PAC News

WhosYourDawggy said:
This has always made more sense to me. Get Cal, Stanford, Ore and Wash now. In 2036 go after 2-4 ACC teams that matter to you.

Click to expand...


I just don't understand, long term, how this is going to work from a television perspective? Adding those 4 now, and then 4 more down the road, is going to cost all the other schools money(unless unequal sharing of some sort is in play). I think adding the Pac schools would be a great move for the conference, but is it a $400 million/yr move? I definitely don't think so. Which is about what it would cost for other schools not to lose anything.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
This has always made more sense to me. Get Cal, Stanford, Ore and Wash now. In 2036 go after 2-4 ACC teams that matter to you.

Click to expand...

How can you argue this makes any sense economically? Christ, the whole Crux of your anti expansion argument (which was a good one) was current P2 teams don’t want to take less to add teams. There is maybe one team here that’s worth that in Oregon. Cal?Stanford? UDub? Some of those may be more then we think, I’d bet none of them generate close to 100 mill for the conference.

And that’s not even bringing up why the lower teams in the B1G would want them here.
 
ericd7633 said:
I just don't understand, long term, how this is going to work from a television perspective? Adding those 4 now, and then 4 more down the road, is going to cost all the other schools money(unless unequal sharing of some sort is in play). I think adding the Pac schools would be a great move for the conference, but is it a $400 million/yr move? I definitely don't think so. Which is about what it would cost for other schools not to lose anything.
Click to expand...

I get the vibe that the B1G added UCLA and USC to counter the SEC's addition of OU and Texas. It wasn't a bad move but the schools are pretty remote, remote enough that you almost get the vibe they need a few more teams with them. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and one other (likely Cal) check that box. I think once you get past 5-6 West Coast teams, the value is gone.

The additional Pac12 teams will have to take a lower cut to make it work. There is no way they get in and get full value on day 1.
 
I sometimes wonder if the B1G would have been better off actually pursuing the Alliance for real rather than adding UCLA and USC and just getting more built-in high profile games with the Pac12 to drive up ratings further.

USC had a lot of pedigree (on par with OU and Texas) and UCLA isn't a slouch either but their value is diminished with all the travel they will take on and being on an island/remote. Again, why I think they are going to add more West Coast teams (they have to).

In hindsight, adding UCLA and USC may have been just a knee-jerk reaction that wasn't well thought out. The difference between that move and the SEC's move is that OU and Texas still fit, somewhat, geographically. Sure original Big12 is a better geographic/culture fit for both but the SEC isn't that far off as well and already has many of their rivals.

UCLA and USC have no connections with anyone in the B1G.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
This has always made more sense to me. Get Cal, Stanford, Ore and Wash now. In 2036 go after 2-4 ACC teams that matter to you.

Click to expand...


Volbound1700 said:
I get the vibe that the B1G added UCLA and USC to counter the SEC's addition of OU and Texas. It wasn't a bad move but the schools are pretty remote, remote enough that you almost get the vibe they need a few more teams with them. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and one other (likely Cal) check that box. I think once you get past 5-6 West Coast teams, the value is gone.

The additional Pac12 teams will have to take a lower cut to make it work. There is no way they get in and get full value on day 1.
Click to expand...

Both Utah and Washington State have better viewership numbers than Cal & Stanford.
Stanford is a baseball blueblood, but it's football driving these expansions.


33. Utah (PAC)
34. Washington (PAC)
38. BYU (Big 12)
41. Washington St (PAC)
42. Iowa St (Big 12)
43. NC State (ACC)
45. California (PAC)
46. North Carolina (ACC)
47. Stanford (PAC)
 
Red_Alert said:
Both Utah and Washington State have better viewership numbers than Cal & Stanford.
Stanford is a baseball blueblood, but it's football driving these expansions.


33. Utah (PAC)
34. Washington (PAC)
38. BYU (Big 12)
41. Washington St (PAC)
42. Iowa St (Big 12)
43. NC State (ACC)
45. California (PAC)
46. North Carolina (ACC)
47. Stanford (PAC)
Click to expand...

I am not sold on the Cal but I think they get Stanford. I know regions are not the be all, in all, but Stanford checks Northern California box, is closer to UCLA/USC, and has that academic/athletic pedigree the B1G wants.

I think Cal is the next likely candidate but I could see Colorado, Utah, or another team getting the invite. (Dream scenario for B1G would have been Notre Dame).

I just don't think the B1G can pass up Stanford just because of the value of its academic brand.

Also, I put this in another thread but I would like to see a 5-year report rather than single year synopsis on tv ratings. A single-season can get skewed due to team performance. Utah was a Pac12 contender so their numbers were always going to be higher.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Also, I put this in another thread but I would like to see a 5-year report rather than single year synopsis on tv ratings. A single-season can get skewed due to team performance. Utah was a Pac12 contender so their numbers were always going to be higher.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

TCU's numbers were inflated last season because they became CFP contenders after Week 6 or so.
 
Red_Alert said:
Agreed.

TCU's numbers were inflated last season because they became CFP contenders after Week 6 or so.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I do think you had a good point with Utah being in mix but I just see the B1G going with Cal-Stanford over other scenarios.

Also there is still a lot of potential with markets. For example, if the SEC added East Carolina tomorrow. Sure, they are a G5 with a smaller following but they would instantly get upgraded and a large chunk of North Carolina's population would start to get an interest in them if they were in the SEC. I see the same situation with Stanford, they would get more of a draw than they do now by being in the B1G. Pac12 was taken a hit also because it just wasn't as strong or relevant a league in Football most years. Take some of the stronger potential programs and put them in a more competitive league and you likely see more interest in the West Coast market.
 
ericd7633 said:
I just don't understand, long term, how this is going to work from a television perspective? Adding those 4 now, and then 4 more down the road, is going to cost all the other schools money(unless unequal sharing of some sort is in play). I think adding the Pac schools would be a great move for the conference, but is it a $400 million/yr move? I definitely don't think so. Which is about what it would cost for other schools not to lose anything.
Click to expand...
For the most part I agree with you. You know that my entire discussion of expansion revolves around the teams having to pay for their share. Three things here ...

