Save the Pac?
Comments
-
Rumors are Okie Lite looking into the Big 10
-
I think adding a couple B1g 12 teams to the B1G might make an expanded east/west B1G, including several Pac teams, more likely. Just a thot.Tequilla said:Rumors are Okie Lite looking into the Big 10
-
All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east. -
Texas tech is more in the New Mexico footprint than where the Texas blue chips are atCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east. -
That's my point. Pac 12 will stand still and watch the Big 12 try to be relevant without Texas and Oklahoma. Who gives a fuck, they sucked before this and they'll suck after this.whatshouldicareabout said:
Big 12 will raid AAC, probably picking up SMU and Houston. Probably won't get adventurous, but if they do, BYU, Boise State, SDSU, and UNLV offer new markets and would put them at 14ntxduck said:No expansion without a guarantee one division would be the pac8. Put the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division with whatever 4 shitheads get added.
But the real answer imho
Oregon should jump ship. They suck ass academically and don't fit within anything but the SEC who is also
Last October it was "rumored" by the shitty Twitter sites (not looking for clicks at all) that SC was going to go independent and Utah was going to go Big 12. The same fear/peapatch porn takes were touted then too.Canadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Reality: all of the schools, including Oregon, bowed down to Stanford and played the 4-7 game preseason shit show.
Reality: the Big 12 is the shittiest, most awkward Power 5 conference full of schools that don't move the needle academically, nor on the field. This is why UT and OU are thinking about leaving.
I hope they do try and take Utah and Colorado from us. Fuck those schools.
Pac 10 with no divisions would be amazing. -
USC is already goneCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east. -
Why would it be amazing? It would still be a shit conference all things considered.haie said:
That's my point. Pac 12 will stand still and watch the Big 12 try to be relevant without Texas and Oklahoma. Who gives a fuck, they sucked before this and they'll suck after this.whatshouldicareabout said:
Big 12 will raid AAC, probably picking up SMU and Houston. Probably won't get adventurous, but if they do, BYU, Boise State, SDSU, and UNLV offer new markets and would put them at 14ntxduck said:No expansion without a guarantee one division would be the pac8. Put the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division with whatever 4 shitheads get added.
But the real answer imho
Oregon should jump ship. They suck ass academically and don't fit within anything but the SEC who is also
Last October it was "rumored" by the shitty Twitter sites (not looking for clicks at all) that SC was going to go independent and Utah was going to go Big 12. The same fear/peapatch porn takes were touted then too.Canadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Reality: all of the schools, including Oregon, bowed down to Stanford and played the 4-7 game preseason shit show.
Reality: the Big 12 is the shittiest, most awkward Power 5 conference full of schools that don't move the needle academically, nor on the field. This is why UT and OU are thinking about leaving.
I hope they do try and take Utah and Colorado from us. Fuck those schools.
Pac 10 with no divisions would be amazing. -
We don't agree on all this, and that's fine.AtomicDawg said:
Why would it be amazing? It would still be a shit conference all things considered.haie said:
That's my point. Pac 12 will stand still and watch the Big 12 try to be relevant without Texas and Oklahoma. Who gives a fuck, they sucked before this and they'll suck after this.whatshouldicareabout said:
Big 12 will raid AAC, probably picking up SMU and Houston. Probably won't get adventurous, but if they do, BYU, Boise State, SDSU, and UNLV offer new markets and would put them at 14ntxduck said:No expansion without a guarantee one division would be the pac8. Put the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division with whatever 4 shitheads get added.
But the real answer imho
Oregon should jump ship. They suck ass academically and don't fit within anything but the SEC who is also
Last October it was "rumored" by the shitty Twitter sites (not looking for clicks at all) that SC was going to go independent and Utah was going to go Big 12. The same fear/peapatch porn takes were touted then too.Canadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Reality: all of the schools, including Oregon, bowed down to Stanford and played the 4-7 game preseason shit show.
Reality: the Big 12 is the shittiest, most awkward Power 5 conference full of schools that don't move the needle academically, nor on the field. This is why UT and OU are thinking about leaving.
