(11-27-2018 09:07 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:53 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Still think Texas, OU and their +2 to the PAC can still happen. They are the only ones with the room to take those two and their preferred little bros.

Agree it’s possible. Although I honestly feel like it would’ve happened by now if it was really going to.

Yup. The Horns don't want to go anywhere as long as the Big 12 remains financially and competitively viable for them.

(11-27-2018 05:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

You either misunderstand or are just misrepresenting what that would have been.

It was a proposal for scheduling. There was no revenue sharing involved, and no additional money on offer. It would have been like the basketball "challenges" that ESPN has engineered with a few pairs of conferences, except extended to football and a few other sports. Like ESPN's basketball "challenges", the TV guys would have chosen the matchups of teams in football. That's why USC and Stanford objected, because they already play Notre Dame every year in football and didn't want ESPN foisting another difficult non-conference game on them every year. USC thought, probably correctly, that ESPN would want to juice ratings by matching USC with Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State most years. Even a USC hater like me understands why USC's football coaches didn't want to sign up for that in addition to playing ND every year.

Would it have been fun for fans? Sure. Is it a big deal that it didn't happen? Nope.

When “the collaboration” surfaced in 2011, it was reported to potentially broaden the potency of the respective networks and marketing reach. The content was believed to benefit both conferences’ networks. There was money to be made from this.

We know it fell apart, because of football, and numerous configurations were proposed.

The sense of certainty over the profitability came from the Big Ten, after expanding with Maryland and Rutgers. I can’t remember if it was from Delany himself or one of the member presidents or athletic directors who said the expansion to fourteen was prompted by the PAC turning down the scheduling arrangements. I remember the quote was something like them knowing the scheduling agreement brought on the B1G’s ability to restructure its arrangements; once off the table, conference expansion reopened that window. I just wish I could find the quote (from 2013, I think?).

(11-27-2018 08:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Larry Scott isn't the problem. The PAC 12 universities need to mutually agree to increase their investments in college football and basketball or they risk turning into the Ivy League but not in a good way. More along the lines of an elitist, out of touch conference that puts little investment in their athletic product yet complains they aren't given the respect that their historical success should entitle them to but the present product does not merit.

Also, USC needs to stop overshceduling. Until they can be consistent big winners again they should not be playing 9 conference games plus ND and Texas in the same year.

MWC is catching up to them when you get UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Stanford, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Colorado, Washington and Washington State losing to the G5 and FCS schools. Boise State caused them the most damage with the PAC 12 schools being owned by them.

Didn't read the article, but not really sure he's the problem. He negotiated a deal that was tremendous (others have caught up since, but given bigger advantages, that was expected). Marketing the league isn't the huge issue. The big issue issue is that the top of the conference has been relatively week for some time which hurts attention (which is magnified by time zone issues). Really the ACC of most the lack decade had the same issue with a lot of decent middle tier programs, but no one playing at the top level and thus largely being left out of the national conversation. This part at least will fix itself sooner or later.

(11-27-2018 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I honestly don’t see what the issue is, except maybe that Larry Scott is overpaid. But it’s not like he negotiated his contract with himself.

Bottom line: the PAC-12 on-field athletics product is just not as valuable as the SEC’s or the B1G’s, and it never will be, barring some major/dramatic realignment in the future. If the PAC is not okay with that, then they need to bribe Texas (they can bring a friend) into joining. Until that happens, the bitching and moaning can go on forever. Won’t change anything.

This is correct, the PAC has a population problem. Unless they focus on fixing it with Texas they will fall further behind.

(11-27-2018 07:47 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 01:33 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 12:31 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Left out: How Larry Scott and the Pac-12 continue to lose ground in the college football arms race

The PAC has it's issues.

Seems their commish is doing the athletic equivalent of Ford focusing on it's "hybrids" while ignoring the F-150.

It's nice to have hybirds doing well. Looks good, maybe enhances the sense of pride, gives you something to brag about at the country club, but the F-150 is where the MONEY is at.

It should be interesting to see how the PAC AD's and Presidents react during the next round of negotiations for media rights. If the PAC is being left in the dust money wise, don't be surprised if several schools look "elsewhere" when the next "new" contracts expire. Wouldn't be surprised if a few started putting out feelers in the next couple years.

