(02-11-2023 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Big 12(with networks at their back) are locked in a chess game with the PAC.

The PAC is losing.

Not only did the Big 12 have time to regroup after losing Oklahoma and Texas(and that whole timing issue was surely a consideration in the networks' decision to move UT/OU to the SEC when they did), but the additions they made create stability. The Big 12 moved quickly and this also gave them time to work on their contract more quickly.

Everyone knew ahead of time these contracts were ending around the same time. The Big 12 was forward thinking in their approach, the PAC was predictably behind the curve.

More specifically, the Big 12 acted quickly to get some good products that didn't weaken or fundamentally alter the balance of the Big 12. All the schools in the Big 12 are now solid Power products...competitive, good fan bases, decent money. Now, people can argue that no one in the Big 12 is really "wanted" by another league and that's what makes them stable. Now certainly, it's a factor that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is beating down the Big 12's door, but those leagues were never the threat. The P2 won those battles long before UT/OU left. The threat was the PAC 12, perhaps to add some Big 12 schools for markets or perhaps simply to grab valuable market share. Either way, the PAC should have taken a merger or something of that nature much more seriously because forgoing that opportunity put the Big 12 in a different head space. At that point, the Big 12 had to look at the PAC this way..."you're either with me or against me because both of us aren't making it out of this fight alive."

So then The Hunger Games began...lol. And in no small part because of the network influences behind the scenes. The PAC was more difficult to work with and easier to weaken...that sealed their fate.

So we come to the time where USC and UCLA bailed. As others have discussed, this was the kill shot and right now the PAC is just slowly bleeding out. The biggest problem for the PAC isn't that they lost 2 great programs. Regardless of their inherent value, their absence in the PAC calculus is irreplaceable because the Los Angeles market was far and away the PAC's most valuable and strategic. Not just for TV ratings either.

When the PAC lost the Battle of Los Angeles, they perhaps still had a shot to limp on in the way the old Big 12 did, but they were going to need help and they don't have any friends left.

Let's examine their potential options. Notice we're not talking about the PAC raiding the Big 12 despite the fact that virtually every Big 12 program is more valuable than either San Diego State or SMU. The Big 12 schools simply aren't an option and for 2 distinct reasons.

1. The Big 12 was quick to get their contract done. Not only did this inject a booster shot of stability, but it also set the market. No one in TV world is looking at the current makeup of the PAC 12 and saying...hmm, that league is definitely more valuable than the Big 12. Not a chance. The Big 12 will still garner better ratings because they have more varied markets and better fan bases. So it doesn't even matter if the Big 12 moved so quickly that they might have actually left a little money on the table. That was never their goal because it would have been a short term victory had they prioritized that. Sound familiar?

Kliavkof and the PAC prioritized as much money as they could possibly get because they've been short term thinkers for a very long time. That means they desperately needed more bidders, they desperately needed to out-earn the Big 12, and they desperately needed the LA market.

2. The second reason is that without the LA market, there isn't a great deal of advantage to staying in the PAC. People can think it's silly that a few PAC schools would bail for the Big 12, but if it was so nutty then the reverse dynamic would have been a possibility. The reality is that the PAC now has to fend off Big 12 overtures. There are a handful of schools that have no shot of getting into the Big Ten which means they either need the PAC to be a good home or they will look elsewhere.

The obvious reality now is that the PAC is not a good home without the LA market. Heck, without the LA market, why the would any Big 12 schools consider moving into that league? It would be completely nonsensical.

Those are the 2 reasons the PAC has to look elsewhere for an opportunity to rebuild and those options aren't great. I'm not knocking San Diego State here. I'm just saying the only reason they are under consideration is because the PAC desperately needs a presence in Southern CA. If they don't at least get SDSU(which is not remotely a replacement for USC or UCLA) then they won't last at all beyond the end of this contract.

The other options seems to be SMU and for pretty good reasons...good market, plenty of money, decent athletics, and potential for growth. But this is also a problem...SMU would rather be in the Big 12.

So from a strategic standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for the PAC to look at SMU. For one, the Big 12 could theoretically invite them and totally blow up the whole deal. Maybe more important than that, if SMU did join the PAC and increased in stature over the next several years, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because SMU would still leave for the Big 12 should the opportunity to present itself. Wouldn't that be great? For the PAC to subsidize SMU for a few years in order to make it easier for SMU to compete in the Big 12 once they made the transition.

Given that reality, I'm not sure the Big 12 is even interested in SMU. Yeah, I know they're talking to them, but a good chess player knows how to distract their opponent. The reality is that the Big 12 doesn't need to be worried about the PAC in their territory...all they have to do is stall until the PAC finally bleeds out and it won't be long.

If SMU thinks a Big 12 offer is on the table then they wait until that becomes a clear 'yes' or 'no.' So it could very well be a con. Stall the PAC a little longer and it means their contract gets worse with every passing week which of course makes it far more likely that the Big 12 obtains their real targets which are a handful of PAC schools.

All the Big 12 has to do at this point is present a better vision, status for certain schools than the PAC does. As soon as it becomes abundantly clear that the PAC has no option, but to take less money than the Big 12...some of those PAC schools are gone because there's no reason to stick around.

(Great post. Thought that this deserves a separate thread.)

I agree, the PAC leadership has boxed themselves in on what choices they will accept.

But even if they were to soften their position on that (such as to add SDSU), they still have things working against them.

If they are in a chess game, they lost before a move has even been made.

The layout of the board is completely against the PAC.

a.) as you head west across the US, states are larger. So the typical 1 or 2 primary state institutions are much farther apart from the next state over, than those further east

b.) The Rocky Mountains

c.) The LA region is the largest population area in the west, and the two biggest schools just cut out for another conference. Adding SDSU and Fresno state may at best, only help slow the bleeding.

