The Pac-12 is On the Rise

[FishDuck Article]

In the aftermath of an atrocious bowl season, I have been sensing from many Oregon fans that the Pac-12 is doomed. Many fans feel the conference missed the boat by not expanding with the remaining Big 12 teams after Texas and Oklahoma bolted for the SEC. Some think that it is only a matter of time before USC and Oregon ...

 

Read the full article here...

[Haywarduck]

Agree all is not lost, but there was a huge lost opportunity while the Pac-12 was asleep.

[HappyToBeADuck]

Darren, as always thank you for another thought provoking article. Should be some interesting POVs from the forum.

 

I agree that all is not lost for the PAC. No matter how poorly the product is on the field, the PAC has the west coast and some of the mountain time zone.

 

The networks need those time slots for viewing content. How much they pay may depend on the very crux of your article.

 

In my opinion,  the product on the field and its presentation (fan attendence) is boring.  How much will the networks pay for boring?

 

Currently each PAC team gets paid $18 million less than BIG members and about $9 million less than SEC members. A season.......WTH....

 

Every 5 years Rutgers and Maryland get near $100 million more than the PAC  teams.........goodness.

 

That gap will widen with the next TV contract. The PAC needs to put a more compelling product on the field.

 

I agree with your 3 points but have reservations on them as well.

 

1. USC. The Trojans may be enamored with their blue blood status but a near generation of talent is not. Riley has no track record of building a dumpster fire program from the ashes. He took over a powerhouse. Time will tell....

 

2. The Alliance games will have an uptick in ratings. As long as the top teams are involved.  TV will want USC-Clemson or Oregon-Michigan. Not WSU-Rutgers or Arizona-Duke.

 

A great deal to risk, how much to gain for the PAC.?

 

Adding the remnants of the BIG 12 would have brought Texas eyeballs to the market and 3 time zones of games into the next TV contract. Last I looked the B-12 had 2 teams in New Years 6 Bowls. I would rather see Baylor-Oregon and USC-OSU on a Saturday telecast than have Cincinnati and BYU fill in for the PAC teams. But that shipped sailed.....

 

3. Oregon has potential as so do the Trojans. Oregon fans bring energy to the game and telecasts. However, we have an unproven coach. Time will tell.........

 

For the last 6 seasons, 8 year olds who are now 14 all over the country have had very little to be excited about when watching the PAC. They will be making college decisions in the next few years......just like the networks with new contracts will be.....

 

Time is running out, the clock is ticking. No amount of academic prowess or past glory will bring talent or money to the PAC.

 

I guess time will tell.....

[noDucknewby]

Just win baby.  The P12 needs separation at the top and a champion with 1 loss or less to get back to the CFP.  If it takes going to an 8-game conference schedule let's make it happen.  Adding non-conference games with the B1G and ACC (assuming GK can pull that off) makes the TV deal more attractive and early season losses to non-conference powerhouses don't hurt that much (see Auburn 2019).  One good season with a top-ten matchup in the P12 Championship puts us back in the conversation.  College football is all about "What have you done for me lately".

[30Duck]

Darren, I agree with your 3 steps, Clemson was it from the ACC, and Oklahoma carried the Big 12. To speed this along for Oregon and USC, GK seems open to interior design renovations such as an 8 game schedule and doing away with divisions. 

[JDuck]

Dennis Dixon doesn't hurt his knee against ASU, there is a high likelihood we win the natty in 2007.  Crap 12 refs don't blow the call against Stanturd, even after review, there is a high chance we'd have won the natty in '12 as well.

[shawnski]

Good thoughts. My ONLY requirements to keep the Pac from sliding off the cliff is:

 

1) status quo is NOT an option

 

2) Actions not words. Scott was full of hot air, and the only thing that benefitted was his wallet

 

3) We'll play Missouri  - show me 

[MaiTaiDuck]

On 1/4/2022 at 2:05 AM, FishDuck Article said:

In the aftermath of an atrocious bowl season, I have been sensing from many Oregon fans that the Pac-12 is doomed. Many fans feel the conference missed the boat by not expanding with the remaining Big 12 teams after Texas and Oklahoma bolted for the SEC. Some think that it is only a matter of time before USC and Oregon ...

Read More

Source

Read the full article here...

