Bear of Bad News
Now 25% more unBearable!
- Sep 27, 2005
- 15,135
- 31,365
I don't have to imagine it; I have to moderate it every spring for two weeks right here on HFBoards.
Collapse of the PAC-12: Oregon State & Washington State left in the dust
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
I don't have to imagine it; I have to moderate it every spring for two weeks right here on HFBoards.
It's definitely the most popular school in the rocky mountain region quite easily.
KevFu
Registered User
Here's what happened... ESPN build a massive empire of sports broadcasting (FOX, CBS and NBC viewed sports as "WEEKEND content" only). ESPN had deals with ALL the conferences, based on their relative worth.
With no real competition for 24/7 cable sports news, info, talk... ESPN shapes the sports conversation. When the Big Ten wanted to launch their own network and picked FOX instead of them, ESPN weaponized that conversation shaping:
Billion dollar extension to the SEC and started a self-fulfilling prophesy that the SEC was the best. Recruits watching ESPN flocked to SEC teams. (Compare the SEC championships in football to other conferences BEFORE/AFTER 2006).
ESPN stopped paying conferences their relative worth and started ditching the "middle" conferences: A-10, Mountain West were first, then Conference USA. They promoted the Sun Belt instead of C-USA, and those two leagues basically swapped places in the "pecking order."
It all worked so well that for the most recent round of TV deals, ESPN could consolidate their holdings even further: Push Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC and ditch the Big 12.
They tried to incite a panic when UT/OU news came out, to make the other Big 12 schools abandon the conference for the Pac-12 and American (with ESPN deals). The American did ESPN's bidding, but the Pac-12 had academic standards to adhere to and didn't immediately invite Big 12 schools.
The Big 12 commissioner saw through what ESPN was doing, and publicly released a cease and desist letter demanding ESPN stop trying to destroy his conference!
Caught with their pants down, ESPN signed the Big 12 to an extension at far more money than the valuations of what the Big 12 was worth were out there (that ESPN leaked to cause instability!) to buy the Big 12's silence on the matter.
So the Pac-12 is up for a new deal, but ESPN just gave "their" money to the Big 12! ESPN present the Pac-12 with an extremely low-ball offer. So low that USC and UCLA called the Big Ten. Which allowed ESPN to start pushing a narrative of instability and everyone wanting to leave the Pac-12 because they're so bad and not-valuable.
The Pac-12's last commissioner was a total disaster, and they bungled a lot of stuff. But it's really all ESPN's doing.
ESPN is just using the Disney tactics of "cannot come with any original programming or ideas, so we'll just outbuy anybody who has original or creative ideas" as they did with Pat McAfee. It is a smart move though because now they (ESPN/Disney) don't have to pay more money for Pac-12 because all the prime teams are gone from the conference except ASU, Oregon, and WU. The problem is that none of those schools have the same level of interest as UCLA and USC get (ASU is the closest based on what I know).
KevFu
Registered User
I know that makes me sound like a "tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy guy." But look at it on paper from the Texas/Oklahoma announcement:
The Big 12 had SEVEN small-markets and one big market.
The Pac-12 had UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado. Arizona would be the second-biggest market in what was left of the Big 12. Only Wash St and Oregon St are small markets.
So if you just increase your SEC TV contract to even more huge money for Texas/Oklahoma, but keep your college budget the same, where do you cut? The Pac-12 or Big 12?
The Big 12 also had FOUR YEARS left on the TV deal and Texas/Oklahoma couldn't leave til it was up. If ESPN can get FOUR more schools to leave the Big 12 immediately, then they can void those four years (saving $4 billion dollars!) and get OU/UT to the SEC faster.
So ESPN armed bloggers in the American Athletic Conference markets with detailed data about viewership and what the Big 12 without Texas/Oklahoma would be worth. Like HOURS after Texas/Oklahoma left, there were stories saying that Texas/Oklahoma were SIXTY percent of the conference's value. And this viewership data could not be collected and broken down independently in that amount of time, if you could even find it all online at all.
ESPN was asking online and on TV "Can the Big 12 survive" and questioning who would leave NEXT, and who SHOULD go to the American. And how the American was worth more than the Big 12. Even though it's NEVER worked like that.
