[JeffInCorvallis]

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...part1.html

Discuss. 

Talking points:

• Pac-12 spends more on salaries, rent, and travel than other Power 5 conferences (headquarters in downtown San Francisco)
  
• SEC and Big 10 distribute more to member schools than Pac-12 (article does not reference ACC or Big 12 - I suspect they are comparable to Pac 12)
  
• Pac 12 runs its own TV network in contrast to other conferences. It hasn't worked out so well after being dissed by DirecTV and now AT&T. (I thought this was a good strategy when they started as Pac-12 could distribute via Internet and bypass the cable companies but for some reason that hasn't happened. Contractual?)
  
• Pac-12 now pretty regularly gets shut out of CFP as we are all painfully aware. I contend this is more about parity than it is talent disparity but it's hard to argue that the Pac-12 shows up well in marquee matchups against SEC and B10 teams (see 2017-18 bowl season). 
  
• Well-publicized interference with officiating (WSU-USC targeting non-call).
  

Part 1 of a 4-part series from the Oregonian.

[JeffInCorvallis]

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...part1.html

Discuss. 

Talking points:

• Pac-12 spends more on salaries, rent, and travel than other Power 5 conferences (headquarters in downtown San Francisco)
  
• SEC and Big 10 distribute more to member schools than Pac-12 (article does not reference ACC or Big 12 - I suspect they are comparable to Pac 12)
  
• Pac 12 runs its own TV network in contrast to other conferences. It hasn't worked out so well after being dissed by DirecTV and now AT&T. (I thought this was a good strategy when they started as Pac-12 could distribute via Internet and bypass the cable companies but for some reason that hasn't happened. Contractual?)
  
• Pac-12 now pretty regularly gets shut out of CFP as we are all painfully aware. I contend this is more about parity than it is talent disparity but it's hard to argue that the Pac-12 shows up well in marquee matchups against SEC and B10 teams (see 2017-18 bowl season). 
  
• Well-publicized interference with officiating (WSU-USC targeting non-call).
  

Part 1 of a 4-part series from the Oregonian.

[winflop]

I can't wait for parts 2 3 and 4. Pile on todays news that AT&T U-verse is dropping Pac-12 Networks.

I plan to send these articles to every Pac-12 University President. Scott needs to go. NOW

[winflop]

I can't wait for parts 2 3 and 4. Pile on todays news that AT&T U-verse is dropping Pac-12 Networks.

I plan to send these articles to every Pac-12 University President. Scott needs to go. NOW

[fullmetal]

Great article, searing indictment.  The conference is spending a lot for very little comparable result.  Also, trying to develop your own media vertical sounds like a money pit.  Outsource your needs to a contractor and focus on your core competency.  Larry Scott is living large at the expense of the whole conference.

[fullmetal]

Great article, searing indictment.  The conference is spending a lot for very little comparable result.  Also, trying to develop your own media vertical sounds like a money pit.  Outsource your needs to a contractor and focus on your core competency.  Larry Scott is living large at the expense of the whole conference.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't have a problem with playing the long game in terms of media rights and distribution.  If the Pac-12 can distribute its own content while the forced subscription cable TV bundling model dies out, the Pac-12 will be positioned very well relative to other conferences.

The expenses don't bother me much because the "CEOs" as they are called, can cut them at their will.  If the schools thought they needed that money more than building their own broadcast network, ultimately with its own distribution, they absolutely would take it.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't have a problem with playing the long game in terms of media rights and distribution.  If the Pac-12 can distribute its own content while the forced subscription cable TV bundling model dies out, the Pac-12 will be positioned very well relative to other conferences.

The expenses don't bother me much because the "CEOs" as they are called, can cut them at their will.  If the schools thought they needed that money more than building their own broadcast network, ultimately with its own distribution, they absolutely would take it.

[2006alum]

I feel like the article was doing a lot of apples to oranges comparisons because of the differences in rights ownership and distribution. The absence of the Big 12 comparisons is especially damning, in my mind, because the Longhorn Network is actually the best data point for comparison - what is their staff budget, rent, etc.?

I will say this though: in a universe where ESPN doesn't get to collect $6 per month from approx. 100 million subscribers, all of these media deals are going to go down in value, and at that point, I do think the PAC-12's approach, long term, is far smarter. I'd easily pay $10-20 per month for a direct all-access PAC-12 package. As it is, I pay $35 per month for SLING essentially for Stanford sports plus the occasional other thing on ESPN or ESPN2.

Finally, I wonder how much of the relative weakness of the PAC-12 lately is simply that the Alabamas of the world are much more competitive when they can monetize their fanbases the way they've been able to over the past 20 years? Until the mid-late 90s, college sports didn't have a lot of money, and until then, the PAC-12 had so many natural advantages in recruiting and player development, be that weather, quality of school, location, etc. And sure enough, in the sports where there's not tons of money, we still dominate (i.e. everything but basketball and football). I guess I just am not that surprised that the SEC is going to generate more revenue than the PAC-12 from media rights, because let's be honest: college football in the south is just about THE most important culturally uniting force. There is nothing out west that's in any way comparable. As long as that fan passion can be monetized, I just don't think the PAC-12 is ever going to be on a level playing field to the SEC or the BIG 10. (And again note the absence of the Big 12 and ACC as comparator data points: I suspect those conferences suffer from problems more similar to ours.)

