Kliavkoff (not a ballet dancer but the PAC commissioner) - Takes On the Big 12

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

picking random bottom feeders?
1. you said every game.
2. do you expect the schedule every year for USC to be Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, UCLA and Notre Dame(ooc still) an no one else. hell throw in Iowa who is pretty consistently good. but no way will they ever play those other schools. but if they do it wont matter because EVERY game will draw MONSTER ratings.

TV channels know every game isn't going to have monster ratings, but what they want are those games with roughly 4 million viewers. When you add in USC and UCLA in a conference where they have 6 of the top 12 teams already for viewers per game -- it only adds even more games a year for the B1G where they will hit the 4 million bench mark for viewers.

Will USC and UCLA play a schedule with those teams you mentioned? Obviously not. But they will have 2 or 3 games a year against those teams, so will UCLA -- that gives the B1G an extra 4-6 games a year where they can reach the magical 4 million mark. Now USC against OSU, UM or PSU will draw much higher than the 4 million mark. As will games when UCLA faces those 3 teams.

Here is the PAC's issue. Outside of Oregon -- the two biggest draws for viewers in the PAC were..............USC and UCLA. Now the team with the 2nd most viewers is Utah at under a million views per game. Roughly the same amount of viewers as the team ranked 14th in the B1G, Maryland.

Adding P5 schools isn't going to help at all for the PAC. They simply don't have any interest to demand any type of TV deal remotely in the same ballpark as the other conferences. If Oregon gets picked up from the PAC by the B1G (I don't see the SEC wanting them), they may as well move to G5, as they wouldn't have a single team averaging more than a million viewers per game.

 

[OlyDuck]

Like I said quality of football has been irrelevant in conference realignment. ALL about the Benjamin’s.

taking quality on field team is gonna garner more $$ than a team that is not.

 

[OlyDuck]

TV channels know every game isn't going to have monster ratings, but what they want are those games with roughly 4 million viewers. When you add in USC and UCLA in a conference where they have 6 of the top 12 teams already for viewers per game -- it only adds even more games a year for the B1G where they will hit the 4 million bench mark for viewers.

Will USC and UCLA play a schedule with those teams you mentioned? Obviously not. But they will have 2 or 3 games a year against those teams, so will UCLA -- that gives the B1G an extra 4-6 games a year where they can reach the magical 4 million mark. Now USC against OSU, UM or PSU will draw much higher than the 4 million mark. As will games when UCLA faces those 3 teams.

Here is the PAC's issue. Outside of Oregon -- the two biggest draws for viewers in the PAC were..............USC and UCLA. Now the team with the 2nd most viewers is Utah at under a million views per game. Roughly the same amount of viewers as the team ranked 14th in the B1G, Maryland.

Adding P5 schools isn't going to help at all for the PAC. They simply don't have any interest to demand any type of TV deal remotely in the same ballpark as the other conferences. If Oregon gets picked up from the PAC by the B1G (I don't see the SEC wanting them), they may as well move to G5, as they wouldn't have a single team averaging more than a million viewers per game.

Washington will get those viewers if they get good again. frontrunning fairweather fans i tell ya

 

[OlyDuck]

TV channels know every game isn't going to have monster ratings, but what they want are those games with roughly 4 million viewers. When you add in USC and UCLA in a conference where they have 6 of the top 12 teams already for viewers per game -- it only adds even more games a year for the B1G where they will hit the 4 million bench mark for viewers.

Will USC and UCLA play a schedule with those teams you mentioned? Obviously not. But they will have 2 or 3 games a year against those teams, so will UCLA -- that gives the B1G an extra 4-6 games a year where they can reach the magical 4 million mark. Now USC against OSU, UM or PSU will draw much higher than the 4 million mark. As will games when UCLA faces those 3 teams.

Here is the PAC's issue. Outside of Oregon -- the two biggest draws for viewers in the PAC were..............USC and UCLA. Now the team with the 2nd most viewers is Utah at under a million views per game. Roughly the same amount of viewers as the team ranked 14th in the B1G, Maryland.

Adding P5 schools isn't going to help at all for the PAC. They simply don't have any interest to demand any type of TV deal remotely in the same ballpark as the other conferences. If Oregon gets picked up from the PAC by the B1G (I don't see the SEC wanting them), they may as well move to G5, as they wouldn't have a single team averaging more than a million viewers per game.

