Larry Scott has done a lot of things right since he became commissioner of the Pac-10. He's had a few flubs, too. But hey, can't fault the man for trying. At least he thinks the Pac-10 brand is worth something and tries to get the proper market capitalization for it.
But this latest piece of news is both puzzling and alarming.
The realignment part was fine. You were never going to please everybody. The revenue distribution scheme is OK, though it's a bit of a head scratcher why UCLA deserves any extra cash - considering the Bruins have done nothing for the conference since 1998.
The real atrocity, however, is the decision to play the conference championship game on a campus site, hosted by the team with the best record.
Huh?
So all the dalliances with Texas and other Big 12 schools, the Plan B of grabbing Utah and Colorado, the big splash of an NYC preseason press conference, the new logo, the talk of a TV network ... all that, so you can play the inaugural Pac-12 title game at 54,000-seat Autzen Stadium in Eugene?
In a conference that boasts more major metropolises than any other, with L.A., San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, not to mention also San Diego, you chance having to host the crown jewel event of the conference - the Super Bowl, if you will - in Corvallis? Or Tucson?
Scott invoked the NFL on the rationale of bestowing home field advantage on the team with the best record, but does he recall the Buffalo Bills hosting four straight Super Bowls in the early 1990s? The NFL is not stupid enough to play its showcase event on a contingency basis.
To be sure, next season is going to be tricky for the new Pac-12. USC is still on probation (pending an appeal) and therefore won't be eligible to play for the championship. Otherwise, it would've been a slam dunk to play the inaugural game at the Rose Bowl.
Maybe Scott is concerned that without the Trojans, it would be difficult to sell 90,000 tickets. He's hedging his bets - better to play in front of a full house in Eugene or Tucson than a sparse crowd in Pasadena. He clearly wanted to avoid a repeat of those memorable ACC title games in Jacksonville, where empty seats outnumbered paying customers.
But L.A. is not Jacksonville. And the Pac-10 is not the ACC (if Scott doesn't believe that, then what the hell is point of expansion?).
We say here that an inaugural Pac-12 title game in Pasadena - even without USC - would've been a smashing success. The nation's second-biggest media market doesn't have an NFL team, but does know how to throw a party (heard of the Academy Awards? Super Bowl? World Cup? Olympics?). The sheer novelty of the event would've guaranteed a sellout. And L.A. is a short flight away from anywhere in Pac-12 country, with lots of cheap lodging.
And that's how you build the momentum for a nascent project. Chances are, the Pac-12 title might be worth a trip to the BCS title game. The exuberant fans would want more, and this event would become as anticipated as the SEC championship game or the new Big Ten title game (bet you Jim Delaney wouldn't chance having that game played in West Lafayette or East Lansing).
Then you can start spreading the game around, all in major media markets with an NFL stadium as to preserve neutrality. Qwest Field, University of Phoenix Stadium, Oakland Coliseum, Invesco Field at Mile High, Candlestick, Qualcomm, and back in L.A., at the Rose Bowl, or maybe even the new NFL stadium (2018, is that enough time, Roger?).
What a wonderful opportunity. The Pac-10 title game could've been the envy of college football. Outside, in the sunshine, with some of the most attractive styles of play and players who'd soon suit up to play at these stadiums on Sundays. And yeah, the cheerleaders and song girls, too.
(And don't forget the media. If you're a national college football writer, where would you rather be? Atlanta?)
But no. Inexplicably, out of fear of failure than anything else, the Pac-10 decides to play it safe. Scott punts on fourth-and-inches.
So much for the self-proclaimed "Conference of Champions."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
This whole thing is not going to work. Ever since the SEC opened this bottle back in 1992, every conference suddenly has decided that if they just jump on the bandwagon then they will be the SEC. It has NEVER worked. The Big 12 had the most potential. It had a fan base extending from the border with Mexico all the way to just south of the Minnesota line. It had historic programs - Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas (and both Colorado and Missouri have had some bright moments in history) - fanatical support bases, and a championship game. To make things all the more interesting the Big 12 had something the SEC never did - upsets in the title game (only LSU's 2001 win over #2 Tennessee could seriously qualify in the SEC game). If ever it could work then the Big 12 would do it.
