The Big Ten isn't interested in Cal so that might be a small problem. There isn't another P5 option for Cal so the best option is for the Pac to cobble something together. Otherwise get ready to be roommates with Boise and UNLV.
It's very clear that the Big 10 and SEC will be the most secure "major league" powers going forward. They'll probably screw us over a bit as lower tier members but we have bills to pay and they have a big, reliable bank.
They aren't going to be an option unless the Big Ten decides to expand to 24 members. Oregon and Washington are the next two in unless by some miracle Notre Dame decided they'd join if Stanford does, then Stanford would take UW's place. Then there are UNC, Duke, Virginia, Clemson and the other ACC schools that will be in play. If it didn't happen when Warren was actually considering travel partners for USC/UCLA it's not going to happen now. And the SEC never was and never will be an option. The only real non-MWC option for Cal will be when the ACC gets raided and the leftovers are looking for merger partners -- then Cal and whomever is left in the Pac 12 might have an option.
I'm arguing we should go SMU over UNLV. SMU gives better recruiting grounds and has a higher profile. They may be a bit of a paper tiger right now, but Dallas loves a good bandwagon. Plus, we know SMU has a strong donor base that is okay with paying players that is interested in returning to competitive football.
That's like saying Arkansas State gives better recruiting grounds and has a higher profile than Delaware State. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, and Baylor all are ahead of SMU in the Dallas area, and none of those schools are even located there. SMU brings the Dallas/Texas market about like Occidental College brings the LA/California market.
None of those schools were hit with an actual death sentence. Any school we expand to at this stage will be a commitment and investment. If we want immediate results, we shouldn't expand.
I'd rather take my chances being an underling in the Big10 than being on the Titanic that is the Pac-whatever with a possibility of not getting a life raft and getting demoted to perpetual feeder status in the Mountain West
The Big Ten isn't going to offer. If they expand at all it will be Oregon and Washington, with a slight possibility of Stanford taking U Dub's spot if Notre Dame will join. Cal doesn't bring anywhere near close to the $70M in media value they want. Cal's best hope is that the Pac 12 is able to cobble something together, otherwise the Mountain West is a likely possibility.
The Mountain West is about to become a de facto college football playoff rep. AAC has lost just about everything. It is questionable that the MWC would take Cal if the Pac collapsed, Wazzu, OR State, bring value. Cal and Stanford do not. Awful Nevada packed in more fans than either of those schools. Think about it this way. There's a reason Cal and Stanford don't play, Boise, Air Force, or Fresno anymore. Oh wait, they've NEVER played Boise, and there's a reason for that. There is a reason Boise doesn't want to schedule them either, it's a waste of time. The Big 10 isn't coming knocking for either of those schools, their priorities are so wrong and their alumni know it. If Cal could axe it's athletics, it would.
Where would Cal go? It seems pretty certain the Big Ten and Big 12 aren't interested, and I'm just taking a wild guess that the SEC and ACC aren't either. Mountain West?
I'm not so certain MWC would want to take Cal. SJSU and Fresno would want them, but imagine the voting at the MWC table. You've got to convince Hawaii, New Mexico, Air Force, Wyoming, Utah St and Boise that Cal has value compared to Wazzu, Or St or even against NDSU and at the same time isn't a threat to any of them getting to the playoffs. Anybody who goes to the MWC has a better shot at the college football playoff moving forward than the Big 12 or Big 10. Cal needs to keep the PAC together. Waiting for the savior of the Big 10 makes Cal even less important than Rutgers. Just because these schools in the Big 10 are getting more money doesn't necessarily mean they're above board. Imagine the new plight of SC and UCLA that their players are going to play almost every single away game across the country. The sleep deprivation is unreal. Cal does not want that, trust me. Also what if ABC schedules a game in EST at 10 AM kickoff? That's 7 AM PST. Disaster. All for $20M to probably never win the conference because your players are wrecked by jet lag. Keep the PAC together. Give the west coast better representation by not pandering to TV deals.
