Pac 10 - Big Twelve (Minus 2) Championship Game?
by John Berkowitz on May 11, 2010 11:46 AM PDT
Email
Print
One of the things I have been hearing from sources is that the Pac 10 is not as warm on expanding as they are working out a co-marketing agreement with the Big 12. The bottom line is that while Colorado would be a good a good fit they aren't sold that the Utah market will add enough to provide a significant boost come contract time.
Things haven't changed much since 1994. The Big 12 has three major markets that are worth adding...Texas, Colorado, and Missouri. The Big 12 is in serious danger of losing Missouri and Nebraska who are good fits for the Big Ten. If that happens you are looking at the Big 12 (minus 2).
Pac 10 Commisioner Larry Scott says that while the Pac Ten is interested in expansion they are only interested in expanding into major markets. Read between the lines because the only two feasible major markets out there are Texas and Colorado.
The experts out there say losing Missouri and Nebraska hurts but it is not a death knell for the Big 12. The only thing that sticks a permanent fork in the conference is the loss of Texas. They also say that the Big 12 could fill the void by inviting Arkansas, BYU, Utah, or TCU into the fold.
One theory floating around out there is that maybe contraction can be a good thing for the Big 12. Why add two new schools to the pot that don't add enough to significantly increase revenue for the other members. Maybe splitting the pot ten ways is more lucrative than splitting it twelve ways.
You still have the problem of staging a championship game and negotiating a set of TV contracts that rival the SEC and Big 10. That is where the Pac 10 comes in and that is why the two conferences met together last week in Phoenix. Combined currently the two conferences have a footprint which covers 33% of this countries viewers. That is a huge piece of the pie.
A union between the two conferences could command SEC/Big 10 money. It also has the potential of penetrating into homes East of the Mississippi. Some say the union could result in a network that could penetrate most of the homes in America via cable.
When I am talking union I am not specifically talking merger into a twenty team super conference. Both conferences would be run separately as they are today and just split the TV revenue generated. The Pac 10 wouldn't dictate how the Big 12 divides up money among it's members and vice versa. Not sure how much academic cooperation would be involved either but it could be another carrot for Texas.
Even though the conferences would be run separately they would have to qualify as a single league in football to have a championship game. So somehow they would have to get around that technicality with the NCAA which should be pretty doable with the right filings and administration.
The potential of a USC vs Texas conference championship game in early December is worth a lot of money. It sounds a lot better than USC vs Utah doesn't it? It would rival anything that the SEC and Big 10 could do. They could stage the game on alternating years in Pasadena and Dallas.
The Pac 10 gains a lucrative championship game but they also could lose the direct path of the conference champion to the Rose Bowl in this type of arrangement which is significant. The loser could be invited to another BCS Bowl if worthy or maybe there are no bowl affiliations tied into the championship game.
Lets talk about the Longhorns for a minute. They have the richest athletic department in the country and they control their own destiny. If they wanted membership in the Big Ten they could have it for the asking. Same thing with the SEC, and Pac 10.
There is a favorable split situation in the Big 12 which Texas benefits from. They earn the most TV revenue so they get a bigger split of the pie. They like that arrangement and that is just one of the many reasons they feel comfortable staying where they are. All they want is to be part of a bigger pie. If they can accomplish that by staying put all the better.
The Big Ten currently pays out $22 million to each member every year. The combined values of the Big Ten arrangements net $242 million currently. The new union of the Big 12 (minus 2) and the Pac 10 would have to put together a combined package worth $440 million per year to equal it on a per member basis.
In this scenario I am assuming that Missouri and Nebraska are out. I assume that because both schools have expressed interest in speaking with the Big Ten. I assume that because the AD's of Nebraska and Missouri were the only one's who were not at the meeting in Phoenix.
I think the number one objective of the Pac 10 should be to establish a market in Texas by either expansion or by a working agreement with what is left of the Big 12. The Pac 10 can't afford to lose the Texas market to the SEC. The Pac 10 needs to keep communications open with Texas while they throw a life line out to the rest of the Big 12 in an attempt to keep all their members in check.
We all have heard of the sixteen team super conference model that the Big Ten is considering putting together. Sixteen seems to be the magic number. Two eight team divisions make scheduling a breeze. Would a twenty team confederation mean too many slices of pie and less flexibility? That is what the two leagues need to figure out between now and early 2011.
116 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree that 16 teams is the sweet spot in terms of scheduling, especially for those of us from the old Pac-8. It would allow the PNW schools to not lose their annual L.A. and Bay Area trips, and it would make it easier to draw back in-conference games from 9 to 8 and add an additional out-of-conference game.
Everything indeed rests on Texas – the Big-Twelve (that’s for you crazi) exists for as long as Texas wants it to exist. If they decide to soldier on if schools like Colorado and Mizzou get poached, the conference will grab TCU and another school and carry on.
The question Larry Scott is trying to answer is whether he can make an offer that Texas can’t refuse. The fact that the Pac-10 and Big Twelve are talking marketing partnerships indicates to me that dialog is happening, but a super-conference isn’t necessarily realistic.
With that being the likely case, does the Pac-10 want football championship game money badly enough to endure the scheduling headaches of adding Colorado & Utah, and would that be a net add in terms of revenue for all the teams?
I guess I am completely alone on this one
But I sure as hell don’t want Texas in the Pac 10. Nebraska was the king pin of the defunct Big Eight Conference. The Cornhuskers were as big as Florida is today. Yet once the Huskers and the rest of the Big Eight members joined forces with the Southwest Conference to make the Big 12 Conference, Nebraska since has tail spinned into a mediocrity program. Texas will swallow us up and the rest of the Pacific NW schools just the same way they devoured a powerful Cornhusker program. If Texas can do what they did to Nebraska, then surely their will be nothing left for us.
The single best thing that ever happened to Texas was the formation of the Big 12 Conference. Texas was pretty big back in the Southwest Conference days, but it wasn’t a global entity it is now. Let’s keep in mind that a mighty Nebraska juggernaut program was pushed completely aside while Texas is livin’ large with their new digs. NO on Texas!
