Pac 12... 11... 10... 9... 8... 7...6...5...4... POOF!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
BlazerBender said:
Yeah thats more accurate. Heard it on the radio the other day and i didn't paint a very good picture.
Still a monumental mistake to not take it.
Click to expand...

Huge mistake for the schools outside of Wash/Oregon. I think ultimately, those two schools would be have realized in the 2030's that they needed to leave to have any chance to compete on the national level, so this may have only sped the process to getting them to full-share in what I believe will be one of the two power conferences. A $30m/year revenue gap makes it so difficult to recruit, compete with facilities, and retain quality coaches.
 
Tince said:
Huge mistake for the schools outside of Wash/Oregon. I think ultimately, those two schools would be have realized in the 2030's that they needed to leave to have any chance to compete on the national level, so this may have only sped the process to getting them to full-share in what I believe will be one of the two power conferences. A $30m/year revenue gap makes it so difficult to recruit, compete with facilities, and retain quality coaches.
Click to expand...

Not so sure though. All the increased travel is going to have an impact. Five to seven games back east vs west coast i think will have an impact on them. I think the best case would have been to keep the pac12 intact without any more departures.
I could be wrong but i think thos will make it much tougher for both schools to be a top team. A playoff contending team.
Im no college football guru though. Im a fair weather fan who roots for whatever nw team is doing well at the time and is ranked and i have little knowledge of the ncaa rules and all the details of all this.
Im the kid EVERYONE else hates because i have no alliance. Unless somehow green river community college entered the picture. Lol.
 
BlazerBender said:
Not so sure though. All the increased travel is going to have an impact. Five to seven games back east vs west coast i think will have an impact on them. I think the best case would have been to keep the pac12 intact without any more departures.
I could be wrong but i think thos will make it much tougher for both schools to be a top team. A playoff contending team.
Im no college football guru though. Im a fair weather fan who roots for whatever nw team is doing well at the time and is ranked and i have little knowledge of the ncaa rules and all the details of all this.
Im the kid EVERYONE else hates because i have no alliance. Unless somehow green river community college entered the picture. Lol.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more.

I would much rather be a program flying an additional 10-15 hours per season, but have $30m-$40m extra to hire/retain elite coaches, build top notch facilities, fund support staff, be on linear TV, have increased money for NIL, be able to pitch to recruits you're in one of the top two conferences, etc.

Don't get me wrong; Oregon will be the conference champion far more infrequently now than they would've been had they stayed out West, but their ability to actually contend to win the national championship might've increased just as much.
 
Last edited:
Canzano’s reporting being used as a significant source of information to drive the narrative of ASU’s Michael Crow being some white knight for the PAC raises my red flags. All credit, no blame for him. A load right there. ASU jumped ship really fast … and it’s amazing they pulled that one off so amazingly quickly with the Big12 … no apparent, previous discussions … wow. Crow got that moving soooooooo fast. Calling shenanigans.

Arizona has been prepping their off ramp with Colorado. Utah? No blame coming their way. Just an innocent bystander that got pulled in by the Big12 because they’re good at football and have had some success at basketball … No one’s an innocent in this and neither are they necessarily nefarious.

The PAC12 botched it for years. Lack of actual leadership earned this. I feel bad for OSU and WSU and some fans and supporters, but that’s it.
 
Tince said:
Couldn't disagree more.

I would much rather be a program flying an additional 10-15 hours per season, but have $30m-$40m extra to hire/retain elite coaches, build top notch facilities, fund support staff, be on linear TV, have increased money for NIL, be able to pitch to recruits you're in one of the top two conferences, etc.

Don't get me wrong; Oregon will be the conference champion far more infrequently now than they would've been had they stayed out West, but their ability to actually contend to win the national championship might've increased just as much.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I'd rather of had it stay the same, but this is NOTHING but a positive for both the Ducks and that stupid Purple and Gold team up north.
 
THE HCP said:
Totally agree. I'd rather of had it stay the same, but this is NOTHING but a positive for both the Ducks and that stupid Purple and Gold team up north.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure, I think there is risk. Suppose the first few years go badly on the field. There might be an irreversible drop off in interest that wouldn’t have happened if they still had the history to fall back on.

barfo
 
Tince said:
Couldn't disagree more.

I would much rather be a program flying an additional 10-15 hours per season, but have $30m-$40m extra to hire/retain elite coaches, build top notch facilities, fund support staff, be on linear TV, have increased money for NIL, be able to pitch to recruits you're in one of the top two conferences, etc.

Don't get me wrong; Oregon will be the conference champion far more infrequently now than they would've been had they stayed out West, but their ability to actually contend to win the national championship might've increased just as much.
Click to expand...

