Conference Realignment

[Merkin]

and the Bay Area schools would shun any religious school.

Never going to happen, but if USC was staying, and Notre Dame wanted to join the PAC, then how would the PAC presidents feel then? Lot of money coming into the PAC.

[arizonawildcats]

and the Bay Area schools would shun any religious school.

Never going to happen, but if USC was staying, and Notre Dame wanted to join the PAC, then how would the PAC presidents feel then? Lot of money coming into the PAC.

If we had a forward-looking P12 prez, ND, BYU, GU, etc. would have been invited. It's high time to expand or dissolve. Seems like the B12 understands this?

[DrWildcat]

and the Bay Area schools would shun any religious school.

Never going to happen, but if USC was staying, and Notre Dame wanted to join the PAC, then how would the PAC presidents feel then? Lot of money coming into the PAC.

If we had a forward-looking P12 prez, ND, BYU, GU, etc. would have been invited. It's high time to expand or dissolve. Seems like the B12 understands this?

Even better, we could of had TX, OU, OSU, TTU or something like that during the first realignment. That would have solidified the PAC standing. Instead everyone cared about academics which has nothing to do with athletics. I expect the same dumb decision to be made here.

[AzCatFan2]

and the Bay Area schools would shun any religious school.

Never going to happen, but if USC was staying, and Notre Dame wanted to join the PAC, then how would the PAC presidents feel then? Lot of money coming into the PAC.

If we had a forward-looking P12 prez, ND, BYU, GU, etc. would have been invited. It's high time to expand or dissolve. Seems like the B12 understands this?

Even better, we could of had TX, OU, OSU, TTU or something like that during the first realignment. That would have solidified the PAC standing. Instead everyone cared about academics which has nothing to do with athletics. I expect the same dumb decision to be made here.

There was never an agreement to add TX, OU, OSU, TTech, TAMU, and Colorado. TAMU said no right off the bat. Texas said replace them with Baylor, and the PAC said no. PAC said how about Utah? Texas said no. There was also no agreement regarding the Longhorn Network. So instead of growing to 16, the PAC added Colorado and Utah.

There were talks last year of adding some of the BIG 12 schools like OK State and TTech, but USC said no. USC screwed us because they already had one foot out the door and with the B1G.

Bottom line today is the BIG 12 would most likely mean less money this round, and Tier 3 games streaming on ESPN+. Not very exciting, and certainly not worth a switch.

[CardiacCats97]

Definitely worth a switch and of course it would be exciting. New rivalries are always going to be exciting.

Streaming on ESPN+ is better than streaming on Amazon. For one, people already do it and are used to it. For another, games can get shifted to ESPN linear channels if all of a sudden it’s a more intriguing match up. For a third, ESPN will talk about us and cut in with our highlights during their marquee games because it makes people want to watch us.

I know that the Amazon deal is by no means done, but the fact the PAC powers are considering it should give you pause. We’ve spent years and years being ignored by ESPN, and it has hurt us (especially in basketball). We should want to stream on ESPN+ as opposed to Amazon, but the focus on being at the forefront of innovation will fuck us again. How’s that China takeover going by the way?

[AzCatFan2]

Definitely worth a switch and of course it would be exciting. New rivalries are always going to be exciting.

Streaming on ESPN+ is better than streaming on Amazon. For one, people already do it and are used to it. For another, games can get shifted to ESPN linear channels if all of a sudden it’s a more intriguing match up. For a third, ESPN will talk about us and cut in with our highlights during their marquee games because it makes people want to watch us.

I know that the Amazon deal is by no means done, but the fact the PAC powers are considering it should give you pause. We’ve spent years and years being ignored by ESPN, and it has hurt us (especially in basketball). We should want to stream on ESPN+ as opposed to Amazon, but the focus on being at the forefront of innovation will fuck us again. How’s that China takeover going by the way?

ESPN+ has 23 million subscribers. Many of whom probably bundled with Hulu and Disney+ and hardly ever use it. Amazon Prime has over 51 million subscribers, and percentage wise, probably similar numbers of people who never watch, but are technically subscribers because it's part of prime. Regardless, Amazon is streamed a lot more than plus.

ESPN plus is for the diehards only. For everything else, it's forgotten. ESPN hardly promotes plus, and certainly no games that are going to be streamed on plus. In contrast, we've seen all the advertising for TNF done by Amazon. If the PAC is the only college conference on Amazon, we get their full advertising attention. That's much better than an also-ran cut-in in the middle of a game that people will forget about once the cut-in is over in my opinion.

As for basketball, we'll still get plenty of ESPN love if ESPN still holds Tier 1 PAC rights. In fact, maybe more. We'll be the undisputed flag bearer for the conference with UCLA in the B1G, with Oregon being the second best program. And our basketball games that are now on the PAC-12 Network? They would be the ones on ESPN+ if we go BIG 12, and the only ones watching would be us die-hards.

[PHXCATS]

Definitely worth a switch and of course it would be exciting. New rivalries are always going to be exciting.

Streaming on ESPN+ is better than streaming on Amazon. For one, people already do it and are used to it. For another, games can get shifted to ESPN linear channels if all of a sudden it’s a more intriguing match up. For a third, ESPN will talk about us and cut in with our highlights during their marquee games because it makes people want to watch us.