All I saw was purple
Nebraska's demise was their own doing.
Nebraska lost one of the best coaches that’s ever walked the sidelines when Osborne retired, and have yet to find his replacement. They might have him in Pellini, but the jury is out. Nebraska’s story is the same as Oklahoma, who finally got it right with Stoops.
Texas hired a great coach that regularly signs one of the best classes in the nation, and is a perennial 10-game winner. And it’s not at Nebraska’s expense; it’s that the University of Texas sits in one of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the nation and Brown has done a PHENOMENAL job of keeping the local talent in Austin.
I understand my blanket statements
And rightfully so, they can be assumed blanket statements. Yet didn’t we see the exact same thing in our own league? In the late 90s and early 2000s Washington looked like it was going to throttle the league for decades to come. Just like Texas, USC hired a coach that changed the potential outcome for us Huskies. Once Pete Carroll arrived USC didn’t look back in over a decade. USC is every bit what Texas is- which are two of the wealthiest football programs sitting right in the middle the most fertile recruiting ground in the country. Indeed Texas “directly” had nothing to do with the demise of the Cornhusker program. Yet indirectly I’d agrue Texas was right at the core of the situation my friend. You see back in the old Big Eight days Nebraska didn’t have to worry about Texas. Yet since the Big 12 has formed and the meat of the recruiting involving the league happens to be Texas. Back in the day more Texas kids were signing with the Big Eight’s Nebraska and/or Oklahoma rather then the home town school in Austin. Texas was big but it was more or less a regional big. Nebraska and Oklahoma in the Big Eight was larger then life and that is why many young Texans signed with the Huskers and Sooners. Now that Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas are all in the same league, many kids are signing with programs much closer to home and that would explain the power the South Division has over the North Division of the Big 12. Evidence: Back in the day the Nebraska/Oklahoma game was a can’t miss football game to watch. Those two schools don’t even play each other every season under the new Big 12 flag. Instead Texas/Oklahoma are the big rival nowadays. Hell I’d even wager that A&M is getting the shaft as well because the Texas/Texas A&M game is meaningless nowadys. What the hell is in the North Division to brag about? Everything in the Big 12 is more or less in the Lone Star State. Texas made a huge hire and Osborne was coming to the end of his coaching career, that had a lot to do with it as well. The bottom line is this, Nebraska is much like Washington in that they can’t simply survive on recruiting in-state kids. Likewise Texas is much like USC who both can. Both made great hires at the right time and both sit directly in the meat of hotbed recruiting regions. So I ask again, do we really want Texas in the Pac 10? Hell I’m not even warm to the thought of Colorado. I think if we do expand we should expand within our region. Sure Utah is not a great tv market, but with the right guidence and direction, we can expand the attraction of the Pac 10 to all corners and all tvs west of the Rocky Mountains. Think about it-
Los Anglelas metro
San Francisico metro
Seattle metro
Pheonix metro
Portland metro
San Diego metro
Salt Lake City metro
… and all tvs far and near of the above metro areas. For the Pac 10 to expand it must fit with how the league is set up. Colorado and Utah is not a great fit together. Likewise adding Houston and Rice is horrble for the Pac 10 too. Expand within our region and market the hell out of it. If marketed well enough we can take away the MWC and WAC’s Boise State buz. It’s not really that impossible.
All I saw was purple
Expand within the existing region, or open up new, lucrative regions? I think there’s a lot more growth in entering the Denver & SLC markets than somehow finding more viewers in our existing regions. Add Texas and A&M to the mix and you add a huge number of new eyeballs to the mix throughout Texas.
As for Nebraska and whether Texas had anything to do with their decline – no, no, a thousand times no. Nebraska did just fine against Texas when Tom Osborne was their coach. Did just fine against Oklahoma too, a program that is just as much of a powerhouse as Texas. It’s all about the coaches. When Osborne retired, Nebraska took a predictable fall – same as with us when DJ resigned. Get the right coach the program will rise again. We may have that guy in Sark, and Nebraska may have their guy in Pellini.
Besides, you’re not reading the proposals carefully enough. A 16-team super conference between the Pac-10 and pieces of the Big-12 would not have the old Pac-8 schools playing Texas regularly – more than likely, in such an arrangement there would only be 1 inter-conference game per year where the Pacific teams were playing the Southwest teams. Texas could dominate their division all they want, and it would have little impact on the UW.
Evidence of new markets in our region
San Diego! I spent four years living down in San Diego and for the majority of the four years spent there, sports fans didn’t follow Pac 10 football. I’d say something to the effect “how about them Washington Huskies”, and they’d have the nerve to reply WHO?
If we can’t grab the attention of a major metro currently in our own Pac 10 region then surely we are doing stuff wrong! San Diego is only an hour drive from LA folks are you kidding? It’s all about marketing and we suck in that department BIGTIME!
P.S. The San Diego market is bigger then Denver.
All I saw was purple
There's no viable school in San Diego.
Besides, the existing Pac 10 already has that market covered.
What?
I just said I spent four years living down in San Diego and for the majority of the time spent, I didn’t find one person who followed Pac 10 football. Sure they know who USC and Ucla are as well as Cal and Stanford, but we don’t have a strong connection to the city other then the Holdiay Bowl- believe me! You say Washington Huskies in San Diego and the first response is WHO?
All I saw was purple
What he means is the Pac-10 already has San Diego as part of their TV coverage area. Maybe there’s more the conference could do to perk up interest in the conference, but I think it’s easier to take over an existing market that has a strong tie to a local team (i.e. Denver/Colorado, SLC/Utah) than build up greater interest in a market where you have no local team.
You're kidding again, aren't you?
You are comparing San Diego to any city in Texas???? People in Texas eat, breathe and sleep football, it’s all they know and it’s all they care about. San Diego has far too many other things going for it, combined with a lousy college football team, to attract enough fans. Funny how the Chargers do just fine in SD, yet SDSU doesn’t get any attention. SD would be a good football market if they had a decent program.
