|
|
Post by avidbeaver on Aug 23, 2023 15:46:23 GMT -8
I am thinking even though Stanford and Cal may bail, I would still try to build the Pac back up. Not seeing why Stanford and Cal leaving would change things. I know it is about brand awareness but building the pac back up is still better than the alternatives no matter what happens in my opinion. If that won't happen, a merger where the MWC would dissolve into the pac. Oh well, I don't have the weight on my shoulders to make the decision. The pressure to make a good decision is pretty big. How much pressure is there when we literally don't have any options? We may as well accept that we are going to be part of the MW.....or the Pac mountain.....or Pac west.....or whatever the hell u wanna call it. Once this is finalized, the real pressure comes.....budget cuts. Well the options are few but a wrong decision can make matters worse. I see four options with one highly unlikely. Join the MWC. Merge with MWC under the Pac name. Build the pac with a few AAC teams and MWC teams. The last being highly unlikely, joining the AAC. Now people may not consider that very many options but there are options. People may not like those options but it isn't like the list would have been long for any other school. In otherwards, other schools options may have been better but they would have been limited also. Not a good situation to be in for any school |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Aug 23, 2023 16:07:43 GMT -8
How much pressure is there when we literally don't have any options? We may as well accept that we are going to be part of the MW.....or the Pac mountain.....or Pac west.....or whatever the hell u wanna call it. Once this is finalized, the real pressure comes.....budget cuts. Well the options are few but a wrong decision can make matters worse. I see four options with one highly unlikely. Join the MWC. Merge with MWC under the Pac name. Build the pac with a few AAC teams and MWC teams. The last being highly unlikely, joining the AAC. Now people may not consider that very many options but there are options. People may not like those options but it isn't like the list would have been long for any other school. In otherwards, other schools options may have been better but they would have been limited also. Not a good situation to be for any school It needs to be all the MWC teams joining the PAC. Let OSU and WSU keep all PAC BB credits and any left over PAC funds. Open the MWC TV contract and try to bump it up and add Apple if possible. MWC commish was also open to going to 16 schools. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Aug 23, 2023 16:10:00 GMT -8
How much pressure is there when we literally don't have any options? We may as well accept that we are going to be part of the MW.....or the Pac mountain.....or Pac west.....or whatever the hell u wanna call it. Once this is finalized, the real pressure comes.....budget cuts. Well the options are few but a wrong decision can make matters worse. I see four options with one highly unlikely. Join the MWC. Merge with MWC under the Pac name. Build the pac with a few AAC teams and MWC teams. The last being highly unlikely, joining the AAC. Now people may not consider that very many options but there are options. People may not like those options but it isn't like the list would have been long for any other school. In otherwards, other schools options may have been better but they would have been limited also. Not a good situation to be for any school I would still say bring together the best of the AAC and MWC. But without Stanford and Cal, it becomes harder to entice them and potentially harder to entice Apple. The only other option media deal wise, would be to have the disbanding conferences void their media deal and then renegotiate with the players. But a large part of me would just like to see this new "conference" just hand it all over to Apple. Watch the games, and when you channel flip, it's other people in your conference. With an East and West division that's a lot of inventory, spans a lot of time zones, and I think they could see sizeable subscriptions. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Aug 23, 2023 16:11:20 GMT -8
Latest reports show Stanford, Cal and SMU trying to get into the ACC. SMU allegedly is willing to take no money from the TV contract for the first 7 years. Stanford and Cal would join for basketball and football only. Someone in the ACC is still flashing a giant FU, because they called off the vote that was supposed to happen yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Aug 23, 2023 16:20:50 GMT -8
Just to add fuel to the ridiculousness fire... www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/08/22/big-12-warned-to-not-get-in-the-way-of-adjusting-cfb-playoff-report/I know it's completely futile, but just for giggles, it would be nice to sink a few million in hiring some good lawyers working around anti-trust, collusion, etc. In many different areas...But no one will, life will go on, and at the turn of the next decade, expect several more programs to get "cut". I hope ESPN/Fox lose their shirts on viewership, but suspect they won't for at least 3 years when the "newness" of it all wears off and teams start falling. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Aug 23, 2023 16:24:58 GMT -8
Cal, and furd are so desperate to join the ACC that they will do it for free! Looks like SMU doesn't want to be tied to broke Pac Mountain either......we are the red headed step child, with cooties, of college football.
