Pac-12 to decide whether to expand within a couple weeks

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Come on, genius. Part of that is due to league television contracts which give said programs (currently) a huge advantage over USC. The article also places a lot of value in program relevance, which USC really hasn't had of late either. Then there may be factors like "exposure" where USC is hurt by late PST games nobody watches.

In a vaccum is the USC brand more valuable than the other schools? Sure. But there is actually a really good chance that all of those schools have more loyal fans/followers than USC does. As for Clemson and FSU they are obviously dragged down by lackluster TV deals. Also the latter hasn't been relevant since Jimbo left.

Seems pretty obvious that TV dollars is the starter for the baseline, then brand recognition, and recent success play a large factor here. This article isn't about which schools would get picked to start a new conference that was all about money and brands, it's about evaluating programs based on the landscape of football at that time. Based on that I'd say it was fairly accurate.

VALUE is what a school is worth to someone else. Any list that uses the amount of money a school gets because it happens to be in one conference over another is not then measuring value.
USC being a private school we have no clue to the amount of money it brings in, just the amount of the TV contract. To say that Iowa, S. Carolina and Arkansas, has a better history than USC, Oregon, FSU and Clemson is crazy. Three have won multiple national championships in the past 20 years and Oregon has been in the playoffs and in one BCS championship game. While Iowa, S. Carolina and Arkansas have not been anywhere close to those levels at any time in the last 20 years.

The best two seasons Iowa had was 2002 when they lost one regular season game, tied with Ohio State, at 8-0 but did not play them. That same OSU team went on to win the national championship, while Iowa was destroyed by USC in the Rose Bowl. The other season 2015, Iowa for the first time in its history went undefeated during the regular season, had a SOS over 40, lost the conference championship game by 3 to MSU. MSU went on to the playoff to getting smoked by Alabama and Iowa went to the Rose Bowl and got hammered by Stanford.

So explain to me where the value is for Iowa and the other two schools over the ones that actually won a national championship or played for one? Oh, they make more money because of the conference they are in.
Total garbage plan and simple

Genius enough for you?

 

[Brandon]

I was already told a hand in the bush beats two on the bird.

If you can get your hand in the bush do it

 

[Cyclones1969]

If you can get your hand in the bush do it

Every single time.

especially true as you get older and you don’t get as many chances

 

[cyIclSoneU]

In a vaccum is the USC brand more valuable than the other schools? Sure. But there is actually a really good chance that all of those schools have more loyal fans/followers than USC does. As for Clemson and FSU they are obviously dragged down by lackluster TV deals. Also the latter hasn't been relevant since Jimbo left.

This is a good reason why "TV value" is not some static number that all the players can calculate and know. I think USC is something of a sleeping giant. They have an enormous pool of casual fans. Those casual fans don't follow CFB very closely. If USC is just decent, and playing in Alamo Bowls, they don't tune in. But if USC gets back to Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush era of quality, and is able to compete with Clemson and Alabama, then their TV numbers are going to skyrocket.

Very few schools have that kind of upside. If Iowa or Iowa State or South Carolina or Virginia etc. went 12-0 and made the CFP in consecutive seasons, sure they would be more of a TV draw. But it would not to compare to USC.

Now take the flip side of "value" - the floor rather than the ceiling. How many diehards a school has, that will definitely subscribe to Amazon Prime (or whatever) to watch their team's games, no matter the team's performance. This also varies by school and is difficult to predict. I think Iowa State has an advantage here with its reputation of a fanatical fanbase that goes to games and watches them on TV even when ISU is 2-10. The tail end of the Rhoads era was miserable football and yet ISU TV numbers during that stretch, while not very good, are still in the range of the entire rest of the remaining Big 12. Not every school is like this - KU for example has TV numbers that are 50% or less than the rest of the league. And now that we ARE good, we are near the top of the list (I think the best numbers I saw for the just the last couple of years had us 2nd behind OSU, when OU and UT are excluded).

It's all very complicated and "value" is intrinsically tied to a lot of factors, including how good the team is playing. Who knows what the Iowa program's performance will look like when Ferentz retires? Sure they will have a high floor but it's hard to predict exactly how high because they have been decent to good very consistently for the last two decades.

