Realignment talk not going away

[TKthunder2 4992]

https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/2023/08/17/with-pac-12-collapse-how-about-starting-a-california-conference/70610812007/

🤣

[Sbbruin 21861]

6 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/2023/08/17/with-pac-12-collapse-how-about-starting-a-california-conference/70610812007/

🤣

That’s a worse conference than a reconstituted MWC

[bullet 1597]

9 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Disagree. If the SEC turned their CCG into a 4 team playoff they would get 100% of that revenue. Currently the 4 team playoff shares that money with EVERY FBS conference. The Sun Belt and CUSA, having never participated any the playoff or NY6 bowls, pull in $24 million a year from the CFP. The PAC/B12/ACC pull much more than that but I’m not going to bother to go find the exact number.

You take all of that interest and condense it down to just the SEC and they will rake in the cash for just their 4 team playoff.

The additional money for the championship games, and the normal bowl games will also still be there.

While the total payout will be less than the joint CFP, the SEC’s portion of that would absolutely be worth more than they are currently receiving. Bad for college football in general does not mean bad for the SEC.

We all saw #1 UGA play #14 LSU in the CCG in Atlanta. With 11 million viewers it was the most watched CCG. Now imagine after it, you had a rematch of #5 Alabama play #6 Tennessee in Miami or Houston. Then you have UGA play that winner in the Sugar Bowl on NYD. Then they play the B1G’s 4 team playoff winner (Michigan/Penn St vs Ohio St/USC) mid January…the networks would piss themselves for that guaranteed content.

Sure, no K State/TCU/Utah/Clemson would hurt the overall $ some, but condensing the revenue into just the two conferences would most likely increase the amount each of their schools get to take home.

I know the idea is not popular here, but my main point is that this is not a “hollow threat”.

Remember the Alabama-LSU rematch?  One of the worst watched BCS title games ever?  After a couple of Alabama-Georgia games, even the SEC knew the playoff needed to be expanded so it wasn't an SEC invitational.  The rest of the country was tuning out.

[bullet 1597]

6 hours ago, camel at sea said:

I think if they can rebuild the PAC, the politics will favor them keeping the "power" designation b/c ultimately it won't matter much.  The "Top 6 conference champions" format for the CFP doesn't directly specify anything re: Power vs. G5.  Hypothetically, you could get a Sun Belt and American champion in over the PAC champion anyway.  Continuing to allow them to insist that they're a "power" conference won't make their media deal competitive.  The designation is ultimately pretty meaningless.  

It will matter because the A5 are getting about 80% of the money and G5 15%.

[berlinerbaer 678]

7 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Best approach is to get into any power conference, hold on, and hope that they can hang on when the next round of realignment takes place.  Lightning will also have to strike in the form of a generational football coach a la Harbaugh and a Phil Knight style alumnus to save the program.

Being relegated finishes Stanford football off, with very negative implications for all its other sports. 

Your prognostication applies more to Cal than Stanford.

Harbaugh/Shaw actually happened and the best Stanford could do was not even fill their own stadium. The Phil Knight option is more realistic but money doesn't matter if the networks don't think people want to watch. They are a disinterested fanbase and there's no changing that. That said, I think it would be possible for a handful of donors to prop the AD up even in the absence of power conference membership, or anyone else caring.

Cal was selling out its stadium in the mid/late 00s but football reverted back to the mean and couldn't maintain fan interest. A Harbaugh-like coach or major benefactors would both be godsends right now. Maybe we're seeing the latter, but they have to contend with campus politics, a retiring chancellor, and a meek AD. For Cal, I'm afraid it really is power 4 or bust.

[Hagbard Celine 10871]

On 8/16/2023 at 3:59 PM, DanTheHorn said:

I am putting my marker down since eventually all the names will come out. It was Crow and his buddy professor that came up with the $50M and Oregon and Washington latched on to the number to delay the contract in hopes of getting to B1G.

i'm way behind but quoting this forward as it seems highly plausible

crow asshattery can't be measured with current technology

[USC_TMB 405]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/2023/08/17/with-pac-12-collapse-how-about-starting-a-california-conference/70610812007/

🤣

Dude’s been drinking the bong water 🤣🤣

[Rimbo 25976]

https://www.theonion.com/putin-vows-retaliation-should-ukraine-become-member-of-1850752264?utm_campaign=The+Onion&utm_content=1692388811&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3kKXdNRPk-zlpcMAkxUXrlYMcbIAF_9CViQyWB5pJVHj-rm2wvWVyKdnk

 

[Hagbard Celine 10871]

On 8/16/2023 at 4:18 PM, Laxtonto said:

Anyone have this?

