I wonder at what point the 4 California schools make back channel overtures to the Big Ten about a mega-conference.

If USC/Stanford approach Northwestern concerning the matter they can keep it free of FOIA and Sunshine Law oversight.

(02-14-2019 01:47 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 11:13 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The MWC is going nowhere too.

Maybe the PAC could work out a deal to stream MWC games to help bolster overall numbers.

These G5 conferences can really help as they bring saturation and inventory.

The markets they gain would be Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico and Wyoming. If MWC could get UTEP and North Dakota State on board? You get 2 more states. They need to also do one with Big Sky and GNAC as well. Montana, Alaska and British Columbia would help. You do get one major tv market with Vancouver.

That is actually a misnomer. I live in the Central Valley of CA and the PAC-12 might as well be the SEC. Very little in the paper unless a local high school kid is playing and not a peep on talk radio. Drive down Hwy 99 from Sacramento to Bakersfield and good luck finding Bars with PAC-12 games on. In the Big 12 the 4 teams are pretty diverse and accessible to the population. Cheering for PAC-12 schools in CA is like cheering for Ivy League schools in New England but worse because at least the Ivies aren’t clustered in 2 metropolitan areas.

(02-15-2019 06:36 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

I very much doubt that. I collected the data on the B12 schools. As Admission Index goes the date is beloiw. The P12 would definitely take any school that was tier 1 or tier 2 AI. If you consider the Presidents and Chancellors attempted to replace OK State with KU you can see 5 of the 6 they were considering were safely above that red red line, and in fact above the green line. Texas Tech was the outlier, but it was based on the requirement of taking the public schools in Texas to get Texas.



Now everything to the right is my own value ranking based on the data. Frank the Tank did similar with the B12 Rose Ceremony, but I don't think he pulled the Equity in Athletics data from the DoE, nor did he pull the HERD R&D numbers. To the point the stuff on the right is subjective. I think it gives you a ball park, and when I ran it against the 20 schools the B12 evaluated it correctly predicted the 11 who got roses and threw out the other 9. (Note the ones who got roses ranged from 11 to 15 on the same scale these B12 and P12 schools use and range from 12 to 25)

As a rule of thumb for expansion, conferences look at the lowest rated existing member ... provided they are not an outlier, such as Washington State (you can't use WSU for P12 minimum, either for budget or for AI, they are just plan bad ... Leach does wonders there).

I think the realistic line is an Athletic Budget (for a P5 school) equal to say Oregon or Colorado (around $81M as reported to the Feds), and AI somewhere between Utah and Oregon State (say 1200 SAT).

Iowa State as an Institution qualifies, and it's AAU, like oregon and Arizona, overcomes some deficiency in selectivity. But their Athletic budget is as far short of desired as Washington State. (Note, a G5 you go maybe $15-20M lower on the theory they can build it up $20M with P5 revenues.)

UT, OU and KU hit every target easily. But we all know UT and OU are off the table. KU is very attractive and could probably move stand alone to the B1G or SEC and certainly would compliment UT or OU as a partner in either. But if they are not off the board the P12 should target them (KC market).

Baylor is a strong school but has too strong a religious control, like BYU, and are a non starter with honor code, LGBT, and T9 issues. The P12 Presidents and Chancellors simply would not be willing to associate with them. TCU is not as selective, but has better budget for athletics and if anything better athletics, plus DFW market. Their religious association is very modest, and not restrictive (it's a liberal denomination, as is SMU). But TCU is not a research school. So the P12 would have to bend on that to take them. KU and TCU would be an interesting pair.

ISU, K State, OK State and Tech without Texas are non starters, too many "red" markers and except for Tech having more than 25,000 full time undergrads, don't check off a single "blue" box criteria. West Virginia is the weakest of the lot and too far away to consider anyway.

The same standards of the P12 likely apply for both the SEC and B1G for expansion. So I think you can safely say Baylor, Tech, WVU, ISU, K State, OK State are not going anywhere.

Texas and OU can go anywhere, and KU will likely be on the move too. TCU is the wild card. Definitely out for the B1G. But one wonders about their value for P12, SEC (probably not realistic), and even ACC.

As for the G5 I ran a similar with the Rose ceremony in mind


What should be obvious is that the B12 Rose ceremony only required schools have a top 10 G5 budget and hit the 1200 SAT for AI (same for P12). Tulane and Rice were such strong institutions that they stretched the line (there by the way is a $3.5 M drop after Rice to a bunch of MAC schools). Geography did not play a part. On my score index all fell short of the 16 minimum to get an invite, although Cincy, UConn and BYU came closest. UCF has risen "1" on my listing due to their recent FB success -- their weak endowment is a concern. What is fascinating is ignoring Temple and the two egghead schools, there is surprisingly little value difference in the schools given a Rose.

