Larry Scott Gets Contract Extension Through 2022

[jizzrag85]

Yeah no **** but how would you go about that? Sell a stake in the conference like the SEC and Big-10 did because Scott presented a deal like that to the presidents and they voted no. And if you live in the Denver area you are being very dramatic, there are tons of bars that carry both Directv and Cable/Dish not just some "weird" bars on the "outskirts."

I've gone to lots of bars in colorado that only have directv, it was infuriating.

Also whoever mentioned sling, sling is probably the worst service I've ever attempted to use in my life. Poor video quality, terrible app on all platforms (especially mac), crashing, freezing, **** customer service and simply just NOT LOADING. Sling infuriates me so f'ing badly I wanted to scream every time I tried to use it.

 

[Highlander]

The move has to be to go after UT and OU, with some mix of KU, KSU, UH, TTU and OSU for the other 2 teams. UT/TTU + OU/OSU would probably be our most likely scenario to pull off since no other conference is positioned to offer that without having to expand to an ungainly 18 teams. Personally, I think the strongest would be UT, TTU, OU & KSU but I doubt that would happen.

Edit for my ideal scenario:
Pac-16 - UT, TTU, OU, KSU
ACC - West Virginia & Notre Dame
Big Ten - Kansas & Iowa State
SEC - TCU & OSU
*Baylor is the one Big 12 team that gets left at the altar

Now you are finally making sense - count me all in!

 

[Highlander]

I've gone to lots of bars in colorado that only have directv, it was infuriating.

Also whoever mentioned sling, sling is probably the worst service I've ever attempted to use in my life. Poor video quality, terrible app on all platforms (especially mac), crashing, freezing, **** customer service and simply just NOT LOADING. Sling infuriates me so f'ing badly I wanted to scream every time I tried to use it.

You aren't doing it right. Going on 2 months with Sling with zero issues. My wife doesn't even notice the difference at $100 less per month.

That being said, I run it principally on Roku devices, so that is a difference.

 

[BuffLuke80]

I've gone to lots of bars in colorado that only have directv, it was infuriating.

Also whoever mentioned sling, sling is probably the worst service I've ever attempted to use in my life. Poor video quality, terrible app on all platforms (especially mac), crashing, freezing, **** customer service and simply just NOT LOADING. Sling infuriates me so f'ing badly I wanted to scream every time I tried to use it.

Thanks for the ****ing reassurance about sling. Damnit, I'm probably just gonna go with Dish.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Going above 12 is a tricky proposition. 12 made a ton of sense because it was a requirement to have a football championship game and there's a lot of money with that.

But 14? It's still hard for me to wrap my head around why the SEC, B1G and ACC went to 14 teams. It's crappy for scheduling and doesn't gain you a high value national game like the football championship did. It also makes your basketball tournament weird with the way byes are structured.

14 only makes sense for media market considerations. It doesn't look like anything the Pac-12 could do to go to 14 makes sense for media footprint expansion unless it takes us into Texas.

However, 16 does make sense from a scheduling standpoint. And it could become valuable in the same way was if it brings a semi-final round to the conference football championship (those 2 semi games would be worth a lot). For basketball, it eliminates all byes in the conference tournament and that's a very good thing from a financial perspective since byes are nothing more than dead money empty slots. So 16 does increase the pie in a natural way without expanding footprint.

But I don't think that you can cut things 16 ways instead of 12 ways while making more money in the bargain unless you expand the footprint. A Pac-14 or even a Pac-16 without the state of Texas is dead on arrival. I've tried to figure out how it can work without that, but it's necessary.

I believe we need UT. And to do it, we're going to need to move away from equal revenue sharing. Frankly, I'm not opposed to that as long as it isn't fixed. Reward teams for success. Bonuses for advancing in the conference tournaments. Bonuses for bowl & playoff participation. Bonuses for providing content (i.e., having more PACN broadcasted sports). Bonuses for tv ratings of your institution's games, including getting picked up for ESPN and FOX broadcasts. I'm all for sharing, but there should also be a component of "you eat what you kill".

