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

Wild Turkey said:
In the SEC you could take Bama and Georgia move them to the Big 12 and the SEC could just add Clemson and FSU and I wouldn't see the payday change much (assuming Texas and OU are still in).

I think the SEC could survive any two programs leaving but 4 would hurt badly.

Now in the B1G if you take out Michigan and Ohio State it's a massive problem.
Click to expand...
It'd still be a MASSIVE problem for the SEC if you removed Bama and Georgia. Especially right now. And while saying you'd simply add Clemson and FSU sounds good -- you couldn't do that for 14 years with GOR in place.

You remove the top two draws out of ANY conference and it is going to absolutely kill them.
 
OlyDuck said:
no team that moves the needle per you?
the Pac loses 2 teams who have never been to the playoff
the Pac still has 2 teams that have made the playoff. 1 of which has a playoff win.
the Pac still has 2 other teams who have still been closer to the playoff than the 2 they lose.
Click to expand...
That is great -- here is your issue. The only national brands in the PAC were USC in football and UCLA in basketball. You have now lost the 2nd largest market in the US, thus making the conference, as a whole, worth so much less than before. And truth be told, it is only a matter of time before, at least, one more is picked off from the PAC. If ND stays independent, it could be 2.

The biggest issue for the PAC is going to be finding quality OOC opponents, as I am willing to bet, with the addition of crossover games with teams like Texas and OU added in the SEC and USC and UCLA added in the B1G -- the days of playing big OOC matchups are numbered. The SEC and the B1G already had, by far, the hardest conference schedules before adding the teams they added. So they have no use for OOC games, when every game they played against the new teams is going to draw monster television ratings.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
It'd still be a MASSIVE problem for the SEC if you removed Bama and Georgia. Especially right now. And while saying you'd simply add Clemson and FSU sounds good -- you couldn't do that for 14 years with GOR in place.

You remove the top two draws out of ANY conference and it is going to absolutely kill them.
Click to expand...
You take out Al and Georgia but add TX and OU and the money changes not one dime. The deal was made before TX and OU announced.

You take out Michigan and Ohio State and replace them with USC and UCLA and you still have an issue.

The SEC is just deeper with ratings generators and the brand as whole takes existing brands even higher.

Alabama and Georgia don’t prosper as much as they are right now if you take them out of the SEC.
 
Deep Creek said:
Do you really believe the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland because of their football competence?
Click to expand...
media market was the clear top reason but their athletic product wasnt ignored.

Rutgers was in the midst of a 9-4 season when the announcement of 2012, a 9-4 2011 a bad 2010 and a 9-4 2009, 8-5 in 08 and 07. and an 11 win season in 06
maryland was still a middling team who brought solid enough football, basketball and other sports. Maryland had won National Championships in Field Hockey, Mens Basketball, Womens Basketball, Womens Lacrosse and Mens soccer within 10 years prior to the announcement of moving to the Big. Prior to leaving the ACC they had the conferences best wrestling in the conference.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
That is great -- here is your issue. The only national brands in the PAC were USC in football and UCLA in basketball. You have now lost the 2nd largest market in the US, thus making the conference, as a whole, worth so much less than before. And truth be told, it is only a matter of time before, at least, one more is picked off from the PAC. If ND stays independent, it could be 2.

The biggest issue for the PAC is going to be finding quality OOC opponents, as I am willing to bet, with the addition of crossover games with teams like Texas and OU added in the SEC and USC and UCLA added in the B1G -- the days of playing big OOC matchups are numbered. The SEC and the B1G already had, by far, the hardest conference schedules before adding the teams they added. So they have no use for OOC games, when every game they played against the new teams is going to draw monster television ratings.
Click to expand...
Every game? monster ratings? doubt many people will care about UCLA vs Rutgers, Northwestern, Indiana (football) or even USC vs those teams and probably more
Texas vs Vandy and Kentucky and South Carolina? na
 
trojanfan12 said:
True, but the same thing can be said with Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12. Who is the Big 12 going to add that moves the needle or increases viewrship? The Arizona schools?

