Interesting article on the PAC12

[ProudUte]

Some highlights:

Chip Kelly’s buyout is gone on January 16th, suggesting something may happen next week.

PAC12 seriously considering getting rid of divisions for football as early as 2023.  Also, they are looking at going to an 8 game conference schedule.  Looking at the alliance to replace the one conference game.

ASU’s investigation.

Losing local players to other conferences.

PAC12 Football in 2022

[younglurch]

Anyone know why the BIG10 is resistant to cutting down to 8 conference games? The article mentions the PAC isn’t going down to 8 until they know they can schedule some alliance games with the ACC and BIG10 to fill the new slot. 

[2008 National Champ]

I would imagine it is because they see more value in showing conference games on their highly profitable network as opposed to non-conference games against random P12 or ACC opponent where they have to share that revenue. Until the new SEC/ESPN deal kicks in, the B1G distributes the most per team from it’s television deals.

The other issue is the non-standard conference sizes. Because the PAC only has 12 teams while the other two have 14, there are potential obstacles on which teams would not be guaranteed an alliance OOC game every year. It seems easy to have the extra teams in the B1G/ACC play each other but once you look at the matchups on paper, it benefits the PAC disproportionately.

The B1G is in the driver’s seat for this alliance and will only agree to things that directly benefit themselves.

[UteThunder]

How does the OOC games benefit the Pac-12 more than the other two?

[2008 National Champ]

1. Television game times.
2. Access to recruiting areas
3. Increased viewership: I assume that home games would be telecast on that conference’s network with the exception of the marquee “game of the week”. B1G and ACC networks are available nationwide. PAC network is only available to a select few. Why would either conference want their teams to play on a network that their home fans could not watch?
4. Would B1G and ACC teams have to give up their relationship with Notre Dame

[MDUte]

Correct, the reason why the PAC and B1G went to 9 game Conf schedules was because it was a money grab to have more inventory to sell as part of their media rights deals. But since the PAC signed such a long deal, what once was the most valuable media rights deal has been leapfrogged multiple times as the B1G and others have renegotiated more lucrative media deals. And so it’s more costly for the B1G to consider giving up 1 game of their inventory vs the PAC which isn’t getting nearly as much revenue for their games. Replacing one of the PACs games with an Alliance game would undoubtedly increase revenue for the PAC whereas it could likely lower revenue for the B1G.

[2008 National Champ]

The PAC 9 game schedule is the result of the California schools insisting on playing each other every year. The other schools all wanted to maximize games in California every year for recruiting purposes so the compromise was to split the 4 in opposite divisions. Unfortunately, you can’t fulfill both desires in less than 9 games.

[MDUte]

Yes the California schools wanted to play each other every year but that’s not the reason for the 9 game schedule. The 9 game schedule had everything to do with maximizing revenue through additional TV inventory to offer to ESPN/Fox as the PAC’s tier 1 media rights.

[Central Coast Ute]

USC’s Pat Haden said at the time his alumni would kill him if they didn’t get to play the bay area schools every year. They spend the weekend driving up the coast and back. They call it a “weekender”. USC specifically demanded that they play the bay area schools and Notre Dame, every year. The remaining schools wanted to play in California every year. With an 8 game schedule, not everyone would be able to, so they went with 9.

[MDUte]

Guys, with an 8 game schedule and playing all 5 of your divisional teams, that leaves room for 3 cross overs instead of 4. Just means it takes longer for each team to cycle through the entire conference as far as playing each team is concerned. But the conference still could’ve made 1 cross over game with a California school for every non-Cali school that wasn’t playing a divisional road game already in Cali so that every non-Cali school played in Cali every year. I realize the Cali schools were adamant about playing each other every year when the new PAC 12 was formed but Notre Dame has been and always will be an OOC game for SC and Stanford. It has nothing to do with going to a 8 or 9 game schedule. The reason for going to 9 games was to increase Revenue. Larry Scott (and any commissioner for that matter) had the responsibility of increasing revenues for the member schools as his top priority. When Larry Scott was hired he saw the opportunity to expand not for expansion sakes. It was all about creating a CCG, which at the time required you to have 12 teams. The CCG is about only 1 thing….increasing revenue. It’s a lucrative revenue producing game. When he went to the negotiating table for the media rights deal, his sole focus was on increasing revenue. Having only 8 games to sell tier 1 rights for would have been worth less than if they went with a 9 game model that included 6 extra games of inventory each year. And Larry Scott was all about driving that number as high as he could and then pound his chest about how he signed the largest media rights deal in the history of college sports at the time. That became his calling card for the next 6 years until it was clear that the PAC was falling behind everyone else.

[2008 National Champ]

I’ve tried to do an 8 game schedule and it just doesn’t work if you are forced to have all of the California teams play each other every year.

Using the current division structure you would have each school play one game against each of the crossover areas, i.e. Utah would play one Washington, one Oregon, one NorCal per season. But the games aren’t available because SC or UCLA uses two of their games on Stanford and Cal. So Utah (in my example) would have to replace a NorCal school win an Oregon or Washington to accommodate. Only the California schools are happy.

Creating two 6 team divisions with all California schools in one. The 6 schools not aligned with California are unhappy. And how do you decide which schools get to join California since that is viewed as an advantage?

What about Pods? Play 3 from your division and 3 from each of the other? Oh wait, that’s 9 games so that’s a non-starter.

In a conference that takes unanimous approval to do anything, having less than a 9 game schedule was never going to work. You can blame it on the California schools, you can say it was for more content on their network.,, it amounts to the same result. And moving to 8 games will require the California schools to agree not to play each other every year or the whole thing blows up before you even get into the logistics.

[MDUte]

What you’re not taking into consideration is each division already plays 2 Cali schools each year. So for example, every year Utah is set up to play 1 home game vs USC and 1 road game vs UCLA or vice versa. The Cali game is already built into each division. Then on top of that you can allow for Utah to host a No Cali school 1 year and then the next year Utah could visit a No Cali school under the 8 game schedule (3 crossover games). My point is every Non-Cali school would still be able to play at a minimum of 1 game in Cali every year and on many years they would get both a So Cal and No Cal game. 9 games schedule makes this happen more frequently obviously but the 9 game doesn’t make this happen every year. Next year for example, Utah does not play a road game in No Cal.

This is true for the No Cal schools as well. The Non Cali schools are guaranteed of playing at least 1 game in Cali within their division every year under both the 8 or 9 game schedule. The 9 game schedule allows the Non Cali schools to more frequently get a road game in So Cal but it’s not guaranteed to happen each year under the 9 game schedule. It would just happen more frequently than an 8 game schedule.

[Tony (admin)]

I think having divisions provides an easier path for the Utes to get to the Pac-12 championship game. Am I wrong?

[PNW Ute]

If (and it’s a big if) USC becomes the force that they could become under Riley, Utah would have an easier path to the championship game without divisions.

Would probably also mean they didn’t play USC (and the other South teams) every year. 

[UteThunder]

Depends on the year and who you get scheduled. It could be that Utah avoids the top 3 teams in a given year. It could also mean Utah avoids the bottom 3 teams in a given year. It will really be a crap-shoot.

[Central Coast Ute]

Depends on USC

[Hellhound152]

The issue is and will always be So Cal access.  Take divisions away your could go years without playing in So Cal.