The move has to be to go after UT and OU, with some mix of KU, KSU, UH, TTU and OSU for the other 2 teams. UT/TTU + OU/OSU would probably be our most likely scenario to pull off since no other conference is positioned to offer that without having to expand to an ungainly 18 teams. Personally, I think the strongest would be UT, TTU, OU & KSU but I doubt that would happen.

Edit for my ideal scenario:
Pac-16 - UT, TTU, OU, KSU
ACC - West Virginia & Notre Dame
Big Ten - Kansas & Iowa State
SEC - TCU & OSU
*Baylor is the one Big 12 team that gets left at the altar

Is that viable, though? KSU and TTech seem like nonstarter types for the P12 presidents, so maybe something like OU, UT, Houston, and one other decent program.. Kansas? seems more likely.

Then we get into, why wouldn't Texas just go to the other conferences or just stick with their current group? B12 doesn't care about academics so they could just add Boise, Houston, and whatever two programs they ponder up and keep their money flowing?

In my mind, we have to figure out a viable option that doesn't include UT or OU (tied to UT) and idk what there really is. From breaking it down with lists and academics, UCSD, Houston, and UNLV make a lot of sense and then throw in UCDavis or something, but I'm not sure that really moves the needle for expansion. San Diego is a cool area and I'm not sure it's really owned since we have 2 LA teams, but idk if it adds enough to add that area. It is 3 million people with just 1 major sport in San Diego County, but they're kinda the worst among CA for sports apathy, so while that's a lot of people I'm not sure it matters much.

Houston, again, seems like a no brainer to me. Great metro area, decent university, willing to invest in football. We should snag them before the B12 wisens up and takes them in.

Boise has a good football program and following, but is adding 1.6 million people living in Idaho really worth it? Plus their academics make SDSU giggle.

UNLV seems promising so I'd probably pair them with Houston, but then we're just at 14 with no real viable plan for 16.

idk, but Stone Vertical Epic 02 + Stone Citracado is a good combo for expansion pontificating

 

[Buffnik]

Is that viable, though? KSU and TTech seem like nonstarter types for the P12 presidents, so maybe something like OU, UT, Houston, and one other decent program.. Kansas? seems more likely.

Then we get into, why wouldn't Texas just go to the other conferences or just stick with their current group? B12 doesn't care about academics so they could just add Boise, Houston, and whatever two programs they ponder up and keep their money flowing?

In my mind, we have to figure out a viable option that doesn't include UT or OU (tied to UT) and idk what there really is. From breaking it down with lists and academics, UCSD, Houston, and UNLV make a lot of sense and then throw in UCDavis or something, but I'm not sure that really moves the needle for expansion. San Diego is a cool area and I'm not sure it's really owned since we have 2 LA teams, but idk if it adds enough to add that area. It is 3 million people with just 1 major sport in San Diego County, but they're kinda the worst among CA for sports apathy, so while that's a lot of people I'm not sure it matters much.

Houston, again, seems like a no brainer to me. Great metro area, decent university, willing to invest in football. We should snag them before the B12 wisens up and takes them in.

Boise has a good football program and following, but is adding 1.6 million people living in Idaho really worth it? Plus their academics make SDSU giggle.

UNLV seems promising so I'd probably pair them with Houston, but then we're just at 14 with no real viable plan for 16.

idk, but Stone Vertical Epic 02 + Stone Citracado is a good combo for expansion pontificating

BYU + Houston for 14 could make financial sense. Pair CU & UH as travel partners I guess. Academic side would never approve, but that's the best financial move we could do right now.

 

[White_Rabbit]

BYU + Houston for 14 could make financial sense. Pair CU & UH as travel partners I guess. Academic side would never approve, but that's the best financial move we could do right now.

I feel like BYU has less a shot than Boise for expansion. No way the presidents of P12 universities vote for adding them.