LAST TIME (Nebraska/Missouri) the Big 12 backfilled from the American (then Big East with football) and the Mountain West (West Virginia and TCU). But now ESPN is acting like the Big 12 schools are going to jump to the American!
But if ESPN is saying all that, and that the American was worth more than the Big 12... why did they turn around and give the Big 12 a new deal worth $380 million per season when the American gets $83.3 million per season?
It's all non-sense. Conferences no longer get paid the "relative value of the conference." ESPN sets the relative value of the conference by whom they decide to pay.
SEE! This right here... That post of yours is basically the perception that ESPN has put forth!
"all the prime teams are gone" Who's left in the Pac-12 are located in Phoenix, Seattle, Portland (OU brings that market), Salt Lake City, San Francisco/ Oakland/San Jose.
What major cities does the Big 12 have? Ft. Worth, Orlando and Cincinnati. And those three schools were "mid-majors" who's inclusion in the BCS/CFP were questions when they were in the Mountain West/American.
It's a cartel.
The Big 12 had SEVEN small-markets and one big market.
The Pac-12 had UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado. Arizona would be the second-biggest market in what was left of the Big 12. Only Wash St and Oregon St are small markets.
So if you just increase your SEC TV contract to even more huge money for Texas/Oklahoma, but keep your college budget the same, where do you cut? The Pac-12 or Big 12?
The Big 12 also had FOUR YEARS left on the TV deal and Texas/Oklahoma couldn't leave til it was up. If ESPN can get FOUR more schools to leave the Big 12 immediately, then they can void those four years (saving $4 billion dollars!) and get OU/UT to the SEC faster.
So ESPN armed bloggers in the American Athletic Conference markets with detailed data about viewership and what the Big 12 without Texas/Oklahoma would be worth. Like HOURS after Texas/Oklahoma left, there were stories saying that Texas/Oklahoma were SIXTY percent of the conference's value. And this viewership data could not be collected and broken down independently in that amount of time, if you could even find it all online at all.
ESPN was asking online and on TV "Can the Big 12 survive" and questioning who would leave NEXT, and who SHOULD go to the American. And how the American was worth more than the Big 12. Even though it's NEVER worked like that.
LAST TIME (Nebraska/Missouri) the Big 12 backfilled from the American (then Big East with football) and the Mountain West (West Virginia and TCU). But now ESPN is acting like the Big 12 schools are going to jump to the American!
But if ESPN is saying all that, and that the American was worth more than the Big 12... why did they turn around and give the Big 12 a new deal worth $380 million per season when the American gets $83.3 million per season?
It's all non-sense. Conferences no longer get paid the "relative value of the conference." ESPN sets the relative value of the conference by whom they decide to pay.
SEE! This right here... That post of yours is basically the perception that ESPN has put forth!
"all the prime teams are gone" Who's left in the Pac-12 are located in Phoenix, Seattle, Portland (OU brings that market), Salt Lake City, San Francisco/ Oakland/San Jose.
What major cities does the Big 12 have? Ft. Worth, Orlando and Cincinnati. And those three schools were "mid-majors" who's inclusion in the BCS/CFP were questions when they were in the Mountain West/American.
It's a cartel.
KevFu
Registered User
And I'm not saying what ESPN is doing isn't "Smart," because it is smart.
But it's also shady as hell because they simultaneously run college sports, AND report on college sports, so it's no longer a fair competition... ESPN is basically resourcing who's good and who's not by whom they choose to invest in.
I wish Woj was so powerful as an ESPN reporter than he could demand ESPN add his alma mater to the cartel and promote THEM like they promote the SEC; and shun our enemies like they shun most conferences.
But it's also shady as hell because they simultaneously run college sports, AND report on college sports, so it's no longer a fair competition... ESPN is basically resourcing who's good and who's not by whom they choose to invest in.
I wish Woj was so powerful as an ESPN reporter than he could demand ESPN add his alma mater to the cartel and promote THEM like they promote the SEC; and shun our enemies like they shun most conferences.
DaveG
Noted Jerk
While not wrong, the question is also about interest level in those markets as well.
