|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Sept 16, 2024 22:04:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Sept 16, 2024 22:20:56 GMT -5
Agreed, it is a G5. Even if Cal and Stan came back, in terms of money per school and number of schools in the top 35 (including receiving votes), that conf would be at least a half-step down from the Big 12 and ACC. except there's not even a P4 there's a P1a & P1b (SEC & B1G) there's a P3a & P3b (ACC & Big 12) I doubt these 6 schools are delusional. I doubt they try to be some unwieldy 20 thing an 8 or 10 team league champion probably have a better chance of making the football playoffs than UCLA, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern Rutgers, Cal, Stanford, Kansaa, on and on ever will. USC may not win a league title for the next 10+ years, seriously. So I'm' sure they are gonna try to be strategic, be a solid conference that can embarrass P1-4s regularly, and max whatever media streaming they can, and wait for the P1-4s spending themselves into implosion (there never will be enough money) and changes which is a certainty. The stands at Cal were sparse. imagine UCLA playing to 20,000 people week after week in a 100,000 person stadium when they finish 16 or 17th for 3 straight years. This conference may hae a chance to be a solid regional confernce with ability to often sell better than a less diluted product. Memphis vs. Fresno could draw a lot more than some nationallly nobody cares Purdue vs. Indiana battle, that is on TV because....it's on TV.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Sept 16, 2024 23:28:52 GMT -5
Top 4 ranked conf champions are the top 4 seeds, no matter what conference. The 5th highest ranked conf champ is guaranteed a spot somewhere in the bracket, but no guarantee what number seed.
The PAC just has to be better than the MWC, AAC, MAC, and AAC.
Which isn't going to happen every year because it's not the 5th best conference it's the fifth best champ. Just like the original MWC thought they would be the dominant football power when they broke from the WAC-16--they then watched Boise State and Hawaii become the first teams to crack the BCS. A conference can only go .500 against itself. It could totally backfire on them if there's a lot of parity, and then they are watching a Liberty or NIU become the G5 playoff team.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,849
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 17, 2024 9:47:57 GMT -5
In terms of CFP revenue - there is a power 4. Or maybe there is a power 2, then a next 2, then everyone else. Big Ten and SEC get around $22m per school, the ACC and B12 get in the $12-14m per year and the Group 5 gets just 9% of the revenue. The PAC being able to carve out something different than the G5 would be huge, but I don't think it will necessarily happen. Also sounds like the PAC is more likely to land at 12 then 8. Doesn't sound like Stanford or Cal will be able to get out of their ACC deal - which not sure if 33% share of the ACC offsets 100% from the PAC and everything else that comes with it. I also read that UNLV has the lowest TV audience among the existing Mountain West schools (football) - which probably kept them out of the first round. Dodd ranks the next teams for the PAC: 1) Air Force 2) UNLV 3) Memphis 4) UTSA www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/whats-next-for-pac-12-more-expansion-options-tv-deal-on-check-list-for-re-imagined-conference/
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 17, 2024 10:15:39 GMT -5
In terms of CFP revenue - there is a power 4. Or maybe there is a power 2, then a next 2, then everyone else. Big Ten and SEC get around $22m per school, the ACC and B12 get in the $12-14m per year and the Group 5 gets just 9% of the revenue. The PAC being able to carve out something different than the G5 would be huge, but I don't think it will necessarily happen. Also sounds like the PAC is more likely to land at 12 then 8. Doesn't sound like Stanford or Cal will be able to get out of their ACC deal - which not sure if 33% share of the ACC offsets 100% from the PAC and everything else that comes with it. I also read that UNLV has the lowest TV audience among the existing Mountain West schools (football) - which probably kept them out of the first round. Dodd ranks the next teams for the PAC: 1) Air Force 2) UNLV 3) Memphis 4) UTSA www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/whats-next-for-pac-12-more-expansion-options-tv-deal-on-check-list-for-re-imagined-conference/Yeah, I don't see why this new Pac-12 would be able to demand more than a G5 share. Maybe down the road if their champion is consistently winning in the playoffs, but not now. As for Stanford and Cal, I think both of them care way too much about academic prestige to be in a conference with Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, etc. They'd rather have the 30% share and extra travel and get to play with the ACC schools.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 17, 2024 10:32:59 GMT -5
Okay, this passage from that Dodd article is hilarious:
I mean, Dodd isn't wrong. That is what happened. It's just funny that he brings it up again at this point.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,849
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 17, 2024 11:00:08 GMT -5
Okay, this passage from that Dodd article is hilarious: I mean, Dodd isn't wrong. That is what happened. It's just funny that he brings it up again at this point. I also enjoyed that comment. I mean - the B12 TV deal was there for the PAC. But that failure to understand their value cost them the conference instead of the elimination of the B12.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 17, 2024 12:52:21 GMT -5