UCLA wont get those viewers if they drop off again. they had some half capacity games in the Neuheisel years and late mora years.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

You take Alabama and Georgia out and LSU, Auburn and Florida each probably have another national championship.

Since the BCS era the SEC has had 6 different national champions.
Tenn
Florida
Alabama
Georgia
LSU
Auburn

No other league can touch that. The Big 12 would be greatly elevated but you forget th at OU would not be the OU it is now if it had to contend with AL and UGA for the conference championship. So many dynamics change at that point.

The SEC would still be at worse 2 and I wouldn't bet against them being number 1.

You are out of your mind if you think a conference with Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia and Texas to go along with the Big 12 leftovers wouldn't be ranked #1 over the teams left in the SEC.

What makes the SEC so good is they have a dominate top of the conference............i.e. Bama and fill in the blank for #2, lately it has been Georgia, sometimes it is LSU. You take arguably the top two programs in CFB out of the SEC and the SEC is 3rd, if USC is joining the B1G in this scenario. LSU would now be the top program in the SEC. They are a great program, but they are not Bama or Georgia.

The B1G is already as deep as the SEC -- they lack the dominating team like Bama or Georgia at the top. We have OSU, who offensively, have the best talent in the country, year in and year out. It is their defense that is the issue lately. You take Bama and Georgia out of the SEC and now the SEC lacks a dominant team at the top. They have a handful of quality programs, but no program that is dominant right now.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

UCLA wont get those viewers if they drop off again. they had some half capacity games in the Neuheisel years and late mora years.

What you don't seem to get is -- The B1G teams brings those viewers already, so UCLA's viewers per game will likely triple in their first year in the B1G. Same goes for USC. And the new matchups will only draw even more fans.

USC and UCLA will play more games with 4+ million viewers in their first year in the B1G than they have played in many years in the PAC (I can't give you an exact number because i don't feel like looking it up). But simply playing Ohio State is going to get them 5-6 million viewers, same with playing Michigan, same with playing Penn State. THAT is why the B1G has such a huge TV deal, they put up huge numbers for TV ratings. Ohio State averaged over 5 million viewers per game. Michigan averaged just under 5 million viewers per game. Penn State averaged around 4 million viewers per game.

With the B1G bringing on USC and UCLA, the 2nd and 3rd most viewed teams in the PAC -- it leaves the PAC with exactly one team who averages over 1 million viewers. To put it in perspective how few that is -- Cincinnati, as a G5 program averaged 1.2 million viewers per game.

Personally -- I'd love the B1G to bring Oregon over. Maybe Knight will do something to help with the academic side to give Oregon a push. I'm guess that is what is holding them back for the B1G. I'd love to see ND and Oregon added.

 

[OlyDuck]

What you don't seem to get is -- The B1G teams brings those viewers already, so UCLA's viewers per game will likely triple in their first year in the B1G. Same goes for USC. And the new matchups will only draw even more fans.

USC and UCLA will play more games with 4+ million viewers in their first year in the B1G than they have played in many years in the PAC (I can't give you an exact number because i don't feel like looking it up). But simply playing Ohio State is going to get them 5-6 million viewers, same with playing Michigan, same with playing Penn State. THAT is why the B1G has such a huge TV deal, they put up huge numbers for TV ratings. Ohio State averaged over 5 million viewers per game. Michigan averaged just under 5 million viewers per game. Penn State averaged around 4 million viewers per game.

With the B1G bringing on USC and UCLA, the 2nd and 3rd most viewed teams in the PAC -- it leaves the PAC with exactly one team who averages over 1 million viewers. To put it in perspective how few that is -- Cincinnati, as a G5 program averaged 1.2 million viewers per game.

Personally -- I'd love the B1G to bring Oregon over. Maybe Knight will do something to help with the academic side to give Oregon a push. I'm guess that is what is holding them back for the B1G. I'd love to see ND and Oregon added.

sure til they fall off again and the avg viewer doesnt tune in any more. UCLA fans will fall off when they see them get beat a couple times by those teams. its just the way UCLA is.
cinci avged that in the last couple years because the last couple years have been their best. again watch the fall off and see if those numbers are the same.
academics is a cop out argument as Oregon is above Nebraska and within a small margin from Iowa and Michigan State

 

[Wild Turkey]

You are brilliant if you think a conference with Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia and Texas to go along with the Big 12 leftovers wouldn't be ranked #1 over the teams left in the SEC.

