It'd be funny if Walton is still the flagbearer for whatever conference emerges under the Pac umbrella.

(09-13-2023 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 05:55 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Does anybody really care? Did being labeled "The Conference of Champions," save the PAC? No, because nobody really cares about 28 of 31 NCAA D1 sports. It is all about football, then a giant drop off to basketball, then a giant drop off to women's basketball, then a drop off to everything else. Frankly, in today's world the label is probably the kiss of death for a conference.

Just because the Big 10 doesn't care about baseball doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. But water polo, field hockey, rowing, etc., yes, not much interest.

True, but I think he's talking about revenue-generating interest, so in terms of scale he is largely correct. But yeah, a SEC school might generate postive baseball revenue, or a B1G school might generate some positive revenue from hockey or wrestling, or an ACC school might generate some revenue from lacrosse. That said, those amounts will generally be substantially less than womens BB on avg.

The SEC and B1G will have the most balance and highest overall averages in Directors Cup points. They have the most resources and the most top-to-bottom depth. The SEC programs also generally sponsor fewer sports, so they get the best return for their bucks.

Nevertheless, the ACC will still compete for the most NCAA team championships…what Bill Walton references when he calls the PAC the Conference of Champions. That’s because half of the ACC (e.g., Stanford, UNC, UVa, ND, FSU, Duke, Cal) are regularly in the top 20 in Director Cup points.

With the PAC dissolved into multiple destinations, no conference will dominate in the future.

(09-13-2023 11:45 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 05:55 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Does anybody really care? Did being labeled "The Conference of Champions," save the PAC? No, because nobody really cares about 28 of 31 NCAA D1 sports. It is all about football, then a giant drop off to basketball, then a giant drop off to women's basketball, then a drop off to everything else. Frankly, in today's world the label is probably the kiss of death for a conference.

Just because the Big 10 doesn't care about baseball doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. But water polo, field hockey, rowing, etc., yes, not much interest.

True, but I think he's talking about revenue-generating interest, so in terms of scale he is largely correct. But yeah, a SEC school might generate postive baseball revenue, or a B1G school might generate some positive revenue from hockey or wrestling, or an ACC school might generate some revenue from lacrosse. That said, those amounts will generally be substantially less than womens BB on avg.

I don't have any numbers and you may be right, but I doubt women's basketball generates any significant amount more than baseball or hockey or volleyball for that matter. There are really just two serious revenue sports.

(09-13-2023 05:55 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Does anybody really care? Did being labeled "The Conference of Champions," save the PAC? No, because nobody really cares about 28 of 31 NCAA D1 sports. It is all about football, then a giant drop off to basketball, then a giant drop off to women's basketball, then a drop off to everything else. Frankly, in today's world the label is probably the kiss of death for a conference.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

(09-13-2023 08:41 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:06 AM)513Alex Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 07:58 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Conf of champions was fueled by EGO's of PAC. They killed said PAC and the title dies with it.

This

Bill Walton killed the conference.

It makes me a little sad that we remember Walton more for his offbeat personality and commentary than his basketball skills. He was an all-time talent who lost all but a few transcendent years to injury.

(09-13-2023 10:20 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  I agree with those who say the self-proclaimed title should be put to rest. The SEC is the actual "Conference of Champions" when it comes to football, but we wouldn't be tacky enough to proclaim it.

Well, we are right now, but that wasn't always the case, and there's no guarantee that it will be that way in the future, either. Since 06, sure, the SEC has been more dominant than any Conference in history. Before that? The SEC won 3 of the 25 AP titles between 1981 and 2005. For comparison, Miami won 5 in that time period all by themselves.

(09-13-2023 11:09 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  It'd be funny if Walton is still the flagbearer for whatever conference emerges under the Pac umbrella.

I don't think he'd ever turn his back on UCLA, but I do think that he'll be overtly or at least covertly rooting for the new Pac to succeed.

(09-13-2023 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 11:45 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 05:55 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Does anybody really care? Did being labeled "The Conference of Champions," save the PAC? No, because nobody really cares about 28 of 31 NCAA D1 sports. It is all about football, then a giant drop off to basketball, then a giant drop off to women's basketball, then a drop off to everything else. Frankly, in today's world the label is probably the kiss of death for a conference.

