Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: What will the Pac-12 do?
Stay at 10.
Add Gonzaga.
Add SDSU and SMU.
Add Gonzaga, SDSU, and SMU.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 57,918
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2477
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #381
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
I'm also old enough to remember the '71 and '95 Nebraska football teams, perhaps the two best of all time. Hard for me to think Nebraska doesn't have a chance to come back. If Notre Dame can be successful in Indiana and Tennessee had success in Tennessee, there's no reason to think Nebraska can't recruit successfully outside the state of Nebraska.
01-24-2023 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #382
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 04:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 03:39 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

Just from my impressions on this board (and this very much a gross generalization) - but it seems to me that Big10 fans seem to assign much more "value" to Florida, than SEC fans do.

I think part of that (again, generalizing) is that SEC fans seem to rate school "value" much more on field performance, while B10 fans ascribe more to "brand" value.

I think this stems a bit from the north valuing professional teams even if they regularly lose.

It's not a criticism at all.

Look at baseball - the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, the Boston Red Sox, the Minnesota Twins. Or Football, like the Cleveland Browns.

This is not to say that Florida isn't valued by southern fans, it just seems to be "different".

Think of this this way - I just made a comment about Alabama on this thread, that I think there will be those who will very much not agree with - which is totally fine, we all see (and analyze) the world through our own lens.

But had I said the same thing about Florida, would the overall general reaction be equal, greater, or less?

I've said in the past that - due to AAU, institutional fit, etc. - if any school were to leave the SEC to go to the Big10, Florida is that school.

The above are also reasons why. I think the Florida might find that they are valued more in a way that they may find to be more comfortable with.

To put it another way, I think Florida seems more like a B10 school than any other school in the SEC or the ACC. And it's not even close.

But of course, as always, others' opinions may vary.

Perhaps to some extent it has to do with what JRSEC and Frank have mentioned, that we are all a product of the period in which we grew up. I'm old enough to remember the announcers treating Minnesota being a big deal in 1967, but that was probably their last good year. UCLA was quite successful in the 60s and 70s. And people younger might not remember the 80s and 90s when Miami and FSU were as dominant as Alabama has been under Saban. The pecking order in the SEC growing up was roughly:
Alabama

Tennessee
Georgia/Auburn/LSU
Ole Miss
Florida

Miss. St./Kentucky/Vandy

But if you grew up in the 90s, Florida and Tennessee were at the top. Ole Miss was so far removed from Archie Manning that they slipped almost to the MSU/UK/VU tier.

could very well be.

though it's interesting that even that analysis comes down to "results-based" analysis.

Though admittedly, it's definitely more over a long period of time, instead of the "what have you done for me lately" kind.

If Penn state lost every game for the next 20 years, would their fans abandon them? maybe some, but overall, I don't think so.

If Alabama lost every game over that same 20 years, I can see SEC fans refusing to watch them until they get better, and calling them has-beens, and comparing them negatively to Nebraska, etc.

And look at Nebraska. As angry as their fans seem to be, they still seem to be completely devoted to the team - the coaches seem to get the blame these days...

So I dunno. But there does seem to be a bit of a difference.

Again, just my impression.
01-24-2023 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #383
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 04:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm also old enough to remember the '71 and '95 Nebraska football teams, perhaps the two best of all time. Hard for me to think Nebraska doesn't have a chance to come back. If Notre Dame can be successful in Indiana and Tennessee had success in Tennessee, there's no reason to think Nebraska can't recruit successfully outside the state of Nebraska.

They could.

I think it's really going to come down to giving a coach a chance.

And the fans and alumni just don't seem to have patience to allow anyone to develop the team over time.
01-24-2023 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,760
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4707
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #384
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 05:22 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 04:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 03:39 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

Just from my impressions on this board (and this very much a gross generalization) - but it seems to me that Big10 fans seem to assign much more "value" to Florida, than SEC fans do.

I think part of that (again, generalizing) is that SEC fans seem to rate school "value" much more on field performance, while B10 fans ascribe more to "brand" value.

I think this stems a bit from the north valuing professional teams even if they regularly lose.

It's not a criticism at all.

Look at baseball - the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, the Boston Red Sox, the Minnesota Twins. Or Football, like the Cleveland Browns.

This is not to say that Florida isn't valued by southern fans, it just seems to be "different".

Think of this this way - I just made a comment about Alabama on this thread, that I think there will be those who will very much not agree with - which is totally fine, we all see (and analyze) the world through our own lens.

But had I said the same thing about Florida, would the overall general reaction be equal, greater, or less?