Anywho, my two cents.

[2006alum]

I feel like the article was doing a lot of apples to oranges comparisons because of the differences in rights ownership and distribution. The absence of the Big 12 comparisons is especially damning, in my mind, because the Longhorn Network is actually the best data point for comparison - what is their staff budget, rent, etc.?

I will say this though: in a universe where ESPN doesn't get to collect $6 per month from approx. 100 million subscribers, all of these media deals are going to go down in value, and at that point, I do think the PAC-12's approach, long term, is far smarter. I'd easily pay $10-20 per month for a direct all-access PAC-12 package. As it is, I pay $35 per month for SLING essentially for Stanford sports plus the occasional other thing on ESPN or ESPN2.

Finally, I wonder how much of the relative weakness of the PAC-12 lately is simply that the Alabamas of the world are much more competitive when they can monetize their fanbases the way they've been able to over the past 20 years? Until the mid-late 90s, college sports didn't have a lot of money, and until then, the PAC-12 had so many natural advantages in recruiting and player development, be that weather, quality of school, location, etc. And sure enough, in the sports where there's not tons of money, we still dominate (i.e. everything but basketball and football). I guess I just am not that surprised that the SEC is going to generate more revenue than the PAC-12 from media rights, because let's be honest: college football in the south is just about THE most important culturally uniting force. There is nothing out west that's in any way comparable. As long as that fan passion can be monetized, I just don't think the PAC-12 is ever going to be on a level playing field to the SEC or the BIG 10. (And again note the absence of the Big 12 and ACC as comparator data points: I suspect those conferences suffer from problems more similar to ours.)

Anywho, my two cents.

[82lsju]

Part 2

A look inside the beleaguered Pac-12 instant-replay command center, where Woodie Dixon is still a central figure

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...hn_canzano

[82lsju]

Part 2

A look inside the beleaguered Pac-12 instant-replay command center, where Woodie Dixon is still a central figure

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...hn_canzano

[Redrum]

This:

"let's be honest: college football in the south is just about THE most important culturally uniting force. There is nothing out west that's in any way comparable. As long as that fan passion can be monetized, I just don't think the PAC-12 is ever going to be on a level playing field to the SEC or the BIG 10. (And again note the absence of the Big 12 and ACC as comparator data points: I suspect those conferences suffer from problems more similar to ours.)"

Yup.  I live in SEC country. In the P12 only USC has a fan focus/critical mass and "footprint" that approaches the SEC schools. Even so, USC wouldn't particularly stand out in the SEC.  I married into a Bama family so I don't have much choice but I'm OK with the P12 not being the SEC-West.

[Redrum]

This:

"let's be honest: college football in the south is just about THE most important culturally uniting force. There is nothing out west that's in any way comparable. As long as that fan passion can be monetized, I just don't think the PAC-12 is ever going to be on a level playing field to the SEC or the BIG 10. (And again note the absence of the Big 12 and ACC as comparator data points: I suspect those conferences suffer from problems more similar to ours.)"

Yup.  I live in SEC country. In the P12 only USC has a fan focus/critical mass and "footprint" that approaches the SEC schools. Even so, USC wouldn't particularly stand out in the SEC.  I married into a Bama family so I don't have much choice but I'm OK with the P12 not being the SEC-West.

[winflop]

I'm OK with the P12 not being the SEC-West.

I think that's a false choice. The P12 can be far more relevant - and better-run - without being the SEC-West. I think the important points of these articles (now 2/4, can't wait for 3 & 4) is to highlight how poorly the conference is being run under Larry Scott and comparing his results to not only the SEC but the other conferences as well.
- Pac-12 expenses are WAY too high
- Pac-12 revenues are too low
- Pac-12 Network is a flop
- Pac-12 officiating is a laughingstock
- Larry Scott is a tone-deaf spokesperson for the conference

I could go on.

[winflop]

I'm OK with the P12 not being the SEC-West.

I think that's a false choice. The P12 can be far more relevant - and better-run - without being the SEC-West. I think the important points of these articles (now 2/4, can't wait for 3 & 4) is to highlight how poorly the conference is being run under Larry Scott and comparing his results to not only the SEC but the other conferences as well.
- Pac-12 expenses are WAY too high
- Pac-12 revenues are too low
- Pac-12 Network is a flop
- Pac-12 officiating is a laughingstock
- Larry Scott is a tone-deaf spokesperson for the conference

I could go on.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I am very skeptical about the lack of Big-12 and ACC comparisons in these. Like, I'm not surprised the Pac-12 distributes less money than the Big10 and SEC, and frankly being only 6 million less in distritbution than the B1G doesn't seem that bad. Obviously our expenses our higher (could they be lower, sure, but things on the West Coast are going to cost more, these schools are in major urban centers, not Auburn, Alabama), and obviously football will not be able to bring in as much money here as in the SEC (there are, y'know, other sports). 

