Kliavkoff is NOT being petty in any way. Jumping to the BIG 12 makes no sense for any legit PAC 12 program. FACT: Big 10 & SEC has an aggressive strategy to weaken if not destroy 60% of college football. If ANY program in the PAC had serious interest in the mediocre, incredibly scattered Big12 they would be gone already. Remember, SIX or more PAC teams draw larger TV audiences thatn any Big 12 program. As a fan / TV viewer even without the Ariz schools the remaining PAC 8 would be MUCH more desirable by every criteria that matters..
The PAC has the opportunity to lead the way for CFB to return to sanity.
The mediocre Big 12 is a better conference than the PAC 12(in football and basketball) was before the PAC lost its best assets. And its not even close afterwards.
And John you should be better than this as a journalist. This is clearly a post lacking a grasp of reality, and should call it out. Just like you should call out that no Big 12 school would leave for the PAC because of the incredible buy out it would require.
Exactly, calling a conference with 5 Top 20 football teams and the best basketball conference "mediocre" is ridiculous. It is clearly more superior to the Pac-12 right now much less after s Pac-12 post-USC and UCLA.
Help me understand why everyone outside the pack always mentions UCLA? the program is middlin at best. average attendance at home might be 50,000, Been pretty good hoops lately but that is about it. . Anyway, I think is is very nice that all the Big 12 fans apparently hate the Pac. I really dont get it but OK, Good luck with the conference poaching efforts. Im not even sure why the B12 even wants to add programs.
UCLA football has the most fans in the Pac-12 and ranks #9 in fans nationally. UCLA also ranks #17 all time in AP football polling finishes. That’s despite 2 decades of relative mediocrity. 20 years ago they ranked closer to top 10 and that goes all the way back to the 1950s. UCLA also ranks top 15 in NFL draft picks. They have second most Pac-12 football titles and have a winning record against every Pac-12 school except USC. That’s just football. They have the most revenue sports national championships among schools with championships in football and basketball. They have second most national titles in the country and rank #2 in Leerfield Cup finishes. It’s also the most applied to university in the world in the country’s second largest market.
I think if you poll highschool kids in say, Florida, which is their favorite PAC-12 football program, UO will be way above UCLA. UCLA is not a big national football brand. Hasn't been in a long time.
UO and UW also both generate much more football revenue than UCLA.
No, you’re dead wrong. Here’s the breakdown of 2021 fan bases in the country (not ancient history, today). Oregon and Washington do not come close to UCLA, which is by far the largest fan base in the Pac-12. Oregon is practically a mid-major school considering how small their market is. UCLA is valued at almost three times Oregon’s value, according to Canzano’s article. I would argue he is undervaluing UCLA but regardless there’s no realm where Oregon and Washington "generate much more revenue than UCLA." That’s a joke. Washington? lol Washington has a worse record than UCLA in the past 20 years. You're obviously very confused individual. There's a good reason the Big Ten wants UCLA and has no interest in Oregon or Washington, especially Oregon. That's why the Pac-12 is going up in flames. It's because Washington and Oregon cannot hold their own weight. These are small time schools. UCLA HAS FAR MORE FANS THAN OREGON AND WASHINGTON COMBINED.
Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. These are facts, not your supposition based on your distorted, uneducated perception.
There’s one more thing I will bring to your attention. Programs rise and fall all the time. 10 minutes ago Nebraska was a powerhouse, today it’s not. 10 minutes ago, Clemson was whatever, today they’re a powerhouse. 10 minutes ago Oregon was crap, today they’re among the best. In 2004, an undefeated SEC team (Auburn) was left out of the national title game because perception was that an undefeated Big XII team (Oklahoma) and undefeated Pac-10 team (USC) were better. There is no guarantee performance the last 5, 10, 15, 20 years will be the same indefinitely. It’s called recency bias that you (and a lot of sports fans and sports media types) confuse all the time. I can tell you suffer from this with your reference to Washington, a school that but for two highly successful recent seasons, has been a shell of itself over the past 20 years. Your mind only thinks “Washington was good in 2016/2017 whereas UCLA was not therefore they’re more valuable”. You’re not alone in this type of thinking. Realignment is about value over decades. UCLA has been at its worst stretch in the past 2 decades. Considering their natural advantages in a major market, top public school, most popular university in the world, plus unrivaled athletic tradition it stands to reason they will progress to their average while schools like Oregon will regress to their average, especially once sugar daddy Knight is gone. Regardless, when it comes to value even a rock bottom UCLA is still far more popular than a peak Oregon. That’s innate value. That’s a program that can sustain downturns. That’s what ultimately drives value and brand.