Meanwhile, the B12 is roughly in the center of the country and so can potentially invite schools in all directions.

The competition isn't even close.

And everyone who is a decision-maker knows these things.

So this will affect how invitation conversations go, and how media deals will go, etc.

So to adapt a political quote from the past "It's about the geography, stupid" (sorry, whoever came up with that quote for the economy should have been more polite about it in my opinion : )

WV happened. And we pretty much know why it happened.

USC/UCLA happened. And we know pretty much why they happened.

But we're not going to see more "cross-country" invites that are more than a state away from contiguousness, unless circumstances change.

The board of governors for UCLA established precedent for that.

We're already seeing states make sure that a school cannot leave a conference without notifying various state oversight.

It's starting to be recognized that these moves have much much larger economic repercussions than was thought.

And UCLA set a benchmark for athlete well-being in their deal with Cal.

At this point the PAC's only negotiating position is "We've got content - you want more content, right? Please? Pretty Please?"

Not the strongest position for negotiating.

And coming back to geography, the furthest outliers to the current largest "cluster" of PAC schools are the AZ schools and Colorado.

So I am not surprised that they are the ones likely most interested in leaving - especially since those schools are on the record as wanting a southern california presence.

Colorado might stay with the San Francisco schools as a consolation prize. Maybe.

But I think the AZ schools are out, it's just a matter talking it through.

The key is whoever gets SDSU.

Talk about having a good position in chess.

This is SDSU's moment to shine in the sun, they better milk it for all it's worth. (While, of course, to not go too far to risk losing it.)

(02-11-2023 06:53 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Big 12(with networks at their back) are locked in a chess game with the PAC.

The PAC is losing.

Not only did the Big 12 have time to regroup after losing Oklahoma and Texas(and that whole timing issue was surely a consideration in the networks' decision to move UT/OU to the SEC when they did), but the additions they made create stability. The Big 12 moved quickly and this also gave them time to work on their contract more quickly.

Everyone knew ahead of time these contracts were ending around the same time. The Big 12 was forward thinking in their approach, the PAC was predictably behind the curve.

More specifically, the Big 12 acted quickly to get some good products that didn't weaken or fundamentally alter the balance of the Big 12. All the schools in the Big 12 are now solid Power products...competitive, good fan bases, decent money. Now, people can argue that no one in the Big 12 is really "wanted" by another league and that's what makes them stable. Now certainly, it's a factor that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is beating down the Big 12's door, but those leagues were never the threat. The P2 won those battles long before UT/OU left. The threat was the PAC 12, perhaps to add some Big 12 schools for markets or perhaps simply to grab valuable market share. Either way, the PAC should have taken a merger or something of that nature much more seriously because forgoing that opportunity put the Big 12 in a different head space. At that point, the Big 12 had to look at the PAC this way..."you're either with me or against me because both of us aren't making it out of this fight alive."

So then The Hunger Games began...lol. And in no small part because of the network influences behind the scenes. The PAC was more difficult to work with and easier to weaken...that sealed their fate.

So we come to the time where USC and UCLA bailed. As others have discussed, this was the kill shot and right now the PAC is just slowly bleeding out. The biggest problem for the PAC isn't that they lost 2 great programs. Regardless of their inherent value, their absence in the PAC calculus is irreplaceable because the Los Angeles market was far and away the PAC's most valuable and strategic. Not just for TV ratings either.

When the PAC lost the Battle of Los Angeles, they perhaps still had a shot to limp on in the way the old Big 12 did, but they were going to need help and they don't have any friends left.

Let's examine their potential options. Notice we're not talking about the PAC raiding the Big 12 despite the fact that virtually every Big 12 program is more valuable than either San Diego State or SMU. The Big 12 schools simply aren't an option and for 2 distinct reasons.

1. The Big 12 was quick to get their contract done. Not only did this inject a booster shot of stability, but it also set the market. No one in TV world is looking at the current makeup of the PAC 12 and saying...hmm, that league is definitely more valuable than the Big 12. Not a chance. The Big 12 will still garner better ratings because they have more varied markets and better fan bases. So it doesn't even matter if the Big 12 moved so quickly that they might have actually left a little money on the table. That was never their goal because it would have been a short term victory had they prioritized that. Sound familiar?

Kliavkof and the PAC prioritized as much money as they could possibly get because they've been short term thinkers for a very long time. That means they desperately needed more bidders, they desperately needed to out-earn the Big 12, and they desperately needed the LA market.

2. The second reason is that without the LA market, there isn't a great deal of advantage to staying in the PAC. People can think it's silly that a few PAC schools would bail for the Big 12, but if it was so nutty then the reverse dynamic would have been a possibility. The reality is that the PAC now has to fend off Big 12 overtures. There are a handful of schools that have no shot of getting into the Big Ten which means they either need the PAC to be a good home or they will look elsewhere.

The obvious reality now is that the PAC is not a good home without the LA market. Heck, without the LA market, why the would any Big 12 schools consider moving into that league? It would be completely nonsensical.

Those are the 2 reasons the PAC has to look elsewhere for an opportunity to rebuild and those options aren't great. I'm not knocking San Diego State here. I'm just saying the only reason they are under consideration is because the PAC desperately needs a presence in Southern CA. If they don't at least get SDSU(which is not remotely a replacement for USC or UCLA) then they won't last at all beyond the end of this contract.

The other options seems to be SMU and for pretty good reasons...good market, plenty of money, decent athletics, and potential for growth. But this is also a problem...SMU would rather be in the Big 12.

