What Will Revive the Conference

[Scscsc89]

4 hours ago, youngorst said:

I believe SEC bylaws allow schools to veto adding schools from the same state so would A&M veto UT to the SEC?

They might — but they might enjoy the pay raise.

[MrBug708]

Plus the SEC wouldnt allow Texas to dominate it like it was able to do in the Big-12

[PAC MAN]

19 hours ago, Win5002 said:

I believe there is VERY LITTLE well actually no chance that Texas, OU and 4 schools go to the PAC like they were going to in 2010.  The games have less exposure due to west coast, lack of a fan intensity, and why would UT & OU give up political power to go to a Ieague making less revenue and less fan support?  It makes no sense.  I don't think the leagues will combine but I believe the best chance would be a merger and the PAC would have to cut some schools too.   Those fan base numbers are old but probably give indication of the lower fan intensity throughout the PAC.  I can tell you being from Iowa, that Iowa St. has certainly grown their fan base.  Last year they averaged 57-58K for football.  The Big 12 doesn't have that issue with fan intensity for the most part. 

You are so right about Iowa State...their fans rock!  What's there to do in Iowa?

But knowing where Iowa State was at about 30 years ago in the old Big 8, they have made tremendous strides that would be the envy of most Pac-12 fanbases.  It was a huge shock for me coming to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 when it came to fanbases.

I'd have to say the school presidents & regents in the Pac-12 has contributed somewhat to the fan apathy that is in the Pac-12.  It's difficult being a fan of a school's athletic department knowing that the school has the money but isn't quite as willing to invest into the athletic department while watching other P5 schools that values their athletics pump money into their programs.  That's why I would empathize with the Pac-12 fans in this case.  Pac-12 athletic departments are going to have to work harder than the average P5 school to get the message out that you should come watch their sports teams but will the school administrations be willing to do that?

And those late start times...you and I know that will not fly with those four Big 12 South fans at all or any Big 12 fan in general.

[Win5002]

12 minutes ago, Jalapeno said:

You are so right about Iowa State...their fans rock!  What's there to do in Iowa?

But knowing where Iowa State was at about 30 years ago in the old Big 8, they have made tremendous strides that would be the envy of most Pac-12 fanbases.  It was a huge shock for me coming to the Pac-12 from the Big 12 when it came to fanbases.

I'd have to say the school presidents & regents in the Pac-12 has contributed somewhat to the fan apathy that is in the Pac-12.  It's difficult being a fan of a school's athletic department knowing that the school has the money but isn't quite as willing to invest into the athletic department while watching other P5 schools that values their athletics pump money into their programs.  That's why I would empathize with the Pac-12 fans in this case.  Pac-12 athletic departments are going to have to work harder than the average P5 school to get the message out that you should come watch their sports teams but will the school administrations be willing to do that?

And those late start times...you and I know that will not fly with those four Big 12 South fans at all or any Big 12 fan in general.

Jalapeno, now your going to feed right into what my wife who is from the south says about Iowa!.  Oh well marital prenuptials  are what they are

The only way I could see an expansion between the PAC 12 and the big 12 is where both conferences cut down on duplicate schools where the PAC 12 brought 9 and the Big 12 7 schools to truly get the value per institution at a higher amount, or a merger of 20 where everyone besides WVU and maybe Baylor came.  The interesting idea with that merger was you have a single set of standings and teams only lock 3-4 rivals every year and then you put the remaining schools on a rotation like they play each other 1 out of 4 years if the game was not that important to the league, or if it was more important they play 1 out of every 2 years or even 2 out of 3 years.   Then you could have enough cross section of games to make it feel like a conference but not play everyone equally.  I actually like that idea for any expanded league.   

 

[Win5002]

18 hours ago, youngorst said:

I believe SEC bylaws allow schools to veto adding schools from the same state so would A&M veto UT to the SEC? 

I also think UT would prefer a conference with more academic prestige, I still believe that if the Big 12 crumbles UT will look west. 

