The "New" Pac-10?

slotdirt · #1 06-10-2010, 11:09 AM

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 · #2 06-10-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

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 · #3 06-10-2010, 11:22 AM

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 · #4 06-10-2010, 11:22 AM

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 · #5 06-10-2010, 11:29 AM

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 · #6 06-10-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

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 · #7 06-10-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

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 · #8 06-10-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

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 · #9 06-10-2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

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.