(09-03-2023 02:56 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 10:13 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 04:42 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ...
It'll also be hard on the Arizona schools and Colorado to be disconnected from the California alumni, and not showing their faces in the high schools they draw so many students from.
...

Which is why I'm still watching to see if something might happen with San Diego State.

If the MWC does merge to the PAC, that could mean an opportunity for SDSU to head a lot more inexpensively to the Big12...

That is our hope right now but not hearing anything. Prior to Calford going to the ACc JD Wicker said that the B12 was "done for now." Both Zona schools and Utah recruit here and have established contacts in the area that they want to continue. It really comes down to ESPN and whether they want more Pacific TZ games. Obviously. SDSU comes in at a discount which is what was offered back in February. However, back then getting all of the 4 corner schools was unlikely for the B12.

To be honest, if the B12 wanted to look west then SDSU and Fresno would be the best add. I think that combination beats what the ACC was just gifted in the Bay Area. B12 would be second in the California market behind the B1G.

Fresno State is an idea. But Yomark, et al, seemed to be really interested in UNLV.

But regardless, there are a lot of pairing options. Especially now that 30% seems to be the new "floor" for G5 additions. (I think most see that SMU's "floor" of "zero" is unique to them.)

(09-03-2023 05:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 03:26 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 04:42 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Western half of the US was the biggest loser. We lost a lot of our identity in college sports. It could turn the region into another New England, only with a much larger and wealthier chunk of the American population, where nobody much watches. Sure, all the schools that matter landed, but it's going to be hard for fans and alumni to get excited about USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Stanford and Cal playing conference "rivals" over 2,500 miles away with no shared history or culture. It'll also be hard on the Arizona schools and Colorado to be disconnected from the California alumni, and not showing their faces in the high schools they draw so many students from.

It feels like a death of the patriarch of a family, and all the children leave home and go away.

I agree that the demise of the Pac-12 is sad for many reasons.

That said, the six New England states have a higher median income than the current Pac-12 states, so you're wrong there. Moreover, empirical data would seem to suggest that New England should be a model for "left behind" schools. Even NESCAC (D3) schools have engaged alumni bases and sport some of the highest annual giving rates in the country.

I meant the Pacific Coast, with LA, SF, Portland and Seattle. New England is actually one of the poorest regions in the US, excepting parts of Connecticut and the immediate Boston area with the schools and medical HQs.

Statistics would suggest otherwise (New Hampshire is wealthier by median income than California). But yes-obviously the cities drive wealth-just like they do in California, Washington, etc.

(09-03-2023 03:55 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 04:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-02-2023 03:57 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-02-2023 01:29 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-02-2023 12:11 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  He’s the face of the Pac-12 collapse no question about it but it started with Larry Scott and it ended with USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten.

When you have 8 out of 10 schools thinking they have better options……there’s not much he could’ve done to save the conference. I’m not defending him, he was one of the symptoms but not the disease. I blame the Pac-12 presidents for the demise of the conference. From tolerating Larry Scott’s lavish lifestyle to blocking expansion when they had the opportunity to kill the Big XII in the fall of 2021. Now Oregon State and Wazzu are left with two options: expand with what they have even if it’s not much or go to the MWC.

Last but not least, is he still the commissioner? I haven’t heard from him since Oregon and Washington announced their departure to the Big Ten. The presidents of OSU and WSU might be the de facto commissioners of what’s left of the “Conference of Champions.”

Kliavkoff was dealt a bad hand, but he also compounded the problem by making his own horrible decisions. He was the most visible face of the scheduling Alliance (…we don’t need a formal contract, “there’s an agreement amongst three gentlemen”). He didn’t aggressively pursue B12 programs when they were all available in the summer 2021. Immediately after OUT made the announcement to leave for the SEC, B12 programs and Bob Bowlsby recognized the changed environment…it only took B1G programs about 6 months to comprehend the new business model. Kliavkoff was in clueless for more than 18 months. After the USCLA announcement, he didn’t work to immediately reload the conference. When ESPN offered $30M, he didn’t convince PAC presidents of a realistic value for their rights. He failed to find a media partner throughout 2023…even though members patiently waited.

