Wrathis

IF the PAC is waiting to invite SDSU so the remaining 10 can catch a bigger windfall and/or use that money to fix LS's Comcast foul ups, I get it but respectfully disagree. While it's true that SDSU almost certainly won't make the playoff this season, treating them like a second-class citizen might bite us in the backside. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that we need them and SMU/whomever as much as they need us. We need the media rights they offer and the recruiting access into the SoCal/Texas recruiting grounds. I really do get why we might withhold their invite, but to me it seems we're playing with fire, especially with the B12 looming and threatening to take chunks away...

Paul Finebaum reveals what ESPN's recent round of firings was like for on-air talent - On3 WWW.ON3.COM . The article above was right below the linked article about U$C and UCLA "having to leave" for greener pastures. Wouldn't it be GREAT for Pollack, McShay and Woj to end up working for Apple/Amazon commentating on PAC/ACC college football games?! Granted I'm just hoping it works out that way, but a streaming "Game Day" with those guys on it certainly lends for familiarity and credibility which would lend itself to some stability...and Amazon's coverage of Thursday night turned out to be a successful venture and could be used as the foundation for taking on a PACC(?) streaming option. I'm ALL IN on GK doing something great bc the alternative is something I don't want to even think about...GO PAC and GO DUCKS!!!

First, many thanks to Tandaian for their well thought out and researched response. I'm considerably less eloquent (and also at work) so trying to dovetail with the above post would be difficult at best. That being said, my opinion to your question can be most succinctly phrased thusly: bc we're desperately clinging to the notion that colleges are places of learning and not businesses...and they want to be considered that way as well. One way of doing so is being able to say you support things that are a net negative but for the good of the students, which that can include nostalgia as well. Consider track and field and Olympic sports in general: it's a throwback to ancient Greece, the homeland of higher learning and thought. It also acts an amateur proving ground for those seeking to become professionals in said sporting endeavors. And finally, when all else fails, follow the money. By remaining thought of as institutions of learning as opposed to businesses, they continue to rake in billions without paying Federal Tax in much the same way churches do...even though we all know both Universities and Churches are businesses in much the same way news is now considered entertainment.

I see this B1G drama as exactly that, drama. If weighing the cost vs the benefits, in my mind it's a net gain for the B1G and a wash or even loss for us. It's not that I don't think we can compete against tOSU, PSU or Michigan, I believe we can: It's that I'd rather do it in the playoff and get a big paycheck for our trouble. I believe most people wanting to push this move are looking at it from a football only perspective. Our mens basketball team will have to play approx 10 road conference games and our baseball team played 17 road games this season. Then add in the olympic and womens sports and that extra media money disappears pretty quickly. Football may be the spoon that stirs the pot, but there's a lot of other stuff in that pot that costs money. Plenty of articles (like the one this morning) have explained where the pitfalls exist in chasing these supposed dollars, and I for one don't want to jump out of the pot and into the fire...

I get why the Beavs are #1. As a whole, the avg PAC total defense last year was 79.5, the ACC was 52. DJU faced a number of top 50 defenses last season while the entirety of the PAC only had 2 teams in the top 50 in defense, one of which he's now playing for. It could be argued that the reason for that is b/c the offenses last year were so good, but it's a cyclical argument and no way of knowing for sure. That being said, the stats for DJU were good last year in what was ranked a tougher defensive league, and under the tutelage of Jonathon Smith, I would expect to see a resurgence similar to what we saw in Nix. That, and they have a proven back up and a stud newbie waiting in the wings. Regardless, their logic is sound and I don't think anyone can deny what JS is building 40 minutes up the road...

When you only have one verbal...you know your program is in the crapper, and about to be flushed!

Right?! Sports analyst or weather-person. Both can be expected to be perpetually wrong and suffer no accountability for their inaccuracies!

Just a question about economies of scale: BYU wouldn't qualify bc of religious affiliation. However, do you think every conference would certainly make exceptions for Notre Dame? I would think so and that being said, it's all about dollars and very little about principle. I figure it's similar reasoning schools in LA and Austin will bolt for more money but likely teach a very different set of economic principles in the classroom. *edited for possible political rules*

Also, as someone that lives in the Dallas area, I understand Lubbock doesn't have the households but I will say there is a STRONG Texas Tech showing in this area...take that for what it's worth.

My thoughts from the beginning of this whole fiasco was to add SDSU and UNLV. I will admit the real possibility of SMU surprised me, but now that we're almost there, I think TCU and Houston almost becomes "must-haves" to lock down (as much as possible) the Dallas/Houston markets and provide an easier travel schedule. I've thought about SJSU/Fresno and knowing that we have Stanford and Cal, does SJSU or Fresno offer enough value to go after?

