|
Post by staticb on Jul 29, 2023 16:43:57 GMT -5
Cal and Stanford probably think of schools like Fresno State, SDSU and UNLV as beneath them. I wonder if they have been blocking expansion. Supposedly Cal and Stanford was against the Pac-16 idea as they didn't want to be stuck with Oklahome State and Texas Tech or Baylor. That arguably help kill the conference. At this point they can't be choosy. Maybe Stanford can but Cal could easily be G5 if they aren't careful. They don't own their market.
|
|
|
Post by sarre84 on Jul 29, 2023 16:59:13 GMT -5
Cal and Stanford probably think of schools like Fresno State, SDSU and UNLV as beneath them. I wonder if they have been blocking expansion. Supposedly Cal and Stanford was against the Pac-16 idea as they didn't want to be stuck with Oklahome State and Texas Tech or Baylor. That arguably help kill the conference. At this point they can't be choosy. Maybe Stanford can but Cal could easily be G5 if they aren't careful. They don't own their market. Not sure SDSU is on any power five wishlist. The major conferences have harvested all four and five star athletes from San Diego for my entire lifetime. Why would they kill the golden goose by allowing SDSU in their prestigious conferences? The Aztecs didn't do themselves a favor by tearing down Qualcomm and building a Texas high school sized stadium at 35k capacity.
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jul 29, 2023 18:46:47 GMT -5
Supposedly Cal and Stanford was against the Pac-16 idea as they didn't want to be stuck with Oklahome State and Texas Tech or Baylor. That arguably help kill the conference. At this point they can't be choosy. Maybe Stanford can but Cal could easily be G5 if they aren't careful. They don't own their market. Not sure SDSU is on any power five wishlist. The major conferences have harvested all four and five star athletes from San Diego for my entire lifetime. Why would they kill the golden goose by allowing SDSU in their prestigious conferences? The Aztecs didn't do themselves a favor by tearing down Qualcomm and building a Texas high school sized stadium at 35k capacity. SDSU is the product of media hype. When the LA schools left, the immediate thought of media members was “how will the PAC 12 continue to have a presence in SoCal?”….., so they came up with the idea that SDSU could be that team. After industry experts looked into that idea and did more research, it was revealed that people in LA or surrounding area are not going to and never did follow SDSU athletics so the idea of them being able to capture the SoCal market was all a fantasy. The LA fan base will follow the BIG 10 now that USC and UCLA are there. San Diego is not even much of a sports town anymore. They only have one pro team(SD Padre). Lost the Chargers so there is no sign that the admission of SDSU into the PAC 12 will bring added exposure. I have many friends that live in LA and they have no interest in anything San Diego. It’s all Dodger, Lakers, LMU and Rams.
|
|
|
Post by beachgrad on Jul 29, 2023 19:04:28 GMT -5
Not sure SDSU is on any power five wishlist. The major conferences have harvested all four and five star athletes from San Diego for my entire lifetime. Why would they kill the golden goose by allowing SDSU in their prestigious conferences? The Aztecs didn't do themselves a favor by tearing down Qualcomm and building a Texas high school sized stadium at 35k capacity. SDSU is the product of media hype. When the LA schools left, the immediate thought of media members was “how will the PAC 12 continue to have a presence in SoCal?”….., so they came up with the idea that SDSU could be that team. After industry experts looked into that idea and did more research, it was revealed that people in LA or surrounding area are not going to and never did follow SDSU athletics so the idea of them being able to capture the SoCal market was all a fantasy. The LA fan base will follow the BIG 10 now that USC and UCLA are there. San Diego is not even much of a sports town anymore. They only have one pro team(SD Padre). Lost the Chargers so there is no sign that the admission of SDSU into the PAC 12 will bring added exposure. I have many friends that live in LA and they have no interest in anything San Diego. It’s all Dodger, Lakers, LMU and Rams. Ever been to a sporting event at LMU? Pretty much a ghost town so I do not believe the general population in LA are following LMU in any capacity.
