PAC News

WhosYourDawggy said:
You continue to ignore the most important point … why would the bottom teams, or any teams, want to keep making it more difficult to win? They don’t and won’t. Seriously do you think Ky/OM/etc are going to want to make it even less likely to win the SEC get into the CFP?

You are guessing on money. Monday night football has nothing to do with it. TV contracts are pure math. The money MAY be there for FSU and Clemson, but no one else. The numbers are clear as a bell. Either teams add enough eyeballs and CFP shares, or they don’t. The SEC won’t take 4 teams, at least 2 of which can’t earn their share just to expand.

The NCAA owns March Madness and a ton of the good teams aren’t in the P2. What are you even talking about? You want expansion for expansion sake so bad you are just throwing shot on the wall … NFL comparisons, stealing March Madness, etc.
Click to expand...
1. I really don't care if we expand and if I got a vote I would prefer we go back to the original 10 members assuming we got the same money of course (yes I am a whore).

2. We are in agreement that FSU and Clemson both make the cut money-wise and the others don't but I also think if this is what the SEC wanted to do they would get their way. I do think that MNF is an indication that the value is there for football and if a network pays 2.6 billion for one game a week then 200 million for two additional teams in the SEC plus their basketball and all other content is very doable. UNC doesn't pull numbers now but give them games against UGA, Auburn, SC, Bama, and their numbers go up substantially.

You have an excellent point about the bottom teams so it probably comes down to how the conference sells it. They obviously didn't have an issue with OU & UT so I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference because it's not like they play even more games because of it. Why would Vandy want UT and OU?
 
Deep Creek said:
Hard for me to believe that UCLA, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue and Rutgers add more individual value than Oregon and Washington.
Click to expand...
They don’t
 
Wild Turkey said:
1. I really don't care if we expand and if I got a vote I would prefer we go back to the original 10 members assuming we got the same money of course (yes I am a whore).

2. We are in agreement that FSU and Clemson both make the cut money-wise and the others don't but I also think if this is what the SEC wanted to do they would get their way. I do think that MNF is an indication that the value is there for football and if a network pays 2.6 billion for one game a week then 200 million for two additional teams in the SEC plus their basketball and all other content is very doable. UNC doesn't pull numbers now but give them games against UGA, Auburn, SC, Bama, and their numbers go up substantially.

You have an excellent point about the bottom teams so it probably comes down to how the conference sells it. They obviously didn't have an issue with OU & UT so I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference because it's not like they play even more games because of it. Why would Vandy want UT and OU?
Click to expand...
To be clear, I said Clemson and FSU will probably make it. Neither may be very competitive in the SEC. They have both excelled at times in the ACC where there is obviously no competition. Put them in the SEC and they could be Ole Miss level, not UGA/Bama level. Their eyeballs are decent, but not great. And you would have to expect them to get CFP shares to get to $110+ million. But they are clearly way better than anyone else not called Notre Dame. And, IF the SEC decided to expand, the would have to be at the top of the list. It drops off dramatically thereafter.

Again, your MNF comparison is apples and oranges. It doesn't show anything that relates to CFB that would enable you to extrapolate that there is more money out there. MNF has its own history that drives viewership, it's the NFL that is more popular than CFB, and it's 16 games that average 12.1 million viewers. In other words, the average of their games would be the number 3 most watched games in 2022 compared to CFB. It's a meaningless number for our purposes. Either a team can drive enough 4+ million watched games, and grab CFP shares, or they can't. Those in power can run the numbers ... they would never even think to look at MNF, IMO.

I live 20 minutes from UNC, and have a son that goes there. UNC v. any SEC team doesn't get anyone's heart beating, IMO. They just aren't the type of football brand that would do that. Now, hoops would do well, but we've established hoops money is a rounding error when we are talking billion dollar contracts.

OU and UT, as I have pointed out were unique for a number of reasons:

- They are true CFB Blue Bloods, Clemson and FSU aren't. If you look at the list of the most valuable college football programs, Texas is almost always 1, and OU is 5-7 typically. FSU and Clemson are at 26 and 27, not even in the top 25. FYI, UNC is 50th.
- Timing was perfect for them, it is terrible for FSU and Clemson. The SEC was about to make its biggest scheduling change in over 30 years because of (1) their new contract, and (2) the expanded CFP. Getting to 16 was key ... getting to 16 with OU and TX was an unreal bit of good luck. FSU and Cleonso, on the other hand have to deal with the ACC GOR.
- Had they not come to the SEC, they would have gone to the B1G and that would have mattered, and not for recruiting. With both the SEC and the B1G wanting to get to 16, it was best to grab them to keep them from going to the B1G. Clemson and FSU simply don't have that gravitas.