ESPN has definitely created a chicken and egg situation with who they chose to promote though. We saw the same thing play out in the first collapse of the Big East to the ACC. The Big East at the time was the better conference (at least for football): Miami was still Miami, Virginia Tech at the peak of their powers, West Virginia in ascent at the start of the Rich Rod era. Had negotiations on a new TV contract gone another direction we easily could have seen the ACC fall apart with various teams going to the SEC, B1G, and Big East at the time.
KevFu
Registered User
Oh, interest level definitely matters. I mean, La Salle is in Philly, but no one cares about La Salle.
But the reason they look for TV markets is to try and gauge the fan base (which is kind of silly, because TV ratings for a ton of college football games are really based on STAKES. When Miami and Florida State played in the late 80s/early 90s, those games were HUGE for determining a championship. When it's 6-6 Miami vs 5-7 Florida State... no one cares.
But the ACC vs Big East thing is a prime example. The big state schools (flagships of a system) have big fan bases. That's what the SEC and Big Ten are. Almost all of those kinds of schools. When you have big flagships in huge states, those are the premier properties for college sports.
(And of course, some states have multiple flagships. There's a difference between an ACTUAL flagship status, and being that class of school. Like UMass is technically a flagship, but isn't the kind of program we're talking about. And someone like Va Tech, Purdue, USC, Syracuse might not be actual flagships schools, but are de facto flagships based on size/performance.
So if you breakdown the ACC vs Big East at the time of the first ACC raid, they had six flagship class schools, in five states, and only one other state with a school (Ga Tech).
The Big East had three (VT, Miami, Syracuse). Four non-flagship football schools in markets; and two actual flagships that didn't act like it. AND another seven schools who didn't play FBS football in the Big East getting a share of basketball money!
So if you're ESPN, you steer the best three based on football and markets to the ACC and stop paying the rest of the Big East! And that's what they did. And I was rooting for Syracuse to jump because I knew Syracuse was the lynchpin tying the Big East together, and I wanted the Big East to split in half and invite my favorite A-10 schools.
Back then, it was still "conferences acting independently with the hope of getting more TV money" and over the last 20 years, it's become a lot more blurred: Conferences discussions on expansion aren't MADE and then the negotiations start, the decisions are made by constant consultation of what will get them the most money; to the point where you can't really tell who's really making the decision.
With the first ACC raid of the Big East, it was the ACC trying to get ESPN money, because if ESPN was calling the shots, it would have been UConn starting FBS football to join the ACC and not Boston College.
KevFu
Registered User
The real shame of it all is that so many rivalries and traditions are being destroyed, and conferences are "TV inventory groups" and not teams that SHOULD be playing each other every year in every sport.
And all of this could have been avoided if CBS, NBC and FOX didn't give ESPN a 30-year headstart on the marketplace.
Can anyone even NAME a competitor to SportsCenter that aired on NBCSN, CBSSN, or FS1?
I kept hoping that NBC would get in the game, drop a $2.56 Billion commitment and set up:
Prestige Conference ($75m each)
East: Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Florida State, Miami
West: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
Metro Conference ($40m each)
East: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, UCF, UConn, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech
West: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma St
Peacock East Conference ($30m each)
BC, Navy, WVU, Virginia, Wake, South Florida, Temple, UAB, Tulane, NC State, Charlotte, FAU
Peacock West Conference ($30m each)
Cal, SDSU, Boise St, Fresno St, Texas Tech, Baylor, SMU, UTSA, Rice, Air Force, Colorado State, UNLV
Peacock Basketball Conference ($15m each)
Gonzaga, Saint Mary's, San Diego, LMU, Creighton, Marquette, Saint Louis, DePaul, Butler, Belmont; Xavier, Dayton, St. Bonaventure, Duquesne, Davidson, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, Villanova, Georgetown.
Really, I only gave a damn about the Basketball conference.
And all of this could have been avoided if CBS, NBC and FOX didn't give ESPN a 30-year headstart on the marketplace.
Can anyone even NAME a competitor to SportsCenter that aired on NBCSN, CBSSN, or FS1?