Hmm im not so sure. I hope you are right, but I think UW and OU have alot of fair-weather fans on top of theirs diehards. Especially UO who has no local pro team to offset the casual football fans.
As @barfo eluded, If they dont start hot out of the gate, i think alot of the fans like me will become disinterested and not tune in.
I liked tuning into the west coast rivalries. It felt like UO and UU were building one and UU has been getting better.
I see all of that falling apart and this creating a void of interest in fans.
Also i wasn't just speaking of team travel but fan travel. Fans head to pullman, seattle, Corvallis, etc. they wont be heading back East.
So not only is the on the road, physical fan support diminished, but as we see Oregon play some East cost team again on the east coast, and they arent winning? I think many will be like me… who wont care and tune out.
College kids can afford a road trip to the next state. To the opposite coast or midwest? Not so much.
With the espn contract, from what i know, would have been the 30 mill per but also allow the teams flexibility to make money in other ways that are no longer attainable for them.
 
BlazerBender said:
Not so sure though. All the increased travel is going to have an impact. Five to seven games back east vs west coast i think will have an impact on them. I think the best case would have been to keep the pac12 intact without any more departures.
I could be wrong but i think thos will make it much tougher for both schools to be a top team. A playoff contending team..
Click to expand...

with a 9 game conference schedule, 3 of the games will be on the west coast for sure, leaving 6 games a year against the rest of the BIG. The 5 home games 1 year alternating with 4 home the next will flip-flop with the other west coast teams; one year the Ducks will have 2 at home against USC/UCLA/UofW, the next year 2 on the road

meaning that the Duck football team will only travel to 3 conference road games a year against the rest of the BIG. In fact, 3 games max in the eastern time zones was part of the agreement with the BIG when Oregon/Washington joined

furthermore, it's not like they will be flying to Europe. Flying to Ohio State or Michigan is around 2400 miles. But flying to Colorado or Arizona is 1300 miles. Salt Lake City is 800 miles. The only burden of those extra miles will be another hour or two on a jet. All the other components of travel: packing and getting to the airport; negotiating the airport prior to departure; negotiating another airport after arrival; traveling to a hotel and getting a room; getting meals; leaving a hotel and going to the game venue; playing the game; leaving the venue for the airport; once again negotiating departure and arrival airports; going home and unpacking....all of that will be the same whether traveling to Seattle or Ann Arbor

the travel burden for football player is being exaggerated. The travel costs, not so much, but again, the added costs are mostly from longer flights = more fuel

it will be tougher to win the conference, that's for sure. But that won't be because of travel

now, that's all for the football teams. It's going to be different and more challenging for the other sports teams. The BIG plays a 20 game conference schedule in men's BB and an 18 game schedule in women's BB. There is already some planning for longer road trips. It won't be like flying to Arizona or LA to play just 2 games. Teams will very likely fly back east for 10-14 days and play 5-6 games. But there will still be travel between venues back east, and the players will still have some scholastic responsibilities. It will be more challenging for the players in Olympic sports. For instance: women's softball. Now, those teams play a 55-60 game schedule every year. But BIG only plays a 23 game conference schedule. So, it's easy to see an added burden but it's also easy to see ways to mitigate

if Notre Dame said today they were ready to join the BIG, both Notre Dame & Stanford would be in the BIG by Tuesday. BIG presidents would love to add Stanford (academic prestige), but FOX won't kick in any extra money for Stanford like they did for Oregon and Washington. But FOX would add for Notre Dame + Stanford. Now there is already talk about a 10 game conference schedule. and it would probably go that way if it was a 20 team conference. But the formula would remain the same 4 games out west and 3 road games back east
 
BlazerBender said:
Hmm im not so sure. I hope you are right, but I think UW and OU have alot of fair-weather fans on top of theirs diehards. Especially UO who has no local pro team to offset the casual football fans.
As @barfo eluded, If they dont start hot out of the gate, i think alot of the fans like me will become disinterested and not tune in.
I liked tuning into the west coast rivalries. It felt like UO and UU were building one and UU has been getting better.
I see all of that falling apart and this creating a void of interest in fans.
Also i wasn't just speaking of team travel but fan travel. Fans head to pullman, seattle, Corvallis, etc. they wont be heading back East.
So not only is the on the road, physical fan support diminished, but as we see Oregon play some East cost team again on the east coast, and they arent winning? I think many will be like me… who wont care and tune out.
College kids can afford a road trip to the next state. To the opposite coast or midwest? Not so much.
With the espn contract, from what i know, would have been the 30 mill per but also allow the teams flexibility to make money in other ways that are no longer attainable for them.
Click to expand...

I agree every fan base has fair weather fans. If I said Oregon and Washington don't have fair-weather fans then I misspoke. I don't believe I did.

