(07-14-2022 08:42 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... Of course, those B12 results were with Oklahoma and Texas.

OU, yes. UT, no so much. 57-56, KU.

Texas started the CFP era abjectly bad - three straight losing seasons. But the last five have been much better. Since 2017 they have had four winning seasons out of five, and won four bowl games - a Texas Bowl, two Alamo Bowls and a Sugar Bowl.

That's a better bowl record than most other B12 teams.

Taking Cal and Stanford absolutely kills the PAC by removing the largest markets in the conference along with USC, UCLA

(07-14-2022 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 09:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 08:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This all makes sense to me, comports with my understanding of these brands.

Sure, if the PAC suffers more losses to the B1G then we have to reevaluate. But as of now, I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around these nB12 vs PAC value claims.

I think part of the problem is some of you are still living in the 80s as far as the Big 12 schools
2010-2019 rank by winning %
6. Oregon
8. Stanford
12. Oklahoma St.
15. UCF
16. TCU
25. Washington
26. Baylor
27. Utah
31. Kansas St.
32. Houston
35. Cincinnati
42. BYU
43. WVU
51. Arizona St.
70. Arizona
71. Washington St.
74. Texas Tech
90. California
100.Iowa St.
110. Colorado
113. Oregon St.
128. Kansas

I'm not a huge fan of winning % as an indicator of brand value. Boise probably has a higher winning % than UCLA the past 10 years but they aren't nearly as valuable. Heck, I bet Stanford and Oregon were way higher than UCLA or USC, yet the latter just got the diamond-tickets to the B1G.

Also, IMO you have to toss the win % of the four newcomers, because those were achieved against G5 schedules, which basically don't add anything to brand value, IMO.

You dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions that have absolutely no data to back them up. You've presented nothing but your opinions based on nothing.

How about the biggest stage, New Year's 6 games?
Pac 10 2-7, Oregon 1-2, Washington 0-3, Stanford 1-0, Arizona 0-1, Utah 0-1
5 teams, two teams with wins

nB12 6-6, Baylor 1-2, Oklahoma St. 1-1, UCF 1-1, Cincinnati 0-2, TCU 1-0, Houston 1-0, Iowa St. 1-0.
7 teams, 6 teams with wins

Do you want to go further back when the Pac 12 was a good football conference? BCS bowls:
Pac 9-7, Oregon 3-2, Stanford 2-3, Utah 2-0, Oregon St. 1-0, Washington 1-0, Colorado 0-1, Washington St. 0-1
nBig12 7-6 WVU 3-0, Cincinnati 0-2, Kansas St. 0-2, TCU 1-1, Kansas 1-0, Oklahoma St. 1-0, UCF 1-0, Baylor 0-1

10 of the 12 nBig 12 teams have been there and 8 have won with a record of 13-12.
8 of the 10 Pac 10 teams have been there and 5 have won with a record of 11-14.

Texas and Oklahoma had 2 of the 3 best winning %s from 2000-2009 and took a lot of slots that the rest of the Big 12 may have had. Pac had a very strong USC, but that was only one team.

LOL ... I think I struck a nerve.

FWIW, I've said I could be very wrong about all this. I've been wrong about things before. But the "Navigate" values just do not resonate with me. I see no reason to think the collection of nB12 teams will be worth nearly as much as the tweet says. Doesn't compute with me. They lost TX and OU, imo a bigger loss than the PAC losing UCLA and USC, and backfilled with low-value G5, G5 that would never have gotten a P-upgrade save for a desperation backfill situation, and yet the numbers don't seem to reflect any kind of steep decline. They have the nB12 making more than $20m more than the nPAC. You'd think that the nPAC lost USC and UCLA while the B12 never lost TX and OU, IMO. But like I said, I will be the first one to be not surprised if I am wrong, LOL.

Beyond that, though, I haven't been talking about whether the nPAC or nB12 will perform better on the field, I have been talking about brand value. And IMO, winning %, whether generally or in specific games like BCS/NY6 games, just isn't very meaningful. E.g., Notre Dame hasn't won a BCS/NY6 game since the start of the Clinton administration and yet is valuable. UCLA hasn't been to an NY6 game since the Clinton administration, and yet they just got a ticket to the B1G.

But if you want to talk B12 vs PAC on the field recently, I would say that looking at the MC ratings for the CFP years, throwing out 2020 for lack of data points, the record shows that the PAC was better the first few years, 2014-2016, while the B12 has been better the past few years, 2017-2019 and 2021. The PAC has been down the last five years, no question. Of course, those B12 results were with Oklahoma and Texas.

