PAC-12 is Dead: College Football Is All About Money Now.

 

September 1,2023

College football over the last 10 years has seen monumental change, with universities abandoning conferences, and severing decades-long rivalries and relationships, in pursuit of massive amounts of television money and a path to a 'national' championship.  For now, its popularity continues to thrive.  However, over the long term, college football is entering unchartered territory, and its future and relevance hang in the balance. One of the casualties of this chaos is the PAC-12 Conference, the "Conference of Champions."  It has produced many individual and team titles but in primarily non-revenue generating sports, such as soccer, track & field, tennis, golf, and swimming. Its undoing was mostly due to a lack of overall success in the multi-billion-dollar world of college football, where television money is king.

_______________________________

The Pac-12 Conference morphed over the years from various incarnations to what it was briefly in the last 8 years, with schools mostly from the West Coast and the 'four corners' states of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona.  It began in 1915 as the Pacific Conference with four founding schools, which at that time included the University of California at Berkeley (Cal), University of Washington, University of Oregon, and Oregon State University. A year later the conference added Washington State University, followed by Stanford at the end of that decade. A few years after that the conference added the University of Southern California (USC), and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). It went through a few other forms before finally becoming the Pac-8, made up of those schools minus Idaho and Montana, who had joined for a few years but left for other conferences (Wikipedia).  In the late 1970s, the conference added the University of Arizona and Arizona State University to become the Pac-10, which did not change for close to 30 years.

During that time, a few schools became name brands, notably USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon. USC especially, became part of the national consciousness, winning several national titles under legendary coach John McKay in the 1960s and 1970s and 4 Heisman Trophies (for best college football player) by their running backs (Mike Garrett, O.J. Simpson, Charles White, and Marcus Allen). Their commissioner at the time was Tom Hansen, a dedicated servant to the athletics departments of its member schools.  He was not a visionary by any means, but he put the conference first and made schools improve their revenue generation to compete nationally.

During a period of 30 years, (1962-1992) USC, and once each by UCLA and Washington, was able to claim an outright or shared national title, which was respectable, but not what other conferences were able to produce (BIG10, Southeastern Conference (SEC), or Big-8/Big-12 and Big East) during that same time span. There were long periods when none of the PAC-12 schools were relevant nationally.  

National championships were at times shared between schools (USC and Alabama in 1978, Washington and Miami in 1991for instance) so the television networks, along with the major conferences, created a format whose goal would pit the top two schools in a title game, which was called the Bowl Championship Series (BCS).  The first game of this new type of format took place in 1998 when the Tennessee Volunteers defeated the Florida State Seminoles.  This format, was itself flawed because it based its rankings that determined the two finalists on subjective opinions of sports journalists.  The PAC-12's only representative in the format was USC, which played in 2 consecutive BCS title games, winning one (in 2004, which was later vacated due to sanctions by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA).

I think one of the reasons for the lack of relevancy between PAC-12 member schools was that although they generally cared about being competitive in football, they did not care as much as presidents, athletic directors, and boosters (supporters) of schools in other conferences. Those conferences just cared more, which resulted in more money being spent on facilities, coaching staff, and stadium improvements which in turn attracted recruits and ambitious coaches.  Additionally, fans and boosters spent more money on their fandom, and the aggregate passion amongst those groups showed in the university's product on the field and producing players that were ready for the NFL. Over time, that passion led to better television deals with the networks, such as ESPN, NBC Sports (for Notre Dame football only), and Fox Sports.  ESPN and Fox Sports have massive deals with the SEC and BIG10 that separate them from the others. The SEC Network and The BIG10 Network, which is popular amongst fans of those conferences, drive high viewerships for its member schools and generate revenue that other conferences can only dream about.

This revenue gap is the primary reason that other conferences lose members and will most likely fade away, the PAC-12 being the main one so far. The dominoes began to fall at the beginning of this century when the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) was able to poach schools from The Big East (Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, and Miami), which effectively ended that conference overnight. In 2011, Missouri and Texas A&M left the Big 12 and moved to the SEC.  Around the same time, Colorado left the Big 12, and along with Utah, moved to the PAC-12.  This game of musical chairs intensified when Texas and Oklahoma, two titans and power centers in the Big 12 announced recently to join the SEC in 2025.  That effectively crippled the Big 12, but the conference didn't fold. It was able to rebound and bring in new schools Brigham Young University (BYU), University of Central Florida (UCF) University of Cincinnati (UC), and the University of Houston (UH). These invites helped stabilize the Big 12 and it was able to secure a viable television deal that saved the conference.  Time will tell if it will be a player in the new era of college football.