I kept hoping that NBC would get in the game, drop a $2.56 Billion commitment and set up:
Prestige Conference ($75m each)
East: Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Florida State, Miami
West: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
Metro Conference ($40m each)
East: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, UCF, UConn, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech
West: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma St
Peacock East Conference ($30m each)
BC, Navy, WVU, Virginia, Wake, South Florida, Temple, UAB, Tulane, NC State, Charlotte, FAU
Peacock West Conference ($30m each)
Cal, SDSU, Boise St, Fresno St, Texas Tech, Baylor, SMU, UTSA, Rice, Air Force, Colorado State, UNLV
Peacock Basketball Conference ($15m each)
Gonzaga, Saint Mary's, San Diego, LMU, Creighton, Marquette, Saint Louis, DePaul, Butler, Belmont; Xavier, Dayton, St. Bonaventure, Duquesne, Davidson, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, Villanova, Georgetown.
Really, I only gave a damn about the Basketball conference.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
The Pac-12 Network replayed an Oregon game from 2008 or so last month, which was notable for the game being originally aired on the old Versus network. This was originally played in a Pac after dark time slot, by the way.
Do you think the conference was getting big money from that contract? I don’t.
This is how the Pac-12 Network and the Colorado/Utah expansion came to be. Thing is, that was supposed to be the Colorado + Texas + Texas Tech + OK schools + one expansion. But Texas bailed. It is reported that Texas wanted the Longhorn Network continued (giving them unequal revenue streams), and it is interesting to me that the thing the Pac did (specifically USC) after the Texas failure was to commit to equal revenue sharing. USC was an unequal beneficiary in prior years.
But the main columnist in Austin revealed something else when he advised his readers that Texas had a different plan, and used the words “look east.” It took 11 years, but guess what happened.
So Kev wants to pin this on ESPN for what schools did willingly. Frankly, no. That leads to another story.
The Pacific Coast Conference dated a LONG way back. For a long time, it was the eventual Pac-8 (the California schools, the Oregons and Washingtons)… plus Idaho and Montana. Thing is, even from the 20s to the 50s, USC would never travel to Moscow or Missoula. When they played, that was in LA. Also, USC would only play road games against Oregon schools in Portland (though they would occasionally make a visit to Hayward Field in Eugene, maybe every 10 years), as the old Multnomah Stadium seated 35,000 or so when bleachers were laid down on the east side. Eventually, I believe Idaho was induced to leave before the conference disbanded. Then the Athletic Association of Western Universities was born with the California schools and Washington. Just 5. Washington State was added when the Washington legislature created a law saying UW and WSU had to be in the same conference. A handful of years later, the conference decided to reinvite the Oregon schools and that became the Pac-8 (just before Oregon built Autzen Stadium).
ESPN is basically guilty of using previously established source material. College sports was always rather by contract more than by league. And the other networks never really conceived of sports as more than weekend programming until relatively recently because THEY are a cartel, who are willing to pay some actors a truckload of money per episode but definitely wanted to limit bidding wars to the NFL. Oh, by the way, Fox joined the fray and have clearly decided not to upset the trend of kissing up to big schools while avoiding the theoretical common sense all around them.
As for Colorado, this thought. There’s been a 3-President committee assisting George Kliavkoff in the Pac media contract process. That had been chaired by Washington’s president, and in that time, the rumors swirled around Apple, and it seemed the Arizona schools were talking about leaving because they were worried about visibility on linear TV. That committee was supposed to rotate out June 30, but the Washington president left early… replaced by the Arizona president. Seems like Apple dropped from the conversation a couple weeks after that happened, and now Colorado leaves. Since I’m one of the people who mention that there will be more streamers than cable subscribers by the end of this year, I can bet that the “vision” of the future is not shared by these schools, and perhaps wildly so, and perhaps with more than just media (NIL and the transfer portal, for instance). But I’m not sure Arizona will follow Colorado out the door at this point. Other schools?
The largest problem… is how the Pac ended up on Versus all those years ago. Pac-12 After Dark was often VERY compelling television. But where do you think the casual viewers were in the ETZ and CTZ by then? Partying or asleep. And fans out west don’t like losing fall evenings to home games. The only value to the “fourth time zone” is out west, and Fox is in the process of dismantling it. ESPN ain’t helping. But since most of the conference schools are based in or near major pro markets (San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland), maybe we don’t care as much out here. Maybe we’d rather watch people paid more to play.