Bottom line, Texas has far more people who care about football and will spend a lot of money to watch it live or on TV. Therefore, it would create far more income.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
What exactly should the Pac-10 do to try to convince people in San Diego to be more interested in the conference? Neither of the major schools in that city are a part of the conference. I think the only realistic way to generate more interest there is to provide more compelling content, i.e. more exciting football. I don’t think there’s a whole lot that marketing alone can do to drum up more interest there, but I agree that the Pac-10 should look at what they can do in that department.
That is the question I think we need to address. I don’t think offering SDSU is the solution, but seems rather odd that many Sandiegoans don’t follow our league and don’t know half the members of our league. Maybe one way we get get tvs turned on in San Diego would be to host the Pac 12 championship game there as the host site. After all it is a neutral environment, attractive city, and a Pac 12 market ready and waiting.
All I saw was purple
I'd travel to San Diego for a championship game.
Not a bad idea.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
So, San Diego doesn't care about the Pac 10...
…but you want to host the championship game there?
Other than the fans of the two teams that actually travel to the game, which might make up 25,000 people total unless one of the LA schools was playing, what makes you think that the city would sell enough of the remaining tickets to fill the stadium?
A championship game that didn’t sell out would be an absolute disaster. It would serve as proof of the Pac 10’s irrelevancy to the rest of the country. If there is eventually a title game, it has to be at a location that can guarantee a sellout. I don’t think San Diego can do that.
The idea is to get that major city humming for the Pac 10
Las Vegas hosts the West Coast Conference Tournament and they don’t have a horse in that race. The idea is provide the league with a neutral championship site, but the more important idea is to tap a new market within our region. Now we may not include SDSU as a Pac 10 member anytime soon, but just think of the merchandizing we can sell to folks in that metro area? If we get folks from San Deigo nuts about Pac 10 football what would that do to the tv deal?
All I saw was purple
Las Vegas is a sports town. San Diego is decidedly not.
And neutral site is your idea, not mine. I’d prefer it to rotate through cities in the conference that have viable stadiums.
Now, explain how you are going to get a population that doesn’t care about its own team to care about teams outside of the area that will play one game a year there? Let’s hear the sales pitch to move all of this Pac Ten merchandise…
San Diego is actually a lot like Seattle
Except that it has the best climate in the country.
by John Berkowitz on May 13, 2010 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Have they been winning much this year?
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Safeco has held attendance pretty well considering the way the team has played since the glory days at the beginning of the decade.
Safeco in fact currently ranks 6th in the AL in attendance – higher than Tampa, Texas, Chicago, Toronto and Oakland among others. These are all teams with equal or better records than the M’s. It has never ranked lower than 7th in the AL in attendance, and that includes some pretty tough years from 2004-6 and 2008.
It’s easy to sit back and say that Seattle sports fans are fickle bandwagon-jumpers that aren’t very passionate about sports. But the reality is our attendance figures across all the major sports disproves that, though I will admit that our demeanor tends to be less aggro than what you’ll find on the East Coast.
But setting record lows for attendance is bad
The only reason they’ve pulled numbers has been gimmicky promotions and two pitchers that are awesome. There was a weekday series where they set the record for lowest Safeco attendance and had something like the 3rd and 5th worst attendance ever….all in one series.
Sure, but again – compare our attendance rankings vs. our winning percentage. Even with yet another losing season in the works we still rank just above the middle of the AL. We outdraw a number of teams that are winning, including the AL West and AL East division leaders, even though we rank as one of the 3 worst AL teams right now.
And also remember that the vast majority of ball clubs use gimmicky promotions to try to boost attendance.
Griffey is a gimmicky promotion
Sorry, I had to
by Brian Floyd on May 16, 2010 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, apathetic was the wrong word.
Fair weather.
With no home team, there’s nothing for a fair weather town like San Diego to get behind.
Best Climate?
Maybe in the continental U.S… I’d say Hawaii’s climate is a bit milder and nicer all-around.
by theseanteam on May 17, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
How do you figure?
San Diego has two schools which are part of California’s state university systems, in UCSD and SDSU, just as Cal and UCLA are, but I wouldn’t call those affiliates of Cal and/or UCLA.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 12, 2010 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, and there's no viable expansion there
It’s also completely unnecessary, as you said. Just put a giant stamp of WA, OR, CA, and AZ, and you’ll have the Pac-10 footprint.
You said Nebraska is a mediocre program in the last thread too
Yet you chose not to respond when it was pointed out to you that they’ve won 19 games the last two years and people are tabbing them as a potential top 10 team this year.
Stop saying it. It’s wrong.
That was good!
I’m just saying that the tv market deal thing is blown completely out of proportion. If we extend ourselves, put forth the effort, and come up with a savvy marketing campaign then we can get tvs turned on for our league. I think one reason why we continue to take the back seat to other BCS leagues is because we are stuck in our old fashion ways of doing things. We didn’t expand when everybody else did, we were one of the very last to accept the idea of “instant replay”, and we won’t let go of our Rose Bowl ties for the BCS system. P.S. the last one I agree with completely!
Let’s face it we’ve sat on our hands and have done really nothing while the rest of the sport has moved on. We’ve been content with our traditions and that’s just peachy great isn’t it? Now our Rose Bowl partners over in the Big Ten are now considering expanding to 12 or even higher and it seems as if us Pac 10ers are now pushing the panic button simply because we’ve done nothing. Do we really need new untested markets? Untested meaning: will Texans or Coloradans go totally nuts over Pac 10 football? I am not in favor of pushing panic buttons, nor am I warm to the thought of expanding to unknown markets. Have we thought about the viablity of our league in those markets? And if so what are the results? The fact is the Pac 10 is viable out west and can dominate college football west of the Rockies if we do this thing correct. If we can dominate the sport out here the East coast media machines will have no choice but to check it out for themselves. I believe in building within, becuase that is where the loyalty is. Am I wrong?
All I saw was purple
You keep talking about Pac 10 football as if the rules are somehow different here.
