The CardBoard
Wha?!? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Wha?!? (/thread-212.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Wha?!? - Canalejas - 06-14-2010

I don\'t want to be dicks to Colorado, but I really don\'t want a 12 team league.  There is no way to make the divisions without disappointing someone.  Many proposals out there have us missing one of the LA schools each year.

Boulder isn\'t a bad destination.  Let\'s just continue playing everyone.  Beats scheduling a team like SacState.  And the W would come almost as easily.

Re: Wha?!? - Pastor - 06-14-2010

Quote:can we put colorado up on ebay?

GG...what would we do with the $1.25?

Re: Wha?!? - Pastor - 06-14-2010

Is this a big blunder for the new Commish?  Should he be gone?  After all, seems like he talked very big and then delivered very little.

The impact on the TV contract seems minimal and yet the beautiful symmetry that was the Pac-10 is now gone.

Re: Wha?!? - george - 06-14-2010

Quote:The impact on the TV contract seems minimal and yet the beautiful symmetry that was the Pac-10 is now gone.

Is the impact minimal?  Not to keep dumping on this super crappy situation, but I don\'t see how adding CU and Utah will really make the Pac 1(2)0 significantly more attractive to any networks.  And now we have to split the revenue 12 ways.

The Colorado invite now seems colossally bone headed.

Re: Wha?!? - dabigv13 - 06-14-2010

[Image: 1088osk.gif]

Something I\'ve been thinking for a while now...

Re: Wha?!? - Ratmandoo - 06-14-2010

Quote:Is this a big blunder for the new Commish?  Should he be gone?  After all, seems like he talked very big and then delivered very little.

The impact on the TV contract seems minimal and yet the beautiful symmetry that was the Pac-10 is now gone.

I\'m sure Larry Scott\'s status will all depend on what type of TV deal he can deliver. If each of the Pac-10 teams will make significantly more money than they are currently making with the new TV deal in 2012, Scott is going to be fine. If the Big 12 can lose a name football team like Nebraska and still increase their TV revenue, the Pac-10 should be able to do that (well unless Larry Scott is more incompetent than the Big 12 commissioner - which he may be considering what happened today).

I\'m sure if Tom Hansen were still commissioner, the Pac-10 would still only have 10 teams. He was really good at doing nothing.

Re: Wha?!? - terry - 06-14-2010

Quote:this is the worst of both worlds--no texas and stuck with colorado? can we put colorado up on ebay?
LOL!  Posty award!

Re: Wha?!? - terry - 06-14-2010

I don\'t see the benefit to adding Utah. Adding Utah would be a gift to them because it would promote them to the big leagues, but it wouldn\'t do anything to enhance the conference. Utah certainly would not add to the Pac 10\'s prestige. Nebraska adds to the Big 10\'s prestige; Utah probably detracts from the Pac 10\'s prestige. Utah is a small-market team and wouldn\'t add much economic value. I don\'t think the incremental benefit from adding Utah would be significant enough to justify expansion. I would like to see the conference stay with 11 teams and wait for a better option to develop some time in the future. That\'s what the Big Ten did for years, and it eventually worked out. Better yet, I would like to see the Pac 10 un-invite Colorado . . . but I suppose that ship has sailed, with our new commissioner having already made that commitment.

Re: Wha?!? - Canalejas - 06-14-2010

http://cbs4denver.com/sports/university.of.colorado.2.1751602.htmlHere is a Denver station\'s projection of divisions in a Pac12.

Why would we allow ourselves to be separated from the LA schools?

Re: Wha?!? - yvonne - 06-14-2010

RB,

I was just about the post that, but you beat me to it.  It would be horrible to be split from our traditional rivals.  Stanford has had a rivalry with USC dating back at least to the Vow Boys.

Re: Wha?!? - raja - 06-15-2010

Good find Robber Baron... To summarize:

Source: http://cbs4denver.com/sports/university.of.colorado.2.1751602.html

Also, Utah seems to be happening: http://utah.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094386


The upshot of the two stories: Utah to be the 12th member of the PAC-12, and a new divisional alignment would be "north" and "south" comprising:

Pac12 North:
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford

Pac12 South:
Colorado
Utah
USC
Ucla
Arizona
Arizona State

- MC

Re: Wha?!? - dabigv13 - 06-15-2010

This is what I don\'t understand- where is the outrage? We sold our soul for 10 million more a year, a fraction of the university\'s overall budget. And a number I seriously doubt we will see with Colorado +/-Utah.

