(01-18-2023 03:09 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 02:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 07:57 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  The PAC needs content to sell to both Amazon and ESPN so in my mind adding SDSU and SMU is the most likely.

I'd argue the PAC should add Tulane and Rice as well

LMAOOOOOO

A power conference that has Tulane, Rice, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, Uncle Cal, Arizona, ASU, and Stanturd. How on earth is this better than the MWC and AAC?

Yes, you have Washington, Utah, and Oregon. But seriously when was the last time Utah and Washington had consecutive top 5 recruiting classes? The PAC-12 as a whole was a giant paper tiger this year and the fact that we won so many games with our TERRIBLE defense speaks volumes.

And can you imagine being in a conference who had an incoming member lose to Tulane in an NYD Bowl???

LMAOOOOOOO

Absolutely, Tulane had a fantastic season and I have been extremely critical of our wins all season. We were a paper tiger that did nothing but beat a bunch of weak PAC-12 teams.

I'm glad Tulane beat us.

(01-18-2023 03:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 01:24 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 01:13 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 11:21 AM)Poster Wrote:  Is the PAC seriously going to keep alive its network? The only reason why they would even consider doing so is some super extreme case of the sunk cost fallacy.

Probably about 10% of cable subscribers in the PAC states themselves can get the PAC12N. (Forget about outside the PAC states.) And the network if anything is even more impossible to access for streamers.

I strongly suspect that USC would never have left the PAC if they hadn't created that awful network.

The Pac-12 Network just signed a new lease in San Ramon. It is not going away.
https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/01/11...ch-office/

The Pac-12 production center will shift its operations to San Ramon — and exit San Francisco — after the college athletics organization signed a lease to rent a big chunk of office space at the Bishop Ranch business park.
“The studio will focus on live sports content with the facility being built with cutting-edge production technology,” the organization said. “The office is expected to welcome more than 100 staffers and freelancers on busy game days.”

The production center will probably become the streaming network for Amazon or Apple, since neither has production facilities. I get the Pac-12 Network on Spectrum cable, along with the SEC Network, the Big Ten Network and the ACC Network. It is called the sports package. The Pac-12 Network was a business model failure and a production quality success. Kliavkoff is cleaning up the business model.

USC football has won one conference championship in 14 years. Maybe the network would have had more success if USC was putting better quality football teams on the field.

Well, if that’s the case, the PAC really is suffering from the sunk cost fallacy.


USC fans were always complaining about how they had three football games a year that basically weren’t on TV. That was no small part of why they left the conference.

The Amazon deal basically seems like an attempt to keep the PAC 12 network alive, except on a streaming platform. I think even that is a bad idea, although it’s less bad than keeping the PAC network alive in its current form.


In 2019, the PAC 12 network reached 17.9 million homes, out of 140 million homes in America. It’s probably even less now, since the distribution of the network constantly fell over time.


https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2019/10/2...rk-future/

I'd argue that 100% of the reason USC left is about money rather than exposure. If the Pac had made the necessary decisions in the past 35 years to keep themselves at the top of the sporting heap, then they'd still be there. Unfortunately, they didn't, and now all of them except the ones who made the actual decisions (like Stanford and USCLA) are going to suffer for it. I give Larry Scott a ton of grief for his ineptitude, but he didn't start the fire, it was always burnin' since the world been turnin' (well since the late '80s anyway).

It was both.

You can't be a relevant program playing games when half the country is sleep.

(01-18-2023 03:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 02:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 07:57 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  The PAC needs content to sell to both Amazon and ESPN so in my mind adding SDSU and SMU is the most likely.

I'd argue the PAC should add Tulane and Rice as well

LMAOOOOOO

A power conference that has Tulane, Rice, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, Uncle Cal, Arizona, ASU, and Stanturd. How on earth is this better than the MWC and AAC?

