|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 23, 2022 18:59:55 GMT -5
First, In the big picture of 300 plus schools, west coast teams and the PAC will remain relevant and competitive. UCLA and USC departing are not a cause for concern, they are an endorsement of trends. So, What are issues? In my personal opinion: Money. 16% of the population lives in Pacific Time Zone. The whole of volleyball world is no longer contained by west coast. Less national press following. Limited TV match exposure. Later matches. ....So, recruits are less exposed to the schools. If your focus is on competition inside the west coast conferences, being competitive and in on national discussions. Not that much will change. Acquisition of schools away from the ocean mitigates some of the limitations. UCLA and USC hopped on board the train. The rest of the PAC has not. It isn't simply a question of being less exposed to the PAC schools (Stanford is likely the exception to all of this), it's that the exposure isn't as favorable: smaller crowds, less relevant match-ups and battles, less consistent quality volleyball. The PAC is going to have a hard time finding adequate replacements for USC and UCLA, which will continue to impact their ability to formalize a competitive media deal. I think the PAC without USC/UCLA, one way or another, will only look the same for a short period of time.
|
|
|
Post by InfoBot on Dec 23, 2022 19:42:55 GMT -5
I believe that UW, UO, Stanford, and Cal are sticking together, and that they will, as a group, join a "Pacific" Division (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UO, U-Dub, Wisco, Nebraska, Minny, and Iowa) of the 2B1G Conference or stay in THE CONFERENCE OF CHAMPIONS. Oregon, on their own, contacted the B1G this year. Washington then followed suit. They don't care about Cal and Stanford (or Oregon State and Washington State for that matter). If the California Board of Regents couldn't get the B1G to take Cal to get UCLA, I highly doubt the B1G will ever take them. They don't offer any benefit to the B1G outside of being a high academic school and that doesn't help with media rights deals. IF the B1G decides they want the NorCal TV market, they'd take Stanford but regional cable markets become less and less important as things like app services become more utilized. The B1G will also continue to try to get Notre Dame and if they can take them and Stanford in a the same time (uniting historic football rivals in the process), they will gladly leave Cal to become even more irrelevant. The Pac 12 should have gotten BYU when they were ready to move. Now Utah could go join them and Colorado could return to their roots, since they don't fit super well in the PAC anyway. The B1G and SEC will both be at 16 teams when OU/TX and UCLA/USC make the move. I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 12 tries to expand again from 12 in a couple of years and goes after those two.
|
|
|
Post by InfoBot on Dec 23, 2022 19:56:54 GMT -5
Hambly said something interesting during one of his last chalk talks when asked about USC and UCLA going to the B1G: "Now we'll have an open date at the end of the year to schedule a good team like Texas". And, of course, as others have pointed out, in pre-conference, Stanford might attempt to schedule USC and/or UCLA (provided they are projected to be highly ranked teams). This is good, in theory, and because the Big 12 has only had 9 teams, a team is usually done the week before the regular season ends (A&M this year). However, with the Big 12 being at 14 teams next year, I wouldn't be surprised if they move to a 20 game conference schedule (like the PAC right now and the B1G--which also means UCLA and USC won't be options). I know the ACC and SEC also currently play 18, but the SEC is going from 13 teams to 16 in 2025, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a change as well.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 23, 2022 20:01:00 GMT -5
First, In the big picture of 300 plus schools, west coast teams and the PAC will remain relevant and competitive. UCLA and USC departing are not a cause for concern, they are an endorsement of trends. So, What are issues? In my personal opinion: Money. 16% of the population lives in Pacific Time Zone. The whole of volleyball world is no longer contained by west coast. Less national press following. Limited TV match exposure. Later matches. ....So, recruits are less exposed to the schools. If your focus is on competition inside the west coast conferences, being competitive and in on national discussions. Not that much will change. Acquisition of schools away from the ocean mitigates some of the limitations. UCLA and USC hopped on board the train. The rest of the PAC has not. It isn't simply a question of being less exposed to the PAC schools (Stanford is likely the exception to all of this), it's that the exposure isn't as favorable: smaller crowds, less relevant match-ups and battles, less consistent quality volleyball. The PAC is going to have a hard time finding adequate replacements for USC and UCLA, which will continue to impact their ability to formalize a competitive media deal. I think the PAC without USC/UCLA, one way or another, will only look the same for a short period of time. Well, USC/UCLA leaving will increase average crowd size, and based on recent trends, provide more consistent volleyball and won't take away relevant match-ups and battles. Frankly, the story of a PAC "decline" in volleyball has been the story of the LA schools (and Cal) declining. And the LA schools underachieving has been the story of perceived weakness in revenue sports too.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 23, 2022 20:23:50 GMT -5