So from a strategic standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for the PAC to look at SMU. For one, the Big 12 could theoretically invite them and totally blow up the whole deal. Maybe more important than that, if SMU did join the PAC and increased in stature over the next several years, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because SMU would still leave for the Big 12 should the opportunity to present itself. Wouldn't that be great? For the PAC to subsidize SMU for a few years in order to make it easier for SMU to compete in the Big 12 once they made the transition.

Given that reality, I'm not sure the Big 12 is even interested in SMU. Yeah, I know they're talking to them, but a good chess player knows how to distract their opponent. The reality is that the Big 12 doesn't need to be worried about the PAC in their territory...all they have to do is stall until the PAC finally bleeds out and it won't be long.

If SMU thinks a Big 12 offer is on the table then they wait until that becomes a clear 'yes' or 'no.' So it could very well be a con. Stall the PAC a little longer and it means their contract gets worse with every passing week which of course makes it far more likely that the Big 12 obtains their real targets which are a handful of PAC schools.

All the Big 12 has to do at this point is present a better vision, status for certain schools than the PAC does. As soon as it becomes abundantly clear that the PAC has no option, but to take less money than the Big 12...some of those PAC schools are gone because there's no reason to stick around.

(Great post. Thought that this deserves a separate thread.)

I agree, the PAC leadership has boxed themselves in on what choices they will accept.

But even if they were to soften their position on that (such as to add SDSU), they still have things working against them.

If they are in a chess game, they lost before a move has even been made.

The layout of the board is completely against the PAC.

a.) as you head west across the US, states are larger. So the typical 1 or 2 primary state institutions are much farther apart from the next state over, than those further east

b.) The Rocky Mountains

c.) The LA region is the largest population area in the west, and the two biggest schools just cut out for another conference. Adding SDSU and Fresno state may at best, only help slow the bleeding.

Meanwhile, the B12 is roughly in the center of the country and so can potentially invite schools in all directions.

The competition isn't even close.

And everyone who is a decision-maker knows these things.

So this will affect how invitation conversations go, and how media deals will go, etc.

So to adapt a political quote from the past "It's about the geography, stupid" (sorry, whoever came up with that quote for the economy should have been more polite about it in my opinion : )

WV happened. And we pretty much know why it happened.

USC/UCLA happened. And we know pretty much why they happened.

But we're not going to see more "cross-country" invites that are more than a state away from contiguousness, unless circumstances change.

The board of governors for UCLA established precedent for that.

We're already seeing states make sure that a school cannot leave a conference without notifying various state oversight.

It's starting to be recognized that these moves have much much larger economic repercussions than was thought.

And UCLA set a benchmark for athlete well-being in their deal with Cal.

At this point the PAC's only negotiating position is "We've got content - you want more content, right? Please? Pretty Please?"

Not the strongest position for negotiating.

And coming back to geography, the furthest outliers to the current largest "cluster" of PAC schools are the AZ schools and Colorado.

So I am not surprised that they are the ones likely most interested in leaving - especially since those schools are on the record as wanting a southern california presence.

Colorado might stay with the San Francisco schools as a consolation prize. Maybe.

But I think the AZ schools are out, it's just a matter talking it through.

The key is whoever gets SDSU.

Talk about having a good position in chess.

This is SDSU's moment to shine in the sun, they better milk it for all it's worth. (While, of course, to not go too far to risk losing it.)

Because Marchand and Ourand are saying that the Pac-12 probably isn't going to get any linear access. Podcast Link - It starts about the 40-41 minute mark.

(02-11-2023 06:53 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Big 12(with networks at their back) are locked in a chess game with the PAC.

The PAC is losing.

Not only did the Big 12 have time to regroup after losing Oklahoma and Texas(and that whole timing issue was surely a consideration in the networks' decision to move UT/OU to the SEC when they did), but the additions they made create stability. The Big 12 moved quickly and this also gave them time to work on their contract more quickly.

Everyone knew ahead of time these contracts were ending around the same time. The Big 12 was forward thinking in their approach, the PAC was predictably behind the curve.

More specifically, the Big 12 acted quickly to get some good products that didn't weaken or fundamentally alter the balance of the Big 12. All the schools in the Big 12 are now solid Power products...competitive, good fan bases, decent money. Now, people can argue that no one in the Big 12 is really "wanted" by another league and that's what makes them stable. Now certainly, it's a factor that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is beating down the Big 12's door, but those leagues were never the threat. The P2 won those battles long before UT/OU left. The threat was the PAC 12, perhaps to add some Big 12 schools for markets or perhaps simply to grab valuable market share. Either way, the PAC should have taken a merger or something of that nature much more seriously because forgoing that opportunity put the Big 12 in a different head space. At that point, the Big 12 had to look at the PAC this way..."you're either with me or against me because both of us aren't making it out of this fight alive."

So then The Hunger Games began...lol. And in no small part because of the network influences behind the scenes. The PAC was more difficult to work with and easier to weaken...that sealed their fate.

So we come to the time where USC and UCLA bailed. As others have discussed, this was the kill shot and right now the PAC is just slowly bleeding out. The biggest problem for the PAC isn't that they lost 2 great programs. Regardless of their inherent value, their absence in the PAC calculus is irreplaceable because the Los Angeles market was far and away the PAC's most valuable and strategic. Not just for TV ratings either.

When the PAC lost the Battle of Los Angeles, they perhaps still had a shot to limp on in the way the old Big 12 did, but they were going to need help and they don't have any friends left.

Let's examine their potential options. Notice we're not talking about the PAC raiding the Big 12 despite the fact that virtually every Big 12 program is more valuable than either San Diego State or SMU. The Big 12 schools simply aren't an option and for 2 distinct reasons.

