Pac-10 Conference Expansion Reflections: Greed, Naivete & Shot Gun Marriage With Utah
by Nestor on Jun 16, 2010 5:29 AM PDT
in Football
Email
PrintUtah is not in the 12-Pac yet. It seems like the former tennis executive from the East Coast, who doesn't seem to have much of a feel for the West Coast culture in Pac-10, is hell bent on adding Utah into our conference by the end of this week. Over here we have always been excited about adding Colorado to our conference. Not so much about excitement about Utah. It is not going to matter much at this point because business minded CEOs like Larry Scott, who is chasing after the golden goose that is TV market, doesn't seem to be all that concerned about preserving tradition and identity of the conference.
As mentioned last night, what has been really repulsive about the expansion discussion from last few weeks is the overt display of naked greed. We are not naïve. We knew in the back of our mind how college sports is all about the dollars. However, I don't think even the most cynical fan imagined how the power trip of TV networks and conference executives (who don't really care all that much about tradition and integrity of the game) would play out so out in the open. In widely blogged piece, Andy Stapes reported how it was Fox Sports Network that played a pivotal role in keeping the Longhorns in the Big Tex (12-2) conference for now:
In the white paper, Beebe hinted at the possibility of a far more lucrative deal with Fox, which to this point has carried Big 12 games only on its regional cable networks. Though the Big 12's larger ESPN/ABC contract doesn't expire until 2016, the Fox deal is up next year. That allowed Beebe to float the idea of an almost immediate shot of new revenue.
"Conversations with Fox indicate their bullishness about competing in the future for our rights, and they have already made overtures about their willingness to pay exponentially higher rights fees than those in our current agreements," Beebe wrote in the paper. "A primary driver of higher rights fees are competitors for the rights and all information is that there are more serious bidders about to enter the marketplace."
Again note how there is not TV deal in place yet. Once again the move was being made by pure projections and nothing concrete in paper. Like I said last night, the solution doesn't seem to be a viable one. Pat Forde call it "temporary." It sure appears that Texas has been exposed as player, who cannot be trusted. Yet there we were just last week, when so many wanted to jump in and get hitched with the Longhorns, just because of some ridiculous projections of $20 million per school that was leaked to traditional media. Yet it is the same traditional media that is reporting now about how Texas played the Pac-10:
*** Meanwhile, after knowing the terms of the Pac-10's proposal, the Longhorns change course and ask for something they know they won't get: an unequal share of the superconference revenue and their own network.
(Citing a source close to the Pac-10's expansion negotiations, the Denver Post reported the following:
(In the 11th hour, after months of telling us they understand the TV rights, they're trying to pull a fast one on the verge of sealing the deal in the regents meeting," the source said. "They want a better revenue-sharing deal and their own network. Those were points of principle. ((The Pac-10)) wants to treat everyone fairly. It's been that way for months of discussions.")
*** The Pac-10 responds exactly the way Texas expects: It doesn't budge.
Well, I am glad the Pac-10 didn't budge. Good for Larry Scott. The disturbing question is what made him believe Texas so naively in the first place? The question is why is he in such a freaking hurry to add a desperate Utah program, which will jump into the conference no matter what pathetic deal you offer (and it is not like Utes are so attracting that if Pac-10 doesn't take them they will get pursued by another BCS conference ... they won't).
We sure hope Scott is going to move about these issues in a methodical way that will preserve the identity of our conference by preserving its long standing rivalries, matchups, instead of jumping at the instant gratification of grabbing a second tier TV market.
Going back to Utah, here are the expansion advocates primary arguments to immediately add Utes to the mix:
- Adding Utah will immediately add more revenues to the conference coffer
- Adding Utah will give the conference a revenue generating conference championship game
- The addition needs to happen now because time is not on the Pac-10's side
So let's start with the revenue angle. Jon Wilner from the San Jose Mercury News has been one of the better reporters on this story. He has come up with the most relevant numbers yet concerning a 12-Pac with Utah (emphasis mine):
The 12-team Pac-10 would split into two divisions and hold a football championship game. Although the per-school revenue wouldn't approach the $20 million mark, it would be at least 25 to 30 percent greater than the current annual payout of $8 million to $9 million per school, a source said. (Football championship games alone are worth $12 million to $15 million per year.)
