End of Pac12? - 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: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
+- 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: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
RE: End of Pac12? - Softball Fan - 07-19-2022
Yes I agree but the better negotiating tactic is for Stanford to tell ESPN it is 100% committed to football and fully committed to increasing resources to improve its on-field product. Not to tell ESPN Stanford isn't sure whether it wants to continue with football or not.
RE: End of Pac12? - chrisk - 07-19-2022
(07-19-2022, 12:39 PM)paloalto Wrote:(07-19-2022, 05:37 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: But Cal and Stanford are also two schools that don't put the football cart before the school horse. This means both schools could credibly threaten to drop football if ESPN low balls the Pac-10, and therefore create an "ESPN needs Cal and Stanford more than Cal and Stanford need ESPN's money" kind of dynamic.
So you convince ESPN to pay more money by telling them football is so unimportant you may decide to drop it. That's going to inspire ESPN to dump more money into a 3-9 Stanford team and a 5-7 Cal team.
Based on recent reports, the Big 12 has concluded they don't see any realignment scenario with the PAC-12 adding value to what they have now. ESPN has all the negotiating leverage if they are interested in the PAC-12 as a conference which they may not be.
The Pac10 does not have to sell all of its rights to ESPN. FOX currently has a significant share of the package.
Assuming they are no longer interested, NBC and CBS are potential bidders for some of the inventory. The bigger issue is what happens to the games currently on the Pac12 Network.
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-19-2022
(07-19-2022, 02:33 PM)msqueri Wrote:(07-19-2022, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think we flatter ourselves if we think the PAC wouldn’t work without Stanford and Cal. The PAC-12 probably can’t shrink below 10, but that kind of makes every school indispensable.
BC
I don't think so at all. I'm not sure the Pac-12 can work without USC. Without USC, UCLA, and Stanford it would be completely pointless and pathetic. It would dissolve. Say everybody stays but Stanford - that's no championships, no nationally elite football sizzle and only a couple of even top 25 programs, and no LA. I think that's totally unviable economically and irrelevant to anybody outside the individual fan bases. That truly would be a conference on par with the Mountain West.
But is that any different from, say, without USC, UCLA, and Oregon. Or Washington, or Utah.
BC
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-20-2022
"Eventually the hope of many ADs is that the major programs (top 60-70) break away from the NCAA and form their own governing body complete with a commissioner, and negotiate all their media as one entity. This would allow for regional divisions and a return to classic rivalries and affiliations. We are still 10-20 years away from that."
https://voiceofmotown.com/west-virginias-ultimate-insider-opens-up-the-mhver3-interview/?fbclid=IwAR2nB9Aa-KoAOVC-a9eoa8KaJYH_qL3Ub6Dy56tWlyqXegqL8LFlVOrwHvk&fs=e&s=cl
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-20-2022
A Pac President speaks. Can anyone see Stanford's President or Cal's Chancellor having this kind of command of the media rights and conference issues?
https://247sports.com/college/washington-state/LongFormArticle/Exclusive-WSU-President-Kirk-Schulz-goes-in-depth-on-Pac-12-and-its-future-190138256/Amp/
RE: End of Pac12? - Giants - 07-20-2022
(07-20-2022, 03:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: A Pac President speaks. Can anyone see Stanford's President or Cal's Chancellor having this kind of command of the media rights and conference issues?
https://247sports.com/college/washington-state/LongFormArticle/Exclusive-WSU-President-Kirk-Schulz-goes-in-depth-on-Pac-12-and-its-future-190138256/Amp/
Well, Schultz did call out Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne as someone who is actively engaged communicating with key constituencies.
In other words, yes, I believe the leadership of Stanford has a command of media rights and other conference issues.
I wouldn’t have a clue what’s up at Berkeley. However, I would guess they are probably too busy spinning their wheels about their perception that the Los Angeles campus is guilty of traitorous behavior to give a damn about issues that require an in-depth knowledge of the big picture.
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-20-2022
(07-20-2022, 10:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: "Eventually the hope of many ADs is that the major programs (top 60-70) break away from the NCAA and form their own governing body complete with a commissioner, and negotiate all their media as one entity. This would allow for regional divisions and a return to classic rivalries and affiliations. We are still 10-20 years away from that."
https://voiceofmotown.com/west-virginias-ultimate-insider-opens-up-the-mhver3-interview/?fbclid=IwAR2nB9Aa-KoAOVC-a9eoa8KaJYH_qL3Ub6Dy56tWlyqXegqL8LFlVOrwHvk&fs=e&s=cl
I hope we take advantage of that opportunity to drop away from the football rat race. Yes, a return to classic rivalries and affiliations will be good. But it is clear that this 60+ “college” football league would be minor-league professional football, and I’m not interested in it.