I hope they do try and take Utah and Colorado from us. Fuck those schools.
Pac 10 with no divisions would be amazing.
The ACC bores me outside of Miami. And they're more depressing than any former power.
The SEC bores the living fuck out of me, just a bunch of schools with 0 identity outside "it just means more". It's decent when a random school like Kentucky is good but Bama just feasts on everyone and waits for their playoff invite. I don't even watch the iron bowl, nor the marquee A&M matchup with them. 8 games and then just 🧁? JFC. Snoozefest league.
I watch a few B1G games when Pac 12 isn't on, but I mean wgaf about truck stop schools. Their last interesting season was 2016 when they had 3-4 schools in the mix. Last year the second best team was who? Indiana? Completely overrated conference.
The Big 12. lol. Red River Shootout! TCU! Kansas State. Kill me.
Pac 12 has the best parity, the schools are all completely different. No one has been able to monopolize it like the other power 5's, which is a strong indicator that all the schools are trying with the resources they have. They aren't just propping up SC and Oregon for a bigger payout. Other dynamics of the league makes it the most interesting conference, for me. Outside of 2% City the locations are more attractive to travel to. I don't need to go to shitty little college towns in a flat earth, poorer than shit region of the country. -
This sounds like propaganda the AD would send out. Agree to disagree that’s fine.haie said:
We don't agree on all this, and that's fine.AtomicDawg said:
Why would it be amazing? It would still be a shit conference all things considered.haie said:
That's my point. Pac 12 will stand still and watch the Big 12 try to be relevant without Texas and Oklahoma. Who gives a fuck, they sucked before this and they'll suck after this.whatshouldicareabout said:
Big 12 will raid AAC, probably picking up SMU and Houston. Probably won't get adventurous, but if they do, BYU, Boise State, SDSU, and UNLV offer new markets and would put them at 14ntxduck said:No expansion without a guarantee one division would be the pac8. Put the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division with whatever 4 shitheads get added.
But the real answer imho
Oregon should jump ship. They suck ass academically and don't fit within anything but the SEC who is also
Last October it was "rumored" by the shitty Twitter sites (not looking for clicks at all) that SC was going to go independent and Utah was going to go Big 12. The same fear/peapatch porn takes were touted then too.Canadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Reality: all of the schools, including Oregon, bowed down to Stanford and played the 4-7 game preseason shit show.
Reality: the Big 12 is the shittiest, most awkward Power 5 conference full of schools that don't move the needle academically, nor on the field. This is why UT and OU are thinking about leaving.
I hope they do try and take Utah and Colorado from us. Fuck those schools.
Pac 10 with no divisions would be amazing.
The ACC bores me outside of Miami. And they're more depressing than any former power.
The SEC bores the living fuck out of me, just a bunch of schools with 0 identity outside "it just means more". It's decent when a random school like Kentucky is good but Bama just feasts on everyone and waits for their playoff invite. I don't even watch the iron bowl, nor the marquee A&M matchup with them. 8 games and then just 🧁? JFC. Snoozefest league.
I watch a few B1G games when Pac 12 isn't on, but I mean wgaf about truck stop schools. Their last interesting season was 2016 when they had 3-4 schools in the mix. Last year the second best team was who? Indiana? Completely overrated conference.
The Big 12. lol. Red River Shootout! TCU! Kansas State. Kill me.
Pac 12 has the best parity, the schools are all completely different. No one has been able to monopolize it like the other power 5's, which is a strong indicator that all the schools are trying with the resources they have. They aren't just propping up SC and Oregon for a bigger payout. Other dynamics of the league makes it the most interesting conference, for me. Outside of 2% City the locations are more attractive to travel to. I don't need to go to shitty little college towns in a flat earth, poorer than shit region of the country.
I would much rather watch marquee matchups in the sec or when clemson/Ohio state have legit competition in their conference every few years.