I think that is more of a rumor than truth.  The SEC moderator on CSNbbs points out Florida nominated FSU for membership in the past.  He also said Slive got a gentlemen's agreement between the schools before the last realignment addition to pick schools from two new states due to the beginning of the SEC Network but future expansion wouldn't have that requirement.  Take that for what its worth.  It makes sense that wouldn't be a hurdle as we move more from a market based model to a content model.  Out of those schools my guess is Kentucky would be most likely to try and block Louisville as an instate rival but I don't think it would be an issue with Florida, SC or Georgia and even if A&M didn't want Texas there is NO WAY they are standing in the way of adding one of the biggest fan base in the country, the other schools would out vote them. 

[Bruininthebay]

I don't know why this SEC speculation is in a thread about how to address the Pac 12's problems.  There's a separate sub-forum for expansion speculation and a Mod should move those posts to that thread.

Regarding the Pac 12 network, I subscribe to Pac 12 network with Sling TV which allows me to unsubscribe after men's basketball ends and resubscribe either when there is a particular football game I want to watch (dubious) or when the men's basketball conference season starts (past two years).   

Even during the height of basketball season, I question the value of each individual channel.  Each channel of the Pac 12 network provides very little quality programming because they only cover two teams in any depth.  Combining the channels more would increase the overall quality of the programming on each channel.  

My suggestions is that the Pac 12 modify itself to just three channels rather than seven.  My guess is that current affiliated media companies would welcome an effort by the Pac 12 to improve their television product so it could occur before 2024 so long as current media partners acquiesce.  The three channels would be Pac 12 Northwest, Pac 12 California and Pac 12 Mountain (Arizona is a Mountain time state during the latter part of the football season and throughout the men's basketball season).

Three channels would probably need to be supplemented by on demand internet access in the event that a scheduling conflict prevents a live broadcast on one of the three channels to occur (Stanford, Cal, Wazzou and OSU are the teams likely to get pushed to a live internet because Bay Area folks are probably ok with that and no one aside from alumni wants to watch Wazzou or OSU games).   I don't think the Pac 12 can go completely digital because the economics require some revenue from cable subscriptions  but the total number of channels in the Pac 12 network should be reduced to keep current cable subscribers on board and it would be hard to imagine a scenario where the Pac 12 would let their current rights holders off the hook before 2024.

[youngorst]

25 minutes ago, Win5002 said:

I think that is more of a rumor than truth.  The SEC moderator on CSNbbs points out Florida nominated FSU for membership in the past.  He also said Slive got a gentlemen's agreement between the schools before the last realignment addition to pick schools from two new states due to the beginning of the SEC Network but future expansion wouldn't have that requirement.  Take that for what its worth.  It makes sense that wouldn't be a hurdle as we move more from a market based model to a content model.  Out of those schools my guess is Kentucky would be most likely to try and block Louisville as an instate rival but I don't think it would be an issue with Florida, SC or Georgia and even if A&M didn't want Texas there is NO WAY they are standing in the way of adding one of the biggest fan base in the country, the other schools would out vote them. 

If they have a veto (and maybe they don't) they can't be out voted. 

[youngorst]

Did do some more research, its not an official veto but Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia have an agreement to vote as a block to prevent a 2nd school in any of those states. I am guessing they'd add A&M to their block quite easily to protect their interests. 

[PAC MAN]

2 hours ago, Win5002 said:

Jalapeno, now your going to feed right into what my wife who is from the south says about Iowa!.  Oh well marital prenuptials  are what they are

The only way I could see an expansion between the PAC 12 and the big 12 is where both conferences cut down on duplicate schools where the PAC 12 brought 9 and the Big 12 7 schools to truly get the value per institution at a higher amount, or a merger of 20 where everyone besides WVU and maybe Baylor came.  The interesting idea with that merger was you have a single set of standings and teams only lock 3-4 rivals every year and then you put the remaining schools on a rotation like they play each other 1 out of 4 years if the game was not that important to the league, or if it was more important they play 1 out of every 2 years or even 2 out of 3 years.   Then you could have enough cross section of games to make it feel like a conference but not play everyone equally.  I actually like that idea for any expanded league.   

