[grendalor]

The largest sport and leagues in the world are European soccer.  They don't have a single championship but multiple.  There is usually a league winner, a cup winner (sometime multiple) and a Euro league winner.

Yep, I was just about to mention that.  The league winner is the winner of the "table" -- the regular season.  No playoff.  The cup winner is generally determined by an extended season-long playoff system that differs by national league, but involves all the teams at the outset, gradually leading to eliminations down the line, and a cup winner.  And of course the Champions League mirrors that season-long parallel playoff structure for teams at the top of their national league tables in the prior season.  So you have three concurrent competitions, for different titles, going on at the same time, on parallel tracks, but there isn't any "end of season playoff" that "trumps" the regular season winner.  The regular season winner is the league champion, period, even if they do not win the cup competition.

The championship model which is common in American sports is okay but it is obviously incorrect for anyone to claim that it's an actual representation of who the best team is in a way that the regular season result is not.  It's precisely the opposite, due to the odd things that can happen in a one-off game or even a short playoff series.  But it does generate excitement and attention, and that generates money, and at the end of the day, this is the way people seem to prefer it here, even if its introduction in certain sports has been controversial at times (baseball, for example, was once much purer in its playoff system with the two league regular season champions meeting in the WS, and that was that ... but that wasn't lucrative enough as time passed.)  It would be hard to replicate soccer's parallel competition model in our sports due to the way the games are spaced, in some cases (baseball), and the sheer physical wear and tear imposed by the sport, in others (football).

[grendalor]

The largest sport and leagues in the world are European soccer.  They don't have a single championship but multiple.  There is usually a league winner, a cup winner (sometime multiple) and a Euro league winner.

Yep, I was just about to mention that.  The league winner is the winner of the "table" -- the regular season.  No playoff.  The cup winner is generally determined by an extended season-long playoff system that differs by national league, but involves all the teams at the outset, gradually leading to eliminations down the line, and a cup winner.  And of course the Champions League mirrors that season-long parallel playoff structure for teams at the top of their national league tables in the prior season.  So you have three concurrent competitions, for different titles, going on at the same time, on parallel tracks, but there isn't any "end of season playoff" that "trumps" the regular season winner.  The regular season winner is the league champion, period, even if they do not win the cup competition.

The championship model which is common in American sports is okay but it is obviously incorrect for anyone to claim that it's an actual representation of who the best team is in a way that the regular season result is not.  It's precisely the opposite, due to the odd things that can happen in a one-off game or even a short playoff series.  But it does generate excitement and attention, and that generates money, and at the end of the day, this is the way people seem to prefer it here, even if its introduction in certain sports has been controversial at times (baseball, for example, was once much purer in its playoff system with the two league regular season champions meeting in the WS, and that was that ... but that wasn't lucrative enough as time passed.)  It would be hard to replicate soccer's parallel competition model in our sports due to the way the games are spaced, in some cases (baseball), and the sheer physical wear and tear imposed by the sport, in others (football).

[OutsiderFan]

Sure, sports crown winners. But there is a hell of a lot more to sports than that. Currently there are 34 D1 women's water polo programs. Each year, only three of those programs have any shot of winning a ring. But the other 31 train very hard and still compete. Why?

Most other sports are the same. To most people, there is obviously more to sports than crowning winners. I feel sorry for those who think the sole purpose is to win. Moreso, I feel sorry for their kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLnZhbbM_ks

So tired of straw man arguments. I never said the only thing sports is about is finishing first. Never. I said sports - in the context of it being a competition - is about winning. People here are so quick to take what someone says and put it into a contact they can attack over minutiae. If I said "sports is only about winning" that would be grounds for taking exception. I didn't say that because I don't believe sports is only about winning. It's about a lot more than that, but determining who the best is defines why sports exist in the first place. Settling who the best is in the arena of competition is far better than arguing about who the best is. "That's why we play the games" is a saying that exists for a reason. The perceived best doesn't always win.

[OutsiderFan]

Sure, sports crown winners. But there is a hell of a lot more to sports than that. Currently there are 34 D1 women's water polo programs. Each year, only three of those programs have any shot of winning a ring. But the other 31 train very hard and still compete. Why?

