I live in SD. That stadium is in Mission Valley. It is nice, but VERY hot during early Fall games (watch the tape of tje Arizona game for reference.. it was miserable, and the place was almost empty). Just like games at the Q were for the Bolts (traitors) games. Just fyi if planning a road trip. It isnt a late December pleasant day/evening like the Holiday Bowl. Much more like a trip to the desert.
It was hot, very hot...but, being a California native, I also know that was a once in a lifetime heat wave we had, Late afternoon, or early evening games in September would be just fine. Perfect for TV across the Big 12 landscape for evening viewing! Also, the game was sold out, people were looking for shade, left early due to the heat, or didn't bother coming to the game. FYI...yes, September can be hot...but, it's absolutely doable for later starting times! October, November and December provide you with Chamber of Commerce weather that'll make the rest of the country jealous! The stadium is fantastic and will only get better, along with the surrounding development! SDSU would be an absolute coup for the The Big 12!!
I would be in favor of adding San Diego State. I am also holding out hope that UCLA will not follow through with their decision. I thought it was interesting the timing of Bill Walton breaking his silence. I wonder if the pressure on UCLA School leaders is beginning to have some impact? Did you get the impression that Walton was, like a good politician, waiting to see which way the chips would fall? Just wondering why he had waited so long
PAC tends to pair schools in areas. (UW, WSU; Uo, OSU; ASU, UA; UCLA, USC; Stan, Cal; Col, Utes) If SDSU is taken in, then would they go by the same method and pair something within the region?
If so that would make the push for UCLA to reverse course through Regents stronger than maybe initially expected?
If not then that would have Fresno or UNLV in proximity... SMU would seem too far away from anyone.
Considering the refusal to talk, it would seem that UCLA is far more in expected play?
These days expansion is more about growing a conference's footprint than having nearby pairs. I think the reason SMU has less appeal isn't the distance, but that it just doesn't get that much attention in the Dallas market (much less nationally).
SMU has as much attention in the Dallas market and nationally as SDSU has in the LA market and nationally. Neither team actually delivers a meaningful portion of their media market.
SMU, Rice and TCU could be worthwhile, if they delivered a sizable chunk of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. The religious affiliations could be a stumbling block (presumably why BYU is not in the discussion).
I think BYU is not in the conversation because they don't deliver anything new in terms of markets or top flight football. If Notre Dame wanted in, the Pac-10 would have no qualms about it being a religious institution.
Hey John: I did not hear your podcast with big Bill, but I did read what you wrote about him. He is a smart dude but I think he either smokes too much or the Jerry Garcia in him has taken over. As I have told you before, UCLA and USC were very smart to join the Big 10. It is all about money; $70 million or so per year to each and the Pac-12 is looking at maybe $30 million each per year if they get a new tv deal. Walton wants UCLA to be like it was when he played there, That was just 50 years ago. I saw him play in Eugene and Portland for UCLA. I saw him help the Blazers win their only NBA championship in 1977. Loved his skills, and I do love the Grateful Dead. The Pac-12 does not need to add another team unless you can get a Big Name school to join. The Pac-12 is so far behind the SEC in football that it is sad to me as a lifelong Duck fan of just 60 years. To those who say that UCLA will regret leaving the Pac-12, I strongly disagree; forty million dollars more per year than the Pac-12 is my best reason. That much money can go a long way to all the other sports in the "conference of champions" Give Chip Kelly and Lincoln Riley each $40 million more than they get now to their schools. They can pay their players and recruits now above the table. They can lure players to their school that may only have one year left of college eligibility left. like USC's good qb. If you are a high school player and are heavily recruited, and your dream is to play in the NFL, you grab the most money you can get right out of high school. If you do not make the NFL, you still can get paid from your school. Huge money