|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 26, 2023 20:44:39 GMT -5
Rocky Mountain Bye, Colorado. (Buffs shoulda never joined the PAC to begin with.) I am a Pac-10 guy. It took YEARS for me to consider those mountain schools part of the gang....and even now, meh.
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Jul 26, 2023 21:35:31 GMT -5
Would getting SMU, SDSU and Tulane be a bad idea or even UNLV be an upgrade from Corado?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 26, 2023 22:23:06 GMT -5
The PAC is dying. UCLA and USC killed it. It's just taking a while for it to stop thrashing about.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Jul 26, 2023 22:25:45 GMT -5
Would getting SMU, SDSU and Tulane be a bad idea or even UNLV be an upgrade from Corado? Is that a serious question? Colorado has better academics (by far) and research prominence than all of those schools, and holds more than 20 national NCAA championships in different sports, and has been THE best overall cross-country school for mens AND womens teams in the past 10-20 years. CU has been ranked in the Top 25 in several other sports on a regular basis year after year. Both Mens and Womens Basketball are picked as pre-season Top 25 teams this upcoming season. Additionally, CU has won PAC-12 championships (Mens Cross Country, Womens Cross Country, Mens Basketball PAC-12 Tournament Champions, Womens Lacrosse, Football PAC-12 South Champions, etc). CU has also won many BIG-12 conference championships in the past -- including Football and Volleyball Conference Championships (like a BIG-12 volleyball championship over Nebraska one year). Colorado also consistently made it to the Volleyball NCAA championships when in the BIG-12. The media market for CU is large and the fans still show up decently when a team has a losing seasons (unlike MANY other schools). None of those other schools can come close to that resume.
|
|
|
Post by BumpSetKill on Jul 26, 2023 22:49:41 GMT -5
Would getting SMU, SDSU and Tulane be a bad idea or even UNLV be an upgrade from Corado? Is that a serious question? Colorado has better academics (by far) and research prominence than all of those schools, and holds more than 20 national NCAA championships in different sports, and has been THE best overall cross-country school for mens AND womens teams in the past 10-20 years. CU has been ranked in the Top 25 in several other sports on a regular basis year after year. Both Mens and Womens Basketball are picked as pre-season Top 25 teams this upcoming season. Additionally, CU has won PAC-12 championships (Mens Cross Country, Womens Cross Country, Mens Basketball PAC-12 Tournament Champions, Womens Lacrosse, Football PAC-12 South Champions, etc). CU has also won many BIG-12 conference championships in the past -- including Football and Volleyball Conference Championships (like a BIG-12 volleyball championship over Nebraska one year). Colorado also consistently made it to the Volleyball NCAA championships when in the BIG-12. The media market for CU is large and the fans still show up decently when a team has a losing seasons (unlike MANY other schools). None of those other schools can come close to that resume. Well said. Football and Basketball are what obviously drives college programs, but CU has kept up very nicely in mens and womens basketball while in the PAC. They made the Womens NCAA Sweet 16 just this last season; barely losing to NCAA runner-up Iowa, and almost half of the years CU has been in the PAC, they have made the Mens NCAA Tournament along with a PAC-12 Championship. Football DID have a couple winning seasons while in the PAC-12 and won the PAC-12 South one year. Volleyball has made AVCA Top 25 rank appearances pretty much every year while in the PAC and have also beaten ranked teams every year; on top of some NCAA appearances while in the PAC . People also forget (or fail to know) all the other sports that the Buffs have been good at, and their history of excellence (i.e. 1990 Football National Champions & multiple B1G 12 Champions, womens soccer, skiing, and others). Their athletic facilities are also very nice overall. Wouldn't say they are THE best or anything, but they are better than the vast majority of D1 schools. Colorado is a good school to have in any conference when considering all aspects. The move to the B1G 12 is a good one for CU. It's too bad because I loved the PAC, but I think it's dead as an elite conference with elite academic schools. Although some of the BIG 12 schools are not as nice as PAC schools, the BIG 12 money for each school is already $15 million more annually than the PAC-12 was dishing out (and probably will be more once the crappy PAC deal is announced), and the B1G 12 was the most profitable conference last year (yes, more than the B1G and SEC). I'm guessing Arizona will quickly follow to the BIG 12. Utah and ASU may soon follow after that, and there is talk that a few other prominent PAC-12 schools are panicking and knocking on the BIG 12's door this week. The B1G 12 seems to want as many as 18-20 teams, so they definitely have room for more with CU being #13 as of now! I wish Mizzou would move back. Would be nice to have them back, but that's a selfish wish.
