The actions of Mr. Commissioner seem to indicate a sense of panic within league offices. It really is getting embarrassing. It makes me wonder if they have had talks about expansion, but either schools already in the PAC are not interested, or they are have an issue finding quality schools outside the PAC to commit.

(10-27-2022 07:43 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 07:53 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of USC and UCLA fans were at least ambivalent about the situation. The huge $$ boost will be awesome, but they're not exactly lighting up the PAC in the past 5+ years, and they're about to get turned into ground meat by the B1G in football. They'll both be fine in basketball right away though I expect.

who exactly is going to turn them into ground meat in football? I get Ohio St and Michigan. But besides that?

Exactly. The Big Ten is two programs and a bunch of wannabes. USC, and UCLA don't change that.

Yes, agree with what you're saying, but if we're being honest; is there really any conference outside of the SEC that has more than 2 top tier programs? I think USC will be very competitive and I think you're also saying that. Probably instantly be a top 4 program in the conference.

I think that USC will be in the conversation in the B1G. They won't automatically lose out on top recruits to tOSU and Michigan the way most other programs do. UCLA? They might be pretty good, too, they have the same access to recruits that USC does and they have a quality coach and athletic program, and with B1G $$ they'll be able to significantly elevate the overall program.

(10-27-2022 11:17 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  The actions of Mr. Commissioner seem to indicate a sense of panic within league offices. It really is getting embarrassing. It makes me wonder if they have had talks about expansion, but either schools already in the PAC are not interested, or they are have an issue finding quality schools outside the PAC to commit.

This talk makes me wonder if some or all of the Pacific NW teams basically have invites from the Big 10, and this talk is really an (almost certainly futile) effort to get them to turn down the invites. "The teams that accepted their invites already have regrets."

In any case, I strongly suspect that the commissioner is talking this way because there's some bad news for the PAC that hasn't been disclosed to the public at large yet. But I am not sure exactly what that bad news is.


I don't remember the Big 12 blasting Texas and OU the same way 4 months after they announced their departures. The next day, sure, but not 4 months later.

(10-26-2022 08:50 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of USC and UCLA fans were at least ambivalent about the situation. The huge $$ boost will be awesome, but they're not exactly lighting up the PAC in the past 5+ years, and they're about to get turned into ground meat by the B1G in football. They'll both be fine in basketball right away though I expect.

You could not be more wrong.

The vast majority of USC fans are ready to be done with this conference. With UCLA leaving there is literally no reason to remain in the PAC. Because it's full of sub-par programs with MWC level talent, stadiums, and history. And getting beat by them is always an embarrassment.

The problem we face is not being able to provide SEC-like schedules. And recruits who want to play in a tough conference look elsewhere.

Maybe you guys should try to figure out how to beat Utah. USC has spent the past decade getting embarassed by the sub-par talent in the Pac-12. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 13 years. Do you want to blame that on the "sub-par programs" of the Pac-12? For the past decade, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Stanford have been carrying the conference in football. USC got swept by UCLA, Stanford and Cal last year and the games were not close.

The recruiting issues are the responsibility of USC and USC only. For years, USC was hiring AD's with no previous experience running an athletic department. The only qualification was being an ex-USC football star. Those individuals made mistakes with coaching hires and that affected the recruiting and development of players. USC finally hired a professional athletic director who hired a great football coach. It looked like USC football was back and then the Trojans decided to leave the conference. So there is a lot of anger at USC in the Pac-12.

The vast majority of UCLA fans were not thrilled with the decision to leave the conference. I have not talked to a UCLA fan that is happy with the move. But most are at the accpetance stage.
https://www.si.com/college/ucla/football...to-big-ten
Former UCLA men's basketball All-American Bill Walton was asked about UCLA's impending conference switch by The Post Game on Aug. 25, and his response was brief. "I love UCLA," Walton said, before hesitating, smiling and nodding at the camera for a few seconds.
Troy Aikman: "I'm just not a fan of what's happened."

