|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 19, 2021 13:38:46 GMT -5
BYU is going to Big 12? Any link to this announcement? Here you go. BYU is joining, along with Cincinnati, Houston and UCF. It's likely that this will happen for the 2023-2024 season. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 19, 2021 14:34:15 GMT -5
How much money is the Pac-12 making? That P12Net is underperforming could make them vulnerable to being poached. Will the Big 12 make a run at Utah to complement BYU? I don't see anyone leaving the Pac-12 as long as USC stays put. If the Trojans were to depart, then all bets are off. My comment was in reference to the idea of adding Hawaii and Boise State as members. |
|
|
|
Post by redcardđ on Oct 19, 2021 14:59:01 GMT -5
How much money is the Pac-12 making? That P12Net is underperforming could make them vulnerable to being poached. Will the Big 12 make a run at Utah to complement BYU? There is absolutely no way that a Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma is going to make as much as the Pac 12. And from a prestige and recruiting perspective, would you rather play road games in Manhattan or Seattle? Ames or Los Angeles? Morgantown or San Francisco? (And not THAT Manhattan) The Pac-12 is falling further and further behind the SEC, Big Ten and even ACC, but they are firmly ahead of the new Big 12. Iâd pick Morgantown and Ames over those cesspool citiesâŚđ |
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Oct 19, 2021 15:22:10 GMT -5
Would the pac or WCC ever invite Hawaii? Hawaii is not a good thematic fit with the PAC, and is an even worse thematic fit with the WCC. The WCC is 100% private, Christian schools. *Except University of the Pacific, which is a private secular university. |
|
|
|
Post by pelican on Oct 19, 2021 15:33:34 GMT -5
âNot a good fitâ is the kind of BS line university presidents come up with when they donât want to do something. Never believe a word they say about fit or academics or culture or anything else. College presidents are whores who will do anything for money. Thatâs their job. Fundraise. Youâre probably right that financially it wouldnât benefit the PAC or Hawaii, so thatâs why it wonât happen. Not because of âfit.â You think Pac-12 presidents should make decisions that is a financial negative on their universities so Hawaii could get a financial boost? Presidents that don't care about the finances of their university will see their schools go bankrupt. Just to be clear, I don't think they should take Hawaii. I don't particularly care either away. But don't pretend it's about "fit" or anything else when it's about $$$. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 19, 2021 15:37:02 GMT -5
How much money is the Pac-12 making? That P12Net is underperforming could make them vulnerable to being poached. Will the Big 12 make a run at Utah to complement BYU? There is absolutely no way that a Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma is going to make as much as the Pac 12. And from a prestige and recruiting perspective, would you rather play road games in Manhattan or Seattle? Ames or Los Angeles? Morgantown or San Francisco? (And not THAT Manhattan) The Pac-12 is falling further and further behind the SEC, Big Ten and even ACC, but they are firmly ahead of the new Big 12. Can we assume that Texas, with its own network, was adding to, rather than detracting from, the Big 12 payouts? Losing Texas could be a wash, especially if the AAC imports have long-term buy-ins. Their failure to form their own network was due to Texas choosing to stand aside. Currently Big 12 average payouts are beating Pac-12 average payouts by $5.2 million. footballscoop.com/news/heres-how-much-each-power-5-conference-made-last-yearI'm just saying that the Pac-12 shouldn't be resting on their laurels, as thin as they are. Turning their nose up at BYU could come back to haunt them. Utah will be a target. If Utah goes, Colorado could follow. If the Pac were cut down to ten members, that would put them at a big disadvantage relative to the SEC (16 members), Big Ten (14 members), and ACC (14 members). They'd have to add schools, just to get their numbers up. |
|
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: 13,271 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 19, 2021 15:56:51 GMT -5
There is absolutely no way that a Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma is going to make as much as the Pac 12. And from a prestige and recruiting perspective, would you rather play road games in Manhattan or Seattle? Ames or Los Angeles? Morgantown or San Francisco? (And not THAT Manhattan) The Pac-12 is falling further and further behind the SEC, Big Ten and even ACC, but they are firmly ahead of the new Big 12. Can we assume that Texas, with its own network, was adding to, rather than detracting from, the Big 12 payouts? Losing Texas could be a wash, especially if the AAC imports have long-term buy-ins. Their failure to form their own network was due to Texas choosing to stand aside. Currently Big 12 average payouts are beating Pac-12 average payouts by $5.2 million. footballscoop.com/news/heres-how-much-each-power-5-conference-made-last-yearI'm just saying that the Pac-12 shouldn't be resting on their laurels, as thin as they are. Turning their nose