I know that the Amazon deal is by no means done, but the fact the PAC powers are considering it should give you pause. We’ve spent years and years being ignored by ESPN, and it has hurt us (especially in basketball). We should want to stream on ESPN+ as opposed to Amazon, but the focus on being at the forefront of innovation will fuck us again. How’s that China takeover going by the way?

Explain how espn has ignored U of A basketball please?

[CardiacCats97]

ESPN+ has 23 million subscribers. Many of whom probably bundled with Hulu and Disney+ and hardly ever use it.

That’s the number of individual subscribers. Not those who are bundled with other services. I get it through Disney and my cable company as do millions of other people.

[DrWildcat]

and the Bay Area schools would shun any religious school.

Never going to happen, but if USC was staying, and Notre Dame wanted to join the PAC, then how would the PAC presidents feel then? Lot of money coming into the PAC.

If we had a forward-looking P12 prez, ND, BYU, GU, etc. would have been invited. It's high time to expand or dissolve. Seems like the B12 understands this?

Even better, we could of had TX, OU, OSU, TTU or something like that during the first realignment. That would have solidified the PAC standing. Instead everyone cared about academics which has nothing to do with athletics. I expect the same dumb decision to be made here.

There was never an agreement to add TX, OU, OSU, TTech, TAMU, and Colorado. TAMU said no right off the bat. Texas said replace them with Baylor, and the PAC said no. PAC said how about Utah? Texas said no. There was also no agreement regarding the Longhorn Network. So instead of growing to 16, the PAC added Colorado and Utah.

There were talks last year of adding some of the BIG 12 schools like OK State and TTech, but USC said no. USC screwed us because they already had one foot out the door and with the B1G.

Bottom line today is the BIG 12 would most likely mean less money this round, and Tier 3 games streaming on ESPN+. Not very exciting, and certainly not worth a switch.

To me, it didn't matter who was included with TX and OU during expansion. The answer should have been yes and then figure everything else out later like what to do with the Longhorn Network. The PAC didn't want "low" academic schools included or religious schools for whatever reason that makes no sense to me. The fact is that was a huge mistake when it comes to the state of PAC athletics since. I feel like we are once again going to make that same mistake that will cost us down the road.

I get that you are all in on the PAC for whatever reason, I just don't agree. I see very little upside to staying. You appear to see a future where it helps us get in the BIG or SEC later. I don't buy it.

[azcat49]

Just one in a long list of poor decisions by the leaders of this inept conference. It’s why we need to get out ASAP. They will make more bad decisions that will impact us. Go BIG cats!

[Merkin]

Just one in a long list of poor decisions by the leaders of this inept conference. It’s why we need to get out ASAP. They will make more bad decisions that will impact us. Go BIG cats!

This.

Not picking up San Diego State/UNLV due to academics, and BYU/Gonzaga due to being religious schools hurts the athletic programs' bottom dollar. What prestige does the PAC have? It's not Ivy League.

USC and UCLA are pretty elite academic schools, and will be very hard to replace. Especially being stuck with ntOSU and WSU now.

[TheCatInTheHat]

Obviously the Bay Area schools are both in the academic stratosphere, UW, then Arizona, Colorado, and Utah in some order are reasonably well-regarded. So that leaves the States (ASU's gibberish about "innovation" notwithstanding), and Oregon. SDSU and UNLV are probably not even at that level, but it seems the best fit to add San Diego and Vegas. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. All things being equal, I'd bet Robbins would have no problem jumping to the Big XII. But I'd also bet the ABOR wouldn't allow the state schools to move independently of each other, which is unfortunate. The whole board of directors model of supposedly elite executive retirees and others providing oversight doesn't work worth a damn, IMO. And that means Napoleon Crow essentially has veto power, and you don't want to give little people (only in the rhetorical sense, of course) any more power than absolutely necessary.

[ChooChooCat]

From what I understand the PAC will not expand, because they have zero interest in surviving long term, but rather existing now, because if something is pointless you can be sure the Pac-12 schools will continue to do it against their own best interests.

[dmjcat]

I don't see the top 3 PAC schools ever joining the BIG 12. Stanford would never join a conference with BYU and Baylor. And for UW and Oregon, the BIG 12 means at best, equal money but more travel, while aligning with schools that don't have as high as academic standards as a CAL and Stanford. For OU and UW, that's a losing proposition.

With the B1G deciding for whatever reason(s) not to send a death blow to the PAC this round by taking UW and OU, UW and OU currently have only two options. Stay in the PAC, or go BIG 12. It should be obvious which direction they are headed. The PAC is likely to survive this round, and with a contract that according to Canzaro will be larger, per school, than the BIG 12. Canzaro could be wrong, but he's well connected in both Eugene and Seattle, and I find it unlikely Canzaro's sources would be so far off from the $34 to $36 million per school mark.

Staying with the PAC for this round gives us more options, and most likely more money. Assuming our contract ends like the BIG 12 in 2030, come 2030, if the B1G kills the PAC by taking Oregon and UW, the BIG 12 will then be our best option. But maybe Oregon and UW like having easier access to the playoffs? Maybe UCLA reconsiders their move? Maybe the SEC/ESPN wants to be a coast-to-coast conference, and UW and Oregon still harbor anger against USC, and we get included in this move? Who knows.

