|
|
Post by orangeattack on Feb 21, 2023 14:28:53 GMT -8
Exactly. Two conferences already do it. No major conference does it. Zero. And no conference sticks at 11 by choice. The two conferences that did it are the American Athletic Conference (formerly the Big East) for three consecutive years and Conference USA for one year only. Neither are really on par with the Pac-12. The American Athletic Conference is doing it, because Connecticut left to join the Big East in basketball and become a football independent in 2020. In 2021, the Big 12 invited three American Athletic Conference teams to join a 16-team Big 12 beginning in 2023. In response, the American Athletic Conference is inviting six Conference USA teams to make 14, beginning in 2023. 11 was a three-year stop-gap, because of COVID-19 and the Big 12's machinations. Marshall, Old Dominion, and Southern Miss bought out Conference USA to move to the Sun Belt this year, leaving 11 for a single season. Next year, six teams are joining the American Athletic Conference and four are being added to Conference USA to bring Conference USA to nine. You can play with nine. You play every team once and then play four nonconference games. 11 was a one-year deal. No conference sticks with 11. It is, at best, a three-year stopgap (American Athletic Conference), while the pieces move around you. Even the American Athletic Conference knows that it has to move off of 11. It is a small potatoes move. If the Pac-12 is a laughingstock now, imagine what the response would be, if the Pac-12 becomes the Pac-11. Oh man! No. Or a 20 year stopgap... Big Ten was an 11 team conference from 1990 (when Penn State was added) until 2010. lol |
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 21, 2023 14:35:54 GMT -8
Exactly. Two conferences already do it. No major conference does it. Zero. And no conference sticks at 11 by choice. The two conferences that did it are the American Athletic Conference (formerly the Big East) for three consecutive years and Conference USA for one year only. Neither are really on par with the Pac-12. The American Athletic Conference is doing it, because Connecticut left to join the Big East in basketball and become a football independent in 2020. In 2021, the Big 12 invited three American Athletic Conference teams to join a 16-team Big 12 beginning in 2023. In response, the American Athletic Conference is inviting six Conference USA teams to make 14, beginning in 2023. 11 was a three-year stop-gap, because of COVID-19 and the Big 12's machinations. Marshall, Old Dominion, and Southern Miss bought out Conference USA to move to the Sun Belt this year, leaving 11 for a single season. Next year, six teams are joining the American Athletic Conference and four are being added to Conference USA to bring Conference USA to nine. You can play with nine. You play every team once and then play four nonconference games. 11 was a one-year deal. No conference sticks with 11. It is, at best, a three-year stopgap (American Athletic Conference), while the pieces move around you. Even the American Athletic Conference knows that it has to move off of 11. It is a small potatoes move. If the Pac-12 is a laughingstock now, imagine what the response would be, if the Pac-12 becomes the Pac-11. Oh man! No. Lol that's why...because none of the cool kids do it? The Pac 12 is a barely a major conference...or worse, pretending to be one. Trying to keep up with the Joneses, particularly the Big 10, has worked wonderfully for the Pac 12. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 21, 2023 15:05:18 GMT -8
No major conference does it. Zero. And no conference sticks at 11 by choice. The two conferences that did it are the American Athletic Conference (formerly the Big East) for three consecutive years and Conference USA for one year only. Neither are really on par with the Pac-12. The American Athletic Conference is doing it, because Connecticut left to join the Big East in basketball and become a football independent in 2020. In 2021, the Big 12 invited three American Athletic Conference teams to join a 16-team Big 12 beginning in 2023. In response, the American Athletic Conference is inviting six Conference USA teams to make 14, beginning in 2023. 11 was a three-year stop-gap, because of COVID-19 and the Big 12's machinations. Marshall, Old Dominion, and Southern Miss bought out Conference USA to move to the Sun Belt this year, leaving 11 for a single season. Next year, six teams are joining the American Athletic Conference and four are being added to Conference USA to bring Conference USA to nine. You can play with nine. You play every team once and then play four nonconference games. 