|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2023 10:37:57 GMT -5
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. Lol, I was quoting the other poster, but fair enough. But yes, the presidents are ultimately responsible. They hired both of those guys, after all.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2023 10:39:39 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. That is true. And I only think that happened because A&M found out about the move and leaked it. As calamitous as it seemed at the time, the Big 12 getting poached first actually worked out in their favor. That said, the Pac-12 still made mistakes (e.g. going to the open market instead of taking ESPN's offer).
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jul 27, 2023 10:58:49 GMT -5
Would getting SMU, SDSU and Tulane be a bad idea or even UNLV be an upgrade from Corado? Tulane? that's flat out stupid UNLV is not a good idea. Vegas is now a pro sports town. UNLV will be meaningless. Fresno would be better than UNLV in generating media and competitive sports and ADDING eyes.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jul 27, 2023 11:02:50 GMT -5
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. question is why the Big-12 would want both ASU & Arizona due to 'dilution' of revenue. ultimately I think they may go for Colo, Az, and one or two other school (possibly SDSU), that way they don't stretch too far but do get a footprint. not sure BYU would want Utah in the mix. sounds crazy, but Colo, Az, SDSU, and Cal would be a possible outcome. I'm sure they would like a Cali school, but doubt Stanford or Cal would go. that leaves SDSU and/or Fresno.
|
|
|
Post by BumpSetKill on Jul 27, 2023 11:31:07 GMT -5
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. question is why the Big-12 would want both ASU & Arizona due to 'dilution' of revenue. ultimately I think they may go for Colo, Az, and one or two other school (possibly SDSU), that way they don't stretch too far but do get a footprint. not sure BYU would want Utah in the mix. sounds crazy, but Colo, Az, SDSU, and Cal would be a possible outcome. I'm sure they would like a Cali school, but doubt Stanford or Cal would go. that leaves SDSU and/or Fresno. These are good points. We shall see, but I have a feeling more than a few remaining PAC schools are feeling a tad desperate to get in good with a remaining Power 5 conference before it's too late.
|
|
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 11:42:25 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. I don't know about Texas fans - but it is my understanding that Texas didn't want to expand from 10 schools. That would just dilute the money they would get - and conference stability wasn't going to be a huge issue since they would always have great options. The rest of the conference wanted to keep Texas happy and in the conference - as the loss of Texas most liley meant much less money going forward. The PAC currently has the same issue (on a different scale) with Washington and Oregon. Adding teams will mean less money for OR/WA - and right now they are thinking short term money until they land in a conference that will work better for them. Not adding more schools will make the conference less stable. The PAC is in the same bind the other B12 schools were in while Teas was in the conference.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2023 14:05:55 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. The Pac-12 having zero exit fee is one of the most incredible and underreported aspects of conference realignment. It just seems like negligence because it makes it so easy for schools to leave. I'm guessing it's because the Pac-12 had never been raided before, so they didn't protect themselves. Other conferences like the Big 12 and even the Mountain West have lost members multiple times, so they learned from that experience and made the exit fees high. Edit: I do think this makes SMU to the Pac-12 more likely because SMU has wealthy donors that can pay the exit fee.
|
|
|
Post by boxcariii on Jul 27, 2023 14:15:32 GMT -5
These are good points. We shall see, but I have a feeling more than a few remaining PAC schools are feeling a tad desperate to get in good with a remaining Power 5 conference before it's too late. *Power/Money 4
|
|
|
Post by wahinefan on Jul 27, 2023 16:30:02 GMT -5
Right now the PAC has 10 universities, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and for now Colorado. If Colorado does go to the BIG 12, then why not replace Colorado with Utah State, keeping with the theme of the PAC.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2023 16:33:48 GMT -5
Right now the PAC has 10 universities, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and for now Colorado. If Colorado does go to the BIG 12, then why not replace Colorado with Utah State, keeping with the theme of the PAC. Colorado is now officially gone. And Colorado State would make more sense than Utah State as a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jul 27, 2023 17:09:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Jul 27, 2023 23:48:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Jul 27, 2023 23:49:49 GMT -5
Had to share. It made me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jul 28, 2023 0:23:12 GMT -5
Right now the PAC has 10 universities, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and for now Colorado. If Colorado does go to the BIG 12, then why not replace Colorado with Utah State, keeping with the theme of the PAC. Colorado is now officially gone. And Colorado State would make more sense than Utah State as a replacement. Going be tough for the PAC 12 to grab any MWC schools without having to help pay that team’s exit fee at 34 mil. I find it hard to believe that the current PAC 12 members will give the commissioner OK to part with 34 mil……especially since there is no TV contract and I doubt any TV /media company is going to give the conference 34 mil to bring in a CSU or a USU or even a SDSU. That means each current members will essentially give up 3 and a half mil each to bring in a G5 school that probably not even worth the money. The only thing bringing in another school will do is increase the membership numbers from 9 to 10 but in terms of prestige and National following, nobody is really available to keep the PAC12 at its current state. Any additional team is really a downgrade.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 28, 2023 0:29:11 GMT -5
I predict a merger between whoever is left in the PAC and one of the other western conferences. Probably they will take the PAC name because of the historical cachet.
|
|