aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Plus, they regionalized their network(s). They have 6 separate networks devoted to two teams apiece. Almost like having six separate longhorn networks. I'm guessing these networks have real content problems - a lot of repetition day in and out. And how does having six separate networks promote conference unity and the chance to learn more about all of the teams in your conference?

I like the SEC Network because I get all 14 teams centralized and together. For the most part the broadcasts are always fresh and diverse day in and out.

---

The regional networks were certainly not a good mover from a cost analysis, but I think I know why they did that.

First, the PAC's Tier I media deals aren't that hot, partially due to time zones and media windows. Whereas the SEC has CBS, ESPN, ESPN2 and SECN as available platforms for the SEC games each with multiple time windows from 11:00 AM until primetime, the PAC does not.

With a single PACN, fewer games could be shown. With the regional PAC networks, they can show more content and have more games happening at the same time.

Does that make sense?

---

That does make some sense and may be the case, hawg. Regardless, it isn't working too well for them and they should address it and do what they need to do to make it successful. It doesn't have to do as well as the SECN or B1GN but there is no reason they can't greatly improve upon what they have. The formulas for doing it successfully are there.

Quote:

---

That does make some sense and may be the case, hawg. Regardless, it isn't working too well for them and they should address it and do what they need to do to make it successful. It doesn't have to do as well as the SECN or B1GN but there is no reason they can't greatly improve upon what they have. The formulas for doing it successfully are there.

---

Conference realignment isn't about "sense". It's about money. PAC thought they would heep more wtihout a media partner. (I'd wager too many indy Hollywood types) and the four Cali schools ruled.

Scott and Weiberg attempted an epic play in 2010. They failed.

And now that failure was compunded.

Texas would never accept the five year buy in that Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland did. After all, They're Texas.

Roll Tide

Junction1954 said:

---

Texas would never accept the five year buy in that Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland did. After all, They're Texas.

Roll Tide

---

This

I want to see how they would respond to this issue

Sips to the big10 would put them at the mercy of the big dogs of the conference (Ohio state & Michigan). No way would they be able to run that show like they did the SWC, big12, and big12 lite. The PACq12 is their only chance of taking their entourage of minions with them. That way they can creep into the power structure of the conference and eventually take over. Otherwise they will have to ride it out with the big12. They are not letting go of the Lhn and that lasts till 2030. So the conference should last until then. Because the sips cant take it with them to a new conference.