Pac12 is a bunch of half full stadiums with mediocre programs for the most part. Auburn is a middle of the pack sec program most years but still beat the pac12 champ the last two full seasons and they just fired their coach for sucking. Sad to see how far the conference has fallen. Not a joke.
i just don’t see it, nor get excited for any of the matchups in the pac12. Ratings show the rest of the country doesn’t care about the pac12 either. But we will always have our academic smack talk. -
When Clemson and OSU have competition? Seems like it's been a long time. Notre Dame sucks. So does Indiana. Michigan and Pedo are done with these staffs. MSU and Wisconsin suck. Virginia and Northwestern are making it to champ games now.AtomicDawg said:
This sounds like propaganda the AD would send out. Agree to disagree that’s fine.haie said:
We don't agree on all this, and that's fine.AtomicDawg said:
Why would it be amazing? It would still be a shit conference all things considered.haie said:
That's my point. Pac 12 will stand still and watch the Big 12 try to be relevant without Texas and Oklahoma. Who gives a fuck, they sucked before this and they'll suck after this.whatshouldicareabout said:
Big 12 will raid AAC, probably picking up SMU and Houston. Probably won't get adventurous, but if they do, BYU, Boise State, SDSU, and UNLV offer new markets and would put them at 14ntxduck said:No expansion without a guarantee one division would be the pac8. Put the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division with whatever 4 shitheads get added.
But the real answer imho
Oregon should jump ship. They suck ass academically and don't fit within anything but the SEC who is also
Last October it was "rumored" by the shitty Twitter sites (not looking for clicks at all) that SC was going to go independent and Utah was going to go Big 12. The same fear/peapatch porn takes were touted then too.Canadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Reality: all of the schools, including Oregon, bowed down to Stanford and played the 4-7 game preseason shit show.
Reality: the Big 12 is the shittiest, most awkward Power 5 conference full of schools that don't move the needle academically, nor on the field. This is why UT and OU are thinking about leaving.
I hope they do try and take Utah and Colorado from us. Fuck those schools.
Pac 10 with no divisions would be amazing.
The ACC bores me outside of Miami. And they're more depressing than any former power.
The SEC bores the living fuck out of me, just a bunch of schools with 0 identity outside "it just means more". It's decent when a random school like Kentucky is good but Bama just feasts on everyone and waits for their playoff invite. I don't even watch the iron bowl, nor the marquee A&M matchup with them. 8 games and then just 🧁? JFC. Snoozefest league.
I watch a few B1G games when Pac 12 isn't on, but I mean wgaf about truck stop schools. Their last interesting season was 2016 when they had 3-4 schools in the mix. Last year the second best team was who? Indiana? Completely overrated conference.
The Big 12. lol. Red River Shootout! TCU! Kansas State. Kill me.
Pac 12 has the best parity, the schools are all completely different. No one has been able to monopolize it like the other power 5's, which is a strong indicator that all the schools are trying with the resources they have. They aren't just propping up SC and Oregon for a bigger payout. Other dynamics of the league makes it the most interesting conference, for me. Outside of 2% City the locations are more attractive to travel to. I don't need to go to shitty little college towns in a flat earth, poorer than shit region of the country.
I would much rather watch marquee matchups in the sec or when clemson/Ohio state have legit competition in their conference every few years.
Pac12 is a bunch of half full stadiums with mediocre programs for the most part. Auburn is a middle of the pack sec program most years but still beat the pac12 champ the last two full seasons and they just fired their coach for sucking. Sad to see how far the conference has fallen. Not a joke.
i just don’t see it, nor get excited for any of the matchups in the pac12. Ratings show the rest of the country doesn’t care about the pac12 either. But we will always have our academic smack talk.
Oregon and Washington choked against Auburn, on the road (Oregon really fucking have that game away) and they also lost to mediocre ASU, Cal, and 2018 Oregon. Auburn has also beat their own conference champ iirc.
Half empty stadiums don't bother me. If schools don't like it, drop ticket prices and serve alcohol. The schools don't seem motivated to do so, but it doesn't mean that people don't care about the league.
Last I checked Pac 12 rivalries and marquee matchups are on prime time slots (Oregon Washington 2019 as an example, and UW was already essentially out of the north at that point). The only exception is the CCG.
