The PAC 12 needs to clean house first--cut costs, cut the Comissioner, cut the Pac12Network down to one channel with maybe one or two alternates.

If the PAC 12 can't right the ship and improve their profit margins and start producing top 4 teams again then the gradual slope towards obsolescence has already begun.

(01-09-2019 08:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Is there a Cooley medical school now?

Not that I know of.

(01-10-2019 10:51 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The PAC 12 needs to clean house first--cut costs, cut the Comissioner, cut the Pac12Network down to one channel with maybe one or two alternates.

If the PAC 12 can't right the ship and improve their profit margins and start producing top 4 teams again then the gradual slope towards obsolescence has already begun.

Don’t forget, ending the lease at their ritzy corporate office, and getting something a bit less empirical.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-10-2019 10:51 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The PAC 12 needs to clean house first--cut costs, cut the Comissioner, cut the Pac12Network down to one channel with maybe one or two alternates.

If the PAC 12 can't right the ship and improve their profit margins and start producing top 4 teams again then the gradual slope towards obsolescence has already begun.

I actually like the idea of regional channels, I just think the PAC-12 went too far with establishing 6 of them (one for each rivalry). There's a fairly easy cut-down to 3 (Northwest, California, and Mountain).

(01-11-2019 07:10 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:51 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The PAC 12 needs to clean house first--cut costs, cut the Comissioner, cut the Pac12Network down to one channel with maybe one or two alternates.

If the PAC 12 can't right the ship and improve their profit margins and start producing top 4 teams again then the gradual slope towards obsolescence has already begun.

I actually like the idea of regional channels, I just think the PAC-12 went too far with establishing 6 of them (one for each rivalry). There's a fairly easy cut-down to 3 (Northwest, California, and Mountain).

Good point. 3 regional channels seems fair. 6 is overkill.

(01-11-2019 07:10 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:51 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The PAC 12 needs to clean house first--cut costs, cut the Comissioner, cut the Pac12Network down to one channel with maybe one or two alternates.

If the PAC 12 can't right the ship and improve their profit margins and start producing top 4 teams again then the gradual slope towards obsolescence has already begun.

I actually like the idea of regional channels, I just think the PAC-12 went too far with establishing 6 of them (one for each rivalry). There's a fairly easy cut-down to 3 (Northwest, California, and Mountain).

PAC 12 could do a schedule and tv partnership with the other western conferences to help boast tv carriage.

Northwest:
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Gonzaga
Eastern Washington
Boise State
UNR

Portland State, Idaho and Idaho State could be here if they get their sports programs up there winning. If Western Washington, Central Washington and Western Oregon moves up and winning in men's basketball and football? They would be up there. Powerwolf at UCLA had those 3 men's basketball programs better than Seattle U. the past several years.

Southwest:
UCLA
California
Stanford
USC
Arizona
Arizona State
Fresno State
San Diego State
Hawaii
St. Mary's
Long Beach State
Fullerton State
UC-Davis
Northern Arizona
GCU

Others are not there yet to be on tv. I added baseball schools.

Mountain:
Utah
BYU
Utah State
Colorado
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
New Mexico State
UTEP
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Colorado Mesa if they accept WAC's invite.
UTSA
North Texas
West Texas A&M if they joined the WAC.
Central Oklahoma if they move to D1.
Missouri State
Northern Iowa

Any others need to improve their playing.
I could add La. Tech, Arkansas State, UCA, UTA, Little Rock and La. Lafayette for the PAC to get into SEC territory.

I Know these schools are not P5, but at least they could actually stretch their tv viewership eastward. I think the PAC 12 would go to Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Iowa and the Dakota schools to be on tv earlier start.

I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

Anything Pac-12 does is always going to difficult because the meat and taters of the league is USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford. I'm not claiming there is not significant value in the other 8 members, just that if you ask the other 8 who they want to play, those four are high on the list.

The Pac-12 isn't getting paid like their peers and have been in a success slump where it matters in the two primary revenue sports.

