NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:45 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1045 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:59 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1322
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
But in 2016, why should the Pac-12 bail out David Boren?

There's no improvement in the value of the Pac-12 Network with Oklahoma. There is with Texas, but Texas is probably punching its card elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:45 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 2032
Don't see the Big XII breaking up until the GoR expires in 2025.
However, the posturing of who goes where may commence some time prior to that.

Agree the PAC-12 has no vested interest in just "helping" a school like OU.
However, if the writing on the wall is that the Big XII teams will be dispersing and a P4 format will rise up,
this probably implies PAC expansion.

Part of the mess the Big XII currently finds themselves in relates to NOT anticipating and NOT being in a position to act pro-actively to take advantage of opportunities.
The PAC, SEC, ACC, and B1G should be engaged in contingency planning NOW so they are in position to act on short notice, to invite the teams they want for the future,
rather than settle for the left-overs after the smarter better-positioned conference(s) make their moves.
That means identifying the schools they want NOW, ranking them, and discussing how various combinations of new teams fit into their division formats, etc.

Not sure OU has a ton of appeal to west coast viewer, but they are a much more valuable TV property to the networks than Washington State, Oregon State....
OU could be available when the GoR expires in 2025.
Texas might be available as well, but they will be toting their LHN "baggage" for a few years after that (till 2030 ?).
So if the PAC ultimately adds 4 schools (not all would NECESSARILY be coming from the Big XII),
they may want to make an intermediate move to 14 BEFORE Texas is in play.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:45 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1347
Location: Columbus, OH
Considering that Texas and Oklahoma are at each other's throats I don't see them leaving together. I agree that the Pac 12 wouldn't be terribly interested in Oklahoma without Texas--I think they tried once a few years ago to go to the Pac 12 with Okie St but were turned down.

Texas without Oklahoma would add value to the deal. Would Larry Scott and company be willing to take this deal:

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor. Texas keeps the LHN until it expires. The other three provide content to the Pac 12 Network and make a Pac 12 Texas regional network possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:56 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 8240
SBN article(previously posted in another thread)discussing PAC 12 future revenue situation at http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... nue-future


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:09 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1322
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
tute79 wrote:
Part of the mess the Big XII currently finds themselves in relates to NOT anticipating and NOT being in a position to act pro-actively to take advantage of opportunities.
The PAC, SEC, ACC, and B1G should be engaged in contingency planning NOW so they are in position to act on short notice, to invite the teams they want for the future,
rather than settle for the left-overs after the smarter better-positioned conference(s) make their moves.
That means identifying the schools they want NOW, ranking them, and discussing how various combinations of new teams fit into their division formats, etc.


There are two conferences that can call their shots. The Pac-12 isn't one of them. That is a very simple equation:
Good TV Market-but-not-necessarily-good-COLLEGE-TV-market
plus
Geographic Isolation two time zones away (with apparently very little deference to Mountain TZ schools) from the action.

The ACC can't totally get there yet, but I'm convinced they can see the path.

tute79 wrote:
Not sure OU has a ton of appeal to west coast viewer, but they are a much more valuable TV property to the networks than Washington State, Oregon State....


I wouldn't doubt OU's appeal over the schools you mention. It just so happens there are legal entanglements that prevent some possible "selective merger" that tries to take Washington without Washington State... and unless Phil Knight buys Corvallis to turn it into an athletic non-college side project, I wouldn't be surprised if the Oregon Legislature found roadblocks to put up.

The Pac-12 is probably going to cite the isolation and tell the country that the desire of other conferences to get to 16 doesn't apply out west. Simple reason: not sustainable. You'll get something like 2 16s and a 20 and a 12 and like it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:30 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:20 pm
Posts: 31
fighting muskie wrote:
Considering that Texas and Oklahoma are at each other's throats I don't see them leaving together. I agree that the Pac 12 wouldn't be terribly interested in Oklahoma without Texas--I think they tried once a few years ago to go to the Pac 12 with Okie St but were turned down.

Texas without Oklahoma would add value to the deal. Would Larry Scott and company be willing to take this deal:

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor. Texas keeps the LHN until it expires. The other three provide content to the Pac 12 Network and make a Pac 12 Texas regional network possible.

Anything with the Longhorn Network is non-negotiable. It goes against the culture of the PAC-12.

If the PAC-12 was willing to accept the Longhorn Network, then Texas would have moved to the PAC-12 4 years ago when it was last proposed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:41 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 8240
Salt Lake Trib article(previously posted in another thread) discussing PAC 12 network distribution issues at http://www.sltrib.com/sports/4451817-15 ... ork-issues


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:57 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 8240
SBD article(previously posted in another thread)reporting that PAC 12 Networks will be seen on broader Dish Network tiers at http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... ac-12.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:32 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 8240
Jon Wilner blog article(previously posted in another thread)discussing increased PAC 12 Network revenue from new DISH and Charter deals at http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/21/p ... -more-cash


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 8240
AA blog article with comments from PAC 12 Commish regarding several topics at http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/pac-12- ... twork.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1045 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
 

 

cron




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