[Update] Thoughts About Pac-10 Expansion: Not Excited About Baylor In Pac-16
by Nestor on Jun 7, 2010 8:54 AM PDT
Email
PrintLooks like things are moving really fast thanks to Larry Scott. From the New York Times today:
With Texas as his focal point, Scott is expected to attempt to lure six teams from the Big 12 to create the first 16-team superconference. That could produce a domino effect with major college sports featuring four 16-team leagues.
But Texas and other Big 12 powers would prefer to stay together, which is why Nebraska and Missouri are situated in such a key spot. If the Big 12 stays intact, the Pac-10 will probably not expand significantly. If the universities leave, college sports will inevitably change drastically.
"Larry Scott wants to fire the first bullet," said a Big 12 athletic official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly about the topic. "The pressure is being put on Nebraska and Missouri. Over the next two weeks, we’re going to know where we stand."
As for the Big Ten, Delany did not reveal much to reporters in Chicago on Sunday, other than to say that the "timeline could be affected." What is unknown is how hard the Big Ten is pursuing Notre Dame, a football independent that brings considerable value.
Notre Dame wants to maintain its independence, but if it did jump to the Big Ten, which already has 11 teams, it would prefer the league stay at 12 for revenue-sharing reasons.
Publicly, Big 12 athletic directors and officials are saying they hope the status quo remains, because they have built a strong league in football and basketball. Privately, they are scurrying to best position themselves for a potential spot in the Pac-10, which could become the Pac-16.
I still don't know what to think of Larry Scott yet but man I love how aggressive he has been about marketing our conference. It has been a refreshing change. I like his vision about the potential of our conference and the way he has taken initiatives. Still remains to be seen though how he executes his strategic plan (he seems to have one) in coming months.
I do like the thought of Pac-16 with Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma as part of a Pac-East division but I want Colorado in the mix. Chip Brown from OrangeBloods.com tweeted that the invitations may go out as early as this week and that the sixth invitation will come down between Baylor and Colorado (HT Ralphie Report).
First, here are the numerical comparisons between two progams via College Football DataWareHouse:
| From College Football Data Warehouse | Colorado | Baylor |
| All Time Record | 668-435-36 | 525-531-43 |
| Bowl Record | 12 -16 | 8-8 |
| National Championships | 1 | 0 |
| Total Championships | 29 | 7 |
| Year of Last Conference Championship | 2001 (Big-12) | 1994 (SWC) |
| Years in college polls | 21 | 13 |
| Record v. Pac-10 | 38-34-1 | 13-11-0 |
Colorado has the better all time record. It has struggled under Barnett and Hawkins but did win its last conference championship in last 10 years. It also has a national championship and what is significant here it has a pretty good history in terms of engagement with with the Pac-10 (in bold).
Plus I don't think I am the only UCLA fan who will not be all that excited about Bruin road trips to Waco.I much rather prefer Boulder and Denver than going out to the heat in Waco.
So I am not sure what Baylor brings to this conference. I hope Scott considers how Colorado would be a better fit for our conference instead of getting influenced by preference of the Texas state legislature. Why should we let Texas politicians dictate the makeup of our conference? I sure hope Scott doesn't make his decisions based on those pressures.
I have not been the most ardent advocate of Pac-10 expansion any way. What is more important to me is the visbility and marketability of Pac-10. I understand the lure of bringing in Texas, which would be awesome but not sure if we have to play on the terms of Texas legislature and get forced into bringing in Baylor.
I am sure there will be lot more on this in the coming days but for now. For now I have put up a poll to gauge the preference of this community between Colorado and Baylor. Keep the discussions going even if we are not paying all too much attention to it on the front page (at least for now).
GO BRUINS.
UPDATE (N): Looky here. Even Texas fans despise Baylor. Hopkins Horns writes an open letter to Scott asking him to "kill" this "deal" if it involves a "leech" school like Baylor (HT The Ralphie Report):
Kill this deal.
Do you really want a goddamned lobbyist dictating to Stanford and Cal, and all of the other fine academic institutions of the Pac 10, and Arizona State, that a gnat of a school no one (and I mean NO ONE) wants in the Pac 10 is the price you have to pay to get Texas?
Baylor offers nothing. Nada. Zip. It is a mere leech. Well, OK, it seems to offer one thing: political expediency for the mass of pro-Texas, pro-A&M and pro-Tech legislators who seem to lack the testicular fortitude from preventing this from happening.
Despite what our school's leadership might say, fans of Texas do not want Baylor tagging along. [Author's Note: please, readers of BON, if I am misrepresenting anyone's position with that sentence, please chime in!] And I would guess that UT's administration really doesn't want Baylor either. There's a reason why Texas and Texas A&M originally thought that they, and they alone, would be leaving the SWC to join the schools of the Big 8. I would also guess, given the surprise inclusion of Tech, that backroom negotiations had already worked out the optimal solution from UT's perspective with the original leaked group of six teams.
I don't presume to speak for Aggies and Red Raiders and Sooners and such, but I cannot imagine that any of them are really thrilled. And if those who participate on message boards are good indicators for the general feelings among a school's fanbase as a whole, you would have been shocked to see how quickly opinion switched from being almost universally positive (Colorado!) to negative (Baylor?!?) among your conference's schools once news of the proposed forced substitution emerged.
Again this should not be decided by Texas politicians. If Texas politicians try to ram Baylor down our throats, than Commissioner Scott should be looking the other way.
GO BRUINS.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
107 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Baylor v. Colorado
It sounds like the Pac-10 would strongly prefer Colorado. It would bring in the Denver media market and its a stronger athletic program and both schools are comparable in academics. However, it looks like Texas politics are putting Baylor in the mix as state legislators may make it more difficult to get UT, A&M , and Tech without inviting Baylor as well.
Exactly
And we shouldn’t let Texas politicians dictate the makeup of our conference. I lean lukewarmly towards expansion but not at the expense of getting steamrolled by the wishes of Texas legislature.
Politics: The antidote to any good idea.
