Thee PAC 12, Big 10, and ACC (Alliance) are Dividing Up tOrphaned 8 As We Plorst.

ralphiewvu said:
The only addition That makes any sense was OU and Texas to the SEC. It makes zero sense for the PAC, B1G or ACC to expand With what’s available, yet here we are talking about it.

Of course WVU isn’t going to move the needle right now but with the popularity streaming has gained and the rivalries WVU has in the ACC it can come to a point where they could (marginally) move the needle. Considering the ACC has only one option that makes sense over WVU (ND) I wouldn’t say WVU is not in without ND if other power conferences move to 16.

So again, you think the ACC stands Pat if other Power conferences go to 16?
Click to expand...
They stand Pat.

The B1G only goes to 16 if the AAU academic dollars make sense and I don’t pretend to understand how that works.

To me the PAC needs to make a move or fall further behind. How long does USC hang around the way things are going? They have an opportunity to add some decent schools and they have zero options in their own footprint. It solves their time zone issue and if they can talk the networks into rolling in Big 12 money it could be a revenue pickup potentially. It wouldn‘t be easy but worth a conversation with the networks. I think they have to make a bold move to stay relevant in the future.

ACC has completely screwed themselves with a deal through 2036 and I’ve no idea how to fix it. That is why they are interested in the potential alliance because it maybe possible to put extra cash in their biggest players and close some gaps plus increase ratings.

Honestly I think the alliance is a great move just make them extra games on the season, sell them separately and try to build them into a massive pre-season event.
 
Wild Turkey said:
They stand Pat.

The B1G only goes to 16 if the AAU academic dollars make sense and I don’t pretend to understand how that works.

To me the PAC needs to make a move or fall further behind. How long does USC hang around the way things are going? They have an opportunity to add some decent schools and they have zero options in their own footprint. It solves their time zone issue and if they can talk the networks into rolling in Big 12 money it could be a revenue pickup potentially. It wouldn‘t be easy but worth a conversation with the networks. I think they have to make a bold move to stay relevant in the future.

ACC has completely screwed themselves with a deal through 2036 and I’ve no idea how to fix it. That is why they are interested in the potential alliance because it maybe possible to put extra cash in their biggest players and close some gaps plus increase ratings.

Honestly I think the alliance is a great move just make them extra games on the season, sell them separately and try to build them into a massive pre-season event.
Click to expand...
None of the schools available increase the revenue distributions to current PAC members, with the possible exception of BYU, but that isn't happening.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
None of the schools available increase the revenue distributions to current PAC members, with the possible exception of BYU, but that isn't happening.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't even think it would be revenue distribution neutral. I think the PAC 12 schools per school share would go down if any besides BYU. We know the per school shares of the remaining Big 12 schools will go down significantly...unless one of them gets to join the B1G.

The question becomes "Does accepting a few less dollars per school make it worthwhile if it means long term survival?" The PAC 12 is just two big defections from becoming the Big 12 2.0.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Florida State has a National Title in 2013 and made the playoffs the year after it. To be fair, though, no one has done a lot other than the SEC when it comes to parity. Even the SEC has been heavy Alabama but even if Alabama wasn't in the picture, other SEC teams may have won it (Georgia for example in 2017 or LSU in 2011).

I will say that the Pac12 has a tradition of not being as top heavy as other leagues. However, the SEC isn't as top heavy as you think. I will leave you with this note, in the last 10 years, every SEC School has finished in the top 25 at least once. Tennessee, despite all of its trouble, has won 4 bowl games in the last 8 years (includes full Butch Jones and Pruitt era).
Click to expand...
2013 wasnt a Playoff and in 14 yes they made it but lost in first round.

where i said pac has had the most parity and yes my time frame was bigger, back to BCS, 9 out of 12 have won the conference some shared. the other 3 have division titles. 10 of the 12 schools have played in one of the 4 BCS bowl games during or since. (yes including Utah and Colorado but while in their prior conferences) only Cal and Arizona state have not. so while other conferences like SEC may have had them all finished ranked in the last 10 that still doenst mean they were actually at the top of their conference or division.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I would say the mid-tier USC years (2004-2006) the Pac12 wasn't that good. However, Oregon and Stanford got good in the later years of Pete Carrol's career and when he took over at USC, the Pac12 was strong because Washington State, Cal, and Oregon all had good squads. All three fell off for a while there. Arizona State was supposed to have good teams several years but they choked away top ten preseason rankings and finished with terrible records.

