The Irate 8 - What do hope for them?

Seattle Husker said:
Big 12, the remaining 8, have nothing to add to the Pac 12.
Click to expand...
Kansas, Tech and oSu have plenty to offer the PAC-12 (especially after USC moves to the $EC). Merging with either the I8 or the B1G will not be enough to keep USC if the decide to move.

As bad as everyone thinks the LHN is, the PAC Network is a dumpster fire with no real network supporting. Half of the offerings are not even in HD.
 
ViperHorn said:
Kansas, Tech and oSu have plenty to offer the PAC-12 (especially after USC moves to the $EC). Merging with either the I8 or the B1G will not be enough to keep USC if the decide to move.
Click to expand...

USC isn't going to the SEC. Playing 50% of all of your games on the other side of the country would be laughable and put USC as a massive disadvantage. Those 3 I8 schools are simply more of the same for the Pac12. They are like adding Utah, ASU or Oregon St. None of them bring any measurable amount of TVs with them which is what adds money to the TV contract.
 
ViperHorn said:
Kansas, Tech and oSu have plenty to offer the PAC-12 (especially after USC moves to the $EC). Merging with either the I8 or the B1G will not be enough to keep USC if the decide to move.

As bad as everyone thinks the LHN is, the PAC Network is a dumpster fire with no real network supporting. Half of the offerings are not even in HD.
Click to expand...
Any sense on how likely USC is to jump ship?
 
Seattle Husker said:
What's the case for USC jumping alone to a conference with the nearest school 1400 miles away?
Click to expand...
There's not a good one unless you're a fan of money grabs. Since TX and OU moved everyone's caught realignment fever. If left to me no conference would have more than 12 and preferably 10.
 
USC playing 6 games at SEC schools is no different than what they do know. They really don't travel that hugely to the Pacific NW or the Bay Area. Difference is that none of those schools travel to Exposition. I believe that USC would find much larger visiting crowds coming from LSU, UGA, Florida, Tenn, Alabama schools & Miss schools than they have ever gotten from the PAC schools. My thought is that USC would get more visitors from one home game against any one of the above than they get from all 8 northern Pac schools.
 
SabreHorn said:
USC playing 6 games at SEC schools is no different than what they do know. They really don't travel that hugely to the Pacific NW or the Bay Area. Difference is that none of those schools travel to Exposition. I believe that USC would find much larger visiting crowds coming from LSU, UGA, Florida, Tenn, Alabama schools & Miss schools than they have ever gotten from the PAC schools. My thought is that USC would get more visitors from one home game against any one of the above than they get from all 8 northern Pac schools.
Click to expand...

I disagree on the Pac 12 traveling within conference for several of the schools. With that said, 1 trip by LSU fans to South Central LA and they'll never return. In fact, most of those fans loathe CA. No way USC travels a minimum of 2 time zones for every away game for every sport.
 
LonghornCatholic said:
https://gocoogs.com/baylor-schadenfreude/
Click to expand...
An excellent read, thanks for posting.

The Coogs are due some Schadenfreude, particularly at Baylor's expense.

>> After Monday’s Senate committee hearing, Baylor President Linda Livingstone sent out a letter to the Baylor community with her spin on the matter.

Livingstone said that it is “imperative that Texas maintain its nation-leading five Power 5 schools, not only for athletics purposes, but for the prestige, academic partnerships and financial benefits such status brings to our universities.”

These are the same people that put UH through a dog and pony show five years ago before deciding not to expand. Baylor was adamantly against UH’s inclusion despite the fact that it would increase Texas’ “nation-leading” number of Power 5 schools. And they were not too concerned that adding UH would bring “prestige, academic partnerships and financial benefits” to another in-state school and the state’s largest city.

Odd how that’s a priority all of a sudden.

She also lamented the ‘fact’ that UT heading to the SEC would have “devastating financial implications for Waco, Lubbock, and Fort Worth.” She wrote that “a state institution should not be able to inflict such harm on Texas taxpayers and communities.” Of course, her school led the group that pulled the rug out from under UH, which has certainly meant devastating financial implications for Houston and Harris County.<<


Enjoy the fall, Baylor. I hope it's a long one.
 
Giovanni Jones said:
An excellent read, thanks for posting.

The Coogs are due some Schadenfreude, particularly at Baylor's expense.

>> After Monday’s Senate committee hearing, Baylor President Linda Livingstone sent out a letter to the Baylor community with her spin on the matter.

Livingstone said that it is “imperative that Texas maintain its nation-leading five Power 5 schools, not only for athletics purposes, but for the prestige, academic partnerships and financial benefits such status brings to our universities.”

These are the same people that put UH through a dog and pony show five years ago before deciding not to expand. Baylor was adamantly against UH’s inclusion despite the fact that it would increase Texas’ “nation-leading” number of Power 5 schools. And they were not too concerned that adding UH would bring “prestige, academic partnerships and financial benefits” to another in-state school and the state’s largest city.