 

[CyCrazy]

If you can get your hand in the bush do it

Tell me more.....

 

[2speedy1]

I would think if the PAC comes with an invite, Jamie and Co. will already know what the B1G and others are going to do as far as ISU is concerned, for the most part.

If he has a better option, which really is only 1 other option, he waits, but I assume that offer comes almost at the same time. If not he jumps at the PAC.

We are the ones guessing at everything here, those actually doing these deals and decisions have way more intel, and will be making way more informed decisions than us.

Honestly, this alliance everyone is talking about between the other 3 could have them already deciding how they are going to expand and working together on who they are going to invite, to a point. I don't know if they will go quite that far as to work together to that extent but they may do some informal talking on the subject.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

What's the point of arguing this?

We didn't win our conference, end of story. As currently constructed the champion is determined by who wins the championship game. We didn't do that. It doesn't diminish the success of the season but saying "well we WOULD have been champs if" is lame.

Really any fan who trashes ISU or Iowa on that is an asshat. Iowa was in shambles before they hired Fry and again before they hired Ferentz. Iowa State was in shambles before they hired Campbell. Other than time (with which Iowa is fortunate to have unrivaled stability) there are more similarities in the programs than there are differences, including both fan bases having their fair share of delusional fans.

You and I don't disagree. We didn’t win the conference. I usually ignore hawk posters here. Our round robin regular season first place finish was as much as ui has done to actually win their conference. My point was akin to yours, we have similarities. I thought that point was lost on him.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I would think if the PAC comes with an invite, Jamie and Co. will already know what the B1G and others are going to do as far as ISU is concerned, for the most part.

If he has a better option, which really is only 1 other option, he waits, but I assume that offer comes almost at the same time. If not he jumps at the PAC.

We are the ones guessing at everything here, those actually doing these deals and decisions have way more intel, and will be making way more informed decisions than us.

Honestly, this alliance everyone is talking about between the other 3 could have them already deciding how they are going to expand and working together on who they are going to invite, to a point. I don't know if they will go quite that far as to work together to that extent but they may do some informal talking on the subject.

A Pac 12 offer will force the hand of the Big 10 to either expand or stay put, and ISU will move forward with that knowledge.

I would guess once we have the Pac 12 offer in hand, then Pollard asked the Big 10, are you expanding and are we 100% one of the schools getting in, and if so, what is the timeline. If they want to mess around and stall, then Pollard would have no choice but to take the Pac 12 offer.
Its too important and risky for ISU to gamble for an offer from the Big 10, if we have a Pac 12 offer in our hands.

 

[isucy86]

A Pac 12 offer will force the hand of the Big 10 to either expand or stay put, and ISU will move forward with that knowledge.

I would guess once we have the Pac 12 offer in hand, then Pollard asked the Big 10, are you expanding and are we 100% one of the schools getting in, and if so, what is the timeline. If they want to mess around and stall, then Pollard would have no choice but to take the Pac 12 offer.
Its too important and risky for ISU to gamble for an offer from the Big 10, if we have a Pac 12 offer in our hands.

The Pac12 Commissioner stated expansion decisions are a matter of weeks not months. If that is true, then my take is:

1. The Big10 or SEC's interest in adding the likes of USC, Oregon, Washington, etc. will be public within a few weeks.
2. If there is no movement to Big10 or SEC, then the PAC12 will move forward with their new media rights negotiations.
3. If the Pac12 does add schools, they have a pretty good idea what media companies value go forward.

As far as ISU goes. I think JP has had enough back channel conversations with commissioners, AD's and media companies to know where ISU sits at this time. IMO the dominos need to fall regarding USC, Oregon, Washington, etc. first. Then ISU's landing spot will become clear.

 

[KidSilverhair]

VALUE is what a school is worth to someone else. Any list that uses the amount of money a school gets because it happens to be in one conference over another is not then measuring value.

...

So explain to me where the value is for Iowa and the other two schools over the ones that actually won a national championship or played for one? Oh, they make more money because of the conference they are in.
Total garbage plan and simple

Genius enough for you?