UCLA and USC hopped on board the train. The rest of the PAC has not. It isn't simply a question of being less exposed to the PAC schools (Stanford is likely the exception to all of this), it's that the exposure isn't as favorable: smaller crowds, less relevant match-ups and battles, less consistent quality volleyball. The PAC is going to have a hard time finding adequate replacements for USC and UCLA, which will continue to impact their ability to formalize a competitive media deal. I think the PAC without USC/UCLA, one way or another, will only look the same for a short period of time. Well, USC/UCLA leaving will increase average crowd size, and based on recent trends, provide more consistent volleyball and won't take away relevant match-ups and battles. Frankly, the story of a PAC "decline" in volleyball has been the story of the LA schools (and Cal) declining. And the LA schools underachieving has been the story of perceived weakness in revenue sports too. I think that argument is valid when speaking of the conference, but the relative strength of the PAC versus the other power conferences isn't improving either way.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 23, 2022 21:54:43 GMT -5
I believe that UW, UO, Stanford, and Cal are sticking together, and that they will, as a group, join a "Pacific" Division (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UO, U-Dub, Wisco, Nebraska, Minny, and Iowa) of the 2B1G Conference or stay in THE CONFERENCE OF CHAMPIONS. Oregon, on their own, contacted the B1G this year. Washington then followed suit. They don't care about Cal and Stanford (or Oregon State and Washington State for that matter). If the California Board of Regents couldn't get the B1G to take Cal to get UCLA, I highly doubt the B1G will ever take them. They don't offer any benefit to the B1G outside of being a high academic school and that doesn't help with media rights deals. IF the B1G decides they want the NorCal TV market, they'd take Stanford but regional cable markets become less and less important as things like app services become more utilized. The B1G will also continue to try to get Notre Dame and if they can take them and Stanford in a the same time (uniting historic football rivals in the process), they will gladly leave Cal to become even more irrelevant. The Pac 12 should have gotten BYU when they were ready to move. Now Utah could go join them and Colorado could return to their roots, since they don't fit super well in the PAC anyway. The B1G and SEC will both be at 16 teams when OU/TX and UCLA/USC make the move. I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 12 tries to expand again from 12 in a couple of years and goes after those two. while there are a lot of things working against the Pac-10/11/xx, there are a couple things in their favor to stay relevant & competitive. yes the LA market is dwindled, BUT they still are in California and still have a hgue share on western media in aggregate....so long as no more defections. they don't have to be some mega-conference, like 16 teams. they have auto entries and the rules will enable them to field 1 or 2 teams in the football playoffs each year, that's a big deal, and so long as they stick together, they won't be axed out of that. whle these mage conferences have some big media deals, they also have members that are in piss-poor markets (Lafeyette, BLoomington, Champaign, Oxford, etc.)...the fact is the mega-conferences have some schools that really aren't of national interest. the Pac-10/11/xx needs to be careful about expansion, maybe one or two teams, and keeping the conference at a more 'manageable' size than these others has some advantages regionally and with the brand. no question they will not have the mega-dollars, but they can look at what they have, and especially for schools like Colorado & Utah, think long and hard about what they'd get in a Big-12. Utah is likely thinking it can be dominant in the modified Pac-xx - so if it's got a better shot at getting in the football play-offs, they have to think about bolting. same for Wash & Ore. And does Ariz/ASU really want to be in a far-flung B12, the best thing for the remaining Pac-xx is that the Big12 isn't such a great place to be. now if the B1G & SEC REALLY want to try and force two 32 team conferences, we would see but not sure that is really financially great for them. at some point, do UCLA/USC lobby the B1G to add 4 or 6 Pac-12 teams? that may be the long-term question but don't see that. it'll be funny if UCLA/USC miss the playoffs in football only to see Utah/Oregon/Wash getting in 2 our of every 3 or 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by InfoBot on Dec 23, 2022 22:22:44 GMT -5