I agree with you for the most part except for expansion. The commissioner can propose anything he/she wants (e.g. expansion, tv deals) but at the end of the day, presidents make those decisions. USC was a resounding NO to expand with Big XII schools when UT/OU announced their departure. They said NO to Oklahoma back in 2011 when A&M was making it clear they wanted to go to the SEC.

To me it looks every Pac-12 school not named Oregon State and Washington State sabotaged every proposal it was presented to them because they had their own hidden agendas. That “hey Kliavkoff get us a $50 million deal per school instead of $30 million” sounds like they really wanted to kill the conference and use it as an excuse for the Big Ten to act. It also didn’t help they hired a commissioner with no college and/or television experience.

With regards to the role of commissioners and expansion, as well as USC being a resounding NO to expansion…

UNC has always been the most anti-expansion ACC member. At the university presidential-level, expansion has never made sense for a UNC leader. In the most recent expansion, a couple of UNC leaders desperately and publicly communicated their opposition to expansion the night before the critical vote. Nevertheless, the ACC has expanded from a country-club seven member conference (when I enrolled at UVa) to a soon to be 18 member conference. Every commissioner has to address opposition to expansion from its core programs…that is in the job description of all commissioners.

IMO, Kliavkoff was cordial and accommodating. He didn’t recognize the existential need for PAC expansion, especially at the beginning of his tenure. Even the justly maligned Larry Scott (for spending too much, mismanaging the PACN, and having bad relations with ADs), understood the importance of expansion. Larry Scott convinced PAC members to expand with Utah and Colorado.

It wasn’t just USC, it was the majority of them.

Kliavkoff didn’t have the background to make things happen. Hiring a casino guy was one of the many mistakes that conference made. It made hiring a women’s tennis guy (Larry Scott) seen as a genius move. In fact, Scott’s predecesor, Tom Hansen, wasn’t any better. So from 1983 (Hansen’s first year) to 2023, the “Conference of Champions” has had three commissioners in 40 years who failed miserably in taking the conference to the next level. The closest one was Larry Scott until ESPN bribed I mean convinced Texas to stay in the Big XII by giving them the Longhorn Network. At least Scott managed to get the conference a $1.5 billion deal which was unprecedented at the time.

At the end of the day, all the schools that had any options found a landing spot. OSU and WSU are now the new UConn, Cincinnati, USF, TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston after the Big East/SWC collapse. Whether they’ll make a comeback like those most of those schools and find a new power conference down the road…..that remains to be seen.

The Pac-12 should be a college course titled “how incompetent leadership can destroy a great conference”

Why do people keep repeating this lie????

NOBODY knew how much the LHN would be worth in June 2010. All the talk was about $3 million a year and Fox was the favorite until late October 2010.

Now what ESPN and Fox did do, was, if you want to use that term, "bribe" the entire Big 12. They promised the money in their new contracts would be comparable to the Pac's. And Fox gave them a bonus even before the old contract was up. So it was more Fox paying the Big 12 than ESPN. The Fox portion of the contract went from $20 million to $90 million per year while ESPN stayed at $60 million until the end of their deal when the whole deal for both was adjusted to $200 million per year.

Big 12/Fox deal
https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/i...en-sweeter

As for the LHN:
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/...twork.html

ESPN, Fox compete for Longhorns network
Oct 25, 2010, 10:09am CDT By JOHN OURAND and MICHAEL SMITH – SportsBusiness Journal
Oct 25, 2010
ESPN has countered a bid by Fox Sports to operate a University of Texas channel and is now viewed by industry insiders as a legitimate competitor to partner with the school on a Longhorns network....