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jul 29, 2023 19:20:45 GMT -5
SDSU is the product of media hype. When the LA schools left, the immediate thought of media members was “how will the PAC 12 continue to have a presence in SoCal?”….., so they came up with the idea that SDSU could be that team. After industry experts looked into that idea and did more research, it was revealed that people in LA or surrounding area are not going to and never did follow SDSU athletics so the idea of them being able to capture the SoCal market was all a fantasy. The LA fan base will follow the BIG 10 now that USC and UCLA are there. San Diego is not even much of a sports town anymore. They only have one pro team(SD Padre). Lost the Chargers so there is no sign that the admission of SDSU into the PAC 12 will bring added exposure. I have many friends that live in LA and they have no interest in anything San Diego. It’s all Dodger, Lakers, LMU and Rams. Ever been to a sporting event at LMU? Pretty much a ghost town so I do not believe the general population in LA are following LMU in any capacity. I’m just saying that LA people won’t all of a sudden follow the Aztecs just because they will move to the PAc12. I’ve also chatted with few people from another sports forum who lived in LA and they said the same thing….they don’t care about San Diego. They could be football fans that just love to watch football but that’s not the same as saying they are Aztec fans.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Jul 29, 2023 19:33:07 GMT -5
Cal and Stanford probably think of schools like Fresno State, SDSU and UNLV as beneath them. I wonder if they have been blocking expansion. Supposedly Cal and Stanford was against the Pac-16 idea as they didn't want to be stuck with Oklahome State and Texas Tech or Baylor. That arguably help kill the conference. At this point they can't be choosy. Maybe Stanford can but Cal could easily be G5 if they aren't careful. They don't own their market. Seriously if they're going to insist on certain academic standards being required then yes sure kill the Pac. You can't be choosy now if you want to survive. and yes for all the so called "prestige" of the Pac when it comes to football and men's hoops the Pac is pretty much the MWC now.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 29, 2023 20:03:24 GMT -5
More than Scott, certainly more than Kliavkoff, you can put a signifcant portion of the blame for the demise of the PAC on USC. Between the Reggie Bush scandal and Donna-gate, USC was so busy cheating and grifting for fortune, they sank the entire conference. The Reggie Bush episode was a joke. The NCAA wanted to go after USC and found an excuse, and subsequently looked really petty for doing it. Donna Heinel was a black-eye that was allowed to happen because she didn't matter. She had nothing to do with football or basketball. The PAC12 commissioner and presidents failed USC repeatedly for years, blowing their window to monetize the league properly forced USC and UCLA to look elsewhere. It should never have happened, but it was years in the making and not their fault. Out of curiosity, what were some of the failures that alienated USC? The ones I'm aware of (based on USC fans I've encountered) include: 1. USC and UCLA wanted unequal revenue sharing for the current media deal, but the other schools outvoted them 2. USC fans don't believe that the Pac-12 really had its back during the sanctions and even reveled in USC being down (USC fans really hate Oregon) 3. Apparently, USC wasn't allowed to play in the Pac-12 championship game in 2011 ostensibly due to the sanctions. It seems that USC was banned from bowl games by the NCAA, but banning them from the Pac-12 championship game may have been the Pac-12's call rather than the NCAA's 4. Hiring and keeping Larry Scott (ironically, USC's buddy UCLA was one of the main reasons for this) and then replacing him with George Kliavkoff 5. Just generally not being valuable enough to help USC get a TV contract that would pay it nearly what its fellow blue bloods are making
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 29, 2023 20:04:53 GMT -5
Supposedly Cal and Stanford was against the Pac-16 idea as they didn't want to be stuck with Oklahome State and Texas Tech or Baylor. That arguably help kill the conference. At this point they can't be choosy. Maybe Stanford can but Cal could easily be G5 if they aren't careful. They don't own their market. and yes for all the so called "prestige" of the Pac when it comes to football and men's hoops the Pac is pretty much the MWC now. You say this after losing Colorado? Not after the LA schools, but Colorado? The remaining PAC has four Top 25 and two Top 10 teams from the last football poll.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 29, 2023 20:06:44 GMT -5
SDSU is the product of media hype. When the LA schools left, the immediate thought of media members was “how will the PAC 12 continue to have a presence in SoCal?”….., so they came up with the idea that SDSU could be that team. After industry experts looked into that idea and did more research, it was revealed that people in LA or surrounding area are not going to and never did follow SDSU athletics so the idea of them being able to capture the SoCal market was all a fantasy. The LA fan base will follow the BIG 10 now that USC and UCLA are there. San Diego is not even much of a sports town anymore. They only have one pro team(SD Padre). Lost the Chargers so there is no sign that the admission of SDSU into the PAC 12 will bring added exposure. I have many friends that live in LA and they have no interest in anything San Diego. It’s all Dodger, Lakers, LMU and Rams. Ever been to a sporting event at LMU? Pretty much a ghost town so I do not believe the general population in LA are following LMU in any capacity. Yeah, I did a double take on LMU. I thought maybe they were talking about USC.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 29, 2023 20:17:39 GMT -5
