The greed will eventually implode the system. Even with two 'Super Conferences' there will only be so many teams in the upper tiers. Kids want to play for a winner and a contender, even if its not in a power conference. And, kids who don't get recruited to winners in the new Super 2 will choose a winner in a lesser conference that has a…
The greed will eventually implode the system. Even with two 'Super Conferences' there will only be so many teams in the upper tiers. Kids want to play for a winner and a contender, even if its not in a power conference. And, kids who don't get recruited to winners in the new Super 2 will choose a winner in a lesser conference that has a chance to get to the playoffs over a middling or poor team in a super conference. I give you Clemson as an example.
The fact is that the PAC12 and ACC were very shortsighted when they would not agree to a 12 team national championship playoff with 6 guaranteed spots. It cost them big bucks and as a result USC and UCLA said fuck you, we are worth more money elsewhere. Now we have no guarantees and our revenues will drop with UCLA and USC leaving the PAC12.
There are a couple of things we can do: Schedule tougher non-conference opponents for big TV games, especially late in the season when it means something. Cut our PAC 12 schedule from 9 games against conference opponents to 8, just like the SEC does. That 9th game means half of the PAC 12 teams scheduled to play lose and that means one more loss on their records at the end of the season which destroys chances for so many of our teams to be eligible for a better bowl game or the playoffs. It's just fucking stupid, if you are trying to balance the game with making money.
Lastly, and I will say this until I die, we need to stop playing night games in the PAC12. Early kickoffs no earlier than noon PST and late kickoffs no later than 4:30. If people have to choose between games, so be it. But at least people in the midwest and east who are PAC 12 fans will watch our games...and we might even pick up some new fans. And, no away games in the midwest or east that start before 1:00 pm PST. Period! In our lust for dollars we too often agree to noon games in the east. That means our kids must get up at 5:00 am PST and game time is 9:00 am PST. I can tell you its a huge disadvantage and only a fool would submit to that kind of scheduling. Better to say no and get a team that will meet our schedule. W's mean so much in todays game; why fuck ourselves.
With that I say sayonara to USC and UCLA. Their fans will be unhappy with the decision to leave the PAC12 in about 3 years when neither of those teams is top tier in the Big Ten and neither team plays in any major bowl games and they are middling conference teams. Watch how fast the LA market drops ff when neither of those teams perform at the top level.
I say keep the PAC 12 together, sign up teams like SDSU, Fresno State, Boise State and others. Our top teams will still get national recognition, just like Clemson in the ACC. Bowl games will augment our revenues. It will hurt in the short run, but I think in the long run we'll be fine and the bigger conferences will hurt themselves as they have to spread money around to more teams, the vast majority of which will see diminishing TV ratings as their W's diminish.
If it's just about big television markets, then Stanfurd and CAL should have no problem getting invites to the super conferences, if its about adding big TV markets to the PAC12, we are already too late.
USC is a blue blood and with the extra $$$ will be competitive in their new league. As for UCLA, I've never seen anybody do less with more so I don't expect much from them in the Big Ten - at least in football, which in a money-dominated world is all that counts.
I don't see that adding any of the teams you listed will do anything outside of diminish the conference payouts, which let's be honest is all that this is about anymore. Pushing to keep the Pac-12 together will only send us officially to second tier status. That might be acceptable for how mediocre our administration's support of football has been, but it would be a blow to our history and to our debt service.
At least historically, it has absolutely been about TV markets for the Big Ten - see Rutgers. So I tend to think we have a shot at an invite, if we're not competing for a single slot with Stanfurd.
SDSU is actually a solid team and typically makes the top 25 each year (recently). They have a decent sized media market, it has a huge student body, good practice/training facilities and a new stadium. They would be a prime candidate. SJSU is in a top media market, but the team is usually not that good (the good coaches that go there and win end up leaving). They actually recruit decent talent. But the stadium is old and terrible and their practice/training facilities are not good. I'm not sure how much media value they would bring. Boise State has become one of those storied programs about a good team that comes from a lesser conference and turns into the giant slayer. They have a following that goes way beyond Boise and Idaho. Their stadium is pretty cool, and the blue field is out there. But the media market is only worth about $4m I have been told. Bringing them into the PAC12 would require an uneven distribution of revenue with Boise State settling for a smaller piece of the pie. I see UNR and UNLV in a similar position as Boise State with the main difference being that UNLV is in a Big media market. If we truly wanted to make a regional conference we would figure out a way to bring in all these schools and create a pay out scale commensurate with the media value for each market, however that would favor teams like SJSU over Boise State and UNR. Programs that get more money can build better facilities and hire better coaches. Not sure how all that gets sorted out.
Agree that the top programs we would want to add would be SDSU, Boise State (although the growth is rapidly slowing) and UNLV. I just mentioned the other programs because of possibilities. One I did miss was Fresno State.
