Jump to content

All encompassing PAC 4 thread

Sbbruin

By Sbbruin
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Upgrayedd

Upgrayedd 5804

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m not sure who you mean by “they.” But it’s not about viewership. Expanding the B1G footprint into the L.A. market will result in much more lucrative TV deals for the conference. And if history is an indicator then it will mean BTN will be carried on the standard cable and satellite packages which will benefit all of the conference fans in that area. I don’t know whether it will apply to the whole state of California or not. What a boon that would be.

Before joining the conference, Nebraska fans could only watch some of their games on pay-per-view. Imagine that. After adding Rutgers and Maryland, there are a whole lot of residents of NYC/Jersey and Maryland/D.C. who get BTN and it doesn’t really matter if not all of them tune in. If you only get a small percentage of the NYC market to tune in then that’s still a lot of eyeballs. The same will be true with L.A. Having America’s three largest cities in the footprint is a pretty big deal from a marketing standpoint.

"They" are the midwest transplants living in SoCal that Mach referenced.  If it was about grabbing the transplant market, there are a ton of transplants (both permanent and winter visitors) in the 5th largest media market in Phoenix.  

Somewhat confused by your point that it's not about viewership, but your example is about viewership.  

Hey, I'm in San Diego and I get the BTN.  It comes with my sports package.  My point what is the marginal increase of B1G football/other sports does adding $C/UcLA bring from SoCal.  If you were a fan before, you were already tuning in.  Are the fickle eyeballs of the LA schools worth that much for the 16 games?  I doubt that SoCal viewers are going to pivot their entertainment time to Rutgers/Northwestern 9 am kick just because it's a conference matchup.  The entertainment time is important as you need to compete against non-sport LA activities (huge), two MLB teams for Sept and maybe Oct, two NFL teams on generally the same schedule, two NBA teams that start in October, two NHL teams that start in October.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington

It can be. We got whackos of every stripe up here, from Utah to California all the way up to Seattle. 

Chewbacca
Chewbacca

This is what makes the most sense, at least for now.  Not sure how this plays out for Oregon or UW, though.  They want to go to B1G, but it sounds like that invite ain't happening just yet.  

DFW Horn
DFW Horn

Posted Images

Mach 1

Mach 1 1676

Posted
Posted

That's a good point.  I hadn't thought it through in that detail.

I guess the play is to get the CFB fan (of any team) that may pass on a USC/Oregon State match up absolutely tune in for a USC/MIchigan match up.  I know I'll be tuning in for sure.  Midwesterners that may be a casual viewer may also increase their viewership with mini Rose Bowls being played each week.

Who knows, but I guess the lure of adding the LA market was just too attractive for the B10 to pass up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28703

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

"They" are the midwest transplants living in SoCal that Mach referenced.  If it was about grabbing the transplant market, there are a ton of transplants (both permanent and winter visitors) in the 5th largest media market in Phoenix.  

Somewhat confused by your point that it's not about viewership, but your example is about viewership.  

Hey, I'm in San Diego and I get the BTN.  It comes with my sports package.  My point what is the marginal increase of B1G football/other sports does adding $C/UcLA bring from SoCal.  If you were a fan before, you were already tuning in.  Are the fickle eyeballs of the LA schools worth that much for the 16 games?  I doubt that SoCal viewers are going to pivot their entertainment time to Rutgers/Northwestern 9 am kick just because it's a conference matchup.  The entertainment time is important as you need to compete against non-sport LA activities (huge), two MLB teams for Sept and maybe Oct, two NFL teams on generally the same schedule, two NBA teams that start in October, two NHL teams that start in October.  

BTN comes with your sports package. You have to pay extra for that. Areas in the B1G footprint don’t have to pay extra for it. That’s the point. I assume BTN will be negotiating deals with providers in the L.A. market just like they did elsewhere. So now displaced B1G fans, in the L.A. market at least, won’t have to pay extra in order to get BTN. That’s how it’s always worked in the past everywhere else. That’s what I meant by, “if history is an indicator.” I’m assuming the same thing will be true now. The cheapest cable/satellite subscription I can buy comes with BTN.