runs the world, and it makes sports on tv possible. ESPN is worth more in billions of dollars than ALL sports teams combined. Think about that and go ahead and fact check me. Unless the Pac-12 can pull a dream out of cyberspace, and pay each school somehere near what the SEC or Big-10 pay theirs, , which could only happen if ESPN decided to take the Pac-12 and save them, they are doomed as far as playing with the big boys in football. I love our new coach in football at the U of O, and I knew he was a good hire. Same for Bo Nix. No final four for the Pac-12 for years in football or probably basketball, and they are doomed as far as catching up soon. Very simple; money talks and s___ walks. GO DUCKS. p.s. is it possible to have a paid subscription to the Bald Faced Truth, that does not auto-renew monthly? I bought several for friends and did not know there was auto-renewal. I miss being a paid subscriber , and the only reason I am not is for the reason I just mentioned. my new e-mail is donaldroberts258@gmail.com and I do read you everyday! I am still on substack as DONNIE DUCK'S LATEST. God Bless you and family, and am asking for prayers for my best friend, a black mini-jaguar, kitty named Shadow, whom has been here for three years and is now in semi-critical conditon in hospital
I just want to go month to month please John, and I did that today. Maybe I was wrong about automatic monthly renewal, but I kept getting $6.99 charges regularly on my credit card., which I assume were for subscriptions I had bought for several people. We do not need San Diego State in the pac-12 unless you want to water down the conference. UCLA will not be back, not USC either. Is called big money. Bill Walton is dreaming of the past, and why do so many people just not get it? Go Ducks!
John, I just listened to your John & Jon podcast with Bill Walton....or should i say the "Bill Walton podcast" with a few comments from John & Jon? haha That being said I thought Bill had a lot of really good comments and info. Maybe UCLA doesn't get the OK to leave the Pac 12? If so then we lose USC traitors, keep UCLA, but also gain SDSU. That would be fine with me. Your thoughts?
An unbalanced league would work with 11 members with an even number of conference games (i.e. not the current 9), but you can't have an uneven number of members *and* an uneven number of games - it just doesn't pencil out mathematically unless you want different teams playing a different amount of conference games, which seems the option of last resort.
Taking SDSU as a full member and another football only member seems the most likely option to me, as other sports already play an even number of games, so they can handle it. Maybe SDSU as full, one of SMU/Boise/Fresno/UNLV as football only, and Gonzaga in all other sports.
Good point. All those years the Big Ten spent as an 11-team conference was when they still played an 8-game conference schedule.
They also used to finish their season the weekend before Thanksgiving. I remember that was a point of contention for them in the BCS days because other conferences would be playing into early December, if you count the championship games. The Big Ten thought that might be a disadvantage for them in the polls. (out of sight, out of mind)
One thing I am really enjoying with my paid subscription is all this inside information from you John. It is well worth what I am paying to know I only have to go one place to know what is happening and that I can ignore the rumor mill. Saves me a ton of time and anxiety. ---- Thanks!
I agree with you Mr. Stone. And when I go to dinner parties and cocktails I can speak with some level of authority on a topic such as the Pac 12 because of my subscription to the bald faced truth. As a result people are actually finding me interesting and listening to me!
I mean, they just built a brand new stadium, and they've upgraded their academic standing, as John points out in the column you're commenting on. In terms of "on the field," they've struggled this year but have double digit wins in 5 of the past 6 full seasons. That's pretty damn good.
Seems like a Texas footprint would really bump up the deal. I like SMU and the Dallas Market, also a school whose upped there game recently is UT San Antonio....that's a nice market and SA is the fastest growing city in Texas!
Yes except, just like SDSU & the San Diego/LA market, SMU, doesn't carry much of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. They along with Rice & UTEP couldn't make it in the WAC or Mountain West conferences.
