Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Jim Johnson]

If the [PAC] conference holds together, there’s a reasonable chance it expands to 12 teams. Why? Because of inventory demands.

As noted above, one of the Pac-12’s chief selling points is the ability to provide inventory for the late TV broadcast windows on both Friday and Saturday.

To meet the inventory demands, it very well could need the additional games that the 11th and 12th teams would provide.

 

Why the Pac-12 won’t stay at 10 teams once USC, UCLA leave

---

If the #Pac12 stays at 10 teams, each school gets a larger cut of new media rights revenue. However, splitting the pie matters less than increasing the size of the pie.

 

[Outlaw]

7 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

If the [PAC] conference holds together, there’s a reasonable chance it expands to 12 teams. Why? Because of inventory demands.

As noted above, one of the Pac-12’s chief selling points is the ability to provide inventory for the late TV broadcast windows on both Friday and Saturday.

To meet the inventory demands, it very well could need the additional games that the 11th and 12th teams would provide.

 

Why the Pac-12 won’t stay at 10 teams once USC, UCLA leave

---

If the #Pac12 stays at 10 teams, each school gets a larger cut of new media rights revenue. However, splitting the pie matters less than increasing the size of the pie.

 

Looks like a slim possibility but we won't get an invite if Scott cant coach and develop a better product on the field.

[ahoyboy]

14 hours ago, Triple B said:

To me, if you have to pin it down to one major factor, it was the coach immediately following CJL not being able to build upon what he started. If CSH was handcuffed in regards to that, that could be where ineptitude could come in.

Holtz was inept, Taggart wanted to prove just enough to garner interest from other schools to bail out, String was collecting a paycheck. Success came from the fact that people knew Leavitt would never leave. The community bought into to it and so did recruits. Our coach (if successful)needs to have the desire to create a legacy here and not move on. If not, find one that will. 

[NewEnglandBull]

2 hours ago, ahoyboy said:

Holtz was inept, Taggart wanted to prove just enough to garner interest from other schools to bail out, String was collecting a paycheck. Success came from the fact that people knew Leavitt would never leave. The community bought into to it and so did recruits. Our coach (if successful)needs to have the desire to create a legacy here and not move on. If not, find one that will. 

I heard somewhere that Holtz was a great guy….

[GoBulls84]

17 hours ago, Triple B said:

To me, if you have to pin it down to one major factor, it was the coach immediately following CJL not being able to build upon what he started. If CSH was handcuffed in regards to that, that could be where ineptitude could come in.

Having read a good breakdown by Corey Long over on 247, there was a degree of that involved. To sum up as best as I can recall, he was basically told to stop talking about an OCS, etc. Woolard thought football would sell itself (which it clearly did not). Combine that with apathy that set in with CSH and it was a recipe for disaster.

CSH was, no doubt, an absolute tire fire by the time he left here, but the administration at the time shares some of that blame, and I don't know that anybody can really argue too much against that.

[Triple B]

2 hours ago, ahoyboy said:

Holtz was inept, Taggart wanted to prove just enough to garner interest from other schools to bail out, String was collecting a paycheck. Success came from the fact that people knew Leavitt would never leave. The community bought into to it and so did recruits. Our coach (if successful)needs to have the desire to create a legacy here and not move on. If not, find one that will. 

You got the "String" scenario right.

The fixation that some have on this whole Leavitt would never leave thing is counter productive and totally irrelevant in these times. While it would be nice if our successful coach has a desire to create a legacy here it's definitely not a need, and incredibly difficult at our current level. The need is to get the right guy to follow him ....

 

[Triple B]

53 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

I heard somewhere that Holtz was a great guy….

And a pretty **** coach everywhere but here ......

[Rocky Style]

18 minutes ago, Triple B said:

And a pretty **** coach everywhere but here ......

Is it a reverse-Willie?

[Triple B]

2 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

Is it a reverse-Willie?

Actually, if you look at Willie's career, he's had 5 hc gigs and left 3 of them better off than when he got there, so not quite reverse.

[Brad]

28 minutes ago, Triple B said:

While it would be nice if our successful coach has a desire to create a legacy here it's definitely not a need, and incredibly difficult at our current level. The need is to get the right guy to follow him ....

Over and over again?  Your chances of success are limited.  Off topic, but we need to stop with the stepping stone mindset and prepare to have success and change head coaches when WE want to.  That means winning and paying.  Otherwise you are doomed.  There are people out there that don't just chase the next bag, they have built great programs.