1. The Big 12 was quick to get their contract done. Not only did this inject a booster shot of stability, but it also set the market. No one in TV world is looking at the current makeup of the PAC 12 and saying...hmm, that league is definitely more valuable than the Big 12. Not a chance. The Big 12 will still garner better ratings because they have more varied markets and better fan bases. So it doesn't even matter if the Big 12 moved so quickly that they might have actually left a little money on the table. That was never their goal because it would have been a short term victory had they prioritized that. Sound familiar?

Kliavkof and the PAC prioritized as much money as they could possibly get because they've been short term thinkers for a very long time. That means they desperately needed more bidders, they desperately needed to out-earn the Big 12, and they desperately needed the LA market.

2. The second reason is that without the LA market, there isn't a great deal of advantage to staying in the PAC. People can think it's silly that a few PAC schools would bail for the Big 12, but if it was so nutty then the reverse dynamic would have been a possibility. The reality is that the PAC now has to fend off Big 12 overtures. There are a handful of schools that have no shot of getting into the Big Ten which means they either need the PAC to be a good home or they will look elsewhere.

The obvious reality now is that the PAC is not a good home without the LA market. Heck, without the LA market, why the would any Big 12 schools consider moving into that league? It would be completely nonsensical.

Those are the 2 reasons the PAC has to look elsewhere for an opportunity to rebuild and those options aren't great. I'm not knocking San Diego State here. I'm just saying the only reason they are under consideration is because the PAC desperately needs a presence in Southern CA. If they don't at least get SDSU(which is not remotely a replacement for USC or UCLA) then they won't last at all beyond the end of this contract.

The other options seems to be SMU and for pretty good reasons...good market, plenty of money, decent athletics, and potential for growth. But this is also a problem...SMU would rather be in the Big 12.

So from a strategic standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for the PAC to look at SMU. For one, the Big 12 could theoretically invite them and totally blow up the whole deal. Maybe more important than that, if SMU did join the PAC and increased in stature over the next several years, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because SMU would still leave for the Big 12 should the opportunity to present itself. Wouldn't that be great? For the PAC to subsidize SMU for a few years in order to make it easier for SMU to compete in the Big 12 once they made the transition.

Given that reality, I'm not sure the Big 12 is even interested in SMU. Yeah, I know they're talking to them, but a good chess player knows how to distract their opponent. The reality is that the Big 12 doesn't need to be worried about the PAC in their territory...all they have to do is stall until the PAC finally bleeds out and it won't be long.

If SMU thinks a Big 12 offer is on the table then they wait until that becomes a clear 'yes' or 'no.' So it could very well be a con. Stall the PAC a little longer and it means their contract gets worse with every passing week which of course makes it far more likely that the Big 12 obtains their real targets which are a handful of PAC schools.

All the Big 12 has to do at this point is present a better vision, status for certain schools than the PAC does. As soon as it becomes abundantly clear that the PAC has no option, but to take less money than the Big 12...some of those PAC schools are gone because there's no reason to stick around.

(Great post. Thought that this deserves a separate thread.)

I agree, the PAC leadership has boxed themselves in on what choices they will accept.

But even if they were to soften their position on that (such as to add SDSU), they still have things working against them.

If they are in a chess game, they lost before a move has even been made.

The layout of the board is completely against the PAC.

a.) as you head west across the US, states are larger. So the typical 1 or 2 primary state institutions are much farther apart from the next state over, than those further east

b.) The Rocky Mountains

c.) The LA region is the largest population area in the west, and the two biggest schools just cut out for another conference. Adding SDSU and Fresno state may at best, only help slow the bleeding.

Meanwhile, the B12 is roughly in the center of the country and so can potentially invite schools in all directions.

The competition isn't even close.

And everyone who is a decision-maker knows these things.

So this will affect how invitation conversations go, and how media deals will go, etc.

So to adapt a political quote from the past "It's about the geography, stupid" (sorry, whoever came up with that quote for the economy should have been more polite about it in my opinion : )

WV happened. And we pretty much know why it happened.

USC/UCLA happened. And we know pretty much why they happened.

But we're not going to see more "cross-country" invites that are more than a state away from contiguousness, unless circumstances change.

The board of governors for UCLA established precedent for that.

We're already seeing states make sure that a school cannot leave a conference without notifying various state oversight.

It's starting to be recognized that these moves have much much larger economic repercussions than was thought.

And UCLA set a benchmark for athlete well-being in their deal with Cal.

At this point the PAC's only negotiating position is "We've got content - you want more content, right? Please? Pretty Please?"

Not the strongest position for negotiating.

And coming back to geography, the furthest outliers to the current largest "cluster" of PAC schools are the AZ schools and Colorado.

So I am not surprised that they are the ones likely most interested in leaving - especially since those schools are on the record as wanting a southern california presence.

Colorado might stay with the San Francisco schools as a consolation prize. Maybe.

But I think the AZ schools are out, it's just a matter talking it through.

The key is whoever gets SDSU.

Talk about having a good position in chess.

This is SDSU's moment to shine in the sun, they better milk it for all it's worth. (While, of course, to not go too far to risk losing it.)

It's going to sound somewhat crazy, but here's my theory:

1. If you look at my B1G/Ivy League similarities/rivalry thread, I said that the PAC 12 was similar to the B1G in that they want Ivy League classrooms, but SEC athletics. As we all know, only a handful of schools actually meets that qualification. This is one reason why the PAC is in trouble. It's also why they couldn't reel in Texas either, IMO.

