(05-31-2020 05:43 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Right idea, wrong institutions.

The correct answer is UC San Diego and Hawaii.

Hawaii makes some sense because they provide significant scheduling flexibility that could give the PAC control of Week 0, add additional inventory through the 13th game exemption, and Hawaii could take on a bunch of the late-night games for the PAC's television deal without upsetting local fans with late kickoffs (which has been a point of contention in the PAC).

I'm surprised that the MWC hasn't been more proactive in using the Hawaii scheduling exemption and timing benefits.

Regarding UCSD, another PAC institution in SoCal would still give legacy members sufficient SoCal games while expanding the conference. But, UCSD's lack of a football program makes them a very long-term project. I don't see it.

At a minimum, the PAC should consider to give Hawaii a 6-game scheduling and bowl affiliation and a more significant media payout. I think Hawaii would take a deal that includes 3 home games versus PAC teams and more $$.

With 6 PAC games on the schedule (3 in Honolulu), Hawaii gets a schedule upgrade, regardless of who else they add to fill the other 6 or 7 games. Add BYU to the schedule and one or two of NMSU/UMass/UConn/Liberty/Army, and Hawaii's "OOC" scheduling is no more difficult than the status quo.

(06-01-2020 10:04 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-31-2020 05:43 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Right idea, wrong institutions.

The correct answer is UC San Diego and Hawaii.

Hawaii makes some sense because they provide significant scheduling flexibility that could give the PAC control of Week 0, add additional inventory through the 13th game exemption, and Hawaii could take on a bunch of the late-night games for the PAC's television deal without upsetting local fans with late kickoffs (which has been a point of contention in the PAC).

Hawaii makes sense for a vacation. They make no sense in the Pac-12. The reason for a power conference to expand would be to increase the value of the conference. The University of Texas adds value to the Pac-12. Hawaii adds nothing. UCSD adds nothing. If you are USC football, why would you want Hawaii or UCSD? Do you want to let the next Marcus Allen or Reggie Bush or Junior Seau end up at UCSD? Does UCLA basketball want the next Bill Walton at UCSD?

Hawaii and UCSD do not bring additional markets and talent to the Pac-12 that they cannot already easily access. Hawaii uses California for recruitment of talent. UCLA has over 12,000 alumni in San Diego. USC has an alumni club of 1,700 members in San Diego. If the Pac-12 is going to expand, at a minimum the schools should offer something other than a great place to relax and play some golf.

(06-01-2020 12:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-31-2020 05:43 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Right idea, wrong institutions.

The correct answer is UC San Diego and Hawaii.

Hawaii makes some sense because they provide significant scheduling flexibility that could give the PAC control of Week 0, add additional inventory through the 13th game exemption, and Hawaii could take on a bunch of the late-night games for the PAC's television deal without upsetting local fans with late kickoffs (which has been a point of contention in the PAC).

Hawaii makes sense for a vacation. They make no sense in the Pac-12. The reason for a power conference to expand would be to increase the value of the conference. The University of Texas adds value to the Pac-12. Hawaii adds nothing. UCSD adds nothing. If you are USC football, why would you want Hawaii or UCSD? Do you want to let the next Marcus Allen or Reggie Bush or Junior Seau end up at UCSD? Does UCLA basketball want the next Bill Walton at UCSD?

Hawaii and UCSD do not bring additional markets and talent to the Pac-12 that they cannot already easily access. Hawaii uses California for recruitment of talent. UCLA has over 12,000 alumni in San Diego. USC has an alumni club of 1,700 members in San Diego. If the Pac-12 is going to expand, at a minimum the schools should offer something other than a great place to relax and play some golf.

The PAC made a play for Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St along with Colorado and were turned down. The conference is lagging in value and will continue to see a decline. The best options for its upper tier athletic programs in the future are either joining the B1G or, more likely, combining with the top tier of the XII. Outside of those two options, the PAC will either stand pat at 12 and continue to lag or add from the Mt West or other non-power conferences.

BYU is a better athletic and academic program than most of the schools in the PAC. But for BYU's requirements of its student-athletes and schedules, they would already be members. I'm not advocating BYU should be "forced" or even voted into the PAC because every conference has the right to live or die by making its own decisions which is the bread and butter of our capitalist system.

