Jericho
2nd String
Posts: 356
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 57
I Root For: Rice
Location: |
RE: Breaking (Thamel): Big 12 and Pac-12 Won't Partner
(07-20-2022 11:38 AM)Win5002 Wrote: (07-19-2022 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (07-19-2022 02:05 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote: (07-19-2022 01:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (07-19-2022 01:26 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: The most attractive package for the PAC10 is TTech, Baylor, Kansas, OSU with TCU/Houston kickers. But even if it's only the first four, it's just something the networks are not going to pay for.
The networks WILL BE attracted to the idea of Colorado returning with the Big 8 schools along with Arizonas. This package makes sense and the payout would be slightly better than remaining in the PAC for these corner 4s. Kliavkoff is going to have to pull something out of his ass to keep those schools in house, because I'd say 65% chance NBC pays to make that move in the next couple of months. I think Utah is more than likely going in that case as well.
At that point, the Pac6 will invite some MWC schools. CSU, BSU, Zaga, SDSU, and Fresno or Hawaii make the most sense. But damn... that's ugly. The nightmare scenario is UO and WU go to the Big 12 as well, but I don't see that happening. They will try to make money with a Pacific Northwest League. I wonder if CBS sports would be involved with negotiating that package.
I don't know why this is an article of faith.
Even if we were to take a totally football-only brand value point of view (regardless of institutional fit or academic prestige), the two most valuable schools between the Pac-12 and Big 12 are Oregon and Washington. It would stand to reason that taking the best handful of Big 12 schools and putting them in a league where they play UO and UW would be more valuable than a Big 12 that adds the Four Corners schools *without* UO and UW.
It's why I'm continually perplexed by how by the perception of the relative positions of the Big 12 and Pac-12. The whole reason why the Pac-12 is "unstable" is BECAUSE they have the better brands. The instability is all predicated on, "Well, the Big Ten might take the next best Pac-12 brands because they're valuable." Then, in the next sentence, people rip on the Pac-12 brands for supposedly not being valuable. People can't have it both ways - either the Pac-12 brands are so valuable that the Big Ten is willing to expand with them further or they're not valuable at all. There's a point where the Big Ten IS going to stop expanding when it signs its new TV contract. So, if the Pac-12 keeps all of those brands, it's simply a more valuable league than the Big 12 in terms of conference realignment if only because of Oregon and Washington.
Now, schools can act suddenly and/or irrationally out of fear, so it's not as if though I totally discount the Big 12 raiding the Pac-12, but I just think that prospect continues to be overrated while the reverse of the Pac-12 raiding the Big 12 continues to be underrated.
You keep thinking primarily like a fan.
It is not both ways as much as it is having a basic understanding of risk mitigation.
The dynamics are not too different than why some thought the Big 12 was more vulnerable than the PAC the last 12 years despite having higher valuation and better performance. When you have value that has known interest in leaving, you inherently have higher risk and are unstable. There are many brands with little value to a conference as free agents, with their primary value being taking them from the PAC results in the PAC needing to backfill with G5. Can the PAC survive at 7? If so, then the Big 12 wouldn't have as much interest in AZ, ASU, and CU.
And you fail to see the difference between brands and having value. The PAC lacks football and monetary value outside the schools causing the risk. Some "takes" but not ones with leverage. Brand name schools and peer groups have little value outside the P2.
This causes division. Schools dealing with the P2 hopefuls of the PAC can't afford the risks pushed on them. They will seek to offload. If all 10 are willing to sign a long GOR, perhaps the PAC survives for now. But it likely has a similar outcome as the Big 12 2010-2021 unless the P2 are done.
Then there a host of more econometric reasons as to why all top leftovers should favor consolidation, and a functionally CA-less PAC the least optimal in becoming the base of that. All PAC schools have higher valuations the less PAC they can get.
Without the ESPN long position on the ACC, the market would gravitate towards the Big 12. We'll see if ESPN has another LHN type move in its pocket, as if ESPN doesn't do something, its ACC problem gets very costly or they lose more market share.