This is what the rest of the country doesn’t seem to realize. The Bruins are a sleeping giant if their leadership actually pulls their heads out of their butts.
Sleeping giant, huh? that is what those 35,000 empty seats at the Rose Bowl appear to be, sleeping. Although they did almost beat Fresneo State last year.
UCLA has done NOTHING at all for the last decade. I think they fished second once. They did impressively run up a $100 million deficit in athletics alone. And UCLA has shown they care NOTHING about the entire PAC. Destabilizing if not destroying 60% of CFB is what the SEC and BIG 10 are out to do. UCLA could not do it on the field but will get bailed out of their financial incompetence by big successful programs. I am sure The bruins will be a dominant force in the Big 10. Those Rutgers, Indiana games will be classics..
UCLA didn’t run a $100 million deficit. They just received a major settlement from their UA contract at nearly $70 million. Majority of the debt was due to that plus the pandemic season. The Pac-12 canceling half the season and no fans allowed is the cause of the small debt they’ve incurred. Almost every other Pac-12 school has the same financial hit. Stay up to date on your facts. It will help you not look like an imbecile.
Also, UCLA cared a lot about the Pac-12. If they didn’t, they would have ditched the conference for greener pastures a decade ago or they would have taken the jerk move of arrogant schools like Washington and Oregon and demand their 25% cut of the conference revenue equal to the value they brought the conference. They didn’t want to do that because they had too much respect for the rest of the programs in the conference and felt bad for them. The economic realities of college sports have made it too burdensome to remain in a conference with schools like Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, and Washington State whose values combined do not match theirs. That’s all it’s about. Nothing personal buddy. They just play in a larger market and have higher costs than those other schools. We wish you guys nothing but the best and hope to see Conference of Champions thrive for many years to come.
Pretty good in hoops, UCLA and Aiz are horrible, right. And I admit the PAC is not the best in football....but the B12 had Okla and nobody. Okla St was NOT close to even Utah and Oregon.
and of course nobody in the B12 even watch their own teams, WSU had more viewers per game than any B12 team. Nothing against the B12. And the locations....well , ya know. There is a reason why the PAC hasnt had membership change for 11 years. There is a reason why some conferences are constantly sneaking and poaching and expanding and losing teams.
UCLA isn’t horrible. They finished 3rd in the Pac-12 last season and led the conference in draft picks. Historically they are the Pac-12’s best football program behind SC. In any case, they are the most popular football team in the Pac-12 in terms of fans. That’s despite their worst stretch of football the past 2 decades.
UCLA and Zona are fine in hoops. But it’s not the Big 12 which has been the best hoops conference for about 10 years and it’s slowing down.
And the Big 12 minus OU and UT is a better football conference than the PAC minus USC and UCLA. The new Big 12 had 3 top 8 teams(last AP poll) in Baylor, Ok St and Cincy. And 2 more top 25 in BYU and Houston. Every single metric available shows a massive gap between the Big 12 and PAC. I’m not sure how you can keep denying. These are just straight facts.
As for views the numbers present by John, Jon, and Stewart are surface level and don’t show that when you account for channel the Big 12 beats the PAC 12 in viewership. And with OU and UT gone the remaining Big 12 teams will now be on those main channels even more. Combined with the Big 12 and Big 10s future access to after dark time slots(USC,UCLA, TTU, and BYU) the PAC 12s major tv chip will be reduced.
Why should PAC 12 teams look to move? Because the big 12 is
1) more stable. UO and UW(possible Stanford and Cal) are looking to get to the Big 10. IMO the Big 10 is done until ND makes a move but it cause instability.