Just because the Big 10 doesn't care about baseball doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. But water polo, field hockey, rowing, etc., yes, not much interest.

True, but I think he's talking about revenue-generating interest, so in terms of scale he is largely correct. But yeah, a SEC school might generate postive baseball revenue, or a B1G school might generate some positive revenue from hockey or wrestling, or an ACC school might generate some revenue from lacrosse. That said, those amounts will generally be substantially less than womens BB on avg.

I don't have any numbers and you may be right, but I doubt women's basketball generates any significant amount more than baseball or hockey or volleyball for that matter. There are really just two serious revenue sports.

This is going to be very controversial on this board, but I think that Kliavkoff might have been right about 2 things: Deion and women's basketball. Deion has already catapulted CU into the biggest draw in CFB this season. 45k for the spring game and 16m viewers through 2 games this seasons, with a bevy of interesting and highly ranked opponents on the schedule ahead. And women's basketball is set to break off from the rest of the NCAA sports contract and sign their own separate WNCAAT contract. Rumors last fall were that it would bring ~ 1/10th of the men's Tourney, but even if that's all that it is, $110m a year for women's basketball is an unheard-of contract for women's sports and will probably be the biggest thing to ever happen for women's college athletics. For a comparison, ESPN pays $40m a year for the CWS on what is considered to be a favorable deal for them...so $110m would put WBB at 2-3 times the value of baseball and starting to get into "real money" territory.

I still recall watching (as a 10-year-old) Bill Walton almost single-handedly dismantle my father's then-Memphis State Tigers in the 1973 NCAA Tournament title game. Walton shot 21-of-22 from the field (44 points overall) and notched 13 boards. He was dominant.

To Bryan1995's point, many on this board are too young to recall Walton's basketball greatness. They primarily recognize him for his broadcasting work — either strongly enjoying it (as do I) or finding it off-putting, absurd and bafflingly unconventional.

My take is that Walton used the "Conference of Champions" term 1. in a fun manner; 2. to highlight his beloved West Coast and its emphasis on college sports other than football; and 3. to playfully irk those who might not care for the Pac-12. Though I never had much need to follow the Pac the last 50 years (I do so a little now because I have nephew enrolled at USC), I did, to be fair, feel Walton's "Conference of Champions" usage was actually rather accurate. LOTS of skilled athletes in many sports in the league over the years.

Worth noting: Bill Walton seems to be a UCLA man more so than a Pac-12 fan, so I doubt we'll see him use "Conference of Champions" even if WOSU somehow salvage the league.

Quo makes a good point in his post in this thread: With the Pac no more and its members bound for various leagues, the slate has been wiped clean for college sports nationwide. Perhaps in time, a new "Conference of Champions" will emerge. I kind of hope not.

(09-13-2023 03:25 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 11:45 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 05:55 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Does anybody really care? Did being labeled "The Conference of Champions," save the PAC? No, because nobody really cares about 28 of 31 NCAA D1 sports. It is all about football, then a giant drop off to basketball, then a giant drop off to women's basketball, then a drop off to everything else. Frankly, in today's world the label is probably the kiss of death for a conference.

Just because the Big 10 doesn't care about baseball doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. But water polo, field hockey, rowing, etc., yes, not much interest.

True, but I think he's talking about revenue-generating interest, so in terms of scale he is largely correct. But yeah, a SEC school might generate postive baseball revenue, or a B1G school might generate some positive revenue from hockey or wrestling, or an ACC school might generate some revenue from lacrosse. That said, those amounts will generally be substantially less than womens BB on avg.

I don't have any numbers and you may be right, but I doubt women's basketball generates any significant amount more than baseball or hockey or volleyball for that matter. There are really just two serious revenue sports.