Staying until 2030 gives us options. And in 2030, the ACC will still have 4 more years on their contract. Staying in the PAC will likely bring us more money too. The exposure difference between the BIG 12 and PAC is TBD, but the risk of being the first conference on a streaming service might bring us rewards? If not, it's only a few years.

Last, if the BIG 12 is stable, it's only because after OK and TX leave, the conference will consist of a bunch of P5 also-rans and G5 schools recently promoted. And yes, I understand Arizona fits the demographic of a P5 also-ran, but if we want to become something more, better to align ourselves with schools that already are. There isn't a single Big 12 school that the SEC or B1G want, except for maybe Kansas. And Kansas would not be in the top 5 wish list for either. If the BIG 12 also-ran conference is our best option in the future, so be it. But until that's the case, we should keep other options open.

Your argument is completely illogical, and frankly, ridiculous.

UW/UO are going to go wherever they can get the most money......PERIOD. Academics and appearances are not going to influence the NW schools, $$$$$$$$$ will.

And if that ends up being the Big12 then they will take slots that, for the moment, are open to the UA. If we stand pat, we may end up in a conference with Oregon State, WSU and the MWC remnants.

UW and Oregon have ivory towers. Not as big as CAL or Stanford's, but still quite large. UW didn't want to let ASu into the conference back in 1978 because of academic reasons. It's not the defining factor that would keep UW and OU out of the BIG 12 like it is for Stanford and CAL. But academics are a consideration for these schools. Always have been.

And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already. The BIG 12 put their stake in the ground with their contract. By all media outlet reports, the PAC contract will be larger. Not significantly, but still, more money. Could be wrong, but again, what reason do we have to doubt a guy like Canzaro, who has proven himself to be well connected with the PNW schools? And if the money between the PAC and BIG 12 are about even, then why would the PNW schools move? In the end, for those schools, travel costs would mean being in the BIG 12 would actually mean less money. Not as much a concern for the 4-corner schools, but last I looked, there's a lot of land between Tucson and Seattle.

The fear that Oregon and UW will bolt for the BIG 12 is illogical and frankly, ridiculous. Oregon and UW have already thumbed their noses at the BIG 12, and Phil Knight has had back-channel conversations with the SEC and the B1G. There have been zero reports that Knight has done nothing but laugh at the BIG 12. At best, for the PNW, it's a lateral move that will likely not bring in significantly more money, if any. And in the end, make the ivory tower types at these schools scoff at who they are aligned with. Just another nail in the coffin that kills any UO and UW move to the BIG 12. It's not happening, unless the PAC negotiations go completely off the rails. Which again, by all media reports, isn't happening either.

Oregon and UW would be welcomed into the BIG 12 immediately if these two PNW schools wanted in. To date, they have showed zero interest in the BIG 12, and full interest that if a B1G or SEC invite isn't on its way to stay in the PAC. If the BIG 12 could pay UO and UW B1G money, different story. But if that were true, I'd be advocating for a BIG12 move myself.

An excellent example of One Dimensional Thinking" Hard to know where to start:

"And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already."

Uh, No. UW/UO want to move to the BiG in case you haven't noticed. They won't move anywhere else until the B1G tells them no. The problem for the \UA is what happens if the B1G tells them no. If UW//UO decide they can get more money in the B12 they will move........in a heartbeat. That takes up 2 potential openings in the B12 that the UA might fill. By standing pat we risk being left out in the cold. There are also a dozen other scenarios where the UA might end up stuck with Oregon State/WSU in the MWC........but only if we just sit around and wait for it to happen. This is a situation where the UA needs to act proactively.

[AzCatFan2]

I don't see the top 3 PAC schools ever joining the BIG 12. Stanford would never join a conference with BYU and Baylor. And for UW and Oregon, the BIG 12 means at best, equal money but more travel, while aligning with schools that don't have as high as academic standards as a CAL and Stanford. For OU and UW, that's a losing proposition.

With the B1G deciding for whatever reason(s) not to send a death blow to the PAC this round by taking UW and OU, UW and OU currently have only two options. Stay in the PAC, or go BIG 12. It should be obvious which direction they are headed. The PAC is likely to survive this round, and with a contract that according to Canzaro will be larger, per school, than the BIG 12. Canzaro could be wrong, but he's well connected in both Eugene and Seattle, and I find it unlikely Canzaro's sources would be so far off from the $34 to $36 million per school mark.

Staying with the PAC for this round gives us more options, and most likely more money. Assuming our contract ends like the BIG 12 in 2030, come 2030, if the B1G kills the PAC by taking Oregon and UW, the BIG 12 will then be our best option. But maybe Oregon and UW like having easier access to the playoffs? Maybe UCLA reconsiders their move? Maybe the SEC/ESPN wants to be a coast-to-coast conference, and UW and Oregon still harbor anger against USC, and we get included in this move? Who knows.

Staying until 2030 gives us options. And in 2030, the ACC will still have 4 more years on their contract. Staying in the PAC will likely bring us more money too. The exposure difference between the BIG 12 and PAC is TBD, but the risk of being the first conference on a streaming service might bring us rewards? If not, it's only a few years.