11 was a one-year deal. No conference sticks with 11. It is, at best, a three-year stopgap (American Athletic Conference), while the pieces move around you. Even the American Athletic Conference knows that it has to move off of 11. It is a small potatoes move. If the Pac-12 is a laughingstock now, imagine what the response would be, if the Pac-12 becomes the Pac-11. Oh man! No. Or a 20 year stopgap... Big Ten was an 11 team conference from 1990 (when Penn State was added) until 2010. lol That was with the old pre-2006 scheduling rules, where you could only play 11 games in most seasons. They played eight conference games and did not care to add a Conference Championship Game, believing it to not be worth the hassle, which, retrospectively, was stupid, because the Big Ten only became the powerhouse that it is with the addition of Nebraska. The Big Ten went to 11 in 1993 with the belief that, by going to 11, it would force Notre Dame to join the conference. When that did not immediately happen, the Big Ten looked into adding Kansas and Missouri, but quit, when the Big Eight merged with the four Southwest Conference teams to form the Big 12. The Big Ten spent the entirety of the 90s working on Notre Dame to join the Big Ten, believing Notre Dame to be the only team that would be worthwhile to get to 12, while the Big 12 media contract worked itself out. With the 2006 scheduling rule changes, a 12-team conference made more sense to the Big Ten earlier than waiting on Notre Dame. But, not wanting to mess up the media rights agreement at the tail end of a contract, the Big Ten waited until 2009 to start looking for a 12th team. When Notre Dame again said, "No," the Big Ten added Nebraska in between the 2009 and 2010 seasons to start play in 2011. This opened the door to the Pac-10 to become the Pac-12 at the same time. The Big Ten stayed with an 11-team conference for 18 years, because it did not really make a ton of sense until 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 21, 2023 15:09:25 GMT -8
No major conference does it. Zero. And no conference sticks at 11 by choice. The two conferences that did it are the American Athletic Conference (formerly the Big East) for three consecutive years and Conference USA for one year only. Neither are really on par with the Pac-12. The American Athletic Conference is doing it, because Connecticut left to join the Big East in basketball and become a football independent in 2020. In 2021, the Big 12 invited three American Athletic Conference teams to join a 16-team Big 12 beginning in 2023. In response, the American Athletic Conference is inviting six Conference USA teams to make 14, beginning in 2023. 11 was a three-year stop-gap, because of COVID-19 and the Big 12's machinations. Marshall, Old Dominion, and Southern Miss bought out Conference USA to move to the Sun Belt this year, leaving 11 for a single season. Next year, six teams are joining the American Athletic Conference and four are being added to Conference USA to bring Conference USA to nine. You can play with nine. You play every team once and then play four nonconference games. 11 was a one-year deal. No conference sticks with 11. It is, at best, a three-year stopgap (American Athletic Conference), while the pieces move around you. Even the American Athletic Conference knows that it has to move off of 11. It is a small potatoes move. If the Pac-12 is a laughingstock now, imagine what the response would be, if the Pac-12 becomes the Pac-11. Oh man! No. Lol that's why...because none of the cool kids do it? The Pac 12 is a barely a major conference...or worse, pretending to be one. Trying to keep up with the Joneses, particularly the Big 10, has worked wonderfully for the Pac 12. The Pac-12 is in this situation, because it failed to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-12 could have added Oklahoma and Texas or Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas, but did not, because the poorer Presidents made "smart" short-term decisions that have been idiotically stupid long-term decisions that have destroyed the Pac-12 in the long-term. And because the poorer Presidents balked at adding Oklahoma and Texas and chased off competent (but expensive) leadership in favor of George K., they lose UCLA and USC. We reap what they sowed, which sucks, but it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 21, 2023 15:22:50 GMT -8
Lol that's why...because none of the cool kids do it? The Pac 12 is a barely a major conference...or worse, pretending to be one. Trying to keep up with the Joneses, particularly the Big 10, has worked wonderfully for the Pac 12. The Pac-12 is in this situation, because it failed to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-12 could have added Oklahoma and Texas or Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas, but did not, because the poorer Presidents made "smart" short-term decisions that have been idiotically stupid long-term decisions that have destroyed the Pac-12 in the long-term. And because the poorer Presidents balked at adding Oklahoma and Texas and chased off competent (but expensive) leadership in favor of George K., they lose UCLA and USC. We reap what they sowed, which sucks, but it is what it is. Texas wanted to keep all of the money they generated from their own network. Glad we didn't take them. Calling Scott competent is funny...... |