My point is that the PAC doesn't have many options and the writing is on the wall that it is not a healthy conference.

(06-01-2020 01:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 12:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-31-2020 05:43 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Right idea, wrong institutions.

The correct answer is UC San Diego and Hawaii.

Hawaii makes some sense because they provide significant scheduling flexibility that could give the PAC control of Week 0, add additional inventory through the 13th game exemption, and Hawaii could take on a bunch of the late-night games for the PAC's television deal without upsetting local fans with late kickoffs (which has been a point of contention in the PAC).

Hawaii makes sense for a vacation. They make no sense in the Pac-12. The reason for a power conference to expand would be to increase the value of the conference. The University of Texas adds value to the Pac-12. Hawaii adds nothing. UCSD adds nothing. If you are USC football, why would you want Hawaii or UCSD? Do you want to let the next Marcus Allen or Reggie Bush or Junior Seau end up at UCSD? Does UCLA basketball want the next Bill Walton at UCSD?

Hawaii and UCSD do not bring additional markets and talent to the Pac-12 that they cannot already easily access. Hawaii uses California for recruitment of talent. UCLA has over 12,000 alumni in San Diego. USC has an alumni club of 1,700 members in San Diego. If the Pac-12 is going to expand, at a minimum the schools should offer something other than a great place to relax and play some golf.

The PAC made a play for Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St along with Colorado and were turned down. The conference is lagging in value and will continue to see a decline. The best options for its upper tier athletic programs in the future are either joining the B1G or, more likely, combining with the top tier of the XII. Outside of those two options, the PAC will either stand pat at 12 and continue to lag or add from the Mt West or other non-power conferences.

BYU is a better athletic and academic program than most of the schools in the PAC. But for BYU's requirements of its student-athletes and schedules, they would already be members. I'm not advocating BYU should be "forced" or even voted into the PAC because every conference has the right to live or die by making its own decisions which is the bread and butter of our capitalist system.

My point is that the PAC doesn't have many options and the writing is on the wall that it is not a healthy conference.

You know, even if the Pac-12 keeps tripping over themselves, they will still bring home over $30 million per school in revenue and own their network. They would still be a power conference school. They would still have a ton of talent on the west coast. Since Utah is in the Salt Lake City market, BYU does not bring anything the Pac-12 does not already have. BYU is good academically, although not better than the California schools. But athletically, no, they are not as good as the Pac-12 schools. They do compete and their teams are well-coached. I liked the hiring of Mark Pope in basketball. Look, if BYU cannot get the Big 12 to take them, at least for football, then why should the Pac-12 take them?

(06-01-2020 01:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 12:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-31-2020 05:43 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Right idea, wrong institutions.

The correct answer is UC San Diego and Hawaii.

Hawaii makes some sense because they provide significant scheduling flexibility that could give the PAC control of Week 0, add additional inventory through the 13th game exemption, and Hawaii could take on a bunch of the late-night games for the PAC's television deal without upsetting local fans with late kickoffs (which has been a point of contention in the PAC).

Hawaii makes sense for a vacation. They make no sense in the Pac-12. The reason for a power conference to expand would be to increase the value of the conference. The University of Texas adds value to the Pac-12. Hawaii adds nothing. UCSD adds nothing. If you are USC football, why would you want Hawaii or UCSD? Do you want to let the next Marcus Allen or Reggie Bush or Junior Seau end up at UCSD? Does UCLA basketball want the next Bill Walton at UCSD?

Hawaii and UCSD do not bring additional markets and talent to the Pac-12 that they cannot already easily access. Hawaii uses California for recruitment of talent. UCLA has over 12,000 alumni in San Diego. USC has an alumni club of 1,700 members in San Diego. If the Pac-12 is going to expand, at a minimum the schools should offer something other than a great place to relax and play some golf.

The PAC made a play for Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St along with Colorado and were turned down. The conference is lagging in value and will continue to see a decline. The best options for its upper tier athletic programs in the future are either joining the B1G or, more likely, combining with the top tier of the XII. Outside of those two options, the PAC will either stand pat at 12 and continue to lag or add from the Mt West or other non-power conferences.