Oregon, on their own, contacted the B1G this year. Washington then followed suit. They don't care about Cal and Stanford (or Oregon State and Washington State for that matter). If the California Board of Regents couldn't get the B1G to take Cal to get UCLA, I highly doubt the B1G will ever take them. They don't offer any benefit to the B1G outside of being a high academic school and that doesn't help with media rights deals. IF the B1G decides they want the NorCal TV market, they'd take Stanford but regional cable markets become less and less important as things like app services become more utilized. The B1G will also continue to try to get Notre Dame and if they can take them and Stanford in a the same time (uniting historic football rivals in the process), they will gladly leave Cal to become even more irrelevant. The Pac 12 should have gotten BYU when they were ready to move. Now Utah could go join them and Colorado could return to their roots, since they don't fit super well in the PAC anyway. The B1G and SEC will both be at 16 teams when OU/TX and UCLA/USC make the move. I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 12 tries to expand again from 12 in a couple of years and goes after those two. whle these mage conferences have some big media deals, they also have members that are in piss-poor markets (Lafeyette, BLoomington, Champaign, Oxford, etc.)...the fact is the mega-conferences have some schools that really aren't of national interest. I have no arguments with most of what you said, but I will say that Illinois (Champaign) and Purdue (West Lafayette) were founding members of the B1G in 1896 and Indiana (Bloomington) was added in 1899. Yes those schools are not of National Interest, but they can't kick them out. I also think if you asked them, they kick out Maryland and Rutgers (who they took only for the DC and NYC media markets) at this point, if they could, so I don't expenct them to make the same mistake again. Ole Miss (Oxford) has also been in the SEC since 1932, so same thing.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 23, 2022 23:03:09 GMT -5
whle these mage conferences have some big media deals, they also have members that are in piss-poor markets (Lafeyette, BLoomington, Champaign, Oxford, etc.)...the fact is the mega-conferences have some schools that really aren't of national interest. I have no arguments with most of what you said, but I will say that Illinois (Champaign) and Purdue (West Lafayette) were founding members of the B1G in 1896 and Indiana (Bloomington) was added in 1899. Yes those schools are not of National Interest, but they can't kick them out. I also think if you asked them, they kick out Maryland and Rutgers (who they took only for the DC and NYC media markets) at this point, if they could, so I don't expenct them to make the same mistake again. Ole Miss (Oxford) has also been in the SEC since 1932, so same thing. so what, apparently the B1G doesn't care what happens to WSU, ASU, Oreg. State, Cal ..which simply by fortune might be on the outside looking my point is regardless of what century they started, their is a 'questionable' sports value to them
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 23, 2022 23:35:17 GMT -5
Oregon, on their own, contacted the B1G this year. Washington then followed suit. They don't care about Cal and Stanford (or Oregon State and Washington State for that matter). If the California Board of Regents couldn't get the B1G to take Cal to get UCLA, I highly doubt the B1G will ever take them. They don't offer any benefit to the B1G outside of being a high academic school and that doesn't help with media rights deals. IF the B1G decides they want the NorCal TV market, they'd take Stanford but regional cable markets become less and less important as things like app services become more utilized. The B1G will also continue to try to get Notre Dame and if they can take them and Stanford in a the same time (uniting historic football rivals in the process), they will gladly leave Cal to become even more irrelevant. The Pac 12 should have gotten BYU when they were ready to move. Now Utah could go join them and Colorado could return to their roots, since they don't fit super well in the PAC anyway. The B1G and SEC will both be at 16 teams when OU/TX and UCLA/USC make the move. I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 12 tries to expand again from 12 in a couple of years and goes after those two. at some point, do UCLA/USC lobby the B1G to add 4 or 6 Pac-12 teams? that may be the long-term question but don't see that. it'll be funny if UCLA/USC miss the playoffs in football only to see Utah/Oregon/Wash getting in 2 our of every 3 or 4 years. I doubt it. I think USC (let's be honest--UCLA is barely relevant here) would like to have Stanford and Cal only. I think USC wants no part of Oregon et al.
|
|
|
Post by bucky415 on Dec 24, 2022 0:27:39 GMT -5
Washington will find a coach. Stanford is still Stanford. Oregon is coming off a big year. No one wants to go play at Utah, Colorado, or Wazzu! ASU is a sleeping giant in so many sports, I think! It shocks me Cal can be this bad. It is freaking Cal! Great school! They played for a national title this century! Yes, there is hope!