Most other sports are the same. To most people, there is obviously more to sports than crowning winners. I feel sorry for those who think the sole purpose is to win. Moreso, I feel sorry for their kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLnZhbbM_ks

So tired of straw man arguments. I never said the only thing sports is about is finishing first. Never. I said sports - in the context of it being a competition - is about winning. People here are so quick to take what someone says and put it into a contact they can attack over minutiae. If I said "sports is only about winning" that would be grounds for taking exception. I didn't say that because I don't believe sports is only about winning. It's about a lot more than that, but determining who the best is defines why sports exist in the first place. Settling who the best is in the arena of competition is far better than arguing about who the best is. "That's why we play the games" is a saying that exists for a reason. The perceived best doesn't always win.

[cardcrimson]

OF, you're changing your narrative.

You claimed "Sports is about crowning winners". That is what I'm discussing, not the Mariners or the even closer to home, the Warriors who won 73.

You didn't answer my question. If your conjecture is correct, why do the other 31 D1 women's water polo teams compete when they have zero chance of being crowned a champion? Must be something more to it, don't you think?

[cardcrimson]

OF, you're changing your narrative.

You claimed "Sports is about crowning winners". That is what I'm discussing, not the Mariners or the even closer to home, the Warriors who won 73.

You didn't answer my question. If your conjecture is correct, why do the other 31 D1 women's water polo teams compete when they have zero chance of being crowned a champion? Must be something more to it, don't you think?

[Phogge]

LOL. Nobody on the board knows what's coming to Stanford football, including me. Que sera sera. To paraphrase Ocean's 11,12 and 13, "It's a Doris Day."

[Phogge]

LOL. Nobody on the board knows what's coming to Stanford football, including me. Que sera sera. To paraphrase Ocean's 11,12 and 13, "It's a Doris Day."

[BigJohn043]

Sure, sports crown winners. But there is a hell of a lot more to sports than that. Currently there are 34 D1 women's water polo programs. Each year, only three of those programs have any shot of winning a ring. But the other 31 train very hard and still compete. Why?

Most other sports are the same. To most people, there is obviously more to sports than crowning winners. I feel sorry for those who think the sole purpose is to win. Moreso, I feel sorry for their kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLnZhbbM_ks

So tired of straw man arguments. I never said the only thing sports is about is finishing first. Never. I said sports - in the context of it being a competition - is about winning. People here are so quick to take what someone says and put it into a contact they can attack over minutiae. If I said "sports is only about winning" that would be grounds for taking exception. I didn't say that because I don't believe sports is only about winning. It's about a lot more than that, but determining who the best is defines why sports exist in the first place. Settling who the best is in the arena of competition is far better than arguing about who the best is. "That's why we play the games" is a saying that exists for a reason. The perceived best doesn't always win.

At its most basic, sports and in particular team sports are all about tribalism and not winning.  The whole idea of sports is splitting up into groups to compete against other groups.  Human beings have a deep need for tribalism and sports is a healthy way of exercising those needs.  It is a bit different for team sports as opposed to individual sports but that is the way it works.

It is more fun when you win, but if sports were all about winning then Stanford football wouldn't have any fans....

Sports is to war as pornography is to sex.....

[BigJohn043]

Sure, sports crown winners. But there is a hell of a lot more to sports than that. Currently there are 34 D1 women's water polo programs. Each year, only three of those programs have any shot of winning a ring. But the other 31 train very hard and still compete. Why?

Most other sports are the same. To most people, there is obviously more to sports than crowning winners. I feel sorry for those who think the sole purpose is to win. Moreso, I feel sorry for their kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLnZhbbM_ks

So tired of straw man arguments. I never said the only thing sports is about is finishing first. Never. I said sports - in the context of it being a competition - is about winning. People here are so quick to take what someone says and put it into a contact they can attack over minutiae. If I said "sports is only about winning" that would be grounds for taking exception. I didn't say that because I don't believe sports is only about winning. It's about a lot more than that, but determining who the best is defines why sports exist in the first place. Settling who the best is in the arena of competition is far better than arguing about who the best is. "That's why we play the games" is a saying that exists for a reason. The perceived best doesn't always win.

At its most basic, sports and in particular team sports are all about tribalism and not winning.  The whole idea of sports is splitting up into groups to compete against other groups.  Human beings have a deep need for tribalism and sports is a healthy way of exercising those needs.  It is a bit different for team sports as opposed to individual sports but that is the way it works.

It is more fun when you win, but if sports were all about winning then Stanford football wouldn't have any fans....

Sports is to war as pornography is to sex.....

[CowboyIndian]

The championship model which is common in American sports is okay but it is obviously incorrect for anyone to claim that it's an actual representation of who the best team is in a way that the regular season result is not.  It's precisely the opposite, due to the odd things that can happen in a one-off game or even a short playoff series. 

