Why the Pac-12 Will Survive....

[Charles Fischer]

First of all, I remind everyone that the current Pac-12 has five ranked teams going into the season.  That is tied for second with the Big-12 and only one behind the SEC among all P5 conferences, and I do believe we will have four, if not five ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season. Yeah, better than the ACC and the B1G...

 

Isn't that what characterizes what a good conference is?  Winning on the field?

 

In 2024, I believe we will still have five ranked, even with the loss of USC because I think Dilly at ASU will put them in the top-25.  Bottom line?  We will remain a strong conference whether Colorado, Arizona...whoever leaves because we have five great coaches in this league, and they are not going away.

 

Oregon will make the Playoffs later from the Pac-12, and we will prosper no matter what.

 

 

 

 

[HappyToBeADuck]

As long as the Ducks and huskies stay put the PAC will survive and thrive.

 

Once the season starts, alot of this non sense will be behind us. Other than the fox and espn announcers bringing it up any chance they get.

 

It doesnt suprise me that the G5 schools are applying to a P5 conference. The pay raise is substantial.

 

The PAC can bring them in at $10-12 million per year for a few years before offering a full share. That's double or triple what they get now.

 

Solid decisions going forward are a must for the PAC. CU and UA (maybe) leaving will not affect or bring aboit the demise of the PAC. Those 2 schools, except basketball are not the foundation or core of the PAC.

 

SMU and SDSU will not only fill in nicely but bring fresh fan bases to the PAC.

 

GK and the committee need to get the final numbers and submit to the 9. Sooner rather than later would be better.

 

This slow walk, lack of urgency by GK and leadership is allowing Recruiting Comperitors to simply say:

 

    If you choose (insert a school), you dont even know if the conference will survive or even be on TV.

 

I am certain the phone calls have already started.

 

Let's hope that early next week means something.

[DanLduck]

On 7/30/2023 at 12:43 PM, cartm25 said:

Survive or thrive? Both?

BOTH!

[Charles Fischer]

On 7/30/2023 at 12:43 PM, cartm25 said:

Survive or thrive? Both?

Splitting hairs on terminology?

 

My point is that we have seen HUNDREDS of posts on this forum over the last year proclaiming the inevitable demise of our conference by pundits, trolls, fans of other conferences, and a boatload of OBD members.  I am sick of it, especially when we have no proof yet of that occurring. For crying out loud my Duck-Buddies....wait for the facts and then bemoan our doom.

 

It is easy to wallow in the negative.  It is harder to stay positive, regardless of what occurs...thus why most cannot.

 

And no matter what...Oregon will be fine.

 

[Pennsylvania Duck]

On 7/30/2023 at 3:44 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

This slow walk, lack of urgency by GK and leadership is allowing Recruiting Comperitors to simply say:

 

    If you choose (insert a school), you dont even know if the conference will survive or even be on TV.

I certainly don't have any proof, but I can't help but think the two recruits we lost to Nebraska that were predicted for the Ducks in the last month were due to the uncertainty of the conference/media deal. You're right, every recruiter is using that against us. Lanning  and his crew are great recruiters, but this is something hard for players/parents to ignore.

[Charles Fischer]

On 7/30/2023 at 2:17 PM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

I certainly don't have any proof, but I can't help but think the two recruits we lost to Nebraska that were predicted for the Ducks in the last month were due to the uncertainty of the conference/media deal. You're right, every recruiter is using that against us. Lanning  and his crew are great recruiters, but this is something hard for players/parents to ignore

As I stated in another thread....we have 20 verbals and it is not August 1st yet.  Has that ever happened?  The remaining scholarships will be distributed on a highly selective basis, and with the season I expect to see--Our Beloved Ducks will be just fine when we have the major signing day in December, IMHO.

 

 

The media deal will be concluded, the Ducks will be on fire and we will flip some big names, in addition to what we are currently pursuing.  (I believe)  Now I will put down my Pom-Poms...

[HappyToBeADuck]

We all knew when usc and ucla announced they were leaving for the money that change was coming to the 10 remaining PAC members.

 

What we didnt know was what those changes would be. There was no blue print or roadmap to go pick up at Office Depot that could navigate the course.