Good stuff Darren and I have to agree on most points. Oregon unfortunately like you said had a HC that really his main goal was his " BABY " the O Line and that's exactly how he played it. I mean lets be honest this could have been an elite offense if the right guy was behind center. Defense had way to many injuries to key players to be dominant. Yes Sc in the blueblood and to me the old blueblood and pretty much a few Championships and if Oregon could just win one I as well as a lot of my fellow Ducks could be very happy. I'm talking just 1.

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 6:59 AM, HappyToBeADuck said:

Darren, as always thank you for another thought provoking article. Should be some interesting POVs from the forum.

 

I agree that all is not lost for the PAC. No matter how poorly the product is on the field, the PAC has the west coast and some of the mountain time zone.

 

The networks need those time slots for viewing content. How much they pay may depend on the very crux of your article.

 

In my opinion,  the product on the field and its presentation (fan attendence) is boring.  How much will the networks pay for boring?

 

Currently each PAC team gets paid $18 million less than BIG members and about $9 million less than SEC members. A season.......WTH....

 

Every 5 years Rutgers and Maryland get near $100 million more than the PAC  teams.........goodness.

 

That gap will widen with the next TV contract. The PAC needs to put a more compelling product on the field.

 

I agree with your 3 points but have reservations on them as well.

 

1. USC. The Trojans may be enamored with their blue blood status but a near generation of talent is not. Riley has no track record of building a dumpster fire program from the ashes. He took over a powerhouse. Time will tell....

 

2. The Alliance games will have an uptick in ratings. As long as the top teams are involved.  TV will want USC-Clemson or Oregon-Michigan. Not WSU-Rutgers or Arizona-Duke.

 

A great deal to risk, how much to gain for the PAC.?

 

Adding the remnants of the BIG 12 would have brought Texas eyeballs to the market and 3 time zones of games into the next TV contract. Last I looked the B-12 had 2 teams in New Years 6 Bowls. I would rather see Baylor-Oregon and USC-OSU on a Saturday telecast than have Cincinnati and BYU fill in for the PAC teams. But that shipped sailed.....

 

3. Oregon has potential as so do the Trojans. Oregon fans bring energy to the game and telecasts. However, we have an unproven coach. Time will tell.........

 

For the last 6 seasons, 8 year olds who are now 14 all over the country have had very little to be excited about when watching the PAC. They will be making college decisions in the next few years......just like the networks with new contracts will be.....

 

Time is running out, the clock is ticking. No amount of academic prowess or past glory will bring talent or money to the PAC.

 

I guess time will tell.....

 

Thanks for the comments. I do believe it as about quality and not quantity. The Alliance games will draw way more eyeballs than, for example, Washington State vs Texas Tech type matchups, of which there would be many, which networks don't get jazzed about. None of the remaining Big 12 teams bring enough name cache to get the networks excited and the SEC knows that. 

 

USC was a bit of a dumpster fire when Pete Carrol took over and by year two they were winning the Orange Bowl, It will be a quick bounce back, this is not like rebuilding Oregon State. USC has talent and Riley is bringing in more, the Oklahoma qb, williams, just entered the transfer portal, safe to say he's probaly looking at SC.  

 

Also, there will be a next round of expansion, serious talks seem to happen every 5-10 years, if down the road bringing in some of those BIG 12 teams makes sense then it could get donw. 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 6:17 AM, Haywarduck said:

Agree all is not lost, but there was a huge lost opportunity while the Pac-12 was asleep.

 

As far as expansion,? I believe the powers that be looked at that, but didn't feel it would generate more revenue per school. 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 7:13 AM, noDucknewby said:

Just win baby.  The P12 needs separation at the top and a champion with 1 loss or less to get back to the CFP.  If it takes going to an 8-game conference schedule let's make it happen.  Adding non-conference games with the B1G and ACC (assuming GK can pull that off) makes the TV deal more attractive and early season losses to non-conference powerhouses don't hurt that much (see Auburn 2019).  One good season with a top-ten matchup in the P12 Championship puts us back in the conversation.  College football is all about "What have you done for me lately".

 

Agree, it's all about the marquee matchups, and honestly the Pac-12 just needs to play better, and I think the Pac is on the brink. 

