It's a long way to the start of football season, so this is for those who are already jonesing for more realignment talk.

On another thread, jrj84105 made an interesting suggestion. I took it in a slightly different direction, but kept the basic premise. He had suggested that the PAC form an alliance with Hawaii in which every PAC 12 team would play AT Hawaii, giving the PAC a monopoly on Week Zero.

In my version, The PAC would play eight games @ Hawaii every September and October, and Hawaii would fill its November schedule with four other independents (2 at home, 2 away). They would play the fifth independent away in Week Zero, for a total of 10 home games and three away games.

The 10 home games would all be aired on the PAC's proprietary Network, and Hawaii would share in the network revenue. Hawaii's November away games would never be scheduled back to back for travel reasons.

The PAC would now have 8 teams eligible to play in Week Zero. My suggestion is that they negotiate with Fox to air Week Zero games as an addition to their current contract, and in exchange the PAC would agree to make them conference games - 2 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. Fox would now own Week Zero and its football starved audience, and could help the PAC get national exposure in time slots that bring East coast eyeballs to watch the PAC - something that doesn't happen often now.

Hawaii would benefit financially from having 10 home dates, lower travel costs and a share of the PACN. The planned new stadium gets more dates to sweeten the ROI for that project.

And finally, having two more indies in Hawaii and Liberty could induce the NCAA to allow more teams to join FBS without a conference invite, bringing their numbers up to where scheduling is not as much of a problem as it has been. (It could even induce Idaho to back off its self-demotion to FCS).

So, what are the pros and cons?

If you're going to less than 12 at Hawaii then do 6 at HI and the other 6 teams Home and Away with Rice. Rice goes independent in Football and along with UCSD joins PAC for other sports. Hawaii vs Rice every year in week 0. PAC network expansion into HI and Texas pays for Hawaii, UCSD, and Rice's share.

UT is given the same independent option as Rice through 2031 (end of LHN) when it either joins full time or leaves. Hawaii and Rice join a growing group of Western independents with the benefits of having P5 bowl access which the others don't.

Hawaii might be better off with an alliance deal with both the mwc and PAC 12 of 4 game per season for each league so Hawaii would have 8 booked games per year. The mwc could add utep to replace Hawaii as a member

If USC wants to schedule Hawai'i voluntarily, they easily have the leverage to get two games in LA for one game in Honolulu and the ability to arrange their non-conference schedule to get a week off either before or after going to Hawai'i if they choose. Proposing that USC instead play a game in Hawai'i in exchange for zero games in LA, on a schedule set by the conference office instead of by USC, would probably generate so much loud laughter at USC that it could be heard across town at UCLA.

In other words, any Pac-12 team that wants to schedule a football series with Hawai'i can already do so on its own terms and make a better deal for themselves than anything the conference office would force upon them.

It makes almost no sense from an athletics perspective to play Hawaii ever. It also doesn't pay.

The rationale for a full 12 games on the island is to completely saturate the island with PAC branding for 1/4 of the year with a Hawaii/PAC football game being part of the tourist experience.. And the only point of that is to give the appearance to the vast number of visiting Asuans that PAC schools are the end all be all. The Hawaii games would also be targeted to the Asian audience.

Basically, playing Hawaii is like a once yearly advert to Asia. Sports are primarily a marketing tool for universities after all.

(04-08-2017 12:07 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Basically, playing Hawaii is like a once yearly advert to Asia.

A much better way to advertise to Asia would be to play games in Asia. Have a non-conference football game in Tokyo every year between a Pac-12 team and a team from another league. Instead of just one basketball game in China, hold an early season tournament (with games that don't count as conference games) among four Pac-12 teams in Shanghai or Shenzhen; do that every year and rotate the Pac-12 schools that send teams to China. Both are perfect eye-catching photo opportunities for Larry Scott, and photo ops are what he cares about most, anyway.

It costs a ton of money to get a football team and all its equipment to Hawaii. Now and then is OK, but every year?

It seems like the P12 would get a better return by playing a couple of games in San Diego and Las Vegas.

A monopoly on week zero is a recipe for a rule change.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

You could have basically the same impact with a series of six home and home deals sending three teams to Hawaii every year. That gives you a noon game (Pacific), a 3:30pm (Pacific) and 7pm Pacific.

The Pac 12 doesn't need to become the Pac 14. If it decides to keep pace with the B1G and SEC, I think Hawaii would be a good add. The Rainbow Warriors want in, and the additional football games would be a bonus. Academics aren't so far behind the other schools. It also adds a school without the baggage of most of the Big 12 schools usually on the list. Throw in Air Force with their military following, academics, and proximity to Colorado, and there's a decent 14 team league. Divisions could go with the 'U's of Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Southern California, Utah, and Washington in one division, and the 'Rival's Division of Air Force, Arizona State, Hawaii, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, and Washington State. Divisions play in football only, but a potential USC/UCLA or Washington/Washington State conference championship rematch could be fun.

Toledo: I like the way you think! Would going to 16 make sense? If so: add BSU and UNLV.

(04-08-2017 09:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's a long way to the start of football season, so this is for those who are already jonesing for more realignment talk.

On another thread, jrj84105 made an interesting suggestion. I took it in a slightly different direction, but kept the basic premise. He had suggested that the PAC form an alliance with Hawaii in which every PAC 12 team would play AT Hawaii, giving the PAC a monopoly on Week Zero.

In my version, The PAC would play eight games @ Hawaii every September and October, and Hawaii would fill its November schedule with four other independents (2 at home, 2 away). They would play the fifth independent away in Week Zero, for a total of 10 home games and three away games.

The 10 home games would all be aired on the PAC's proprietary Network, and Hawaii would share in the network revenue. Hawaii's November away games would never be scheduled back to back for travel reasons.

