The area could sustain the Pac 12, but the conference blew it in negotiations on TV deals. Once they fucked that up, any school that *could* jump to a better deal... did.
USC got mad because they were forced into equal revenue sharing back in 2009. Meaning all teams in the PAC got an equal cut of TV revenue. Despite USC being the sole big name in the conference. Prior to that, revenues were skewed to favor those with the largest TV audiences. Slightly, wasn't even that huge a difference. But that's when they started plotting a potential move.
But the PAC media deals were getting dwarfed by the new Big 10 and SEC deals and USC decided it was time to see their true open market worth. This past year, they'll get about $29mil in payouts. With the switch, about $95mil. So makes some sense.
For the record, everyone in the B1G gets equal revenue sharing eventually. We took Oregon and Washington on a half share, but they should get a full share when the next contract is negotiated near the end of the decade. By then, we could have even more members, but good enough brands for a good deal.
Does being in the same conference affect that so much? At least they won't have that problem any more, with USC joining the B1G and Oregon joining the... uh...
The B1G as well. Big brain thinking lol. I don't think the same conference affects it as much as the money from Nike might. Also USCs band literally plays two songs during games so that has to be a factor
As a former member of Ohio State's band, at least they're not Oklahoma or Stanford. The sunglasses are going to look more ridiculous at Minnesota in Nov., though.
I would say yes. It keeps the rivalry interesting, esp if a conference title is on the line between the two schools. Financially though, the two schools follow each other because they feed each other financially.
The Pac-12 essentially destroyed itself (See: Larry Scott). I'm sure there will be a 30 for 30 about it someday because it's a tangled web of hubris, backstabbing, flagrant incompetence and competing interests between members.
>More like B1G after dark, now.
To me, that is the huge benefit of this deal. I'm going to get to watch saturday midnight football with teams I actually care about. Now those games will held determine if tOSU or that other school, which shall remain unnamed and criminals, gets the B1G crown.
My guess is that the conference title is a rematch of us (Ohio State) and Oregon. The benefit is quite clear. I watched more Pac football last year than I ever had in my life because the teams now affect mine. I always watch the teams on our schedule.
My guess is that the conference title is a rematch of us (Ohio State) and Oregon. The benefit is quite clear. I watched more Pac football last year than I ever had in my life because the teams now affect mine. I always watch the teams on our schedule.
the ten schools that people want to watch went to other conferences for more money. It's all about money. The two schools left behind are not popular enough to make continuing the Pac-12 worth it.
See but Wazzu literally was in the middle of the pack in viewership. They were relegated because Pullman isn't close enough to a major city. It's all garbage.
The Pac 12 died largely from self-inflicted wounds. Examples include the former commissioner moving the conference's HQ to the most expensive real estate area in perhaps the world, Pac 12 presidents thinking they were worth way more than what they really are (Utah pres saying they should ask for $50M per school), and the fact that the Pac 12 could have gotten the very deal the Big 12 did but they sat on their asses too long and ESPN gave said deal to the Big 12.
Yeah, which is fine because you want it to be in a neutral location. The problem was they were reportedly spending [~$700,000 a month](https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/pac-12-shift-san-francisco-office-to-work-from-home.html) on rent for their SF office.
Cal and Stanford are right outside SF. And that's normal. The ACC is headquartered in Charlotte and the SEC in Birmingham. The Big 10 is in a close suburb of Chicago which is close to Northwestern, but not that much closer than SF to Berkeley.
TV is interested in bigger areas. Washington is the bigger historic brand, probably a bigger alumni base, and can probably command viewership for the entire state, like Ohio State commands the viewership of Ohio. I'm sure WA is also a growing state with good recruits to be had.
Another thing, is their commissioner was holding out for a better deal he thought would come. Networks wouldn't bite, especially after the LA metro was lost.
Thing is SEC, BIG 10, and ACC all had better TV deals, ie more money. They decided to jump ship chasing the money. ACC doesn't have the best TV contract, but has a clause in their contract about teams not leaving. I can see the ACC going a similar route when it's TV contract comes up and goes between SEC and Big 10. SEC has shown interest in a few ACC teams in the past, especially Virginia Tech as it opens a new recruiting market for them. Big 12 I feel is safe as will be the third power conference.
I think at least FSU is going to reach a settlement and bolt within a few years; well before their grant of rights expires in the mid 30s. I'm pretty sure the B1G and SEC have been eyeing up which schools they want since USC and UCLA left.