Texans love college football. So do people in Colorado. The conference affiliation is really pretty meaningless, outside of the teams that you play on a yearly basis.
if Texas was to join, it wouldn’t BE the Pac 10 anymore. It would be the “Insert Name Here” conference, and everyone around the country would eat it up, because Texas is in it, and so is USC, and Oregon, Washington, UCLA, Texas A&M, etc. It would be a deep conference with considerable fire power at the top, and it would encompass two of the three biggest recruiting bases in the nation.
I agree that the Pac 10 has been passed by a little. But even the media partnership with the Big Twelve would be a HUGE step in rectifying that. It’s been said countless times – it’s about money. The Dawgs would get a big chunk of cash on a yearly basis. If the Texas schools actually became a part of some new western US super conference, the Dawgs would benefit tremendously not only in getting expsore in Texas, but also in – you guessed it – money.
Boy oh by did that work out well!
“Insert Name Here” worked out well for the Southwest Conference and the Big Eight Conference didn’t it? That insert name here conference is now well known as the messy Big 12 Conference. Merging not necessarily solves anything. You just run into a whole new obsticles. But if we expand within, where the loyalty lies then it will be undoubtedly a smoother transition.
Theirs nothing worse then a disgruntled employee that wrecks habic among the loyal. Nebraska, Missouri, and Coloradl are the disgruntled empolyees that work in the Big 12 office. Nice analogy isn’t it?
All I saw was purple
Man you guys have me off my game.
I’m having a problem word processing my argmements.
All I saw was purple
Messy? How so?
Other than the changing college football landscape, the Big Twelve is sitting pretty.
What loyalty are you talking about? There isn’t some regional bond that exists with the Pac 10 and schools in close proximity not in the conference.
Arizona and Arizona State
Both came form the old WAC in 78 and have stayed true to the Pac 10 without the hint of relocating. Whose to say that Colorado in a few years thinks about vacating as they are right now? Whos to say that Texas doesn’t use it’s “power” to it’s own advantage and thrust it’s will on others [see Big 12 North complaints].
All I saw was purple
The Pac 10 is the benchmark, we don't need a hired gun
And if we eventually decide to promote a smaller program within our region and invite them as a member, how big do you think that loyalty will be? HUGE! Every MWC and WAC program would flat out jump at the chance to be a Pac 10 program- JUMP! I’m not convinced that Colorado and or anybody outside our region would react the same way. Promote within and we have the loyalty on our side. Hire outsided and we have nothing more then a hired gun.
All I saw was purple
Loyalty doesn't pay the bills.
There are two viable candidates when you take a look at all sports and academics. BYU is a complete non-starter. It will never, never, never happen. Cal and Stanford would never allow it, and they refuse to play sports on Sundays. Utah is the only other one. They are currently in play.
Every other school either doesn’t make the grade academically, doesn’t bring in enough revenue to make it worthwhile (a net drain on the conference), and/or simply can’t compete on the field.
Loyalty schmoyalty.
By your own definition, ASU and Arizona are merely hired guns that haven’t gotten better offers yet.
Then live within your means
I think it is critical that our new Pac 10 commisioner gets this expansion thing right. One way or another I think it will define his status as league commisioner. It will either be a leg up or a step backwards.
All I saw was purple
That’s a cute way of saying the Pac 10 should just sit still and watch the world go by.
It’s just not reality. If the Big Ten goes to 14, or 16 teams, the Pac 10 HAS to act. Your way of thinking is simply more of the same ol’, same ol’. Which is in direct contradiction with your stance that it’s time to “stop letting the Big Ten dictate things,” by the way.
Think big.
You guys are all caught up in this thing
Get your hand away from the panic button. The Big Ten hasn’t made one move yet and we already think we’re obsolete out here.
Yes I think we promote within our region first. That will get us up to 12 members and be in line with the rest of the BCS leagues. The Big Ten is going to take only one more program, making it 12 as well. Now I am not saying expansion stops there. Eventually we’ll probably be all 16 member leagues. Until then we need to catch up don’t we? I beleive the first step is to catch up to 12, if we see it trending even higher then sure we’ll have to do the same. That’s probably the reason we are discussing things with the Big 12, that and a new partnership tv deal.
Don’t think for a second that if we get Texas it won’t be ours, Texas will take a big chunk of the ownership of the league. Before too long the league offices will be located in Texas. Now I might be alittle over the top on this thing, all I am saying is be careful what you wish for. No on Texas!
All I saw was purple
You’re more than a “little” over the top on your fear of Texas. Again, the Pac isn’t going to bring them in unless it works for the conference.
And we are obsolete compared to the SEC and Big-10 when it comes to revenue – we are waaaay behind. That’s a big reason why you hear expansion talk with the Pac-10, to see if it will help drive up our TV revenue as those expired deals get renegotiated and the conference looks into starting up their own network.
How can you consider the Big 12 sitting pretty?
Theirs rumors of the league completely blowing up man. VERY Messy when major programs like Nebraska and Colorado think they can do better elsewhere. MAJOR MESSY!
All I saw was purple
They field great teams.
TONS of money.
If expansion happens, the Big Twelve is no more and this is a moot argument. If it doesn’t, it’s all water under the bridge and the affiliated schools go back to doing things just the way they are.
Infighting doesn’t equate to “a mess.” Happens in every conference, every day.
What you’re describing about teams wanting to leave has more to do with the changing landscape of college football than it does the Big Twelve.
It's no secret...
… that the majority of the Big 12 North programs are satisfied playing second fiddle to Texas and Oklahoma. Not when you are a proud program of Nebraska. After awhile it has to really bother you that all the power in the league is south of Oklahoma.
All I saw was purple
You’re making waaaay too much of this line of thinking. What makes you think Nebraska would be in any better position in the Big-10 competing against Ohio State, Penn State & Michigan?
This is about two things: the Big-10’s much better TV deal and the prestige and knowledge sharing of joining a premier academic conference.