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 21, 2023 16:12:16 GMT -8
Lol that's why...because none of the cool kids do it? The Pac 12 is a barely a major conference...or worse, pretending to be one. Trying to keep up with the Joneses, particularly the Big 10, has worked wonderfully for the Pac 12. The Pac-12 is in this situation, because it failed to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-12 could have added Oklahoma and Texas or Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas, but did not, because the poorer Presidents made "smart" short-term decisions that have been idiotically stupid long-term decisions that have destroyed the Pac-12 in the long-term. And because the poorer Presidents balked at adding Oklahoma and Texas and chased off competent (but expensive) leadership in favor of George K., they lose UCLA and USC. We reap what they sowed, which sucks, but it is what it is. Plus, beyond arrogant and short-sided leadership, The Pac 12 is also in this situation because, until last year, it has been the worst P5 conference in the land since the expansion of the playoffs, and offers mostly undesirable TV time slots, with a mostly undesirable product, played in in half-empty stadiums. The Pac 12 is important to us, but it is the joke of college football right now. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of just about every major sports media entity and college football reporter. The one positive thing I can say about the situation is Oregon State, and specifically Jonathan Smith, is pulling its own weight. Utah and Washington too under DeBoer. And welcome to the Pac 12 Deion, we hope you can turn CU around. Oregon? s%#t show again to end the season. ASU, Stanford, Cal....awful. I'd love to see a statement put out by Oregon and Washington that they are willing to commit to a grand of rights deal to stay in Pac 12, maybe in a joint statement with corner schools. It would put a lot of this negative press on the back burner and maybe improve negotiations with media partners. These tepid limp-dicked statements and rumors coming out of the Pac 12 office are so pathetic and desperate. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Feb 21, 2023 18:52:01 GMT -8
The Pac-12 is in this situation, because it failed to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-12 could have added Oklahoma and Texas or Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas, but did not, because the poorer Presidents made "smart" short-term decisions that have been idiotically stupid long-term decisions that have destroyed the Pac-12 in the long-term. And because the poorer Presidents balked at adding Oklahoma and Texas and chased off competent (but expensive) leadership in favor of George K., they lose UCLA and USC. We reap what they sowed, which sucks, but it is what it is. Plus, beyond arrogant and short-sided leadership, The Pac 12 is also in this situation because, until last year, it has been the worst P5 conference in the land since the expansion of the playoffs, and offers mostly undesirable TV time slots, with a mostly undesirable product, played in in half-empty stadiums. The Pac 12 is important to us, but it is the joke of college football right now. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of just about every major sports media entity and college football reporter. The one positive thing I can say about the situation is Oregon State, and specifically Jonathan Smith, is pulling its own weight. Utah and Washington too under DeBoer. And welcome to the Pac 12 Deion, we hope you can turn CU around. Oregon? s%#t show again to end the season. ASU, Stanford, Cal....awful. I'd love to see a statement put out by Oregon and Washington that they are willing to commit to a grand of rights deal to stay in Pac 12, maybe in a joint statement with corner schools. It would put a lot of this negative press on the back burner and maybe improve negotiations with media partners. These tepid limp-dicked statements and rumors coming out of the Pac 12 office are so pathetic and desperate. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Feb 21, 2023 18:52:27 GMT -8
Pac-12 is all but dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 21, 2023 19:47:36 GMT -8
