Collapse of the PAC-12: Oregon State & Washington State left in the dust

[HisIceness]

Hasn’t it always been like that yjough?

Maybe, but the NCAA is entering truly uncharted territory here.

 

[joelef]

Maybe, but the NCAA is entering truly uncharted territory here.

I know im just amazed at pearl clenching naive people who NOW want to complain about cfb being greedy when those same fans defended out of control salaries , hammering on about how programs should spend millions they don’t have to “ recruit” and had no problem with massive the corporate sponsorship of bowl games.

 

[HisIceness]

I know im just amazed at pearl clenching naive people who NOW want to complain about cfb being greedy when those same fans defended out of control salaries , hammering on about how programs should spend millions they don’t have to “ recruit” and had no problem with massive the corporate sponsorship of bowl games.

College Football can collapse for all I care.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

So, with my proposed schedule format for the Big Ten of 5 protected conference games and 2 rotating games on a 12-year schedule, here are the games I think should be protected:

Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Indiana: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin
Maryland: Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, USC
Michigan: Indiana, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, UCLA, USC
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers
Oregon: Iowa, Nebraska, UCLA, USC, Washington
Penn State: Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Rutgers
Rutgers: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, UCLA
UCLA: Northwestern, Oregon, Rutgers, USC, Washington
USC: Maryland, Northwestern, Oregon, UCLA, Washington
Washington: Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, UCLA, USC
Wisconsin: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska

 

[DaveG]

You're connecting one statement to a totally ridiculous scenario that (hopefully) doesn't exist and completely ignoring the vast amount of common sense in between the first statement and your ludicrous extreme position.

In order to apply to a college -- for academic reasons, and not "because they have good sports" -- you have to know that college exists.

- People finding out that a school exists because of sports is real.
- People who did THEN doing research, seeing programs offered at that school, and realizing "This is actually a good school for me" is also very real.
- People making the mental connection of "there must be smart/qualified people running this school if their teams are that successful" is also real.
- The sense of community, and the quality of "student life" at schools with good sports teams are also very real.

- People like us, who care about sports a lot, generally will consider the sports program when picking a college. Not as a top priority, or "picking a school based on sports/win percentage."

But when you have academic programs and locations and campuses that are RIDICULOUSLY SIMILAR among a handful of finalists... the "student life" that seems a lot more fun because of sports "winning" over sports fan applicants is a very real.



Ah, but it did. They had a lot of international students via their water polo program, which was quite good; and that brought in students who weren't commuters, increasing revenues for the university.

This was very much a thing for me. Yes, the schools I applied to all had very highly ranked programs in the major that I started in (Pharmacy), and also had highly regarded music programs. Literally the only one that I applied to that didn't also have big time D1 CFB was Northeastern, who obviously has big time college hockey instead. Literally every other one I applied to had a top 20 pharmacy school at the time (Auburn, WVU, Pitt, UW-Madison) but my introduction to those schools wasn't the pharmacy program, it was initially seeing the schools football and basketball teams on ESPN as a kid.

aka - four schools looking for a new conference.

Surprised that Virginia and VT didn't do the same.

FSU and Clemson yes, I'm not sure this isn't an influence play by UNC (which also controls the NCSU vote). ND are the ones pushing the hardest to get Cal and Tree into the ACC. One thing I know about the egos at UNC is that they can't stand when it's someone else trying to call the shots.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

So, with my proposed schedule format for the Big Ten of 5 protected conference games and 2 rotating games on a 10-year schedule, here are the games I think should be protected:

Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Indiana: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin
Maryland: Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, USC
Michigan: Indiana, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, UCLA, USC
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers
Oregon: Iowa, Nebraska, UCLA, USC, Washington
Penn State: Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Rutgers
Rutgers: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, UCLA
UCLA: Northwestern, Oregon, Rutgers, USC, Washington
USC: Maryland, Northwestern, Oregon, UCLA, Washington
Washington: Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, UCLA, USC
Wisconsin: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska

This would make the following games the Thanksgiving weekend schedule:

Illinois-Northwestern
Indiana-Purdue
Iowa-Nebraska
Maryland-Rutgers
Michigan-Ohio State
Michigan State-Penn State
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Oregon-Washington
UCLA-USC (odd years)/Notre Dame-USC and California-UCLA (even years, provided the schools commit to continuing the latter after the Pac-12 inevitably disbands)

 

[mouser]

FSU and Clemson yes, I'm not sure this isn't an influence play by UNC (which also controls the NCSU vote). ND are the ones pushing the hardest to get Cal and Tree into the ACC. One thing I know about the egos at UNC is that they can't stand when it's someone else trying to call the shots.