2) Money will be about the same if not better in the Big 12. At least according to the projection from Navigate that John, Jon, and Stew have used a number of times since they came out in March. They showed total revenue practically equal between the New Big 12(post OU and UT) and the Pac12 as it stood in March. That has change John reported here that USC and UCLA were about 40-50% of the PAC 12’s value. So while I don’t have exact numbers there’s unlikely anyway that the PAC could be making more money than the Big 12 now.
3) TV inventory and slots. Yes PAC 12 after dark is valuable. But with the Big 12 and Big 10 adding teams in the MT and PT time zones that ruins the PAC’s Monopoly as the only P5 conf with that inventory. And from what I’ve seen that prime channel late night slot can be filled with roughly 8 schools(2 in the Big 10 so far) and 6 elsewhere which means that the Big 13 really only needs 3-6 PAC schools to give TV networks all the After dark slots they need. And those schools would have the added benefit of having Conf opps in the ET and CT time slots as well.
Those reasons should be proficient to get at least one or two PAC schools to jump and if that happens the limited spots would force some schools hands or risk getting left behind to zombie PAC with the remaining PAC schools and several MWC schools.
Maybe if the PAC 12 hadn’t listen to USC last year like the Big 12 had listen to UT we’d all have been better off but here we are.
Who said ANYONE out here is interested in joining another conference? Quit believing all that phony media stuff. I know the BIG 12 commish was calling the PAC12 almost daily trying poach teams. If any teams were interested they would have moved to that "more stable" conference' Cool that you feel superior about your conference.
viewing te Big 12 losing Okla looks MUCH more damaging than the PAC losing SC and UCLA. The PAC is the only conference to NOT lose or grab teams for 10 years. To call the Big 12 stable is kind of comical. SEC and Big 10 is working hard to make sure all of CFB is unstable, and it is working. WSU with a tny market records more actual viewers (mor 1 million+ games) than virtually ALL of the BIG 12 teasm. The data actually shows 6 PAC teams draw more 1 million viewer games athn any Big 12 teams. The big 12 is fine but has no attraction to any fans I know our there. I am sure the Big 12 feels the same way. We in the west have no interest in a "conferrence" spanning three time zones where teams rarel play even half the conf opponents.
Again the viewing numbers are surface level. Big 12 will try to add teams if the are additive and that school wants to come. To think that some PAC 12 schools haven’t even reached out would be naive. As for why they haven’t moved is because a lot is still up in the air. And everyone is trying to get clarity before making any decisions. But not acknowledging that the Big 12 is in a position of power(over the PAC 12) at the moment is lacking an understanding of the current landscape.
Why do you and the media pretend USC and UCLA are such huge football programs???
Since the 2011 season PAC 12 champs USC won the 2017 title ranked #12. That is it ONE championship. UCLA has won ZERO championships in that stretch, only finished second once. Oregon won three times finishing with rankings of 4, 2, 5. Stanford won three championships with rankings of 11, 7, 3. UW won two with rankings of 13, 4 . That is SIX times three different team finishing ranked in the top five nationally. And guess what? USC was never one of them and actually had losing records TWICE during that stretch. .
So I am sure USC will get better (maybe) and LA has lots of TV sets and so on. But PLEEEEEEEZE stop declaring UCLA and USC elite football programs.
And how many different teams have won Big 12 and Big 10 championships in the last decade?
I don’t care about how good USC and UCLA are on the field, it’s their TV value. I don’t set their value the TV networks do. And it seems they are about 40-50% of the PAC 12’s value, according to sources(including John). That’s why they are important.
As for number teams to win a conferences title. Since 2010 5 Big 12(OU, BU, TCU, KSU, and OSU) teams have won and 5 PAC 12(UO, UW, USC, Stanford, and Utah) teams have. So…
Fun story about Anna, who looks like she handled the wave with fun and laughter!
If I'm OR/UW, I'm not signing up for anything longer than 4-5 years on GoR, and I'm probably a bit pushy about terms that aren't too onerous if they need to break out in 24/25 due to the BIG coming calling.
How about another story on Mike Leach? Especially his rabid, extremist-right-wing willful ignorance. Remember when he posted a doctored video of Obama, then when called out on it, he doubled down on his racist idiocy. Before you say 'stop bringing politics into sports,' never forget it was ignorant, hateful Mike Leach who did that. Sad!