This is going to be very controversial on this board, but I think that Kliavkoff might have been right about 2 things: Deion and women's basketball. Deion has already catapulted CU into the biggest draw in CFB this season. 45k for the spring game and 16m viewers through 2 games this seasons, with a bevy of interesting and highly ranked opponents on the schedule ahead. And women's basketball is set to break off from the rest of the NCAA sports contract and sign their own separate WNCAAT contract. Rumors last fall were that it would bring ~ 1/10th of the men's Tourney, but even if that's all that it is, $110m a year for women's basketball is an unheard-of contract for women's sports and will probably be the biggest thing to ever happen for women's college athletics. For a comparison, ESPN pays $40m a year for the CWS on what is considered to be a favorable deal for them...so $110m would put WBB at 2-3 times the value of baseball and starting to get into "real money" territory.

when did ESPN get a deal for the CWS? And when did it get signed for $40MM/year?

(09-15-2023 11:29 AM)woollymammoth41 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 03:25 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 11:45 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  Just because the Big 10 doesn't care about baseball doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. But water polo, field hockey, rowing, etc., yes, not much interest.

True, but I think he's talking about revenue-generating interest, so in terms of scale he is largely correct. But yeah, a SEC school might generate postive baseball revenue, or a B1G school might generate some positive revenue from hockey or wrestling, or an ACC school might generate some revenue from lacrosse. That said, those amounts will generally be substantially less than womens BB on avg.

I don't have any numbers and you may be right, but I doubt women's basketball generates any significant amount more than baseball or hockey or volleyball for that matter. There are really just two serious revenue sports.

This is going to be very controversial on this board, but I think that Kliavkoff might have been right about 2 things: Deion and women's basketball. Deion has already catapulted CU into the biggest draw in CFB this season. 45k for the spring game and 16m viewers through 2 games this seasons, with a bevy of interesting and highly ranked opponents on the schedule ahead. And women's basketball is set to break off from the rest of the NCAA sports contract and sign their own separate WNCAAT contract. Rumors last fall were that it would bring ~ 1/10th of the men's Tourney, but even if that's all that it is, $110m a year for women's basketball is an unheard-of contract for women's sports and will probably be the biggest thing to ever happen for women's college athletics. For a comparison, ESPN pays $40m a year for the CWS on what is considered to be a favorable deal for them...so $110m would put WBB at 2-3 times the value of baseball and starting to get into "real money" territory.

when did ESPN get a deal for the CWS? And when did it get signed for $40MM/year?

It's $40 million yearly for ALL non-football, non men's basketball championships as one package - baseball alone, based on current ratings, is worth more than that.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...al-2023-24

(09-15-2023 12:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 11:29 AM)woollymammoth41 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 03:25 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 11:45 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  True, but I think he's talking about revenue-generating interest, so in terms of scale he is largely correct. But yeah, a SEC school might generate postive baseball revenue, or a B1G school might generate some positive revenue from hockey or wrestling, or an ACC school might generate some revenue from lacrosse. That said, those amounts will generally be substantially less than womens BB on avg.

I don't have any numbers and you may be right, but I doubt women's basketball generates any significant amount more than baseball or hockey or volleyball for that matter. There are really just two serious revenue sports.

This is going to be very controversial on this board, but I think that Kliavkoff might have been right about 2 things: Deion and women's basketball. Deion has already catapulted CU into the biggest draw in CFB this season. 45k for the spring game and 16m viewers through 2 games this seasons, with a bevy of interesting and highly ranked opponents on the schedule ahead. And women's basketball is set to break off from the rest of the NCAA sports contract and sign their own separate WNCAAT contract. Rumors last fall were that it would bring ~ 1/10th of the men's Tourney, but even if that's all that it is, $110m a year for women's basketball is an unheard-of contract for women's sports and will probably be the biggest thing to ever happen for women's college athletics. For a comparison, ESPN pays $40m a year for the CWS on what is considered to be a favorable deal for them...so $110m would put WBB at 2-3 times the value of baseball and starting to get into "real money" territory.

when did ESPN get a deal for the CWS? And when did it get signed for $40MM/year?

It's $40 million yearly for ALL non-football, non men's basketball championships as one package - baseball alone, based on current ratings, is worth more than that.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...al-2023-24

Oh wow, don't know where I read that the $40m was just for the CWS. Sounds like that needs to be broken out into a separate contract like WBB.

Ivy League has the most football national titles.