Yes, you have Washington, Utah, and Oregon. But seriously when was the last time Utah and Washington had consecutive top 5 recruiting classes? The PAC-12 as a whole was a giant paper tiger this year and the fact that we won so many games with our TERRIBLE defense speaks volumes.

Looks like Utah didn't need to spend $115m and get a top 5 class to beat USC twice this year. You guys should have recruited Harbaugh, or perhaps Dabo, Riley will end up being a spectacular bust.

Utah is an exceptionally well coached team that makes the best out of what they have. And that is good enough to be a team with decent talent and bad coaching. I aspire USC to once again have elite talent and good coaching.

Riley is an overrated coach who was lucky enough to have a Heisman QB and a weak schedule. I think a lot of you forget that this was a rebuilding year for the entire program.

(01-22-2023 10:37 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 03:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 02:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 07:57 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  The PAC needs content to sell to both Amazon and ESPN so in my mind adding SDSU and SMU is the most likely.

I'd argue the PAC should add Tulane and Rice as well

LMAOOOOOO

A power conference that has Tulane, Rice, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, Uncle Cal, Arizona, ASU, and Stanturd. How on earth is this better than the MWC and AAC?

Yes, you have Washington, Utah, and Oregon. But seriously when was the last time Utah and Washington had consecutive top 5 recruiting classes? The PAC-12 as a whole was a giant paper tiger this year and the fact that we won so many games with our TERRIBLE defense speaks volumes.

Looks like Utah didn't need to spend $115m and get a top 5 class to beat USC twice this year. You guys should have recruited Harbaugh, or perhaps Dabo, Riley will end up being a spectacular bust.

Utah is an exceptionally well coached team that makes the best out of what they have. And that is good enough to be a team with decent talent and bad coaching. I aspire USC to once again have elite talent and good coaching.

Riley is an overrated coach who was lucky enough to have a Heisman QB and a weak schedule. I think a lot of you forget that this was a rebuilding year for the entire program.

When did Lincoln Riley become a bad head coach? He has been a head coach for six seasons, has compiled a record of 66-13 and has three Heisman trophy winners. He has turned around the USC football program in one year. He is eventually going to be an NFL head coach.

Riley could not fix the team in one season and the Pac-12 had six of the top 18 ranked teams in the nation, so this was not an easy conference. They have six of the top 30 schools in the 2023 football recruiting classes. USC was fortunate to avoid Oregon and Washington in regular season play in 2022. This year's schedule will be tougher. At Oregon, at Colorado, at Notre Dame, Utah, UCLA and Washington at home.

.

Looks like nearly 2/3 of respondents are expecting the PAC to expand.

Watch USC/UCLA fail...

Every big-time program (I'm looking at you next TX/OK) that jumps struggles (see Nebraska and Colorado).

They disrupt their recruiting pipelines, media markets, etc.

Sure UCLA and USC will continue to get LA kids... but there will be no USC/UCLA on TV in northern CA, Oregon, Washington, AZ or anywhere else in the west.

And they aren't replacing all those kids with kids from Illinois and Ohio.

(01-22-2023 10:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 03:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 01:24 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 01:13 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-18-2023 11:21 AM)Poster Wrote:  Is the PAC seriously going to keep alive its network? The only reason why they would even consider doing so is some super extreme case of the sunk cost fallacy.

Probably about 10% of cable subscribers in the PAC states themselves can get the PAC12N. (Forget about outside the PAC states.) And the network if anything is even more impossible to access for streamers.

I strongly suspect that USC would never have left the PAC if they hadn't created that awful network.

The Pac-12 Network just signed a new lease in San Ramon. It is not going away.
https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/01/11...ch-office/

The Pac-12 production center will shift its operations to San Ramon — and exit San Francisco — after the college athletics organization signed a lease to rent a big chunk of office space at the Bishop Ranch business park.
“The studio will focus on live sports content with the facility being built with cutting-edge production technology,” the organization said. “The office is expected to welcome more than 100 staffers and freelancers on busy game days.”