I've said in the past that - due to AAU, institutional fit, etc. - if any school were to leave the SEC to go to the Big10, Florida is that school.

The above are also reasons why. I think the Florida might find that they are valued more in a way that they may find to be more comfortable with.

To put it another way, I think Florida seems more like a B10 school than any other school in the SEC or the ACC. And it's not even close.

But of course, as always, others' opinions may vary.

Perhaps to some extent it has to do with what JRSEC and Frank have mentioned, that we are all a product of the period in which we grew up. I'm old enough to remember the announcers treating Minnesota being a big deal in 1967, but that was probably their last good year. UCLA was quite successful in the 60s and 70s. And people younger might not remember the 80s and 90s when Miami and FSU were as dominant as Alabama has been under Saban. The pecking order in the SEC growing up was roughly:
Alabama

Tennessee
Georgia/Auburn/LSU
Ole Miss
Florida

Miss. St./Kentucky/Vandy

But if you grew up in the 90s, Florida and Tennessee were at the top. Ole Miss was so far removed from Archie Manning that they slipped almost to the MSU/UK/VU tier.

could very well be.

though it's interesting that even that analysis comes down to "results-based" analysis.

Though admittedly, it's definitely more over a long period of time, instead of the "what have you done for me lately" kind.

If Penn state lost every game for the next 20 years, would their fans abandon them? maybe some, but overall, I don't think so.

If Alabama lost every game over that same 20 years, I can see SEC fans refusing to watch them until they get better, and calling them has-beens, and comparing them negatively to Nebraska, etc.

And look at Nebraska. As angry as their fans seem to be, they still seem to be completely devoted to the team - the coaches seem to get the blame these days...

So I dunno. But there does seem to be a bit of a difference.

Again, just my impression.

Alabama and Ohio State have similar trajectories. Neither will be down long as both have apex coaching jobs.
01-24-2023 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,890
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1907
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #385
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 02:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

I'm no SEC expert, but I don't recall Florida being very good in football until Spurrier left Duke to become the head coach at Florida.
Prior to Spurrier the most notable thing about Gator football was about Charlie Pell and NCAA violations.

IMO this is largely correct.

Before Spurrier arrived in 1989, Florida had made some noise 4-5 years earlier but had gotten wacked by probation, had to forfeit the 1984 SEC title.

Florida did not win their first official SEC title until 1991, after almost 60 years of playing in the league.

Really, before Urban Meyer arrived in 2004, basically Florida's entire football history was tied up with Spurrier - the coaching he did in the 1990s, and before that, as a QB, winning the Heisman Trophy in 1966 and leading Florida to the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl in 1965 and 1966.

Those were the first two major bowls Florida ever played in. They won the 1966 Orange Bowl, and would not win their second major bowl until the 1993 Sugar Bowl.
01-24-2023 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,890
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1907
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #386
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 03:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  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

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well, and it is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I'm with Frank on star power. And from Texas, Penn St. had more star power than LSU. So I don't see Penn St. as a "regional star," even if those in SEC territory view LSU as higher profile. But if you include them in the blue bloods, clearly, they would be the last one in. FSU and Miami aren't bluebloods, but they still have more star power than the rest of your 2nd group. Nobody but Alabama has had such a dominant period as those two did in the 80s and 90s. Look at all the interest NIL has put on Miami despite a relatively unsuccessful last couple of decades.

Looking at the number of top 5 rankings in the last 55 years, which covers the memory of almost everyone under retirement age, the 3 Florida schools make a top 12 with PSU (but note--this listing pretty much follows the top two groups JRSEC mentioned above)

1 OSU 24
2 OU 21
2 AL 21
4 FSU 16
5 USC 15
6 PSU 13
7 Miami 12
7 NE 12
7 TX 12
7 ND 12
11 FL 11
11 UM 11

13 GA 10
14 Clemson 7
15 LSU 6
15 AU 6
15 OR 6
15 TN 6
19 CO 5
20 WA 5

21 TCU 3
21 Pitt 3
21 AZ St. 3
21 UCLA 3

IMO, Penn State's "star power" is much more limited than LSU's and some other top schools. Penn State's legacy is tied up in one person, Joe Paterno, much like FSU's is with Bobby Bowden and I think it flows from their tenure.

Penn State has 21 total weeks at #1 in the AP poll. Their first week as AP #1 was in 1978, their last was in 1997. So very late to the party in terms of reaching #1, and also it's been a very long time since they last rung the bell. I would bet the vast majority of Penn State students weren't alive the last time it happened.