This leaves us with the conference that now requires hospice care. The PAC-12 traded unassuming Tom Hansen in for a "new age" commissioner, Larry Scott in 2009, who prioritized image over substance (moved the conference headquarters to expensive San Francisco, and assumed a PAC-12 Network, similar to the SEC and Big10, would become highly lucrative and turned down expansion at a time when they should have done so). He, along with university presidents and athletic directors, had a chance to incorporate Oklahoma and Texas into their conference in 2011 but decided against it when the deal included bringing in their in-state siblings Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. In hindsight, it should have been a brilliant move, one that would have made the PAC-12 the nation's premier conference with its various athletic sports (football, basketball, soccer, baseball, etc.). Instead, those schools left for the SEC, the Big 12 is on stronger footing, and the PAC-12 is now on life support. 

Once USC and UCLA saw the writing on the wall, in that their payouts per year from a new television deal with their current partners would pale in comparison to the BIG10 and the SEC, the schools formally notified their conference that they had accepted bids from the BIG10 to join in 2024.  The financial gap between the PAC-12 the BIG10 and the SEC would be too great to match, and they would fall behind, especially in football, and realize they had to break relationships and rivalries in order to remain competitive with their national aspirations to become relevant again. With the addition of USC and UCLA, the BIG10 now becomes a coast-to-coast conference, one that boasts name brands such as Penn State, Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin, and now USC and UCLA.  It is the reason their new television deal is lucrative ($7 billion over 7 years with NBC, Fox Sports, and CBS), with yearly payouts per school to be between $80-$100 million, something the PAC-12 could not offer both Los Angeles schools.

Once USC and UCLA left, the remaining schools had to adapt and make choices quickly.  Colorado returned to the BIG12 and brought Utah along with it.  Later, the University of Arizona and Arizona State left a sinking boat and were accepted by the BIG12 as well. That left four remaining schools, Washington State, Oregon State, Stanford, and Cal. While the two academic powers in the Bay Area have attractive appeal nationally, there is no final decision on their end yet. For Washington State and Oregon State, the best option would be to join the Mountain West Conference.  They may not make as much money, but they would get more stability in return. As of now, no new movement has been verified, but effectively, the PAC-12 needs to be given its last rites soon. George Klaviakoff, the current conference commissioner, is the captain of the Titanic now. He needs to jump into a lifeboat. The ship is going down.

Television money is what college football has more of, and that made the universities lots of money, which they spend lavishly for their alumni, hiring the best coaches at market value, and seeing their endowments rise with football success.  The sport has moved away from "mythical" national titles, into formats that let play on the field determine who is best. However, there is a cost for this largesse.  Long-standing rivalries, academic relationships, and the ability to travel to your favorite away game in a college town will be lost.  It has shown that colleges and universities care a lot about money, rather than academics, especially when it fuels success in athletics, notably football and basketball. Tradition, history, and symbolism will be traded in for excess in facilities and spending. That is what motivated USC and UCLA to leave a conference they have been a part of for decades.  

It goes to show that leadership and foresight do play a large role in financial success in college athletics.  The SEC and the BIG10 have or have had, conference commissioners that saw the value in being aggressive and confident with their product (football), and the value of that product has generated large sums of money for their schools.  It helped that their fans were some of the most passionate around the country. The PAC-12 had a commissioner who did not understand what he had and assumed what he did not (rabid fan base), and convinced conference presidents and athletic directors to put all their chips in a television network that would not bear fruit. Instead, it would become an albatross around the neck of potential revenue streams that would have allowed the conference to be competitive nationally.  They focused more on what schools would be a better fit academically during a potential expansion (Texas) rather than what schools would help generate viewership for their product (Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State) and bring in revenue to make them serious players on the national scene.  As a result, the PAC-12 was undone by obtuse presidents and athletic directors trusting a commissioner who could not deliver on what was required in this new era, money and viewership of their product. This made the conference less competitive and ultimately ruined their future as a group and splinter into schools looking out for themselves.

RIP PAC-12

1915-2024

"Oppenheimer" Film: A Compelling Story of A Reluctant American Prometheus

August 16, 2023

I recently watched the Christopher Nolan biopic "Oppenheimer," which was based on the book "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer," by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. It was visually stunning and artistically compelling despite its 3-hour duration. The film centered on how Robert Oppenheimer's new weapon, which split the atom into a frightening, powerful bomb, changed the arc of world history.  It was a sobering movie about how scientists working in secret for the Manhattan Project ushered the human race into the nuclear age at the end of World War II, with devastating consequences that would cause humanity to ponder its future.