This, this, this!

[CowboyIndian]

The championship model which is common in American sports is okay but it is obviously incorrect for anyone to claim that it's an actual representation of who the best team is in a way that the regular season result is not.  It's precisely the opposite, due to the odd things that can happen in a one-off game or even a short playoff series. 

This, this, this!

[TooMuchTV]

Sports is about crowning winners.

Keeping score is about crowning winners.

[TooMuchTV]

Sports is about crowning winners.

Keeping score is about crowning winners.

[OutsiderFan]

OF, you're changing your narrative.

You claimed "Sports is about crowning winners". That is what I'm discussing, not the Mariners or the even closer to home, the Warriors who won 73.

You didn't answer my question. If your conjecture is correct, why do the other 31 D1 women's water polo teams compete when they have zero chance of being crowned a champion? Must be something more to it, don't you think?

I think I understand the disconnect now. 

When I say sports are about winning, I'm thinking about it through the prism of those who organize and sanction the competitions, not those who participate in them. 

You are thinking about sports through the prism of those who participate in competitions.

All sports competition organizers set up a system that determines an overall winner where they have jurisdiction. All sports competitors want to be the best and will compete even if the odds against them winning are infinitesimal, because they love the process and the competition even if they lose.

[OutsiderFan]

OF, you're changing your narrative.

You claimed "Sports is about crowning winners". That is what I'm discussing, not the Mariners or the even closer to home, the Warriors who won 73.

You didn't answer my question. If your conjecture is correct, why do the other 31 D1 women's water polo teams compete when they have zero chance of being crowned a champion? Must be something more to it, don't you think?

I think I understand the disconnect now. 

When I say sports are about winning, I'm thinking about it through the prism of those who organize and sanction the competitions, not those who participate in them. 

You are thinking about sports through the prism of those who participate in competitions.

All sports competition organizers set up a system that determines an overall winner where they have jurisdiction. All sports competitors want to be the best and will compete even if the odds against them winning are infinitesimal, because they love the process and the competition even if they lose.

[OutsiderFan]

Back to the topic at hand...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/1545417209266192387[/tweet]

This seems to suggest the age of college conference TV Networks - like the Big Ten Network - guaranteeing certain carriage fees, is losing its grip. The on-demand nature of streaming, and frankly what Apple TV has done with MLB, suggests any college league streaming rights will require a paid subscription to watch. The days of all subscribers subsidizing what they don't watch, could - thankfully - be showing signs of coming to an end. 

I'm not buying Amazon whatever to watch NFL games this season. I somehow paid for them on DirecTV whether I watched them or not. I can't imagine this is going to create more revenue for the NFL than it made previously, but it will allow it to continue making money as DirecTV  hemorrhages subscribers. 

Frankly, one of the primary reasons we have DirecTV is Sunday Ticket. I could easily see dropping DirecTV after its gone.

[OutsiderFan]

Back to the topic at hand...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/1545417209266192387[/tweet]

This seems to suggest the age of college conference TV Networks - like the Big Ten Network - guaranteeing certain carriage fees, is losing its grip. The on-demand nature of streaming, and frankly what Apple TV has done with MLB, suggests any college league streaming rights will require a paid subscription to watch. The days of all subscribers subsidizing what they don't watch, could - thankfully - be showing signs of coming to an end. 

I'm not buying Amazon whatever to watch NFL games this season. I somehow paid for them on DirecTV whether I watched them or not. I can't imagine this is going to create more revenue for the NFL than it made previously, but it will allow it to continue making money as DirecTV  hemorrhages subscribers. 

Frankly, one of the primary reasons we have DirecTV is Sunday Ticket. I could easily see dropping DirecTV after its gone.

[Goose]

When I say sports are about winning, I'm thinking about it through the prism of those who organize and sanction the competitions, not those who participate in them. 


You are thinking about sports through the prism of those who participate in competitions.



All sports competition organizers set up a system that determines an overall winner where they have jurisdiction. All sports competitors want to be the best and will compete even if the odds against them winning are infinitesimal, because they love the process and the competition even if they lose.