UNLV and New Mexico are lowly ranked academically that they are non-starters. Believe me if UNLV were not such an awful institution the P12 would be talking to them. SDSU is so far off the budget list I didn't bother to grade them. But they'd probably rank "7" or "8" as an institution.

This data does give one a clue as to who the B12 would look at for replacements (assuming UConn is too far away, the egghead schools and Temple not enough athletic value), and also how slim the pickings are for the AAC to replace any schools sucked up by the B12. For G5 conferences, resources (athletic budget) matters most. ODU, FIU, UMass and Rice standout from the rest of G5 ... obviously that doesn't do a thing for AAC football and except UMass probably no much for Basketball either. If they lose 2, standing pat looks better than lowering standards.

Anyway, what I am trying to show is there is nothing much out there for the P12. Fixing their issues internally makes more sense. (But were I the P12 expansion committee, I'd keep the lines open for Texas should they blunder and find themselves in a B12 without OU or KU and be looking to replace them with some schools just as mediocre as K State and Texas Tech. But I'd more seriously talk with TCU and KU -- most likely they would not add either, but keep options open.

Slim pickings.

Some of those slim pickings are the PAC-12’s own doing. The UC has been key proponents of the California Master Plan for education which codifies the UC’s as the exclusive granter of advanced degrees. That means schools like SDSU and Fresno can only offer doctoral degrees in concert with the UC’s.

So what’s the result... California has some of the richest areas in the country where the UC System exists and generates IP and doctoral level talent. It also has some of the poorest areas in the country up the Central Valley, home to many of the Cal State System. It also results in forcing kids who want a P5 athletic experience to go to school out of state.

The result, much of the state could care less about the PAC-12.

(02-18-2019 07:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  That is actually a misnomer. I live in the Central Valley of CA and the PAC-12 might as well be the SEC. Very little in the paper unless a local high school kid is playing and not a peep on talk radio. Drive down Hwy 99 from Sacramento to Bakersfield and good luck finding Bars with PAC-12 games on. In the Big 12 the 4 teams are pretty diverse and accessible to the population. Cheering for PAC-12 schools in CA is like cheering for Ivy League schools in New England but worse because at least the Ivies aren’t clustered in 2 metropolitan areas.

So ... I guess the area between LA and SF is regarded by the California elites as their version of flyover-country?

(02-18-2019 08:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 07:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  That is actually a misnomer. I live in the Central Valley of CA and the PAC-12 might as well be the SEC. Very little in the paper unless a local high school kid is playing and not a peep on talk radio. Drive down Hwy 99 from Sacramento to Bakersfield and good luck finding Bars with PAC-12 games on. In the Big 12 the 4 teams are pretty diverse and accessible to the population. Cheering for PAC-12 schools in CA is like cheering for Ivy League schools in New England but worse because at least the Ivies aren’t clustered in 2 metropolitan areas.

So ... I guess the area between LA and SF is regarded by the California elites as their version of flyover-country?

Pretty much.

(02-18-2019 05:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder at what point the 4 California schools make back channel overtures to the Big Ten about a mega-conference.

If USC/Stanford approach Northwestern concerning the matter they can keep it free of FOIA and Sunshine Law oversight.

I would think they'd insist on UW and maybe a couple of others to come along for the ride.

(02-18-2019 05:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder at what point the 4 California schools make back channel overtures to the Big Ten about a mega-conference.

If USC/Stanford approach Northwestern concerning the matter they can keep it free of FOIA and Sunshine Law oversight.

Institutionally, they fit together, but it's a heck of a long way from the West Coast to the core of a Midwestern/Eastern conference.

I just don't see it being feasible.

(02-18-2019 05:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder at what point the 4 California schools make back channel overtures to the Big Ten about a mega-conference.

If USC/Stanford approach Northwestern concerning the matter they can keep it free of FOIA and Sunshine Law oversight.

Never. They much rather play the other west coast schools than send their other programs to the mid-west.

(02-15-2019 09:19 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(02-15-2019 01:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 08:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 04:22 PM)YNot Wrote:  How does the PAC realistically get into the Central time zone? Could it pry away any B12 schools before Texas and Oklahoma leave? The only non-P5 schools that appear to meet the academic rigor are Rice and Tulane. Houston and Memphis would move the needle for football and basketball....but don't appear to check the academics or flagship/fan-following boxes.