Congratulations KU, KState, Iowa State and West Virginia. You join Big 12 North with Cal and Stanford in football and their two permanent cross-over games are USC and UCLA (good luck winning the north Cal and Stanford, unless you are the unfortunate stuck with OU and Texas as your crossover games).

That's just a fast spit ball

But I think it is far more likely that Big XII can create a situation to raid the Pac-12 than vice versa, likewise far easier for Big 10 to create a Pac-12 raid than vice versa.

(01-11-2019 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

That would be pretty simple, the only conference that would be powerful enough to raid the Pac-12 would be the Big-10. The ACC and SEC are too far east and the Big-12 doesn't offer anything the Cal schools would leave for and without the Cal-4 departing they wouldn't be able to pull the Mountain (or Northwest) schools from their orbit around the state of California.

(01-11-2019 11:27 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

That would be pretty simple, the only conference that would be powerful enough to raid the Pac-12 would be the Big-10. The ACC and SEC are too far east and the Big-12 doesn't offer anything the Cal schools would leave for and without the Cal-4 departing they wouldn't be able to pull the Mountain (or Northwest) schools from their orbit around the state of California.

And Frank the Tank already explored that. Colorado comes up on the radar as a location of significant B1G alumni. So does LA and Bay Area and Seattle, but UW and the California schools would be a ridiculous addition to the B1G -- but that is geographically ridiculous.

Colorado runs up against the question of whether they are enough higher up the pecking order over Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and down the line Georgia Tech, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina and Florida State. The answer is pretty obvious to everyone here, CU is pretty far down the above list, and worse they are in a different time zone.

The B12 cannot raid because everyone thinks OU and maybe UT (and if not them KU) will leave in 2025.

So we are back where we started. Who can the P12 add. And the answer again is wait to see if anything is left behind by the B12 worth an expansion of a time zone. The consensus is UT and OU bring real value, KU border line, the rest not enough pay for the expansion cost and dilution. (Obviously UT and OU are not coming to the P12 no matter what happens, so forget it.) G5 options are obviously not as attractive as those, the best ones similar, but with less infrastructure or tradition than the B12.

Stalemate. Nothing going on, no one leaving, no one joining. Check in again when OU announces their departure.

(01-12-2019 01:33 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 11:27 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

That would be pretty simple, the only conference that would be powerful enough to raid the Pac-12 would be the Big-10. The ACC and SEC are too far east and the Big-12 doesn't offer anything the Cal schools would leave for and without the Cal-4 departing they wouldn't be able to pull the Mountain (or Northwest) schools from their orbit around the state of California.

And Frank the Tank already explored that. Colorado comes up on the radar as a location of significant B1G alumni. So does LA and Bay Area and Seattle, but UW and the California schools would be a ridiculous addition to the B1G -- but that is geographically ridiculous.

Colorado runs up against the question of whether they are enough higher up the pecking order over Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and down the line Georgia Tech, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina and Florida State. The answer is pretty obvious to everyone here, CU is pretty far down the above list, and worse they are in a different time zone.

The B12 cannot raid because everyone thinks OU and maybe UT (and if not them KU) will leave in 2025.

So we are back where we started. Who can the P12 add. And the answer again is wait to see if anything is left behind by the B12 worth an expansion of a time zone. The consensus is UT and OU bring real value, KU border line, the rest not enough pay for the expansion cost and dilution. (Obviously UT and OU are not coming to the P12 no matter what happens, so forget it.) G5 options are obviously not as attractive as those, the best ones similar, but with less infrastructure or tradition than the B12.

Stalemate. Nothing going on, no one leaving, no one joining. Check in again when OU announces their departure.

Back in the early days, there was an exploring of a coast to coast mega conference that involved all the PAC 12's AAU schools, Notre Dame, Navy, a couple of Ivy League schools, Army and all the east coast AAU independents. It would have been a coast to coast conference. Oregon State and Washington State would have been left behind, and both Arizona schools were not there yet. The PAC 12 may have Idaho and Montana, Utah and Colorado, both Arizona schools. UNR, Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Colorado State might be the PAC 14.

