|
Post by n00b on Aug 5, 2023 10:56:22 GMT -5
I think it’s twofold. People who live on the west coast clearly aren’t as invested in college sports as those who live in the Midwest and southeast. That’s going to mean fewer people attending games and fewer people watching games on TV. The presidents (not the conference commissioners in my opinion) weren’t willing to affiliate with (a) religious schools or (b) schools they thought were beneath them in prestige. So when the Big 12 lost Texas and Oklahoma, they aggressively pursued the next best schools even if they were a tier below. The PAC-12’s response was to not move and hope for the best. Again, I think this is the presidents, not the commissioners that were unwilling to add schools like BYU, UNLV, SMU and San Diego State. I heard a former usc assistant AD (now AD at a D2 school) interviewed. He said in the late 90's a sports director at NBC told him USC and UCLA were the anchor for the Pac12 and were most of what the networks cared about, and if they didn't stop pretending that all members were equal and take care of USC and UCLA, it wasn't sustainable. They couldn't go on paying WSU the same as USC, but they did. Losing USC and UCLA may have been unavoidable. Unequal pay didn’t help the big 12 keep Texas and Oklahoma. But the pac-12 was stubborn and failed to do what was necessary after they left. While the big 12 succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by nellynel on Aug 5, 2023 10:58:18 GMT -5
Exactly, everyone says they hate where college sports is going but keep watching. Stop watching and attending and it will go back to intramural activities between universities. I don't know who all these people are that watch all that much D1 football, it's not interesting to me. especieally now with Pac 12 teams in a professional sports conference. If I want pro football, there's the NFL, and even that is an industrialized product flag football passing game now. D1 is just an amateur act with bands and cheerleaders now, with pigs like Alabama and Ohio State et. al. that aren't interesting. Obviously an Olympic sports fan like me doesn't matter. I've never watched a Rutgers or Maryland football game, won't start now. Alabama, Texas, et. all. nah. I would watch some Pac-12 teams, but it'll be less now. Michigan State vs. USC/Oregon isn't interesting to me. I have ties to UCLA, so had some interest, but that'll wane even more. I hope for implosion in the media for football after all this. like really, there's more gambling and booze money and tailgating largesse that can grow and will be even better than before? lol the Big 12. who the heck is even in it? Probably should ask the advertisers, who pay the networks, who pay the schools, they probably know them best. If you become part of a larger trend their will be another re-alignment/consolidation.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 5, 2023 11:01:17 GMT -5
I heard a former usc assistant AD (now AD at a D2 school) interviewed. He said in the late 90's a sports director at NBC told him USC and UCLA were the anchor for the Pac12 and were most of what the networks cared about, and if they didn't stop pretending that all members were equal and take care of USC and UCLA, it wasn't sustainable. They couldn't go on paying WSU the same as USC, but they did. Losing USC and UCLA may have been unavoidable. Unequal pay didn’t help the big 12 keep Texas and Oklahoma. But the pac-12 was stubborn and failed to do what was necessary after they left. While the big 12 succeeded. Texas and Oklahoma had the natural advantage of more options due to geography, but I totally agree the P12 was stubborn, shortsighted, negotiated some poor media rights deals, and didn't read the landscape until far too late.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 5, 2023 11:07:16 GMT -5
I’m seriously sorry guys. And I’m honestly not sure college sports survives this.
The whole push to restructure conferences is being driven by the universities’ fear of being financially left behind after an era of decreasing state support for massive public institutions, amidst a TV landscape that is itself fracturing and uncertain. There is no vision behind any of this - just mining what they think is inexhaustible supply of interest and money. No understanding of what links fans to their teams or engages people in rivalries. Just a reflexive belief that there is nothing they can do to stop the gusher gushing. It’s just pure faith.
When the Big 8 and the SWC went down, there were obvious neighboring entities that could absorb them, or around which they could reform. But the PAC is a major loss affecting a whole region that is geographically and culturally distinct. College sports has basically lost much of California, the 5th largest economy in the world. I’m not sure how that doesn’t sap a lot of interest and resources from college athletics.