[kirklandduck]

I like the article, thanks Darren!  Overall I agree with most of the points, though I do differ on the subject of expansion.  While I'm hopeful about the "alliance", I do think the Pac12 would have benefitted from pulling in a couple teams like Texas Tech and Houston.  I understand quality concerns but I think the recruiting exposure in that area of the country outweighs that risk.  Plus both those teams did win their bowl games against SEC opponents, Houston is notably a top 25 ranked team.

[Jon Joseph]

Terrific article Darren, thank you.

 

But I disagree that the Pac-12 is on the rise. Strongly disagree.  Please see my response to Woodbuther's excellent take: Organized Turmoil. I vented enough there without piling on here. 

 

If Oregon and USC were a stock I'd advise, BUY. But the conference as a whole, I advise, SELL.

[DuckFan93]

When you are at the rock bottom, the only way to go is up.

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/4/2022 at 12:41 PM, Darren Perkins said:

 

Thanks for the comments. I do believe it as about quality and not quantity. The Alliance games will draw way more eyeballs than, for example, Washington State vs Texas Tech type matchups, of which there would be many, which networks don't get jazzed about. None of the remaining Big 12 teams bring enough name cache to get the networks excited and the SEC knows that. 

 

USC was a bit of a dumpster fire when Pete Carrol took over and by year two they were winning the Orange Bowl, It will be a quick bounce back, this is not like rebuilding Oregon State. USC has talent and Riley is bringing in more, the Oklahoma qb, williams, just entered the transfer portal, safe to say he's probaly looking at SC.  

 

Also, there will be a next round of expansion, serious talks seem to happen every 5-10 years, if down the road bringing in some of those BIG 12 teams makes sense then it could get donw. 

 

Disagree on B12 expansion or lack thereof. Market share follows market size. Most acquisitions do not immediately add to the acquiring company's bottom line. But over time synergies and new markets add positive results. Baylor just won the Sugar Bowl. OK ST won the Fiesta Bowl. Houston defeated Auburn. Texas Tech destroyed Mississippi State. Kansas State and Iowa State both were bowl eligible. TCU happens to be in the huge Dallas marketplace. In the other money ball sport, CBB, the B12 teams including Kansas are very competitive, including NCAA titles in 2 of the last 3 seasons. THIS would not have given GK more to sell? Quality? In both CFB and CBB adding Baylor, Houston, OK ST, KS, K ST, TX Tech and Iowa State would have added quality and market places where CFB matters.

 

BTW - Dillon Gabriel dropped UCLA in favor of Oklahoma and it's odds on that Williams is headed to Georgia.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Jon Joseph

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 8:25 AM, 30Duck said:

Darren, I agree with your 3 steps, Clemson was it from the ACC, and Oklahoma carried the Big 12. To speed this along for Oregon and USC, GK seems open to interior design renovations such as an 8 game schedule and doing away with divisions. 

 

Yeah, he's open to some cool ideas, such as not having all the alliance games be just in September, but spreadout through the season, which goes against tradition.

[Haywarduck]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:43 AM, Darren Perkins said:

 

As far as expansion,? I believe the powers that be looked at that, but didn't feel it would generate more revenue per school. 

More about lost opportunity while sc, the dawgs, and just about everyone was asleep, and we just sat on the recruiting crown.

 

Time to compete on the field as best we can. Who cares about preseason rankings, winning the recruiting wars, win the games!

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 8:30 AM, JDuck said:

Dennis Dixon doesn't hurt his knee against ASU, there is a high likelihood we win the natty in 2007.  Crap 12 refs don't blow the call against Stanturd, even after review, there is a high chance we'd have won the natty in '12 as well.

 

Good point on Dixon, I was referring to the USC dominance from 2002-08. 

[Steven A]

Darren, I agree on all your points and that the Alliance was a much better option to expansion.

 

I will be interesting to see how long Vandy and any other bottom SEC feeders stay where they have ZERO chance to ever be anything but cannon fodder in football.

 

Plus, OU and Texas will be middle tier at best for a while. I wonder if their buyout from the SEC will be when they realize the colossal mistake they made going from being a big fish in a small pool to a small fish in a big one. 

