(02-09-2023 08:58 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 05:00 PM)Comet Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The last paragraph of the article is interesting because it's bringing up the prospect that the Big 12 may be interested in taking SMU before the Pac-12 to protect its territory in DFW.

If anyone listened to the latest College Football Enquirer podcast, Ross Dellenger of SI actually gave more in-depth details about the exact same thing. Essentially, the Big 12 wasn't interested in SMU last year (or more to the point, several members such as TCU didn't want to elevate an in-state/market rival), but Dellenger heavily implied that there have been new talks between the Big 12 and SMU because the Big 12 legitimately wouldn't want the Pac-12 in their backyard. The Big 12 has also talked to SDSU, but realistically, SDSU would always take a Pac-12 invite over a Big 12 invite. That's not the case with SMU, though. SMU's dream league would logically be the Big 12. The power dynamics between the Pac-12 and Big 12 might suddenly make SMU into a hotter commodity than originally anticipated.

Even as an SMU fan I truly think the Big 12 would face an opportunity cost they might not want to take on by grabbing SMU just to hold off the PAC-12 from entering DFW. Is SMU going to the PAC really more threatening to them than the chance of having an extra mouth to feed when in some years time the PAC breaks apart and you have programs like Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona potentially looking for a home?

Agreed, this seems extremely shortsighted if the B12 were to invite SMU just to keep the P12 out of Texas. Especially since the B12 could just invite Rice or UTSA instead and still get into Texas. Inviting SDSU along with AZ + ASU would do more to cripple the P12 than trying to block in Texas with SMU ever would.

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

Interesting point.

I still think SMU is a good addition, but after the 4 I listed above. (AZ, AZ state, SDSU, and Frenso state)

Maybe added with USF to add a Florida travel partner for UCF.

Especially if they convince the ACC to accept WV and Cin.

(02-09-2023 05:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 05:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The last paragraph of the article is interesting because it's bringing up the prospect that the Big 12 may be interested in taking SMU before the Pac-12 to protect its territory in DFW.

If anyone listened to the latest College Football Enquirer podcast, Ross Dellenger of SI actually gave more in-depth details about the exact same thing. Essentially, the Big 12 wasn't interested in SMU last year (or more to the point, several members such as TCU didn't want to elevate an in-state/market rival), but Dellenger heavily implied that there have been new talks between the Big 12 and SMU because the Big 12 legitimately wouldn't want the Pac-12 in their backyard. The Big 12 has also talked to SDSU, but realistically, SDSU would always take a Pac-12 invite over a Big 12 invite. That's not the case with SMU, though. SMU's dream league would logically be the Big 12. The power dynamics between the Pac-12 and Big 12 might suddenly make SMU into a hotter commodity than originally anticipated.

I really really doubt that happens, when push comes to shove.

The Big 12 is already behind the SEC in Texas. I don't think they're skeered of a PAC-12 powered SMU in their backyard. At least not enough to cut SMU a revenue check out of their pockets. Especially since #13 needs a #14, with neither ESPN nor Fox committed to giving the Big 12 more money.

Oh - for sure. Personally, I doubt this happens. It didn't even cross my mind as a possibility until the fact that two separate legitimate reporters brought it up on their own today (with Dellenger being much more detailed that this possibility is real).

It's an interesting prisoner's dilemma situation for Big 12 schools like TCU, though. (I'll refer to TCU here as a proxy for any Texas-based Big 12 school that would have wanted to block SMU from joining in order to protect their territory.)

In 2021, it made total sense for TCU to block SMU. In that case, TCU would have been actively elevating SMU to P5 status to compete with TCU right in their own backyard when the alternative would have been letting SMU flounder with G5 status in the AAC. That was a no-brainer.

Now, though, you have to think about it. Regardless of what people what say about the value of the new Pac-12 TV deal and/or the branding value of SMU itself, if you're looking at it through the prism of what are the best national brands coming into town in the DFW market, Pac-12 schools like Oregon and Washington have those brands if SMU joins that league. Meanwhile, the Big 12 doesn't have Texas and Oklahoma to rely upon anymore. So, TCU may very well look at it as, "If SMU is going to elevate itself to P5 status, then we'd rather be the ones in control doing it instead of introducing an NIL monster like Oregon into our home market." It may be less about SMU and more that some pretty wealthy NIL-backed programs from the Pac-12 would be suddenly coming into DFW.