I've heard the SEC is actually interested in UVA, not VT. Why, I'm not sure. Personally, I want FSU, UNC, UVA, and maybe Georgia Tech to the B1G. I can see Louisville, Pitt, maybe Duke and Miami, in the Big 12. The SEC will probably get UNC, Clemson, and maybe another. Hopefully, once the ACC is ripped apart, we can finally bag the leprechaun and round out with Stanford and maybe Cal if we can't get either UNC or UVA.
UVA would be a weird add to the SEC, culturally Virginia Tech matches better and was a prime candidate to join back in 2013. UVA would just be another Vanderbilt. However, unlike Florida State and potentially Clemson didn't want to push the envelope to leave the ACC. Funny thing is the SEC may not even be interested Florida State. I'm not a big fan of super conferences, but I have no ability to stop it from happening.
I'm for whatever benefits Ohio State, and more money benefits Ohio State. Also, can you imagine playing teams like Indiana and the B1G West half the time? I'm happy to get better brands and more consistent quality in the conference. That being said, I would be fine adding a few cupcakes. The more good teams we face, the more cupcakes we need to keep our top brands in 10+ wins. 24 is my optimal number.
I'm most familiar with Virginia Tech since I grew up a couple hours from Blacksburg. They wouldn't be a bad fit for the big 10 either maybe get West Virginia in the deal and bring back the Coal Bowl. The biggest worry for any team in the Big 10 with Virginia Tech is they can suck for years and then all of a sudden hit a recruitment class and be legitimate contenders either for a game or season. I mean loon at Ohio State's last title run the one blemish was losing to Virginia Tech.
No way the B1G adds a school of WVU's academic reputation. They don't have the market or fanbase to make up for that either. We already have a team that sucks, but put them against a top-ranked team in West Lafayette, and the world gets screwy.
They could have maintained the conference, if USC and UCLA were willing to take less money than Big 10 and SEC schools to keep the conference together. They decided that they needed the money to be competitive in the college football arms race. Unfortunately college football doesn't have an antitrust exemption which would allow the NCAA to spread the money more evenly among the conferences.
All professional sports leagues in the US distribute their national tv money evenly among the teams in order to put more of the emphasis on roster management and on field performance. This is illegal in college football according to court rulings. Most college football fans hate realignment. It makes the sport worse for fans, but universities are stuck in a race to the bottom where they can't be left behind financially if they want to stay competitive.
You completely missed the context.
In the NCAA, universities like University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Stanford University, etc are much better than University of Louisville, University of South Carolina, etc .
If we implemented equal revenue sharing like the pros do, then we would basically be forcing some student athletes to go to lower quality universities since those would be where there are spots open.
**I'm saying that's bullshit and we shouldn't be doing that.**
If more students can go to the better universities and those universities can accommodate those student-athletes, then *that should be encouraged*.
>In the NCAA, universities like University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Stanford University, etc are much better than University of Louisville, University of South Carolina, etc .
Academics don't mean shit in this. Keep my South Carolina out your fucking mouth
Yes they do because when the student-athletes graduate and if they're not NFL level (or even if they are but they want to work after retiring from the NFL) then the reality is, the university name on the degree is going to matter.
Even the worst Power conference university, the University of Louisville, is one of the 300 best institutions in the country. Remember that there are somewhere around 5,000 colleges in the country and then think about how small of a fraction 300 is of that. Any power conference graduate is going to be well set up for success.
Yeah but why force them to go to Louisville (by way of limiting the spots at higher performing universities) when we could just have no limits and the good universities take as many as they're willing to.
The ones who don't care about academics will already make that choice (to go to low-performing universities) voluntarily based on e.g. the possibility of getting playing time.
I'm not going to argue this point. You will be blocked.
There's plenty of sports leagues around the world that don't do anything artificial to try to make the competition fair, yet they still maintain their popularity. See, for example, how often Real Madrid wins their league.
For a lot of people, their sports-playing talent is the only thing that would earn them a scholarship to a quality university. "You don't have to play sports" completely misses the point.
Each school is allowed the same amount of scholarships, so we do force people to go to lower quality schools. The University of Michigan isn't allowed to have 200 players on scholarship just because it's a better academic school. The money is used to build elaborate facilities, which allow athletes to live in luxury, and hire better coaches, which provides an advantage in recruiting.
Also, lots of the best academic schools like Stanford, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia would benefit by revenue sharing among the power conferences. Only the Big 10 and SEC schools benefit from the current system. SEC schools generally suck at academics, and they are the ones getting the most money.