 

And when they never sniff a conference CShip and jettison their coaches, they will never attract quality coaches since they will be doomed to fail from the beginning. 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 8:42 AM, shawnski said:

Good thoughts. My ONLY requirements to keep the Pac from sliding off the cliff is:

 

1) status quo is NOT an option

 

2) Actions not words. Scott was full of hot air, and the only thing that benefitted was his wallet

 

3) We'll play Missouri  - show me 

 

I think the new commish is off to a good start, yes action, hopefully we'll get alot of that this offseason. 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 8:53 AM, MaiTaiDuck said:

Good stuff Darren and I have to agree on most points. Oregon unfortunately like you said had a HC that really his main goal was his " BABY " the O Line and that's exactly how he played it. I mean lets be honest this could have been an elite offense if the right guy was behind center. Defense had way to many injuries to key players to be dominant. Yes Sc in the blueblood and to me the old blueblood and pretty much a few Championships and if Oregon could just win one I as well as a lot of my fellow Ducks could be very happy. I'm talking just 1.

 

Yes, if we could get just 1, the folks in Seattle would not be happy. Here's to Lanning getting things right!

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:05 AM, kirklandduck said:

I like the article, thanks Darren!  Overall I agree with most of the points, though I do differ on the subject of expansion.  While I'm hopeful about the "alliance", I do think the Pac12 would have benefitted from pulling in a couple teams like Texas Tech and Houston.  I understand quality concerns but I think the recruiting exposure in that area of the country outweighs that risk.  Plus both those teams did win their bowl games against SEC opponents, Houston is notably a top 25 ranked team.

 

And I respect that point of view. I do think it is possible that the PAc-12 could expand into Texas down the road. If USC and Oregon become CFP regulars, whick i think is very likely, then we can expand from a position of strength. 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:23 AM, DuckFan93 said:

When you are at the rock bottom, the only way to go is up.

 

Very true, and that's kinda what it took for a new coach at SC and a new commissioner. 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:29 AM, Jon Joseph said:

 

Disagree on B12 expansion or lack thereof. Market share follows market size. Most acquisitions do not immediately add to the acquiring company's bottom line. But over time synergies and new markets add positive results. Baylor just won the Sugar Bowl. OK ST won the Fiesta Bowl. Houston defeated Auburn. Texas Tech destroyed Mississippi State. Kansas State and Iowa State both were bowl eligible. TCU happens to be in the huge Dallas marketplace. In the other money ball sport, CBB, the B12 teams including Kansas are very competitive, including NCAA titles in 2 of the last 3 seasons. THIS would not have given GK more to sell? Quality? In both CFB and CBB adding Baylor, Houston, OK ST, KS, K ST, TX Tech and Iowa State would have added quality and market places where CFB matters.

 

BTW - Dillon Gabriel dropped UCLA in favor of Oklahoma and it's odds on that Williams is headed to Georgia.

 

Hey Jon, I totally respect your well thought out point of view, you might be right.... I dont think hoops does enough to move the needle since, what? Off the top of my head 85% percent of revenue is football., give or take. And yes, they did well this season just like the Pac-12 did poorly, but that's not every year.

 

There would be plenty more to sell, but would that increase the pay out per school? That's a big risk, especially in the short term, and while it is more prudent to look long-term as you've suggested, that's just not how the world works, people want results, as in, yesterday! I think going the Alliance route is the prudent first step, and expansion could be something down the road, the book on that isn't closed forever. A strong Oregon and USC would make the PAc-12 attractive, and I think we're on the way. 

[30Duck]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:54 AM, Darren Perkins said:

If USC and Oregon become CFP regulars, which I think is very likely,

 

Oklahoma is dropping out for a while, so that leaves a space at the table. Clemson isn't a shoe in next season. Oregon and USC need to be in contention the whole season and if not in the CFP every year, win their NY6 Bowl. 

[Tandaian]

Big 12 signed a 13 year 2.6 billion dollar contract in 2012, for 20 mil per team per year.  Here is article that says Big 12 could lose 50% of their TV value with the loss of Oklahoma and Texas.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/08/02/big-12-warns-of-losing-50-of-tv-value-following-utou-exit/117803982/

 

Pac 12 signed a 12 year 3.0 billion dollar contract in 2012.  It will be very interesting to see what the contracts will be this next go around.  Pac 12 will have a new TV deal after the 2024 season.  Big 12 will have a new TV deal after the 2025 season.

 

With the loss of Oklahoma and Texas, I don't see the Big 12 having a bigger TV contract than the Pac 12 with their next signings.

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:40 AM, Haywarduck said:

More about lost opportunity while sc, the dawgs, and just about everyone was asleep, and we just sat on the recruiting crown.