"Walton and Aikman's hesitant acceptance of their alma mater leaving the Pac-12 was a sentiment apparently shared by many other alumni. Records obtained by 247Sports in August revealed that several donors, faculty and other members of the UCLA community replied to chancellor Gene Block and athletic director Martin Jarmond's internal announcement with disapproval back in late June."

(10-27-2022 12:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 08:50 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of USC and UCLA fans were at least ambivalent about the situation. The huge $$ boost will be awesome, but they're not exactly lighting up the PAC in the past 5+ years, and they're about to get turned into ground meat by the B1G in football. They'll both be fine in basketball right away though I expect.

You could not be more wrong.

The vast majority of USC fans are ready to be done with this conference. With UCLA leaving there is literally no reason to remain in the PAC. Because it's full of sub-par programs with MWC level talent, stadiums, and history. And getting beat by them is always an embarrassment.

The problem we face is not being able to provide SEC-like schedules. And recruits who want to play in a tough conference look elsewhere.

Maybe you guys should try to figure out how to beat Utah. USC has spent the past decade getting embarassed by the sub-par talent in the Pac-12. USC has won one conference championship in football in the past 13 years. Do you want to blame that on the "sub-par programs" of the Pac-12? For the past decade, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Stanford have been carrying the conference in football. USC got swept by UCLA, Stanford and Cal last year and the games were not close.

The recruiting issues are the responsibility of USC and USC only. For years, USC was hiring AD's with no previous experience running an athletic department. The only qualification was being an ex-USC football star. Those individuals made mistakes with coaching hires and that affected the recruiting and development of players. USC finally hired a professional athletic director who hired a great football coach. It looked like USC football was back and then the Trojans decided to leave the conference. So there is a lot of anger at USC in the Pac-12.

The vast majority of UCLA fans were not thrilled with the decision to leave the conference. I have not talked to a UCLA fan that is happy with the move. But most are at the accpetance stage.
https://www.si.com/college/ucla/football...to-big-ten
Former UCLA men's basketball All-American Bill Walton was asked about UCLA's impending conference switch by The Post Game on Aug. 25, and his response was brief. "I love UCLA," Walton said, before hesitating, smiling and nodding at the camera for a few seconds.
Troy Aikman: "I'm just not a fan of what's happened."

"Walton and Aikman's hesitant acceptance of their alma mater leaving the Pac-12 was a sentiment apparently shared by many other alumni. Records obtained by 247Sports in August revealed that several donors, faculty and other members of the UCLA community replied to chancellor Gene Block and athletic director Martin Jarmond's internal announcement with disapproval back in late June."

USC fans are happier about the move than UCLA fans. There was occasional talk on USC fan websites about joining the Big 10 or SEC for about five years. There were even some USC fans who suggested joining the Big 12 (before Texas and OU's departure) so that USC could benefit from unequal revenue sharing.

(10-27-2022 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 09:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:20 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thing is, though, the B1G hasn't been much better than the PAC. Since 2014, the CFP era, and tossing out 2020 for too few games played, according to the MC, the B1G has been better than the PAC four times, the PAC has been better than the B1G three times.

Pretty close, overall. IMO, if you really want SEC-like schedules, you'd have to join the SEC.

James Howell has rated the PAC as the worst power conference in each of the last six seasons. (Including this incomplete season.)

In 2020, he rated the PAC as the worst conference in all of college football. It's doubtful that would have happened in a season with a big sample size of OOC games, but that's still really bad for a power conference to do.

I would agree that the PAC has trended downward since the start of the CFP era. It was stronger the first few years, weaker the last few years. So the trend is downward. Then again, trends can change and often do.

One could argue that this supports USC's case: The PAC fell off between 2015 and 2018. What also happened during that time? SEC and B1G revenues broke away from the other "Ps".

In 2014, the SEC distributed about $21m to its schools. In 2018, the SEC distributed $45m to its schools, a startling increase of over 100%, as the impact of the SECN kicked in.

Similarly, the B1G distributed about $23m to its full-share members. In 2018, the B1G distributed almost $55m as the revenue from its new 2017 TV deals kicked in, again a more than 100% increase and far outpacing other Ps save for the SEC.