I keep hearing Commissioner K talking about concluding a media deal before addressing expansion, and I keep wondering if this isn't backwards. The reason for expansion is to gain more inventory of games in more markets to increase the value of the package. I realize there is always some language to allow reopening and an adjustment if the league does in fact expand and add inventory, but it seems that will be curbed in the amount of increased payout that will occur from media partners that already budgeted multiple years out (and built out their other programming based on time slots to fill) based on a signed contract. I would think you would be better positioned in negotiations to offer a beefier overall package to the carriers from the beginning. It doesn't seem to be sound business, not that the universities or the conferences have a track record of good business decision making.
What is the increased inventory of adding SDSU? 12 more games, all featuring SDSU? All 12 in time slots when the current Pac-10 will already have games not featuring SDSU? I'm not sure that extra inventory does much when it comes to a media deal.
The SDSU question isn't about inventory. It's about whether or not ESPN believes SDSU can deliver the SoCal market in some meaningful way.
There is more to it than just filling another game slot each week. It also allows spreading the burden around. For an example, OSU is playing their 8th night game out of 9 so far this season this week, with up to 3 more that could wind up at night. A couple of additional teams means they can take a share of the night and weeknight slots, which are frequently massive disasters.
And do you really think another game in Pullman when the Cougs are .500 or less will deliver more SoCal viewers than a game in San Diego?
I don't think SDSU ratings have been good. My guess is that they are probably very bad. I'm not sure how they compare to WSU rankings, but they are probably lower.
Also, I think it's fair to say that WSU and OSU would not be prime expansion candidates if they weren't already in the conference. We probably don't want to use them as a baseline for comparison. Adding an additional Wazzu would not increase revenue for Pac-10 teams.
What I guess is that the media deal includes; "so what do we get if we add teams A & B, or if teams C & D, or A, B, C & D? And ESPN says we'll give you this much if it is it A, & E, Pac 12 says but E doesn't fit our profile. ESPN then says, yeh but E has better TV Rating than anyone else out there and if you invite E we pay also for A, B, & D. We wont pay for C cause their ratings STINK.
They need to know what the pro rata, if any, from the broadcasters will be before they expand. You don't want to add a school(s) without knowing what the networks are willing to pay for them.
Fresno State makes sense because it has appeal from entire Central Valley, from Bakersfield to Sacto and even farm country north of Sacramento, where people identify more with agricultural California than Bay Area. Fresno State also offers a nice Cal State system pairing with San Diego State. And with California lawmakers now allowing PhD programs at Cal State schools, Fresno can up its academic standing.
Add Fresno State and you wrap up all of California that is available without LA.
Good point. You know ‘em better than the rest of us. They do have a problem, however, in that if they to adhere to their academic quality standards, they have to look eastward, no? Going to be interesting to see.
I didn't know that about Delany! It's funny because of all the expansions in the past few decades, his expansions are the only to fail. If the Big10 could go back in time and not invite Rutgers or Maryland, they would.
That situation is similar to this SDSU situation. The Big10 added Rutgers because Rutgers is close to NYC. We are considering SDSU because SDSU is close to LA. SDSU, like Rutgers, has almost no following or tradition of success. The next person we see wearing an Aztec t-shirt will also be the first.
But if ESPN wants SDSU, it will happen. It sure looks like just an extra mouth to feed.
The Aztec helmet is cool though. It needs more contrast to show up better.
You don't seem to understand why the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland if you think it failed. It was all about expanding the number of households in which they could charge the in-market rate for the Big Ten Network ($.59/mo per subscriber, vs $.10 out-of-market). That's what happens when you successfully start a conference network by partnering with someone that can assure you distribution (FOX, in this case). And thus even with cord-cutting, BTN is currently available in over 60 million homes nationwide. For similar reasons, BTN will bring in lots more cash when the LA schools join:
On the other hand, good ol' Lavish Larry thought he was much smarter than Delaney, and that he could get the Pac-12 Network distribution all on his own and not have to share with a partner. How did that work out? There are about 13 million homes that get P12N. Do the math.