I assure you that the bottom 8 had to be cajoled to go along with it. They certainly have had to be persuaded to go along with 9 IC games. Again, there is a bit of luck for OU and TX ... there is this great alignment that came at the right time - the SEC renegotiated their main contract with ESPN, then the Sat 3:30 game to get away from CBS, then the CFP expansion came in 2026 (now 2024), all of which made tougher scheduling possible, which at least tripled the SEC's prime games. Now that is all settled in and will be wrapped into the contract in the next 12 - 36 months, the impact that Clemson and FSU would have financially won't be near the same. And, at some point the bottom 8 are saying "we have plenty of money ... let's make it so we can at least win or get in the CFP every now and again."
-
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
To be clear, I said Clemson and FSU will probably make it. Neither may be very competitive in the SEC. They have both excelled at times in the ACC where there is obviously no competition. Put them in the SEC and they could be Ole Miss level, not UGA/Bama level. Their eyeballs are decent, but not great. And you would have to expect them to get CFP shares to get to $110+ million. But they are clearly way better than anyone else not called Notre Dame. And, IF the SEC decided to expand, the would have to be at the top of the list. It drops off dramatically thereafter.

Again, your MNF comparison is apples and oranges. It doesn't show anything that relates to CFB that would enable you to extrapolate that there is more money out there. MNF has its own history that drives viewership, it's the NFL that is more popular than CFB, and it's 16 games that average 12.1 million viewers. In other words, the average of their games would be the number 3 most watched games in 2022 compared to CFB. It's a meaningless number for our purposes. Either a team can drive enough 4+ million watched games, and grab CFP shares, or they can't. Those in power can run the numbers ... they would never even think to look at MNF, IMO.

I live 20 minutes from UNC, and have a son that goes there. UNC v. any SEC team doesn't get anyone's heart beating, IMO. They just aren't the type of football brand that would do that. Now, hoops would do well, but we've established hoops money is a rounding error when we are talking billion dollar contracts.

OU and UT, as I have pointed out were unique for a number of reasons:

- They are true CFB Blue Bloods, Clemson and FSU aren't. If you look at the list of the most valuable college football programs, Texas is almost always 1, and OU is 5-7 typically. FSU and Clemson are at 26 and 27, not even in the top 25. FYI, UNC is 50th.
- Timing was perfect for them, it is terrible for FSU and Clemson. The SEC was about to make its biggest scheduling change in over 30 years because of (1) their new contract, and (2) the expanded CFP. Getting to 16 was key ... getting to 16 with OU and TX was an unreal bit of good luck. FSU and Cleonso, on the other hand have to deal with the ACC GOR.
- Had they not come to the SEC, they would have gone to the B1G and that would have mattered, and not for recruiting. With both the SEC and the B1G wanting to get to 16, it was best to grab them to keep them from going to the B1G. Clemson and FSU simply don't have that gravitas.

I assure you that the bottom 8 had to be cajoled to go along with it. They certainly have had to be persuaded to go along with 9 IC games. Again, there is a bit of luck for OU and TX ... there is this great alignment that came at the right time - the SEC renegotiated their main contract with ESPN, then the Sat 3:30 game to get away from CBS, then the CFP expansion came in 2026 (now 2024), all of which made tougher scheduling possible, which at least tripled the SEC's prime games. Now that is all settled in and will be wrapped into the contract in the next 12 - 36 months, the impact that Clemson and FSU would have financially won't be near the same. And, at some point the bottom 8 are saying "we have plenty of money ... let's make it so we can at least win or get in the CFP every now and again."
-
Click to expand...
as with everything.. programs go through stretches.. I think FSU and Clemson can be really good in the SEC for stretches.. for as great as Bama has been with Saban, they were really bad prior to his arrival for several seasons.

UGA seems like it's here to stay, but the beauty of the new scheduling is.. everyone will get a crack at them
 
Deep Creek said:
Hard for me to believe that UCLA, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue and Rutgers add more individual value than Oregon and Washington.
Click to expand...
That's never relevant when discussing the economics of expansion. Teams that are already in are treated differently than those that are trying to get in. You know that. Those teams were the ones who had a part in developing what the B1G is today.
 
