and basketball and they need to fix the Pac-12 Network.

While UT may not be the hottest sports property in college sports, they do offer much of what the PAC-12 wants when they finally do expand.

First, they offer the dominance (or at least 2nd) in a major state that has a population that could act as a counter-balance to California. This would allow the PAC-12 to go to a east-west divisional layout, and get the original PAC-8 into one division. This would make the Northwest and California Schools to be very happy.

If the PAC-12 was to expand to 16 teams, they would need to basically put all of the California Schools into one division (they would not have enough cross-divisional games to allow California to continue the protected schedules like they have now). They would need something to counter-act that population in the other division.

It's also a recruiting hotbed as well. The academics are there, and so is just about everything else. There's a reason why the PAC-12 wants Texas. (And they'd even probably offer some money to get out of the LHN deal if Texas wanted to). The problem is the Longhorn Network. The PAC-12 would probably offer some money to go towards the breach of contract phase. What Texas offered as an alternative to that was unacceptable. They wanted to keep the Longhorn Network money, have a full equal share of all other revenue (if the PAC-12 network money ever got to be above the LHN money, they'd want a distribution of that as well), and wanted the LHN rolled into the PAC-12 (becoming the PAC-12 Texas Station) so they'd get more programming on the LHN.

That was not going to happen.

The main thing I'd do on the PAC-12 network is get rid of half the networks. Combine PAC-12 Washington and PAC-12 Oregon into PAC-12 Northwest. Combine PAC-12 Northern California and PAC-12 Southern California into PAC-12 Golden State. Combine PAC-12 Arizona, and PAC-12 Mountain into PAC-12 Four Corners (or whatever you want to call it). That way you have programming from 4 schools to choose from.

I also would like to see the PAC-12 introduce some 4-team rivalry cups (based around those pods as well).

My theory is that ESPN would prefer Texas to stay Big XII but if Texas were committed to changing leagues ESPN would prefer to see the Horns in the Pac-12 in the hope of negotiating it's release of UT from LHN in exchange for equity in Pac-12 Network.

UT can go anywhere. Why would they join the one power conference making less money than the Big12? Why would they join the one conference that offers a less exposure and more travel than any other P5 option. The Big10 or ACC each makes more sense. That said, it seems to me that at the end of the day—-the Big12 is probably still UT’s best power conference option as long as Oklahoma remains.

WHAT are you saying ESPN's interests and UT's interests may not align?
Didn't say diddly about what UT wanted, just pointing out that if UT were to leave, Pac-12 is most beneficial to ESPN.

Understood. I just see "UT to the Pac12" all the time and have yet to have anyone explain why UT would want to be the far eastern edge of a far flung western conference that pays less than the one their in. As for ESPN's interests, I would think an indy agreement with UT might be another pretty advantageous outcome for the Death Star. The ACC would be an excellent option as well since ESPN owns that entire package and half their conference network.

(07-04-2018 12:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 05:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 09:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 05:03 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  While UT may not be the hottest sports property in college sports, they do offer much of what the PAC-12 wants when they finally do expand.

First, they offer the dominance (or at least 2nd) in a major state that has a population that could act as a counter-balance to California. This would allow the PAC-12 to go to a east-west divisional layout, and get the original PAC-8 into one division. This would make the Northwest and California Schools to be very happy.

If the PAC-12 was to expand to 16 teams, they would need to basically put all of the California Schools into one division (they would not have enough cross-divisional games to allow California to continue the protected schedules like they have now). They would need something to counter-act that population in the other division.

It's also a recruiting hotbed as well. The academics are there, and so is just about everything else. There's a reason why the PAC-12 wants Texas. (And they'd even probably offer some money to get out of the LHN deal if Texas wanted to). The problem is the Longhorn Network. The PAC-12 would probably offer some money to go towards the breach of contract phase. What Texas offered as an alternative to that was unacceptable. They wanted to keep the Longhorn Network money, have a full equal share of all other revenue (if the PAC-12 network money ever got to be above the LHN money, they'd want a distribution of that as well), and wanted the LHN rolled into the PAC-12 (becoming the PAC-12 Texas Station) so they'd get more programming on the LHN.

That was not going to happen.

The main thing I'd do on the PAC-12 network is get rid of half the networks. Combine PAC-12 Washington and PAC-12 Oregon into PAC-12 Northwest. Combine PAC-12 Northern California and PAC-12 Southern California into PAC-12 Golden State. Combine PAC-12 Arizona, and PAC-12 Mountain into PAC-12 Four Corners (or whatever you want to call it). That way you have programming from 4 schools to choose from.

I also would like to see the PAC-12 introduce some 4-team rivalry cups (based around those pods as well).

My theory is that ESPN would prefer Texas to stay Big XII but if Texas were committed to changing leagues ESPN would prefer to see the Horns in the Pac-12 in the hope of negotiating it's release of UT from LHN in exchange for equity in Pac-12 Network.

UT can go anywhere. Why would they join the one power conference making less money than the Big12? Why would they join the one conference that offers a less exposure and more travel than any other P5 option. The Big10 or ACC each makes more sense. That said, it seems to me that at the end of the day—-the Big12 is probably still UT’s best power conference option as long as Oklahoma remains.