LSU has 38 weeks as AP #1, almost twice the number of weeks as Penn State. And LSU first topped the poll in 1958, and last did so in 2019. So they rang that bell 20 years before Penn State did, and have done so more than 20 years after Penn State last did so as well.

And of course LSU has twice as many national titles, four to two. Penn State hasn't won a national title since midway through the Reagan administration. They have never won a title outside of the Reagan administration.

I can understand the attitude that Penn State is a blue-blood or near blue-blood, but IMO it is a generational bias, namely my generation. As a kid I grew up watching CFB in the early 1970s, just as Paterno was making Penn State a national name, and then he of course continued that all the way until the 2000s.

But before then, Penn State was largely nothing. And while I think that Franklin is an excellent coach, it is probably fair to say that Penn State's legacy is basically the Paterno legacy. A school like LSU isn't near as tied to a single individual like that, making it much more robust, IMO.

In terms of star power, IMO Penn State without Paterno is like I don't know, the Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger or Journey without Steve Perry. There's a lot of lustre that is lost. Not true for some of these other top schools.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 07:20 PM by quo vadis.)
01-24-2023 07:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 57,918
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2477
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #387
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
Well Paterno was coach for 46 years. Its a little different than saying something like Boise St. is due to Chris Petersen who was only there 8 years.

Penn St. was #2 much of the 68 and 69 season and finished there. They finished #4 in 1947 and were ranked a number of years before Paterno arrived in 1966. Penn St. was below .500 in 1938. And not again until 1988. They have had only 6 losing seasons since 1938. 4 of the 6 were in a 5 year period from 2000-2004. LSU has only had one losing season since Saban arrived, but they had losing records 8 of the 11 seasons prior to his arrival, including 6 years in a row and 20 since 1938. Penn St. has finished in the top 5 13 times since 1968. LSU 6. They have finished in the top 3 nine times. LSU 5.

Looks like PSU has 14 final top fives since the AP poll started in 1936 and LSU 10.

And actually LSU looks like the newbie looking at W/L records (NCAA record book only has top 20 listed for decades prior to 90s):
2010s PSU 18, LSU 6
2000s PSU 29, LSU 8
1990s PSU 6, LSU 67
1980s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1970s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1960s PSU 11, LSU 14
1950s PSU 9, LSU not in top 20 despite winning an MNC in 1958-they had 4 winning seasons, 1 .500, 5 losing seasons.
01-24-2023 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poster Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,056
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Auburn
Location:
Post: #388
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  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

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).


If LSU isn't a blue blood (which I don't think they are), then Florida sure isn't. Florida, FSU and Miami are the ultimate "new money" programs. Florida actually had an all time losing SEC record heading into the 1993 season, which was Spurrier's fourth year.
01-24-2023 08:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #389
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well Paterno was coach for 46 years. Its a little different than saying something like Boise St. is due to Chris Petersen who was only there 8 years.

Penn St. was #2 much of the 68 and 69 season and finished there. They finished #4 in 1947 and were ranked a number of years before Paterno arrived in 1966. Penn St. was below .500 in 1938. And not again until 1988. They have had only 6 losing seasons since 1938. 4 of the 6 were in a 5 year period from 2000-2004. LSU has only had one losing season since Saban arrived, but they had losing records 8 of the 11 seasons prior to his arrival, including 6 years in a row and 20 since 1938. Penn St. has finished in the top 5 13 times since 1968. LSU 6. They have finished in the top 3 nine times. LSU 5.

Looks like PSU has 14 final top fives since the AP poll started in 1936 and LSU 10.

And actually LSU looks like the newbie looking at W/L records (NCAA record book only has top 20 listed for decades prior to 90s):
2010s PSU 18, LSU 6
2000s PSU 29, LSU 8
1990s PSU 6, LSU 67
1980s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1970s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1960s PSU 11, LSU 14
1950s PSU 9, LSU not in top 20 despite winning an MNC in 1958-they had 4 winning seasons, 1 .500, 5 losing seasons.

The bolded: I absolutely have to agree with you there.
01-24-2023 09:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
World Wide Swag Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 162
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: $MU and Vols
Location: Big D
Post: #390
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 05:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 04:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm also old enough to remember the '71 and '95 Nebraska football teams, perhaps the two best of all time. Hard for me to think Nebraska doesn't have a chance to come back. If Notre Dame can be successful in Indiana and Tennessee had success in Tennessee, there's no reason to think Nebraska can't recruit successfully outside the state of Nebraska.

They could.