I'm not so sure that the Big 12 wouldn't leap at Cal, Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU. It would cement northern and southern Cal. Give them some additional AAU schools, which reduces the odds of KU fleeing to the B1G someday if they can ever build a football program, and creates a contiguous line of states from the Pacific Ocean to Iowa and Texas.
Cal is a non-starter for the Big 12, that's a direct quote from the wife of a man who would know. They don't bring value and they indicated early on that they don't care for the Big 12 and that's all the powers that be apparently needed to know. Utah has fallen from consideration for the same reasons and since they have BYU. If something happened tomorrow and UO and UW went to the B1G the Big 12 would go after UA/ASU/CO/SDSU, and if UO and UW didn't go B1G they'd go after those two plus CO and UA with the possibility of ASU if necessary as a 17th to keep the AZ schools together. Of course that's Level 2 and could obviously change but that is apparently their strategy now.
I have to plug my ears and stammer "Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah". I just can't stomach the thought of the Pac being anything other than what I have known my whole life. Hard enough time accepting Utah and Colorado. I'm just heartbroken about the whole conference disintegration. For the LA schools to leave is such a big blow to my sense of West Coast sports. It's not something I'll get over easily or ever.
San Diego State, Arizona, and Colorado would all benefit from being Big 12 members. ASU probably should go and join too. Oregon and Washington are destined for the B1G, and Stannford and NC or Duke should go too.
Geography means nothing. A 4-hour plane ride across time zones is no more onerous than a 4-hour bus ride, and has a "wow!" factor. Staying in the Pac right now is like staying in a troubled marriage that one is sure will eventually fail; one may have fond memories and bonds of affection but, the final end is apparent to everyone and staying just delays the inevitable.
Unfortunately Sdsu isn't worth anything in terms of media value. Sdsu brought in horrible ratings for their championship game, which isn't unusual. SDSU ranks dead last in MWC viewership, even lower than San Jose State. SDSU Football AND Basketball combined don't even draw half the viewers of Boise State Football. Heck even the NFL abandoned San Diego because it's such an awful sports media market. SMU would be a 4th best value in Dallas... No wonder the TV execs don't want to do business with you. The smart market play would have been Boise and BYU. But Pac 12 isn't proactive, their pride is too good until it's financially unsuitable. If AAU was so important, the Sec wouldn't be whooping your rear ends.
How would Apple price a Pac-12 subscription? Unlike MLS ($99/season, $15/mo) it would be a year-round product so I'm guessing a sub of $10-$15/mo? Of course, I would be happy for the OPPORTUNITY to purchase the Pac channel but I am not representative of the broader audience.
We still need some linear TV visibility for high-profile games but that can be subcontracted. I guess, the strategic question is to decide between 1) a smaller 5-yr deal with ESPN and other networks and take our chances in 2028, hoping teams more teams don't bail or 2) a longer exclusive streaming deal with Apple or Amazon and let them sublease some games.
If we can get near the Big-12 mark of $31 mil/school/yr then take the medium-term deal. If we can't, then we gotta go for a streaming package that can. Unfortunately, the Pac needs money now to stay competitive and doesn't have the luxury of promising a payoff down the road.
Apple+ is such a cheap subscription, add-ons are fine. Just no like Hulu/etc. that already charge more, have ads unless you pay even more, and will try to charge on top.
The problem with SDSU and SMU joining is they dilute the per school distribution. Even if the PAC10 matches the BIG12 deal the expansion would mean PAC10 schools will be pulling in way less then the BIG12, and then there's the exposure and viewership issues associate with streaming. This greatly impacts visibility and NIL sponsorships which equals to low recruiting ranks.
Oh please -- the lack of expansion isn't what's causing the problem and I have a hunch you know that. If ESPN and/or Fox told the Pac they'd give a decent payout if they'd add SMU and SDSU it would have happened yesterday. The issue is what's left of the Pac 12 isn't worth as much as George has been trying to get, period. The Big 12 got their deal done in 3 weeks, but 9 months later the Pac 12 is still trying to match their deal after having apparently spoken to everyone except Telemundo (and who knows, they may have spoken to them too).