And by adding the television markets from Denver (No. 16) and Salt Lake City (No. 31), the "Pac-12" might have enough TV sets within its geographic footprint to create its own TV network.
So the best information on this to date is coming from some anonymous source who couldn't produce any documents that showed exactly how those revenue projections were made. The report cannot substantiate whether addition of a second tier TV market is necessary for creation of Pac-10's own TV network. Note the tepid use of "might." Don't foget these are the same type sources - read gullible Pac-10 officials - who were getting played by Texas for all these weeks. Someone tell me why we should trust these naive officials who seems to be envisioning ponies for everyone?
Also, speaking of revenues, I have not seen any number from any UCLA sources about how adding Utah helps our school. I have heard nothing from Dan Guerrerro or Gene Block. From what I see is it looks like, it will be Utah that will benefiting by diluting the conference intake, without brining much to the table except for wagging that second tier TV market, which arguably is more loyal to BYU.
Second, let's talk about this hypothetical "championship" game? How the heck is it going to work? Raised that question yesterday and still haven't seen any satisfactory answer that tangibly shows that the championship game would generate excitement and be played out infront of packed stadiums. Here is a news flash ACC tried out the championship games too in Jacksonville. So far it has appeared to be total disasters generating as much "excitement" as meaningless NFL exhibition games. Perhaps the will be "fun" in its first year or two but the novelty is going to wear off fast.
Moreover, I strongly suspect a championship game will end up costing the conference with BCS bids. Even with our pathetic TV contracts, we have come tantalizingly close to getting two BCS teams in the past (UCLA in 98 and Cal in 04 immediately come to mind). With a championship game in play, it will give the BCS decision makers a ready make excuse to automatically exclude the second 12-Pac team no matter how deserving it. I don't buy the argument that Pac-10 will get the same treatment as SEC because ... well ... we just don't have a great TV K in place.
Third, there is the classic we must do this now or the world will end argument. It is popping up all over the internets that action needs to be taken now. Over at Utah, the optics are hilariously pathetic:
Air Traffic Control
As Larry Scott was completing his tour of the Southwest, nervous fans from Utah and Kansas anxiously tracked Scott's every move on the web. When Scott's plane submitted flight plans Sunday night for a destination of Kansas City, Ute fans could be heard jumping off the ledge and Kansas fans began to celebrate. Then Scott flinched.
Yuck. So why is that we need to add these guys to our conference now? Someone else will snatch them up? ROFL. Yeah, the Big-10 representatives are rushing down to Salt Lake City! I am sure SEC really wants them!! Oh wait, Big-Tex (12-2) would really love to have them too (even though their conference is built on house of cards). So why does Larry Scott have to be so jumpy to get our conference into a shot gun marriage with these guys? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Yeah, so the time is of essence argument doesn't really work. Those guys will jump whenever we want them to. It can be now or it can be few years from now.
I will end this note on Larry Scott. I appreciate the initiative he has shown in recent weeks. It all sounds nice and refreshing change than the statute we had occupying the commissioner's seat in recent years.I also appreciate that fact that ultimately he didn't budge and give into demands from Texas. However, that doesn't mean that we accept all his moves without questions. So far, he has proven to be very naïve in his dealings with Texas. He still got played and at least in the public forum it appears he didn't realize the interplay among various athletic department cultures tying up Texas schools.
There is no problem that he is going for "it." However, the bottom line here is that he can't just bank on forward thinking ideas, he also needs to execute those ideas while preserving and strengthening the core of our conference. To date neither he or any of the conference officials have provided anything convincing that establishes adding Utah helps strengthening the core of that conference. So if the deal is done by the end of this week without any explanation, color me extremely unimpressed. It will get even uglier, if Scott fails to secure a much better (not just marginally better) TV contract in the coming years .