The production center will probably become the streaming network for Amazon or Apple, since neither has production facilities. I get the Pac-12 Network on Spectrum cable, along with the SEC Network, the Big Ten Network and the ACC Network. It is called the sports package. The Pac-12 Network was a business model failure and a production quality success. Kliavkoff is cleaning up the business model.

USC football has won one conference championship in 14 years. Maybe the network would have had more success if USC was putting better quality football teams on the field.

Well, if that’s the case, the PAC really is suffering from the sunk cost fallacy.


USC fans were always complaining about how they had three football games a year that basically weren’t on TV. That was no small part of why they left the conference.

The Amazon deal basically seems like an attempt to keep the PAC 12 network alive, except on a streaming platform. I think even that is a bad idea, although it’s less bad than keeping the PAC network alive in its current form.


In 2019, the PAC 12 network reached 17.9 million homes, out of 140 million homes in America. It’s probably even less now, since the distribution of the network constantly fell over time.


https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2019/10/2...rk-future/

I'd argue that 100% of the reason USC left is about money rather than exposure. If the Pac had made the necessary decisions in the past 35 years to keep themselves at the top of the sporting heap, then they'd still be there. Unfortunately, they didn't, and now all of them except the ones who made the actual decisions (like Stanford and USCLA) are going to suffer for it. I give Larry Scott a ton of grief for his ineptitude, but he didn't start the fire, it was always burnin' since the world been turnin' (well since the late '80s anyway).

It was both.

You can't be a relevant program playing games when half the country is sleep.

I hesitate to disagree with a Trojans fan, but ... I disagree.

USC has been extremely relevant, one of the handful of true blue-bloods, throughout its entire history. And it has always played games on the west coast.

I do not see what has happened to change that. To be a national title contender, IMO USC just needs what it has always needed, a good coach. So IMO the move was "all about the money".

(01-23-2023 11:10 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  Watch USC/UCLA fail...

Every big-time program (I'm looking at you next TX/OK) that jumps struggles (see Nebraska and Colorado).

They disrupt their recruiting pipelines, media markets, etc.

Sure UCLA and USC will continue to get LA kids... but there will be no USC/UCLA on TV in northern CA, Oregon, Washington, AZ or anywhere else in the west.

And they aren't replacing all those kids with kids from Illinois and Ohio.

FOX, CBS, and NBC games will air in northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona. ??

FWIW, USC's *current* football roster has as many players from Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida as Arizona, Washington, and Oregon.

(01-23-2023 11:10 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  Watch USC/UCLA fail...

Every big-time program (I'm looking at you next TX/OK) that jumps struggles (see Nebraska and Colorado).

They disrupt their recruiting pipelines, media markets, etc.

Sure UCLA and USC will continue to get LA kids... but there will be no USC/UCLA on TV in northern CA, Oregon, Washington, AZ or anywhere else in the west.

And they aren't replacing all those kids with kids from Illinois and Ohio.

Fair point. It will be interesting to see how things pan out. Obviously UT/OU and USC/UCLA are jumping into different situations. UT/OU gets even better recruiting grounds but against fierce competition. USC/UCLA will deal with being a remote outpost (albeit in a very big city/state) against a lot of beatable opponents. Seems likely that at least 1 or 2 of the four will eventually ask themselves "was the $ really worth it?"

(01-22-2023 04:10 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 02:27 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  While Washington (especially) and Oregon were passed over by the Big Ten this round, they are cusp brands, more or less equal with the top five ACC options. In the long run, much like the Big Ten felt they needed Maryland and Rutgers to anchor Penn State, they will soon feel the same about USC and UCLA. And these Pacific northwest schools are far better options than those taken to support Penn State.