We are getting closer, but I still disagree. First, all sports competition do not set up systems that determine an overall winner. There are other factors involved. For many, many years the NCAA had both the NCAA championship and the NIT. Which one crowned the "winner"? People back in the 40s and 50s liked the NIT better because it allowed lots more teams that they wanted to see. Often the "best" teams went there. The NCAA tournament was definitely second fiddle. Before air transport was common, having 64 team tournaments was very difficult and would take forever. When that became possible, the NIT receded into history. Sports leagues set up competition systems that "work". As has been pointed out, soccer leagues have multiple "champions". Even NCAA football doesn't insist North Dakota State play Georgia to be a "champion". What leagues do IMHO is set up a system the public "likes". Today, they add the constraint that it maximizes revenue.

One could (and many have) argued that the "regular season" should crown the champion, and in leagues that are small enough, it often does. NCAA sports are generally too big for that, so we end up with a "post-season" that decides the championship. In football, it wasn't always that way. The powers that be felt multiple bowl games worked better at maximizing profit and the public "liked" it. There used to be few bowl games. Only league champions went. However, TV made it possible to play bowl games that could make significant money even though they didn't draw a big enough crowd at the stadium to do so. Subsequently, it became clear a "national championship" would make big bucks, even though it really wasn't representative of the entire NCAA college football scene. That was done for one reason. Money. The previous system worked just fine and grew the sport. It existed for years without an "ultimate game" and still does in that there are divisions of NCAA football. Obviously the current system is not an inevitable consequence of the NCAA existing. It is about the money.

[Goose]

When I say sports are about winning, I'm thinking about it through the prism of those who organize and sanction the competitions, not those who participate in them. 


You are thinking about sports through the prism of those who participate in competitions.



All sports competition organizers set up a system that determines an overall winner where they have jurisdiction. All sports competitors want to be the best and will compete even if the odds against them winning are infinitesimal, because they love the process and the competition even if they lose.

We are getting closer, but I still disagree. First, all sports competition do not set up systems that determine an overall winner. There are other factors involved. For many, many years the NCAA had both the NCAA championship and the NIT. Which one crowned the "winner"? People back in the 40s and 50s liked the NIT better because it allowed lots more teams that they wanted to see. Often the "best" teams went there. The NCAA tournament was definitely second fiddle. Before air transport was common, having 64 team tournaments was very difficult and would take forever. When that became possible, the NIT receded into history. Sports leagues set up competition systems that "work". As has been pointed out, soccer leagues have multiple "champions". Even NCAA football doesn't insist North Dakota State play Georgia to be a "champion". What leagues do IMHO is set up a system the public "likes". Today, they add the constraint that it maximizes revenue.

One could (and many have) argued that the "regular season" should crown the champion, and in leagues that are small enough, it often does. NCAA sports are generally too big for that, so we end up with a "post-season" that decides the championship. In football, it wasn't always that way. The powers that be felt multiple bowl games worked better at maximizing profit and the public "liked" it. There used to be few bowl games. Only league champions went. However, TV made it possible to play bowl games that could make significant money even though they didn't draw a big enough crowd at the stadium to do so. Subsequently, it became clear a "national championship" would make big bucks, even though it really wasn't representative of the entire NCAA college football scene. That was done for one reason. Money. The previous system worked just fine and grew the sport. It existed for years without an "ultimate game" and still does in that there are divisions of NCAA football. Obviously the current system is not an inevitable consequence of the NCAA existing. It is about the money.

[Phogge]

It's personally relative. To ESPN/ABC, CBS and to some fans all across the country college football is all about the NC.
OK.

Then there are some who prize entertainment first. Plenty of Big Games when Cal and Stanford were crappy were entertaining no matter who won. Much better when Stanford won but 1953, '56, '58 were great games.

Memorable Stanford seasons included some that didn't end in a bowl. 1953, '55, '68, '69. And seasons when Stanford beat a RB team, '53 UCLA, '64 Oregon State.

'57 was memorable, so were '62, '77, '78, '91, '92, '95, 2010, 2011. No Rose Bowls.

Last year Stanford was boring. Now they are on the edge of needing to be adopted. At least it will be interesting to see where the chips fall. Better still if they can score a lot more points and get a three and out now and then.

[Phogge]

It's personally relative. To ESPN/ABC, CBS and to some fans all across the country college football is all about the NC.
OK.

Then there are some who prize entertainment first. Plenty of Big Games when Cal and Stanford were crappy were entertaining no matter who won. Much better when Stanford won but 1953, '56, '58 were great games.

Memorable Stanford seasons included some that didn't end in a bowl. 1953, '55, '68, '69. And seasons when Stanford beat a RB team, '53 UCLA, '64 Oregon State.

'57 was memorable, so were '62, '77, '78, '91, '92, '95, 2010, 2011. No Rose Bowls.