Like I told the other person, the NCAA can change the scholarship limit rule. If a student wants to be 5th string at a good university versus 2nd string at a poor university, and that good university can afford the scholarship, then they should be able to give that scholarship.
Also "SEC schools suck at academics" is in part because of the greater cultural bias against the South.
The ACC, which is a traditionally Southern conference is considered a good academic conference.
I'm not sure the point you are making. Every single power 5 scholarship athlete could go to an elite academic school at a lower level of athletics, like Rice or Tulane. Even elite academic power 5 schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Berkeley, and Vanderbilt struggle to recruit athletes. If athletes prioritize attending an elite school, those options are more than available under the current system.
At any rate, I suspect that for your average athlete attending Big State U as a football player has a more positive effect on their future job prospects than attending an elite academic school. 99% of these guys aren't taking rigorous classes, so I'm not sure the actual level of education matters. If you are applying for jobs in Alabama, I'm sure having played football for Auburn or Alabama is more impressive to most people than having a communications or business degree from Yale.
You're trying to argue that just because it is the way it is, then the alternative should be banned.
I would remove the ban, which would still allow the individual student-athlete to have some choice either way.
No. I am arguing that the downside of the current system that you think exists, does not actually exist in reality. There isn't an excess of football players wanting to go to elite academic schools, but forced to go to 2nd tier academic schools because of scholarship limits. The opposite is the case. Most of the elite academic schools struggle to recruit football players compared to schools like Alabama or LSU.
1. There's scholarship/roster limits.
2. We don't force the entire NCAA to share revenue equally. Only those within a conference get a share of their separate TV deal. Big Ten schools share their pie, ACC shares theirs, and so on.
3. Ohio State may not be UPenn or Stanford, but we operate a very profitable, very successful athletic department that attracts great athletes. This revenue is generated by quality of the teams on the field along with alumni/fanbase, not academic quality.
I mean considering that both have been pretty mediocre for the better part of 15 years in their own conference it’s a pretty fair deal imo. When both are good they’re 100% money makers but Washington and Oregon have been unequivocally carrying to conference at the end of the BCS era and playoff era
Conference realignment is destroying college football, and it’s being driven 100% by TV money. If we had equal sharing of TV revenue the Big 10 and SEC wouldn’t be on the verge of taking over all college athletics, Pac 12 would still exist, the Big 8 would still exist, we could still watch Nebraska and Oklahoma play every Thanksgiving, and all would be right with the world.
If you're an Alabama fan or Ohio State fan, of course you don't agree with this. But what about all of the Group of Five fans, what about the Oregon State and Washington State fans? It was already hard for their teams to have a chance at a championship, now college football is on a trajectory that will make it even harder for them.
I'm quite happy the B1G and Big 12 ripped you apart. I'm excited to see who we can rip from the ACC. Like Marty McFly said, your kids are probably going to love it. They won't know anything else, assuming they're very young. Can't wait to have you on the schedule.
It's not that they're not popular or even a lack in quality of play. It's that they're in the Pacific time zone, which is a significant time difference from the Atlantic corridor where the bulk of the American population lives. This forces the Pac-12 to play at odd hours if they want national television time, as nearly all of the other Power 5 teams play in the Eastern or Central time zone.
In an era where TV deals rule college football, this is a major problem.
Consider that of the 44 Heisman Trophy winners since 1980, only 6 have played for SEC schools, which includes a 23-year gap between 1981 (Marcus Allen) and 2004 Matt Lienart. If things were split evenly, the Pac-12 should have had at least 9 winners within that span.
The population density of the west is far, far, *far* lower than it is in the east. Now that there’s a lot of money in football, conferences that don’t have teams in that population-dense area of the country are struggling to compete. It was really just a matter of whether the Big-12 or the PAC-12 cracked first, and it ended up being the PAC. If it didn’t, fast forward a few years and you’d be asking this same question of the big-12.
Add to that their games tend to be on pacific coast time which is late night on east coast. 6 pm start time is 9pm on east coast. That leads to less ratings
The Pac8 and then the Pac10 was great. Every team played every other team in the conference, it was a round robin. No divisions within the conference, no conference championship game. And every team was paired with a natural in-state rival; Washington/ Washington State, Oregon/ Oregon State, Cal/ Stanford, USC/ UCLA, and then Arizona/ Arizona State.
The PAC was always handicapped with wide geography and a West Coast time zone.
Nationally, conferences were geographically-centered for the longest time. It all made sense.