This discussion should not devolve along a silly "traditionalists" v "expansionists" divide. IMHO that completely misses the point. We are all for progress and making our conference stronger. We just want to make sure it is being done in a sensible way that preserves the core of our conference, and most importantly strengthens and advances the best interest of UCLA. From what we have read to date, color us unimpressed and unconvinced.
GO BRUINS.
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A couple of points
1. A typo in the headline – naivete
2. If the BN lasts a thousand years, people may well say that this was your finest hour, N: “Someone tell me why we should trust these naive officials who seems to be envisioning ponies for everyone?”
3. In Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer is designing Jim’s coat of arms. He chooses a motto: “‘Maggiore fretto, minore atto.’ Got it out of a book. It means the more haste, the less speed.” Which Coach described as “Be quick but don’t hurry” and “don’t mistake activity for achievement.” We have a commissioner and I assume a string of little commissionerlets running all over the country trying to make deals, and doing nothing more than making himself and the schools he represents look foolish. How about cooling down for a while, Scotty?
4. When MLB expands, the first thing that happens is that the new players pony up a huge chunk of change for the privilege of being in the league. I think that’s the approach to take if we want to sign up Utah. We’ll ask only for a minimal amount up front, say $1,000,000 per school (excluding Colorado, of course), and they would have to forego their share of the immense $20 million TV share for 5 or 10 years. That should do, I think
5. I notice for the first time that the magic $20 million a year to each school is now not really necessarily a hard number. I also notice that there is no new number. That’s not surprising of course, because there is no deal in place. Which is what some of us were screaming when the latest “Global Warming” crisis hit last week.
6. Last but not least, N, I think this is one of the most well-written pieces I’ve seen in the BN. Good job. (It could be that I agree with the content, of course, but still it’s a well-written piece.)
N.
I join Fox.
Your work is always strong.
But, I think you work on expansion has been some of your very best.
I really hope the message is getting out to the Chancellor and AD.
sjh
Are these people out of their minds?
Oh so suddenly with the lucrative SLC market, only now do we have enough viewers to get a Pac 10 network? Please.
While in this particular instance, with the details that are filtering out, I’m glad Scott and Co. were “played” by Texas, I’d still like to see a convincing case for what adding Utah does to benefit the existing member schools (and especially UCLA). As you mentioned, conference championship games do not guarantee revenue. If you’re the SEC it does. If a fanbase is a 2 1/2 hour plane ride away, however, probably not so much.
The point on Utah having no leverage is a good one and is one of the best arguments for standing pat. What are they going to do? If they want to join Texas and the nine dwarves then so be it. Have fun handing your bowl revenue over to the Horns. If some other conference wants them, then let them deal with the logistical nightmare of doubling or tripling the distance most of your teams travel just to get to Utah. Utah has no choice and no leverage. We can tell them jump and they will ask “how high?”
The more I look into this and the more I hear, the less I want Utah in the conference. Unfortunately for Utah, the traditionalists will always be against them, but they’re also up against pragmatists, like myself, who want to see solid reasoning on how their inclusion will benefit the current member institutions, and I haven’t even come close to seeing that. “Because we can” is in no way a good enough reason.
False Dichotomy
One can be both a traditionalist and a pragmatist as many here have shown.
No offense taken. But, I think most of the opposition on BN, including strong opposition from the geezers, was fact and issue based.
sjh
Actually with that
I was illustrating the difference between two “others” and “expansionists” as N put it. While “traditionalists” and “expansionists” would appear to be mutually exclusive groups, I don’t think that is necessarily the case if you’re a pragmatist. That I believe arguments made from a pragmatic standpoint side more with “traditionalist” tendencies in this particular case goes to show that you are right that you can belong to two out of the three groups. However, I do believe some of the arguments the “geezers” have made were hyperbolic in reaction to the “revenue projection” portion of the expansion argument back when we were exploring the Pac 16, and I find those to be neither pragmatic nor fact and issue based.
greed and naivete
you are spot on. everyone is behaving like trojans and it’s sick.