 

the LA Times is a paper of record

there is no doubt that there is lots of truth in this article

but.......

there are number of key events the article skips over.....

san diego state gave notice that it was giving notice on 16 june

that did not happen in a vacuum

[CustersDoctor 584]

Big16 players asked where is BYU 

https://twitter.com/Big12Conference/status/1692649374826762714?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1692649374826762714|twgr^8e6073f9a77ce5af50f13312d272b7ae5454523c|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deseret.com%2F2023%2F8%2F18%2F23837927%2Fbig-12-football-players-were-asked-to-guess-where-byu-is-located

Edited August 19, 2023 by CustersDoctor

[Rimbo 25976]

1 hour ago, CustersDoctor said:

Big16 players asked where is BYU 

https://twitter.com/Big12Conference/status/1692649374826762714?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1692649374826762714|twgr^8e6073f9a77ce5af50f13312d272b7ae5454523c|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deseret.com%2F2023%2F8%2F18%2F23837927%2Fbig-12-football-players-were-asked-to-guess-where-byu-is-located

 

[HornsOverIthaca 2334]

13 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/2023/08/17/with-pac-12-collapse-how-about-starting-a-california-conference/70610812007/

🤣

California Trail Dysentery conference

[Sandman 3403]

Surprised to see Oklahoma State ahead of LSU, Oregon, Washington. 

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

ND with a bit of an advantage for that graphic. 

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

28 minutes ago, Sandman said:

Surprised to see Oklahoma State ahead of LSU, Oregon, Washington. 

I think ESPN has historically put more big games on cable than any other network, so my guess is the conferences with deals with them tend to be lower than those with deals with Fox. ESPN gets better ratings than FS1 and ESPN also just owns more inventory than Fox and can only show the same number of games on its network. 

[LTtxfan 49249]

4 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

Big16 players asked where is BYU 

https://twitter.com/Big12Conference/status/1692649374826762714?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1692649374826762714|twgr^8e6073f9a77ce5af50f13312d272b7ae5454523c|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deseret.com%2F2023%2F8%2F18%2F23837927%2Fbig-12-football-players-were-asked-to-guess-where-byu-is-located

 

[LTtxfan 49249]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

ND with a bit of an advantage for that graphic. 

NBC     ND  Broadcasting  Company

[notre dame joe 188]

2 hours ago, Sandman said:

Surprised to see Oklahoma State ahead of LSU, Oregon, Washington. 

 

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

ND with a bit of an advantage for that graphic. 

Yeah it's measuring what is spelled out in the contract.  It would be like ranking teams based on the biggest school mascot network.

2 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I think ESPN has historically put more big games on cable than any other network, so my guess is the conferences with deals with them tend to be lower than those with deals with Fox. ESPN gets better ratings than FS1 and ESPN also just owns more inventory than Fox and can only show the same number of games on its network. 

Even Disney doesn't put a boring matchup on primetime ABC and the real game on ESPN too often. The times I remember are like ABC shows Rutgers @anOSU (#3) while two ranked SEC teams play on ESPN.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

24 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

 

Yeah it's measuring what is spelled out in the contract.  It would be like ranking teams based on the biggest school mascot network.

Even Disney doesn't put a boring matchup on primetime ABC and the real game on ESPN too often. The times I remember are like ABC shows Rutgers @anOSU (#3) while two ranked SEC teams play on ESPN.

To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that ESPN would put the better game on ESPN, I was suggesting that ESPN would have better games because they own a lot more inventory, so they are much more likely to have two good games at the same time than Fox or CBS, and thus conferences with deals with mostly ESPN will have more games on cable. 

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

Even Disney doesn't put a boring matchup on primetime ABC and the real game on ESPN too often. The times I remember are like ABC shows Rutgers @anOSU (#3) while two ranked SEC teams play on ESPN.

 

1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I wasn’t suggesting that ESPN would put the better game on ESPN, I was suggesting that ESPN would have better games because they own a lot more inventory, so they are much more likely to have two good games at the same time than Fox or CBS, and thus conferences with deals with mostly ESPN will have more games on cable. 