Two weeks ago, Fox Sports appeared to be the clear front-runner, but ESPN announced its interest in a big way last week when Skipper took on a greater role in the talks.
Texas Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds has said that Texas will not have an ownership stake in the new channel. Industry sources say a number of ownership scenarios are still being considered. One scenario has IMG College and the media partner creating a network as a joint venture, in which case Texas would receive a rights fee and would not have an ownership stake.
Another scenario exists that involves Texas joining IMG College and the media partner in a three-way deal in which revenue would be shared among them.
Dodds has said that Texas can expect about $3 million in annual revenue from the new network once it’s launched, and the revenue would increase based on the network’s success. The Longhorns are not expected to carry any risk if the network were to fail."

The AAC. Losing probably two of the three biggest markets and two of the most sucessfull teams in the AAC in football.

(09-03-2023 01:34 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 10:13 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 04:42 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ...
It'll also be hard on the Arizona schools and Colorado to be disconnected from the California alumni, and not showing their faces in the high schools they draw so many students from.
...

Which is why I'm still watching to see if something might happen with San Diego State.

If the MWC does merge to the PAC, that could mean an opportunity for SDSU to head a lot more inexpensively to the Big12...

I could see San Diego State being in the next round of ACC expansion - already 2 CA schools.

We can only hope. I would love to have an excuse to fly to SoCal a few times a year for football, basketball and baseball games. San Diego State would be a home run add.

(09-02-2023 07:16 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(09-01-2023 10:23 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-01-2023 09:55 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  College football fans.

This right here….
One of the oldest leagues in the country picked apart for what. $$$

I still say these conferences are going to kill the golden goose.

Note: The PAC 12 is the second conference The ACC has killed.

The ACC may have delivered the death blow to the Pac-12, but that conference was mortally wounded long before the ACC ever got involved. Popular opinion on this board to the contrary notwithstanding, there was no way the Pac was going to rebuild once it was left with only four members. Exit fees in both the AAC and MWC -- the only two conferences worth poaching from the Pac's perspective -- were too high to permit a rebuild on such short notice. And even if that weren't the case, Stanford wanted no part of a Pac rebuild.

That’s a good point and The PAC’s problems didn’t start with GK’s failure to land a satisfactory conference TV package as some here proclaim. Rick Scott’s PAC Network put the conference in a terrible financial situation and the market did the rest.

(09-03-2023 11:49 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  The AAC. Losing probably two of the three biggest markets and two of the most sucessfull teams in the AAC in football.

Not to mention 2 of the Big 3 in men's basketball ?.

(09-03-2023 06:06 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 02:56 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 10:13 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 04:42 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ...
It'll also be hard on the Arizona schools and Colorado to be disconnected from the California alumni, and not showing their faces in the high schools they draw so many students from.
...

Which is why I'm still watching to see if something might happen with San Diego State.

If the MWC does merge to the PAC, that could mean an opportunity for SDSU to head a lot more inexpensively to the Big12...

That is our hope right now but not hearing anything. Prior to Calford going to the ACc JD Wicker said that the B12 was "done for now." Both Zona schools and Utah recruit here and have established contacts in the area that they want to continue. It really comes down to ESPN and whether they want more Pacific TZ games. Obviously. SDSU comes in at a discount which is what was offered back in February. However, back then getting all of the 4 corner schools was unlikely for the B12.

To be honest, if the B12 wanted to look west then SDSU and Fresno would be the best add. I think that combination beats what the ACC was just gifted in the Bay Area. B12 would be second in the California market behind the B1G.

Fresno State is an idea. But Yomark, et al, seemed to be really interested in UNLV.

But regardless, there are a lot of pairing options. Especially now that 30% seems to be the new "floor" for G5 additions. (I think most see that SMU's "floor" of "zero" is unique to them.)

Las Vegas has a lot of pro sports options and UNLV playing in an NFL stadium isn't good for the program long term. I understand the lure of the destination of course, though I don't go to Vegas myself. UNLV has never been relevant in football and their BB programs has been nothing like it was in the Tarkanian years. UNLV also suffers from the fact that most people who live there are not from there. Fresno's FB program and following are better though their BB program is not good and gets little support.

