Good read SI Big 10/PAC article
TV also killed the Radio Star
I heard Peacock streaming doesn't allow for bars and restaurants only private homes.
Is streaming going to kill sports bars?
*Video
Meh. Not worth the read. Sample quote:
"So the schools will keep exploiting the athletes and ruining rivalries and hurting their own win-loss records, all while assuring fans that increased revenue is worth rooting for and “student-athlete welfare” comes first."
In this age of NIL, exploitation is less than it has been since the invention of the television.
As Alfred Hitchcock said about films, "The public is never wrong." In other words, the money will follow those who create the best model for fans. That's basic reality. Fans en masse will dictate.
And student athletes are catered to academically in ways other students aren't. I tutored a football student for a bit, and my daughter tutored a bunch of athletes at another P5 school. The difference between a two hour flight and a four hour flight is minimal in the scheme of things. 95% of the time is spent preparing for the flight.
As for ruining rivalries: USC and UCLA will always play. OSU and M will always play. MSU might occasionally lose their only rival (us), but pardon my lack of sympathy.
The moment anyone claims that full-ride scholarship athletes at major academic universities are getting "exploited", one may as well find something more worthwhile (and honest) to read.
The definition of "exploited" is: benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them. I would definitely say many full-ride scholarship athletes are being underpaid relative to the revenue they generate for their universities, especially if a "full ride" is their only benefit. I don't think it's dishonest to think that some athletes are exploited.
Michigan football created a $100mil surplus last season. A seat in a few classes, room, board, and food still leaves a wide gap between what your performers brought in and what you gave them.
It does, unquestionably, suck for fans of Wazzu, Oregon St, Cal and Stanford, assuming they don't find a decent landing spot.
That said, I just learned that Montana and Idaho used to be in the Pac-12's predecessor, the PCC. They were unceremoniously dumped in the 1950s realignment and no one seems to shed tears for them now.
Not only has this (schools being jettisoned) been going for a long, long time, but shit changes as well. UCF didn't EXIST as an institution in 1960. It's has the 2nd largest school population in the country today. Why shouldn't they be a P5 institution in a state that has grown like a weed over the past 80 years?
Weed is the appropriate epithet
Not sure why anyone would be upset. All of this is just an off shoot of greed and need for money for NIL. This is todays landscape. We will eventually get down to 2-3 super conferences that have nothing to do with the NCAA and are just another professional league.
Agreed. And the amount of time he spends whining about Stanford and all the various championships it has won in Olympic sports doesn't mean a thing in this football-related decision. All of those sports will continue to be fine no matter if Stanford is independent or in another conference.
College football fans dont dictate shit. Watch a college football and imagine those commercial breaks sitting in a stadium $$$ is all that matters the rest is just window dressing.
Lets not lament the demise of the PAC too much. The idea of superconferences has been around for a couple decades. One conf. had to go. Most would have bet on the Big 12 being the likely candidate but they've proven more resilient.
I'm on the west coast and have had DirecTV for years. They don't carry the PAC Network. I doubt there has ever been some serious clamoring for it. One of the reasons I still pay stupid amounts for DirecTV is they've had the B1G Network since day 1.
The B1G & SEC are the peeps with the largest stack of chips at the table. The Big 12 & ACC are gonna be also rans in football. The ACC will always have MBB but that only goes so far.
The B1G is gonna make a hard play for - Stanford, FSU, UVA or UNC, and...... yeah..... Notre Shame. They would welcome them with open arms. ND would be the biggest fish in a small pond that is drying up in the ACC. The B1G doesn't care about Cal or Clemson. It's all about market sizes and revenue.
I agree with your thoughts, therefore I decree you to be a smart person. How do I sign up for your weekly newsletter?
The b12 “lives” but it is a second tier conference now with a tv deal worth less than half of what b10 and sec have.
They’ve lost all of their most profitable teams: a&m, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska… what exists now is really a midmajor+ conference with a nice brand name.
Big 12 should merge with ACC and they may have some credibility
“Cal is not far behind its Bay Area peer school (Stanford ) in terms of all-sports excellence and heritage.”
Come again
Cal is a great fit in the conference for many reasons. Swimming powerhouse. Memorial Stadium is an underrated gem. I love Cal. I will send my kids there if they don’t want to go to Michigan. But Stanford is simply beyond compare across “all sports”. Except the ones (football and distantly basketball) that matter for this exercise.
Way I see it success long term for the B1G is to make the onboarded PAC fan bases happy. Adding Cal and Stanford would help there as they could have their own pod. As it stands fan bases of those schools are lukewarm to this development and in the history of business (and sports is surely that) hostile takeovers have a checkered past that usually work out terribly for shareholders (the fan bases here).
August 6th, 2023 at 10:10 AM ^
T'was beauty that killed the beast.
August 6th, 2023 at 12:27 PM ^
Not Forde's best, IMO. Just because right now Stanford and Cal are not in another conference doesn't mean they won't be soon and just because they won a gazillion men's and women's water polo championships doesn't mean anything more than they dominated certain sports post Title IX which has adjusted the collegiate sports landscape as much as TV and media deals.
Is anyone pining for Princeton or Yale to be in a major conference because they still claim more football national titles than any other schools? Teams are always rising and falling. LSU and Clemson had two NCs before 2003 but have won a combined 5 in the last 20 years. If there is TV money there, shouldn't they best position themselves to get it?
I understand missing rivalries but see this as more expanding opportunities for those rivalries as well as for the teams and athletes. Sure would be nice to have some time zone experience going into something like an uncertain cfp time or NCAA tourney. Would probably make the incoming teams better by having more resources, raising the profile of the players (more NIL $$$), and creating a deeper pool of intra-conference transfers.
My biggest hangups 20 years ago were that players had no free-agency (yet coaches did) and that they were not compensated. I am happy we are working through those things though I don't think I would have guessed this is the form it would take.