30Duck No. 1 Share Posted February 19, 2022 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrw Moderator No. 2 Share Posted February 19, 2022 I need a translation from Kliavkoff obfuscation-speak to English. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck 1972 No. 3 Share Posted February 19, 2022 No go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Duck No. 4 Share Posted February 19, 2022 (edited) On 2/18/2022 at 6:53 PM, jrw said: I need a translation from Kliavkoff obfuscation-speak to English. rat.mp4 Edited February 19, 2022 by Viking Duck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 5 Share Posted February 19, 2022 I believe he is taking a shot at those blaming the ACC, B1G + Pac-12 for cratering playoff field expansion. Especially in response to the SEC commish Greg Sankey. The field would be expanded and the expanded playoff would have started in 2023, had Sankey not under-the-table poached OK/TX from the SEC. But, the PO also would have expanded if the ACC, trying to entice Notre Dame to join the conference as a full time football member and thus re-work its media deal with ESPN, hadn't said 'no go' to PO expansion. The B1G's issues, all P5 champs in and protection for the Rose Bowl, and the Pac-12's desire to protect the Rose Bowl, could have been resolved. If given the chance I think Kialvkoff would be more than happy to head back to his job at MGM? Shortly after GK said that AAU membership would not be a requirement for Pac-12 conference expansion, this after it was known that Texas Tech had reached out to the Pac-12, the conference, an "exclusive club,'" decided to stay as-is. Decided to play the same media hand come 2024 that that Larry Scott had to play with back when. (BTW, I'd love to know where Schill came down on expansion? Schill is the current chairman of the conference leadership committee.) Meanwhile, the SEC and the B1G will just continue to financially and on the football field, leave the other P5 conferences and especially the Pac-12, in the financial and playoff dust. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyToBeADuck No. 6 Share Posted February 19, 2022 The pac 12 presidents are doing to the conference what MC did to the high flying Duck offense......... Choking the life out of it. Showing no forward thinking or innovation, what so ever. Do any of you on this forum think that PAC 12 Football is must watch TV? How do you think the Networks feel about PAC 12 football? We come to the negotiating table with nothing changed and a failing network. How much money do you pay for late night viewing and filler games? 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 7 Share Posted February 19, 2022 On 2/19/2022 at 1:29 PM, HappyToBeADuck said: The pac 12 presidents are doing to the conference what MC did to the high flying Duck offense......... Choking the life out of it. Showing no forward thinking or innovation, what so ever. Do any of you on this forum think that PAC 12 Football is must watch TV? How do you think the Networks feel about PAC 12 football? We come to the negotiating table with nothing changed and a failing network. How much money do you pay for late night viewing and filler games? After the B1G comes to the media negotiation table and with the SEC already scoring big with the ESPN deal, the Pac-12 conference will get the left overs. And the conference still has to figure out what to do with a network that is basically insolvent, a drag on recruiting and broadcasting games being played at a time and on a network that people cannot and/or will not watch. I'm sorry, but the slice of the pie could have been negotiated and OK ST, TX Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, KS, K ST and Iowa State would have added eyeballs, an entirely new time zone, football mad Texas and perhaps enough new subscribers to put the Pac-12 network in the black. And please don't tell me it's all right to schedule Baylor and TCU as a number of Pac-12 schools, including in the case of Baylor has done, but not kosher to sit down with them at a Pac-20 meeting because the two schools are not secular. Both schools have more students who are followers of Islam than do many the Pac-12 school. Your comment is spot on and entirely correct; it is perfectly representative of the oxymoron that is Pac-12 'leadership.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tandaian No. 8 Share Posted February 21, 2022 I think what he is talking about is how only partial information has leaked to the public and the public thinks they have the whole picture. We don't have the full picture, since nobody has been in the room during the talks. I do think each league has gripped onto something tightly that they "just can't give up" to make it a no go. However, as had been said before, those problems are going to be there in 2025, but since it doesn't need to be 11-0 decision, it won't stop expansion from going forward. It does seem like some are cutting off their nose to spite their face. However, as the leagues currently stand, the more money wouldn't go to the P12 or ACC anyway, so they don't really lose anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Duck No. 9 Share Posted February 21, 2022 On 2/19/2022 at 1:34 PM, Jon Joseph said: it is perfectly representative of the oxymoron that is Pac-12 'leadership.' Until the pandemic rolled through, I was working for an UC (not in the Pac 12) in a program that pulled in exclusively international students. One thing that would have swelled the ranks of students and ensured that we had a leg up on other universities around the country is if the UC I was working for would give students who successfully completed that program a fast track into being accepted as admitted students, assuming they met the other academic requirements. It seemed like a no-brainer; The UC system is always struggling for money and wanting to expand enrollment and money; international students pay through the nose and no doubt fund a lot of things that domestic students do not, since they are not sucking up scholarship and state money. It's a net income gain for UC, and UC is well-known around the world, and in high demand. It was proposed repeatedly to the president of that university and the leadership group. However, politics got in the way. 'Our mission is only to serve as many California residents as possible... ' even though adding one of our students would infuse money into the system and take none away, allowing more California residents to be admitted. Still, no go. The Cal State university system has no problem doing it, and their programs are still pulling in international money through that type of program, whereas the UC program I was in got shuttered in 2020, laying off over 50 people. The whole point of this rant is: do not expect that logic and financial sense will sway the UC system, and by extension I think we are seeing this play out in the Pac 12. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 10 Share Posted February 22, 2022 OK George, then why did the Pac-12 vote against playoff expansion after years of asking the field to expand? I am seeing statement after statement coming from this guy that are seemingly adverse to the desires of the people he works for, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