As for recruiting, Las Vegas would likely be ahead of Fresno in terms of numbers and quality of recruits overall.

(09-02-2023 09:50 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Memphis and it's not really close.

They have seen UConn, Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and SMU all leave for greener pastures.

UConn has to be the biggest loser in college football realignment. It went from being a serious contender to an afterthought. While UConn fans still complain that Louisville "stole" their place in the ACC, four of their former AAC contemporaries have managed to find a spot in the P4.

Temple is also a big loser. It looked like the school turned around their football program only to lose momentum after Matt Rhule left in 2016.

(09-03-2023 06:06 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 02:56 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 10:13 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 04:42 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  ...
It'll also be hard on the Arizona schools and Colorado to be disconnected from the California alumni, and not showing their faces in the high schools they draw so many students from.
...

Which is why I'm still watching to see if something might happen with San Diego State.

If the MWC does merge to the PAC, that could mean an opportunity for SDSU to head a lot more inexpensively to the Big12...

That is our hope right now but not hearing anything. Prior to Calford going to the ACc JD Wicker said that the B12 was "done for now." Both Zona schools and Utah recruit here and have established contacts in the area that they want to continue. It really comes down to ESPN and whether they want more Pacific TZ games. Obviously. SDSU comes in at a discount which is what was offered back in February. However, back then getting all of the 4 corner schools was unlikely for the B12.

To be honest, if the B12 wanted to look west then SDSU and Fresno would be the best add. I think that combination beats what the ACC was just gifted in the Bay Area. B12 would be second in the California market behind the B1G.

Fresno State is an idea. But Yomark, et al, seemed to be really interested in UNLV.

But regardless, there are a lot of pairing options. Especially now that 30% seems to be the new "floor" for G5 additions. (I think most see that SMU's "floor" of "zero" is unique to them.)

I feel like SMU should really double down on their Big $$/Death Penalty vibe. Change the mascot(s) to the 4 Horsemen, but instead of dealing death they deal money. The kids they're recruiting would probably LOVE that motif, and even rival schools would have to grudgingly admit that it's pretty funny.

(09-03-2023 09:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 03:55 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 04:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-02-2023 03:57 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-02-2023 01:29 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Kliavkoff was dealt a bad hand, but he also compounded the problem by making his own horrible decisions. He was the most visible face of the scheduling Alliance (…we don’t need a formal contract, “there’s an agreement amongst three gentlemen”). He didn’t aggressively pursue B12 programs when they were all available in the summer 2021. Immediately after OUT made the announcement to leave for the SEC, B12 programs and Bob Bowlsby recognized the changed environment…it only took B1G programs about 6 months to comprehend the new business model. Kliavkoff was in clueless for more than 18 months. After the USCLA announcement, he didn’t work to immediately reload the conference. When ESPN offered $30M, he didn’t convince PAC presidents of a realistic value for their rights. He failed to find a media partner throughout 2023…even though members patiently waited.

I agree with you for the most part except for expansion. The commissioner can propose anything he/she wants (e.g. expansion, tv deals) but at the end of the day, presidents make those decisions. USC was a resounding NO to expand with Big XII schools when UT/OU announced their departure. They said NO to Oklahoma back in 2011 when A&M was making it clear they wanted to go to the SEC.

To me it looks every Pac-12 school not named Oregon State and Washington State sabotaged every proposal it was presented to them because they had their own hidden agendas. That “hey Kliavkoff get us a $50 million deal per school instead of $30 million” sounds like they really wanted to kill the conference and use it as an excuse for the Big Ten to act. It also didn’t help they hired a commissioner with no college and/or television experience.

With regards to the role of commissioners and expansion, as well as USC being a resounding NO to expansion…

UNC has always been the most anti-expansion ACC member. At the university presidential-level, expansion has never made sense for a UNC leader. In the most recent expansion, a couple of UNC leaders desperately and publicly communicated their opposition to expansion the night before the critical vote. Nevertheless, the ACC has expanded from a country-club seven member conference (when I enrolled at UVa) to a soon to be 18 member conference. Every commissioner has to address opposition to expansion from its core programs…that is in the job description of all commissioners.