Obviously, SDSU isn't going to ever move the needle like USC or UCLA (well, maybe UCLA lol), but if they can catch up to what's left of the PAC, they can bring some of that LA market and more importantly to the conference, keep a presence in SoCal for recruiting.

Will it work? I wouldn't hold my breath, especially if Arizona is more interested in establishing a basketball rivalry with Kansas than they are in staying in the PAC. But it may be worth a try.
Click to expand...
Without a doubt -- when you take national brands/blue blood programs from a conference and replace them with G5 programs, it is putting a band aid on a bullet wound.

The Big 12 will have a conference, but whoever wins the conference isn't going to get any respect, when the two teams who have won the most titles changed to the SEC.

I don't want anyone to think I'm only talking about the PAC. CFB is essentially going to be the B1G and the SEC, then a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE step down, then the Big 12/Pac. If ND joins the B1G -- you may as well blow up the PAC altogether, because another PAC school will be joining ND.
 
Wild Turkey said:
You take out Al and Georgia but add TX and OU and the money changes not one dime. The deal was made before TX and OU announced.

You take out Michigan and Ohio State and replace them with USC and UCLA and you still have an issue.

The SEC is just deeper with ratings generators and the brand as whole takes existing brands even higher.

Alabama and Georgia don’t prosper as much as they are right now if you take them out of the SEC.
Click to expand...
Now, sure. But leave TX and OU in the Big 12 and take Bama and Georgia to the Big 12 and now the Big 12 is arguably the best conference in CFB and the SEC drops to 3rd behind the B1G.

And what you should be saying is -- the SEC doesn't prosper as much as they have without Alabama and Georgia. You take them out of the SEC and it is an ENTIRELY different conference.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
Without a doubt -- when you take national brands/blue blood programs from a conference and replace them with G5 programs, it is putting a band aid on a bullet wound.

The Big 12 will have a conference, but whoever wins the conference isn't going to get any respect, when the two teams who have won the most titles changed to the SEC.

I don't want anyone to think I'm only talking about the PAC. CFB is essentially going to be the B1G and the SEC, then a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE step down, then the Big 12/Pac. If ND joins the B1G -- you may as well blow up the PAC altogether, because another PAC school will be joining ND.
Click to expand...

That's why I think the best path forward for both conferences may be to merge. While they wouldn't be on an even level with the SEC and B1G...with programs like Oregon and Washington who have each made the CFP and Baylor, TCU and Okie St. who have had some recent success...they can be competitive with them and put teams in the cfp.

The problem is that, right now, both conferences seem to be more interested in taking petty shots at each other.
 
OlyDuck said:
Every game? monster ratings? doubt many people will care about UCLA vs Rutgers, Northwestern, Indiana (football) or even USC vs those teams and probably more
Texas vs Vandy and Kentucky and South Carolina? na
Click to expand...
You are picking random bottom feeders. What you don't seem to understand is -- Out of the top 12 teams who averaged the most viewers per game. 6 of them are from the B1G. OSU is #1, UM is #2, Penn State is #3, Michigan State is #8, Wisconsin is #11, Nebraska is #12.

Now you add 2 or 3 games for USC against those teams a year and 2 or 3 games for UCLA against those teams a year and you have a ton of games to add to the 4 million marker TV networks want to see. Will UCLA/Rutgers draw that much? Of course not. But OSU/USC will draw 6-7 million viewers, as will a USC/UM or USC/PSU.

It is why I said -- the premier OOC matchups aren't necessary for teams in the B1G and SEC anymore as they will have more than enough 4 million+ viewer games on their schedule with addition of USC/UCLA/Texas/OU.
 
trojanfan12 said:
That's why I think the best path forward for both conferences may be to merge. While they wouldn't be on an even level with the SEC and B1G...with programs like Oregon and Washington who have each made the CFP and Baylor, TCU and Okie St. who have had some recent success...they can be competitive with them and put teams in the cfp.

The problem is that, right now, both conferences seem to be more interested in taking petty shots at each other.
Click to expand...
Even if they combine the two conferences -- They wouldn't get any recognition and they would still get a fortune less in TV revenue, as the only team between the PAC and Big 12 in the top 25 of most viewed college football programs would be Oregon.

