duckfan96 wrote:With the expanded playoff…serious question here…would Oregon be ok staying in Pac and adding a couple of teams? If they win the pac title they will be in the playoffs. Take their chances against Utah and udumb as opposed to Michigan and Ohio st?
Competitively, yes, it's great. You can be Gonzaga in the WCC.
Monetarily, Big 10 and Southeastern Conference schools are slated to get $70MM/yr from their TV deals while Pac-12 schools will be in the neighborhood of $30-35MM. Those B1G and Southeastern schools will be able to pay their coordinators more than we can pay our head coach. It's hugely problematic.
duckfan96 wrote:With the expanded playoff…serious question here…would Oregon be ok staying in Pac and adding a couple of teams? If they win the pac title they will be in the playoffs. Take their chances against Utah and udumb as opposed to Michigan and Ohio st?
It will definitely be easier to enter the playoffs if we stay in the Pac, tho I've heard that most Big Ten teams except for Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State are inferior to us.
Nothing about adding SMU makes any damn sense to me.
Dallas TV market & enhanced Texas recruiting footprint.
I definitely see why this makes sense. And, for the short term, staying put and adding SDSU & SMU is the smart play. Much clearer path to the playoff, and perhaps the media rights deal will skew conference revenue to the better teams. That would definitely help close the gap.
Long term, though, this definitely feels shaky. We have to hope that the Pac-12 always retains an automatic playoff berth.
Duck07 wrote:Nothing about adding SMU makes any damn sense to me.
f*** Tom Hansen.
f*** Larry Scott.
f*** George Klivakoff.
Just more incompetence on a grand-scale.
What do you propose?
I understand wanting to get in on the Dallas market but it's all reactionary and desperate and is going to lead to Oregon/UW leaving in a few years.
Now we're going to add a religious school (CJK5H) when we ignored BYU to the more proactive Big 12 while also doing nothing to absorb Gonzaga for basketball reasons? (If you're not going to dominate in Football you better kill it in M/W Basketball)
Gerald Ford Stadium: 32,000
Snapdragon Stadium: 35,000
Adding more Washington State's doesn't help. I don't doubt that it would benefit SMU even at a discount but it's not a long-term stability move to me-it's a go for broke type move.
Duck07 wrote:Nothing about adding SMU makes any damn sense to me.
f*** Tom Hansen.
f*** Larry Scott.
f*** George Klivakoff.
Just more incompetence on a grand-scale.
I initially had a little grace for George as USC did douche him over big time, but it’s clear he’s in over his head. Granted he’s at least trying somewhat unlike Larry and Tom, at least it appears he’s trying. In the end the PAC-12 universities are to blame for putting up with incompetent commissioners for so long.
Duck07 wrote:Nothing about adding SMU makes any damn sense to me.
f*** Tom Hansen.
f*** Larry Scott.
f*** George Klivakoff.
Just more incompetence on a grand-scale.
What do you propose?
It’s too late now for any moves. We are on a sinking ship that can’t be saved. The second the snobs Presidents voted no to Texas and Oklahoma, and every time those same snobs said no chance to BYU, Baylor or TCU, it killed the conference. It just took a decade for reality to set in. Image the pac with those 5 and Ok St? We would be a super conference, not a dead one.
Duck07 wrote:Nothing about adding SMU makes any damn sense to me.
f*** Tom Hansen.
f*** Larry Scott.
f*** George Klivakoff.
Just more incompetence on a grand-scale.
What do you propose?
It’s too late now for any moves. We are on a sinking ship that can’t be saved. The second the snobs Presidents voted no to Texas and Oklahoma, and every time those same snobs said no chance to BYU, Baylor or TCU, it killed the conference. It just took a decade for reality to set in. Image the pac with those 5 and Ok St? We would be a super conference, not a dead one.
Indeed, I wish the proposed 2010 Pac-16 happened even tho it wasn't our fault that it didn't
Duck07 wrote:Nothing about adding SMU makes any damn sense to me.
f*** Tom Hansen.
f*** Larry Scott.
f*** George Klivakoff.