I think the big 10 is the only league that could raid the pac 12. Could do any easy 1 school move in Colorado to pair with Kansas or a more complicated larger move which would need a rule change about divisions. I like the big 10 taking 10 pac 12 schools and creating 3 divisions of 8. Agree the pac 12 needs some internal moves to fix issues like move HQ and football title game to Las Vegas. Than fix the network by bringing in fox or espn as a partner and bringing it to 1 channel instead of 6

I think the best that the California schools can hope for is a Big 10/21:

Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Colorado
Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, NW, Wisky, Purdue
MSU, UM, Ohio State, Indiana, PSU, MD, Rutgers


Then Arizona State, Arizona, Utah, Oregon State, and Washington State go to the Big 12/15:


ASU, UA, WSU, OSU, Utah
Texas, TT, TCU, Baylor, OSU
Oklahoma, Kansas, KSU, ISU, WVa

That leaves one spot for someone to move into the SEC as their 15th or for the ACC and SEC to swap out while adding a net of one.

The BigXII can't raid the PAC and the PAC can't raid the BigXII. We're not at a point yet where the B1G is going to go full league.

But if some entity with some money and a desire to get into CFB wanted to raid BOTH the BigXII and PAC, that could happen. They'd have to get at least 8 to make a football conference. They'd reap almost all the value of both conferences if they started with just the 4 California schools plus Texas.

Then Washington, Oregon, and Oklahoma can decide whether they want to protect their little brothers or let the Southwest schools take spots 6-8.

How much could ESPN save by turning the LHN into the LH conference and demoting half of western schools out of Power conferences and pay scales?

(01-11-2019 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

Anything Pac-12 does is always going to difficult because the meat and taters of the league is USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford. I'm not claiming there is not significant value in the other 8 members, just that if you ask the other 8 who they want to play, those four are high on the list.

The Pac-12 isn't getting paid like their peers and have been in a success slump where it matters in the two primary revenue sports.

Congratulations KU, KState, Iowa State and West Virginia. You join Big 12 North with Cal and Stanford in football and their two permanent cross-over games are USC and UCLA (good luck winning the north Cal and Stanford, unless you are the unfortunate stuck with OU and Texas as your crossover games).

That's just a fast spit ball

But I think it is far more likely that Big XII can create a situation to raid the Pac-12 than vice versa, likewise far easier for Big 10 to create a Pac-12 raid than vice versa.

The Pac-12 reported revenue of $509 million last year. The Big 12 reported revenue of $371 million. The Big 12 is not going after the Pac-12. The Pac-12 has an expense problem. They reported $138 million in expenses. They obviously need to reduce their expenses.

There is no Pac-12 expansion strategy that works without addressing the expense issues first and any expansion with the Big 12 starts and ends with the University of Texas. UT would have to let go of the Longhorn Network, which they are not going to do. So this is going nowhere.

(01-12-2019 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

Anything Pac-12 does is always going to difficult because the meat and taters of the league is USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford. I'm not claiming there is not significant value in the other 8 members, just that if you ask the other 8 who they want to play, those four are high on the list.

The Pac-12 isn't getting paid like their peers and have been in a success slump where it matters in the two primary revenue sports.

Congratulations KU, KState, Iowa State and West Virginia. You join Big 12 North with Cal and Stanford in football and their two permanent cross-over games are USC and UCLA (good luck winning the north Cal and Stanford, unless you are the unfortunate stuck with OU and Texas as your crossover games).

That's just a fast spit ball

But I think it is far more likely that Big XII can create a situation to raid the Pac-12 than vice versa, likewise far easier for Big 10 to create a Pac-12 raid than vice versa.

The Pac-12 reported revenue of $509 million last year. The Big 12 reported revenue of $371 million. The Big 12 is not going after the Pac-12. The Pac-12 has an expense problem. They reported $138 million in expenses. They obviously need to reduce their expenses.

