Jump to content

USC Traveler

Full Members
  • Posts

    373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by USC Traveler

  1. President of NW was recently hired away from Eugene Community College, so he’s been a big part of the PAC stupidity himself.
  2. Winner winner chicken dinner. There’s a lot of delusion and magical thinking in places like Eugene.
  3. UA is next. From Jason Scheer in their realignment thread on the 247 board: They've always been the most likely second team to leave, based on the change in tone from their Pres and AD a few moths back. They went from "We're committed to the PAC" to "We have to do what's best for UA". Same shift in tone we saw at CU. // Can't wait to see the ripple effects, as even the delusional idiots on the Utah 247 board are starting to realize their "insider" knows nothing and that they're in real danger of being left behind. Panic is going to set in quickly, and schools that have been opposed to moving like ASU and Utah, may reverse course quickly and jump to the B12 to make sure they get a seat at the table. If I'm B12, I take Utah and ASU, as that would pretty much force UO and UW to the B12. PNW schools aren't getting a BIG invite until the ACC is carved up and the BIG sees where they stand. BIG's preference is to expand East. 18 team B12 would set up some good regional divisions, especially once B12 picks up the best ACC programs that don't go BIG/SEC when the ACC collapses.
  4. That was always Yormark/B12/ESPN/Fox throwing out disinformation through Dodds and McMurphy to make the Four Corners schools nervous and keep the WAC10 unstable. The only person in the BIG who wanted more teams in the West was Kevin Warren. That's part of why he's gone.
  5. Clearly, Klownkoff never read Wilner's article, as the PAC would be in exponentially better shape if he had. Wilner was an actual journalist back then who had some very good ideas. Also from the Wilner piece, I brought this idea up the other day, and it's really bad news for the PAC: With USC and UCLA gone and cord cutting running rampant, how do you think the WACNet carriage renewal negotiations are going with the MSOs like Comcast and Charter ? Not good- not good at all. The idiotic Presidents who enabled Champagne Larry and have trusted Klownkoff have really dug their own graves.
  6. 100% correct on Klownkoff's strategy. He was brought in with one job- land the next media deal. He's failed miserably because he misread USC's intentions (despite public statements from the AD about those intentions), and he misread the PAC's value during the initial negotiations with ESPN and Fox. Now he's trying to salvage his career by stalling until a couple of schools leave, then blame them leaving as the reason he couldn't get a deal done. "We had a great deal lined up that we were just about to close until CU and UA left......." The PAC Presidents have never seen an actual deal. They just repeat whatever Klownkoff tells them. According to the Athletic, only one other person is in the room with him from the PAC side for the meetings with media companies. That would be his old college buddy who is completely unqualified for the job, and who is 100% loyal to Klownkoff. The PAC Presidents are getting played yet again by a total grifter feeding them BS, and he's going to keep this going as long as possible. What a bunch of rubes. At least now we know that Klownkoff, like Larry Scott, is good at one thing. // Rose Bowl gave up the ghost a few months ago. They're going to just be part of the playoff moving forward. I think we could see the Rose and Sugar as permanent semifinal playoff games once schools realize they want to play the quarterfinals on campus.
  7. Agreed, and there's also an internal CU component. At least judging by their 247 board, a majority of their fans don't want to go back to the B12, so CU's admin is going to want to portray this as a move of necessity where they didn't have a choice. Side note- most of that same majority of their fans on the 247 board are also completely delusional. The realists all want to go B12.
  8. Klownkoff: We are not announcing our media rights deal on purpose today because we want the focus to be on football. Reporter: To be clear, that would imply that the deal is done and codified, and you're just waiting until after today. Klownkoff: I think you're reading too much into that. 😂😂😂 What an idiot. He had eight months to get ready for this press conference, and he manages to expose himself yet again as a total fraud/empty suit in less than 10 minutes. You couldn't script this level of stupidity if you tried- you just can't make this up!!! 🤣
  9. Canzano doesn't type anymore. He's got a generative AI anal implant that allows his info to get transmitted directly from the source to his blog.