Your theory that fair weather fans might come and go in terms of rooting for Oregon now that they're in the B1G, I would also agree. By definition, fair weather fans come and go for all sorts of reasons. Another reason fair weather fans may come/go is if they realize the team they were once interested in are in a vastly inferior conference and has almost no chance to compete on a national due to a lack of resources to retain players, coaches, upgrade facilities, etc. Probably why fair-weather fans are super interest in Portland St.

Regarding road travel, I almost never see college kids at any road game, even in Corvallis/Seattle. Those are hard/expensive tickets to get. Sometimes you see a handful at the Stanford/Cal game, but it's in the dozens. So the impact of maybe a hundred college kids not making road games is virtually a moot point to me. The fair-weather fans don't really travel to games, so I exclude them also. The die-hards seem to be pumped to go to stadiums rich in tradition and a great atmosphere.

The ESPN contract that that school presidents rejected in 2022 did all for schools to make revenue in other places. As does the B1G contract. So the future $30m+ gap I referenced is still mostly accurate. I might argue that those other revenue streams will be easier to tap into while competing at a national level.

At the end of the day, we'll never know what would've been better because only one direction will have results in the future. We agree that fair-weather fans will continue to be fair-weather fans. I think Oregon's potential to add fair weather fans has also increased greatly with this change for many of the reasons I previously listed. We'll see if you theory that local teams who stay in the region benefit greatly from fair-weather fan support is true. I'll keep my eye on Portland St attendence and even Oregon St if they go to the Mountain West.
 
BlazerBender said:
As @barfo eluded, If they dont start hot out of the gate, i think alot of the fans like me will become disinterested and not tune in.
Click to expand...

you would tune in for a 6-6 Pac-9 team but not a 6-6 BIG team?

meaning that fan interest that depends on winning would wane for a losing team no matter who they were playing. The key is to rarely have losing teams then

BlazerBender said:
I liked tuning into the west coast rivalries. It felt like UO and UU were building one and UU has been getting better.
I see all of that falling apart and this creating a void of interest in fans.
Also i wasn't just speaking of team travel but fan travel. Fans head to pullman, seattle, Corvallis, etc. they wont be heading back East.
So not only is the on the road, physical fan support diminished, but as we see Oregon play some East cost team again on the east coast, and they arent winning? I think many will be like me… who wont care and tune out.
College kids can afford a road trip to the next state. To the opposite coast or midwest? Not so much.
With the espn contract, from what i know, would have been the 30 mill per but also allow the teams flexibility to make money in other ways that are no longer attainable for them.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of Duck fans that would attend every game in California or Arizona but would never attend games in Pullman or Corvallis or Boulder. But then, a lot of Duck fans don't live in the Willamette valley; don't even live in Oregon

there may be fewer Duck fans attending a game at Ohio State or Michigan than would at UCLA or ASU. But what difference would it make? Having 7000 Duck fans among the 100,000 in Columbus or Ann Arbor won't be different than having 5000

and a lot more eyeballs will tune into Oregon playing ranked Ohio State or Penn State or Michigan than when they play 2-7 Colorado or 4-6 ASU or 5-5 WSU
 
Im a Duck through and through and am never opposed to change/progress/improvement if cost of doing so is reasonable and necessary. It would be nice if eventually the New Big could add a few more West Region Teams to make up a Western Division.
 
wizenheimer said:
you would tune in for a 6-6 Pac-9 team but not a 6-6 BIG team?

meaning that fan interest that depends on winning would wane for a losing team no matter who they were playing. The key is to rarely have losing teams then



I know a lot of Duck fans that would attend every game in California or Arizona but would never attend games in Pullman or Corvallis or Boulder. But then, a lot of Duck fans don't live in the Willamette valley; don't even live in Oregon

there may be fewer Duck fans attending a game at Ohio State or Michigan than would at UCLA or ASU. But what difference would it make? Having 7000 Duck fans among the 100,000 in Columbus or Ann Arbor won't be different than having 5000

and a lot more eyeballs will tune into Oregon playing ranked Ohio State or Penn State or Michigan than when they play 2-7 Colorado or 4-6 ASU or 5-5 WSU
Click to expand...

We shall see. All of this is driven by tv viewership right? Just using myself as an example, i don't see myself watching nearly as many games unless they are winning. I see it harder for them to win now. This, in turn, will affect their viewership and thus their future contract income. Just not sure this is good long term.

one thing i failed to mention are all the other sports tes thst rely on football income to survive. Sure the football tram along only equates to x extra dollars and time but what about all the schools sports? I think it will add up quickly and schools will find the money being dispersed quicker than anticipated to cover travel costs. if there is something in the contract addressing all sports travel, then im incorrect in my thoughts, but i have not heard of aNy such stipulation.
 