The Reggie Bush episode was a joke. The NCAA wanted to go after USC and found an excuse, and subsequently looked really petty for doing it. Donna Heinel was a black-eye that was allowed to happen because she didn't matter. She had nothing to do with football or basketball. The PAC12 commissioner and presidents failed USC repeatedly for years, blowing their window to monetize the league properly forced USC and UCLA to look elsewhere. It should never have happened, but it was years in the making and not their fault. Out of curiosity, what were some of the failures that alienated USC? The ones I'm aware of (based on USC fans I've encountered) include: 1. USC and UCLA wanted unequal revenue sharing for the current media deal, but the other schools outvoted them 2. USC fans don't believe that the Pac-12 really had its back during the sanctions and even reveled in USC being down (USC fans really hate Oregon) 3. Apparently, USC wasn't allowed to play in the Pac-12 championship game in 2011 ostensibly due to the sanctions. It seems that USC was banned from bowl games by the NCAA, but banning them from the Pac-12 championship game may have been the Pac-12's call rather than the NCAA's 4. Hiring and keeping Larry Scott (ironically, USC's buddy UCLA was one of the main reasons for this) and then replacing him with George Kliavkoff 5. Just generally not being valuable enough to help USC get a TV contract that would pay it nearly what its fellow blue bloods are making Fan complaints on reddit aren't actually well sourced. 1. This wasn't up for a vote. 2. What was the PAC-12 supposed to do? Did the ACC have UNC's back with sanctions? No, the NCAA is just random, and USC needs to blame the right people. It's also not their fault they made SO MANY bad football hires after the sanctions. 3. This was just policy. It wasn't a call. 4. If USC had actually spoken up about Larry Scott, something would have changed. USC also had too much of a dumpster fire internally to do anything about it. 5. PAC's problem is that it's blue bloods were down, way down, during the time when money exploded nationally in the marquee sports (USC in FB / UCLA in BB). The California schools (ex-Stanford) and their inability to be consistently good or draw a fanbase out of their population centers is what has led to a big chunk of the PAC's issues (the others are related to the PAC-12 Network being a competitor to, rather than a partner with, a major media outlet). They have the innate advantages in recruiting, money, markets, and alumni base and floundered it. What should have been the three consistent strongest programs were really, really bad. USC fans on Reddit need to realize that if their institution hadn't been such a %*$#show over the 2010's, they wouldn't have been in as bad of a position.
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Jul 29, 2023 20:21:46 GMT -5
I say, screw CA markets. PAC should add teams from other ones. Lets go SMU, CSU, and 1 more.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 29, 2023 20:38:11 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what were some of the failures that alienated USC? The ones I'm aware of (based on USC fans I've encountered) include: 1. USC and UCLA wanted unequal revenue sharing for the current media deal, but the other schools outvoted them 2. USC fans don't believe that the Pac-12 really had its back during the sanctions and even reveled in USC being down (USC fans really hate Oregon) 3. Apparently, USC wasn't allowed to play in the Pac-12 championship game in 2011 ostensibly due to the sanctions. It seems that USC was banned from bowl games by the NCAA, but banning them from the Pac-12 championship game may have been the Pac-12's call rather than the NCAA's 4. Hiring and keeping Larry Scott (ironically, USC's buddy UCLA was one of the main reasons for this) and then replacing him with George Kliavkoff 5. Just generally not being valuable enough to help USC get a TV contract that would pay it nearly what its fellow blue bloods are making Fan complaints on reddit aren't actually well sourced. 1. This wasn't up for a vote. 2. What was the PAC-12 supposed to do? Did the ACC have UNC's back with sanctions? No, the NCAA is just random, and USC needs to blame the right people. It's also not their fault they made SO MANY bad football hires after the sanctions. 3. This was just policy. It wasn't a call. 4. If USC had actually spoken up about Larry Scott, something would have changed. USC also had too much of a dumpster fire internally to do anything about it. 5. PAC's problem is that it's blue bloods were down, way down, during the time when money exploded nationally in the marquee sports (USC in FB / UCLA in BB). The California schools (ex-Stanford) and their inability to be consistently good or draw a fanbase out of their population centers is what has led to a big chunk of the PAC's issues (the others are related to the PAC-12 Network being a competitor to, rather than a partner with, a major media outlet). They have the innate advantages in recruiting, money, markets, and alumni base and floundered it. What should have been the three consistent strongest programs were really, really bad. USC fans on Reddit need to realize that