The numbers for the existing SEC are artificially deflated because of the CBS deal.  

As a part of that deal, Disney can't show any SEC games in primetime on ABC.

That's why SEC games in primetime are always on ESPN (except for one CBS primetime game per season), while ABC shows a BIG, ACC, B12 or PAC game.

Bama and UGA have big numbers on that chart because 90% of the time they are one of the teams playing in the 3:30 CBS game.

 

//

 

The other thing that jumps out on that chart is how many times UT and USC were on OTA, despite the fact that both programs had at least 3 losses every year from 2016-2021, and neither one was a national title contender.  The fans still watch, and the haters tune in to hate-watch.

I'll take "What drives realignment for $1,000, please Alex."

Edited August 19, 2023 by USC Traveler

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

The numbers for the existing SEC are artificially deflated because of the CBS deal.  

As a part of that deal, Disney can't show any SEC games in primetime on ABC.

That's why SEC games in primetime are always on ESPN (except for one CBS primetime game per season), while ABC shows a BIG, ACC, B12 or PAC game.

Bama and UGA have big numbers on that chart because 90% of the time they are one of the teams playing in the 3:30 CBS game.

 

They could be on Prime, they couldn't be on ABC counter CBS's afternoon slot.  The new deal for the SEC the mouse is allowed to put the biggest game in any slot and any channel, as long as they pay, they're not bound to the afternoon.

They should be counting ESPN though, its basically a T1 channel at this point.  ESPN2/U is even to FS1, those are clearly T2.

This graph is also a good indicator of how many games have hit conference networks and who doesn't play on them.  But, at the end of the day, win and you get on the good channels.

 

[pops 7003]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:31 PM, Sbbruin said:

Without a dissolution of the MWC, their $34 mil termination fee is untenable to join a marginal new conference.

And without a guarantee they are getting in, teams like utah state, san Jose and Wyoming are not voting to dissolve the conference. 

[Sbbruin 21861]

23 minutes ago, pops said:

And without a guarantee they are getting in, teams like utah state, san Jose and Wyoming are not voting to dissolve the conference. 

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

They could be on Prime, they couldn't be on ABC counter CBS's afternoon slot.  The new deal for the SEC the mouse is allowed to put the biggest game in any slot and any channel, as long as they pay, they're not bound to the afternoon.

They should be counting ESPN though, its basically a T1 channel at this point.  ESPN2/U is even to FS1, those are clearly T2.

This graph is also a good indicator of how many games have hit conference networks and who doesn't play on them.  But, at the end of the day, win and you get on the good channels.

 

I think USC Traveler is right, unless it’s just a coincidence that ABC did not broadcast any prime time SEC games last season, even though almost none of them were against CBS games. 

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

They could be on Prime, they couldn't be on ABC counter CBS's afternoon slot.  The new deal for the SEC the mouse is allowed to put the biggest game in any slot and any channel, as long as they pay, they're not bound to the afternoon.

They should be counting ESPN though, its basically a T1 channel at this point.  ESPN2/U is even to FS1, those are clearly T2.

This graph is also a good indicator of how many games have hit conference networks and who doesn't play on them.  But, at the end of the day, win and you get on the good channels.

 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30492065/sec-espn-strike-10-year-deal-college-football-basketball-starting-2024

From the ESPN press release announcing the deal:

Quote

Beginning in 2024, ABC will air an SEC game every week, including a regular late-afternoon kickoff, and will have the option to feature an SEC game on ABC's Saturday Night Football for the first time.

 

Since they weren't allowed to put SEC games on ABC in primetime before, that's one of the reasons this was such a big deal for ESPN/ABC and the SEC.

It was also important for the other reasons you listed.  I agree with all of those, as well as the fact that ESPN is basically equivalent to a broadcast network.

[USC Traveler 488]

ACC update:

 

 

😂

[redswingline 1057]

On 8/18/2023 at 12:36 AM, USC Traveler said:

On top of that, Cal admin has kneecapped their football team for the last 12 years or so, making them completely irrelevant. 

12 years? Aside from the Aaron Rogers / Beastmode era, Cal sucked prior to 12 years ago, too.

 

On 8/18/2023 at 12:36 AM, USC Traveler said:

Stanford kept Shaw on way too long, making them mostly irrelevant.