Which is also what it would be about
for Texas and others in joining the Pac 10. What I think crazi’s missing about the Big 12 isn’t on the football field, much as he’s trying to make it so, it’s about the relationships between the universities and the conference structure at an academic and organizational level (the built-in structural imbalance favoring Texas, for instance). Merging as such doesn’t create the problems he’s talking about, it’s when you do it incompletely or badly. Why would Nebraska be in a better position in the Big Ten? Because the Big Ten will do this right, most likely; because it’s a real conference at every level, and I imagine they’ll keep it that way — as the Pac 10 will, too, I’m sure, if they do wind up expanding.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 12, 2010 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Nebraska
They would fair better against PSU, Michigan, Mich State, OSU, etc then they do against Oklahoma, Texas. People in the Big 10 are just as crazy as any where else in the country but the competition would take a slight step back. Nebraska would be a top dog in the Big 10, as opposed to second tier like they are in the Big 12.
Why do we need exposure in Texas?
Nebaska thought that was going to work out well for them too. Now they are thinking of leaving. If Texas was all that then tell me, why is Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado considering leaving? If it is so great to have a partnership with Texas then why leave?
Say NO to Texas!
All I saw was purple
Top 100 TV Markets - Why we need exposure in Texas
2. Los Angeles
5. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
6. Dallas Fort Forth
10. Houston
13. Phoenix
14. Seattle
18. Denver
23. Portland
27. San Diego
31. Kansas City
35. Salt Lake City
37. San Antonio
43. Las Vegas
52. Austin
55. Fresno
73. Des Moines/Ames
77. Spokane
92. Tri Cities
94. Colorado Springs
95. Waco
by John Berkowitz on May 11, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
And EVERYBODY in Texas
is a football fan. People in Texas will watch football games. People in San Diego will go to the beach.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
The economy in Utah is growing leaps and bounds
The state of Utah is growing exponentially. Califronians are moving in and businesses are expanding and relocating to the Bee Hive State. In the 80s and 90s Arizona was growing exponentially, we took both Arizona and Arizona State in 1978- good timing on the Pac 10 behalf. What’s to say that Utah doesn’t catch up with the other highly populated states out west in a few years.
Utah has the potential to be a viable Pac 10 state. What happens to the state of Texas if the oil industry goes belly up? We all saw first hand how the automobile industry has wrecked habic in the State of Michigan. Don’t jump to conclusions my friends, this is a very important decision, one that can effect our league in so many different ways. Consider all before jumping to incomplete conclusions that Texas is the correct move.
All I saw was purple
But why take an up and comer
when you can have established markets? If we snag Tejas now, then we can negotiate a huge TV deal and if everything tanks we can restructure in 10-15 years when the deal is up…by that time SLC could be a real money market.
We’re not dealing in futures here, we need proven markets and Texas has them.
Texas
Texas blew up the old Southwest Conference and have now blown up the Big 12 Conference. Again, not directly but indierctly at the core of the problem. Who’s to say that Texas wouldn’t indirectly do the same to the Pac 10?
All I saw was purple
Texas is trying to save the Big 12
Missouri and Nebraska are the one’s that are closer to the accusation of blowing it up.
by John Berkowitz on May 12, 2010 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't agree
The major issues in the Big 12 are:
1. the academic side of the argument
2. Unequal revenue sharing for all parties
Seems to me that all or at least most of the issues that Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri have in regards to the Big 12 could be remedied if Texas opted out of taking more of the their share of the pie. Why the hell the rest of the league affiliates accepted this position in the first place is just mind boggling. A league is suppose to be a partnership and in the Big 12 it’s just not happening.
Say NO to Texas!
All I saw was purple
If Texas was all that then tell me, why is Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado considering leaving?
A variety of reasons:
- Unequal revenue distribution: Texas gets a bigger cut of the pie than other schools in the conference. Unlike the Pac-10, Big-12 schools don’t share the pie evenly – Texas gets a bigger cut, and the perception is that they have too much influence on how the conference is run.
- In the case of Colorado, they have more in common with the Pac-10 than the Big-12 – they have a lot of alumni in California, they recruit heavily in the West, and most importantly, unlike the Big-12 the Pac-10 is also a conference academically and the connections between all of our upper-tier research schools mean a great deal to the University presidents, and Colorado would love to be a part of that culture.
- Similarly, Mizzou and Nebraska would benefit greatly in an academic sense by joining the Big-10 (another one for you crazi), and they would also increase their athletic revenue significantly by being a part of the Big-10 and their much superior TV deals.
Adding Texas would add considerably to the prestige of the conference and would allow for a major boost in TV revenue. Adding Texas (if they are willing and the financials pencil out) could be a huge win for the conference.
So what then?
Have any of you consider the possible ramifications of all this? Have you really considered how a Texas partnership with the Pac 10 could possibly play out?
Maybe since we are talking about a larger piece of the pie here, what do we we say to an eventual a weed out process spilling over in order to increase the size of the piece of the pie. Say Texas, USC, and Ucla who’d have significant voice in the league says they need to trim back some of the smaller Pac 10 schools. Let’s say WSU and Oregon State are asked to vacate their prestige regarding the league in a few short seasons. Then what? It then becomes a top heavy league doesn’t it? But does it stay top heavy for the long haul? Eventually the programs that are considered middle of the Pac programs will become more or less the bottom feeders of the program where traditionally WSU and Oregon State hold that status. And with Washington’s far north placement within the league it may become harder and harder for Washington to compete when it is so far and more or less a middle of the pac program. Ask Nebraska how that worked out for them too over the course of time.
Things look good on paper, but I’m still not convinced expanding outside our perameters is the solution. I don’t care how soft and cuddily you make Texas out to be. They are in it to win, they have all the power in the Big 12 and have used that power to get all the Big 12 advanages- don’t think for a second that couldn’t and won’t happen in the Pac 10.
All I saw was purple
You seem to think the Pac 10 is an athletic alliance.
That is simply not the case. It’s academics, first and foremost. No school is going to be able to force another out unless it fails to meet certain criteria. That’s just the way it is. I can absolutely guarantee that the Pac 10 schools won’t enter into an agreement with Texas if there was some sort of ouster clause with regards to athletic revenue written into the conference charter.
Ask Nebraska how that worked out for them too over the course of time.
