[chrisk]

Greg Byrne was virtual Pac-12 life until becoming Alabama AD in 2017.

https://tucson.com/sports/college/footba...1ee4d.html

non-pay link with a few quotes

https://forum.fishduck.com/topic/12870-j...of-pac-12/

[chrisk]

Greg Byrne was virtual Pac-12 life until becoming Alabama AD in 2017.

https://tucson.com/sports/college/footba...1ee4d.html

non-pay link with a few quotes

https://forum.fishduck.com/topic/12870-j...of-pac-12/

[cardcrimson]

Greg Byrne was virtual Pac-12 life until becoming Alabama AD in 2017.

https://tucson.com/sports/college/footba...1ee4d.html

non-pay link with a few quotes

https://forum.fishduck.com/topic/12870-j...of-pac-12/

Great interview. And from this inside view, the blame still lies at the feet of Larry Scott.

[cardcrimson]

Greg Byrne was virtual Pac-12 life until becoming Alabama AD in 2017.

https://tucson.com/sports/college/footba...1ee4d.html

non-pay link with a few quotes

https://forum.fishduck.com/topic/12870-j...of-pac-12/

Great interview. And from this inside view, the blame still lies at the feet of Larry Scott.

[81alum]

This is the part that I found most informative:

What internal characteristics/weaknesses have made the Pac-12 vulnerable to collapsing under the shifting dynamics of college football?
A: It’s hard to pinpoint one thing, but I think as the Pac-12 struggled on the football field, the interest simultaneously waned in a few other areas.
First, fans weren’t showing up with the same fervor. Secondly, local kids may not have been exposed to football as much and didn’t play in the same numbers as compared to the rest of the country. That has an effect on the number of future recruits and high-level athletes who are playing the game, as well as the alumni and fan base who follow the teams.
Some of the best young athletes who grew up out west, and who often would have played for a Pac-12 school, sometimes looked elsewhere — including Alabama.

Interest in football among west coast people is simply falling.  It may be as simple as that.

[81alum]

This is the part that I found most informative:

What internal characteristics/weaknesses have made the Pac-12 vulnerable to collapsing under the shifting dynamics of college football?
A: It’s hard to pinpoint one thing, but I think as the Pac-12 struggled on the football field, the interest simultaneously waned in a few other areas.
First, fans weren’t showing up with the same fervor. Secondly, local kids may not have been exposed to football as much and didn’t play in the same numbers as compared to the rest of the country. That has an effect on the number of future recruits and high-level athletes who are playing the game, as well as the alumni and fan base who follow the teams.
Some of the best young athletes who grew up out west, and who often would have played for a Pac-12 school, sometimes looked elsewhere — including Alabama.

Interest in football among west coast people is simply falling.  It may be as simple as that.

[M T]

Interest in the west about football wouldn’t seem to be an internal characteristic of the PAC-12 conference anymore than a drought is. It is an external factor. It affects the other conferences in the region. It may not be affecting other areas….yet. 

Lack of interest affects TV viewer numbers which then affects TV contracts, which then affects the AD budget.  It may or may not affect donor dollars linearly. 

IMO, the other conferences should heed the distant thunder in the west. Circuses and Friday Night Fights were once popular too.

[M T]

Interest in the west about football wouldn’t seem to be an internal characteristic of the PAC-12 conference anymore than a drought is. It is an external factor. It affects the other conferences in the region. It may not be affecting other areas….yet. 

Lack of interest affects TV viewer numbers which then affects TV contracts, which then affects the AD budget.  It may or may not affect donor dollars linearly. 

IMO, the other conferences should heed the distant thunder in the west. Circuses and Friday Night Fights were once popular too.

[OutsiderFan]

Never thought I'd see this in the 4-team playoff format...

SEC Commish Greg Sankey:

I think the SEC deserves at least one team in the CFP.

He's reacting to the belief many people have that if Alabama beats Georgia, not only will Georgia be out, but so too will Alabama it Texas wins the Big 12. You can't take Alabama over Texas after Texas beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And you can't take Georgia over Alabama who beat them for SEC championship either.

[OutsiderFan]

Never thought I'd see this in the 4-team playoff format...

SEC Commish Greg Sankey:

I think the SEC deserves at least one team in the CFP.

He's reacting to the belief many people have that if Alabama beats Georgia, not only will Georgia be out, but so too will Alabama it Texas wins the Big 12. You can't take Alabama over Texas after Texas beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And you can't take Georgia over Alabama who beat them for SEC championship either.

[cardcrimson]

Never thought I'd see this in the 4-team playoff format...

SEC Commish Greg Sankey:

I think the SEC deserves at least one team in the CFP.