A partial Argument for Utah
I am a little more neutral on Utah. My main opposition to it is academic where it may not be on the level with the other PAC 10 schools. But a few points for Utah from Wikipedia:
Utes have a record of 12–3 (.800) in bowl games, which is the highest percentage in the nation for teams who have been to more than ten bowls.
In basketball, The Runnin’ Utes basketball program has the 9th most wins among college basketball programs. The Utes have made 29 NCAA Tournament appearances, which ranks 7th all-time,
In 2002, the university was one of 20 schools to make the U.S. News & World Report College Sports Honor Roll.
In 2005, Utah became the first school to produce #1 overall draft picks in both the NFL Draft and NBA Draft for the same year.
Utah is also dominate in a second tier sport, woman’s gymnastics. They would do their part for " the conference of champions."
As far as traveling there from LA. It is easier to get there then Pullman, Corvallis or Eugene. (It is also closer to LA than Seattle) There are many direct flights from LA and cheap ones on Southwest to SLC From the airport, it is only 25 minutes to Rice Stadium.
Also, Salt Lake City is a big, diverse city. It is not Provo where BYU plays. I think a number of people are confusing BYU and Utah. They have totally different cultures and attitudes. I am not saying SLC is the world’s best party place, but if you are road tripping to a game, I would much rather travel to SLC then half the PAC 10 cities. Utah has all the advantages of a big city, with the addition of skiing and beautiful countryside nearby. From Rice Stadium, it’s only a 25 minute drive to Park City, where the Olympics were held. What the heck do Pullman, Eugene, or Corvallis have going for them?
In sum Utah, except for the geography and academic concerns, would be arguably a good addition to the PAC XX. I am not trying to dismiss those concerns but if we “must” add a 12th team for the championship game, I think there are positives for Utah.
What about recruiting?
Chow was in Utah a lot this past offseason recruiting. Having them on the schedule gives Utah high schoolers a chance to see us a play every year. It also gives them a chance to play in their home state every other year.
And we have gotten recruits from Utah
Without scheduling games against Utah. If that is the case we should be adding Hawaii into our conference too. That reasoning doesn’t fly.
DC makes some good points above, however, I am still not seeing any persuasive case beyond pointing to the need for a championship game. As laid out above, there doesn’t seem to be any guarantee that a championship game will indeed add the projected revenues which would not only help the conference but more importantly help our program.
What about it?
Doesn’t that work the other way? If we get to recruit more Utah players and they get to recruit more LA players, who do you think wins in that scenario? Chalk up another strike against Utah.
+1
The State of Utah/SLC area is a major hotbed and population center for Polynesians due to the LDS Church. Utah and BYU already pull their great share of Polynesians (who put more football players per capita into the NFL than any other ethnic group in the world). I believe one of the reasons that PAC-10 programs are able to recruit against Utah/BYU is that they are still considered “mid-majors” and don’t have the football prestige of the PAC-10. We lose that important distinction if we add Utah and end up playing against even more 24/25 year old returned missionaries.
by truebluebruin on Jun 16, 2010 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for making the case.
I like the addition of Utah. Not sure we need to rush right out and do it, but I kinda see the need as keeping the conference at an uneven # doesn’t seem tenable.
As for forcing us to add a championship game, that argument goes for any team we add. And a championship game is a good thing, IMO. From a $, exposure and settling who exactly is the conference champion on the field.
Again
You write:
A championship game is a good thing, IMO. From a $, exposure and settling who exactly is the conference champion on the field.
How? Not to single you out but how is this going to work? What numbers are you basing this on? Have you see how expansion and championship game has been a total dud for the ACC?
Does Scott Have the Authority to Do Whatever He Wants?
I can understand giving him authority to sign the Big 12. But does he also have the power to pick any school he wants and add it to the Pac 10?