 

Baylor's chances of joining another major conference is pretty much nil...they are pretty toxic right now when it comes to image.  Given the west coast's attitude towards religion in general, I think TCU would need to look for another home too...it's ironic that USC was once a Methodist school.  WVU fans will revolt with those late start times plus their Carnegie research prestige is a level lower than Oklahoma State who is not a VHRU school so it's a no go for the Mountaineers.  I was shocked to see Kansas State listed as VHRU and I think landing the big agricultural bioterrorism contract with the Feds played a big part of that but they did contact the MWC about potential membership when the Big 12's future was so uncertain in the summer of 2010 plus the AAC might be a good fit for them with Wichita State there same for Iowa State but I'm not sure the PAC schools would forsake a fellow AAU member in that regard.  That would mean just two Texas schools but both Oklahoma schools, after being in the same conference & division for years, would definitely be in lockstep with the Texas schools.  That's six Big 12 schools for the merger at this point.

Oregon State and Washington State has long been rumored to be two schools to be contracted out of the PAC.  After getting to know the PAC, I do understand why those two would be popular contraction targets.  This conference seems to take being like-minded more seriously than the Big 12 and the PAC could be described as very high research level type of universities located within the area of large metropolitan areas.  Oregon State and WSU do qualify on the academic side but location appears to be a problem.  That would make Oklahoma State's potential membership with the PAC schools questionable.  It would be so easy to rule out Iowa State but Ames to Des Moines isn't much different from Boulder to Denver or Palo Alto (Stanford) to San Francisco/San Jose so Iowa State would make the cut.  Oklahoma State might need to be put on the chopping block and this newly merged conference can go find one school to add to the conference and while I have dismissed UNM somewhat recently, they would help connect the Pac-12 and Big 12 regions geographically.  Oklahoma State is below what I view as the minimum to join the PAC which would be VHRU status and being about half a hour away from a major population center (Stillwater to OKC or Tulsa is at least a hour).  Plus the state of Oklahoma has been in the news regarding education funding and given the trends in the Sooner State, it would be difficult for Oklahoma State to get the kind of funding that would be necessary to upgrade their status.

Normally, state universities with "State" as part of the school name are Land Grant Universities which usually means the school is agricultural in nature.  There are in fact four such schools in the Pac-12: WSU, OSU, UCLA, and UA while the old Big 12 had six: Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, and Texas A&M.  If Iowa State's AAU membership can be overlooked, it's possible they are left out despite meeting the basic requirements for PAC membership.

Now you see how difficult it would be to merge both conferences and the Big 8 & Texas merger didn't necessarily succeed as hoped before the Big 12's first season in 1996.

It's the offseason.

[Bruininthebay]

Cal is a land grant school.  It was designated in 1866 and opened in 1868. 

UCLA was founded as an extension of San Jose State Normal School in 1881, then relocated its campus to Westwood and became a UC in 1919. 

Our land grant status is tenuous compared to Cal's but if you include UCLA than you have to include Cal as a 'land grant' institution.

[PAC MAN]

5 hours ago, potrerosf said:

Cal is a land grant school.  It was designated in 1866 and opened in 1868. 

UCLA was founded as an extension of San Jose State Normal School in 1881, then relocated its campus to Westwood and became a UC in 1919. 

Our land grant status is tenuous compared to Cal's but if you include UCLA than you have to include Cal as a 'land grant' institution.

I did check every Pac-10 school in that category a long time ago and I obviously overlooked Cal.  Found a map of those schools and didn't see UCLA despite Wikipedia listing UCLA as a land grant school:

As you see, land grant schools where I came from usually had "State" attached to it.

[Win5002]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 11:30 AM, PapaG said:

By and large there is just a lot more to do in the majority of Pac 12 territory than in the SEC or Big 12.  We are more sophisticated and less tribal, by and large.  Here in Portland, I've had Memorial Day weekends where I skied Mt. Hood on Saturday, went surfing at Pacific City Sunday, and wakeboarded the Willamette on Monday.  All this within a 1.5 hour drive of my house.  When it's 70 degrees in every Pac 12 town well into October most falls, football just isn't as big a priority as it is in a place like Norman or Starkville, where there is much less to do in terms of outdoor activities, or cultural activities, or even urban activities.