I think it's really going to come down to giving a coach a chance.

And the fans and alumni just don't seem to have patience to allow anyone to develop the team over time.
If Matt Rhule can't get them over the hump then I don't know who can. He was the perfect hire for Nebraska. They're probably never going to get top-10 classes there going forward so they need a coach who can win with less and he can.
01-24-2023 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 57,918
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2477
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #391
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 08:39 PM)Poster Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).


If LSU isn't a blue blood (which I don't think they are), then Florida sure isn't. Florida, FSU and Miami are the ultimate "new money" programs. Florida actually had an all time losing SEC record heading into the 1993 season, which was Spurrier's fourth year.

I would include Florida, FSU and Miami as "new money," but they are as "wealthy" as many of the bluebloods. Kind of Jay Gatsbys!04-cheers
01-24-2023 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 219
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #392
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 08:30 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC on the other hand is still searching for a financier or anybody to sell content to.
The PAC now has four major problems 1) a population that is more inclined to follow pro sports than college and 2) the loss of the biggest single market in their entire footprint, 3) compatibility issues with the only other conference that they abut, 4) limited windows in which to be able to sell their content to other markets.

And it has me scratching my head why the 5 primary western conferences don’t work together in some way to reinvigorate western collegiate sports.

Why look for answers from the east. They’d rather pluck a couple/few, whereas, those couple/few schools will be at a disadvantage compared to the main eastern bloc(s) of the conference(s). They will be on an island, especially their non-football sports. I can’t wait until inflation and wild spending catches up with USCLA’s big tv pay increase. When that point happens, look for those two to fall even further and struggle mightily. Then they’d own BigTen large exit fees. Smart BigTen.

Nobody wants to work with the perceived “lower” conference. It looks desperate in a society that demands it’s better to spit on the perceived lower classes than work with them.

Yeah, who wants $75m when you can instead make $50m? Not me, I'd rather subsidize schools that don't prioritize or often even care about football.
01-24-2023 11:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 219
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #393
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 09:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(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.

18 months ago Jim Phillips would have been on the job for 6 months and he was still getting up to speed on the ACC. Had the Presidents hired an ACC guy..............
The bottom line is that the ACC could have had any school that ESPN was willing to pay for. Obviously ESPN preferred to have what was left of the Big 12 stay together and add a few schools, and why not they are getting that league for half price. Since FOX and ESPN have agreed to continue to split the Big 12, each network gets the content they want without having to foot the entire cost.
For FOX and ESPN it's like renting instead of buying.

Yeah - I believe that one of the biggest misnomers in conference realignment discussions is the fan belief that the TV networks *want* consolidation and superconferences. They absolutely do not. If they had their druthers, they'd want the situation of the BCS/early-CFP era where there were 5 conferences with relatively equal branding power and relatively equal valuations. The Big Ten and SEC were still more valuable at that time, but not dramatically so. It's basic economics that if there are fewer suppliers of the top product, then the price of that top product goes way up... and consolidation means fewer suppliers.

So, none of these TV networks are paying for Big Ten and SEC rights because they *like* doing it. They're only paying them because they're now down to 2 choices for the top product in college football as opposed to 5.

My point has kind of been lost in this, but I didn't say "why" those conferences passed, only that they did. It doesn't matter why they passed. Just like if the 4c all decide to stay in the Pac, it's entirely possible that Yormark shifts his focus eastward and decides to fill out his conference from ACC leftovers in 2036 instead of Pac leftovers in 2030. Right now, every Pac school except maybe WSU and OSU could get into the big 12 with a phone call. But what happens if they sign a GoR until 2035 because they're all so anxious to stick together?

The more I look at this, the more I wonder how Kliavkoff is going to be able to get everybody on the same page. To wit:

UW/UO: They want the most money they can get on a contract that ends no later than 2030. No reason not to sign a GoR, but no exit fees.

Cal/Stanford: They'd like to join the B1G, but might not ever get the chance. Probably willing to sign a big GoR, exit fees, long term deal, anything and everything necessary to keep the show rolling. They could easily pivot to the big 12 or perhaps even ACC if necessary in future cycles if things don't work out in the Pac.

4c: Short-sh Term GoR is better because then they get another shot to consider the big 12 before 2036. Probably would want deal to end no later than 2033. No exit fees.

WSU/OSU: Please don't leave us and stick us with the MWC.

4 camps of 2-4 schools each, all with different priorities and agendas. And who knows about the whole streaming vs OTA debate. It could be the PN4 squawking about the change, it could be the 4c, or it could be WSU, Utah and ASU. I have no idea, but that introduces another level of uncertainty to an already difficult situation.