Personally, I'm sure Husker fans wouldn't mind if their Buffalo friends joined the team. A nice trip to Berkley in November might not be bad for Badger fans as well.

Just sayin.....

But the hybrids are the future and gas guzzling trucks are about to become extinct. Also once gas prices goes up again...and they will...those trucks will be collecting dust on the lots. Anyone remember the hummer?

While I'd argue about the longevity of Trucks & SUV's vs. Hybrids, it doesn't change the fact that those Trucks & SUV's are where the money is at and will be for the foreseeable future.

For all we know, in 20 years, hybrids and electric cars could be just as extinct as the SUV. You never know what's around the corner.



Back to the sports, it's nice to know your woman's cross country team is winning championships, but it's football that pays the bills so football should be where the emphasis is at.

(11-28-2018 12:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Didn't read the article, but not really sure he's the problem. He negotiated a deal that was tremendous (others have caught up since, but given bigger advantages, that was expected). Marketing the league isn't the huge issue. The big issue issue is that the top of the conference has been relatively week for some time which hurts attention (which is magnified by time zone issues).

Like Aresco in the AAC, the most successful negotiation that Scott has conducted has been for himself *versus* the conference they lead, namely their salary.

There is no justification I can think of for Scott making as much as the B1G and SEC commissioners combined.

Beyond that, the main issue to me is the big bet Scott and the PAC made on totally owning and running their own network. So far, that has not paid off, and it has led to very large administrative expenses. PAC revenue was $509m last year but they had $140m in expenses, that is out-sized. The PAC needs to get its costs down, and the PACN might not be the way to go.

There's a reason vertical integration isn't nearly as popular a strategy in business as it was 50 years ago - many firms have learned that it is more profitable to give up control and revenue to an outsource partner that specializes in something and therefore can deliver for less than they can do it themselves.

One thing we do have to keep in mind though is that even conferences with TV deals have related expenses and those don't necessarily get widely reported. E.g., in 2015, the SEC schools spent about $2.5m each on average to purchase broadcasting and production equipment to get their campus facilities ready for the SECN. They had to spend that money to meet ESPN production standards. Granted, that was a one time expense, but there will be ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs for all of that.

(11-28-2018 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There is no justification I can think of for Scott making as much as the B1G and SEC commissioners combined.

Again, presidents approved that. How is it his fault?

He might not manage the crazy well, but, if it isn't sinking in yet, they're on their own orbit out there; accountable to nobody but themselves.

(11-28-2018 10:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There is no justification I can think of for Scott making as much as the B1G and SEC commissioners combined.

Again, presidents approved that. How is it his fault?

I didn't say it was his fault, any more than it is Aresco's fault that IMO the AAC overpays him so much. If i were those guys, I'd try to get as much money for myself as I could too.

But it is the PAC's fault. They are overpaying dramatically for Scott, IMO. It is symptomatic of their cost problem.

People around here keep claiming the PAC has a revenue problem - stuff like "the PAC is trapped out west behind the mountains, it can't make as much as the other P5, etc.". But last year the PAC made $507m. That's very healthy, big time revenue.

The PAC owns California, which is like the 5th largest economy in the world. Plus they have significant presence in other major western cities like Seattle, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Denver. And they don't overlap any other P5 conferences. That is a huge world of money-making potential.

Their problem is on the cost side.

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He can only do what the presidents allow him to do.

He's not responsible for voting down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Member institution presidents did that.

He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

Now, either one of these actions would have created an opportunity to restructure the media deal(s) they were in, and redirect the revenue flow(s). How is that his problem? He brought these to the table.

If he's responsible for not properly making college presidents understand how faulty their logic, stuffy and confining their "traditions" are, well, get in line. Nobody is really pulling that off. Not even in the Big Ten (ahem, FCS opponents off the schedule...but still are).

This writer is a fool. He should direct his finger-waving to Oregon and Oregon State's presidents for not properly coaxing their colleagues (or themselves) for not taking the opportunities (yes, plural) Scott helped to broker.

Choosing beggars.

The Big 10 successful convinced its Presidents to let football run the roost. Evidence: the Big 10 let Nebraska in.

