Big 12 in position to poach Pac 12 schools?
- Thread starter TCU Vagabond
- Start date
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
I believe they do have a brand recognition, it just happens to be recognized as terrible.
Both Stanford and Cal. are now just token participants in sports. It’s sort of like a necessary evil they tolerate.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
At the end of the day, it's what ESPN will pay for. All other considerations are a distant second. Cash is King.
Every Conference needs Tomato Cans (aka: Doormats). That's how the SEC keeps it's premiere Programs all laden with wins every year. If it's Well Known Programs that everybody else beats the living crap out of all season, it looks a lot better than beating, say, Rice. That will fade, of course (See; Nebraska), but for the immediate time horizon it will do quite nicely.
Eight
Member
you never go into a deal with partners who can't provide anything of value unique to them
this is the problem with the remainders in the pac, stanford and cal are in a part of the world that really don't care about college sports and whose football programs are in flux, shaw is gone after running the program in the ground once bloomgren left for rice and based upon the lack of willingness to dive into the deep end of the p5 pool they are nothing more than an afterthought and please no comments about their academic standards, how they valued in the board roams, in academia etc.....
cal might well be looking for a coach after this year because wilcox has to be on his last legs with the direction of his program
there is no brand in california that brings a commitment to having a competitve football program at a p5 level outside of usc and ucla somewhat. oregon does but they are in a state that is smaller than that population in the gulf coast area around houston
will say it again, adding schools like stanford and cal, hell even gonzaga, is a bad decision
Last edited:
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
Oh, FSU is already squawking. Article over at Outkick covers their AD demanding that they and Clemson receive a higher share of TV loot than anyone else, because they are the Bell Cows.
FSU Wants More Loot.
Limey Frog
Full Member
I do think the Arizona schools, Utah, and Colorado all at least have serious potential to compete in football and/or basketball at the top of the Big XII (if they aren't already). But I wouldn't underestimate the value for conference stability of adding major state institutions. Adding flagship institutions from those states won't guarantee that the Big XII doesn't get left out of some future college sports reorganization, but it won't hurt our chances.
froginmn
Full Member
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
The difference is Az/ASU, Colo., & Utah are the primary #1 teams in their states. No matter how good/bad they are, the people of Az., Colo, & Utah are gonna be watching.
That’s not the case with Stanford, Cal, WSU, & OSU. They’re mostly bad and almost no one is watching because they’re only the secondary teams in their own home locations.
Last edited:
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
I would agree, going past the 4 corner schools, unless it’s Wash/Or., would be harmful/dilutive the B12’s product.
Hemingway
Active Member
NCSt, Miami, VT, FSU and Clemson are going to be there for the B12 at the end of the day.
UVA , Duke, North Carolina are going to the B10 or SEC.
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
You have no idea what you‘re talking about. None of that is in play and nobody knows if it’s ever gonna be. There are at least a dozen scenarios that could play out as the ACC deal unwinds over the next decade.
Limey Frog
Full Member
If the ACC breaks up it's because FSU and Clemson went to the SEC. (Ditto Virginia, UNC, and maybe Miami to the Big Ten.) They are never joining the Big 12.
Pitt, VT, NC State, and Louisville/Syracuse/GT maybe...
Pitt, VT, NC State, and Louisville/Syracuse/GT maybe...
Hemingway
Active Member
Hello friend , I don’t know if you’ve checked around here but this is a internet fan board. We’re all just spitballin here, and our careers aren’t hanging by accurate predictions. So grab an iced tea , take deep breaths , and get your bp back down.
fanatical frog
Full Member
Endless Purple
Full Member
I don't want Cal and would prefer no to Stanford, but there is a lot of misinformation.
Both cal and Stanford have higher all time winning % in football than TCU (and not all distant past). Also more all-americans, and more draft picks. As far as the earlier comment about finishing at the bottom in all sports, Stanford dominates the Director's cup almost every year.
I also think Stanford ends up in the B1G. It would not surprise me if Washington and Stanford went instead of Oregon.