This is incorrect. SD St has frequently won or contended for the Mt. West, and posted a number of winning seasons overall, better than Rutgers. And they have done well with relatively limited resources and support. Up their budget for recruiting, staffing, development, marketing, etc. in the SoCal market and its likely they elevate their program significantly.
I just did a quick check. SDSU's Sagarin ratings the past 5 seasons (2017-2021) were: 59, 94, 51, 59, and 53.
Utah and TCU made the leap from G5 to P5 after winning the Sugar Bowl and the Rose Bowl, respectively. There is nothing impressive about the SDSU resume. This proposed move is based entirely on the size of the SD and SoCal market and some kind of unfounded hope that SDSU would deliver that market. I do think the comparison to Rutgers is a good one. Rutgers in the Big East did have a couple of top 25 seasons under Schiano, but that was still a silly addition from Delany.
An interesting tidbit... The Athletic Director at SDSU is John David Wicker who used to be at WSU in Pullman when Jim Sterk was the AD and Sterk's mentor was/is Kevin White.
I live in SD. That stadium is in Mission Valley. It is nice, but VERY hot during early Fall games (watch the tape of tje Arizona game for reference.. it was miserable, and the place was almost empty). Just like games at the Q were for the Bolts (traitors) games. Just fyi if planning a road trip. It isnt a late December pleasant day/evening like the Holiday Bowl. Much more like a trip to the desert.
It was hot, very hot...but, being a California native, I also know that was a once in a lifetime heat wave we had, Late afternoon, or early evening games in September would be just fine. Perfect for TV across the Big 12 landscape for evening viewing! Also, the game was sold out, people were looking for shade, left early due to the heat, or didn't bother coming to the game. FYI...yes, September can be hot...but, it's absolutely doable for later starting times! October, November and December provide you with Chamber of Commerce weather that'll make the rest of the country jealous! The stadium is fantastic and will only get better, along with the surrounding development! SDSU would be an absolute coup for the The Big 12!!
I would be in favor of adding San Diego State. I am also holding out hope that UCLA will not follow through with their decision. I thought it was interesting the timing of Bill Walton breaking his silence. I wonder if the pressure on UCLA School leaders is beginning to have some impact? Did you get the impression that Walton was, like a good politician, waiting to see which way the chips would fall? Just wondering why he had waited so long
I suspect that timing was a calculated move.
PAC tends to pair schools in areas. (UW, WSU; Uo, OSU; ASU, UA; UCLA, USC; Stan, Cal; Col, Utes) If SDSU is taken in, then would they go by the same method and pair something within the region?
If so that would make the push for UCLA to reverse course through Regents stronger than maybe initially expected?
If not then that would have Fresno or UNLV in proximity... SMU would seem too far away from anyone.
Considering the refusal to talk, it would seem that UCLA is far more in expected play?
These days expansion is more about growing a conference's footprint than having nearby pairs. I think the reason SMU has less appeal isn't the distance, but that it just doesn't get that much attention in the Dallas market (much less nationally).
SMU has as much attention in the Dallas market and nationally as SDSU has in the LA market and nationally. Neither team actually delivers a meaningful portion of their media market.
Sancho is spot on. Small potatoes.
SMU, Rice and TCU could be worthwhile, if they delivered a sizable chunk of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. The religious affiliations could be a stumbling block (presumably why BYU is not in the discussion).
I think BYU is not in the conversation because they don't deliver anything new in terms of markets or top flight football. If Notre Dame wanted in, the Pac-10 would have no qualms about it being a religious institution.