The B1G's MC rating has similarly risen during that time. In 2014 - 2016, the MC ranked B1G as 4, 4, and 4 among the P5 conferences in performance. Since 2017, and again throwing out 2020,the B1G has ranked 2, 3, 3 and 3 in the MC list. A clear improvement.

In the same time, the PAC has fallen to the bottom, or near it, in performance. In 2014, a year the PAC was the #2 conference in the MC, the PAC distributed about $20m per school, very close to the SEC and B1G. In 2018, a year it was ranked #5 in performance, it distributed about $32m per school, a nice increase, but now trailing well behind them. Money matters, I guess.

Somebody provided a chart of power conference revenues since 2000 a few months ago. The PAC has been at the bottom of revenues (even below the ACC) for almost the whole time. The only exception was from about 2011-2013, when the PAC was benefitting from having the most recently signed TV contract.

It really isn't recent that the PAC isn't getting as much money as other conferences.

Good point, but while the PAC was getting less say in 2004 than other Power conferences, the margins between all of them was small because nobody was making real money.

For example, in 2005, the SEC distributed about $9m per school to its members. So whatever the PAC was distributing, it couldn't have been more than $9m less than what the SEC was distributing and of course it was considerably less than that. The last few years the gap has IIRC been far greater.

Counting the new additions, in the past 4 years for which data is available, the B1G + SEC have had 18 of the top 20 revenue programs. There have only been 2 instances in 4 years of a non-p2 program in the top 10. As the revenue gap continues to widen, this will only get worse for the non P2 schools.

https://www.sportico.com/business/commer...234646029/

(10-27-2022 12:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 09:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:20 PM)Poster Wrote:  James Howell has rated the PAC as the worst power conference in each of the last six seasons. (Including this incomplete season.)

In 2020, he rated the PAC as the worst conference in all of college football. It's doubtful that would have happened in a season with a big sample size of OOC games, but that's still really bad for a power conference to do.

I would agree that the PAC has trended downward since the start of the CFP era. It was stronger the first few years, weaker the last few years. So the trend is downward. Then again, trends can change and often do.

One could argue that this supports USC's case: The PAC fell off between 2015 and 2018. What also happened during that time? SEC and B1G revenues broke away from the other "Ps".

In 2014, the SEC distributed about $21m to its schools. In 2018, the SEC distributed $45m to its schools, a startling increase of over 100%, as the impact of the SECN kicked in.

Similarly, the B1G distributed about $23m to its full-share members. In 2018, the B1G distributed almost $55m as the revenue from its new 2017 TV deals kicked in, again a more than 100% increase and far outpacing other Ps save for the SEC.

The B1G's MC rating has similarly risen during that time. In 2014 - 2016, the MC ranked B1G as 4, 4, and 4 among the P5 conferences in performance. Since 2017, and again throwing out 2020,the B1G has ranked 2, 3, 3 and 3 in the MC list. A clear improvement.

In the same time, the PAC has fallen to the bottom, or near it, in performance. In 2014, a year the PAC was the #2 conference in the MC, the PAC distributed about $20m per school, very close to the SEC and B1G. In 2018, a year it was ranked #5 in performance, it distributed about $32m per school, a nice increase, but now trailing well behind them. Money matters, I guess.

Somebody provided a chart of power conference revenues since 2000 a few months ago. The PAC has been at the bottom of revenues (even below the ACC) for almost the whole time. The only exception was from about 2011-2013, when the PAC was benefitting from having the most recently signed TV contract.

It really isn't recent that the PAC isn't getting as much money as other conferences.

Good point, but while the PAC was getting less say in 2004 than other Power conferences, the margins between all of them was small because nobody was making real money.

For example, in 2005, the SEC distributed about $9m per school to its members. So whatever the PAC was distributing, it couldn't have been more than $9m less than what the SEC was distributing and of course it was considerably less than that. The last few years the gap has IIRC been far greater.

Counting the new additions, in the past 4 years for which data is available, the B1G + SEC have had 18 of the top 20 revenue programs. There have only been 2 instances in 4 years of a non-p2 program in the top 10. As the revenue gap continues to widen, this will only get worse for the non P2 schools.

https://www.sportico.com/business/commer...234646029/

This is why both want Florida State and Notre Dame, though the SEC is not holding their breath on N.D.