But, if he has an “open account”, maybe it’s time to close it, to review what he’s done, and make a new plan.
Are we the only ones who want to evaluate before taking the next step? Can’t believe that’s true. Every school in this conference ought to be focusing on what he’s doing now. And, the same critical thoughts that are being expressed here ought to be vetted conference wide. Well, almost conference wide.
I know the trogans have their hands full. They are hiring the same detectives and support staff OJ used to track down the real killer.
sjh
I think some schools in the conference
Are more desperate for expansion (read any kind of money for their athletic programs) than UCLA, Stanford and of course Southern Cal.
Agree
But I think it is more important for the public schools like UCLA who need the $ much more, especially to support some of the lower tier sports that rely on football and basketball revenue to maintain their existence.
Our athletic department has been operating in black
If we need to raise the money there are plenty of creative ways of fundraising. Adding a desperate team into the conference which itself doesn’t bring much to the table is not exactly the way to go. It is not clear at all what Utah brings to the table except for a second tier TV market, which it might not have a hold on anyway.
we operate in the black
In no small part due to brand recognition as well. Our school has probably the biggest global reach out of any of the Pac-10 schools, and that factor will only increase in the future
also forgot...
We also have had some pretty good leadership
but how much
weight does the opinions of the smaller athletic programs really have? It’s obvious that the CA schools collectively wield the ability to ditch the league if they’re not happy and/or something better comes along. Heck, if just USC and UCLA left, the league would probably collapse in their wake.
I don’t see any reason why Stanford would want to rush into this one unless it was 9 to 1 and they didn’t want to be the “bad guy”; I don’t see any reason why USC would want to rush into this one unless they either really wanted the extra exposure of a CCG or wanted to push their own news further into the background (though then it would be better for this to be an open question at least a few weeks); and I don’t see any reason why Cal or UCLA would want to rush into this one unless they really needed the extra money (and I don’t know the state of their budgets), and actually thought this was a net revenue gain (which I doubt).
Thank You
for posing that question, 66. I’ve been sitting here thinking that Scott has had a big “learning opportunity” here, mostly thanks to the University of Texas. If he were to adjust his course based upon his experience, I think I’m ok with what transpired in his dealings with the Big Tex Conference. (Out here in Kansas, the newspapers want to paint him as a gullible fool, of course, but they’re the ones who jumped into Longhorn bondage with a vague promise of a TV deal and the privilege of giving more of their own share of $ to Texas, so whatever.)
I guess what I’m saying is, if he has carte blanche and isn’t the type to put his own ego aside and adjust his own strategy, I’m worried. If he’s innovative, and, ultimately, responsible and well-informed, then I’m happy he’s in the driver’s seat.
Love My Bruins
All it takes is one
school to block any expansion candidate. My hope is that there are a few who look at Utah and say, at the least, “let’s sit back, wait a year and see whether the CFB landscape blows up on its own”.
The Big Ten is still back to the one year or so “maybe we will, maybe we won’t” timetable, the Big “12” is incredibly unstable (if Mizzou ends up with an invite, they’re gone, loyalty pledge or no; A&M may well reconsider an SEC invite if it comes back on the table; etc.).
At the very least, why rush into this? Colorado was a solid candidate, Utah is MUCH less so. Absolutely no need to rush here.
Scott & the authority
So supposedly, when the Pac-10’s presidents/chancellors etc. met and authorized the expansion, they laid out quite a few scenarios…
I’d imagine that the Colorado + Utah scenario was brought up, seeing as how that’s been on the table for quite a few months now.
Now I don’t know what exactly happened in those meetings, but I’d imagine they went over the scenarios and all had to agree to have given the unanimous approval for expansion.