 

Time to compete on the field as best we can. Who cares about preseason rankings, winning the recruiting wars, win the games!

 Agreed... 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:44 AM, Steven A said:

Darren, I agree on all your points and that the Alliance was a much better option to expansion.

 

I will be interesting to see how long Vandy and any other bottom SEC feeders stay where they have ZERO chance to ever be anything but cannon fodder in football.

 

Plus, OU and Texas will be middle tier at best for a while. I wonder if their buyout from the SEC will be when they realize the colossal mistake they made going from being a big fish in a small pool to a small fish in a big one. 

 

And when they never sniff a conference CShip and jettison their coaches, they will never attract quality coaches since they will be doomed to fail from the beginning. 

 Good points. And, I think they keep Vandy and the likes around so they can guarantee some wins, don't want everybody to be too good. 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:22 AM, Tandaian said:

Big 12 signed a 13 year 2.6 billion dollar contract in 2012, for 20 mil per team per year.  Here is article that says Big 12 could lose 50% of their TV value with the loss of Oklahoma and Texas.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/08/02/big-12-warns-of-losing-50-of-tv-value-following-utou-exit/117803982/

 

Pac 12 signed a 12 year 3.0 billion dollar contract in 2012.  It will be very interesting to see what the contracts will be this next go around.  Pac 12 will have a new TV deal after the 2024 season.  Big 12 will have a new TV deal after the 2025 season.

 

With the loss of Oklahoma and Texas, I don't see the Big 12 having a bigger TV contract than the Pac 12 with their next signings.

 

 

 

Yup, and if Oregon and USC step and become serioius contender then all the more money. The Big 12 has zero blue-bloods and/or top tier programs. Almost half their conference was a Group of 5 member over the past decade. It's about big names and big matchups more than it is about expanding into new territories. 

[Washington Waddler]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:13 AM, Darren Perkins said:

There would be plenty more to sell, but would that increase the pay out per school? That's a big risk, especially in the short term, and while it is more prudent to look long-term as you've suggested, that's just not how the world works, people want results, as in, yesterday!

 

     Agree. In addition, over-looked in the recent success of ‘left over’ B12 bowl teams is the backs-to-the-wall psychology that helped generate that success: the pride in conference factor.  Being in the PAC 12 this season by any of those teams would most likely not have created that same energy. As a long term investment; good risk,  but in the short term; I agree, the results risk applies.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Washington Waddler
grammar

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/4/2022 at 2:13 PM, Darren Perkins said:

 

Hey Jon, I totally respect your well thought out point of view, you might be right.... I dont think hoops does enough to move the needle since, what? Off the top of my head 85% percent of revenue is football., give or take. And yes, they did well this season just like the Pac-12 did poorly, but that's not every year.

 

There would be plenty more to sell, but would that increase the pay out per school? That's a big risk, especially in the short term, and while it is more prudent to look long-term as you've suggested, that's just not how the world works, people want results, as in, yesterday! I think going the Alliance route is the prudent first step, and expansion could be something down the road, the book on that isn't closed forever. A strong Oregon and USC would make the PAc-12 attractive, and I think we're on the way. 

 

The Alliance. So far what we have from the Alliance is a home OOC game versus a B1G or ACC team every other year. I don't think that Arizona playing at Duke for example is going to incent the networks to come with more money? Look at the future OOC games and many impactful OOC games vs P5 teams, including the SEC, have already been scheduled.  As GK noted the Pac-12 is flexible on playoff expansion. Fine with 8 or 12 teams while the ACC is insisting on 8 teams only.

 

In addition to the points I made earlier regarding B12 expansion, a P5 competitor would have been eliminated and the Network possibly could have moved into the black? With Bob Bowlsby making the astute additions to the B12, where is the Pac-12 going to go in Texas? SMU, Rice, UTSA, UTEP. 

 

I respect your POV and others who agree with you, of course. But not striking when the iron was hot IMO was a terrible, extremely short-sighted business decision. We'll see when the new TV deals are negotiated but my guess is that the 'New B12' will score more money than the Pac-12 and the Network is not going to be saved by continuing to serve the exact same market place.

 

The Pac-12 could have expanded at a time when it would have been viewed as 'the good guy' coming to the rescue of remaining B12 teams.

 

The 'New B12' just sent a team to the playoff and Baylor and OK ST both won NY6 bowls. When do you see this happening with the Pac-12 standing pat?

