[quote=“Greginslc, post:63, topic:7388”]
the Super Conferences [/quote]
agree college football would be lame if it was just an eventual 20-24 team big ten and 20-24 team sec. (20 each is more likely based on available brands as well as optimization from an espn/fox standpoint - optimization=paying the next tier a lot less money).
fbs college football will only survive/resemble how it is now if the playoff is expanded and open (without automatic bids.)
Plenty of good players outside those 40-48 teams to do well in the playoff and make the other 35 non super conference games per week still interesting if there’s access.
The longer we go without an announcement, the more I appreciate the work that’s being done, Kliavkoff has rallied the rest of the PAC to at least give him some time to build some options.
Seems apparent we could go to the B12. But that spells a big demotion for some of our conference mates. (Not a dig at you, Greg. The Utes appreciate everyone in the PAC.)
PAC10 + scheduling agreement? Who knows, maybe with the B1G? (Ie, get you guys out of the full insanity of 5+ trips betwee 1000-2500 miles east, at least for a few years.) Get FOX to help narrow the gap in our media revenue.
PAC10 + ACC scheduling agreement? What kind of money will be involved with the accelerated media rights? I could deal with a 7+2 schedule with them.
Or maybe even a 7+1+1 with the B1G and ACC.
There’s all kinds of tricks being formulated to bait one or more PAC schools into bailing, causing a panic evacuation.
I think we’ll get a good idea which way things are going before end of July. This won’t go on for too long, but the longer it goes on the more credible our options become. My take, anyway.
Keeping CFP access gives a glimmer of hope but I’m concerned that the TV money, NIL and transfer portal could relegate anyone outside the super conferences to farm club status. I hope Kliavkoff comes up with something creative.
It’s likely a function of how much money the pac 12 is offered, I don’t see Oregon Stanford and Washington signing anything long term with the pac 12.
I wonder if ESPN can add money to the ACC deal to get Oregon, Washington if they are unwanted by the big ten and the pac seems doomed? Get them the 50mm plus per year?
[quote=“Ma-ake, post:66, topic:7388”]
…ates. (Not a dig at you, Greg. The Utes appreciate everyone in the PAC.)PAC10 + scheduling agreement? Who knows, maybe with the B1G? (Ie, get you guys out of the full insanity of 5+ trips betwee 1000-2500 miles east, at least for a few years.) Get FOX to help narrow the gap in our media revenue.PAC10 + ACC scheduling agreement? What kind of money will be involved with the accelerated media rights? I could deal with a 7+2 schedule with them.Or maybe even a 7+1+1 with the B1G and ACC.There’s all kinds of tricks being formulated to bait one or more PAC schools into bailing, causing a panic evacuation.I think we’ll get a good idea which way things are going before end of July. This won’t go on for too long, but the longer it goes on the more credible our options become. My take, anyway.
[/quote
Wherever Utah lands, or stays, it will be just fine. You know how to win and have done it pretty much against everyone. More than once.
So Cal fans are notoriously fickle. The only time they care is when they are winning big. It’s nothing like the conference they are moving to where even the bad teams get bid crowds.
It’s not so much as “fickle” as it is there are 100,000 more things to do here, and better weather to do it in, than Ann Arbor, Columbus, Tuscaloosa, Norman, etc. etc. Why go watch a team that sucks when we can go to the beach in November, or December? And it doesn’t matter what team it is. There’s more competition for the entertainment dollar here.
That is hubris. The reality is that college football is changing seismically and we better grab the conference that benefits us. The coastal dilettantes like UO and UW, Cal and Stanford are better B1G prospects than we are and will bolt at the first opportunity, leaving us ( the 4 corners schools) to pick up the pieces. Unless there is conference affiliation with the ACC ( which will likely be poached by the SEC), our best bet is to get to the Big 12 with AZ and AZST. That gives them 2 more AAU schools, 3 if CU follows. We bring a lot to the Big 12 and we recruit in their territory heavily. I further suggest San Diego State also apply to give the conference a footprint in Southern California.
Kliavkoff has successfully slowed down the panic exit.
PAC schools will get some idea what a new media rights contract will mean.
Interestingly, the Big12 is doing something similar, although their agreement and media revenue is still in place until OU and Texas leave. A huge question is what their media rights numbers will be without those two schools, and including various PAC schools.
Our existing contract was so bad, we may get a decent bump up even with the LA schools leaving.
From a competition standpoint, it may make more sense to preserve the P5, from both the schools’ perspective as well as a competitive media market perspective. Having 2 behemoths each with a superleague would damage everything else, and the under-par members in those superleagues would be at risk for expulsion, as well.