2. And now for the crazy part: I think that when the rest of the Boomers retire/pass away, not only are college sports going to be affected, I believe that the economy in general will be affected as well. I believe that Wall Street knows this, and a lot of these activist investors have been preparing for this to happen. I believe that the NFL won't be able to get the big $$'s it currently gets because they won't even be there to get!!! Plus, the disastrous two years under Biden are going to really come back to haunt us, IMO. I don't believe that the NBA will be affected as much because it has been is growing an overseas fanbase, which is why I believe that the NFL is playing games in Europe : export the game of American football overseas and grow an overseas fanbase.

Amazingly, there's something brewing that could be the antidote to this, if the US plays its cards right: possible war with China. I don't like war, but WWII, for an ugly war that it was, did bring us out of the Great Depression. WWIII could have the same effect here, IMO.

(02-15-2023 04:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 06:53 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Big 12(with networks at their back) are locked in a chess game with the PAC.

The PAC is losing.

Not only did the Big 12 have time to regroup after losing Oklahoma and Texas(and that whole timing issue was surely a consideration in the networks' decision to move UT/OU to the SEC when they did), but the additions they made create stability. The Big 12 moved quickly and this also gave them time to work on their contract more quickly.

Everyone knew ahead of time these contracts were ending around the same time. The Big 12 was forward thinking in their approach, the PAC was predictably behind the curve.

More specifically, the Big 12 acted quickly to get some good products that didn't weaken or fundamentally alter the balance of the Big 12. All the schools in the Big 12 are now solid Power products...competitive, good fan bases, decent money. Now, people can argue that no one in the Big 12 is really "wanted" by another league and that's what makes them stable. Now certainly, it's a factor that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is beating down the Big 12's door, but those leagues were never the threat. The P2 won those battles long before UT/OU left. The threat was the PAC 12, perhaps to add some Big 12 schools for markets or perhaps simply to grab valuable market share. Either way, the PAC should have taken a merger or something of that nature much more seriously because forgoing that opportunity put the Big 12 in a different head space. At that point, the Big 12 had to look at the PAC this way..."you're either with me or against me because both of us aren't making it out of this fight alive."

So then The Hunger Games began...lol. And in no small part because of the network influences behind the scenes. The PAC was more difficult to work with and easier to weaken...that sealed their fate.

So we come to the time where USC and UCLA bailed. As others have discussed, this was the kill shot and right now the PAC is just slowly bleeding out. The biggest problem for the PAC isn't that they lost 2 great programs. Regardless of their inherent value, their absence in the PAC calculus is irreplaceable because the Los Angeles market was far and away the PAC's most valuable and strategic. Not just for TV ratings either.

When the PAC lost the Battle of Los Angeles, they perhaps still had a shot to limp on in the way the old Big 12 did, but they were going to need help and they don't have any friends left.

Let's examine their potential options. Notice we're not talking about the PAC raiding the Big 12 despite the fact that virtually every Big 12 program is more valuable than either San Diego State or SMU. The Big 12 schools simply aren't an option and for 2 distinct reasons.

1. The Big 12 was quick to get their contract done. Not only did this inject a booster shot of stability, but it also set the market. No one in TV world is looking at the current makeup of the PAC 12 and saying...hmm, that league is definitely more valuable than the Big 12. Not a chance. The Big 12 will still garner better ratings because they have more varied markets and better fan bases. So it doesn't even matter if the Big 12 moved so quickly that they might have actually left a little money on the table. That was never their goal because it would have been a short term victory had they prioritized that. Sound familiar?

Kliavkof and the PAC prioritized as much money as they could possibly get because they've been short term thinkers for a very long time. That means they desperately needed more bidders, they desperately needed to out-earn the Big 12, and they desperately needed the LA market.

2. The second reason is that without the LA market, there isn't a great deal of advantage to staying in the PAC. People can think it's silly that a few PAC schools would bail for the Big 12, but if it was so nutty then the reverse dynamic would have been a possibility. The reality is that the PAC now has to fend off Big 12 overtures. There are a handful of schools that have no shot of getting into the Big Ten which means they either need the PAC to be a good home or they will look elsewhere.

The obvious reality now is that the PAC is not a good home without the LA market. Heck, without the LA market, why the would any Big 12 schools consider moving into that league? It would be completely nonsensical.

Those are the 2 reasons the PAC has to look elsewhere for an opportunity to rebuild and those options aren't great. I'm not knocking San Diego State here. I'm just saying the only reason they are under consideration is because the PAC desperately needs a presence in Southern CA. If they don't at least get SDSU(which is not remotely a replacement for USC or UCLA) then they won't last at all beyond the end of this contract.

The other options seems to be SMU and for pretty good reasons...good market, plenty of money, decent athletics, and potential for growth. But this is also a problem...SMU would rather be in the Big 12.

So from a strategic standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for the PAC to look at SMU. For one, the Big 12 could theoretically invite them and totally blow up the whole deal. Maybe more important than that, if SMU did join the PAC and increased in stature over the next several years, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because SMU would still leave for the Big 12 should the opportunity to present itself. Wouldn't that be great? For the PAC to subsidize SMU for a few years in order to make it easier for SMU to compete in the Big 12 once they made the transition.

Given that reality, I'm not sure the Big 12 is even interested in SMU. Yeah, I know they're talking to them, but a good chess player knows how to distract their opponent. The reality is that the Big 12 doesn't need to be worried about the PAC in their territory...all they have to do is stall until the PAC finally bleeds out and it won't be long.

If SMU thinks a Big 12 offer is on the table then they wait until that becomes a clear 'yes' or 'no.' So it could very well be a con. Stall the PAC a little longer and it means their contract gets worse with every passing week which of course makes it far more likely that the Big 12 obtains their real targets which are a handful of PAC schools.

All the Big 12 has to do at this point is present a better vision, status for certain schools than the PAC does. As soon as it becomes abundantly clear that the PAC has no option, but to take less money than the Big 12...some of those PAC schools are gone because there's no reason to stick around.