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Dec 24, 2022 0:28:51 GMT -5
Oregon, on their own, contacted the B1G this year. Washington then followed suit. They don't care about Cal and Stanford (or Oregon State and Washington State for that matter). If the California Board of Regents couldn't get the B1G to take Cal to get UCLA, I highly doubt the B1G will ever take them. They don't offer any benefit to the B1G outside of being a high academic school and that doesn't help with media rights deals. IF the B1G decides they want the NorCal TV market, they'd take Stanford but regional cable markets become less and less important as things like app services become more utilized. The B1G will also continue to try to get Notre Dame and if they can take them and Stanford in a the same time (uniting historic football rivals in the process), they will gladly leave Cal to become even more irrelevant. The Pac 12 should have gotten BYU when they were ready to move. Now Utah could go join them and Colorado could return to their roots, since they don't fit super well in the PAC anyway. The B1G and SEC will both be at 16 teams when OU/TX and UCLA/USC make the move. I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 12 tries to expand again from 12 in a couple of years and goes after those two. while there are a lot of things working against the Pac-10/11/xx, there are a couple things in their favor to stay relevant & competitive. yes the LA market is dwindled, BUT they still are in California and still have a hgue share on western media in aggregate....so long as no more defections. they don't have to be some mega-conference, like 16 teams. they have auto entries and the rules will enable them to field 1 or 2 teams in the football playoffs each year, that's a big deal, and so long as they stick together, they won't be axed out of that. whle these mage conferences have some big media deals, they also have members that are in piss-poor markets (Lafeyette, BLoomington, Champaign, Oxford, etc.)...the fact is the mega-conferences have some schools that really aren't of national interest.
the Pac-10/11/xx needs to be careful about expansion, maybe one or two teams, and keeping the conference at a more 'manageable' size than these others has some advantages regionally and with the brand. no question they will not have the mega-dollars, but they can look at what they have, and especially for schools like Colorado & Utah, think long and hard about what they'd get in a Big-12. Utah is likely thinking it can be dominant in the modified Pac-xx - so if it's got a better shot at getting in the football play-offs, they have to think about bolting. same for Wash & Ore. And does Ariz/ASU really want to be in a far-flung B12, the best thing for the remaining Pac-xx is that the Big12 isn't such a great place to be. now if the B1G & SEC REALLY want to try and force two 32 team conferences, we would see but not sure that is really financially great for them. at some point, do UCLA/USC lobby the B1G to add 4 or 6 Pac-12 teams? that may be the long-term question but don't see that. it'll be funny if UCLA/USC miss the playoffs in football only to see Utah/Oregon/Wash getting in 2 our of every 3 or 4 years. The media market for a school isn't always the actual market where the school is located, it's broader than that. Illinois' market is Chicago and beyond - many more engaged and passionate Illini fans in Chicago metro than in Champaign-Urbana where the school is located. And it's the biggest and really only flagship of that caliber in the entire state of Illinois. So the market expands to include the entire state, which isn't the case in every ttate for individual schools.
This isn't true for every school of course - some schools really don't have broad appeal outside of their local area or a small radius around where the school is located. I'm just saying that when the powers that be consider media metrics for adding schools, they certainly look at much more than the city/town where the school is located.
Layfayette
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 24, 2022 1:02:15 GMT -5
while there are a lot of things working against the Pac-10/11/xx, there are a couple things in their favor to stay relevant & competitive. yes the LA market is dwindled, BUT they still are in California and still have a hgue share on western media in aggregate....so long as no more defections. they don't have to be some mega-conference, like 16 teams. they have auto entries and the rules will enable them to field 1 or 2 teams in the football playoffs each year, that's a big deal, and so long as they stick together, they won't be axed out of that. whle these mage conferences have some big media deals, they also have members that are in piss-poor markets (Lafeyette, BLoomington, Champaign, Oxford, etc.)...the fact is the mega-conferences have some schools that really aren't of national interest.