So, 6-7 more years of the status quo?

They added ASU and UA, I don't think the rigor is an issue. The Pac will add whoever they can from the XII split that isn't named Baylor, WVU and prob Iowa St. The few P5 teams that would be considered are UNLV and Houston.

Thing is that conferences like the Big Ten, SEC and PAC prefer flagship schools. Reason being that when they want to enter a new state it is to dominate or get a huge mind share of the state. If UT and OU go elsewhere then the pickings become very slim. The best candidate of those left would be Kansas, who has decent academics and a legendary basketball program but may not have enough to pan out economically for the model the PAC prefers. And even Kansas may not be available if they tag along one of the other two.

Houston may work but only as part of a large collection of schools heading west. But it's very tricky. Let's say not only are UT and A&M part of the power 4 but even Texas Tech is part of that group. Then any upside with UH goes down when three other Texas publics are in a position where they'd likely get substantial amount of attention from major media. No way would the PAC sign up with that type of risk hanging over them.

Any school that's west of the Continental Divide won't do anything for them if the goal is to enhance exposure in the two easternmost time zones.

So, yes, I agree with those who posit that it may be UT or bust with respect to the PAC.

I don't think PAC12/18 will like to accept religious schools. So the package should be Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Rice, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then SEC takes TCU, Baylor, Kansas and Kansas State. Then B1G takes West Virginia and Iowa State, still needs to raid two schools from ACC. Another path is that B1G fires first after PAC18. B1G takes Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia. SEC takes Baylor, TCU, UCF and USF.

If Texas decides to go independent like Notre Dame, PAC18 may take Nevada instead.

Can we please stop throwing around Rice as a candidate because of its academics? Athletics plays somewhat of a role no matter what the presidents think. The presidents are only in charge because the boosters on the board say so and if any president suggested rice the boosters would remind them who the Pres actually works for. Rice has as much a chance of joining the Pac as UConn does.

Most of the PAC12 problems are fixable. They need new, enthusiastic, and quality leadership that fits the circumstances.
Scott, when he began as Commissioner, tried a bold expansion move that only partially succeeded. Then later, he tried a coop-challenge agreement with the BIG that got sabotoged by a couple of the conference members. So he turned to generating a conference network that turned into a mess per carriage fees and access.
Their Presidents have a history of protectionism and what they see as self-interests over conference interests and working in unison.

(02-18-2019 04:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Texahoma died before either CU or Utah were members.

The four corner schools did not kill the OU and OK State request. It was a timing thing, plus once the dust settled, the early objections to OK State from the California schools and Washington had crystallized (these are the schools that pressed Scott to swap KU for OK State at the last minute, at the very moment Texas was killing the whole thing anyway). But beyond that the P12 had settled all the issues of integrating the two new schools and nobody wanted to reopen it. The P12 was flush with the largest TV contract of any P5 conference and the original reasons for a Texahoma Division for the moment forgotten. It wasn't a couple schools saying "we want to stay connected to California" rather a broad consensus that the Pac-12 was good and didn't need anyone else.

In this sense it was just as short sighted a decision as the B12 deciding WVU over Louisville instead of taking both. Looking back the P12 should have said "yes", at least to Oklahoma (never mind OK State or the issues of 13 instead of 12 schools), as this would have destabilized the B12 further and allowed them to possibly nab Texas or failing that Kansas; with Oklahoma State sitting there as a fall back. Fat and happy was the culprit in both cases, not any conspiracy then or now.

I wasn't suggesting they impacted a decision about Texhoma schools in the past. Just that they could, and probably would, have the ability to impact a future decision about Texhoma expansion.

(02-18-2019 04:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Both the Big 12 and the PAC-12 have a fundamental population issue. The power brokers in the PAC-12 are Stanford and USC. They combined with Texas and Oklahoma could easily drive a 16 team powerhouse centered in California and Texas. I would see a merger of equals that would have the following Teams:
Western: USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Arizona.
Central: Texas, TCU, Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, ...
The last two is interesting... I would pitch Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M to return. Assuming they did not you go Baylor or Houston, and Oklahoma State.

No, it is not USC and Stanford. It is the schools in Southern California, UCLA and USC. For example, when the Pac-10 decided to expand to 12 schools, the fight was over who would be in the South Division in football:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/new...id=5711336

USC and UCLA got some protection as both schools would get a $2 million bonus if the conference media revenues fall below $170 million. Colorado has a huge number of alumni in Southern California and wanted in the South, plus the recruiting advantages. The four Northwest schools lost a trip to LA each season, but were at least guaranteed a game against an LA team each season.