I’m not thinking like a fan here (as I’m honestly not a Pac-12 or Big 12 fan).
What you’re pointing to is simply that this is a prisoner’s dilemma situation. If all of the Pac-12 holds together, they’re more valuable than the Big 12. However, if any one Pac-12 school leaves, then the Big 12 has more value and the Pac-12 falls. The Big 12’s hopes are pretty much all pinned on the latter. I find the chances of the latter happening quite low (and yes, it’s because I think fans are underestimating just how snobby AAU schools like Colorado, Utah and Arizona can be even when it’s supposed to be all about the money).
The other difference is that the Big 12 previously had a *known* flight risk that every single other league in the country would absolutely take: Texas.
Oregon and Washington might be flight risks on paper, but they aren’t assured Big Ten or SEC candidates in the same way Texas unambiguously was.
Don’t get me wrong - UO or UW leaving the Pac-12 changes everything and effectively kills that league, but thinking that Pac-12 schools will preemptively jump before that happens really doesn’t make sense once schools get over that initial fear element in a prisoner’s dilemma situation.
You may may be able to make the argument based on the past the PAC 12 leftovers were worth more than the B12 but I think the USC/UCLA loss was more devastating to the PAC 12 than OU/UT to the Big 12. I think the Big 12 will do better ratings wise going forward than the PAC 12. Yes, losing OU/UT was huge but there will still be a lot of people in Texas interested in the Big 12. I don't think you will have the same interest in Southern California in the PAC now that USC & UCLA are gone. The PAC now is looking at additions the B12 rejected, again an advantage for the B12. These additions also add the Cincinnati, Orlando, Salt Lake City markets and solidy Houston for the B12 while retaining all of their previous markets. The PAC is going to try and replace LA market with the San Diego and Boise market?
I think the existing PAC schools will now struggle recruiting wise in southern California because the B1G schools will be elevated in that area. I'm not sure how that effects UW and to a lesser extent Oregon going forward since Oregon has recruited more nationally. You think the PAC is stronger because of those two brands but I'm not sure how that effects them. I can also tell you losing the Southern California market will hurt those two schools ratings in conference, and I think to a larger extent than the new B12 T1 games in conference.
It strikes me odd if the PAC 12 still had the advantage that Jon Wilner Pac 12/Bay area schools writer was campaigning for a full merger. Now that the full merger is off the table at the choice of the Big 12, this morning he tweets the Big 12 should add 8 and go big (leaving WSU & OSU behind) or stay at 12.
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...6061173760
When has Jon Wilner ever been bullish on the B12 before?
There seems to be a lot of fuzzy logic in that post. Oklahoma had better ratings than USC and Texas had better ratings than UCLA. And yet somehow the USC/UCLA is "more devastating" of a loss. How exactly?
Maybe the Big 12 will do better ratings wise going forward than the PAC. They were before this. So that's not a change per se. But you seem to highlight the loss of SoCal to the PAC. It's a reasonable assumption that the interest in Southern California will decrease. But you specifically parcel out California while just considering Texas as a while. You claim that there will "still be a lot of people in Texas interested in the Big 12". By the sane token, there will still be a lot of people in California interested in the PAC. Both conferences are losing chunks of its audience though.
And I don't think the markets thing matters that much. Plus, are we really trying to say U of H is going to deliver all of Houston? The fact that A&M and UT aren't that far away suggest a lot of the city is likely looking more towards the SEC these days (also note, I don't think the PAC is all that serious about expanding).
I also think the recruiting angle is overblown. Are SoCal kinds suddenly all going to go to the Big 10? No. The Big 10 is good enough to recruit basically anywhere, but having 12 % of your schools in the state isn't going to change the fact the other 88% are really far away. And if you might get one local game every two years? If anything, if a kid wants to stay semi-local it might help some of the closer schools.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2022 02:14 PM by Jericho.)
|
|
/
Breaking (Thamel): Big 12 and Pac-12 Won't Partner