If you think people are going to buy your excuse that it's because they haven't added freaking SMU yet I've got a bridge that goes right by Alcatraz I'll sell you for $20.
Not surprised on how long this is taking. The deal has many moving parts, and I would bet a reluctant team of overlords (Uni Presidents) who will question expansion. (The Presidents have two concerns: 1) dilutive academic brand by adding non-R1 or non-AAU school, and 2) cross-country travel for SMU.) Add in the fact that UO and U-Dub would prefer a short-term deal....
If I was Pres, I'd be asking the bidders to make separate pitches:
1) Accretive value of SD alone (why do we need an even number?)
2) Accretive value of SMU alone
3) 1+2
4) Accretive value of a different school, such as UNLV, Fresno State, Boise, Gonzaga, pick-one
The Pac 12 already has Washington State, Oregon State, Oregon, and Utah so lets not pretend we're an academic mecca too good for anyone; that arrogance is a big part of why the Pac is in the shape it's in. At this point when the conference is on life support on the brink of losing half it's remaining members beggars can't be choosers. The ONE thing SMU has going for it is strong academics whether they spend money on research or not. There are at least four Pac 12 schools on the verge of moving in with the MWC so now isn't the time for academic snobbery.
say what? SMU claims it's a 10-year process. SMU is committing $600m new money bolster their research effort. And note the requirements -- SDSU has almost none of those today.
AAU is the real gold standard. And, if ND, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon join, I would not be surprised to see the B1G ditch former AAU school Nebraska in favor of Duke.
I agree that sports fans don't care, but the Uni Presidents do. (Prestige is big in academia.) And since the Presidents are the ones approving any expansion and media deals...For example if adding SD brings in an extra $5m for everyone, its a no-brainer, but if adding SD means a smaller share for the other 10, the Presidents would have to ask why?
fwiw: count me as skeptical that SDSU gets to R1 anytime soon. (Yeah, I get that their campus President is all-in on offering lotsa doctorates, but the Legislature has not yet given them approval to do so. And they can't even apply for R1 until the Legislature gives them the authority to independently offer doctorates. )
Forbes list of Top Universities has Stanford and Cal tied for #2 and U Dub at 33. The rest of the conference is located between 111 and 191. Beyond the top 3 the Pac 12 isn't an academically elite group, so being picky over how much research a school does when the issue is athletics (and let's be honest, even at Stanford and Cal most of the football players are lucky if they can write a complete sentence) is going to do nothing but expedite extinction for the conference. Given the state of the conference it seems so silly to even be talking about it. It's about like the Titanic turning away lifeboats because they aren't elegant enough.
We are going to need to focus on adding quality athletics and TV sets. I think SDSU accomplishes some of that but SMU brings nothing. It makes me wonder what kind of research they're using when SMU literally doesn't resonate in it's own city much less the state of Texas or nationally. I get that you're never going to convince a Tx Tech or TCU to come here, but if we have to get someone from Texas how about Texas - San Antonio which is a large school with lots of fans a a football team that has been in the Top 25 a lot the past few years? Maybe they don't have a huge name now, but they've got far more upside than SMU in the long run. Or really I don't think we need an even number of teams so stopping at SDSU would do as much for us as adding both of them without adding one more mouth to feed.
If it means better TV deal and more money for us, Pac12 should expand and get SDSU and SMU.
And Cal should bolt to Big 10 as soon as chance arises.
The Big Ten isn't interested in Cal so that might be a small problem. There isn't another P5 option for Cal so the best option is for the Pac to cobble something together. Otherwise get ready to be roommates with Boise and UNLV.
It's very clear that the Big 10 and SEC will be the most secure "major league" powers going forward. They'll probably screw us over a bit as lower tier members but we have bills to pay and they have a big, reliable bank.
They aren't going to be an option unless the Big Ten decides to expand to 24 members. Oregon and Washington are the next two in unless by some miracle Notre Dame decided they'd join if Stanford does, then Stanford would take UW's place. Then there are UNC, Duke, Virginia, Clemson and the other ACC schools that will be in play. If it didn't happen when Warren was actually considering travel partners for USC/UCLA it's not going to happen now. And the SEC never was and never will be an option. The only real non-MWC option for Cal will be when the ACC gets raided and the leftovers are looking for merger partners -- then Cal and whomever is left in the Pac 12 might have an option.