Seems silly to me ND wields influence in the ACC while they refuse to be a full football member.

For the curious: ACC requires a 75% approval by their schools to add a new school to the conference. With 15 current ACC schools that means they need 12 of 15 schools to vote for approval. If four schools are opposed to expanding the conference it won’t happen.

 

[Summer Rose]

I'm actually kind of sad about the death of the Pac-12 and Arizona State (my alma mater) moving to the Big XII.

Oh well.

 

[KevFu]

I know im just amazed at pearl clenching naive people who NOW want to complain about cfb being greedy when those same fans defended out of control salaries , hammering on about how programs should spend millions they don’t have to “ recruit” and had no problem with massive the corporate sponsorship of bowl games.

Of course it's ALWAYS been "a greedy endeavor" of "take what you can get." But we all know there's a line that's a bridge to far to fans...

We accept naming rights deals for Bowl Games and Pro Stadiums because that's the nature of the beast; The LINE we don't want crossed was always "Jersey ads" (which unfortunately we've crossed in pro sports).

The 90s and early 2000s conference realignment wasn't a bridge too far because almost all the moves were conferences adding schools from "The next state over" like...

Arkansas switched from the Texas conference (SWC) to LSU conference (SEC).
Nebraska switched from the Iowa State conference (B12) to the Iowa conference (Big Ten)

I don't think anyone would say that the most recent changes like UCLA and USC leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten wasn't a MASSIVE SHIFT in the dynamics.


But the big thing is, you're saying how naive pearl-clutching people didn't mind the slippery slope of it all that ended here... when there's no real way to take capitalism completely out of it. Do we wish everything was just pure fairness and not Darwinian Capitalism? I mean, everyone is GOING TO SAY YES to that; but the reality is: They just want the clock turned back 30 years.

"What SHOULD the conferences be?" isn't going to be answered with fairness that's devoid of capitalism.

Because like, Ohio State vs Ohio. Why does Ohio State "belong" in the Big Ten, but Ohio "belong" in the MAC? We WANT "regional peer conferences" but there's a whole 50 to 150 schools out there saying "Wait a minute, WE'RE PEERS with you, the only reason you can find stats saying otherwise is because of previous economic-based decisions that were made."

 

[KevFu]

This was very much a thing for me. Yes, the schools I applied to all had very highly ranked programs in the major that I started in (Pharmacy), and also had highly regarded music programs. Literally the only one that I applied to that didn't also have big time D1 CFB was Northeastern, who obviously has big time college hockey instead. Literally every other one I applied to had a top 20 pharmacy school at the time (Auburn, WVU, Pitt, UW-Madison) but my introduction to those schools wasn't the pharmacy program, it was initially seeing the schools football and basketball teams on ESPN as a kid.

Thanks. That post was easy to write because it's what happened to me, too.

Tons of research for the right school for my academic/career pursuits. I wanted private, not state because of the community vibe vs like the movie PCU. I'm very independent, so I was eager to get the hell out of my hometown.

My finalists were three schools.
- Out of State, 6000 students, Division I sports (pretty good conference).
- In state, 2000 students, Division I sports (same conference as the bigger school).
- In state, 2000 students, D3 sports.

When the financial aid came back with Out of State offering me way less; the DI school was a no-brainer.

Both D-I schools have fan bases known for their passion for their basketball team.
- The bigger one, students camp out for student tickets.
- The smaller one... the student section is 2000 seats for 2000 students. EVERYONE goes.