if their institution hadn't been such a %*$#show over the 2010's, they wouldn't have been in as bad of a position.Lol, it doesn't matter what you think. The point is that this is how USC felt. I'm not going to bother fact checking you on everything, but point No. 1 was a real dispute. Maybe it wasn't technically put to a vote because the outcome was known, but there was definitely a divide on the issue. Edit: I'm not really surprised that other Pac-12 fans just want to offload all their own issues on USC. Maybe instead of complaining that they were down, someone else in the Pac-12 could have won a title? Or at least made the playoff in any of the last six seasons? Whatever. Maybe I should have made this more clear, but I wasn't really asking for a rebuttal from an Oregon fan because I frankly don't really care what they think. I was more interested in the perspective of USC fans who could shed light on just why USC felt so frustrated with the conference.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Jul 29, 2023 20:50:11 GMT -5
SDSU is the product of media hype. When the LA schools left, the immediate thought of media members was “how will the PAC 12 continue to have a presence in SoCal?”….., so they came up with the idea that SDSU could be that team. After industry experts looked into that idea and did more research, it was revealed that people in LA or surrounding area are not going to and never did follow SDSU athletics so the idea of them being able to capture the SoCal market was all a fantasy. The LA fan base will follow the BIG 10 now that USC and UCLA are there. San Diego is not even much of a sports town anymore. They only have one pro team(SD Padre). Lost the Chargers so there is no sign that the admission of SDSU into the PAC 12 will bring added exposure. I have many friends that live in LA and they have no interest in anything San Diego. It’s all Dodger, Lakers, LMU and Rams. You don't think SDSU could grow into it's conference? San Diego itself a big market, even if SDSU doesn't have strong penetration. But we've seen the penetration increase over time in TCU, Utah, and other schools who joined bigger conferences. I'd agree that aren't a super sexy ad, but they would bring as many (or more) eyeballs than Colorado, WSU, OSU and Cal at least. California is a super divided market in general. You walk down the streets of LA, there's like a dozen teams people are wearing. You go down into SEC country and 95% of the people are wearing the colors of the closest SEC school. (One reason why the P12 is floundering--can't get enough eyeballs on their games)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 29, 2023 20:53:20 GMT -5
Fan complaints on reddit aren't actually well sourced. 1. This wasn't up for a vote. 2. What was the PAC-12 supposed to do? Did the ACC have UNC's back with sanctions? No, the NCAA is just random, and USC needs to blame the right people. It's also not their fault they made SO MANY bad football hires after the sanctions. 3. This was just policy. It wasn't a call. 4. If USC had actually spoken up about Larry Scott, something would have changed. USC also had too much of a dumpster fire internally to do anything about it. 5. PAC's problem is that it's blue bloods were down, way down, during the time when money exploded nationally in the marquee sports (USC in FB / UCLA in BB). The California schools (ex-Stanford) and their inability to be consistently good or draw a fanbase out of their population centers is what has led to a big chunk of the PAC's issues (the others are related to the PAC-12 Network being a competitor to, rather than a partner with, a major media outlet). They have the innate advantages in recruiting, money, markets, and alumni base and floundered it. What should have been the three consistent strongest programs were really, really bad. USC fans on Reddit need to realize that if their institution hadn't been such a %*$#show over the 2010's, they wouldn't have been in as bad of a position.Lol, it doesn't matter what you think. The point is that this is how USC felt. I'm not going to bother fact checking you on everything, but point No. 1 was a real dispute. Maybe it wasn't technically put to a vote because the outcome was known, but there was definitely a divide on the issue. Edit: I'm not really surprised that other Pac-12 fans just want to offload all their own issues on USC. Maybe instead of complaining that they were down, someone else in the Pac-12 could have won a title? Or at least made the playoff in any of the last six seasons? Whatever. Maybe I should have made this more clear, but I wasn't really asking for a rebuttal from an Oregon fan because I frankly don't really care what they think. I was more interested in the perspective of USC fans who could shed light on just why USC felt so frustrated with the conference. LOL ok, post it on a message board but don't ask for a rebuttal. And USC fans posting on Reddit do not equal "what USC thinks" but that's just a you thing as far as I can tell. Oregon made the football title game twice in the 2010s, and a Final Four. And we dealt with our own @$$%*!* NCAA sanctions too. We've carried plenty of our own weight for the conference, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Jul 29, 2023 21:33:16 GMT -5
I don't want to go in circles on this, but as long as the powers running the Pac have an overinflated sense of what they should get for their media rights, nothing's going to get done.
I'm firmly in the camp of the tv execs on this one. I sure wouldn't want to pay for a conference that the last 20 years really hasn't done squat.
|
|