If the Pac-12 is in 3rd place in money, I'd actually be kind of impressed. I feel like the Big-12 should be more like the B1G/SEC than like us...

[CrazedZooChimp]

I am very skeptical about the lack of Big-12 and ACC comparisons in these. Like, I'm not surprised the Pac-12 distributes less money than the Big10 and SEC, and frankly being only 6 million less in distritbution than the B1G doesn't seem that bad. Obviously our expenses our higher (could they be lower, sure, but things on the West Coast are going to cost more, these schools are in major urban centers, not Auburn, Alabama), and obviously football will not be able to bring in as much money here as in the SEC (there are, y'know, other sports). 

If the Pac-12 is in 3rd place in money, I'd actually be kind of impressed. I feel like the Big-12 should be more like the B1G/SEC than like us...

[yvonne]

I am very skeptical about the lack of Big-12 and ACC comparisons in these. Like, I'm not surprised the Pac-12 distributes less money than the Big10 and SEC, and frankly being only 6 million less in distritbution than the B1G doesn't seem that bad. Obviously our expenses our higher (could they be lower, sure, but things on the West Coast are going to cost more, these schools are in major urban centers, not Auburn, Alabama), and obviously football will not be able to bring in as much money here as in the SEC (there are, y'know, other sports). 

If the Pac-12 is in 3rd place in money, I'd actually be kind of impressed. I feel like the Big-12 should be more like the B1G/SEC than like us...

But that's just it. The Pac-12 was once considered a power conference on par with the Big Ten and SEC. Now, it's a secondary conference similar to the ACC.

[yvonne]

I am very skeptical about the lack of Big-12 and ACC comparisons in these. Like, I'm not surprised the Pac-12 distributes less money than the Big10 and SEC, and frankly being only 6 million less in distritbution than the B1G doesn't seem that bad. Obviously our expenses our higher (could they be lower, sure, but things on the West Coast are going to cost more, these schools are in major urban centers, not Auburn, Alabama), and obviously football will not be able to bring in as much money here as in the SEC (there are, y'know, other sports). 

If the Pac-12 is in 3rd place in money, I'd actually be kind of impressed. I feel like the Big-12 should be more like the B1G/SEC than like us...

But that's just it. The Pac-12 was once considered a power conference on par with the Big Ten and SEC. Now, it's a secondary conference similar to the ACC.

[needle]

I definitely appreciate the reporting on the instant replay debacle. Canzano deserves unqualified praise for that article, imo.

I think it's a bit of a reach, however, to try as Canzano does to draw general conclusions about the Pac-12 in comparison to other conferences. The reporting seems solid as far as the real estate costs, Larry Scott's salary and Pac-12 network employee unhappiness. I just don't know if there's enough information to reasonably imply that these things are major factors in the Pac-12 falling behind other Power 5 conferences, or even if the term "falling behind" is apt when describing the Pac in comparison to the four other "Power" conferences.

[needle]

I definitely appreciate the reporting on the instant replay debacle. Canzano deserves unqualified praise for that article, imo.

I think it's a bit of a reach, however, to try as Canzano does to draw general conclusions about the Pac-12 in comparison to other conferences. The reporting seems solid as far as the real estate costs, Larry Scott's salary and Pac-12 network employee unhappiness. I just don't know if there's enough information to reasonably imply that these things are major factors in the Pac-12 falling behind other Power 5 conferences, or even if the term "falling behind" is apt when describing the Pac in comparison to the four other "Power" conferences.

[CTcard]

Finally read the first two articles.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but I didn't think much of the articles.


Others have noticed many issues with the finance article.
I THINK that the Pac 12 conference expenses are excessively high even considering that the conference runs the network and the west coast is pretty expensive, but this article didn't really make that clear. The article kept grabbing bits and pieces of spending information (salaries of the top 5 officers - rent on the headquarters building) and comparing these to just two other conferences.
Why could Canzano not put the whole package together? What does the Pac 12 spend on administration overall? Is there a clear distinction between general operations and network operations? Why not compare to all the other Power 5 conferences?
Maybe more complete information isn't available, but it seems that in such an in depth article explaining what information is available and where it comes from is job #1.


On officiating. It's extremely clear that there was a problem with Dixon getting involved in the review of targeting. Beyond that, there are lots of hints of broader problems, but again the article didn't really make things clear. 
A serious error in the article is that Canzano never really makes it clear that Leach was complaining about a different call than the one in which Dixon had been involved - which itself was an outrageous call in WSU's favor.
He rides the storyline that the Pac 12 offices wants to tip the scales in favor of the marquee programs, without ever addressing that Dixon chiming in to overturn a penalty against WSU would apparently do just the opposite.
There's all sorts of quotations which Canzano presents in a sinister light, that may or may not be so sinister, Example: from the ex-director of officials, "The change of environment was noticeable. Under Larry Scott, there was more direct involvement with officiating than under Tom Hansen." Well, is that bad or good? Could be either. Would be worth exploring. Too bad Canzano didn't.