Keeping Shaw didn't make Stanford irrelevant. Having an administration that prioritizes education over football + the new transfer portal rules, made Stanford irrelevant. They have had exactly 1 undergrad transfer during the Transfer Portal era and 4 or 5 total transfers since 2015. That makes it nearly impossible to compete with schools than can just plug in guys from other schools. Plus, they don't bend the academic rules like 95% of the football programs out there.

If you can ball, having a 900 SAT and majoring in finger painting can get you into USC.  Not Stanford.

 

On 8/18/2023 at 12:36 AM, USC Traveler said:

Stanford and Cal were huge factors in the PAC failing.  They helped sow the seeds of its destruction and are reaping what they sowed.

Stanford and Cal were minor players at best. The PAC failed because its' most valuable program, USC, had not won an MNC in nearly 2 decades, which devalued the appeal of the PAC. Oregon, while better on the field, is worth far less from a media rights standpoint and they couldn't get it done either.

Another way to say that, is that since USC has sucked for +14 years, they devalued the PAC and ended up leaving because of it. Kind of like shitting in your own bed and then finding somewhere else to lay down.

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by redswingline

[USC Traveler 488]

59 minutes ago, redswingline said:

Stanford and Cal were minor players at best. The PAC failed because its' most valuable program, USC, had not won an MNC in nearly 2 decades, which devalued the appeal of the PAC. Oregon, while better on the field, is worth far less from a media rights standpoint and they couldn't get it done either.

Another way to say that, is that since USC has sucked for +14 years, they devalued the PAC and ended up leaving because of it. Kind of like shitting in your own bed and then finding somewhere else to lay down.

 

USC self-sanctioning the program with idiotic AD and HC hires bathed the program in shame, but it didn't kill the conference.  USC still had plenty of value, as shown by how much the BIG's tv deal grew after the LA schools were added.  Arrogance, incompetence and gross negligence killed the PAC.

The difference between the BIG/SEC vs the PAC is that there were always multiple top level programs in the BIG/SEC which have won National Titles and have the credibility to to carry the conference when other top level programs are down.  When Bama was down from the late '90s until Saban's arrival, the Vols, LSU and UF all won titles.  Bama, Auburn, LSU and UGA have all won titles since.

OSU carried the BIG for while UM slumbered, and now UM is back on top, with PSU looking like they might make a leap.

//

Due to geography, the only chance for the PAC to have that type of depth at the top was to add UT and OU.  They were the only possible blueblood additions, and they would have made it possible for the PAC to stand on equal footing with the BIG/SEC.

Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions.  They were the only "No" vote back in the day.

Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU, Tech, OSU, etc in 2010 b/c of LHN.  

Stanford, Cal and WSU were three of the ringleaders again in rejecting OU and OSU the following year.

They didn't want the added competition, they didn't want to have unequal Tier 3 revenue, and they didn't want to be associated with Tech, OSU, or aggy.

Think about that- Stanford passed on UT as a conference member twice!!!  Cal passed on UT once, and both Stanford and Cal passed on OU twice.

And you want to say they were "minor players" in the PAC's demise ?  🤣  

USC shitting the bed for a decade was like someone in hospice with terminal cancer getting psoriasis- the damage was done long before.

Cal and Stanford were the tip of the spear that inflicted the fatal wound on the PAC16 deal- the PAC's last chance to be a true peer of the SEC/BIG.

//

You can spin whatever fairytale you want, but the PAC was dead the day every school not named USC or UCLA rejected UT, OU and the gang over LHN/equal revenue sharing.  We talked about it in detail over on the old Shaggy realignment thread.  Once it was no longer possible to add bluebloods, it was just a matter of time before the revenue gap caused the top programs to leave.  Like Thanos, it was inevitable. 

 

PS- To double down on their previous realignment 5D chess moves, Stanford and Cal were part of the decision-making team that turned the PAC into a pile of ash.  The PAC could have been a stable conference making B12 money, but the schools thought they were worth $50m/yr, when ESPN offered $30m.

Can't blame that on USC, as the LA schools weren't part of those decisions.  That's all on Klownkoff and the 10 idiots who listened to him.

 

 

 

[Sbbruin 21861]

1 hour ago, redswingline said:

12 years? Aside from the Aaron Rogers / Beastmode era, Cal sucked prior to 12 years ago, too.

 

Keeping Shaw didn't make Stanford irrelevant. Having an administration that prioritizes education over football + the new transfer portal rules, made Stanford irrelevant. They have had exactly 1 undergrad transfer during the Transfer Portal era and 4 or 5 total transfers since 2015. That makes it nearly impossible to compete with schools than can just plug in guys from other schools. Plus, they don't bend the academic rules like 95% of the football programs out there.