Edited January 4, 2022 by Jon Joseph

[Washington Waddler]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:40 AM, Haywarduck said:

More about lost opportunity while sc, the dawgs, and just about everyone was asleep, and we just sat on the recruiting crown.

 

Time to compete on the field as best we can. Who cares about preseason rankings, winning the recruiting wars, win the games!

 

     I agree with everything you said HD except recruiting. Just because MC was incapable of turning high school recruits into college-level players doesn’t mean winning the recruiting wars becomes any less important.

 

     A crucial key for me in turning PAC 12 fortunes around is to keep the focus on bringing the best coaching talent out there into the PAC 12.  We need to slow the bleeding of western recruits into the midwest and southeast, and top coaching will help do that.

 

     The key to that, again, is Oregon and SC. Those two do well, and interest in the PAC 12 will grow.

[Steven A]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:41 AM, Darren Perkins said:

Also, there will be a next round of expansion, serious talks seem to happen every 5-10 years, if down the road bringing in some of those BIG 12 teams makes sense then it could get donw. 

Nostrduckist here, next round of expansion will see the also rans of the SEC, I'm looking at you OU & UT, fulfill Champagne Larry's dream of joining the Pac.

 

Plus, Larry taking credit.

 

You heard it here first!

[Charles Fischer]

On 1/4/2022 at 1:03 PM, Steven A said:

Nostrduckist

 

THAT is an awesome name....you could change your Posting Name to that?

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 12:35 PM, Jon Joseph said:

 

The Alliance. So far what we have from the Alliance is a home OOC game versus a B1G or ACC team every other year. I don't think that Arizona playing at Duke for example is going to incent the networks to come with more money? Look at the future OOC games and many impactful OOC games vs P5 teams, including the SEC, have already been scheduled.  As GK noted the Pac-12 is flexible on playoff expansion. Fine with 8 or 12 teams while the ACC is insisting on 8 teams only.

 

In addition to the points I made earlier regarding B12 expansion, a P5 competitor would have been eliminated and the Network possibly could have moved into the black? With Bob Bowlsby making the astute additions to the B12, where is the Pac-12 going to go in Texas? SMU, Rice, UTSA, UTEP. 

 

I respect your POV and others who agree with you, of course. But not striking when the iron was hot IMO was a terrible, extremely short-sighted business decision. We'll see when the new TV deals are negotiated but my guess is that the 'New B12' will score more money than the Pac-12 and the Network is not going to be saved by continuing to serve the exact same market place.

 

The Pac-12 could have expanded at a time when it would have been viewed as 'the good guy' coming to the rescue of remaining B12 teams.

 

The 'New B12' just sent a team to the playoff and Baylor and OK ST both won NY6 bowls. When do you see this happening with the Pac-12 standing pat?

 

The nice thing about the alliance, from my understanding, is that games would be schedued on a year to year basis and not 5-10 years ahead of time. This way, they can schedule the top/hottest teams each year. Now, there's a lot of details to work out, but that is goal is to create matchups that the networks would like to throw money at. 

 

The big 12 had a good year, but I don't believe Baylor and Ok St are winning double digits games on a consistent basis. If the Bearcats were in the Big 12 this year, odds are they don't make the playoff. On top of that, there's a good chance they would have knocked OK St or Baylor out of the NY6. So the new Big 12 would have had 2 teams top, possibly only one in the NY6/CFP.

 

I understand eliminating the competition, but with USC and the Ducks firing on all cylinders (and if UW and UCLA ever stepup) the Big 12 is really no competition to the Pac-12 (think current SEC to PAc-12 now). They have no top tiers programs, no blue-bloods, no new-bloods, and almost half the conference was a Group of 5 team within the past decade. They have some good second-tier programs, but none the networks are salivating over. I think if the Pac-12 steps up, then down the line, if it makes financial sense, they can maybe snag Oklahoma State and a couple/a few Texas schools. 

 

I get it and I agree, Texas is a valuable state, but I'm not sure any of those leftover programs offer enough cache. 

 

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 1:03 PM, Steven A said:

Nostrduckist here, next round of expansion will see the also rans of the SEC, I'm looking at you OU & UT, fulfill Champagne Larry's dream of joining the Pac.

 

Plus, Larry taking credit.

 

You heard it here first!