Is adding a UCSD even viable? Like even if they added a football program this season, are they competitive for 10 years or so?

 

[Buffnik]

I feel like BYU has less a shot than Boise for expansion. No way the presidents of P12 universities vote for adding them.

Is adding a UCSD even viable? Like even if they added a football program this season, are they competitive for 10 years or so?

I don't think so. Plus, what would they do for a stadium?

Same with Davis. I think the PAC would be more likely to take Nevada to get that state & more of the Sacramento market, actually.

 

[White_Rabbit]

but does Reno even matter? that place sucks, give me vegas over that.

 

[Buffnik]

but does Reno even matter? that place sucks, give me vegas over that.

Oh, I agree. The only way to go to 14 teams right now anyway with R1 universities in new markets would be if we added New Mexico and Houston, which would send Utah to the North. Does that move the needle enough?

 

[sackman]

Pretty sure there are 3-4 threads here discussing why expanding makes sense and moreso, why getting on DTV is a necessity. By all means, though, keep your head buried in the sand and keep telling yourself the PAC 12, and specifically CU, are perfectly fine where they're at.

No. There are three or four threads whining about expansion options and what it might look like. There's a lot of assumptions that the only way to get on DTV is via expansion, which is an absurdity all on its own.

Every time this is brought up, the answer is simple: there are only two schools that would move the dial and neither one is interested. Furthermore, we aren't interested in either of them. If the PAC 12 presidents can't agree on selling a share of the network, why in Gods Green Earth would they allow Texas, a proven conference killer, into the conference? This entire discussion borders on grand delusion. Like if we just add Texas, we are all ok. Well, we won't be. And thankfully, calmer heads know this.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled freak out over conference expansion and why we need it, while ignoring all the reasons it won't happen - at least the way you seem to want it to.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Oh, I agree. The only way to go to 14 teams right now anyway with R1 universities in new markets would be if we added New Mexico and Houston, which would send Utah to the North. Does that move the needle enough?

I think Houston might, but I'm really skeptical on New Mexico. Maybe North Texas with Houston? They're R1 and near Dallas. Pretty sure their football team has always been ****, but whatever.

Is it hard to move from R2 to R1? R1 seems to be the bare minimum for P12 Presidents to accept, so either the school needs to be R1 (non-ag) right now or R2 with a plan to quickly move to R1 status. I guess the question is, is it easier to build a football program from scratch (UCSD) while having good academics or is it easier to upgrade your school from **** tier to at least R1 level? Because there's currently nobody that has both.

And then from there, say UCSD adds football, I'm not sure adding a San Diego school on top of 4 other CA schools is all that worthwhile.

 

[Buffnik]

I think Houston might, but I'm really skeptical on New Mexico. Maybe North Texas with Houston? They're R1 and near Dallas. Pretty sure their football team has always been ****, but whatever.

Is it hard to move from R2 to R1? R1 seems to be the bare minimum for P12 Presidents to accept, so either the school needs to be R1 (non-ag) right now or R2 with a plan to quickly move to R1 status. I guess the question is, is it easier to build a football program from scratch (UCSD) while having good academics or is it easier to upgrade your school from **** tier to at least R1 level? Because there's currently nobody that has both.

And then from there, say UCSD adds football, I'm not sure adding a San Diego school on top of 4 other CA schools is all that worthwhile.

No way on UNT. That isn't a P5 school.

The other consideration with Houston would be Tulane, I guess. The geography on that is difficult, though. Houston & New Orleans are a long way away from the Pac-12. Actually, that's an issue with all of the Big 12. No one except for TTU is west of the I-35 corridor. To put that in perspective, the east-west distance between I-35 thru KS/OK/TX and the I-25 thru CO/NM is about the same as the width of the entire state of Colorado. And Houston is well east of that while being quite a big south (south of Baja). In fact, the closest Big 12 program to Pac-12 country is Kansas State... and that's a 7 hour drive. Of course, that's an hour closer than SLC and 6 hours closer than Tempe or Tucson for us.