You do understand how adding the second largest market in the country is going to result in more money in tv deals, right?

Here’s hoping BTN moves to your basic service and off your sports package.  :)

If they can negotiate a deal where BTN is carried on the basic cable/satellite subscriptions throughout the whole state of California then that would be a windfall. But even if it’s not, conference members will get more money from BTN/FOX and ABC/ESPN deals. Not to mention CBS when it comes to basketball.

It’s not so much about viewership as it is about distribution. There are a lot of cable/satellite subscribers who are paying for ESPN but who never watch it. Yeah, greater distribution will lead to greater viewership. But just getting BTN into more households is what will lead to more revenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53978

Posted
Posted

Wilner:

Quote

As the Pac-12 fights for survival in the wake of USC and UCLA announcing their joint departure for the Big Ten in 2024, merger, acquisition and going-out-of-business talk is all the rage.

Washington and Oregon are also headed to the Big Ten …

No, Stanford is really the next target …

Arizona State, Arizona, Utah and Colorado are preparing to jump to the Big 12 …

The Pac-12 and Big 12 should merge to form a super-conference …

Meanwhile, the grandmaster stays quiet, examining the chessboard and plotting its next move.

The future of college football in the western half of the country depends largely, and perhaps entirely, on ESPN — one of the sport’s two overlords. The other, of course, is Fox.

How did we get here?

“It’s part media companies and part lack of leadership in college sports,” a media industry source told the Hotline (via text).

“Nobody looking out for best interests of (the) sport — too much self interest and conflicts.”

ESPN made the first grand move last summer, quietly orchestrating the SEC’s acquisition of Texas and Oklahoma.

Fox countered last month, whispering in the Big Ten’s ear that USC and UCLA would make fine additions to the conference.

Now, each network controls a 16-team, blue-blooded super-league.

“The score at halftime is ESPN 7, Fox 7,” the source said. “Should be an interesting second half.”

From here, it appears that Fox has secured the properties it wants: The 14 teams currently in the Big Ten, plus the arrivals from Los Angeles.

We don’t doubt the Four Corners schools (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah) are exploring a move to the Big 12 — a step that would leave the Pac-12 with six members and spur its extinction.

But that move doesn’t make complete sense for ESPN’s chessboard.

Washington and Oregon possess the premier football properties among the 22 schools remaining in the Big 12 and Pac-12. Would ESPN tacitly approve any restructuring of the sport west of the Mississippi that marginalizes the brands carrying the greatest value?

The network assuredly would want Washington and Oregon as the pillars of a strong conference, regardless of size or geographic center.

Maybe the Big 12 gobbles up the Four Corners schools first, then moves on the Pacific Northwest powers in a devastating one-two that buries the Pac-12 …

Welcome to the second installment in a Hotline series examining the future of the Pac-12. We addressed the broader themes, including the desperate need for presidential leadership, in the introduction. Now, it’s time to sketch specific scenarios.

Our intent isn’t to favor one outcome over the other but, rather, to provide readers with the broadest possible sweep of options so that, whenever the next move comes, the shockwaves will be limited.

(If you’re blindsided, the Hotline hasn’t done its job.)

In this and forthcoming installments, we will assume Washington and Oregon aren’t on the brink of joining the Big Ten.

Having grabbed USC and UCLA, the superpower now seems focused on luring Notre Dame. Yes, the Irish would need a partner, but we’ll deal with the role Washington and Oregon might play in that step if/when it becomes necessary.

For now, let’s explore options for the Pac-12’s remaining schools, starting with mergers and moving to acquisitions later in the series.

And to be sure, an outright merger with the Big 12 makes sense competitively and geographically, albeit less so academically and politically (especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe vs. Wade).

Why would the Big 12 consider the move?

Well, there’s a favor to return. Last summer, after the Texas/Oklahoma thunderbolt, the Pac-12 opted against raiding the Big 12 and, as a result, secured the league’s survival.

There’s also strength in numbers — let’s not forget, the Big 12 is a far lesser league without the Longhorns and Sooners.