So who knows what is happening now behind the scenes, but it may all be a moot point if the powers have already decided
you raised the question
and haven’t recieved a satisfactory answer because there isn’t one. A championship game that didn’t involve suc or UCLA wouldn’t generate any interest. Can we have alcohol at tail gate party’s in Utah? LOL
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
Drinking
I’ve never had a problem being served in a restaurant in SLC on business trips, and a co-worker who wanted to purchase a bottle of something to take to her room went to a state-owned liquor store to buy whatever it was she was drinking. That surprised me, because I thought it was a dry state, which it isn’t. I’m guessing that applies to tailgating as well, but don’t know about drinking outside in a public place.
On the radio this am ...
Rick Neuheisel noted that teams in the SEC earn more than 20 million dollars from their TV deal while teams in other conferences including the Pac 10 earn less than or about 10. (I’m doing this from memory, I’m pretty sure someone could find a podcast of him on Dan Patrick Show if they want the exact numbers.)
Neuheisel didn’t necessarily seem in favor of expansion, but seemed to feel that something had to be done to close that gap. He said that Larry Scott briefed the Pac 10 coaches at some meetings, though at the time he mostly discussed what was then the possible expansion of the Big 10. I see RN’s point that the revenue gap must be closed. It’s only practical. As time goes on, UCLA and the Pac 10 schools are going to keep competing for coaching talent (for example) and we/it will lose good people if we can’t pay them. Over time, lacking equal revenue, we’ll also continue to fall behind in the facilities race.
In short, I don’t know how I feel about the specifics of Pac 10 expansion. I’m not a fan of Utah but I don’t dislike them either, I frankly don’t know what they bring to the table other than a pretty good football team. But I do get why the conference wants to expand in an attempt to close that revenue gap. Put a gun to my head and I would say not to take Utah, not because of Utah per se but because I feel the Big 12 coalition is fragile and if the Pac 10 is patient they could probably wait a year or two then put the Pac 16 that fell through back on the table. I definitely agree that there is no rush to add Utah. Colorado is a season away anyway, so why rush to add Utah? Why not just wait until some things shake out.
In the end, I was sort of looking forward to Texas and the Pac 16. I’m looking less forward to the Pac 11 with Colorado or the Pac 12 with Colorado and Utah. Breaking up the tradition and the symmetry of the Pac 10 for Texas, Oklahoma and the Pac 16 seemed bold — a major transplant to reshape the conference. Adding just Colorado or just Utah seems like a reactionary band aid.
Question: Does anyone understand why Oklahoma follows Texas on this stuff? Texas wanted a better deal and got it, why does Oklahoma sit back allow it? Why wouldn’t the Pac 10 approach Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and try to get them in a Pac 13 or 14? Why is Texas the lynch pin? I’m guessing that Texas is just worth much more to the TV folks.
OK and OK St
From what I’ve read, Scott did approach them first to force UT’s hand, but they said they would follow UT where ever UT went. I think that OK cannot continue their success without being able to recruit the state of Texas hard, hence the need to follow them.
by truebluebruin on Jun 16, 2010 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Red River Rivalary
is also huge. OK and Texas want to stay together for that.
CRN on the DP Show
Good interview with on The Dan Partick Show with CRN this morning. I loved when DP said that UCLA is guaranteed to go to a better bowl than SC this year. :) He also asked CRN to rate the Bruins as "darn good, damn good or, f-ing good. :)
As far as academics goes, are ASU and U of A highly rated academic schools? No offense to any AZ school alums out there, but I never got the impression that those are difficult schools. Still, that is not a reason to take Utah.