Tick Tock, Kliavkoff. Get your Cats rustled up, or some of them are gonna get away.
01-24-2023 11:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,760
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4707
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #394
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 11:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 09:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(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.

18 months ago Jim Phillips would have been on the job for 6 months and he was still getting up to speed on the ACC. Had the Presidents hired an ACC guy..............
The bottom line is that the ACC could have had any school that ESPN was willing to pay for. Obviously ESPN preferred to have what was left of the Big 12 stay together and add a few schools, and why not they are getting that league for half price. Since FOX and ESPN have agreed to continue to split the Big 12, each network gets the content they want without having to foot the entire cost.
For FOX and ESPN it's like renting instead of buying.

Yeah - I believe that one of the biggest misnomers in conference realignment discussions is the fan belief that the TV networks *want* consolidation and superconferences. They absolutely do not. If they had their druthers, they'd want the situation of the BCS/early-CFP era where there were 5 conferences with relatively equal branding power and relatively equal valuations. The Big Ten and SEC were still more valuable at that time, but not dramatically so. It's basic economics that if there are fewer suppliers of the top product, then the price of that top product goes way up... and consolidation means fewer suppliers.

So, none of these TV networks are paying for Big Ten and SEC rights because they *like* doing it. They're only paying them because they're now down to 2 choices for the top product in college football as opposed to 5.

My point has kind of been lost in this, but I didn't say "why" those conferences passed, only that they did. It doesn't matter why they passed. Just like if the 4c all decide to stay in the Pac, it's entirely possible that Yormark shifts his focus eastward and decides to fill out his conference from ACC leftovers in 2036 instead of Pac leftovers in 2030. Right now, every Pac school except maybe WSU and OSU could get into the big 12 with a phone call. But what happens if they sign a GoR until 2035 because they're all so anxious to stick together?

The more I look at this, the more I wonder how Kliavkoff is going to be able to get everybody on the same page. To wit:

UW/UO: They want the most money they can get on a contract that ends no later than 2030. No reason not to sign a GoR, but no exit fees.

Cal/Stanford: They'd like to join the B1G, but might not ever get the chance. Probably willing to sign a big GoR, exit fees, long term deal, anything and everything necessary to keep the show rolling. They could easily pivot to the big 12 or perhaps even ACC if necessary in future cycles if things don't work out in the Pac.

4c: Short-sh Term GoR is better because then they get another shot to consider the big 12 before 2036. Probably would want deal to end no later than 2033. No exit fees.

WSU/OSU: Please don't leave us and stick us with the MWC.

4 camps of 2-4 schools each, all with different priorities and agendas. And who knows about the whole streaming vs OTA debate. It could be the PN4 squawking about the change, it could be the 4c, or it could be WSU, Utah and ASU. I have no idea, but that introduces another level of uncertainty to an already difficult situation.

Tick Tock, Kliavkoff. Get your Cats rustled up, or some of them are gonna get away.

To you and Frank,

Economics, paradigm shifts in demographics, and a coming downsizing in those eligible for enrollment and the need to distinguish your brand, and legal shifts, are why we are having consolidation. The networks will simply make the most of the situation because that is all they can do. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, that's where we are headed. It's merely adaptation on the behalf of all involved.

It's what I meant when I said giants can see the horizon, and when they move it is because they see what's coming and they adjust to survive. This isn't about growing a conference to grow, It is about safety in numbers, brand distinguishment, and maximizing revenue in the face of uncertainty. It's not about just football or sports, and it is why I believe basketball will follow the same track.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2023 12:32 AM by JRsec.)
01-25-2023 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GarnetAndBlue Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 680
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 135
I Root For: FSU & Michigan
Location:
Post: #395
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 06:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 02:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

I'm no SEC expert, but I don't recall Florida being very good in football until Spurrier left Duke to become the head coach at Florida.
Prior to Spurrier the most notable thing about Gator football was about Charlie Pell and NCAA violations.

IMO this is largely correct.

Before Spurrier arrived in 1989, Florida had made some noise 4-5 years earlier but had gotten wacked by probation, had to forfeit the 1984 SEC title.

Florida did not win their first official SEC title until 1991, after almost 60 years of playing in the league.

Really, before Urban Meyer arrived in 2004, basically Florida's entire football history was tied up with Spurrier - the coaching he did in the 1990s, and before that, as a QB, winning the Heisman Trophy in 1966 and leading Florida to the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl in 1965 and 1966.