Last, if the BIG 12 is stable, it's only because after OK and TX leave, the conference will consist of a bunch of P5 also-rans and G5 schools recently promoted. And yes, I understand Arizona fits the demographic of a P5 also-ran, but if we want to become something more, better to align ourselves with schools that already are. There isn't a single Big 12 school that the SEC or B1G want, except for maybe Kansas. And Kansas would not be in the top 5 wish list for either. If the BIG 12 also-ran conference is our best option in the future, so be it. But until that's the case, we should keep other options open.

Your argument is completely illogical, and frankly, ridiculous.

UW/UO are going to go wherever they can get the most money......PERIOD. Academics and appearances are not going to influence the NW schools, $$$$$$$$$ will.

And if that ends up being the Big12 then they will take slots that, for the moment, are open to the UA. If we stand pat, we may end up in a conference with Oregon State, WSU and the MWC remnants.

UW and Oregon have ivory towers. Not as big as CAL or Stanford's, but still quite large. UW didn't want to let ASu into the conference back in 1978 because of academic reasons. It's not the defining factor that would keep UW and OU out of the BIG 12 like it is for Stanford and CAL. But academics are a consideration for these schools. Always have been.

And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already. The BIG 12 put their stake in the ground with their contract. By all media outlet reports, the PAC contract will be larger. Not significantly, but still, more money. Could be wrong, but again, what reason do we have to doubt a guy like Canzaro, who has proven himself to be well connected with the PNW schools? And if the money between the PAC and BIG 12 are about even, then why would the PNW schools move? In the end, for those schools, travel costs would mean being in the BIG 12 would actually mean less money. Not as much a concern for the 4-corner schools, but last I looked, there's a lot of land between Tucson and Seattle.

The fear that Oregon and UW will bolt for the BIG 12 is illogical and frankly, ridiculous. Oregon and UW have already thumbed their noses at the BIG 12, and Phil Knight has had back-channel conversations with the SEC and the B1G. There have been zero reports that Knight has done nothing but laugh at the BIG 12. At best, for the PNW, it's a lateral move that will likely not bring in significantly more money, if any. And in the end, make the ivory tower types at these schools scoff at who they are aligned with. Just another nail in the coffin that kills any UO and UW move to the BIG 12. It's not happening, unless the PAC negotiations go completely off the rails. Which again, by all media reports, isn't happening either.

Oregon and UW would be welcomed into the BIG 12 immediately if these two PNW schools wanted in. To date, they have showed zero interest in the BIG 12, and full interest that if a B1G or SEC invite isn't on its way to stay in the PAC. If the BIG 12 could pay UO and UW B1G money, different story. But if that were true, I'd be advocating for a BIG12 move myself.

An excellent example of One Dimensional Thinking" Hard to know where to start:

"And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already."

Uh, No. UW/UO want to move to the BiG in case you haven't noticed. They won't move anywhere else until the B1G tells them no. The problem for the \UA is what happens if the B1G tells them no. If UW//UO decide they can get more money in the B12 they will move........in a heartbeat. That takes up 2 potential openings in the B12 that the UA might fill. By standing pat we risk being left out in the cold. There are also a dozen other scenarios where the UA might end up stuck with Oregon State/WSU in the MWC........but only if we just sit around and wait for it to happen. This is a situation where the UA needs to act proactively.

The B1G already said it's unlikely they will expand more this round. And several B1G schools have said they would likely veto more western expansion. Yet, Oregon and Washington aren't BIG 12 members yet. Blows your theory out of the water completely.

Why haven't UO and UW left for the BIG 12 yet? Because the money doesn't make sense. The PAC contract will likely be worth more then the BIG 12. And even if the BIG 12 could pay a little more for UO and UW, they extra money may not even cover additional travel expenses.

Every media outlet is saying the PAC will sign a contract soon. Likely expiring in 2030. After that? Who knows. But the fear Oregon and Washington leaving for the BIG 12 now? Unfounded. It's not happening.

[CardiacCats97]

It’s hilarious you want to stay in this bullshit conference which week after week put the most incompetent people possible in ref uniforms and fuck over our teams.

[dmjcat]

I don't see the top 3 PAC schools ever joining the BIG 12. Stanford would never join a conference with BYU and Baylor. And for UW and Oregon, the BIG 12 means at best, equal money but more travel, while aligning with schools that don't have as high as academic standards as a CAL and Stanford. For OU and UW, that's a losing proposition.

With the B1G deciding for whatever reason(s) not to send a death blow to the PAC this round by taking UW and OU, UW and OU currently have only two options. Stay in the PAC, or go BIG 12. It should be obvious which direction they are headed. The PAC is likely to survive this round, and with a contract that according to Canzaro will be larger, per school, than the BIG 12. Canzaro could be wrong, but he's well connected in both Eugene and Seattle, and I find it unlikely Canzaro's sources would be so far off from the $34 to $36 million per school mark.