If the SEC landed Florida State and Notre Dame most years it would have 7 of the top 10 revenue producers.
If the Big 10 landed Florida State and Notre Dame they would have 5 and the SEC would have 5 of the top 10 revenue producers. Last non Covid year's numbers used. And in that year Auburn was 11th.
If they split Florida State and Notre Dame the SEC would keep a 6-4 lead with Auburn in the wings.

This is why the Big 10 has been so reactive and so hopeful the ACC is not raided until 2036. They want to sew up Notre Dame to narrow the revenue position among brand schools and then make a play on FSU. Their conundrum is that they felt USC would lure Notre Dame and now they have to consider further PAC expansion to assist USC/UCLA and possibly nab Stanford as another lure. Each addition to the West simply means that FSU could be more on an island should they make a play for the Noles. This is why I said 24 schools initially. There's no way the Big 10 can successfully add long term members without helping them by taking regional rivals. To go East and West and accomplish this means 24. If they just go West it will be 20.

The SEC meantime can wait until 2036 if necessary and snag FSU, keep them regional in scheduling, and still keep an advantage, especially if N.D. remains an independent which the SEC could facilitate through scheduling arrangements.

There are no other big movers in terms of revenue. Louisville is the closest at 15th. Clemson is way back in the high 20's.

(10-27-2022 12:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 11:17 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  The actions of Mr. Commissioner seem to indicate a sense of panic within league offices. It really is getting embarrassing. It makes me wonder if they have had talks about expansion, but either schools already in the PAC are not interested, or they are have an issue finding quality schools outside the PAC to commit.

This talk makes me wonder if some or all of the Pacific NW teams basically have invites from the Big 10, and this talk is really an (almost certainly futile) effort to get them to turn down the invites. "The teams that accepted their invites already have regrets."

In any case, I strongly suspect that the commissioner is talking this way because there's some bad news for the PAC that hasn't been disclosed to the public at large yet. But I am not sure exactly what that bad news is.


I don't remember the Big 12 blasting Texas and OU the same way 4 months after they announced their departures. The next day, sure, but not 4 months later.

I don't blame Kliavkoff for anything that he's done. The guy is backed into a corner. He inherited a bases loaded/score tied/bottom of the 9th situation and everyone expects him to strike out the side. He's throwing everything he's got at the problem to try to find a way to save his Conference. I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over a guy like Phillips who just smiles and pretends that everything's fine while the ACC ship is sinking.

(10-27-2022 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 11:17 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  The actions of Mr. Commissioner seem to indicate a sense of panic within league offices. It really is getting embarrassing. It makes me wonder if they have had talks about expansion, but either schools already in the PAC are not interested, or they are have an issue finding quality schools outside the PAC to commit.

This talk makes me wonder if some or all of the Pacific NW teams basically have invites from the Big 10, and this talk is really an (almost certainly futile) effort to get them to turn down the invites. "The teams that accepted their invites already have regrets."

In any case, I strongly suspect that the commissioner is talking this way because there's some bad news for the PAC that hasn't been disclosed to the public at large yet. But I am not sure exactly what that bad news is.


I don't remember the Big 12 blasting Texas and OU the same way 4 months after they announced their departures. The next day, sure, but not 4 months later.

I don't blame Kliavkoff for anything that he's done. The guy is backed into a corner. He inherited a bases loaded/score tied/bottom of the 9th situation and everyone expects him to strike out the side. He's throwing everything he's got at the problem to try to find a way to save his Conference. I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over a guy like Phillips who just smiles and pretends that everything's fine while the ACC ship is sinking.

I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

(10-27-2022 12:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 11:17 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  The actions of Mr. Commissioner seem to indicate a sense of panic within league offices. It really is getting embarrassing. It makes me wonder if they have had talks about expansion, but either schools already in the PAC are not interested, or they are have an issue finding quality schools outside the PAC to commit.

