The "New" Pac-10?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I think the scenario Cannon is describing would happen over the course of like 50 years. Kansas has probably THE biggest college hoops alumni fanbase outside of Carolina maybe, and those fools travel. Kansas could play the sisters of the poor for years on end and still get the Collisons and Rushes and Collins of the world to come there. Besides, is playing Air Force, San Diego State, and Wyoming really any worse than the usual slate of Iowa State, Nebraska, and Colorado? I'd argue those three teams in particular are actually better.

You are confusing attendance at games with things that really matter. You think that Kansas versus AF at 10p eastern on CSTV is going to attract kids? You think they will maintain the athletic budget playing in a non BCS conference? Think they will miss the football revenue that they received from Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and the rest of the football powers in the Big 12?

Perhaps what Kansas would do is become an Independent in mens basketball like Notre Dame, make their own tv deal and play a national schedule?

[slotdirt]

Find me a single time in recent history where a big Kansas game wasn't on ESPN at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time - KU games are nearly always the late part of an ESPN double header. I don't see the big deal there. Kansas could be in the Ivy League and would still get television exposure. Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, and to a somewhat lesser extent for a variety of reasons, UCLA and Duke, kind of transcend conference when it comes to college basketball.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are confusing attendance at games with things that really matter. You think that Kansas versus AF at 10p eastern on CSTV is going to attract kids? You think they will maintain the athletic budget playing in a non BCS conference? Think they will miss the football revenue that they received from Texas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and the rest of the football powers in the Big 12?

Perhaps what Kansas would do is become an Independent in mens basketball like Notre Dame, make their own tv deal and play a national schedule?

Who says a conference with Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State, etc. in it would still be on CSTV? The PAC 10 has had a stupid contract with a Fox Sports Network that absolutely nobody watches for eons and that doesn't seem to have hurt recruiting at UCLA.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Find me a single time in recent history where a big Kansas game wasn't on ESPN at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time - KU games are nearly always the late part of an ESPN double header. I don't see the big deal there. Kansas could be in the Ivy League and would still get television exposure. Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, and to a somewhat lesser extent for a variety of reasons, UCLA and Duke, kind of transcend conference when it comes to college basketball.

Do you understand that they were on because their conference had a deal with ESPN, not because ESPN decided to show them? They may be going to a conference with a deal with CSTV. Have you ever once seen a game on CSTV? Remember last year when TCU football was undefeated and ranked in the top 5? Did you remember seeing any of their games? Probably not because they were on CSTV which virtually no one gets because it requires a separate subscription on most cable deals.

The world changes and like it or not this is a kick in the balls to Kansas basketball. It isn't like they are going to become terrible but they are certainly going to be negatively impacted

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Who says a conference with Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State, etc. in it would still be on CSTV? The PAC 10 has had a stupid contract with a Fox Sports Network that absolutely nobody watches for eons and that doesn't seem to have hurt recruiting at UCLA.

The Fox contract runs out which is why the Pac 10 is moving so swiftly. The vast majority of UCLA's best players the last 10 years are from Southern CA. That is not a coincidence.

[slotdirt]

I think we're arguing completely different things here. You are assuming that a basketball conference featuring Kansas will continue to be shown on CSTV. I am assuming that many networks would jump at the chance to form a television deal with a conference that features Kansas/Kansas State and others (maybe Iowa State, maybe Missouri, maybe even Memphis).

There's a 0.0 percent chance that Kansas is going to end up in a conference that has no basketball exposure. Zero. None. Nil. Arguing that a conference like the MWC has only a CSTV deal on June 10, 2010, is completely irrelevant to this discussion, IMHO.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I think we're arguing completely different things here. You are assuming that a basketball conference featuring Kansas will continue to be shown on CSTV. I am assuming that many networks would jump at the chance to form a television deal with a conference that features Kansas/Kansas State and others (maybe Iowa State, maybe Missouri, maybe even Memphis).

There's a 0.0 percent chance that Kansas is going to end up in a conference that has no basketball exposure. Zero. None. Nil. Arguing that a conference like the MWC has only a CSTV deal on June 10, 2010, is completely irrelevant to this discussion, IMHO.