In a hypothetical situation, if USC and Stanford both left the Pac-12, the conference would survive and still have a school in LA. If both USC and UCLA left, the Pac-12 would be done. It is no different than if Texas left the Big 12. The size of the media market and the athletic talent makes Southern California extremely important to the Pac-12, which is why UCLA and USC have leverage in the Pac-12.

(02-18-2019 10:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 04:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Both the Big 12 and the PAC-12 have a fundamental population issue. The power brokers in the PAC-12 are Stanford and USC. They combined with Texas and Oklahoma could easily drive a 16 team powerhouse centered in California and Texas. I would see a merger of equals that would have the following Teams:
Western: USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Arizona.
Central: Texas, TCU, Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, ...
The last two is interesting... I would pitch Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M to return. Assuming they did not you go Baylor or Houston, and Oklahoma State.

No, it is not USC and Stanford. It is the schools in Southern California, UCLA and USC. For example, when the Pac-10 decided to expand to 12 schools, the fight was over who would be in the South Division in football:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/new...id=5711336

USC and UCLA got some protection as both schools would get a $2 million bonus if the conference media revenues fall below $170 million. Colorado has a huge number of alumni in Southern California and wanted in the South, plus the recruiting advantages. The four Northwest schools lost a trip to LA each season, but were at least guaranteed a game against an LA team each season.

In a hypothetical situation, if USC and Stanford both left the Pac-12, the conference would survive and still have a school in LA. If both USC and UCLA left, the Pac-12 would be done. It is no different than if Texas left the Big 12. The size of the media market and the athletic talent makes Southern California extremely important to the Pac-12, which is why UCLA and USC have leverage in the Pac-12.

The Ruins haven’t been relevant in a sport in some time.

(02-18-2019 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Another Ringing Endorsement For the PAC:

https://fishduck.com/2019/02/oregon-in-t...our-lives/

What a whiner. In 2016-2017, Oregon reported athletic revenue of $145 million, #12 in the country. In 2019, Oregon came in at #7 in recruiting in football in the country, according to 247sports. Their basketball recruiting was #3 in the country by 247sports in 2018. They made the final four in basketball in 2017 and the national championship game in football twice in the past decade. Oregon has the best track & field program in the country. They have some great facilities thanks to Nike. Life in the Pac-12 seems pretty good for Oregon.

We all know that under Larry Scott, the Pac-12 has the highest expenses and is invisible to much of the country. But even with that, Oregon has a terrific athletic program. The football team has not been as good the past three seasons and the current basketball team has injuries and has underperformed, but that is about Oregon. I just don't get the rant about the Pac-12? The MWC as an alternative? Boise State had athletic revenue of $45 million. Oregon only beats them by about $100 million. What a ridiculous rant.

(02-18-2019 10:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Most of the PAC12 problems are fixable. They need new, enthusiastic, and quality leadership that fits the circumstances.

Yes, the PAC is fundamentally and structurally very sound, and for that reason no current schools will ever leave it.

Good leadership that changes their failed approach to media is needed. Even Scott has acknowledged his error a little bit, by putting 10% of the rights up for sale.

Scott IMO has to go, he's been a bad commissioner. But the underlying dynamics of the PAC are A-OK.

I don’t see anybody leaving the pac 12 unless it’s a big block, like 8-10 schools,going to the big 10. I think the pac 12 has 2 options to consider for expansion.

1) target 6-8 big 12 schools in one move
2) target 2-4 regional schools to get more interest in the west for college sports

Also should move everything to Vegas, conference HQ, football title game and hoops tournaments. Change the network format and partner with fox or espn.

(02-19-2019 10:44 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I don’t see anybody leaving the pac 12 unless it’s a big block, like 8-10 schools,going to the big 10. I think the pac 12 has 2 options to consider for expansion.

1) target 6-8 big 12 schools in one move
2) target 2-4 regional schools to get more interest in the west for college sports

Also should move everything to Vegas, conference HQ, football title game and hoops tournaments. Change the network format and partner with fox or espn.

Do you think if PACxx expands to Nevada but only invite one school, do you think it should be University of Nevada or UNLV?