(Great post. Thought that this deserves a separate thread.)

I agree, the PAC leadership has boxed themselves in on what choices they will accept.

But even if they were to soften their position on that (such as to add SDSU), they still have things working against them.

If they are in a chess game, they lost before a move has even been made.

The layout of the board is completely against the PAC.

a.) as you head west across the US, states are larger. So the typical 1 or 2 primary state institutions are much farther apart from the next state over, than those further east

b.) The Rocky Mountains

c.) The LA region is the largest population area in the west, and the two biggest schools just cut out for another conference. Adding SDSU and Fresno state may at best, only help slow the bleeding.

Meanwhile, the B12 is roughly in the center of the country and so can potentially invite schools in all directions.

The competition isn't even close.

And everyone who is a decision-maker knows these things.

So this will affect how invitation conversations go, and how media deals will go, etc.

So to adapt a political quote from the past "It's about the geography, stupid" (sorry, whoever came up with that quote for the economy should have been more polite about it in my opinion : )

WV happened. And we pretty much know why it happened.

USC/UCLA happened. And we know pretty much why they happened.

But we're not going to see more "cross-country" invites that are more than a state away from contiguousness, unless circumstances change.

The board of governors for UCLA established precedent for that.

We're already seeing states make sure that a school cannot leave a conference without notifying various state oversight.

It's starting to be recognized that these moves have much much larger economic repercussions than was thought.

And UCLA set a benchmark for athlete well-being in their deal with Cal.

At this point the PAC's only negotiating position is "We've got content - you want more content, right? Please? Pretty Please?"

Not the strongest position for negotiating.

And coming back to geography, the furthest outliers to the current largest "cluster" of PAC schools are the AZ schools and Colorado.

So I am not surprised that they are the ones likely most interested in leaving - especially since those schools are on the record as wanting a southern california presence.

Colorado might stay with the San Francisco schools as a consolation prize. Maybe.

But I think the AZ schools are out, it's just a matter talking it through.

The key is whoever gets SDSU.

Talk about having a good position in chess.

This is SDSU's moment to shine in the sun, they better milk it for all it's worth. (While, of course, to not go too far to risk losing it.)

It's going to sound somewhat crazy, but here's my theory:

1. If you look at my B1G/Ivy League similarities/rivalry thread, I said that the PAC 12 was similar to the B1G in that they want Ivy League classrooms, but SEC athletics. As we all know, only a handful of schools actually meets that qualification. This is one reason why the PAC is in trouble. It's also why they couldn't reel in Texas either, IMO.

2. And now for the crazy part: I think that when the rest of the Boomers retire/pass away, not only are college sports going to be affected, I believe that the economy in general will be affected as well. I believe that Wall Street knows this, and a lot of these activist investors have been preparing for this to happen. I believe that the NFL won't be able to get the big $$'s it currently gets because they won't even be there to get!!! Plus, the disastrous two years under Biden are going to really come back to haunt us, IMO. I don't believe that the NBA will be affected as much because it has been is growing an overseas fanbase, which is why I believe that the NFL is playing games in Europe : export the game of American football overseas and grow an overseas fanbase.

Amazingly, there's something brewing that could be the antidote to this, if the US plays its cards right: possible war with China. I don't like war, but WWII, for an ugly war that it was, did bring us out of the Great Depression. WWIII could have the same effect here, IMO.

1. The Pac dropped the ball on the 1 yard line with Texas at least 3 times. Texas is UW in the Classroom and tOSU in Athletics, there's not a better combination in all of College Sports. The fact that the Pac could never reel them in despite 30+ years' worth of mutual interest tells us all we need to know about the poor decision-making skills of their leaders.

2. War with China would not be WW3, it would be more like "stomp and grind". China could fight a defensive war and threaten nuclear retaliation if we invaded their homeland, but they could not hope to challenge us anywhere outside their own borders. They could take Taiwan and maybe, MAYBE hold it, but the cost would be so severe that they'd wish that they had tried more of the Carrot and less of the Stick. Russia can't even conquer a small breakaway province, China can't count on them for any help at all. That's why we've been fighting this shadow war for 20 years now. As for comparisons between today and the Great Depression... check out this info:

unemployment today: 3.4% (far below long term average of 5.73%)

GD unemployment: 25% in the US (and as high as 33% in other countries)

GDP growth: 2.1% in 2022, 5.9% in 2021 https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-dome...e-estimate

Great Depression GDP growth: real GDP shrank 29% from 1929 to 1933, consumer prices fell 25%, wholesale prices fell 32%, 7000 banks failed, 1/3 of the total in the country: https://www.stlouisfed.org/the-great-dep...ory-part-3

It's popular politically to make things out as worse than they really are when the other party is in power, Democrats did plenty of that while Trump was President, but the reality is that the US economy continues to thrive in spite of the best efforts of both Republicans and Democrats.

(02-15-2023 04:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 06:53 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Big 12(with networks at their back) are locked in a chess game with the PAC.

The PAC is losing.

Not only did the Big 12 have time to regroup after losing Oklahoma and Texas(and that whole timing issue was surely a consideration in the networks' decision to move UT/OU to the SEC when they did), but the additions they made create stability. The Big 12 moved quickly and this also gave them time to work on their contract more quickly.

Everyone knew ahead of time these contracts were ending around the same time. The Big 12 was forward thinking in their approach, the PAC was predictably behind the curve.