(1) they've already committed to the west coast, and there may be some "oh, shit, what have we done" moments going on right now. They brought them in without thinking how that might affect other sports and now it's getting serious. As the NU president says, they may have to expand more west to reduce travel.

(2) I read an article a few months ago about the presidents making these decisions, not the ADs. They are the ones that would love to rub elbows with the Stanford and Cal presidents, and brag about that. The B1G does value their research and AAU, and those 2 universities do well there. They also excel in non-football sports - hell, Stanford as won the cup that you get for being the best overall school non-stop for a long time. So, it could be a prestige move and the B1G might say we are going to be making north of $100 million each, we can afford it.

(3) The contract may allow for a per capita payment for new teams brought in. The SEC had that.
 
ralphiewvu said:
How can you argue this makes any sense economically? Christ, the whole Crux of your anti expansion argument (which was a good one) was current P2 teams don’t want to take less to add teams. There is maybe one team here that’s worth that in Oregon. Cal?Stanford? UDub? Some of those may be more then we think, I’d bet none of them generate close to 100 mill for the conference.

And that’s not even bringing up why the lower teams in the B1G would want them here.
Click to expand...
I don't argue it makes sense economically. See my post right above this one.
 
Red_Alert said:
Both Utah and Washington State have better viewership numbers than Cal & Stanford.
Stanford is a baseball blueblood, but it's football driving these expansions.


33. Utah (PAC)
34. Washington (PAC)
38. BYU (Big 12)
41. Washington St (PAC)
42. Iowa St (Big 12)
43. NC State (ACC)
45. California (PAC)
46. North Carolina (ACC)
47. Stanford (PAC)
Click to expand...
IMO, if those two get in it's an ego move, and a research move, not a football or economics move.
 
ralphiewvu said:
How can you argue this makes any sense economically? Christ, the whole Crux of your anti expansion argument (which was a good one) was current P2 teams don’t want to take less to add teams. There is maybe one team here that’s worth that in Oregon. Cal?Stanford? UDub? Some of those may be more then we think, I’d bet none of them generate close to 100 mill for the conference.

And that’s not even bringing up why the lower teams in the B1G would want them here.
Click to expand...
The only team left that can bring additional revenue to the table that meets/exceeds what teams in the B1G and SEC will receive is Notre Dame. Hell, many of the schools currently in the B1G and SEC wouldn't be able to generate the proportionate revenue either if they weren't already in the conference.
 
Last edited:
Deep Creek said:
The only team left that can bring additional revenue to the table that meets/exceeds what teams in the B1G and SEC will receive is Notre Dame. Hell, many of the schools currently in the B1G and SEC wouldn't be able to generate the proportionate revenue either if they weren't already in the conference.
Click to expand...

Agree, it makes me wonder if in the future, these leagues may try to push out less profitable teams like Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Miss State, Northwestern, etc.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Agree, it makes me wonder if in the future, these leagues may try to push out less profitable teams like Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Miss State, Northwestern, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't ever see that happening. As long as the big money makers are willing to subsidize teams like you listed, they'll keep 'em.

I still think it would be best if there were football only conferences and the other sports returned to smaller and more manageable conferences.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
This has always made more sense to me. Get Cal, Stanford, Ore and Wash now. In 2036 go after 2-4 ACC teams that matter to you.

Click to expand...


I think the Kevin Warren fiasco has delayed this. Nobody trusted him to get a deal done and now they have to clean up his mess. I think the Big Ten would prefer to wait a few years but Colorado and Arizona may not give them that luxury
 
duckboy33 said:
I think the Kevin Warren fiasco has delayed this. Nobody trusted him to get a deal done and now they have to clean up his mess. I think the Big Ten would prefer to wait a few years but Colorado and Arizona may not give them that luxury
Click to expand...
If the networks would cooperate, tear the scab off and do it now. The idea of two teams just hanging out in the west never made sense to me. I suspect in the UCLA hearings/meetings it became even more obvious as to how bad the travel was going to be.

The SEC should just stand pay and watch the shit show happen, and win natties.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Agree, it makes me wonder if in the future, these leagues may try to push out less profitable teams like Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Miss State, Northwestern, etc.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between wanting to be in the club and already being in the club. Hell, I am not sure contractually they could kick them out if they wanted to. And they don't want them to. Those teams serve a purpose.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
If the networks would cooperate, tear the scab off and do it now. The idea of two teams just hanging out in the west never made sense to me. I suspect in the UCLA hearings/meetings it became even more obvious as to how bad the travel was going to be.

The SEC should just stand pay and watch the shit show happen, and win natties.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s a matter of if they are going to add PAC teams but a matter of how many and when. I believe this is the real reason the PAC doesn’t have a contract and there’s no real incentive for media partners to negotiate with GK until this is resolved.

I also think the Big Tens contract fiasco has changed their priorities. The first priority is settling everything that Warren left them with. This means the Big Ten would probably prefer to wait 2-3 years before adding UW, UO and possibly others. The problem is the longer the PAC goes without a deal, the more likely other members bail on the PAC for the Big 12. This could force the Big Ten to act quicker than they want to.

But I agree, if the networks cooperate, it makes sense to do it now and incorporate the west coast wing all at once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top