Long post of the week... I'm trying to keep them shorter.
I'm not necessary into picking certain program(s) that imploded the PAC12. It was a # of factors. Most of all, it was the lack of the B12 office securing a competitive TV deal. TV ultimately imploded the PAC12, probably due in part to the PAC12 office's mismanagement and miscalculation (initially the league office over-estimated the value of the conference in securing a TV deal in a less than ideal negotiating atmosphere--see Covid below). Sort of PAC12 huborous in the face of uncertainty was a problem too. IMO:
1. Competitively, the PAC12's performance in major sports already declined, with no national championships in football since 2007 and basketball since 1997.
2. The PAC12 office led us down a bad road, always indicating progress in securing a good TV deal, however it never came to fruition. The league office was not that transparent and just did not perform on the TV front. Classic case of over promising and under delivering. Larry Scott did no favors in how he set up the PAC office and the failure of the PAC network.
3. Once given the B1G invitation in 2022, USC and UCLA had to leave since they were not filling up their stadiums. USC had decent football years, but were unable win the PAC12 championship, so they were losing relevance in a league losing relevance. After USC's 6 year run (2002-2008), they only won the conference once in 2017--Oregon, Stanford, UW and Utah did them in. UCLA's AD finances were so upside down, they needed the B1G money just to try and salvage their athletic department as a whole, which is still running in the red. For UCLA, do not rent basically all of your athletic facilities with poor deals for parking, concessions, etc... SOCAL was in football trouble.
3. When the apple deal was presented, Rick George left without comment--that tells you all you need to know about the viability of the Apple plan--not appealing, stable or predictable. I can't blame RG for that, as he landed CU a full share year 1 in the B12; this ended worries about the conference stability; and let us save on travel costs/non-revenue athlete exhausting travel schedules. For a number of reasons, CU always felt and was treated like little brother in the PAC12, and we could go home to a conference that really wanted us to be a leader, which might put us in a better position for the next round of CFB realignment. Also, with CU securing Prime, the B12 is a conference where he could excel early, just look how much we have been on national TV.
4. Oregon and WA finally bolted to the B1G shortly after they saw the Apple TV deal. I don't blame them, as they took the opportunity to stay with the big boys and competing in a better stable conference. For those two teams, it was tough to have UCLA and USC bolt, a those are marquee conference games. Oregon has done well. WA has done okay, and will probably do okay. I think had the PAC12 been more nimble and stable, they might have bet on being the PAC's marquee teams, however the TV deal was that bad. Both those teams fill their stadiums.
6. The dominoes fell and musical chairs just ended with WSU and OSU remaining, others seeking other P-4 conferences and then lawsuits.
We do have to remember, during that Covid year, the PAC12 and CA schools really handled that bad poorly. Initially, we were not playing, then the conference played the most limited schedule with more no contest games than every P-5 conference combined. The PAC-12 sent 2 teams (Oregon and CU) to bowls, with all the other eligible schools opting out--ASU, Stanford, USC, UW and Utah. UCLA opted out before the season ended, but did not reach eligibility. I know each program had their own reasons, however IMO this demonstrated the PAC12/WC overall lack of commitment for college football as a whole. This did not play well with TV executives or bowl sponsors. Lesson: it is much harder to negotiate an imminent TV deal, when you burnt them badly in that bowl season. IMO, the perfect storm of TV, sponsors and the other P-4 conferences questioning the PAC12's overall commitment to CFB allowing them to drive a hard bargains. This allowed the other P-4 conferences to smell blood for poaching purposes... Epic CU note from Covid year: KD coach of the year LOL, Jerek Broussard offensive player of the year.
Before Covid, I sort of saw a shifting of CA sports interests away from college football--except for a few schools viewership, attendance, and buzz around the PAC12 were all trending downward for about a decade, specifically in CA. California enacted legislation/regulations placing harsh limits on padded and physical contact at high school practices. CA was always a recruiting hotbed, however the state began producing less quality front 7 HS recruits. They still produce many great play-makers and QBs, however the CA recruiting hotbed necessary to support the PAC was dwindling overall for the 12 teams to recruit and be competitive.
I do think the PAC12 was doomed well before Covid. The conference regressed in it's football competitiveness. Many AD's were already upside down financially. When the CFP started in 2014, only Oregon and UW made it. Oregon won 1 game in the 1st CFP year, but both were beat handily in their losses. If the conference stayed together, they probably would have had to agree on an unequal revenue sharing model, which was probably impossible to pass given the PAC structure. Without just UCLA and USC, no matter whether the PAC added teams, there were really no appealing teams to add that made sense--SDSU was the best fit, UNLV maybe 2nd, but neither meshed academically. In hindsight, SMU could have filled CU's departure, but that would have been wierd and no travel partner.
For what it is worth. Go Buffs thrash Wyoming!
P.S.--although we do not have the best results, with Prime we are a National Brand and the buzz is back in Boulder. We have the TV exposure.