Pac12 expansion - looking to add 4 teams

[ralphiewvu]

Yes, you misunderstood what his point was. He meant one thing, you meant another thing. And here we are. His response to "not rivals" was coming from a Washington State perspective, because his initial post was from a Washington State perspective. You were looking at things through a Pac perspective, which is fine, just not where @wazzu31 was coming from.

You responded to him, so it's ultimately on you to understand where he was coming from.

I asked him a question. He misunderstood what I was asking. Yes here we are. I figured what the thread was about and most people that watch CFB know New Mexico and Wyoming aren’t rivals with WSU would know I meant the PAC. My fault for assuming that wasn’t too much to understand.

 

[ericd7633]

I didn’t say they didn’t. I said if there was a strong commitment from CalFord to stay right after UW and UO left, Utah and the Arizona’s may not have signed on with the B12. I’m not wrong on this at all. Again you aren’t understanding what I’m saying.

Obviously they wanted to stay in the P12, because they had nowhere else to go. So right there is your commitment. Utah, ASU and Arizona had options and took it. Aligning with Stanford and Cal, at this point, isn't some sign of strength. I mean the only reason they are in the ACC is because of a technicality in the media right deal, and them only taking a 30% share in revenue.

 

[ericd7633]

I asked him a question. He misunderstood what I was asking. Yes here we are. I figured what the thread was about and most people that watch CFB know New Mexico and Wyoming aren’t rivals with WSU would know I meant the PAC. My fault for assuming that wasn’t too much to understand.

Because your question made no sense given the context of his post and his thoughts. And he answered accordingly.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Because your question made no sense given the context of his post and his thoughts. And he answered accordingly.

It made sense considering the thread we are in. Again, did he think I thought UNM and Wyoming were rivals to WSU?
But thank you so much for being the keeper of conversation context out here.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Obviously they wanted to stay in the P12, because they had nowhere else to go. So right there is your commitment. Utah, ASU and Arizona had options and took it. Aligning with Stanford and Cal, at this point, isn't some sign of strength. I mean the only reason they are in the ACC is because of a technicality in the media right deal, and them only taking a 30% share in revenue.

Them making a statement proclaiming it may have dissuaded Utah and the arizonas from leaving. Not saying totally but may have. Keeping 7 members would have made a world of difference from what they are going to get now from a total payout.

 

[ericd7633]

It made sense considering the thread we are in. Again, did he think I thought UNM and Wyoming were rivals to WSU?
But thank you so much for being the keeper of conversation context out here.

Idk if he thinks you thought New Mexico and Wyoming are Washington State rivals. But he answered the question based on the context of his first post, which you replied too. Instead of responding in a condescending way about Colorado State and Utah State, you could have said you meant the Pac and this all could have probably been avoided.

 

[ericd7633]

Them making a statement proclaiming it may have dissuaded Utah and the arizonas from leaving. Not saying totally but may have. Keeping 7 members would have made a world of difference from what they are going to get now from a total payout.

But it wouldn't have. Once UW and Oregon decided to leave, on top of Colorado, Utah, ASU and Arizona were right behind. If Oregon and Washington would have committed that would have been one thing. Stanford and Cal making a statement wouldn't have changed anything. There's also the whole timeline of events. 6 schools left within a span of 4 days.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Idk if he thinks you thought New Mexico and Wyoming are Washington State rivals. But he answered the question based on the context of his first post, which you replied too. Instead of responding in a condescending way about Colorado State and Utah State, you could have said you meant the Pac and this all could have probably been avoided.

I literally thought he was alluding to only rivals have been added. Because in a thread about PAC EXPANSION I suggested two adds that (as you have agreed) are way better then his suggestion. All the while it being pretty freaking obvious neither of the teams I asked about are WSU rivals.

It is what it is.

 

[ericd7633]

I literally thought he was alluding to only rivals have been added. Because in a thread about PAC EXPANSION I suggested two adds that (as you have agreed) are way better then his suggestion. All the while it being pretty freaking obvious neither of the teams I asked about are WSU rivals.

It is what it is.

Yeah man because you misunderstood what he was saying. Which is fine. It's obvious neither of you like each other, so there's no middle ground.

 

[ralphiewvu]

But it wouldn't have. Once UW and Oregon decided to leave, on top of Colorado, Utah, ASU and Arizona were right behind. If Oregon and Washington would have committed that would have been one thing. Stanford and Cal making a statement wouldn't have changed anything. There's also the whole timeline of events. 6 schools left within a span of 4 days.