Frankly, call me a geezer, but I am not thrilled about expansion for expansions sake.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
Oklahoma
OSU follows OU because they pretty much have to (like WSU pretty much has to follow what UW does)
OU follows Texas because of access to Texas recruits, big money from the Red River Rivalry (which Jerry Jones now wants to move out to Jerryworld in December… and just about every UT and OU fan is flipping out about it), and because OU’s rebirth to prominence has come in the last decade by its matches with Texas…
Sad considering OU has probably had a more prestigious history and did just fine in the Big 8 w/o Texas in the past, but that’s why a lot of people resent Texas as well since they came in to the Big 8 and ended up making everyone their pawns, as this week has proven
Championship game revenue
I don’t see why the press continues to insist that a conference championship game is going to bring in $12 million-$15 million (or even more). While the SEC does bring in that kind of money, as did the Texas/Oklahoma v. North division patsy game that was the Big XII, the ACC has not gotten anywhere close to those figures from its game. From the Sports Business Journal:
ACC revenue from the game hit $5.7 million in 2005 and dipped to $4.9 million in 2006, according to tax returns, while the 2007 number is expected to be slightly less.Revenue from the 2007 game was eventually pegged at $4.1 million, to be split 12 ways. Not to say that the Pac would necessarily follow the ACC’s pattern instead of the Big XII, but let’s see some honest discussion of the revenue possibilities in the (MSM) discussion.
formerly bruinhoo
I'd like to think ...
that the Pac 10+ is a better football conference than the ACC.
On the other hand, the Pac 10 basketball conference doesn’t seem to be the greatest event, it’s not like it’s a tough ticket and it’s not like the Pac 10 title game in hoops draws huge ratings. So maybe the ACC is a reasonable guide?
i'd like to believe they're separate issues
That the Pac 10 hoops tournament has always been deemed a joke, since:
-We already play a double round robin (who wants to see Washington State vs. Oregon State for the 3rd time in a year??)
-Its held right before the real tournament,
-It crowns a second conference champion (redundancy anyone?)
-10 teams just doesn’t make an exciting enough tournament – whereas it works perfectly for the Big East because 16 teams means the likelihood of great games goes up (and who can forget that Syracuse vs. UConn 6OT game?)
-Not to mention that travel on the West Coast is decidedly different than the East Coast… that Syracuse vs. UConn game can see fans take the train in to Grand Central and on a quick ride (or even walk) to Madison Square Garden…. for a UW fan who wants to come watch the tournament in LA, good luck getting here without flying + getting a hotel
All of those applied to the ACC before their recent Big East raid, as well
Didn’t stop the ACC tourney from being a huge deal, financially as well as in reputation (In ACC land, winning the conference tourney is a much bigger deal than winning the regular season title).
formerly bruinhoo
To an extent...
Well, the geography & travel still favors the east coast.
Also, the ACC tournament goes all the way back to 1954. If the Pac-10 had one since the 1950’s or 60’s as well, I’d imagine the “tradition” aspect alone would get it much more attention, instead of being seen as just another money grab created by the powers that be.
Also, one point I’d argue is that the ACC has probably been more consistent in their level of talent and play, making the tournament more interesting. Not to mention that every other year its either Duke or UNC, who have fans that travel well (hosting it in NC makes it even easier).
After all, watching Oregon State get beat down in the first game year-in and year-out gets awfully tiring for Oregon State fans, and for the rest of the Pac-10 as well. Furthermore, the 2008 tournament is largely forgotten by us because we went to the Final Four and because we played some epic games against Cal and Stanford the week earlier. However, that tournament saw some of the largest crowds and interest ever – but it paled to what our team had just done and was about to do.
Good discussion
I hadn’t read that much on the expansion topic, and I’ve been unclear about the real purpose (although I knew it had to be money) and now it makes sense. It is also hard to justify keeping the name “Pac” for states that are so far inland (ok, I know, the Arizonas aren’t coastal states, and I do remember when it was still the Pac-8). I see travel as an issue – both the expense and time factors. Also, given Utah’s issues with the BCS, I would think they have more to gain than we do from association with the Pac-10.
If Bevo TV works out
it won’t be long until you see the Victory Bell Network (USC+UCLA), the Bay Area Network or Axe Network (Cal + Stanford), and probably the Territorial Cup Network (Arizona + ASU), “all rights in” be damned. If Utah actually gets an invite (which I don’t want), then probably the “Mountain Sports Network” (CO + UT), as well.