the Pac-10/11/xx needs to be careful about expansion, maybe one or two teams, and keeping the conference at a more 'manageable' size than these others has some advantages regionally and with the brand. no question they will not have the mega-dollars, but they can look at what they have, and especially for schools like Colorado & Utah, think long and hard about what they'd get in a Big-12. Utah is likely thinking it can be dominant in the modified Pac-xx - so if it's got a better shot at getting in the football play-offs, they have to think about bolting. same for Wash & Ore. And does Ariz/ASU really want to be in a far-flung B12, the best thing for the remaining Pac-xx is that the Big12 isn't such a great place to be. now if the B1G & SEC REALLY want to try and force two 32 team conferences, we would see but not sure that is really financially great for them. at some point, do UCLA/USC lobby the B1G to add 4 or 6 Pac-12 teams? that may be the long-term question but don't see that. it'll be funny if UCLA/USC miss the playoffs in football only to see Utah/Oregon/Wash getting in 2 our of every 3 or 4 years. The media market for a school isn't always the actual market where the school is located, it's broader than that. Illinois' market is Chicago and beyond - many more engaged and passionate Illini fans in Chicago metro than in Champaign-Urbana where the school is located. And it's the biggest and really only flagship of that caliber in the entire state of Illinois. So the market expands to include the entire state, which isn't the case in every ttate for individual schools.
This isn't true for every school of course - some schools really don't have broad appeal outside of their local area or a small radius around where the school is located. I'm just saying that when the powers that be consider media metrics for adding schools, they certainly look at much more than the city/town where the school is located.
Layfayette
agree about Illinois, but still Illinois isn't to Chicago what UCLA/USC are to LA. there's UIC, Loyola, Northwestern, Notre Dame, etc. as far as Chicago interest. point is Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, Iowa....these are not in terms of national interest not all that of a 'draw' any more than WSU, ASU, Utah, Ore State. And Oregon, Washington, Stanford one could argue are actually 'better' media brands. Maybe more in some cases, maybe less. the point is compared to those it's a bit of simply 'being in the right place' that gets them the media deal - they aren't driving anything, it's Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State more so that are the real national/expansive brands
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 24, 2022 1:05:55 GMT -5
at some point, do UCLA/USC lobby the B1G to add 4 or 6 Pac-12 teams? that may be the long-term question but don't see that. it'll be funny if UCLA/USC miss the playoffs in football only to see Utah/Oregon/Wash getting in 2 our of every 3 or 4 years. I doubt it. I think USC (let's be honest--UCLA is barely relevant here) would like to have Stanford and Cal only. I think USC wants no part of Oregon et al. I think that is simplistic. not sure Oregon really stands out that much for USC. I do think Stanford would be their #1 choice of any, then almost any of Cal, and I could see them being ok with the two Ariz schools maybe as the next pair, but really more do to proximitry than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 28, 2022 20:02:31 GMT -5
at some point, do UCLA/USC lobby the B1G to add 4 or 6 Pac-12 teams? that may be the long-term question but don't see that. it'll be funny if UCLA/USC miss the playoffs in football only to see Utah/Oregon/Wash getting in 2 out of every 3 or 4 years. They need more than just USC/UCLA to make this viable for non-football sports - as it is, it is just too geographically imbalanced with USC/UCLA amateur athletes having to crisscross the country multiple times, like professional globetrotters, while other B1G athletes will only have to do it once. The B1G may have been able to pick off Oregon and UW, if they'd invited them, but they didn't. That allowed UO, UW, Stanford, and Cal to put up a solid front -- take all of us, or none at all.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 28, 2022 21:03:06 GMT -5
at some point, do UCLA/USC lobby the B1G to add 4 or 6 Pac-12 teams? that may be the long-term question but don't see that. it'll be funny if UCLA/USC miss the playoffs in football only to see Utah/Oregon/Wash getting in 2 out of every 3 or 4 years. They need more than just USC/UCLA to make this viable for non-football sports - as it is, it is just too geographically imbalanced with USC/UCLA amateur athletes having to crisscross the country multiple times, like professional globetrotters, while other B1G athletes will only have to do it once. The B1G may have been able to pick off Oregon and UW, if they'd invited them, but they didn't. That allowed UO, UW, Stanford, and Cal to put up a solid front -- take all of us, or none at all. Oregon and/or Washington would jump at the chance to join the B1G. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Since they didn't get the invite, they have to try to make the best of the current situation ... for the moment.
|
|