There are too many wise cracks to choose from here.
No kidding…where would you even start ?
I’d seriously rather have our upcoming ESPN+ package.
Sure you would…
“Scott is paid $5.8 million annually. Scott has justified that salary because he says he’s running both a conference and a media company. But both are now apparently struggling.”
Wow. I think Aresco is just under $2M.
Don’t we have some folks around who know about how media companies work?
The QUACK12 rather slowly dying than add UH and other schools to increase viewership, footprints, and recruitment.
They don’t need recruitment nor footprint.
They need viewership that is willing to pay a monthly fee to see the PACnetwork on top of what most of us are already paying for cable that includes espn.
Sorry I meant from an exposure/watchability perspective. Obviously would rather have pac12 TV money than anything. The pac 12 network is not on many viewing platforms and it’s actually shrinking.
Pac 12 is a dead man walking.
The PAC-12 has problems.
-
Some California high schools are terminating their football programs and some others are reducing them. That means fewer star players available.
-
Many California star players are leaving the state.
-
PAC-12 is a loser.
-
It is wasting money on facilities in San Francisco and commissioner.
-
Possible additional schools are limited. The only RU/VH schools in the West are CSU, Hawaii, and NMU. None of those are doing well in sports.
-
PAC-12 schools are not competitive with other P5 conference schools in football.
Things may need to start getting worse for the Big 12, but I still think at some point USC, Stanford, Texas, and Oklahoma may start talking. They make a move together, they can pick and choose the teams they want from each conference.
Are you suggesting they will break away from both the Big12 and PAC to form a new conference?
If so, I don’t see it happening at all but at least it’s a new point of view.
Yeah. I think both conferences have footprint problems that a Texas-to-California conference solves. All conferences have deadweight but it’s hurting those two more than the others as their recruiting grounds get split more ways. They run a very real risk of watching the other conferences pull away.
I know Texas likes being king of its garden, but I’m not sure that’s sustainable and I’m not sure how thrilled Oklahoma is with it.
Oklahoma has other options but this is a way they could bring Oklahoma State along.
The Pac-12 schools get along better and would more genuinely like to stay together, but have a longer list of problems in terms of competitive viability.
Not quite true. I’ve read at least 2 articles on USC fans and alumni being disgruntled at having “to carry” the PAC 12 by subsidizing programs in Washington and Oregon.
Here is one link, https://247sports.com/college/usc/Article/John-McKay-USC-the-Pac-8-the-Pac-12--132577878/
I’ll try to find the other one where they actually say USC should quit the PAC 12 and join the Big 12 and either partner with Texas on the LHN or create its own network if possible. The general belief seems to be that USC is carrying the PAC 12, and the PAC 12 is holding USC back.
- Pac12 is always the first out of the playoff/invitational equation.
They need to push for expansion and a guarantee or they will fall even further behind.
If the AAC were to get BYU or BSU in football it would be a better conference right now arguably. Add then both and one other and there would be no argument.
USC should do a better job of winning before they complain too much, but should that ever happen they are not wrong that the Pac-12 is (right now at least) a hindrance. Joining the Big 12 by itself would, however, be insane.
I think the PAC 12 will revisit an idea that was floated back in 2010 before the concept of the PAC 16 was hatched: a PAC 12-Big 12 scheduling alliance.
BYU thinks it is a P5 from their admins to their fans. I’ve been on their fan board and they think the G5s are beneath them. It’s a nice thought but BYU joining AAC is only a pipe dream.