NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:24 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 863 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:56 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1052
Hamburger wrote:
Utah and Colorado were not added to compete immediately. So ruling other schools out because they cannot compete right now would also not make much sense to me. (Think Rutgers & Maryland)


I don't know about Utah. Certainly not the best or biggest school in the area not already under the PAC or Big XII banner. They were totally a consolation prize for the PAC after the Texahoma-4 part of the PAC 16 thing didn't happen. I suspect that the PAC would have taken Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, or maybe even KSU before it would have taken Utah, if it meant getting Texas and OU.

So, if Utah was just to get to #12, and above being what it was, then how wasn't it about competitive sports?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:52 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1518
Both Utah & Colorado shall come around. Utah was hot a few years back. Colorado is looking to find that coaching stability that ultimately brings success. It looks like Colorado had a string of unsettling decisions, internally, over the last decade or so.

The B12 is weird now. The Longhorns, with supposedly top athletes, look unmotivated and show a poor defensive effort. Having all the fluff and padgeantry without impressive product delivery shall get controversial fast. Maybe it is just one of those years for them. The Oklahoma schools are on a roll, but OSU is getting some negative press about an alledged scandal extending over a long time. Texas Tech with Kliff Kingsbury coaching may turn out to be an impressive program.

The B12 just doesn't look particularly solidified. Intensity looks lost, but that may be a temporary impression. If the PAC12 wants a few more from there, maybe that opportunity shall happen. PAC12 Commish Scott seems reluctant to push for another expansion move anytime soon, given the earlier frustrations after he was first hired.

Most of the B12 schools, at some point soon, may question why they are sticking with the GoR if that super-division stuff happens. I expect at least 4 to 5 B12 schools now, would rather be in another power conference if invited; and that does not necessarily include Texas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1052
sec03 wrote:
The B12 just doesn't look particularly solidified. Intensity looks lost, but that may be a temporary impression. If the PAC12 wants a few more from there, maybe that opportunity shall happen. PAC12 Commish Scott seems reluctant to push for another expansion move anytime soon, given the earlier frustrations after he was first hired.


I think the PAC's problem these days is having indecisive programs with an ambitious commissioner. The PAC would have made VERY respectable money by adding OU and OSU, but they balked. Then, B1G-PAC fell apart thanks to USC and a few others, despite it being agreed on initially.

So, it sounds like the schools have made the conscious choice to not make more money. I just hope they'll remember that when other conferences start making bank with their pulls. Chances are, they'll conveniently forget.

I don't know what happens first for them: Larry Scott loses interest in the PAC, or the other way around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7370
Jon Wilner blog article(previously posted in another thread)discussing PAC 12 FB tv scheduling issues at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -nightmare


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1052
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Jon Wilner blog article(previously posted in another thread)discussing PAC 12 FB tv scheduling issues at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -nightmare" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Ouch.

But, hey...the PAC could have done something about this. The Oklahomas, B1G-PAC, eastern expansion with non-B12 schools...

Rumor had it the partial relinquishing of content from the central time zone benefit (basically, games that can be played nationally at any broadcast hour) was/is/will be a big deal to Texas and their conference affiliation. This article definitely went there with that subject...a bunch of Pacific coast schools want to break into the eastern and central timezone pots...no friggin' way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:06 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 106
Okay,
So how long does the PAC wait on the Texhoma 4 for before grabbing some top MWC schools like they did with Utah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:01 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
NorwichCat11 wrote:
Okay,
So how long does the PAC wait on the Texhoma 4 for before grabbing some top MWC schools like they did with Utah?


I think they wait forever or until some MWC schools rise in athletic, revenue and academic success. Some schools aren't on the radar now. But if their markets continue to grow and the schools improve across the board, they could become targets in the future. UNLV, New Mexico, etc are examples there. But right now, no MWC school is going to provide the boost that Texas/Oklahoma would bring.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1369
Location: Baltimore, MD
Quinn wrote:
NorwichCat11 wrote:
Okay,
So how long does the PAC wait on the Texhoma 4 for before grabbing some top MWC schools like they did with Utah?


I think they wait forever or until some MWC schools rise in athletic, revenue and academic success. Some schools aren't on the radar now. But if their markets continue to grow and the schools improve across the board, they could become targets in the future. UNLV, New Mexico, etc are examples there. But right now, no MWC school is going to provide the boost that Texas/Oklahoma would bring.


