|
|
Post by grayman on Aug 11, 2024 11:47:26 GMT -8
It's been a year at this point and will be 18 months by next spring. No one is rushing into anything. Universal thinking is the ACC is going to exist, in its present state, for at least two years. And if it does break up, the Big 12 will take SMU, Stanford and Cal long before it would consider us.But there is a drop-dead point. Athletes we are recruiting from the HS classes of 2025, 2026 and beyond want to know where they will be playing if they choose OSU. Fans need to know what to expect. Coaches need to know what to expect. We have to long-term budget appropriately. Scheduling issues must be resolved. I don't believe the MWC is "what's left." It's the best P5 conference in the country. I think it's a far superior option to being an auxiliary of the Big 12, forced to pay $2 million for every single football game, not eligible for a conference championship, living another season in limbo. We can't make any money if the guarantee is $2 million every week. And I certainly never said we'd "waltz right in" to the MWC and win championships. I said, let's join them and start competing for conference championships. That's not an option at this point for our baseball, football, gymnastics, wrestling and track programs, who have no conference championship to aspire to. Furthermore, I've tried to never look at anything from an "it can always get worse" perspective. You do that, you're lost from the start. It's an excuse for complacency. Again, other's mileage may vary. NBD. Absolutely no way that Stanford goes to the Big 12 and very little chance that Cal gets in. The Big 12 does not want them and they do not want the Big 12. Stanford will go independent. Cal might try out of desperation but there's no way the Big 12 takes Cal over OSU and WSU. It's not a great fit athletically or culturally and does not bring much of anything to the table as far as brand or tv numbers or fan support in general. The Big 12 does not want SMU at all but might let it buy its way in (although I'm not so sure SMU didn't try that before making a deal with the ACC). The AAC might have a lot to say about which G5 conference (there is no P5) is best. There is a drop-dead point to either form a rebuilt Pac-12 or join another conference. That is the summer of 2026. Maybe that gets pushed to 2027. Having an unclear future did not seem to hurt Bray's recruiting in the offseason at all. And they are doing just fine as far as (near) future classes. The MWC will be there if the Pac-2 needs it in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 11, 2024 12:12:34 GMT -8
Yes, G5, brain fart. Some of you don't like Canzano, I get that. Today he interviews Kyle Whittingham. He says the next round of separation is coming in 2-4 years, the top group will be trimmed to 40-50 or so, and just play each other. Not to be a downer, but in no world are we a top-50 college football program in today's financial environment, especially since we are already not in a P4 conference. Any arrangement with the Big 12 is temporary, because it will "relegate" 1/3 to 1/2 of its programs soon. Get with a G5 league that works now, and be ahead of the game. www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-utah-footballs-kyle-whittinghamAnd sorry, but SMU (Dallas) and Cal (Bay Area) are much more attractive TV partners than we can ever hope to be. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Aug 11, 2024 12:58:06 GMT -8
Yes, G5, brain fart. Some of you don't like Canzano, I get that. Today he interviews Kyle Whittingham. He says the next round of separation is coming in 2-4 years, the top group will be trimmed to 40-50 or so, and just play each other. Not to be a downer, but in no world are we a top-50 college football program in today's financial environment, especially since we are already not in a P4 conference. Any arrangement with the Big 12 is temporary, because it will "relegate" 1/3 to 1/2 of its programs soon. Get with a G5 league that works now, and be ahead of the game. www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-utah-footballs-kyle-whittinghamAnd sorry, but SMU (Dallas) and Cal (Bay Area) are much more attractive TV partners than we can ever hope to be. Nobody watches them in those markets, though. And Portland is OSU's "market" anyway, not Corvallis. We could go way down the rabbit hole when it comes to a discussion about what drives TV numbers but market size is highly overrated. Cal not only has to compete with Stanford but struggles to stay ahead of San Jose State and Fresno State. The winning formula is to have a good team and get on the mainstream networks as much as possible in as many prime time slots as possible. As far as what Whittingham is talking about, that would no doubt create a second tier group that would probably include OSU and WSU. The G5 would actually get weaker because the stronger programs would most likely move into the second tier and leave the rest as a third tier. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Aug 11, 2024 13:03:41 GMT -8
