(09-20-2022 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pa...ner-breaks
This is hilarious. And it reads like a propaganda piece as well. No lie is to big to tell.

"...In the talk, Kliavkoff spoke candidly about his relationships with other commissioners. He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten....

Kliavkoff sounded confident the Pac-12 won’t lose any of the 10 remaining conference members to the Big Ten or Big 12. I mean, he sounded rock-solid certain. It dovetails with what conference athletic directors have said to me over the last couple of months, but I was still a little surprised at the level of unwavering confidence he expressed...."

I would take the Highlander and MHVer3 more seriously than Canzano.

Desperate men making desperate proclamations

(09-20-2022 12:27 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  10 million per year is probably all you can do though for new members (perhaps even less at 14 total schools) if the average payout is 30 million a year.

I’m pretty sure that SDSU would be a revenue loser for the PAC, and I’m 100% certain that any school in Conference USA would be. (Even before you take into account travel expenses.)


My God, have people looked at C-USA’s membership? Everybody who will still be in C-USA next year isn’t considered valuable enough to be invited to the AAC, the MWC or even the Sun Belt. And people on this thread are acting like these schools have value to a power conference.


There’s really zero reason why the PAC would consider these schools, other than an impending collapse of the conference. (Which has made the PAC so unattractive that even MWC and AAC schools won’t join.)

(09-20-2022 12:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  I’m pretty sure that SDSU would be a revenue loser for the PAC, and I’m 100% certain that any school in Conference USA would be. (Even before you take into account travel expenses.)


My God, have people looked at C-USA’s membership? Everybody who will still be in C-USA next year isn’t considered valuable enough to be invited to the AAC, the MWC or even the Sun Belt. And people on this thread are acting like these schools have value to a power conference.


There’s really zero reason why the PAC would consider these schools, other than an impending collapse of the conference. (Which has made the PAC so unattractive that even MWC and AAC schools won’t join.)

It keeps people employed longer term. Maybe you are comfortable where you are at and don't mind managing a middling conference that isn't under the gun. Once schools defect, the PAC can pivot as an upgraded AAC/MWC hybrid. It should be far and away the fifth best conference. They'd still have schools like CSU, AFA, and perhaps Tulsa to pivot to. BSU and FSU could also jump to a more Texas centered conference. That conference could command 10 million per in seven year's time.

After PN4 and Corner 4 leave:

East: Rice, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, AFA, CSU
West: FSU, SDSU, OSU, WSU, BSU, Utah St?

Any number of combinations work with that. That's a playoff berth 50% of the time.

(09-20-2022 09:27 AM)inutech Wrote:  Guys, clearly they'd be looking for a school with plenty of experience playing out west.

The choice is clear.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con.../2008.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con.../1995.html

Abso-FREAKIN-lutely. Gotta be LA Tech! Plus, I mean...if the PAC is concerned about hanging on to that whole "L-A" market...haha

(09-20-2022 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pa...ner-breaks
This is hilarious. And it reads like a propaganda piece as well. No lie is to big to tell.

"...In the talk, Kliavkoff spoke candidly about his relationships with other commissioners. He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten....

Kliavkoff sounded confident the Pac-12 won’t lose any of the 10 remaining conference members to the Big Ten or Big 12. I mean, he sounded rock-solid certain. It dovetails with what conference athletic directors have said to me over the last couple of months, but I was still a little surprised at the level of unwavering confidence he expressed...."

I would take the Highlander and MHVer3 more seriously than Canzano.

To be sure, I listened to the podcast and Canzano is quoting exactly what Kliavkoff stated.

I think that it could very well be true that the Pac-12 won't be losing any more schools for now, although that's really because the Big Ten may not be choosing to expand further as opposed to anything that the Pac-12 is doing or isn't doing.

UCLA supposedly losing money on the Big Ten move is just plain wrong, though. If that were the case, wouldn't USC be losing the same type of money since they're incurring the exact same travel costs? That's total puffery from Kliavkoff that can't be taken seriously.