I for one do not think all of the top ACC choices will be on the board for the Big Ten, as the SEC and ESPN will have a say. As the ending of ACC GoR nears, much like they no doubt did with Texas (and thus Oklahoma) ESPN will be greasing the skids for a slide over by at least two of those five top ACC schools, no doubt targeting North Carolina (internal bias is strongly SEC anyway) and Florida State most. Clemson and Miami are definitely more a consolation prize than a goal for the B1G, while Duke, Georgia Tech and Virginia are boutique options akin to Cal and Stanford, not programming options that bring you anything. That alone is going to force the B1G to look west again. (Note, I can see the B1G taking Miami and Notre Dame, passing on Clemson, Duke et al).

Given both these issues, I think UW and Oregon have good reason to think they will eventually land in the Big Ten. It might take ten years but they will be there. I also think it's also unrealistic to think Cal, Stanford, UW and Oregon would not be invited to the Big 12 if they were available and the Pac-12 started to collapse. Their media providers would certainly make that work.

You can scold Washington and Oregon for arrogance, but in no way will they be left behind in a diminished Pac-12., and they know it.

As for adding schools, in my opinion this cannot happen until the ten schools remaining are in agreement on the media deal and settle in for awhile as the ten, committed to the approach. Very likely expansion will be visited, but I cannot see that happening for a couple years. If done to soon it will unravel and fracture the conference. Unlike the remaining eight of the Big 12 which quickly had a consensus from prior looks into expansion as to what to do, there is no such consensus in the Pac-12.

And let's be realistic; San Diego State, SMU and Fresno State will still be available in two years and even five years. Honestly the gap between what SDSU brings and the others is so great that expansion is far from certain, since they need a 12th. There is no reason, nor consensus to rush.

Stu, I appreciate the logic you put into this and largely agree with the options. But you need to consider what the actual obstacle is to completing realignment for the Big 10 and SEC. They both have 2 schools left which add to their stature and revenue. In spite of board wisdom most numbers say Washington and Oregon add to the Big 10, not much but add. The 2 increase market reach significantly and tie the West significantly to the Big 10. The issue is that nobody can conceive of truly creating a business and market synergy out West without California and Stanford.

Oregon State and Washington State have history but don't fit the Big 10 profile. Colorado, Utah, and Arizona all have the academic profile, but don't have the history with the core PAC 12 schools. What's more is that none of them are likely to be accretive to the value of the Big 10.

The SEC situation is no different. Florida State and North Carolina could be accretive. Clemson is at best a wash, but likely not accretive to the SEC's new contract. Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech all have history with North Carolina. They all fit the SEC well enough to be included, but they don't add to the bottom line.

North Carolina is not as likely to make that move if they have to leave so many of their associations behind.

My point is this. In both the SEC and B1G's case there are still a couple of schools which could make their cut, there are schools that add a great synergy if taken with the two which would add, but which are not accretive.

The answer to this dilemma is unequal revenue sharing.

I'm not talking a stark disparity, but rather an actual valuation being done on each school and then the conference compensated accordingly. As they work to reach the potential of their regional synergy with the other former mates taken, their value will rise and with it their revenue. The rest of the conference remains valued as a whole.

Do this and the Big 10 can seriously look at taking all 9 AAU schools to the West, schools with which they have more in common than perhaps anyone but Virginia in the ACC.

OU and UW would be free to move along with California, Stanford, Arizona, Colorado and Utah. Kansas makes 24 if Notre Dame doesn't do an all in.

Likewise in the SEC UNC and FSU join and now six of Virginia Clemson, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Miami, Louisville, and Georgia Tech can join without diminishing the SEC payout.

This move to unequal valuations for future members clears the path for a healthier consolidation, the maximization of market synergies, and the protection of valued associations.

Then Yormark can build his transcontinental conference as the New Big 12.

But as long as the SEC and Big 10 remained closed to adding some members at actual valuation we will remain in this stalemate.

In the interest of the game and of the protection of rivalries and associations and to get over this transition and let fans adjust, it needs to be doon sooner rather than later.