While I am opposed to expansion, if it does happen, then it absolutely must be done in a manner that is solely in the best interest of the Pac-10 and its member institutions. The Texas legislature is not interested in, nor elected for the benefit of the Pac-10. Larry Scott should not compromise the conference for the political machinations of a group that has a different agenda.
Colorado offers more that Baylor does overall. And although Boulder is a freakshow that makes Cal look like the OC, it’s a much better roadie than Waco. It could also spur CU to resurrect its baseball program.
Separately, I wonder why Nebraska isn’t reportedly being considered by the Pac-10. CU and Nebraska preserves a rivalry, gets another high profile school that competes in many other sports, and is better for geography. Throw Texas Tech back in the water and offer Nebraska, to go along with CU, OU, OkSt, UT, and A&M.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
yup
and tell the Texas legislature this is good because it allows Texas Tech and Baylor to form one of the great rivalries in sports, perhaps in a dreadful ACC-16…
by britishbruin on Jun 7, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
On the mend ...
I’m feeling less and less delusional every day. ;-)
We should target the big 4: Texas, OU, Nebraska, and Colorado … if Texas A&M and OSU or Kansas (didn’t they used to be part of the old wild west?) and Mizzou want to tag along and it helps intra-conference alignments, that would work for us, too.
Unfortunately, Nebraska is probably out, because unless they defect to the Big 11 (nee 10), there will be no catalyst to break up the Big 12.
As I've said in the other fanpost...
…it’s time to expand. It could be against the history and/or the academics, but to remain at the elite level in today’s college athletics you’ve to have money – even playing always within the rules, like UCLA does -, and media exposure. And this expansion could provide all this to UCLA and the Pac10(16) so….get it done!
Colorado it’s a better choice than Baylor? Not 100% sure but it’s probably true. But, if the only way to make the Pac16 happen – the one with Texas – is to swallow Baylor instead of CU….so be it.
Sorry ... I don't buy that
Baylor brings nothing to our conference and we don’t need to “expand” just for the heck of it.
For us it is more about positioning ourselves best for TV markets. We can still accomplish by entering into alliances and being innovating exploring other ways. The whole idea of expansion started with adding Colorado. The end result is not going to be palatable if it involves having to also take Baylor.
Waco? Are you kidding me. Yeah, right.
Texas is the big prize
It’s not an expansion just for the heck of it. If you can land Texas without Baylor, it’s a no brainer. But if you have an aut-aut, expand with Texas AND Baylor or you can’t get the Longhorns…what’s your choice?
I think in that scenario the best move is to swallow Baylor and get the ’horns.
And I'd like to get a better answer than ...
… “Hey! everyone is doing it.”
So, what is in it for UCLA? Please lay it out. Thanks.
There are only two things I can think of
That’s exposure and of course the big one, money.
If expansion nets us more games on national TV and also leads to the creation of a Pac-10 Network, it’s worth thinking about. When you see the Big 10 Network, they have so many games on in all sports and that type of exposure is great for UCLA.
The Big 10 Network has also given each member university millions. If expansion gets UCLA millions more annually, we have to think about it. With the economic climate as it is, contributions have slowed and being able to increase our athletic department’s revenue by so much would be huge. Maybe we would be willing to pay our assistant coaches in all sports then? Maybe we would be able to upgrade the facilities for all sports because even though I always talk about baseball, other sports need improvements too. How about being able to stream all games in all sports online?
Now, I don’t know how much more money expansion is worth. Before I get behind it, I would have to know what type of money and exposure we’re talking about here, but if it is worth millions annually, I would have to support it.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jun 7, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
So how much money are we talking about here? I was aware of those factors. What I am still not sure about is whether this is the only way to do it or there other ways to generate revenues by tough negotiations of our TV ks and also looking for new markets.
I don’t think this means that we have to accept Baylor. As I said Baylor adds nothing to our conference. Neither does Texas Tech.
UCLA fans have been notorious for not traveling well. I have been around long enough to know that we are not going to waste our time traveling to Waco. We will go to Boulder but not Waco.
As for Tech, I don’t see the added benefit in having them in our conference either. But the post above zeroed in on the choices between Baylor an Coloado. It’s not even close. Baylor’s athletic program has been irrelevant over the years and it will not be relevant just by being added to Pac-10.
We're going to have to give here to increase our payout from TV k's
but what are we giving up? Do we agree to expand? The other option for basketball is dropping our Thursday/Saturday schedule because that really limits how much we can get on TV and which games are shown. Do we agree to play weekday home games at 5:30 or 6 so they can rate? When it comes to football, do we agree to more Thursday games?
I think the time zone factor is way bigger than some think. Not specifically you, N, because you deal with it daily, but does the average fan bother to stay up until midnight to check out our game against Wazzu? By expanding to the mountain and central time zones, we can get up double headers with one tipping off in one of those time zones primetime, followed by a pacific time zone game. That’s way more enticing to TV networks.
I know that in past TV k’s, the conference was very unwilling to change. They were hesitant to play Thursday football games. They wanted to get all of the schools on TV. They wouldn’t budge from the Thursday-Saturday basketball schedule and they wouldn’t play games too early or too late during the week.
I don’t think this is as much about tough negotiations as it is about what we’re willing to give up. If we want to maximize revenue, we have to give on some things. Is it expansion? Maybe it’s scheduling? I don’t know how the numbers break down with everything, but I think this is less about being tough and more about what we’re willing to give.
Personally, if the expansion is worth the $20 million annually as has been speculated (I’m not sure I believe that number) and we have to take Baylor to make it happen, I do it. Not that it’s my first choice, but I’m willing to let legislators or whoever dictate the inclusion of Baylor for that type of money. I’d explore every other avenue first to see if we could work around it because like you, I’d much rather see Colorado and have little interest in Baylor, but if it’s Baylor or no $20 million, give me Baylor. Of course, that’s if that number is even true.