Hoopguru said:
Im a Duck through and through and am never opposed to change/progress/improvement if cost of doing so is reasonable and necessary. It would be nice if eventually the New Big could add a few more West Region Teams to make up a Western Division.
Click to expand...

That is how i see it working. They need to pick up osu and wsu Nd a couple others and create a division, minimizing the travel of so many non-football sports.
 
BlazerBender said:
We shall see. All of this is driven by tv viewership right? Just using myself as an example, i don't see myself watching nearly as many games unless they are winning. I see it harder for them to win now. This, in turn, will affect their viewership and thus their future contract income. Just not sure this is good long term.

one thing i failed to mention are all the other sports tes thst rely on football income to survive. Sure the football tram along only equates to x extra dollars and time but what about all the schools sports? I think it will add up quickly and schools will find the money being dispersed quicker than anticipated to cover travel costs. if there is something in the contract addressing all sports travel, then im incorrect in my thoughts, but i have not heard of aNy such stipulation.
Click to expand...

Football essentially pays for all the other sports. Men's basketball can kick in some profit but that's usually a conference disbursement for March Madness

IIRC, the formula for March Madness, in the PAC, is that the networks pay $340,000 to the conference for each game played by conference teams in the tournament. That money is pooled on a 6-year rotation, then disbursed pro-rata each year based on an running average over the 6 year time frame (that's a PAC formula). So, next season, the pool will be how much the conference teams earned in the 2019-2024 tournaments. If the total over those 6 seasons is 24M, then the 24M is divided by 6 years....leaving a 4M disbursement among the conference teams. That being the conference teams that are still members of the conference

this a a big reason why OSU/WSU want to try and keep the Pac-12 going as a conference. They are picturing receiving 1-2M a year for the 5 years after next season based upon 2020-2024 MM revenue (I don't know how the BIG disburses March Madness revenue)

anyway, football pays for the other sports so the reality is that the more revenue football generates the better it is for all

and yes, there were two significant pivot points the PAC bollixed in the last 2 years. One was in 2021 when they voted on adding Big-12 teams like Ok State and Baylor (Big-12 was in panic mode after Texas/OK left for SEC). The vote was 8-4 against and USC led the charge against expansion. The other was when they had an opportunity to accept the 30-33M/year offer from ESPN (they would have made a little bit more, each, by having ESPN partner with the Pac-12 network)

Oregon voted yes on expansion is 2021; OSU voted no. Oregon was in favor of accepting ESPN's offer in 2022; OSU was opposed. That's why it's so insane and hypocritical that OSU-nation is blaming Oregon for the PAC's demise
 
Whole family are die hard life long Ducks and Duck fans. I record and watch every football and basketball game regardless of how their season is going. I assume most fans do the same with their favorite teams?
 
Georgia is the back-2-back national champion. This is their schedule next season:

F3XMUCqWYAEngcf


the SEC knows how to schedule OOC
 
THE HCP said:
Whole family are die hard life long Ducks and Duck fans. I record and watch every football and basketball game regardless of how their season is going. I assume most fans do the same with their favorite teams?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but probably for most people it's less like your relationship with the Ducks, and more like your relationship with your favorite NBA team, the Lakers.

Losing isn't as much fun; losing to teams you don't even care about beating is just boring.

barfo
 
Why did the Beavers shrink the size of their stadium? You'd be the smallest in the Big 12 by almost 10,000 seats.

11a0A6B.jpg
 
Natebishop3 said:
Rumors are that Oregon and Washington got full payouts for the B1G.
Click to expand...

I'd love if it were true, but that's very much in conflict with what Oregon president Karl Scholz said on August 4th.

What is the source of this rumor?
 
Natebishop3 said:
https://fansided.com/2023/08/11/ohi...urce=msn&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=msn
Click to expand...

For context, John Buhler has 10% of the twitter followers of Danny Marange. That article made a real sloppy leap in saying Oregon didn't want to leave for less than a full share and that Fox brought new money to the table, therefore Oregon got a full share.

Not saying I know it's wrong, but I can't figure out why Oregon's president would announce Oregon will average $50m/year in media revenue over the next 10 years, when in fact they're starting out at $60m/year in 2024.
 
Tince said:
For context, John Buhler has 10% of the twitter followers of Danny Marange. That article made a real sloppy leap in saying Oregon didn't want to leave for less than a full share and that Fox brought new money to the table, therefore Oregon got a full share.

Not saying I know it's wrong, but I can't figure out why Oregon's president would announce Oregon will average $50m/year in media revenue over the next 10 years, when in fact they're starting out at $60m/year in 2024.
Click to expand...
50 sounded high considering we originally heard something like 30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top