BC
RE: End of Pac12? - dabigv13 - 07-20-2022
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit
LOL Newsom wants UCLA to explain themselves. What a f*cking joker.
RE: End of Pac12? - Canalejas - 07-20-2022
If it ends up with the Big Ten extending an offer to Cal and to us, I'll be happy for the antics. Big Game and UCLA are my two favorite games on the schedule.
Incidentally, are we not supposed to spell out curse words on here? ***** (testing.)
I guess that answers that.
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-21-2022
(07-20-2022, 06:44 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit
LOL Newsom wants UCLA to explain themselves. What a f*cking joker.
Well, apparently the "joker" is going to impose some financial pain on UCLA that arguably might make going to the Big Ten a bad idea, and more importantly will save CA tax payers from Cal defaulting on its debt.
"Ideas raised have included requiring UCLA to pay UC Berkeley a Pac-12 “exit fee” or share the TV revenue with its sister campus — conditions that the regents could potentially impose."
"Impose" means the regents decide and UCLA has no choice. If the regents can impose their will on UCLA vis-a-vis finances, one thing it could conceivably do is require UCLA to pay Cal any money over and above Cal's Pac share until both schools are getting the same amount from their media rights. If UCLA is not going to make the amount of money it thought it would, based on conditions the regents slap on it, UCLA may have second thoughts about leaving. I mean the whole reason they wanted to move is for money, so if the money isn't there in the numbers expected, why move?
Will be fun to read reporting on the disconnect between UCLA thinking it had the regent's blessing to leave the Pac, and how pissed off the regents are that UCLA made a public announcement it was going to the B1G before the regents knew WTF was happening.
RE: End of Pac12? - dabigv13 - 07-21-2022
Newsom isn't going to do shit. He just wants UCLA to explain themselves dude.
"Ideas raised" lol. He's the governor. If he had any inclination to stop this we would've heard from him earlier than a couple weeks after this all happened. But if Newsom does anything substantive here, I'll be happy to be wrong. Shoot me a PM and I'll buy you a cup of coffee.
RE: End of Pac12? - Mick - 07-21-2022
(07-20-2022, 06:44 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit
LOL Newsom wants UCLA to explain themselves. What a f*cking joker.
Dear GovGav;
No.
Hugs and kisses, the Bruins
RE: End of Pac12? - chrisk - 07-22-2022
(07-21-2022, 03:42 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(07-20-2022, 06:44 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit
LOL Newsom wants UCLA to explain themselves. What a f*cking joker.
Well, apparently the "joker" is going to impose some financial pain on UCLA that arguably might make going to the Big Ten a bad idea, and more importantly will save CA tax payers from Cal defaulting on its debt.
"Ideas raised have included requiring UCLA to pay UC Berkeley a Pac-12 “exit fee” or share the TV revenue with its sister campus — conditions that the regents could potentially impose."
"Impose" means the regents decide and UCLA has no choice. If the regents can impose their will on UCLA vis-a-vis finances, one thing it could conceivably do is require UCLA to pay Cal any money over and above Cal's Pac share until both schools are getting the same amount from their media rights. If UCLA is not going to make the amount of money it thought it would, based on conditions the regents slap on it, UCLA may have second thoughts about leaving. I mean the whole reason they wanted to move is for money, so if the money isn't there in the numbers expected, why move?
Will be fun to read reporting on the disconnect between UCLA thinking it had the regent's blessing to leave the Pac, and how pissed off the regents are that UCLA made a public announcement it was going to the B1G before the regents knew WTF was happening.
Even if the Regents could force UCLA to mitigate the supposed impact on Cal, would they really do it? At what level do the regents get involved in the scheduling arrangements of individual campuses athletics?
Making an exception for Cal could set a precedent that would increase meddling in the affairs of the campuses?
RE: End of Pac12? - MV72018 - 07-22-2022
(07-20-2022, 06:44 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit
LOL Newsom wants UCLA to explain themselves. What a f*cking joker.
That's not the only thing he wants to see, and I don't regard him as a "joker." UCLA's move may have been taken to serve its own interests, but it is likely to have a major impact on all UC campuses, especially UCB. It does not seem absurd to me for UCLA to be pressured to be accountable for that major downstream financial impact its action will have on its sister institutions, especially Cal. By the way, if UC goes down for the count as a result of UCLA's move, that will probably have a significant impact on LSJU.
RE: End of Pac12? - Phogge - 07-22-2022
Would be funny if one year Stanford wins the PAC and USC wins the BIG Whatever. Neither team makes the final four and the Rose Bowl is out of the NC rotation that year.
So, Rose Bowl, USC vs Stanford. LOL.
RE: End of Pac12? - gailtate - 07-22-2022
(07-22-2022, 02:47 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(07-20-2022, 06:44 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit
LOL Newsom wants UCLA to explain themselves. What a f*cking joker.