All true, but they have been know to play pretty good football. If it's TV, they could be an asset for the right price. It's all about how much they can earn vs the payout. Remember, they stomped UCLA last year. :-)
The greed will eventually implode the system. Even with two 'Super Conferences' there will only be so many teams in the upper tiers. Kids want to play for a winner and a contender, even if its not in a power conference. And, kids who don't get recruited to winners in the new Super 2 will choose a winner in a lesser conference that has a chance to get to the playoffs over a middling or poor team in a super conference. I give you Clemson as an example.
The fact is that the PAC12 and ACC were very shortsighted when they would not agree to a 12 team national championship playoff with 6 guaranteed spots. It cost them big bucks and as a result USC and UCLA said fuck you, we are worth more money elsewhere. Now we have no guarantees and our revenues will drop with UCLA and USC leaving the PAC12.
There are a couple of things we can do: Schedule tougher non-conference opponents for big TV games, especially late in the season when it means something. Cut our PAC 12 schedule from 9 games against conference opponents to 8, just like the SEC does. That 9th game means half of the PAC 12 teams scheduled to play lose and that means one more loss on their records at the end of the season which destroys chances for so many of our teams to be eligible for a better bowl game or the playoffs. It's just fucking stupid, if you are trying to balance the game with making money.
Lastly, and I will say this until I die, we need to stop playing night games in the PAC12. Early kickoffs no earlier than noon PST and late kickoffs no later than 4:30. If people have to choose between games, so be it. But at least people in the midwest and east who are PAC 12 fans will watch our games...and we might even pick up some new fans. And, no away games in the midwest or east that start before 1:00 pm PST. Period! In our lust for dollars we too often agree to noon games in the east. That means our kids must get up at 5:00 am PST and game time is 9:00 am PST. I can tell you its a huge disadvantage and only a fool would submit to that kind of scheduling. Better to say no and get a team that will meet our schedule. W's mean so much in todays game; why fuck ourselves.
With that I say sayonara to USC and UCLA. Their fans will be unhappy with the decision to leave the PAC12 in about 3 years when neither of those teams is top tier in the Big Ten and neither team plays in any major bowl games and they are middling conference teams. Watch how fast the LA market drops ff when neither of those teams perform at the top level.
I say keep the PAC 12 together, sign up teams like SDSU, Fresno State, Boise State and others. Our top teams will still get national recognition, just like Clemson in the ACC. Bowl games will augment our revenues. It will hurt in the short run, but I think in the long run we'll be fine and the bigger conferences will hurt themselves as they have to spread money around to more teams, the vast majority of which will see diminishing TV ratings as their W's diminish.
If it's just about big television markets, then Stanfurd and CAL should have no problem getting invites to the super conferences, if its about adding big TV markets to the PAC12, we are already too late.
USC is a blue blood and with the extra $$$ will be competitive in their new league. As for UCLA, I've never seen anybody do less with more so I don't expect much from them in the Big Ten - at least in football, which in a money-dominated world is all that counts.
I don't see that adding any of the teams you listed will do anything outside of diminish the conference payouts, which let's be honest is all that this is about anymore. Pushing to keep the Pac-12 together will only send us officially to second tier status. That might be acceptable for how mediocre our administration's support of football has been, but it would be a blow to our history and to our debt service.
At least historically, it has absolutely been about TV markets for the Big Ten - see Rutgers. So I tend to think we have a shot at an invite, if we're not competing for a single slot with Stanfurd.
SDSU is actually a solid team and typically makes the top 25 each year (recently). They have a decent sized media market, it has a huge student body, good practice/training facilities and a new stadium. They would be a prime candidate. SJSU is in a top media market, but the team is usually not that good (the good coaches that go there and win end up leaving). They actually recruit decent talent. But the stadium is old and terrible and their practice/training facilities are not good. I'm not sure how much media value they would bring. Boise State has become one of those storied programs about a good team that comes from a lesser conference and turns into the giant slayer. They have a following that goes way beyond Boise and Idaho. Their stadium is pretty cool, and the blue field is out there. But the media market is only worth about $4m I have been told. Bringing them into the PAC12 would require an uneven distribution of revenue with Boise State settling for a smaller piece of the pie. I see UNR and UNLV in a similar position as Boise State with the main difference being that UNLV is in a Big media market. If we truly wanted to make a regional conference we would figure out a way to bring in all these schools and create a pay out scale commensurate with the media value for each market, however that would favor teams like SJSU over Boise State and UNR. Programs that get more money can build better facilities and hire better coaches. Not sure how all that gets sorted out.
Agree that the top programs we would want to add would be SDSU, Boise State (although the growth is rapidly slowing) and UNLV. I just mentioned the other programs because of possibilities. One I did miss was Fresno State.
All true, but they have been know to play pretty good football. If it's TV, they could be an asset for the right price. It's all about how much they can earn vs the payout. Remember, they stomped UCLA last year. :-)