WHAT are you saying ESPN's interests and UT's interests may not align?
Didn't say diddly about what UT wanted, just pointing out that if UT were to leave, Pac-12 is most beneficial to ESPN.

Understood. I just see "UT to the Pac12" all the time and have yet to have anyone explain why UT would want to be the far eastern edge of a far flung western conference that pays less than the one their in. As for ESPN's interests, I would think an indy agreement with UT might be another pretty advantageous outcome for the Death Star. The ACC would be an excellent option as well since ESPN owns that entire package and half their conference network.

ACC is the easiest deal without a doubt.Maybe ACC offers a Notre Dame hybrid or if they want to bring pals, they have to come in all the way.

Texas joining could go a long way toward fixing the financial gap but I just can't see the time zone issue being conquered without more "partners" than Pac-12 likely wants. The Central and Eastern timezone essentially function as one time zone (if time zones had been created based on electronic media rather than railroads we would probably have three time zones, East, West and Alaska&Hawaii with 2 hour gap between each).

From a UT standpoint I can't see going west at all and if they want to change ACC is the one most likely to deal. Texas going SEC or B1G could destabilize the ACC by creating a bigger income gap.

Conference of champions.... in sports that the nation doesn't care about except for ncaa/college administrators, the coaches/players and their families, and message board posters who use it as a crutch when the weaknesses of the Pac12 is brought up. With very few exceptions nationwide, football and men's basketball are the only sports that the public cares about, and hence the only ones that 'really' matter when taking NCAA money and power.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

(07-03-2018 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 03:19 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 10:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The PAC 12 will go further behind when they can not get the Big 12 schools that they want. Oklahoma is flirting with the top 2 conferences right now of the Big 10 and SEC. Texas decided PAC 12 is a no deal either since Oklahoma do not want to go. T. Boone Pickens was blocking Oklahoma State from going to the PAC 12. He is lobbying the school Presidents to go SEC route.

If California lawmakers get their way? State that pushes discriminating bills against certain people would block the public California schools to play in those states. That could mean Texas and Oklahoma is a no go. The PAC 12 could be forces to take in schools from out west including Boise State. Sorry, but Boise State tv market is > Washington State/Oregon State/Auburn/Oklahoma State/Iowa State/Iowa/Kansas/Kansas State/Georgia/Clemson/Ole Miss./Mississippi State/South Carolina/so forth. You can not claimed Spokane is Washington State's tv market since Boise State shares that market as well since Spokane covers parts of Idaho and western Montana. It seems in certain parts of the northwest? Boise State is top 3. Washington, Oregon, BYU, Utah and Boise State are the top 5 teams in most places. Boise State rules the whole state of Idaho, some parts of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon and parts of Montana and northern Nevada. My point is that Boise State is stealing fans away from the PAC 12 as their fan base is growing because of them winning in football and basketball.

So the "Conference of Champions," with over $500 million in revenue last season, needs Boise State to save them? LOL! That is hilarious.
The Pac-12 led the nation in NCAA Championships for the 13th year in a row:

https://pac-12.com/article/2018/06/29/pa...h-year-row

Which conference is behind?

They trail in per team earnings and the gap is widening.

When you get right down to it, "per team earnings" is a pretty useless measure of strength. Unless all conferences start equalizing the total earnings of all their members, and not just their media and post season earnings, what matters is the revenues for any one team compared with those of its opponents.

And, frankly, to include all of the earnings for schools like Texas, Texas A&M, Ohio State and their like makes little sense either. For all those schools, their revenue is so far beyond what they need or can use to strengthen their football or basketball teams as to be meaningless. Clearly those excess revenues don't help the Texas schools very much or they would win a lot more often than they do.

And does Ohio State fielding 223 track and field athletes, 114 members of the women's rowing team or 30 synchronized swimmers make Purdue's football team stronger? Or Ohio State's football team, for that matter?

Conferences don't win games or championships. Teams do. We should be focusing on what individual teams are spending, not meaningless numbers like conference average revenues.

(07-04-2018 04:36 PM)forphase1 Wrote:  Conference of champions.... in sports that the nation doesn't care about except for ncaa/college administrators, the coaches/players and their families, and message board posters who use it as a crutch when the weaknesses of the Pac12 is brought up. With very few exceptions nationwide, football and men's basketball are the only sports that the public cares about, and hence the only ones that 'really' matter when taking NCAA money and power.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Among casual fans. But not among fans of the schools.

Now maybe not many care about water polo or men's volleyball, but track & field, hockey, baseball, softball, soccer and some others get significant interest in the schools that do those sports.

Texas should stay in the B12 because of travel.

I do think expanding the B12 for more inventory makes some sense with the TV numbers they are working with.

Cincinnati and Memphis would build the conference together some and deliver eyeballs in basketball. They are smack in SEC and B12 recruiting grounds which is the competition.

They would make the B12 configuration seem more ACC like with a couple of metro schools and a couple of privates in TCU and Baylor.

(07-05-2018 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Texas should stay in the B12 because of travel.