I don’t think anyone wants to do their own singular TV network (U-Dub might try it, since they’re big dog in their area), but if the business model works, I could easily see a bunch of local partnerships emerging.
no reason
to add Colorado or Utah. Pearl Street and Boulder are a nice place to visit but, lets face it, Colorado does nothing to futher pac10 sports tradition as the conference of champions. Their football program (aside from a year or two in the early 90s) is a joke and currently in shambles to the point their current coach likely won’t be there in 6 months time. Their basketball program has been nonexistent and will only weaken the pac. Their non revenue sports also bring nothing to the table. In terms of a television market, people in Denver are not die hard about Buffalo athletics. When it comes to the importance of CU football, it ranks behind Broncos, Nuggets, Rockies, and Avs on the things to do. They’re not up in arms about the plight of football because there’s plenty of otherstuff to do within an hour of Denver. As for Utah, i won’t even go there. A pac16 with texas and oklahoma would have been huge, and i applaud the effort. But expanding “just because everyone is doing it” doesn’t make sense. Will be interesting to see the numbers when a new TV deal is divied up to include the 2 newest subpar programs.
Utah is in
http://www.pac-10.org/genrel/061610aaa.html
Whatever our opinion on the matter isn’t important. It’s happening, for better or (IMO) worse.
Well...
Hard for me to take Bruce Jenkins seriously if he’s still griping about expanding the old Pac-8 with Arizona and Arizona State. Sort of like listening to an old man complain about the “damn interwebs” or that “infernal racket the kids listen to, that darn rock music”
I guess I’m not getting all the doom and gloom. Seems like a lot of people are in the “don’t expand, no title game, keep everything the same as it’s always been” camp. That was Tom Hansen’s strategy for the last 30 years, and where did it ever get the Pac-10 conference? What positives did the league gain from his leadership and strategy?
Year after year, the league slowly but surely fell behind the SEC, Big 10 and other conferences. Hansen bungled one decision after another, including each and every TV deal he ever negotiated.
I like that Scott has been aggressive and is actually trying something new instead of doing what Hansen has done for 30 years which was nothing. The Pac-16 scared the hell out of a lot of powerful people… it would arguably have been the most valuable league ever… and it was ultimately capsized not by Dan Beebe but by a cabal of TV executives, rival conference presidents, NCAA and BCS officials who didn’t want it to happen.
So Scott now goes to Plan B. If this works, it’ll be a very good step up for the league. If it doesn’t, I guess I don’t really see what’s been lost.
I believe expansion into Denver and Salt Lake City will ultimately prove to be a positive one for the league. There is a great opportunity to attract new viewers and fans and market the hell out of the league in two new and expanding markets. In terms of a new TV deal, moving into a new time zone adds a lot of flexibility for TV scheduling and gives the league presence in two expanding markets, including #18 Denver. Maybe I’m just more of an optimist, but I’m excited to see where the league goes from here.
The guys over at EDSBS, who I generally find to be more or less SEC centric, had an interesting take on Larry Scott…
In the innumerable “winners and losers” columns and posts surfacing in the wake of all this, Larry Scott has been singled out as a loser for picking up two quality teams, forcing the hand of the Big 12 and hastening its demise, and setting up the Pac-10 for future expansion involving teams that a year ago would have been unthinkable.
That’s far more than you might have suspected the Pac-10 of being capable of previously, and way more adventurous than anything Scott’s predecessors might have considered.
I kind of agree. I think the Big XII has seen it’s best days and is eventually heading for the dustbin of history. I think Scott is taking a long view on this, and Utah and Colorado are just the first steps. I don’t think it’ll be long before the league takes another run at Texas, OU and the Big XII South again. Time will tell…
Anyway, welcome to the Utes and Buffaloes. Should be fun.
To be fair...
It is hard for me to take Bruce Jenkins seriously on pretty much anything.
If anyone has a few minutes free and could use a laugh, take a look at FJM’s classic takedown of Bruce Jenkins on pitch counts in baseball.
formerly bruinhoo
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