If you can ball, having a 900 SAT and majoring in finger painting can get you into USC.  Not Stanford.

 

Stanford and Cal were minor players at best. The PAC failed because its' most valuable program, USC, had not won an MNC in nearly 2 decades, which devalued the appeal of the PAC. Oregon, while better on the field, is worth far less from a media rights standpoint and they couldn't get it done either.

Another way to say that, is that since USC has sucked for +14 years, they devalued the PAC and ended up leaving because of it. Kind of like shitting in your own bed and then finding somewhere else to lay down.

 

Don’t overvalue SC.   The PAC is much more,than SC.  

[FartingDreamer 138]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

Don’t overvalue SC.   The PAC was much more, than SC.  

FIFY

Edited August 20, 2023 by FartingDreamer

[Duval Street 420]

11 hours ago, redswingline said:

…

Another way to say that, is that since USC has sucked for +14 years, they devalued the PAC and ended up leaving because of it. Kind of like shitting in your own bed and then finding somewhere else to lay down.

 

[Hagbard Celine 10871]

On 8/16/2023 at 9:20 PM, statsman said:

The SP2 will not be annointed as the top conferences. It will happen organically, as they will have more money to spend. College football is a professional game, after all, and there is no salary cap and there are few restrictions on player movement. 
 
The UK has the FA cup where every professional club enters the same tournament. In 1980, West Ham won. That was the last time that a team not in the top division won the FA Cup. Now, there can be, and are, interdivision upsets. But the Premier League always wins the championships. 
 
And yet, the British are great sports fans and the teams from all towns and divisions have fans. 

600+ amateur teams enter the FA Cup tournament and about every 7-8 years a professional, non-league side makes a run, sometimes as far as the 5th round when the prem comes in.  For context, Football Association "League Football" consists of the Premiership (20), Championship (24), League One (24) and League Two (24), a total of 92 teams.  However there is a way up and down for 5000+ teams nationwide below the "4th Division" starting at what is now called "Step 5": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system

Millwall in 03/04 and Cardiff in 07/08 were Championship ("2nd division") sides to make the FA Cup Final in the Prem era.  In the last season before the Prem (91/92), Sunderland were at the bottom of the old 2nd Division and made the FA Cup Final.

And while there have been no lower-division party crashers in the FA Cup Final for 15 years, Leicester winning the Prem in 15-16 more than makes up for it, paying 5000-1 for anyone that punted on matchday 1.

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

10 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

there were always multiple top level programs in the BIG/SEC which have won National Titles

The B1G has won like 1 title in the past twenty years, right? Same as the Big 12?

[Rimbo 25976]

11 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

Don’t overvalue SC.   The PAC is much more,than SC.  

[LTtxfan 49249]

12 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Stanford is only school to vote against adding UT two different occasions.  They were only "No" vote back in the day. Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU, Tech, OSU, etc in 2010 b/c of LHN.  

Stanford, Cal and WSU were three of the ringleaders again in rejecting OU and OSU the following year.

They didn't want the added competition, they didn't want to have unequal Tier 3 revenue, and they didn't want to be associated with Tech, OSU, or aggy.

Think about that- Stanford passed on UT as a conference member twice!!!  Cal passed on UT once, and both Stanford and Cal passed on OU twice.

And you want to say they were "minor players" in the PAC's demise ?  🤣  

USC shitting the bed for a decade was like someone in hospice with terminal cancer getting psoriasis- the damage was done long before.

Cal and Stanford were the tip of the spear that inflicted the fatal wound on the PAC16 deal- the PAC's last chance to be a true peer of the SEC/BIG.

//

You can spin whatever fairytale you want, but the PAC was dead the day every school not named USC or UCLA rejected UT, OU and the gang over LHN/equal revenue sharing.  We talked about it in detail over on the old Shaggy realignment thread.  Once it was no longer possible to add bluebloods, it was just a matter of time before the revenue gap caused the top programs to leave.  Like Thanos, it was inevitable. 

PS- To double down on their previous realignment 5D chess moves, Stanford and Cal were part of the decision-making team that turned the PAC into a pile of ash.  The PAC could have been a stable conference making B12 money, but the schools thought they were worth $50m/yr, when ESPN offered $30m.