I do think expanding the B12 for more inventory makes some sense with the TV numbers they are working with.

Cincinnati and Memphis would build the conference together some and deliver eyeballs in basketball. They are smack in SEC and B12 recruiting grounds which is the competition.

They would make the B12 configuration seem more ACC like with a couple of metro schools and a couple of privates in TCU and Baylor.

They aren't interested in Memphis. I don't think any P5 schools are moving this time around. Pac 12 schools are too tied to California to leave.

The top 3 candidates last time were BYU, Houston and Cincinnati. And I don't think they could get enough votes for any of them. I think they will try to get to 12, but I don't know that they will agree on it. BYU makes the academics unhappy. UH makes the northern Big 12 schools unhappy. Cincinnati really isn't as good overall as BYU and UH and certainly won't be added without a #12.

(07-06-2018 07:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Texas should stay in the B12 because of travel.

I do think expanding the B12 for more inventory makes some sense with the TV numbers they are working with.

Cincinnati and Memphis would build the conference together some and deliver eyeballs in basketball. They are smack in SEC and B12 recruiting grounds which is the competition.

They would make the B12 configuration seem more ACC like with a couple of metro schools and a couple of privates in TCU and Baylor.

They aren't interested in Memphis. I don't think any P5 schools are moving this time around. Pac 12 schools are too tied to California to leave.

The top 3 candidates last time were BYU, Houston and Cincinnati. And I don't think they could get enough votes for any of them. I think they will try to get to 12, but I don't know that they will agree on it. BYU makes the academics unhappy. UH makes the northern Big 12 schools unhappy. Cincinnati really isn't as good overall as BYU and UH and certainly won't be added without a #12.

Sounds eerily like something that the OBE would say, and that
Indecision through arrogance led to their destruction.

People forget that not everybody in the state of Idaho watches sports. Boise can also claim that they are part of the Spokane market since Spokane's tv market touches northern Idaho and western Montana. That is where Washington State is losing fan base. Who would you root for? Boise State who is winning a bunch of games, or a Washington State team that have gone 1-11 in some years, and lose to FCS schools a bunch lately?

(07-06-2018 10:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People forget that not everybody in the state of Idaho watches sports. Boise can also claim that they are part of the Spokane market since Spokane's tv market touches northern Idaho and western Montana. That is where Washington State is losing fan base. Who would you root for? Boise State who is winning a bunch of games, or a Washington State team that have gone 1-11 in some years, and lose to FCS schools a bunch lately?

Wazzu.

But I hate spuds and don't base my bandwagonning on 10 year old reps.

Washington State was ranked longer and higher than Boise St all last year according to the cfp.

(07-06-2018 10:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People forget that not everybody in the state of Idaho watches sports. Boise can also claim that they are part of the Spokane market since Spokane's tv market touches northern Idaho and western Montana. That is where Washington State is losing fan base. Who would you root for? Boise State who is winning a bunch of games, or a Washington State team that have gone 1-11 in some years, and lose to FCS schools a bunch lately?

This is a common argument for you. I wonder, when will Michigan ever recover their lost fans after losing to a FCS school. In its history, Washington State has lost to a FCS team in 2015 and 2016; I believe most people would consider that a pair rather than a bunch.

(07-06-2018 10:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People forget that not everybody in the state of Idaho watches sports. Boise can also claim that they are part of the Spokane market since Spokane's tv market touches northern Idaho and western Montana. That is where Washington State is losing fan base. Who would you root for? Boise State who is winning a bunch of games, or a Washington State team that have gone 1-11 in some years, and lose to FCS schools a bunch lately?

Boise State vs. Washington State was the 2nd lowest rated game for Washington State in terms of TV Viewship. It drew a 0.75, with 1,265,000 viewers. Only the FCS game against Montana State was rated lower.

You'd think that if Boise State was really a TV Draw, that they would have beat out the viewership for, instance, Washington State vs. Colorado (which was on the same network).

Boise State's game against Washington State was the 3rd Highest rated game for Boise State in terms of TV Viewship. Only the Bowl Game (Las Vegas against Oregon), and Virginia were rated higher. You'd think that if Boise State was really the draw that you think it is, that it could draw more than what it could do with a bad PAC-12 team.

(07-06-2018 07:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Texas should stay in the B12 because of travel.

I do think expanding the B12 for more inventory makes some sense with the TV numbers they are working with.

Cincinnati and Memphis would build the conference together some and deliver eyeballs in basketball. They are smack in SEC and B12 recruiting grounds which is the competition.

They would make the B12 configuration seem more ACC like with a couple of metro schools and a couple of privates in TCU and Baylor.

They aren't interested in Memphis. I don't think any P5 schools are moving this time around. Pac 12 schools are too tied to California to leave.

This is just my personal opinion the Memphis would be a good addition for the B12.

I realize they didn't rate high in the expansion evaluation.

If the Big 12 looks at expansion in 5-7 years, it is of upmost importance that the obvious candidates put themselves in the very best light.(Winning, Faciliites, and Budget) In the past few years, UConn has really hurt themselves where UCF has really helped themselves.