And this geography with how big the west is drives why I keep going back to UNM despite the obvious drawbacks. It's 6ish hours to drive there from Tucson, Tempe or Boulder. It's a connection point for the conference that puts us on the doorstep of Texas.

When we look at the west, a lot of it is like that. Las Vegas, Reno and Boise are the other main connecting metros that bridge Pac-12 homes.

I wish we could make this happen through Boise State, Nevada, UNLV and New Mexico. I think that represents the MTZ-PTZ west as a conference with a cultural identity as well as we possibly could do it. Flyovers get eliminated and if you live within this geography you're never more than a 3-4 hour drive from a Pac stadium. But for a host of reasons, I don't think it's economically or competitively viable and there's simply not enough academic juice for the presidents to force any of those schools. In fact, they'd be more likely to block them.

So where that leaves us is Texas. Makes more sense to me if we bridge it with New Mexico. Heck, they'd make a great travel partner for TTU. Maybe the Big 12 would be happy to let us have TTU without an exit fee so they could take the more valuable UH program without unbalancing the league? If that could be orchestrated, would people be on board with UNM & TTU making it a Pac-14?

P.S. As crazy about football as Texans are, I could see them voting to make west Texas part of the MTZ in order to make the game times & travel jetlag less of an issue.

 

[8Jah]

I think Houston might, but I'm really skeptical on New Mexico. Maybe North Texas with Houston? They're R1 and near Dallas. Pretty sure their football team has always been ****, but whatever.

Is it hard to move from R2 to R1? R1 seems to be the bare minimum for P12 Presidents to accept, so either the school needs to be R1 (non-ag) right now or R2 with a plan to quickly move to R1 status. I guess the question is, is it easier to build a football program from scratch (UCSD) while having good academics or is it easier to upgrade your school from **** tier to at least R1 level? Because there's currently nobody that has both.

And then from there, say UCSD adds football, I'm not sure adding a San Diego school on top of 4 other CA schools is all that worthwhile.

It's much easier to build a football program than a good university.

 

[8Jah]

I don't see expansion happening, and if it did it would have to be some 'out of the box' scenario in order to make sense.

The P12 presidents just aren't going to lower their academic requirements for football. They would take Texas on academics, but the profit sharing and UT conf history would be no goes. Many of the other schools are just to poor, and have unwealthy alumni bases.

If you are fixated on adding TV revenue by P5 expansion then you are better off trying to pry away ND and NorthWestern. But good luck with that.

In the end, the PAC-12 isn't going to have the revenue of the SEC and BIG, but that isn't the end of the world. NCAA scholarship limits, the fact that recruiting 4&5 stars is very imperfect and that many good recruits want to stay in their region...these are balancing factors that will keep the P12 competitive enough. Also, the USCs and Oregons have enough donor money to compete with anyone.

It is what it is. You have to take the lemons and make lemonade.

 

[8Jah]

I don't think so. Plus, what would they do for a stadium?

Same with Davis. I think the PAC would be more likely to take Nevada to get that state & more of the Sacramento market, actually.

Qualcom is sitting empty. San Diego was going to sell it to pro soccer for $10k.

 

[buffaholic]

UNLV will never have a big football following. Everyone is a fan of somewhere else, they all work nights, and can't wait to move home. Transients don't boost your numbers. It's less a P5 school than NTSU.

UNM has too small of a base and growth profile. Boise is Mickey Mouse. Small timers.

All these scenarios reduce prestige and profits, for at least 20 years.

 

[Buffnik]

Qualcom is sitting empty. San Diego was going to sell it to pro soccer for $10k.

But that's part of a SDSU deal. You think they'd split the stadium project 3 ways?

 

[8Jah]

But that's part of a SDSU deal. You think they'd split the stadium project 3 ways?