The only thing that happened to Nebraska is they failed to adequately replace an all-time great coach – hardly a surprise. They had a great run under Devaney and Osborne, but couldn’t get lightning to strike three times in a row. They’ll be great again with the right coach, and that may well be Pelini. What Texas did had little to do with what happened at Nebraska.
I don’t care how soft and cuddily you make Texas out to be. They are in it to win, they have all the power in the Big 12 and have used that power to get all the Big 12 advanages- don’t think for a second that couldn’t and won’t happen in the Pac 10.
Texas wields a lot of power, that is true. But the Pac-10 is not going to add them if doing so requires that Texas get an unequal share of the pie. And you still ignore the academic side of the equation, which is a big part of all of this – in that regard, the Pac-10 holds a lot of leverage. I’ll let you in on a little secret – research funding dwarfs even the athletic revenues at Texas. Becoming a part of the Pac-10 would benefit Texas academically in a big way.
That’s true. But that fan base was spoiled – they got lucky in having Osborne succeed Devaney and expected to replace Osborne without skipping a beat. Solich wasn’t as good as Osborne, but he was pretty good. I think that fanbase would love for Pelini to crank out seasons as good as what Solich had – at least for a while, then they’ll start demanding National Championships… ;)
And that's the key
For Texas, the allure in joining the Pac 10 would be on the university-prestige side of things, as well as in greater access to the SoCal recruiting base. Either of those things would make it well worth it for them to come in on a purely equal footing, let alone both.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 12, 2010 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I understand the logistics on the academic side
But don’t sit here and tell me that Texas is going to play 2nd fiddle to anyone. Let’s take a history lesson pertaining to Texas athletics, particularly football. Before the Big 12 partnership we had the Big Eight Conference and the Southwest Conference. Nebraska and Oklahoma dominated the Big Eight. But that’s not my point.
Down South you had the Southwest Conference and if you remember correctly Texas dominated that league- TOTALLY DOMINATED. Texas had only one national championship during their Southwest hay days. Can we conclude that maybe one reason has to do with how the Southwest Conference was perceived? Is it likely? The college football world didn’t think very highly of the Southwest Conference. You simply had one big fish in that pond- Texas. Yet the perception of the league is not accurate. You also had Texas A&M, Arkansas, SMU, and Houston in there. Texas was so big it was perceived as carrying the league, to a point that you thought of Texas over the Southwest Conference. Texas was larger then the league.
(Warp speed to present day)
Do we not see the same things happening today in the Big 12? Texas is bigger then the Big 12, just like they were bigger then the Southwest. How the hell can one school dictate to the league that they require a larger piece of the pie? I ask the question one more time. If Texas was such a great partnership then why is Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri considering the thought of leaving? It can’t be that great of a partnership if all three have made it public that they intend to look elsewhere.
Say NO to Texas. The defunct SWC is a great example and the issues resinating from the present Big 12 is another example of how truly powerful the Longhorns are. They will take the Arizonas, both Oregons, and probably both Washington’s spit them out and leave nothing in there wake. Just say NO!
All I saw was purple
Sure they dominated the SWC, but then again there weren’t any other significant programs in that league to challenge them like Oklahoma or Nebraska. Nebraska dominated the Big-12 for the first few years when Osborne was coach. And Texas and Oklahoma have shared domination of the Big-12 since then. It’s all about the coaches crazi – Texas was not all that in the time in between Darrell Royal and Mack Brown.
Sorry, I just don’t get your paranoia about Texas. Yes, they are a big, powerful program. But they’ve never been in a conference that was as strong as the Pac-10 before, and I mean that in a comprehensive sense – that Pac-10 isn’t just about athletics, it’s as much about academics. Stop thinking purely in terms of athletics and you’ll understand the real dynamics at play.
To be clear, I’m not saying I think it’s inevitable that Texas joins the Pac-10. If it happens, it’s because it works for both parties, and for the Pac-10, I believe they will insist on full sharing of revenues – no bigger slices for some parties.
Arkansas, Texas A&M, and SMU
Were all major powers in the SWC. Are you too young to remember how big these guys were? SMU use to be a big time program and now they are considered a mid major due to both the death penalty and the breakup of the SWC. Maybe one reason why Arkasas split town to the SEC was because Texas had too much influence in the league. That has to be accurate because every school in the SWC was from Texas except Arkansas.
All I saw was purple
Dig deeper
Of all the schools that have had to rebuild over the past 20 or so years they all have one thing in common other then coaching changes.
NCAA MAJOR RULE SANCTIONS
Miami dealt with it, Oklahoma dealt with it, and Washington dealt with it. Nebraska on the other hand have not. So to say that their demise is simply not having the right coach is place is not completely accurate. Nebraska hasn’t been in any sort of trouble, they have the facilities, they have the academics, they have the tradition, they have the enormous fan base and yet they have been mediocre at best for the last decade. this program should be winning and should’ve been winning. Why have they stunk? Because they are located up in the Big 12 North wasteland. Sure Texas directly didn’t have anything to do with the fall of the Cornhuskers, but indirectly they are at the core of the issue. Texas has everything it wants and has complete control of the Big 12, why would they lift a finger? Texas is in it for themselves and if they opt out of the Big 12 don’t think for a second that they won’t use their persuation to get what they want. Texas comes with a price for both the SEC and the Pac 10. Be careful what you wish for…
All I saw was purple
Huh?
You’re out of your mind if you think Nebraska stunk. They screwed up coaching hires. Calling it a wasteland is discount the long amount of time they’ve been good (including last year).
Last year?
I think we already covered this. Last year was all about one dominating peformance by a defensive tackle named Suh. Without Suh Nebraska is middle of the pack at best and if my memory serves me right, I believe they completed the season at 7-5. Hardly great compared to what Cornhusker fans are accustom to.
All I saw was purple
9 wins
And your point was they “fell off” because they are in the Big 12 North. That just isn’t true.
They completed the season at 10-4
They won the Big Twelve (ha!) North, and nearly beat Texas for the Championship. Suh was great, but a defensive tackle doesn’t win 10 games on his own.