You have no clue if it wouldn't have. Again Utah and the arizonas didn't want to go to the B12. Keeping 7/8 teams and adding the 2 or 3 I said probably gets them in the ballpark of the B12 payout.

But we'll never know.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Yeah man because you misunderstood what he was saying. Which is fine. It's obvious neither of you like each other, so there's no middle ground.

As I said, it is what it is.

And I really don't hate anyone here. (Look at the clown rainbowing all of my posts and me not responding) It's a message board for discussion/argument.

Going to see your alma mater play football tonight. It's right by the house.

 

[ericd7633]

You have no clue if it wouldn't have. Again Utah and the arizonas didn't want to go to the B12. Keeping 7/8 teams and adding the 2 or 3 I said probably gets them in the ballpark of the B12 payout.

But we'll never know.

If Utah, ASU and Arizona wanted to be in a league with Stanford and Cal, they'd be in a league with Stanford and Cal. When your 4 biggest brands leave, and you have the option to join a stable league for more revenue than you'd get in an otherwise watered down Pac, you move.

And I very much doubt those 7/8 teams along with whatever is added gets them anywhere close to what they are getting in the B12. We see what Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State are worth. Utah, ASU and Arizona aren't worth $50 million on their own, which would have to be what they're worth to get close to the B12 number.

 

[ericd7633]

As I said, it is what it is.

And I really don't hate anyone here. (Look at the clown rainbowing all of my posts and me not responding) It's a message board for discussion/argument.

Going to see your alma mater play football tonight. It's right by the house.

Fair enough.

And I'm not sure which game you're going to tonight but it's not my alma mater because they don't have a game tonight. Lol. At least I think so.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Fair enough.

And I'm not sure which game you're going to tonight but it's not my alma mater because they don't have a game tonight. Lol. At least I think so.

My bad, I thought you told me where you went to high school but perhaps im
Mistaken.

 

[ericd7633]

My bad, I thought you told me where you went to high school but perhaps im
Mistaken.

I think I may have told you where I went to college, but they don't have a football team. Lol.

 

[ralphiewvu]

If Utah, ASU and Arizona wanted to be in a league with Stanford and Cal, they'd be in a league with Stanford and Cal. When your 4 biggest brands leave, and you have the option to join a stable league for more revenue than you'd get in an otherwise watered down Pac, you move.

And I very much doubt those 7/8 teams along with whatever is added gets them anywhere close to what they are getting in the B12. We see what Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State are worth. Utah, ASU and Arizona aren't worth $50 million on their own, which would have to be what they're worth to get close to the B12 number.

The PAC had no plan. It was crazy how they let that Klivkoff (spelling) just sit on his hands expecting to get SEC/B1G money.

That conference stays together with those 7/8, they are getting what the B12 gets playoff wise, likely is still considered a power conference and gets something close to what this current B12 is getting from the networks. You are keeping a presence in SoCal and add a Dallas market in my scenario.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I think I may have told you where I went to college, but they don't have a football team. Lol.

I thought you told me your high school, which is what I was referring to. But maybe it was just where ya grew up. My B

 

[ericd7633]

The PAC had no plan. It was crazy how they let that Klivkoff (spelling) just sit on his hands expecting to get SEC/B1G money.

That conference stays together with those 7/8, they are getting what the B12 gets playoff wise, likely is still considered a power conference and gets something close to what this current B12 is getting from the networks. You are keeping a presence in SoCal and add a Dallas market in my scenario.

I agree the Pac had no plan. The old commissioner did a really poor job at evaluation. Apparently, before CU, OU and UW left they had a deal on the table for basically what the B12 is getting and he turned it down. Massive mistake.

I'd say it's a stretch to consider that a power conference. The Arizona schools are inconsistent and Stanford has been down for a while now. My guess is with those 7/8 and additions they'd be looking at something like $21-$22 million or so. I think with Oregon and Washington, the proposed P12 deal was right around $30 or so.

 

[ericd7633]

I thought you told me your high school, which is what I was referring to. But maybe it was just where ya grew up. My B

I don't recall, but that does sound familiar having that discussion. I don't think we grew up that far from each other in the grand scheme of things.

 

[wazzu31]

I understand he wanted Idaho for wazzou. My question was for the whole PAC, not just wazzou. His answer of "not a rival" alluded to me that only rivals were being added, not just for wazzou but OSU too. Which is why I brought up USU and CSU. Considering WSU and OSU are now the longest tenured members of the PAC it's easy to see how the "we" could be contrived as ether WSU or OSU rivals. Which I thought was false and called him out on it.

You need a dictionary dude