|
|
|
|
Post by avidbeaver on Aug 23, 2023 16:40:50 GMT -8
Cal, and furd are so desperate to join the ACC that they will do it for free! Looks like SMU doesn't want to be tied to broke Pac Mountain either......we are the red headed step child, with cooties, of college football. Can Cal afford to go for nothing? They are in a huge deficit. Who is going to pay their way until they get a share? How long would it be before they get a share, if at all before the current media deal expires. Stanford has an endowment but how long could they keep up with costs? Cal doesn't have the same thing going for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Aug 23, 2023 17:15:30 GMT -8
Cal, and furd are so desperate to join the ACC that they will do it for free! Looks like SMU doesn't want to be tied to broke Pac Mountain either......we are the red headed step child, with cooties, of college football. Stanford and Cal have not asked to join for free. That was SMU. Stanford could, be no way Cal could join for free. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 23, 2023 17:23:28 GMT -8
When we rejoined the conference in 1964, after having been independent for several years, we continued to schedule the same West Coast teams we had been scheduling as an independent; the Norhwest schools plus Stanford. It took us until 1968 to get to where we had a full conference schedule of six conference games. If the conference reassembles w/o the MWC imploding, who are we going to schedule? The legacy Pac 12 teams will have their hands full trying to get games in their new conferences and the MWC schools retain their existing conference scheduling commitments. Unless we fill up on the Eastern Washingtons, Northern Arizonas, Sac States, we're going to have to search far and wide and likely do a lot of travelling. UCLA was the real villain back then. UCLA desperately wanted to dump the Oregons and Wazzu and did so. They did not play the Oregons or Wazzu until after the 1967 Rose Bowl. What happened in the 1967 Rose Bowl? UCLA finished tied with Oregon State for second. UCLA keeps saying that they were tied with USC, but that is not true. USC played and beat Oregon State in 1966, and UCLA refused to schedule them. USC having an extra conference win was handed a berth in the 1967 Rose Bowl, and UCLA stayed home. It was only after Oregon State and UCLA tied for second, costing UCLA a Rose Bowl berth, that UCLA started playing Wazzu and Oregon State. And UCLA tied #2 UCLA in the Coliseum in 1967, one of the three giants that Oregon State killed in a four-week period. UCLA did not start playing Oregon until 1969. Oregon State played a full conference slate minus UCLA in 1959 and 1960. Oregon State beat both California and USC at their place, though, so both California and USC dropped Oregon State after that. But Stanford, Washington, and Wazzu continued to play Oregon State every year. Oregon State and Stanford had agreed to suspend the series after the 1964 season only for Oregon State to join the AAWU in 1964. Washington played Oregon State at least once in each year that they both had a team from 1936-1987. The Beavers suspended football from 1943-1944 but played the Huskies twice in 1945 to make up for it. And Wazzu played Oregon State at least once from 1927-1986. Both the Beavers and Cougars suspended football from 1943-1944 but they played each other twice in 1945 to make up for it. After Oregon State's 1962 Liberty Bowl victory, USC agreed to a game at the Coliseum in 1963. Oregon State and USC did not play in 1964, but played for the next six years. Six was not a full conference schedule, and Oregon State played six conference games every year beginning in 1967, the Giant Killers year. That was the most games against Pac-8 teams since 1960. Oregon State did not play California from 1961-1968. California only started playing Oregon State in 1969, a 35-3 Beaver win in Berkeley. I think that it is helpful to look at how many times Oregon State played teams in the 1956-1972 period: Oregon 17 Washington 17 Wazzu 17 Stanford 15 USC 13 Iowa 12 Idaho 10 California 9 UCLA 9 Arizona State 7 Utah 5 Northwestern 4 Syracuse 4 Oregon State played Idaho all but one year that both had a program from 1937-1966 before essentially trading Idaho for Stanford and UCLA. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Aug 23, 2023 17:28:55 GMT -8
Cal, and furd are so desperate to join the ACC that they will do it for free! Looks like SMU doesn't want to be tied to broke Pac Mountain either......we are the red headed step child, with cooties, of college football. Can Cal afford to go for nothing? They are in a huge deficit. Who is going to pay their way until they get a share? How long would it be before they get a share, if at all before the current media deal expires. Stanford has an endowment but how long could they keep up with costs? Cal doesn't have the same thing going for them. I don't see how Cal joins for the same amount they are getting from the current pac contract. We keep hearing about how they are financially hurting. Now add $15M a year in travel? Maybe this has shocked some big donors? 2nd thought- is OSU thinking about betting on themselves? Do we think a better deal is possible in November if we are ranked in the top 10? And then with huge TV ratings games on deck with the huskies and the fighting dumadoffcks? I'm guessing not, but there's a reason I'm not a big shot business man. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Aug 23, 2023 17:38:00 GMT -8