BYU is a better athletic and academic program than most of the schools in the PAC. But for BYU's requirements of its student-athletes and schedules, they would already be members. I'm not advocating BYU should be "forced" or even voted into the PAC because every conference has the right to live or die by making its own decisions which is the bread and butter of our capitalist system.

My point is that the PAC doesn't have many options and the writing is on the wall that it is not a healthy conference.

The reality is that the PAC doesn't have any options. And the idea that anyone should expand to 14 members because that's what the ACC, B1G and SEC have makes no sense to me. They didn't go to 14 because that's a good size for a conference. They did so despite the fact that it's a lousy size. They added specific schools because those schools filled a strategic need and/or added financial value. Clearly the B1G didn't add Maryland and Rutgers to improve the conference athletically.

The PAC's long term strategy must be to prevent being raided by another power conference, because they have no viable pool of candidates to replace any schools that other conferences would want to poach. They have peaked, and they can only go downhill from here or stay where they are.

(06-02-2020 09:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 01:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 12:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:04 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-31-2020 05:43 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Right idea, wrong institutions.

The correct answer is UC San Diego and Hawaii.

Hawaii makes some sense because they provide significant scheduling flexibility that could give the PAC control of Week 0, add additional inventory through the 13th game exemption, and Hawaii could take on a bunch of the late-night games for the PAC's television deal without upsetting local fans with late kickoffs (which has been a point of contention in the PAC).

Hawaii makes sense for a vacation. They make no sense in the Pac-12. The reason for a power conference to expand would be to increase the value of the conference. The University of Texas adds value to the Pac-12. Hawaii adds nothing. UCSD adds nothing. If you are USC football, why would you want Hawaii or UCSD? Do you want to let the next Marcus Allen or Reggie Bush or Junior Seau end up at UCSD? Does UCLA basketball want the next Bill Walton at UCSD?

Hawaii and UCSD do not bring additional markets and talent to the Pac-12 that they cannot already easily access. Hawaii uses California for recruitment of talent. UCLA has over 12,000 alumni in San Diego. USC has an alumni club of 1,700 members in San Diego. If the Pac-12 is going to expand, at a minimum the schools should offer something other than a great place to relax and play some golf.

The PAC made a play for Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St along with Colorado and were turned down. The conference is lagging in value and will continue to see a decline. The best options for its upper tier athletic programs in the future are either joining the B1G or, more likely, combining with the top tier of the XII. Outside of those two options, the PAC will either stand pat at 12 and continue to lag or add from the Mt West or other non-power conferences.

BYU is a better athletic and academic program than most of the schools in the PAC. But for BYU's requirements of its student-athletes and schedules, they would already be members. I'm not advocating BYU should be "forced" or even voted into the PAC because every conference has the right to live or die by making its own decisions which is the bread and butter of our capitalist system.

My point is that the PAC doesn't have many options and the writing is on the wall that it is not a healthy conference.

The reality is that the PAC doesn't have any options. And the idea that anyone should expand to 14 members because that's what the ACC, B1G and SEC have makes no sense to me. They didn't go to 14 because that's a good size for a conference. They did so despite the fact that it's a lousy size. They added specific schools because those schools filled a strategic need and/or added financial value. Clearly the B1G didn't add Maryland and Rutgers to improve the conference athletically.

The PAC's long term strategy must be to prevent being raided by another power conference, because they have no viable pool of candidates to replace any schools that other conferences would want to poach. They have peaked, and they can only go downhill from here or stay where they are.

The PAC does have options: 1) expand with schools it doesn't see as peers (still an option); 2) work with another conference, like the XII, on some sort of merger; 3) sit still and continue to let the gap between them and the other power conferences grow; or 4) fold and let the members find their new homes.

(06-02-2020 12:48 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC does have options: 1) expand with schools it doesn't see as peers (still an option); 2) work with another conference, like the XII, on some sort of merger; 3) sit still and continue to let the gap between them and the other power conferences grow; or 4) fold and let the members find their new homes.

I guess I should have been more precise. The PAC has no options that are both feasible and would improve their current condition. The same is true for the Big XII. Naturally, for any conference dissolution is always an option.

Even if the conference were to decide to expand with schools they don't see as peers, there are no such schools they could attract that would add value. All candidates leave the PAC worse off than it already is.

