Indeed! And I watched the press conference of SDSU and Boise St. I notice a reoccurring theme that all the schools are committed to putting the student-athlete first. The SDSU President contrasted how decisions in PAC-12 planning and maneuvering for the future are NOT being made out of fear and by snap decisions. I suspect this may be a …
Indeed! And I watched the press conference of SDSU and Boise St. I notice a reoccurring theme that all the schools are committed to putting the student-athlete first. The SDSU President contrasted how decisions in PAC-12 planning and maneuvering for the future are NOT being made out of fear and by snap decisions. I suspect this may be a “branding” thing attempting differentiate this conference from B1G, SEC, and the likes of USC, UW, AND Oregon who all jumped for the money without real and sincere consideration for athletes. Will it work? Will it be a positive thing for recruiting?We shall see.
How are the athletes hurt? They have free agency. Many got a second life for their college careers. The schools traded $20M and the responsibility to sell for the network, for a $31M half share and the chance to play in one of the top two conferences in all of football. And a future.
I’m happy for WSU and OSU, but let’s not pretend that this move puts them on equal footing. They are a tweener conference, and u less they pull in the likes of Florida St, Clemson, PLUS Cal & Stanford (which they obviously won’t), they will always need second tier.
It’s a dog eat dog world. WSU/OSU crimes are akin to the four “defectors,” as it’s every man for himself. Crap rolls downhill. Face it
Actually, I think this is the exact point being made. Athletes in non-money sports (football and to a lesser degree men's basketball although men's basketball in some schools is coming on strong) absolutely got screwed. You can't tell me the women's rowing team from Washington is better going to Rutgers to compete than to Corvallis (I admit I don't know if UW or Rutgers has rowing - but it is symbolic, substitute volleyball of you wish). I think the point of the comment is whether some non-money sports athletes will decide that traveling less would be better for them personally and professionally. The big ten and SEC are all about football. They always have been. Basketball and baseball are the second tier. Everything else is an also ran sport. Everyone is focused on the football. But, not the rest of the athletes. I think THAT was the messaging. The new and improved PAC-12 (6?) cares about athletes as much as money.
When you look at the so-called minor sports, most don't have much of an in-conference schedule. Especially in the former Pac12. Wrestling, golf, track and field, tennis, etc. either play in tournaments or have sport affiliations with non-Pac12 teams. The whole travel thing really only applies to few sports. Doesn't mean that it has no impact on sports like volleyball, but there are really fewer sports affected than apparently many people believe.
One pundit had a good analogy. He said Cal/Stanford look at the Pac12 like a divorced spouse. Wish the spouse well, but no chance there is a reconciliation particularly if the spouse got a lot of assets in the divorce. She/he may have to live in a duplex for awhile until they find a sugar daddy or sugar momma (i.e. find their way into the Big12).
Except the B12 doesn’t need both Cal and Stanford. It’s duplicity in market for them. They would consider Stanford I think. But honestly, with the expectation of reduced media rights for at least a decade plus travel, the smarter move for the smart people of Cal and Stanford would indeed be a return to a west coast centric league such as the PAC12. Only ego will prevent it.
Indeed! And I watched the press conference of SDSU and Boise St. I notice a reoccurring theme that all the schools are committed to putting the student-athlete first. The SDSU President contrasted how decisions in PAC-12 planning and maneuvering for the future are NOT being made out of fear and by snap decisions. I suspect this may be a “branding” thing attempting differentiate this conference from B1G, SEC, and the likes of USC, UW, AND Oregon who all jumped for the money without real and sincere consideration for athletes. Will it work? Will it be a positive thing for recruiting?We shall see.
How are the athletes hurt? They have free agency. Many got a second life for their college careers. The schools traded $20M and the responsibility to sell for the network, for a $31M half share and the chance to play in one of the top two conferences in all of football. And a future.
I’m happy for WSU and OSU, but let’s not pretend that this move puts them on equal footing. They are a tweener conference, and u less they pull in the likes of Florida St, Clemson, PLUS Cal & Stanford (which they obviously won’t), they will always need second tier.
It’s a dog eat dog world. WSU/OSU crimes are akin to the four “defectors,” as it’s every man for himself. Crap rolls downhill. Face it
Actually, I think this is the exact point being made. Athletes in non-money sports (football and to a lesser degree men's basketball although men's basketball in some schools is coming on strong) absolutely got screwed. You can't tell me the women's rowing team from Washington is better going to Rutgers to compete than to Corvallis (I admit I don't know if UW or Rutgers has rowing - but it is symbolic, substitute volleyball of you wish). I think the point of the comment is whether some non-money sports athletes will decide that traveling less would be better for them personally and professionally. The big ten and SEC are all about football. They always have been. Basketball and baseball are the second tier. Everything else is an also ran sport. Everyone is focused on the football. But, not the rest of the athletes. I think THAT was the messaging. The new and improved PAC-12 (6?) cares about athletes as much as money.
When you look at the so-called minor sports, most don't have much of an in-conference schedule. Especially in the former Pac12. Wrestling, golf, track and field, tennis, etc. either play in tournaments or have sport affiliations with non-Pac12 teams. The whole travel thing really only applies to few sports. Doesn't mean that it has no impact on sports like volleyball, but there are really fewer sports affected than apparently many people believe.
Something else that Cal and Stanford get out of their move to ACC is zero shot at the CFB in perpetuity.
One pundit had a good analogy. He said Cal/Stanford look at the Pac12 like a divorced spouse. Wish the spouse well, but no chance there is a reconciliation particularly if the spouse got a lot of assets in the divorce. She/he may have to live in a duplex for awhile until they find a sugar daddy or sugar momma (i.e. find their way into the Big12).
Except the B12 doesn’t need both Cal and Stanford. It’s duplicity in market for them. They would consider Stanford I think. But honestly, with the expectation of reduced media rights for at least a decade plus travel, the smarter move for the smart people of Cal and Stanford would indeed be a return to a west coast centric league such as the PAC12. Only ego will prevent it.
Pardon typos (eye roll)