And maybe those LA schools, therefore, will become an albatross around the necks of the B1G and Fox.
Do you think the conference was getting big money from that contract? I don’t.
This is how the Pac-12 Network and the Colorado/Utah expansion came to be. Thing is, that was supposed to be the Colorado + Texas + Texas Tech + OK schools + one expansion. But Texas bailed. It is reported that Texas wanted the Longhorn Network continued (giving them unequal revenue streams), and it is interesting to me that the thing the Pac did (specifically USC) after the Texas failure was to commit to equal revenue sharing. USC was an unequal beneficiary in prior years.
But the main columnist in Austin revealed something else when he advised his readers that Texas had a different plan, and used the words “look east.” It took 11 years, but guess what happened.
So Kev wants to pin this on ESPN for what schools did willingly. Frankly, no. That leads to another story.
The Pacific Coast Conference dated a LONG way back. For a long time, it was the eventual Pac-8 (the California schools, the Oregons and Washingtons)… plus Idaho and Montana. Thing is, even from the 20s to the 50s, USC would never travel to Moscow or Missoula. When they played, that was in LA. Also, USC would only play road games against Oregon schools in Portland (though they would occasionally make a visit to Hayward Field in Eugene, maybe every 10 years), as the old Multnomah Stadium seated 35,000 or so when bleachers were laid down on the east side. Eventually, I believe Idaho was induced to leave before the conference disbanded. Then the Athletic Association of Western Universities was born with the California schools and Washington. Just 5. Washington State was added when the Washington legislature created a law saying UW and WSU had to be in the same conference. A handful of years later, the conference decided to reinvite the Oregon schools and that became the Pac-8 (just before Oregon built Autzen Stadium).
ESPN is basically guilty of using previously established source material. College sports was always rather by contract more than by league. And the other networks never really conceived of sports as more than weekend programming until relatively recently because THEY are a cartel, who are willing to pay some actors a truckload of money per episode but definitely wanted to limit bidding wars to the NFL. Oh, by the way, Fox joined the fray and have clearly decided not to upset the trend of kissing up to big schools while avoiding the theoretical common sense all around them.
As for Colorado, this thought. There’s been a 3-President committee assisting George Kliavkoff in the Pac media contract process. That had been chaired by Washington’s president, and in that time, the rumors swirled around Apple, and it seemed the Arizona schools were talking about leaving because they were worried about visibility on linear TV. That committee was supposed to rotate out June 30, but the Washington president left early… replaced by the Arizona president. Seems like Apple dropped from the conversation a couple weeks after that happened, and now Colorado leaves. Since I’m one of the people who mention that there will be more streamers than cable subscribers by the end of this year, I can bet that the “vision” of the future is not shared by these schools, and perhaps wildly so, and perhaps with more than just media (NIL and the transfer portal, for instance). But I’m not sure Arizona will follow Colorado out the door at this point. Other schools?
The largest problem… is how the Pac ended up on Versus all those years ago. Pac-12 After Dark was often VERY compelling television. But where do you think the casual viewers were in the ETZ and CTZ by then? Partying or asleep. And fans out west don’t like losing fall evenings to home games. The only value to the “fourth time zone” is out west, and Fox is in the process of dismantling it. ESPN ain’t helping. But since most of the conference schools are based in or near major pro markets (San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland), maybe we don’t care as much out here. Maybe we’d rather watch people paid more to play.
And maybe those LA schools, therefore, will become an albatross around the necks of the B1G and Fox.
KevFu
Registered User
Here's the thing... people like to look for "blame" or talk about sports topics like the talking-head shows, or talk radio: All binary. Black or white. The real world doesn't work like that.
OF COURSE schools did all this willingly. Of course it's smart business for ESPN to do what they do. No one is expecting everyone to share, play nice and hold hands when millions of dollars are at stake.
I bring up ESPN because I want posters to understand that the perception of the Pac-12 being a worthless asset that no one wants is ESPN's narrative, and only exists because ESPN switched FROM saying the Big 12 is the worthless asset that no one wants to saying it about the Pac-12, because ESPN decided they were only paying one of them.