Well Im not arguing what we should add SMU over UNLV. I care absolutely nothing about the Pac12 because
1) Pac12 is already garbage and it doesn't matter who we add (unless we get USC back)
2) Conference realignment will come up again every year if not more frequent
3) Cal should leave Pac12
So all I'm saying is we should do what gives us the most money NOW and don't need to worry about what's logical or what's prestigious.
Big 10 is garbage. Both LA schools will suffer the consequences.
I'm arguing we should go SMU over UNLV. SMU gives better recruiting grounds and has a higher profile. They may be a bit of a paper tiger right now, but Dallas loves a good bandwagon. Plus, we know SMU has a strong donor base that is okay with paying players that is interested in returning to competitive football.
That's like saying Arkansas State gives better recruiting grounds and has a higher profile than Delaware State. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, and Baylor all are ahead of SMU in the Dallas area, and none of those schools are even located there. SMU brings the Dallas/Texas market about like Occidental College brings the LA/California market.
None of those schools were hit with an actual death sentence. Any school we expand to at this stage will be a commitment and investment. If we want immediate results, we shouldn't expand.
That death sentence was 35 years ago -- if they haven't recovered by now they never will.
I'd rather take my chances being an underling in the Big10 than being on the Titanic that is the Pac-whatever with a possibility of not getting a life raft and getting demoted to perpetual feeder status in the Mountain West
The Big Ten isn't going to offer. If they expand at all it will be Oregon and Washington, with a slight possibility of Stanford taking U Dub's spot if Notre Dame will join. Cal doesn't bring anywhere near close to the $70M in media value they want. Cal's best hope is that the Pac 12 is able to cobble something together, otherwise the Mountain West is a likely possibility.
The Mountain West is about to become a de facto college football playoff rep. AAC has lost just about everything. It is questionable that the MWC would take Cal if the Pac collapsed, Wazzu, OR State, bring value. Cal and Stanford do not. Awful Nevada packed in more fans than either of those schools. Think about it this way. There's a reason Cal and Stanford don't play, Boise, Air Force, or Fresno anymore. Oh wait, they've NEVER played Boise, and there's a reason for that. There is a reason Boise doesn't want to schedule them either, it's a waste of time. The Big 10 isn't coming knocking for either of those schools, their priorities are so wrong and their alumni know it. If Cal could axe it's athletics, it would.
Where would Cal go? It seems pretty certain the Big Ten and Big 12 aren't interested, and I'm just taking a wild guess that the SEC and ACC aren't either. Mountain West?
I'm not so certain MWC would want to take Cal. SJSU and Fresno would want them, but imagine the voting at the MWC table. You've got to convince Hawaii, New Mexico, Air Force, Wyoming, Utah St and Boise that Cal has value compared to Wazzu, Or St or even against NDSU and at the same time isn't a threat to any of them getting to the playoffs. Anybody who goes to the MWC has a better shot at the college football playoff moving forward than the Big 12 or Big 10. Cal needs to keep the PAC together. Waiting for the savior of the Big 10 makes Cal even less important than Rutgers. Just because these schools in the Big 10 are getting more money doesn't necessarily mean they're above board. Imagine the new plight of SC and UCLA that their players are going to play almost every single away game across the country. The sleep deprivation is unreal. Cal does not want that, trust me. Also what if ABC schedules a game in EST at 10 AM kickoff? That's 7 AM PST. Disaster. All for $20M to probably never win the conference because your players are wrecked by jet lag. Keep the PAC together. Give the west coast better representation by not pandering to TV deals.
I'm not so sure that the Big 12 wouldn't leap at Cal, Colorado, Arizona, and SDSU. It would cement northern and southern Cal. Give them some additional AAU schools, which reduces the odds of KU fleeing to the B1G someday if they can ever build a football program, and creates a contiguous line of states from the Pacific Ocean to Iowa and Texas.