This talk makes me wonder if some or all of the Pacific NW teams basically have invites from the Big 10, and this talk is really an (almost certainly futile) effort to get them to turn down the invites. "The teams that accepted their invites already have regrets."

In any case, I strongly suspect that the commissioner is talking this way because there's some bad news for the PAC that hasn't been disclosed to the public at large yet. But I am not sure exactly what that bad news is.


I don't remember the Big 12 blasting Texas and OU the same way 4 months after they announced their departures. The next day, sure, but not 4 months later.

I don't blame Kliavkoff for anything that he's done. The guy is backed into a corner. He inherited a bases loaded/score tied/bottom of the 9th situation and everyone expects him to strike out the side. He's throwing everything he's got at the problem to try to find a way to save his Conference. I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over a guy like Phillips who just smiles and pretends that everything's fine while the ACC ship is sinking.

I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

(10-27-2022 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 11:17 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  The actions of Mr. Commissioner seem to indicate a sense of panic within league offices. It really is getting embarrassing. It makes me wonder if they have had talks about expansion, but either schools already in the PAC are not interested, or they are have an issue finding quality schools outside the PAC to commit.

This talk makes me wonder if some or all of the Pacific NW teams basically have invites from the Big 10, and this talk is really an (almost certainly futile) effort to get them to turn down the invites. "The teams that accepted their invites already have regrets."

In any case, I strongly suspect that the commissioner is talking this way because there's some bad news for the PAC that hasn't been disclosed to the public at large yet. But I am not sure exactly what that bad news is.


I don't remember the Big 12 blasting Texas and OU the same way 4 months after they announced their departures. The next day, sure, but not 4 months later.

I don't blame Kliavkoff for anything that he's done. The guy is backed into a corner. He inherited a bases loaded/score tied/bottom of the 9th situation and everyone expects him to strike out the side. He's throwing everything he's got at the problem to try to find a way to save his Conference. I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over a guy like Phillips who just smiles and pretends that everything's fine while the ACC ship is sinking.

I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  This talk makes me wonder if some or all of the Pacific NW teams basically have invites from the Big 10, and this talk is really an (almost certainly futile) effort to get them to turn down the invites. "The teams that accepted their invites already have regrets."

In any case, I strongly suspect that the commissioner is talking this way because there's some bad news for the PAC that hasn't been disclosed to the public at large yet. But I am not sure exactly what that bad news is.


I don't remember the Big 12 blasting Texas and OU the same way 4 months after they announced their departures. The next day, sure, but not 4 months later.

I don't blame Kliavkoff for anything that he's done. The guy is backed into a corner. He inherited a bases loaded/score tied/bottom of the 9th situation and everyone expects him to strike out the side. He's throwing everything he's got at the problem to try to find a way to save his Conference. I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over a guy like Phillips who just smiles and pretends that everything's fine while the ACC ship is sinking.

I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

These Networks and offering way too much money for the Big 10 and SEC to pay lousy teams more money than what they are worth are hurting college sports overall. There needs a balance that all 10 conferences gets about the same amount of money.

(10-27-2022 02:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These Networks and offering way too much money for the Big 10 and SEC to pay lousy teams more money than what they are worth are hurting college sports overall. There needs a balance that all 10 conferences gets about the same amount of money.

Those lousy teams, excluding Clemson, have won most of the championships in the money sport in the last 20 years, and it's not close. Only Clemson has won championships from beyond those two conferences in the last 20 years (am counting OU and UT as future members of the SEC and USC as a future member of the Big 10). Now smoke that over!

(10-27-2022 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 02:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These Networks and offering way too much money for the Big 10 and SEC to pay lousy teams more money than what they are worth are hurting college sports overall. There needs a balance that all 10 conferences gets about the same amount of money.

Those lousy teams, excluding Clemson, have won most of the championships in the money sport in the last 20 years, and it's not close. Only Clemson has won championships from beyond those two conferences in the last 20 years (am counting OU and UT as future members of the SEC and USC as a future member of the Big 10). Now smoke that over!

uh oh, you pissed off David St. You're DOOMED!!!!!!