Option 3 is the only one that appears to have the possibility of improving the PAC's status. That is if the option is just "sit still" without the presumption that this strategy will increase the financial gap between them and other conferences. It's theoretically possible that economic and political factors beyond anyone's control could have the opposite effect of bringing conferences like the B1G and the SEC down to the PAC's level. But I don't know anybody who thinks that is even remotely probable.

(06-02-2020 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:48 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC does have options: 1) expand with schools it doesn't see as peers (still an option); 2) work with another conference, like the XII, on some sort of merger; 3) sit still and continue to let the gap between them and the other power conferences grow; or 4) fold and let the members find their new homes.

I guess I should have been more precise. The PAC has no options that are both feasible and would improve their current condition. The same is true for the Big XII. Naturally, for any conference dissolution is always an option.

Even if the conference were to decide to expand with schools they don't see as peers, there are no such schools they could attract that would add value. All candidates leave the PAC worse off than it already is.

Option 3 is the only one that appears to have the possibility of improving the PAC's status. That is if the option is just "sit still" without the presumption that this strategy will increase the financial gap between them and other conferences. It's theoretically possible that economic and political factors beyond anyone's control could have the opposite effect of bringing conferences like the B1G and the SEC down to the PAC's level. But I don't know anybody who thinks that is even remotely probable.

The Pac-12 does have options. Get better.
1. Keep the top high school players at home.
2. Fix the Network issues.

If they just do that, they are fine at 12. USC and UCLA have new Athletic Directors, both outsiders to their programs. That was needed. The Los Angeles schools need to get better. Pac-12 recruiting has improved over the past few months. Covid-19 may actually help to keep some players at home. Defensive end Korey Foreman, the top ranked player in the country, decommitted from Clemson and it looks like USC has a good shot at him. USC is currently ranked 4th in 247sports 2021 football recruiting. Basketball recruiting has been going well for the Pac-12.

The Pac-12 Network has 17 million subscribers. The SEC Network has about 70 million and the Big Ten Network is over 60 million. The Pac-12 has to fix that issue. The contract with ESPN/Fox expires in 2024/2025. They start renegotiating in 2023, so they have three years to improve the product on the field and address the network issues. There is no one that can predict what the landscape is going to look like in three years.

(06-02-2020 03:42 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:48 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC does have options: 1) expand with schools it doesn't see as peers (still an option); 2) work with another conference, like the XII, on some sort of merger; 3) sit still and continue to let the gap between them and the other power conferences grow; or 4) fold and let the members find their new homes.

I guess I should have been more precise. The PAC has no options that are both feasible and would improve their current condition. The same is true for the Big XII. Naturally, for any conference dissolution is always an option.

Even if the conference were to decide to expand with schools they don't see as peers, there are no such schools they could attract that would add value. All candidates leave the PAC worse off than it already is.

Option 3 is the only one that appears to have the possibility of improving the PAC's status. That is if the option is just "sit still" without the presumption that this strategy will increase the financial gap between them and other conferences. It's theoretically possible that economic and political factors beyond anyone's control could have the opposite effect of bringing conferences like the B1G and the SEC down to the PAC's level. But I don't know anybody who thinks that is even remotely probable.

The Pac-12 does have options. Get better.
1. Keep the top high school players at home.
2. Fix the Network issues.

If they just do that, they are fine at 12. USC and UCLA have new Athletic Directors, both outsiders to their programs. That was needed. The Los Angeles schools need to get better. Pac-12 recruiting has improved over the past few months. Covid-19 may actually help to keep some players at home. Defensive end Korey Foreman, the top ranked player in the country, decommitted from Clemson and it looks like USC has a good shot at him. USC is currently ranked 4th in 247sports 2021 football recruiting. Basketball recruiting has been going well for the Pac-12.

The Pac-12 Network has 17 million subscribers. The SEC Network has about 70 million and the Big Ten Network is over 60 million. The Pac-12 has to fix that issue. The contract with ESPN/Fox expires in 2024/2025. They start renegotiating in 2023, so they have three years to improve the product on the field and address the network issues. There is no one that can predict what the landscape is going to look like in three years.

Frankly, I don't think the PAC is in nearly the dire straits that others believe it is. I doubt they will ever close the financial gap with the B1G or SEC, but neither will the ACC or Big XII. Whatever performance issues exist at the moment may be nothing more than the normal cyclical nature of college sports. I just don't think this is a time for the PAC to panic. Just work to improve those things they have some control over and not worry about things they can't control.