 

We also had no idea the delicate financial condition espn was in and that fox really wanted to eliminate the PAC's options..

 

We never expected to be shut out of linear TV, except for the peanuts ESPN offered for PAC After Dark.....

 

We dont know what streamers are offering or would offer to broadcast CF. We still dont have any idea because GK and the Presidents dont give a......(tinkers damn) about us fans. They give us nothing.

 

We had know idea that GK had nothing concrete enough to give CU to keep them in the PAC. The story may be the same for UA.

 

We do know the core of the PAC is still intact. That core has great coaches, great on field talent and 4 Top 25 schools on the grid iron after the 2023 season 

 

The core has great boosters, donors and workable NIL collectives. One core has the number 1 booster in CF.

 

ALL POSITIVES.......

 

The only negative is the PAC lacks top level leadership. Especially the leadership that makes decisions.

[Mike West]

Ok guys,

 

I am going to rain on this, but not on purpose.  And I actually hope some negative emojis come of it.  It's nothing personal, and this group does not intend to be disrespectful by any means.

 

My concern is with Cal, Stanford (when they have a horrible record), WSU and Oregon State.

 

That group gets no love nationally until they are thick in the hunt for a conference title (again Stanford is an exception in that case).

 

I'd like an opinion from our Georgia friends on that because SEC fans are FOOTBALL fans. Football is almost akin to life in the South.  Who roots for little brother Beaver in the South?

 

OBD are certainly going to be fine.  But what TV exec is looking out for Oregon State?  We're talking about a decent football team here.  How many fans in Kentucky care about the Beavers?  How many are going to switch channels ( stream on their phone) when the Beavers play Utah next year?  

 

My thinking is along those lines because it's not Oregon, UW and Utah that are driving the bus when it comes to evaluating our conference.  Pretty good Oregon State is though.  

 

I truly believe the reason we've had issues for nearly ten years  getting a reasonable deal is because we don't draw enough MARGINAL interest from our "vanilla" teams.

Whereas, Rutgers is going to get decent numbers simply because Midwest folks watch football and we (West Coast viewers) don't.

 

It's a cruel numbers game.  Why do you think it's taking so long to get an "acceptable" deal?  I believe it's the combo of too much to do on an average Saturday out West, horrible attendance and viewership on the West Coast, EAST COAST BIAS, and too few brands like Oregon that the South, Midwest and Atlantic Coast follow.  

 

Unfortunately, it's the perfect storm going against us.  I believe that is always the discussion when it comes to our conference.  

 

Again, I'm not trying to be too negative here.  I'm just looking at it objectively given this has been going on since 2014.  

[Charles Fischer]

On 7/30/2023 at 2:35 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

The only negative is the PAC lacks top level leadership. Especially the leadership that makes decisions.

But do we really know that?

 

What if the media deal turns out to be pretty good?  And we find out later why things got held up...and it all made sense?

 

I cannot say his leadership is bad until I see the facts.  Colorado could not wait for the facts--they just wanted out, and any reason will do.  If Arizona leaves before even knowing the facts of the deal--whose bad leadership is that?

 

I look at the facts, and spin positive from them.  Some people, in the absence of facts--like to assume the worst.  (The leadership is terrible, the Pac-12 is toast, we are a crap-conference, etc.)

 

There are too many positive facts between the conference, and Our Beloved Ducks for me to go all-negative as some of our Duck-Buddies have.

 

[Charles Fischer]

On 7/30/2023 at 2:48 PM, Mike West said:

But what TV exec is looking out for Oregon State?  We're talking about a decent football team here.  How many fans in Kentucky care about the Beavers?  How many are going to switch channels ( stream on their phone) when the Beavers play Utah next year?  

In the end...our TV numbers are based upon those in the west who watch the telecast, and those numbers have been more than enough to support all the athletic programs.  It was documented a while back how an Oregon State vs. Arizona State game played in Corvallis drew a slightly larger audience in the 7:30 PST slot than two good Big-12 teams playing in prime-time.

 

It seems you are grasping for something to be negative about.

 

I'm sure I can find something else that is gloomy...

[Jon Joseph]

Does the merit of an Oregon or Stanford degree rest one whit on the success of after-school sports? 