I don't know where you get the idea that one school will make a difference? I have no idea how long the contract with CSTV lasts or what gets covered on the MTN but they cover all the mountain west sports and no one else wants that product. No major network is going to pay serious money to cover a bunch of schools mainly in small markets with virtually no national name recognition. None. You are completely delusional if you think that kansas basketball is big enough to make a network pay a billion dollars to cover the mountain west. Please read the vast number of articles on this topic that are all over the web. If you can't understand that bigtime football drives the bus then this discussion is a moot point. Individual teams simply don't matter that much especially basketball ones.

[slotdirt]

So you're saying that if North Carolina was suddenly in a conference with Duke, Maryland, NC State, and Memphis (Memphis being a perennial free agent in realignment discussions, so still applicable) along with five or six other randoms akin to BYU, et. al., that no major television network would want to cover that new conference? Because that is basically what you're saying in so far as Kansas/Kansas State/Missouri/Iowa State/Memphis goes in this conversation. I think you're vastly underestimating the public interest in college basketball.

[slotdirt]

Oh, and the Kansas/Kansas State cabal is vastly superior on the football side (both in attendance and recent performance) than the UNC/Duke crew in that last analogy.

[slotdirt]

CU has officially joined the Pac-10, according to the conference website. That should really improve the conference in both basketball and football.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

So you're saying that if North Carolina was suddenly in a conference with Duke, Maryland, NC State, and Memphis (Memphis being a perennial free agent in realignment discussions, so still applicable) along with five or six other randoms akin to BYU, et. al., that no major television network would want to cover that new conference? Because that is basically what you're saying in so far as Kansas/Kansas State/Missouri/Iowa State/Memphis goes in this conversation. I think you're vastly underestimating the public interest in college basketball.

You are missing the point. The ACC added football schools when it expanded. Do you think they added FSU and Miami and VaTech because of their basketball prowess? Don't you think there is a reason that Memphis always gets left behind? It is because they have a weak football program.

The schools that you mention like Kansas State and Iowa state are toxic assets. No one outside of the towns that they are based in cares a bit about those schools. The schools that you mention are all in small markets and outside of kansas have no national cache. They just dont, especially when it comes to football. The sad truth is that the football programs pay for the vast majority of sports at these schools.

I am not making this stuff up. There is a boatload of info available on the breakup of these conferences and the reasoning why. Rather than come back with hypothetical situations read up and see what is driving the bus. Hell I dont like it either but at least my school is lucky enough to be in one of the "have" conferences.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Oh, and the Kansas/Kansas State cabal is vastly superior on the football side (both in attendance and recent performance) than the UNC/Duke crew in that last analogy.

Dude attendance is not a factor, nor is recent performance. TV ratings are and none of those football teams move anyones chains.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

CU has officially joined the Pac-10, according to the conference website. That should really improve the conference in both basketball and football.

What it does is move the Pac -16(?) into the biggest mountain time zone tv market, Denver. That's why they got to come along to the party. You have to realize this has very little to do with sports. It is all about money.

[slotdirt]

I'm not missing any point. I get it's about money. I understand that is why Kansas and Missouri are getting left behind on the football side. That being said, it's absolutely foolish to suggest that Kansas and Missouri and those couple other schools are going to end up in a conference that doesn't have a major television package when all of this is said and done.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What it does is move the Pac -16(?) into the biggest mountain time zone tv market, Denver. That's why they got to come along to the party. You have to realize this has very little to do with sports. It is all about money.

I'm sorry, but do people in Denver really give a crap about CU sports? Serious question. I'd always thought Denver was much more a pro sports town.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I'm not missing any point. I get it's about money. I understand that is why Kansas and Missouri are getting left behind on the football side. That being said, it's absolutely foolish to suggest that Kansas and Missouri and those couple other schools are going to end up in a conference that doesn't have a major television package when all of this is said and done.

What conference do you think they are going to if the Big 12 continues to fall apart? It isn't foolish, it is reality.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp

[slotdirt]

Ok, let me type this again:

I'm not suggesting KU/K-State/ISU/Mizzou are going to a conference that CURRENTLY has some big major television package (though I've read rumors that a Kansas-Big East discussion is ongoing), I'm suggesting that whatever conference those four plus Baylor end up in if this plays out the way it looks it might will absolutely, no doubt about it, have a major television package for, at the very minimum, college basketball.

