|
Post by beavheart on Feb 16, 2023 7:34:45 GMT -8
I understand our hands are tied for the most part, and that if/when USC and UCLA come crawling back to the west coast we would be forced to take them back out of necessity.
I still wish we could tell them to go pound sand. Talk to the Mountain West ya dumschitts. F*** those schools. Forever. This is all about chasing the latest trends, and a fools errand. You just know it won't last or hold up. They should reap what they sow.
Honestly, I think the Big10 and SEC is riding a bit of a bubble that will burst as they bully the market. I used to get up most Saturdays and immediately turn on whatever Big10 and SEC games are on until the Pac12 or Beavs are playing later in the day. Why? Because, in theory, my team and my conference are competing for the same goals as they are. IF 2 conferences are going to take the ball and go home and leave the rest of us in the dust, why watch? I have better things to do with my time, and I have no interest in watching a bloated, consolidated version of SEC or Big10 football. The variety, diversity, and geography of the conferences is what makes CFB great. If our end of the country is going to be pushed down to some form of lower tier status, then I'm done watching those games. I suspect I'm not alone. What happens when these lofty projections for these 2 conferences doesn't pan out?
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 16, 2023 8:31:21 GMT -8
2) The $100 million. That's why Oklahoma and Texas are staying for another year, right? They were going to leave early and now everyone realizes that they would owe the $100 million, so they will stick it out through 2024. Now, the Big 12 may have to buy out Oklahoma and Texas to make everything sync up right. The Pac-12's contract runs out a year earlier than the Big 12's, which is why there is not a $100 million-type issue. The Comcast money may or may not be a thing. Comcast is alleging that they overpaid. You and I both have seen hundreds of people that allege things that don't pan out. And that issue may not be all bad, because it might confound UCLA and USC's efforts to leave clean. Settle the issue or stick it out, kids! I am not sold that it does exist, and I am not sold that, if it does exist, it is necessarily a terrible thing. That may still work out in the conference's favor. You plan for the future based upon knowns. Unknowns can throw a wrench into things, as you know. If Oklahoma and Texas stick it out another year, that would basically open up the Big 12 to raiding. The Pac-12 could still make out of this like relative bandits. But it would take someone aggressive and competent at the helm. We'll see if that is George K. That's incorrect. The latest news is that Texas and Oklahoma have agreed to pay the Big 12 $100 million so they can get to the SEC after the 2023 season. They are gone after this year. The Comcast thing could be wrong, we'll see. But there's a fair amount of evidence that it's a real thing and that Pac 12 will have to pay it back. That's a serious blow. And therefore...Pretty unlikely that the Pac 12 raids the Big 12. The Big 12 has stability right now. The Pac? No. I am of the mind that the Pac 12 may, out of necessity, have to make the best deal they can for the 1st and 2nd tier rights and then keep the Pac 12 network going for the rest. Only this time a way must be found to get a deal with all of the cable/satellite/streaming providers so that it is easily accessible by everyone. If the Pac 12 network is available to everyone who does not rely on an antenna, then perhaps the Pac can raise a lot of money with advertising. I don't expect the Pac 12 to get a great deal this time around. It would not surprise me to see it dissolve within the next ten years. But I am a pessimist. Always have been. This is yet another situation that I would love to be proven wrong. Great post Seastape. No doubt the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 are maneuvering to stay relevant for whatever the end game will be...or at least the next iteration of CFB. Unfortunately of those three the Pac 12 is most likely to crash and burn. Much to their own doing. I respect the motivation to remain an elite education based conference. But that's also an anchor due to our location and relatively low football enthusiasm. Like adding SMU, I'm not sure they are even a top 20 G5 program and that's the school you bring in to elevate your national exposure? Butttt...the simple fact we are west of the rockies may be a benefit. The SEC and Big 10 may opt to raid schools like North Carolina, FSU, Clemson, Miami, TCU, Baylor, etc which fit their geographical footprint better than Oregon and Washington and Stanford. I'd like to see the Pac 12 be uber aggressive to solidify its standing. That may include adding a Boise State and Fresno State...programs that have had national success and still could, even if initially they don't add much to the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by ocbeav on Feb 16, 2023 8:35:44 GMT -8
Also, never forget that the 'going rogue' traitor/mercenary for money schools are USC & UCLA, they're the dumb s%#ts in this sordid affair. Eventually, they'll have "buyers remorse" and gravitate back to where they belong by 2030 or 2032, after their delusions "go bust" over travel time, getting their asses kicked by Ohio St, Michigan, & cold weather. "It's just a matter of time." I agree with this. If the Pac-12 can hang together for a couple of years, UCLA and USC will realize the error of their ways. Oregon State had to go independent for five years in the late '50s and early '60s before UCLA and USC realized that they were being idiots. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. If the Pac-12 can survive into 2028, things look a lot brighter. It’s money issue so longshot for USC and UCLA to return. Recruiting may be an impact for long trips and play in colder weather. They could be another Nebraska that not able to win many B10 games after was ranked with Big-12. Money is a factor for moving to B10, $107m vs maybe $35m.
|
|
|
Post by fishbeav on Feb 16, 2023 8:45:43 GMT -8
Ohio State just canceled their home and home with Washington because the did not want to play the Huskies in the same year that the played USC and UCLA.
Apparently it would create to tough a schedule.
