PAC 12 Offseason Thread

[CatsbyAZ]

More discussion to be had here than on the actual Pac 12 board – from what little you guys probably follow of the West Coast’s flagship conference, what are your thoughts as of late?
I’ll start by saying that football & basketball-wise the Pac 12 is in a major decline. Stanford’s 9 win seasons would be 6-6 if played in the Big Ten or SEC, USC is nearing a recruiting generation away from the Bama-level recruiting and conference domination they had under Pete, Chip Kelly is off to an awful start in Westwood and his recruiting is mediocre or worse two years running now, and the consistently best team in Washington can’t make plays downfield with the conferences most dependable QB. That’s just a start.
When it comes to basketball, there’s not a single ranked program, and as whole uncertainty is dragging on with NCAA scandals (Arizona and USC), midseason coaching firings (UCLA), and generally unremarkable play and lack of promise from both experienced and new coaching staffs alike.
In both sports attendance is down across the board.
And the Pac 12 Network, which was supposed to generate millions per school isn’t panning out. The network has only a fourth of the reach of ESPN/Fox Sports, nor anywhere close to the audience reach of the Big Ten and SEC Networks, with actual ratings proportionally far less than those networks, and with many live airings generating a ZERO viewership share beyond the event’s local market: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/21/p12n-xxxxx/

It’s easy to blame the commissioner’s (Larry Scott) emphasis on promoting Olympics sports (that’ve never really had a TV following) and his focus on globalizing the Pac 12’s brand in places like China, but I highly doubt that even amidst a decline in ratings and attendance Larry Scott will be pressured to move on from those who can show him the door.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

I do think that part of the issue is just cultural. Living out here, people don't care. Here in SoCal, basketball is 90% Lakers/Clippers unless you or a family member attended UCLA. College football is slightly bigger, but I expect that will trend down a lot now that we have two Los Angeles NFL teams. I suspect a lot of USC fans [non-students and non-alum] will more naturally shift to the Rams or Chargers than continue to follow USC. 

California in general has an extremely robust college system, with a BUNCH of UC schools outside of the two who have real sports (UCLA / Cal), and USC and Stanford are small elite private schools. Most people who go to college end up at any number of other UC campuses, at Cal State campuses, or any number of other private schools. 

I think AZ, OR, WA are better culturally for college football, as those states basically have two "big" schools vying for eyeballs instead of the multitude in CA. But I think compared to the 800-lb gorilla (CA population), it's not enough to move the needle of a PAC-12 network. 

I think there's a cultural problem, and I'm not sure how to fix it. 

[MaximumSam]

I don't understand the Pac 12 "Networks."  There is more than one?  I read an article on this recently and couldn't really understand how that system was supposed to work.  The B1G Network has a lot of dog programming, but at least there is just the one channel.

[Brutus Buckeye]

Youth participation is waning on the Left coast due to concussions, and the CA culture largely condemns the level of manliness that is necessary in order to be competitive at College FB on a National level.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Youth participation is waning on the Left coast due to concussions, and the CA culture largely condemns the level of manliness that is necessary in order to be competitive at College FB on a National level.

Don't forget, we like granola and kale too. 

[Brutus Buckeye]

I'm also torn for a rooting interest. Arizona used to be my favorite Pac 10 team, but then they added my favorite Big XII team along with my favorite Mountain West team. And if that wasn't bad enough, they stuck all three into the same division. 

I'm kinda leaning towards the Utes I suppose, but mostly due to the fact that they are 3-0 vs the last three Michigan coaches.

[medinabuckeye1]

I agree with @bwarbiany .  I think it is mostly a cultural issue and I'm not sure that there is a magic fix available.  

There are LOTS of sports teams on the West Coast and I think that creates a saturation issue.  I think the fans, such as they are, tend to follow whoever is doing well and ignore everybody else.  You can see that with USC.  When they were a perennial NC contender under PC they had fans but now they aren't and as far as I can tell they don't have any substantial quantity of fans anymore.  

I think there are two other things that play into it.  Schools like USC, Stanford, and Miami (FL) are relatively small private schools.  They don't have a lot of alumni and I think that alumni are typically your hardiest fans.  I'm an Ohio State alum so I'll always be an Ohio State fan.  Even if they suck, I'll still be an alum, that doesn't change.  I think it is different for more casual fans.  Non-alums can change allegiance where alums really can't.  

I think there are two other problems for the PAC that involve demographics.  There are a LOT of people in California but how many are truly "Californians"?  I would guess that a substantial percentage of them were born in another state or another country.  That isn't as common in the midwest.  I'm an Ohioan.  I was born here and I've lived here for almost 44 years.  Both of my parents were born here.  Two of my grandparents were born here (the other two moved here from Oklahoma and Georgia more than 100 years ago).  How many people are that rooted to California?  I would guess less than the number that are that attached to Ohio.  My point is that I would guess that a substantial percentage of California's population roots for teams from back home (like @bwarbiany ) or roots for soccer teams or whatever.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

There are LOTS of sports teams on the West Coast and I think that creates a saturation issue.  I think the fans, such as they are, tend to follow whoever is doing well and ignore everybody else.  You can see that with USC.  When they were a perennial NC contender under PC they had fans but now they aren't and as far as I can tell they don't have any substantial quantity of fans anymore.  