We lose the round robin schedule in bball, we lose the natural rival pairings, we increase travel expense, and we may be diminishing hundred year old rivalries. And won\'t we have a lot less ticket revenue if we\'re not hosting USC every year?

Maybe this is good for some schools. Certainly seems good for Utah and Colorado. But it\'s terrible for Stanford and terrible for most of the Pac-10 in my estimation.

Larry Scott singlehandedly destroyed the best conference in the country. But nobody seems to care. Is there something mainstream media is not picking up? I hope so...

Re: Wha?!? - Pastor - 06-15-2010

I am in odd territory here and disagree with Garvin and agree with the Big V.

I think the TV revenue for the schools in the conference will be LESS than it would have been without CO and UT.  We have to split revenue with them and that\'s a drain and in the TV markets they bring, we are already have exposure so it is a net loss.  As V points out, travel expenses etc. will also rise.

I think the presidents will know that they got less than they could have...any comparison with the Big X or other conference will tell them that.

Like CO, I think the sun has set on UT football and expect them to descend to the mediocrity that is CO.  Besides those unis are gawdawful.

Scott has done enough damage and so mismanaged it (wouldn\'t you get TX signed up first?) that he should go back to women\'s tennis...it\'s love - 40 time.

Re: Wha?!? - Canalejas - 06-15-2010

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-big12save061410

Dan Wetzel\'s take on what went down.

Quote:Some even worried that if four 16-team leagues were formed, they’d eventually break free from the NCAA, putting the entire NCAA men’s basketball tournament in jeopardy and potentially crushing scores of excellent programs across the country.

That’s what motivated so many powerful people to call the Big 12 offices in Irving, Texas and offer help.


And another narrative falls, trailing smoke - Redrum - 06-15-2010

Some blogs asserted how the Mountain West would be the big winner.  How, in the wake of the Big 12\'s demise, the Mountain West would pick up some geographically close big schools that expanded the MWC\'s reach.   Only problem with that scenario is, like the Pac=10, the MWC needed a corpse in the water to dismember and the Big12 didn\'t oblige.

The Mountain West picked up Boise State.  Good move and Boise was ready to move up from the WAC.   But it looks like they lose Utah, which takes competitiveness and TV market out of the geographic heart  of the MWC.   Not necessarily a big gain for the Pac 10, but definitely a big enough loss for the MWC if it happens.

Re: Wha?!? - Farm93 - 06-15-2010

I think the conference went for the home run, and instead we have a simply fly ball out at the warning track.  Would it have been better to take a pitch or two?  The answer would seem to be yes.

Getting that Colorado invite public was probably all part of the game, but it sure would have been nice to have a clause that gets the Pac-10 out if Texas did not follow.

I suspect all of the football programs in the North will feel slighted.  They will miss out on getting key visits to the South for recruiting.  Stanford will miss out on USC ticket sales.  But I suspect C.a.l gets the worst deal.  Not only would they miss USC ticket sales, but they would also lose their annual UC battle.  But on the football field the good news would be that the North teams avoid USC\'s division.

Getting Texas would have been a very nice prize.  As it turns out the remaining Big XII teams have let Texas take a very big slice of the conference revenue pie just to remain relevant.  Texas probably deserves that slice, but now that conference will become the UT show.  Without competitive balance my guess is that most audiences will wait to catch the UT show in the postseason.

Re: Wha?!? - Pastor - 06-15-2010

GG:

I don\'t deny that revenue from TV will rise but I think it will not rise enough in comparison with the rises that other conferences will have.  So the presidents will know that 1) they lost money in this fiasco and 2) Scott must have sold them on a lot of things that he did not deliver (this made their expectations even higher so the lesser amount they will get, will seem even less).  I think we agree that CO and UT markets do not add a lot to the Pac-10\'s appeal.

Look how much TX is getting...this will result in true penis envy.

Re: Wha?!? - Pastor - 06-15-2010

just never confuse penile with puerile, they\'re not really contradictory

Re: Wha?!? - fullmetal - 06-15-2010

I think Farm93 is saying what everyone else was thinking...

Can we not just abandon Colorado? :p

Re: Wha?!? - Kathy - 06-15-2010

The blogosphere is full of unsolicited advice. The Bleacher Report suggests the Pac-10 turn its raider\'s eye to the Mountain West Conference and add 4 more schools: Utah, BYU, TCU and Boise State.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406310-pac-10-expansion-alternative-choices