The PAC would now have 8 teams eligible to play in Week Zero. My suggestion is that they negotiate with Fox to air Week Zero games as an addition to their current contract, and in exchange the PAC would agree to make them conference games - 2 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. Fox would now own Week Zero and its football starved audience, and could help the PAC get national exposure in time slots that bring East coast eyeballs to watch the PAC - something that doesn't happen often now.

Hawaii would benefit financially from having 10 home dates, lower travel costs and a share of the PACN. The planned new stadium gets more dates to sweeten the ROI for that project.

And finally, having two more indies in Hawaii and Liberty could induce the NCAA to allow more teams to join FBS without a conference invite, bringing their numbers up to where scheduling is not as much of a problem as it has been. (It could even induce Idaho to back off its self-demotion to FCS).

So, what are the pros and cons?

Fox couldn't negotiate exclusively with the Pac 12. Not for another 8 years.

And like someone said, the second this deal got announced, you better believe all hell would break loose, and either the loophole would be closed, or everyone would be allowed.

(04-08-2017 11:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  You could have basically the same impact with a series of six home and home deals sending three teams to Hawaii every year. That gives you a noon game (Pacific), a 3:30pm (Pacific) and 7pm Pacific.

This could work. PAC schools would only have to travel to Hawaii once every four years. Hawaii would have half of its independent schedule set, with 3 good PAC home games to help sell tickets.

Get an annual game with BYU and the FCS home game and you only need four OOC games to finish up the schedule.

On the question of PAC expansion, its inevitable it will happen. The PAC at 12 when the AAC/B1G/SEC are at 14/15 schools its a disadvantage in TV and prestige.

What makes more sense is for Hawaii and UNLV to join the WCC and go independent like BYU. WCC at 12 schools and Hawaii/UNLV becomes a more national conference. Nice additions for BYU's fanbase.

MWC then reverts to 10 and becomes the FBS "starter" conference for the West.

Houston-only way they get in Tex
Haw- extra games

(04-08-2017 11:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  You could have basically the same impact with a series of six home and home deals sending three teams to Hawaii every year. That gives you a noon game (Pacific), a 3:30pm (Pacific) and 7pm Pacific.

So couldn't you get the bulk of the impact with four, sending two to Hawaii every year. That gives you a noon game (3pm Eastern / 2pm Central), and a 3:30pm (Pacific, 6:30pm Eastern, 5:30pm Central). The media value of the 7pm Pacific game starts to tail off.

(04-11-2017 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 09:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's a long way to the start of football season, so this is for those who are already jonesing for more realignment talk.

On another thread, jrj84105 made an interesting suggestion. I took it in a slightly different direction, but kept the basic premise. He had suggested that the PAC form an alliance with Hawaii in which every PAC 12 team would play AT Hawaii, giving the PAC a monopoly on Week Zero.

In my version, The PAC would play eight games @ Hawaii every September and October, and Hawaii would fill its November schedule with four other independents (2 at home, 2 away). They would play the fifth independent away in Week Zero, for a total of 10 home games and three away games.

The 10 home games would all be aired on the PAC's proprietary Network, and Hawaii would share in the network revenue. Hawaii's November away games would never be scheduled back to back for travel reasons.

The PAC would now have 8 teams eligible to play in Week Zero. My suggestion is that they negotiate with Fox to air Week Zero games as an addition to their current contract, and in exchange the PAC would agree to make them conference games - 2 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. Fox would now own Week Zero and its football starved audience, and could help the PAC get national exposure in time slots that bring East coast eyeballs to watch the PAC - something that doesn't happen often now.

Hawaii would benefit financially from having 10 home dates, lower travel costs and a share of the PACN. The planned new stadium gets more dates to sweeten the ROI for that project.

And finally, having two more indies in Hawaii and Liberty could induce the NCAA to allow more teams to join FBS without a conference invite, bringing their numbers up to where scheduling is not as much of a problem as it has been. (It could even induce Idaho to back off its self-demotion to FCS).

So, what are the pros and cons?

Fox couldn't negotiate exclusively with the Pac 12. Not for another 8 years.

And like someone said, the second this deal got announced, you better believe all hell would break loose, and either the loophole would be closed, or everyone would be allowed.

Yeah, that was a great point. Nothing happens unless the PAC seems a major benefit for themselves, and nobody wants to give any P5 conference another proprietary advantage.

(04-12-2017 06:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 11:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  You could have basically the same impact with a series of six home and home deals sending three teams to Hawaii every year. That gives you a noon game (Pacific), a 3:30pm (Pacific) and 7pm Pacific.

So couldn't you get the bulk of the impact with four, sending two to Hawaii every year. That gives you a noon game (3pm Eastern / 2pm Central), and a 3:30pm (Pacific, 6:30pm Eastern, 5:30pm Central). The media value of the 7pm Pacific game starts to tail off.

Absolutely and I think the value over the hassle is better. You want an expensive road trip like that to be less frequent and something where you can spend a year or so selling vacation packages to fans.

(04-11-2017 04:25 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Toledo: I like the way you think! Would going to 16 make sense? If so: add BSU and UNLV.

From a market standpoint, UNLV makes so much sense! From a quality football standpoint, so does BSU. If academics come into play, I doubt either would stand a chance as the Big 12 cut them in their recent expansion charade for the same reason. If it becomes more about sports, I think you are spot on. I also see 16 happening when the other Power 3 out of 5 go there.

(04-11-2017 11:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Houston-only way they get in Tex
Haw- extra games

Rice has the academic fit. I think TCU would accept a PAC invite, especially if Texas and Oklahoma are leaning elsewhere. But, not sure the PAC would see TCU as a good academic or cultural fit.

PAC could do a lot worse than adding Houston and TCU.