Hey John: I did not hear your podcast with big Bill, but I did read what you wrote about him. He is a smart dude but I think he either smokes too much or the Jerry Garcia in him has taken over. As I have told you before, UCLA and USC were very smart to join the Big 10. It is all about money; $70 million or so per year to each and the Pac-12 is looking at maybe $30 million each per year if they get a new tv deal. Walton wants UCLA to be like it was when he played there, That was just 50 years ago. I saw him play in Eugene and Portland for UCLA. I saw him help the Blazers win their only NBA championship in 1977. Loved his skills, and I do love the Grateful Dead. The Pac-12 does not need to add another team unless you can get a Big Name school to join. The Pac-12 is so far behind the SEC in football that it is sad to me as a lifelong Duck fan of just 60 years. To those who say that UCLA will regret leaving the Pac-12, I strongly disagree; forty million dollars more per year than the Pac-12 is my best reason. That much money can go a long way to all the other sports in the "conference of champions" Give Chip Kelly and Lincoln Riley each $40 million more than they get now to their schools. They can pay their players and recruits now above the table. They can lure players to their school that may only have one year left of college eligibility left. like USC's good qb. If you are a high school player and are heavily recruited, and your dream is to play in the NFL, you grab the most money you can get right out of high school. If you do not make the NFL, you still can get paid from your school. Huge money runs the world, and it makes sports on tv possible. ESPN is worth more in billions of dollars than ALL sports teams combined. Think about that and go ahead and fact check me. Unless the Pac-12 can pull a dream out of cyberspace, and pay each school somehere near what the SEC or Big-10 pay theirs, , which could only happen if ESPN decided to take the Pac-12 and save them, they are doomed as far as playing with the big boys in football. I love our new coach in football at the U of O, and I knew he was a good hire. Same for Bo Nix. No final four for the Pac-12 for years in football or probably basketball, and they are doomed as far as catching up soon. Very simple; money talks and s___ walks. GO DUCKS. p.s. is it possible to have a paid subscription to the Bald Faced Truth, that does not auto-renew monthly? I bought several for friends and did not know there was auto-renewal. I miss being a paid subscriber , and the only reason I am not is for the reason I just mentioned. my new e-mail is donaldroberts258@gmail.com and I do read you everyday! I am still on substack as DONNIE DUCK'S LATEST. God Bless you and family, and am asking for prayers for my best friend, a black mini-jaguar, kitty named Shadow, whom has been here for three years and is now in semi-critical conditon in hospital
You can also sign up for an annual subscription. The option is there.
I just want to go month to month please John, and I did that today. Maybe I was wrong about automatic monthly renewal, but I kept getting $6.99 charges regularly on my credit card., which I assume were for subscriptions I had bought for several people. We do not need San Diego State in the pac-12 unless you want to water down the conference. UCLA will not be back, not USC either. Is called big money. Bill Walton is dreaming of the past, and why do so many people just not get it? Go Ducks!
John, I just listened to your John & Jon podcast with Bill Walton....or should i say the "Bill Walton podcast" with a few comments from John & Jon? haha That being said I thought Bill had a lot of really good comments and info. Maybe UCLA doesn't get the OK to leave the Pac 12? If so then we lose USC traitors, keep UCLA, but also gain SDSU. That would be fine with me. Your thoughts?
I told Wilner before we started... I hope you have two good questions. It will be all you get.
Priceless.
An unbalanced league would work with 11 members with an even number of conference games (i.e. not the current 9), but you can't have an uneven number of members *and* an uneven number of games - it just doesn't pencil out mathematically unless you want different teams playing a different amount of conference games, which seems the option of last resort.
Taking SDSU as a full member and another football only member seems the most likely option to me, as other sports already play an even number of games, so they can handle it. Maybe SDSU as full, one of SMU/Boise/Fresno/UNLV as football only, and Gonzaga in all other sports.
Good point. All those years the Big Ten spent as an 11-team conference was when they still played an 8-game conference schedule.
They also used to finish their season the weekend before Thanksgiving. I remember that was a point of contention for them in the BCS days because other conferences would be playing into early December, if you count the championship games. The Big Ten thought that might be a disadvantage for them in the polls. (out of sight, out of mind)
One thing I am really enjoying with my paid subscription is all this inside information from you John. It is well worth what I am paying to know I only have to go one place to know what is happening and that I can ignore the rumor mill. Saves me a ton of time and anxiety. ---- Thanks!