What are the numbers on Washington/Oregon being accretive to the Big Ten media rights deal? Not a rhetorical question but I ask because even after the Big Ten set the market, Notre Dame's next deal with NBC was estimated to be around $60M/ year.

https://frontofficesports.com/notre-dame...-annually/

ND and Texas are both valued ~ $150m if in a Conference. Unfortunately for them, they're worth far less solo. And front office sports probably got that $60m from us, we were around that number over the summer.

(01-22-2023 06:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 02:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 12:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 12:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  Face it G&B Florida State is not a true blue-blood football program like Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Southern Cal or Notre Dame. They just don't have the long history like some of those other programs.
That's not to say that Florida State isn't the #1 Tier 2 team in the country.
Notre Dame is the ONLY blue-blood program that is not in a P2. The ACC, Big 12 and PAC are the best of the rest, with some of their members hoping for a chance to move up to the big time. I imagine that it is frustrating for a school like FSU, Washington or Miami to be on the outside looking in while schools like Vanderbilt, Mississippi State and Purdue are collecting "the big bucks".
Keep up hope, however, when the pressure on Vanderbilt or MSU, gets great enough where they are asked to upgrade facilities or enlarge their stadiums beyond what they are comfortable with, they may decide to drop down where the cost of competition is not as great and it may create an opportunity for the 'Noles or the Hurricanes because the SEC does need a second school in the State of Florida.

As you correctly noted, there are only a few true "blue-bloods". However, both the SEC and the B1G have 9 schools that form an enviable upper crust:

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, A&M, LSU, Texas, OU, Auburn, Tennessee

tOSU, Michigan, MSU, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU, USC, UCLA

And that leaves out basketball blue bloods like Kentucky and Indiana, and doesn't mention that Mississippi St or South Carolina can jump up and compete in any given year, too. Heck, if Leach was still around those 2 might be favored to be top 4 in the SEC next year.

FSU comfortably fits into that upper crust in either of the P2, calling them a 2nd tier school is insulting and shows that you should probably stick to basketball.

Your snide comment is uncalled for. You basically agreed with him.
Both of your comments are basically true.

There are 8 or 9 blue-bloods (depending on whether you include Penn St.). FSU is not one of them. FSU is near the top of the next group with Florida, Miami, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia and Clemson. And both the Big 10 and SEC have a strong series of schools in the next group, as you mentioned.

LSU has 3 titles with 3 different coaches in the past 20 years, I don't see how you could include PSU and not LSU.

LSU is clearly NOT a blue blood any more than Miami is, who has had more success than LSU in the last 30 years. From 1974-1999, they only had 14 winning seasons. 8 years were 4 wins or less. Penn St. has only 8 non-winning season going back to 1938 and only 3 years with 4 wins or less in that time frame, including the 4-5 covid year.

So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

(01-23-2023 11:10 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  Watch USC/UCLA fail...

Every big-time program (I'm looking at you next TX/OK) that jumps struggles (see Nebraska and Colorado).

They disrupt their recruiting pipelines, media markets, etc.

Sure UCLA and USC will continue to get LA kids... but there will be no USC/UCLA on TV in northern CA, Oregon, Washington, AZ or anywhere else in the west.

And they aren't replacing all those kids with kids from Illinois and Ohio.

Way off the mark. Nebraska and Colorado are different than Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA. Texas and Oklahoma have a Texas recruiting foundation that they will never lose. Same for USC and UCLA in California, especially in Southern California. When Nebraska was great, they were able to go anywhere to find good football players. They had a reliable brand. Colorado was recruiting California and Texas well when they were at their best. They could not just rely on Colorado and neighboring states.

UCLA just added the No. 1 player in the state of Michigan, five-star quarterback Dante Moore. They also added a first team All-MAC running back, Carson Steele from Ball State in the transfer portal. Steele played his high school ball in Indiana and rushed for 1,556 yards in 2022 for Ball State. Maybe they can recruit those Midwest kids.

Six of USC's 12 football games were televised on either FOX or ABC this past season. USC and UCLA will get plenty of appearances on FOX, CBS, and NBC in the Big Ten, which can be seen anywhere in the country.