I know it's piling on to bring ESPN into any of this, but I happened to hear a couple of guys talking college football on ESPN Radio yesterday afternoon. They both gleefully jumped on a comment that the remaining Big XII schools "don't matter." They said, "I know you alumni and fans don't feel that way, but it's just a fact. Your teams don't matter."

This is completely asinine. Why do Northwestern and Rutgers and Illinois and Oregon State and Colorado and Mississippi State and Vanderbilt "matter" but Iowa State and Oklahoma State and TCU don't? Simply because of which conference they happen to be lucky enough to be in? Well, that's just not a true statement on its face. Every D-1 FBS football team "matters" - the bluebloods have to play somebody, right, and they don't want to only play each other because, well, one of them would lose a bunch of games.

It's just ridiculous, the amount of sheer confident statements flying around with absolutely no truth or facts behind them. And yes, being it was ESPN Radio, of course they have a motive in pushing that line of commentary. But anybody with half a brain cell should just be gobsmacked by the tonnage of ignorance in that statement.

 

[Cyclones1969]

I know it's piling on to bring ESPN into any of this, but I happened to hear a couple of guys talking college football on ESPN Radio yesterday afternoon. They both gleefully jumped on a comment that the remaining Big XII schools "don't matter." They said, "I know you alumni and fans don't feel that way, but it's just a fact. Your teams don't matter."

This is completely asinine. Why do Northwestern and Rutgers and Illinois and Oregon State and Colorado and Mississippi State and Vanderbilt "matter" but Iowa State and Oklahoma State and TCU don't? Simply because of which conference they happen to be lucky enough to be in? Well, that's just not a true statement on its face. Every D-1 FBS football team "matters" - the bluebloods have to play somebody, right, and they don't want to only play each other because, well, one of them would lose a bunch of games.

It's just ridiculous, the amount of sheer confident statements flying around with absolutely no truth or facts behind them. And yes, being it was ESPN Radio, of course they have a motive in pushing that line of commentary. But anybody with half a brain cell should just be gobsmacked by the tonnage of ignorance in that statement.

As was said by someone earlier, perception is reality. So the pr campaign by espn and the Atlantic and everyone else associated with them and the sec and ou and ut, has a real stake in trying to minimize the value of the remaining 8 schools. There are exit fees and settlements to be paid out, and they want to try to force these 8 into accepting less than full value.

And to be fair, they don’t give a **** about any big 10 school not named Ohio state Michigan penn state and maybe Wisconsin either. Same with acc football past Clemson notre dame and maybe Florida state and Miami. I’m

 

[merx]

What if part of the alliance is to limit the number of teams the SEC gets in a new 12 team playoff? Something like limiting 3 teams per conference for the play-offs. This means B1G, ACC, and PAC have no reason to expand because they would be reducing their current schools chances at getting a playoff berth. The B1G will always get 3 teams like the SEC. They can still allow a none P4 access to the playoff, likely Big 12 champion. The ACC and PAC would go back in forth between 2 and 3 participants every year giving those conferences more access then they likely would have. If their is no limit per conference the SEC is putting 5 or 6 trams every year. Everyone wins but the SEC.

 

[Lineup]

Big 12 is dead

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Big 12 is dead

 

[AuH2O]

This is a good reason why "TV value" is not some static number that all the players can calculate and know. I think USC is something of a sleeping giant. They have an enormous pool of casual fans. Those casual fans don't follow CFB very closely. If USC is just decent, and playing in Alamo Bowls, they don't tune in. But if USC gets back to Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush era of quality, and is able to compete with Clemson and Alabama, then their TV numbers are going to skyrocket.

Very few schools have that kind of upside. If Iowa or Iowa State or South Carolina or Virginia etc. went 12-0 and made the CFP in consecutive seasons, sure they would be more of a TV draw. But it would not to compare to USC.

Now take the flip side of "value" - the floor rather than the ceiling. How many diehards a school has, that will definitely subscribe to Amazon Prime (or whatever) to watch their team's games, no matter the team's performance. This also varies by school and is difficult to predict. I think Iowa State has an advantage here with its reputation of a fanatical fanbase that goes to games and watches them on TV even when ISU is 2-10. The tail end of the Rhoads era was miserable football and yet ISU TV numbers during that stretch, while not very good, are still in the range of the entire rest of the remaining Big 12. Not every school is like this - KU for example has TV numbers that are 50% or less than the rest of the league. And now that we ARE good, we are near the top of the list (I think the best numbers I saw for the just the last couple of years had us 2nd behind OSU, when OU and UT are excluded).