I think the reason we can’t sit around and wait while exploring every possible option in depth though is time. This has to be done before the end of the year, as Scott said. That timeline can’t be pushed back with the TV k’s coming up. What if we decide on a Big XII alliance and that conference starts to fall apart? What if we lock ourselves into a long-term TV k and then other conferences realign so we can’t match what they have because we’re locked in? The thing I want to see is us leading the way on this. Do the research you can, but you’re not going to have the chance to talk to everyone and play things against each other IMO. Find what you think is the best and go for it. Set the trend, don’t wait to react. I don’t know what the best is because I don’t have the numbers, but the key to me and what it appears Scott is doing, is make the first move.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jun 7, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree with setting the trend.
However, it seems that the Pac-10 announcement seems to be hastening the plans of others (such as the Big-10) [1] (Actually most of the insinuation of this is on the headline alone. I guess take it with a grain of salt.)
Go Bruins!
We have to be careful about "projections" in tradmed.
I have seen that $20 million figure but it is not clear to me if they are based on concrete projections. Personally I wouldn’t jeopardize an entire organization for the sake of making the first move because "everyone is doing it."
I would do it based on rock solid numbers and revenue projections. ACC made the move to expand and ended up with a boring and unwatchable conference. Right now the idea of matchups between Baylor and Oregon State doesn’t seem all that exciting to me.
For me it has to be something that not only makes sense in the short term but also for the long haul. Othewise few years from now Texas and its big sisters will be moving on … and perhaps carrying Baylor along with them.
Scott would be negligent as a CEO if he not exploring all possible options and making financial moves based on concrete numbers (not just optimistic projections showing up in traditional media).
I have faith in Scott
Larry Scott is a very bright guy and has a very successful track record. I have a lot of faith that he is going to guide the conference in the right direction.
Also, N, I would be much more worried about Texas and its big sisters moving on in a few years, and NOT carrying Baylor along with them!
If we get $20 M and divide it with 6 other teams, we're talking about $3.3 M
So for $3.3 million, is it better to expand:
- We get road trips that the students can’t attend (i.e., Waco and Lubbock and those places)
- We get longer road trips for the players, with the incrementally increased costs
- We get our players out of class more, which will make it tougher to keep everyone eligible
- We get a league championship game which will be meaningless if we’re not in it, and which will mean more time out of class for the players if we are
- We add games against schools with whom we have zero in common and zero natural rivalary and zero anything.
- We lose the true round robin in football and basketball. That can only benefit just$c*, because it means they might be able to skip Oregon State and Stanford.
What’s the incremental benefit to the intangible called “exposure.” We got guys from Texas before we added Baylor to our conference. Doesn’t anyont think those four magic letter are automatically “exposure.”
And for the umpteenth time, if we’re just talking about raising $3.3M, why not do it the easy way. Sell each yard line. Sell each down. “Whoa, there, Jim. We’ve got an illegal motion penalty. Stop that illegal motion with Pepto Bismol.”
I see zero benefit. I am unimpressed with the revenue numbers. I’ve seen things like that before. Every Olympic Committee promises a manifold benefit to having the Olympics in their home town. The committee gets the perks and the payoffs, and the city of Athens, for example, has an empty handball stadium and an empty ping pong stadium and about a gazillion drachma debt and is going bankrupt. I have yet to see any concrete benefit spelled out to UCLA.
by Fox 71 on Jun 7, 2010 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think he meant $20 million per team Fox
That’s a pretty big chunk but I wanted to find out more on the basis of those projections.
Correct. $20 million dollars a year per team
and obviously a ton of leverage when negotiating the next TV deal with the networks.
Where does the $160 million come from?
It sounds like either a Ponzi scheme, or argument number 1 from every city’s Olympic committee – just do this (expand or have the olympics) and everyone will get really rich.
One question at a time, though, or I guess two questions. Who says that UCLA will get $20M, and where is it coming from?
BON had a pretty good
back-of the napkin estimate of the potential revenue split per team in a Pac-16. It’s, depending on the distribution of subscriber fees, somewhere on the order of $10M per school annually in additional revenue.
See here: http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/6/1504426/pac-16-network-rough-calculations
There’s a lot of variables, but whatever the network ended up coming out with, it’s a ton of $$ – and football pays the bills. This ensures the financial stability of a lot of non-revenue producing sports in the Pac-10, particularly given the budget problems many states are having.
This alignmnt also has the added benefit of essentially bringing back to old Pac-8, with what I would suspect would be twice-yearly roadies to folks from the ‘East’ division, meaning we’d play those Big-12 folks once every 4 years or so.
M&M
Money and Media.
Better TV deal and/or conference own tv network generating much more direct ($$$) and indirect (exposure for recruits and fans, etc.) benefits.
Money is not all and yadda yadda yadda but…this is today’s world and today’s college athletics. Even playing by the rules.
How much money?
And how much money can be generated through other means such as entering into alliances instead of adding schools like Baylor to our conference? I asked for details before getting excited over an idea. Not just general arguments.
Chancellors all fools?
I think nobody here have that figures – for sure I haven’t – but you have to think that if all the chancellors and the ADs of the Pac10 have seriously considered this option it has to be a significant amount of money, no?
Chancellors all fools?
Well, we can start across town with Sample, who apparently can’t see past the press-clippings of the football team. We can add that the Chancellors picked Hanson as the Commissioner of the Pac 10. Do I really need to continue?
I think you had better revise your argument.
But seriously, Luca, you’re a Bruin. You certainly ought to be able to come up with a more persuasive argument than “Well, all the chancellors can’t be fools.” Yes, then can be. So far, the arguments have been incremental revenue and “exposure.” It is noteworthy that no one says how much the incremental revenue is, and no one says how much of the total incremental revenue comes to UCLA, and no one has figured what any incremental costs would be.
And how much more exposure does UCLA get by playing Baylor? How does that benefit us? Is there some blue chip prospect who’s wavering between UCLA and Texas, and then says, “Well, I was going to stay home and go to Texas, but then I saw that UCLA would be playing Baylor, and that made up my mind for me.”
So far, this has all the earmarks of expansion for the sake of expansion, and because “everybody’s doing it.” Everyone who is a parent tried that argument on his or her parents without success, and is rejecting it as a parent when his or her children are trying it. “Everyone’s doing it” is not a good reason to do anything, in my opinion.