Yes, the four additions (UCF, Houston, BYU and Cincinnati) provide stability, but the conference is devoid of major football brands.

A partnership would not only tether the Big 12 to Washington and Oregon but create a joint operation superior to that of the ACC.

Why might ESPN be interested?

Because the resulting 22-team super-conference would span all four time zones, come at an enormous discount and provide all the needed inventory to fill remaining gaps in the ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPN+ broadcast lineups.

Despite its massive investment in the SEC and lesser (but significant) investment in the ACC, the network still needs college football content for its uncovered markets, particularly those in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

Also, don’t discount the prospect of the Pac-12 using Oregon and Washington — in conjunction with clandestine approval by ESPN — to attempt a raid of the best six programs in the Big 12.

In this moment of weakness, that would be the ultimate power move.

(To be clear: We wouldn’t bet more than a nickel on the Pac-12 raiding the Big 12. But considering the current climate, we’d bet a nickel on every scenario.)

Those aren’t the only options for the Pac-12, however.

In fact, they might not be the preferred options.

The conference could explore an alliance — this one legally binding — with the ACC to create a bicoastal super-league that would serve as a counterweight to the SEC and Big Ten.

“I can tell you the presidents of each league would love to be academically aligned with the other,’’ a source noted.

Related Articles
College Sports |
Pac-12 survival: The dollars behind the decision to stand on 10
College Sports |
Pac-12 recruiting: Oregon grabs 4-star CB from Washington’s backyard
College Sports |
Breaking down Pac-12 expansion options from Dallas to Spokane
College Sports |
Pac-12 to jump-start media rights negotiations after thunderbolt from Los Angeles
College Sports |
Pac-12 survival guide: Five forces that will define the path to salvation, or extinction
The merger would combine the best football brands not accounted for (Washington, Oregon, Clemson, Miami and Florida State) and relegate the Big 12 to permanent third-class status.

When asked about the travel demands, the source pointed to USC and UCLA joining the Big Ten and said, “That doesn’t seem to matter anymore.”

Why would the ACC agree?

It might not. After all, the ACC currently possesses more stability than either the Big 12 or Pac-12 because its members have bound their media rights to the conference until 2036.

But because of that lengthy grant-of-rights deal, the ACC cannot increase its media rights package without restructuring.

A merger with the Pac-12 would open the door to additional revenue.

Would it be enough?

That’s a question — one of many — for ESPN.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upgrayedd

Upgrayedd 5804

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

BTN comes with your sports package. You have to pay extra for that. Areas in the B1G footprint don’t have to pay extra for it. That’s the point. I assume BTN will be negotiating deals with providers in the L.A. market just like they did elsewhere. So now displaced B1G fans, in the L.A. market at least, won’t have to pay extra in order to get BTN. That’s how it’s always worked in the past everywhere else. That’s what I meant by, “if history is an indicator.” I’m assuming the same thing will be true now. The cheapest cable/satellite subscription I can buy comes with BTN.

You do understand how adding the second largest market in the country is going to result in more money in tv deals, right?

Here’s hoping BTN moves to your basic service and off your sports package.  :)

If they can negotiate a deal where BTN is carried on the basic cable/satellite subscriptions throughout the whole state of California then that would be a windfall. But even if it’s not, conference members will get more money from BTN/FOX and ABC/ESPN deals. Not to mention CBS when it comes to basketball.

It’s not so much about viewership as it is about distribution. There are a lot of cable/satellite subscribers who are paying for ESPN but who never watch it. Yeah, greater distribution will lead to greater viewership. But just getting BTN into more households is what will lead to more revenue. 

Distribute all you want.  You can distribute until the cows come home.  Put BTN into every house in California. It will be a channel scrolled over unless either $C or UcLA is playing a live game. 

I keep telling you, fickle SoCal fans don't give two shits about the majority of the B1G slate of games; and they certainly won't give two shits about the replay of Indiana at Rutgers baseball which comes on here shortly.

Oh and you know who cares about viewership?  Advertisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Left Coast

Left Coast 863

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

Well, perhaps from kick to the middle of the first quarter and innings 1-2 and 8-9 he’s not.