I was told by someone in the CIC (the Big 10's academic arm) that the CIC was not informed about Nebraska's Big 10 candidacy until it was a done deal. And the CIC seriously considered not admitting Nebraska even though it was already announced that they were admitted to the Big 10. That tells you what the Presidents thought about whether or not Nebraska belonged in the Big 10.

(11-28-2018 12:41 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I honestly don’t see what the issue is, except maybe that Larry Scott is overpaid. But it’s not like he negotiated his contract with himself.

Bottom line: the PAC-12 on-field athletics product is just not as valuable as the SEC’s or the B1G’s, and it never will be, barring some major/dramatic realignment in the future. If the PAC is not okay with that, then they need to bribe Texas (they can bring a friend) into joining. Until that happens, the bitching and moaning can go on forever. Won’t change anything.

This is correct, the PAC has a population problem. Unless they focus on fixing it with Texas they will fall further behind.

No, the Pac-12 does not have a population problem. California alone has 40 million people. The total population of the Pac-12 states is 67 million. UCLA and USC play in the #2 TV market in the country. Stanford and Cal play in the #8 TV market in the country. The Phoenix market is #12, the Seattle market is #13, the Denver market is #17, Portland #22 and Salt Lake City #30. The markets are as good as any conference in the country, they are just located in the west, not in the east.

They have at least five schools with athletic budgets of over $100 million (Oregon, Washington, USC, UCLA and Stanford). These schools are loaded with money. Oregon had athletic revenue of $145 million in 2016-2017. In 2014, UCLA set a goal of raising $4.2 billion, their Centennial Campaign, by the end of 2019. They surpassed the goal in July, 18 months ahead of schedule.

These schools are recruiting good athletes. USC and UCLA were a combined 8-16 in football this season. USC was ranked #3 by Rivals in 2018 football recruiting, UCLA #19. Four of the top 15 picks in the 2018 NFL draft were Pac-12 players.

Adding schools does not solve the performance issues in football and basketball. They have to start winning games. UCLA basketball had another top five recruiting class. They have three McDonald's All-Americans on their roster, yet they got pounded twice in the last week. Someone has to explain to me what adding schools will do to make that better.

It's not a population problem or money problem. The PAC 12 has a parity problem and a scheduling structure problem.

Teams 1-10 all have the potential to beat up on each other. The 9-game conference schedule with only 12 teams means more losses for even the top-half of the conference - and the fact that USC, UCLA, and Stanford play each other every season often magnifies the problem.

#1 Washington beat #2 nd #3, but lost to #5 Oregon and #7 Cal.

#2 WSU beat #3 and #4, but lost to #8 USC and #1.

#3 Utah beat #4, but lost to #5 ASU and played and lost to both #1 and #2.

#4 Stanford played and lost to all three of #1, #2, and #3.

#5 Arizona St. beat #3, but lost to #1 and #4.

The only way to fix this is to reduce the number of conference games so you reduce the potential where the top teams in the conference all play each other. You would get even shinier win-loss records and better rankings if you went to 8 games and added a couple of schools. You're more likely to get multiple 10-win teams and the middle tier of the conference is 8-4 instead of 7-5. That makes a big difference when it comes to polls and rankings.

(11-28-2018 11:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He can only do what the presidents allow him to do.

He's not responsible for voting down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Member institution presidents did that.

He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

Now, either one of these actions would have created an opportunity to restructure the media deal(s) they were in, and redirect the revenue flow(s). How is that his problem? He brought these to the table.

If he's responsible for not properly making college presidents understand how faulty their logic, stuffy and confining their "traditions" are, well, get in line. Nobody is really pulling that off. Not even in the Big Ten (ahem, FCS opponents off the schedule...but still are).

This writer is a fool. He should direct his finger-waving to Oregon and Oregon State's presidents for not properly coaxing their colleagues (or themselves) for not taking the opportunities (yes, plural) Scott helped to broker.

Choosing beggars.

The Big 10 successful convinced its Presidents to let football run the roost. Evidence: the Big 10 let Nebraska in.

I was told by someone in the CIC (the Big 10's academic arm) that the CIC was not informed about Nebraska's Big 10 candidacy until it was a done deal. And the CIC seriously considered not admitting Nebraska even though it was already announced that they were admitted to the Big 10. That tells you what the Presidents thought about whether or not Nebraska belonged in the Big 10.