Some fair points
although using Baylor to refute the increased exposure arguement isn’t fair, no one is saying adding Baylor increases the national appeal and exposure of member schools in the national media. Baylor would be Texas’s little brother we’re forced to bring along for the ride, with schools like Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado (via Denver media market, no so much national prestige, at least currently) bringing the increased exposure.
Baylor would help with recruiting though
If nothing else, a road game to Baylor would give the coaches a recruiting trip into the heart of Texas. (Waco sits smack dab in the middle of Dallas/Ft. Worth and Austin)
Would it help with recruiting
if we played at either Texas, or Texas A&M every other year already?
I would have to say the key to recruiting in the state of texas is beating UT.
We had a Texas pipeline for a long time.
I remember Skip Hicks for sure. And we had the kid sjh was high on from Katy, Texas.
We ought to see if we can add USF to the conference, so we can get a pipeline on all the good players from Florida. (And there are some good ones.)
I still think this is expanding for the sake of expanding. When we play Texas or Baylor or Oklahoma State or Colorado, who are we not going to play? Will we skip a trip to the bay area in order to have a trip to Norman? Why not just merge with the Big 12. Have a league like the English soccer league, where there is an elite division and an also-ran division. Two 22 team divisions.
For reference
The kid from Katy was Aundre Dean, who is now with TCU after not being able to break into the RB rotation.
Money is the primary benefit
The most significant benefit to UCLA (and the other members of the Pac 10) is money. Some estimates put it as high as an extra $20 million per school per year above and beyond what they get now. That is a lot of money to be injecting into our athletic budget every year.
Other benefits to UCLA, increased media exposure (which should be especially appreciated by some of you Bruins outside of the current Pac 10 footprint). It will also lead to a more exciting experience at the Rose Bowl. I for one would love the idea of being assured games with Oklahoma and Texas every few years.
And then there is to some degree the argument that "Hey! everyone is doing it." It is already tough competing nationally with the SEC and Big Ten, it will be even more so if they start expanding into “Super Conferences”. This type of aggressive expansion will help keep the Pac 10/12/16 competitive and relevant nationally, which will help keep our product on the field top notch.
It has been tough competing against the SEC and the Big Ten
Not because of the makeup of our conference. It has been tough because we have been led by a visionless, boring, stale, passive and unimaginative leader for last few decades.
Its been both
Certainly a large part of the problem has been the leadership, or lack thereof, of the conference. But I think an equally large part of the equation has been in part the makeup of the conference. Too many of our members either don’t have the media market (Wazzu, Zona, Oregon State, Oregon) or the student/alumni support (Wazzu, Zona, Stanford, Cal, Oregon State) to stay competitive against the SEC and Big Ten, where even the lesser schools have fairly rabid support. And even our biggest (UCLA, $C, Washington) don’t come anywhere near their biggest (Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, Bama, etc.) in terms of level of fan support.
Adding the media markets and the fan followings from the schools being discussed would go a long way towards bridging that gap. I would also hope that adding the likes of Texas and Oklahoma and exposing Pac 10 fans to that level of fanaticism on a regular basis could do more to invigorate our own fan bases.
Good thoughts there JD
Adding the right media markets is a big factor. That is another factor Colorado over Baylor is a no brainer.
does anyone else think it odd
that we might end up with something like Oklahoma-Nebraska in the Rose Bowl? Traditional Pac-10/Big-10 rivalry is going to sever ties with history if they both become superconferences and include teams from far and wide.
Hardly a huge issue, I grant you, but just one of the oddities in the superconference talk.
Along the same lines, this type of superconference may do weird things to the National Championship debate. It will become more likely (than the current situation) that the 2 best teams in the country are within a superconference, but will already have played at least once and possibly twice in the season. The argument that the regular season is already a playoff will also become stronger if the Pac-16 and Big-14 have championship games.
Also, presumably all teams will now schedule cupcake OOC teams on the basis that the conference is ‘such a gauntlet’, effectively stripping all quality games from the first three weeks of the season.
Sorry for the rambling…
Why Tech?
Is there a good reason Texas Tech is in on the deal?
I’d rather see Pac 10 expansion be along the lines of Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, OK St., Utah, and BYU. I’ve heard better things about Waco than what I’ve seen of Lubbock. And from what I gather from Wiki, TTU has all of one single National Championship to its credit (women’s basketball, 1993), so is it really any better than Tech?
Let Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and/or SMU and/or Rice and/or UTEP all join TCU in the MWC, along with CU and Boise (who I have heard is going there anyway). With AF, NM, Fresno, SDSU (and others to make up numbers) that would still be at least as strong a conference as what the MWC, WAC, or C-USA is right now.
Texas Tech is not the 6th team per reports
So I don’t really care much about getting worked up over them. The choice is between Baylor and CU and CU is the better fit for the Pac-10.
And … no way … BYU would ever be part of the Pac-10 which includes UCLA. We have had enough discussions on that topic. I wouldn’t want our guys going against a school that is not much of a “research’” school with a football team of 24-26 year old players.
TTech is in
because TTech has folks in TX Legislature that could torpedo this. Baylor’s in a far weaker position than they were back in the 90s when the SWC imploded – hance, they’re trying to weasel their way in, but as many have said here, they offer very little to the equation.
Baylor – DO NOT WANT. I wouldn’t blame the Pac-10 for rejecting any deal that did not include Baylor – and Texas isn’t exactly going to go out of its way to ensure they stick with Baylor, especially if the alternative is twiddling their thumbs while the Big-12 implodes. If (as expected) Big Red and Mizzou say they’re ditchin’ the Big 12 this weekend, expect this all to come together fairly quickly. There will be a push from Baylor but I doubt politically they can be successful.
Sorry, meant
rejecting any deal that did include Baylor.
Baylor's Lobbying
Baylor’s newly appointed university president, Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr) is already lobbying for Baylor to get included with any expansion. with UT.
They have to do that
They know if the big12 splits they’re one of the top 3 in terms of liklihood to be odd man out.