Staying with the PAC for this round gives us more options, and most likely more money. Assuming our contract ends like the BIG 12 in 2030, come 2030, if the B1G kills the PAC by taking Oregon and UW, the BIG 12 will then be our best option. But maybe Oregon and UW like having easier access to the playoffs? Maybe UCLA reconsiders their move? Maybe the SEC/ESPN wants to be a coast-to-coast conference, and UW and Oregon still harbor anger against USC, and we get included in this move? Who knows.

Staying until 2030 gives us options. And in 2030, the ACC will still have 4 more years on their contract. Staying in the PAC will likely bring us more money too. The exposure difference between the BIG 12 and PAC is TBD, but the risk of being the first conference on a streaming service might bring us rewards? If not, it's only a few years.

Last, if the BIG 12 is stable, it's only because after OK and TX leave, the conference will consist of a bunch of P5 also-rans and G5 schools recently promoted. And yes, I understand Arizona fits the demographic of a P5 also-ran, but if we want to become something more, better to align ourselves with schools that already are. There isn't a single Big 12 school that the SEC or B1G want, except for maybe Kansas. And Kansas would not be in the top 5 wish list for either. If the BIG 12 also-ran conference is our best option in the future, so be it. But until that's the case, we should keep other options open.

Your argument is completely illogical, and frankly, ridiculous.

UW/UO are going to go wherever they can get the most money......PERIOD. Academics and appearances are not going to influence the NW schools, $$$$$$$$$ will.

And if that ends up being the Big12 then they will take slots that, for the moment, are open to the UA. If we stand pat, we may end up in a conference with Oregon State, WSU and the MWC remnants.

UW and Oregon have ivory towers. Not as big as CAL or Stanford's, but still quite large. UW didn't want to let ASu into the conference back in 1978 because of academic reasons. It's not the defining factor that would keep UW and OU out of the BIG 12 like it is for Stanford and CAL. But academics are a consideration for these schools. Always have been.

And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already. The BIG 12 put their stake in the ground with their contract. By all media outlet reports, the PAC contract will be larger. Not significantly, but still, more money. Could be wrong, but again, what reason do we have to doubt a guy like Canzaro, who has proven himself to be well connected with the PNW schools? And if the money between the PAC and BIG 12 are about even, then why would the PNW schools move? In the end, for those schools, travel costs would mean being in the BIG 12 would actually mean less money. Not as much a concern for the 4-corner schools, but last I looked, there's a lot of land between Tucson and Seattle.

The fear that Oregon and UW will bolt for the BIG 12 is illogical and frankly, ridiculous. Oregon and UW have already thumbed their noses at the BIG 12, and Phil Knight has had back-channel conversations with the SEC and the B1G. There have been zero reports that Knight has done nothing but laugh at the BIG 12. At best, for the PNW, it's a lateral move that will likely not bring in significantly more money, if any. And in the end, make the ivory tower types at these schools scoff at who they are aligned with. Just another nail in the coffin that kills any UO and UW move to the BIG 12. It's not happening, unless the PAC negotiations go completely off the rails. Which again, by all media reports, isn't happening either.

Oregon and UW would be welcomed into the BIG 12 immediately if these two PNW schools wanted in. To date, they have showed zero interest in the BIG 12, and full interest that if a B1G or SEC invite isn't on its way to stay in the PAC. If the BIG 12 could pay UO and UW B1G money, different story. But if that were true, I'd be advocating for a BIG12 move myself.

An excellent example of One Dimensional Thinking" Hard to know where to start:

"And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already."

Uh, No. UW/UO want to move to the BiG in case you haven't noticed. They won't move anywhere else until the B1G tells them no. The problem for the \UA is what happens if the B1G tells them no. If UW//UO decide they can get more money in the B12 they will move........in a heartbeat. That takes up 2 potential openings in the B12 that the UA might fill. By standing pat we risk being left out in the cold. There are also a dozen other scenarios where the UA might end up stuck with Oregon State/WSU in the MWC........but only if we just sit around and wait for it to happen. This is a situation where the UA needs to act proactively.

The B1G already said it's unlikely they will expand more this round. And several B1G schools have said they would likely veto more western expansion. Yet, Oregon and Washington aren't BIG 12 members yet. Blows your theory out of the water completely.

Why haven't UO and UW left for the BIG 12 yet? Because the money doesn't make sense. The PAC contract will likely be worth more then the BIG 12. And even if the BIG 12 could pay a little more for UO and UW, they extra money may not even cover additional travel expenses.

Every media outlet is saying the PAC will sign a contract soon. Likely expiring in 2030. After that? Who knows. But the fear Oregon and Washington leaving for the BIG 12 now? Unfounded. It's not happening.

You really need a class in 2 grade reading comprehension......Nobody said anything about UO/UW leaving NOW. My argument is if they EVENTUALLY leave the P12 for the B12 (AFTER the B1G rejects them for good) it could leave the UA screwed. If you are unable to comprehend the posts of others you may wish to reconsider posting yourself.

[AzCatFan2]

Your argument is completely illogical, and frankly, ridiculous.

UW/UO are going to go wherever they can get the most money......PERIOD. Academics and appearances are not going to influence the NW schools, $$$$$$$$$ will.

And if that ends up being the Big12 then they will take slots that, for the moment, are open to the UA. If we stand pat, we may end up in a conference with Oregon State, WSU and the MWC remnants.