What makes the SEC so good is they have a dominate top of the conference............i.e. Bama and fill in the blank for #2, lately it has been Georgia, sometimes it is LSU. You take arguably the top two programs in CFB out of the SEC and the SEC is 3rd, if USC is joining the B1G in this scenario. LSU would now be the top program in the SEC. They are a great program, but they are not Bama or Georgia.

The B1G is already as deep as the SEC -- they lack the dominating team like Bama or Georgia at the top. We have OSU, who offensively, have the best talent in the country, year in and year out. It is their defense that is the issue lately. You take Bama and Georgia out of the SEC and now the SEC lacks a dominant team at the top. They have a handful of quality programs, but no program that is dominant right now.

I corrected your first paragraph

You‘re nuts if you think the B1G is as deep as the SEC. The SEC has plenty of games pulling in big ratings that don’t have Bama or UGA attached. If Ohio State (and last year Michigan) aren’t on the ratings are rarely there.

There’s a reason you guys play at 11:00 and that’s because we put our scrub games in that slot. If you went head to head with us on marquee games we would trounce you.

I know it’s tough to swallow but be a big boy and take the medicine.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Wouldn't those teams have to have played UGA and Bama? I mean the idea isn't that Bama and UGA are wiped off the earth. They are just in a different conference. Bama is going to Bama with Saban at the helm, so I am not seeing all these extra wins you are talking about.

How many times did Auburn, LSU and Florida miss the playoffs or BCS because they had to go through both Bama and UGA (vice versa is true in many cases)?

We aren’t talking a bunch of wins either. In 2017 playing UGA, Bama and then UGA decimated our team with injuries and we won 2 of the 3. That’s just one example.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Honk honk honk honk honk honk honk

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

I corrected your first paragraph

You‘re nuts if you think the B1G is as deep as the SEC. The SEC has plenty of games pulling in big ratings that don’t have Bama or UGA attached. If Ohio State (and last year Michigan) aren’t on the ratings are rarely there.

There’s a reason you guys play at 11:00 and that’s because we put our scrub games in that slot. If you went head to head with us on marquee games we would trounce you.

I know it’s tough to swallow but be a big boy and take the medicine.

The #1 most watched team is Ohio State. The #2 most watched team is UM. The #4 most watched team is Penn State.

Remember LSU and Florida you were talking about -- they ranked behind Wisconsin and Nebraska for number of viewers per game. Your Auburn team ranks right around where Michigan State does in the number of viewers per game. The Tennessee you bragged about -- they rank behind Purdue and Iowa for number of viewers.

You can continue to think the SEC would be fine without Bama and Georgia, but they CARRY the SEC. The rest of the schools are simply riding the coattails and pounding their chest. They are, by far, the two most watched SEC teams per game, but they'd rank 3rd and 5th for viewers if they were in the B1G.

So make sure to thank Georgia and Bama fans next time you see them on here. Without them -- the SEC would be WAAAAY behind.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

How many times did Auburn, LSU and Florida miss the playoffs or BCS because they had to go through both Bama and UGA (vice versa is true in many cases)?

We aren’t talking a bunch of wins either. In 2017 playing UGA, Bama and then UGA decimated our team with injuries and we won 2 of the 3. That’s just one example.

Remove Bama and Georgia from the SEC and the thought of two teams from the SEC making the CFP goes out the door with them. So would the SEC get to the CFP? Absolutely. Just like the Big 12 has and the Pac 12.

If Bama and Georgia were in the Big 12 the last decade -- the Big 12 would be considered the best conference in football right now. Put Bama and Georgia in the ACC the last decade -- the ACC is now the best conference in CFB. Put Bama and Georgia in the B1G the last decade and the B1G is now the best conference in CFB.

I truly hope you are trolling, because if you actually believe what you are typing about the SEC without Bama and Georgia, you have serious issues.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Remove Bama and Georgia from the SEC and the thought of two teams from the SEC making the CFP goes out the door with them. So would the SEC get to the CFP? Absolutely. Just like the Big 12 has and the Pac 12.

If Bama and Georgia were in the Big 12 the last decade -- the Big 12 would be considered the best conference in football right now. Put Bama and Georgia in the ACC the last decade -- the ACC is now the best conference in CFB. Put Bama and Georgia in the B1G the last decade and the B1G is now the best conference in CFB.