It's all very complicated and "value" is intrinsically tied to a lot of factors, including how good the team is playing. Who knows what the Iowa program's performance will look like when Ferentz retires? Sure they will have a high floor but it's hard to predict exactly how high because they have been decent to good very consistently for the last two decades.

That USC era was a complete outlier in terms of hype, interest and celebrity perhaps only approached by the late 80s Miami teams. The Carson Palmer teams were great and winning an Orange Bowl, the interest was not all that much. I really doubt they are ever going to create anything close to the Bush era hype ever again. They were perceived to be the best college team in decades, Bush one of the best college players in history, and QB that was very Hollywood.

 

[MeanDean]

Agree. The other p4 conferences not inviting remaining teams will keep the current b12 together for as long as possible. It is going to be difficult for OU/tx to get out before the gor expires. This is not the same as previous rounds of expansion. The best path for OU/tx is to dissolve the big 12 to eliminate the gor. It if the other conferences do not add from the remaining 8 until the exit date is finalized the conference will continue and the gor will be an issue until it expires.

the good news is that would keep big 12 money coming in and buy some time for us to sell the program to a new conference.

more important then ever to support the athletic dept and continue to drive additional development of the facilities and fill up the stadiums…

I'm still quite confused by GOR and conference rules/penalties and exit clauses.

Is there not a best case scenario where sooner, (not THOSE BASTARD sooners) rather than later we get picked up by the B1G or PAC but it's scheduled for 2025 when the GOR is over. Yet still hold OuT media rights till then and hold them financially accountable for the maximum penalty for their behind the back chicanery?

I guess I want my cake and to eat it too. I want to feel confident we have a landing spot AND put OuT through the wringer for being selfish pricks. That said, the former is infinitely more important. I just hate being shat upon and love to see revenge served in this case.

 

[brett108]

Cal/Stanford/USC/UCLA
Washington/WSU/Oregon/OreSt
Utah/CO/AZ/AZst
OKst/Tech/ISU/Kansas

It's in Pac's best interest outside the academic profile of Tech.

OkSt isn’t the head of any academic class either.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

What if part of the alliance is to limit the number of teams the SEC gets in a new 12 team playoff? Something like limiting 3 teams per conference for the play-offs. This means B1G, ACC, and PAC have no reason to expand because they would be reducing their current schools chances at getting a playoff berth. The B1G will always get 3 teams like the SEC. They can still allow a none P4 access to the playoff, likely Big 12 champion. The ACC and PAC would go back in forth between 2 and 3 participants every year giving those conferences more access then they likely would have. If their is no limit per conference the SEC is putting 5 or 6 trams every year. Everyone wins but the SEC.

This is actively being talked about as part of the alliance. At this time the big ten has no plans to add schools, the ACC really can't without decreasing their payouts, and the PAC might stand still in an agreement with the big ten to not poach their schools. Conversations already begun with USC and that is what forced the Alliance. SEC expansion caught everyone off guard and the Big Ten would rather things just stay how they are.

 

[psychlone99]

Someone help me understand why the Big Ten and PAC12 would be taking alliance if the former is poaching the best teams (USC et al.) from the latter? The fact that an alliance is being openly discussed tells me that possibility is off the table. But what do I know...

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Someone help me understand why the Big Ten and PAC12 would be taking alliance if the former is poaching the best teams (USC et al.) from the latter? The fact that an alliance is being openly discussed tells me that possibility is off the table. But what do I know...

The big ten really doesn't want anything to change but if they have to expand they want to look at the PAC teams because the ACC isn't available. The alliance is a way for the big ten to keep the PAC where it is, schedule some high profile games and get negotiating power for the playoff. The PAC gets a stay from execution because USC is not happy. ACC has no power because of horrible negotiating in their last deal that lasts till 2035 so they just want a seat at the table and they will get some good games scheduled too. Its not a great scenario for the PAC or ACC but they really don't have any other choice.