(07-18-2023 05:44 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:42 PM)UIWElite Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:08 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People need to stop writing that Arizona and Colorado are leaving for the Big 12

CU and UA are leaving for the Big XII, if the PAC can't get a great TV contract.

Why would the Big 12 only take UA and not take ASU?

ASU would be offered but will they choose to go?

If Colorado and Arizona are leaving, why would they choose to stay??

(07-18-2023 06:03 PM)UIWElite Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:44 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:42 PM)UIWElite Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:08 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People need to stop writing that Arizona and Colorado are leaving for the Big 12

CU and UA are leaving for the Big XII, if the PAC can't get a great TV contract.

Why would the Big 12 only take UA and not take ASU?

ASU would be offered but will they choose to go?

If Colorado and Arizona are leaving, why would they choose to stay??

They prefer the PAC, all things being mostly equal.

Conveniently timed article

(07-18-2023 05:33 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:41 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

That little snippet at the end about preferring to be in a 10 team conference rather than 16 because of the playoff is a dead give away that the source is Kirk Schulz. He has been spoon feeding that nonsense to Canzano for over a year now. So I guess this is now the what 5th or 6th "timeline" he has provided, I guess if he just keeps providing them he will eventually be right.

I think Dinich typically seeks out commissioners and vice versa. This could be Kliakov or Schulz.

Kliakov on the other hand should know the expanded CFP payoff will be per school for power leagues, not per conference as is the case now.

This!

Pay attention to the relevant chatter, sports forum warriors!

Anyone think B1G (16), SEC (16), ACC (14) and Big12 (12, maybe 14) are gonna NOT want PER TEAM distribution of playoff monies for the P5 portion? It’s common sense!

Unless, of course, PAC-10 gets 6 votes in Autonomous-5 meetings…

(07-18-2023 05:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:35 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  It's gonna be CBS taking 1 game a week (probably first pick too), CW taking 1 game a week, ESPN taking 1 or 2 games a week (probably a 1.5/week average for the after dark slots), and then the rest on Pac12N.

P12N has no distribution. They were using Comcast.

I watch the Pac-12 Network on Spectrum. They are also available Cox, Dish, Frontier, and Xfinity, among others. The Pac-12 Network is not available on DirecTV. That is the one that has really hurt the conference.

(07-18-2023 05:42 PM)UIWElite Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:08 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People need to stop writing that Arizona and Colorado are leaving for the Big 12

CU and UA are leaving for the Big XII, if the PAC can't get a great TV contract.

Why would the Big 12 only take UA and not take ASU?

Because politicians

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

The Pac-12 has never wavered from its timeline, which has been to complete its media deal, get the grant of rights signed, and then consider further expansion. According to sources, the Pac-12 board months ago narrowed its scope to a handful of schools. However, because the expanded, 12-team College Football Playoff will reward the six-highest ranked conference champions in 2024, some schools in the league believe there will be a benefit to being in a conference of 10 as opposed to 16.

REALLY bad news for SDSU. Par for the course for the Pac and big 12 b/c no new information has come out at all.

As far as the Pac never "wavered from it's timeline", apparently Dinich has never talked to any of the Pac Presidents, or heard about their regular predictions of an imminent deal that always prove to be wrong. First of the year, February, then April, May, June, July, now August...I mean, there are only so many months in the year guys, help us out here.

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

From the article:

However, because the expanded, 12-team College Football Playoff will reward the six-highest ranked conference champions in 2024, some schools in the league believe there will be a benefit to being in a conference of 10 as opposed to 16.

So schools are stalling ( Think Stanford, Cal, Oregon & Washington who hope to go to the BIG10)

Can't make this crap up!

(07-18-2023 08:18 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

From the article:

However, because the expanded, 12-team College Football Playoff will reward the six-highest ranked conference champions in 2024, some schools in the league believe there will be a benefit to being in a conference of 10 as opposed to 16.

So schools are stalling ( Think Stanford, Cal, Oregon & Washington who hope to go to the BIG10)

Can't make this crap up!

Stalling is obvious. Strength at 10 versus 12 or more is apparent given the Big 12's success in a 10 team model that past decade.

Where that falls short is the PAC needs SoCal access and SDSU is the only team that provides it. SDSU is critical to the PAC's present and future. They should take them and stay 11 if they must, because SDSU is destined for the PAC. Any stalling on the addition of SDSU is just reducing the time they could be spending helping grow that brand and will be at this same situation a decade later asking "why did we wait to do this now."

(07-19-2023 10:18 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 08:18 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

From the article:

However, because the expanded, 12-team College Football Playoff will reward the six-highest ranked conference champions in 2024, some schools in the league believe there will be a benefit to being in a conference of 10 as opposed to 16.

So schools are stalling ( Think Stanford, Cal, Oregon & Washington who hope to go to the BIG10)

Can't make this crap up!

Stalling is obvious. Strength at 10 versus 12 or more is apparent given the Big 12's success in a 10 team model that past decade.