I think UNLV would be an awful choice (not to mention the questioner’s ask about New Mexico). While Las Vegas is growing, it is growing from people moving there from other parts of the country. They are longtime connections to UNLV. They don’t attend games in person nor watch them on TV.
Your missing the point of adding UNLV. They play in an NFL stadium with the best hotel and air travel connections. Oregon vs UNLV could be a big travel draw. A larger budget from the Pac12 media deal could make their football program competitive. It's an opportunity
CBS Sports reported one AD as saying the best and only answer is staying the PAC-10. Curious if you have heard anything on that, John? IMO, the conference will be over before the tv contract ends if that is the chosen path. Oregon, UW and others will not stay.
UCLA backs out (or is (forced to), Big 10 pivots and takes SC AND Stanford, Oregon and Washington.. Big 12 swoops in and takes the 4 corner schools. Pac Nothing is now a burning pile of rubble, California Regents announces UCLA and Cal will form their own 2 school conference named Big Newsom and play every week for the Governor's Cup.
If UCLA backed out of going to the Big Ten (close to 0% of this happening), USC then makes a phone call to Stanford and they definitely would head to the Big Ten with USC. Yes Stanford would owe the Pac-12 an exit fee penalty for leaving after the July 1, 2022 deadline imposed by the current media deal. However the school is sitting on a $38 billion endowment and unlike the public UCLA and Cal, private Stanford has recently used funds from it to save several of its non revenue sports - so paying several million dollars to leave the Pac-12 is a super easy check for them to write.
If UCLA backs out, it isn’t USC’s decision who replaces them. They aren’t even voting members of the B1G yet. Sure, it could be Stanford, but it isn’t a slam dunk because of what it does to the economics. Could just as easily be UO or UW.
I was giving an overly simplified comment on what I think would happen in this highly unlikely scenario. As you may know, conferences are not "suppose" to reach out first to members of other conferences. For the latest moves involving the B1G it was USC that approach the conference first - it's still not clear if they then reached out to UCLA or if the two contacted the B1G together. So my point is if UCLA were to back out, USC AD would most likely immediately reach out to the Stanford AD to see if there was interest, and if so USC would support it - yes USC is not yet a voting member but its support for Stanford would carry weight, just as its opposition to UO would. Once in the B1G in August 2024, any votes would have to be unanimous by the B1G Presidents and Chancellors, and USC would have a vote at that time. As far as who the B1G would want from the Pac-12 its probably the same now as it would be then. A good detail speculative multi-attribute assessment would place the order for a single school as - Stanford, UW, Cal, then UO ... if they wanted a pair it would be Stanford/Cal to get the SF Bay Area and all of California... then UW/UO.
Happy Anniversary, John and Anna. You two make a great partnership and I thorough enjoy your banter on the radio. You remind me of myself and my wife--we're constantly heckling each other. We don't take ourselves seriously, AT ALL!!
Thank you for keeping us listeners informed on all the relevant topics going on right now--not just the Pac 12 drama. I hope your dad is feeling much better!
UNLV has always been bad (other than Randall Cunningham and Ickey Woods). The were lousy in the Big West! I heard were the entire state of New Mexico only has just a few to no Power 5 recruits. SMU has also been mediocre and has a history of major cheating (Sonny Dykes left ASAP). SDSU is the best option, can play their game against Oregon or Washington at the Rams Stadium. Iowa State would work for the academics and has had a decent football team in the last 20 years. Does not bring much media value. Nevada Reno? Boise is too small and WSU does not want them (I imagine).
Happy anniversary! That's the important stuff.
Kliavkoff is NOT being petty in any way. Jumping to the BIG 12 makes no sense for any legit PAC 12 program. FACT: Big 10 & SEC has an aggressive strategy to weaken if not destroy 60% of college football. If ANY program in the PAC had serious interest in the mediocre, incredibly scattered Big12 they would be gone already. Remember, SIX or more PAC teams draw larger TV audiences thatn any Big 12 program. As a fan / TV viewer even without the Ariz schools the remaining PAC 8 would be MUCH more desirable by every criteria that matters..