The end.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I'm sorry, but do people in Denver really give a crap about CU sports? Serious question. I'd always thought Denver was much more a pro sports town.

I'm not trying to be an ass but do you understand what is happening here? The Denver market would be getting the pac-10 games now. The people there would be exposed to the Pac-10. They currently arent. Denver is like the 17th largest TV market in the country that would now be Pac-10 territory. It is by far the largest TV market in the Mountain time zone. The expansion gives the pac 10 the LA market(2), SF market(6), Dallas/Ft Worth(7), Houston (10), Seattle(13), Phoenix(14), Denver(17), Sacramento (19) and Portland (23)markets. That is 9 out of the top 23 TV markets in the country. Don't you think that is a whole lot more important clout-wise than kansas basketball? You don't think that every Sat night in the fall we are going to get ABC or Fox double headers featuring pac 10 teams? You don't think that the new pac-10 football championship isn't going to be a major deal?

The really troubling thing is that these same college presidents that are selling out thier conference partners for a bigger piece of the pie will howl with indignity if a player gets a pair of shoes or if someone buys their parents a plane ticket to see them play. "It's all about the student-athlete" they will cry and some idiots will actuall believe them. KY's president willing signed up calipari knowing full well that the shadester will virtually only "recruit" one and done guys who will most likely not bother to attend class but for one semester. USC's president ignored Carroll's players being better paid than some NFL teams and now they are going to the sidelines while Carroll gets paid to screw up the Seahawks.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Ok, let me type this again:

I'm not suggesting KU/K-State/ISU/Mizzou are going to a conference that CURRENTLY has some big major television package (though I've read rumors that a Kansas-Big East discussion is ongoing), I'm suggesting that whatever conference those four plus Baylor end up in if this plays out the way it looks it might will absolutely, no doubt about it, have a major television package for, at the very minimum, college basketball.

The end.

You seem to be the only person in the country that has this opinion. Seriously if you think that Iowa state, Kansas State, Missouri, Baylor, kansas and a few other minor teams are going to get a major TV contract you are crazy.

[Cannon Shell]

UPDATE: The Texas legislature may inadvertantly save the Big 12 if it continues to try to tack Baylor onto Pac-10 expansion. Colorado is moving to accept a bid first, which would make it more unlikely the Pac-10 would succumb to the political wrangling that aims to move the entire Texas contingent of the Big 12 into the westernmost BCS conference.

If Texas decides it would rather make the lion's share of the football money in a UT and the 11 Dwarfs scenario, the monolithic school could press for TCU, Boise State and/or Utah to fill out the Big 12, giving those burgeoning football powers a chance at a BCS bid each season, while maintaining a strong hoops tradition by retaining Kansas, Kansas State and Baylor.

-------------------------

While they might not really want the Big 12 to break up, it still has to sting a bit that the likes of Kansas and Kansas State are never mentioned for realignment. They're left out in the cold with other football also-rans like Iowa State and Baylor.

If the Big 12 sends Missouri and Nebraska off to the Big Ten, and Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado heads to the Pac-10, where does that leave the other four?

Basketball-wise, that's not a bad group. In the full spirit of speculation, we can imagine that the lonely four could negotiate as a group, looking first to Conference USA. Whether they would join the existing schools or siphon off top regional programs like Memphis, Houston and UTEP to form a new conference is an interesting question. In fact, throw Southern Miss into that group, and Iowa State would be facing two former Cyclone coaches each season in Larry Eustachy and Tim Floyd.

Since they would have to align with other Division I football programs, the only conferences that merit much of a look are the MAC and the Sun Belt. Neither makes much sense on a budgetary or competitive level. It could be that top members of each would be asked to join a new mega-conference along with some C-USA teams.

Some columnists have opined that the Jayhawks might look good to the Big East or SEC, which could possibly value the basketball end of things enough to take on a school with little football relevance and even less geographical benefit.

The big moves are somewhat obvious. The Pac-10 and the Big Ten are grabbing revenue-producing football powerhouses, and none of the possible leftover Big 12 candidates fit that bill. Watching those four schools try to pick up the pieces might be one of the more interesting storylines in the next few months.