Odd how that’s a priority all of a sudden.

She also lamented the ‘fact’ that UT heading to the SEC would have “devastating financial implications for Waco, Lubbock, and Fort Worth.” She wrote that “a state institution should not be able to inflict such harm on Texas taxpayers and communities.” Of course, her school led the group that pulled the rug out from under UH, which has certainly meant devastating financial implications for Houston and Harris County.<<


Enjoy the fall, Baylor. I hope it's a long one.
Click to expand...
It’s hardly like Baylor is some struggling athletic program. They won the men’s BB NC this past year, their woman’s team did well, and they are just two years from going to the Sugar bowl in football.

You could make the argument they have a more successful program that Texas does, past 3 years.

Will not having Texas and OU in the B12 change that? Maybe - will less TV money impact their chance of success? Possibly but with endorsement deals now OK do schools need gold plated facilities to attract player or Will the endorsement deals be key?

I think the B12 can add some schools like Houston and BYU and Central Florida, and have a good conference. Without hard game of OU and Texas, a decent B12 team has a good shot at going undefeated, and being in playoff contention, as the media loves to whine about schools being left out and how unfair it all is.
 
Last edited:
Giovanni Jones said:
An excellent read, thanks for posting.

The Coogs are due some Schadenfreude, particularly at Baylor's expense.

>> After Monday’s Senate committee hearing, Baylor President Linda Livingstone sent out a letter to the Baylor community with her spin on the matter.

Livingstone said that it is “imperative that Texas maintain its nation-leading five Power 5 schools, not only for athletics purposes, but for the prestige, academic partnerships and financial benefits such status brings to our universities.”

These are the same people that put UH through a dog and pony show five years ago before deciding not to expand. Baylor was adamantly against UH’s inclusion despite the fact that it would increase Texas’ “nation-leading” number of Power 5 schools. And they were not too concerned that adding UH would bring “prestige, academic partnerships and financial benefits” to another in-state school and the state’s largest city.

Odd how that’s a priority all of a sudden.

She also lamented the ‘fact’ that UT heading to the SEC would have “devastating financial implications for Waco, Lubbock, and Fort Worth.” She wrote that “a state institution should not be able to inflict such harm on Texas taxpayers and communities.” Of course, her school led the group that pulled the rug out from under UH, which has certainly meant devastating financial implications for Houston and Harris County.<<


Enjoy the fall, Baylor. I hope it's a long one.
Click to expand...
Re: Baylor touting academic partnerships, etc., and making UH prove its worth academically…

Just speculation, but I’d bet UH does a lot more scientific research than Baylor—a whole lot more. As but one example, Dr Chu did his superconductivity research at UH, not Baylor. Would Baylor even have the infrastructure, labs, staff, computing capacity, etc to support high level scientific research efforts? What do they research over there? Baylor can get off it’s academic high horse.
 
Last edited:
ViperHorn said:
Sources in the athletic community in LA say USC wants out of the PAC-12 in the worse way even if it would mean a season or two as an independent.
Click to expand...
After a few calls and text messages, I will add that Oregon isn't as anxious to leave the PAC-12 as USC. However, if USC bolts Oregon could well follow them. That means that Oregon's plan is to not be the first, but follow USC if USC chooses a conference that Oregon "approves." (My take after considering who told me what is Oregon is putting up a "brave face" trying not to be seen as the one who destroys the PAC-12 knowing USC's strong desire to bolt.)
 
Duck Dodgers said:
It’s hardly like Baylor is some struggling athletic program. They won the men’s BB NC this past year, their woman’s team did well, and they are just two years from going to the Sugar bowl in football.

You could make the argument they have a more successful program that Texas does, past 3 years.

Will not having Texas and OU in the B12 change that? Maybe - will less TV money impact their chance of success? Possibly but with endorsement deals now OK do schools need gold plated facilities to attract player or Will the endorsement deals be key?

I think the B12 can add some schools like Houston and BYU and Central Florida, and have a good conference. Without hard game of OU and Texas, a decent B12 team has a good shot at going undefeated, and being in playoff contention, as the media loves to whine about schools being left out and how unfair it all is.
Click to expand...
The problem for Baylor (and also Tech and TCU) is that regardless of how good their teams are, they just don't have the viewership and bring in the $$$ that Texas and OU do.
 
USC Moving to the SEC might be workable in football where they'd only have to make 4 or 5 road trips to SEC schools per season, but they have to consider all their low or non-revenue generating sports like women's athletics (volleyball etc.) and how the move would greatly increase their travel expenses and hardships. It doesn't seem feasible to me. Also, I wonder how their arch nemesis UCLA would react?
 