Last year Stanford was boring. Now they are on the edge of needing to be adopted. At least it will be interesting to see where the chips fall. Better still if they can score a lot more points and get a three and out now and then.

[Softball Fan]

Then there are fans like me who don't really care all that much about football and not that interested in who wins what football title.   Yesterday on another website I posted my first choice is for Stanford to drop football and turn all other sports into club teams.  College should focus on academics.  Start minor leagues for kids who want to pursue a career in a sport.

[Softball Fan]

Then there are fans like me who don't really care all that much about football and not that interested in who wins what football title.   Yesterday on another website I posted my first choice is for Stanford to drop football and turn all other sports into club teams.  College should focus on academics.  Start minor leagues for kids who want to pursue a career in a sport.

[Maple Leaf]

The best thing that could happen in all sports but especially college sports is there are no dominate teams, everybody hovers around 500 in wins and losses and every game is exciting and a nail biter.  Think of Army-Navy Football or the Big Game without blowouts, with some relative unknown back up making a big-time game deciding play.  Great for the game, the scalpers, the bookies, bar and liquor store owners, and just maybe a few grass growers.

[Maple Leaf]

The best thing that could happen in all sports but especially college sports is there are no dominate teams, everybody hovers around 500 in wins and losses and every game is exciting and a nail biter.  Think of Army-Navy Football or the Big Game without blowouts, with some relative unknown back up making a big-time game deciding play.  Great for the game, the scalpers, the bookies, bar and liquor store owners, and just maybe a few grass growers.

[Mick]

Never thought people could find a way to disagree that sports are organized around determining who the best competitors are when a competition takes place. I guess you guys would argue the 2001 Seattle Mariners who went 116-46 should have just been given the World Series trophy, and the Yankees should have an asterisk for actually winning it, because we don't play sports with a primary objective of crowning a champion. 

Or the 2021 SF Giants that won 107 games to lead the majors, then lost in the first series past the wild card... ;)

BTW, Oregon State is in the midst of a $324.5 mms. redo of its stadium, presumably assuming that Pac12 opponents continued into infinity and beyond...now worthless, thanks to USCLA...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-ex...0a788b65c8

https://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/...35118.html

[Mick]

Never thought people could find a way to disagree that sports are organized around determining who the best competitors are when a competition takes place. I guess you guys would argue the 2001 Seattle Mariners who went 116-46 should have just been given the World Series trophy, and the Yankees should have an asterisk for actually winning it, because we don't play sports with a primary objective of crowning a champion. 

Or the 2021 SF Giants that won 107 games to lead the majors, then lost in the first series past the wild card... ;)

BTW, Oregon State is in the midst of a $324.5 mms. redo of its stadium, presumably assuming that Pac12 opponents continued into infinity and beyond...now worthless, thanks to USCLA...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-ex...0a788b65c8

https://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/...35118.html

[ADPinWDC]

While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined.  So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.

The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave.  I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.

If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge.  Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC.  The ACC is stronger right now.  And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC.  Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation.  And it combines two conference with strong academics.

I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

I don't want to shack up.  I want a ring on my finger...

Actually a "Friends with Privileges" with the ACC might be what viewers would like to see.  
Some media aces are probably testing that for value.
ESPN might go for the West Coast weekend flings.

[ADPinWDC]

While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined.  So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.

The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave.  I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.

If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge.  Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC.  The ACC is stronger right now.  And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC.  Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation.  And it combines two conference with strong academics.

I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

I don't want to shack up.  I want a ring on my finger...

Actually a "Friends with Privileges" with the ACC might be what viewers would like to see.  
Some media aces are probably testing that for value.
ESPN might go for the West Coast weekend flings.

[Giants]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-followed

Nothing new to report - just a summary of how the transaction came together….

[Giants]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-followed

Nothing new to report - just a summary of how the transaction came together….

[Beeg_Dawg]

Ouch

Just read this article.  If this is what P12 is hanging its hat own, it will be totally gone in 3 years.  Pretty lame.....

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...9owTwPQKBI

As a conference, P12 has not had much to cheer about for the last few years.  I didn't realize there is so much contempt for the P12. 

This is typical of what I've been reading.
"PAC 12? I would take those 4 new guys any day and twice on Sunday. PAC 12 schools should consider fielding lingerie teams to improve their relevance."

The last 20 years has been one hell of a ride, but I think this will be our last year.  Time to move on and find a new hobby.  :(

[Beeg_Dawg]

Ouch

Just read this article.  If this is what P12 is hanging its hat own, it will be totally gone in 3 years.  Pretty lame.....

