I vote to l keep it as the PAC9

Viewing 5 reply threads

- 07/27/2023 at 5:18 PM #191258
  7 6
  
  belli1976
  Ute Fan
  
  @belli1976
  
  This way there will be only 8 conference games.
- 07/27/2023 at 6:23 PM #191263
  2
  
  GameForAnyFuss
  Ute Fan
  
  @gameforanyfuss
  
  I vote that it becomes as small as possible, so long as the way it gets small is by jettisoning the flotsam (like Colorado). The 6 or so marquee schools will command as much TV money as the full PAC12 would have but we will split it less ways.
  
  We don’t need schools like Colorado and Arizona sucking money they don’t earn via the hind tit.
- 07/27/2023 at 6:26 PM #191264
  1 2
  
  Ute Dub
  Ute Fan
  
  @chestercopperpot
  
  Agree. If there’s still a bowl tie in, much better to the Pac 10 or 9 rather than the Big 16.
- 07/27/2023 at 7:09 PM #191270
  2 6
  
  Ghost of the HEB
  Ute Fan
  
  @deseretgentlman
  
  It’s Pac6 at this point. Only question is who those 6 will be.
  - 07/27/2023 at 7:41 PM #191273
    1 1
    
    Ute Dub
    Ute Fan
    
    @chestercopperpot
    
    So you’re saying the BIG 12 is going to become the BIG 18? blah.
- 07/27/2023 at 7:21 PM #191271
  4 1
  
  radioUte
  Ute Fan
  
  @radioute
  
  Yeah, that certainly will bring in the big Media deal we’ve all been waiting for. SMH.
- 07/28/2023 at 8:40 AM #191288
  3 1
  
  MinnySunDevil
  Ute Fan
  
  @minnysundevil
  
  Was Colorado’s presence in the conference making everyone else money? Because if you get away from the histrionics, it looks like the worst program and one of the 3 or 4 worst fanbases in the conference dipped. If the Big 10 and SEC are measuring programs by how much they raise the bar, shouldn’t folks be measuring defectors by how much they who left lowered the bar?
  - 07/28/2023 at 11:10 AM #191306
    1 1
    
    2008 National Champ
    Ute Fan
    
    @cptmrgn05
    
    In the last contract, yes Colorado was making everyone money. The media deals circa 2011 were all based on market size and the greater Denver area is the #17 market in the nation.
    
    Since then, ESPN and FOX have figured out that market size isn’t a good indicator. If two schools get 100,000 eyeballs in their respective local market, the media companies would rather have the one the represents 50% of the available population than the one the draws 2%. The Bay Area may have a lot of viewers but neither Cal nor Stanford get a significant percentage of those viewers to watch. So why should they get a higher ROI?
    
    The reason the Pac doesn’t have a deal right now is that 8 of the 10 schools are either in too small of a market to matter (WSU, OSU, Oregon, Arizona) or do not draw enough viewership out of their local market (ASU, CAL, Stanford, Colorado). Adding SDSU or SMU would just be more of the same. Big local areas whose viewers either watch other schools or don’t watch at all.