If PAC expands, whom do we invite?

The only reason I see to expand would be to hold on to the So Cal market.

If you want to have a team in SoCal, San Diego St. makes the most sense. But even SDSU doesn’t really move the needle that much. You might as well use mascot as your prime criterion. In that case, my vote would be for the Cal-Irvine Anteaters and the Cal-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs. :crazy_face:

1 Like

…Scottsdale Community College Artichokes…


The truth is U$C and fUCLA barely move the needle sitting at ground zero of the media market. SoCals and LoCals are more interested in pro sports than college. Both of the colleges playing competitive football this season did bring the numbers up a bit, but only a bit.

I don’t know if adding a SoCal or LoCal school matters much. I would say what matters most is getting games televised in time slots where eyeballs on the east coast are awake and engaged in watching the games. We don’t have that happening right now, and it hurt the Conference in the CFP more than any factor.

Losing the two LA schools may not help our cause in getting better programming time slots, but it won’t necessarily hurt us either. Kliavkoff is probably right in taking things slow here. fUCLA’s $10million penalty to Cal may change the economic viability of being in the B1G for them sooner than later. They will likely be coming back. Something tells me U$C’s route may go a little longer, and have a detour through “independent” along the way. Having the “green eyed monster” for being the “Notre Dame of the West” has always been a thing for them.


I think wilner said it best. If you dont invite san diego state someone else will and they will have a team not very far from feritle recuiting fields.

San Diego State is going to win by default


It helps because it gets you in the LA market. That means that everybody with a comcast subscription, Fubo sub…any carrier that has the P12 networks, pay. It’s why the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. That is money from those markets into the B1G.

You have to have a presence in the market to be on the cable packages.

I don’t think the tv people care about getting PAC-10 games at noon EST. They have enough teams for that. They want 4pm and later.


The idea of SDSU joining really turns me off. Maybe that’s just a bias on my part. Do they have the academic cachet that most of the other schools do?

My biases aside, I think the question will be decided on the numbers. Issues like TV market will probably be decisive.

1 Like

I assume that, in the contract talks Kliakoff has had with Fox, ESPN and Amazon, that he has received some pretty strong recommendation what schools, if any, should be added to the Pac 12.

1 Like

Redlands & Chapman.


1 Like

sounds like what we anticipated, PAC12 likely going with Amazon

Shiny Rocks for the Win!

1 Like

I’m good with a streaming platform buying our broadcast rights. More prime time slots, less midnight football games.

As I stream most of my TV these days, adding live sports to it isn’t a problem. Given the lack of a quality broadcast on the traditional TV platforms, maybe we end up with a better product.


I think it would behoove the PAC-12 to raid the Big-12. If they could get a couple of teams, that would cripple the Big-12, which is the main competition for the PAC at this point.

Why not something like Kansas and TCU, as an example (not saying these two schools specifically, but as an example), gets the network into the Kansas City and Dallas/Ft Worth markets and damages the Big-12 at the same time.


Yeah. I think the first target is to go after two B12 teams. If the PAC can’t get anyone from the B12 to jump then I think holding at 10 is the best second option. A distant third option would be SDSU but who else does the PAC invite to go along with SDSU? Nobody else is even remotely appealing.

1 Like

Travel partners:
KU and KSU
UNM and a Texas school (Tech?)

What Big 12 team has as many Prime subscribers or Comcast subscribers as Southern California? Las Vegas?

Just because they subscribe doesn’t mean they watch!

1 Like

But if they subscribe, they pay for it. If they pay for it, you get more money.

1 Like

IF the PAC goes to Amazon will that matter? Not trying to debate, just wondering.