I'm translating that as: "We are going to be OK, not great. No one all that good wants to join us, and we aren't excited about any expansion opportunities. We are going to remain a tier 2 conference as far as I know. Hopefully the improvements in scheduling, the pac 12 network, and cost reductions let us keep the P12 together and maybe make us a tier 1.5 conference."I’m interested in understanding how it strengthens the P12 position. Because one less conference to compete with? That just seems like shifting the Big 12 TV money to SEC TV money, not more for Pac 12
Using the same source I posted above (total appearances in the CFP rankings) which also includes the highest the teams have been ranked, I just counted the number of teams per conference that made an appearance in the rankings, and also the number of teams that made it into the top 10.Thanks, I wasn't very clear. I meant competitive within the conference.
I should have phrased, "i perceive the XII and Pac have had the most parity since the last round".
# Ranked | # top 10 | |
SEC | 13 | 9 |
ACC | 13 | 4 |
B1G | 10 | 9 |
B12 | 8 | 7 |
P12 | 10 | 10 |
Not really since fox won’t be nearly as interested in the big 12 anymore and those rights are moving directly to espn. Fox will have more cash flow going forward.I’m interested in understanding how it strengthens the P12 position. Because one less conference to compete with? That just seems like shifting the Big 12 TV money to SEC TV money, not more for Pac 12
Ok, but that doesn't really mean the Pac 12 is going to be the benefactors of that cash flow by defaultNot really since fox won’t be nearly as interested in the big 12 anymore and those rights are moving directly to espn. Fox will have more cash flow going forward.
Exactly how I interpreted that as well. PAC-12 has no position of "strength" here lolI'm translating that as: "We are going to be OK, not great. No one all that good wants to join us, and we aren't excited about any expansion opportunities. We are going to remain a tier 2 conference as far as I know. Hopefully the improvements in scheduling, the pac 12 network, and cost reductions let us keep the P12 together and maybe make us a tier 1.5 conference."
All posturing, not showing weakness or in a panic.
Who knows on whats going behind the scene.
This.I don't think there's a realistic move the P12 can make that makes real sense. I don't see how adding second or third tier Texas schools adds much (except for a presence in Texas). The P12 has every worthwhile school west of Austin.
It’s does though. It’s a simple supply demand situation. He is saying that consolidation ups the price for the pac 12 tv rights which it absolutely does.Ok, but that doesn't really mean the Pac 12 is going to be the benefactors of that cash flow by default
Or sends more to the B1G. Why would Fox allocate more money to the Pac 12 when nothing is changing with Pac 12 ratings?It’s does though. It’s a simple supply demand situation. He is saying that consolidation ups the price for the pac 12 tv rights which it absolutely does.
Having a presence in Texas definitely helps the conference compete on the national level though. Just look at the recruits SMU has been able to land recently in a G5 conference. Handing the SEC the entire state of texas seems like a disaster for the rest of the country over the long term. It’s not impossible to recruit that area but it will be a lot harder.I don't think there's a realistic move the P12 can make that makes real sense. I don't see how adding second or third tier Texas schools adds much (except for a presence in Texas). The P12 has every worthwhile school west of Austin.
It will likely do both. They will allocate more money to the pac 12 because they need more inventory to show on their networks because they lost a bunch of inventory due to the big 12 changes.Or sends more to the B1G. Why would Fox allocate more money to the Pac 12 when nothing is changing with Pac 12 ratings?
It will likely do both. They will allocate more money to the pac 12 because they need more inventory to show on their networks because they lost a bunch of inventory due to the big 12 changes.Or sends more to the B1G. Why would Fox allocate more money to the Pac 12 when nothing is changing with Pac 12 ratings?
I’d go with 20 PAC.And call it the B1G PAC? You may be onto something, there.
I’d go with 20 PAC.
Speculation on my part so take it for what it’s worth, but the PAC is now the only P5 conference West of the Mississippi (yeah, I know there are a couple teams here and there, but the conferences themselves are all mostly East Coast now). From a media standpoint, we probably just became a lot more attractive. Hell, the MWC probably did, too.I’m interested in understanding how it strengthens the P12 position. Because one less conference to compete with? That just seems like shifting the Big 12 TV money to SEC TV money, not more for Pac 12
Having a presence in Texas definitely helps the conference compete on the national level though. Just look at the recruits SMU has been able to land recently in a G5 conference. Handing the SEC the entire state of texas seems like a disaster for the rest of the country over the long term. It’s not impossible to recruit that area but it will be a lot harder.
is the magic conference number really 16?I’d go with 20 PAC.
I like your reasoning, but I also think there simply isn't enough interest in college sports in the Western US to increase the Pac-12's value notably.Speculation on my part so take it for what it’s worth, but the PAC is now the only P5 conference West of the Mississippi (yeah, I know there are a couple teams here and there, but the conferences themselves are all mostly East Coast now). From a media standpoint, we probably just became a lot more attractive. Hell, the MWC probably did, too.
Doesn’t really have to be. There’s enough interest across the country for late games. One of the sources of those games has just been taken off the table.I like your reasoning, but I also think there simply isn't enough interest in college sports in the Western US to increase the Pac-12's value notably.
As onealcd said, and something I didn't really think about, having to fill the prime FOX game slots that used to be filled by Texas and OU should mean an increase in revenue to the Pac 12. However, on a relative basis, the Pac 12 likely won't gain a ton of ground on the B1G or SEC in that regard as ESPN is going all in with SEC and FOX will likely give a lot of the Big 12 money to the B1G.I like your reasoning, but I also think there simply isn't enough interest in college sports in the Western US to increase the Pac-12's value notably.
Agreed, after reading all the options I am not sure what way I feel comfortable in going. I dont think picking up any of the 8 leftovers is a great idea. I dont like the idea of expanding for the sake of expanding. I think I would like to see a merger of some kind with the B1G. Get some keynote games between the conferences carried by Fox to get the TV money up!really hard to say what would move the needle for the p12. looking at the ratings for the games of the left behind 8, the p12 would likely deliver MORE eyeballs than they already have, so that means you are dliluting the per team revenue if you bring some or all of the left behind to the pac.
the pac would get more time zones, which is theoretically helpful for when the teams are shown on tv. but it is hard to say that benefit would offset the revenue dilution issue.
i think the best move for the p12 for now may be to stay at 12 and hope they can deliver more playoff appearances and therefore earn a better tv contract in the next round. maybe. without expanding footprint and brining in teams that bring in high ratings, it is hard to say.
I think it is definitely possible. It could also add value to the other members. Having only 2 power conference teams in Texas (OU had a huge presence in there too) is way too light, imo. It is a long term play on those schools to take them to another level in what I would say is the biggest football state in the country. Getting programs like oregon, Washington, usc and ucla in front of those people on a yearly basis is also going to help them tremendously so it’s not only about what those schools mean individually.Much as in: Do they add at least as much as they cost?
I don't know what annual payout we're heading towards for the next TV rights period but we're currently at 35m or so. Let's aim for 40-45m (or is that too ambitious?), does adding say TTU and TCU (because **** Baylor) add at least 80m per year to our TV deal and if it doesn't how much is a presence in Texas worth per year?
With A&M and UT the SEC will pretty much own the state anyway as depending on whether you put A&M in one tier with UT or not the remaining teams are at best second tier if not third tier.
now I'm not following your logic.Doesn’t really have to be. There’s enough interest across the country for late games. One of the sources of those games has just been taken off the table.