Thing is, nobody is clamoring for a PAC network. And sure the PAC can stay pat too but the Big 12 just with UT and ou alone will command bigger money in it's tier 1 and 2 deals during the next round of negotiations.
I really don't understand how some of you PAC fans can really look down on the Big12. Is it because of academics? Why hasn't that prestige help out AZ or Colorado who are still operating in the red? Think if the Big 12 was actually proactive (asking a lot from PAC buddy Bowlsby here) and asked both AZ schools to come on board, would they quickly say no because of academic prestige? I mean UT, ISU, and KU are AAU schools no?
It's still atleast a year and a half too soon to see how this will all play out but I think after this pandemic, some of the schools out west may start looking out for it's best interests, same as some of the Big 12 schools too. But I doubt they let the academic prestige interfere with the millions of dollars at stake for SPORTS.

(06-02-2020 05:23 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Thing is, nobody is clamoring for a PAC network. And sure the PAC can stay pat too but the Big 12 just with UT and ou alone will command bigger money in it's tier 1 and 2 deals during the next round of negotiations.
I really don't understand how some of you PAC fans can really look down on the Big12. Is it because of academics? Why hasn't that prestige help out AZ or Colorado who are still operating in the red? Think if the Big 12 was actually proactive (asking a lot from PAC buddy Bowlsby here) and asked both AZ schools to come on board, would they quickly say no because of academic prestige? I mean UT, ISU, and KU are AAU schools no?
It's still atleast a year and a half too soon to see how this will all play out but I think after this pandemic, some of the schools out west may start looking out for it's best interests, same as some of the Big 12 schools too. But I doubt they let the academic prestige interfere with the millions of dollars at stake for SPORTS.

Texas has fine academic, ranks right in there with Washington, very close to the California schools. Oklahoma and Kansas match P12 levels as well, fit nicely with all the ones with "State" in their name. But the rest are open admission schools. Baylor and TCU are very selective, like BYU, but also are not research schools and have religious affiliation making them non starters.

The reality of left coast elitism, or as it calls itself "progressive." I post based on that reality, although I oppose it's implementation which leads to a denial of 30,000 California kids access to the UC system, hitting Hispanics especially hard. It is what it is.

The P12 detractors assume the P12 will limp along with $32m or $33m in distributions. But they will break out of that in the next round. It doesn't matter if Apple gets the contract (probably not) as they will help force the bidding up. The West is by far the fastest growing section of the country, although only 20% of it. There is too much value there not to see a good sized bump.

The B12 problem is what they are besides Texas and Oklahoma. There is plenty of value for the 10 schools if those two stay. Texas has the LHN and will average almost $18m per year from 2025-31 (back end of the 3% escalator). So even if the B1G and SEC start distributing $65-70m in the next contracts, all the B12 needs is a 20% bump to the $40m range (TV only not other distributions) for Texas to feel comfortable, more than capable staying on even terms with the SEC and B1G. But for Oklahoma, who take in $12m less with SoonerTV, that is far too large a gap.

The B12 will be in a position of going to the little-8 and saying "hey can you guys all take $2.5m less, so that Texas and Oklahoma can keep pace with B1G and SEC revenues". While that is probably the smart move, for those schools to accept only a 10% raise so that they keep Oklahoma, that is hard to swallow. It also means their distributions will likely be less than the Pac-12. If the West is small, the Plain states north of Texas contain a lot of empty. That's the financial reality. Texas is fine regardless. Oklahoma will be a challenge to keep.

Since any P12 school coming to the B12 would get little-8 level distribution, it's not worth it. Same the other way. For all the board posts about one pilfering the other, the dollar math doesn't work, and neither does the travel. A merger along the lines of the original Pac-16 might work if Larry Scott is tossed and new commissioner appointed. But I don't know that Texas would want to travel west to the four corner schools in most sports, let alone a trip or two in every sport to the Pacific Coast. The money would not be enough better in a combined conference to consider it. So bottom line, each conference has to figure out life in their current confines.

