|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 13, 2023 21:02:52 GMT -8
No, because IMO OSU and WSU are worthy of staying at the power conference level. If OSU and WSU are truly trying to rebuild the Pac, then IMO they need to find schools that can show that they meet a lot of the criteria (which I touched on in the previous post) to put the new Pac as close as possible to a power conference level. The leftover teams would not be left without the ability to be in a conference (probably just a new version of the MWC) and they would not be dropping out of a power conference because they would not have been a part of the new Pac at all. You judged several quality universities as inferior that are far more than their football teams. Many have had more overall athletic success over the last decade(s) than OSU. The media, B10, and B12 played their cards in the name of biz. As wrong as you may think it is, just because you sit in favor of OSU/WSU, arrogance is arrogance. More athletic success? Huh. I guess I didn't realize they were competing in the Pac-12. Must have missed that. "You judged several quality universities as inferior that are far more than their football teams." You're starting to let your true colors come through. Maybe a little ivory tower lean toward academics over athletics (especially what you might consider big money athletics), hmm? They are not mutually exclusive. I know you like OSU athletics, but I think you'd be just fine if they were playing in the WCC or some conference like that. "Arrogance is arrogance." LOL. You got that right...but not in the way you intended. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 13, 2023 21:10:12 GMT -8
You judged several quality universities as inferior that are far more than their football teams. Many have had more overall athletic success over the last decade(s) than OSU. The media, B10, and B12 played their cards in the name of biz. As wrong as you may think it is, just because you sit in favor of OSU/WSU, arrogance is arrogance. More athletic success? Huh. I guess I didn't realize they were competing in the Pac-12. Must have missed that. "You judged several quality universities as inferior that are far more than their football teams." You're starting to let your true colors come through. Maybe a little ivory tower lean toward academics over athletics (especially that big money athletics), hmm? They are not mutually exclusive. I know you like OSU athletics, but I think you'd be just fine if they were playing in the WCC or some conference like that. "Arrogance is arrogance." LOL. You got that right...but not in the way you intended. I meant it exactly as you've illustrated yours and the hypocrisy that follows. Can't bitch and moan about the arrogance of the other conferences, media, and "10" to leave poor OSU/WSU behind then act in a similar fashion. And, to a conference that could well be the only lifeline to our programs, students, and allow OSU/WSU to possibly pocket millions at the same time. You know what's not mutually exclusive? OSU finding national success and recognition in a merge with the MWC. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 13, 2023 21:41:41 GMT -8
More athletic success? Huh. I guess I didn't realize they were competing in the Pac-12. Must have missed that. "You judged several quality universities as inferior that are far more than their football teams." You're starting to let your true colors come through. Maybe a little ivory tower lean toward academics over athletics (especially that big money athletics), hmm? They are not mutually exclusive. I know you like OSU athletics, but I think you'd be just fine if they were playing in the WCC or some conference like that. "Arrogance is arrogance." LOL. You got that right...but not in the way you intended. I meant it exactly as you've illustrated yours and the hypocrisy that follows. Can't bitch and moan about the arrogance of the other conferences, media, and "10" to leave poor OSU/WSU behind then act in a similar fashion. And, to a conference that could well be the only lifeline to our programs, students, and allow OSU/WSU to possibly pocket millions at the same time. You know what's not mutually exclusive? OSU finding national success and recognition in a merge with the MWC. Yeah...I've not really been writing any posts that could logically be considered bitching and moaning about "the arrogance of the other conferences, media, and "10" to leave poor OSU/WSU behind." Maybe a couple at the very most in the past month since this all started. I've spent almost all of my time on this board during that period pushing OSU and WSU to the Big 12 scenario or forming a new Pac with teams from the MWC, AAC and possibly other conferences. I've made it obvious that I want the Beavers to either stay in a power conference or build something as close as possible. I want Jonathan Smith to be able to continue to build on the foundation he's established for the football program without having to worry if OSU will be able to pay to keep the assistant coaches or having to work far harder to retain players. You and a few others want to play with the little guys in the little guy conference. Glad we've gotten that all sorted out. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 14, 2023 6:04:58 GMT -8
Interesting statement: IMO there's only about four MWC programs that are truly worth adding and maybe two more borderline ones. Based on what criteria? In our eyes? Television market, national appeal, competitiveness in both Football and basketball?