Texas politics
Right now, this looks to be a question of who has the most political clout in Texas… Tech or Baylor alums. Honestly, for the sake of the league I would prefer Colorado, which matches the academic/athletic profiles of the Pac-10 and brings with it the Denver TV market and a ton of Rocky Mountain TV sets.
Hopefully then it comes down to a choice between Baylor and Tech, not Baylor and CU.
The school that is really ASS OUT in this whole conference realignment situation is Kansas. Shows you where college basketball has fallen. One of the most storied basketball programs in the country is looking at being the best team in a four team Big XII. Even worse, their own state legislature is tying their future with K State.
Honestly, the Jayhawks could find themselves with no better option than being forced to join the Mountain West conference. Tough times in Lawrence.
And I couldnt agree more with Nestor… you have to love the aggressiveness and foresight of Larry Scott. Whether you believe in expansion or not, it’s amazing to see the conference at the front of the line for once. Can you imagine Tom Hansen in charge right now?!
What are your thoughts
If the choice came down to Tech v. Baylor? Who would you guys prefer? Really interested in hearing extended thoughts on this from your perspective.
If Push Comes To Shove
I would probably go with Tech if for no other reason than its a public school and would keep the Pac 10 free of any religiously affiliated schools.
But it would really be a question of athletics or academics. Baylor is the much better university (and not too shabby in a number of sports outside of football). Tech is the much better athletics department (and not horrible academically.)
Probably Baylor
My business partner is from Texas, and he says Baylor has a bigger following in the state, which would solidify a Pac-16’s hold on the valuable Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston TV markets.
Honestly, though, to me this is a “6 of one, half dozen of another” question. I’d prefer Colorado with the Denver TV market and then a decision between Baylor and Tech, don’t really care which one of those schools comes along. This is all about Texas, A&M and OU.
Rotate the football title game between the Rose Bowl and the Jerry Dome in Dallas, and put the men’s basketball tournament in Las Vegas. Done and done!
Hey Nes,
What if we just ditched u$c. I mean if we expand that much do we really need a bunch of trogans riding the coat tails of all these internationally represented schools. There is some insane DELUSIONS over at CC where people actually think that $UC is even close to being an International market over CAL and UCLA? I don’t know what they’re smoking over there.
USC is international…. we talking United States China, right?
Go Bruins!
by Harsha on Jun 7, 2010 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If we get half the Big 12
and Mizzou and Nebraska bolt to the Big 10, then KU really and truly is no longer a part of any conference. I hadn’t seen this detail until today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/sports/07conference.html
Mountain West
Most reports I have read have the Kansas schools, Iowa State, and Baylor/Colorado being snatched up by the Mountain West. Which would make sense geographically and still be a fairly strong conference
Huge step down for Kansas
which would be joining a conference with no automatic BCS bid and no real political clout compared to the Pac-10/Big-10/SEC. KU fans are freaking out.
Yeah, well....
the BCS is going to blow up as soon as conferences expand to 16 teams, anyhow. Everything would be re-negotiated, which would likely involve a large step-up in exposure and importance for the Mountain West – hence Boise State’s large desire to quickly join the Mountain West, before the major dominoes begin to fall.
Huge step down for Kansas
which would be joining a conference with no automatic BCS bid and no real political clout compared to the Pac-10/Big-10/SEC.
Interesting fact
Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma St., Iowa St., and Texas Tech have never played in the big12 championship game.
For Reasons Stated Elsewhere, I Am Opposed to This Expansion
My main point has been that we are watering down the academic standing of the conference. I want more schools with standards like Cal, UCLA and Stanford.
The best school in the discussions, Texas, does not meet our standards in terms of how many non-academic students it can admit into its sports programs. And, in recent years, it can rival the trogans for arrests.
Yes, most of the schools look like the weaker of the current Pac 10 schools — but why should we allow those standards to become more dominant?
As to the Baylor issue — the Texas legislature has just screwed up the nation’s text books by allowing a committee to set standards based upon religious and political beliefs instead of academic integrity. Since Texas is such a large buyer, the publishers will give in to Texas and those same books will be sold nationwide.
We need to tell the Texas legislature to bug off, that it has absolutely no right to influence this decision. If they insist on Baylor, I think we say “Sayonara”.
And, I’ve yet to see a compelling explanation as to how we are better off with expansion than without it. A real numbers discussion. Remember, our TV revenues are low because the last regime did a shitty job of negotiating.
We can expect them to be better in the same way that our new adidas deal is much better than the previous one.
I really do not favor this major expansion.
sjh
I think you brought up all valid points 66.
It seems that we may be sacrificing the academic integrity of ALL institutions in the PAC-10 by submitting to their requests. However, the PAC-10 has the edge over all the other conferences only because of its prestige. Nobody knows what SEC schools exist outside of the U.S. where as UCLA, CAL, Stanford are all very well known internationally. Scott has been discussing taking the PAC-10 above and beyond what these other conferences are aiming for. And I think if Larry Scott pitches this expansion that way, we won’t have to deal with any shady back end deals, with insane Texas legislatures. In fact we should be the ones making the calls as to what schools we want in our conference and we should be very public about it.
The Board
is elected — but is empowered by the Governor and legislature.
This was a hot political issue with the Governor and legislators deeply involved.
Ugh! It makes me sick to think of it.
As to the fight over Baylor, how hypocritical for a state legislature to try to impose its will on a sovereign entity. So much for local power.
sjh
You mis-understand Southern Republicans
They’re all for local control….so long as they agree with it. Once they don’t, they want the feds or the state to take over and impose their will.
Otherwise all of these Southern Republicans wouldn’t have been Democrats in the 1960s. cough.
OK, off soapbox now.
PS – I generally considered myself a Repbulican/Libertarian until I spent time in the South. After spending a couple of years there following high-school, I pretty much concluded I wanted nothing to do with a party that supported the crazies out there in the South.
LOL!
I am so lost here.
The bluest of blue living in the reddest of red.
