|
|
Post by beaverdude on Nov 7, 2016 10:22:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 7, 2016 11:34:30 GMT -8
Who cares about reputation....adding the state of Texas for recruiting purposes would be huge. Also, if this were to happen quickly enough, we might still be able to capitalize on adding Texas as a TV market for Pac-12 Network, which would mean more money and maybe force DirecTV's hand which would also mean more money.
I think that TV rights packages aren't going to be what they are much longer though, so this may be a pipe dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 7, 2016 11:38:55 GMT -8
TCU is not going to the Pac-12, unless it drops the Disciples of Christ and probably renames itself. Houston would be in the conference before TCU. To answer your two questions: 1. Re-align. Pac-8 and new Pac-8. 2. No. What "Rep" are you talking about? The conference is generally held to be the third-best conference and makes the third-most money. Why would adding dregs from a lesser conference elevate the Pac-12's "Rep?" |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 7, 2016 11:41:43 GMT -8
Who cares about reputation....adding the state of Texas for recruiting purposes would be huge. Also, if this were to happen quickly enough, we might still be able to capitalize on adding Texas as a TV market for Pac-12 Network, which would mean more money and maybe force DirecTV's hand which would also mean more money. I think that TV rights packages aren't going to be what they are much longer though, so this may be a pipe dream. Adding Texas would be huge, as would DirecTV caving. The TV rights packages issue cuts both ways. Expand now to get the last of the lucrative TV rights deal or wait and find that there is no money in a couple of years? I feel like you are right, though. You would think that the NFL mishandling the Kaep situation has to cut into NCAA ratings at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverdude on Nov 7, 2016 11:51:38 GMT -8
2. No. What "Rep" are you talking about? The conference is generally held to be the third-best conference and makes the third-most money. Why would adding dregs from a lesser conference elevate the Pac-12's "Rep?" The "Rep" that had an undefeated Husky club listed below a one-loss Texas A&M (and now 2) club in the first College Football Playoff Selection Committee rankings of the season. Odds are Ohio State will jump them in the next ranking period. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 7, 2016 11:57:38 GMT -8
Who cares about reputation....adding the state of Texas for recruiting purposes would be huge. Also, if this were to happen quickly enough, we might still be able to capitalize on adding Texas as a TV market for Pac-12 Network, which would mean more money and maybe force DirecTV's hand which would also mean more money. I think that TV rights packages aren't going to be what they are much longer though, so this may be a pipe dream. Adding Texas would be huge, as would DirecTV caving. The TV rights packages issue cuts both ways. Expand now to get the last of the lucrative TV rights deal or wait and find that there is no money in a couple of years? I feel like you are right, though. You would think that the NFL mishandling the Kaep situation has to cut into NCAA ratings at some point. And we then become the 15th market in a 16 team league?? Now competing with even more athletic teams with even more tradition. Ya great move for maybe getting a bigger piece of financial pie. But, not as big as one might think as Texas is not giving up the Longhorn network. They'd be better off going independent like ND for football. We'll have a tough enough time getting to upper reaches of Pac 12 if Zona, UCLA make great hires. AND, if the supposed proclamation of uncle phil to spend $10mil on their next coach is accurate (and how is it not a direct NCAA violation... donating is one thing, but saying he is going to spend to "hire"  ) we'll be fighting uphill battle to even get to middle of the road. What may seem great for finances will not be good for OSU's athletic success. I mean look how successful we've been since the influx of Pac12 TV $$$... not much of a change upward, and could say other than the two hoops teams, a trend down!! |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 7, 2016 12:32:57 GMT -8
2. No. What "Rep" are you talking about? The conference is generally held to be the third-best conference and makes the third-most money. Why would adding dregs from a lesser conference elevate the Pac-12's "Rep?" The "Rep" that had an undefeated Husky club listed below a one-loss Texas A&M (and now 2) club in the first College Football Playoff Selection Committee rankings of the season. Odds are Ohio State will jump them in the next ranking period. Washington played a tepid non-conference slate. 2-6 Rutgers, 4-4 Idaho, and 2-6 Portland State all in Seattle. Up until last weekend, Washington had defeated: 2-6 Rutgers 4-4 Idaho 2-6 Portland State 2-6 @arizona (in overtime) 5-3 Stanford 3-5 @oregon 2-6 Oregon State 7-2 @utah Texas A&M's non-conference slate at the time included UCLA (with Rosen), Prairie View A&M, and New Mexico State. UCLA is 3-6 now, but the Bruins were 3-2 before Rosen got hurt. Rosen's back-up is senior walk-on, Mike Fafaul, who is now 0-3 as a starter. 3-5 UCLA (in overtime) 5-3 Prairie View A&M 6-2 @auburn 5-3 Arkansas 4-4 @south Carolina 5-3 Tennessee 2-6 New Mexico State Stanford and Utah are the two best teams that Washington has faced. But Oregon is third and Oregon State is fourth. And the fifth-best team that Washington played (Arizona) took them to overtime. Texas A&M beat both Auburn and Tennessee, and the the committee felt that both were better than Utah. (Who could really blame them?) Add in Arkansas and UCLA, who the committee felt were better than Oregon, Texas A&M's best four wins are better than Washington's best four. And Texas A&M's one loss was to #1 Alabama. The feeling was that Washington's last four were tougher than Texas A&M's back four. Washingtnon had @cal, USC, ASU, and @wazzu. A&M had @mississippi State, Ole Miss, UTSA, and LSU, so the Huskies would ultimately overtake A&M. It is funny that you mention Ohio State. Ohio State is a team that most people thought would be ranked #4 over A&M and Washington. Ohio State's best five wins are @oklahoma, @wisconsin, Nebraska, and Northwestern, and Tulsa. They could very well be ranked over Washington this weekend, but a win over USC on College GameDay probably vaults Washington over Ohio State. However, Ohio State takes care of itself by playing Michigan in the Big Game. If the loser of that is still ranked ahead of Washington, we can start worrying about "Rep." Until then, ratings are what ratings were designed to be, something to encourage rubes to buy newspapers. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 7, 2016 12:45:16 GMT -8