The Pac-12 is in this situation, because it failed to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-12 could have added Oklahoma and Texas or Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas, but did not, because the poorer Presidents made "smart" short-term decisions that have been idiotically stupid long-term decisions that have destroyed the Pac-12 in the long-term. And because the poorer Presidents balked at adding Oklahoma and Texas and chased off competent (but expensive) leadership in favor of George K., they lose UCLA and USC. We reap what they sowed, which sucks, but it is what it is. Texas wanted to keep all of the money they generated from their own network. Glad we didn't take them. Calling Scott competent is funny...... Scott was revolutionary. If Texas A&M wasn't angling to leave for the SEC, the Pac-10 may have become the SEC. He got Oklahoma and Texas to the negotiating table with the Pac-12 twice, only for people to balk, because they wouldn't agree to anything other than a 100% even split. Scott negotiated the largest TV contract ever for a conference. Scott kept the Southern California schools in line and had a ton of contacts with a ton of media titans. And yet, at the end of Scott's contract, the Pac-12 wanted to nickel and dime Scott. Too expensive! We can do better! We'll hire a guy who has no contacts and has no business running a Taco Bell franchise, much less the Pac-12, that will cost a couple of bucks less. Yay! We lost a billion in media rights to save a million on overhead. Genius! Brilliant! And I say, if you think that we're in a great spot without Scott, you should seek professional help. As for Oklahoma and Texas, they wanted to go to a capitalistic keep what you kill model. Everyone makes a certain amount, but some teams make more based on viewership. And idiots did not want to do it, because it should be 100% equal! And now, we are disproportionately screwed as a result. I disagree. A capitalistic keep what you kill model encourages teams to succeed or not make as much money. You are rewarded for success and punished for failure. Great! Instead, Oregon State is staring down the barrel of a gun that we loaded and cocked ourselves. We reap what the Presidents sow. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 21, 2023 19:57:18 GMT -8
Texas wanted to keep all of the money they generated from their own network. Glad we didn't take them. Calling Scott competent is funny...... Scott was revolutionary. If Texas A&M wasn't angling to leave for the SEC, the Pac-10 may have become the SEC. He got Oklahoma and Texas to the negotiating table with the Pac-12 twice, only for people to balk, because they wouldn't agree to anything other than a 100% even split. Scott negotiated the largest TV contract ever for a conference. Scott kept the Southern California schools in line and had a ton of contacts with a ton of media titans. And yet, at the end of Scott's contract, the Pac-12 wanted to nickel and dime Scott. Too expensive! We can do better! We'll hire a guy who has no contacts and has no business running a Taco Bell franchise, much less the Pac-12, that will cost a couple of bucks less. Yay! We lost a billion in media rights to save a million on overhead. Genius! Brilliant! And I say, if you think that we're in a great spot without Scott, you should seek professional help. As for Oklahoma and Texas, they wanted to go to a capitalistic keep what you kill model. Everyone makes a certain amount, but some teams make more based on viewership. And idiots did not want to do it, because it should be 100% equal! And now, we are disproportionately screwed as a result. I disagree. A capitalistic keep what you kill model encourages teams to succeed or not make as much money. You are rewarded for success and punished for failure. Great! Instead, Oregon State is staring down the barrel of a gun that we loaded and cocked ourselves. We reap what the Presidents sow. There’s so much BS in this post, that I’m not going to bother responding except for….. The PAC 12 was almost the SEC…..😆😆 |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 21, 2023 20:08:09 GMT -8
Scott was revolutionary. If Texas A&M wasn't angling to leave for the SEC, the Pac-10 may have become the SEC. He got Oklahoma and Texas to the negotiating table with the Pac-12 twice, only for people to balk, because they wouldn't agree to anything other than a 100% even split. Scott negotiated the largest TV contract ever for a conference. Scott kept the Southern California schools in line and had a ton of contacts with a ton of media titans. And yet, at the end of Scott's contract, the Pac-12 wanted to nickel and dime Scott. Too expensive! We can do better! We'll hire a guy who has no contacts and has no business running a Taco Bell franchise, much less the Pac-12, that will cost a couple of bucks less. Yay! We lost a billion in media rights to save a million on overhead. Genius! Brilliant! And I say, if you think that we're in a great spot without Scott, you should seek professional help. As for Oklahoma and Texas, they wanted to go to a capitalistic keep what you kill model. Everyone makes a certain amount, but some teams make more based on viewership. And idiots did not want to do it, because it should be 100% equal! And now, we are disproportionately screwed as a result. I disagree. A capitalistic keep what you kill model encourages teams to succeed or not make as much money. You are rewarded for success and punished for failure. Great! Instead, Oregon State is staring down the barrel of a gun that we loaded and cocked ourselves. We reap what the Presidents sow. There’s so much BS in this post, that I’m not going to bother responding except for….. The PAC 12 was almost the SEC…..