(02-18-2019 11:31 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 10:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 04:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Both the Big 12 and the PAC-12 have a fundamental population issue. The power brokers in the PAC-12 are Stanford and USC. They combined with Texas and Oklahoma could easily drive a 16 team powerhouse centered in California and Texas. I would see a merger of equals that would have the following Teams:
Western: USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Arizona.
Central: Texas, TCU, Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, ...
The last two is interesting... I would pitch Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M to return. Assuming they did not you go Baylor or Houston, and Oklahoma State.

No, it is not USC and Stanford. It is the schools in Southern California, UCLA and USC. For example, when the Pac-10 decided to expand to 12 schools, the fight was over who would be in the South Division in football:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/new...id=5711336

USC and UCLA got some protection as both schools would get a $2 million bonus if the conference media revenues fall below $170 million. Colorado has a huge number of alumni in Southern California and wanted in the South, plus the recruiting advantages. The four Northwest schools lost a trip to LA each season, but were at least guaranteed a game against an LA team each season.

In a hypothetical situation, if USC and Stanford both left the Pac-12, the conference would survive and still have a school in LA. If both USC and UCLA left, the Pac-12 would be done. It is no different than if Texas left the Big 12. The size of the media market and the athletic talent makes Southern California extremely important to the Pac-12, which is why UCLA and USC have leverage in the Pac-12.

The Ruins haven’t been relevant in a sport in some time.

First, the leverage or power that UCLA and USC have is the market. There are 23 million people living in Southern California. The only state with more people is Texas. It is the 2nd largest media market in the country. Two power conference schools in the same conference, 14 miles apart in the same city. It is one of the best rivalries in the country.

Secondly, UCLA has 116 NCAA titles, USC has 106 NCAA titles. That is 222 national titles between those two schools. Stanford has 118 NCAA championships. All three schools win championships, but only two are located in LA.

I guess your point is that UCLA has sucked in football lately and that is true. Eleven straight losses to Stanford in football is embarrassing. UCLA still produces a fair amount of football talent. They were tied with Stanford at #11 with 27 players on opening day NFL rosters:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...fl-rosters

USC had 32 players on opening day NFL rosters, which was #7.

(02-19-2019 12:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:31 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 10:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 04:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Both the Big 12 and the PAC-12 have a fundamental population issue. The power brokers in the PAC-12 are Stanford and USC. They combined with Texas and Oklahoma could easily drive a 16 team powerhouse centered in California and Texas. I would see a merger of equals that would have the following Teams:
Western: USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Arizona.
Central: Texas, TCU, Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, ...
The last two is interesting... I would pitch Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M to return. Assuming they did not you go Baylor or Houston, and Oklahoma State.

No, it is not USC and Stanford. It is the schools in Southern California, UCLA and USC. For example, when the Pac-10 decided to expand to 12 schools, the fight was over who would be in the South Division in football:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/new...id=5711336

USC and UCLA got some protection as both schools would get a $2 million bonus if the conference media revenues fall below $170 million. Colorado has a huge number of alumni in Southern California and wanted in the South, plus the recruiting advantages. The four Northwest schools lost a trip to LA each season, but were at least guaranteed a game against an LA team each season.

In a hypothetical situation, if USC and Stanford both left the Pac-12, the conference would survive and still have a school in LA. If both USC and UCLA left, the Pac-12 would be done. It is no different than if Texas left the Big 12. The size of the media market and the athletic talent makes Southern California extremely important to the Pac-12, which is why UCLA and USC have leverage in the Pac-12.

The Ruins haven’t been relevant in a sport in some time.

First, the leverage or power that UCLA and USC have is the market. There are 23 million people living in Southern California. The only state with more people is Texas. It is the 2nd largest media market in the country. Two power conference schools in the same conference, 14 miles apart in the same city. It is one of the best rivalries in the country.

Secondly, UCLA has 116 NCAA titles, USC has 106 NCAA titles. That is 222 national titles between those two schools. Stanford has 118 NCAA championships. All three schools win championships, but only two are located in LA.

I guess your point is that UCLA has sucked in football lately and that is true. Eleven straight losses to Stanford in football is embarrassing. UCLA still produces a fair amount of football talent. They were tied with Stanford at #11 with 27 players on opening day NFL rosters:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...fl-rosters

USC had 32 players on opening day NFL rosters, which was #7.

First of all and more to the point for this discussion (revenue) it is the championships in football and basketball that matter to the national audience. Baseball and Soccer lag well behind in interest. Volleyball is regional in interest only like lacrosse and hockey.

Second the last time either USC or UCLA did anything noteworthy in the big 2 was 2004 for the Trojans and that football championship was stripped and tainted and today's freshmen class was about 5 years old when it happened. For UCLA the last championship was in 1995. The average college Senior was not even alive when that happened.