Can't blame that on USC, as the LA schools weren't part of those decisions.  That's all on Klownkoff and the 10 idiots who listened to him.

 

AS ALWAYS...   FUCK TREE !!!

 

 

[camel at sea 589]

The biggest problem with the PAC wasn't that SC stopped winning titles, it was a combo of bad leadership, a bad TV deal that hurt exposure/recruiting, and the dead weight schools in its bottom tier.  You just can't make the money work when you're distributing an equal share to multiple schools who bring almost no value to the media rights deal.  It dilutes the money for the earners by too much.  The ACC has a similar problem now, too.  

The Big 12 doesn't have the same brand strength at the top (it's not as far back as people think) but its value is much stronger at the bottom of the inventory slate.  K-State / Iowa St / TCU / Baylor >>> Washington State / Oregon St / Cal / Stanford as TV properties.  

[closetohumping 17449]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

The biggest problem with the PAC wasn't that SC stopped winning titles, it was a combo of bad leadership, a bad TV deal that hurt exposure/recruiting, and the dead weight schools in its bottom tier.  You just can't make the money work when you're distributing an equal share to multiple schools who bring almost no value to the media rights deal.  It dilutes the money for the earners by too much.  The ACC has a similar problem now, too.  

The Big 12 doesn't have the same brand strength at the top (it's not as far back as people think) but its value is much stronger at the bottom of the inventory slate.  K-State / Iowa St / TCU / Baylor >>> Washington State / Oregon St / Cal / Stanford as TV properties.  

Compared to the big 2 the big 12 is that far back

[TKthunder2 4992]

56 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The Big 12 doesn't have the same brand strength at the top (it's not as far back as people think) but its value is much stronger at the bottom of the inventory slate.  K-State / Iowa St / TCU / Baylor >>> Washington State / Oregon St / Cal / Stanford as TV properties.  

I agree with you overall point, but TCU was/is at the top of the Big12 not the bottom and Stanford was in the top half of the PAC12.

If we’re being honest the bottom of the Big12 was: Kansas/KSU/ISU/WVU/TT

and the bottom of the PAC12 was: WSU/OSU/Cal/Colorado/Arizona/ASU

[redswingline 1057]

17 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

Don’t overvalue SC.   The PAC is more,than SC.  

No one cares about the debate team at Stanford or Oregon State's rowing team.

USC's value has dropped considerably since 2007, due to lack of success. In some ways Oregon, UW and Stanford pick up that slack and increased their values. However, the PAC 10/12 would always have the most value if it's best team won MNC's and that best team was USC. Partly due to the history of the program and partly due to the fact it is in the #2 media market in the US. Not saying that having MNC's from other programs would not increase the PAC 12 media negotiation leverage, but the peak value would be with USC.

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by redswingline

[redswingline 1057]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with you overall point, but TCU was/is at the top of the Big12 not the bottom and Stanford was in the top half of the PAC12.

If we look at on-the-field results, Stanford was 1-8 last year, tied with Colorado for last place in the PAC. Historically, they are bottom half.

Historically, TCU is average in the Big 12.

With OU gone, the Big 12 is going to be a tossup going forward. I will enjoy watching over the next 7-10 years to see if a couple of programs can consistently stay a the top.

 

[nunna yo bizness 1687]

18 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

USC self-sanctioning the program with idiotic AD and HC hires bathed the program in shame, but it didn't kill the conference.  USC still had plenty of value, as shown by how much the BIG's tv deal grew after the LA schools were added.  Arrogance, incompetence and gross negligence killed the PAC.

The difference between the BIG/SEC vs the PAC is that there were always multiple top level programs in the BIG/SEC which have won National Titles and have the credibility to to carry the conference when other top level programs are down.  When Bama was down from the late '90s until Saban's arrival, the Vols, LSU and UF all won titles.  Bama, Auburn, LSU and UGA have all won titles since.

OSU carried the BIG for while UM slumbered, and now UM is back on top, with PSU looking like they might make a leap.

//

Due to geography, the only chance for the PAC to have that type of depth at the top was to add UT and OU.  They were the only possible blueblood additions, and they would have made it possible for the PAC to stand on equal footing with the BIG/SEC.

Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions.  They were the only "No" vote back in the day.

Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU, Tech, OSU, etc in 2010 b/c of LHN.  