Those were the first two major bowls Florida ever played in. They won the 1966 Orange Bowl, and would not win their second major bowl until the 1993 Sugar Bowl.

Yeah this is spot on. Throw in UF not attaining a Top 10 ranking until the last poll of the '83/'84 season. UF likely got a lot of "credibility by association" just by being in the SEC. I don't think a lot of fans realize just how poorly the gators performed in their first 60 years in the conference. And weren't a true national program until even after FSU/Miami. But they certainly built themselves into a solid football power during the 90's/00's. In recent years, the Tebow brand continues to benefit the program.

As an institution UF sky-rocketed in the second half of the last century. Pretty amazing for a school that didn't even tangibly exist until 1906 - easily one of the youngest major universities in the country. Few have come further in such a short amount of time.

I don't see UF as remotely a good fit in the B1G for numerous reasons - most of their fans would lose their minds.
01-25-2023 12:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poster Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,056
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Auburn
Location:
Post: #396
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 11:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 09:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(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.

18 months ago Jim Phillips would have been on the job for 6 months and he was still getting up to speed on the ACC. Had the Presidents hired an ACC guy..............
The bottom line is that the ACC could have had any school that ESPN was willing to pay for. Obviously ESPN preferred to have what was left of the Big 12 stay together and add a few schools, and why not they are getting that league for half price. Since FOX and ESPN have agreed to continue to split the Big 12, each network gets the content they want without having to foot the entire cost.
For FOX and ESPN it's like renting instead of buying.

Yeah - I believe that one of the biggest misnomers in conference realignment discussions is the fan belief that the TV networks *want* consolidation and superconferences. They absolutely do not. If they had their druthers, they'd want the situation of the BCS/early-CFP era where there were 5 conferences with relatively equal branding power and relatively equal valuations. The Big Ten and SEC were still more valuable at that time, but not dramatically so. It's basic economics that if there are fewer suppliers of the top product, then the price of that top product goes way up... and consolidation means fewer suppliers.

So, none of these TV networks are paying for Big Ten and SEC rights because they *like* doing it. They're only paying them because they're now down to 2 choices for the top product in college football as opposed to 5.

My point has kind of been lost in this, but I didn't say "why" those conferences passed, only that they did. It doesn't matter why they passed. Just like if the 4c all decide to stay in the Pac, it's entirely possible that Yormark shifts his focus eastward and decides to fill out his conference from ACC leftovers in 2036 instead of Pac leftovers in 2030. Right now, every Pac school except maybe WSU and OSU could get into the big 12 with a phone call. But what happens if they sign a GoR until 2035 because they're all so anxious to stick together?

The more I look at this, the more I wonder how Kliavkoff is going to be able to get everybody on the same page. To wit:

UW/UO: They want the most money they can get on a contract that ends no later than 2030. No reason not to sign a GoR, but no exit fees.

Cal/Stanford: They'd like to join the B1G, but might not ever get the chance. Probably willing to sign a big GoR, exit fees, long term deal, anything and everything necessary to keep the show rolling. They could easily pivot to the big 12 or perhaps even ACC if necessary in future cycles if things don't work out in the Pac.

4c: Short-sh Term GoR is better because then they get another shot to consider the big 12 before 2036. Probably would want deal to end no later than 2033. No exit fees.

WSU/OSU: Please don't leave us and stick us with the MWC.

4 camps of 2-4 schools each, all with different priorities and agendas. And who knows about the whole streaming vs OTA debate. It could be the PN4 squawking about the change, it could be the 4c, or it could be WSU, Utah and ASU. I have no idea, but that introduces another level of uncertainty to an already difficult situation.

Tick Tock, Kliavkoff. Get your Cats rustled up, or some of them are gonna get away.


I'll be pretty shocked if the PAC signs a grant of rights. It's not even clear to me if the Big 12 has signed a grant of rights, and Kansas is the only school in the conference that's considered to be even a fringe Big 10/SEC candidate.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2023 01:50 AM by Poster.)
01-25-2023 01:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,760
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4707
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #397
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-25-2023 01:48 AM)Poster Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 09:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 11:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  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.

18 months ago Jim Phillips would have been on the job for 6 months and he was still getting up to speed on the ACC. Had the Presidents hired an ACC guy..............
The bottom line is that the ACC could have had any school that ESPN was willing to pay for. Obviously ESPN preferred to have what was left of the Big 12 stay together and add a few schools, and why not they are getting that league for half price. Since FOX and ESPN have agreed to continue to split the Big 12, each network gets the content they want without having to foot the entire cost.
For FOX and ESPN it's like renting instead of buying.