IMO, Kliavkoff was cordial and accommodating. He didn’t recognize the existential need for PAC expansion, especially at the beginning of his tenure. Even the justly maligned Larry Scott (for spending too much, mismanaging the PACN, and having bad relations with ADs), understood the importance of expansion. Larry Scott convinced PAC members to expand with Utah and Colorado.

It wasn’t just USC, it was the majority of them.

Kliavkoff didn’t have the background to make things happen. Hiring a casino guy was one of the many mistakes that conference made. It made hiring a women’s tennis guy (Larry Scott) seen as a genius move. In fact, Scott’s predecesor, Tom Hansen, wasn’t any better. So from 1983 (Hansen’s first year) to 2023, the “Conference of Champions” has had three commissioners in 40 years who failed miserably in taking the conference to the next level. The closest one was Larry Scott until ESPN bribed I mean convinced Texas to stay in the Big XII by giving them the Longhorn Network. At least Scott managed to get the conference a $1.5 billion deal which was unprecedented at the time.

At the end of the day, all the schools that had any options found a landing spot. OSU and WSU are now the new UConn, Cincinnati, USF, TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston after the Big East/SWC collapse. Whether they’ll make a comeback like those most of those schools and find a new power conference down the road…..that remains to be seen.

The Pac-12 should be a college course titled “how incompetent leadership can destroy a great conference”

Why do people keep repeating this lie????

NOBODY knew how much the LHN would be worth in June 2010. All the talk was about $3 million a year and Fox was the favorite until late October 2010.

Now what ESPN and Fox did do, was, if you want to use that term, "bribe" the entire Big 12. They promised the money in their new contracts would be comparable to the Pac's. And Fox gave them a bonus even before the old contract was up. So it was more Fox paying the Big 12 than ESPN. The Fox portion of the contract went from $20 million to $90 million per year while ESPN stayed at $60 million until the end of their deal when the whole deal for both was adjusted to $200 million per year.

Big 12/Fox deal
https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/i...en-sweeter

As for the LHN:
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/...twork.html

ESPN, Fox compete for Longhorns network
Oct 25, 2010, 10:09am CDT By JOHN OURAND and MICHAEL SMITH – SportsBusiness Journal
Oct 25, 2010
ESPN has countered a bid by Fox Sports to operate a University of Texas channel and is now viewed by industry insiders as a legitimate competitor to partner with the school on a Longhorns network....

Two weeks ago, Fox Sports appeared to be the clear front-runner, but ESPN announced its interest in a big way last week when Skipper took on a greater role in the talks.
Texas Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds has said that Texas will not have an ownership stake in the new channel. Industry sources say a number of ownership scenarios are still being considered. One scenario has IMG College and the media partner creating a network as a joint venture, in which case Texas would receive a rights fee and would not have an ownership stake.
Another scenario exists that involves Texas joining IMG College and the media partner in a three-way deal in which revenue would be shared among them.
Dodds has said that Texas can expect about $3 million in annual revenue from the new network once it’s launched, and the revenue would increase based on the network’s success. The Longhorns are not expected to carry any risk if the network were to fail."

The ironic part here is that UTEP Dallas claims to be a Texas ex, or at least a UT fan.

(09-03-2023 11:49 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  The AAC. Losing probably two of the three biggest markets and two of the most sucessfull teams in the AAC in football.

What? The AAC lost them in 2021, not in the current round. I know, I know, Realignment is like the Neverending Story, but that's definitely part of the last era of Realignment drama.

(09-08-2023 12:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-03-2023 11:49 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  The AAC. Losing probably two of the three biggest markets and two of the most sucessfull teams in the AAC in football.

What? The AAC lost them in 2021, not in the current round. I know, I know, Realignment is like the Neverending Story, but that's definitely part of the last era of Realignment drama.

Feels like a hundred years ago.