For those in the East it's 600 miles to go from KU to CU, 900 miles to go from UT to UofA. Those are the closet schools. Florida State is closer by 25 miles to Austin. Fully 10 SEC schools are closer to Texas in miles than the nearest P12 school. And going east is much better on student athletes since you gain an hour coming home, rather than lose one or two going west. These are reasons a P12-B12 interaction wont work.

There IS a PAC network. It's not as easy to find, but it's out there.

(06-02-2020 06:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 05:23 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Thing is, nobody is clamoring for a PAC network. And sure the PAC can stay pat too but the Big 12 just with UT and ou alone will command bigger money in it's tier 1 and 2 deals during the next round of negotiations.
I really don't understand how some of you PAC fans can really look down on the Big12. Is it because of academics? Why hasn't that prestige help out AZ or Colorado who are still operating in the red? Think if the Big 12 was actually proactive (asking a lot from PAC buddy Bowlsby here) and asked both AZ schools to come on board, would they quickly say no because of academic prestige? I mean UT, ISU, and KU are AAU schools no?
It's still atleast a year and a half too soon to see how this will all play out but I think after this pandemic, some of the schools out west may start looking out for it's best interests, same as some of the Big 12 schools too. But I doubt they let the academic prestige interfere with the millions of dollars at stake for SPORTS.

Texas has fine academic, ranks right in there with Washington, very close to the California schools. Oklahoma and Kansas match P12 levels as well, fit nicely with all the ones with "State" in their name. But the rest are open admission schools. Baylor and TCU are very selective, like BYU, but also are not research schools and have religious affiliation making them non starters.

The reality of left coast elitism, or as it calls itself "progressive." I post based on that reality, although I oppose it's implementation which leads to a denial of 30,000 California kids access to the UC system, hitting Hispanics especially hard. It is what it is.

The P12 detractors assume the P12 will limp along with $32m or $33m in distributions. But they will break out of that in the next round. It doesn't matter if Apple gets the contract (probably not) as they will help force the bidding up. The West is by far the fastest growing section of the country, although only 20% of it. There is too much value there not to see a good sized bump.

The B12 problem is what they are besides Texas and Oklahoma. There is plenty of value for the 10 schools if those two stay. Texas has the LHN and will average almost $18m per year from 2025-31 (back end of the 3% escalator). So even if the B1G and SEC start distributing $65-70m in the next contracts, all the B12 needs is a 20% bump to the $40m range (TV only not other distributions) for Texas to feel comfortable, more than capable staying on even terms with the SEC and B1G. But for Oklahoma, who take in $12m less with SoonerTV, that is far too large a gap.

The B12 will be in a position of going to the little-8 and saying "hey can you guys all take $2.5m less, so that Texas and Oklahoma can keep pace with B1G and SEC revenues". While that is probably the smart move, for those schools to accept only a 10% raise so that they keep Oklahoma, that is hard to swallow. It also means their distributions will likely be less than the Pac-12. If the West is small, the Plain states north of Texas contain a lot of empty. That's the financial reality. Texas is fine regardless. Oklahoma will be a challenge to keep.

Since any P12 school coming to the B12 would get little-8 level distribution, it's not worth it. Same the other way. For all the board posts about one pilfering the other, the dollar math doesn't work, and neither does the travel. A merger along the lines of the original Pac-16 might work if Larry Scott is tossed and new commissioner appointed. But I don't know that Texas would want to travel west to the four corner schools in most sports, let alone a trip or two in every sport to the Pacific Coast. The money would not be enough better in a combined conference to consider it. So bottom line, each conference has to figure out life in their current confines.

For those in the East it's 600 miles to go from KU to CU, 900 miles to go from UT to UofA. Those are the closet schools. Florida State is closer by 25 miles to Austin. Fully 10 SEC schools are closer to Texas in miles than the nearest P12 school. And going east is much better on student athletes since you gain an hour coming home, rather than lose one or two going west. These are reasons a P12-B12 interaction wont work.

There was a report that came out within the past week that the Big 12 conference said each school will be taking a 1.1 million dollar hit. It originally planned on each school to hit the 40 mil mark with it's tier 1 and 2 revenue. But at this point it seems it won't be as high as projected because of the Covid 19 situation.