Lol true. But the Dodgers, Lakers, Warriors, Giants, 49ers, Rams, Kings, etc etc are always at or near the top in attendance. Hell even the Padres are #5 in MLB in average attendance this year.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Don’t give me this “California sucks for sports” bullshit. And we aren’t even talking about championships won by teams in this state even in just the past decade. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agent 13

Agent 13 314

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Left Coast said:

Lol true. But the Dodgers, Lakers, Warriors, Giants, 49ers, Rams, Kings, etc etc are always at or near the top in attendance. Hell even the Padres are #5 in MLB in average attendance this year.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Don’t give me this “California sucks for sports” bullshit. And we aren’t even talking about championships won by teams in this state even in just the past decade. 

Dear Sir,

This thread is only for those of us with deep-set ignorant opinions. In the future, please keep your facts to yourself.

Thank you,

Management

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11541

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Left Coast said:

Kings

http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2017

http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2018

http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2019

4 hours ago, Left Coast said:

49ers, Rams

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2021

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2019

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2018

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11541

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Left Coast said:

always at or near the top in attendance

Not really.  I tried to exclude COVID years above.  

Of course Rams were affected by small stadium, but their attendance sucked in LA when they weren't winning.

Noticeable you didn't include Clippers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Left Coast

Left Coast 863

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2017

http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2018

http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2019

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2021

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2019

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2018

Surely you can see the % of capacity figures. Anything near 100% (or above) certainly doesn’t indicate “stadiums 3/4 empty”.

Even the Clippers were near 100% 2 years ago.

The A’s are really the only truly terrible attendance pro team in the state.

Again, it’s completely ridiculous to assert California sucks as a sports state. Now, “more fair weather”? Probably. That’s why teams need to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13093

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

the whole point.

Ok but in comparison to whom? I am talking about pro-sports here. Seems pretty consistent in those charts that you posted that the winning teams are at 100% and the losing teams are lower for the most part. Because that is normal human behavior one might expect.

It seems like California stereotypes are at play here than actual data. Yes nobody is going to As games but nobody went to Houston Oilers games at the end either and its not like Texas hates football.

I mean nobody is going to the Tampa Bay Rays games and they are good. OMG FLORIDA HATES SPORTS AND SUCK!!!111

Edited by Valmy77
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53978

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

Distribute all you want.  You can distribute until the cows come home.  Put BTN into every house in California. It will be a channel scrolled over unless either $C or UcLA is playing a live game. 

I keep telling you, fickle SoCal fans don't give two shits about the majority of the B1G slate of games; and they certainly won't give two shits about the replay of Indiana at Rutgers baseball which comes on here shortly.

Oh and you know who cares about viewership?  Advertisers.

Even if $C or UCLA is playing:

Dqif2OSW4AAI6vZ.jpgED40KLLUYAAjh9H?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11541

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Ok but in comparison to whom? I am talking about pro-sports here. Seems pretty consistent in those charts that you posted that the winning teams are at 100% and the losing teams are lower for the most part. Because that is normal human behavior one might expect.

It seems like California stereotypes are at play here than actual data. Yes nobody is going to As games but nobody went to Houston Oilers games at the end either and its not like Texas hates football.

I mean nobody is going to the Tampa Bay Rays games and they are good. OMG FLORIDA HATES SPORTS AND SUCK!!!111

Now do the Jets in the years linked above..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13093

Posted
Posted
Just now, Incredulity said:

Now do the Jets in the years linked above..

Ok.

2021: 3rd worst with 86.9% capacity

2019: 13th worst with 95.2% capacity

2018: 11th worst with 94.5% capacity

They are not very good so their attendance numbers are not very good. Seems about what one might expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28703

Posted
Posted
On 7/8/2022 at 12:52 AM, Upgrayedd said:

Distribute all you want.  You can distribute until the cows come home.  Put BTN into every house in California. It will be a channel scrolled over unless either $C or UcLA is playing a live game. 

I keep telling you, fickle SoCal fans don't give two shits about the majority of the B1G slate of games; and they certainly won't give two shits about the replay of Indiana at Rutgers baseball which comes on here shortly.