That's not the only thing he wants to see, and I don't regard him as a "joker." UCLA's move may have been taken to serve its own interests, but it is likely to have a major impact on all UC campuses, especially UCB. It does not seem absurd to me for UCLA to be pressured to be accountable for that major downstream financial impact its action will have on its sister institutions, especially Cal. By the way, if UC goes down for the count as a result of UCLA's move, that will probably have a significant impact on LSJU.
UCLA has no 'splainin' to do to anybody, least of all Newsom who is now in full campaign mode for the 2024: posturing, pontificating and posing. The only three things he's good at.
RE: End of Pac12? - Mick - 07-22-2022
Finebaum says that college football is over...
Paul Finebaum's warning: 'College football is headed for a cliff' (msn.com)
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-23-2022
(07-22-2022, 05:40 PM)Mick Wrote: Finebaum says that college football is over...
Paul Finebaum's warning: 'College football is headed for a cliff' (msn.com)
Though future events may prove him correct, Finebaum's words do not paint the picture of College Football dying as much as consolidating. Pardon me if I don't consider the sport dying until Alabama vs. Georgia doesn't sell out the stadium or get big ratings on TV.
The more accurate reality is there has been a continual winnowing of the programs that can compete at the highest level of the sport. Just a decade ago, if there was a CFP, Stanford would have been in it. I would be shocked if anyone reading this thinks Stanford will ever be at that level in football again. Just 18 years ago, Cal was 9 yards from being #1 in the country. Cal is never getting back to that level again either. Go back even 40 year ago, SMU was #1. Though the "death penalty" probably set it back as much as the constant drive for more money that killed the Southwest Conference and set the dominoes falling to where we are today, SMU also is never getting back to that level again, not with Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC.
Simply stated, the best players will mostly go where the best competition is, and the competition for those players will lead to them getting paid. It's just basic market Darwinism in a capitalist economy. Cal and Stanford made a choice to not emphasize big time College Football, but were benefitting from being in that market. Now the market doesn't want them. They can choose to be in it or out of it, but they can no longer play both sides of the fence. They have to make a choice, do we want to be a part of this market, or do we not? To be a part of it means emphasizing football and prioritizing it. Not being a part of it means dropping the sport or going to a lower level that will cut off the money that comes with football.
So many people on this board love the sports other than football and hoops that are dependent on revenue from football and hoops, and operate on the idea Stanford should pay for those sports on its own, without football "blood money." If Stanford can get donors to pony up the money, that's great, but the reality is that isn't likely to happen. What is most likely to happen without football, is Stanford sports will no longer be competitive because the money won't be available to fund elite programs. How many people here would care about Stanford sports to anything close to what they do now if Stanford teams were never competing for championships? And can you say you'd rather not have Stanford sports to root for so football isn't professionalized?
College Football has always been a Faustian Bargain, but look around at the world you live in. Humans make these bargains all the time in countless aspects of our lives. It's who we are.
RE: End of Pac12? - msqueri - 07-23-2022
Great post, OutsiderFan. Agree with almost everything you write. One quibble, which I don't think is core to your ultimate argument, is that I think who can compete at the very top levels of college football is more fluid than you suggest. Cal is a bad example because they've only been relevant at the top level of the sport twice in the last 70 years, so there's something more fundamental about why they can't compete. SMU is a bad example because their death penalty makes them pretty sui generis. But otherwise, I don't see any reason why a major conference team (top 2-3 conferences in the emerging landscape) can't compete given the right confluence of factors.
Clemson was at the top of the sport and then had several decades of not being contenders at the top, until they were again. The same thing could happen with Florida State or Washington. While I wouldn't bet on Stanford ever achieving our previous heights, there is no reason to think Stanford is forever excluded from the top 10 no matter what we do. If Ralston and Walsh could do it, a Stanford in one of the super-conferences with the right confluence of circumstances could do it again.
Anyway, I think incidental to your main point, which I very much agree with. A world without major college football sucks for Stanford. Those who think they're willing to see Stanford football fade away should think twice IMHO.
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-23-2022
Football brings in a net revenue of about $13 million. All other sports, including mens basketball, lose money.
![[Image: net-profit-loss-mens-sports_xs.jpeg]](https://cf-hugo-dev-images.s3.amazonaws.com/chart-images/colleges/stanford-university/student-life/sports/net-profit-loss-mens-sports_xs.jpeg)
All of the womens sports lose money, most around $1 million.
Stanford would probably have to replace about $20 million if it dropped football or moved to a lower division (lower revenue but also, presumably, lower costs). That’s a drop in the bucket compared to annual donations to Stanford, which exceed $1 billion (with a b).
BC