I assume that Wazzu and OSU are the schools that the LA schools don't want to share money with, but the reality is that you do lose TV viewers in the Seattle and Portland markets, and getting rid of those two schools still doesn't resolve people in other regions caring about Pac 12 football.

Nothing is going to change any of my thoughts about the realities of living in the Pac 12 region.  College sports just aren't as important here, and they never will be, compared to the Big 12 and SEC.

There is probably some good points in this post.  So I have an honest question for PAC fans that want more exposure for their teams on tv, highlights, news media, etc.

Wouldn't their teams exposure be better served by the PAC being split by the B1G & Big 12 conferences.  Some discuss the PAC absorbing 4 maybe 6 Big schools.  Maybe utilizing two conference fan bases with a more intense viewership would give the PAC schools better exposure. (I also don't think Texas & OU will go west with only 4 schools and I'm not sure they will with 6 either).

The division would be something like this:

 B1G  taking USC, Stanford, Wash., Oregon & Az. (letting Neb. go back to the Big 12) 

Big 12 taking the remaining schools UCLA, CAL, ASU, Col., Utah, WSU, & OSU and Neb. sliding back to the Big 12.

Each of the main rivalry games are played OOC like ACC & SEC schools do. 

 

The advantage for existing PAC schools exposure would be the product would be joined to conferences that get larger viewership and expand to the CST time zone and some EST time zone.   Fans of existing conferences tend to watch other teams in their conference when they play and think this would increase the exposure of the PAC schools.  I'm not sure you can increase the exposure of the current PAC 12 effectively due to lower fan intensity in their region and their geographical and time zone isolation reason.  I think a good example of that is last year's game of USC vs ND in primetime.  You had the PAC's most iconic brand playing another college blue blood(also one that doesn't have conference support) in prime time playing a game that was widely considered a CFP playin game and it only received a 3.0 rating.   So I don't think just playing earlier games will give the PAC schools better ratings/exposure they want.  Maybe a larger geographic more a  a larger and more intense fan base to view the games would give the better exposure.   

 

[PAC MAN]

If CU went back to the Big 12 with at least one LA school such as UCLA, I'd be okay with that.  That might be the most obvious solution to the PAC's problems.  The Big 12 would be thrilled to get Nebraska back as well and the ACC might just take WVU as well.

Going to be interesting since the B1G, PAC, and B12's media rights expire at around the same time.

[Quack 12]

 

On 4/12/2018 at 5:46 PM, Jalapeno said:

Found a map of those schools and didn't see UCLA despite Wikipedia listing UCLA as a land grant school:

That's because UCLA is part of the University of California system. That's why they're the Bruins, and they have sort of the same colors and the same fight song.

3 hours ago, Win5002 said:

I think a good example of that is last year's game of USC vs ND in primetime.  You had the PAC's most iconic brand playing another college blue blood(also one that doesn't have conference support) in prime time playing a game that was widely considered a CFP playin game and it only received a 3.0 rating.  

Wait, "widely considered"? That game was played in week 8, on October 21, and both teams already had a loss. They weren't dead yet, but that was about it.

It seems the bigger question is at what point does more money cease to equate to more wins? If the answer is never (and as a Duck fan I'm inclined to think it is) then something like you're suggesting might be "just crazy enough to work!"

 

[Win5002]

19 minutes ago, Quack 12 said:

 

That's because UCLA is part of the University of California system. That's why they're the Bruins, and they have sort of the same colors and the same fight song.

Wait, "widely considered"? That game was played in week 8, on October 21, and both teams already had a loss. They weren't dead yet, but that was about it.

It seems the bigger question is at what point does more money cease to equate to more wins? If the answer is never (and as a Duck fan I'm inclined to think it is) then something like you're suggesting might be "just crazy enough to work!"

 

I do remember a lot of talk about the winner having an inside track to the playoffs but I did go back and look at the polls and I must confess I probably overstated it some because they were like 10 & 12 with the AP.  Although, I do remember a significant chatter in the media about the winner having a good chance at the playoffs.  Probably because everyone ahead of them was going to play each other in their respective conferences and I think the prevailing thought was the winner would have a good chance if they won out.

I would still think the ratings of a pretty important game should have been better and may illustrate the point I was making.  