Why doesn't NBC, CBS or FOX offer the Pac-12 the money they're "worth?" Because ESPN is too big for them to compete with, why spend the money? (It's like how rebuilding teams don't sign big free agents: "Son, we could have finished last without you.") The investment it would take to level the field in the sports landscape with ESPN is not worth it to the TV executives, so they're trying to play "Moneyball" with the available assets, and that's why the middle keeps getting screwed over.
And of all people, hockey fans should understand this; because ESPN did it to the NHL when they got the NBA! That's how the NHL got banished to Versus.
Like I said, everything that's happening makes financial sense for everyone involved. I'm lamenting about it because it just sucks.
It sucks that conferences USED to be teams who should play each other every season in all sports -- your example of USC not traveling to Montana and Idaho shows me that USC shouldn't be in a conference with them.
The concept behind a conference is that INSTEAD of individual contracts every year, we just agree we WANT to play you every single year, and if we alternating sites until eternity the cost of traveling will balance out so we don't NEED to waste time negotiating.
I'm not "pinning it on ESPN" because someone's right and someone's wrong; I'm a pragmatist. I'm VENTING because it just sucks that we don't have the conferences that are the most fun for fans.
And I pick ESPN to vent about (And NBC, CBS, FOX) because (a) most casual observers don't realize HOW ACTIVE ESPN is in orchestrating conference changes, and (b) the colleges chase the money to resource what their fans want: being good at competition; while ESPN is in the Entertainment Business and they're harming the ENTERTAINMENT part to enrich the Business part.
It's financially better for ESPN to have only three conferences people watch because they're all that matters to the championship race.
It's more entertaining for FANS if our teams are playing local/regional rivals, and the race is WIDE OPEN regardless of which conference you're in.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 195,776
- 45,632
I just don’t know where the PAC 12 goes from here. They were in prime position to raid the Big 12 10 or so years ago when Texas was entertaining the idea as Longhorn network was flopping but they just…didn’t do anything. At least not beyond adding Colorado and Utah. And now Colorado is going back, when the conference is still weaker than it was when they left. They feel like they’re going to lose Arizona as well.
It really feels like it comes down to what Oregon decides to do. Do they get an invitation, and does Washington come with them? Are they strong enough to be a flagship program of a major conference that’s only real play is to raid the Mountain West? The Big 12 was just in that position, but they added good American schools and the second best independent (who left the MWC to do it).
Not sure how Kliavkoff still has a job either.
It really feels like it comes down to what Oregon decides to do. Do they get an invitation, and does Washington come with them? Are they strong enough to be a flagship program of a major conference that’s only real play is to raid the Mountain West? The Big 12 was just in that position, but they added good American schools and the second best independent (who left the MWC to do it).
Not sure how Kliavkoff still has a job either.
Last edited:
KevFu
Registered User
The Pac-10 was in prime position to raid the Big 12, 10 years ago, but the Pac-12 could have raided the Big 12 just 20 months ago, too.
The two main reasons why the Pac-10 didn't raid the Big 12 back when Longhorn Network started -- well three.
#1 - For a traditional and seldom-changing Pac-10, adding six teams at once was too drastic of a change for them. They balked at such radical change.
#2 - But they also COULDN'T go incrementally from 12 to 14. The seldom-changing tradition has been 4 pairs, then 5 pairs.
You go to 16 and the the Pac-8 is the "West" and the "new pair" in Arizona and the six new members from the Big 12 is the "East." That logistically works. Texas made it "worth it" to go from 10 to 16 with radical change, although some of them were really on the fence about it... and..
#3 - It was Texas who pulled out. Texas, wisely, wanted to look east, like Pounder said. (Texas really would have preferred Big Ten over SEC... for decades/generations they felt the SEC was beneath them. But the SEC becoming the best financially and competitively in football changed the equation for UT. The shocking part wasn't that the SEC raided another conference and got their biggest/best brand, or that Texas bolted the Big 12... it was that Texas changed their mind about the SEC).
Without Texas, it's still smarter in hindsight for the Pac-10 to go to 16 with Colorado, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and (Kansas, Utah, Baylor, TCU). You damage the Big 12 and not let them flip things on you now. But again, they can't go incrementally and the drastic change without Texas scared the hell out of them.
