ChooChooCat wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2023 11:15 am
AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2023 10:12 am
The BIG12 without Texas and OU is a conference of also-rans. It will always be third fiddle at best, and the gap between the SEC, B1G, and the BIG12 will continue to grow. Conferences need cash cows/marquee programs. Who is the BIG12 cash cow?
If we join the BIG12, we'll be in the exact same position we are in today; only without a USC/UCLA or Texas/OU. That's not better. The difference would be our tier 3 games would be on ESPN+ instead of the PAC12 Network. If this is the best we can do, so bet it. But we're not at that point yet.
Take the top programs not in the SEC or B1G right now, and you get, in no particular order, Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, Oregon, Washington, and Stanford. The best BIG12 programs, like OK State and Kansas, might not even be in the top 10 of this list, because Utah, Colorado, and ASU are likely more valuable.
And yes, going it alone with the PAC12 Network was a failure. But that shouldn't mean we should never take a risk again. The B1G may never expand again. ESPN will continue to lose subs as more people cut cords. The ACC will need to find a way to increase their revenues long before their GOR contract expires, which is easier said than done. Still a ton of moving parts, potential outcomes, and pieces to fall.
Ok so.....your argument is Arizona should remain in a conference that's currently fifth fiddle whose sole expansion options are SDSU and SMU? Oregon and Washington are major cash cows though, I mean look at how many television networks just want to throw money at them just to play Arizona and California. The Pac-12 is knocking TV networks away!
You're literally posting gobbledegoop. Arizona isn't getting a B1G invite, it isn't getting a SEC invite, so the point is to remain in a conference that will lose Oregon and Washington (nobody cares about Stanford except academics) in a handful of years, and that is going to benefit Arizona how exactly? By leaving them in a conference with SMU, SDSU, and more MWC schools?
Every post you make is an abject failure void of logic and reasoning. You are the living embodiment of the Pac-12.
You have a crystal ball? You know exactly what the TV contract will be, and know for sure the PAC will fall behind both the ACC and BIG12? I don't. And no guarantee that we'll be 5th fiddle when the contract is presented.
There is also no guarantee that Oregon and Washington are going to be B1G members in the future. What we do know is the B1G won't take the next shot. If the PAC crumbles by the 4-corner schools leaving, the B1G will pick up the remaining pieces it wants, and likely at a discount. If the corner schools stay, then Oregon and UW have no where better to go, and the PAC survives.
The BIG12 without any cash cow schools is a guaranteed 3rd fiddle at best. And would be a 4th fiddle if in the future, the ACC and PAC decide to merge. A conference with FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, Oregon, Washington, and Stanford would be a formidable conference, and better than the BIG12 will have to offer going forward. We also know the ACC needs a way to find more revenue, but that's also unlikely to happen right now.
If we go BIG12 now, that's it. That's likely where we stay for a long, long time. The also-ran conference made up of P5 schools not good enough to make it into the big 2. When the time is right, the B1G will take Oregon, Washington, CAL, and Stanford, and the B1G and SEC will divide up the ACC schools that have value. Everyone else might seek a safe space in the BIG12, with us. A true P5 also-ran conference that includes Washington State and Boston College. Who doesn't want that?
Or, we can be patient, and potentially forward thinking and stay in the PAC. There's nothing stopping the BIG12 from expanding today. But their reality? They just added four G5 schools, and they don't want to add more. That's why SDSU is off the table for the BIG12 right now. So is Gonzaga, even as basketball only. The 4-corner schools, all P5, and more valuable to the BIG12 than any other realistic expansion candidates are the BIG12's best options. Sign a 5-year TV contract, just like the BIG12, and the BIG12 will wait for us.
And while ESPN+ has over 20 million subscribers, 40% are bundlers with Hulu and Disney. I'd guess 25% or more ESPN+ subs never watch it. And viewership numbers? I can't find any. But we do know ESPN is hemorrhaging money, and laid off a large number employees.