NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:56 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 881 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1552
From the Seattle Times on March 6, 2014. Includes comments from PAC12 Commissioner, Larry Scott, indicating no PAC12 expansion is planned for the short-term.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskymens ... t-at-noon/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:26 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1370
Location: Baltimore, MD
Well, no expansion and I still can't get the Pac 12 Net in MD or WY - but there is hope: sand volleyball is growing in importance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:23 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 399
I guess the b12 still lives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:02 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1445
ctx48c wrote:
I guess the sbc still lives.

FIFY

B12>AAC/MWC>CUSA/MAC>SBC

But the PAC12 aint expanding anytime soon w/o Texas, so until then they'll just sit back and watch.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:20 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 399
Texas likes being in charge and with 10 schools.
Hopefully a requirement for championship will be a league playoff and the B12 will be left out.
SBC just took NJIT for soccer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:58 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 154
While Texas would be a slam dunk for the PAC 12.What's your guys thoughts if they go some smaller schools in Texas let's say Houston and SMU or Rice. While there no where near as good as Texas it would get them in Houston and Dallas.(PAC 12 could argue that there network should be shown in all of Texas) For me it's the best bet for the PAC 12 to get into Texas.

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1445
ctx48c wrote:
Texas likes being in charge and with 10 schools.
Hopefully a requirement for championship will be a league playoff and the B12 will be left out.
SBC just took NJIT for soccer.

They've already signed the playoff deal, no championship game is required. This theory needs to be put to bed, the Big 12 won't be "forced" to expand...at least not until the renegotiation in 2025.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 9:59 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1091
sec03 wrote:
From the Seattle Times on March 6, 2014. Includes comments from PAC12 Commissioner, Larry Scott, indicating no PAC12 expansion is planned for the short-term.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskymens ... t-at-noon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Nice to hear who owns the PAC...it's not the schools. People are like "why can't we see games on <insert network here>," and he's quick to highlight their revolving content and toss DirecTV under the bus. Content without an audience, and it's on the audience to get to the content? What, so now PAC-TV is HBO? Then, when it comes to someone remarking about bad attendance, he shoots it down. "No corrolation." Sure, Larry...what's going on at Cal, UCLA, and other PAC venues on Saturday afternoons and evenings...nope, not your media deal's fault.

Interesting to hear the lacrosse shout-out. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of schools announce simultaneously and instantly form a conference down the way. Sounds like a sport Cal could totally field, but good luck funding it.

Quote:
Q: Back when the PAC-12 first expanded there was talk of a Season Kick-off Game at Rose Bowl vs. Big Ten. Are they still any negotiations or possibilities for that?

A: There are no plans at this time. However, we are always discussing creative ideas internally, with our broadcast partners, bowl partners and other conferences.


Closest anyone got to B1G-PAC, and as generic an answer one could get. I wonder why?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:39 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1552
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
sec03 wrote:
From the Seattle Times on March 6, 2014. Includes comments from PAC12 Commissioner, Larry Scott, indicating no PAC12 expansion is planned for the short-term.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskymens ... t-at-noon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Nice to hear who owns the PAC...it's not the schools. People are like "why can't we see games on <insert network here>," and he's quick to highlight their revolving content and toss DirecTV under the bus. Content without an audience, and it's on the audience to get to the content? What, so now PAC-TV is HBO? Then, when it comes to someone remarking about bad attendance, he shoots it down. "No corrolation." Sure, Larry...what's going on at Cal, UCLA, and other PAC venues on Saturday afternoons and evenings...nope, not your media deal's fault.

Interesting to hear the lacrosse shout-out. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of schools announce simultaneously and instantly form a conference down the way. Sounds like a sport Cal could totally field, but good luck funding it.

Quote:
Q: Back when the PAC-12 first expanded there was talk of a Season Kick-off Game at Rose Bowl vs. Big Ten. Are they still any negotiations or possibilities for that?

A: There are no plans at this time. However, we are always discussing creative ideas internally, with our broadcast partners, bowl partners and other conferences.


Closest anyone got to B1G-PAC, and as generic an answer one could get. I wonder why?


Good points TBC. One has to think Scott may be holding back from expressing some frustrations. His freedom to be proactive got constrained after the expansion effort with Texas and company failed, and after the PAC12-BIG scheduling deal got canned when, particularly USC, balked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1091
sec03 wrote:
Good points TBC. One has to think Scott may be holding back from expressing some frustrations. His freedom to be proactive got constrained after the expansion effort with Texas and company failed, and after the PAC12-BIG scheduling deal got canned when, particularly USC, balked.