(10-27-2022 02:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  These Networks and offering way too much money for the Big 10 and SEC to pay lousy teams more money than what they are worth are hurting college sports overall. There needs a balance that all 10 conferences gets about the same amount of money.

We would have to move to a socialistic model that IMO nobody with market power is going to agree with. Why would the SEC accept less money so that the MAC can get more, if networks were even willing to do this?

And within conferences, if it bothers me that a Northwestern is getting $80m from the B1G while a bigger-brand Big 12 school like Kansas is getting $40m from the Big 12, well that's because the schools in the B1G that bring in the massive dollars have agreed to share their brand value with NW and not Kansas. We all have the right to decide who we share with, IMO.

As for hurting college sports, IMO college sports has never been healthier, or at least is no less healthy than it was in the past. As far back as I can recall, college football has been (a) characterized by great inequality in terms of which teams are at the top and those at the bottom, with schools like Alabama spending a lot more money on football than say schools like Slippery Rock, and (b) a very popular sport, right up there with the major league professional sports, arguably behind only the NFL.

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I don't blame Kliavkoff for anything that he's done. The guy is backed into a corner. He inherited a bases loaded/score tied/bottom of the 9th situation and everyone expects him to strike out the side. He's throwing everything he's got at the problem to try to find a way to save his Conference. I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over a guy like Phillips who just smiles and pretends that everything's fine while the ACC ship is sinking.

I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

I actually agree with pretty much everything that you've stated here at least in terms of the overall principles.

It goes back to my point elsewhere in what I've found in my career: there's often an inverse relationship between "aggressive talk" and real-life leverage.

When you actually have real life leverage, you don't need to talk much... and when you talk, you speak about specific facts in your favor (e.g. viewership numbers, high revenue, tangible accomplishments, etc.) as opposed to platitudes or buzzwords.

We have a bias in our American culture where being "proactive", "aggressive" and "assertive" are generally inherently looked at as positive and gives the perception of strength. Note that this isn't actually true in all cultures - it can be looked at as a sign of weakness elsewhere. (Recall the Sun Tzu quotes we've referred to here.)

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I don't blame Kliavkoff for anything that he's done. The guy is backed into a corner. He inherited a bases loaded/score tied/bottom of the 9th situation and everyone expects him to strike out the side. He's throwing everything he's got at the problem to try to find a way to save his Conference. I'd take him 100 times out of 100 over a guy like Phillips who just smiles and pretends that everything's fine while the ACC ship is sinking.

I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

There's no need for Phillips to be loud because there's about a 99% certainty that the GOR will keep everybody locked in until 2036. Why would there be any need for him to act desperate right now? I really can't imagine that anybody in the ACC is having conversations with the Big 10 or ACC about leaving 14 years from now.

Phillips will get loud in 2032 or 2033, maybe 2034 at the latest. (Assuming he's still commissioner by then.) That'll be the period where he'll have to make desperate attempts to save his conference.

(10-27-2022 02:59 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 12:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  I'm not saying I blame Kliavkoff for anything.

What I am saying is that Kliavkoff's comments indicate that things are probably even worse in the PAC than we realize.

I'm not a Phillips fan, and his name has been in the mix for a job in the NFL, but he keeps his mouth shut. Look at the most successful commissioners of our current times and find me a successful one who runs his yap? Delaney, Slive, Sankey, and only to a slightly lesser extent Warren don't say much until they strike. Scott, Bowlsby, Yormark, and Kliavkoff all run their mouths incessantly, like Aresco did.

In this business only the desperate talk, and the most desperate can't shut up.

"Never tell another man what you are thinking!" Michael Corleone

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Desperate commissioners are loud because they pretty much have to be loud in order to make longshot attempts to save their conference. Teams don't leave conferences because the commissioners are loud.

If Oregon and Washington have basically received an invite from the Big 10, then Kliavkoff is actually smart to talk like this. It's his only hope at having even a 1% chance at getting them to turn down the invite.

Desperate equals mouthy. They are one in the same. Mouthy commissioners create confusion which leads to desperation on the part of members. Desperation on the part of members makes otherwise normal commissioners mouthy. They are two sides of the same coin and both signal desperation. While your nuance is noted the effect is the same.