Thiefery said:
as with everything.. programs go through stretches.. I think FSU and Clemson can be really good in the SEC for stretches.. for as great as Bama has been with Saban, they were really bad prior to his arrival for several seasons.

UGA seems like it's here to stay, but the beauty of the new scheduling is.. everyone will get a crack at them
Click to expand...
I am aware of the cyclical nature of CFB. But remember that in the 30 years before Saban got there, Bama "only" won 4 national championships. That's as many as you guys claim all time. I've had to live with those fucking gumps all my 55+ years of following SEC football. They may fall off after Satan leaves, but they are like cockroaches ... those fuckers will be back.

I am not in any way saying that UGA will be there forever. It took us 40 years to get back here ... I am fully aware this can be fleeting. That said, we still don't know if FSU and Clemson would compete in a league with many big boys, even if they cycle in and out. Playing UGA, Bama, UF, LSU, UTjr, and Auburn greatly differs from playing Pitt, Syracuse, and NCSU. Now throw in the newbies ... ATM, OU, and UT, and we'd see how well they'd do. Never mind playing the middling teams in the SEC who would beat up their depth. It's a different league, something you are about to find out, too!
 
CoalTrain said:
kslsports.com

Opinion: Making Sense Of The Latest Pac-12 Negotiation Rumors

It's been a busy few weeks regarding the Pac-12 negotiation rumors. Let's try to make some sense of it together.
kslsports.com kslsports.com
Click to expand...
Any article on this that doesn't mention the uncertainty of Ore and Washington is absurd. There is no way that ESPN, Apple and Prime aren't going to get at least a 5 year GOR from all teams. And those two teams aren't signing a GOR until they hear from the B1G. And $30 million puts these teams behind by $50 million today, and that will grow to being behind by way more than that once the new CFP contract hits.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
That's never relevant when discussing the economics of expansion. Teams that are already in are treated differently than those that are trying to get in. You know that. Those teams were the ones who had a part in developing what the B1G is today.
Click to expand...
I know. Still doesn’t make sense. They are being paid NOW for PAST value added not CURRENT value added. Hell, Kodak should still be paid for their camera work today like they were in the 80s.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I am aware of the cyclical nature of CFB. But remember that in the 30 years before Saban got there, Bama "only" won 4 national championships. That's as many as you guys claim all time. I've had to live with those fucking gumps all my 55+ years of following SEC football. They may fall off after Satan leaves, but they are like cockroaches ... those fuckers will be back.

I am not in any way saying that UGA will be there forever. It took us 40 years to get back here ... I am fully aware this can be fleeting. That said, we still don't know if FSU and Clemson would compete in a league with many big boys, even if they cycle in and out. Playing UGA, Bama, UF, LSU, UTjr, and Auburn greatly differs from playing Pitt, Syracuse, and NCSU. Now throw in the newbies ... ATM, OU, and UT, and we'd see how well they'd do. Never mind playing the middling teams in the SEC who would beat up their depth. It's a different league, something you are about to find out, too!
Click to expand...
just remember.. we are taking over.. #HOOKEM
UTwinTRoll.jpeg
 
Thiefery said:
just remember.. we are taking over.. #HOOKEM
View attachment 98934
Click to expand...
We actually thank you for beating us in the Sugar Bowl. If you talk to people behind the scenes at UGA, what made Kirby change the culture of the program was our loss to you guys. That was when we were in the Fromm/Fields shit, and there were some folks on the team that were locker room poison, including Fields to a degree. A bunch of guys opted out of the Sugar Bowl and Smart let them come to NOLA and it caused a ton of problems. He swore from that day on that no matter how talented you were, you were all in on his culture or your weren't. We've lost some talented guys since - Brenton Cox comes to mind - but Smart doesn't care ... his way or the highway. That culture has been what has gotten us where we are today where we are so loaded with depth it isn't even funny. We have guys who would start anywhere else who are sticking around for their turn ... you just don't see that. So thanks, Tex!
 
Deep Creek said:
I know. Still doesn’t make sense. They are being paid NOW for PAST value added not CURRENT value added. Hell, Kodak should still be paid for their camera work today like they were in the 80s.
Click to expand...
Just the way it is.
 
Thought this did as good a job as anything to wrap up where the PAC is:

 
meh. im less convinced now that any schools are moving anytime soon than i was last summer.
i feel like the 4corner schools will stay.
The Big 10 doesnt even have a commissioner at this point so all that seems like a moot point until they do. I dont think anyone with any amount of power has enough to pull OR and UW in for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top