Overall, I thought it was a good interview by Canzano and Wilner. My only real critique of them is that while they give credence to technical possibility that the UC Board of Regents could block UCLA going to the Big Ten, they're also acting like the Big Ten would just stand pat if that were to occur while the Pac-12 could just live like with their current set of schools while only losing USC. *That* isn't realistic to me. IMHO, that would actually be *worse* for the Pac-12 because the reaction from the Big Ten would likely be to either (a) take Stanford in the place of UCLA or (b) go full bore with adding all of USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon.

(09-20-2022 12:00 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

San Diego State is the obvious expansion option and I feel as if though SMU is likely #2. SMU is really the only school outside of the P5 that has meets the Pac-12 combo of academics, market location, and at least some historical athletic brand value. After that, it’s a crapshoot. UNLV has the market location but not the academics or on-the-field brand, Boise State has the on-the-field brand but not any market or academics, Rice has academics and market but not the on-the-field brand, Fresno State has a good fan base but not the market or academics, etc.

If they are actually going for Rice in addition to SMU & SDSU and are looking for a 4th, I think Tulane would be considered...

That is a good academic group and all 4 of the schools come from large cities - DFW, Houston, San Diego and New Orleans. Rice would have to committ the $"s to facilities and results. Tulane seems to be turning the results around this season - they have a very good football coach (Willie Fritz)! SMU and Rice have very "deep pockets".

Kliavkoff (call him "Klia-goof" for this) is talking out his butt. Maybe Oregon, Washington and possibly Stanford will stick for this cycle and with them Arizona and thus all ten. But only this cycle. Next round they are gone. As for keeping UCLA that is propaganda joke. UCLA is looking at distributions north of $100M for most of the rest of the decade, while the Pac-12 is not going to even hit $50M. The Gap is looking to be $40-45M in media revenue to begin with, growing to maybe $65M by 2030, and then add the larger CFP share and other revenues the B1G dwarfs the Pac-12 on will push that gap another $10-20M per year.

IMO both Yormack and Kliavkoff have significantly lowered their credibility to neither conferences' benefit.

(09-20-2022 11:52 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 11:32 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:44 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:36 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I would think the only schools interested in this are WSU and OSU.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The PAC membership must be about to be reduced to Oregon State and Washington State, and apparently a 2 member PAC isn't capable of raiding a 12 member MWC or 14 member AAC. But Washington State and Oregon State still apparently have some huge desire to keep the PAC name alive, so rather than joining the MWC themselves they're actually going to create a PAC that's even worse than the MWC.

You don't look at Conference USA schools as expansion candidates unless you're unable to lure MWC and AAC schools. Conference USA is at the bottom of FBS- it just got raided by the Sun Belt, for God's sake. I'm stunned that people on this thread don't realize that.

Rice and UTSA are both still in CUSA right now, even though they are joining the AAC next year. Referring to them as CUSA schools isn't inaccurate. They're almost certainly the two being considered from CUSA to go along with SMU, several MWC options, and perhaps the likes of Tulane.

UTSA football started in what, 2013 or something? If the PAC is seriously considering them, they must have struck out on all AAC or MWC options. (And there’s only one logical explanation for why the PAC would have struck out on AAC and MWC options.)


Even if you think that Rice would be a viable PAC target (mostly because of their former SWC membership) and you think the article would call them a Conference USA team, that still wouldn’t explain why the author puts “targets” in the plural form.

UTSA started playing in 2011. It's their 12th year of football. If the article is actually serious (doubtful), then UTSA has to be one of the potential adds.

(09-20-2022 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pa...ner-breaks
This is hilarious. And it reads like a propaganda piece as well. No lie is to big to tell.

"...In the talk, Kliavkoff spoke candidly about his relationships with other commissioners. He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten....

Kliavkoff sounded confident the Pac-12 won’t lose any of the 10 remaining conference members to the Big Ten or Big 12. I mean, he sounded rock-solid certain. It dovetails with what conference athletic directors have said to me over the last couple of months, but I was still a little surprised at the level of unwavering confidence he expressed...."

I would take the Highlander and MHVer3 more seriously than Canzano.

To be sure, I listened to the podcast and Canzano is quoting exactly what Kliavkoff stated.

I think that it could very well be true that the Pac-12 won't be losing any more schools for now, although that's really because the Big Ten may not be choosing to expand further as opposed to anything that the Pac-12 is doing or isn't doing.