😆😆 I meant the Pac-16. My apologies. My mind was two places at once. The Pac-16 would have been better than the SEC. Otherwise, stuff it, troll!  |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 21, 2023 20:15:55 GMT -8
There’s so much BS in this post, that I’m not going to bother responding except for….. The PAC 12 was almost the SEC…..😆😆 I meant the Pac-16. My apologies. My mind was two places at once. The Pac-16 would have been better than the SEC. Otherwise, stuff it, troll! Your mind is in more than two places at once. Your whole post is trolly BS. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 21, 2023 20:36:54 GMT -8
Texas wanted to keep all of the money they generated from their own network. Glad we didn't take them. Calling Scott competent is funny...... Scott was revolutionary. If Texas A&M wasn't angling to leave for the SEC, the Pac-10 may have become the SEC. He got Oklahoma and Texas to the negotiating table with the Pac-12 twice, only for people to balk, because they wouldn't agree to anything other than a 100% even split. Scott negotiated the largest TV contract ever for a conference. Scott kept the Southern California schools in line and had a ton of contacts with a ton of media titans. And yet, at the end of Scott's contract, the Pac-12 wanted to nickel and dime Scott. Too expensive! We can do better! We'll hire a guy who has no contacts and has no business running a Taco Bell franchise, much less the Pac-12, that will cost a couple of bucks less. Yay! We lost a billion in media rights to save a million on overhead. Genius! Brilliant! And I say, if you think that we're in a great spot without Scott, you should seek professional help. As for Oklahoma and Texas, they wanted to go to a capitalistic keep what you kill model. Everyone makes a certain amount, but some teams make more based on viewership. And idiots did not want to do it, because it should be 100% equal! And now, we are disproportionately screwed as a result. I disagree. A capitalistic keep what you kill model encourages teams to succeed or not make as much money. You are rewarded for success and punished for failure. Great! Instead, Oregon State is staring down the barrel of a gun that we loaded and cocked ourselves. We reap what the Presidents sow. You lost me at “Scott was revolutionary.” Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 21, 2023 20:37:58 GMT -8
Scott was revolutionary. If Texas A&M wasn't angling to leave for the SEC, the Pac-10 may have become the SEC. He got Oklahoma and Texas to the negotiating table with the Pac-12 twice, only for people to balk, because they wouldn't agree to anything other than a 100% even split. Scott negotiated the largest TV contract ever for a conference. Scott kept the Southern California schools in line and had a ton of contacts with a ton of media titans. And yet, at the end of Scott's contract, the Pac-12 wanted to nickel and dime Scott. Too expensive! We can do better! We'll hire a guy who has no contacts and has no business running a Taco Bell franchise, much less the Pac-12, that will cost a couple of bucks less. Yay! We lost a billion in media rights to save a million on overhead. Genius! Brilliant! And I say, if you think that we're in a great spot without Scott, you should seek professional help. As for Oklahoma and Texas, they wanted to go to a capitalistic keep what you kill model. Everyone makes a certain amount, but some teams make more based on viewership. And idiots did not want to do it, because it should be 100% equal! And now, we are disproportionately screwed as a result. I disagree. A capitalistic keep what you kill model encourages teams to succeed or not make as much money. You are rewarded for success and punished for failure. Great! Instead, Oregon State is staring down the barrel of a gun that we loaded and cocked ourselves. We reap what the Presidents sow. You lost me at “Scott was revolutionary.” Sorry. He didn't sign the Pac-12 up for the largest conference contract ever? |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 21, 2023 20:39:01 GMT -8
You lost me at “Scott was revolutionary.” Sorry. He didn't sign the Pac-12 up for the largest conference contract ever? Again, sorry. A revolutionary spender, for sure. |
|