Stanford has been pretty consistent for a while although last 3-4 years they have been slightly down. Oregon took a hit after Chip Kelly left but are starting to comeback. Washington had some good years with Peterson but they are starting to slip a little. Utah has been decent and I think Colorado had a great squad a couple of years back. Other than that, the Pac12 has not been very good. USC underachieves a lot and UCLA hasn't been good since the 1990s other then a few years here and there. The Arizona teams haven't done anything in a while either.
Click to expand...
in the mid (04-06) as you call it
04 USC finished #1 Cal 9 and Arizona state 19. USC and Cal both had 10+ wins
05 USC finished #2 Oregon 13, UCLA 16 and Cal 25. USC, Oregon and UCLA were 10+ wins
06 USC shared the title with Cal. USC was 4 Cal ranked 14 and Oregon State 21. all three 10+ wins.
again this isnt down this is pretty standard for the Pac. its just different teams seen in in and out
 
Deep Creek said:
I agree. I don't even think it would be revenue distribution neutral. I think the PAC 12 schools per school share would go down if any besides BYU. We know the per school shares of the remaining Big 12 schools will go down significantly...unless one of them gets to join the B1G.

The question becomes "Does accepting a few less dollars per school make it worthwhile if it means long term survival?" The PAC 12 is just two big defections from becoming the Big 12 2.0.
Click to expand...
so are the others except the SEC.
Ohio state and Michigan leaves and you would see a huge drop. Penn State cant carry alone. Wisconsin is good but doesnt have the same cache and Nebraska in its current state isnt demanding $$$
Clemson leaves and i dont know that the ACC gets the same money either. not unless Florida State and Miami come back up. and they arent just down because of clemson. so its bigger than that.
 
Deep Creek said:
I agree. I don't even think it would be revenue distribution neutral. I think the PAC 12 schools per school share would go down if any besides BYU. We know the per school shares of the remaining Big 12 schools will go down significantly...unless one of them gets to join the B1G.

The question becomes "Does accepting a few less dollars per school make it worthwhile if it means long term survival?" The PAC 12 is just two big defections from becoming the Big 12 2.0.
Click to expand...

Sending less money USC's way is not a good strategy for keeping the conference together.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
None of the schools available increase the revenue distributions to current PAC members, with the possible exception of BYU, but that isn't happening.
Click to expand...
I think there is an opportunity to roll at least part of the existing Big 12 deal into the PAC. If they could pull it off then they help themselves with:

1. Time zone issues
2. Increase content
3. Change perception of just West Coast weirdo conference
4. At least in the beginning create additional interest
5. Highlights the conference in recruiting rich areas

It doesn’t solve all the PAC’s issues but it helps keep them relevant. It’s not a perfect solution but one that should be considered.
 
OlyDuck said:
so are the others except the SEC.
Ohio state and Michigan leaves and you would see a huge drop. Penn State cant carry alone. Wisconsin is good but doesnt have the same cache and Nebraska in its current state isnt demanding $$$
Clemson leaves and i dont know that the ACC gets the same money either. not unless Florida State and Miami come back up. and they arent just down because of clemson. so its bigger than that.
Click to expand...
There is one significant difference among the three. The B1G's per school revenue is and will be closer to the SEC's than the ACC or the PAC 12. The B1G probably won't be #1 after OU and Texas join the SEC, but they won't be as far behind as the other two.
 
OlyDuck said:
in the mid (04-06) as you call it
04 USC finished #1 Cal 9 and Arizona state 19. USC and Cal both had 10+ wins
05 USC finished #2 Oregon 13, UCLA 16 and Cal 25. USC, Oregon and UCLA were 10+ wins
06 USC shared the title with Cal. USC was 4 Cal ranked 14 and Oregon State 21. all three 10+ wins.
again this isnt down this is pretty standard for the Pac. its just different teams seen in in and out
Click to expand...

I guess the main difference is how programs are performing in Big-Games (i.e. BCS Bowl Games, Big-time OOC road games, Playoff Games, etc.).

Oregon and USC had a reputation because they were winning big-time games or at least competing in them (Oregon lost to Auburn for example in 2010 but it was a very close game that could have gone either way. A lot of people consider that Oregon team to be very good).

Oregon had a stretch were they were pretty stout. Going off 10 wins is not always the best measurement. Kentucky won 10 games in 2019 yet no one considered them ELITE. You have to look at schedules. I will say, though, that Oregon State had a decent reputation back when USC was good and the rep was that USC always struggled with Oregon State.

I do remember one year in the 2004-2006 time frame where everyone in the Pac12 (Pac10 then) outside of USC had an embarrassing OOC loss. I can't remember which year.