You are talking about brand value from schools that don't make the biggest bowls as much as the nBig12. That is a major driver of brand value. And the Pac 12 with USC and UCLA was way behind the ACC and Big 12 w/UT&OU in TV ratings. That's a sign of brand value. The 5 year average TV ratings show the nBig12 and Pac 10 pretty comparable.

i do think the guy updating the Navigate made some logic error on the Pac 10 numbers. They probably are close to the nBig12 and the ACC's old deal.

(07-12-2022 12:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The most shocking about this is how it became official 5 hours after the leak when presumably the UC system would have to know. This answers that question.

Yup.

And I kinda think that with CA, the kind of tricks the Big Ten might pull with its dealings (like it did with UMD by “gagging” its board) so away from the public light…that dog don’t hunt here.

USC and Stanford could have air-lifted themselves out. A public school in a state with rules almost unlike any other state in the union? Heh…this can get pretty fun very quickly. Or not?

(07-13-2022 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 05:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 11:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-13-2022 10:42 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If the actual number come close to that projection if I'm Cal I'd want to be phoning the Big Ten to see if there's still a spot open.

Still mystified as to how the nB12, with no brand names, will make more than the nPAC, which has better brands.

I am far, far from an expert on this stuff, and have proven wrong many times before, but this .... mystifies me. Not that my mystification matters, LOL.

The Big 12 lacks brands and they don't own their markets. The most popular college football teams in Houston are Texas A&M and Texas. In Dallas, Texas and Texas A&M. In Seattle, the 12th largest TV market in the country, Washington owns that market for college football. They average 68,000 or more per game, putting them into the Top 25 annually in football attendance. 247sports called Husky stadium the most deafening in college football.

https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Footba...l&State=TX
At this point in the 2023 football recruiting in Texas, Houston does not have a top 100 recruit. In the state of Texas. Washington has got a commitment from the #11 ranked player in the state of Texas. Since 2011, UW has had 10 first round picks and 12 second round picks in the NFL draft. They are usually in the Top 25 in football recruiting.

Oregon is a proven brand. Forbes lists Oregon and Washington as two of the top 25 most profitable college football teams. In recruiting, Oregon has finished in the top 13 in recruiting for the past five seasons, with a high of #6 in 2021. Oregon, along with Alabama and LSU, are the only teams with top ten draft picks in the last three NFL Drafts. They are 135-45 since 2008 and have played in two national championship games. They had five games that made the Top 5 in TV ratings last season. There are not two teams in the NB12 that compare to either Washington or Oregon.

In the San Francisco Bay Area with the 6th largest TV market in the nation, Cal and Stanford own that market for college football. Phoenix has the 11th largest TV market in the nation and Arizona State is the most popular college football team in that TV market. Colorado the same in the Denver market, the #16 market in the country. Being out west and not having the SEC and Big Ten in your market helps. Since ESPN does not have the Mountain West Conference or basically USC/UCLA, they are going to need the PAC and obviously the PAC needs them.

All of this assumes the PAC does not lose any additional schools.

This all makes sense to me, comports with my understanding of these brands.

Sure, if the PAC suffers more losses to the B1G then we have to reevaluate. But as of now, I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around these nB12 vs PAC value claims.

I think part of the problem is some of you are still living in the 80s as far as the Big 12 schools
2010-2019 rank by winning %
6. Oregon
8. Stanford
12. Oklahoma St.
15. UCF
16. TCU
25. Washington
26. Baylor
27. Utah
31. Kansas St.
32. Houston
35. Cincinnati
42. BYU
43. WVU
51. Arizona St.
70. Arizona
71. Washington St.
74. Texas Tech
90. California
100.Iowa St.
110. Colorado
113. Oregon St.
128. Kansas

I think it would be nice to see Boise State, Memphis, USF, SMU, San Diego State, Colorado State and some other G5 teams with Winning percentage records that are still on the Big 12's radar. Some of them would have been better than Kansas, Oregon State, Colorado, Iowa State, California, Texas Tech, Washington State, Arizona and Arizona State.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sports...fzq-L8niK8

Gavin Newsom was clearly not happy to learn about UCLA’s move to the Big Ten from the newspaper, and not through the proper channels of the California Board of Regents system.

The California governor spoke in an exclusive interview with Fox 11, and said that UC regents were not consulted on the move, which sent shockwaves through the college sports world.

“No big deal, I’m the governor, but maybe a bigger deal is I’m the chair of the UC Regents, I read about it,” he said. “Is it a good idea? Did we discuss the merits or demerits? I’m not aware of it anyway. It was done in isolation, it was done without any regental oversight or support. It was done without any consideration to my knowledge. Now, perhaps there was a deep conversation with other chancellors and presidents in the system and impact more broadly. Not just to the UCs, but to other universities, including Stanford University.”