Yeah, those subjects were not allowed to be fielded it appears. Texahoma, OU-OSU a year later, and B1G-PAC...all fascinating stories I'd love to hear from his perspective...not an okay topic, I guess.

I wonder if B1G-PAC is brought back to life. I think the majority of the PAC wanted it, and would gladly take it to address the expansion issue when Texas is not on the table. It's just on USC and Stanford to give in a little, which, I guess, is another subject Mr. Scott isn't comfortable tackling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:35 am 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 59
tkalmus wrote:
ctx48c wrote:
Texas likes being in charge and with 10 schools.
Hopefully a requirement for championship will be a league playoff and the B12 will be left out.
SBC just took NJIT for soccer.

They've already signed the playoff deal, no championship game is required. This theory needs to be put to bed, the Big 12 won't be "forced" to expand...at least not until the renegotiation in 2025.


It might be an unwritten requirement. We don't know how the selection panel is going to judge things. Playing in a conference championship should be a leg up over a team not playing one. Beating an extra quality team couldn't hurt the resume.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:27 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7415
Jon Wilner blog article(previously posted in another thread)with update on PAC 12 FB TV schedule issues at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... x-sports-1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1091
Quote:
Which brings us to the discussions/negotiations that began months ago ….

In a significant show of good faith, ESPN and Fox agreed to eliminate the window of exclusivity AND cap the number of night games at a slightly higher total than they showed in ’13.

(Remember: There are no restrictions in the original contract regarding the number of night games that can be shown by the ESPN and Fox families, and the networks paid $3 billion in part because the conference offered unprecedented flexibility with the schedule. More games in new real estate equals more money.)

Naturally, the league had to give up something in return, and it was this:

A reduction in the minimum number of national telecasts (i.e., ABC or FOX over-the-air) from the current total of 10. (FOX was responsible for eight, ABC for two, and not surprisingly, FOX was pushing for the reduction.)

All told: Fewer national telecasts but far fewer night games and a cap on the number of night games in the future.

Seems like a fair deal … like a good deal for the Pac-12, right?

But the conference said no.

Why in the world … ?

Based on everything I’ve gathered from sources, the league determined that removing the exclusive window would not reduce the net total of night games below the 2013 figure.

Even if the Pac12Nets moved a handful of games into the late-afternoon window, FS1 would likely offset that reduction with a slight uptick in night games on its schedule — not in 2014, perhaps, but in future years as the network acquires more programming.

According to sources, Scott was under significant pressure from Pac-12 presidents/chancellors to reduce the total, using the 2013 figure as a baseline.


:roll:

The networks didn't have to remove the exclusivity or bump the cap, and because they did, it should have shown the schools that the networks also stood to gain from what the PAC schools wanted. Because, what the networks saw when those games were put on at night: nobody in the east (that's where the people are, PAC folks) watched the product. So, PAC schools don't make money from empty stadiums and upset fans and alums, while networks don't make money because there isn't an audience demand for it.

We keep thinking the ACC and Big XII are weak conferences...geez, these guys are bleepin' out of their minds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:25 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1552
The reality is time zones. They have to work with it. West coast schools exposure in national telecasts, by circumstances, are going to have limitations in the east. Regional telecasts have served a good purpose for a long time. What the big networks seem to want to do more frequently is have 'national telecasts' of 'featured' games they focus on marketing beforehand. For them, they weigh that cost against resources that have to be devoted to regional programming.

Outside the really big names on the west coast, there may be a bit of under-valuing due to limited eastern exposure. On the other hand, there is certainly the 'hype' given to a few west coast schools that often get over-stated. After all, California is the most populous state, along with some very significant metro areas elsewhere in the far west. How many times in the recent era has the sports media in the pre-season labeled the University of Southern California as having the team of decade, or even the century, and then to see such hype prove to come up way short of the portrayal?

The comparative population factor, alone, is a greater challenge to most of the Mountain West types.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1091
sec03 wrote:
The reality is time zones. They have to work with it.


I wonder how much relief they would have gotten if they just bit the bullet and had taken OU and oSu. Two games that would have put them into the CTZ where there could have been more leverage for the conference to field earlier games. Putting programs of that notoriety into the conference would have resulted in the conference getting to tear up the old contract and renegotiate a new one.

This is why I can't take the endless Chicken Little fanspeak about the ACC and Big XII issues too seriously...the PAC is having some serious, real issues. What, they didn't see this coming? That they could have addressed this by relenting on Oklahoma State? These guys? The network isn't going to force more money down their way if the product doesn't sell, and the schools need better minds to think this rationally through. Something's going to have to give on the PAC's end...it's not the networks' fault.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 881 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group