Still don't want Cal, and I don't see an important need for a Pacific coast school at all. Moutain Time Zone is onyl a short shift of start times from covering the left coast.
Both cal and Stanford have higher all time winning % in football than TCU (and not all distant past). Also more all-americans, and more draft picks. As far as the earlier comment about finishing at the bottom in all sports, Stanford dominates the Director's cup almost every year.
I also think Stanford ends up in the B1G. It would not surprise me if Washington and Stanford went instead of Oregon.
Still don't want Cal, and I don't see an important need for a Pacific coast school at all. Moutain Time Zone is onyl a short shift of start times from covering the left coast.
Eight
Member
first, all time draft picks, all americans etc.. don't mean squat for tv viewership and if being better than tcu's football history is the benchmark that isn't a very deep pool. people talk about tradition and history all the time on this site and yet at the end of the day it is eyeballs that matter and your willingness to fund programs
there is a very good reason the frogs have to keep winning and that is the lack of history and those losing seasons matter to stanford as well.
in regards to the directors cup, that is/was because they offered a broad number of sports, many olympic sports and they have a great history of producing olympic athletes which means nothing when we are talking tv ratings for football and if you are an attractive partner for conference realignment,
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
You’re right, I apologize.
I mistook you for someone else who has been saying something very similar over and over again. It’s sort of funny/spitballing when it’s said once or twice, but over and over, not so much.
Frozen Frog
Active Member
The biggest assets for the Pac and ACC are also their biggest liabilities. Every ACC team is 1 time zone. The Pac stretches over 2 time zones though the population of those 2 time zones is less than the Central time zone and half of the Eastern time zone. No fan wants to have their team start a game at 4PM or 10 PM. That limits what these conferences can show. It severely limits content!
The more I look at it the Big Ten made the ultimate power move with USC and UCLA. I don't think UCLA is that great of add for the Big Ten, but I think it was strategic. That all but keeps the SEC out of the Pacific time zone. If the SEC wants to go further west in to a new time zone they may be limited to the Arizona schools. In short the SEC is about to become very landlocked. When times are great in the SEC it is going to be awesome, but when times get bad it is going to be rough. The regional appeal will be there, but the national might not be there.
I think the best move for the Pac and the ACC is to merge and create a new conference. I don't think that is going to happen. The SEC and the Big Ten will likely expand again. Cannibalism is real in college sports. While Stanford and Cal don't bring much to a Pac they may add something to another conference. It doesn't who watches the game. It does matter how many people are watching the game. There is a huge difference between a conference providing 3 hours of content and 6 hours of content on a random weeknight. The genius of BY is that he sees this where other conferences are missing it.
The more I look at it the Big Ten made the ultimate power move with USC and UCLA. I don't think UCLA is that great of add for the Big Ten, but I think it was strategic. That all but keeps the SEC out of the Pacific time zone. If the SEC wants to go further west in to a new time zone they may be limited to the Arizona schools. In short the SEC is about to become very landlocked. When times are great in the SEC it is going to be awesome, but when times get bad it is going to be rough. The regional appeal will be there, but the national might not be there.
I think the best move for the Pac and the ACC is to merge and create a new conference. I don't think that is going to happen. The SEC and the Big Ten will likely expand again. Cannibalism is real in college sports. While Stanford and Cal don't bring much to a Pac they may add something to another conference. It doesn't who watches the game. It does matter how many people are watching the game. There is a huge difference between a conference providing 3 hours of content and 6 hours of content on a random weeknight. The genius of BY is that he sees this where other conferences are missing it.
Limey Frog
Full Member
Right. We're probably entering an era in which, if you're outside the Big Ten/SEC, the best way to afford a competitive football program is to offer the fewest number of non-revenue sports possible. In other words, not to do what Stanford does. The Directors Cup is probably fine if you're a director that needs a cup but no one else should care.
Eight
Member
need an explanation as to what you mean by there is a huge difference in providing 3 hours of contenat and 6 hours of content on a random weeknight
one of the lessons that has been learned with streaming is that rules have changed so to speak and there are enough options so that viewers can tailor their viewing preferences.