Then I stand corrected
Everybody seems to be slobbering all over the thought of Texas coming to the Pac 10. I however am a voice of reason and have been simply trying to convey the message that we need to be cautious of the thought of Texas coming to town. I personally don’t like it. I see much power and influence with Texas to a point that it could possibly split our league later down the road if Texas can flex their muscle. It happened in the SWC and it’s happening now in the Big 12. Directly Texas is not involved with the Big 12 breakup, but indirectly they are part of the problem. That is all I am saying. Time for a new topic…
All I saw was purple
The Pac has been around a long time crazi. If Texas were to join and at some later date split the conference, chances are the original Pac-8 are going to stick together.
Continue ignoring the academic part of this argument at your peril – it carries far more influence than you seem to be willing to acknowledge.
Again, I understand the academic issue involved. I fully understand that both Oklahoma and Oklahoma are nothing more the football factories, an Oklahoma degree does not carry the weight of a degree from Washington.
Texas is intrigued due to the academics involved. And that is the same reasons why Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri are looking elsewhere. In terms of marketing Texas would push the Pac 10 to the elitest of elite conferences, I concure with that. However, I cannot sit back and deny the power and influence Texas has used during their history in order to get what they’ve wanted. Move over Notre Dame, your not on top anymore. The Texas Longhorn athletic dept. is the richest and wealthiest dept. in the country. To me it would be the equivelent to inviting the NY Yankees to join your league.
All I saw was purple
But both sides have leverage here crazi, it’s not one-sided. Texas isn’t interested in the SEC, but they might have interest in the Pac-10. Why? Mostly due to the academic alliances they would then become a part of.
If the Pac expands to 12 with Colorado & Texas, the power would still lie primarily in L.A. If the Pac were to expand to 16, Texas would likely dominate the SW division, but the original Pac-8 in the Pacific division would still find the power centered in L.A.
I just don’t see the bogeyman scenario you are proposing.
Arizona & Arizona State
Are we then going to turn our backs on our brothers down in the desert? Boy how loyalty stinks these days. I think it is really a slap in the face to continue talking about the original 8 members of the Pac. Arizona and Arizona State are just as much apart of the Pac as is all the rest.
I’m not in it for just all the money. We also have to consider stability, loyalty, and prestige.
All I saw was purple
Translation:
We, meaning everybody involved with the decision making process of how we inted on expanding our league.
All I saw was purple
It’s simple geography – if the Pac were to expand to 16, the most logical scenario is splitting between the Pacific Coast schools and the South West schools. Besides, Arizona and ASU recruit in Texas already, and being in that division would help in that regard.
Your paranoia is really amusing. Texas is the DEVIL!
Not the devil
More like a leach that consumes every resource at it’s disposal. They moved on after they had consumed every resource in the SWC and now it seems as if the Big 12 will crumble due to Longhorn greed.
All I saw was purple
Once again, if Texas joins the Pac, it will be on terms that are agreeable to both parties. The Pac isn’t going to let Texas waltz into the conference and continue to get a bigger slice of the revenue pie, and they’re not going to bow to Texas hubris. There’s as much (if not more) in it for Texas to join the Pac and access our group of top-tier academic research Universities as there is for the Pac to gain the TV revenue bump of having the Longhorns in the conference.
Great!
Then from my perspective we really don’t have to worry about Texas at all. Why would Texas trump their next egg? Leaving altogether their SW roots would cripple the shorties if they played out west. The only way any of this works, is if the Pac agrees to a West Coast Division and a Southwestern Division, that would then require more then just ASU and Arizona in mix for a SW division. Not hardly…
All I saw was purple
That’s what I’ve been advocating for – one division with the Pac-8, and a SW division with the Arizona schools, Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, Utah and 2 more holdovers from the Big-12 (possibly the Kansas schools).
Or even bigger – let Mizzou & Nebraska walk to the Big-10 and form a partnership between the remaining 10 from the Big-12 and the Pac-10 with a championship game and shared TV negotiations and revenue.
Texas is a serious rainmaker
Any type of relationship the Pac 10 can build with Texas is a good thing now and into the future.
You have to factor in that unlike the Big 12 we just happen to have some major markets in the Pac 10.
by John Berkowitz on May 13, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
The Pac 10 is a big city league and their is a lot of potential to expand our market in our cities.
I am on board, see John’s latest topic. As long as we have equal revenue sharing and all current Pac 10 teams are invited in regards to expansion.
But keep in mind, Texas won’t come alone. They aren’t going to come out west by themselves, that does them no good. Bet that A&M, possibly Baylor, Colorado, and a few other Plain state schools come too, if this can all be worked out of course.
All I saw was purple
There’s little doubt that Texas A&M is a package deal with Texas. But unless the Texas State Legislature demands that Baylor and Texas Tech also go along with Texas, I really doubt the Pac would invite Baylor. The conference is composed of secular schools, and I think they have very little interest in adding a religious-affiliated private school.
I would guess that the Kansas schools would be strong contenders to get invited – Kansas is an AAU school, both are higher level research institutions, both are decent at football, both are great at basketball, and there’s some pull with the Kansas City market by having Kansas.
I had wondered
if this would be a viable option. I didn’t see how they could make it work, but if they could, it would probably be the simplest solution.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 11, 2010 12:43 PM PDT reply actions
I'm calling all this expansion talk a conspiracy
This is all water cooler stuff. Maybe the sport and media are just trying to keep a buz going for college football during the deadest of dead periods. After Spring Games have come and gone leading into early summer is the deadest of all dead periods for the college football fan. Maybe this expansion talk is all a way to keep the interest level high so the sport and all forms of college football media keeps pulsing. Just a thought…
All I saw was purple
Yes I do
Look at how many hits this topic and been hit on this blog by itself. This topic just came online only yesterday and how many hits has it taken?