I think there are two other things that play into it.  Schools like USC, Stanford, and Miami (FL) are relatively small private schools.  They don't have a lot of alumni and I think that alumni are typically your hardiest fans.  I'm an Ohio State alum so I'll always be an Ohio State fan.  Even if they suck, I'll still be an alum, that doesn't change.  I think it is different for more casual fans.  Non-alums can change allegiance where alums really can't.  
 

I'm closest to USC, and I think a lot of this is spot on. 
USC's fan base here in SoCal is *heavily* people who have no actual connection to the school. I think this fan base had a lot to do with the fact that USC was the closest thing we had to a pro team for a very long time, AND because they were really good. Now neither of those things are true. We have two pro teams in LA, and they're both good. It really is a "pro" town, and now that we have actual NFL teams, I think it will revert to caring a lot more about the Rams than the Trojans.

I think there are two other problems for the PAC that involve demographics.  There are a LOT of people in California but how many are truly "Californians"?  I would guess that a substantial percentage of them were born in another state or another country.  That isn't as common in the midwest.  I'm an Ohioan.  I was born here and I've lived here for almost 44 years.  Both of my parents were born here.  Two of my grandparents were born here (the other two moved here from Oklahoma and Georgia more than 100 years ago).  How many people are that rooted to California?  I would guess less than the number that are that attached to Ohio.  My point is that I would guess that a substantial percentage of California's population roots for teams from back home (like @bwarbiany ) or roots for soccer teams or whatever.

I think this is somewhat true, but not as much as you think. While we joke that everyone in California is from somewhere else, this is still a state of almost 40M people. I did a little quick googling and apparently 27% of the state (twice the national average) is foreign-born. And maybe another 25% was born outside of CA. But that's still 20M people. The only other states in the entire US with over 20M people are Texas and Florida. That should be more than enough to support sports fandom. 
I think the issue is more cultural than a matter of where these people are from. College football just isn't particularly important here. People don't grow up, like they do in Alabama, having to declare allegiance to the Tide or the Tigers. People don't sit around the office on Friday discussing USC's matchup for Saturday. And that's not a population issue; it's a culture issue. CFB just isn't pervasive here the way it is elsewhere.

[Brutus Buckeye]

I find the notion that the Midwest is just football crazy to be somewhat exaggerated. I work at a sports related company, in Columbus, and out of 50 employees that might be about a half a dozen of us that are Buckeye crazy. There are another dozen or so that are "casual" Buckeye fans. They watch the big games and enough highlights of the other games that they can make it to and from the water cooler without making a complete ass out of themselves if one of us die hards are nearby. These people would be unable to delve even an inch beneath the surface. Their eyeballs would gloss over if you asked them to list the teams in the Big Ten East. The other two dozen or so employees don't even pretend to give a crap about sports. They are just grateful to have gained employment in an industry that values their ill-advised art degree. If you try to broach the topic of sports with one of these people, they will just roll their eyes and shake their head. 

[847badgerfan]

The best fans are probably the ones in Oregon (both schools) and Utah, from what I've seen (former) and noticed on TV (latter). Washington does pretty well because it has a large alumni base, but Seattle always has a Seahawks buzz. The bay area is 49'ers (and the lame duck team to the East). LA is now the Rams. Phoenix is made up almost entirely of people not from Phoenix. I'm not sure what Colorado cares about besides the Broncos.



Maybe USC needs to move to San Diego.

[fezzador]

The best fans are probably the ones in Oregon (both schools) and Utah, from what I've seen (former) and noticed on TV (latter). Washington does pretty well because it has a large alumni base, but Seattle always has a Seahawks buzz. The bay area is 49'ers (and the lame duck team to the East). LA is now the Rams. Phoenix is made up almost entirely of people not from Phoenix. I'm not sure what Colorado cares about besides the Broncos.



Maybe USC needs to move to San Diego.

Or it needs to move to the opposite side of the country.  In the Southeast, pro teams are, at best, on equal footing with their NCAA counterparts. 
Hypothetically, if the NFL expanded into Birmingham, it would end up relocating within a decade because Alabama and Auburn would completely drown it out, support-wise.

[847badgerfan]

Or it needs to move to the opposite side of the country.  In the Southeast, pro teams are, at best, on equal footing with their NCAA counterparts.  
Hypothetically, if the NFL expanded into Birmingham, it would end up relocating within a decade because Alabama and Auburn would completely drown it out, support-wise.

Hostile takeover over the other USC?

[fezzador]

Yes.  Corporate merge.  CFB isn't big enough for two USCs.

[847badgerfan]

Lots of people (not guys like us) didn't know there was another one until Lou Holtz showed up. Serious.