____________________________________

The Christopher Nolan-directed biopic was expertly cast, with Irish actor Cillian Murphy in the lead role, and solid supporting roles provided by Emily Blunt as his wife, Kitty, Robert Downey, Jr. as his friend and rival Lewis Straus, Matt Damon as Manhattan Project leader Lt. General Leslie Groves and Florence Pugh as his former flame, mistress and avowed communist Jean Tatlock.  There were eye-catching minor roles with notable actors such as Kenneth Branaugh as Niels Bohr, Josh Hartnett as Ernest Lawrence (of Lawrence-Livermore Labs fame), Matthew Modine as Vannevar Bush (first presidential science advisor), Oscar Winner Rami Malek as fellow scientist David Hill, and with Gary Oldman as President Truman.  

The film has two parallel tangents going at the same time.  One, titled, "Fission" chronicled Oppenheimer's coming into his own in the 1920s, where he built a stellar scientific research reputation, forged in Europe initially, then teaching at Berkeley, where he met Ernest Lawrence, a well-respected professor and scientist who invented the particle accelerator, a groundbreaking device at the time. They bonded through their love of new theories in physics and his expanding circle of scientific friends. The film touched on his affair with Jean Tatlock, a sympathizer of communist ideals, and finally marrying his future wife, Kitty Harrison. The movie detailed his insistence on building the guarded, temporary city where the world's brightest minds would create the bomb in the isolated hills of New Mexico at Los Alamos.  He chose this location because it was in close proximity to the region where his love of the outdoors and riding horses grew as a young man. Lieutenant General Groves was a little skeptical of Oppenheimer because of his sympathies with the communists during the Spanish Civil War and his personal associations.  I did not personally believe he was a communist.  Like any good scientist, he was simply inquisitive of the egalitarian theories of Karl Marx that were later disproven. 

"Fusion" is shown in black and white (contrasting with "Fission"), and focuses on the Senate confirmation of his rival and former friend, Lewis Straus.  The intense and compelling hearings, which were meant to confirm Mr. Straus to the position of Secretary of Commerce in the Truman Administration, were a lifetime goal for an ambitious man. After his life-altering work, public sentiment began to turn against Mr. Oppenheimer. It was encouraged and leaked strategically by Mr. Strauss, as a result of being embarrassed by Robert Oppenheimer publicly many years ago, and which appeared to be the primary motivation to destroy the character and reputation of the "Father of the Atomic Bomb." The public was swayed mostly due to his opposition to the newer and more powerful hydrogen bomb, which Straus allegedly conveyed that Robert did not want to pursue so the Soviets could equal the United States with nuclear weapons capability to bring about restraint on all sides. This was later countered by his colleagues (specifically David Hill) in the scientific community who defended his good name and life's work as a good way to close out the film. 

To me, one of the film's most important messages was that while the U.S. government and society at large may celebrate anyone for personal or professional achievements, they can also tar and feather them if and when they feel like it when people are no longer of use to those in power.  Robert Oppenheimer was excited to put theories of physics to actual, empirical tests, but once those ideas had shown their great power, he was reticent to participate in moving the world closer to its own destruction. As an avid reader, he was familiar with the famous text of the Bhagavad Gita, and the famous sentence, " Now I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds."  He realized his creation gave credence to this in real life, and it caused him pain throughout the remainder of his life. Because of this, he was shamed by a select few, and his ruined professional credentials were eventually restored due to a vigorous campaign with the respect and support of those who knew him best. His revoked security clearance was given back to him posthumously, a little too late to restore his integrity for history.  Most Americans, and for that matter in the world, unless they saw the movie,  probably were not unaware of this, and that is indeed a shame.

The other main lesson to take from the movie is that the world's population has become numb to the dangerous levels of nuclear proliferation.  At the time of the first test of the bomb in 1945 (codename Trinity), many more nations now possess nuclear weapons: Soviet Union/Russia, China, India, Pakistan, England, France, Israel, and North Korea. Thousands of nuclear bombs, primarily with the American and Russian arsenals, sit idly by. While Robert Oppenheimer realized the path he created for the world, which gave the human race the ability to destroy itself, as mentioned by Neils Bohr in the film, the Department of Defense and successive presidential administrations did not share their fears.  The fact that the United States was the first and only nation to use the bomb against another says more about the morals of those in power in the past, who knew what fighting a nuclear war entails, as opposed to those around the world now, who would threaten the use of nuclear weapons in a flippant, less cogent manner.

The film showed the wonder of bringing theoretical ideas to life, but at the same time, implied that humans must think twice about what our creations can bring forth, which can include our destruction.  Robert Oppenheimer was a tortured genius and found out too little, too late that before creation, we must first determine if we should.