There is no Pac-12 expansion strategy that works without addressing the expense issues first and any expansion with the Big 12 starts and ends with the University of Texas. UT would have to let go of the Longhorn Network, which they are not going to do. So this is going nowhere.

That is why I'm saying the PAC needs to go after Kansas/Oklahoma for a quick shot in the competitive FB/BB arm and forget about Texas.

It also solves the KU/OU little brother issue when they will still be playing in what is a legally defined P5 league which still contains the nation's most powerful school in Texas.

Dump Larry Scott, go to 14 and return to Top 5 competitiveness.

(01-12-2019 03:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

Anything Pac-12 does is always going to difficult because the meat and taters of the league is USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford. I'm not claiming there is not significant value in the other 8 members, just that if you ask the other 8 who they want to play, those four are high on the list.

The Pac-12 isn't getting paid like their peers and have been in a success slump where it matters in the two primary revenue sports.

Congratulations KU, KState, Iowa State and West Virginia. You join Big 12 North with Cal and Stanford in football and their two permanent cross-over games are USC and UCLA (good luck winning the north Cal and Stanford, unless you are the unfortunate stuck with OU and Texas as your crossover games).

That's just a fast spit ball

But I think it is far more likely that Big XII can create a situation to raid the Pac-12 than vice versa, likewise far easier for Big 10 to create a Pac-12 raid than vice versa.

The Pac-12 reported revenue of $509 million last year. The Big 12 reported revenue of $371 million. The Big 12 is not going after the Pac-12. The Pac-12 has an expense problem. They reported $138 million in expenses. They obviously need to reduce their expenses.

There is no Pac-12 expansion strategy that works without addressing the expense issues first and any expansion with the Big 12 starts and ends with the University of Texas. UT would have to let go of the Longhorn Network, which they are not going to do. So this is going nowhere.

That is why I'm saying the PAC needs to go after Kansas/Oklahoma for a quick shot in the competitive FB/BB arm and forget about Texas.

It also solves the KU/OU little brother issue when they will still be playing in what is a legally defined P5 league which still contains the nation's most powerful school in Texas.

Dump Larry Scott, go to 14 and return to Top 5 competitiveness.

Forgetting the fact that there is a Grant of Rights agreement in the Big 12 and neither school can make a move for the next five years, Kansas football would offset any benefits Oklahoma football brings. Kansas is 18-90 over the past nine years in football. Kansas basketball is obviously very good, but they lost to Arizona State this year, and Washington and Arizona State last season. Kansas has won 14 straight Big 12 titles, but they would not do that in the Pac-12. Not with Arizona, UCLA and Oregon in the conference.

Bottom line, these recommended "quick shot" additions do not address the Pac-12's expense issues.

(01-12-2019 04:21 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think this is backwards.

Rather than wondering how the Pac-12 raids someone else, the thought process should be based around who can raid Pac-12 and what does that look like.

Anything Pac-12 does is always going to difficult because the meat and taters of the league is USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford. I'm not claiming there is not significant value in the other 8 members, just that if you ask the other 8 who they want to play, those four are high on the list.

The Pac-12 isn't getting paid like their peers and have been in a success slump where it matters in the two primary revenue sports.

Congratulations KU, KState, Iowa State and West Virginia. You join Big 12 North with Cal and Stanford in football and their two permanent cross-over games are USC and UCLA (good luck winning the north Cal and Stanford, unless you are the unfortunate stuck with OU and Texas as your crossover games).

That's just a fast spit ball

But I think it is far more likely that Big XII can create a situation to raid the Pac-12 than vice versa, likewise far easier for Big 10 to create a Pac-12 raid than vice versa.

The Pac-12 reported revenue of $509 million last year. The Big 12 reported revenue of $371 million. The Big 12 is not going after the Pac-12. The Pac-12 has an expense problem. They reported $138 million in expenses. They obviously need to reduce their expenses.