As far as expansion for the Big 12.. AZ schools would add value with it's TV markets and population. It's one of the fastest growing states in the US right now (along with Texas). If the Big 12 were able to even grab both AZ schools and the SoCal schools, the bump in money would be huge for the conference. How does a conference that has homebases in Texas, AZ, and CA not hold up?
As far as travel goes, you can now have two 7 school divisions. Southwest Airlines would be making a killing throughout it's region. Would it be a little tougher for WV when it has to travel to CA or AZ? I'm sure it will but the conference schedule makers can give them a bye week prior to the game or after the game. It can work.

Yet ANOTHER reason for WVU to find a geographically reasonable conference.

(06-02-2020 07:46 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Yet ANOTHER reason for WVU to find a geographically reasonable conference.

That conference doesn't exist.

(06-02-2020 08:55 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 07:46 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Yet ANOTHER reason for WVU to find a geographically reasonable conference.

That conference doesn't exist.

The MAC is quite geographically reasonable for WVU. As is the Horizon.

Kind of an illustration of the fact that being geographically reasonable is not the be-all and end-all.

(06-02-2020 07:26 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  As far as expansion for the Big 12.. AZ schools would add value with it's TV markets and population. It's one of the fastest growing states in the US right now (along with Texas). If the Big 12 were able to even grab both AZ schools and the SoCal schools, the bump in money would be huge for the conference. How does a conference that has homebases in Texas, AZ, and CA not hold up?
As far as travel goes, you can now have two 7 school divisions. Southwest Airlines would be making a killing throughout it's region. Would it be a little tougher for WV when it has to travel to CA or AZ? I'm sure it will but the conference schedule makers can give them a bye week prior to the game or after the game. It can work.

But why would the Arizona schools move? They get most of their out of state kids and athletes from California - so they need California. They get their research dollars from their too, and that money is four times that of athletics (in the Big 12, if you remove Texas, research is less than athletics ... totally different mindsets as a result in the faculty view). And for what, little-8 level of money, which is no better and probably worse than the next P12 even distribution. The money doesn't work, the culture doesn't work, the recruiting doesn't work.

A pissed off donor doesn't mean crap. Florida State had one a few years back and everyone was realigning them. Same thing here.

(06-02-2020 07:13 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  There IS a PAC network. It's not as easy to find, but it's out there.

The first step to making it easier to find and also generate a larger surplus would be to cut the 6 2-school channels into 3 4-school channels ... Pac-12 Pacific Northwest, Pac-12 California, and Pac-12 Mountain Time.

When there is just not enough "clamor" to get carriage for your second tier channels, concentrating whatever clamor you can generate on fewer channels you are trying to get carriage for at least has a shot at getting more carriage.

And at the very least, at the minimal amounts that the Pac-12 earns from their network, the 2-school side channels are likely to be loss leaders, so cutting them back from six to three is likely to generate a bigger surplus simply on the reduced operating costs.

(05-31-2020 05:17 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Everybody knows that there is going to be consolidation in the Power 5 and it is probably going to be a merger of the two most vulnerable conferences- the Pac 12 and Big 12. When realignment started everybody thought 16 was going to be the magic number for power conferences but it turns out it is really 14- just look at the SEC, Big 10, and ACC.

Without further ado,

Coastal- Washington, Oregon, Utah, UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford
Southwestern- Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, OSU, Texas Tech

Lost out: Arizona State, West Virginia, Oregon State, Washington State,
Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, Baylor

Texas will be in charge with USC and Oklahoma battling for the #2 spot as far as power. There will be unequal power sharing and the Pac 12 schools will go for it because the brand is struggling due to weak basketball and a lack of CFP participants in football. Texas and Oklahoma benefit because they get access to California recruiting and their level of competition increases in both brand and history.

Yeah no, more likely 3 of the P5 take 2 from the XII and the ACC takes WVU. The 3 XII left take the best of the AAC and MWC. The New Big XII will be a true tweener league and closest to a national conference stretching from Boise to Orlando.

KSU, ISU, Baylor, Houston, Cincy, Memphis, CSU, Boise, USF, UCF, BYU, SD State. If BYU says no, then maybe a UTEP or UNLV.

(06-02-2020 08:55 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 07:46 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Yet ANOTHER reason for WVU to find a geographically reasonable conference.

That conference doesn't exist.

The ACC doesn't exist?