I could easily be the sports-junkie I am at the bigger school, but that's a subset of the school community.
At the smaller one, the NON-sports junkies are at the games standing right next to you, they just ask "We're suppose to beat this team, right?" It was "this is who we are, this is what we do."


And every time I mention my alma mater, I get one of two responses: The 'Where's that/never heard of it' response, or the basketball-related response. Hell, BASKETBALL isn't even my favorite sport. It's like my fifth-favorite. I love college basketball because of where I went to school; I didn't go to my school because I love college basketball.


So if you say "you picked your school because of SPORTS?" The answer is "no, of course not. I picked based on academics, price, location, community, student life and overall FIT FOR ME."

But if you think SPORTS are NOT part of the "community, student life and overall fit" for a massive amount of students, you're out of your mind.

 

[joelef]

Of course it's ALWAYS been "a greedy endeavor" of "take what you can get." But we all know there's a line that's a bridge to far to fans...

We accept naming rights deals for Bowl Games and Pro Stadiums because that's the nature of the beast; The LINE we don't want crossed was always "Jersey ads" (which unfortunately we've crossed in pro sports).

The 90s and early 2000s conference realignment wasn't a bridge too far because almost all the moves were conferences adding schools from "The next state over" like...

Arkansas switched from the Texas conference (SWC) to LSU conference (SEC).
Nebraska switched from the Iowa State conference (B12) to the Iowa conference (Big Ten)

I don't think anyone would say that the most recent changes like UCLA and USC leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten wasn't a MASSIVE SHIFT in the dynamics.


But the big thing is, you're saying how naive pearl-clutching people didn't mind the slippery slope of it all that ended here... when there's no real way to take capitalism completely out of it. Do we wish everything was just pure fairness and not Darwinian Capitalism? I mean, everyone is GOING TO SAY YES to that; but the reality is: They just want the clock turned back 30 years.

"What SHOULD the conferences be?" isn't going to be answered with fairness that's devoid of capitalism.

Because like, Ohio State vs Ohio. Why does Ohio State "belong" in the Big Ten, but Ohio "belong" in the MAC? We WANT "regional peer conferences" but there's a whole 50 to 150 schools out there saying "Wait a minute, WE'RE PEERS with you, the only reason you can find stats saying otherwise is because of previous economic-based decisions that were made."

But the kind of ideal amateurism that fans want Goes against capitalism.

 

[Spydey629]

But the kind of ideal amateurism that fans want Goes against capitalism.

Does it? By its nature, and is a pure transaction.

Institutions of higher learning offer a high school student the opportunity to continue developing the athletic skills they’ve gained through life thus far, offering tuition and room & board as incentives.

The student chooses if they want to accept that offer, take an offer from another institution, or give up their athletic career altogether, and focus on being a student (or getting a job, learning a trade, joining the military, etc.)

The idea is to create a symbiotic relationship. The school needs the student-athletes to build brand recognition. The students get their degree, with a select few moving on to higher levels of competition; vying for gold medals, professional contracts, or other championships.

That is amateurism at its utopian best. But we hardly live in a Utopia. The conferences, television, and the business of sports tainted that agreement.

 

[KevFu]

But the kind of ideal amateurism that fans want Goes against capitalism.

The main problem most sports fans with a causal understanding of college sports business is that it VERY MUCH APPEARS to be "Greed for Me, But Not For Thee"

You see big state schools with huge revenues/budgets and then reports of the UConn kid saying he came back from the final four and couldn't afford a pizza or get something to eat at midnight and it doesn't feel right.

I have a lot of "contrarian" takes about college sports, but I'm totally consistent.

A. UConn kid can't get food at midnight because NOTHING IS OPEN ON CAMPUS. That's ALL college students, bro. Use your status to demand the University have a dinning hall that's open 20 hours a day so you can swipe your meal plan card (that's paid for by athletics) anytime you're hungry.

B. I maintained that players "Worth" to the University Athletics program is pretty much exactly what they get when you factor in the total Division I athletics revenue divided by total number of STUDENT-ATHLETES.

