(10-23-2019 11:42 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 04:37 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He’s the one circulating the rumors. Come clean, Swaim.

I believe the PAC is fragile right now, but it’s fixable. The repair solution? Big XII schools who move on from that conference.

I also think something works itself out between the B1G and PAC. Let time and different personalities work out the kinks of scheduling football commitments. Too many schools were game for this in the PAC to let it die. You simply can’t force the PAC schools to move fast, and the B1G overreached.

I do believe there are some unhappy schools in the PAC, and the Zona’s are low-hanging fruit. We’ve never really gotten real “shots fired” from them at their source pains. Some cheap shots at the conference, but, let’s be real...if they’re really done with this, let them take shots at the California schools where the PAC universe revolves.

Why would Big 12 schools leave for lower revenues, less exposure, a weaker football and basketball league and more travel?

I think they are both fine where they are at. But the Pac-12 has more talent, top to bottom than the Big 12.

Using the NFL draft for the past over the past six years (2014-2019) and total draft picks by conference:
Pac-12 - 204
Big 12 - 128

For the NBA draft, I found this:
Over the last six years (2014-19), the ACC leads all conferences with 42 first-round selections, followed by the SEC (29), Pac-12 (25), Big Ten (19), Big 12 (14) and the Big East (8).

The Pac-12 has more total revenue than the Big 12, but they have not controlled their expenses, so the Big 12 ends up with more net revenue per school. Exposure, that is debatable. Kansas has played two home games on ESPN+ and a road game on LHN, a network that is not easy to find in Texas. Oregon State will play six consecutive games on the Pac-12 Network. The network is available nationally, it just may not be available with your local cable or satellite provider.

The higher revenue for the Pac 12 is because they own their network. I believe they have higher revenues than even the Big 10, but its not apples and apples. They have a lot of expenses associated with owning the network instead of Fox or ESPN absorbing the expenses.