Again, I see the new commissioner fixing all of this anyways with a new tv deal, consolidated Pac 12 Network that only has time to show football and basketball, and Vegas champ game. -
-
1. You live in Vancouverhaie said:
We don't agree on all this, and that's fine.AtomicDawg said:
Why would it be amazing? It would still be a shit conference all things considered.haie said:
That's my point. Pac 12 will stand still and watch the Big 12 try to be relevant without Texas and Oklahoma. Who gives a fuck, they sucked before this and they'll suck after this.whatshouldicareabout said:
Big 12 will raid AAC, probably picking up SMU and Houston. Probably won't get adventurous, but if they do, BYU, Boise State, SDSU, and UNLV offer new markets and would put them at 14ntxduck said:No expansion without a guarantee one division would be the pac8. Put the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division with whatever 4 shitheads get added.
But the real answer imho
Oregon should jump ship. They suck ass academically and don't fit within anything but the SEC who is also
Last October it was "rumored" by the shitty Twitter sites (not looking for clicks at all) that SC was going to go independent and Utah was going to go Big 12. The same fear/peapatch porn takes were touted then too.Canadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Reality: all of the schools, including Oregon, bowed down to Stanford and played the 4-7 game preseason shit show.
Reality: the Big 12 is the shittiest, most awkward Power 5 conference full of schools that don't move the needle academically, nor on the field. This is why UT and OU are thinking about leaving.
I hope they do try and take Utah and Colorado from us. Fuck those schools.
Pac 10 with no divisions would be amazing.
The ACC bores me outside of Miami. And they're more depressing than any former power.
The SEC bores the living fuck out of me, just a bunch of schools with 0 identity outside "it just means more". It's decent when a random school like Kentucky is good but Bama just feasts on everyone and waits for their playoff invite. I don't even watch the iron bowl, nor the marquee A&M matchup with them. 8 games and then just 🧁? JFC. Snoozefest league.
I watch a few B1G games when Pac 12 isn't on, but I mean wgaf about truck stop schools. Their last interesting season was 2016 when they had 3-4 schools in the mix. Last year the second best team was who? Indiana? Completely overrated conference.
The Big 12. lol. Red River Shootout! TCU! Kansas State. Kill me.
Pac 12 has the best parity, the schools are all completely different. No one has been able to monopolize it like the other power 5's, which is a strong indicator that all the schools are trying with the resources they have. They aren't just propping up SC and Oregon for a bigger payout. Other dynamics of the league makes it the most interesting conference, for me. Outside of 2% City the locations are more attractive to travel to. I don't need to go to shitty little college towns in a flat earth, poorer than shit region of the country.
2. You really need to get out and travel and go to some games outside the pac12 -
1. False.ntxduck said:
1. You live in Vancouverhaie said:
We don't agree on all this, and that's fine.AtomicDawg said:
Why would it be amazing? It would still be a shit conference all things considered.haie said:
That's my point. Pac 12 will stand still and watch the Big 12 try to be relevant without Texas and Oklahoma. Who gives a fuck, they sucked before this and they'll suck after this.whatshouldicareabout said:
Big 12 will raid AAC, probably picking up SMU and Houston. Probably won't get adventurous, but if they do, BYU, Boise State, SDSU, and UNLV offer new markets and would put them at 14ntxduck said:No expansion without a guarantee one division would be the pac8. Put the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division with whatever 4 shitheads get added.
But the real answer imho
Oregon should jump ship. They suck ass academically and don't fit within anything but the SEC who is also
Last October it was "rumored" by the shitty Twitter sites (not looking for clicks at all) that SC was going to go independent and Utah was going to go Big 12. The same fear/peapatch porn takes were touted then too.Canadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Reality: all of the schools, including Oregon, bowed down to Stanford and played the 4-7 game preseason shit show.
Reality: the Big 12 is the shittiest, most awkward Power 5 conference full of schools that don't move the needle academically, nor on the field. This is why UT and OU are thinking about leaving.