 

I'd be for that!!!

[Tandaian]

I hope with CBS losing the SEC, they want to stay in the college football in a big way.  I'd like to have multiple TV companies put in bids for the Pac 12.  However, CBS only has 2 sport stations (CBS & CBS Sports), vs 3 for Fox (Fox, FoxSports 1, FoxSports 2) and 4 for ABC/ESPN (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews).

[DuckFan93]

I think we should count Utah in the mix for Pac-12 to succeed.  They need to take care of their non-conf biz and continue to beat up teams like Ducks (hope not...).   They have a great coach who really can develop players and take them to unexpected heights.

 

Furd could also be back with improved recruiting and their coaching.    But of coz with Pac-12 beating each other up all the time, only max 2 teams will emerge and end up in top 10 probably.    Even that I may be dreaming.

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/4/2022 at 4:31 PM, Darren Perkins said:

 

The nice thing about the alliance, from my understanding, is that games would be schedued on a year to year basis and not 5-10 years ahead of time. This way, they can schedule the top/hottest teams each year. Now, there's a lot of details to work out, but that is goal is to create matchups that the networks would like to throw money at. 

 

The big 12 had a good year, but I don't believe Baylor and Ok St are winning double digits games on a consistent basis. If the Bearcats were in the Big 12 this year, odds are they don't make the playoff. On top of that, there's a good chance they would have knocked OK St or Baylor out of the NY6. So the new Big 12 would have had 2 teams top, possibly only one in the NY6/CFP.

 

I understand eliminating the competition, but with USC and the Ducks firing on all cylinders (and if UW and UCLA ever stepup) the Big 12 is really no competition to the Pac-12 (think current SEC to PAc-12 now). They have no top tiers programs, no blue-bloods, no new-bloods, and almost half the conference was a Group of 5 team within the past decade. They have some good second-tier programs, but none the networks are salivating over. I think if the Pac-12 steps up, then down the line, if it makes financial sense, they can maybe snag Oklahoma State and a couple/a few Texas schools. 

 

I get it and I agree, Texas is a valuable state, but I'm not sure any of those leftover programs offer enough cache. 

 

 

My friend, 4 power league teams competing for media dollars would likely be better than 5 power league teams competing for same? I think if the Pac-12 had added 6 teams, forget Iowa State, FOX to block ESPN would have made a move to control Pac-18 media rights and possibly saved the network and the so far wasted investment Pac-12 teams have in the network?

 

Other than for SC and Oregon, both Baylor, OK ST, TX Tech draw more eyeballs than the rest of the Pac-12. I see no reason why Baylor and OK St should suffer a decline in CFB and CBB with OK and TX leaving for the SEC.

 

BYU went 5-0 against the Pac-12 and lost at Baylor. Baylor and OK State both won NY6 games and scored the $ as a result in playing in these games. Cache? What cache do OR St, WA St, Arizona, add to the Pac-12 in CFB?

[HappyToBeADuck]

I have enjoyed this thread immensely today as the comments and POV's rolled in. 

 

A few thoughts .....

 

The Alliance cross over games will only be of interest to a network if they attract eyeballs. They will want USC, Oregon, Utah and maybe UCLA and washingtongueless. 

 

They will not pay top dollar for games that have no value, no interest, no added eyeballs.

 

Consider this, do we want to put our top teams in harms way in OOC games? Take a pause and consider the match ups the networks will want. Unless their is an expanded 12 team playoff, this is a potential roadblock to getting to the current CFP.

 

The games in conference matter and should have the highest priority 

 

I agree with JJ, an 18 team conference that covers 3 time zones can be enticing. Supply and demand dictates prices. 4 conferences instead of 5 is less supply. The demand will be high from networks outside looking in. Especially at the negotiating table.......

 

There will still be the same amount of teams. But the same 3 Alliance conferences.  Other than tOSU and Clemson the ACC and BIG have no better or worse teams than the expanded PAC. When USC and Oregon are at their best, they are equal TV draws as tOSU and Clemson. 

 

And let's be clear, again! Which match ups will networks pay top dollar for? Most Alliance game match ups will not draw eyeballs unless the top teams play.

 

These 3 conferences could have put the SEC as the odd man out. Bargaining negotiations would have had a way different snapshot.

 

The merger would have cost the 12-PAC members nothing. The merger would have taken place at the time of contract negotiations. A true bargaining chip.