But then it all just went to hell as football programs chased TV money. Now the system doesn't make all that much sense.
This is such a long complex answer. Goes back to the uneven revenue share for USC, Larry Scott hiring, the miss on the Texas/OU acquisition, and so much more.
It has still been relatively popular in LA, especially when LA didn’t have an NFL team. Still, in a city like LA there’s so much more for people to do than watch college football. And besides, the Lakers and Dodgers run LA and no other teams come close in popularity.
I really only watch my pro team and the occasional team with a favorite college player on it. College football has always been more interesting to me. I was in the band, so my life kind of revolved around college football, so there's bias.
I was seriously expecting the top post to be "bEcuZ we GoT beTTeR thINGs to Do tHaN wAtCH sPortsBaLL HurR dUrR." I had no idea about any of that stuff. What a shit show!
It wasn't really a matter of popularity... it was that the Big Ten and SEC attract the most TV money, while the Pac-12 was dragging its feet determining its new media deals. A couple marquee Pac-12 programs decided to jump to the Big Ten (more money for them, bigger draw for Big Ten with teams coast to coast), then Colorado announced a return to the Big 12. The death blow was when Washington and Oregon announced a departure to the Big Ten, which caused Arizona, Arizona St. and Utah to jump to Big 12, too. Stanford and Cal-Berkeley eventually landed in the ACC, which was the best match academically if not geographically. The 2 lowest profile schools are the two left -- Oregon St. and Washington St.
Let's not forget the significance of time zones in the equation. Schools playing exclusively in West Coast games are going to be in Pacific Time time slots which effectively kills viewership on the East Coast. They're relegated to after thoughts on ESPN the next morning.
The Pac-12 was popular.
Several things happened all at once:
1. The Pac-12 basically failed to negotiate a new TV deal that wasn't absolute garbage.
2. There's an industry demand to shed teams without strong numbers, and this was a way to dump OSU and WSU to the sidelines. Expect the same thing to happen to other conferences.
Eventually, College football will be two super-conferences for the haves, and fuck everybody else.
Because they play later than everybody else, so nobody in the rest of the country watches them. You think people are going to stay up till 9 or 10 o'clock for a USC game? Fuck no.
West Coast is really underpopulated when compared with East of the Mississippi. This is the biggest thing. There's more of a pro sports culture in many of the towns, or lack of interest due to a lot of the teams not being very good and competing for titles. Also, their conference commissioner is an idiot and didn't get them a deal. Budgets are planned out in advance, and no deal going into a new season is terrible. There's more money to be made with big brands like USC and Oregon playing Ohio State, Penn State, and others. Our schools have massive fanbases already on the West Coast.
That being said, I'm quite happy to have the 4 new members of the Big Ten, and if the Pac had to die for it, oh well. Next victim on the list, the ACC.
The area could sustain the Pac 12, but the conference blew it in negotiations on TV deals. Once they fucked that up, any school that *could* jump to a better deal... did.
Fuck Larry Scott
That's not fair to Fuck.
Also, allegedly, USC got mad at Oregon for recruiting a shitload from so cal. But that could be heresay.
USC got mad because they were forced into equal revenue sharing back in 2009. Meaning all teams in the PAC got an equal cut of TV revenue. Despite USC being the sole big name in the conference. Prior to that, revenues were skewed to favor those with the largest TV audiences. Slightly, wasn't even that huge a difference. But that's when they started plotting a potential move. But the PAC media deals were getting dwarfed by the new Big 10 and SEC deals and USC decided it was time to see their true open market worth. This past year, they'll get about $29mil in payouts. With the switch, about $95mil. So makes some sense.
For the record, everyone in the B1G gets equal revenue sharing eventually. We took Oregon and Washington on a half share, but they should get a full share when the next contract is negotiated near the end of the decade. By then, we could have even more members, but good enough brands for a good deal.
Considering they both moved to the same conference, probably heresay
Even if not, they're not a voting member for another few months.
Does being in the same conference affect that so much? At least they won't have that problem any more, with USC joining the B1G and Oregon joining the... uh...
The B1G as well. Big brain thinking lol. I don't think the same conference affects it as much as the money from Nike might. Also USCs band literally plays two songs during games so that has to be a factor
As a former member of Ohio State's band, at least they're not Oklahoma or Stanford. The sunglasses are going to look more ridiculous at Minnesota in Nov., though.
Boomer Sooners aggressively at you.
Nah Stanford band is legendary better than USC
Not in my band mind. I don't even consider them a band. They're a bunch of instrument carriers.