I hope they do try and take Utah and Colorado from us. Fuck those schools.
Pac 10 with no divisions would be amazing.
The ACC bores me outside of Miami. And they're more depressing than any former power.
The SEC bores the living fuck out of me, just a bunch of schools with 0 identity outside "it just means more". It's decent when a random school like Kentucky is good but Bama just feasts on everyone and waits for their playoff invite. I don't even watch the iron bowl, nor the marquee A&M matchup with them. 8 games and then just 🧁? JFC. Snoozefest league.
I watch a few B1G games when Pac 12 isn't on, but I mean wgaf about truck stop schools. Their last interesting season was 2016 when they had 3-4 schools in the mix. Last year the second best team was who? Indiana? Completely overrated conference.
The Big 12. lol. Red River Shootout! TCU! Kansas State. Kill me.
Pac 12 has the best parity, the schools are all completely different. No one has been able to monopolize it like the other power 5's, which is a strong indicator that all the schools are trying with the resources they have. They aren't just propping up SC and Oregon for a bigger payout. Other dynamics of the league makes it the most interesting conference, for me. Outside of 2% City the locations are more attractive to travel to. I don't need to go to shitty little college towns in a flat earth, poorer than shit region of the country.
2. You really need to get out and travel and go to some games outside the pac12
2. No. -
That's not how tv works. If there are PAC teams in Texas then the PAC games will be on TV in texasntxduck said:
Texas tech is more in the New Mexico footprint than where the Texas blue chips are atCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east. -
West Texas is its own market and nothing like San Antonio Austin Houston Dallas.Canadawg said:
That's not how tv works. If there are PAC teams in Texas then the PAC games will be on TV in texasntxduck said:
Texas tech is more in the New Mexico footprint than where the Texas blue chips are atCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Tech has very little influence on the major markets.
Just because a game is on doesn’t mean ppl watch. Networks know this also. -
This isn’t the 1998 abc regional coverage era. Every game is on tv if you want to watch it.Canadawg said:
That's not how tv works. If there are PAC teams in Texas then the PAC games will be on TV in texasntxduck said:
Texas tech is more in the New Mexico footprint than where the Texas blue chips are atCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east. -
"Recruiting footprint." Are you kidding me!? Two top-10 players from withing 30 miles of campus just went to school 2400 miles away. A bigger recruiting footprint just means a bigger area from which kids can LEAVE to go play in the SEC.
-
In 2007, Jen Cohen reached out at Woodward's behest.Gladstone said:meh
First and foremost on Jen's mind: Game Day experience.
The Zone, Jen was jazzed about the Metropolitan Steakhouse booth that would serve steak sandwiches, the cheerleaders walking through the zone pumping up the fans pre-game. Everything was a funnel to encourage the fans move to their seats before kick-off. The players running out of the tunnel to Jimmy Hendrix!
ZERO discussion of the product on the field. ZERO!
Got to hear about her fateful meeting with Don James as a young girl.
Her thoughts spoke volumes and represents the Pac12 mindset -
The fact that I have to stream half the husky games tells me this isn't truentxduck said:
This isn’t the 1998 abc regional coverage era. Every game is on tv if you want to watch it.Canadawg said:
That's not how tv works. If there are PAC teams in Texas then the PAC games will be on TV in texasntxduck said:
Texas tech is more in the New Mexico footprint than where the Texas blue chips are atCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east. -
Fair enough you may be right but adding TCU would solve thatAtomicDawg said:
West Texas is its own market and nothing like San Antonio Austin Houston Dallas.Canadawg said:
That's not how tv works. If there are PAC teams in Texas then the PAC games will be on TV in texasntxduck said:
Texas tech is more in the New Mexico footprint than where the Texas blue chips are atCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Tech has very little influence on the major markets.