The PAC has the opportunity to lead the way for CFB to return to sanity.
The mediocre Big 12 is a better conference than the PAC 12(in football and basketball) was before the PAC lost its best assets. And its not even close afterwards.
And John you should be better than this as a journalist. This is clearly a post lacking a grasp of reality, and should call it out. Just like you should call out that no Big 12 school would leave for the PAC because of the incredible buy out it would require.
Exactly, calling a conference with 5 Top 20 football teams and the best basketball conference "mediocre" is ridiculous. It is clearly more superior to the Pac-12 right now much less after s Pac-12 post-USC and UCLA.
Help me understand why everyone outside the pack always mentions UCLA? the program is middlin at best. average attendance at home might be 50,000, Been pretty good hoops lately but that is about it. . Anyway, I think is is very nice that all the Big 12 fans apparently hate the Pac. I really dont get it but OK, Good luck with the conference poaching efforts. Im not even sure why the B12 even wants to add programs.
UCLA football has the most fans in the Pac-12 and ranks #9 in fans nationally. UCLA also ranks #17 all time in AP football polling finishes. That’s despite 2 decades of relative mediocrity. 20 years ago they ranked closer to top 10 and that goes all the way back to the 1950s. UCLA also ranks top 15 in NFL draft picks. They have second most Pac-12 football titles and have a winning record against every Pac-12 school except USC. That’s just football. They have the most revenue sports national championships among schools with championships in football and basketball. They have second most national titles in the country and rank #2 in Leerfield Cup finishes. It’s also the most applied to university in the world in the country’s second largest market.
That’s why everyone mentions UCLA.
A lot of ancient history there.
I think if you poll highschool kids in say, Florida, which is their favorite PAC-12 football program, UO will be way above UCLA. UCLA is not a big national football brand. Hasn't been in a long time.
UO and UW also both generate much more football revenue than UCLA.
No, you’re dead wrong. Here’s the breakdown of 2021 fan bases in the country (not ancient history, today). Oregon and Washington do not come close to UCLA, which is by far the largest fan base in the Pac-12. Oregon is practically a mid-major school considering how small their market is. UCLA is valued at almost three times Oregon’s value, according to Canzano’s article. I would argue he is undervaluing UCLA but regardless there’s no realm where Oregon and Washington "generate much more revenue than UCLA." That’s a joke. Washington? lol Washington has a worse record than UCLA in the past 20 years. You're obviously very confused individual. There's a good reason the Big Ten wants UCLA and has no interest in Oregon or Washington, especially Oregon. That's why the Pac-12 is going up in flames. It's because Washington and Oregon cannot hold their own weight. These are small time schools. UCLA HAS FAR MORE FANS THAN OREGON AND WASHINGTON COMBINED.
Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. These are facts, not your supposition based on your distorted, uneducated perception.
https://bamahammer.com/2022/07/30/data-understanding-college-football-realignment/
There’s one more thing I will bring to your attention. Programs rise and fall all the time. 10 minutes ago Nebraska was a powerhouse, today it’s not. 10 minutes ago, Clemson was whatever, today they’re a powerhouse. 10 minutes ago Oregon was crap, today they’re among the best. In 2004, an undefeated SEC team (Auburn) was left out of the national title game because perception was that an undefeated Big XII team (Oklahoma) and undefeated Pac-10 team (USC) were better. There is no guarantee performance the last 5, 10, 15, 20 years will be the same indefinitely. It’s called recency bias that you (and a lot of sports fans and sports media types) confuse all the time. I can tell you suffer from this with your reference to Washington, a school that but for two highly successful recent seasons, has been a shell of itself over the past 20 years. Your mind only thinks “Washington was good in 2016/2017 whereas UCLA was not therefore they’re more valuable”. You’re not alone in this type of thinking. Realignment is about value over decades. UCLA has been at its worst stretch in the past 2 decades. Considering their natural advantages in a major market, top public school, most popular university in the world, plus unrivaled athletic tradition it stands to reason they will progress to their average while schools like Oregon will regress to their average, especially once sugar daddy Knight is gone. Regardless, when it comes to value even a rock bottom UCLA is still far more popular than a peak Oregon. That’s innate value. That’s a program that can sustain downturns. That’s what ultimately drives value and brand.