  10. Kudos to you HL- this is a really good point that no one else is talking about. BTN has real value because it's tied to the BIG. With the BIG having added USC and UCLA, I agree that the WAC10's best option to increase their media value would be to make all their games available. Unless they get Apple or someone else to buy the network assets as part of a media deal, the key question is (obviously) how much is PACN worth as a distribution outlet that is disconnected from the PAC in a world where cable is rapidly declining ? Also- were the original distribution deals that Grifter Larry cut with Comcast, Spectrum, etc tied to the PAC media contract ? Are they up for renewal next year ? I don't think there's a lot of value in the network either with or without PAC games involved, but it is worth something. How much ? // Let's say CU and UA make the move to the B12, which causes the PAC media deal to become even worse, to a point that the other 4C schools jump. UO and UW say they'll come too, but they want to bring along Cal and SDSU for recruiting. B12 says yes. At that point, PACN has no real value connected to a CFB media deal. It would be worth whatever it's worth as a standalone entity. That amount might be so small that none of the schools that have left have really given up very much.
  11. I had a feeling that was the case. 🤘 Ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming. The PAC10 Presidents released a statement that all 10 schools are unified and look forward to consummating a successful media rights deal in the very near future. Unfortunately, that statement was issued on February 13th, more than five months ago.😂
  12. With ASU gaining AAU status at the same time as ND and Miami, it just feels like there's too much there to be coincidental. Either way, I can't see UA ever getting into the BIG now that ASU also is an AAU school, with all the BIG alums, potential recruits and students in PHX, plus the fact that it's a much bigger tv market.
  13. Agreed on Stanford (especially as a partner with ND). UW-ASU is an interesting debate, as UW checks all the boxes except recruiting and travel. But with ASU now AAU, they are more attractive on many levels than the Zeros from Eugene Community College. PHX is the #11 tv market in the US and is growing faster than almost any other top 15 market, except possibly Tampa. PHX will be top 10 eventually. It dwarfs Eugene and is almost twice the size of Portland. Large population of BIG alums, midwest transplants and snowbirds in the PHX area (infinitely more than Eugene/PDX). Very good recruiting in AZ- exponentially better than OR. ASU generates 5x the research $$ as the Zeros. And as you know, unlike the PNW schools, ASU, like Stanford, actually would help USC and UCLA with travel. PHX is also closer to existing BIG schools, has more flights, and is a very attractive place to visit for BIG schools/admin/fans. I also don't think it's coincidental that ASU got the votes to join AAU at the same time as ND and Miami. BIG schools have a lot of pull in the AAU. // We are in agreement that any non-Stanford PAC possibilities for the BIG only come into play once the ACC has been carved up. The BIG could stop at 18 with ND and Stanford, or at 20 with those two plus two of UNC, UVA, and Miami. The only ways I see more PAC schools coming into play would be either the BIG striking out on ACC schools (unlikely), or they get to 21 or 22 and want to add two more to get to 24 and use divisions. Let's say over the next 10-12 years, BIG adds ND, Stanford, UNC, UVA, and Miami. That would be 21 teams. Let's say it's 50/50 on whether the SEC will add FSU. BIG adding FSU would be 22 teams. At that point, BIG probably goes to 24 and uses a pod structure for scheduling. GT could be a consideration, and UVA/UNC might use their leverage to bring Duke along. If the BIG passes on GT and Duke and looks to add two or three teams from the West as the final teams, ASU would be a legit candidate. There's multiple scenarios where ASU gets added over the Zeros at that point. There's a possibility the BIG stops at 20 or 22, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a 24 team BIG with a West pod of USC, ND, UCLA and Stanford, or a West division of USC, UCLA, Stanford, ASU, UW and CU. (Large population of BIG alums in Denver, #17 tv market in US and brings back NU-CU rivalry.)
  14. "I've got a secret and I'm not telling you. Nah nah nah nah nah!" 😂 It's literally laughable.
  15. I forgot about an important piece of info. USC and UCLA aren't joining the BIG until August 2nd, 2024. That matches up with the docs that you had previously pulled about the fiscal year ending 7-31. For whatever reason, the 6/30 date was applicable to giving two years notice, but it doesn't match up with the exit date from the conference. With no acceptable media deal, no signed GOR, and no certainty that the conference will exist past 7-31-24, I don't see how the PAC would be able to force schools to stay. I'm still looking at the 10 days between WAC10 media day and 7-31 to see departure announcements from CU and UA.