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jul 27, 2023 0:26:42 GMT -5
It's not that simple to just go and grab teams from another conference. The MWC,for example, has a 34 million dollar exit fee. Any team wanting to leave now, will have to pay that amount NOW....not in lump sum. The PAC 12 remaining members are not going to pay for other schools exit fee. 34 million is a lot of money.
I don't think any school has that kind of money laying at. Also, if teams were to leave and head over to the watered down PAC and get paid G5 money, what's the point on moving?
No way that new watered down PAC 12 will be able to command anything close to P5 money... especially now with no LA market and no Denver market.
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Jul 27, 2023 3:03:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 27, 2023 4:25:18 GMT -5
The point is that this is not a "realignment". This is a consolidation. The "P5" is becoming P3 at most, and the PAC got backstabbed by USC/UCLA and the Big 10. From the moment that happened, it was extremely unlikely that they were going to have a chair left when the music stopped. With the ACC basically locked into their contract, that meant the Big 12 and the PAC were in a battle to see who would grab the other one. The Big 12 moved first with their contract and their expansion, so now is starting to raid the PAC schools that they can get. At this point the PAC is basically dead, and the other conferences are going to pick over the corpse. I think the last moment that could have actually stopped this would have been if the CA Regents had disallowed UCLA to go to the Big 10. USC would have gone on their own, the PAC would have replaced them with somebody like SDSU, and they would have (probably) held together.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 27, 2023 7:01:46 GMT -5
Well, the PAC-12 wasn’t “backstabbed” by UCLA and USC any more than the Big 12 was “backstabbed” by Texas and Oklahoma.
The conferences’ responses to those departures is why the Big 12 is thriving and the Pac-12 is about to fall apart. Both conferences debated adding “lesser” institutions, academically and/or athletically. The Big 12 decided to add the four best of those “lesser” institutions they could find while I suspect Pac-12 leaders didn’t/don’t want to allow institutions like San Diego State and UNLV into their club. They wanted to stand still while every other conference is trying to grow. And this is the result.
|
|
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: 12,977
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 27, 2023 7:08:50 GMT -5
It's not that simple to just go and grab teams from another conference. The MWC,for example, has a 34 million dollar exit fee. Any team wanting to leave now, will have to pay that amount NOW....not in lump sum. The PAC 12 remaining members are not going to pay for other schools exit fee. 34 million is a lot of money. I don't think any school has that kind of money laying at. Also, if teams were to leave and head over to the watered down PAC and get paid G5 money, what's the point on moving? No way that new watered down PAC 12 will be able to command anything close to P5 money... especially now with no LA market and no Denver market. Yes - the timing is horrible for the PAC right now. Any school in the PAC can leave w/o paying an exit fee after this year - while anyone joining the PAC after this year will have to pay a 'large' exit fee to join the PAC after this year. At least anyone out of the Mountain West (and I believe the AAC). Assuming that Colorado is gone (which seems very likely right now) - the PAC will be at 9 for 2024-25 and possibly 2025-26. The PAC can survive with 9 - they can survive with 8 - but can they survive with just 7 waiting a couple years before they can start expanding again? Had Colorado decided to join the B12 just over 20 days ago - then the PAC would have easily been able to replace with SDSU. But today - that becomes much harder. Seems like another mistake by the PAC in not adding a couple more schools two months ago. I know they didn't want to do this before a new contract deal, but now they are in real jeopardy again.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 27, 2023 9:26:10 GMT -5
It's not that simple to just go and grab teams from another conference. The MWC,for example, has a 34 million dollar exit fee. Any team wanting to leave now, will have to pay that amount NOW....not in lump sum. The PAC 12 remaining members are not going to pay for other schools exit fee. 34 million is a lot of money. I don't think any school has that kind of money laying at. Also, if teams were to leave and head over to the watered down PAC and get paid G5 money, what's the point on moving? No way that new watered down PAC 12 will be able to command anything close to P5 money... especially now with no LA market and no Denver market. Yes - the timing is horrible for the PAC right now. Any school in the PAC can leave w/o paying an exit fee after this year - while anyone joining the PAC after this year will have to pay a 'large' exit fee to join the PAC after this year. At least anyone out of the Mountain West (and I believe the AAC). Assuming that Colorado is gone (which seems very likely right now) - the PAC will be at 9 for 2024-25 and possibly 2025-26. The PAC can survive with 9 - they can survive with 8 - but can they survive with just 7 waiting a couple years before they can start expanding again? Had Colorado decided to join the B12 just over 20 days ago - then the PAC would have easily been able to replace with SDSU. But today - that becomes much harder. Seems like another mistake by the PAC in not adding a couple more schools two months ago. I know they didn't want to do this before a new contract deal, but now they are in real jeopardy again. Isn't the Pac12 commissioner an all time buffoon, or was that a previous guy?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2023 10:15:00 GMT -5