Cal is a non-starter for the Big 12, that's a direct quote from the wife of a man who would know. They don't bring value and they indicated early on that they don't care for the Big 12 and that's all the powers that be apparently needed to know. Utah has fallen from consideration for the same reasons and since they have BYU. If something happened tomorrow and UO and UW went to the B1G the Big 12 would go after UA/ASU/CO/SDSU, and if UO and UW didn't go B1G they'd go after those two plus CO and UA with the possibility of ASU if necessary as a 17th to keep the AZ schools together. Of course that's Level 2 and could obviously change but that is apparently their strategy now.
Why would we leave to a less prestigious conference?
I'm fairly certain there is no less prestigious P5 conference than the Pac 12 right now.
Everyone's talking as if the pac12 teams would go to the mwc instead of the best mwc moving to the pac12, which I don't understand.
I have to plug my ears and stammer "Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah". I just can't stomach the thought of the Pac being anything other than what I have known my whole life. Hard enough time accepting Utah and Colorado. I'm just heartbroken about the whole conference disintegration. For the LA schools to leave is such a big blow to my sense of West Coast sports. It's not something I'll get over easily or ever.
Yeah bringing in Utah was a bad idea, they kick our asses too often !!!
We're doomed
-Pac-12 probably
San Diego State, Arizona, and Colorado would all benefit from being Big 12 members. ASU probably should go and join too. Oregon and Washington are destined for the B1G, and Stannford and NC or Duke should go too.
Geography means nothing. A 4-hour plane ride across time zones is no more onerous than a 4-hour bus ride, and has a "wow!" factor. Staying in the Pac right now is like staying in a troubled marriage that one is sure will eventually fail; one may have fond memories and bonds of affection but, the final end is apparent to everyone and staying just delays the inevitable.
Unfortunately Sdsu isn't worth anything in terms of media value. Sdsu brought in horrible ratings for their championship game, which isn't unusual. SDSU ranks dead last in MWC viewership, even lower than San Jose State. SDSU Football AND Basketball combined don't even draw half the viewers of Boise State Football. Heck even the NFL abandoned San Diego because it's such an awful sports media market. SMU would be a 4th best value in Dallas... No wonder the TV execs don't want to do business with you. The smart market play would have been Boise and BYU. But Pac 12 isn't proactive, their pride is too good until it's financially unsuitable. If AAU was so important, the Sec wouldn't be whooping your rear ends.
The pac 12 will figure out how to screw it up… trust me…. Still cant watch pac 12 network, had Directv , nope .. You tube Tv, Nope….
How would Apple price a Pac-12 subscription? Unlike MLS ($99/season, $15/mo) it would be a year-round product so I'm guessing a sub of $10-$15/mo? Of course, I would be happy for the OPPORTUNITY to purchase the Pac channel but I am not representative of the broader audience.
We still need some linear TV visibility for high-profile games but that can be subcontracted. I guess, the strategic question is to decide between 1) a smaller 5-yr deal with ESPN and other networks and take our chances in 2028, hoping teams more teams don't bail or 2) a longer exclusive streaming deal with Apple or Amazon and let them sublease some games.
If we can get near the Big-12 mark of $31 mil/school/yr then take the medium-term deal. If we can't, then we gotta go for a streaming package that can. Unfortunately, the Pac needs money now to stay competitive and doesn't have the luxury of promising a payoff down the road.
I'd imagine it would have to be about 30-40% less than the MLS package. So a sub of $9 - $10/Mo would probably be about right.
Apple+ is such a cheap subscription, add-ons are fine. Just no like Hulu/etc. that already charge more, have ads unless you pay even more, and will try to charge on top.
The problem with SDSU and SMU joining is they dilute the per school distribution. Even if the PAC10 matches the BIG12 deal the expansion would mean PAC10 schools will be pulling in way less then the BIG12, and then there's the exposure and viewership issues associate with streaming. This greatly impacts visibility and NIL sponsorships which equals to low recruiting ranks.