  16. Your memory is correct. That is what was reported. What wasn't making sense to me was that 6/30 of this year didn't seem to have any effect on the other schools, but maybe the 6/30/22 date was the only thing that was specified in the bylaws, so everything from here on out is uncharted territory with the PAC on the brink of collapse. I agree with you that CU and UA are probably waiting until after the upcoming media days fiasco to announce that they're out to give them cover with stakeholders who don't want to move. Because you know Klownkoff's speech is going to be something along the lines of "We are engaged in productive talks with media rights partners that are nearing fruition on a package that all of our members are going to be thrilled with, but I can't divulge any of the details due to NDAs with the parties involved. What I can say is that the members of this conference has never been more united."
  17. I think HL has figured it out correctly. There was some reporting when USC and UCLA left that they had to give the PAC notice 2 years ahead of time, but that doesn't ring true based on the docs that we've seen HL pull and the fact that no PAC school made a move before 6-30 of this year. All eyes on 7-31. I'll be shocked if CU doesn't make the move, and surprised if UA doesn't follow.
  18. I agree with you both. Miami, Clemson, FSU, UO, UW all bring some level of tv value but not at a UT/USC level, so they fall into a larger group of potential targets, including UNC, UVA, Stanford, ASU and (maybe, possibly) GT and CU. This is where "everything else" comes into play, and tv value becomes one metric, part of a puzzle with recruiting grounds (for athletes and students), alumni engagement possibilities, academic and cultural fit, ease of travel and desire for fans and admin to visit. Even tv value has multiple components, as market size, conference network value and presence of tv partner owned and operated stations are all factors. That's why Bob Thompson (Oregon grad) rated Stanford as more valuable for tv than UW or UO- the Farm's tv ratings since 2010 are close to UO and UW's ratings, but the market size, etc make them more valuable. The BIG has a different set of priorities than the SEC, which makes it even more interesting. Adding Miami and FSU would be home runs for the BIG because of of all the other reasons, even if their tv ratings alone wouldn't make them additive. They're much less additive for the SEC, given that UF is already there and that SEC schools are all in states that are growing. UNC and UVA bring less tv value, but they would bring value to BTN of SECN and score highly on the other metrics. Most importantly for the BIG in the long run, would bring existing BIG schools a lot of value as fast-growing, populous feeder states for students and great recruiting grounds for BIG schools. I've said it before, but if UW was located in VA, they'd be a slamdunk for the BIG with their athletics, academics and research. Their location in the PNW is the biggest thing holding them back. UO doesn't bring much in any of the "everything else" categories, and the non-ratings components of their tv value aren't great. Combined with their location, that's why I think they'll have real trouble getting a BIG invite vs ASU, which brings much, much more to the table in the "everything else" categories. All of that said, I don't think anything happens with existing PAC schools (except Stanford coming in with ND) until after the ACC has been carved up. The SEC doesn't want PAC schools, and the BIG has no reason to add more PAC schools until they see who they get from the ACC.
  19. You and I are thinking very much along the same lines. Swarbrick referenced the fact that they were starting to talk to NBC last summer after the USC/UCLA move was announced. Nothing has been announced on a new deal, and Swarbrick is going to retire next year. Some ND folks that I know feel like he has been slowly laying the groundwork to go to the BIG over the last year by consistently emphasizing the fact that they don't get the same type of tv money as the BIG/SEC. Maybe they announce a move to the BIG next summer as part of Swarbirck leaving ? Who better to tell donors, alums and fans that the tv money is just not there to stay independent than Swarbrick and the new AD- the former head of NBC sports ? // I'm not a believer in coincidence, so the idea that ND, Miami and ASU all became AAU at the same time caught my eye, especially with Swarbrick leaving and an NBC exec taking over. I can't see the BIG taking Cal, but I can see ASU down the line if the BIG goes to 22 or 24. It seems like they won't do anything until ND decides what they're doing, with an ND + Stanford combo seeming the most likely and realistic in the short run. The real question for me is when do things start happening with the ACC ? I've been thinking it would be another 10-12 years, but there have been a fair number of people like Herbie, McElroy, Finebaum (all ESPN employees btw) saying watch out for 2024 or 2025 for the ACC. Maybe people are thinking that if ND leaves, the existing ACC schools can use that to get out of the GOR because the composition and value of the conference are no longer what they signed on for ?