This is what the rest of the country doesn’t seem to realize. The Bruins are a sleeping giant if their leadership actually pulls their heads out of their butts.
Sleeping giant, huh? that is what those 35,000 empty seats at the Rose Bowl appear to be, sleeping. Although they did almost beat Fresneo State last year.
UCLA has done NOTHING at all for the last decade. I think they fished second once. They did impressively run up a $100 million deficit in athletics alone. And UCLA has shown they care NOTHING about the entire PAC. Destabilizing if not destroying 60% of CFB is what the SEC and BIG 10 are out to do. UCLA could not do it on the field but will get bailed out of their financial incompetence by big successful programs. I am sure The bruins will be a dominant force in the Big 10. Those Rutgers, Indiana games will be classics..
UCLA didn’t run a $100 million deficit. They just received a major settlement from their UA contract at nearly $70 million. Majority of the debt was due to that plus the pandemic season. The Pac-12 canceling half the season and no fans allowed is the cause of the small debt they’ve incurred. Almost every other Pac-12 school has the same financial hit. Stay up to date on your facts. It will help you not look like an imbecile.
Also, UCLA cared a lot about the Pac-12. If they didn’t, they would have ditched the conference for greener pastures a decade ago or they would have taken the jerk move of arrogant schools like Washington and Oregon and demand their 25% cut of the conference revenue equal to the value they brought the conference. They didn’t want to do that because they had too much respect for the rest of the programs in the conference and felt bad for them. The economic realities of college sports have made it too burdensome to remain in a conference with schools like Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, and Washington State whose values combined do not match theirs. That’s all it’s about. Nothing personal buddy. They just play in a larger market and have higher costs than those other schools. We wish you guys nothing but the best and hope to see Conference of Champions thrive for many years to come.
Pretty good in hoops, UCLA and Aiz are horrible, right. And I admit the PAC is not the best in football....but the B12 had Okla and nobody. Okla St was NOT close to even Utah and Oregon.
and of course nobody in the B12 even watch their own teams, WSU had more viewers per game than any B12 team. Nothing against the B12. And the locations....well , ya know. There is a reason why the PAC hasnt had membership change for 11 years. There is a reason why some conferences are constantly sneaking and poaching and expanding and losing teams.
UCLA isn’t horrible. They finished 3rd in the Pac-12 last season and led the conference in draft picks. Historically they are the Pac-12’s best football program behind SC. In any case, they are the most popular football team in the Pac-12 in terms of fans. That’s despite their worst stretch of football the past 2 decades.
UCLA couldn’t beat Fresno a school the PAC is supposedly too good for.
UCLA and Zona are fine in hoops. But it’s not the Big 12 which has been the best hoops conference for about 10 years and it’s slowing down.
And the Big 12 minus OU and UT is a better football conference than the PAC minus USC and UCLA. The new Big 12 had 3 top 8 teams(last AP poll) in Baylor, Ok St and Cincy. And 2 more top 25 in BYU and Houston. Every single metric available shows a massive gap between the Big 12 and PAC. I’m not sure how you can keep denying. These are just straight facts.
As for views the numbers present by John, Jon, and Stewart are surface level and don’t show that when you account for channel the Big 12 beats the PAC 12 in viewership. And with OU and UT gone the remaining Big 12 teams will now be on those main channels even more. Combined with the Big 12 and Big 10s future access to after dark time slots(USC,UCLA, TTU, and BYU) the PAC 12s major tv chip will be reduced.
Why should PAC 12 teams look to move? Because the big 12 is
1) more stable. UO and UW(possible Stanford and Cal) are looking to get to the Big 10. IMO the Big 10 is done until ND makes a move but it cause instability.
2) Money will be about the same if not better in the Big 12. At least according to the projection from Navigate that John, Jon, and Stew have used a number of times since they came out in March. They showed total revenue practically equal between the New Big 12(post OU and UT) and the Pac12 as it stood in March. That has change John reported here that USC and UCLA were about 40-50% of the PAC 12’s value. So while I don’t have exact numbers there’s unlikely anyway that the PAC could be making more money than the Big 12 now.