UCLA supposedly losing money on the Big Ten move is just plain wrong, though. If that were the case, wouldn't USC be losing the same type of money since they're incurring the exact same travel costs? That's total puffery from Kliavkoff that can't be taken seriously.

Overall, I thought it was a good interview by Canzano and Wilner. My only real critique of them is that while they give credence to technical possibility that the UC Board of Regents could block UCLA going to the Big Ten, they're also acting like the Big Ten would just stand pat if that were to occur while the Pac-12 could just live like with their current set of schools while only losing USC. *That* isn't realistic to me. IMHO, that would actually be *worse* for the Pac-12 because the reaction from the Big Ten would likely be to either (a) take Stanford in the place of UCLA or (b) go full bore with adding all of USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon.

I really can’t imagine the PAC adding Conference USA teams unless the conference is about to get totally decimated.


For starters, if the current PAC seriously invited those Conference USA schools, it would encourage Oregon and Washington to either move to the Big 12 or try out independence. (At least that’s what I’d do if I were the UO or UW athletic director and the PAC added those types of teams.)

I guess that in theory the PAC commissioner might be contacting Conference USA schools just in case the PAC gets reduced all the way to two teams. But I’m not really sure why the conference commissioner would actually admit to the public that he’s contacting these types of schools unless he was 100% positive he’d have to add them. Contacting C-USA schools is a humiliating thing I’d want to hide from the public unless I was going to announce the addition of those schools next week or something.

This is shoddy click-bait journalism. There is no way that the PAC is looking to add Rice or any other current CUSA member. To say otherwise is foolish.

SMU has a chance but my bet is that the PAC will try to add B12 teams (current and new) before they try to add anyone else. My bet is that they would also look to stay at 10 before adding from the AAC or MWC.

We should find out soon enough.

(09-20-2022 12:33 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 12:07 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  You ain't wrong. And it's been discussed to death on the Rice board. But this university, in many ways, has always seemed very conservative to me. That is, fiscally, campus build-out, student growth, etc. All those things that let the P5 privates maintain their status were not done at Rice.

So is there any sign the administration might make a necessary pivot to find a spot in that upper-tier/near upper-tier of Division I-A football?

Rice belonging to a league filled with branch campuses and directional schools is borderline absurd and has very little upside.

Again, if Duke, Northwestern, Stanford and Vandy can figure out how to make it work in Power 5 Foootball (and those are Rice's peer institutions, not Baylor, SMU, TCU or even Tulane), there's no reason Rice can't do the same

There are signs. The decades overdue stadium refresh started this year.

As for the last paragraph, if Rice had maintained the status they had they could be compared with the Duke/Vandy/NW/Stanford schools. But now that we have fall out of the club, the cost of getting back in is enormous. Even over what it might have been ten or fifteen years ago. What would it take to cross the chasm now? A billion dollars and a decade of sustained work plus some luck? Northwestern will pull in close to $100m per year in the new B1G. Rice is getting a raise to $2m by joining the American.

(09-20-2022 12:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  Everybody who will still be in C-USA next year isn’t considered valuable enough to be invited to the AAC, the MWC or even the Sun Belt.

Ok.

This seems obvious, but you've said this about 15 times in this thread so maybe I need to help you.

Do you think USC is "better" or more valuable or whatever than Vanderbilt? Even though the SEC is "better" or more valuable than the Pac-12?

Florida State and Northwestern? Washington and Indiana?

I don't think there is anything in this story, which is why I haven't bothered weighing in seriously. But there are schools in CUSA today and will be schools in CUSA next year that are "better" and in some cases also "more valuable" than some schools in the AAC, SB, MWC.


NOBODY has said that the Pac-12 is considering add the whole of CUSA because they aren't able to invite the whole of the MWC or AAC. It would just be Rice vs. SDSU or something.

Look up the CUSA records of the 6 teams joining the AAC vs. Tech or WKU.

And then take a deep breath. It's not a very likely thing to begin with, and even if it's true it's NOT worse to take Rice than some current AAC or MWC school if that's the kind of thing you want (the academics). It's not worse to take UTSA than a school from the current AAC or MWC if that's what you want (big school, big city). Just like it wouldn't be worse to invite USC into your conference than Vanderbilt (even though Vanderbilt plays in a better conference).