And I have to say I am a little ticked on the outrage over the fact that the ASU coach got a fine for complaining about the calls in the Stanford game. First of all, as covered in a thread on this board at the time, the coach had the circumstances of the calls completely wrong and the two varied from a close call to a textbook PI. But the real issue is the fake outrage that the conference would bar coaches from publicly making such complaints. I don't think this rule is new and I  believe that pretty much every league has such a rule - it's hardly a sinister sign of the Svengali-like control of Larry Scott.

What did I learn from the article?  
- There's lots of general griping.
- Employees at the offices don't seem to like the top management much.
- Bill Moos (former AD at Oregon and WSU, now at Nebraska) really doesn't like Scott.

[CTcard]

Finally read the first two articles.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but I didn't think much of the articles.


Others have noticed many issues with the finance article.
I THINK that the Pac 12 conference expenses are excessively high even considering that the conference runs the network and the west coast is pretty expensive, but this article didn't really make that clear. The article kept grabbing bits and pieces of spending information (salaries of the top 5 officers - rent on the headquarters building) and comparing these to just two other conferences.
Why could Canzano not put the whole package together? What does the Pac 12 spend on administration overall? Is there a clear distinction between general operations and network operations? Why not compare to all the other Power 5 conferences?
Maybe more complete information isn't available, but it seems that in such an in depth article explaining what information is available and where it comes from is job #1.


On officiating. It's extremely clear that there was a problem with Dixon getting involved in the review of targeting. Beyond that, there are lots of hints of broader problems, but again the article didn't really make things clear. 
A serious error in the article is that Canzano never really makes it clear that Leach was complaining about a different call than the one in which Dixon had been involved - which itself was an outrageous call in WSU's favor.
He rides the storyline that the Pac 12 offices wants to tip the scales in favor of the marquee programs, without ever addressing that Dixon chiming in to overturn a penalty against WSU would apparently do just the opposite.
There's all sorts of quotations which Canzano presents in a sinister light, that may or may not be so sinister, Example: from the ex-director of officials, "The change of environment was noticeable. Under Larry Scott, there was more direct involvement with officiating than under Tom Hansen." Well, is that bad or good? Could be either. Would be worth exploring. Too bad Canzano didn't.

And I have to say I am a little ticked on the outrage over the fact that the ASU coach got a fine for complaining about the calls in the Stanford game. First of all, as covered in a thread on this board at the time, the coach had the circumstances of the calls completely wrong and the two varied from a close call to a textbook PI. But the real issue is the fake outrage that the conference would bar coaches from publicly making such complaints. I don't think this rule is new and I  believe that pretty much every league has such a rule - it's hardly a sinister sign of the Svengali-like control of Larry Scott.

What did I learn from the article?  
- There's lots of general griping.
- Employees at the offices don't seem to like the top management much.
- Bill Moos (former AD at Oregon and WSU, now at Nebraska) really doesn't like Scott.

[2006alum]

I think the PAC-12's major problem is that we've been the 6th best men's basketball conference for most of the past decade and somewhere between the 2nd (briefly) and 5th (this year) best football conference. We lose out on so much New Year's Six bowl money and NCAA tournament money from not getting our teams in those games.

Also, there's basically no national hype because none of our teams are that good. Oregon, the lone PAC-12 MBB team in the Top 25, just got upset by Texas Southern at home. Unless Arizona State somehow squeaks into the Top 25, we'll have no teams in the Top 25 by the first week of December. When the entire conference is irrelevant before conference games start, why does anyone want to watch, or care? I'll be shocked if the conference beats last year's dismal record of 1 team dancing without a play-in game. I'm so much more invested in PAC-12 Women's hoops because those teams are relevant, the coaches are excellent, the players are charismatic and the storylines are engaging. The PAC-12 mens hoops feels like a flaming dumpster fire. Are you shocked that the PAC-12 network gets low ratings when it features three months of basketball games between PAC-12 teams that can't eve eke out a .500 record against a slate of second-tier non-conference teams and collectively lack one single good OOC win? To put it in the parlance of the moment, our entire conference essentially exists in quadrants three and four. No one wants to watch quadrant three and four teams.

So unless someone can explain to me why Scott is responsible for Oregon losing at home to a SWAC team that was 1-4, I think we need to look elsewhere as well. (And Oregon has Nike money and Bol Bol, so it's not because they lack good facilities or lottery picks.)

[2006alum]

I think the PAC-12's major problem is that we've been the 6th best men's basketball conference for most of the past decade and somewhere between the 2nd (briefly) and 5th (this year) best football conference. We lose out on so much New Year's Six bowl money and NCAA tournament money from not getting our teams in those games.