Honestly, what the Pac-10 does now really shouldn't be about WHO they add, but WHERE they add. They need to add earlier time slots because if the Cal Bears poop in the woods at 11 pm, TV won't pay for it. SMU, Tulane, Rice and either Memphis or South Florida for an Eastern Quad (quality vs recruiting territory?). SDSU is a given... where's that leave you?
4 - Eastern (SMU, Rice, Tulane, USF/Memphis)
3 - Mountain (Arizona, ASU, Utah)
4 - PNW (Oregon, Washington, OSU, WSU)
3 - California (Stanford, Cal, SDSU)
Fresno State for California, and either Air Force or Boise St for the Mountain. Boise is better but AF gives you games vs Army and Navy in your TV package, which could add value.
I think Air Force should move its Olympic sports to the Patriot League so they can play Army and Navy in other sports more often. Football would go independent to allow more flexibility with scheduling - as of now, they only have room for two random opponents every year, having to play 8 MW opponents and the CIC Trophy games. Going indie increases that amount.
Gnashville
HFBoards Hall of Famer
Great insight
My understanding is Texas also got jealous of Texas A&M because A&M started dominating the state using the SEC brand . Recruits were saying “why play Kansas and Iowa St when you can play Alabama and LSU”. A&M went from not having their games on TV to having the Primetime games on CBS. The Red River game vs Oklahoma is the biggest game on the Big 12 schedule but barely got the attention of most SEC games. A&M became the “Texas” school that most people outside of the state identified.
KevFu
Registered User
The service academies and conferences are an interesting animal.
Army is independent because they can take their team around the country and play near all the Army bases. When they were in C-USA for a while, it was because like seven of the C-USA teams were near 7 of the largest 10 Army bases in the US. It was perfect. Then the conference changed and they went independent again.
They don't need a conference because, for example, they can get a home and home against someone like Kansas State. Because there's a base nearby, KSU can sell tickets to all those soldiers. You look at who Army plays in football, and it's not really hard to find the bases nearby.
Navy doesn't have that luxury because they don't have a lot of Naval bases inland. Their bases are coastal... So they need a conference and half the American teams was relatively close to naval stations (Houston, Tulane, USF, ECU, Temple, UConn).
Air Force can't pull off independence and because Colorado Springs is so ridiculously far from other schools. There's like 45 schools in the western HALF of the US in all of D-I.
The West frequently acts like one big conference. In college baseball, teams like LSU and Oklahoma will play like 26 of 30 non-conference games at home. The west can't do that. They try to pull the "P5 we don't play road games" on the "mid-majors" in baseball, and coaches just say "Call us back in three weeks when you don't have a schedule." Washington and Oregon State baseball have so few teams relatively close to them that they will play will play road games at Saint Mary's, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Pacific, UC Davis and San Jose State all the time, depending on "Who's free Tuesday after we play at Stanford or at Cal" And they do the same in LA. (The effect of UCLA and USC in the Big Ten on college baseball is going to be interesting AF).
Air Force basically HAS to be in a western conference, because not being in one makes no sense.
Spydey629
Registered User
That’s where Air Force hockey gets interesting. They are a member of Atlantic Hockey, simply because Army is in the conference with them. The closest school to Colorado Springs is Robert Morris. Which is in Pittsburgh.
KevFu
Registered User
That sounds about right. The main "Change" in their line of thinking was that Texas always viewed the SEC as inferior ACADEMICALLY.
This is the big divide in college athletics: You have the AAU "Nobel Pursuit" mentality that "We're educators who excel at sports" -- like they're the Ivy League but actually good at football/basketball. That's the Big Ten (and Pac-12, and most the ACC).
Then you have the "State" mentality of "the kids in our state come here and we're a better state at football/sports" that permeates the SEC (and anyone who's clearly not a big time academic school).
It's actually ALWAYS been the divide: Both the SEC and ACC were born in the old Southern Conference of 20+ schools and that's HOW they split up like 70-90 years ago!
The seismic shift of Texas to the SEC was that was for decades, everyone knew they'd "Wait on the Big Ten before joining the SEC." The Big Ten is ALL AAU (or former, Nebraska lost their status because their medical center is in Omaha and not in Lincoln), and the Pac-12 was NINE AAU members and ASU, OSU and WSU.
