This is a good take on how, as much attending fans don't like them, the West coast offers something that no other college football conference can. A constant supply of night games to fill ESPN's needed evening / late night TV window.
Good article here on west coast TV leverage
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
Definitely an excellent angle on how the PAC can not only survive the exodus of LA, but thrive without them. It actually mentions that Oregon and WA have higher ratings than LA in terms of CFB viewership so that is something we can hang our hat on as well.
It's something that even the MWC can hang their hats on. The Central and East Coast football fans are rabid, and while they might not care about West coast football on the marco scale, there are a hell of a lot of them who will watch games between 10:00PM and 2:00AM.
It's not prime time, but every bar East of Colorado will have the West coast game(s) of the week on their TVs, and a lot of fans of the SEC, ACC, Big12, and Big10 who are celebrating their victories earlier in the day or drowning their sorrows will be keeping their buzz going and watching our games.
ESPN knows this.
Last edited:
I saw this article on the Seattle Times last night. Very interesting and very interesting to read the comments of people who post.
While it's true that there's no competition at that point, how many viewers to the east does it really translate to? Is it enough to give value to the market?
If so, my guess is that the USC/UCLA departure is even further diminished. They weren't usually the ones playing the night games.
If so, my guess is that the USC/UCLA departure is even further diminished. They weren't usually the ones playing the night games.
It's a great article and I agree with the thoughts earlier in the thread. I'm not entirely sure, just at the gut level, though, that it really matters to central or east coast fans that much whether they are watching Boise State or Oregon State play, especially if conferences like the Big 12, Pac-12, and ACC see their brand values drop relative to Group of Five programs in a post-"Power 5" era. If our argument on the west coast is that some fanatics and people in a bar with a game on in the background in Philadelphia care that much whether it's Oregon State - Colorado or Boise State - Colorado State ... eh, I'm not so sure. It's a thing I hope the Pac-12 can sell, though.
What the article did for me was confirm, or reaffirm, that the one thing the West coast has going for it is exclusivity in the 7:00PM PST time slot. Is that the most coveted window? Of course not, no; but keep in mind that Monday night football and other major network primetime sporting events routinely kickoff at 6:00PM PST.
Those fans wanting to watch a game that late at night fit a couple of specific demographics that advertisers really want for specific products. There is value here for ad revenue.
That's probably true. And for the late night games, Miller, Coors, and Anheuser-Busch are probably talking directly to their core audience. Taco Bell and Doritos too.
This article ask if start times effect TV viewership, specifically the PAC 12 and early time slot. But it does talk late starts too. Its data is just from the 2018 season, but its an interesting read.
Should The Pac-12 Seriously Consider Early Morning Kickoffs?
It gives us steady income while simultaneously helps ESPN have games for prime time. Unfortunately, butts in the stands are compromised. Basically, ESPN ruined butts in the stands, in order to have football programming from 7-11pm.
Not ideal sitting in a stadium at 9pm, rain, wind, snow, or just cold weather....then driving at 11:30pm to go home.
But, it's a $$$ payday....so what do you do? We stay home for the night games and watch it on TV.
Last edited:
Gambling becoming more prevalent state by state doesn't hurt the later scheduled/west coast time zone interest either.
To me, if Notre Dame can be in a conference of one and can sign a TV deal where - by definition - only a max of one of their games can be broadcast each week (although, admittedly prime exposure) then why can't a WSU or Or. St. manage to survive indefinitely in a conference of 10 where each week several of it's members' games are broadcast? Especially with new players like Amazon and Apple looking for content to stream. That's all I have to say about that.
To me, if Notre Dame can be in a conference of one and can sign a TV deal where - by definition - only a max of one of their games can be broadcast each week (although, admittedly prime exposure) then why can't a WSU or Or. St. manage to survive indefinitely in a conference of 10 where each week several of it's members' games are broadcast? Especially with new players like Amazon and Apple looking for content to stream. That's all I have to say about that.
They could, or they could expand with some PTZ schools to get them an inventory of later games.
I can easily see an effort to pull Gonzaga into the PAC for all but football, as well. GU would be dumb to do it; much better to be the big fish in a small pond; but you never know. Their sense of entitlement might push them into considering it seriously.
Few has been quite successful. Unless GU is brainlessly confident that the next coach could keep this going, they should be trying hard now to get into a higher profile league, while they have some leverage. All it would take is a burp or two with the successor(s) to lose it all.
If offered, they should jump at it. For the reason you stated and more they aren't the best long-term fit. What value do they really bring? Hoops isn't on the same level as football. If it was, Arizona would be headed to the B1G. I doubt either dub or WSU would be up for it either. Desperate times but why prop up another state school?
Gonzaga brings not only the Greater Spokane, Cheney, Four Lakes, Medical Lake, Post Falls, Hayden, Courd a lene, eastern eastern WA, western Idaho area, TV sets(which is a LOT of Viewers), but they are now either are or becoming the Basketball version of Notre Dame, with a National following and TV sets, viewers.
The reason why Arizona isn't as much value, despite their basketball, is despite being good at Bball, they are not consistently on the level of Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina.
Those are the BIG 4 in Bball and have value, have brands, have NATIONAL, REGIONAL following, fans, TV's, viewers.
Arizona semi used to under LUTE but not anymore. Arizona will have the occasional run at the NCAA championship, but they don't have the CONSISTENCY, brand, etc, of the BIG FOUR.