Oh and you know who cares about viewership?  Advertisers.

Doesn’t matter if you watch it or not. You’ll pay for it. That’s the point. It’s been years since I’ve seen the numbers but the last time I checked, ESPN was the most expensive channel on cable, costing every basic cable subscriber $5/month whether they watched it or not. Distribution is what pays and deals get made with the expectation of expanded viewership that will come along with greater distribution. I’m sure there are a lot of people in SoCal who don’t pay extra for a sports package but who would tune in to watch, say, USC or UCLA at Wisconsin or Iowa at night if it came on their basic cable or satellite package. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xminus6

Xminus6 790

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:


How embarrassing to play in one of the top venues in sports and only fill it up that much.

To be fair, when they’re good it fills up. I moved to LA in ‘96 and became very close friends with a UCLA season ticket holder in FB and BB. The Rose Bowl was per full back in those days when they were good to nearly great. I’ve been to a lot of near-capacity regular season games at the Rose Bowl. 
 

Sure they’re more fair weathered fans than Bama but I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to take an hour+ bus ride to watch their team suck.

Edited by Xminus6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53978

Posted
Posted

I was against a merger until I saw it laid out like this by Mandel:

Quote

At his first conference media days this week, new Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark declared “the Big 12 is open for business.” Conference realignment is normally a clandestine operation, but Yormark all but advertised that he’s proactively pursuing potential expansion candidates.

It’s no great secret who he’s likely courting: Pac-12 schools Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah.

It would be understandable if some or all of that group is panicking in the wake of USC and UCLA’s recent defections. But it’s not obvious they’d be improving their lot by joining the post-Texas/Oklahoma Big 12. While that conference has stabilized itself nicely, the 10-team Pac-12 still holds more TV leverage. Its new deal comes up a year sooner (2024); it has the two biggest TV brands in Oregon and Washington, who do not appear to be coveted by the Big Ten; and it’s got Pac-12 After Dark, a major selling point for ESPN in particular, which loves filling those late-night slots with quality games.

But there’s at least one viable scenario in which both the Big 12 and Pac-12 could leverage the latter’s current instability: They could merge.

Jon Wilner of The Mercury News wrote an excellent piece earlier this week explaining why this seemingly radical idea actually makes a lot of sense in the new world order. A combined Big 12/Pac-12 wouldn’t be on par with the newly turbo-charged Big Ten and SEC, but it would become the clear No. 3. It would boast three College Football Playoff participants in Oregon, Washington and Cincinnati, and 12 schools that have appeared in a New Year’s Six bowl since 2014. By comparison, the ACC has two CFP participants (Florida State and Clemson) and has had six New Year’s Six participants.

Perhaps most pertinently, the combined leagues — with the help of a couple of expansion adds — would boast 10 of the nation’s top 30 TV markets. And consolidating their upcoming TV deals into one would likely create more competition among bidders, be it traditional partners ESPN and Fox or streaming services like Apple and Amazon.

“Both leagues would make more by working together than they would separately,” former Fox Sports executive Patrick Crakes told Wilner.

I read Wilner’s story this week while sitting poolside with my family while on vacation in France. Being the realignment sicko that I am, I immediately got on my Notes app and started jotting down how such a thing would work. And I’ve got to say: It’s a lot more workable than I initially thought.

First off, we turn what would currently be a clunky 22-team lineup into 24 by adding San Diego State and SMU. The Aztecs are far-and-away the most compelling Pac-12 expansion candidate. They regularly fielding both Top 25 football and men’s basketball teams, at they restore at least some footprint in Southern California. SMU is admittedly redundant with TCU, but it’s never a bad thing to have more presence in a huge football market like Dallas.

Having done that, we can now split the league into four “pods” of six teams each. While not exact, they do divide rather closely into four time zones.

Big 12/Pac-12 Merger


Pacific Pod
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Washington
Washington State


Mountain Pod
Arizona
Arizona State
BYU
Colorado
San Diego State
Utah


Central Pod
Baylor
Houston
Oklahoma State
SMU
TCU
Texas Tech


Eastern Pod
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
West Virginia
UCF


As you can see, travel shouldn’t be nearly as difficult for most of these schools as it will be for USC and UCLA in the Big Ten — especially in the non-revenue schools — as they’ll still be able to play most games within one time zone of their own. East-West crossovers will be minimal.