Now that conferences don't really care about making a fair competition playing everyone, and they're just TV inventory blocks; and because the SEC and Big Ten are by far the financial powerhouses compared to everyone else... they can expand bigger and bigger and bigger and GET ANYONE THEY WANT (from outside those two conferences, not raiding each other).
If you projected out the SEC and Big Ten to grow to 24 or 30 schools... AAU status is the best way to determine which school would go where. With the caveat of "if the SEC invites before any Big Ten contact is made, schools will join the SEC and probably not ever switch."
KevFu
Registered User
Right, but that's because when you look at all the college hockey programs on a map, only the Colorado Schools and Huntsville are outside the "top right quadrant" of the US.
I don't know the hockey realignment stuff, but I'm guessing that Air Force simply wasn't invited to the conference that Denver and Colorado College are in?
Spydey629
Registered User
A little bit of everything… especially since hockey is a one sport conference hodge podge…
Denver and CC are in the National, and which is basically a western-ish conference of schools that make hockey a number one priority, athletics wise. They were at 8 schools for years, and just voted to add Arizona State, who was an independent.
Atlantic Hockey is a mish mash of small east/northeast schools that have hockey, but can’t/won’t break the bank on the sport. The league even had a scholarship cap for years, but that has gone away. That concept fit the two service academies, since they don’t offer athletic scholarships at all. The AHA is easily the low-mid major conference in the sport.
Huntsville is off the board. They are on hiatus, if not gone permanently, due to the expense. No campus rink, an expensive sport, and an expensive place to get to for other schools to travel.
I think a key difference for the Pac12 is that they are located either in or very close to big US cities with pro sports. Vs being in a college town where the football is everything. And you feel it from the crowd vs a Pac12 crowd.
If the SEC or Big10 get too large there isn’t going to be enough quality opponents unless the scheduled are totally adjusted. Point of having ucla and usc in the big10 is for them to play OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, vs play Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, etc.
Almost feels like the big programs would be better served starting from scratch and building a conference with just the big ones. Since they are the drivers of the TV.
But also can’t just base everything off football. Basketball is the next big sports program.
SEC: Alabama has 16 football titles, LSU has 5, making 21 for their top teams.
Big10: Michigan has 9, Ohio State has 8 and Minnesota has 6, making 23 for their top teams.
(I knew that the Gophers had won at least 2 titles. I didn't know that they had won SIX.)
If you go by the AP Poll era since 1936:
SEC: Alabama 13, LSU has 4, Florida 3 and Georgia 3, making 23.
Big10: Ohio State 8, Nebraska 5, Minnesota 4 and Michigan State 3, making 20.
There isn't a lot of difference over time.
DaveG
Noted Jerk
That hasn't been the case for a while now. The Pac was #5 in terms of conference payout per school by a good margin, and they had a series of disastrous decisions that badly hampered any chance they would have had to create any separation between themselves and the ACC/Big 12.
Instead of teaming up with one of the major CFB broadcasters they decided to make a go of it on their own for the Pac 12 network trying to emulate the success of the BTN and SEC Network. Major flop. In contrast the ACC network has been more successful (though nowhere near BTN and SECN) and the Big 12 allowed its schools to monetize their own Tier 3 distribution, which was in effect until recently where they moved to ESPN+ for streaming.
Their prior commissioner, Larry Scott, made a vanity play to have the conference HQ set up in a building in San Francisco that ended up costing the conference over $90 million over the course of about a decade.
Basically a sequence of bad timing (slide of USC and Oregon as contenders) and bad decisions (Pac-12 Network and HQ debacles) along with not raiding/joining forces with the Big 12 after the OU/Texas departures ended up doing in the conference. There were a number of moves they could have made that would have added value (BYU, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas, OU, Texas, Texas Tech) that had legit legs to the rumors that they just declined to make over the course of the last 13-14 years, and it ended up biting them in the end.
Gnashville
HFBoards Hall of Famer
Now do since 1992 when the SEC expanded to 12 teams and went to divisions. Pre 1980’s as many as 8 teams claimed National Championships some years. Then came the BCS and later a playoff. Most of those Championships are flimsy at best including Alabama’s 16. Tennessee and Georgia also claim 6 National Championships BTW