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...9owTwPQKBI

As a conference, P12 has not had much to cheer about for the last few years.  I didn't realize there is so much contempt for the P12. 

This is typical of what I've been reading.
"PAC 12? I would take those 4 new guys any day and twice on Sunday. PAC 12 schools should consider fielding lingerie teams to improve their relevance."

The last 20 years has been one hell of a ride, but I think this will be our last year.  Time to move on and find a new hobby.  :(

[Phogge]

Cal was mentioned in the article along with the remaining PAC 12 schools. Except Stanford. No national relevance guys.

[Phogge]

Cal was mentioned in the article along with the remaining PAC 12 schools. Except Stanford. No national relevance guys.

[chrisk]

Ouch

Just read this article.  If this is what P12 is hanging its hat own, it will be totally gone in 3 years.  Pretty lame.....

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...9owTwPQKBI

As a conference, P12 has not had much to cheer about for the last few years.  I didn't realize there is so much contempt for the P12. 

This is typical of what I've been reading.
"PAC 12? I would take those 4 new guys any day and twice on Sunday. PAC 12 schools should consider fielding lingerie teams to improve their relevance."

The last 20 years has been one hell of a ride, but I think this will be our last year.  Time to move on and find a new hobby.  :(

Isn’t that website a tool of the Big12?

[chrisk]

Ouch

Just read this article.  If this is what P12 is hanging its hat own, it will be totally gone in 3 years.  Pretty lame.....

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...9owTwPQKBI

As a conference, P12 has not had much to cheer about for the last few years.  I didn't realize there is so much contempt for the P12. 

This is typical of what I've been reading.
"PAC 12? I would take those 4 new guys any day and twice on Sunday. PAC 12 schools should consider fielding lingerie teams to improve their relevance."

The last 20 years has been one hell of a ride, but I think this will be our last year.  Time to move on and find a new hobby.  :(

Isn’t that website a tool of the Big12?

[CTcard]

Ouch

Just read this article.  If this is what P12 is hanging its hat own, it will be totally gone in 3 years.  Pretty lame.....

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...9owTwPQKBI

As a conference, P12 has not had much to cheer about for the last few years.  I didn't realize there is so much contempt for the P12. 

This is typical of what I've been reading.
"PAC 12? I would take those 4 new guys any day and twice on Sunday. PAC 12 schools should consider fielding lingerie teams to improve their relevance."

The last 20 years has been one hell of a ride, but I think this will be our last year.  Time to move on and find a new hobby.  :(

Why would you put any stock into a micro-site Big 12 blog post? 
Or random defensive posts by Big 12 fans? 

Nevertheless, it makes sense that the point of that article is roughly true. Of course the Pac 10 would be finding a way to make a case for its position versus competitors, particularly the Big 12. 
The idea that the remaining Pac 10 is higher profile than the rump Big 12 is hardly going out on a ledge. 
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah, Washington, Washington State
vs.
Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinatti, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, West Virginia.

Of course the Pac 10 could easily collapse further as remaining members panic. The only reason that Big 12 seems a tad more stable is that none of its soon to be members have anywhere else to go whereas several Pac 10 teams would like to think they do.

[CTcard]

Ouch

Just read this article.  If this is what P12 is hanging its hat own, it will be totally gone in 3 years.  Pretty lame.....

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...9owTwPQKBI

As a conference, P12 has not had much to cheer about for the last few years.  I didn't realize there is so much contempt for the P12. 

This is typical of what I've been reading.
"PAC 12? I would take those 4 new guys any day and twice on Sunday. PAC 12 schools should consider fielding lingerie teams to improve their relevance."

The last 20 years has been one hell of a ride, but I think this will be our last year.  Time to move on and find a new hobby.  :(

Why would you put any stock into a micro-site Big 12 blog post? 
Or random defensive posts by Big 12 fans? 

Nevertheless, it makes sense that the point of that article is roughly true. Of course the Pac 10 would be finding a way to make a case for its position versus competitors, particularly the Big 12. 
The idea that the remaining Pac 10 is higher profile than the rump Big 12 is hardly going out on a ledge. 
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah, Washington, Washington State
vs.
Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinatti, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, West Virginia.

Of course the Pac 10 could easily collapse further as remaining members panic. The only reason that Big 12 seems a tad more stable is that none of its soon to be members have anywhere else to go whereas several Pac 10 teams would like to think they do.