This is my 3rd attempt at this post, lets see if I can make it concise. Plainly college football is all about the benjamins now. Since there's not a PAC deal in place yet, we have to speculate as to the value, format and terms. That being said, I expect value to be slightly higher than the B12's agreement, the format to be largely streaming and hope the duration expires when theirs does as well (2031). As far as what it takes to lure TCU/Houston away: with their recent successes, offer unequal revenue splits in that any post-season payouts belong to the school that earned them. That may be enticing enough and will promote other schools to invest largely in their athletics as well. Either way, it's gonna be a dog eat dog world and I'd rather we do what's required to survive as a conference than to be eaten in small bits with the rest of our teams/traditions being tossed to the wind...

Finebaum is the mouth of the SEC south and only has an interest in peddling their wares. I still believe GK is not Larry Scott and will work a better than B12 deal for our conference. We add SDSU and SMU in a short GoR deal, then add UNLV, Houston, and two more to get to that magic 16 number of the super-conferences. Personally I'd like to go on the offensive and snag TCU (to shore up the Dallas market) and maybe BYU to complete the conference...and I think that's what we'll have to do. Playing defense against the B12 invaders isn't going to hold forever, so flipping the script and going offensive is the only way to ensure we thrive.

This is what I was coming to say. While it is possible that the Beavs make the post-season and benefit from the unequal revenue sharing, my bet is that they're looking at this from a survival standpoint. 30 million is a hell of a lot better than 3 million or whatever they'd get in the MWC, tournament winnings notwithstanding...

I don't quite understand what you're attempting to say in the second sentence. However, I typically don't hold accomplices to the same standard that I hold leaders to. That's why they're leaders and why they're so overcompensated...

This is where I've sat for the last year now. I have nothing but contempt for Warren, Folt and USC...so much so that I'm not sure whom I hate more, Folt and USC or the damn Fuskies! The bitterness and resentment I hold for Folt, her Spoiled Children and also Larry Scott for not just leaving, but voting against expansion when the PAC could have positioned itself as the 3rd mega conference is nauseating. That there is no accountability, no justice for their destruction of what I love leaves me incredibly bitter. My only solace is the irrelevance of UCLA, the abysmal future travel for the Trojans, and the hope that Larry Scott ends up penniless in his beloved San-Fran begging for change on a street corner...

As a member of the Dallas market, I can confirm that I know I and several others will be there every opportunity to help pack their stadium Don't mind me over here crossing my fingers!

Maybe getting Boise isn't such a bad draw afterall. Jon's right in that it won't draw the viewership a game against Tennessee or Florida would, but if I remember correctly BSU is predicted to meet us in a NY's 6 game this year. If they're good enough to be the preseason G5 pick for a NY6 Bowl, then they should be good enough to be ranked and move the needle as a quality opponent in the eyes of the selection committee... *Note - IF playing Georgia was good enough to boost our viewership last year, then beating BSU to get to a playoff spot should be good enough to get us more eyeballs in a playoff matchup. The game itself may not garner the views, but if it helps our SoS and gets us in the playoff, then it has served its purpose*

Well stated. In moving to a 12 team playoff they've shown their hand, and we've all been awakened to what's wagging the dog...MONEY. A six team playoff was all that was needed, each power 5 champion and one group of 5...however, that leaves at least 1 SEC/B1G team out in the cold and with Georgia's rise over 'Bama and Michigan rising up over tOSU, we can't have Saban and Ryan Day sitting at home now can we?! Understand, this wasn't about finding a true champion or even parity (although it's been sold that way), it's about dollars pure and simple...and it's ruining the sport we love

Good looking Jon! My only question in regards to this is will they actually happen?! If, by chance, the Forks turn things around under Dillingham and they become a legitimate team, do you not think A&M, Florida, LSU and Texas will cancel and buyout of the contract?! They scheduled these games with ASU bc they were confident they would beat them. If the Devils become even a little formidable and look like they might actually give them a game, they will be cancelled faster than you can say "8 game conference schedule". At the end of the day they want WINS and if they even for a second think they could lose the game, they'll trip over themselves backing out of them...and that's why I believe they cancelled on us and won't schedule any more against us.

I wish this were true, I really do...I've had the blue-blood argument more times than I can count. There are benefits associated with having earned that status that aren't necessarily deserved. One of those is the benefit of the doubt...we see this annually with Texas, Notre Dame and USC starting the season ranked, giving them a leg up that they don't deserve. What sucks is that we don't have it even though for almost the last 20 years we've been better than those teams. What's interesting though is that it seems that teams can lose that status. Minnesota, Georgia Tech and Nebraska are 3 that immediately come to mind... So while everyone seems to define it differently, below is the definition I use that seems to resonate with most rational people that are talking about a "blue-blood" of college football...and until we work our way into that conversation, we won't garner the respect or benefits (deserved or otherwise) that we think we've earned. College Football Blue-blood - A team that has won multiple national titles under different head coaches. *Once attained, there is a certain amount of annual financial investment and recruiting prowess that must be consistent year over year for this status to be maintained.*