He's reacting to the belief many people have that if Alabama beats Georgia, not only will Georgia be out, but so too will Alabama it Texas wins the Big 12. You can't take Alabama over Texas after Texas beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And you can't take Georgia over Alabama who beat them for SEC championship either.

And how does this tie to the article and subsequent thread about the demise of the Pac-12?

[cardcrimson]

Never thought I'd see this in the 4-team playoff format...

SEC Commish Greg Sankey:

I think the SEC deserves at least one team in the CFP.

He's reacting to the belief many people have that if Alabama beats Georgia, not only will Georgia be out, but so too will Alabama it Texas wins the Big 12. You can't take Alabama over Texas after Texas beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And you can't take Georgia over Alabama who beat them for SEC championship either.

And how does this tie to the article and subsequent thread about the demise of the Pac-12?

[JohnR34231]

Apparently there is a good chance Florida State will have to play their third string QB against Louisville tomorrow.
If they have to, and Oregon beats Washington tonite as they are expected to, there will be a lot of one loss teams competing for playoff spots.

[JohnR34231]

Apparently there is a good chance Florida State will have to play their third string QB against Louisville tomorrow.
If they have to, and Oregon beats Washington tonite as they are expected to, there will be a lot of one loss teams competing for playoff spots.

[Giants]

1701464363[/url]']
Never thought I'd see this in the 4-team playoff format...

SEC Commish Greg Sankey:

I think the SEC deserves at least one team in the CFP.

He's reacting to the belief many people have that if Alabama beats Georgia, not only will Georgia be out, but so too will Alabama it Texas wins the Big 12. You can't take Alabama over Texas after Texas beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And you can't take Georgia over Alabama who beat them for SEC championship either.

In 2018 and 2022, there were two SEC teams in the Final Four.  

Why not 2023?

Quite frankly, at this point in the season, I think the four best teams are Georgia, Michigan, Alabama and Oregon.  Since the playoff is supposed to include the four “best” teams, both GA and Bama should be in…

Ohio State and Texas are the first teams out……

Of course, the CFP committee does not select the four best teams.  They are bound by politics.  
Next year, with twelve teams in the mix, we will finally see a true champion crowned (the team that is playing the best at the end of the season).  Politics will be far less influential in identifying the winner.


Note: Byrnes is right on the mark with his comments. The conference Presidents and Chancellors through their abdication of responsibility to Scott are to blame for the demise of the conference.

[Giants]

1701464363[/url]']
Never thought I'd see this in the 4-team playoff format...

SEC Commish Greg Sankey:

I think the SEC deserves at least one team in the CFP.

He's reacting to the belief many people have that if Alabama beats Georgia, not only will Georgia be out, but so too will Alabama it Texas wins the Big 12. You can't take Alabama over Texas after Texas beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And you can't take Georgia over Alabama who beat them for SEC championship either.

In 2018 and 2022, there were two SEC teams in the Final Four.  

Why not 2023?

Quite frankly, at this point in the season, I think the four best teams are Georgia, Michigan, Alabama and Oregon.  Since the playoff is supposed to include the four “best” teams, both GA and Bama should be in…

Ohio State and Texas are the first teams out……

Of course, the CFP committee does not select the four best teams.  They are bound by politics.  
Next year, with twelve teams in the mix, we will finally see a true champion crowned (the team that is playing the best at the end of the season).  Politics will be far less influential in identifying the winner.


Note: Byrnes is right on the mark with his comments. The conference Presidents and Chancellors through their abdication of responsibility to Scott are to blame for the demise of the conference.

[dabigv13]

I'm sorry, but it's bullshit to blame anybody for the demise of the Pac-12 besides the decision makers at $C.

[dabigv13]

I'm sorry, but it's bullshit to blame anybody for the demise of the Pac-12 besides the decision makers at $C.

[Goose]

I'm sorry, but it's bullshit to blame anybody for the demise of the Pac-12 besides the decision makers at $C.

I can't agree with that. I totally abhor what U$C did, but the forces that led them there were at work in the conference regardless. If it wasn't them, it would have been somebody else. The PAC-X had problems because of what time zone it was in and because of smaller TV markets. It was going to require exceptionally good management (at a minimum) to overcome those problems. The PAC-X got the opposite. It was similar to a run on a bank. Nobody wanted to be the last one out the door. U$C went first, but given the horrible revenue situation and associated FOMO, others would have led the way in any case.

[Goose]

I'm sorry, but it's bullshit to blame anybody for the demise of the Pac-12 besides the decision makers at $C.