There is no Pac-12 expansion strategy that works without addressing the expense issues first and any expansion with the Big 12 starts and ends with the University of Texas. UT would have to let go of the Longhorn Network, which they are not going to do. So this is going nowhere.

That is why I'm saying the PAC needs to go after Kansas/Oklahoma for a quick shot in the competitive FB/BB arm and forget about Texas.

It also solves the KU/OU little brother issue when they will still be playing in what is a legally defined P5 league which still contains the nation's most powerful school in Texas.

Dump Larry Scott, go to 14 and return to Top 5 competitiveness.

Forgetting the fact that there is a Grant of Rights agreement in the Big 12 and neither school can make a move for the next five years, Kansas football would offset any benefits Oklahoma football brings. Kansas is 18-90 over the past nine years in football. Kansas basketball is obviously very good, but they lost to Arizona State this year, and Washington and Arizona State last season. Kansas has won 14 straight Big 12 titles, but they would not do that in the Pac-12. Not with Arizona, UCLA and Oregon in the conference.

Bottom line, these recommended "quick shot" additions do not address the Pac-12's expense issues.

Also mentioned dumping Larry Scott, his expensive salary, expensive HQ lease and his fiscal mismanagement.

Kansas would be an easy win for PAC schools in FB and be an extra bid to the NCAAs each season. Also their existence would greatly increase the sale of PAC network packages since KU basketball is essential to the serious college basketball fan.

Serious question: Are Cal and UCLA permitted by California law to play in the state of Texas? There are a number of states where California state employees may not travel to on official business (which presumably includes coaching staffs).

(01-04-2019 05:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 schools are looking eastward, not west. PAC 12's only expansion options are Big Sky, MWC, UTEP, UTSA, and Houston. They are in a bind. UC-Davis does fit the PAC 12's academic profile. But, they are not strong yet. Boise State seems to be a rival to the PAC's Washington and Oregon schools for a while. Since the Idaho state's politicians strip the flagship status from Idaho, Boise State right now is being called Idaho's flagship university.

Lol that's not true at all, where do you come up with this stuff?

Quote:
UNR, UNLV, Utah, Utah State, Montana, Alaska-Fairbanks, and Washington State are getting med schools by having it built are in planning stages. Portland is also a target for a new med-school that could be shared with Portland State and Oregon State. Washington State is getting a med-school in Spokane. University of Montana have planned on the books. The state of Idaho is looking to build a med-school in Boise that would be shared by the Big 3. The people in Moscow, Idaho are not happy, but a med-school in that town would not benefit the state.

Again where do you get this stuff? The only med school being built in Idaho is a for profit Osteopathic School that isn't affiliated with any of the 3. The state of Idaho will not be building a medical school any time soon, they will just continue pawning it off to other states using the exchange program

(01-14-2019 03:43 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 05:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 schools are looking eastward, not west. PAC 12's only expansion options are Big Sky, MWC, UTEP, UTSA, and Houston. They are in a bind. UC-Davis does fit the PAC 12's academic profile. But, they are not strong yet. Boise State seems to be a rival to the PAC's Washington and Oregon schools for a while. Since the Idaho state's politicians strip the flagship status from Idaho, Boise State right now is being called Idaho's flagship university.

Lol that's not true at all, where do you come up with this stuff?

Quote:
UNR, UNLV, Utah, Utah State, Montana, Alaska-Fairbanks, and Washington State are getting med schools by having it built are in planning stages. Portland is also a target for a new med-school that could be shared with Portland State and Oregon State. Washington State is getting a med-school in Spokane. University of Montana have planned on the books. The state of Idaho is looking to build a med-school in Boise that would be shared by the Big 3. The people in Moscow, Idaho are not happy, but a med-school in that town would not benefit the state.

Again where do you get this stuff? The only med school being built in Idaho is a for profit Osteopathic School that isn't affiliated with any of the 3. The state of Idaho will not be building a medical school any time soon, they will just continue pawning it off to other states using the exchange program

And OHSU is already in downtown Portland. May be it could field a football team.