But they didn't. The Big 12 title game may be a cut above the ACC game nationally, but it has never really caught on. Remember when the WAC thought they'd solve their problems with a title game? Did anybody even watch BYU vs Wyoming in 1996? It was a great game, but nobody saw it. Why? Because nobody outside of Wyoming cares about those Cowboys, and BYU's national fan base is Mormon heavy, meaning it is scattered but hardly a majority anywhere outside of Utah.
Why did the SEC succeed? Because of the 18 SEC championship games already played, 12 of them have had national title implications for at least one of the teams (13 if you include the wait for the vote after Auburn won in 2004). The games are important to other teams besides the participants or the conference.
Keep in mind that when that is NOT so, even the SEC has had trouble with the game. In 1993, Alabama played Florida in Birmingham in the rain. Ticket sales were down for two reasons: bad weather and the fact that both teams had lost to Auburn in the regular season and were looking at nothing more than a Sugar Bowl berth. That particular game was such an economic disaster that the game was moved to Atlanta in 1994 to prevent it from ever happening again. But if the Atlanta game had featured a couple of 7-4 teams then the ratings would have tanked. Instead it featured #3 versus #4 with a possible shot at the title if Alabama won the game.
The Pac Ten has long had a problem of teams like 6-4-1 UCLA getting into the Rose Bowl by going 6-1-1 in conference and 0-3 OOC. The only national draw in that conference is USC, because of their long history of success and the fact people will watch to see them lose. Oregon is not USC now and never will be. And the notion that Oregon is going to sell out Pasadena for a game with Colorado is laughable on its face - unless both of those teams are undefeated (which is also laughable since it will probably never happen).
Here's another idea that makes this entire expansion beyond stupid - why in the world do you play NINE games in conference and reduce your game to a meaningless rematch between a powerful team and a lucky one? The SEC understands this, the Big 12 does not. That's why rematches in the SECCG are comparatively rare. Who wants to see a game you saw 2 months ago that is pretty much meaningless?
Finally - there's nothing the Pac Ten can do about the clock. They will always be three hours behind the East Coast, and it simply doesn't help them.
Sorry for posting here, but Twitter sucks for conversations. Imagine you are down 14 with 90 seconds left and no timeouts. You score a touchdown to go down 8, XP pending. If you are 40% to convert a try for 2, and 100% to make the XP, and 50% if the game goes to OT, you go for 2.
Sometimes going for 2 is correct even if it looks odd. In OU's case you want to go for 2 early instead of late as delaying it withholds information from both you and your opponent, but the information is much more valuable to you. This is the kind of thing that Madden players probably instinctively understand.
If it is your... "destiny" to fail on the two point conversion you have the ability to accelerate late to attempt to leave room for a 2nd score. If succeed on an early two point conversion you can run some clock late in an attempt to not leave time for your opponent to answer.
Obviously failing is worse than kicking an XP, but that's not the choice Bob Stoops has.
@Wheell - I don't agree with going for it early because a failure takes your opponent off the hook. It's much easier to play defense knowing you're two scores up than one score. And keep in mind these are kids: Your own players will become more anxious on offense and not execute as well because they'll hurry.
Psychologically, you want to keep the game at a one-possession game both to put pressure on the other team and give your defense confidence that a stop makes a world of difference and your offense a boost knowing the game is still within reach.
The pac-10 right now, as you "Guru", have written about in the past is probably the toughest conference schedule wise because of the round robin where each team plays each other once. In the big-10, how silly is it that Michigan St won't play Ohio St??
But I digress, back to your point Guru...
I actually respectfully disagree on this one. I think playing an on campus came is brilliant in that it rewards the team with the best record. It brings in additional revenue to the school and area. And it should have a passion around it that say Wash St vs Utah in December in the rose bowl would not.
Also, should UCLA or USC wind up in the game, why should they have an unfair home field advantage?
Care to prove your assertions about psychology? Going for two early has mathematically tangible benefits. If you want to say that it is intangibly worse, fine, it's not like I can prove otherwise. I do know psychology aside going for two is strictly correct.
I think it's a brilliant move. Why? Because each team will play 4 cross-divisional games. If a team can go 5-0 in division, yet 5-4 in conference, and still go to a neutral site to try and win a Rose Bowl birth, the regular season is less exciting. This way, teams will be motivated each and every week. Every game will have the same importance because if you start losing, good luck beating Oregon in Autzen for all the marbles. Just my two cents.