We’ll see. But I am deeply sad the PAC seems to be gone.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 5, 2023 11:11:15 GMT -5
College sports has basically lost much of California, the 5th largest economy in the world. I’m not sure how that doesn’t sap a lot of interest and resources from college athletics. I think it's the opposite. More people than ever before will be tuned into USC and UCLA athletics.
|
|
|
Post by redcard🏐 on Aug 5, 2023 11:41:34 GMT -5
This may be the best one I’ve seen so far!!
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 5, 2023 11:51:58 GMT -5
Stanford fits one other conference other than B1G. Ivy League. Stanford is not a fit for the Ivy League. They are not going to give up their athletic scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 5, 2023 11:56:56 GMT -5
College sports has basically lost much of California, the 5th largest economy in the world. I’m not sure how that doesn’t sap a lot of interest and resources from college athletics. I think it's the opposite. More people than ever before will be tuned into USC and UCLA athletics. why? Because they just will? Lol Yes more big 10 viewers will view ucla and usc as to every other non b1g are, maybe not it s not necessarily a srlf fulfilling assumption
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 5, 2023 11:58:21 GMT -5
College sports has basically lost much of California, the 5th largest economy in the world. I’m not sure how that doesn’t sap a lot of interest and resources from college athletics. I think it's the opposite. More people than ever before will be tuned into USC and UCLA athletics. Maybe. But they are not all of California. They still have the USC UCLA rivalry, but you've lost the southern vs northern Cal rivalry, which is a real thing. You are carving out a real chunk of that regions interest and leaving it by the side of the road for the coyotes because you are sure you will win big and eat well at Vegas down the road. Starving kids on the streets of Vegas be damned. My opinion - rivalries stem from actual personal interactions - friends, family, co-workers, neighbors supporting different teams and jawing between each other because they have ties to those universities and histories between regions/institutions. Sport rivalry is just a ritualized playing out of those personal/cultural conflicts. That's why local rivalries are always the most heated. Sports rivalries separated from that real world tension are just not that interesting. I have a hard time caring about a matchup between UCLA and Wisconsin that doesn't have stakes. I will give you this. Los Angeles is a city of immigrants from other parts of the country - so it can have a little of various personal and cultural rivalries baked in to the local population makeup, although it's likely pretty diffuse. Transitioning from pointed local rivalry to more diffuse non-local rivalry is not easy. Maybe the Cowboys kind of did that by being the team everyone either loved or loved to hate. That no-one's-bigger-than-Texas image had a wider and very real salience one way or the other for people. But that is a national league, and the NFL has retained the NFC East rivalries despite long distances because the history is so rife between Philly, NY, DC, and Dallas. Those fanbases really hate each other. The English Premier League has also managed to expand rivalries for a few really successful teams to fanbases beyond England - but they do that while retaining the local rivalries religiously. As soon as some teams tried to create a European super league, there were literal riots in the streets, and many ownership groups are still trying to rebuild their relationships to their fanbases two years later. Maybe some entities can get richer as a result of this action. Good for them. But I think college sports, as a whole, gets poorer. I think at this point we'd be better served by a super conference with a PAC subdivision than this dissection.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 5, 2023 12:10:30 GMT -5
So what was the biggest issue for the Pac-12? I know everyone is saying TV deal but was it bad leadership? Was this just the ultimate outcome with UCLA and USC decided to leave? They should have picked up 2 teams real fast. Colorado was afraid to get left out and once they jumped ship everything started falling. I think it’s twofold. People who live on the west coast clearly aren’t as invested in college sports as those who live in the Midwest and southeast. That’s going to mean fewer people attending games and fewer people watching games on TV. The presidents (not the conference commissioners in my opinion) weren’t willing to affiliate with (a) religious schools or (b) schools they thought were beneath them in prestige. So when the Big 12 lost Texas and Oklahoma, they aggressively pursued the next best schools even if they were a tier below. The PAC-12’s response was to not move and hope for the best. Again, I think this is the presidents, not the commissioners that were unwilling to add schools like BYU, UNLV, SMU and San Diego State. Adding BYU/UNLV/SMU/SDSU would not have changed anything for the PAC. They wouldn't have changed the media deal at all. What the PAC needed to do was take 4-6 of the Big XII remnants after OUT. Baylor was a no-go, but something like Iowa St./Kansas/Ok St/Texas Tech/TCU and either K-State or Houston could have worked if USC hadn't killed it while they were on the way out the door (which the PAC will REMEMBER).