 

I played in the college sports little league world of D3. None of us were on scholarship but we had a lot of fun playing ball and hockey out of the national spotlight as did those in the drama club, debating club, science club, outdoors club, etc. 

 

Oregon will end up in the conference where it is supposed to end up. And Oregon sports will be successful no matter the arena in which sports are contested. All speculation as to the landing place will not matter one iota as to where Puddles makes its nest. 

 

All of this pondering is interesting but will not dictate or influence where Oregon calls its conference home. The fact that money will dictate the decision makes the Dinosaur in me (spot on Charles) somewhat sad. But seeing the concepts of loyalty, ethics, tradition, and camaraderie disappearing in a cesspool of dollars makes me even more sad. 

 

What will happen will happen and the University of Oregon and its sports teams will be just fine.

[Duckhart]

On 7/30/2023 at 2:48 PM, Mike West said:

Ok guys,

 

I am going to rain on this, but not on purpose.  And I actually hope some negative emojis come of it.  It's nothing personal, and this group does not intend to be disrespectful by any means.

 

My concern is with Cal, Stanford (when they have a horrible record), WSU and Oregon State.

 

That group gets no love nationally until they are thick in the hunt for a conference title (again Stanford is an exception in that case).

 

I'd like an opinion from our Georgia friends on that because SEC fans are FOOTBALL fans. Football is almost akin to life in the South.  Who roots for little brother Beaver in the South?

 

OBD are certainly going to be fine.  But what TV exec is looking out for Oregon State?  We're talking about a decent football team here.  How many fans in Kentucky care about the Beavers?  How many are going to switch channels ( stream on their phone) when the Beavers play Utah next year?  

 

My thinking is along those lines because it's not Oregon, UW and Utah that are driving the bus when it comes to evaluating our conference.  Pretty good Oregon State is though.  

 

I truly believe the reason we've had issues for nearly ten years  getting a reasonable deal is because we don't draw enough MARGINAL interest from our "vanilla" teams.

Whereas, Rutgers is going to get decent numbers simply because Midwest folks watch football and we (West Coast viewers) don't.

 

It's a cruel numbers game.  Why do you think it's taking so long to get an "acceptable" deal?  I believe it's the combo of too much to do on an average Saturday out West, horrible attendance and viewership on the West Coast, EAST COAST BIAS, and too few brands like Oregon that the South, Midwest and Atlantic Coast follow.  

 

Unfortunately, it's the perfect storm going against us.  I believe that is always the discussion when it comes to our conference.  

 

Again, I'm not trying to be too negative here.  I'm just looking at it objectively given this has been going on since 2014.  

I agree that the west coast isn't nearly as college football nuts as the mid west and south, there is to much going on with many options. The trend out west has been happening for a while. 

Even hs football out west has been on a decline in terms of participants turning out. 

[Haywarduck]

I guess I don't get it. I can spin the Oregon facts positive all day.

 

The facts with the Pac are we lost sc, ucla, colorado, and we know little other facts. I can't spin those facts positive, and if we lose Arizona, not going to spin that positive either.

 

Now if we sign a great, or good tv contract, sign on SDSU, SMU and begin to see some positive facts then I can see a positive spin beginning to happen with the Pac. Until the then I stay away from the Pac discussion, because there isn't much positive going on.

 

I will say there is plenty to talk about the 2023 season, and the future with Dan Lanning. 

 

Talk about the Pac is like talking about the other P word, to me. It's not football and there is little positive to talk about with it.

[HappyToBeADuck]

I dont feel the quality of play in the PAC, nor because the fan interest toward our marginal teams is lacking.

 

The PAC plays some exciting football, however it is difficult ro find, for alot of viewers across the country.

 

Much of this I blame on the woeful decision making by LS and the Presidents in the beginning years of the PAC network.

 

LS and the Presidents miscalculated the value of the PAC, repeatedly. Direct TV wanted to carry the PAC 12 Network and its 6 affiliates. The PAC Network wanted RSN (Regional Sports Network) status. It pays more money to the PAC That meant that ALL Direct TV customers would have to pay for the PAC 12 Networks, whether they wanted to or not. Direct TV didn't feel that SEC, ACC and BIG fans would want an extra charge for something they weren't interested in. Makes sense, so no deal was made.

