Also, in defense of my proposal for the Big Ten to add Missouri and Vanderbilt, Maryland and Rutgers were not exactly powerhouse programs but the Big Ten added them anyway, mainly because of their markets.
Collapse of the PAC-12: Oregon State & Washington State left in the dust
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
Better to be silent and be thought the fool, than to speak and to prove them right…
And you just… keep… talking…
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Your point isn't ridiculous because they aren't powerhouses. Your point is ridiculous because you're suggesting a realignment that is flat out not going to happen. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have a better chance of joining the United States in the next decade or two than Vanderbilt or Mizzou have at voluntarily leaving the SEC.
Also, I just corrected an error I made in this post a while back:
forums.hfboards.com
It should be a 12-year rotation for the unprotected opponents.
Collapse of the PAC-12: Oregon State & Washington State left in the dust
Hasn’t it always been like that yjough? Maybe, but the NCAA is entering truly uncharted territory here.
It should be a 12-year rotation for the unprotected opponents.
Of course 5 protected/3 rotating on an 8-year schedule could also work for the Big Ten. Either way, because Cal and UCLA would be decreasing the amount of conference games despite moving to different conferences (the ACC currently plays 8 conference games), they would be able to protect their rivalry game more easily which would play into my proposed Thanksgiving schedule for the Big Ten, which is also dependent on Air Force going indie in football and to the Patriot League in other sports (despite fellow service academy Army being courted by the American for football only).
GindyDraws
#HutchOut
I think the problem with Washington State and Oregon State is that while they still see the value in the Pac 12, they just can't come to terms with the fact that, in their own conference, they were the least valuable schools. So to go to the Mountain West and say "we don't want San Jose State or Wyoming or Nevada or Utah State or New Mexico... and we especially do not want Hawaii in football" while flaunting nonexistent media deals is a poor look for them.
Look, the biggest loser when the Southwest broke up in the 1990s was Rice, because they were a school that never took athletics seriously but the rest of the conference kept them in due to their academic standards plus they were always that easy win. In 2023, Rice still doesn't treat athletics seriously and only got into the American Athletic Conference due to being a Houston school. A school does not like being told "you're Rice" and as media deals are dominating college football more to the point where Group of Five schools have to take on weekday games just for relevancy so idiots will make fun of them on social media, it makes those schools in less desirable locations more concerned about becoming the Rice of their conference.
Look, the biggest loser when the Southwest broke up in the 1990s was Rice, because they were a school that never took athletics seriously but the rest of the conference kept them in due to their academic standards plus they were always that easy win. In 2023, Rice still doesn't treat athletics seriously and only got into the American Athletic Conference due to being a Houston school. A school does not like being told "you're Rice" and as media deals are dominating college football more to the point where Group of Five schools have to take on weekday games just for relevancy so idiots will make fun of them on social media, it makes those schools in less desirable locations more concerned about becoming the Rice of their conference.
A reduction in conference games for the Big 12 (to 7), Big Ten (to 7 or 8), and SEC (to 7) would be beneficial on two fronts:
1. It would allow some important rivalries (like Bedlam) that would otherwise be lost to realignment to be preserved as non-conference games without having to cancel other games to make room.
2. Other open slots created can feature more top-notch OOC games between schools from different P5 conferences, more than there are right now, which would help prospective CFP contenders impress the committee better.
It's been decades since either of these conferences had teams that played 7-game conference schedules, but when the Big 12 did it while they were called the Big 8, it was a round-robin schedule. The Big 12 was also the most recent of these three to play a 7-game conference schedule, last doing so in 1995, their last year as the Big 8 (notwithstanding the fact that the Big 12 doesn't claim its history as the Big 8 as its own, even though the continuity between conferences is so obvious, similar to how the old Yankee Conference became A-10 football then CAA football).
1. It would allow some important rivalries (like Bedlam) that would otherwise be lost to realignment to be preserved as non-conference games without having to cancel other games to make room.
2. Other open slots created can feature more top-notch OOC games between schools from different P5 conferences, more than there are right now, which would help prospective CFP contenders impress the committee better.
It's been decades since either of these conferences had teams that played 7-game conference schedules, but when the Big 12 did it while they were called the Big 8, it was a round-robin schedule. The Big 12 was also the most recent of these three to play a 7-game conference schedule, last doing so in 1995, their last year as the Big 8 (notwithstanding the fact that the Big 12 doesn't claim its history as the Big 8 as its own, even though the continuity between conferences is so obvious, similar to how the old Yankee Conference became A-10 football then CAA football).
Rice was one of the schools to enter the WAC in 1996. They tried a pod system, but botched it completely.