Also, there's basically no national hype because none of our teams are that good. Oregon, the lone PAC-12 MBB team in the Top 25, just got upset by Texas Southern at home. Unless Arizona State somehow squeaks into the Top 25, we'll have no teams in the Top 25 by the first week of December. When the entire conference is irrelevant before conference games start, why does anyone want to watch, or care? I'll be shocked if the conference beats last year's dismal record of 1 team dancing without a play-in game. I'm so much more invested in PAC-12 Women's hoops because those teams are relevant, the coaches are excellent, the players are charismatic and the storylines are engaging. The PAC-12 mens hoops feels like a flaming dumpster fire. Are you shocked that the PAC-12 network gets low ratings when it features three months of basketball games between PAC-12 teams that can't eve eke out a .500 record against a slate of second-tier non-conference teams and collectively lack one single good OOC win? To put it in the parlance of the moment, our entire conference essentially exists in quadrants three and four. No one wants to watch quadrant three and four teams.

So unless someone can explain to me why Scott is responsible for Oregon losing at home to a SWAC team that was 1-4, I think we need to look elsewhere as well. (And Oregon has Nike money and Bol Bol, so it's not because they lack good facilities or lottery picks.)

[yvonne]

Recency bias. It was a scant three years ago that Stanford's Rose Bowl opponent had not heard of the star player who's now the center of his NFL team's offense. Remember that kid missed out on college football's highest individual honor because voters outside the region hadn't seen him play? That had nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the conference and everything to do with the lack of visibility.

[yvonne]

Recency bias. It was a scant three years ago that Stanford's Rose Bowl opponent had not heard of the star player who's now the center of his NFL team's offense. Remember that kid missed out on college football's highest individual honor because voters outside the region hadn't seen him play? That had nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the conference and everything to do with the lack of visibility.

[2006alum]

Recency bias. It was a scant three years ago that Stanford's Rose Bowl opponent had not heard of the star player who's now the center of his NFL team's offense. Remember that kid missed out on college football's highest individual honor because voters outside the region hadn't seen him play? That had nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the conference and everything to do with the lack of visibility.

Maybe. Or maybe because even that year, we still had the worst conference at the top. Here's the year-end top 25 rankings by conference:
ACC: #2 Clemson, #14 Florida State, #15 UNC (and #11 Notre Dame, sorta)
Big 10: #4 Ohio State, #5 Michigan St, #9 Iowa, #12 Michigan, #21 Wisconsin, #23 Northwestern
Big 12: #5 Oklahoma, #7 TCU, #13 Baylor, #20 Oklahoma State
PAC-12: #3 Stanford, #17 Utah, #20 Oregon
SEC: #1 Alabama (champion), #10 Ole Miss, #16 LSU, #22 Tennessee, #25 Florida


I can't really see an argument for why the Pac-12 isn't the fifth best conference. Every other P5 had more top 25 teams except the ACC, which had higher ranked teams, and we were the only conference not to have a team in the CFP (Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State, Oklahoma).

[2006alum]

Recency bias. It was a scant three years ago that Stanford's Rose Bowl opponent had not heard of the star player who's now the center of his NFL team's offense. Remember that kid missed out on college football's highest individual honor because voters outside the region hadn't seen him play? That had nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the conference and everything to do with the lack of visibility.

Maybe. Or maybe because even that year, we still had the worst conference at the top. Here's the year-end top 25 rankings by conference:
ACC: #2 Clemson, #14 Florida State, #15 UNC (and #11 Notre Dame, sorta)
Big 10: #4 Ohio State, #5 Michigan St, #9 Iowa, #12 Michigan, #21 Wisconsin, #23 Northwestern
Big 12: #5 Oklahoma, #7 TCU, #13 Baylor, #20 Oklahoma State
PAC-12: #3 Stanford, #17 Utah, #20 Oregon
SEC: #1 Alabama (champion), #10 Ole Miss, #16 LSU, #22 Tennessee, #25 Florida


I can't really see an argument for why the Pac-12 isn't the fifth best conference. Every other P5 had more top 25 teams except the ACC, which had higher ranked teams, and we were the only conference not to have a team in the CFP (Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State, Oklahoma).

[82lsju]

This is part three in a four-part series that takes a deeper look at what is ailing the conference.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...of_ch.html

---

part 4

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...hn_canzano

[82lsju]

This is part three in a four-part series that takes a deeper look at what is ailing the conference.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...of_ch.html

---

part 4

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...hn_canzano

[CTcard]

I can't really see an argument for why the Pac-12 isn't the fifth best conference. Every other P5 had more top 25 teams except the ACC, which had higher ranked teams, and we were the only conference not to have a team in the CFP (Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State, Oklahoma).

Well, one argument is that counting teams in the top 25 is at best a limited measure of conference quality. 

For example, that year (2015-16) Sagarin had the Pac 12 as the second best conference in the country (SEC West was best of Power 5 divisions, SEC East the worst of the Power 5 divisions, but their average beats the Pac divisions at #2 and #4 or #2 and #3 depending upon which measure you take). 


I don't particularly trust Sagarin, I just used it because its convenient and points out that rating the conferences depends strongly on exactly what you are rating. 
For me, the take aways are:- the differences among the Power 5 are very small compared to the differences between the Power 5 and the rest. 
- the differences generally are smaller than most all fans think. 
- year to year, who's where jumbles around a lot. 
- one constant is the ACC is usually towards the bottom on measures that consider the whole conference. [Though Sagarin had them #1 in 2016.]