More specifically, the Big 12 acted quickly to get some good products that didn't weaken or fundamentally alter the balance of the Big 12. All the schools in the Big 12 are now solid Power products...competitive, good fan bases, decent money. Now, people can argue that no one in the Big 12 is really "wanted" by another league and that's what makes them stable. Now certainly, it's a factor that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC is beating down the Big 12's door, but those leagues were never the threat. The P2 won those battles long before UT/OU left. The threat was the PAC 12, perhaps to add some Big 12 schools for markets or perhaps simply to grab valuable market share. Either way, the PAC should have taken a merger or something of that nature much more seriously because forgoing that opportunity put the Big 12 in a different head space. At that point, the Big 12 had to look at the PAC this way..."you're either with me or against me because both of us aren't making it out of this fight alive."

So then The Hunger Games began...lol. And in no small part because of the network influences behind the scenes. The PAC was more difficult to work with and easier to weaken...that sealed their fate.

So we come to the time where USC and UCLA bailed. As others have discussed, this was the kill shot and right now the PAC is just slowly bleeding out. The biggest problem for the PAC isn't that they lost 2 great programs. Regardless of their inherent value, their absence in the PAC calculus is irreplaceable because the Los Angeles market was far and away the PAC's most valuable and strategic. Not just for TV ratings either.

When the PAC lost the Battle of Los Angeles, they perhaps still had a shot to limp on in the way the old Big 12 did, but they were going to need help and they don't have any friends left.

Let's examine their potential options. Notice we're not talking about the PAC raiding the Big 12 despite the fact that virtually every Big 12 program is more valuable than either San Diego State or SMU. The Big 12 schools simply aren't an option and for 2 distinct reasons.

1. The Big 12 was quick to get their contract done. Not only did this inject a booster shot of stability, but it also set the market. No one in TV world is looking at the current makeup of the PAC 12 and saying...hmm, that league is definitely more valuable than the Big 12. Not a chance. The Big 12 will still garner better ratings because they have more varied markets and better fan bases. So it doesn't even matter if the Big 12 moved so quickly that they might have actually left a little money on the table. That was never their goal because it would have been a short term victory had they prioritized that. Sound familiar?

Kliavkof and the PAC prioritized as much money as they could possibly get because they've been short term thinkers for a very long time. That means they desperately needed more bidders, they desperately needed to out-earn the Big 12, and they desperately needed the LA market.

2. The second reason is that without the LA market, there isn't a great deal of advantage to staying in the PAC. People can think it's silly that a few PAC schools would bail for the Big 12, but if it was so nutty then the reverse dynamic would have been a possibility. The reality is that the PAC now has to fend off Big 12 overtures. There are a handful of schools that have no shot of getting into the Big Ten which means they either need the PAC to be a good home or they will look elsewhere.

The obvious reality now is that the PAC is not a good home without the LA market. Heck, without the LA market, why the would any Big 12 schools consider moving into that league? It would be completely nonsensical.

Those are the 2 reasons the PAC has to look elsewhere for an opportunity to rebuild and those options aren't great. I'm not knocking San Diego State here. I'm just saying the only reason they are under consideration is because the PAC desperately needs a presence in Southern CA. If they don't at least get SDSU(which is not remotely a replacement for USC or UCLA) then they won't last at all beyond the end of this contract.

The other options seems to be SMU and for pretty good reasons...good market, plenty of money, decent athletics, and potential for growth. But this is also a problem...SMU would rather be in the Big 12.

So from a strategic standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for the PAC to look at SMU. For one, the Big 12 could theoretically invite them and totally blow up the whole deal. Maybe more important than that, if SMU did join the PAC and increased in stature over the next several years, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because SMU would still leave for the Big 12 should the opportunity to present itself. Wouldn't that be great? For the PAC to subsidize SMU for a few years in order to make it easier for SMU to compete in the Big 12 once they made the transition.

Given that reality, I'm not sure the Big 12 is even interested in SMU. Yeah, I know they're talking to them, but a good chess player knows how to distract their opponent. The reality is that the Big 12 doesn't need to be worried about the PAC in their territory...all they have to do is stall until the PAC finally bleeds out and it won't be long.

If SMU thinks a Big 12 offer is on the table then they wait until that becomes a clear 'yes' or 'no.' So it could very well be a con. Stall the PAC a little longer and it means their contract gets worse with every passing week which of course makes it far more likely that the Big 12 obtains their real targets which are a handful of PAC schools.

All the Big 12 has to do at this point is present a better vision, status for certain schools than the PAC does. As soon as it becomes abundantly clear that the PAC has no option, but to take less money than the Big 12...some of those PAC schools are gone because there's no reason to stick around.

(Great post. Thought that this deserves a separate thread.)

I agree, the PAC leadership has boxed themselves in on what choices they will accept.

But even if they were to soften their position on that (such as to add SDSU), they still have things working against them.

If they are in a chess game, they lost before a move has even been made.

The layout of the board is completely against the PAC.

a.) as you head west across the US, states are larger. So the typical 1 or 2 primary state institutions are much farther apart from the next state over, than those further east

b.) The Rocky Mountains

c.) The LA region is the largest population area in the west, and the two biggest schools just cut out for another conference. Adding SDSU and Fresno state may at best, only help slow the bleeding.

Meanwhile, the B12 is roughly in the center of the country and so can potentially invite schools in all directions.

The competition isn't even close.

And everyone who is a decision-maker knows these things.

So this will affect how invitation conversations go, and how media deals will go, etc.

So to adapt a political quote from the past "It's about the geography, stupid" (sorry, whoever came up with that quote for the economy should have been more polite about it in my opinion : )

WV happened. And we pretty much know why it happened.

USC/UCLA happened. And we know pretty much why they happened.

But we're not going to see more "cross-country" invites that are more than a state away from contiguousness, unless circumstances change.

The board of governors for UCLA established precedent for that.

We're already seeing states make sure that a school cannot leave a conference without notifying various state oversight.

