David Marsh

B1G because the big-12 is boarderline irrelevant. And I don't even care about any of the teams there. Sure an occasional OOC game would be fun ... But not a conference load. I'll take Oregon v WSU over Oregon v anything Big-12 on a seasonal basis. But I'd rather choose PAC. So gun to my head... B1G.

And the PAC would survive in a vastly diminished state. And let's just assume they only get like 16mil per school for their media deal... That would still be four times more than what the MW pays out right now (4 mil).

Pate was really focused on the CFP stuff. So let's presume that the playoff does only take the top ranked teams and no auto bids. Oregon could still very well be one of those teams. Unless the committee drastically changes how they select CFP teams with one loss will be IN. Then some two loss teams will be IN. Branding matters too. The committee will want big brands in the playoff as long as the teams qualify. The bigger problem would be how to get multiple teams in the playoff. But again... Look at 2019... Oregon and Utah BOTH would have made a 12 team playoff. Not USC, UCLA of Colorado...

Only the worst fans root for the demise of their rivals through something as horrendous as conference realignment. That's no way to "defeat" a rival. USC fans have been doing it for a year how they have destroyed Oregon by leaving the conference. Sports is played on a field... That's where the competition is. I know you're indifferent to the beavers ... But I know I also want the Huskies to survive so that we can continue to kick their rears on the field. Last year was a hiccup but this year they'll feel the pain return.

I tell my Beaver colleagues all the time that I want the Beavers to win 11 of 12 games a year. They are probably my 2nd team in truth. One of my Beaver colleague friends is a great guy and a lot of fun to talk football with and that rivalry game has really been a huge part of the state's culture. In a lot of ways its why I would really love to see the Ducks and Huskies (vomit) stick it out with the Pac if it was possible but that isn't football these days. Rivalries are dying. I mean that is probably a large part of why Colorado had their eye on the door basically since they joined the conference. They didn't have any rivalries in the conference and that does put a dampener on fan interest. It didn't help that they also the doormat of the Pac for all but really a season and a half (the Covid season). But the Pac tried to "build" a rivalry between Colorado and Utah and that failed. Utah instead built some starts to some rivalries in the Pac while Colorado was repeatedly stomped on. For rivalries to develop there needs to be a back-and-forth. The funny thing is that returning to the Big-12 won't have their two biggest rivals (Nebraska and Oklahoma) aren't even in the conference anymore.

I mean to be honest... The rivalry has value. And though contests with Ohio State may be fun, they would take about a hundred years before they had the same meaning as those we play against the Beavers. Rivalries give sports meaning. And oh how we LOVE to HATE our rivals and that hate can only manifest itself by being distilled for decades.

Could be hinting at the new indoor facility or something as "mundane" as that. Could have more meaning.

Colorado probably has the least amount of patience. They have had no success in the PAC since joining and they have all of the sudden become a prized institution to the big-12 and they feel they have a super star coach in football who will turn the whole thing around in a year. Utah has had success and the Arizona schools have had success and a history in the PAC. Not saying they won't be tempted or the next targets for the big-12 but I think they have a bit more patience than Colorado. Colorado's move to the PAC was an absolute failure for them. They became the doormat of the conference which is saying something considering they went from power 5 to power 5 whereas Utah went from G5 to P5 and has had success.

And Colorado may find themselves mediocre in their new-old conference. Sanders will probably move on in a few years regardless. But hey... Colorado may feel better. We'll have to wait and see if they'll make any more money... And that might take a while depending on how fast this usually glacial process takes.

Depends on what each team wants, needs, and what kind of expenses they are willing to take on.

I am thinking only of pac-12 survival here... So this just assumes that Oregon and Washington stay in board. The keys to holding the remaining members together will depend on a couple things. One being to try and reduce some travel burden on the eastern side of the conference. I am sure part of Colorado's problem is that they pay the most in travel costs being the farthest east. I think Colorado is also just unhappy that they are not relevant but that's their fault. So adding SMU would be a must, as they seem happy with the extra travel and want to join. Then adding Colorado State or Utah State or another school that is on the eastern side of the conference. Adding SDSU is still important and that doesn't change. Does the PAC take a page from the big-12 and try to expand more? Grabbing Nevada or UNLV or Fresno?

Again... Oregon has its own financial circumstances to take into consideration. They don't need the media payout to be as high because of their donor base. So whatever they choose I'm confident that it would be good for them. Even if fans cry out that we need B1G dollars which I don't think a partial share makes up for the losses that will come with travel expenses.