Stanford, Cal and WSU were three of the ringleaders again in rejecting OU and OSU the following year.

They didn't want the added competition, they didn't want to have unequal Tier 3 revenue, and they didn't want to be associated with Tech, OSU, or aggy.

Think about that- Stanford passed on UT as a conference member twice!!!  Cal passed on UT once, and both Stanford and Cal passed on OU twice.

And you want to say they were "minor players" in the PAC's demise ?  🤣  

USC shitting the bed for a decade was like someone in hospice with terminal cancer getting psoriasis- the damage was done long before.

Cal and Stanford were the tip of the spear that inflicted the fatal wound on the PAC16 deal- the PAC's last chance to be a true peer of the SEC/BIG.

//

You can spin whatever fairytale you want, but the PAC was dead the day every school not named USC or UCLA rejected UT, OU and the gang over LHN/equal revenue sharing.  We talked about it in detail over on the old Shaggy realignment thread.  Once it was no longer possible to add bluebloods, it was just a matter of time before the revenue gap caused the top programs to leave.  Like Thanos, it was inevitable. 

 

PS- To double down on their previous realignment 5D chess moves, Stanford and Cal were part of the decision-making team that turned the PAC into a pile of ash.  The PAC could have been a stable conference making B12 money, but the schools thought they were worth $50m/yr, when ESPN offered $30m.

Can't blame that on USC, as the LA schools weren't part of those decisions.  That's all on Klownkoff and the 10 idiots who listened to him.

 

 

 

Yup.  All of this.  It's why I don't have the slightest sympathy for Stanford and Cal.  They had multiple opportunities to make the PAC a powerhouse that USC and UCLA would have been happy in, but their arrogance and elitism wouldn't allow it.  They can now wallow in their own downfall together.

[TKthunder2 4992]

20 minutes ago, redswingline said:

If we look at on-the-field results, Stanford was 1-8 last year, tied with Colorado for last place in the PAC. Historically, they are bottom half.

Historically, TCU is average in the Big 12.

With OU gone, the Big 12 is going to be a tossup going forward. I will enjoy watching over the next 7-10 years to see if a couple of programs can consistently stay a the top.

 

The post was talking about brand power, that does not necessarily correlate to wins.

Look at the chart posted up thread and tell me again who from the bottom half that I listed above is better than Stanford and TCU…

On 8/19/2023 at 12:24 PM, Sandman said:

Surprised to see Oklahoma State ahead of LSU, Oregon, Washington. 

[notre dame joe 188]

18 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

USC self-sanctioning the program with idiotic AD and HC hires bathed the program in shame, but it didn't kill the conference.  USC still had plenty of value, as shown by how much the BIG's tv deal grew after the LA schools were added.  Arrogance, incompetence and gross negligence killed the PAC.

The difference between the BIG/SEC vs the PAC is that there were always multiple top level programs in the BIG/SEC which have won National Titles and have the credibility to to carry the conference when other top level programs are down.  When Bama was down from the late '90s until Saban's arrival, the Vols, LSU and UF all won titles.  Bama, Auburn, LSU and UGA have all won titles since.

OSU carried the BIG for while UM slumbered, and now UM is back on top, with PSU looking like they might make a leap.

//

Due to geography, the only chance for the PAC to have that type of depth at the top was to add UT and OU.  They were the only possible blueblood additions, and they would have made it possible for the PAC to stand on equal footing with the BIG/SEC.

Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions.  They were the only "No" vote back in the day.

Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU, Tech, OSU, etc in 2010 b/c of LHN.  

Stanford, Cal and WSU were three of the ringleaders again in rejecting OU and OSU the following year.

They didn't want the added competition, they didn't want to have unequal Tier 3 revenue, and they didn't want to be associated with Tech, OSU, or aggy.

Think about that- Stanford passed on UT as a conference member twice!!!  Cal passed on UT once, and both Stanford and Cal passed on OU twice.

And you want to say they were "minor players" in the PAC's demise ?  🤣  

USC shitting the bed for a decade was like someone in hospice with terminal cancer getting psoriasis- the damage was done long before.

Cal and Stanford were the tip of the spear that inflicted the fatal wound on the PAC16 deal- the PAC's last chance to be a true peer of the SEC/BIG.

//

You can spin whatever fairytale you want, but the PAC was dead the day every school not named USC or UCLA rejected UT, OU and the gang over LHN/equal revenue sharing.  We talked about it in detail over on the old Shaggy realignment thread.  Once it was no longer possible to add bluebloods, it was just a matter of time before the revenue gap caused the top programs to leave.  Like Thanos, it was inevitable. 