Conferences don't invite other conferences, they invite schools.

(09-20-2022 01:04 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  This is shoddy click-bait journalism. There is no way that the PAC is looking to add Rice or any other current CUSA member. To say otherwise is foolish.

SMU has a chance but my bet is that the PAC will try to add B12 teams (current and new) before they try to add anyone else. My bet is that they would also look to stay at 10 before adding from the AAC or MWC.

We should find out soon enough.

According to Frank, the author is quoting the PAC commissioner, pretty much word for word. (I haven't listened to the video myself.)


The only explanation for this I can think of is that the PAC is about to lose almost its entire current membership. I can't imagine that a team like UTSA would get even slight consideration to get invited to the current version of the PAC.

(09-19-2022 09:59 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  They would just be spreading out their money even further.

I think they are negotiating a new contract. So it would factor in all teams.

(09-20-2022 01:14 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 01:04 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  This is shoddy click-bait journalism. There is no way that the PAC is looking to add Rice or any other current CUSA member. To say otherwise is foolish.

SMU has a chance but my bet is that the PAC will try to add B12 teams (current and new) before they try to add anyone else. My bet is that they would also look to stay at 10 before adding from the AAC or MWC.

We should find out soon enough.

According to Frank, the author is quoting the PAC commissioner, pretty much word for word. (I haven't listened to the video myself.)


The only explanation for this I can think of is that the PAC is about to lose almost its entire current membership. I can't imagine that a team like UTSA would get even slight consideration to get invited to the current version of the PAC.

You're mixing the two items.

Canzano was quoting Kliavkoff regarding UCLA supposedly losing money by going to the Big Ten.

He was NOT quoting Kliavkoff regarding anything about expansion candidates from the Big 12, MWC, AAC, C-USA or anyone else. Let's please make that clear.

(09-20-2022 11:06 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:38 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:31 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:19 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:52 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Rice, SMU and San Diego State make sense if the PAC is going to 14 and can't entice a Big 12 school. The 14th would be interesting. Maybe between Boise St (it is an athletic conference, right?), UNLV, Fresno St?

If the PAC stays together for the time being and adds 2 or 4, will the Big 12 make a move with a couple of teams from the same list? If the PAC adds San Diego St and SMU would the Big 12 add Boise St and someone?

I'm stunned that people don't realize what this article is saying. It's basically saying that the PAC isn't even capable of raiding the AAC or MWC.


That would mean that the PAC is about to have their membership reduced all the way to 2, and everybody in the know (not just PAC Athletic directors but MWC and AAC athletic directors as well) must know it.

That's 100% not what it's saying.

Really curious as to how anyone can come to the conclusion he did when the part being quoted is, in full:

Quote:Further, the Pac-12 expansion question is looming. I’ve written about San Diego State, SMU, UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State at length. A few have speculated that the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member or potentially targeting some Conference USA programs.

"A few have speculated..." - doesn't even need to be a Pac-12 insider. Could literally refer to people in the media or twitter-verse just tossing darts around. Additionally, it's most likely the case that he tossed at last sentence down in order to keep it fresh and not just include the same programs everyone has been talking about over and over again.

"...the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member..."


Strange how that part is being easily ignored so people can jump to the conclusion of "CUSA being the only option!"

Yes, I mentioned that earlier as well. That poster has a habit of miscomprehending things and drawing wild conclusions (eg. "A few have speculated" must mean "PAC-12 isn't even capable of raiding the AAC or MWC").

Oddly, he mocks CSNbbs in a later post when he had - by a large margin - the biggest misinterpretation in the thread.

(09-20-2022 01:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 12:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  Everybody who will still be in C-USA next year isn’t considered valuable enough to be invited to the AAC, the MWC or even the Sun Belt.

Ok.

This seems obvious, but you've said this about 15 times in this thread so maybe I need to help you.

Do you think USC is "better" or more valuable or whatever than Vanderbilt? Even though the SEC is "better" or more valuable than the Pac-12?

Florida State and Northwestern? Washington and Indiana?

I don't think there is anything in this story, which is why I haven't bothered weighing in seriously. But there are schools in CUSA today and will be schools in CUSA next year that are "better" and in some cases also "more valuable" than some schools in the AAC, SB, MWC.