Agreed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:07 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 286
Location: Austin, Texas
NorwichCat11 wrote:
Okay,
So how long does the PAC wait on the Texhoma 4 for before grabbing some top MWC schools like they did with Utah?


Maybe someone can explain to me...

Why would Texas, OU, Texas Tech, and OSU give up a 40% share of the Big 12(10 schools) for a 25% share of the PAC 16? And these four schools wouldn't even be controlling the conference in the PAC, they would be the second tier. Not to mention conference games half way across the country.

Thanks in advance for any help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1052
I think the only programs "readily available" that would generate any noticeable increase in revenue would be BYU and Air Force. That increase would be miniscule, and it wouldn't push the footprint, even if both programs are "small nationals." And even that ignores BYU just not getting in and AFA's routine polite refusal.

The cheap way to crawl east is through schools like UNM, Tulsa, Rice, SMU, and Tulane. Those are your "big statey" and academically fit schools. Are any of those PAC-like schools?

mozilla wrote:
Not to mention conference games half way across the country.


But...at some point, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State were willing to deal with that. It was just the revenue issue for Texas, and then the PAC went total snob on OU and oSu.

The latter is why I have no sympathy for the PAC. Texas and Oklahoma want to play games whenever they want to play them, as is their right. And people want to watch them, as is evident by their followings. The PAC had a shot at a share of more "eastern-friendly" time-slots, but, they thought Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were inferior institutions.

They also walked from B1G-PAC.

This whole revenue woe...it's on them. Specifically, it's on USC and Stanford.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:57 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
mozilla wrote:
NorwichCat11 wrote:
Okay,
So how long does the PAC wait on the Texhoma 4 for before grabbing some top MWC schools like they did with Utah?


Maybe someone can explain to me...

Why would Texas, OU, Texas Tech, and OSU give up a 40% share of the Big 12(10 schools) for a 25% share of the PAC 16? And these four schools wouldn't even be controlling the conference in the PAC, they would be the second tier. Not to mention conference games half way across the country.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Would you rather own 40% of a sailboat, or 25% of a yacht?

Just a few short years back.

TCU was making 2 million a year
WVU was making 5 million a year
ISU/Baylor/K State were making less than 10 million a year.
UT/OU were making 20mil+ (along with A&M/Neb) & OSU/Tech/KU were just under 20mil (along with Mizzou/Colorado)

The TX/OK quad and Kansas (bball) are the only school truely bringing in eyeballs/dollars to the conference.

Now all the schools make ~20million (due to increase in contract but also distribution of UT/OU/A&M/Neb/MU/CU's money).

Do all the schools deserve 20 million? Obviously not, 1/2 the conference is being subsidized.

Now thake the PAC12

The PAC12 makes the same money (actually slightly more), and will make even more once their channel is up and running (which is just a matter of time) and eventually even more than the Big Ten network as they have a better ownership of the P12N than the Big Ten has in the BTN as well as the addition regional channels.

Most of their schools deserve what they get, but about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the conference is being subsidized (with obvious exceptions for Utah/WSU and depending on the year Cal/OSU/AZ).

Texas/OU and company could increase the payout for their primary/secondary TV contract as those 4+bball account for 80% of the TV revenues (even when Baylor/KSU/WVU/TCU are good nobody watches unless its against one of the TX/OK quad...ratings prove it just look at the top rated Big 12 games over the last 2 years, the only exception is the Baylor upset of #1 KSU which only got its ratings in the 2nd half).

Using that math UT/OU and co. could bring in over 160million but that just scratches the surface, the added bonus of getting regular matchups between Oregon/Oklahoma St, USC/Texas, Standford/Oklahoma, TxTech/ASU, or any other combo with UCLA/Arizona/Washington will add value to the overall contract boosting its value well over 200 million and the PAC12 Networks inventory would be excellent and that doesn't even mention the bonus of adding an entirely new A.M. time slot to their contract.

Adding the quad would easily increase the TV payout (on 1st/2nd tier) by at least 8 million a school giving the PAC12 a boost over anything the Big Ten could hope for w/o ND and would make their network's value skyrocket and the payout of those rights would be near 10 million each (meaning that even UT would make ~3million more by getting rid of the LHN).