Where that falls short is the PAC needs SoCal access and SDSU is the only team that provides it. SDSU is critical to the PAC's present and future. They should take them and stay 11 if they must, because SDSU is destined for the PAC. Any stalling on the addition of SDSU is just reducing the time they could be spending helping grow that brand and will be at this same situation a decade later asking "why did we wait to do this now."

Outside of Oregon St & Washington St no one believes they will be in the PAC a decade from now. More prominent with SMU than SDSU but why take the short term hit if you aren't planning to be around to reap the benefit?

(07-19-2023 10:39 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 10:18 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 08:18 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

From the article:

However, because the expanded, 12-team College Football Playoff will reward the six-highest ranked conference champions in 2024, some schools in the league believe there will be a benefit to being in a conference of 10 as opposed to 16.

So schools are stalling ( Think Stanford, Cal, Oregon & Washington who hope to go to the BIG10)

Can't make this crap up!

Stalling is obvious. Strength at 10 versus 12 or more is apparent given the Big 12's success in a 10 team model that past decade.

Where that falls short is the PAC needs SoCal access and SDSU is the only team that provides it. SDSU is critical to the PAC's present and future. They should take them and stay 11 if they must, because SDSU is destined for the PAC. Any stalling on the addition of SDSU is just reducing the time they could be spending helping grow that brand and will be at this same situation a decade later asking "why did we wait to do this now."

Outside of Oregon St & Washington St no one believes they will be in the PAC a decade from now. More prominent with SMU than SDSU but why take the short term hit if you aren't planning to be around to reap the benefit?

I don't think that is true in even the wildest of timelines. There will be a PAC. It may not resemble the current PAC in any way, but it will exist and SDSU will be a part of it.

I see many similarities between where the PAC is now/heading, and where the Big 12 was/is now. Compare Big 12 expansion with TCU and West Virginia. True neither of those programs are Nebraska or A&M, but they provided much needed bodies in the conference and their brands have had to adapt and develop in the Big 12. West Virginia has been stagnant, but TCU has blossomed. Nobody thinks those programs aren't worthy of Big 12 status. Now we are looking at BYU, Houston, Cincy, and UCF. On the one hand, too many G5 additions makes the Big 12 appear weak. On the other hand, being able to build these programs and their brands in the Big 12 would have blunted any edges around future growth. Imagine if BYU and Cincy were added back in 2016 and we only had to consider Houston and UCF this time around. Like their predecessors, there would be time to adapt those brands to the conference and P5 structure.

Waiting to add to SDSU is trying to delay the inevitable. If it is coming, add them now and build the brand so that your conference is stronger for the future.

(07-19-2023 10:47 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  I don't think that is true in even the wildest of timelines. There will be a PAC. It may not resemble the current PAC in any way, but it will exist and SDSU will be a part of it.

I see many similarities between where the PAC is now/heading, and where the Big 12 was/is now. Compare Big 12 expansion with TCU and West Virginia. True neither of those programs are Nebraska or A&M, but they provided much needed bodies in the conference and their brands have had to adapt and develop in the Big 12. West Virginia has been stagnant, but TCU has blossomed. Nobody thinks those programs aren't worthy of Big 12 status. Now we are looking at BYU, Houston, Cincy, and UCF. On the one hand, too many G5 additions makes the Big 12 appear weak. On the other hand, being able to build these programs and their brands in the Big 12 would have blunted any edges around future growth. Imagine if BYU and Cincy were added back in 2016 and we only had to consider Houston and UCF this time around. Like their predecessors, there would be time to adapt those brands to the conference and P5 structure.

Waiting to add to SDSU is trying to delay the inevitable. If it is coming, add them now and build the brand so that your conference is stronger for the future.

The difference between the Big 12 and PAC is that they had viable replacements within their footprint. The PAC simply does not have that, because of population skew and demographics. It’s apples and oranges.

SMU is such a massive drop off from UCLA for example. Is BYU and Houston as big a dropoff to OUT? Not by a long shot. And the current valuations speak for themselves. Let’s even say SMU is added at 15 million. Is that comparable to what UCLA is making? Not even ball park. And keep in mind, SMU is outside the PAC footprint as is.

So the comparison is not applicable in the slightest. Can they survive as a 10-team conference? Maybe (if they keep everyone or only lose CU). I personally think they need to go national and add both Texas schools and USF/Tulane to stay relevant. Build those programs up while UO and UW play out the string of their PAC12 stint.

(07-18-2023 07:17 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 05:33 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:41 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

That little snippet at the end about preferring to be in a 10 team conference rather than 16 because of the playoff is a dead give away that the source is Kirk Schulz. He has been spoon feeding that nonsense to Canzano for over a year now. So I guess this is now the what 5th or 6th "timeline" he has provided, I guess if he just keeps providing them he will eventually be right.

I think Dinich typically seeks out commissioners and vice versa. This could be Kliakov or Schulz.

Kliakov on the other hand should know the expanded CFP payoff will be per school for power leagues, not per conference as is the case now.

This!

Pay attention to the relevant chatter, sports forum warriors!

Anyone think B1G (16), SEC (16), ACC (14) and Big12 (12, maybe 14) are gonna NOT want PER TEAM distribution of playoff monies for the P5 portion? It’s common sense!