I understand the folly of looking for some form of ideological consistency — but I fall into the trap, every time.
sjh
Okay
I want more schools with standards like Cal, UCLA and Stanford.
So what do you propose? What schools? Northwestern? Vanderbilt? Duke? Cal Tech? Much easier said than done. And league expansion is about football, and to some extent men’s basketball. Great to talk about academics, but that isn’t the reality of what’s happening here.
"And, I’ve yet to see a compelling explanation as to how we are better off with expansion than without it. A real numbers discussion. "
Then you haven’t read any of the news coming out of the Pac-10 meetings and their expansion briefing from Commissioner Larry Scott. In the latest scenario, adding 5 Big XII South schools plus Colorado, the financial payout to each member school could top $20 million dollars annually. That is why this is on the table.
Remember, our TV revenues are low because the last regime did a shitty job of negotiating
Not really the whole story of what happened, and it’s pretty simplistic to say "We just need to negotiate a better TV deal". Adding the Big XII schools would give the Pac-10 the kind of leverage needed to negotiate a SEC type TV deal with the networks.
Personally, I’m happy that we have a commissioner who finally has our league at the front of the line instead of a guy like Tom Hansen who was happy to have the Pac-10 sit at the kiddie table accepting whatever crumbs got tossed our way.
You Made My First Point
If there are no schools who will be at the high end of academic integrity, I do not want to expand.
And, yes, I have read the “projections” of revenue — but they are simply that, projections. Look at your post below — “might be worth as much as $20 million” — that’s not a hard number. Might be worth less. Much less.
And, it’s not clear to any of us that we need to expand the conference to increase TV revenues — as Nestor points out, there may be other ways to do that without damaging the integrity of the conference.
sjh
Re. increasing revenue
I’m not voicing an opinion for expansion one way or the other here, and I think it is definitely safe to assume that the conference’s new leadership could generate more revenue for the Pac-10 when they renegotiate tv contracts if the conference didn’t change one bit. But I don’t see a valid arguement that the increase in revenue could equal that of expanding.
Sure, a better contract w/ no expansion vs. expanding will probably have a significantly smaller increase in revenue per school than $20M, but it can’t make up the potential earnings of a championship game and proprietary television network. Is it worth it? I don’t know, more numbers and details are surely needed for me to form a strong opinion one way or the other, I do like the round-robin though..
right
I think it is definitely safe to assume that the conference’s new leadership could generate more revenue for the Pac-10 when they renegotiate tv contracts if the conference didn’t change one bit. But I don’t see a valid argument that the increase in revenue could equal that of expanding.
Agree, there is no way a new TV deal with the current conference configuration would come close to a TV deal for a Pac-16 conference with league title game. You’re basically adding Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston and potentially Denver. giving the league significant presence in 8 Top 20 television markets. No other conference comes close to that, and that’s why it would be so attractive to the networks.
Scott is a sharp guy and has a lot of smart people working on this. If the league Presidents like what they heard, I’m willing to wait and see what comes out of it.
Again, I’m glad we have a guy like Scott in the head job now, instead of Tom Hansen, who ran the league like a Mom & Pop store.
I can see now that I started commenting too soon up thread.
I hereby incorporate by reference my comments above and direct them at BillyZoom.
I hereby adopt the statements of sjh.
I second the comments of UCLABru1 (booting the trogans out of the conference.)
by Fox 71 on Jun 7, 2010 3:19 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Not sure where you're getting your numbers...
But ESPN is reporting an expansion deal with the Big XII South schools would net EACH school $20 million dollars a year.
The Pac-10 begins negotiating its new TV agreement at the end of this year and Scott said he needs to know the makeup of his conference before he sits down with TV executives. There are reports that expansion could be worth as much as $20 million per school. Scott hired the Creative Artists Agency to help negotiate the conference’s next media deal.
yep
I have been seeing that 20 million figure coming from ESPN, the same outlet once declared that the greatest team in the history of CFB … Evah … Would roll over Vince Young and his crew at the Rose Bowl. But I digress. I really would love to see actual basis of that 20 million figure. As I said upthread … We need more info. Overall, I think we seem to be mostly in agreement here. I just don’t want Baylor.
by Nestor on Jun 7, 2010 3:43 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Not only ESPN is reporting this
and quite honestly, a prediction from an analyst on the title game and a news report are two different things, imo.
But here is another blurb on the money….
The six teams from the Big 12 would join Arizona State and Arizona in an eight-team division of a 16-team conference, according to the report. The expanded Pac-10 would have teams with significant presences in seven of the nation’s 20 largest television markets: Los Angeles, Dallas, San Francisco, Houston, Phoenix, Seattle and Sacramento.
The expanded Pac-10 could pay each member school more than $20 million per year in television revenues. That would more than double the current payouts of about $9 million each to current Big 12 and Pac-10 schools
You and I are on the same page though. I’ve been impressed with how Scott has handled this whole thing, but I agree with you regarding Baylor/Tech.
So how’s this for an idea. One game, neutral field, say the Jerry Dome in Dallas… Texas Tech and Baylor play for the last bid into the Pac-16? Loser joins Kansas in the expanded Mountain West Conference.
why just football?!
Heck let them battle it out in hoops, baseball, soccer … This will give us something to write about when baseball/softball/world cup is done!
by Nestor on Jun 7, 2010 4:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Current Budget
And to put that number in perspective, our current annual budget is about $65 million. So, we’re talking about a little bit less than a 33% increase in revenue. And I don’t think that is taking into account any bump in local revenue. Which should be substantial for at least some years; taking attendance from 55-60,000 for a home game against Arizona to a sellout for a game against Texas or Oklahoma would certainly be nice.
you guys are attorneys
If I am not mistaken, BZ from BON is one of us too. So again guys for me it is a matter of understanding where that 20 mill figure is coming from. How it was calculated. I am getting a good vibe around Scott but I need some more substance beyond leaks to tradmed reporters.
by Nestor on Jun 7, 2010 4:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Some Revenue
The Big Ten network currently distributes about $6.5 mil per year to each school. The SEC championship game nets each of its members $1.2 million per year. So that would already be about $7.7 million per year of additional revenue per school per year if we could just match those numbers (and with the bargaining leverage a Pac 16 would have, I would think we could probably do better than that.) And then of course the newly alligned conference would have a substantially stronger bargaining position with Fox, ESPN, etc. when negotiating new football and basketball tv rights. Also, the strength of that conference should be able to negotiate a much strong bowl lineup for football as well. The $20 mil figure is probably on the high side, but I don’t think its completely unrealistic. And even if the number ends up in the $10-15 range, thats still a lot of money
Pac 16 Network Figures
Here are some numbers that someone over at Burnt Orange Nation came up with for projections of a Pac 16 network. They look pretty solid and are rather staggering.
by BruinJD on Jun 7, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I object, and I sustain my own objection
Hearsay and speculation (and indeed hearsay upon hearsay and speculation upon speculation.)