Just because a game is on doesn’t mean ppl watch. Networks know this also. -
TCU has SOME interest in the DFW marketCanadawg said:
Fair enough you may be right but adding TCU would solve thatAtomicDawg said:
West Texas is its own market and nothing like San Antonio Austin Houston Dallas.Canadawg said:
That's not how tv works. If there are PAC teams in Texas then the PAC games will be on TV in texasntxduck said:
Texas tech is more in the New Mexico footprint than where the Texas blue chips are atCanadawg said:All of the geographic issues with the PAC are also its strengths in situations like this. You think USC would ever have balls to pull a Texas move? I dont.
In 2020 over 15% of the blue chips came from the existing PAC footprint. Keep in mind there are less than 20% of the total P5 teams in the PAC. Obviously the conference needs to keep them out west but ill ignore that for the moment.
If the PAC adds okie state and for instance TexTech that would immediately open up another over 15% of the total blue chips in Texas to the footprint.
If the PAC adds no one I don't think it will drastically be negative. If they add the Texas footprint they could come out in a decent situation compared to the BIG and ACC. This is obviously moot if there is some kind of super conference (dissolving the ACC) put together out east.
Tech has very little influence on the major markets.
Just because a game is on doesn’t mean ppl watch. Networks know this also.
That interest is still behind Texas, Oklahoma, and TAMU
That’s just FACTS -
That's...fine? It's more about playing there and general interest in the PAC being increased.
I'm aware the recently G5 team is not regarded the same as Texas -
the new conference realignment will provide west coast, primarily local kids in their markets an opportunity to play CFB that in the old model might not have had the opportunity. It's really win-win for everyone, more inclusive and aligns with the values of the University.
-
-
Joining an all AAU conference is probably the only way UW would ever leave WSU behind. We won't leave them for financial or football reasons, but academis arrogance might just be enough to move the needle.rodmansrage said:
FYFMFE -
Maybe only AAU affiliation schools should be allowed to play football? What a bunch of effing elitist snobs.
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members
This is what football needs - research institutes dictating football leagues
-
That is some great thinking, fellow AAU graduate. No one blames the kids for wanting access to better academic conferences.dnc said:
Joining an all AAU conference is probably the only way UW would ever leave WSU behind. We won't leave them for financial or football reasons, but academis arrogance might just be enough to move the needle.rodmansrage said:
FYFMFE -
Pretty sure Oregon CARES enough about football to make the move and drop Boov regardless, but in UW's case this might be the necessary pitch to break up with Cuog.RatherBeBrewing said:
That is some great thinking, fellow AAU graduate. No one blames the kids for wanting access to better academic conferences.dnc said:
Joining an all AAU conference is probably the only way UW would ever leave WSU behind. We won't leave them for financial or football reasons, but academis arrogance might just be enough to move the needle.rodmansrage said:
FYFMFE -
C
How dare do these educational institutions prioritize their original intention (cough and bigger revenue stream) over a cool football conference?LebamDawg said:Maybe only AAU affiliation schools should be allowed to play football? What a bunch of effing elitist snobs.
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members
This is what football needs - research institutes dictating football leagues
If you read nothing else read this about research to understand it’s value: Phil Knight recently cut a check to Oregon for a new research campus that is more than all the combined money he has given the athletic department.
The research institute dictated Big Ten seems to be doing okay. They make more money from athletics than any other conference. The University of Michigan spends $180 million on their athletic department. Their research spending is $1.7 billion. 15 years of athletics revenue at UW is equal to one year of research expenditure.
The presidents of universities are academics/administrators. They tend to care about things like... academics and budgets. Even if they are huge football fans (they’re usually not) they like to base the future of their school on things other than fun football games. Don’t get me wrong, they care to the extent they have to care - which varies wildly from school to school. -
Going to the Big 10 eh?greenblood said:I’d prefer UW, UO, USC, and UCLA just rush to the Big 10.
Texas A&M, Okie St, Nebraska, and TCU aren’t saving this conference.
SC and UCLA would never do that. They’d be better off Independent in the new landscape, should the PAC fall. And then the big picks are UW and UO.
One school actually cares about Sport. The other doesn’t. Despite their research University credentials that seem to be so important.
When the cards tumble, I could see the big fish making their own de facto “Independent” conference.
Rather easily.