We did not like it when others said the same thing on other boards in the Big10, Big12 about us.
Funny how there is a pecking order. Big10, Big12, Pac, MWC in regards to ...truly worth adding statements...
Frankly, I was being kind. There's probably two or three (Boise State being one). But to answer your question, yeah, TV viewership, TV market, national name recognition and program success. I can look up the numbers on TV viewership, TV market size and program success (mainly football, but recently San Diego State in men's hoops). I can even judge national name recognition to a degree without just using my opinion. There are a few teams that are extremely low overall. But go ahead and believe that they all belong or that we can't pick some over others because that's what happened to us or whatever you want to believe. And if you didn't like what was being said about OSU, you should have countered it with as many facts as possible to support a compelling argument. There are a few, believe it or not. I saw the same posts at several Big12 school websites when the discussion was about adding OSU and WSU to the B12. Different conferences, different schools, different forums but the same exclusion reasons applied. Btw, I don't think conference officials read the forums. So your criteria to accept a school into a pac conference is really no different than the criteria that the B12 or Big10 used or their fans perceptions too. Is Wyoming worthy or is the market just too small. They look pretty good this year at 2-0. But do they have the sizzle factor? Everyone wants sizzle now days. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 14, 2023 7:03:32 GMT -8
Frankly, I was being kind. There's probably two or three (Boise State being one). But to answer your question, yeah, TV viewership, TV market, national name recognition and program success. I can look up the numbers on TV viewership, TV market size and program success (mainly football, but recently San Diego State in men's hoops). I can even judge national name recognition to a degree without just using my opinion. There are a few teams that are extremely low overall. But go ahead and believe that they all belong or that we can't pick some over others because that's what happened to us or whatever you want to believe. And if you didn't like what was being said about OSU, you should have countered it with as many facts as possible to support a compelling argument. There are a few, believe it or not. I saw the same posts at several Big12 school websites when the discussion was about adding OSU and WSU to the B12. Different conferences, different schools, different forums but the same exclusion reasons applied. Btw, I don't think conference officials read the forums. So your criteria to accept a school into a pac conference is really no different than the criteria that the B12 or Big10 used or their fans perceptions too. Is Wyoming worthy or is the market just too small. They look pretty good this year at 2-0. But do they have the sizzle factor? Everyone wants sizzle now days. Let's not forget that the B1G did not want Oregon or Washington...until they did. The ACC did not want Stanford or Cal...until they did. Things can change, arrangements can be negotiated and different opportunities can present themselves even after the door appeared closed. I am still of the mind that a Pac emerges w the MW, but it doesn't mean hoping and advocating for a different outcome is completely futile. Being in a P4 conference is vital in my opinion, and if it does not happen that way, the reasons why will quickly become evident (IN MY OPINION) |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 14, 2023 9:30:59 GMT -8
So I just saw a little blub saying all of the Pac 12 Presidents signed off on an employee retention and severance package for the conference yesterday.
No actual "vote" apparently, but everyone signed off.