Any time numbers are multiplied by other numbers in a courtroom, the result is either an objection or a number that can easily be picked apart by looking at the numbers that are being multiplied. You are assuming that the numbers forming the basis for the argument are right. I don’t. They have not been established.
Suppose those numbers are wrong. What happens? What if the “Greater Fool” theory is finally proven wrong, and no advertiser is willing to pay as much for a commercial? (There is this little glitch in the economy.)
I don't mean to be pedantic
but all business cases are hearsay and speculation. Welcome to capitalism. Yeah, the network could completely implode, but that’s part of the risk equation in the establishment of the conference. Firm numbers won’t be established until you sign an agreement with any distributor. Until then, you have to guess – based on some knowledge.
That’s what those numbers are. Yeah, they’re a guess, but most business cases are. If you’re unwilling to take risk, you wind up eventually looking at the train pass you by.
And really, when you look at this holistically, none of these schools (apart from Baylor) are worse than Washington State, and most are very solid, research land-grant institutions.
I join in your objection and ruling
Perhaps, I’ve spent too much time around financial scandal cases — but they all start around statements like “could pay as much as” and “might pay as much as” and "independent analysts say … " and then they throw in a few simplistic things like “add these numbers up and you’ll see the potential”.
I want to see hard numbers not speculation.
And, frankly, a broadcast source like ESPN, with its obvious self interest, is not credible.
sjh
Its a good thing we're not in court
Would those numbers stand up in court? Probably not. But I’ve dealt with quite a few cable television contracts with my work. The numbers he’s using as a basis are reasonable, if not exact. Are there any guarantees it would actually be that much? No. But there are no guarantees in life as to what the future holds. The best anyone can do is make reasonable assumptions.
By the way, if you go down to the comments, he includes a google doc with all of his calculations.
by BruinJD on Jun 7, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I object and sustain my own objection to the "google doc with all of his calculations."
Anecdote: I was fighting to get some records from a State hospital. The hospital’s lawyer was the AG. The only authority the deputy AG cited for his position was … wait for it … an opinion of the AG. I told the judge that if that cite was going to carry the day, then I wanted a continuance so I could write an article, get it published, and then cite myself. The judge agreed that citing yourself wasn’t persuasive and ruled in my favor.
The point of this is that you can find any data you want to support any position you want if you google it. Have you seen “Yahoo Questions.” You can ask any question you want, and the correct answer is … wait for it … selected by the questioner. Conquest Comicals is on the internet, and thus could come up as authority for some proposition, and if that isn’t ludicrous enough for you, I’m sure you could find some articles that I had published if your search was patient enough to get into really obscure journals. In short, citing the internet is about as authoritative as citing wikipedia.
So where are the numbers coming from. Will ABC pay 320 million to the PAC 22 or PAC 16 or whatever it’s going to be called? If there are going to be four super-conferences, is ABC and Fox and ESPN going to pay 4 × 320 = ONE BILLION, ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS to cover all the conferences?
The only thing missing from these expansion pronouncements and revenue arguments is “But wait, there’s more. Be one of the first three conferences to expand and get this free set of Ginsu knives! These are not sold in any stores. But you have to be one of the first three conferences to expand, so don’t delay. Call right now. Operators are standing by.”
Are we looking at this revenue estimate in the proper context
From BillyZoom’s comment above:
The expanded Pac-10 could pay each member school more than $20 million per year in television revenues. That would more than double the current payouts of about $9 million each to current Big 12 and Pac-10 schools
It does not look like the conference teams will net $20 million from the expansion (if one takes that figure as accurate). Compared to the current TV contract, the schools would gain ~ $11 million/year, and that does not factor in any gains that could be reached in a new conference TV deal from less drastic measures, whether or not the Big XII implodes.
formerly bruinhoo
I assume the recommended was for seconding your motion to go the rest of our lives without ever seeing a trogan
and not for thinking expansion is a dumb idea.
If every conference is expanding, and if each conference has the same reasons (exposure, better recruiting in Texas, an additional $20 M in revenue), then I still ask where the money is coming from. It sounds like a pyramid scheme. I realize that the “Greater Fool” theory is alive and well, but if I had $320 million, I don’t think I would spend it on the right to show the PAC10BIGXII-22. And how exactly is that going to work? The networds are going to pay us?
Maybe this will happen. Maybe current plan of President [fill in the blank] will bring lasting peace to the Middle East. I doubt it. We may get more money. But we lose the symmetry we have now, with every team playing every other team. We lose the traditional rival games. We lose the traditional road trips. I see that one option is to go back to the Pac 10 (or actually the Pacific Coast Conference, with the AZ schools joining the desert schools. How does that expand our pipeline.
We’re all just speculating, of course. I invite counsel for both sides to present EVIDENCE to the tribunal of Judge Fox 71, JUdge sjh class of 66 and (if he’s truly still skeptical) Judge Nestor. Make your points without speculating. Explain how this is a good deal. This isn’t hard. We all did this several years ago when we presented evidence to demonstrate that CTS had to go.
Money Is Not Everything -- Integrity Is
It is odd that this discussion is happening this week — a week in which we’ve had so many reminders that maximizing revenue ought not be a goal any of us, or our institutions, worship.