I'm curious if PAC fans would embrace a split of the league if it gave them better exposure and more competitive in the long term financially. 

 

[Win5002]

37 minutes ago, Jalapeno said:

If CU went back to the Big 12 with at least one LA school such as UCLA, I'd be okay with that.  That might be the most obvious solution to the PAC's problems.  The Big 12 would be thrilled to get Nebraska back as well and the ACC might just take WVU as well.

Going to be interesting since the B1G, PAC, and B12's media rights expire at around the same time.

Exactly, my point.  All the schools still have access to California.  The B1G gets a larger share of brands in USC, Wash., Oregon and creates nice matchups with some of its members like Mich., OSU, PSU,  and depending on the year Wisky, Iowa or MSU. The Big 12 gets one big name brand from California in UCLA, a previous blue blood in the sport Nebraska that I believe would have a better chance building its brand back another really nice regional partner in Colorado, as well as the others.  I think it could be a win for all involved.  Then sometime in the year you have those non-conference rivalries USC vs UCLA, Cal vs Stanford, Az vs ASU, Wash. vs WSU & Oregon vs OSU.

[Quack 12]

I don't see why the B1G would be interested. They're cultivating the East Coast with Rutgers and Maryland. I don't see them looking west. 

I could see Nebraska leaving the B1G if the Pac was able to scoop up UT, the Okies and the Kansas schools. Add CU and Utah to that mix and you've got a solid Plains-Pacific Conference. 

 

 

 

[Orange]

4 hours ago, Win5002 said:

There is probably some good points in this post.  So I have an honest question for PAC fans that want more exposure for their teams on tv, highlights, news media, etc.

Wouldn't their teams exposure be better served by the PAC being split by the B1G & Big 12 conferences.  Some discuss the PAC absorbing 4 maybe 6 Big schools.  Maybe utilizing two conference fan bases with a more intense viewership would give the PAC schools better exposure. (I also don't think Texas & OU will go west with only 4 schools and I'm not sure they will with 6 either).

The division would be something like this:

 B1G  taking USC, Stanford, Wash., Oregon & Az. (letting Neb. go back to the Big 12) 

Big 12 taking the remaining schools UCLA, CAL, ASU, Col., Utah, WSU, & OSU and Neb. sliding back to the Big 12.

Each of the main rivalry games are played OOC like ACC & SEC schools do. 

 

 

Sure, and maybe the Pac-12 will take Singapore State, Tokyo A&M, and Ho Chi Minh City College.  They could form the east division, with Alaska-Fairbanks in the west.  There could be a CCG at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

[row Z]

6 hours ago, Win5002 said:

There is probably some good points in this post.  So I have an honest question for PAC fans that want more exposure for their teams on tv, highlights, news media, etc.

Wouldn't their teams exposure be better served by the PAC being split by the B1G & Big 12 conferences.  Some discuss the PAC absorbing 4 maybe 6 Big schools.  Maybe utilizing two conference fan bases with a more intense viewership would give the PAC schools better exposure. (I also don't think Texas & OU will go west with only 4 schools and I'm not sure they will with 6 either).

The division would be something like this:

 B1G  taking USC, Stanford, Wash., Oregon & Az. (letting Neb. go back to the Big 12) 

Big 12 taking the remaining schools UCLA, CAL, ASU, Col., Utah, WSU, & OSU and Neb. sliding back to the Big 12.

Each of the main rivalry games are played OOC like ACC & SEC schools do. 

After I got over my knee-jerk reaction of wanting to hate this idea ... I actually don't hate it. Obviously, my first choice is for the existing Pac12 to start winning more, get better tv deals, and remain intact. The history is significant, especially for schools like UW that were part of the original Pacific Coast Conference (with Cal, Oregon and OSU) that started in 1915. Stanford joined in 1918, and USC in 1922. It would not be easy to discard that west coast heritage. 

But, the divisions you propose are pretty attractive as UW would stay with Oregon, Stanford, USC, and AZ. Personally, the team I would miss most if this were to occur would be Cal, as I think the schools are similar in a number of ways, and have a significant rivalry in crew. But, the loss of playing Cal and other Pac12 schools would be offset by playing regular games against new B1G powerhouses. B1G is the conference I respect the most after the Pac12, and getting semi-regular games against Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin etc. would be really cool. I have been hoping for some kind of an alliance between the Pac12 and B1G for out of conference games, and this would obviously provide even more than that. 