Guru - I agree with you, but for a different reason.
I think the challenge here is the same as the challenge with getting the Pac-10 teams into better non-BCS bowl games: It's the destinations. First, the Pac-12 is unique is that it includes Major League sports cities, where the other conferences are mostly college towns. Second, the new Pac-12 arguably has some of the best destination cities in America: L.A., S.F., Seattle, Phoenix, Denver. You could throw San Diego into the mix (TV market), and I would also consider Portland a terrific city. (In what alternative football universe is a trip to El Paso or Mobile a reward?)
That written, the Pac-10/-12 has actual weekend "trips" that fans can take, as opposed to driving to Nowheresville, USA, where state government decided to building a public university. To get fans to travel, there needs to be a compelling weekend that complements the game.
Based on that, I think the only logical destination for the title game would be Las Vegas: Enough flights, enough rooms, and a SMALL ENOUGH stadium to make tickets worth pursuing -- heck, the casinos could paper the stadium if they had to -- without the fear of a thousands of empty seats.
I think the Pac-12's decision for the championship game hosting site was a wise one. Why?
1) TV ratings are going to be almost entirely independent of the location of the game, so the primary concerns are having a suitable venue, one team having a permanent unfair advantage in locale, and attendance.
2) The Pac-10 has no central location. Part of why the SEC championship game works so well is that every team is within 8 hours of Atlanta, and every team's fans can drive and back over a two day weekend on one week's notice. This includes, presumably, car loads of students that can't afford to fly. In the Pac-12, you don't have that luxury; multiple day drives would be required for many fan bases to get to LA (or wherever you put it), skyrocketing any potential travel costs, in both money and time. For some of these schools, this game is likely going to take place the weekend before finals, making time that much more of a precious commodity.
3) By and large, the Pac-10 fan bases simply don't travel as well as many other schools. It may be due to distance, passion, tradition, or whatnot, but when Nebraska brings ~20,000 people to Seattle for a Husky game, and Oregon and Oregon State bring less than half that for a half a day's drive for very competetive programs, that's indicative of the Pac-10 fan base. Not criticizing, just stating the obvious.
4) Rotating the title game by venue runs into the problem of suddenly having a game between, say, Utah and Oregon State in the Rose Bowl, Arizona State and Washington State at Mile High, or Stanford and Colorado at Qwest Field. You're not going to sell a lot of tickets or drive up any local interest with these matchups in these locations. Utah @ Oregon State in Corvallis, WSU @ Arizona State in Tempe, or Stanford @ Colorado in Boulder would all be instant sellouts.
5) Having a permanent home in LA means that whoever wins the Pac-12 would be making two trips to LA inside a month. Not a problem if you're an LA school, but how many fans are going to make the trip twice in a month?
6) Having a permanent home in LA (or wherever) means that 1-2 teams would have a permanent home field advantage.
I think if the Pac-12 ever ends up with a permanent championship game location, it should be someplace easily accessible, desirable as a travel destination apart from the football game, as neutral as possible, and be as likely as possible to have good weather. The obvious solution for all of that is Las Vegas -- the problems are lack of a suitable venue and the inherent stigma that comes with placing any athletic competition in Las Vegas. UNLV's stadium isn't sufficient. In addition to the above reasons, the mere act of having a football game in Vegas would drive up attendance on the game from otherwise disinterested vacationers and gamblers who want to witness the game in person.
If you are going to compare to the NFL, then a conference CG is a much closer comparison to the AFC or NFC championship games, which ARE played at the higher seed's homefield, than to the superbowl. The conference championship games are (ideally) the last game before making it to the BCS CG (the real camparo to the Superbowl).
As already mentioned, all SEC schools are within ~8 hour drive of Atlanta, and the teams that have played there the most (Florida, Bama, Tennessee) are within 5 hours. Except for USC and UCLA, no PAC-12 schools are within a 5 hour drive of Los Angeles. In fact, no more than 2 teams would be within a 5 hour drive of just about any one neutral location.
The PAC-12 made the best decision given the geographical realities of the conference.
There are some good arguments here for the Pac-12 to play its championship game on campus sites. Good arguments until the inaugural title game ends up in Corvallis or Salt Lake City.