I truly hope you are trolling, because if you actually believe what you are typing about the SEC without Bama and Georgia, you have serious issues.

So you’re just discounting both Auburn and LSU’s national championship?

If you think the SEC is propped up by just Bama and Georgia you’re delusional.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

How many times did Auburn, LSU and Florida miss the playoffs or BCS because they had to go through both Bama and UGA (vice versa is true in many cases)?

We aren’t talking a bunch of wins either. In 2017 playing UGA, Bama and then UGA decimated our team with injuries and we won 2 of the 3. That’s just one example.

Who has stymied the additional championships that you claim these other teams would have had? Mostly Bama, and a little UGA. Keep in mind those two teams in a weaker conference are also more likely to get into the CFP. At the end of the day, you aren't getting rid of Bama in your hypothetical ... everything goes through them. So I am not seeing the extra championships although there might have been more CFP appearances by those teams. Love 'em or hate 'em ... you have to go through Bama whether they are in your conference or not.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

So you’re just discounting both Auburn and LSU’s national championship?

If you think the SEC is propped up by just Bama and Georgia you’re delusional.

Someone else said it in this thread ... the SEC most surely is propped up by Bama ... any conference would be. Then, if we go back to when Saban came to Bama, you get a rotating 2nd best team of LSU mostly, most recently UGA, and then some Auburn and UF. But candidly, UF has been pretty irrelevant since Meyer. And you guys ... Jeckel and Hyde with way more Hyde ... you guys know how to beat Bama more than anyone else, but you are more likely to lose 4 or 5 games than you are to win the SEC or better. I can't figure you guys out ... since your natty you have had the following losses per season: 5, 9, 2, 5, 6, 5, 4, 4, 5, 7. Vegas has your O/U wins at 6.5 this year. You've been unranked 6 seasons, and when ranked it was 2, 22, 24, 10, and 14. You just had a UTjr level coaching debacle, and it's highly likely you fire your current coach after his second year. I am not saying this to be mean or rub it in ... but to point out that it's great you had a natty in 2010, but you haven't been propping up the SEC since.

Look, to be clear UGA even being in the discussion with Bama, tOSU, OU, etc. is a new thing to me. It's a Smart era thing. I don't think the SEC is just Bama, but I am willing to say it's definitely Bama at top. Then in the past 10 years you have a natty but been irrelevant for the most part. LSU was solid until Coach O blew it up. UGA is definitely on top now, close to if not even with Bama. ATM may be an up and comer, but they have to lose less than 4 games every year. Again what some said here is accurate - it's Bama, then a rotating no. 2 - UGA for now - and then very solid next 3 or 4 teams that rotate.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Who has stymied the additional championships that you claim these other teams would have had? Mostly Bama, and a little UGA. Keep in mind those two teams in a weaker conference are also more likely to get into the CFP. At the end of the day, you aren't getting rid of Bama in your hypothetical ... everything goes through them. So I am not seeing the extra championships although there might have been more CFP appearances by those teams. Love 'em or hate 'em ... you have to go through Bama whether they are in your conference or not.

Auburn has had more success than anyone else vs Bama so not scared. I gave you the perfect answer to your question with 2017. It’s not that hard to think there would be a potential extra natty for any of the teams I listed.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Someone else said it in this thread ... the SEC most surely is propped up by Bama ... any conference would be. Then, if we go back to when Saban came to Bama, you get a rotating 2nd best team of LSU mostly, most recently UGA, and then some Auburn and UF. But candidly, UF has been pretty irrelevant since Meyer. And you guys ... Jeckel and Hyde with way more Hyde ... you guys know how to beat Bama more than anyone else, but you are more likely to lose 4 or 5 games than you are to win the SEC or better. I can't figure you guys out ... since your natty you have had the following losses per season: 5, 9, 2, 5, 6, 5, 4, 4, 5, 7. Vegas has your O/U wins at 6.5 this year. You've been unranked 6 seasons, and when ranked it was 2, 22, 24, 10, and 14. You just had a UTjr level coaching debacle, and it's highly likely you fire your current coach after his second year. I am not saying this to be mean or rub it in ... but to point out that it's great you had a natty in 2010, but you haven't been propping up the SEC since.