UW and Oregon have ivory towers. Not as big as CAL or Stanford's, but still quite large. UW didn't want to let ASu into the conference back in 1978 because of academic reasons. It's not the defining factor that would keep UW and OU out of the BIG 12 like it is for Stanford and CAL. But academics are a consideration for these schools. Always have been.

And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already. The BIG 12 put their stake in the ground with their contract. By all media outlet reports, the PAC contract will be larger. Not significantly, but still, more money. Could be wrong, but again, what reason do we have to doubt a guy like Canzaro, who has proven himself to be well connected with the PNW schools? And if the money between the PAC and BIG 12 are about even, then why would the PNW schools move? In the end, for those schools, travel costs would mean being in the BIG 12 would actually mean less money. Not as much a concern for the 4-corner schools, but last I looked, there's a lot of land between Tucson and Seattle.

The fear that Oregon and UW will bolt for the BIG 12 is illogical and frankly, ridiculous. Oregon and UW have already thumbed their noses at the BIG 12, and Phil Knight has had back-channel conversations with the SEC and the B1G. There have been zero reports that Knight has done nothing but laugh at the BIG 12. At best, for the PNW, it's a lateral move that will likely not bring in significantly more money, if any. And in the end, make the ivory tower types at these schools scoff at who they are aligned with. Just another nail in the coffin that kills any UO and UW move to the BIG 12. It's not happening, unless the PAC negotiations go completely off the rails. Which again, by all media reports, isn't happening either.

Oregon and UW would be welcomed into the BIG 12 immediately if these two PNW schools wanted in. To date, they have showed zero interest in the BIG 12, and full interest that if a B1G or SEC invite isn't on its way to stay in the PAC. If the BIG 12 could pay UO and UW B1G money, different story. But if that were true, I'd be advocating for a BIG12 move myself.

An excellent example of One Dimensional Thinking" Hard to know where to start:

"And if it's just about money, if Oregon and UW thought the BIG 12 could bring them significantly more, they would have left the PAC already."

Uh, No. UW/UO want to move to the BiG in case you haven't noticed. They won't move anywhere else until the B1G tells them no. The problem for the \UA is what happens if the B1G tells them no. If UW//UO decide they can get more money in the B12 they will move........in a heartbeat. That takes up 2 potential openings in the B12 that the UA might fill. By standing pat we risk being left out in the cold. There are also a dozen other scenarios where the UA might end up stuck with Oregon State/WSU in the MWC........but only if we just sit around and wait for it to happen. This is a situation where the UA needs to act proactively.

The B1G already said it's unlikely they will expand more this round. And several B1G schools have said they would likely veto more western expansion. Yet, Oregon and Washington aren't BIG 12 members yet. Blows your theory out of the water completely.

Why haven't UO and UW left for the BIG 12 yet? Because the money doesn't make sense. The PAC contract will likely be worth more then the BIG 12. And even if the BIG 12 could pay a little more for UO and UW, they extra money may not even cover additional travel expenses.

Every media outlet is saying the PAC will sign a contract soon. Likely expiring in 2030. After that? Who knows. But the fear Oregon and Washington leaving for the BIG 12 now? Unfounded. It's not happening.

You really need a class in 2 grade reading comprehension......Nobody said anything about UO/UW leaving NOW. My argument is if they EVENTUALLY leave the P12 for the B12 (AFTER the B1G rejects them for good) it could leave the UA screwed. If you are unable to comprehend the posts of others you may wish to reconsider posting yourself.

UO and UW could leave for the BIG 12 tomorrow, and leave in 2030 when the contract is up. Or, they can stay in the PAC and potentially leave in 2030, when presumably the next contact is up. They are choosing the PAC now. If the BIG invite never comes, why would they have a change of heart in 2030?

Either contract UO and UW sign, it will likely be binding until 2030. Nothing is stopping them from switching conferences now, and again in 2030. If UO and UW thought the BIG 12 was their long term home If the B1G never call, then why aren't they BIG 12 members now?

Here's a hint. They never want to go BIG 12. If the B1G never does call, the PNW schools prefer to stay in the PAC. True today. Will be true in 2030.

[TheCatInTheHat]

Three things:

Pac-12 Presidents and administrators are crap.

Pac-12 officiating is crap.

The Pac-12 Network is crap. (Ted Robinson is qualified to call San Jose St football...on radio. And did anyone else see the picture break up tonight?)

If the money's similar, the above three reasons, plus superior stability, are plenty of motivation to join the Big XII. Plus Kansas basketball.

[AzCatFan2]

Three things:

Pac-12 Presidents and administrators are crap.

Pac-12 officiating is crap.

The Pac-12 Network is crap. (Ted Robinson is qualified to call San Jose St football...on radio. And did anyone else see the picture break up tonight?)

If the money's similar, the above three reasons, plus superior stability, are plenty of motivation to join the Big XII. Plus Kansas basketball.

University Presidents and admin are almost all cut from the same cloth. Any insight if the BIG 12 Presidents are better? The real difference maker is Conference Commissioner. Both Yormak and Kliavkoff are new. Can't really give either a complete grade.