I don't know how a commissioner influences the very same people who voted to kick Nebraska out of the AAU into then voting Nebraska into the Big Ten with the CIC added. I am sure faculty wanted no part of Nebraska...it was no secret to those in academe UNL was not a place for respectable and serious academics to settle. But, I don't see that as Delany mastery as much as just more of the same of how bankrupt or inconsistent these institutional presidents are. I think in that case, the two happened to be in sync in their own messed up ways.

That whole situation that brought Nebraska on was pretty lousy. What the Big Ten did to Maryland, or, rather, what Maryland's own leadership (president included) allowed to have happen to their board, this is what I'm saying. I think it goes to show the other extreme of the dysfunction; this is supposed to be checks and balances. What the Big Ten did to Maryland, gagging it the way it did and shamefully taking public institution operations away from transparency...presidents shouldn't have been okay with that if Delany was, and vice-versa (nevermind UMD's willingness). It's not coincidental that kind of tone deaf move was done by the same guy who didn't want to hand over control of medical investigations from its own facilities, and then the conditions that wound up happening to a student athlete, all roads merge to the guy being asked to leave. These presidents...they suck as leaders and they don't seem like real or good people, either. But they have all this say and stroke on things that we then mistakingly point back somewhere else. Put it where it belongs...back at the schools.

(11-28-2018 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Didn't read the article, but not really sure he's the problem. He negotiated a deal that was tremendous (others have caught up since, but given bigger advantages, that was expected). Marketing the league isn't the huge issue. The big issue issue is that the top of the conference has been relatively week for some time which hurts attention (which is magnified by time zone issues).

Like Aresco in the AAC, the most successful negotiation that Scott has conducted has been for himself *versus* the conference they lead, namely their salary.

There is no justification I can think of for Scott making as much as the B1G and SEC commissioners combined.

Beyond that, the main issue to me is the big bet Scott and the PAC made on totally owning and running their own network. So far, that has not paid off, and it has led to very large administrative expenses. PAC revenue was $509m last year but they had $140m in expenses, that is out-sized. The PAC needs to get its costs down, and the PACN might not be the way to go.

There's a reason vertical integration isn't nearly as popular a strategy in business as it was 50 years ago - many firms have learned that it is more profitable to give up control and revenue to an outsource partner that specializes in something and therefore can deliver for less than they can do it themselves.

One thing we do have to keep in mind though is that even conferences with TV deals have related expenses and those don't necessarily get widely reported. E.g., in 2015, the SEC schools spent about $2.5m each on average to purchase broadcasting and production equipment to get their campus facilities ready for the SECN. They had to spend that money to meet ESPN production standards. Granted, that was a one time expense, but there will be ongoing maintenance and upgrade costs for all of that.

Every school that hopes to have streaming revenue has to spend a little on technological overhead Quo. The ACC, Big 10, and Big 12 schools do as well. And the costs of those facilities upgrades wound up a bit higher than 2.5 million. But for athletic departments making on average around 130 million 2.5 million is less than 2%.

The problem for the PAC is low interest within the footprint, high expectations among disconnected presidents, and a commissioner that more than a few people don't like dealing with, and the need to project a high dollar image whether that is of the conference or of it's staff. Meanwhile, the product is forced to get by on a non competitive revenue stream. That's why my criticism was image over product quality.

(11-28-2018 02:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  It's not a population problem or money problem. The PAC 12 has a parity problem and a scheduling structure problem.

Teams 1-10 all have the potential to beat up on each other. The 9-game conference schedule with only 12 teams means more losses for even the top-half of the conference - and the fact that USC, UCLA, and Stanford play each other every season often magnifies the problem.

#1 Washington beat #2 nd #3, but lost to #5 Oregon and #7 Cal.

#2 WSU beat #3 and #4, but lost to #8 USC and #1.

#3 Utah beat #4, but lost to #5 ASU and played and lost to both #1 and #2.

#4 Stanford played and lost to all three of #1, #2, and #3.

#5 Arizona St. beat #3, but lost to #1 and #4.