Yes, G5, brain fart. Some of you don't like Canzano, I get that. Today he interviews Kyle Whittingham. He says the next round of separation is coming in 2-4 years, the top group will be trimmed to 40-50 or so, and just play each other. Not to be a downer, but in no world are we a top-50 college football program in today's financial environment, especially since we are already not in a P4 conference. Any arrangement with the Big 12 is temporary, because it will "relegate" 1/3 to 1/2 of its programs soon. Get with a G5 league that works now, and be ahead of the game. www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-utah-footballs-kyle-whittinghamAnd sorry, but SMU (Dallas) and Cal (Bay Area) are much more attractive TV partners than we can ever hope to be. The markets may be bigger, but it seems the Cal fans could give a sh*t less about the football team. Relatively new facilities, and still, no where near filling the new stadium. Yes, it holds 65k, but I doubt in the past 10 years they have even filled half of it. Could be wrong, that is my perception. I haven't looked at their TV numbers, but if their home games are any indication, actual eyeballs on the game, vs market size, is quite different. SMU? I would agree, but just a guess. Football is bigger overall in Texas than Oregon |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Aug 11, 2024 13:17:11 GMT -8
Yes, G5, brain fart. Some of you don't like Canzano, I get that. Today he interviews Kyle Whittingham. He says the next round of separation is coming in 2-4 years, the top group will be trimmed to 40-50 or so, and just play each other. Not to be a downer, but in no world are we a top-50 college football program in today's financial environment, especially since we are already not in a P4 conference. Any arrangement with the Big 12 is temporary, because it will "relegate" 1/3 to 1/2 of its programs soon. Get with a G5 league that works now, and be ahead of the game. www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-utah-footballs-kyle-whittinghamAnd sorry, but SMU (Dallas) and Cal (Bay Area) are much more attractive TV partners than we can ever hope to be. The markets may be bigger, but it seems the Cal fans could give a sh*t less about the football team. Relatively new facilities, and still, no where near filling the new stadium. Yes, it holds 65k, but I doubt in the past 10 years they have even filled half of it. Could be wrong, that is my perception. I haven't looked at their TV numbers, but if their home games are any indication, actual eyeballs on the game, vs market size, is quite different. SMU? I would agree, but just a guess. Football is bigger overall in Texas than Oregon TCU is way bigger than SMU in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. But Texas and Texas A&M rule the entire state. Way more fans of those teams in the DFW area than SMU. If market size was the be-all, end-all, then schools like San Diego State, UNLV, Memphis, Tulane, South Florida, San Jose State, UTSA and New Mexico would have all been gobbled up by power conferences at some point by now.. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Aug 11, 2024 13:29:51 GMT -8
Yes, G5, brain fart. Some of you don't like Canzano, I get that. Today he interviews Kyle Whittingham. He says the next round of separation is coming in 2-4 years, the top group will be trimmed to 40-50 or so, and just play each other. Not to be a downer, but in no world are we a top-50 college football program in today's financial environment, especially since we are already not in a P4 conference. Any arrangement with the Big 12 is temporary, because it will "relegate" 1/3 to 1/2 of its programs soon. Get with a G5 league that works now, and be ahead of the game. www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-utah-footballs-kyle-whittinghamAnd sorry, but SMU (Dallas) and Cal (Bay Area) are much more attractive TV partners than we can ever hope to be. Except that SMU is like 5th or last or whatever it is for the Dallas market. We'd be fine up against them (they have cash, which is their big advantage). I think they'd take Cal before us, but when I was looking through Cal message board before the Pac-12 split, many of them said they'd rather ditch sports than hang out with us and try and make in the world, so I'd imagine they feel the same about the Big12. People just need to chill out until next August. Not much we can really do until that clause in the separation contract kicks in and by that time we'll know what's coming with the ACC. For now, just sit back, watch some OSU sports, and hope for an abundance of wins. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Aug 11, 2024 13:48:23 GMT -8
Yes, G5, brain fart. Some of you don't like Canzano, I get that. Today he interviews Kyle Whittingham. He says the next round of separation is coming in 2-4 years, the top group will be trimmed to 40-50 or so, and just play each other. Not to be a downer, but in no world are we a top-50 college football program in today's financial environment, especially since we are already not in a P4 conference. Any arrangement with the Big 12 is temporary, because it will "relegate" 1/3 to 1/2 of its programs soon. Get with a G5 league that works now, and be ahead of the game. www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-utah-footballs-kyle-whittinghamAnd sorry, but SMU (Dallas) and Cal (Bay Area) are much more attractive TV partners than we can ever hope to be. Except that SMU is like 5th or last or whatever it is for the Dallas market. We'd be fine up against them (they have cash, which is their big advantage). I think they'd take Cal before us, but when I was looking through Cal message board before the Pac-12 split, many of them said they'd rather ditch sports than hang out with us and try and make in the world, so I'd imagine they feel the same about the Big12. People just need to chill out until next August. Not much we can really do until that clause in the separation contract kicks in and by that time we'll know what's coming with the ACC. For now, just sit back, watch some OSU sports, and hope for an abundance of wins. You know we can't stop talking about this. Football games would be a nice distraction though. That said, I can get with the overall point of waiting. I think it's pretty clear what Whittingham is saying is the big picture. I would just like us to at least be squarely in the mix of the next tier. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 11, 2024 17:49:30 GMT -8