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Feb 16, 2023 8:53:53 GMT -8
Ohio State just canceled their home and home with Washington because the did not want to play the Huskies in the same year that the played USC and UCLA. Apparently it would create to tough a schedule. Too much travel was what I heard.... think about that for a minute UCLA & USC - the junior OSU doesn't want to travel West more than twice. But I'm sure it was also they were scared of being beaten by Washington. I mean, how could they continue to beat their chest at every moment if they played a real OOC schedule w/ games like UW?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Feb 16, 2023 9:12:50 GMT -8
Actually Ohio state doesn't want to come west more than once. If they played usc and ucla in the same year one would likely be played in Columbus. So in the year Washington was to be played in Seattle it would require the poor children of Ohio state to travel to Seattle and los Angeles. Usc and ucla are going to have to travel to the east 5 or 6 times a year. Enjoy the Midwest and east coast suckers.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 16, 2023 10:00:31 GMT -8
Actually Ohio state doesn't want to come west more than once. If they played usc and ucla in the same year one would likely be played in Columbus. So in the year Washington was to be played in Seattle it would require the poor children of Ohio state to travel to Seattle and los Angeles. Usc and ucla are going to have to travel to the east 5 or 6 times a year. Enjoy the Midwest and east coast suckers. That's actually great news, if Ohio State is making a fuss about traveling, then likely they (and others) told the commissioner we ain't traveling to Oregon and USC in the same year. I'm sure other power schools would make the same play in other power conferences, reducing the likelyhood Oregon and Washington get poached.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 16, 2023 12:57:34 GMT -8
They want an 8th home game, against Bowling Green or Akron or some other Ohio-based MAC powerhouse.
|
|
|
Post by qbeaver on Feb 16, 2023 17:29:23 GMT -8
I like the idea of adding SMU and SDS. Both programs have the potential to be top 25 in the future considering the money SMU could potentially have in addition to the Dallas/Ft. Worth market,and SDS just built a new stadium that is expandable to 55,000. Those two markets add lots of eyeballs and great areas to recruit to. Those are the only two viable options unless you want to poach a couple big 8 schools like Houston and TCU. Texas schools are far more valuable to me than K-State/Kansas,etc.
There are no schools that can replace the Los Angeles market but Dallas/San Diego is a solid addition. Jmo
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Feb 16, 2023 19:22:16 GMT -8
I like the idea of adding SMU and SDS. Both programs have the potential to be top 25 in the future considering the money SMU could potentially have in addition to the Dallas/Ft. Worth market,and SDS just built a new stadium that is expandable to 55,000. Those two markets add lots of eyeballs and great areas to recruit to. Those are the only two viable options unless you want to poach a couple big 8 schools like Houston and TCU. Texas schools are far more valuable to me than K-State/Kansas,etc. There are no schools that can replace the Los Angeles market but Dallas/San Diego is a solid addition. 8 qbeaver
You have "hit the nail on the head".
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Feb 16, 2023 20:28:11 GMT -8
SMU, especially if it is the only Texas team we sign, feels like a move of desperation. How dire is the situation?
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 16, 2023 21:28:59 GMT -8
SMU, especially if it is the only Texas team we sign, feels like a move of desperation. How dire is the situation? Dire apparently. I have to imagine that the Pac-12 goes to at least 14, if SMU gets an invite.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 17, 2023 6:59:36 GMT -8
SMU, especially if it is the only Texas team we sign, feels like a move of desperation. How dire is the situation? Dire apparently. I have to imagine that the Pac-12 goes to at least 14, if SMU gets an invite. I sure hope you are right. Other than selling the Dallas angle...where SMU is a complete afterthought, I'm starting to really dislike this rumor. It's so desperate and it's so Pac 12. Fine if we take another Texas school. But that won't happen. I hate Boise State but they bring more to the table as a college football program than SMU. If it's just SDSU and SMU...huge fail...again. Should have just stuck with 4 west coast teams and yeah...that's Boise State and Fresno State, because at least they are somewhat relevant nationally.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 17, 2023 8:30:43 GMT -8
Dire apparently. I have to imagine that the Pac-12 goes to at least 14, if SMU gets an invite. I sure hope you are right. Other than selling the Dallas angle...where SMU is a complete afterthought, I'm starting to really dislike this rumor. It's so desperate and it's so Pac 12. Fine if we take another Texas school. But that won't happen. I hate Boise State but they bring more to the table as a college football program than SMU. If it's just SDSU and SMU...huge fail...again. Should have just stuck with 4 west coast teams and yeah...that's Boise State and Fresno State, because at least they are somewhat relevant nationally. SMU has very wealthy boosters, much more so than Boise St. If they move to a P5 conference, the thinking is that they could elevate their program rapidly. The PAC 12 is not going to bring in Boise St as it doesn’t fit their academic profile. Fair or not.
|
|
beaver94
Sophomore
Posts: 1,571
Member is Online
|
Post by beaver94 on Feb 17, 2023 8:54:16 GMT -8
I sure hope you are right. Other than selling the Dallas angle...where SMU is a complete afterthought, I'm starting to really dislike this rumor. It's so desperate and it's so Pac 12. Fine if we take another Texas school. But that won't happen. I hate Boise State but they bring more to the table as a college football program than SMU. If it's just SDSU and SMU...huge fail...again. Should have just stuck with 4 west coast teams and yeah...that's Boise State and Fresno State, because at least they are somewhat relevant nationally. SMU has very wealthy boosters, much more so than Boise St. If they move to a P5 conference, the thinking is that they could elevate their program rapidly. The PAC 12 is not going to bring in Boise St as it doesn’t fit their academic profile. Fair or not. I'd say that's pretty good thinking. It wouldn't be the first time they've done it.
|
|