Yes not very sensible to turn down an offer before you hear it - especially when it’s coming in 30 days. — But its not looking good for Utah and BYU per this article.
ACC/PAC merger doesn’t likely move the needle financially (per ESPN who is the needle mover). ACC not going to take on low value inventory.
Poaching the big 12 and pac 12 by the ACC doesn’t include Utah or BYU.
Conference presidents want to keep their job first rather than do what’s best for the schools.
ESPN & FOX are trying to monopolize the big TV money, elevate the B1G and SEC above everyone else.
Outside of ABC’s relationship with ESPN and NBC covering Notre Dame playing anyone, the broadcast networks have kind of abandoned CFB.
The logistical nightmare of CFB games was somewhat exposed as hype during the Covid season, where teams might get lined up for games sometimes a weekout.
Idea: Wildcard Week
Steal eyeballs from the B2 in non-B2 matchups decided later in the season, say a particular weekend in November before the end of the season. NBC and / or CBS line up matchups between whoever the hot teams are late in the season to deflate revenue for FOX & ESPN.
This would be a play not for particular fanbases, but for college football fans in general. Could be Utah vs Cincinnati, could be Boise vs Baylor.
This isn’t so much a gimmick, but a way to increase fan interest, like interleague play in MLB. Cultivate CFB overall, spread out of the riches and slow down / negate the movement to super leagues, a flexible date within conference seasons, like the SEC has been doing forever, but use it to promote the bigger landscape and increase overall fan interest.
Personally, I would rather have my university shutter all sports and focus on R&D and micro enterprise incubators than get into this net sum zero arms race.
It’s like no one watched the movie War Games. What these TV networks are doing is nothing short of a game of global thermonuclear war.
And where is the NCAA? The next step will be the shuttering of their organization if they don’t step up with something of a plan.
The only morally redeemable aspect of college football, knowing the science that we know and knowing the players won’t be compensated in a meaningful way, is getting degrees to people who are outside middle and upper middle class pipelines from universities people have heard of (since the universities/ teams are on major networks - the post graduate research pissing contests really have very little to do with that brand recognition - it’s being on TV that matters)
So long as fbs doesn’t truly break up and there is access to the playoff it should be fine - and not much different than it’s been with bowl tie ins for decades.
There’s nothing more awesome than those SEC graduate patches - even if they aren’t an AAU school
Without a presence in Southern California, what leverage does the PAC have to negotiate? The anchors of the conference, whether you like them or not, just went overboard. What’s left ? Stanford, with a passive fan base. Cal, with a passive fan base. Oregon, with great name brand and a great fan base. Washington, with a good fan base and great name. And us, with a great fan base and good curb appeal in the underdog role.
Colorado…okay with good academics. And the AZ schools, which have good name appeal along with great basketball.
And the Big 12? Great basketball and football programs and a need for academic upgrade. Utah and Arizona, as states, are good cultural fits for the Big 12, having populations with similar values. Remember, this is not just about the U, but about the people which pay taxes to support it. You have to get their buy- in.
I think the thought here is to partner with the ACC and (most critically) ESPN to play the B1G game of getting a conference sports network on as many local cable and satellite bundles as possible. This might allow us to get some more $$$ from ESPN for both the ACC and PAC going forward. The main reason the PAC-12 network foundered was that Larry Scott had no leverage to get the network on satellites, and local cable packages, which generates both better ratings ($$) and fees for carrying the network (hopefully $$$$$). Partnering with ESPN could really change that game in that area. Once again, though, this will require renegotiating the ACC’s deal with ESPN without letting Clemson, FSU and friends jump ship.
The reason people are even talking about this, is that most ACC schools feel royally screwed by their current TV deal, and it doesn’t end for more than a decade, so they might be open to a new arrangement.
I wouldn’t put it past the Legislature to force the U into something, regardless of other options. We could get a B1G invitation and some would want to force us to become BYU’s travel partner.
The snag is the state is 50/50 on Utah-BYU, so we’d have a fighting chance to get that kind of legislation killed, especially if the penalty was a lack of association with other research universities, particularly given the U’s propensity for spinoffs.
Remember, the Righteouslature cannot write a binding law on BYU requiring them to play Utah. This question was asked ten years ago, and OLRGC determined the law was likely unconstitutional if passed. It is why they dropped it.
Generally the two universities have desired to maintain some amount of regular scheduling, if for no other reason than to reduce operating costs. Only if they became conference opponents again would the pressures be amped up to make the games an annual event.