Just more incompetence on a grand-scale.
What do you propose?
It’s too late now for any moves. We are on a sinking ship that can’t be saved. The second the snobs Presidents voted no to Texas and Oklahoma, and every time those same snobs said no chance to BYU, Baylor or TCU, it killed the conference. It just took a decade for reality to set in. Image the pac with those 5 and Ok St? We would be a super conference, not a dead one.
Hate to say it, but this is sort of where I come out. Oregon's options are:
Big 10- Turned away
SEC- Turned away
Stay in the Pac- Much lower revenue than competition
Go independent- Unlikely there's enough interest; negative impact for non-revenue sports
I haven't seen anything Kliavkoff has or hasn't done that makes me fault him at all. It sort of sounds like faulting Phil Knight for us not getting into the Big Ten despite our obvious desire to and his attempts at making it happen. The powers that be in the Pac just really screwed this thing up over the last 10 years.
Edit: Adding BYU would have done absolutely nothing for the Pac.
StevensTechU wrote:I haven't seen anything Kliavkoff has or hasn't done that makes me fault him at all. It sort of sounds like faulting Phil Knight for us not getting into the Big Ten despite our obvious desire to and his attempts at making it happen. The powers that be in the Pac just really screwed this thing up over the last 10 years.
Forgive me for thinking that him applying for and taking the job meant that he had a plan in place and that he was going to be proactive rather than reactive the entire time.
You or I could easily sit there and continue to operate without a plan and be just as effective. To that end, since we're all about media markets being the new thing, we should be courting Northern Illinois and Eastern Michigan to pair up with SMU and Georgia Southern as part of expansion.
StevensTechU wrote:I haven't seen anything Kliavkoff has or hasn't done that makes me fault him at all. It sort of sounds like faulting Phil Knight for us not getting into the Big Ten despite our obvious desire to and his attempts at making it happen. The powers that be in the Pac just really screwed this thing up over the last 10 years.
Forgive me for thinking that him applying for and taking the job meant that he had a plan in place and that he was going to be proactive rather than reactive the entire time.
You or I could easily sit there and continue to operate without a plan and be just as effective. To that end, since we're all about media markets being the new thing, we should be courting Northern Illinois and Eastern Michigan to pair up with SMU and Georgia Southern as part of expansion.
Maybe he had a plan but USC effed it up. You could argue he could’ve been prepared for something like this but nobody saw that coming. To me USC screwed over the PAC-12 more than anyone else, after all they and UCLA were some of the elitists voting against expansion.
I’m not fan of Kliavkoff, but also not ready to lump him up with Hansen and Scott yet.
OregonFan4Life wrote:
Maybe he had a plan but USC effed it up. You could argue he could’ve been prepared for something like this but nobody saw that coming. To me USC screwed over the PAC-12 more than anyone else, after all they and UCLA were some of the elitists voting against expansion.
I’m not fan of Kliavkoff, but also not ready to lump him up with Hansen and Scott yet.
The L.A. schools had been threatening to leave for a few years before they actually pulled the trigger, so Kliavkoff at least knew it was on the table when he signed on.
OregonFan4Life wrote:
Maybe he had a plan but USC effed it up. You could argue he could’ve been prepared for something like this but nobody saw that coming. To me USC screwed over the PAC-12 more than anyone else, after all they and UCLA were some of the elitists voting against expansion.
I’m not fan of Kliavkoff, but also not ready to lump him up with Hansen and Scott yet.
The L.A. schools had been threatening to leave for a few years before they actually pulled the trigger, so Kliavkoff at least knew it was on the table when he signed on.
Can you imagine if Kliavkoff came in day 1 and said that USC and UCLA needed a larger share of the revenue because they are in larger population centers? How would that have flown with Oregon fans?
Also, did that really happen? Can you link a source that there were serious threats by USC and UCLA to leave? If that was the case, why was everyone so shocked when it happened?