Thank you.
I agree with you Mr. Stone. And when I go to dinner parties and cocktails I can speak with some level of authority on a topic such as the Pac 12 because of my subscription to the bald faced truth. As a result people are actually finding me interesting and listening to me!
Thank you. That's part of my aim. There's a lot of BS out there.
As an alumnus of SDSU I can only say this….. GO AZTECS!
Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to watch SDSU play anyone in the PAC.
Poach Kansas and K-state from the Big12... both of those are more interesting to me as a fan.
Plus you get Kansas basketball and a long standing rivalry.
SDSU has done a really nice job positioning itself.
You mean by being in San Diego? That was a shrewd move! They certainly haven't done anything on the field to positoin themselves.
I mean, they just built a brand new stadium, and they've upgraded their academic standing, as John points out in the column you're commenting on. In terms of "on the field," they've struggled this year but have double digit wins in 5 of the past 6 full seasons. That's pretty damn good.
Seems like a Texas footprint would really bump up the deal. I like SMU and the Dallas Market, also a school whose upped there game recently is UT San Antonio....that's a nice market and SA is the fastest growing city in Texas!
I think they are considering a school in Texas as well.
I feel like you know something, but are sworn to silence.
Yes except, just like SDSU & the San Diego/LA market, SMU, doesn't carry much of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. They along with Rice & UTEP couldn't make it in the WAC or Mountain West conferences.
Need to get a presence in Texas for recruiting if nothing else.
I keep hearing Commissioner K talking about concluding a media deal before addressing expansion, and I keep wondering if this isn't backwards. The reason for expansion is to gain more inventory of games in more markets to increase the value of the package. I realize there is always some language to allow reopening and an adjustment if the league does in fact expand and add inventory, but it seems that will be curbed in the amount of increased payout that will occur from media partners that already budgeted multiple years out (and built out their other programming based on time slots to fill) based on a signed contract. I would think you would be better positioned in negotiations to offer a beefier overall package to the carriers from the beginning. It doesn't seem to be sound business, not that the universities or the conferences have a track record of good business decision making.
I'm being told they will be 1a and 1b steps... not 1... (pause)... 2...
John, you have a Texas Football Whisperer? drjimxlaw64@gmail.com
What is the increased inventory of adding SDSU? 12 more games, all featuring SDSU? All 12 in time slots when the current Pac-10 will already have games not featuring SDSU? I'm not sure that extra inventory does much when it comes to a media deal.
The SDSU question isn't about inventory. It's about whether or not ESPN believes SDSU can deliver the SoCal market in some meaningful way.
Pacific Time zone... and 1.2M TV households. Like Thompson said, not bad.
There is more to it than just filling another game slot each week. It also allows spreading the burden around. For an example, OSU is playing their 8th night game out of 9 so far this season this week, with up to 3 more that could wind up at night. A couple of additional teams means they can take a share of the night and weeknight slots, which are frequently massive disasters.
And do you really think another game in Pullman when the Cougs are .500 or less will deliver more SoCal viewers than a game in San Diego?
I don't think SDSU ratings have been good. My guess is that they are probably very bad. I'm not sure how they compare to WSU rankings, but they are probably lower.
Also, I think it's fair to say that WSU and OSU would not be prime expansion candidates if they weren't already in the conference. We probably don't want to use them as a baseline for comparison. Adding an additional Wazzu would not increase revenue for Pac-10 teams.
They aren't looking at ratings as much as tv market.
What I guess is that the media deal includes; "so what do we get if we add teams A & B, or if teams C & D, or A, B, C & D? And ESPN says we'll give you this much if it is it A, & E, Pac 12 says but E doesn't fit our profile. ESPN then says, yeh but E has better TV Rating than anyone else out there and if you invite E we pay also for A, B, & D. We wont pay for C cause their ratings STINK.