[CTcard]

I can't really see an argument for why the Pac-12 isn't the fifth best conference. Every other P5 had more top 25 teams except the ACC, which had higher ranked teams, and we were the only conference not to have a team in the CFP (Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State, Oklahoma).

Well, one argument is that counting teams in the top 25 is at best a limited measure of conference quality. 

For example, that year (2015-16) Sagarin had the Pac 12 as the second best conference in the country (SEC West was best of Power 5 divisions, SEC East the worst of the Power 5 divisions, but their average beats the Pac divisions at #2 and #4 or #2 and #3 depending upon which measure you take). 


I don't particularly trust Sagarin, I just used it because its convenient and points out that rating the conferences depends strongly on exactly what you are rating. 
For me, the take aways are:- the differences among the Power 5 are very small compared to the differences between the Power 5 and the rest. 
- the differences generally are smaller than most all fans think. 
- year to year, who's where jumbles around a lot. 
- one constant is the ACC is usually towards the bottom on measures that consider the whole conference. [Though Sagarin had them #1 in 2016.]

[BostonCard]

I can't really see an argument for why the Pac-12 isn't the fifth best conference. Every other P5 had more top 25 teams except the ACC, which had higher ranked teams, and we were the only conference not to have a team in the CFP (Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State, Oklahoma).

Well, one argument is that counting teams in the top 25 is at best a limited measure of conference quality. 

For example, that year (2015-16) Sagarin had the Pac 12 as the second best conference in the country (SEC West was best of Power 5 divisions, SEC East the worst of the Power 5 divisions, but their average beats the Pac divisions at #2 and #4 or #2 and #3 depending upon which measure you take). 


I don't particularly trust Sagarin, I just used it because its convenient and points out that rating the conferences depends strongly on exactly what you are rating. 
For me, the take aways are:- the differences among the Power 5 are very small compared to the differences between the Power 5 and the rest. 
- the differences generally are smaller than most all fans think. 
- year to year, who's where jumbles around a lot. 
- one constant is the ACC is usually towards the bottom on measures that consider the whole conference. [Though Sagarin had them #1 in 2016.]

Here's one way to look at it.  What would our record be if we played in other conferences.
Pac-12 North (our actual conference): 3-2, pending one game where we are favored
Pac-12 South: 3-1 actual; there is a good chance we would have gone 2-0 against Arizona and Colorado
ACC-Atlantic: likely loss to Clemson, favored against everyone else on a neutral site, but likely to wind up 5-2 (with tough games against NC State, Syracuse and BC); also, we have an actual loss to ACC honorary member Notre Dame
ACC-Coastal: Would be favored in a neutral site against all of them, but likely to wind up 6-1 (with tough games against Miami and maybe Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh)
BigTen East: Likely to end up 4-3, with losses against tOSU, Penn State, and Michigan.  Might also have a tough game against Michigan State.
BigTen West: Favored against everyone but Iowa on a neutral site, but would face tough games against Wisonsin, Purdue, and Northwestern
Big12: Likely 7-3 with losses to Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia, and a tough match-up with Oklahoma State.  Lots of shoot outs.
SEC-East: Likely to end up 5-2, with losses to Georgia and one of Florida or Missouri, and tough match-ups with Kentucky and South Carolina
SEC-West: Likely to wind up 3-4, with losses against Alabama, Mississippi State, and LSU and probably one of Texas A&M and Auburn

By this metric, the SEC-West would be the hardest league for us to compete in, by far, and the ACC-Coastal, Big Ten West and Pac-12 South, and ACC-Atlantic aside from Clemson the easiest.  That also corresponds to how Sagarin ranks the conferences.

BC

[BostonCard]

I can't really see an argument for why the Pac-12 isn't the fifth best conference. Every other P5 had more top 25 teams except the ACC, which had higher ranked teams, and we were the only conference not to have a team in the CFP (Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State, Oklahoma).

Well, one argument is that counting teams in the top 25 is at best a limited measure of conference quality. 

For example, that year (2015-16) Sagarin had the Pac 12 as the second best conference in the country (SEC West was best of Power 5 divisions, SEC East the worst of the Power 5 divisions, but their average beats the Pac divisions at #2 and #4 or #2 and #3 depending upon which measure you take). 


I don't particularly trust Sagarin, I just used it because its convenient and points out that rating the conferences depends strongly on exactly what you are rating. 
For me, the take aways are:- the differences among the Power 5 are very small compared to the differences between the Power 5 and the rest. 
- the differences generally are smaller than most all fans think. 
- year to year, who's where jumbles around a lot. 
- one constant is the ACC is usually towards the bottom on measures that consider the whole conference. [Though Sagarin had them #1 in 2016.]