Money should not make any of these decisions “inevitable”.
If the merger diminishes the academic integrity of the enterprise, we should walk away.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Jun 7, 2010 5:04 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree
Academic integrity should absolutely be taken into account. But all of the universities currently under discussions would fit into the overall academic profile of the conference. We would be adding four very solid institutions (Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and Colorado/Baylor). The other two (Okla State and Tex Tech) are not up to par with the other four, but are no worse than Wazzu or Oregon State. All six are also research institutions. Its not like we’re talking about adding the likes of a Fresno State or UNLV here. And while some would like for us to not add any schools that aren’t up to the Stanford, UCLA and/or Cal standards; those three schools don’t adequately represent the academic profile of the conference. They represent the top of the conference, not the norm. The overall academic profile of the conference will not be negatively effected by this proposed expansion.
So, now that there is no academic integrity question in my mind, the money matters.
I Gave A Shorthand of Academic Integrity
Sorry, I’ve written so much about it that I forgot to define my terms again.
My concern is the lowering of admissions standards for athletes that goes on at good schools, like UT and A&M but does not go on, to the same extent, at UCLA, Stanford, and Cal. Most of the schools under consideration will take athletes we cannot.
They have less “student” in their definition of student/athlete, and I don’t want to see us more isolated in our own conference.
sjh
All you lawyers
Listen, you guys already control all the apparatus of government. Please leave a little room for us hoi polloi to get a few words in.
Fox hints at the idea I was going to propose: that the conference, in expanding to 16 teams, be split into two 8-team divisions, which would continue the round-robin while adding a tournament or playoff for postseasons. The original Pac-8 or PCC teams would be one division, and the Arizona schools and Big 12 schools would make up the other. That would obviate a lot of the travel while also enabling us to maintain the traditional rivalries.
I agree with 66 that integrity is crucial. Early on, I think it was Franklin Murphy who wanted to sever the California schools from the rest of the conference because the northern schools were academically inferior. That’s not really an issue anymore, but the idea of selling ourselves reminds me of the old joke: I know what you are, we’re just haggling over the price.
Finally, I’m disappointed that football is the driving force, though I understand the contemporary economics of college sports. UCLA is a basketball school. UCLA is a multisport school—look at our baseball and softball teams. The three leaders in NCAA championships, far above the rest, are UCLA, Stanford, and $C. Are we going to sacrifice the breadth of sports because for the moment a lucrative TV contract awaits?
There are a lot of questions to be asked and answered, but, as a Bruin fan going back to my childhood, in the ’50s, I think a look at the longterm effects might be worth it.
And by the way, Waco is superior to Lubbock in every way imaginable.
Kansas scrambling for it's future
Things are beginning to meltdown on the Kansas and K State boards. Both schools are twisting in the wind right now. Kansas chancellor now pleading with Nebraska and Missouri to stay in the Big XII
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Kansas chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little urged her Nebraska counterpart Monday to remain in the Big 12 and help avoid a potential calamity for the Jayhawks.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Gray-Little said she got no indication of what Harvey Perlman might recommend when he meets with Nebraska regents on Friday. She said she also planned to call Missouri chancellor Brady J. Deaton with the same message.
In a rapidly developing story that’s strained institutional relationships more than 100 years old, Nebraska and Missouri have both said they are interested in moving to the Big Ten. If they leave, that might prompt six other Big 12 members, including Texas and Oklahoma, to consider a possible linkup with the Pac-10. The death of the Big 12 could put Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State in danger of being left out of any major conference.
Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is looking at a lot of different scenarios in order to help improve his conference. Scott says all of the potential moves are predicated upon the schools involved.
Kansas State and Kansas, even with its historically prominent basketball program, would have difficulty maintaining their status as major players in college athletics.
“There are some universities that survive and thrive without a large athletic program,” said Gray-Little. “I hope we don’t have to test that out.”
Let them join the MWC.
If anything, they would probably be considered the elite within that conference if they make that move.
One thing I can say ...
I am really looking forward to UCLA-Texas matchup now. Billy … the discussion between BN/BON (even despite some disagreements) have been fantastic. That is going to be a fun gameweek.
Yeah, who knew the the roadie to Austin...
was going to be a “conference game”? Crazy times in college football!
The Lonely 3 Could Join the Big 10
By adding 5 Big 12 schools, the Big 10 would become a 16 team conference, too.
sjh
Finally....
If anyone needs any more proof that Baylor is largely completely useless to the Pac-10’s interest, compare and contrast the news releases from Baylor and Texas on their front pages right now:
Texas:
Team produces 3-D models of BP Oil Spill
Geologists solve pairs of Mars mysteries
School of Journalism names director
Baylor:
Sic’ em, Baylor Nation: BU and the Big 12 Conference
Yep, that’s right:
UT-Austin: mapping Mars and the BP oil spill.
Baylor: begging to be included in the new Pac-16.
facepalm
The new Pac 16 - 60% bigger, twice as many bad games & maybe PPV
Concerns:
From a basketball POV; the Pac-10 would be adding multiple Oregon States(Teams with 0 chance of catching up due to crap facilities).
I shudder at the thought of watching Baylor and Washington St in Football.
If the Bruins were to fall on hard times in basketball or football are we going to have to go PPV in order to get every game?
Pros:
I can’t be the only one here who likes the west division being comprised of the original Pac 8 members.
I also like the thought of Texas and U of A being basketball rivals.
Interesting read.....
I tend to agree with Ann Killion of Si.com’s “Inside College Football”, especially the last paragraph.
“The dollar signs have changed prevailing notions about academics and tradition, about putting the student-athlete first. The Pac-10 presidents suddenly don’t mind changing travel schedules, ditching tradition and making a geographic mud pie out of their conference as long as it means they all get more money. Lots more money.
But God forbid a Pac-10 football player takes a pair of shoes or an airline ticket from a booster. Then we’ll be reminded that college football is about the student-athlete and about excellence. Not about the money. Not at all."
Here’s a “Tiny URL” link to the column: http://tinyurl.com/2drk5o9
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