The only way to fix this is to reduce the number of conference games so you reduce the potential where the top teams in the conference all play each other. You would get even shinier win-loss records and better rankings if you went to 8 games and added a couple of schools. You're more likely to get multiple 10-win teams and the middle tier of the conference is 8-4 instead of 7-5. That makes a big difference when it comes to polls and rankings.

You swallow a camel and strain at a gnat. They do have a product problem. Their OOC winning percentage is lousy. The reason they have parity is because they all are below the talent level of the other conferences they compete with, just not each other. And it didn't just start happening.

(11-28-2018 01:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:41 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I honestly don’t see what the issue is, except maybe that Larry Scott is overpaid. But it’s not like he negotiated his contract with himself.

Bottom line: the PAC-12 on-field athletics product is just not as valuable as the SEC’s or the B1G’s, and it never will be, barring some major/dramatic realignment in the future. If the PAC is not okay with that, then they need to bribe Texas (they can bring a friend) into joining. Until that happens, the bitching and moaning can go on forever. Won’t change anything.

This is correct, the PAC has a population problem. Unless they focus on fixing it with Texas they will fall further behind.

No, the Pac-12 does not have a population problem. California alone has 40 million people. The total population of the Pac-12 states is 67 million. UCLA and USC play in the #2 TV market in the country. Stanford and Cal play in the #8 TV market in the country. The Phoenix market is #12, the Seattle market is #13, the Denver market is #17, Portland #22 and Salt Lake City #30. The markets are as good as any conference in the country, they are just located in the west, not in the east.

They have at least five schools with athletic budgets of over $100 million (Oregon, Washington, USC, UCLA and Stanford). These schools are loaded with money. Oregon had athletic revenue of $145 million in 2016-2017. In 2014, UCLA set a goal of raising $4.2 billion, their Centennial Campaign, by the end of 2019. They surpassed the goal in July, 18 months ahead of schedule.

These schools are recruiting good athletes. USC and UCLA were a combined 8-16 in football this season. USC was ranked #3 by Rivals in 2018 football recruiting, UCLA #19. Four of the top 15 picks in the 2018 NFL draft were Pac-12 players.

Adding schools does not solve the performance issues in football and basketball. They have to start winning games. UCLA basketball had another top five recruiting class. They have three McDonald's All-Americans on their roster, yet they got pounded twice in the last week. Someone has to explain to me what adding schools will do to make that better.

The most glaring part is the Big Ten gets about 50 cents/subscriber, the SEC Network 74 cents, and Pac 12 gets 11 cents. Scott is not the one in the way of the conference not having a deal with DirecTV in last four years. The presidents/chancellors are. And now, they're off ATT Uverse, so on no ATT property.
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...verse.html

Scott is not like a mayor, he is more akin to a city manager. He provides all the information required for the presidents/chancellors to make a decision and it is his responsibility to execute it. Unfortunately, they're executing themselves.

(11-28-2018 11:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He can only do what the presidents allow him to do.

He's not responsible for voting down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Member institution presidents did that.

He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

Now, either one of these actions would have created an opportunity to restructure the media deal(s) they were in, and redirect the revenue flow(s). How is that his problem? He brought these to the table.

If he's responsible for not properly making college presidents understand how faulty their logic, stuffy and confining their "traditions" are, well, get in line. Nobody is really pulling that off. Not even in the Big Ten (ahem, FCS opponents off the schedule...but still are).

This writer is a fool. He should direct his finger-waving to Oregon and Oregon State's presidents for not properly coaxing their colleagues (or themselves) for not taking the opportunities (yes, plural) Scott helped to broker.

Choosing beggars.

The Big 10 successful convinced its Presidents to let football run the roost. Evidence: the Big 10 let Nebraska in.

I was told by someone in the CIC (the Big 10's academic arm) that the CIC was not informed about Nebraska's Big 10 candidacy until it was a done deal. And the CIC seriously considered not admitting Nebraska even though it was already announced that they were admitted to the Big 10. That tells you what the Presidents thought about whether or not Nebraska belonged in the Big 10.

The Big Ten presidents also keep a revenue sharing model for football and men's basketball gate receipts. The PAC ain't about to do that.

Also, the CIC has been renamed the BTAA (Big Ten Academic Alliance) and the University of Chicago is no longer a member.