And that's half of why they don't have as much value. The other reason is that they don't have the TV, viewers, Phoenix is ASU country.
There would be value into bringing the BIG FOUR and Gonzaga into a conference.
There would be little value to bringing Arizona to a conference.
The only reason the Big 12 is trying to get Arizona is because Geographically it semi makes sense, and because of bball and Baseball, and ASU, Arizona probably being a packaged deal to get Phoenix, and because of KANSAS VS ARIZONA, in bball.
As to whether WSU would be ok with it, because Gonzaga could supposedly use Pac 12 to out recruit WSU's front and Back yards.
Gonzaga is ALREADY doing that as Gonzaga gets the local recruits worth getting, and WSU gets the LEFTOVER crumbs, if any.
The biggest only reason why the Pac 12 wouldn't try to add Gonzaga, is their stupidity in not wanting religious schools, like BYU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, etc, and their stupidity in not wanting non R1, which has helped put the Pac 12 into this MESS, and is part of the reason why the Pac 12's mess might get worse.
The reason why Arizona isn't as much value, despite their basketball, is despite being good at Bball, they are not consistently on the level of Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina.
Those are the BIG 4 in Bball and have value, have brands, have NATIONAL, REGIONAL following, fans, TV's, viewers.
Arizona semi used to under LUTE but not anymore. Arizona will have the occasional run at the NCAA championship, but they don't have the CONSISTENCY, brand, etc, of the BIG FOUR.
And that's half of why they don't have as much value. The other reason is that they don't have the TV, viewers, Phoenix is ASU country.
There would be value into bringing the BIG FOUR and Gonzaga into a conference.
There would be little value to bringing Arizona to a conference.
The only reason the Big 12 is trying to get Arizona is because Geographically it semi makes sense, and because of bball and Baseball, and ASU, Arizona probably being a packaged deal to get Phoenix, and because of KANSAS VS ARIZONA, in bball.
As to whether WSU would be ok with it, because Gonzaga could supposedly use Pac 12 to out recruit WSU's front and Back yards.
Gonzaga is ALREADY doing that as Gonzaga gets the local recruits worth getting, and WSU gets the LEFTOVER crumbs, if any.
The biggest only reason why the Pac 12 wouldn't try to add Gonzaga, is their stupidity in not wanting religious schools, like BYU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, etc, and their stupidity in not wanting non R1, which has helped put the Pac 12 into this MESS, and is part of the reason why the Pac 12's mess might get worse.
Gonzaga wouldn't be Gonzaga if it weren't for two words: Mark Few.
President's come and go.
Retail comes and goes.
Politicians comes and goes.
Coaches comes and goes.
Once Mark Few retires, or whatever.... there is no guarantee that Gonzaga Basketball will attract the best recruits.
Enrollment is a mere 4,900 students. The Pac-12 and Gonzaga ain't going to happen.
President's come and go.
Retail comes and goes.
Politicians comes and goes.
Coaches comes and goes.
Once Mark Few retires, or whatever.... there is no guarantee that Gonzaga Basketball will attract the best recruits.
Enrollment is a mere 4,900 students. The Pac-12 and Gonzaga ain't going to happen.
Last edited:
They have a great program under Few. Who knows what it becomes long-term.
I think the biggest factor is when it comes to football, GU's following drops to 0.
The PAC for the rest of their sports would be much better then some western version of the Big East.
Tommy Lloyd will come back or Brian Michaelson will step up. Both are way better recruiters and developmental coaches than Few.
They won't miss a beat.
Gonzaga wouldn't be Gonzaga without Harry Magnuson and Father Spitzer.
Agree. They aren't going anywhere. I used to think the Zags would fade. Now I believe they have long-term staying power...and they haven't even won a natty.
Which is why the Zags have to either win a Natty or Join Pac 12 and PROVE that they are more then a Big Fish in a little, weaker pond, conference, in order to have True Long Term consistent staying power, semi blue blood status, 2nd, 3rd only to the Big 4 of Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina.
Until, unless, if they do that they won't have the Staying, semi blue blood, consistent power of the BIG FOUR.
They have to PUT UP, OR SHUT UP, Win a Natty or do well, very good in the Pac 12.
And if Gonzaga were to join Pac 12 as a Bball only, that would benefit them and the Pac 12.
Gonzaga doesn't need the Pac 10.
They need to keep putting players in the NBA.
That's what it is all about with high level recruits.
They need to keep putting players in the NBA.
That's what it is all about with high level recruits.
As long as they continue to win in the tourney they will do fine. When they slip their they will start to fade. There is no lure of Spokane and they are still a small college basketball team in a small white city surrounded rural comunities. Romar at UW, Zona and UCLA for a while did ok with NBA picks but didn't help them become "elite". Large win seasons, Cinderella story and NCAA appearances along with out of the box recruiting got them get going. Their big recruiting wins (nationally) are fairly new. If Few left shortly they are a Peterson-less BSU in 3-5 years. Especially if we keep moving towards superconferences.
Completely agree. Now.
Post-Few, the question will be whether they can find the right replacement. That is easier said than done. If they stumble, their leverage will be gone. So the prudent thing would be to chart a course now, while they have options. It is up to them to determine that course. But history has shown over and over again that sufficient arrogance will blind leadership to the need for future planning. Time will tell.