The race would just be between the PAC16 and the SEC.

Right now the Big 12 w/o TX/OK quad has 2 AAU tier 1 schools (KU/ISU), and 2 tier 2 schools (KSU/BU) and 2 tier 3 schools (TCU/WVU).

TCU/BU do nothing to help the conference's academic goal as they are not great reseach institutions.

KSU does only A&M type reasearch which is beneficial to Tech/OSU but not OU/UT.

And WVU does nothing of note.

Meanwhile, the PAC12 has 10 tier 1 institutions, 8 of which are AAU (w/ Utah on deck), and 2 tier 2 schools (WSU/OrSU) which like KSU can work with TxTech/OkSU for the A&M type research.

As far as travel is concerned, the pods were the primary option being considered by the PAC12 meaning Texas would only have to 2 Pacific games a year, and 1 Mountain game a year in fb.

The Mountain games (CU/Utah/AZ/ASU) shouldn't really even be considered as their distance is neglible as most of our (meaning UT who is really in the drivers seat on the move) teams fly everywhere now except BU/TCU and the cost/time in flight is negligible.

The Pacific games are some cause for concern however those are the most entertaining teams/locations and all have easy travel partner to make it as easy as possible meaning (in basketball) Texas would only have to fly once a year to California (playing either LA teams or Bay Area teams on midweek/weekend then fly home) and once a year to the Northwest and the women's team would also fly in the same planes as to further decrease costs (playing midweek/Friday).

And that's not to mention that UT is already playing WVU and if the Big 12 expand likely another school or two as not in our time zone, plus if they were to join either the Big Ten the travel would be basically the same, and while the SEC may be technically less air travel but the lack of major metro airports in the SEC would also come with additional bussing that may increases cost/time.

So the only valid point is giving up control, however no other conference has a controlling interest in a school/groups of school anymore, the Cali schools gave up much of their power by adding the AZ schools and again by adding CU/Utah, the NC schools gave up much of their power by adding the Big East school which now outnumber them, and the Big Ten has done much of the same with the additions of PSU/Neb/MD/Rutgers. And all of those conference are better off the than Big 12 in the long term.

Texas has given up control before when it left the SWC for the Big 12 and could again with the same results. Eventually the power schools always gain control and I wouldn't be shocked to see UT/USC/UCLA/UO/OU/UW to form an alliance a vitually run the conference.

The biggest issue, IMO, won't be any of those things...it will be admitting defeat in the LHN. Now ESPN could simply not renew the deal in 2025 which would allow this to happen, however if they don't voluntarily trashing the concept will be the hardest thing for UT to swallow along with their pride. Powers will never do it, but Patterson and the next president might.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:15 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1518
The Arizona legislature passes a bill to allow gay-focused discrimination for restaurants based on religious beliefs. Does BYU and their ruling elders wonder why such is offensive to much of higher education academia?


Last edited by sec03 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:18 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1052
The PAC demonstrated they would work with the LDS when they took Utah. What's happening in Arizona, which is looking more like a trailer park, is kind of the same. The fact that these schools answer to a state and federal government and not a church or a particular interest group sort of keeps them kosher.

As for who wears the pants in the PAC politically, it has always been and will forever be USC. These days, if Oregon looks like they have power, it's really just Nike's money. UCLA, Cal, and Stanford are just names on the door.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1518
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
The fact that these schools answer to a state and federal government and not a church or a particular interest group sort of keeps them kosher.


Special interests including some of those tied to a number of certain religious-based organizations, lobby legislatures and funnel contributions to campaigns to generate such types of legislation. LDS in Arizona publically is trying to sound non-commital on this bill given the controversy generated, including concerns delivered by major businesses and tourism.

In the south, as some places elsewhere, many of these deemed kooky types of bills, some with significant popular/constituency support, get proposed at times. They usually get nowhere by legislative/committee leadership deliberately tying them up with procedures. Some proposals are simply constitutionally questionable.

I better stop before turning to the topic of guns and legislative grandstanding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1052
Where it reflects on schools and conference affiliation, it's not much different. Happens all the time in the non-majors, so BYU isn't alone. Liberty's had its issues, and some feel ORU not being in the MVC has something to do with their specific affiliation. The public vs. private spats aren't just about budgets, either.

These proposed laws are loopy, but the prejudices against certain schools are way worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 863 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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