Do I think that's how TCU is thinking? No, probably not. My guess is that the Big 12 just wants to be happy with what looks like will be a better TV deal compared to the Pac-12 and hope (as deluded as it might be) that the Four Corners schools will come back with interest when this all shakes out.

However, it's an interesting wrinkle to all of this here.

Very interesting points.

On today's SBJ podcast they were even more bearish, suggesting that ESPN may not view the Pac as a priority

Here's Ourand.

(02-09-2023 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The last paragraph of the article is interesting because it's bringing up the prospect that the Big 12 may be interested in taking SMU before the Pac-12 to protect its territory in DFW.

If anyone listened to the latest College Football Enquirer podcast, Ross Dellenger of SI actually gave more in-depth details about the exact same thing. Essentially, the Big 12 wasn't interested in SMU last year (or more to the point, several members such as TCU didn't want to elevate an in-state/market rival), but Dellenger heavily implied that there have been new talks between the Big 12 and SMU because the Big 12 legitimately wouldn't want the Pac-12 in their backyard. The Big 12 has also talked to SDSU, but realistically, SDSU would always take a Pac-12 invite over a Big 12 invite. That's not the case with SMU, though. SMU's dream league would logically be the Big 12. The power dynamics between the Pac-12 and Big 12 might suddenly make SMU into a hotter commodity than originally anticipated.

Laughable. No one in the Big 12 is worried about SMU games on Amazon.

(02-10-2023 11:24 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The last paragraph of the article is interesting because it's bringing up the prospect that the Big 12 may be interested in taking SMU before the Pac-12 to protect its territory in DFW.

If anyone listened to the latest College Football Enquirer podcast, Ross Dellenger of SI actually gave more in-depth details about the exact same thing. Essentially, the Big 12 wasn't interested in SMU last year (or more to the point, several members such as TCU didn't want to elevate an in-state/market rival), but Dellenger heavily implied that there have been new talks between the Big 12 and SMU because the Big 12 legitimately wouldn't want the Pac-12 in their backyard. The Big 12 has also talked to SDSU, but realistically, SDSU would always take a Pac-12 invite over a Big 12 invite. That's not the case with SMU, though. SMU's dream league would logically be the Big 12. The power dynamics between the Pac-12 and Big 12 might suddenly make SMU into a hotter commodity than originally anticipated.

Laughable. No one in the Big 12 is worried about SMU games on Amazon.

I don't think the worry for the Big 12 is about SMU games on Amazon.

Instead, I think it's more of a *possible* concern about Oregon and their Nike-fueled NIL machine (along with the other strong Pac-12 programs like Washington and Utah or those that can sell academics to recruits like Stanford) coming directly into DFW regularly for recruits. That's a new threat to schools like TCU and other Texas-based schools beyond the fact that SMU itself might be in the Pac-12 (whereas that larger threat doesn't materialize if the Big 12 comes in and adds SMU instead).

To be clear, I personally don't think this is such a massive concern to the Big 12 that they would add SMU simply for that reason. My guess is that the Pac-12 adds SDSU and SMU while the Big 12 doesn't move further. However, it's something to think about that I don't think can be just passed off as a non-starter.

Oregon already recruits Texas.

Never mind SMU, the Big 12 would take Oregon and its threatening NIL warchest in a heartbeat, even if meant losing them to the Big 10 in 2031.

(02-10-2023 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 11:24 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The last paragraph of the article is interesting because it's bringing up the prospect that the Big 12 may be interested in taking SMU before the Pac-12 to protect its territory in DFW.