 

Also, the PAC 12 Network did not control the Tier 1 rights or all their games. Honestly, no games of national interest were on the PAC 12 Networks. Just regional broadcasts of interest to the fans of the teams playing.

 

In 2018, after AT&T acquired Direct TV and Univrse, a deal was struck that would add 18 million plus subscribing viewers to the PAC 12 network broadcasts. That would have put the P12 Network at 37 million.

 

The day before the announcement, AT&T added a condition to its terms. All 12 schools would have to make AT&T the on campus preferred telecom provider. This would hace cost each school millions but the 12 schools would have still split $37 million in the first year.

 

It was probably a bad deal for the PAC schools and better for AT&T but the deal fell thru. The Direct Tv still would have paid more money for football ro the schools than the P-12 Network was paying the school for all sports.....

 

Then in 2019 ESPN wanted to take over the P-12 Network and extend the media deal with the PAC thru 2030. ESPN audience was around 38 million. LS wanted to sell a 10% share of the P-12 Network for $500 million dollars. A ridiculous number so ESPN and every media broadcasting companies said NO.

That included a NO from Fox...

 

The PAC said no to ESPN, letting them know they could go to market and get much more money in a bidding war in 2023-24.

 

So far that hasnt worked out very well.

 

Once again the PAC leadership turned down a growth in viewership numbers on a national level. As a fan, you cant watch what you cant get.

 

Now you can get games on Sling and other providers. But SEC fans, ACC fans and BIG fans aren't going to do that.

 

Just like, OBDF members, they want to sit down, turn on the TV and watch a game on their cable subscriber.

 

The landscape has changed and PAC leadership miscalculated.

 

I wonder if ESPN and FOX are punishing the PAC for those previous rejections?

 

You get the PAC available nationally and fans will watch. There is nothing wrong with the product and the exclusive late night broadcasts of the PAC 9 Conference 

[Cacker Guy]

On 7/30/2023 at 4:25 PM, Jon Joseph said:

The fact that money will dictate the decision makes the Dinosaur in me (spot on Charles) somewhat sad. But seeing the concepts of loyalty, ethics, tradition, and camaraderie disappearing in a cesspool of dollars makes me even more sad. 

This dinosaur who enjoyed playing D2 sports agrees 100%!!  I'm saddened as well.

 

I think the PAC-whatever will survive, and I think UO will be fine no matter what happens.  I hope for the sake of the non-football sports they end up in a conference that's good for these sports as well.  It would stink to have to travel across country twice a week to play soccer or something.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Cacker Guy

[Mike West]

On 7/30/2023 at 7:20 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

Then in 2019 ESPN wanted to take over the P-12 Network and extend the media deal with the PAC thru 2030. ESPN audience was around 38 million. LS wanted to sell a 10% share of the P-12 Network for $500 million dollars. A ridiculous number so ESPN and every media broadcasting companies said NO.

That included a NO from Fox

So C Suite Larry valued the P12 at FIVE BILLION DOLLARS?  

 

So the past ten years really came down to grossly overestimating the P12's market value.  

 

I'd forgotten about the DirecTV fast move. But then again, they offered value (and don't the schools spend millions on their telecommunications already?).  

 

To use academic language, obtuse doesn't describe the half of it when it comes to the leadership in this conference.  Two shots at 38 MILLION eyeballs.  That was supposed to be worth $5B despite not having one football game break the 10 million viewership mark.  Ever.  

 

Isn't the SEC deal worth close to $3B.  And the Big Ten deal at  north of $2.5B?  What does that tell you my friends?  

 

I don't know about anyone else, but that more than concerns me.  

[Jon Joseph]

Wrathis, I agree with your thoughts and strongly agree with Charles that Oregon will land on its webbed feet. 

 

With the B1G playing 9 conference games and USC playing Notre Dame, I don't see Troy in a hurry to schedule another P5 team OOC; however, having said this, SC does play both LSU and ND in 2024. I do think we will see SC and UCLA play Cal or Stanford in a given year. If I were a UCLA representative I'd go to the Board of Regents with an offer to play Cal every year as soon as the schedule allows with Cal getting a 2-for-1 deal with two games played in Berkeley every 3 years.  This, instead of having to pay a Cal tax. 