Adding Texas would be huge, as would DirecTV caving. The TV rights packages issue cuts both ways. Expand now to get the last of the lucrative TV rights deal or wait and find that there is no money in a couple of years? I feel like you are right, though. You would think that the NFL mishandling the Kaep situation has to cut into NCAA ratings at some point. And we then become the 15th market in a 16 team league?? Now competing with even more athletic teams with even more tradition. Ya great move for maybe getting a bigger piece of financial pie. But, not as big as one might think as Texas is not giving up the Longhorn network. They'd be better off going independent like ND for football. We'll have a tough enough time getting to upper reaches of Pac 12 if Zona, UCLA make great hires. AND, if the supposed proclamation of uncle phil to spend $10mil on their next coach is accurate (and how is it not a direct NCAA violation... donating is one thing, but saying he is going to spend to "hire" ) we'll be fighting uphill battle to even get to middle of the road. What may seem great for finances will not be good for OSU's athletic success. I mean look how successful we've been since the influx of Pac12 TV $$$... not much of a change upward, and could say other than the two hoops teams, a trend down!! Texas' revenue model only works, if they have a conference. I believe that they indicated that they would have joined the Pac-12, if the Pac-12 allowed them to keep the Longhorn Network, which the Pac-12 denied. The Longhorn Network has actually lost money every year. Texas gets its $10,980,000/yr. + 3% annual raise ($12,627,000 in 2016), but the deal was supposed to be worth more money. However, (surprise!), no one outside of Texas cares about the Longhorns. ESPN is taking a bath on it, and it is a 20-year contract. If the Big 12 disappears, Texas will need a conference, because ESPN has an opt-out clause, that they will exercise. Oregon State's revenue increase in 2011 has mostly gone to the other sports. The first major thing that it purchased was the North End Zone upgrade this off-season. |
|
|
|
Post by snohobeav on Nov 7, 2016 21:17:49 GMT -8
2. No. What "Rep" are you talking about? The conference is generally held to be the third-best conference and makes the third-most money. Why would adding dregs from a lesser conference elevate the Pac-12's "Rep?" The "Rep" that had an undefeated Husky club listed below a one-loss Texas A&M (and now 2) club in the first College Football Playoff Selection Committee rankings of the season. Odds are Ohio State will jump them in the next ranking period. Ohio State should be ranked ahead of Washington, despite their 1 (close, fluky) loss. Look at what they've done this year. Let the season play out. A big negative to this weekly playoff ranking is how it anchors perceptions and expectations. They shouldn't even rank past #4. Each week show who the top 4 are, period. Or better yet, wait until all the games have been played and announce the top 4 in December. Of course ESPN wouldn't allow that. They need the material for discussion, viewership and clicks. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Nov 7, 2016 21:37:32 GMT -8
TT and TCU would be out -- not research Universities. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 7, 2016 21:39:05 GMT -8
I do not want to be in a conference with the University of Texas. They drove Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri out of the Big 12. They are not interested in being equitable partners, only looking out after numero uno. Screw the Shorthorns.  |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Nov 8, 2016 17:36:57 GMT -8
I do not want to be in a conference with the University of Texas. They drove Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri out of the Big 12. They are not interested in being equitable partners, only looking out after numero uno. Screw the Shorthorns. I can't hit the "like" button enough in response to this post. Texas? They are the football equivalent of the ball hog in basketball. Wide open under the basket? Doesn't matter!! I got a great running 18 footer... |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 9, 2016 12:38:12 GMT -8
The "Rep" that had an undefeated Husky club listed below a one-loss Texas A&M (and now 2) club in the first College Football Playoff Selection Committee rankings of the season. Odds are Ohio State will jump them in the next ranking period. Ohio State should be ranked ahead of Washington, despite their 1 (close, fluky) loss. Look at what they've done this year. Let the season play out. A big negative to this weekly playoff ranking is how it anchors perceptions and expectations. They shouldn't even rank past #4. Each week show who the top 4 are, period. Or better yet, wait until all the games have been played and announce the top 4 in December. Of course ESPN wouldn't allow that. They need the material for discussion, viewership and clicks. The CFP poll decides all Big Six bowl spots and is also used as a tiebreaker in certain circumstances, so I understand why they rank past four. I agree that it comes out too early, though. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 9, 2016 12:40:58 GMT -8
TT and TCU would be out -- not research Universities. Both are research universities, but Texas Christian is not close to the same level as the other 12. Texas Tech is not really on the Pac-12's level either, but it is a much closer proposition. |
|
) we'll be fighting uphill battle to even get to middle of the road. 