I can't agree with that. I totally abhor what U$C did, but the forces that led them there were at work in the conference regardless. If it wasn't them, it would have been somebody else. The PAC-X had problems because of what time zone it was in and because of smaller TV markets. It was going to require exceptionally good management (at a minimum) to overcome those problems. The PAC-X got the opposite. It was similar to a run on a bank. Nobody wanted to be the last one out the door. U$C went first, but given the horrible revenue situation and associated FOMO, others would have led the way in any case.

[Mick]

Part of the blame has to go to the Utah President who kept claiming that the conference was worth $50 mms. per team when it was worth nowhere near that...particularly Utah, it must be said.

[Mick]

Part of the blame has to go to the Utah President who kept claiming that the conference was worth $50 mms. per team when it was worth nowhere near that...particularly Utah, it must be said.

[dabigv13]

If SC doesn't leave, Arizona is not going anywhere, no matter how many supposed feelers they got. Neither is UW or Oregon or UCLA or any of the Big 12 defectors.

Pac 12 died because SC wanted a few more million a year to be a mid-level Big 10 team. Larry Scott sucked, the P12 network was a mistake, sure. But Pac would have been fine if SC stayed. Nobody held a gun to Carol Folt's head.

[dabigv13]

If SC doesn't leave, Arizona is not going anywhere, no matter how many supposed feelers they got. Neither is UW or Oregon or UCLA or any of the Big 12 defectors.

Pac 12 died because SC wanted a few more million a year to be a mid-level Big 10 team. Larry Scott sucked, the P12 network was a mistake, sure. But Pac would have been fine if SC stayed. Nobody held a gun to Carol Folt's head.

[Goose]

If SC doesn't leave, Arizona is not going anywhere, no matter how many supposed feelers they got.

From what little I know, RR wasn't going to leave until somebody else did. However, his "deal" with the Big-12 had a use-by date on it, and if it became public such a deal existed, he would have to decide immediately. Very, very unclear what he would have decided. IMO he would have pulled the trigger. Downside risk of ending up like WSU was just too large.

Neither is UW or Oregon or UCLA or any of the Big 12 defectors.

Maybe,maybe not. The B1G found a pair of willing co-conspirators in U$C and UCLA. If these schools had said no, it is quite plausible feelers would have gone out to at least Oregon. I am glad you are confident they would have stayed. For my part, I am not.

Pac 12 died because SC wanted a few more million a year to be a mid-level Big 10 team. Larry Scott sucked, the P12 network was a mistake, sure. But Pac would have been fine if SC stayed.
Nobody held a gun to Carol Folt's head.

Really? Given U$C financial situation and the alumni desire to "play for national championships in football", she indeed had several different guns to her head. She still does. Granted, she could have stood up and "done the right thing", but there was PLENTY of pressure to take the money.

I am not trying to argue U$C behaved honorably. They obviously did not. At the same time, I have no confidence that several other PAC-X schools would have behaved better. Nobody wanted to be left without a seat in a "Power 5" conference. Certainly Colorado, Arizona, and Utah were in a defensively minded posture and didn't want to be left out. Oregon and probably Washington may have thought they were in a better position, but they would both be tempted to "move up to the big time" and more money. IMO, somebody would have jumped in any case.

[Goose]

If SC doesn't leave, Arizona is not going anywhere, no matter how many supposed feelers they got.

From what little I know, RR wasn't going to leave until somebody else did. However, his "deal" with the Big-12 had a use-by date on it, and if it became public such a deal existed, he would have to decide immediately. Very, very unclear what he would have decided. IMO he would have pulled the trigger. Downside risk of ending up like WSU was just too large.

Neither is UW or Oregon or UCLA or any of the Big 12 defectors.

Maybe,maybe not. The B1G found a pair of willing co-conspirators in U$C and UCLA. If these schools had said no, it is quite plausible feelers would have gone out to at least Oregon. I am glad you are confident they would have stayed. For my part, I am not.

Pac 12 died because SC wanted a few more million a year to be a mid-level Big 10 team. Larry Scott sucked, the P12 network was a mistake, sure. But Pac would have been fine if SC stayed.
Nobody held a gun to Carol Folt's head.

Really? Given U$C financial situation and the alumni desire to "play for national championships in football", she indeed had several different guns to her head. She still does. Granted, she could have stood up and "done the right thing", but there was PLENTY of pressure to take the money.

I am not trying to argue U$C behaved honorably. They obviously did not. At the same time, I have no confidence that several other PAC-X schools would have behaved better. Nobody wanted to be left without a seat in a "Power 5" conference. Certainly Colorado, Arizona, and Utah were in a defensively minded posture and didn't want to be left out. Oregon and probably Washington may have thought they were in a better position, but they would both be tempted to "move up to the big time" and more money. IMO, somebody would have jumped in any case.