I never suggested that the Pac-12 should play its title game in L.A. in a permanent basis, but if there has to be one, L.A. is the natural location. It has multiple airports, lots of hotels, good venues and is a great destination. You have to frame the championship game in the scope of an event, not just a football game. Think of it as a mini-Super Bowl.
If not L.A., then San Diego. Either way, this makes up for the lost trips to southern California for the Washington and Oregon schools. And if it's marketed effectively, I don't see why they couldn't sell at least 70,000 tickets even if neither L.A. school is in the title game.
Guru, I still disagree on a San Diego venue getting 70,000 for Utah-Washington St. For the Holiday bowl, ASU/Texas or Arizona/Nebraska doesn't sell out.
Playing at a campus site would make sure to some extent that a 5-4 division winner facing off against a 9-0 division winner (wins in Pac 12) would have less of a chance of an upset and sending say a 5-7 team to the Rose bowl.
off course, the fact that there are automatic bids for bcs bowls is another topic altogether.
An extra home game makes sense.
(I was the anonymous post above with the six points).
The guru wrote: There are some good arguments here for the Pac-12 to play its championship game on campus sites. Good arguments until the inaugural title game ends up in Corvallis or Salt Lake City.
Is having a sold out stadium in Corvallis, Pullman or SLC worse than having a half-full stadium in LA, Seattle, or wherever? I understand that you wouldn't want the Pac-10 title game played every year in Corvallis or Pullman, but once in a while?
I think that a Pac-10 championship game not involving a local team would have a problem selling 70,000 tickets in LA (or anywhere). Don't UCLA and USC have problems selling out their games now? What makes a Pac-10 championship game any different? How many locals buy tickets for the Insight, Holiday, Poinsettia, or Emerald (Kraft) bowls? I think that's more the kind of attendance you're going to see at a neutral site.
I think it's embarassing for the ACC to have a half-full championship game in football; I would rather not see the Pac-10 suffer the same fate.
The only event I can think of in this region that is comparable is the Pac-10 basketball tournament. That event's attendance is directly affected by USC and UCLA's involvement. I realize that an entire weekend of college basketball and a single football game are different animals, but assuming that Arizona vs. Washington State will sell out in LA because there are a lot of people there seems like an overly optimistic view. Maybe in the first year it might sell some novelty tickets, but three, five, ten years down the road when the novelty has worn off? Or when Oregon, Washington, or some other team starts making the championship game every other year, their fans might quit making the trip, planning on heading to the Rose Bowl.
Rotating the title game I think might improve local attendance over a permanent location, as it would still be a little more of an event. Having Colorado play Oregon in Seattle might actually bring out a crowd, some people who want to see the game, and others who just want to boo the Ducks.
Something else that hasn't gotten brought up is that Pac-10 schools generally have fewer home games than other conferences, who often have four non-conference games, often all at home, frequently against vastly inferior foes. (For instance, every SEC team has 7 or 8 home games this year, I believe only Arizona in the Pac-10 has more than 6). Many (most?) Pac-10 schools have problems selling out the six games they do have. Adding a seventh home game should help balance the budgets for one school a year by selling extra tickets and eliminating travel cost. It's perhaps not a huge concern, but it's a nice reward for the school, the players, and the fans of the winning team. Particularly the students, who might not be able to afford the travel to other locations. In these economic times, it seems to be all about $$$ anyway.
Living in the LA market and following the Pac 10 my entire life, Scott and the Pac 10's concerns about poor crowds is very reasonable.
LA sports fans currently care about USC (and UCLA to a lesser extent) when they're good. Their interest in going to the Rose Bowl to watch Oregon vs AZ is extremely limited. They're not likely to sell the "public" tickets out in advance when they go on sale, and instead will need to hope that demand from the teams involved will exceed whatever level if reserved for the two schools.
That's a problem as well: Pac 10 teams aren't usually ranked among the best traveling fans in the country. We're not horrible, but we rarely rank high on the list.
Putting it in the home of the team with the best record (aka the team with the best BCS Ranking) is the best way to ensure a good looking crowd. It also gives a bit of a boost to that highest ranked BCS team to get into the BCS Title Game, which has been an issue for non-USC teams in the Pac 10 going back to the start.