If anyone listened to the latest College Football Enquirer podcast, Ross Dellenger of SI actually gave more in-depth details about the exact same thing. Essentially, the Big 12 wasn't interested in SMU last year (or more to the point, several members such as TCU didn't want to elevate an in-state/market rival), but Dellenger heavily implied that there have been new talks between the Big 12 and SMU because the Big 12 legitimately wouldn't want the Pac-12 in their backyard. The Big 12 has also talked to SDSU, but realistically, SDSU would always take a Pac-12 invite over a Big 12 invite. That's not the case with SMU, though. SMU's dream league would logically be the Big 12. The power dynamics between the Pac-12 and Big 12 might suddenly make SMU into a hotter commodity than originally anticipated.

Laughable. No one in the Big 12 is worried about SMU games on Amazon.

I don't think the worry for the Big 12 is about SMU games on Amazon.

Instead, I think it's more of a *possible* concern about Oregon and their Nike-fueled NIL machine (along with the other strong Pac-12 programs like Washington and Utah or those that can sell academics to recruits like Stanford) coming directly into DFW regularly for recruits. That's a new threat to schools like TCU and other Texas-based schools beyond the fact that SMU itself might be in the Pac-12 (whereas that larger threat doesn't materialize if the Big 12 comes in and adds SMU instead).

To be clear, I personally don't think this is such a massive concern to the Big 12 that they would add SMU simply for that reason. My guess is that the Pac-12 adds SDSU and SMU while the Big 12 doesn't move further. However, it's something to think about that I don't think can be just passed off as a non-starter.

I agree. The question becomes will the the PAC get what the BIG12 gets with SDSU & SMU since they will have about 1-1.5m more tv homes with SDSU & SMU add? 31M per year per school? (Big12 in 15M homes after Texas & OU leave, Pac12 has 16.5M TV homes in their market with SDSU & SMU add)

It's not just about how many TV households, it's about penetration of those markets and ratings.

(02-10-2023 12:10 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Oregon already recruits Texas.

Never mind SMU, the Big 12 would take Oregon and its threatening NIL warchest in a heartbeat, even if meant losing them to the Big 10 in 2031.

Of course the B12 would take Oregon. Oregon wouldn't go to the B12.

(02-10-2023 12:10 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Oregon already recruits Texas.

Never mind SMU, the Big 12 would take Oregon and its threatening NIL warchest in a heartbeat, even if meant losing them to the Big 10 in 2031.

Oregon actually got 5 of the top 100 from Texas this year. Same as LSU and Baylor and more than anyone else other than Texas, TCU, Texas A&M and Texas Tech. Only 2 less than the rest of the SEC (excluding A&M and LSU).

(02-09-2023 10:43 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If the PAC is supposed to have all the brightest minds in charge than why are the lowly B12 schools making them look like 2nd class citizens? AAU is over rated and never have I watched game wondering or caring if a school is AAU or R1.

Street Smart > Book Smart

(02-10-2023 01:38 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 10:43 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If the PAC is supposed to have all the brightest minds in charge than why are the lowly B12 schools making them look like 2nd class citizens? AAU is over rated and never have I watched game wondering or caring if a school is AAU or R1.

Street Smart > Book Smart

Street Smart and Book Smart > Street Smart

(Just messing with you, GBison.)

(02-10-2023 01:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 01:38 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 10:43 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If the PAC is supposed to have all the brightest minds in charge than why are the lowly B12 schools making them look like 2nd class citizens? AAU is over rated and never have I watched game wondering or caring if a school is AAU or R1.

Street Smart > Book Smart

Street Smart and Book Smart > Street Smart

(Just messing with you, GBison.)

Any smart > Smartass! (Just turning the messing around Bill!)

Maybe the problem with the Pac isn't Kliavkoff.

Larry Scott very much wore out his welcome. Media deals were poorly distributed and revenue was way behind competitors. This despite his boldness in pursuing six Big 12 schools in 2010 and rolling the dice with the Pac-12 Networks.

Before Scott, there was Thomas Hansen. The Pac-12's TV contract was barely ahead of the Big East's among the then-Power 6 (or "BCS conferences). Members complained about time slots and distribution then, too.

Maybe it doesn't matter who the leader is. Maybe it's the product. And I don't say that to bash Pac-12 members. Clearly, they command exponentially more than my school's conference. But it's been behind the other power leagues for a long time under multiple commissioners.