They need to know what the pro rata, if any, from the broadcasters will be before they expand. You don't want to add a school(s) without knowing what the networks are willing to pay for them.
Fresno State makes sense because it has appeal from entire Central Valley, from Bakersfield to Sacto and even farm country north of Sacramento, where people identify more with agricultural California than Bay Area. Fresno State also offers a nice Cal State system pairing with San Diego State. And with California lawmakers now allowing PhD programs at Cal State schools, Fresno can up its academic standing.
Add Fresno State and you wrap up all of California that is available without LA.
Large footprint... but wonder if the presidents and chancellors will turn their noses up.
Good point. You know ‘em better than the rest of us. They do have a problem, however, in that if they to adhere to their academic quality standards, they have to look eastward, no? Going to be interesting to see.
How likely will UCLA honor Bill Walton's plea to reverse B10 offer and return to P12?
I don't think it's likely UCLA reverses... but the Regents get the final say.
About as likely as Hillary Clinton buying a residence in Trump Tower, NY.
You mean there's still hope? LOL
I didn't know that about Delany! It's funny because of all the expansions in the past few decades, his expansions are the only to fail. If the Big10 could go back in time and not invite Rutgers or Maryland, they would.
That situation is similar to this SDSU situation. The Big10 added Rutgers because Rutgers is close to NYC. We are considering SDSU because SDSU is close to LA. SDSU, like Rutgers, has almost no following or tradition of success. The next person we see wearing an Aztec t-shirt will also be the first.
But if ESPN wants SDSU, it will happen. It sure looks like just an extra mouth to feed.
The Aztec helmet is cool though. It needs more contrast to show up better.
You don't seem to understand why the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland if you think it failed. It was all about expanding the number of households in which they could charge the in-market rate for the Big Ten Network ($.59/mo per subscriber, vs $.10 out-of-market). That's what happens when you successfully start a conference network by partnering with someone that can assure you distribution (FOX, in this case). And thus even with cord-cutting, BTN is currently available in over 60 million homes nationwide. For similar reasons, BTN will bring in lots more cash when the LA schools join:
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/adding-usc-and-ucla-could-be-huge-for-big-ten-network.html
On the other hand, good ol' Lavish Larry thought he was much smarter than Delaney, and that he could get the Pac-12 Network distribution all on his own and not have to share with a partner. How did that work out? There are about 13 million homes that get P12N. Do the math.
See everyone! Mike gets it!!
Spot on analysis dude.
This is incorrect. SD St has frequently won or contended for the Mt. West, and posted a number of winning seasons overall, better than Rutgers. And they have done well with relatively limited resources and support. Up their budget for recruiting, staffing, development, marketing, etc. in the SoCal market and its likely they elevate their program significantly.
I just did a quick check. SDSU's Sagarin ratings the past 5 seasons (2017-2021) were: 59, 94, 51, 59, and 53.
Utah and TCU made the leap from G5 to P5 after winning the Sugar Bowl and the Rose Bowl, respectively. There is nothing impressive about the SDSU resume. This proposed move is based entirely on the size of the SD and SoCal market and some kind of unfounded hope that SDSU would deliver that market. I do think the comparison to Rutgers is a good one. Rutgers in the Big East did have a couple of top 25 seasons under Schiano, but that was still a silly addition from Delany.
An interesting tidbit... The Athletic Director at SDSU is John David Wicker who used to be at WSU in Pullman when Jim Sterk was the AD and Sterk's mentor was/is Kevin White.
And Kevin White was formerly the AD at ASU. The Kevin Bacon scenarios with athletic administrators is endless.
And that clause that only allows Power 5 for consideration to B12? Might be the dumbest clause in college sports history.
It's interesting... ESPN drove that. Fox balked. Everything can be negotiated, of course. But nothing would be automatic.