On paper, "neutral site" is always the best thing. But the Pac 10/12 isn't on paper. This really is the most realistic thing for Scott and Co. to do. I'm pretty sure they would be able to show some solid data on how Pac 10 schools travel (i.e. road ticket demand and bowl ticket buys) that would indicate just how non-exceptional it is. That in turn makes it a too great a risk of planting a game in the first week of December in a city that might be in the backyard of one of the participants.
You guys have made some great arguments here, Larry Scott would be proud.
You haven't persuaded me, but I acknowledge the soundness of some of the points.
But this question ultimately answers another: What does the Pac-12 see itself as down the road? The equal of ACC or Big Ten? I guarantee you that the Big Ten won't play their title game on campus sites. And geographically, from Lincoln to State College, it's as spread out as the Pac-12.
TV is EVERYTHING for this game and it won't be affected based upon were it is played, so letting the Pac-10 team with the best record play at home won't hurt the TV audience. More important, the team with the best record gets the home field advantage, increasing that team's chances of winning and advancing to the BCS Title game, as opposed to them going on the road and being upset by a lesser team in a Neutral Site. Hey, If Oregon State has the best record in the PAC-10 and a chance to play for the National Title if they win, I'd like them to have every advantage to get there -- so a home game in Corvallis. The previous authors are also right, that this is MUCH more like an NFL Playoff game than the Super Bowl, that the conference is much more spread out so much further to go on short notice right before finals, AND it places much more importance on regular season games to gain home field advantage, but if Oregon (or the lowly Beavers in Corvallis) is on the verge of a National Title we wouldn't want them to screw that up by having to go on the road to play USC, UCLA, U of A, ASU, etc for a home game for them. We want to give the team on the verge of a National Title every advantage to win the Conference Championship and not have their BCS Championship Game hopes screwed up by a lesser team on the road ALA the Big 12 Championship. If that team wins they will also get all the BCS computer perks of having played a 13th game against a top opponent, while being able to do it at home where their chances of winning are optimized.
TV is EVERYTHING for this game and it won't be affected based upon were it is played, so letting the Pac-10 team with the best record play at home won't hurt the TV audience.
More important, the team with the best record gets the home field advantage, increasing that team's chances of winning and advancing to the BCS Title game, as opposed to them going on the road and being upset by a lesser team in a Neutral Site.
Hey, If Oregon State has the best record in the PAC-10 and a chance to play for the National Title if they win, I'd like them to have every advantage to get there -- so a home game in Corvallis.
The previous authors are also right, that this is MUCH more like an NFL Playoff game than the Super Bowl, that the conference is much more spread out so much further to go on short notice right before finals, AND it places much more importance on regular season games to gain home field advantage, but if Oregon (or the lowly Beavers in Corvallis) is on the verge of a National Title we wouldn't want them to screw that up by having to go on the road to play USC, UCLA, U of A, ASU, etc for a home game for them.
We want to give the team on the verge of a National Title every advantage to win the Conference Championship and not have their BCS Championship Game hopes screwed up by a lesser team on the road ALA the Big 12 Championship.
If that home team with the best record in the Conference wins they will also get all the BCS computer perks of having played a 13th game against a top opponent, while being able to do it at home where their chances of winning are optimized.
Late to the comment party here, but this makes sense for the Pac10.
The P10 basketball tourney is ALWAYS in LA, despite the fact that Seattle, Phoenix, Portland, the Bay Area and now Salt Lake and Denver are perfectly capable of being rotating sites. The tourney is poorly attended in general and a huge hike from Denver or Pullman (2 day drive from either).
While a rotating site would make sense for a 10 or 12 team tourney (basketball), it does not make sense for football. You really going to have USC play Oregon in Denver in the snow? Washington vs Utah in LA? Arizona vs WSU in the bay area?
There is still a good random chance of a team getting a virtual home game by accident when it rotates through their city. There will be all sorts of complaining about games in Denver, the Bay Area and Seattle in December, particularly by the Arizona and So Cal schools.
Ultimately this is a good plan for the conference. Autzen won't be 56K forever ... plans afoot to expand the other side and it will be more like 68-70K when all is done. Yes, Utah, Pullman, Oregon State = small, but if they go 12-0 they earned it.
Post a Comment