Here's one way to look at it.  What would our record be if we played in other conferences.
Pac-12 North (our actual conference): 3-2, pending one game where we are favored
Pac-12 South: 3-1 actual; there is a good chance we would have gone 2-0 against Arizona and Colorado
ACC-Atlantic: likely loss to Clemson, favored against everyone else on a neutral site, but likely to wind up 5-2 (with tough games against NC State, Syracuse and BC); also, we have an actual loss to ACC honorary member Notre Dame
ACC-Coastal: Would be favored in a neutral site against all of them, but likely to wind up 6-1 (with tough games against Miami and maybe Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh)
BigTen East: Likely to end up 4-3, with losses against tOSU, Penn State, and Michigan.  Might also have a tough game against Michigan State.
BigTen West: Favored against everyone but Iowa on a neutral site, but would face tough games against Wisonsin, Purdue, and Northwestern
Big12: Likely 7-3 with losses to Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia, and a tough match-up with Oklahoma State.  Lots of shoot outs.
SEC-East: Likely to end up 5-2, with losses to Georgia and one of Florida or Missouri, and tough match-ups with Kentucky and South Carolina
SEC-West: Likely to wind up 3-4, with losses against Alabama, Mississippi State, and LSU and probably one of Texas A&M and Auburn

By this metric, the SEC-West would be the hardest league for us to compete in, by far, and the ACC-Coastal, Big Ten West and Pac-12 South, and ACC-Atlantic aside from Clemson the easiest.  That also corresponds to how Sagarin ranks the conferences.

BC

[BostonCard]

Some suggestions from Joebruin

https://gojoebruin.com/2018/11/18/ucla-b...ift-guide/

A Year of Free Streaming on Pac-12.com

I don't have a problem with this, but I'm guessing that Comcast and the other cable companies that still pay for the Pac-12 network would. And if part of the problem is that the Pac-12 is bringing in less revenue than other conferences, is the plan to make up for the lack of margins with volume?

No Kickoffs Later Than 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. PT[sic]

Again, for me personally, that would be great, as I could take my kids to games. However, as has been mentioned before, we would be going up against ACC/SEC/BigTen primetime games if our latest kick-offs were 5 pm Pacific. With 7 pm kick-offs, we are largely running games unopposed. This is supported by the ratings for the various kick-off times; the late kick-offs generate better ratings than the earlier ones.

And again, if part of the problem is bringing in less revenue, cutting off the most lucrative games for the networks is a sure way to bring in even less revenue.

Take the Legal Hit, Move the Pac-12 Championship Game to Las Vegas or Los Angeles for 2019

The stadium in LA is not going to be open until 2020, so I don't understand this.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...until-2020

Likewise the Las Vegas stadium is scheduled to be opened in 2020.

These facts are easily google-able. That being said, I think it would be good to move the Pac-12 championship to either a neutral venue (Vegas) or alternate between North and South. But starting in 2020, after the contract is up, and once the stadia in LA and Vegas are finished.

A Complete Overhaul of the Officiating and Play Review Crew

Sure. It's not why the Pac-12 is losing the football arms race, but everyone will always want better officiating.

Improve Pac-12 Media Day/Singing Day Coverage

Sure. It will have no impact whatsoever, but why not.

8-Game Conference Schedule

Seems odd to advocate this in a year when 10-2 WSU is missing out on a NY6 game because of its bad schedule. Since there are a limited number of schools out west, it will mean either more trips to the east coast or scrambles to secure the same Mountain West teams as non-conference options. And personally, I would much rather watch Stanford-Utah, even though we lost, than Stanford-Idaho State (or some other non-conference game that would take its place), unless we scheduled compelling opponents, which we have found is hard to do.

End the SoCal/NorCal Lock Games

Actually, I love having our annual guaranteed win against UCLA, though maybe that's what is prompting JoeBruin to call for the end of the rivalry. I wonder if he would feel like that if they were regularly winning against Stanford/Cal. More seriously, though, win or lose, I consider the games against UCLA and USC to be much more important and compelling than those against Utah, Colorado, Arizona, or ASU.

TBH, I think it would be better to re-align the conference, and have all four California schools plus Arizona and ASU in the same division, and move Utah/Colorado to the North, which I believe is more geographically correct. Then you wouldn't have to do the weird schedule to ensure Northern California and Southern California schools always played each other.

No More Back-to-Back Road Games, End Friday Games (especially the Pac-12 Championship Game)

I believe it is impossible to devise a schedule without back-to-back road games. At most you can have games against six opponents on "the other side" of the home/road split, and then you have to play a team where both of you played at home or on the prior week. There may be some magic that can be done with bye weeks and out of conference opponents, but I'm nearly certain that devising a schedule without back-to-back road games for at least one team is impossible.

On the ending Friday night games, see my comment above on "no late kick-offs". In order to maximize eyeballs, it is better to run unopposed at odd times than it is to run at the popular times when you are going up against SEC/BigTen games.

One thing I do agree with is the above combo. It should be possible to schedule having a home game the week before a Friday night game to ensure adequate rest in anticipation of the Friday game.

Full Transparency and Autonomy for the Officiating Crew

Whatever this means, who can possibly be against it, although as written, it sounds like he disagrees with the idea of a centralized review booth. I think it makes more sense to have all reviews done in a centralized booth. However, if "transparency and autonomy" mean that the central review is done by a dedicated review official and that this official is publicly considered part of the officiating crew, I agree.