I was unable to copy a link, otherwise I'd have linked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 14, 2023 10:00:19 GMT -8
Frankly, I was being kind. There's probably two or three (Boise State being one). But to answer your question, yeah, TV viewership, TV market, national name recognition and program success. I can look up the numbers on TV viewership, TV market size and program success (mainly football, but recently San Diego State in men's hoops). I can even judge national name recognition to a degree without just using my opinion. There are a few teams that are extremely low overall. But go ahead and believe that they all belong or that we can't pick some over others because that's what happened to us or whatever you want to believe. And if you didn't like what was being said about OSU, you should have countered it with as many facts as possible to support a compelling argument. There are a few, believe it or not. I saw the same posts at several Big12 school websites when the discussion was about adding OSU and WSU to the B12. Different conferences, different schools, different forums but the same exclusion reasons applied. Btw, I don't think conference officials read the forums. So your criteria to accept a school into a pac conference is really no different than the criteria that the B12 or Big10 used or their fans perceptions too. Is Wyoming worthy or is the market just too small. They look pretty good this year at 2-0. But do they have the sizzle factor? Everyone wants sizzle now days. I don't agree that fans of schools are saying the same things that the leaders of power conferences and schools think. The fans often pick and choose fragments of information to push whatever 'take' they might have. IMO, the power conferences absolutely do not look at OSU as a weak school athletically. They no doubt see that OSU is the No. 2 team in Portland as far as market size and audience but OSU ranks above a bunch of the eight teams that recently or will be joining the Big 12 in TV viewership. No, the reason as far as the Big 12 is concerned is TV money, as I have mentioned several times on this board. So it's really about the ESPN pro rata deal and Fox's willingness to add some money as well. As far as Wyoming being "worthy," that's an interesting question. First of all, we're talking athletics. Not the schools as academic institutions. Does anyone honestly think we would say no to Boise State at this point? So Wyoming does OK in TV viewership among MWC teams. It is behind Colorado State, Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State, Utah State and Air Force (not in order). As far as football success, Wyoming has been solid in recent years. The Cowboys have gone to five bowl games from 2016 to 2022. They had three 8-win seasons and two 7-win seasons during that time. From 2000-2015 the results were mostly below average. The Cowboys got some national play after their win over Texas Tech this season but my guess is that they don't move the needle much except for a few moments such as that one. Laramie is not even close to being a major metro area, nor is it a particularly easy travel day. So no, they don't really have the "sizzle factor." But I would say they are a borderline school as far as how I see the criteria. Probably would come down to how many MWC schools were being added (as opposed to AAC schools and maybe others) to help create a new Pac. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Sept 14, 2023 10:55:10 GMT -8
I saw the same posts at several Big12 school websites when the discussion was about adding OSU and WSU to the B12. Different conferences, different schools, different forums but the same exclusion reasons applied. Btw, I don't think conference officials read the forums. So your criteria to accept a school into a pac conference is really no different than the criteria that the B12 or Big10 used or their fans perceptions too. Is Wyoming worthy or is the market just too small. They look pretty good this year at 2-0. But do they have the sizzle factor? Everyone wants sizzle now days. I don't agree that fans of schools are saying the same things that the leaders of power conferences and schools think. The fans often pick and choose fragments of information to push whatever 'take' they might have. IMO, the power conferences absolutely do not look at OSU as a weak school athletically. They no doubt see that OSU is the No. 2 team in Portland as far as market size and audience but OSU ranks above a bunch of the eight teams that recently or will be joining the Big 12 in TV viewership. No, the reason as far as the Big 12 is concerned is TV money, as I have mentioned several times on this board. So it's really about the ESPN pro rata deal and Fox's willingness to add some money as well. As far as Wyoming being "worthy," that's an interesting question. First of all, we're talking athletics. Not the schools as academic institutions. Does anyone honestly think we would say no to Boise State at this point? So Wyoming does OK in TV viewership among MWC teams. It is behind Colorado State, Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State, Utah State and Air Force (not in order). As far as football success, Wyoming has been solid in recent years. The Cowboys have gone to five bowl games from 2016 to 2022. They had three 8-win seasons and two 7-win seasons during that time. From 2000-2015 the results were mostly below average. The Cowboys got some national play after their win over Texas Tech this season but my guess is that they don't move the needle much except for a few moments such as that one. Laramie is not even close to being a major metro area, nor is it a particularly easy travel day. So no, they don't really have the "sizzle factor." But I would say they are a borderline school as far as how I see the criteria. Probably would come down to how many MWC schools were being added (as opposed to AAC schools and maybe others) to help create a new Pac. A rebuild is a tough thing to pull off with very large exit fees to invited schools that will not be negotiated down much at this late notice. There is no TV deal in place to entice anyone to join, and no 2024 schedule. Courts and legal crap will drag into November in all likelihood and nobody is joining until those are all settled. Not sure a rebuild is possible given the time frames. Probably why Barnes is meeting with the MWC commish over the next two weeks. MWC will not offer a 2024 scheduling agreement knowing they will lose 3-4 schools. So cough up over $100 million, negotiate a TV deal and bowl agreements, and try to schedule a season that will ask invited to schools to also buy out games at a very late date. All with no commish. whew |
|
|
|
Post by whocares on Sept 14, 2023 12:37:55 GMT -8
Hard to guess how competitive the MWC teams will be if, by joining the Pac, their athletic department's budgets are increased substantially.