My point was that Phillips for his faults, gets this right. If he was acting desperate about a bad situation what would be the relative reaction in the ACC today? They were skittish and deeply concerned with the Oklahoma and Texas moves. So too were the PAC 12 and obviously the Big 12. But the Big 10 was as well.

The PAC 12 jumped into an alliance which they didn't even understand. Phillips was a Big 10 guy and a newbie as commissioner, so he did as well. Warren orchestrated it but used it to his advantage to stalemate things until he had a plan to act upon. Phillips was okay only because the PAC 12 GOR was expiring soon enough. During all of it Kliavkoff ran his mouth. First, he insulted Sankey, then he apologized, and then the idiot accused the Big 12 of chicanery when the Big 10 took Los Angeles. Gee let's ignore the Bear at the front door and attack the Hiena on the back porch. Brilliant!

Meanwhile Bowlsby jumps to secure things in the Big 12 by taking BYU, UCF, Houston, and BYU. He leaves and Yormark comes in and realizes he's been somewhat perceptually hamstrung. How do you attract academically minded and somewhat snooty PAC schools when you've just added 3 G5's and BYU which can't get into the PAC because of academic freedom issues? The Big 12 is in the best position to merge with, or attract PAC 12 schools if Bowlsby does nothing and leaves and lets new leadership come in and create a new vision.

The 4 additions Bowlsby made were among the best 4 from the G5 and independent BYU. But those moves don't scream raise. They scream maybe status quo at best, and most likely a cut. Had the Big 12 waited it would have been much easier to lure the Arizona schools and Utah. I'm not sure about Colorado, but maybe. Then they would have been looking at status quo as the worst and likely a bump. The only thing they have going for them now is the big lowball estimate on the new PAC 12 media value. Maybe they do eventually snag some PAC schools, but dang it would have been easier if they had waited.

A more attractive Big 12 would have made the Big 10's raid easier, IMO.

Kliavkoff is trying to rally the troops now, but two of their top 4 values have defected. There is no recovery from that which will maintain status in athletic revenue, and find viable academic institutions to rebuild with. The Big 10 issued a kill shot and while the body is alive in the PAC, the brain is gone. They are on life support.

Phillips grade will now be determined. Does he help guide the ACC schools into a more profitable future for all, or does he collect his revenue, spout platitudes, and collect his check until 2034 when the stuff hits the fan in the East? My money is on him either leaving for a NFL job and letting some other Schmoes take the blame for the looming implosion, or he collects his check and bides time. Why? Who are they going to add which will raise their pay enough to compete with the Big 10 and SEC both of which would find attractive additions in the ACC? The two which would add are TCU and Baylor, two more privates which add marginally, but add. Is that their future? If Phillips was at least concerned he would be negotiating with the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 to figure out how to protect all of his schools and help most profit and the rest survive and maintain access to the upper tier and CFP. He should privately acknowledge the predicament of the ACC to the presidents and hold honest discussions on how to move forward in a radically altered world. At least that would be forthright and honest, and he would find dignity and kudos in the attempt.

Instead, we are likely to drag this out until 2034 (for 2036) before it blows and then a new college sports landscape will emerge without the support of its most supportive generation, the Boomers. Good luck with that! The time is now if any of these schools are going to maximize the last decade plus of their golden years of support.

By the way, I was supporting your position. You just didn't notice.

There's no need for Phillips to be loud because there's about a 99% certainty that the GOR will keep everybody locked in until 2036. Why would there be any need for him to act desperate right now? I really can't imagine that anybody in the ACC is having conversations with the Big 10 or ACC about leaving 14 years from now.

Phillips will get loud in 2032 or 2033, maybe 2034 at the latest. (Assuming he's still commissioner by then.) That'll be the period where he'll have to make desperate attempts to save his conference.

Whoosh! It just flew over your head. By waiting they renegotiate in the middle of negative demographics for college sports and they miss out on a half billion in revenue per school for likely a little over half their members. But hey, Pillips if he drags it out will be the only one to leave with more!