The B1G and SEC essentially cornered the market in relation to TV deals. 24 of the top 30 most watched football programs are now in the B1G and the SEC.

If Oregon had adequate academics, I could see them going to the B1G, as they have the viewership, but if ND signs with the B1G, I could see them make the B1G add Stanford instead. It is why I think when it is all said and done -- I could see the B1G add ND, Stanford, Washington and Oregon.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
Now, sure. But leave TX and OU in the Big 12 and take Bama and Georgia to the Big 12 and now the Big 12 is arguably the best conference in CFB and the SEC drops to 3rd behind the B1G.

And what you should be saying is -- the SEC doesn't prosper as much as they have without Alabama and Georgia. You take them out of the SEC and it is an ENTIRELY different conference.
Click to expand...
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 that 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.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
You are picking random bottom feeders. What you don't seem to understand is -- Out of the top 12 teams who averaged the most viewers per game. 6 of them are from the B1G. OSU is #1, UM is #2, Penn State is #3, Michigan State is #8, Wisconsin is #11, Nebraska is #12.

Now you add 2 or 3 games for USC against those teams a year and 2 or 3 games for UCLA against those teams a year and you have a ton of games to add to the 4 million marker TV networks want to see. Will UCLA/Rutgers draw that much? Of course not. But OSU/USC will draw 6-7 million viewers, as will a USC/UM or USC/PSU.

It is why I said -- the premier OOC matchups aren't necessary for teams in the B1G and SEC anymore as they will have more than enough 4 million+ viewer games on their schedule with addition of USC/UCLA/Texas/OU.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wild Turkey said:
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 that 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.
Click to expand...
that works both ways.
1 more loss to Oklahoma and they could have foiled someone in conference too.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
Even if they combine the two conferences -- They wouldn't get any recognition and they would still get a fortune less in TV revenue, as the only team between the PAC and Big 12 in the top 25 of most viewed college football programs would be Oregon.

The B1G and SEC essentially cornered the market in relation to TV deals. 24 of the top 30 most watched football programs are now in the B1G and the SEC.

If Oregon had adequate academics, I could see them going to the B1G, as they have the viewership, but if ND signs with the B1G, I could see them make the B1G add Stanford instead. It is why I think when it is all said and done -- I could see the B1G add ND, Stanford, Washington and Oregon.
Click to expand...
tv is going to start becoming less and less of a factor if streaming starts becoming more of one.
estimations have over half of all cable subscribers to have canceled by the end of 2022
2016 saw over 16 million cut cable.
2017 saw near 25 million cut cable.
its been estimated 14k cancel cable daily
 
Wild Turkey said:
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 that 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.
Click to expand...
Honk honk honk honk honk honk honk
 
OlyDuck said:
media market was the clear top reason but their athletic product wasnt ignored.

Rutgers was in the midst of a 9-4 season when the announcement of 2012, a 9-4 2011 a bad 2010 and a 9-4 2009, 8-5 in 08 and 07. and an 11 win season in 06
maryland was still a middling team who brought solid enough football, basketball and other sports. Maryland had won National Championships in Field Hockey, Mens Basketball, Womens Basketball, Womens Lacrosse and Mens soccer within 10 years prior to the announcement of moving to the Big. Prior to leaving the ACC they had the conferences best wrestling in the conference.
Click to expand...
Like I said quality of football has been irrelevant in conference realignment. ALL about the Benjamin’s.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
It'd still be a MASSIVE problem for the SEC if you removed Bama and Georgia. Especially right now. And while saying you'd simply add Clemson and FSU sounds good -- you couldn't do that for 14 years with GOR in place.

You remove the top two draws out of ANY conference and it is going to absolutely kill them.
Click to expand...
Even if you could do that. Clemson/FSU <<<<<<< Bama/UGA in any measure that matters. Especially Bama. And especially FSU the other way ... they are not in a good place right now.
 
Wild Turkey said:
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 that 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top