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 5, 2023 12:12:18 GMT -5
I think it’s twofold. People who live on the west coast clearly aren’t as invested in college sports as those who live in the Midwest and southeast. That’s going to mean fewer people attending games and fewer people watching games on TV. The presidents (not the conference commissioners in my opinion) weren’t willing to affiliate with (a) religious schools or (b) schools they thought were beneath them in prestige. So when the Big 12 lost Texas and Oklahoma, they aggressively pursued the next best schools even if they were a tier below. The PAC-12’s response was to not move and hope for the best. Again, I think this is the presidents, not the commissioners that were unwilling to add schools like BYU, UNLV, SMU and San Diego State. Adding BYU/UNLV/SMU/SDSU would not have changed anything for the PAC. They wouldn't have changed the media deal at all. What the PAC needed to do was take 4-6 of the Big XII remnants after OUT. Baylor was a no-go, but something like Iowa St./Kansas/Ok St/Texas Tech/TCU and either K-State or Houston could have worked if USC hadn't killed it while they were on the way out the door (which the PAC will REMEMBER).
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 5, 2023 12:38:18 GMT -5
I think it's the opposite. More people than ever before will be tuned into USC and UCLA athletics. why? Because they just will? Lol Yes more big 10 viewers will view ucla and usc as to every other non b1g are, maybe not it s not necessarily a srlf fulfilling assumption Because people in the midwest are obsessed with college sports. Like you've admitted about yourself, that typically is not true of Pac-12 supporters.
|
|
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: 12,959
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 5, 2023 12:40:20 GMT -5
Presumably adding Colorado/Utah expanded the pie (or the B1G wouldn't expanding), but you are right about still having equal shares, along with an over priced commissioner who dramatically underperformed in getting a TV deal. I think the pie expanded due to the conference championship game. But it had to expand by enough to offset two additional shares. For example, say a 10-conference school is worth $300 million per year. That's $30 million per school. Say that adding a conference championship game adds an additional $25 million, but you have to add two schools. The pie is larger ($325 million), but size of each individual share is smaller (~$27 million). I don't know the exact numbers for the Pac-12, but that is the idea. And if USC was already unhappy subsidizing nine schools, I cant imagine they were happy subsidizing 11. And yes, add in the bloated salary for Larry Scott, the incredibly expensive San Francisco office space, the Comcast overpayment scandal, etc. Edit: Before anyone responds, yes, I know USC will still subsidize schools in the Big Ten. But not to the same degree. I am thinking - could be wrong. In addition to conference championship, the industry was different (and is different from when the Big Ten added Rutgers). The goal was to get into larger market sizes and increase cable subscriptions. But things have changed - cord cutting has occurred and will continue - it is about eyeballs watching games and what games are drawing viewers. Not # of cable subscribers.
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Aug 5, 2023 12:44:21 GMT -5
Even if the remaining 4 want to stay and still try to add other schools, what media deal will they have? The Apple one reportedly expired Friday. They will need to find a new deal first, yet again, and then hope other schools are still interested, despite the loss of so many schools in the conference. It is possible, but more realistically they each join other conferences. Sad for their athletic departments that have to downgrade, or programs cut though. Not sure how much their volleyball programs will take a hit or not.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 5, 2023 12:55:46 GMT -5
Stanford indicating that at least they're not yet ready to just dump all their sports programs... That makes me feel better
|
|