(02-10-2023 02:56 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Maybe the problem with the Pac isn't Kliavkoff.

Larry Scott very much wore out his welcome. Media deals were poorly distributed and revenue was way behind competitors. This despite his boldness in pursuing six Big 12 schools in 2010 and rolling the dice with the Pac-12 Networks.

Before Scott, there was Thomas Hansen. The Pac-12's TV contract was barely ahead of the Big East's among the then-Power 6 (or "BCS conferences). Members complained about time slots and distribution then, too.

Maybe it doesn't matter who the leader is. Maybe it's the product. And I don't say that to bash Pac-12 members. Clearly, they command exponentially more than my school's conference. But it's been behind the other power leagues for a long time under multiple commissioners.

Larry Scott was definitely a problem, but in his defense, he brought expansion to the table and the PAC presidents balked. I mean they could have had both Oklahoma and Texas if they were willing to take Tech and Ok St. Instead they got Colorado

(02-10-2023 02:59 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 02:56 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Maybe the problem with the Pac isn't Kliavkoff.

Larry Scott very much wore out his welcome. Media deals were poorly distributed and revenue was way behind competitors. This despite his boldness in pursuing six Big 12 schools in 2010 and rolling the dice with the Pac-12 Networks.

Before Scott, there was Thomas Hansen. The Pac-12's TV contract was barely ahead of the Big East's among the then-Power 6 (or "BCS conferences). Members complained about time slots and distribution then, too.

Maybe it doesn't matter who the leader is. Maybe it's the product. And I don't say that to bash Pac-12 members. Clearly, they command exponentially more than my school's conference. But it's been behind the other power leagues for a long time under multiple commissioners.

Larry Scott was definitely a problem, but in his defense, he brought expansion to the table and the PAC presidents balked. I mean they could have had both Oklahoma and Texas if they were willing to take Tech and Ok St. Instead they got Colorado

Eh - that's a misnomer. They could have had Texas if they were willing to take The Longhorn Network. That simply was a non-starter for the then-Pac-10 because the whole premise of the Pac-16 was to make a new conference network into a copy of the Big Ten Network with even bigger markets. Removing Texas from that equation defeated the financial value of expansion in their minds. (We can argue whether that was smart or not, but remember that legacy Pac-10 schools like USC were bringing in just as many households as Texas, so this wasn't like UT's power in the Big 12.)

Ultimately, the Pac-10 was willing to take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. This all came down to media rights.

(02-10-2023 01:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 01:38 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(02-09-2023 10:43 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If the PAC is supposed to have all the brightest minds in charge than why are the lowly B12 schools making them look like 2nd class citizens? AAU is over rated and never have I watched game wondering or caring if a school is AAU or R1.

Street Smart > Book Smart

Street Smart and Book Smart > Street Smart

(Just messing with you, GBison.)

Smart Ass > Dumb Ass

The PAC and ACC have always sort of sucked. The PAC didn’t seem to be keenly aware of it though. When the BigXII and ACC got poached (the former at the expense of the PAC) I think the PAC further fell under the misconception that it had climbed a few rungs in the hierarchy. The PAC was overly ambitious as a result resulting primarily in a disastrous P12N misadventure. The PAC still ignored the warning signs when it’s G5 call-up started knocking off its top teams with regularity. No sense of urgency arose.

The PAC now faces the issue of its bubble being popped. There are a lot of panicked people who then descend into despair because they never made a critical self appraisal and determined their real value. So they don’t know if they’re worthless or have any value at all.

The schools are still good. The athletic facilities are still good. The markets are still good. The recruiting access is still good. They just have to start doing something with those attributes if they want to put a commensurately good product on the field on get paid. Right now that’s not deserved. But moving around doesn’t fix the underachieving as it’s always been an internal issue rather than one that resulted from extrinsic forces.

"George Kliavkoff has been given to the middle of April to figure this out and put a real deal on the table."


https://twitter.com/jasonscheer/status/1...7801859073

Midnight is near, the glass slipper is already off and the carriage is starting to turn orange...