Had they done the pod system the way I am suggesting the Big 12 do it, then the MWC might not exist right now, though the WAC could have been raided by power conferences at times (like when the Arizona schools bolted to the Pac in 1978), and of course they wouldn't have been able to do a conference championship game back then because at the time it required divisions.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
KevFu
Registered User
Silly fans who want to pretend it could work, yes.
The actual University and Athletic Department? No. The guy who made the call to bulldoze the stadium was a former Pacific football player. He was their AD when football was on it's last legs, then was Stanford's AD, but unretired to be Pacific's AD again and he demolished the stadium in 2014.
He actually announced the demolition to all the football alumni FIRST -- inviting them to a banquet that was like a "funeral" for the stadium/program. I was in the room for that, and it was made abundantly clear to everyone that football was an unaffordable luxury, laying out the exact cost of restarting FBS football. Everyone was sad, but they understood (he did offer that if they HAD that amount of money they were willing to give him, he'd do it; and joked what each person's share was). Then he gave them an opportunity to speak/vent about not being a football school and gave everyone stacks and stacks of DVDs of all our old football games they had footage of.
There wasn't a path forward for Pacific football. Back when they dropped it, Pacific was playing Body Bag games for money and had two 6-5 seasons in 21 years and the rest were losing seasons.
Their conference lost Fresno St, UNLV and San Jose St to the WAC, and the list of schools who were handing Pacific losses in the 1990s weren't exactly world-beaters now.
When you're losing the all-time series 50-28-6 and getting left behind in realignment by schools ranked 98th and 126th among the 133 FBS schools in all-time win percentage, back BEFORE the money came into college football.... you have no chance.
Considering Lucas Oil Stadium is larger and more modern then the Indiana or Purdue on-campus stadiums, moving the game there and dividing the ticket sales equally between the schools and their fans along the 50 a la OU-Texas is the smart thing to do. Not to mention the roof would be closed, so weather wouldn't be a factor.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 194,037
- 44,086
I mean if a rivalry has an appropriate stadium available it should be contested as a neutral-site game. Very few rivalries in the P5 meet that criteria, and not all of them are currently neutral-site games.
Of the few that do meet the criteria, only Cal-Stanford, Indiana-Purdue, and UCLA-USC are not currently neutral-site. SMU-TCU will join this list next year, and if the Big 12 moves to a 7-game conference schedule as outlined in one of my previous posts, this will give SMU and TCU incentive to continue their rivalry beyond 2025, with future games being held at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, home of the Dallas Cowboys, and a much larger venue than either school's on-campus stadium, plus with much better amenities by virtue of being an NFL stadium.
Moving the California rivalries to Levi's Stadium (Bay Area) and SoFi Stadium (LA) would likewise be a fresh change of pace, because it guarantees those schools at least one chance to play in an NFL-caliber stadium every year.
Of the few that do meet the criteria, only Cal-Stanford, Indiana-Purdue, and UCLA-USC are not currently neutral-site. SMU-TCU will join this list next year, and if the Big 12 moves to a 7-game conference schedule as outlined in one of my previous posts, this will give SMU and TCU incentive to continue their rivalry beyond 2025, with future games being held at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, home of the Dallas Cowboys, and a much larger venue than either school's on-campus stadium, plus with much better amenities by virtue of being an NFL stadium.
Moving the California rivalries to Levi's Stadium (Bay Area) and SoFi Stadium (LA) would likewise be a fresh change of pace, because it guarantees those schools at least one chance to play in an NFL-caliber stadium every year.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 194,037
- 44,086
It costs money to run these stadiums, you know. Jerry probably cuts Arkansas a little bit of a break when they play Texas A&M because he’s an alum. These schools would probably blow whatever money they make on the season running them.
End of Line
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Mar 20, 2009
- 28,458
- 6,094
Regarding UCLA-USC, why would the schools agree to split ticket revenue? Also, both The Rose Bowl and LA Memorial Coliseum are two of the most iconic stadiums in the entire country and each holds 92,000 and 77,000+ while SoFi only holds 70k.
And just to add, going by your logic, UM/Sparta should be at Ford Field in Detroit right? Which also seats much than either stadium for said schools. Or Ohio St/Penn St should be played in Pittsburgh since it’s about half way for each team right?
At the end of the day it COSTS MONEY to rent these stadiums out which the schools are not going to do.
End of Line
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Mar 20, 2009
- 28,458
- 6,094
100k for a Taylor Swift concert sure. Hell, the attendance for the Super Bowl at SoFi was 70,048. Does that not equate to a special event?
They should have allowed the full 100k for the Super Bowl though COVID might have prevented that.
End of Line
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Mar 20, 2009
- 28,458
- 6,094
The only way I can see that game happening at SoFi is if the Rose Bowl is undergoing renovations preventing UCLA playing a home game.