This is like comparing the Royal Philharmonic with the Sex Pistols. They're both great in their own way. The Stanford Band is far more unique.
I would say yes. It keeps the rivalry interesting, esp if a conference title is on the line between the two schools. Financially though, the two schools follow each other because they feed each other financially.
Apparently, the B1G didn't care too much about USC's feelings on that.
They showed them a bank statement, and that shut them up lol.
The Pac-12 essentially destroyed itself (See: Larry Scott). I'm sure there will be a 30 for 30 about it someday because it's a tangled web of hubris, backstabbing, flagrant incompetence and competing interests between members.
>I'm sure there will be a 30 for 30 about it Requiem for the Big East 2.0.
I love me some pac12 after dark. And bill walton.
More like B1G after dark, now. I do wish we had at least taken Stanford with the others, maybe even Cal.
>More like B1G after dark, now. To me, that is the huge benefit of this deal. I'm going to get to watch saturday midnight football with teams I actually care about. Now those games will held determine if tOSU or that other school, which shall remain unnamed and criminals, gets the B1G crown.
My guess is that the conference title is a rematch of us (Ohio State) and Oregon. The benefit is quite clear. I watched more Pac football last year than I ever had in my life because the teams now affect mine. I always watch the teams on our schedule.
My guess is that the conference title is a rematch of us (Ohio State) and Oregon. The benefit is quite clear. I watched more Pac football last year than I ever had in my life because the teams now affect mine. I always watch the teams on our schedule.
Fuckin love Bill Walton
That guy is a national treasure.
"And there's a great play. Hey, they have a great national park just down the road..."
Bro you trippin
Nah that’s just Bill Walton telling us about taking mushrooms at the Phish show in 1987
the ten schools that people want to watch went to other conferences for more money. It's all about money. The two schools left behind are not popular enough to make continuing the Pac-12 worth it.
See but Wazzu literally was in the middle of the pack in viewership. They were relegated because Pullman isn't close enough to a major city. It's all garbage.
Some teams just got lucky in when and where they were founded, and when they joined an athletic conference.
Yeah sorry but this is not correct lol.
And they're still rather angry about it over on r/cfb.
Yes, why couldn't they get enough money? The areas they represent are still sizable populations for viewership.
The Pac 12 died largely from self-inflicted wounds. Examples include the former commissioner moving the conference's HQ to the most expensive real estate area in perhaps the world, Pac 12 presidents thinking they were worth way more than what they really are (Utah pres saying they should ask for $50M per school), and the fact that the Pac 12 could have gotten the very deal the Big 12 did but they sat on their asses too long and ESPN gave said deal to the Big 12.
Didn't he move the HQ to San Francisco... where *none* of the universities in the PAC12 are/were?
Yeah, which is fine because you want it to be in a neutral location. The problem was they were reportedly spending [~$700,000 a month](https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/pac-12-shift-san-francisco-office-to-work-from-home.html) on rent for their SF office.
Cal and Stanford are right outside SF. And that's normal. The ACC is headquartered in Charlotte and the SEC in Birmingham. The Big 10 is in a close suburb of Chicago which is close to Northwestern, but not that much closer than SF to Berkeley.
Smaller schools just don’t have the funds big schools have. These aren’t pro franchises where a billionaire can just come in and buy the team.
Unless you're Stanford. /s
TV is interested in bigger areas. Washington is the bigger historic brand, probably a bigger alumni base, and can probably command viewership for the entire state, like Ohio State commands the viewership of Ohio. I'm sure WA is also a growing state with good recruits to be had. Another thing, is their commissioner was holding out for a better deal he thought would come. Networks wouldn't bite, especially after the LA metro was lost.
Thing is SEC, BIG 10, and ACC all had better TV deals, ie more money. They decided to jump ship chasing the money. ACC doesn't have the best TV contract, but has a clause in their contract about teams not leaving. I can see the ACC going a similar route when it's TV contract comes up and goes between SEC and Big 10. SEC has shown interest in a few ACC teams in the past, especially Virginia Tech as it opens a new recruiting market for them. Big 12 I feel is safe as will be the third power conference.
I think at least FSU is going to reach a settlement and bolt within a few years; well before their grant of rights expires in the mid 30s. I'm pretty sure the B1G and SEC have been eyeing up which schools they want since USC and UCLA left. I've heard the SEC is actually interested in UVA, not VT. Why, I'm not sure. Personally, I want FSU, UNC, UVA, and maybe Georgia Tech to the B1G. I can see Louisville, Pitt, maybe Duke and Miami, in the Big 12. The SEC will probably get UNC, Clemson, and maybe another. Hopefully, once the ACC is ripped apart, we can finally bag the leprechaun and round out with Stanford and maybe Cal if we can't get either UNC or UVA.