BIG 12 refs suck too. One of many links from this year you can Google. https://www.widerightnattylite.com/2022 ... -no-bounds

PAC12 Network production is OK. What sucks is distribution. But BIG 12 Tier 3 games will be shown on ESPN+. Is that really a major upgrade over the PAC12 Network? If we go with Amazon, and Amazon can make an agreement with DirecTV Business to get the PAC12 Network on sports bars, then Tier 3 on ESPN+ will be a downgrade.

As for stability, the BIG 12 is only stable because they consist of P5 also rans and G5 call ups. Now I understand we fit the P5 also ran description, but if you're known by the company you keep, better for us to be with bigger programs. Better potential for bigger opportunities, and very likely more money, as the PAC contract will likely eclipse the BIG 12.

Being matched with Kansas in basketball would be great, but not worth taking a pay cut over. If after this round of contracts expire circa 2030, if the BIG 12 is our best option, so be it. But for now, the remaining PAC schools think staying together is better.

[TheCatInTheHat]

After hearing some pejorative buzzwords like "also-rans" repeated for effect like in political party speeches before mid-terms, I was curious how the two conferences would measure up side-by-side. This is based on the assumption that SDSU and only "one other" team would join the Pac, so as not to dilute the media distributions. Boise doesn't appear much in the conversation these days, and I haven't heard much about SMU recently, so I'll make an assumption about geography, facilities, and the Pac's affinity for Las Vegas. Meanwhile, the assumption seems to be that Colorado considers themselves soul-mates with Berkeley, and Utah prefers to avoid BYU, so I left it at the Arizona schools making a move. Jeff Sagarin was the first current all-inclusive power rating I came across, so I used that, and I added a geographic divisional split. In such a setup for an 8-game conference schedule for football, you'd leave Arizona no more than three times annually to play divisional opponents in Provo, Dallas, Lubbock, Stillwater, and Waco. And, with one divisional opponent visiting Tucson, you'd have one eastern trip, sometimes to just outside Kansas City, or to Houston. Doesn't seem so tragic, and we're living in an era of charters.



So that version of the Pac-12 would be propped-up by Phil Knight's foundation at Oregon. You can't project what schools are likely to do in the future. Will Washington and Stanford be better? Probably. Can Utah stay up there post-Whittingham and can WSU and OSU stay as competitive as they currently are? Very debatable. Meanwhile, are a number of the listed Big XII schools capable and likely to periodically pop up into the Top Ten? Absolutely. But it's up to anybody reading this to decide whether it makes logical sense for those in the second column to cast aspersions on those in the first column.

[PHXCATS]

Ted Robinson does the Olympics and was the 49ers play by play for a decade

[TheCatInTheHat]

If just having a media job was evidence of doing a good job, there wouldn't be sites like Awful Announcing. And industry people rotating awards among themselves shouldn't cause anybody to be particularly starry-eyed either. Jon Miller's very good, but otherwise I'm underwhelmed by Bay Area media products, like those on P12N. So, if Amazon gets excited about the equipment Larry Scott bought, great. But, since Rick Nieuheisel, I don't think there's any audience that any of their so-called talent brings to the table. So relocate their base to Vegas and simultaneously cut costs and raise the performance expectations bar. There are also behind-the-scenes issues I'm aware of, and I assume others shared my experience last night of having to toggle between P12N, P12A, and P12M when the picture kept breaking up.

[PHXCATS]

Think what you want but obviously the United States and 49ers think he is higher qualified than San Jose St

[azgreg]

Ted Robinson does the Olympics and was the 49ers play by play for a decade

Still sucks.

[PHXCATS]

Dan Patrick says he expects SDSU to PAC-12 this week

[Merkin]

Dan Patrick says he expects SDSU to PAC-12 this week

I just don't see it.

[CardiacCats97]

Didn’t they just slash ticket prices by 50% because no one is showing up their brand new stadium?

Yep, definitely a Pac10 level program. They’ll fit right in since they’re used to playing in front of a bunch of empty seats.

[Merkin]

Didn’t they just slash ticket prices by 50% because no one is showing up their brand new stadium?

I never thought building a stadium away from the campus core would ever be a good idea.

Look how poor UCLA attendance is, especially compared to UM and tOSU.

[PHXCATS]

Heeke and Robbins have moved in their own way at their own time. I hated how parts if it went but they proved to be right in the end.

Clearly they know moving now is not the best course of action for Arizona and I am going to trust that

[CardiacCats97]

[AZCatGirl]

I wasn't happy when Colorado and Utah came in because I didn't feel like they added much, and I feel the same if SDSU ends up joining. Also, I don't see just them joining alone. If it somehow ends up being true there must be someone else.

It's also just yet another bandaid on the situation. We still should be moving.

[azgreg]

What do you think most PAC-8 fans thought of Arizona and ASSu?

[TheCatInTheHat]

That's probably true, although I think both schools got their attention pretty quickly. In that first 1978-79 season, ASU beat #1 USC in football in Tempe, Arizona beat #1 UCLA in basketball in Tucson, and Arizona was the Pac-10's representative at the College World Series. I've never had much use for Utah, but without many other contributions, they've gotten it done in football under Whittingham over about the last 9 years, and as we've seen from all the realignment stuff, that's what matters most. Colorado's really whiffed on some football coaching hires (and we're like industry expert consultants in that area), but Boyle's angry man routine has kept them at least in the middle of the league in hoops. If Cal and Stanford actually tolerate a Cal State, I think the Aztecs will do okay over time. Throwing out this year and the COVID year, between Rocky Long and Brady Hoke, they've averaged 9 wins a year going back to 2010. In hoops, Brian Dutcher may not do as well as Steve Fisher, but he's made it to 3 NCAA's in his first 5 years.