Besides, a rivalry doesn’t need a neutral site game to be relevant. You keep spouting off nonsense that only makes sense to you. What benefit is there for Purdue/IU to play at Lucas Oil? Seriously. Then your other point regarding Stanford/Cal. What good is it to have 20k empty seats and lose money in the process? Neither team is relevant at all. Cal hasn’t been relevant since 2006/2007. And Stanford has been on a hard decline for years.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
It doesn't hold 100k for football. COVID was not a factor, I was there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's all move on shall we?
It's real tragic what has happened to the Pac-12.
We need to wish their members the best of luck in their new conferences.
It's real tragic what has happened to the Pac-12.
We need to wish their members the best of luck in their new conferences.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
The irony in knowing the one poster’s proclivities is that I might get you wishing for these days when I’m through with this.
Because I’m not sure Vanderbilt will be allowed to remain in the SEC. And I question whether both Indiana and Purdue will still be in the B1G in due time. Along with a bunch of other schools.
These expansions have really been for them, and Mississippi State, and Iowa, and Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota and Nebraska. These keep Ohio State and Alabama happy for a couple years, instead of questioning why they’re getting equal shares when they’re really generating most of the revenue for these conferences. With my modicum of due respect to Oregon State, that’s the next dam to burst.
Because I’m not sure Vanderbilt will be allowed to remain in the SEC. And I question whether both Indiana and Purdue will still be in the B1G in due time. Along with a bunch of other schools.
These expansions have really been for them, and Mississippi State, and Iowa, and Arkansas, and maybe Minnesota and Nebraska. These keep Ohio State and Alabama happy for a couple years, instead of questioning why they’re getting equal shares when they’re really generating most of the revenue for these conferences. With my modicum of due respect to Oregon State, that’s the next dam to burst.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
The haves stay the haves by having have nots to play.
You can't have a conference of just OSU, MICH, PSU, MSU, & WIS.
You can't have a conference of just OSU, MICH, PSU, MSU, & WIS.
You could say the Pac-12 and the SWC were both doomed by their geographic footprint.
In the case of the SWC, only one non-Texas school was in the conference prior to the early 90s. Once that school left, its national appeal was forever killed.
For the Pac-12, their members being in the Western US put their games in undesirable time slots far too often.
In the case of the SWC, only one non-Texas school was in the conference prior to the early 90s. Once that school left, its national appeal was forever killed.
For the Pac-12, their members being in the Western US put their games in undesirable time slots far too often.
KevFu
Registered User
Yeah, the difficult thing when talking about "The NCAA" is that it's a shell -- no different than conference names. Conference USA was a powerful organization when they were basically a "southern Big East" in the late 90s, early 2000s. But who C-USA is NOW is totally different.
The NCAA is the same way. Once they lost NCAA vs Oklahoma, they lost their power. Then the football schools got mad that the 1985 Final Four was three schools without football and began their takeover. The P5 essentially IS the NCAA now.
As it pertains to forcing schools out of FBS and down to FCS, the NCAA hasn't said anyone violated the average attendance rules... but what schools do is hire a musician for a post-game concert (And fans in the messageboard/twitter era aren't stupid) and everyone shows up and the one huge crowd gives them the buffer to not fall below the attendance standards.
Idaho can't do that. The attendance requirement is 15k average.
When your stadium holds 16,000, and you do the concert thing for a sellout; and draw 14,749 in each of the other four games.... you're at 14,999 AVG.
And of course, 15,000 is 61% of the population of Moscow, Idaho.
And the other issue is that as an independent, how the hell are you getting FIVE TEAMS to come to Moscow, Idaho for a football game?
The two things that they have going for them (the future Pac-14, after the Pac-12/MWC merge into one conference renamed the Pac-14) is that they go from being the "Second best Western conference" to the only western FBS conference and have the relationships of both the Pac-12 and MWC.
So they're no longer competing with the Pac-12, they ARE the Pac-12. They'd have the Pac-12 name brand, the hold their P5 status (temporarily I'm sure) and have a seat at the CFP negotiating table (again, for now). And they have the TV deal with Fox/CBS.... to renegotiate.
It's a lot easier for them to get $8m each ($112m) when that only costs Fox/CBS less than half of what they're already paying them.
They can get $7m based on the comparison to the American: the American gets $7m and all they have left who's ever been to a major bowl in the BCS/CFP era is ONE season of Tulane; while Washington State, Oregon State, Boise State, Hawai'i have combined for SEVEN.
It sounds like you were AROUND Stockton and not IN Stockton if you sat outside for two hours and your problem was the smell and not "getting robbed."