Yeah - I believe that one of the biggest misnomers in conference realignment discussions is the fan belief that the TV networks *want* consolidation and superconferences. They absolutely do not. If they had their druthers, they'd want the situation of the BCS/early-CFP era where there were 5 conferences with relatively equal branding power and relatively equal valuations. The Big Ten and SEC were still more valuable at that time, but not dramatically so. It's basic economics that if there are fewer suppliers of the top product, then the price of that top product goes way up... and consolidation means fewer suppliers.

So, none of these TV networks are paying for Big Ten and SEC rights because they *like* doing it. They're only paying them because they're now down to 2 choices for the top product in college football as opposed to 5.

My point has kind of been lost in this, but I didn't say "why" those conferences passed, only that they did. It doesn't matter why they passed. Just like if the 4c all decide to stay in the Pac, it's entirely possible that Yormark shifts his focus eastward and decides to fill out his conference from ACC leftovers in 2036 instead of Pac leftovers in 2030. Right now, every Pac school except maybe WSU and OSU could get into the big 12 with a phone call. But what happens if they sign a GoR until 2035 because they're all so anxious to stick together?

The more I look at this, the more I wonder how Kliavkoff is going to be able to get everybody on the same page. To wit:

UW/UO: They want the most money they can get on a contract that ends no later than 2030. No reason not to sign a GoR, but no exit fees.

Cal/Stanford: They'd like to join the B1G, but might not ever get the chance. Probably willing to sign a big GoR, exit fees, long term deal, anything and everything necessary to keep the show rolling. They could easily pivot to the big 12 or perhaps even ACC if necessary in future cycles if things don't work out in the Pac.

4c: Short-sh Term GoR is better because then they get another shot to consider the big 12 before 2036. Probably would want deal to end no later than 2033. No exit fees.

WSU/OSU: Please don't leave us and stick us with the MWC.

4 camps of 2-4 schools each, all with different priorities and agendas. And who knows about the whole streaming vs OTA debate. It could be the PN4 squawking about the change, it could be the 4c, or it could be WSU, Utah and ASU. I have no idea, but that introduces another level of uncertainty to an already difficult situation.

Tick Tock, Kliavkoff. Get your Cats rustled up, or some of them are gonna get away.


I'll be pretty shocked if the PAC signs a grant of rights. It's not even clear to me if the Big 12 has signed a grant of rights, and Kansas is the only school in the conference that's considered to be even a fringe Big 10/SEC candidate.

Kansas will only become viable if it looks like basketball will be freed of the NCAA in order to be fully monetized.
01-25-2023 02:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,890
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1907
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #398
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well Paterno was coach for 46 years. Its a little different than saying something like Boise St. is due to Chris Petersen who was only there 8 years.

Penn St. was #2 much of the 68 and 69 season and finished there. They finished #4 in 1947 and were ranked a number of years before Paterno arrived in 1966. Penn St. was below .500 in 1938. And not again until 1988. They have had only 6 losing seasons since 1938. 4 of the 6 were in a 5 year period from 2000-2004. LSU has only had one losing season since Saban arrived, but they had losing records 8 of the 11 seasons prior to his arrival, including 6 years in a row and 20 since 1938. Penn St. has finished in the top 5 13 times since 1968. LSU 6. They have finished in the top 3 nine times. LSU 5.

Looks like PSU has 14 final top fives since the AP poll started in 1936 and LSU 10.

And actually LSU looks like the newbie looking at W/L records (NCAA record book only has top 20 listed for decades prior to 90s):
2010s PSU 18, LSU 6
2000s PSU 29, LSU 8
1990s PSU 6, LSU 67
1980s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1970s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1960s PSU 11, LSU 14
1950s PSU 9, LSU not in top 20 despite winning an MNC in 1958-they had 4 winning seasons, 1 .500, 5 losing seasons.

About the bolded, sure, it's a little different. I think that Bowden/FSU would be a fair comparison.

But the point is, IMO at its peak, and I think Penn State's "star power" is past its peak right now, Penn State's owed a significant component to Paterno. It was really Paterno/Penn State star power/brand appeal

With Paterno gone, I think that has diminished, just as FSU's has diminished without Bowden, and I don't think that is changing soon.