(11-28-2018 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 02:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  It's not a population problem or money problem. The PAC 12 has a parity problem and a scheduling structure problem.

Teams 1-10 all have the potential to beat up on each other. The 9-game conference schedule with only 12 teams means more losses for even the top-half of the conference - and the fact that USC, UCLA, and Stanford play each other every season often magnifies the problem.

#1 Washington beat #2 nd #3, but lost to #5 Oregon and #7 Cal.

#2 WSU beat #3 and #4, but lost to #8 USC and #1.

#3 Utah beat #4, but lost to #5 ASU and played and lost to both #1 and #2.

#4 Stanford played and lost to all three of #1, #2, and #3.

#5 Arizona St. beat #3, but lost to #1 and #4.

The only way to fix this is to reduce the number of conference games so you reduce the potential where the top teams in the conference all play each other. You would get even shinier win-loss records and better rankings if you went to 8 games and added a couple of schools. You're more likely to get multiple 10-win teams and the middle tier of the conference is 8-4 instead of 7-5. That makes a big difference when it comes to polls and rankings.

You swallow a camel and strain at a gnat. They do have a product problem. Their OOC winning percentage is lousy. The reason they have parity is because they all are below the talent level of the other conferences they compete with, just not each other. And it didn't just start happening.

The chicken or the egg?

You can't just turn on a switch and magically increase the product or the talent level. What I offer is a real, tangible way that the PAC 12 could improve - despite the current obstacles.

PAC 12 schools only play 3 OOC games, and most include at least one tough game - often on the road. Washington had a 'neutral' SEC road trip to start the season. Stanford and USC have Notre Dame *every year*. USC and UCLA played at Texas. and at Oklahoma. Etc.

With a reduced conference schedule, the best teams in the conference can go 7-1 or 6-2, instead of 7-2 or 6-3. With the expanded and easier OOC schedule, the top schools also go at least 3-1 in the OOC (with an easy, payday home game added to the schedule). With that change, the PAC 12 would have more 10-2 and 11-1 teams at the top and more 8-4 teams in the middle. That would definitely help with the polls and rankings, which would help with recruiting, fan interest, TV ratings, attendance, and revenue.

(11-28-2018 01:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:41 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I honestly don’t see what the issue is, except maybe that Larry Scott is overpaid. But it’s not like he negotiated his contract with himself.

Bottom line: the PAC-12 on-field athletics product is just not as valuable as the SEC’s or the B1G’s, and it never will be, barring some major/dramatic realignment in the future. If the PAC is not okay with that, then they need to bribe Texas (they can bring a friend) into joining. Until that happens, the bitching and moaning can go on forever. Won’t change anything.

This is correct, the PAC has a population problem. Unless they focus on fixing it with Texas they will fall further behind.

No, the Pac-12 does not have a population problem. California alone has 40 million people. The total population of the Pac-12 states is 67 million. UCLA and USC play in the #2 TV market in the country. Stanford and Cal play in the #8 TV market in the country. The Phoenix market is #12, the Seattle market is #13, the Denver market is #17, Portland #22 and Salt Lake City #30. The markets are as good as any conference in the country, they are just located in the west, not in the east.

They have at least five schools with athletic budgets of over $100 million (Oregon, Washington, USC, UCLA and Stanford). These schools are loaded with money. Oregon had athletic revenue of $145 million in 2016-2017. In 2014, UCLA set a goal of raising $4.2 billion, their Centennial Campaign, by the end of 2019. They surpassed the goal in July, 18 months ahead of schedule.

These schools are recruiting good athletes. USC and UCLA were a combined 8-16 in football this season. USC was ranked #3 by Rivals in 2018 football recruiting, UCLA #19. Four of the top 15 picks in the 2018 NFL draft were Pac-12 players.

Adding schools does not solve the performance issues in football and basketball. They have to start winning games. UCLA basketball had another top five recruiting class. They have three McDonald's All-Americans on their roster, yet they got pounded twice in the last week. Someone has to explain to me what adding schools will do to make that better.