Fresno is a better add than UNLV.
Oh please -- the lack of expansion isn't what's causing the problem and I have a hunch you know that. If ESPN and/or Fox told the Pac they'd give a decent payout if they'd add SMU and SDSU it would have happened yesterday. The issue is what's left of the Pac 12 isn't worth as much as George has been trying to get, period. The Big 12 got their deal done in 3 weeks, but 9 months later the Pac 12 is still trying to match their deal after having apparently spoken to everyone except Telemundo (and who knows, they may have spoken to them too).
If you think people are going to buy your excuse that it's because they haven't added freaking SMU yet I've got a bridge that goes right by Alcatraz I'll sell you for $20.
Not surprised on how long this is taking. The deal has many moving parts, and I would bet a reluctant team of overlords (Uni Presidents) who will question expansion. (The Presidents have two concerns: 1) dilutive academic brand by adding non-R1 or non-AAU school, and 2) cross-country travel for SMU.) Add in the fact that UO and U-Dub would prefer a short-term deal....
If I was Pres, I'd be asking the bidders to make separate pitches:
1) Accretive value of SD alone (why do we need an even number?)
2) Accretive value of SMU alone
3) 1+2
4) Accretive value of a different school, such as UNLV, Fresno State, Boise, Gonzaga, pick-one
5) 1+4
The Pac 12 already has Washington State, Oregon State, Oregon, and Utah so lets not pretend we're an academic mecca too good for anyone; that arrogance is a big part of why the Pac is in the shape it's in. At this point when the conference is on life support on the brink of losing half it's remaining members beggars can't be choosers. The ONE thing SMU has going for it is strong academics whether they spend money on research or not. There are at least four Pac 12 schools on the verge of moving in with the MWC so now isn't the time for academic snobbery.
At least Oregon is AAU.
SDSU and SMU are both about to become R1 universities, though, so that point is kind of moot.
say what? SMU claims it's a 10-year process. SMU is committing $600m new money bolster their research effort. And note the requirements -- SDSU has almost none of those today.
https://www.smu.edu/-/media/Site/Provost/Provost/PDF/Documents_Current/20202021/030521ProvostWeeklyUpdate.pdf?la=en
AAU is the real gold standard. And, if ND, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon join, I would not be surprised to see the B1G ditch former AAU school Nebraska in favor of Duke.
I agree that sports fans don't care, but the Uni Presidents do. (Prestige is big in academia.) And since the Presidents are the ones approving any expansion and media deals...For example if adding SD brings in an extra $5m for everyone, its a no-brainer, but if adding SD means a smaller share for the other 10, the Presidents would have to ask why?
fwiw: count me as skeptical that SDSU gets to R1 anytime soon. (Yeah, I get that their campus President is all-in on offering lotsa doctorates, but the Legislature has not yet given them approval to do so. And they can't even apply for R1 until the Legislature gives them the authority to independently offer doctorates. )
Forbes list of Top Universities has Stanford and Cal tied for #2 and U Dub at 33. The rest of the conference is located between 111 and 191. Beyond the top 3 the Pac 12 isn't an academically elite group, so being picky over how much research a school does when the issue is athletics (and let's be honest, even at Stanford and Cal most of the football players are lucky if they can write a complete sentence) is going to do nothing but expedite extinction for the conference. Given the state of the conference it seems so silly to even be talking about it. It's about like the Titanic turning away lifeboats because they aren't elegant enough.
We are going to need to focus on adding quality athletics and TV sets. I think SDSU accomplishes some of that but SMU brings nothing. It makes me wonder what kind of research they're using when SMU literally doesn't resonate in it's own city much less the state of Texas or nationally. I get that you're never going to convince a Tx Tech or TCU to come here, but if we have to get someone from Texas how about Texas - San Antonio which is a large school with lots of fans a a football team that has been in the Top 25 a lot the past few years? Maybe they don't have a huge name now, but they've got far more upside than SMU in the long run. Or really I don't think we need an even number of teams so stopping at SDSU would do as much for us as adding both of them without adding one more mouth to feed.