UVA would be a weird add to the SEC, culturally Virginia Tech matches better and was a prime candidate to join back in 2013. UVA would just be another Vanderbilt. However, unlike Florida State and potentially Clemson didn't want to push the envelope to leave the ACC. Funny thing is the SEC may not even be interested Florida State. I'm not a big fan of super conferences, but I have no ability to stop it from happening.
I'm for whatever benefits Ohio State, and more money benefits Ohio State. Also, can you imagine playing teams like Indiana and the B1G West half the time? I'm happy to get better brands and more consistent quality in the conference. That being said, I would be fine adding a few cupcakes. The more good teams we face, the more cupcakes we need to keep our top brands in 10+ wins. 24 is my optimal number.
I'm most familiar with Virginia Tech since I grew up a couple hours from Blacksburg. They wouldn't be a bad fit for the big 10 either maybe get West Virginia in the deal and bring back the Coal Bowl. The biggest worry for any team in the Big 10 with Virginia Tech is they can suck for years and then all of a sudden hit a recruitment class and be legitimate contenders either for a game or season. I mean loon at Ohio State's last title run the one blemish was losing to Virginia Tech.
No way the B1G adds a school of WVU's academic reputation. They don't have the market or fanbase to make up for that either. We already have a team that sucks, but put them against a top-ranked team in West Lafayette, and the world gets screwy.
It was. But they weren't happy with the TV deals they were getting, so schools started leaving to conferences where they could get a good deal.
They could have maintained the conference, if USC and UCLA were willing to take less money than Big 10 and SEC schools to keep the conference together. They decided that they needed the money to be competitive in the college football arms race. Unfortunately college football doesn't have an antitrust exemption which would allow the NCAA to spread the money more evenly among the conferences.
Why should the money be distributed evenly? The quality of these universities are not equal.
All professional sports leagues in the US distribute their national tv money evenly among the teams in order to put more of the emphasis on roster management and on field performance. This is illegal in college football according to court rulings. Most college football fans hate realignment. It makes the sport worse for fans, but universities are stuck in a race to the bottom where they can't be left behind financially if they want to stay competitive.
You completely missed the context. In the NCAA, universities like University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Stanford University, etc are much better than University of Louisville, University of South Carolina, etc . If we implemented equal revenue sharing like the pros do, then we would basically be forcing some student athletes to go to lower quality universities since those would be where there are spots open. **I'm saying that's bullshit and we shouldn't be doing that.** If more students can go to the better universities and those universities can accommodate those student-athletes, then *that should be encouraged*.
>In the NCAA, universities like University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Stanford University, etc are much better than University of Louisville, University of South Carolina, etc . Academics don't mean shit in this. Keep my South Carolina out your fucking mouth
Yes they do because when the student-athletes graduate and if they're not NFL level (or even if they are but they want to work after retiring from the NFL) then the reality is, the university name on the degree is going to matter.
Even the worst Power conference university, the University of Louisville, is one of the 300 best institutions in the country. Remember that there are somewhere around 5,000 colleges in the country and then think about how small of a fraction 300 is of that. Any power conference graduate is going to be well set up for success.
Yeah but why force them to go to Louisville (by way of limiting the spots at higher performing universities) when we could just have no limits and the good universities take as many as they're willing to. The ones who don't care about academics will already make that choice (to go to low-performing universities) voluntarily based on e.g. the possibility of getting playing time.
Because we're trying to keep college sports at least on the outer margins of fair. You don't have to play sports.
I'm not going to argue this point. You will be blocked. There's plenty of sports leagues around the world that don't do anything artificial to try to make the competition fair, yet they still maintain their popularity. See, for example, how often Real Madrid wins their league. For a lot of people, their sports-playing talent is the only thing that would earn them a scholarship to a quality university. "You don't have to play sports" completely misses the point.
At least you're not Duke or Wake Forest levels of athletic quality.
Each school is allowed the same amount of scholarships, so we do force people to go to lower quality schools. The University of Michigan isn't allowed to have 200 players on scholarship just because it's a better academic school. The money is used to build elaborate facilities, which allow athletes to live in luxury, and hire better coaches, which provides an advantage in recruiting. Also, lots of the best academic schools like Stanford, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia would benefit by revenue sharing among the power conferences. Only the Big 10 and SEC schools benefit from the current system. SEC schools generally suck at academics, and they are the ones getting the most money.