Count up the population of the states within the PAC-12 footprint and compare it with the SEC, ACC or Big 10 and you will see the PAC-12 has a significant gap. They don’t have enough states compared to others and have too many schools in low population states.
Pop rank of Pac12 states: 1, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31

The other major problem the PAC has is they are virtually invisible in major parts of the state. I live in Sacramento and college football is virtually invisible here. Try driving down Highway 99 and finding a bar that carries the PAC-12 network. It’s very hard to find as I found out. The PAC strives to be elite both in Football and Academics. I think they are finding that ,like the Ivy Leagues, those goals pull you in different directions.

(11-28-2018 03:33 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 01:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 12:41 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I honestly don’t see what the issue is, except maybe that Larry Scott is overpaid. But it’s not like he negotiated his contract with himself.

Bottom line: the PAC-12 on-field athletics product is just not as valuable as the SEC’s or the B1G’s, and it never will be, barring some major/dramatic realignment in the future. If the PAC is not okay with that, then they need to bribe Texas (they can bring a friend) into joining. Until that happens, the bitching and moaning can go on forever. Won’t change anything.

This is correct, the PAC has a population problem. Unless they focus on fixing it with Texas they will fall further behind.

No, the Pac-12 does not have a population problem. California alone has 40 million people. The total population of the Pac-12 states is 67 million. UCLA and USC play in the #2 TV market in the country. Stanford and Cal play in the #8 TV market in the country. The Phoenix market is #12, the Seattle market is #13, the Denver market is #17, Portland #22 and Salt Lake City #30. The markets are as good as any conference in the country, they are just located in the west, not in the east.

They have at least five schools with athletic budgets of over $100 million (Oregon, Washington, USC, UCLA and Stanford). These schools are loaded with money. Oregon had athletic revenue of $145 million in 2016-2017. In 2014, UCLA set a goal of raising $4.2 billion, their Centennial Campaign, by the end of 2019. They surpassed the goal in July, 18 months ahead of schedule.

These schools are recruiting good athletes. USC and UCLA were a combined 8-16 in football this season. USC was ranked #3 by Rivals in 2018 football recruiting, UCLA #19. Four of the top 15 picks in the 2018 NFL draft were Pac-12 players.

Adding schools does not solve the performance issues in football and basketball. They have to start winning games. UCLA basketball had another top five recruiting class. They have three McDonald's All-Americans on their roster, yet they got pounded twice in the last week. Someone has to explain to me what adding schools will do to make that better.

Count up the population of the states within the PAC-12 footprint and compare it with the SEC, ACC or Big 10 and you will see the PAC-12 has a significant gap. They don’t have enough states compared to others and have too many schools in low population states.
Pop rank of Pac12 states: 1, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31

The other major problem the PAC has is they are virtually invisible in major parts of the state. I live in Sacramento and college football is virtually invisible here. Try driving down Highway 99 and finding a bar that carries the PAC-12 network. It’s very hard to find as I found out. The PAC strives to be elite both in Football and Academics. I think they are finding that ,like the Ivy Leagues, those goals pull you in different directions.

This might be the most specious argument I've ever seen. It's beyond disingenuous to compare simply by adding up state populations, since the Pac-12 is uniquely the only one that - prior to the last expansion - had 2 institutions in every state and 4 in the state of California. It's not valid to say that the Pac-12 gets to claim the ~40MM people in California and the SEC gets to claim the ~30MM people who live in Texas. I daresay that the SEC doesn't control Florida (plenty of FSU and Miami fans), South Carolina (Clemson fans) or Kentucky (Louisville fans). The Pac-12 currently has teams in 6 of the top 22 markets in the US (#2 (LA), #8 (SF), #12 (Phoenix), #13 (Seattle), #17 (Denver) and #22 (Portland)). That compares very favorably with the SEC, which can claim Atlanta (#10) and portions of Houston (#7), Tampa (#11), Miami (#16) and Orlando (#18). And 5 of the top 8 fastest growing states are within the Pac-12's footprint (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/eco...9429001/), and that doesn't include California, which grew by the most numbers but not in terms of percentage.

No, the Pac-12 doesn't have a population problem. They have a combination of the parity problem YNot and JRSec pointed out combined with the fact that they've not had a potentially dominant team since Oregon (a whole 4 years ago). Jeez, maybe this is much ado about nothing?

USFFan