Jump to content

camel at sea

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    717
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by camel at sea

  1. ESPN might get on board with SDSU. They've been competitive in both revenue sports, they're in a great TV/recruiting market, and (most importantly) they'd play in the late night window. If the PAC is serious about going all-in with Apple, or signing on with someone like the CW for linear, then the Big 12 will be the fallback for ESPN's late night TV window. Boise seems more likely to me as a second G5 option than UNLV. Between SDSU, Arizona, BYU, Boise, and Colorado, I think ESPN could work out a relatively good "Big 12 After Dark" slate. But... yeah, given that this is the case, it puts a ton of pressure on ASU and Utah to make the move to the Big 12.
  2. So if the PAC gets raided heavily, but still hangs on to SDSU, what does that look like? SDSU, Stanford, Cal, Oregon St, Washington St., Utah That's a viable P5 division, but it's not an entire conference. I think they could build an eastern division from G5 schools. Wyoming, Colorado St, SMU, Rice, Tulane, and maybe New Mexico? Two state flagships, a state ag school, and three elite private schools. The TV markets are good, too. If the Big 12 added an odd number of PAC schools and missed out on SDSU, I bet they'd invite Boise.
  3. It's fair to assume that when he's saying "Big Ten" he really means "Big 12." He thinks UW/UO have a better shot of eventually getting a Big Ten invite by staying in the PAC, not leaving if/when the 4C leave.
  4. If you assume the PAC dam breaks, and that the money doesn't work for Oregon/Washington to get a B1G invite, then there's a good chance that the Big 12 ends this round of realignment as 1) the best men's basketball conference in the country, and 2) arguably a deeper top to bottom football league than both the Big Ten and ACC (though not as good at the very top as either.) You almost have to applaud the PAC presidents for how well they've mismanaged their conference. This shouldn't even be a possibility, let alone one that isn't far-fetched.
  5. Stoops was still there for Murray's first year on campus in Norman.
  6. If you can't add a blueblood, the next best thing is adding a program that wins football games. TCU has played eleven seasons in the Big 12 and has four Top 10 finishes in that span (two top 3 finishes.) From the conference perspective, the Frogs have been a great addition.
  7. The most noteworthy thing about this coming from a BYU guy, instead of a Utah guy, is that the article is not likely a Utah-led effort to begin preparing the way for their fans to accept a change of conference scenery. If/when Utah decides internally that the PAC isn't going to work, you'll start seeing Utah-led media efforts to push their fans toward acceptance. It's a good article in any case. A lot of it has been said on this board for years, but the author did a nice job compiling everything.
  8. My impression has been that ESPN/FOX want to pull the PAC apart. The Big 12 is the lucky beneficiary of that desire. I think Yormark is getting a lot of credit for stuff happening - to his benefit - at the network level above him. I'd guess that the networks (maybe through a 3rd party) are primarily behind the propaganda war, too. There's this narrative that the PAC could have just opted to extend its current deal with ESPN/FOX if it had approached things differently, but my impression is that FOX wanted no part of that. They jumped out of the renegotiation with the PAC as soon as possible and never seriously returned. Klatt was one of the first people to float the 4C to Big 12 idea. ESPN, for their part, has stayed in talks but has been lowballing the PAC since the outset, too. They just want west coast teams for the late TV window. They don't need an entire conference just for that. They can meet those needs with just a few schools moved to the Big 12.
  9. Yeah. I think the on-campus reaction to being left behind will be interesting. Does the faculty push for a drop down to FCS? Or do they make a push to elevate their athletic profile in hopes of an eventual Big Ten invite? In the long run, I think the university would regret losing the marketing opportunities that come with major athletics - particularly if their peer universities within the state all have those opportunities. It might take a quarter of a century for that view to win out, though.
  10. I don't disagree with anything you say here. It's just unusual that a football program that often drew 60K+ and occasionally 70K+, only 15 years ago, might end up left out of a power conference (if the PAC loses 6 more schools and completely rebuilds, it won't be power conference anymore even if it keeps the name.) I mean, it's not *that* long ago that Cal was putting Aaron Rogers and Marshawn Lynch into the league. But yeah, I don't think there's much TV value at Cal and I wouldn't want to deal with their current leadership. If they get left out, I'll be very interested to see if there are some changes there.
  11. In the last decade or so, yeah. They were regularly drawing 50K+ in the mid to late aughts, when they were putting a good product on the field. Their '07 team drew 70K+ twice.
  12. I agree with you, though I do think it's weird to imagine Cal being left out. They've got a larger local fanbase than Stanford does. If the Bears don't suck, they can draw 50K+ to football games. The TV appeal just isn't there, though. Stanford hiring Harbaugh and going on an extended run may end up pretty fortunate for their program in the long run. I see talk about Amazon/Apple getting involved in the B1G, pushing for more expansion there, but there isn't really a reason they couldn't get involved with the Big 12, and less expensively. If the Big 12 added the 4C + UO/UW, that's more inventory than ESPN/FOX likely have room for. The rest would go to market and the streamers could bid on it.
  13. The reason this conversation comes up so often is because there's a large difference between the fanbases at Rice and SMU, in the late 1980s, and those at Mississippi State and Oklahoma State today. It seems like a lot of people can't seem to see that difference. Fanbases the size of Miss State or OK State have never been cut out of the top tier of college football before. It's reckless to assume you could cut out several programs of that size without inflicting quite a bit of damage to the sport's overall viewership.