Doubt it, but a remote possibility. Qualcom is way far from SDSU, but right next door to UCSD. What a Shame.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Doubt it, but a remote possibility. Qualcom is way far from SDSU, but right next door to UCSD. What a Shame.

it has been awhile, but isn't Qualcomm like right next to SDSU? UCSD is up north of La Jolla area

 

[Buffnik]

it has been awhile, but isn't Qualcomm like right next to SDSU? UCSD is up north of La Jolla area

Qualcomm isn't really next to either campus, but SDSU has some property close. And, yes, UCSD is in the Torrey Pines area.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Qualcomm isn't really next to either campus, but SDSU has some property close. And, yes, UCSD is in the Torrey Pines area.

not a problem anyway, P12 has schools like UCLA which is in Westwood, but their stadium is in Anaheim.

 

[tante]

I'm actually warming up to including Rice. Adding two cupcake schools could mean we see something similar to what the Big 10 did thus year and put multiple teams in the top 10 plus more bowl eligible teams. So sign me up for Rice and Tulane and add a bye week or two to our schedule.

This won't help with tv revenue now, but would help strengthen your core brand and then you can make a move for Oklahoma and Texas in a few years to get to 16. Plus your can probably do reduced revenue sharing for quite a few years.

 

[sackman]

not a problem anyway, P12 has schools like UCLA which is in Westwood, but their stadium is in Anaheim.

What you did there, I see it.

 

[jizzrag85]

You aren't doing it right. Going on 2 months with Sling with zero issues. My wife doesn't even notice the difference at $100 less per month.

That being said, I run it principally on Roku devices, so that is a difference.

I've done roku, chromecast, windows and mac and all of them have been terrible on 100MBPS Comcast internet. You must be the rare one because be their Facebook page is full of complaints. Call customer service and all they say is "it must be your internet," doubtful sling.

Thanks for the ****ing reassurance about sling. Damnit, I'm probably just gonna go with Dish.

Lol sorry! Try it out and see if you have issues, you get a free trial. It worked fine at first but over time it was so infuriating I couldn't handle it. I even tried it again last week on my chromecast and it wouldn't even load the walking dead after 15 minutes of trying. I cancelled it again 20 minutes after signing back up.

 

[Highlander]

I've done roku, chromecast, windows and mac and all of them have been terrible on 100MBPS Comcast internet. You must be the rare one because be their Facebook page is full of complaints. Call customer service and all they say is "it must be your internet," doubtful sling.

We have honestly never had an issue. Netflix on the other hand, will occasionally be completely useless during peak viewing times - refusing to load popular shows and a few times - any shows whatsoever.

 

[Bison]

I would also get rid of the regional model for PACN. Instead, sell the overflow to local markets. In Colorado, Altitude and the CW would probably love to buy any CU games not on PACN.

Also, shouldn't the Pac-12 be looking into a Spanish language network? Not only does the western US have a large Spanish speaking population, it would be a very big deal if we could get distribution in Mexico and Latin/South America. That makes more sense to me than the Asia strategy (which always seemed more about supporting the academic side by advertising for graduate school applications than it seemed about a network profit & growth strategy - not that I'd drop that, but there's only so far things are going to go with the Alibaba Group deal for PACN distribution while Latin America distribution has a much more likely upside).

Not a bad idea on all counts.

 

[jizzrag85]

We have honestly never had an issue. Netflix on the other hand, will occasionally be completely useless during peak viewing times - refusing to load popular shows and a few times - any shows whatsoever.

Exact opposite for me! Weird. Wish it worked for me, it's really cheap. PlayStation vue works much better for me.

 

[onealcd]

I have tons of issues with Netflix. I used to think it was the wifi in my house but then I downloaded showtime anytime and have never had an issue.

 

[8Jah]

Doubt it, but a remote possibility. Qualcom is way far from SDSU, but right next door to UCSD. What a Shame.

my bad. Qualcom is 4.4 miles from SDSU and 14 miles from UCSD