3) TV inventory and slots. Yes PAC 12 after dark is valuable. But with the Big 12 and Big 10 adding teams in the MT and PT time zones that ruins the PAC’s Monopoly as the only P5 conf with that inventory. And from what I’ve seen that prime channel late night slot can be filled with roughly 8 schools(2 in the Big 10 so far) and 6 elsewhere which means that the Big 13 really only needs 3-6 PAC schools to give TV networks all the After dark slots they need. And those schools would have the added benefit of having Conf opps in the ET and CT time slots as well.
Those reasons should be proficient to get at least one or two PAC schools to jump and if that happens the limited spots would force some schools hands or risk getting left behind to zombie PAC with the remaining PAC schools and several MWC schools.
Maybe if the PAC 12 hadn’t listen to USC last year like the Big 12 had listen to UT we’d all have been better off but here we are.
Who said ANYONE out here is interested in joining another conference? Quit believing all that phony media stuff. I know the BIG 12 commish was calling the PAC12 almost daily trying poach teams. If any teams were interested they would have moved to that "more stable" conference' Cool that you feel superior about your conference.
viewing te Big 12 losing Okla looks MUCH more damaging than the PAC losing SC and UCLA. The PAC is the only conference to NOT lose or grab teams for 10 years. To call the Big 12 stable is kind of comical. SEC and Big 10 is working hard to make sure all of CFB is unstable, and it is working. WSU with a tny market records more actual viewers (mor 1 million+ games) than virtually ALL of the BIG 12 teasm. The data actually shows 6 PAC teams draw more 1 million viewer games athn any Big 12 teams. The big 12 is fine but has no attraction to any fans I know our there. I am sure the Big 12 feels the same way. We in the west have no interest in a "conferrence" spanning three time zones where teams rarel play even half the conf opponents.
Again the viewing numbers are surface level. Big 12 will try to add teams if the are additive and that school wants to come. To think that some PAC 12 schools haven’t even reached out would be naive. As for why they haven’t moved is because a lot is still up in the air. And everyone is trying to get clarity before making any decisions. But not acknowledging that the Big 12 is in a position of power(over the PAC 12) at the moment is lacking an understanding of the current landscape.
Why do you and the media pretend USC and UCLA are such huge football programs???
Since the 2011 season PAC 12 champs USC won the 2017 title ranked #12. That is it ONE championship. UCLA has won ZERO championships in that stretch, only finished second once. Oregon won three times finishing with rankings of 4, 2, 5. Stanford won three championships with rankings of 11, 7, 3. UW won two with rankings of 13, 4 . That is SIX times three different team finishing ranked in the top five nationally. And guess what? USC was never one of them and actually had losing records TWICE during that stretch. .
So I am sure USC will get better (maybe) and LA has lots of TV sets and so on. But PLEEEEEEEZE stop declaring UCLA and USC elite football programs.
And how many different teams have won Big 12 and Big 10 championships in the last decade?
I don’t care about how good USC and UCLA are on the field, it’s their TV value. I don’t set their value the TV networks do. And it seems they are about 40-50% of the PAC 12’s value, according to sources(including John). That’s why they are important.
As for number teams to win a conferences title. Since 2010 5 Big 12(OU, BU, TCU, KSU, and OSU) teams have won and 5 PAC 12(UO, UW, USC, Stanford, and Utah) teams have. So…
Fun story about Anna, who looks like she handled the wave with fun and laughter!
If I'm OR/UW, I'm not signing up for anything longer than 4-5 years on GoR, and I'm probably a bit pushy about terms that aren't too onerous if they need to break out in 24/25 due to the BIG coming calling.
Agree. Short term deal
How about another story on Mike Leach? Especially his rabid, extremist-right-wing willful ignorance. Remember when he posted a doctored video of Obama, then when called out on it, he doubled down on his racist idiocy. Before you say 'stop bringing politics into sports,' never forget it was ignorant, hateful Mike Leach who did that. Sad!
I think UNLV would be an awful choice (not to mention the questioner’s ask about New Mexico). While Las Vegas is growing, it is growing from people moving there from other parts of the country. They are longtime connections to UNLV. They don’t attend games in person nor watch them on TV.