[Merkin]

UA was/is an AAU program, and ASU had 2 undefeated seasons in football in the early/mid 1970's, so at the time probably a good get for the conference.

No idea what the PAC-8 fans thought though.

[EastCoastCat]

It really didn’t phase Pac 8 fans. A bit of a yawn really as nobody followed the Arizona schools.

I will tell you one thing. I would have never attended U of A if they weren’t in the PAC.

[AZCatGirl]

What do you think most PAC-8 fans thought of Arizona and ASSu?

Wasn't alive, but they were half right. At least we managed to prove ourselves in a few sports. Utah football is dominating right now, and their women's gymnastics speaks for itself, but other than that they really haven't added much. Colorado is just a waste.

[ChooChooCat]

Heeke and Robbins have moved in their own way at their own time. I hated how parts if it went but they proved to be right in the end.

Clearly they know moving now is not the best course of action for Arizona and I am going to trust that

You do realize those two schmucks contracts will be up before the next TV deal is over right? It’ll be somebody else’s problem. Let that decision fall on their legacies and not Bobby/Dave’s, because they don’t care. Bobby/Dave are 100% taking the safe/lazy approach here and those of us who care the most (Arizona fans) will be the ones to pick up the pieces of pain that we are in for.

[ChooChooCat]

After hearing some pejorative buzzwords like "also-rans" repeated for effect like in political party speeches before mid-terms, I was curious how the two conferences would measure up side-by-side. This is based on the assumption that SDSU and only "one other" team would join the Pac, so as not to dilute the media distributions. Boise doesn't appear much in the conversation these days, and I haven't heard much about SMU recently, so I'll make an assumption about geography, facilities, and the Pac's affinity for Las Vegas. Meanwhile, the assumption seems to be that Colorado considers themselves soul-mates with Berkeley, and Utah prefers to avoid BYU, so I left it at the Arizona schools making a move. Jeff Sagarin was the first current all-inclusive power rating I came across, so I used that, and I added a geographic divisional split. In such a setup for an 8-game conference schedule for football, you'd leave Arizona no more than three times annually to play divisional opponents in Provo, Dallas, Lubbock, Stillwater, and Waco. And, with one divisional opponent visiting Tucson, you'd have one eastern trip, sometimes to just outside Kansas City, or to Houston. Doesn't seem so tragic, and we're living in an era of charters.



So that version of the Pac-12 would be propped-up by Phil Knight's foundation at Oregon. You can't project what schools are likely to do in the future. Will Washington and Stanford be better? Probably. Can Utah stay up there post-Whittingham and can WSU and OSU stay as competitive as they currently are? Very debatable. Meanwhile, are a number of the listed Big XII schools capable and likely to periodically pop up into the Top Ten? Absolutely. But it's up to anybody reading this to decide whether it makes logical sense for those in the second column to cast aspersions on those in the first column.

Can you do this for basketball so I can laugh until I piss myself at how awful the PAC 12 will be compared to the Big 12?

[Merkin]

Colorado is just a waste.

Wasn't that long ago in 1990 (I was married and had 2 kids then) that the Buffs shared a national championship.

By comparison, the UA has no sole conference championships while in the WAC and PAC conferences. Last sole conference championship was the Border Conference of the 1940s. Which I wasn't around then.

[TheCatInTheHat]

As requested. It's way too early in the season for power rankings, but just out of curiosity, here it is using Ken Pomeroy's current ratings:

(Please take into account the disproportionate drop to get to Cal and Oregon St.)

[ChooChooCat]

Colorado is just a waste.

Wasn't that long ago in 1990 (I was married and had 2 kids then) that the Buffs shared a national championship.

By comparison, the UA has no sole conference championships while in the WAC and PAC conferences. Last sole conference championship was the Border Conference of the 1940s. Which I wasn't around then.

Their downfall was so steep man and it occurred before they even lost Texas as a recruiting ground. Hard to believe it happened so fast.

[84Cat]

That Oregon St/Cal game is going to be fire

[Merkin]

2021.

Oregon State loses to Houston 67-61 in the Elite 8.

Cal, well, hasn't been the same since Monty was there.

[azgreg]

[TheCatInTheHat]

As requested. It's way too early in the season for power rankings, but just out of curiosity, here it is using Ken Pomeroy's current ratings:

(Please take into account the disproportionate drop to get to Cal and Oregon St.)

This should be updated with Oregon dropping into the 50s after losing by 13 at home to the mighty Anteaters. (Pomeroy had Irvine at #123.)

[84Cat]

Don't forget CU losing to Grambling by 9

[dmjcat]

[azcat49]

Going to turn into a shit show but then again, that’s this dreadful conference

[CardiacCats97]

If they can’t go, we should be doing everything in our power to be USC’s +1.