When we rejoined the conference in 1964, after having been independent for several years, we continued to schedule the same West Coast teams we had been scheduling as an independent; the Norhwest schools plus Stanford. It took us until 1968 to get to where we had a full conference schedule of six conference games. If the conference reassembles w/o the MWC imploding, who are we going to schedule? The legacy Pac 12 teams will have their hands full trying to get games in their new conferences and the MWC schools retain their existing conference scheduling commitments. Unless we fill up on the Eastern Washingtons, Northern Arizonas, Sac States, we're going to have to search far and wide and likely do a lot of travelling. UCLA was the real villain back then. UCLA desperately wanted to dump the Oregons and Wazzu and did so. They did not play the Oregons or Wazzu until after the 1967 Rose Bowl. What happened in the 1967 Rose Bowl? UCLA finished tied with Oregon State for second. UCLA keeps saying that they were tied with USC, but that is not true. USC played and beat Oregon State in 1966, and UCLA refused to schedule them. USC having an extra conference win was handed a berth in the 1967 Rose Bowl, and UCLA stayed home. It was only after Oregon State and UCLA tied for second, costing UCLA a Rose Bowl berth, that UCLA started playing Wazzu and Oregon State. And UCLA tied #2 UCLA in the Coliseum in 1967, one of the three giants that Oregon State killed in a four-week period. UCLA did not start playing Oregon until 1969. Oregon State played a full conference slate minus UCLA in 1959 and 1960. Oregon State beat both California and USC at their place, though, so both California and USC dropped Oregon State after that. But Stanford, Washington, and Wazzu continued to play Oregon State every year. Oregon State and Stanford had agreed to suspend the series after the 1964 season only for Oregon State to join the AAWU in 1964. Washington played Oregon State at least once in each year that they both had a team from 1936-1987. The Beavers suspended football from 1943-1944 but played the Huskies twice in 1945 to make up for it. And Wazzu played Oregon State at least once from 1927-1986. Both the Beavers and Cougars suspended football from 1943-1944 but they played each other twice in 1945 to make up for it. After Oregon State's 1962 Liberty Bowl victory, USC agreed to a game at the Coliseum in 1963. Oregon State and USC did not play in 1964, but played for the next six years. Six was not a full conference schedule, and Oregon State played six conference games every year beginning in 1967, the Giant Killers year. That was the most games against Pac-8 teams since 1960. Oregon State did not play California from 1961-1968. California only started playing Oregon State in 1969, a 35-3 Beaver win in Berkeley. I think that it is helpful to look at how many times Oregon State played teams in the 1956-1972 period: Oregon 17 Washington 17 Wazzu 17 Stanford 15 USC 13 Iowa 12 Idaho 10 California 9 UCLA 9 Arizona State 7 Utah 5 Northwestern 4 Syracuse 4 Oregon State played Idaho all but one year that both had a program from 1937-1966 before essentially trading Idaho for Stanford and UCLA. some of this may have been about dollars. I'm not positive I have the numbers correct for the following, but I think I'm close. This was a big deal. In about 1984 the guarantee for the visiting team for conference games went from 50K to 150k. Remember media money was minimal then. I don't know what the guarantees were in the 60's. But maybe UCLA didn't want to go to the Oregons and lose money during that time period? |
|
|
|
Post by beavsteve on Aug 23, 2023 17:57:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Aug 23, 2023 18:29:26 GMT -8
If Stanford and Cal leave, then my fantasy is that OSU and WSU could convince the top 5-6 teams from the AAC to join this year and the top 5-6 teams from the MWC the next.
Barring that, I would just get all of the MWC and try to score a media deal.
I'd still like to see all of the G5 sign a deal with Apple and that way there would be exposure for fans who are switching channels between plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Aug 23, 2023 18:38:31 GMT -8
And if Stanford and Cal are going to join the ACC for football and basketball, where are they going to play the rest of their games? I sure western conferences hold out and don't let them in.
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 23, 2023 18:59:06 GMT -8
And if Stanford and Cal are going to join the ACC for football and basketball, where are they going to play the rest of their games? I sure western conferences hold out and don't let them in. Make 'em pay through the nose. |
|