Nobody is questioning the historical sports histories of the two Los Angeles schools. What fans are obviously questioning is just how far have the two programs declined? Why is their attendance so lousy? And when will they see an upward trajectory?

Couple all of that with changing societal interests, professional sports options in the area, and the distribution issues for PAC cable and you have a negative synergy that is hammering the product. Toss in the time zone issues and you have a product that no network wants to own outright because they really only offer 2 time slots to the rest of the country and the second one is lousy for the East Coast.

There is a massive confluence of negative currents creating one helluva an undertow for PAC sports. I don't see a return to prominence in the near future. In fact with E sports holding the interest of the kiddies these days interest in the big 2 may never be recouped. Baseball is the safest but the least likely to hold a viewers attention.

I think the evolution of sports will be participation purposes, and when enough sports are selected by the young for participation then as they age they will tend to watch those sports.

Participation is dropping for football and that with the CTE issues, and the cost of playing, are not in its favor. I think baseball will have a little bit of a renaissance but gloves and bats and helmets aren't exactly inexpensive there either. Soccer is cheap. If the city provides the field all you really need is a good pair of shoes and a ball. So what are the big sports of the future? I don't think anybody really knows right now. Basketball is pretty inexpensive other than usually requiring a building to play in. The problem with basketball is that it really favors the big guys. Soccer and baseball not so much.

But the OP is PAC woes. Well here they are. They are 4th in a 5 way race for revenue and just barely out of last place. They are 4th in attendance and just barely out of last place. Time zone is killing them for ratings. Local fan interest as a % of population stinks. And they reside in one of the highest cost of living areas in the nation and they have easily the greatest travel distances of any of the P5.

Nobody can address all of those issues. But Scott found a way to compound all of it by choices that drove the overhead needlessly higher, over the sky high sitz im leben in which they operate anyway, which makes him an idiot.

(02-19-2019 12:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:31 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 10:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 04:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Both the Big 12 and the PAC-12 have a fundamental population issue. The power brokers in the PAC-12 are Stanford and USC. They combined with Texas and Oklahoma could easily drive a 16 team powerhouse centered in California and Texas. I would see a merger of equals that would have the following Teams:
Western: USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Arizona.
Central: Texas, TCU, Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, ...
The last two is interesting... I would pitch Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M to return. Assuming they did not you go Baylor or Houston, and Oklahoma State.

No, it is not USC and Stanford. It is the schools in Southern California, UCLA and USC. For example, when the Pac-10 decided to expand to 12 schools, the fight was over who would be in the South Division in football:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/new...id=5711336

USC and UCLA got some protection as both schools would get a $2 million bonus if the conference media revenues fall below $170 million. Colorado has a huge number of alumni in Southern California and wanted in the South, plus the recruiting advantages. The four Northwest schools lost a trip to LA each season, but were at least guaranteed a game against an LA team each season.

In a hypothetical situation, if USC and Stanford both left the Pac-12, the conference would survive and still have a school in LA. If both USC and UCLA left, the Pac-12 would be done. It is no different than if Texas left the Big 12. The size of the media market and the athletic talent makes Southern California extremely important to the Pac-12, which is why UCLA and USC have leverage in the Pac-12.

The Ruins haven’t been relevant in a sport in some time.

First, the leverage or power that UCLA and USC have is the market. There are 23 million people living in Southern California. The only state with more people is Texas. It is the 2nd largest media market in the country. Two power conference schools in the same conference, 14 miles apart in the same city. It is one of the best rivalries in the country.

Secondly, UCLA has 116 NCAA titles, USC has 106 NCAA titles. That is 222 national titles between those two schools. Stanford has 118 NCAA championships. All three schools win championships, but only two are located in LA.

First point is well taken: The PAC is the only game in town in southern California, obviously one of the most lucrative markets in the country. That's one reason why the PAC is fundamentally in a very strong position, despite Scott's terrible leadership.

Second point? No, because nobody cares about all those national championships in lesser sports. Nationally, people care about football and men's basketball, and then there's a big dropoff to baseball and maybe women's hoops, and then after that you fall off an even bigger cliff, with just pockets of interest in niche sports (e.g., they will go nuts in Boston for a hockey title and in parts of Maryland for a lacrosse title).

The PAC hasn't won a basketball title in over 20 years now, and the last iffy football title was a good 15 years ago. That's very weak and that's what conferences get judged on.