The point is that this is not a "realignment". This is a consolidation. The "P5" is becoming P3 at most, and the PAC got backstabbed by USC/UCLA and the Big 10. From the moment that happened, it was extremely unlikely that they were going to have a chair left when the music stopped. With the ACC basically locked into their contract, that meant the Big 12 and the PAC were in a battle to see who would grab the other one. The Big 12 moved first with their contract and their expansion, so now is starting to raid the PAC schools that they can get. At this point the PAC is basically dead, and the other conferences are going to pick over the corpse. I think the last moment that could have actually stopped this would have been if the CA Regents had disallowed UCLA to go to the Big 10. USC would have gone on their own, the PAC would have replaced them with somebody like SDSU, and they would have (probably) held together. The regents were very unlikely to stop that move. And even if they did, the Big Ten likely would have just invited Stanford. I think the last time the Pac-12 could have stopped this is if they had taken ESPN's initial offer on a new TV deal. But they thought they were worth more and went to the open market.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2023 10:16:01 GMT -5
Yes - the timing is horrible for the PAC right now. Any school in the PAC can leave w/o paying an exit fee after this year - while anyone joining the PAC after this year will have to pay a 'large' exit fee to join the PAC after this year. At least anyone out of the Mountain West (and I believe the AAC). Assuming that Colorado is gone (which seems very likely right now) - the PAC will be at 9 for 2024-25 and possibly 2025-26. The PAC can survive with 9 - they can survive with 8 - but can they survive with just 7 waiting a couple years before they can start expanding again? Had Colorado decided to join the B12 just over 20 days ago - then the PAC would have easily been able to replace with SDSU. But today - that becomes much harder. Seems like another mistake by the PAC in not adding a couple more schools two months ago. I know they didn't want to do this before a new contract deal, but now they are in real jeopardy again. Isn't the Pac12 commissioner an all time buffoon, or was that a previous guy? The previous guy, Larry Scott, is the "all-time buffoon." That being said, I don't think the current one is that much better.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 27, 2023 10:23:26 GMT -5
Well, the PAC-12 wasn’t “backstabbed” by UCLA and USC any more than the Big 12 was “backstabbed” by Texas and Oklahoma. The conferences’ responses to those departures is why the Big 12 is thriving and the Pac-12 is about to fall apart. Both conferences debated adding “lesser” institutions, academically and/or athletically. The Big 12 decided to add the four best of those “lesser” institutions they could find while I suspect Pac-12 leaders didn’t/don’t want to allow institutions like San Diego State and UNLV into their club. They wanted to stand still while every other conference is trying to grow. And this is the result. In all fairness, the Big 12 had a one-year head start on the PAC based on Texas and OU announcing their defections one year prior to USC and UCLA announcing theirs. And, geographically speaking, the PAC just did not have the same growth potential as the Big 12. Many Texas fans wanted the Big 12 to add more schools (like Arizona and Arizona State) beyond the 10 members over the last 10 years or so. But, the former Big 12 commish (former Stanford AD) just sat on his hands and never aggressively tried to expand the conference. Obviously, the new Big 12 AD came in with a different philosophy than the former one.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jul 27, 2023 10:36:47 GMT -5
Isn't the Pac12 commissioner an all time buffoon, or was that a previous guy? The previous guy, Larry Scott, is the "all-time buffoon." That being said, I don't think the current one is that much better. Not sure "buffoon" is the right word for someone who got a high-paying job for several years with great benefits and a fancy office in SF. Grifter, maybe. But not buffoon. Whether the 'new' guy is better is debatable, but he inherited a mess. But, IMO, we should focus the blame on the PAC school ADs and Presidents who were in charge of the PAC12 commissioner. More than any other school in the PAC, USC had the clout to control the commissioner or force the hiring a better one. But I suppose their AD was too busy playing golf and ignoring the lady who was running a criminal enterprise right under their noses.
|
|