Look, to be clear UGA even being in the discussion with Bama, tOSU, OU, etc. is a new thing to me. It's a Smart era thing. I don't think the SEC is just Bama, but I am willing to say it's definitely Bama at top. Then in the past 10 years you have a natty but been irrelevant for the most part. LSU was solid until Coach O blew it up. UGA is definitely on top now, close to if not even with Bama. ATM may be an up and comer, but they have to lose less than 4 games every year. Again what some said here is accurate - it's Bama, then a rotating no. 2 - UGA for now - and then very solid next 3 or 4 teams that rotate.

BS. Bama has won the SEC consistently but they haven‘t propped the SEC up. They’ve been dominate but most teams except for Tenn haven’t laid down and if they left a hole it would be filled.

It’s ridiculous to think the SEC is a one or two team league. 6 different SEC teams have won natties since the start of the BCS. No other conference has more than 1. That’s fact.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Remove Bama and Georgia from the SEC and the thought of two teams from the SEC making the CFP goes out the door with them. So would the SEC get to the CFP? Absolutely. Just like the Big 12 has and the Pac 12.

If Bama and Georgia were in the Big 12 the last decade -- the Big 12 would be considered the best conference in football right now. Put Bama and Georgia in the ACC the last decade -- the ACC is now the best conference in CFB. Put Bama and Georgia in the B1G the last decade and the B1G is now the best conference in CFB.

I truly hope you are trolling, because if you actually believe what you are typing about the SEC without Bama and Georgia, you have serious issues.

In 2017 it easily could have been Auburn and Georgia. We just couldn’t survive UGA, Bama, UGA in practically a row and no one else would have either.

In 2019 it would have been LSU and Georgia.

Zero doubt other teams like LSU, Auburn and Florida step up.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

BS. Bama has won the SEC consistently but they haven‘t propped the SEC up. They’ve been dominate but most teams except for Tenn haven’t laid down and if they left a hole it would be filled.

It’s ridiculous to think the SEC is a one or two team league. 6 different SEC teams have won natties since the start of the BCS. No other conference has more than 1. That’s fact.

I don't think you've thought through what you are saying ... it's possible to agree that Bama has propped up the SEC - that's actually unarguable. And it's possible to agree that one thing that makes the SEC the preeminent conference is that it has more teams that can and have reached the top. Those aren't inconsistent statements, even if you appear to think they are.

LOL that anyone is filling a "Bama hole" any time soon. That's like saying that any old team in the PAC could have filled the hole had UCLA left back in the day. The simple fact is that we've seen a dynasty with Bama that we've never seen - you can look at Nebraska, OU, FSU, and even Miami in their heydays, and what they did was impressive. But not as much as what Saban has done in the last 15 years. I hate having to defend Bama as their fans, my son included, are arrogant as hell. But, as they say, it ain't bragging if you back it up.

I didn't say that the SEC was a one or two team league. I said it was lead by Bama - not arguable - with a rotating no. 2 - mostly LSU, recently UGA, from time to time UF and Auburn, with ATM an up and comer. I then said after the first two teams you then always have 2,3 or 4 teams that are really good. This is seen by the fact that the SEC would have averaged close to 4 teams per year in a 12 team CFP. I'll stand with you in defending the SEC based on this and any other number of reasons. But you are just off when you argue the SEC would be just fine and dandy if they lost their no. 1 and let's say no. 3 team UGA, since Saban started (LSU being no. 2 over the entire period in my mind). The SEC would be really good, but it would depend on where Bama and UGA landed as to whether it would still be the best.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

In 2017 it easily could have been Auburn and Georgia. We just couldn’t survive UGA, Bama, UGA in practically a row and no one else would have either.

In 2019 it would have been LSU and Georgia.

Zero doubt other teams like LSU, Auburn and Florida step up.

Why do you think that? LSU I get. I listed what you guys have been the last 10 years - what exactly would you guys do? And UF has been through 3 coaches since Meyer. Would the SEC will be really solid? Hell, yes. But looking at today you still have to go through Bama and UGA (and others) in the CFP, if you can get there.

Why do you list UGA in 2017 and 2019 ... your hypothetical is losing Bama and UGA? You would win the SEC in 2017 but have to get past Bama and UGA in the CFP. In 2019 it would have been LSU, but they won it anyway in the SEC with Bama and UGA so nothing changes.