Cut the Salaries of Pac-12 Executives

As many of the other proposals, it will have no impact except making us feel better about things, but I don't disagree. In comparison to other conferences, Pac-12 execs do seem to be paid above market.

Split the Conference into Divisions for Basketball, Save the Rivalries

I agree with this, and thought it should have been done from the beginning. Play each team in your division a double round-robin (10 games), and each team outside of the division once, with one pair of teams getting played home-away to give you eight games for an 18 game conference season.

BC

[BostonCard]

Some suggestions from Joebruin

https://gojoebruin.com/2018/11/18/ucla-b...ift-guide/

A Year of Free Streaming on Pac-12.com

I don't have a problem with this, but I'm guessing that Comcast and the other cable companies that still pay for the Pac-12 network would. And if part of the problem is that the Pac-12 is bringing in less revenue than other conferences, is the plan to make up for the lack of margins with volume?

No Kickoffs Later Than 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. PT[sic]

Again, for me personally, that would be great, as I could take my kids to games. However, as has been mentioned before, we would be going up against ACC/SEC/BigTen primetime games if our latest kick-offs were 5 pm Pacific. With 7 pm kick-offs, we are largely running games unopposed. This is supported by the ratings for the various kick-off times; the late kick-offs generate better ratings than the earlier ones.

And again, if part of the problem is bringing in less revenue, cutting off the most lucrative games for the networks is a sure way to bring in even less revenue.

Take the Legal Hit, Move the Pac-12 Championship Game to Las Vegas or Los Angeles for 2019

The stadium in LA is not going to be open until 2020, so I don't understand this.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...until-2020

Likewise the Las Vegas stadium is scheduled to be opened in 2020.

These facts are easily google-able. That being said, I think it would be good to move the Pac-12 championship to either a neutral venue (Vegas) or alternate between North and South. But starting in 2020, after the contract is up, and once the stadia in LA and Vegas are finished.

A Complete Overhaul of the Officiating and Play Review Crew

Sure. It's not why the Pac-12 is losing the football arms race, but everyone will always want better officiating.

Improve Pac-12 Media Day/Singing Day Coverage

Sure. It will have no impact whatsoever, but why not.

8-Game Conference Schedule

Seems odd to advocate this in a year when 10-2 WSU is missing out on a NY6 game because of its bad schedule. Since there are a limited number of schools out west, it will mean either more trips to the east coast or scrambles to secure the same Mountain West teams as non-conference options. And personally, I would much rather watch Stanford-Utah, even though we lost, than Stanford-Idaho State (or some other non-conference game that would take its place), unless we scheduled compelling opponents, which we have found is hard to do.

End the SoCal/NorCal Lock Games

Actually, I love having our annual guaranteed win against UCLA, though maybe that's what is prompting JoeBruin to call for the end of the rivalry. I wonder if he would feel like that if they were regularly winning against Stanford/Cal. More seriously, though, win or lose, I consider the games against UCLA and USC to be much more important and compelling than those against Utah, Colorado, Arizona, or ASU.

TBH, I think it would be better to re-align the conference, and have all four California schools plus Arizona and ASU in the same division, and move Utah/Colorado to the North, which I believe is more geographically correct. Then you wouldn't have to do the weird schedule to ensure Northern California and Southern California schools always played each other.

No More Back-to-Back Road Games, End Friday Games (especially the Pac-12 Championship Game)

I believe it is impossible to devise a schedule without back-to-back road games. At most you can have games against six opponents on "the other side" of the home/road split, and then you have to play a team where both of you played at home or on the prior week. There may be some magic that can be done with bye weeks and out of conference opponents, but I'm nearly certain that devising a schedule without back-to-back road games for at least one team is impossible.

On the ending Friday night games, see my comment above on "no late kick-offs". In order to maximize eyeballs, it is better to run unopposed at odd times than it is to run at the popular times when you are going up against SEC/BigTen games.

One thing I do agree with is the above combo. It should be possible to schedule having a home game the week before a Friday night game to ensure adequate rest in anticipation of the Friday game.

Full Transparency and Autonomy for the Officiating Crew

Whatever this means, who can possibly be against it, although as written, it sounds like he disagrees with the idea of a centralized review booth. I think it makes more sense to have all reviews done in a centralized booth. However, if "transparency and autonomy" mean that the central review is done by a dedicated review official and that this official is publicly considered part of the officiating crew, I agree.

Cut the Salaries of Pac-12 Executives

As many of the other proposals, it will have no impact except making us feel better about things, but I don't disagree. In comparison to other conferences, Pac-12 execs do seem to be paid above market.

Split the Conference into Divisions for Basketball, Save the Rivalries

I agree with this, and thought it should have been done from the beginning. Play each team in your division a double round-robin (10 games), and each team outside of the division once, with one pair of teams getting played home-away to give you eight games for an 18 game conference season.

BC

[oldalum]

End the SoCal/NorCal Lock Games

That's a nonstarter for us because of recruiting in SoCal, in addition to the alumni fan base there.

[oldalum]

End the SoCal/NorCal Lock Games

That's a nonstarter for us because of recruiting in SoCal, in addition to the alumni fan base there.