I'd be shocked if the big-12 has the money to pay them. But they have seemed to scrounge together some money to pay Colorado. So who knows.

Besides the Denver market. But agreed that Colorado hasn't been terribly good for the conference's brand. They've had one good football season since joining... Two if you invite pandemic season that was trending well. Colorado may want to be a bigger fish in a depleted pond. BYU isn't Oregon or Washington. I think the they are thinking they can be relevant again if they join the big-12. It's still a significant blow to the PAC but Colorado has also been on the eastern edge of the conference and I think they are also tired of the travel costs. Which probably doesn't bode well for the LA schools and their travel cost fatigue.

I read it... It says they are having continued conversations. They could also have the potential PAC media deal numbers or trying to get them to discuss their options. Colorado is the farthest east PAC team with the most travel time. I can see them wanting to look at some options. Also apparently Sanders wants in the big-12. But to be blunt it would be sad if the whole school did what the football coach wanted, especially when that coach hasn't coached a season for them yet.

I'm also sure Canzano is busy looking into this... So will wait and see. Ive seen some other tweets from the usual suspects that have been calling for the death of the PAC for the last year. I haven't seen any PAC people talking about this yet, so I'll wait and see.

So... All the travel of the B1G but half the paycheck. That sounds like a a big lose right there. Lol

And what has become clear is that maybe Oregon doesn't need the money. Keep in mind they turn a 12 mil profit last year. Would that added travel time, even with a bigger media check, net a greater profit, about the same, or less? That's the key number in all of this is the profit from the year.

I'd say Oregon and Stanford would be in a tough fight if this was 2006-2016 for who had the best runningbacks. But more recently... It's Oregon. Stanford has had some good ones but Oregon had several that managed to creep up the career boards for Oregon's all time rushers. Granted are they counting Travis Dye as a USC kid? Verdell was good but injuries turned out to be his undoing. I wish Freeman had more success at the NFL level. But looking at Oregon's current runningbacks... Oh they'll be running over other teams all year long.

I feel this is far more likely than Oregon headed to the B1G. I don't think the B1G has managed to get their current media deal to bed at this point as it is... So adding more teams seems absolutely silly. But maybe I'm wrong. My initial reaction to hearing USC and UCLA leaving was that Oregon needed to get to the B1G as soon as possible... My feels now are that the Ducks should remain in the PAC. Knowing that I rarely ever get what I want... It could be that Oregon is going to the B1G to make me annoyed and upset all at once? More likely a non-conference game. Again Ohio State isn't the only team in the B1G... If another one of these comes out with say Michigan or Wisconsin... Then I'll bite.

And the payouts for all schools would be... Probably around 30 mil. So what it is basically now for the PAC. That's why conference expansion has be precise.

More likely an announcement of future home and home things. This feels like a really weird way to illude to conference expansion. Ohio State isn't the only B1G team and the Ducks would have to join with a 2nd team. Also a whole lot of B1G members aren't thrilled about having to travel to LA still so convincing them to add more west coast games seems like a stretch.

UNLV or Fresno is far more likely.

I'm also pretty sure if they were to receive a pac invite they'd probably have to get rid of the blue field. I remember reading somewhere that many conferences have rules about fields that are any color other than green. I see BSU getting a "power 5" invite at some point... Just not to the PAC... They'd probably get the invite from the Big-12 at this point.

At the end of the day here the only way BSU gets considered for the pac-12 regardless of viewership is if they can get their academics in order. That is going to always be the biggest sticking point for university presidents involved in the decision making. I do think SDSU's brand will grow if they join the PAC much like how Utahsybrand grew. They will never take fans away from USC but they can certainly develop their own fanbase. I've heard from some people in San Diego that they don't default to USC fans because that's the closest team to them. Just like how as I live in Portland and I don't have an NFL team in my city I don't default to being a Seahawks fan because it's the closer team. Same way as people in Seattle when they lost the Sonics they didn't all of the sudden become Blazer fans because they were the closest team to them geographically. Sometimes a fan base doesn't develop because they don't have the opportunity that fits for them. Give SDSU five years (or basically one media cycle) and they will develop a fan base. I where near as.laege as USC's but they'll fill their stadium and become an asset. I don't see BSU having much growth potential. Sure the city is growing but creating a fan base can be a whole lot faster than growing a city.