  14. Conference realignment makes some sense if the end goal is putting athletic departments that look similar to one another, under the same umbrella. There are a lot of upsides to that, ranging from better intra-conference governance, more opportunities for success for existing members, it will be easier for networks to negotiate and meet demands, etc. But I agree with you that if the goal is to reduce the slate of inventory, that's asinine. Why would the networks not want the 1-2M audience that accompanies BYU vs. Oklahoma State? Or Utah vs. Washington State in the super-late slot? You drop them off the top tier of the sport and those games get a significantly smaller audience. It's hard enough as it is to get live audiences in big numbers. Why reduces those opportunities? Realignment can increase the ceiling for ratings in the SEC and B1G, but it doesn't make any sense to lower the ceiling, substantially, for current B12 / PAC / ACC schools. I think you could also argue that by moving the blue bloods / big brands from the B12 / ACC / PAC that new opportunities will emerge for the schools who remain to significantly grow their brand. If OU and Texas are in the Big 12, chances are good that one or both will usually be a difficult roadblock for high level success. With them gone now, someone in the Big 12 will be making the playoff more often than they would have otherwise, and there will be brand growth that comes with that. The same logic applies farther down, too. Why wouldn't you want a G5 to make the playoff? It would be a big media story if/when a team from the MWC knocks off a team the Big Ten in the first round. It will happen eventually. Someone like Boise will beat an overrated Iowa. The CFP will benefit from "Cinderella" just like March Madness does.
  15. Interpretation: Huskies don't want fanbase to start considering Big 12 just yet. The ACC merger stuff (however illogical) bumps the Big 12 down a rung with respect to their future options. If Arizona and/or Colorado jump for the Big 12, two alternative options to the Big 12 should tamp down the clamor to follow for a while (long enough to find another option or long enough to adequately sell the Big 12 move.)
  16. Nebraska's 3 are probably: Iowa, Minnesota, UCLA. The Bruins and Huskers seem like a ready-made match to me. On paper (facilities, donors, history, etc.), the Huskers should be a better version of Iowa and Wisconsin. Rhule seems like the best hire they've made since Osborne left. He's had a lot of success at the college level, more than once, at much worse jobs than NU. He runs a system/program that fits their recruiting footprint. We'll see how it works out. That 3 game slate is winnable enough that it sets them up to be another top tier program in that conference. I don't know if boosting NU is a priority, but the Big Ten offices would be happy to finally get what they hoped they were getting a decade ago. On the subject of the Huskers, I would think that NU would be a strong "no" vote for Oregon/Washington, especially if they get UCLA as a permanent rival. If I'm sitting in Lincoln, I want the HS players in LA. who leave the city to look east, not north. I'd want those NW schools as limited as possible with respect to exposure. That same logic probably applies for a lot of other B1G schools, but it's particularly true at Nebraska.
  17. Yeah. The SEC has a bunch of longtime members who have hardly played. LSU-Tennessee have played in football only 34 times ever. LSU has played Georgia 33 times. Bama has played Florida only 41 times (and it would be quite a bit less if they didn't meet so much in SEC title games.) They've been gaming schedules to inflate win totals for a long time. Their conference ended up with so many "brands" in part b/c they weren't knocking each other down during in-conference play.
  18. I expect a guy like Wilner - regional PAC media guy - to regurgitate PAC talking points, but Mandel is the editor-in-chief of the Athletic. Total embarrassment.
  19. Yeah. He's probably taken a bigger reputation beating than any other media personality in this PAC realignment cycle and it's going to get much worse if/when teams start jumping ship.
  20. If I were Sankey, and somehow the money could be made to work, I'd want Kansas, UNC, Duke, and Virginia. You're a hoops juggernaut immediately, there are now plenty of wins to go around for football, you've expanded the conference's reach, and you've significantly boosted the academic perception of the conference. On ESPN's end of things, they do this and control college athletics while only having to pay for / negotiate with one conference.
  21. I'd think they would take all four, but it probably depends on how the money works out. You don't want to cost your existing school money by slicing the conference pie into too many slices. I think you go to 18 (for Oregon and Washington) if you've already got the Four Corners, but I'm not sure the math works the same way for ASU/Utah if you've already got Oregon and Washington. Does ESPN cheerlead expansion to 18 under those parameters? I think the Sun Devils and Utes would be good "fits" but the money has to work, too.
  22. The entertainment value of Oregon and Washington taking Utah and ASU's Big 12 spots would be enormous.
  23. Sankey has been vocal about making changes to the NCAA tourney for around a year, at least. But if that's with an eye toward eventually adding basketball brands, or not, I have no idea.
  24. If you've got teams who are getting paid to take the Ls, it really helps if they're basketball schools. KU got kicked around for a decade in the Big 12, but they were ripping off Big 12 men's basketball titles year after year and their AD was relatively happy. Kentucky is somewhat similar in the SEC, historically. That said, if you're the SEC and you find yourself in a situation where you've consolidated too many big football brands (not enough wins to go around) then it would be really convenient to have a financial reason to add basketball schools. Sankey's behavior re: March Madness is worth keeping an eye on.
  25. Yeah. The Big 12 didn't get into a position of power until after it expanded. The expansion was necessary to get the contract extension. The contract extension is why the Big 12 > PAC right now. In any case, BYU is more valuable than most of the remaining PAC and those three AAC adds are more valuable than Washington State and Oregon State, at the very least.
×
×
  • Create New...