up at BYU could come back to haunt them. Utah will be a target. If Utah goes, Colorado could follow. If the Pac were cut down to ten members, that would put them at a big disadvantage relative to the SEC (16 members), Big Ten (14 members), and ACC (14 members). They'd have to add schools, just to get their numbers up. Preliminary estimates are the new B12 payouts will be in the very low $20M per team at best. Losing Texas and Oklahoma is a major financial lost for the existing B12 schools. The B12 was at 10 schools for a reason - they were going to get more money with 10 then with 12 or 14. As long as Texas and Oklahoma were in the conference - the best financial decision for the B12 was not to expand. Once they left - it was in the best financially for the B12 to expand, even up to 12. Utah or Colorado would take a financial bath by moving to the B12. It will be very difficult for the P12 to find someone to come to their conference that will increase the $'s per school. |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Oct 19, 2021 16:11:55 GMT -5
We have covered this ground a million times now, but Hawaii would be really marginal as a PAC school. All the other schools are bigger except Stanford. All the other schools have a "travel partner" (although Utah and Colorado kind of push that). The least "researchy" schools in the PAC are Oregon and WSU, and Hawaii falls in with them in that regard. It would have the smallest endowment of all the PAC schools by a large gap. It's just not a good fit. Hawaii fits MUCH better with the smaller schools in the Big West. It's not at all clear why the PAC would want to take Hawaii. And it's also not clear that it would be a good move for Hawaii to try to spend the money to compete in the PAC. They don't have the economic base. Just look at how Rutgers is struggling in the Big Ten. Rutgers was super-excited to join the Big Ten, but now they are running a massive debt. www.northjersey.com/story/news/2021/09/15/rutgers-athletics-debt-investigation-takeaways-report-big-ten/8324221002/Hawaii's academic ranking would also be quite low for the Pac-12. And more importantly, its football program doesn't move the needle. At this point, it doesn't make sense for a conference to accept a new member unless it will increase the per-school payout for the TV contract after accounting for the additional share. There aren't many schools that fit that description (Texas and Oklahoma did for the SEC, so that's why they were accepted). You should check yourself. Not going to argue your bias, but the latest World University rankings have Hawai'i smack in the middle of the Pac-12 without Pac-12 money. www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2022And if you are going to talk about academics, The Big West Schools as a whole are as high in academics and research as most of the Pac-12 schools. If you are talking about women's volleyball, Hawai'i has three NCAA Championships and One Championship even before the NCAA was in existence. Of the Pac-12 schools Stanford, USC, UCLA, Washington was Champs. The Big West has Hawai'i, Long Beach, and Pacific when they were in the BW. Thanks to the forming of the power-five concept and the football tv money provided, it's much easier for these conferences to thrive. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 19, 2021 16:24:05 GMT -5
Hawaii's academic ranking would also be quite low for the Pac-12. And more importantly, its football program doesn't move the needle. At this point, it doesn't make sense for a conference to accept a new member unless it will increase the per-school payout for the TV contract after accounting for the additional share. There aren't many schools that fit that description (Texas and Oklahoma did for the SEC, so that's why they were accepted). You should check yourself. Not going to argue your bias, but the latest World University rankings have Hawai'i smack in the middle of the Pac-12 without Pac-12 money. www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2022Well, there are a number of different rankings, but I was talking about the USNWR rankings. Hawaii is ranked 162. The current Pac-12 schools are: 6. Stanford 20. UCLA 22. Cal 27. USC 59. Washington 99. Colorado 99. Oregon 99. Utah 103. Arizona 117. Arizona State 162. Oregon State 179. Washington State So Hawaii is tied with Oregon State and above Washington State, but I doubt either school would get a Pac-12 invite if they were applying today. Edit: As for the rest of your post, there's no question that are some very good academic schools in the Big West. Football is the driving factor, though. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 19, 2021 16:27:48 GMT -5
