Liveblogging the Pac-12 announcements
(Written by kencraw)
OK, here we go, the moment of truth for the conference:
- All decisions were unanimous, says first speaker (Michael Crow, an ASU guy).
- Larry Scott on now.
- Going through all of his thank yous, blaw, blaw, blaw.
- Talking about revenue sharing: We will have equal revenue sharing going forward, including TV revenue (sorry USC and UCLA). They will get a $2 Million bonus when it’s less than $170 total for the conference.
- Cal and Stanford in the North as expected. Will be called North and South.
- Talking about how balanced the two divisions will be and the importance of rivalry games.
- Going with the 5-2-2. Cal will play USC and UCLA every year. WOW!
- conference record, not division record, will determine who goes to the championship game.
- No other sport will have divisions.
- Basketball will have 18 game conference schedule.
- Conference record will determine who gets to host the conference championship game as well. So no neutral site.
- USC would not be eligible for conference championship games while their under sanctions from post-season.
- Not going to rule out neutral site in the future, but Scott really likes the easy and guaranteed full stadiums of hosted games.
- Scott’s trying to soft-sell the 5-2-2 as good for the Northwest schools, saying that they’ll play the SoCal schools every other year. I suspect what he means is that they’ll play one school from SoCal each year and thus each school they’ll only see every other year.
- I can’t believe the NW schools bought into this. Obviously the compromise was to give them equal revenue sharing, but still, shocking to me.
- Crow is saying that you can’t get the AD’s to be unanimous on anything but the CEO’s, well he doesn’t quite say while they’re different, but reading between the lines, they want to look united so they all vote on what they know will pass.
- Scott reiterates that he fully expects USC and UCLA’s $2 Million bonus to be short term while they’re increasing TV revenue.
- Utah will still have their revenue phased in as per their agreement when joining the conference.
- Scott reiterating the value of the hosted conference championship game and the home fans well outweigh things like weather.
- Note that revenue sharing doesn’t start until 2012-2013 year, i.e. the year of the new TV contracts.
OK, into stupid questions now. I’ll give commentary later…
October 21st, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Great overview of today’s press conference.
One nitpick: it’s “blaH, blah, blah” NOT “blaW, blaw, blaw”
I hate that the division champions aren’t determined solely on division record, which makes much more sense. Also don’t care for the “best record gets home field advantage for championship game” idea. (What happens when both teams have identical records and didn’t play head-to-head?)
Not only does this fail to provide a more level playing field (that a neutral site offers), but, it also could also potentially stack the deck against one champ or another:
Let’s say it’s Arizona at Oregon. And let’s say Arizona lost to Oregon at Autzen during the regular season. Now, they have to go back to a tough venue and try to beat them for the Rose Bowl? Doesn’t seem exactly fair.
Even if Arizona had beaten them during the regular season at Autzen, does it seem fair to put them back up there for such an important game?
I realize it isn’t necessarily about what’s fair, but I just can imagine why the neutral site discussion was taken off the table to begin with. San Diego or Las Vegas would offer two great–a truly neutral–venues for a standing championship game site.
If the argument is all about ticket sales in an “off year”–say, when Wazzu and Colorado play for it all–then we have much larger issues that need to be addressed.
If the two teams playing for the Pac 12 championship–and a trip to the Rose Bowl–can’t drum up enough interest and excitement to fill a stadium, then neither deserve to be there (or in the conference).
Go Bears!
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Hi Ken,
I’ve enjoyed participating in your Pick ‘Em league over the past couple of seasons. This week I wandered over to your “Personal Links” section, however, and came across your thoughts on Prop 8 and gay marriage. I can’t in good conscience continue taking part in a blog whose administrator has vowed to “fight against” the equal rights of gays. Sadly, your position is poorly reasoned, and, unfortunately, far too self-interested to attain the thoughtful moral objectivity it seems to strive for.
At your earliest convenience please remove my entry from the Pick ‘Em league and cancel my blog account.
Thank you.
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Note to blog readers: I have responded to Tweedledamn privately. Everyone is welcome to participate at EMFMV (or not) irrelevant of their political leanings to discuss matters relevant to Cal. If you wish to discuss my political or religious views, then my Catholic blog is the appropriate place for that.
It is Jason and I’s policy that we don’t discuss non-Cal topics here and also to make clear to all readers that I do not speak for Jason nor does he speak for me. We disagree on many things, even football related. 🙂
That is why that blog content is separate from this one. (Although all from here are welcome to participate there if they would like.)