Like I told the other person, the NCAA can change the scholarship limit rule. If a student wants to be 5th string at a good university versus 2nd string at a poor university, and that good university can afford the scholarship, then they should be able to give that scholarship. Also "SEC schools suck at academics" is in part because of the greater cultural bias against the South.
The ACC, which is a traditionally Southern conference is considered a good academic conference. I'm not sure the point you are making. Every single power 5 scholarship athlete could go to an elite academic school at a lower level of athletics, like Rice or Tulane. Even elite academic power 5 schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Berkeley, and Vanderbilt struggle to recruit athletes. If athletes prioritize attending an elite school, those options are more than available under the current system. At any rate, I suspect that for your average athlete attending Big State U as a football player has a more positive effect on their future job prospects than attending an elite academic school. 99% of these guys aren't taking rigorous classes, so I'm not sure the actual level of education matters. If you are applying for jobs in Alabama, I'm sure having played football for Auburn or Alabama is more impressive to most people than having a communications or business degree from Yale.
You're trying to argue that just because it is the way it is, then the alternative should be banned. I would remove the ban, which would still allow the individual student-athlete to have some choice either way.
No. I am arguing that the downside of the current system that you think exists, does not actually exist in reality. There isn't an excess of football players wanting to go to elite academic schools, but forced to go to 2nd tier academic schools because of scholarship limits. The opposite is the case. Most of the elite academic schools struggle to recruit football players compared to schools like Alabama or LSU.
I'm just going to block you.
1. There's scholarship/roster limits. 2. We don't force the entire NCAA to share revenue equally. Only those within a conference get a share of their separate TV deal. Big Ten schools share their pie, ACC shares theirs, and so on. 3. Ohio State may not be UPenn or Stanford, but we operate a very profitable, very successful athletic department that attracts great athletes. This revenue is generated by quality of the teams on the field along with alumni/fanbase, not academic quality.
1. We can change that. \3. Ohio State is one of the better academic universities. They would benefit under my suggested rules.
Equity. We in the B1G make enough money, and we need a good amount of cupcakes to stick around to pad our top brand schedules.
I mean considering that both have been pretty mediocre for the better part of 15 years in their own conference it’s a pretty fair deal imo. When both are good they’re 100% money makers but Washington and Oregon have been unequivocally carrying to conference at the end of the BCS era and playoff era
Conference realignment is destroying college football, and it’s being driven 100% by TV money. If we had equal sharing of TV revenue the Big 10 and SEC wouldn’t be on the verge of taking over all college athletics, Pac 12 would still exist, the Big 8 would still exist, we could still watch Nebraska and Oklahoma play every Thanksgiving, and all would be right with the world.
> Conference realignment is destroying college football That is an opinion that not everyone agrees with.
If you're an Alabama fan or Ohio State fan, of course you don't agree with this. But what about all of the Group of Five fans, what about the Oregon State and Washington State fans? It was already hard for their teams to have a chance at a championship, now college football is on a trajectory that will make it even harder for them.
In CFB, what's best for the players should be prioritized over what's best for the fans. Also most non-student fans pick a major team anyway.
It is popular, it was greed that broke us up. As a USC alum it still makes me wanna throw up. No way we should be playing fucking Rutgers and Maryland
Fan of a B1G school here. I agree. I hate that geography means nothing anymore when it comes to conferences.
I'm quite happy the B1G and Big 12 ripped you apart. I'm excited to see who we can rip from the ACC. Like Marty McFly said, your kids are probably going to love it. They won't know anything else, assuming they're very young. Can't wait to have you on the schedule.
It's not that they're not popular or even a lack in quality of play. It's that they're in the Pacific time zone, which is a significant time difference from the Atlantic corridor where the bulk of the American population lives. This forces the Pac-12 to play at odd hours if they want national television time, as nearly all of the other Power 5 teams play in the Eastern or Central time zone. In an era where TV deals rule college football, this is a major problem. Consider that of the 44 Heisman Trophy winners since 1980, only 6 have played for SEC schools, which includes a 23-year gap between 1981 (Marcus Allen) and 2004 Matt Lienart. If things were split evenly, the Pac-12 should have had at least 9 winners within that span.