 

But I acquiesce to the academic prowess of the 12 presidents. They must know best. After all just look at the success they showed with P12 Network. Just look at the state of the conference.

 

Not very impressive.  None of these clowns should have a say in anything sports related.

[1Funduck]

I definitely do NOT want expansion. At this point it would bring nothing to the conference. We had a chance with Texas and Oklahoma schools but couldn't make that work. What school this side of the Mississippi could you call a Pacific School and be worth integrating? Nah, let's just keep it the way it is. Numerically its perfect.

 

We play 1/3 of the South every year thereby playing them all every 3. Get 4 games in non con with one of them a high profile game. If the PAC is good then they will win. We don't need more schools to get better, we need more wins in the bowl games to be perceived as better and that in turn brings in more recruits.

[Darren Perkins]

On 1/4/2022 at 5:36 PM, Jon Joseph said:

 

My friend, 4 power league teams competing for media dollars would likely be better than 5 power league teams competing for same? I think if the Pac-12 had added 6 teams, forget Iowa State, FOX to block ESPN would have made a move to control Pac-18 media rights and possibly saved the network and the so far wasted investment Pac-12 teams have in the network?

 

Other than for SC and Oregon, both Baylor, OK ST, TX Tech draw more eyeballs than the rest of the Pac-12. I see no reason why Baylor and OK St should suffer a decline in CFB and CBB with OK and TX leaving for the SEC.

 

BYU went 5-0 against the Pac-12 and lost at Baylor. Baylor and OK State both won NY6 games and scored the $ as a result in playing in these games. Cache? What cache do OR St, WA St, Arizona, add to the Pac-12 in CFB?

 

Well we're not going to drop anybody, we're not at that point in college football. 

 

But those big 12 teams you mentioned, they are second tier programs, they don't move the needle enough for the networks. Names like Texas and Oklahoma move the needle far enough. Again, the SEC knows this, and what's good enough for the SEC (ie, passing on the rest of the Big 12 leftovers) should be good enough for the Pac-12.

 

Andy Staples wrote an article in the fall. The magic number is 4 million. As in 4 million viewers and over is considered a homerun by the networks.And by adding Texas and Oklahoma tbe sec probably added around 7-10 4 million viewer games a year. ..... The Pac - 12 adds the likes of Baylor and Ok State, they add zero 4 mil games. But in the alliance, there will several 4 million viewer games added. And that's what the Pac-12 needs. 

[Jon Joseph]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:53 PM, Darren Perkins said:

 

Well we're not going to drop anybody, we're not at that point in college football. 

 

But those big 12 teams you mentioned, they are second tier programs, they don't move the needle enough for the networks. Names like Texas and Oklahoma move the needle far enough. Again, the SEC knows this, and what's good enough for the SEC (ie, passing on the rest of the Big 12 leftovers) should be good enough for the Pac-12.

 

Andy Staples wrote an article in the fall. The magic number is 4 million. As in 4 million viewers and over is considered a homerun by the networks.And by adding Texas and Oklahoma tbe sec probably added around 7-10 4 million viewer games a year. ..... The Pac - 12 adds the likes of Baylor and Ok State, they add zero 4 mil games. But in the alliance, there will several 4 million viewer games added. And that's what the Pac-12 needs. 

 

Comparing the last media deals the B12 and Pac-12 made is apples to oranges. First, the Pac-18 to 20 would have dropped the big time media rights bidder to 4 and not 5. And with the ACC locked in through 2036 it would really mean dropping 4 to 3. And picking up markets in the central time zone and especially in Texas would have helped the Pac-12 media wise even without OK and TX. And it possibly, perhaps probably, could have saved the Pac-12 network and the money Pac-12 schools invested in the network.

 

Standing pat. AZ, ASU, CU, this version of Stanford, CAL, OR ST and WA St have no chance whatsoever at competing for a playoff spot. Utah is marginal. UCLA is way in the red. UW does not seem to spend the money needed to be big time. For example, hiring DeBeor and not a big name coach or a top assistant from a playoff contending program. Tough for SC and the Ducks to carry the conference; to spend far more on football and get the same ROI as teams that spend far less.

 

To date, no team that played 9 conference games has won the playoff. Yet next season the Ducks will play 5 conference road games. How hard is it to figure this out and make the change?