College athletics departments are EXTERNALLY CAPITALIST but INTERNALLY SOCIALIST

The casual understanding is that FOOTBALL and MEN'S BASKETBALL bring in $80m million in revenue, but the 120 players get $30,000 worth of school/food/housing each. That's not the correct ratio for labor. A Pro Sports CBA would be more like $25m compensation. The athletes are getting 8x less than they're worth.

But the reality is the INTERNALLY SOCIALIST athletic department has 4x the expenses and 4x the labor when you include the OTHER SPORTS, and zero additional revenue. So the ATHLETES as a whole are properly compensated**

** assuming they're full scholarship. My opinion is that ALL scholarships should be full rides. THAT is the fight worth having, and always been my opinion.

The reason that people THINK college athletes "deserve more" is because they're on TV like pro athletes and pro-athletes have free agency getting huge salaries. But INDIVIDUAL players don't bring in any real increase in revenue. They're essentially interchangeable. The collection of GOOD PLAYERS bring in revenue because schools built fan bases by constantly having good players over decades. Alabama doesn't draw 100,000 fans per game because "We have Joe Flacco and Jerry Rice!" Those guys went to Delaware and Mississippi Valley State! Who didn't draw 100,000 because of them. If you ALWAYS have a lot of good players, you sell out your facility. If you don't always have good players, you don't.

They went to NIL, which I would be in favor of, provided it was done correctly where a player's FAME for being good earns them endorsements from companies that seek them out. Instead it instantly became what I predicted it would be: Recruiting slush fund. Guys you've never heard of are getting tons of NIL money from the boosters who just want their school to BUY GOOD PLAYERS, so "Power 5 QB Recruit" gets the X dollars, regardless of which recruit fills that spot. That's NOT Name, Likeness and Image: That's school brand.


NOW, the EXTERNALLY CAPITALIST is necessary to fund the endeavor to NOT take money away from education! Which is another myth I've frequently mentioned. As non-profits, athletics are trying to FIND MONEY to do what they want to do: A never-ending-cycle of "spend money to make our campus/accommodations better, to get better recruits, so we win, so we get more money, so we can make our campus/accommodations better..."

The only place that capitalism leaks over internally is coaches salaries, where the market rate for coaches constantly grows and you need a good coach to win; which looks terrible compared to the compensation of athletes.

And of course, conference realignment is the quest for more external money to fund winning.

The reason conference realignment is capitalist is because the NCAA -- just like NIL -- didn't plan ahead while facing a lawsuit (NCAA vs Oklahoma, 1984) and lost the control of TV rights of its members to the schools; who bundled their TV rights as a conference and sold them to networks, prompting (a) independents to all but disappear and (b) realignment.


It's a failure to adapt and modernize that's plagued the NCAA, because left to their own devices, the big football schools are going to chase winning. Which means chasing money, and consolidate power and that's what we have now.

The simple solution would have been to apply INTERNAL SOCIALISM, EXTERNAL CAPITALISM to the entire NCAA in 1984 before they lost the case: You can SELL your own TV rights, for a price of 50% of the sale price; and we evenly distribute the pool to every member.

(which is basically what they did with the TV contract for the NCAA Basketball Tournament!)

Divide the total pool into 2 shares for FBS football, 1 share for non-football and the gap between conferences shrink dramatically: From a $70m gap to a $35m gap in FBS; and from $70m to $43m for non-FBS.

That makes MORE SCHOOLS competitive, more conferences matter in the CFP race -- which is the real reason consolidation is possible! If all 10 FBS football conferences had TWO Top 25 teams, TV has to give contracts to all 10 conferences and not completely ignore C-USA, or give the Sun Belt a "$7m contract but you pay the $7m cost of production" deal.


Of course it's "out of control capitalism" because the NCAA has long lost the ability to keep capitalism in check: Once they lost the the TV rights case, it was over. Power Football has carte blanche to DO WHAT THEY WANT. People in college sports used to fear "Power Football Breaks Away" but they don't now: They TOOK OVER the NCAA from within. They ARE the NCAA now.