It's starting to be recognized that these moves have much much larger economic repercussions than was thought.

And UCLA set a benchmark for athlete well-being in their deal with Cal.

At this point the PAC's only negotiating position is "We've got content - you want more content, right? Please? Pretty Please?"

Not the strongest position for negotiating.

And coming back to geography, the furthest outliers to the current largest "cluster" of PAC schools are the AZ schools and Colorado.

So I am not surprised that they are the ones likely most interested in leaving - especially since those schools are on the record as wanting a southern california presence.

Colorado might stay with the San Francisco schools as a consolation prize. Maybe.

But I think the AZ schools are out, it's just a matter talking it through.

The key is whoever gets SDSU.

Talk about having a good position in chess.

This is SDSU's moment to shine in the sun, they better milk it for all it's worth. (While, of course, to not go too far to risk losing it.)

It's going to sound somewhat crazy, but here's my theory:

1. If you look at my B1G/Ivy League similarities/rivalry thread, I said that the PAC 12 was similar to the B1G in that they want Ivy League classrooms, but SEC athletics. As we all know, only a handful of schools actually meets that qualification. This is one reason why the PAC is in trouble. It's also why they couldn't reel in Texas either, IMO.

2. And now for the crazy part: I think that when the rest of the Boomers retire/pass away, not only are college sports going to be affected, I believe that the economy in general will be affected as well. I believe that Wall Street knows this, and a lot of these activist investors have been preparing for this to happen. I believe that the NFL won't be able to get the big $$'s it currently gets because they won't even be there to get!!! Plus, the disastrous two years under Biden are going to really come back to haunt us, IMO. I don't believe that the NBA will be affected as much because it has been is growing an overseas fanbase, which is why I believe that the NFL is playing games in Europe : export the game of American football overseas and grow an overseas fanbase.

Amazingly, there's something brewing that could be the antidote to this, if the US plays its cards right: possible war with China. I don't like war, but WWII, for an ugly war that it was, did bring us out of the Great Depression. WWIII could have the same effect here, IMO.

With regards to your second part it's already happening. Boomers are retiring in mass over the next 5-10 years and will be pulling their money out of the market. A lot of the free flowing money is going to stop writ large. No more easy money for angel investing. Take a look at some of Peter Zeihan's talks about the subject (this bit is a bit off sports topic).

The Pac got blind sided, they thought they were insulated from getting raided because of their proximity from the other P5 conferences.

1. Time zone issue
2. Lack of fan interest
3. Lack of success-bad basketball, mediocre football

Pac simply has less viewership.

(02-20-2023 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Time zone issue
2. Lack of fan interest
3. Lack of success-bad basketball, mediocre football

Pac simply has less viewership.

4. Lack of unity, vision and trust among the member institutions
5. B12 leaped in front to get a linear media deal done first
6. Weak leadership and poor business acumen at the Commissioner level - see #4 & #5

(02-20-2023 09:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Time zone issue
2. Lack of fan interest
3. Lack of success-bad basketball, mediocre football

Pac simply has less viewership.

4. Lack of unity, vision and trust among the member institutions
5. B12 leaped in front to get a linear media deal done first
6. Weak leadership and poor business acumen at the Commissioner level - see #4 & #5

To expand on your #6, keeping the Pac 12 network in house was a horrible decision for money and exposure. Had they sold it to ESPN, ESPN might have been more active in helping them at this point.

(02-20-2023 11:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Time zone issue
2. Lack of fan interest
3. Lack of success-bad basketball, mediocre football

Pac simply has less viewership.

4. Lack of unity, vision and trust among the member institutions
5. B12 leaped in front to get a linear media deal done first
6. Weak leadership and poor business acumen at the Commissioner level - see #4 & #5

To expand on your #6, keeping the Pac 12 network in house was a horrible decision for money and exposure. Had they sold it to ESPN, ESPN might have been more active in helping them at this point.

Even if just a controlling piece of it, similar to the BTN and Fox.

(02-20-2023 11:51 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 11:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Time zone issue
2. Lack of fan interest
3. Lack of success-bad basketball, mediocre football

Pac simply has less viewership.

4. Lack of unity, vision and trust among the member institutions
5. B12 leaped in front to get a linear media deal done first
6. Weak leadership and poor business acumen at the Commissioner level - see #4 & #5

To expand on your #6, keeping the Pac 12 network in house was a horrible decision for money and exposure. Had they sold it to ESPN, ESPN might have been more active in helping them at this point.

Even if just a controlling piece of it, similar to the BTN and Fox.

7.

(02-21-2023 11:01 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 11:51 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 11:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Time zone issue
2. Lack of fan interest
3. Lack of success-bad basketball, mediocre football

Pac simply has less viewership.

4. Lack of unity, vision and trust among the member institutions
5. B12 leaped in front to get a linear media deal done first
6. Weak leadership and poor business acumen at the Commissioner level - see #4 & #5

To expand on your #6, keeping the Pac 12 network in house was a horrible decision for money and exposure. Had they sold it to ESPN, ESPN might have been more active in helping them at this point.

Even if just a controlling piece of it, similar to the BTN and Fox.

7.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/si...1676997152

(With many apologies to Bullwinkle.)

"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat."

"Again? That trick never works."

"Nothing up my sleeve. Presto!"

...

(This site needs a facepalm emoji...)

(02-20-2023 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  1. Time zone issue
2. Lack of fan interest
3. Lack of success-bad basketball, mediocre football

Pac simply has less viewership.

Several inherent flaws, which is why the PAC has been trying to become less PAC for decades. And why they couldn’t. Going long on college athletics in west coast is a tough sell. Now impossible without La.


We need the BIG and Big 12 to salvage what’s left of college sports in the west