Big Ten will take one more school, making it an even 12 so that they can play and conference championship game. Meanwhile the Pac 10 is considering expansion, but no leg work is really in the process. Sure we are negotiating with the Big 12 to form a television partnership but that is all. Stop pushing the panic button my friends. The sun will rise tommorrow…
All I saw was purple
GOVENOR HAIR OF TEXAS
Has announced his intention to secede from the USA. Do we really want to travel to a foreign country, passports, homeland security? Who will pay for moving the border fence? Yah, think this out!!!
Wowza...
I find it pretty ironic that someone that dubs them-self Crazidawg going up against nearly everyone on the forum calls himself the voice of reason.
Ask UT fans how happy they were with the program prior to 2004 (Hello Cotton and Holiday bowls!). Texas didn’t really dominate like the Big 12 until relatively recently. And even then, they have like 1 NC, 1 runner up and just one other BCS game to their name.
Granted, they get a larger cut of the Big12 pot… they also contribute more. I would highly doubt they’d get such a sweet deal in the Pac.
I love that first line
I find it pretty ironic that someone that dubs them-self Crazidawg going up against nearly everyone on the forum calls himself the voice of reason.
I think that just made my day.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
UT domination is relatively new, I agree
Let’s look at this further. The defunct Southwest Conference was more or less a regional league, which encompassed all the Texas programs and one out of state member, Arkansas.
Being regional did very little to help recruiting. Many young Texas recruits were swooped up by Barry Switzer of OU and Tom Osborne at Nebraska in the Big Eight Conference. If you care to remember the Big Eight was everywhere and in all corners of the nation. Big Eight football more precisely Oklahoma and Nebraska were global icons. In essense Switzer and Osborne were going into Texas and taking all the best Texas kids possible. Playing for OU or Nebraska meant playing for national titles and Orange Bowls. Playing for Texas meant you were competing for a regional league title in your home state of Texas and having the pleasure of playing in the lower perstigeous and in-state Cotton Bowl [yawn].
Finally the Southwest Conference broke apart, Texas wanted the bigger prize. Notice how all the original Big Eight schools were invited to the newly aligned Big 12 Conference, while only the wealthiest programs of the old SWC were invited? Texas new exactly what this move meant to them. They were stuck in an old outdated league that was regional at best, and their reward for playing well was staying home and playing in the Cotton Bowl. With the invitation to the new Big 12 super-Conference meant that Texas could go global like Oklahoma and Nebraska. Moreover it not only meant that the program had the availabiltiy to play on the big stages, it could then in turn lure many of it’s in-state recruits to stay home rather then to leave for OU and Nebraska. Everything that the Sooners and Huskers had, Texas now had. It was a very bold move and brilliant at the same time. It created a dynasty that Texas will not relinguish now or in the immediate future.
To make matters worse after Tom Osborne wins back to back national titles, the old ball coach retires. It couldn’t have been worse timing for Husker fans. Indeed Nebraska made a lousy hire in Callahan and his west coast offensive philosophy was bound to fail. Cornhusker football is about tough defense and a solid and dominating running game. In the end Callahan couldn’t sell his west coast style and it eventually did him in.
theseanteam brings up Texas’ run of Cotton and Holiday Bowls- umm theseatteam did you not see the wheels in motion? That was all in the beginning of the Mack Brown era, since then Texas has become one of the premere football programs in the entire country, they currently sit one chair behind Meyer’s Florida Gators. Are you freankin’ kidding me with your ill-advised jabs of bafooonery. Texas is no longer just competing for the state title of the defunt SWC and Cotton Bowls. It is the richest and wealthies athletic department in the country. Instead they compete annually for national titles.
All I saw was purple
Ill-advised jabs?
Do you read everything or just skim and pull things to focus on?
All I was saying is Texas was not the big boy dominating things as YOU alluded to when they formed the Big XII. Yes, they are definitely a top-5 program now, but while they have the football market numbers, they weren’t quite as prestigious win/program-wise.
They really broke through in 2004 busting through and are now a fixture in the NCG discussions…
I also noticed you mentioned about adding the Yankees to the league. Why wouldn’t you? Do you know that the Yankees help fill seats and bring eyeballs to television screens? I’m pretty sure they the highest visitor turnstile and television ratings of any of the teams in the MLB. What does that mean? More $$$$.
In the grand scheme of things, it sounds like you are afraid and intimidated of big, bad Texas. You’d rather be the big fish, in the little pond (and who’s to say UW is the big fish, we’re large, but I’d still give the edge to ‘SC). Unfortunately there are more ponds beyond the pond known as the Pac-10. There’s the SEC (hello last FOUR NC’s) and a possibly revamped Big-10 (10? HA!) who’s ponds are not only much larger, but are filled with much larger fish. The small pond not only brings smaller revenues, but also can be limiting on the size of the fish. While we have some decently sized fish like USC (maybe not after today,heh!), UW and Oregon, without the revenues (TV network and/or championship game), it’s hard to keep up with the others on a national scale.
Which is my point… to be the best, you need to beat the best. Adding quality schools (both academically and athletically) to the conference will make things more challenging, but the best programs will rise to the occasion and be better and stronger for it.
by theseanteam on May 14, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Missouri's governor basically slams the big 12 today
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, an avid sports fan, is among the most outspoken supporters of a Missouri move to the Big Ten. He cites the league’s academic excellence, noting that each of its 11 members, like Missouri, is an AAU member.
“We should look at it if it’s offered,” he told reporters Wednesday.
Zimbalist called Big Ten membership a step up in prestige and national recognition for both Missouri and Nebraska, which has also been mentioned as a possible expansion target. Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame are among the other schools seen as potential additions.
“Going to the Big Ten is a step up in branding, it’s a step up in reputation,” he said.
Not the Missouri governor.
The analyst said that!
Seems like people are missing the point
Lots of interesting comments here. But the writer was positing a scenario that has the Pac-10 and Big 12 staying essentially separate except for a championship game. his, I hink, is an ousandin idea.
The resulting comments IMO are based on the possibility that if the Big-12 suffers too many defections (Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado) then maybe Texas decides to bolt too which would effectively kill the conference. If that happens, everything is on the table, including the Pac grabbing the most attractive schools and forming a 16-team super-conference.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