Still, my point was not to pile on Pac12 but argue that it is typically a better league than what it has been the last 5 years. It also looks like it could be a good league in 2021. I think these posts of Iowa State could beat everyone in the Pac12 are a little off base and premature.
 
Deep Creek said:
What should be the strategy?
Click to expand...
If the PAC takes 4 teams then that is a total of 6 that leaves the Big 12 and basically ends all network contracts.

It also removes a substantial amount from those networks’ content which is something they desperately need. So there is negotiation room to bring on those schools and capture that revenue by selling content that the networks need.

It won’t be easy but the opportunity exit. That is how you make the move at least net neutral based on revenue.

Secondary you need to lock up Texas and OU to multiple home and home games and swap that out for exist fees (so you have a product to increase ratings at least in the short term).

There are deals to be had and no one is going to love them but would benefit everyone (except the schools that are left out and then everyone is going to have to chip in and pay them off).

That is the alternative.
 
Wild Turkey said:
If the PAC takes 4 teams then that is a total of 6 that leaves the Big 12 and basically ends all network contracts.

It also removes a substantial amount from those networks’ content which is something they desperately need. So there is negotiation room to bring on those schools and capture that revenue by selling content that the networks need.

It won’t be easy but the opportunity exit. That is how you make the move at least net neutral based on revenue.

Secondary you need to lock up Texas and OU to multiple home and home games and swap that out for exist fees (so you have a product to increase ratings at least in the short term).

There are deals to be had and no one is going to love them but would benefit everyone (except the schools that are left out and then everyone is going to have to chip in and pay them off).

That is the alternative.
Click to expand...
Sounds to sensible to happen. I just don't see those high fallootin' left coasters tolerating trips to Lubbock and Stillwater. Such is waaaayyyyyyyy below them.
 
Deep Creek said:
Sounds to sensible to happen. I just don't see those high fallootin' left coasters tolerating trips to Lubbock and Stillwater. Such is waaaayyyyyyyy below them.
Click to expand...
Well... I'm no longer a "left coaster", but I wouldn't do the trip to Lubbock or Stillwater" either!!! :nod: :heh:
 
That is the tough spot the Pac12 is in. I think Oklahoma State and Texas Tech probably make sense for the Pac12 but they don't drive a huge increase in $$$. I think from a reputation standpoint, both would help the league and they would open TV markets.
I think Kansas is in the picture as well due to their AAU status and Basketball prestige. They are also close to Colorado so that would give another team in the Colorado/Utah region.

I am not sure if Pac12 will bite and add any of these teams or not. I am leaning towards them being more conservative and only grabbing 2 teams rather than 4.
 
CorpRebel said:
Well... I'm no longer a "left coaster", but I wouldn't do the trip to Lubbock or Stillwater" either!!! :nod: :heh:
Click to expand...

outofyourmind said:
Hell, we barely tolerate it.
Click to expand...
LOL............People from other parts of Texas and Oklahoma don't even want to go to Lubbock and Stillwater.

Ceptin' us small town West Texas hicks. We gets to drive 90 miles to the big city of Lubbock to all them "ists" doctors. Cardiologist, Urologists, etal. Then after we see them specialized doctors, we get to eat at fancy joints like Chili's, Applebees, etc. And go to a Costco and maybe even an indoor movie pitcure with some of them new fangled recliner seats. Lubbock has an airport too. Who could ask for more.
 
Deep Creek said:
LOL............People from other parts of Texas and Oklahoma don't even want to go to Lubbock and Stillwater.

Ceptin' us small town West Texas hicks. We gets to drive 90 miles to the big city of Lubbock to all them "ists" doctors. Cardiologist, Urologists, etal. Then after we see them specialized doctors, we get to eat at fancy joints like Chili's, Applebees, etc. And go to a Costco and maybe even an indoor movie pitcure with some of them new fangled recliner seats. Lubbock has an airport too. Who could ask for more.
Click to expand...
There ya go!! You be "stylin'..." :headbanger:
 
Deep Creek said:
LOL............People from other parts of Texas and Oklahoma don't even want to go to Lubbock and Stillwater.

Ceptin' us small town West Texas hicks. We gets to drive 90 miles to the big city of Lubbock to all them "ists" doctors. Cardiologist, Urologists, etal. Then after we see them specialized doctors, we get to eat at fancy joints like Chili's, Applebees, etc. And go to a Costco and maybe even an indoor movie pitcure with some of them new fangled recliner seats. Lubbock has an airport too. Who could ask for more.
Click to expand...


WTF man
No mention of the Buddy Holly Statue.

1629729443832.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top