  20. I'd bet a decent chunk of money that when ND eventually comes in, Stanford will be coming in with them. I don't think 11 games is nuts. If the BIG goes to 24, 11 or even 12 games would make a lot of sense. ND, Miami, FSU, UNC, UVA, MD. ND-USC protected rivalry. ND will want to play the ACC schools every year for recruiting. OSU, PSU, RU, IU, PU, IL. OSU-UM and PSU-Miami protected, the latter for tv purposes and schedule balance for the top teams UM, MSU, NW, WI, MN, IA. OSU-UM, IL-NW and NU-IA protected. USC, UCLA, Stanford, ASU, CU and NU. USC-ND and NU-IA protected. Stanford and ASU help USC/UCLA with travel. Bay Area, PHX and Denver are big tv markets with lots of BIG alums. NU-CU rivalry renewal. Every team gets a protected rival from another division. Play your five divisional opponents, protected rival and two teams from each of the other divisions and you're at 12 games.
  21. Only for the WAC10 After Dark games. They want to keep their primetime lineup of Hogan's Heroes, Andy Griffith Show, the Johnny Cash Show and Gunsmoke, as those shows draw better ratings than 90% of WAC10 games.
  22. You said a lot without answering my question, so I'll ask again- exactly which BIG schools will find it in their best interest to add UO ? And if the Zeros are that valuable, why didn't the BIG do it over the last 12 months ?
  23. ND is the only slam-dunk based on ratings alone, but when you factor everything else in, I think FSU, Miami, UNC, UVA are slamdunks also. Everything else consists of tv markets, recruiting of athletes and regular students, BIG alums in the area (for fundraising off games), and academic status. FL, VA, and NC are states the BIG is going to prioritize because the BIG schools have a fundamental problem- they are all located in states that are either losing population or growing very slowly. Being able to recruit students from the Southeast is huge for the BIG long-term. FSU is on the way to becoming AAU, and close enough that the BIG would take them in a heartbeat. // Clemson is an interesting case. They recently put out a huge strategic plan to upgrade academics to become AAU. Along with FSU, they bring the best tv ratings outside of anyone not named ND who isn't in the BIG/SEC in 2024, so they would bring real value. Culturally, they're an SEC school, but there's no guarantee UGA, UF, Bama would want them in the conference, just like FSU. There's a good chance Clemson and FSU can't get the votes to join the SEC, as they'd be much tougher to recruit against in the SEC. Why would Kirby or Saban want to legitimize them as competitors by bringing them into the SEC ? If Clemson can't get the SEC invite, I could see the BIG adding them as part of a bigger package of ACC schools, with "academic progress" towards becoming AAU deemed good enough for membership, especially if they're coming in with UVA, UNC and Miami.
  24. So tell me exactly which BIG schools will find it in their best interest to add UO ? And if they're that valuable, why didn't the BIG do it over the last 12 months ? It's not just about tv- it's about whether adding a school makes things better for the existing members. There's more to it than just money. (Side note- UO's tv numbers have been boosted by their scheduling of teams like UGA, OSU, LSU, Tenn, etc, which I credit them for doing.) // If the Zeros brought ND-level viewership, then we wouldn't behaving this debate, but they don't. So they are evaluated on lots of different criteria. ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, UVA are all more valuable to the BIG than UO for various reasons. TV value matters, but it's not determinative. If it was, Boise would have been in the PAC long ago. The Presidents have priorities/agendas that go far beyond tv value. That's why BYU never got in the PAC, even though they would have been a strong addition. UO has a lot of negatives working against them. If UW was in VA, they'd be a lock, but they're in the PNW, which will hold them back. And as far as schools that help USC and UCLA with travel, that would be Stanford and ASU, which are both in huge tv markets with a ton of BIG alums.
  25. This is a conversation that took place at all the mid-lower tier BIG schools. Why would they want to have their games moved lower down the pecking order and shoved onto streaming to bring in a team that's revenue dilutive, has a small tv market, and has very few BIG alums, as well as the lack of recruiting grounds, etc that you mentioned above ? For the big dogs in the conference, they're not worried about having their games pushed onto streaming, but all of the other points apply. It's the other end of the spectrum to bringing in ND, which also has very few local recruits, but ND is already a threat in recruiting and brings tv value that is orders of magnitude higher than what the Eugene Community College Zeros bring. I literally can't think of one BIG school that would have voted to bring in the Zeros. And unless the BIG strikes out completely on ACC schools, which I can't see happening, I don't think UO is ever getting in. Too many other options that bring more to the table.
×
×
  • Create New...