I 100% agree with you on this. Texas benefits from their Blue Blood status and constant influx of talent. I intentionally put Sark in the equation b/c what we're dealing with isn't 100% in absolutes, but in degrees. If 'Bama beats Texas, it will be considered a more "quality win" than us beating Tech...even though last season Tech beat Texas and did so with a lesser roster. On average though, the SEC will have more talented rosters and as such will have beaten more quality teams, which translate to the perception of quality wins. That's why beating Auburn carries more weight than beating Oregon State, even though I'm convinced the Beavs are a better (coached) team. This is also why it's so important for Utah to beat Florida...because that lends merit to the fact that it's not all about BCR (even though we harp about it b/c we have a blue chip roster). Simply put, BCR is only part of the equation but it's the easily definable part of it...add to that the big media money that have a vested interest in promoting their own product, it makes a very tough hill for us out west to climb.

Don't forget to add that A&M would have at least made the playoff by now...

If SoS and record is the determining factor for playoff spots, then as you've aptly pointed out, BCR is an easily definable metric...and one with easily seen results. This has been made abundantly clear in previous articles written and posted here. Accounting for coaching and player development is definable, albeit a bit less clearly. This is not to say anything poor about OBD, as we check the boxes (Ty Thompson, Justin Flowe etc notwithstanding). The question being, are Kalen DeBoer, Jonathon Smith and Kyle Wittingham definitively better than Sark, Freeze and Josh Heupel? Do the mid to upper PAC Schools develop talent better than mid to upper SEC schools? That being said, is a win over Oregon State better than a win over Auburn? Maybe more to the point, will a win over Texas Tech be better than a win over Texas?! Both will likely be ranked but 'Bama will be given the kudos b/c of the perception of Texas being better than Tech. Are they though? Last years results might beg to differ from the accepted narrative...Will it matter? Probably not b/c Texas is a BlueBlood and has a BCR greater even than ours. That would make 'Bama's perceived win over them better than our (hopeful) win over Tech...even if Tech goes on to beat Texas again this season. That doesn't make this right, it just makes it reality...and that's why I stated "we have an uphill battle ahead, just go ahead and get dug in now..."

Unpopular opinion incoming: To some degree Pate is right. I don't think we can puff our collective chests out and sing about our Blue Chip Ratio and how no one without a 50% BCR has won a playoff, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that almost half their conference (SEC) is in the Top 20 of the BCR. IF we beat USC, Utah, Washington and Oregon St, we have one win against a top 20 BCR team, no matter if they're ranked or not. However, if LSU beats A&M, Auburn, and Florida they now own 3 wins against top 20 BCR teams. Granted, I'd put my money on Utah to beat Florida and Oregon State to give Auburn all they wanted, but on paper Pate is right. I hate the bias as much as anyone here. I believe Utah is a better team than Florida. I believe we beat A&M. I believe the Fuskies beat Auburn. However, that's not the way it's played out on the field is it? Florida beat Utah, Georgia stomped us but at least those purple-clad canines beat Texas, right? I know that's just last year and years ago Utah beat 'Bama and we beat tOSU right? That's true, but I can recall us losing to Auburn and LSU as well. The only way to defeat this bias is to beat those teams on the field, especially when it counts. That means it's an uphill slog through the mire of one-way home and home games at their house and bowl games that actually mean something, ie these new playoff games. That means being better against the odds. That means winning even though they have more money from ESPN to pay coaches/assistants/analysts and yes, players as well. They've built a machine with all of the financial and media backing they could ever need, and teams like Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina and Kentucky will reap the benefits while contributing NOTHING to it. That being said, we can do it. We have to be craftier, the way Boise St was...and we (our conference) has to maximize every opportunity we get, and they will be few and far between. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was their empire, but if it's going to be defeated, it's gonna have to be blatant and on their terms. We have an uphill battle ahead, just go ahead and get dug in now...

I'll agree that two NY6's is nice, but I'd want a better reward than BSU...and maybe I'm missing something painfully obvious here, but how is it that U$C is expected to finish better first in the PAC, but they don't get a NY6 invite while us and the Fuskies do? I have zero issues with Georgia and O-H-I-O St I'd bet now that 'Bama doesn't get an earned invite to the playoff as they'll drop 2 or 3 this year and LSU will win the SEC-W. Texas doesn't even belong in the conversation...they aren't 'baaaaack' yet. If it's accurate, I look forward to seeing the Utes stomp a mudhole in the Sooners back side...Sooner fans are as bad as Fusky and U$C fans... I do like Jed Fisch and the boys getting some love and projected to be bowl eligible. De Laura is gonna sling it all over down there and I like the probably future PAC matchup against SDSU. And finally I see they don't think Dante is gonna immediately fill in DTR's old shoes. Chip takes a step back this season w/o his 15th year senior QB and while I still like CK, any misfortune that can fall on the boys of LA, I'm here for it.