Staying at 6 is not on the table, because the NCAA requires 7+ in order to be defined as a D1 "multi-sport conference". To be an FBS conference, they need at least 8+ members. www.ncaapublications.com/p-4701-2024-2025-ncaa-division-i-manual.aspxThe PAC has a two-year grace period to get themselves back up to 8 members in order to remain as an FBS conference. Correct - that is what I said (or thought I said, or was trying to say). They started with 6 in the hopes they can still get Stanford/Cal to make 8. They have time. If they cannot get them (likely), they have time to find the next 2. Being at 7 right now (if they brought in UNLV as the 5th MWC team to join) could limit their options for getting the 'best' 8 - they did it this way on purpose. I hope they're not deluding themselves into thinking Cal and Stanford are coming back. Even if they weren't locked into the ACC grant of rights, I think both would rather be on 0% shares like SMU if the alternative was joining a conference with Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Colorado State. This reminds me of the Pac-12 delusionally thinking that the California regents would somehow block UCLA from moving to the Big 10. They could have (and they imposed the Calimony payment on UCLA as punishment for their end run), but it didn't make sense to do that when USC was leaving regardless.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 17, 2024 12:55:41 GMT -5
So the brand name is what's going to make this beneficial? The brand name is valuable, yes. I don't think a glorified Mountain West under the Pac-12 name is especially valuable but probably more valuable than the Mountain West name is. The real thing is that they get to shed the least valuable Mountain West schools with this move, so there are fewer shares of whatever media deal they can get.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Sept 17, 2024 13:22:44 GMT -5
Correct - that is what I said (or thought I said, or was trying to say). They started with 6 in the hopes they can still get Stanford/Cal to make 8. They have time. If they cannot get them (likely), they have time to find the next 2. Being at 7 right now (if they brought in UNLV as the 5th MWC team to join) could limit their options for getting the 'best' 8 - they did it this way on purpose. I hope they're not deluding themselves into thinking Cal and Stanford are coming back. Even if they weren't locked into the ACC grant of rights, I think both would rather be on 0% shares like SMU if the alternative was joining a conference with Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Colorado State. This reminds me of the Pac-12 delusionally thinking that the California regents would somehow block UCLA from moving to the Big 10. They could have (and they imposed the Calimony payment on UCLA as punishment for their end run), but it didn't make sense to do that when USC was leaving regardless. they are not stupid, and not deluding themselves about Cal and Stanford coming back. would they accept them? of course. are they likely proceeding as if they will come back? no way now maybe they'll keep the size of the conf small, because they probably want to be prepared for ahving a path for what would be future formerly P4 teams if Cal & Stan need a place in teh future, they likely won't be the only P4 teams needing a place. they may surmise 8-9 teams is ok, and will want to remain flexible.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,849
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 17, 2024 13:33:11 GMT -5
The brand name is valuable, yes. I don't think a glorified Mountain West under the Pac-12 name is especially valuable but probably more valuable than the Mountain West name is. The real thing is that they get to shed the least valuable Mountain West schools with this move, so there are fewer shares of whatever media deal they can get. My thoughts on this - and the Stanford/Cal situation is the same. You are absolutely right that the guaranteed benefit here is to 'remake' the Mountain West conference into something better by shedding the least desirable, etc... But I also think they are going about this leaving an open for something good that may not be likely to happen (that costs them nothing now). Maybe there is a zero chance of Stanford/Cal coming back, but if there is any chance - and who is added with them matters to Stanford - then they are leaving that opening (until they have to move on or will cost them somewhere else). And the PAC name might not be worth much, but if there is a chance that it is worth something more (like P5 status and a higher share from the CFP payout than the rest of the G5) - then why not try. I think Dodd was mostly pessimistic about the P12 - it is clear the conference is in terrible shape compared the B12/ACC - but there is also something about positioning for survival at the next phase. What does that mean - I think Dodd alluded to a shrinking of the number of D1 programs in football - maybe the PAC is trying to clear that hurdle that may be coming fairly soon. Again - I don't think it is likely the PAC would make that hurdle if it comes, but at least they are trying.
|
|
|
Post by fromonhigh on Sept 17, 2024 13:34:30 GMT -5
Stanford is in a very unique situation given the size of their endowment so they can afford to be choosy. Many of the public universities West of Mississippi are in very precarious financial situations which could affect their decisions. To me the biggest issues are the potential for the largest conferences to break away from the NCAA entirely and the classification of student athletes as employees. The decisions on those two issues will ultimately change the dynamic entirely and effect all decisions.
|
|