 

[joelef]

I’m saying that many fans want there cake and eat it to they have no problem with all the professionalizatikn like coach salaries but still think it’s a holier then art thou “ play for the love of the game” nonsense. If people truly wanted pure amateurism then they should go to there local semi pro football game which actually captures the amateur echos that college sports was supposedly about.

 

[KevFu]

I’m saying that many fans want there cake and eat it to they have no problem with all the professionalizatikn like coach salaries but still think it’s a holier then art thou “ play for the love of the game” nonsense. If people truly wanted pure amateurism then they should go to there local semi pro football game which actually captures the amateur echos that college sports was supposedly about.

Right, but fans want their team to win more than they care about anything else.

(I also don't know how many fans are like "play for the love of the game!" Most college sports fans are like "They make $100m in revenue, they should pay the players!" because they don't notice or CARE that schools like Appalachian State and Jacksonville State, Texas-San Antonio, Marshall, Akron, etc, etc, (A) Exist in FBS (B) DON'T make $100m in revenue.

It's all a balancing act of fairness and greed, which is just like PRO sports, with the one difference being the Pro Sports have entered into an agreement that they are ALL Partners in the League -- and the only difference among them financially is market size.

If the NHL let the members of the league make their own conferences (and schedules), and sell the rights to TV themselves... you'd probably get:

TOR, MON, BOS, NYR, PHI, DET, CHI, LA, VAN, COL, MIN, PIT, SEA, DAL
WAS, NYI, NJD, TB, CBJ, SJ, ANA, EDM, CAL, STL, VGK, NASH
WIN, OTT, ARZ, CAR, FLA, BUF

 

[red devil]

 

[The Marquis]

Marshawn Lynch. Lmfao.

 

[KevFu]

Ok, that's funny.

 

[wildthing202]

As Stanford holds out hope for ACC invitation, Oregon State and Washington State wait on Cardinal

Stanford has not given up on getting an invitation to join the Atlantic Coast Conference as its fellow Pac-4 members wait and hope to rebuild their plundered league.

apnews.com

"Leaders from Stanford, California, Oregon State and Washington State spoke Thursday, and Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years, a person familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press."

With now Stanford willing to play for nothing how can the ACC say no now to at least SMU and Stanford.

 

[GindyDraws]

As Stanford holds out hope for ACC invitation, Oregon State and Washington State wait on Cardinal

Stanford has not given up on getting an invitation to join the Atlantic Coast Conference as its fellow Pac-4 members wait and hope to rebuild their plundered league.

apnews.com

"Leaders from Stanford, California, Oregon State and Washington State spoke Thursday, and Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years, a person familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press."

With now Stanford willing to play for nothing how can the ACC say no now to at least SMU and Stanford.

Jeez, if you are the Mountain West, you have to feel burned.

 

[GKJ]

How does that even work?

 

[PCSPounder]

Jeez, if you are the Mountain West, you have to feel burned.

Let’s put it this way… I think Stanford and MWC schools have known of their general lack of compatibility for some time now.

Just because we’re out west doesn’t mean we’re all cute and cuddly out here. In fact, it’s most likely that the biggest problem with the Pac-12 was truckloads of mutual disdain for one another. I could add that we’re at a toxic stage of disdain (as opposed to the “assumed disdain but we’ve been at it so long that we have grudging respect for each other“ position of the current B1G schools). Heck, maybe us Best Coast 4 schools will be so toxic that the reaction kills THAT conference. We’ll find all the ways to kill college athletics!

 

[HisIceness]

If the solution to keep the ACC in tact is to invite Cal and Stanford, two schools right there on the Pacific Coast, then the conference is dead.

But at least some schools have some sense, or are looking for their own interests but either way, some sanity.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

If the solution to keep the ACC in tact is to invite Cal and Stanford, two schools right there on the Pacific Coast, then the conference is dead.

But at least some schools have some sense, or are looking for their own interests but either way, some sanity.

Honestly, I've been a fan of college football for a long time but I'm about done with this shit.

The only thing that keeps me going is rivalry games, especially one single game I'd have a hard time giving up. Other than that, forget it. Even that might go away someday.

 

[Kirk Van Houten]

College football is a sh*t show right now