 

PS- To double down on their previous realignment 5D chess moves, Stanford and Cal were part of the decision-making team that turned the PAC into a pile of ash.  The PAC could have been a stable conference making B12 money, but the schools thought they were worth $50m/yr, when ESPN offered $30m.

Can't blame that on USC, as the LA schools weren't part of those decisions.  That's all on Klownkoff and the 10 idiots who listened to him.

 

 

 

SC has a 100 year tradition of wrong coach-right coach-probation. It has cycled through many times without destroying the PAC.  The PAC's problem was the same as the state of California. The power is all centralized in the Bay Area while the money is highly weighted in LA.  In football there was only one talent base and one real blueblood program paying for everyone else.  In 100 years the conference could not establish even a consistent #2.   So it was always vulnerable to the keystone being removed. 

 

It is just a lot easier for SC to change conferences than for SoCal to form another state. 

[thunderlounge 7866]

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

in

[billfromlaketravis 11516]

Enough with the Texas being down killed the Big 12/USC being down killed the PAC bullshit. 
 

Texas should have left for the SEC in 1990, but aggy told the legislature on us. 
 

USC really didn’t have many options until the Big Ten money overcame travel costs/concerns. 
 

If Texas or USC were say Clemson in the ACC, sure it makes the decision more difficult, but Clemson President would push his mother into traffic right now to get into the SEC. 

[bullet 1597]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:15 PM, Hurtlocker said:

They could be on Prime, they couldn't be on ABC counter CBS's afternoon slot.  The new deal for the SEC the mouse is allowed to put the biggest game in any slot and any channel, as long as they pay, they're not bound to the afternoon.

They should be counting ESPN though, its basically a T1 channel at this point.  ESPN2/U is even to FS1, those are clearly T2.

This graph is also a good indicator of how many games have hit conference networks and who doesn't play on them.  But, at the end of the day, win and you get on the good channels.

 

ESPNU is WAY behind FS1.  FS2, ESPNU, ESPNNews are all real low.  ESPN2 is comparable to FS1.

[bullet 1597]

On 8/19/2023 at 2:14 AM, Hagbard Celine said:

the LA Times is a paper of record

there is no doubt that there is lots of truth in this article

but.......

there are number of key events the article skips over.....

san diego state gave notice that it was giving notice on 16 june

that did not happen in a vacuum

While I think there is a lot of truth, it is clearly written from Kliavcoff's office point of view.  And the LA Times is a bit of a joke.

[bullet 1597]

42 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Enough with the Texas being down killed the Big 12/USC being down killed the PAC bullshit. 
 

Texas should have left for the SEC in 1990, but aggy told the legislature on us. 
 

USC really didn’t have many options until the Big Ten money overcame travel costs/concerns. 
 

If Texas or USC were say Clemson in the ACC, sure it makes the decision more difficult, but Clemson President would push his mother into traffic right now to get into the SEC. 

In 1990, Stanford vetoed us.  aggy wanted to go to the SEC.  They were going to the SEC.  Texas to the Pac.  But then Stanford vetoed after UT president Cunningham had already briefed our board.  If you want a reference, its in "The Texas Way" by William Cunningham, pages 230-231.

There were long rumors of Stanford vetoing us, but I didn't really believe it until Cunningham wrote about it in detail in his book.  He has a chapter about the breakup of the SWC and how we eventually ended up in the Big 12.

[TKthunder2 4992]

I’m not sure which one of you was saying the SEC wouldn’t have the permanent 230 spot on ABC but…

https://www.nola.com/sports/lsu/why-the-sec-is-leaving-cbs-and-what-to-expect-with-espn-and-abc/article_6e17825c-3ed6-11ee-a67b-bb0de13f913d.amp.html

Quote

Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN plans to honor the SEC's traditional 2:30 p.m. slot for its biggest matchup of the week. But now, that 2:30 game will be on ABC, not CBS.

and also of interest

Quote

“What we have with our new media agreements is actually the ability to populate a day on broadcast TV,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said. “When I say we didn't have a lot of opportunities to access more broadcast TV opportunities, ABC was a part of that. We could now see SEC games on ABC at noon (ET), 3:30 (ET) and then in primetime in 130 million households.”