Your missing the point of adding UNLV. They play in an NFL stadium with the best hotel and air travel connections. Oregon vs UNLV could be a big travel draw. A larger budget from the Pac12 media deal could make their football program competitive. It's an opportunity
Bingo
It’s less about tickets sold than it is sponsorship dollars and tv households.
CBS Sports reported one AD as saying the best and only answer is staying the PAC-10. Curious if you have heard anything on that, John? IMO, the conference will be over before the tv contract ends if that is the chosen path. Oregon, UW and others will not stay.
Of course UW will stay, not sure about Phil K U.
You definitely married up John!!!!
No doubt
UCLA backs out (or is (forced to), Big 10 pivots and takes SC AND Stanford, Oregon and Washington.. Big 12 swoops in and takes the 4 corner schools. Pac Nothing is now a burning pile of rubble, California Regents announces UCLA and Cal will form their own 2 school conference named Big Newsom and play every week for the Governor's Cup.
If UCLA backed out of going to the Big Ten (close to 0% of this happening), USC then makes a phone call to Stanford and they definitely would head to the Big Ten with USC. Yes Stanford would owe the Pac-12 an exit fee penalty for leaving after the July 1, 2022 deadline imposed by the current media deal. However the school is sitting on a $38 billion endowment and unlike the public UCLA and Cal, private Stanford has recently used funds from it to save several of its non revenue sports - so paying several million dollars to leave the Pac-12 is a super easy check for them to write.
If UCLA backs out, it isn’t USC’s decision who replaces them. They aren’t even voting members of the B1G yet. Sure, it could be Stanford, but it isn’t a slam dunk because of what it does to the economics. Could just as easily be UO or UW.
I was giving an overly simplified comment on what I think would happen in this highly unlikely scenario. As you may know, conferences are not "suppose" to reach out first to members of other conferences. For the latest moves involving the B1G it was USC that approach the conference first - it's still not clear if they then reached out to UCLA or if the two contacted the B1G together. So my point is if UCLA were to back out, USC AD would most likely immediately reach out to the Stanford AD to see if there was interest, and if so USC would support it - yes USC is not yet a voting member but its support for Stanford would carry weight, just as its opposition to UO would. Once in the B1G in August 2024, any votes would have to be unanimous by the B1G Presidents and Chancellors, and USC would have a vote at that time. As far as who the B1G would want from the Pac-12 its probably the same now as it would be then. A good detail speculative multi-attribute assessment would place the order for a single school as - Stanford, UW, Cal, then UO ... if they wanted a pair it would be Stanford/Cal to get the SF Bay Area and all of California... then UW/UO.
Vegas will run out of water at this rate lol
Likely
The way the college football climate is changing almost by the month
I would seek an annual media contract that extends automatically if nothing
changes. I would imagine that the upper half of the conference all want a short
term contract with multiple options for getting out and the bottom half all want
long term security. Good luck putting that together.
Tricky but I think you use incentives as the glue
Happy Anniversary, John and Anna. You two make a great partnership and I thorough enjoy your banter on the radio. You remind me of myself and my wife--we're constantly heckling each other. We don't take ourselves seriously, AT ALL!!
Thank you for keeping us listeners informed on all the relevant topics going on right now--not just the Pac 12 drama. I hope your dad is feeling much better!
Thanks mark!
UNLV has always been bad (other than Randall Cunningham and Ickey Woods). The were lousy in the Big West! I heard were the entire state of New Mexico only has just a few to no Power 5 recruits. SMU has also been mediocre and has a history of major cheating (Sonny Dykes left ASAP). SDSU is the best option, can play their game against Oregon or Washington at the Rams Stadium. Iowa State would work for the academics and has had a decent football team in the last 20 years. Does not bring much media value. Nevada Reno? Boise is too small and WSU does not want them (I imagine).
With those moves, Anna could have competed at the Worlds in the sprints! Happy Anniversary to you both!
Thank You😎 & Anna!
Love your column but it’s wishful thinking that UCLA FLIP FLOPS. Trust me, They’re not going back
Unlikely. But if you’re the pac-12 you have to take that shot