(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 06:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 02:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 12:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  As you correctly noted, there are only a few true "blue-bloods". However, both the SEC and the B1G have 9 schools that form an enviable upper crust:

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, A&M, LSU, Texas, OU, Auburn, Tennessee

tOSU, Michigan, MSU, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU, USC, UCLA

And that leaves out basketball blue bloods like Kentucky and Indiana, and doesn't mention that Mississippi St or South Carolina can jump up and compete in any given year, too. Heck, if Leach was still around those 2 might be favored to be top 4 in the SEC next year.

FSU comfortably fits into that upper crust in either of the P2, calling them a 2nd tier school is insulting and shows that you should probably stick to basketball.

Your snide comment is uncalled for. You basically agreed with him.
Both of your comments are basically true.

There are 8 or 9 blue-bloods (depending on whether you include Penn St.). FSU is not one of them. FSU is near the top of the next group with Florida, Miami, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia and Clemson. And both the Big 10 and SEC have a strong series of schools in the next group, as you mentioned.

LSU has 3 titles with 3 different coaches in the past 20 years, I don't see how you could include PSU and not LSU.

LSU is clearly NOT a blue blood any more than Miami is, who has had more success than LSU in the last 30 years. From 1974-1999, they only had 14 winning seasons. 8 years were 4 wins or less. Penn St. has only 8 non-winning season going back to 1938 and only 3 years with 4 wins or less in that time frame, including the 4-5 covid year.

So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

(01-23-2023 05:36 PM)Herdforlife Wrote:  IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

If the ACC went after Big XII schools, I’d want them to try to nab Houston and TCU to get into some of the big markets in Texas.

(01-23-2023 05:36 PM)Herdforlife Wrote:  IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

You forgot arguably the 3 biggest non-SEC brands in Texas: Baylor, TCU and UH.

The ACC and Pac could have had any big12 schools 18 months ago and passed, now it's too late for them. I wonder if some of the 4c will start thinking about this as time goes on and we continue to hear deafening silence from Kliavkoff.

(01-23-2023 11:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 05:36 PM)Herdforlife Wrote:  IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

You forgot arguably the 3 biggest non-SEC brands in Texas: Baylor, TCU and UH.

The ACC and Pac could have had any big12 schools 18 months ago and passed, now it's too late for them. I wonder if some of the 4c will start thinking about this as time goes on and we continue to hear deafening silence from Kliavkoff.

Do you really consider Baylor TCU and UH bigger Brands than Tech?

Best option for the Pac-12 and Big 12 would be a full schedule integration. They're both worth more together than apart.

Both need to get over themselves and make it happen.

(01-23-2023 11:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 05:36 PM)Herdforlife Wrote:  IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

You forgot arguably the 3 biggest non-SEC brands in Texas: Baylor, TCU and UH.

The ACC and Pac could have had any big12 schools 18 months ago and passed, now it's too late for them. I wonder if some of the 4c will start thinking about this as time goes on and we continue to hear deafening silence from Kliavkoff.

The PAC is too secular to add TCU or Baylor. UH would be a valid addition.

I would still say the ACC is the third most powerful conference, especially with the grant of rights. I think they could make some significant adds if they wanted. The PAC could end up in bad shape with a sour tv contract. That said, I’d like to see some kind of merger of power so other conferences compete with the Big10 and SEC.

If the PAC wants to go big, the call is a deep pass on first down.

First wave
– Texas Tech
– OK State
– Kansas State
– Kansas
– San Diego

The league keeps a southern California presence while establishing the eastern edge of an expansive new conference footprint. A risky play—but if the PAC can get at least some of that, it can easily fill in the rest of the footprint from there to define a new Grand Western conference. For example:

Second wave
– UNLV
– Nevada
– Wyoming

... and on from there.

The main questions to ask are of course media questions. Does it help to add content in more time zones? How do any benefits balance for streaming and cable?