NOBODY has said that the Pac-12 is considering add the whole of CUSA because they aren't able to invite the whole of the MWC or AAC. It would just be Rice vs. SDSU or something.

Look up the CUSA records of the 6 teams joining the AAC vs. Tech or WKU.

And then take a deep breath. It's not a very likely thing to begin with, and even if it's true it's NOT worse to take Rice than some current AAC or MWC school if that's the kind of thing you want (the academics). It's not worse to take UTSA than a school from the current AAC or MWC if that's what you want (big school, big city). Just like it wouldn't be worse to invite USC into your conference than Vanderbilt (even though Vanderbilt plays in a better conference).

Conferences don't invite other conferences, they invite schools.

I've actually been skeptical that the PAC would even add MWC teams unless there are further raids on the conference. I've always thought the PAC would be better off staying at 10 than adding MWC schools.


But talking about adding Conference USA schools? This is a new low that signifies that something must be seriously wrong with the PAC. Tell me why the PAC would add schools that even the Sun Belt doesn't want, unless the PAC will soon be two members and nobody wants to join a two member conference.

(09-20-2022 01:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 01:14 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 01:04 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  This is shoddy click-bait journalism. There is no way that the PAC is looking to add Rice or any other current CUSA member. To say otherwise is foolish.

SMU has a chance but my bet is that the PAC will try to add B12 teams (current and new) before they try to add anyone else. My bet is that they would also look to stay at 10 before adding from the AAC or MWC.

We should find out soon enough.

According to Frank, the author is quoting the PAC commissioner, pretty much word for word. (I haven't listened to the video myself.)


The only explanation for this I can think of is that the PAC is about to lose almost its entire current membership. I can't imagine that a team like UTSA would get even slight consideration to get invited to the current version of the PAC.

You're mixing the two items.

Canzano was quoting Kliavkoff regarding UCLA supposedly losing money by going to the Big Ten.

He was NOT quoting Kliavkoff regarding anything about expansion candidates from the Big 12, MWC, AAC, C-USA or anyone else. Let's please make that clear.

But he supposedly got that information from somewhere. He didn't say where.

(09-20-2022 01:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 01:14 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 01:04 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  This is shoddy click-bait journalism. There is no way that the PAC is looking to add Rice or any other current CUSA member. To say otherwise is foolish.

SMU has a chance but my bet is that the PAC will try to add B12 teams (current and new) before they try to add anyone else. My bet is that they would also look to stay at 10 before adding from the AAC or MWC.

We should find out soon enough.

According to Frank, the author is quoting the PAC commissioner, pretty much word for word. (I haven't listened to the video myself.)


The only explanation for this I can think of is that the PAC is about to lose almost its entire current membership. I can't imagine that a team like UTSA would get even slight consideration to get invited to the current version of the PAC.

You're mixing the two items.

Canzano was quoting Kliavkoff regarding UCLA supposedly losing money by going to the Big Ten.

He was NOT quoting Kliavkoff regarding anything about expansion candidates from the Big 12, MWC, AAC, C-USA or anyone else. Let's please make that clear.

Okay. I misunderstood you. Sorry.


Well, if he wasn't quoting the PAC commissioner on that, I think there's about a 50% chance that Canzano is just FOS when he's talking about the PAC considering C-USA teams. Canzano is known to only be slightly more credible than the Dude of WV.

(09-20-2022 12:52 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Kliavkoff (call him "Klia-goof" for this) is talking out his butt. Maybe Oregon, Washington and possibly Stanford will stick for this cycle and with them Arizona and thus all ten. But only this cycle. Next round they are gone. As for keeping UCLA that is propaganda joke. UCLA is looking at distributions north of $100M for most of the rest of the decade, while the Pac-12 is not going to even hit $50M. The Gap is looking to be $40-45M in media revenue to begin with, growing to maybe $65M by 2030, and then add the larger CFP share and other revenues the B1G dwarfs the Pac-12 on will push that gap another $10-20M per year.

IMO both Yormack and Kliavkoff have significantly lowered their credibility to neither conferences' benefit.

What has Yormark said that rivals Kiavkoff's assertions today?