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 14, 2023 12:45:41 GMT -8
I don't agree that fans of schools are saying the same things that the leaders of power conferences and schools think. The fans often pick and choose fragments of information to push whatever 'take' they might have. IMO, the power conferences absolutely do not look at OSU as a weak school athletically. They no doubt see that OSU is the No. 2 team in Portland as far as market size and audience but OSU ranks above a bunch of the eight teams that recently or will be joining the Big 12 in TV viewership. No, the reason as far as the Big 12 is concerned is TV money, as I have mentioned several times on this board. So it's really about the ESPN pro rata deal and Fox's willingness to add some money as well. As far as Wyoming being "worthy," that's an interesting question. First of all, we're talking athletics. Not the schools as academic institutions. Does anyone honestly think we would say no to Boise State at this point? So Wyoming does OK in TV viewership among MWC teams. It is behind Colorado State, Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State, Utah State and Air Force (not in order). As far as football success, Wyoming has been solid in recent years. The Cowboys have gone to five bowl games from 2016 to 2022. They had three 8-win seasons and two 7-win seasons during that time. From 2000-2015 the results were mostly below average. The Cowboys got some national play after their win over Texas Tech this season but my guess is that they don't move the needle much except for a few moments such as that one. Laramie is not even close to being a major metro area, nor is it a particularly easy travel day. So no, they don't really have the "sizzle factor." But I would say they are a borderline school as far as how I see the criteria. Probably would come down to how many MWC schools were being added (as opposed to AAC schools and maybe others) to help create a new Pac. A rebuild is a tough thing to pull off with very large exit fees to invited schools that will not be negotiated down much at this late notice. There is no TV deal in place to entice anyone to join, and no 2024 schedule. Courts and legal crap will drag into November in all likelihood and nobody is joining until those are all settled. Not sure a rebuild is possible given the time frames. Probably why Barnes is meeting with the MWC commish over the next two weeks. MWC will not offer a 2024 scheduling agreement knowing they will lose 3-4 schools. So cough up over $100 million, negotiate a TV deal and bowl agreements, and try to schedule a season that will ask invited to schools to also buy out games at a very late date. All with no commish. whew Well, Barnes has been talking all along about restoring the Pac-12. Restore means to bring back or reinstate. Unless Barnes and WSU can figure out how to get some of the other Pac-12 schools back into the fold, it's not really a restoration. I'm using "rebuild" as in put together a conference that is as close as possible to the soon to be power 4. I'm not sure what Barnes will do because I don't believe the message that has been sent from the athletes and coaches has been positive about OSU and WSU basically joining the MWC, either in a reverse merger or a standard expansion. I expect OSU and WSU to come to some sort of an agreement with the MWC. But the reality is that if OSU and WSU wind up winning the legal battle, then they will hold most of the cards, not the MWC. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 14, 2023 12:57:23 GMT -8
Hard to guess how competitive the MWC teams will be if, by joining the Pac, their athletic department's budgets are increased substantially. I seriously doubt that it will make much of a difference. The increase may be substantial relatively speaking to their current budget numbers, but still far behind the power conference schools. Very unlikely that it's going to be enough to make any kind of impact on the field. Several of the MWC schools have or will be improving facilities and the financial bump would probably go to alleviate those costs for the most part. The bigger question is how OSU and WSU will be able to continue to keep the football programs going at the current level of success along with having quite a bit less money to fund the rest of the sports when the Pac-12 well runs dry. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 14, 2023 13:25:34 GMT -8