Can we assume that Texas, with its own network, was adding to, rather than detracting from, the Big 12 payouts? Losing Texas could be a wash, especially if the AAC imports have long-term buy-ins. Their failure to form their own network was due to Texas choosing to stand aside. Currently Big 12 average payouts are beating Pac-12 average payouts by $5.2 million. footballscoop.com/news/heres-how-much-each-power-5-conference-made-last-yearI'm just saying that the Pac-12 shouldn't be resting on their laurels, as thin as they are. Turning their nose up at BYU could come back to haunt them. Utah will be a target. If Utah goes, Colorado could follow. If the Pac were cut down to ten members, that would put them at a big disadvantage relative to the SEC (16 members), Big Ten (14 members), and ACC (14 members). They'd have to add schools, just to get their numbers up. Preliminary estimates are the new B12 payouts will be in the very low $20M per team at best. Losing Texas and Oklahoma is a major financial lost for the existing B12 schools. The B12 was at 10 schools for a reason - they were going to get more money with 10 then with 12 or 14. As long as Texas and Oklahoma were in the conference - the best financial decision for the B12 was not to expand. Once they left - it was in the best financially for the B12 to expand, even up to 12. Utah or Colorado would take a financial bath by moving to the B12. It will be very difficult for the P12 to find someone to come to their conference that will increase the $'s per school. My understanding is that the ~$20-25m Big 12 projections don't include the tier-3 rights because the Big 12 doesn't have a TV network unlike the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12. So I'm not sure what the actual number will be (if the Big 12 continues to let schools retain their tier-3 rights, then some schools stand to make significantly more from those rights than others), though it will of course still be less than with Texas and Oklahoma. I agree that Utah and Colorado (and Arizona and Arizona State) wouldn't move as long as USC (the Pac-12 version of Texas) stays. But if they leave? |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 19, 2021 16:44:46 GMT -5
I thought we were assured Kansas would be the first school to get poached by the Pac 12. No, it was the Big 10 for Kansas. I remember being specifically told Kansas was the single most attractive remaining property outside the ACC/SEC/PAC12/B1G |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 19, 2021 16:50:49 GMT -5
Hawaii is not a good thematic fit with the PAC, and is an even worse thematic fit with the WCC. The WCC is 100% private, Christian schools. *Except University of the Pacific, which is a private secular university. I believe Pacific is still affiliated with the Methodist Church, even if they aren't funded by it anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 19, 2021 16:52:59 GMT -5
No, it was the Big 10 for Kansas. I remember being specifically told Kansas was the single most attractive remaining property outside the ACC/SEC/PAC12/B1G I know the discussion you are referencing. This statement is correct. You just had the conference wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 19, 2021 16:54:51 GMT -5
Presumably, if Kansas is so attractive for the B1G, it's attractive for everyone else!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Oct 19, 2021 17:42:40 GMT -5
Preliminary estimates are the new B12 payouts will be in the very low $20M per team at best. Losing Texas and Oklahoma is a major financial lost for the existing B12 schools. The B12 was at 10 schools for a reason - they were going to get more money with 10 then with 12 or 14. As long as Texas and Oklahoma were in the conference - the best financial decision for the B12 was not to expand. Once they left - it was in the best financially for the B12 to expand, even up to 12. Utah or Colorado would take a financial bath by moving to the B12. It will be very difficult for the P12 to find someone to come to their conference that will increase the $'s per school. My understanding is that the ~$20-25m Big 12 projections don't include the tier-3 rights because the Big 12 doesn't have a TV network unlike the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12. So I'm not sure what the actual number will be (if the Big 12 continues to let schools retain their tier-3 rights, then some schools stand to make significantly more from those rights than others), though it will of course still be less than with Texas and Oklahoma. I agree that Utah and Colorado (and Arizona and Arizona State) wouldn't move as long as USC (the Pac-12 version of Texas) stays. But if they leave? Those are the TV numbers I have heard discussed. Not sure they really mean much untill they are market tested. They are about halfway between the AAC and ACC/P12. The real issue happens when the College Football Playoff is reconfigured. When that conversation happens what does everyone want: SEC - they want as many teams in the playoff from the SEC as possible each year. This means limiting the number of automatic invites to conference champions and making the playoff big enough to have 3-4 potential SEC teams. Alliance (B10/P12/ACC) - they are all going to want a guaranteed playoff spot. Group of 5 - they are going to want a spot to the best Group of 5 team so at least they have something to play for. B12 - they are going to want a guaranteed playoff spot like the Alliance. It is pretty easy to see how this ends. The SEC trades what it wants for spots to the Alliance. After that, they might reserve a single spot for everyone else or just say the other spots go to the best teams. No one is going to be on the B12's side to give them a guaranteed spot. They can refuse to agree and join but who really cares? Once the B12 is essentially a group of 5 team then what are their TV rights worth?  ? |
|
?