Clean said:
USC Moving to the SEC might be workable in football where they'd only have to make 4 or 5 road trips to SEC schools per season, but they have to consider all their low or non-revenue generating sports like women's athletics (volleyball etc.) and how the move would greatly increase their travel expenses and hardships. It doesn't seem feasible to me. Also, I wonder how their arch nemesis UCLA would react?
Click to expand...

Additionally, nearly all of USC's alumni are on the West Coast or in major "blue" cities. An estimate I read it that there are 665 USC alums in Louisiana of 437,000 alums, even fewer in Alabama. Not saying that a few well heeled boosters wouldn't salivate over the thought of playing in the SEC but I doubt that perspective is shared widely. What they want is more $$$ and feel the Pac12 is holding them back. It's still not feasible to abandon their deeply beloved annual game with Notre Dame or pay for all their sports teams to travel to South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, etc.
 
You can read this at multiple outlets. Here's but one...
Absolutely comical and insane in my view the childish spitballing going on in the legislature. What a bunch of pathetic preschoolers...
https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/for-petes-sake/article253219148.html

Real simple retort...
I guess if we are trash and you guys are so great, you dont need us, these hearings are unnecessary, and I can leave now and get back to some business that matters.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
What's the case for USC jumping alone to a conference with the nearest school 1400 miles away?
Click to expand...
I've been saying the same thing for a long time and unbelievably something I can actually agree with SH about. It's not 4 hrs to most SEC destinations, it's 6-7, and then add in the flight delays, etc. Just think about what it would be like for baseball, softball, volleyball, etc. Any administration that puts it's student athletes in that predicament is an idiot.

No way USC heads to the SEC without at least 3 other west coast schools in tow.
 
Run Pincher said:
I've been saying the same thing for a long time and unbelievably something I can actually agree with SH about. It's not 4 hrs to most SEC destinations, it's 6-7, and then add in the flight delays, etc. Just think about what it would be like for baseball, softball, volleyball, etc. Any administration that puts it's student athletes in that predicament is an idiot.

No way USC heads to the SEC without at least 3 other west coast schools in tow.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You'd get sports that would spend weeks in hotels to avoid the back and forth. Imagine putting the South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Florida, GA games back to back to back just to avoid the massive drain of cross country flights.

If this were to happen expect USC to be a football only member and try to forge independent or Pac 12 schedules for their other sports. None of that sounds tenable.

Ultimately, what USC wants is more than paltry $25M that Pac 12 is paying out which is less than half of the B1G and may be 1/3rd the SEC based on their leaked projections.
 
Last edited:
For those in the know, does the growing popularity of streaming (cutting the cord) factor into these discussions? How does it affect viewership ($$$)?
 
Run Pincher said:
I've been saying the same thing for a long time and unbelievably something I can actually agree with SH about. It's not 4 hrs to most SEC destinations, it's 6-7, and then add in the flight delays, etc. Just think about what it would be like for baseball, softball, volleyball, etc. Any administration that puts it's student athletes in that predicament is an idiot.

No way USC heads to the SEC without at least 3 other west coast schools in tow.
Click to expand...
Agree. USC, Oregon, Washington AND Stanford or UCLA. UCLA will probably get resistance from legislature so I bet Stanford. Ultimately, other sports, baseball and basketball have a playoff system that already works. Football does not.
 
UT Horn Fan said:
For those in the know, does the growing popularity of streaming (cutting the cord) factor into these discussions? How does it affect viewership ($$$)?
Click to expand...
That's an excellent question, and one I don't have a direct answer for.

On a related note, however, I predict that within a decade there will be certain college football games that will be available only through a streaming service (think Texas/OU, Florida/Georgia, tOSU/Michigan, the conference championships, the playoffs, etc.) and the streaming services will gradually up their rates, because they can.

This Olympics, Live on Peacock, Is a Turning Point That Sports Fans Can’t Escape

A few years ago, it was possible to bargain-hunt if your primary interest in cable was to watch sports. As recently as 2018, you could cut the cord on your cable contract (easily around $100 a month) and instead pay $35 a month for YouTube TV, which includes all of the big national sports channels and even has an easy DVR function to watch games later. Then the service rose to $40, then to $50, and then to $64.99, all in about two years—not usually because the service got any better, though a handful of newly added Discovery channels were the stated reason for one hike. The proposition that you could save a little money and still watch the sports that were important to you went from sound to impossible with incredible speed, and that was before outside streaming services became so necessary for a devoted-enough fan.

The companies that own the rights to live games think we care enough about sports to put up with additional bills and price hikes, time and again. If they didn’t get you with Biles trying to win a medal in 2021, they’ll get you with Patrick Mahomes throwing touchdown passes in 2022. Their bet is that, at some point, enough of us will be unable to resist. They are probably right
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top