A potential hurdle to this plan would the travel requirements. 

How would you envision the divisions working within the B1G? The new conference would have 18 teams. Are you thinking 3 divisions of 6 that all play each other annually (5 games), with an additional 4 games rotated against the remaining 12 teams, with a championship game between the two best teams?

One more thought: I believe this proposal would give UW the same access to games in LA as under the current schedule (a game every other year), based on Cal and Stanford's current special arrangement to play both LA schools every year. If UW currently had more frequent access to games in LA, this proposal probably does not look as attractive.  

[Win5002]

16 hours ago, row Z said:

After I got over my knee-jerk reaction of wanting to hate this idea ... I actually don't hate it. Obviously, my first choice is for the existing Pac12 to start winning more, get better tv deals, and remain intact. The history is significant, especially for schools like UW that were part of the original Pacific Coast Conference (with Cal, Oregon and OSU) that started in 1915. Stanford joined in 1918, and USC in 1922. It would not be easy to discard that west coast heritage. 

But, the divisions you propose are pretty attractive as UW would stay with Oregon, Stanford, USC, and AZ. Personally, the team I would miss most if this were to occur would be Cal, as I think the schools are similar in a number of ways, and have a significant rivalry in crew. But, the loss of playing Cal and other Pac12 schools would be offset by playing regular games against new B1G powerhouses. B1G is the conference I respect the most after the Pac12, and getting semi-regular games against Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin etc. would be really cool. I have been hoping for some kind of an alliance between the Pac12 and B1G for out of conference games, and this would obviously provide even more than that. 

A potential hurdle to this plan would the travel requirements. 

How would you envision the divisions working within the B1G? The new conference would have 18 teams. Are you thinking 3 divisions of 6 that all play each other annually (5 games), with an additional 4 games rotated against the remaining 12 teams, with a championship game between the two best teams?

One more thought: I believe this proposal would give UW the same access to games in LA as under the current schedule (a game every other year), based on Cal and Stanford's current special arrangement to play both LA schools every year. If UW currently had more frequent access to games in LA, this proposal probably does not look as attractive.  

If I was the commissioner of a big conference, I don't think I would have divisions or pods and especially in this case.  Instead I would have a single conference standings.   I would lock in 3-4 annual rivals(in the case of 5 PAC schools to the B1G I would make sure those schools locked in all 4 other PAC schools to keep travel minimized)  and rotate games around the rest of the league but not in an equal rotation to maximize quality matchups.  In a large league that could mean you play one team 1 out of every 2 years, maybe another team 1 out of 3 years or even as low as 1 out of 4 years.  To maximize good matchups some teams may not be on the schedule to play each other.  You can't exclude Purdue(insert also Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers etc) from all of the PAC schools but maybe they are only on a rotation of 3 of the 5 PAC schools future schedules. There has to be a balance.  the reason this league is formed is not for an existing PAC school that is highly rated to play the Inidana, Purdue, Rutgers, Illinois(at least in their current form) the same as matchups with OSU/PSU/Mich/Wisky/MSU/Neb./IA etc.

  The 5 incoming PAC schools don't want a schedule that schedules nothing but juggernauts but you want a marquee game such as OSU/PSU/Mich/Wisky, maybe 2  quality teams like Neb/MSU/IA/Neb./Northwestern and 2 filler  games from Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland.

Teams will obviously move from juggernauts to quality games, quality games to fillers or possibly, quality games to juggernauts even from time to time.   So you try and do your scheduling on as short term basis as you can probably 4 years, 6 years max.   Its not a set formula but hopefully it gives you an idea.  The B1G is already doing some of this with their cross divisional games, they are trying to make the traditionally higher performing teams play each other more often than a set rotation to maximize the schedule for the tv partners.  

I really think PAC schools would get more exposure from other parts of the country even when they are playing games between existing PAC schools because fan bases from the CST & EST of their new conference will watch their games more.