The number of TV sets matters. Not if anyone watches them. That's why Rutgers and Maryland are in the Big Ten.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Aug 11, 2024 17:59:21 GMT -8
Yes, G5, brain fart. Some of you don't like Canzano, I get that. Today he interviews Kyle Whittingham. He says the next round of separation is coming in 2-4 years, the top group will be trimmed to 40-50 or so, and just play each other. Not to be a downer, but in no world are we a top-50 college football program in today's financial environment, especially since we are already not in a P4 conference. Any arrangement with the Big 12 is temporary, because it will "relegate" 1/3 to 1/2 of its programs soon. Get with a G5 league that works now, and be ahead of the game. www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-utah-footballs-kyle-whittinghamAnd sorry, but SMU (Dallas) and Cal (Bay Area) are much more attractive TV partners than we can ever hope to be. 🤣🤣 Have you grown tired yet? Amazing some of your co-posters here know EXACTLY what and who the B12 wants! EVERY thread, EVERY time... it's the B12 will do, the B12 won't do... the ACC will fall, etc. Adamantly posts and re-posts the same "wall droppings". Yet every so often will then admit reality... they don't know didly squat and just make stuff up or rely on BS podcasts. Of course other info that dismisses ("the B12 is NOT interested in OSU"... "the ONLY discussions are in scheduling limited games") said predictions are discarded. I think the word for most of these OSU will go to the B12 posts are... "fabrication". I think OSU, WSU, and the B12 have little to do with how media companies chose to decide who is in or out, and how the spend their $. I think B12 teams will never vote to split their current payouts to add teams. As mentioned above... I think games are about to start. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Aug 11, 2024 18:42:49 GMT -8
A lot of us are posting stuff about football on the football board. Since that's what you're interested in maybe check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Aug 11, 2024 20:21:53 GMT -8
And some just make stuff up on this board!
|
|
|
|
Post by aggielarry on Aug 11, 2024 20:42:41 GMT -8
Hey guys. What's new?  |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Aug 12, 2024 8:42:50 GMT -8
The number of TV sets matters. Not if anyone watches them. That's why Rutgers and Maryland are in the Big Ten. Pretty sure the Big Ten would not bring these schools in now. This theory that the number of tv sets matter is falling apart. It just doesn't have enough of a role in actual tv numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Aug 12, 2024 10:06:11 GMT -8
The number of TV sets matters. Not if anyone watches them. That's why Rutgers and Maryland are in the Big Ten. Pretty sure the Big Ten would not bring these schools in now. This theory that the number of tv sets matter is falling apart. It just doesn't have enough of a role in actual tv numbers. Plus, the metrics have changed. When the "total number of TV sets" in a given region was "the" metric - that was before the digital age we live in today. People watch all sorts of content, and on all sorts of devices - everywhere. The only metric that matters now is the number of actual eyeballs on a given broadcast, and we now have the technology to accurately calculate that.
When games were broadcast over the airwaves exclusively - hard to calculate. Now? Much easier. Having said that, games that are broadcast by CW this season, over the airwaves vs. by cable, satellite or internet, will not help us in our quest to prove numbers of eyeballs.
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Aug 12, 2024 10:48:00 GMT -8
Pretty sure the Big Ten would not bring these schools in now. This theory that the number of tv sets matter is falling apart. It just doesn't have enough of a role in actual tv numbers. Plus, the metrics have changed. When the "total number of TV sets" in a given region was "the" metric - that was before the digital age we live in today. People watch all sorts of content, and on all sorts of devices - everywhere. The only metric that matters now is the number of actual eyeballs on a given broadcast, and we now have the technology to accurately calculate that.
When games were broadcast over the airwaves exclusively - hard to calculate. Now? Much easier. Having said that, games that are broadcast by CW this season, over the airwaves vs. by cable, satellite or internet, will not help us in our quest to prove numbers of eyeballs.
The power conference leaders are no doubt aware of the Pac-2's tv numbers from 2023. Those are the opinions that matter. I don't think those people will put much weight in what tv numbers come in 2024 unless they are much higher than anticipated or stunningly low. |
|