Unless, of course, PAC-10 gets 6 votes in Autonomous-5 meetings…

Its easier to make the Playoff in a 10-team conference.

Come on guys, thats the obvious benefit. Think a little.

Yes, a single bid conference being 1 of 10 is easier than a 2 or 3 bid conference of 16, as the odd are only 1 in 5.33 if 3 and only 1 in 8 if 2 instead of 1 in 10 remaining in the Pac-10.

Canzano and Wilner logic explained.

(07-19-2023 11:18 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Yes, a single bid conference being 1 of 10 is easier than a 2 or 3 bid conference of 16, as the odd are only 1 in 5.33 if 3 and only 1 in 8 if 2 instead of 1 in 10 remaining in the Pac-10.

Canzano and Wilner logic explained.

Good luck explaining numbers, you'll get blocked. While I don't think 3 bids is likely for anyone outside of the B1G and SEC, I do think a Big 16 would get 2 bids every year. Which means the odds in a 16 team alignment of making the playoffs is superior in the Big 12 than it would be in 10 team PAC 10.

The deal will not be announced at Pac-12 football media day on Friday in Las Vegas, the source told ESPN. It is likely to include a mix of streaming and linear options and is expected to be on-par with the ACC and Big 12, the source said.

From the Article

Not buying it. In no way do these 10 teams give you the market TV share as the other two conferences. Bang for buck not there. Common sense.

(07-19-2023 11:22 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 11:18 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Yes, a single bid conference being 1 of 10 is easier than a 2 or 3 bid conference of 16, as the odd are only 1 in 5.33 if 3 and only 1 in 8 if 2 instead of 1 in 10 remaining in the Pac-10.

Canzano and Wilner logic explained.

Good luck explaining numbers, you'll get blocked. While I don't think 3 bids is likely for anyone outside of the B1G and SEC, I do think a Big 16 would get 2 bids every year. Which means the odds in a 16 team alignment of making the playoffs is superior in the Big 12 than it would be in 10 team PAC 10.

Opinion and speculation. Zero proof.

The one thing that I wondered about is if you are bidding on PAC tv rights and you know that any bid amount short of Big-12 would cause some PAC schools to leave the conference, why bid on the PAC tv rights in the first place?

If you are bidding on PAC tv rights and really truly want them, then the bidder has got to put money on the table to make the PAC whole in comparison to Big-12.

(07-18-2023 04:37 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  We’ve been hearing a deal will be done soon for months now

I’m skeptical but Another reporter on twitter said a potential partner has come into the picture who was not in the picture 6 months ago, I wonder who could that be?

The problem is that we've heard about new "potential partners" for so long that the Pac is running out of them. Maybe they're looking to European or Asian streamers? Sky Sports? I dunno, that might offend the Big Sky Conference.

(07-19-2023 10:47 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 10:39 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 10:18 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 08:18 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 04:29 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ted-future

Strangely positive from espn and a lot of optimism it seems.

From the article:

However, because the expanded, 12-team College Football Playoff will reward the six-highest ranked conference champions in 2024, some schools in the league believe there will be a benefit to being in a conference of 10 as opposed to 16.

So schools are stalling ( Think Stanford, Cal, Oregon & Washington who hope to go to the BIG10)

Can't make this crap up!

Stalling is obvious. Strength at 10 versus 12 or more is apparent given the Big 12's success in a 10 team model that past decade.

Where that falls short is the PAC needs SoCal access and SDSU is the only team that provides it. SDSU is critical to the PAC's present and future. They should take them and stay 11 if they must, because SDSU is destined for the PAC. Any stalling on the addition of SDSU is just reducing the time they could be spending helping grow that brand and will be at this same situation a decade later asking "why did we wait to do this now."

Outside of Oregon St & Washington St no one believes they will be in the PAC a decade from now. More prominent with SMU than SDSU but why take the short term hit if you aren't planning to be around to reap the benefit?

I don't think that is true in even the wildest of timelines. There will be a PAC. It may not resemble the current PAC in any way, but it will exist and SDSU will be a part of it.

I see many similarities between where the PAC is now/heading, and where the Big 12 was/is now. Compare Big 12 expansion with TCU and West Virginia. True neither of those programs are Nebraska or A&M, but they provided much needed bodies in the conference and their brands have had to adapt and develop in the Big 12. West Virginia has been stagnant, but TCU has blossomed. Nobody thinks those programs aren't worthy of Big 12 status. Now we are looking at BYU, Houston, Cincy, and UCF. On the one hand, too many G5 additions makes the Big 12 appear weak. On the other hand, being able to build these programs and their brands in the Big 12 would have blunted any edges around future growth. Imagine if BYU and Cincy were added back in 2016 and we only had to consider Houston and UCF this time around. Like their predecessors, there would be time to adapt those brands to the conference and P5 structure.

Waiting to add to SDSU is trying to delay the inevitable. If it is coming, add them now and build the brand so that your conference is stronger for the future.

I would add that Utah University became much stronger when it joined the PAC and could boost its recruiting. Also, two other schools that benefited greatly with their P5 membership are Arizona U and Arizona State, formerly of the WAC.