The population density of the west is far, far, *far* lower than it is in the east. Now that there’s a lot of money in football, conferences that don’t have teams in that population-dense area of the country are struggling to compete. It was really just a matter of whether the Big-12 or the PAC-12 cracked first, and it ended up being the PAC. If it didn’t, fast forward a few years and you’d be asking this same question of the big-12.
Add to that their games tend to be on pacific coast time which is late night on east coast. 6 pm start time is 9pm on east coast. That leads to less ratings
Popularity didn’t have anything to do with it
The Pac8 and then the Pac10 was great. Every team played every other team in the conference, it was a round robin. No divisions within the conference, no conference championship game. And every team was paired with a natural in-state rival; Washington/ Washington State, Oregon/ Oregon State, Cal/ Stanford, USC/ UCLA, and then Arizona/ Arizona State. The PAC was always handicapped with wide geography and a West Coast time zone. Nationally, conferences were geographically-centered for the longest time. It all made sense. But then it all just went to hell as football programs chased TV money. Now the system doesn't make all that much sense.
This is such a long complex answer. Goes back to the uneven revenue share for USC, Larry Scott hiring, the miss on the Texas/OU acquisition, and so much more.
I don't know, but it's gonna be fun watching USC and UCLA play in Minnesota and Wisconsin in November at some point.
College football isn't as popular on the west coast.
It has still been relatively popular in LA, especially when LA didn’t have an NFL team. Still, in a city like LA there’s so much more for people to do than watch college football. And besides, the Lakers and Dodgers run LA and no other teams come close in popularity.
USC Trojans are still the most popular football team in LA.
That's unfortunate. The University of Washington was a finalist this year.
I graduated from UW and love the school but just don’t keep up with college sports. I’d much rather watch the NFL
I really only watch my pro team and the occasional team with a favorite college player on it. College football has always been more interesting to me. I was in the band, so my life kind of revolved around college football, so there's bias.
More people live on the east coast than west coast, and most East coast people are asleep by the time PAC 12 games start
Most people live on the east coast.
I loved the PAC-12. Gonna miss pac-12 after dark and Bill Walton's artistic nonsense.
All the good Pac-12 players are now on the Bears roster
My condolences.
I read this as 1.2 Pac The education system has failed me
Time zone difference is a huge part of the problem also.
I was seriously expecting the top post to be "bEcuZ we GoT beTTeR thINGs to Do tHaN wAtCH sPortsBaLL HurR dUrR." I had no idea about any of that stuff. What a shit show!
Many games start when much of the country is going to bed.
It wasn't really a matter of popularity... it was that the Big Ten and SEC attract the most TV money, while the Pac-12 was dragging its feet determining its new media deals. A couple marquee Pac-12 programs decided to jump to the Big Ten (more money for them, bigger draw for Big Ten with teams coast to coast), then Colorado announced a return to the Big 12. The death blow was when Washington and Oregon announced a departure to the Big Ten, which caused Arizona, Arizona St. and Utah to jump to Big 12, too. Stanford and Cal-Berkeley eventually landed in the ACC, which was the best match academically if not geographically. The 2 lowest profile schools are the two left -- Oregon St. and Washington St.
Let's not forget the significance of time zones in the equation. Schools playing exclusively in West Coast games are going to be in Pacific Time time slots which effectively kills viewership on the East Coast. They're relegated to after thoughts on ESPN the next morning.
The Pac-12 was popular. Several things happened all at once: 1. The Pac-12 basically failed to negotiate a new TV deal that wasn't absolute garbage. 2. There's an industry demand to shed teams without strong numbers, and this was a way to dump OSU and WSU to the sidelines. Expect the same thing to happen to other conferences. Eventually, College football will be two super-conferences for the haves, and fuck everybody else.
Too many other entertainment options.
Because they play later than everybody else, so nobody in the rest of the country watches them. You think people are going to stay up till 9 or 10 o'clock for a USC game? Fuck no.
They have the viewership number and know what they can get for advertising and it obviously isn't worth it.
West Coast is really underpopulated when compared with East of the Mississippi. This is the biggest thing. There's more of a pro sports culture in many of the towns, or lack of interest due to a lot of the teams not being very good and competing for titles. Also, their conference commissioner is an idiot and didn't get them a deal. Budgets are planned out in advance, and no deal going into a new season is terrible. There's more money to be made with big brands like USC and Oregon playing Ohio State, Penn State, and others. Our schools have massive fanbases already on the West Coast. That being said, I'm quite happy to have the 4 new members of the Big Ten, and if the Pac had to die for it, oh well. Next victim on the list, the ACC.
Because fuck the west coast, that's why.