 

As to CU, like Rhett Butler, I frankly don't give a damn. I do hope Oregon takes the opportunity this season to stick it to Prime and to Lincoln Riley. 

 

One thing for certain, I pray that the powers-that-be in Eugene will not schedule any one-off games versus the LA schools. Do nothing to alleviate the travel headaches these 2 illegitimate offspring will encounter.

 

My Swami deductive powers; well, I've lost my mojo. But I continue to be sunny side up when it comes to Ducks sports. 

[Jon Joseph]

On 7/30/2023 at 10:20 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

I dont feel the quality of play in the PAC, nor because the fan interest toward our marginal teams is lacking.

 

The PAC plays some exciting football, however it is difficult ro find, for alot of viewers across the country.

 

Much of this I blame on the woeful decision making by LS and the Presidents in the beginning years of the PAC network.

 

LS and the Presidents miscalculated the value of the PAC, repeatedly. Direct TV wanted to carry the PAC 12 Network and its 6 affiliates. The PAC Network wanted RSN (Regional Sports Network) status. It pays more money to the PAC That meant that ALL Direct TV customers would have to pay for the PAC 12 Networks, whether they wanted to or not. Direct TV didn't feel that SEC, ACC and BIG fans would want an extra charge for something they weren't interested in. Makes sense, so no deal was made.

 

Also, the PAC 12 Network did not control the Tier 1 rights or all their games. Honestly, no games of national interest were on the PAC 12 Networks. Just regional broadcasts of interest to the fans of the teams playing.

 

In 2018, after AT&T acquired Direct TV and Univrse, a deal was struck that would add 18 million plus subscribing viewers to the PAC 12 network broadcasts. That would have put the P12 Network at 37 million.

 

The day before the announcement, AT&T added a condition to its terms. All 12 schools would have to make AT&T the on campus preferred telecom provider. This would hace cost each school millions but the 12 schools would have still split $37 million in the first year.

 

It was probably a bad deal for the PAC schools and better for AT&T but the deal fell thru. The Direct Tv still would have paid more money for football ro the schools than the P-12 Network was paying the school for all sports.....

 

Then in 2019 ESPN wanted to take over the P-12 Network and extend the media deal with the PAC thru 2030. ESPN audience was around 38 million. LS wanted to sell a 10% share of the P-12 Network for $500 million dollars. A ridiculous number so ESPN and every media broadcasting companies said NO.

That included a NO from Fox...

 

The PAC said no to ESPN, letting them know they could go to market and get much more money in a bidding war in 2023-24.

 

So far that hasnt worked out very well.

 

Once again the PAC leadership turned down a growth in viewership numbers on a national level. As a fan, you cant watch what you cant get.

 

Now you can get games on Sling and other providers. But SEC fans, ACC fans and BIG fans aren't going to do that.

 

Just like, OBDF members, they want to sit down, turn on the TV and watch a game on their cable subscriber.

 

The landscape has changed and PAC leadership miscalculated.

 

I wonder if ESPN and FOX are punishing the PAC for those previous rejections?

 

You get the PAC available nationally and fans will watch. There is nothing wrong with the product and the exclusive late night broadcasts of the PAC 9 Conference 

Great recap. How objective was Larry with his network CEO salary on the line when it came to valuing the ESPN offer? I'll wager donuts to dollars that Larry did not recuse himself from the discussions and the board of directors allowed this to happen when the network never once reached its lowest projected revenue distributions.  BTW, I wonder who hired the consultants that came up with glorified, absurd projections? But I don't have to ponder this too long to determine the usual suspect.

 

Harvard, Stanford, and every business school in the nation should present a case study of what happens when totally unqualified people serve on a board of directors. People who put their 'shareholders' behind effete academic requirements. The opposite case study is to look at the SEC and see what a qualified incented group of directors under the purview of qualified administrators can do to elevate a conference that before the BCS was on the same footing as the Pac-10/12.

 

The B1G is big only because of the location of its member institutions and because of having legions of Alumni/Alumnae. Too B1G to fail.

 

For the Pac Conference, it has been two decades plus of see-foot, shoot. If the NIKE board and not an unqualified group of academicians had been calling the shots things would have been far different.