Here’s how that would work in football:

Nine conference games in total, eight of which are prescheduled.
Those games follow a 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 model: Five games within your pod, and one each against the others.
Cross-pod foes rotate every year.
Now here comes a twist:

The four teams that finish first in each pod will have their ninth game become a conference championship semifinal on Thanksgiving weekend.
The winners advance to a regular-season title game the first week of December.
The other 20 teams get paired off in cross-pod matchups based on similar records — for example, the second-place Pacific team plays the second-place Mountain team for their regular-season finales. Assuming a 12-team Playoff is coming, this will guarantee the league more late-season games with CFP ramifications — candy for TV networks.

It’s anyone’s guess what kind of dollar figures this configuration would fetch, but the laws of leverage suggest it would be higher per school than if the current leagues negotiate separately. ESPN would have one chance, not two, to retain rights to these 24 programs, which between them produced four of the top-12 teams in last season’s final AP poll (No. 4 Cincinnati, No. 5 Baylor, No. 7 Oklahoma State and No. 12 Utah).

And rather than bidding on a league knowing its interest is largely limited to one region — either the West Coast or Great Plains — you’re getting a truly national product. An early-November game between 7-2 Washington and 6-3 Arizona State that previously mattered only to other Pac-12 fans now has consequences for fans in Texas, Ohio and Florida as well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
USC_TMB

USC_TMB 405

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

ED40KLLUYAAjh9H?format=jpg&name=4096x409

So Governor HairGel is pissed he didn’t get a taste of the action?  Did Kal run to daddy in order to get an invite to the B1G? Other than Bay Area eyes (which I would guess is nil in football, I don’t care enough to check their ratings), they bring nothing to the table. If the Regents somehow throw a wrench in the deal, the B1G will just say “ Notre Dame… come on down!”

I’m not sure how intertwined UCLA is with the UC Regents financially due to construction projects for athletics. I would think facility construction financing goes through the Regents and not UCLA itself.

I’m sure sbbruin has more insight than I do on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21744

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

I was against a merger until I saw it laid out like this by Mandel:

 

I would still prefer to drop the eastern teams (UCF, WVU, Cincy) and the weakest PAC teams (WSU, ORST), and either drop BYU or UH, or add SDSU, for a more compact league. But this proposal sounds good too, I'd be on board. If Stanford and Cal was to be all snooty about it we could still call them separate conferences in name only with a single commish and scheduling agreement, but I would hope that wouldn't be necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 48952

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

I would still prefer to drop the eastern teams (UCF, WVU, Cincy) and the weakest PAC teams (WSU, ORST), and either drop BYU or UH, or add SDSU, for a more compact league. But this proposal sounds good too, I'd be on board. If Stanford and Cal was to be all snooty about it we could still call them separate conferences in name only with a single commish and scheduling agreement, but I would hope that wouldn't be necessary. 

Can't drop BYU... probably has the biggest audience draw in "Left Behind B12"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
DFW Horn

DFW Horn 6117

Posted
Posted
On 7/15/2022 at 2:01 PM, USC_TMB said:

So Governor HairGel is pissed he didn’t get a taste of the action?  Did Kal run to daddy in order to get an invite to the B1G? If the Regents somehow throw a wrench in the deal, the B1G will just say “ Notre Dame… come on down!”

ND has an open invitation to the B1G whenever they want it, UCLA or not.

NBC may pony up $75 MM per for their home games, so they're gonna stay football independent for as long as possible. If Newsom fucks up the UCLA move, than Stanford will be happy to take their place, I'm sure. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
flatdawgs

flatdawgs 1254

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I was in Husky Stadium last night, and I got 1990 vibes in the first half.

306328643_10227116827534038_184807208063

The 1990 team would have fucking buried MSU shortly after half, though, but it was loud as hell.

Was directly across from you. Was as loud as it's been for quite a while - my voice is just now coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...