A rebuild is a tough thing to pull off with very large exit fees to invited schools that will not be negotiated down much at this late notice. There is no TV deal in place to entice anyone to join, and no 2024 schedule. Courts and legal crap will drag into November in all likelihood and nobody is joining until those are all settled. Not sure a rebuild is possible given the time frames. Probably why Barnes is meeting with the MWC commish over the next two weeks. MWC will not offer a 2024 scheduling agreement knowing they will lose 3-4 schools. So cough up over $100 million, negotiate a TV deal and bowl agreements, and try to schedule a season that will ask invited to schools to also buy out games at a very late date. All with no commish. whew Well, Barnes has been talking all along about restoring the Pac-12. Restore means to bring back or reinstate. Unless Barnes and WSU can figure out how to get some of the other Pac-12 schools back into the fold, it's not really a restoration. I'm using "rebuild" as in put together a conference that is as close as possible to the soon to be power 4. I'm not sure what Barnes will do because I don't believe the message that has been sent from the athletes and coaches has been positive about OSU and WSU basically joining the MWC, either in a reverse merger or a standard expansion. I expect OSU and WSU to come to some sort of an agreement with the MWC. But the reality is that if OSU and WSU wind up winning the legal battle, then they will hold most of the cards, not the MWC. No it really does not in this case. Murthy and Barnes have used the word "rebuild" repeatedly and it has been interchanged with "restore". "Barnes expressed a desire to rebuild some version of the league that just fell apart." “We continue to believe that preserving the Pac-12 is in the best interests of OSU student-athletes and the remaining universities, and so we are doing everything in our control to stabilize and rebuild the conference,” Murthy wrote. There is no one with the intent of restoring any of the original members at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 14, 2023 13:39:47 GMT -8
Well, Barnes has been talking all along about restoring the Pac-12. Restore means to bring back or reinstate. Unless Barnes and WSU can figure out how to get some of the other Pac-12 schools back into the fold, it's not really a restoration. I'm using "rebuild" as in put together a conference that is as close as possible to the soon to be power 4. I'm not sure what Barnes will do because I don't believe the message that has been sent from the athletes and coaches has been positive about OSU and WSU basically joining the MWC, either in a reverse merger or a standard expansion. I expect OSU and WSU to come to some sort of an agreement with the MWC. But the reality is that if OSU and WSU wind up winning the legal battle, then they will hold most of the cards, not the MWC. No it really does not in this case. Murthy and Barnes have used the word "rebuild" repeatedly and it has been interchanged with "restore". "Barnes expressed a desire to rebuild some version of the league that just fell apart." “We continue to believe that preserving the Pac-12 is in the best interests of OSU student-athletes and the remaining universities, and so we are doing everything in our control to stabilize and rebuild the conference,” Murthy wrote. There is no one with the intent of restoring any of the original members at this time. Barnes did use "restore" at first and he also said "build back." You're right, it looks as if they started saying both at some point. But it's not really all that important -- I don't think there's really any chance to restore any of the original members. But that doesn't mean they haven't tried or at least reached out. |
|
|
|
Post by castorcanadensis on Sept 14, 2023 14:59:24 GMT -8
If the 10 members claim they haven't given notice to withdraw from the conference then why isn't there a 2024 football schedule?  |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 14, 2023 15:07:11 GMT -8
If the 10 members claim they haven't given notice to withdraw from the conference then why isn't there a 2024 football schedule? Because they have, Batman! |
|