As for W/L, I am skeptical about that, as we can't control for SOS. While we know LSU has been playing an "SEC schedule" for forever, I'm not even sure PSU was playing a "big time" schedule before the 1960s, it may have been an east-coast kind of schedule. That said, no question, in the 70s through the 90s, Penn State clearly out-performed LSU. Those are the decades Paterno made a name for the program.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2023 10:25 AM by quo vadis.)
01-25-2023 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fresno Fanatic Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 304
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Fresno State, MWC, MAC
Location:
Post: #399
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 11:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 08:30 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC on the other hand is still searching for a financier or anybody to sell content to.
The PAC now has four major problems 1) a population that is more inclined to follow pro sports than college and 2) the loss of the biggest single market in their entire footprint, 3) compatibility issues with the only other conference that they abut, 4) limited windows in which to be able to sell their content to other markets.

And it has me scratching my head why the 5 primary western conferences don’t work together in some way to reinvigorate western collegiate sports.

Why look for answers from the east. They’d rather pluck a couple/few, whereas, those couple/few schools will be at a disadvantage compared to the main eastern bloc(s) of the conference(s). They will be on an island, especially their non-football sports. I can’t wait until inflation and wild spending catches up with USCLA’s big tv pay increase. When that point happens, look for those two to fall even further and struggle mightily. Then they’d own BigTen large exit fees. Smart BigTen.

Nobody wants to work with the perceived “lower” conference. It looks desperate in a society that demands it’s better to spit on the perceived lower classes than work with them.

Yeah, who wants $75m when you can instead make $50m? Not me, I'd rather subsidize schools that don't prioritize or often even care about football.

Right. So pac12 members need to realize there is no eastern savior conference. And the only way to maximize 80 million western state’s population, is to work exclusively with all western schools. Even Big West and Big Sky.

No! Not saying equal pay between the 5 western conferences, LOL. I’m saying if fans from MW or BigSky see Pac10’s success on field/court helps their school’s conference even a little bit, and vice versa, then create a working alliance that makes it happen.

So pac tv value goes from $25mm to $40mm because fans of 4 other conferences are part of the alliance.

MW from $4mm to $8mm

Big West/Big Sky from nothing to a little something.

WCC the same increase proportionately.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2023 11:15 AM by Fresno Fanatic.)
01-25-2023 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 57,918
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2477
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #400
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-25-2023 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well Paterno was coach for 46 years. Its a little different than saying something like Boise St. is due to Chris Petersen who was only there 8 years.

Penn St. was #2 much of the 68 and 69 season and finished there. They finished #4 in 1947 and were ranked a number of years before Paterno arrived in 1966. Penn St. was below .500 in 1938. And not again until 1988. They have had only 6 losing seasons since 1938. 4 of the 6 were in a 5 year period from 2000-2004. LSU has only had one losing season since Saban arrived, but they had losing records 8 of the 11 seasons prior to his arrival, including 6 years in a row and 20 since 1938. Penn St. has finished in the top 5 13 times since 1968. LSU 6. They have finished in the top 3 nine times. LSU 5.

Looks like PSU has 14 final top fives since the AP poll started in 1936 and LSU 10.

And actually LSU looks like the newbie looking at W/L records (NCAA record book only has top 20 listed for decades prior to 90s):
2010s PSU 18, LSU 6
2000s PSU 29, LSU 8
1990s PSU 6, LSU 67
1980s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1970s PSU 6, LSU not in top 20
1960s PSU 11, LSU 14
1950s PSU 9, LSU not in top 20 despite winning an MNC in 1958-they had 4 winning seasons, 1 .500, 5 losing seasons.

About the bolded, sure, it's a little different. I think that Bowden/FSU would be a fair comparison.

But the point is, IMO at its peak, and I think Penn State's "star power" is past its peak right now, Penn State's owed a significant component to Paterno. It was really Paterno/Penn State star power/brand appeal

With Paterno gone, I think that has diminished, just as FSU's has diminished without Bowden, and I don't think that is changing soon.

As for W/L, I am skeptical about that, as we can't control for SOS. While we know LSU has been playing an "SEC schedule" for forever, I'm not even sure PSU was playing a "big time" schedule before the 1960s, it may have been an east-coast kind of schedule. That said, no question, in the 70s through the 90s, Penn State clearly out-performed LSU. Those are the decades Paterno made a name for the program.

LSU was playing an "SEC" schedule, but it wasn't unusual for them to play only 5 conference games. Sometimes they only played 4. Looking through their schedule, I only see 6 years up until 1989 when the SEC moved to 7 games that LSU did play more than 6. I don't know what PSU's schedule looked like prior to the 70s, but there were a lot of strong teams in the northeast in those days.
01-25-2023 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2023 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2023 MyBB Group.