Anyway, the North isn’t going to come away empty-handed in one of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country. California is right there with Texas and Florida in terms of producing BCS-level talent on an annual basis, that much is no secret. SI.com did a big story last year, breaking down exactly where the talent resides in the country. Having at least a guaranteed road game against the Bay Area schools is a big win for the NW schools, no doubt about it.
And from strictly a WSU perspective, the Bay Area/Northern Cali area is a big point of emphasis under Paul Wulff. It’s his old stomping grounds, of course, as Wulff grew up in that NorCal area. But look at the home towns of last year’s WSU signees who hailed from the Golden State to get an idea of what’s at stake:
Isiah Barton – Fresno, CA
Wade Jacobson – Gilroy, CA
Rickey Galvin – Berkeley, CA
Kristoff Williams – Antioch, CA
Marquess Wilson – Tulare, CA
Robert Jiles – Pittsburg, CA
Tracy Clark – Pittsburg, CA
Bobby Ratliff – Etiwanda, CA
Brandon Goldon – Covina, CA
Damante Horton – Oakland, CA
Deone Bucannon – Fairfield, CA
Tyrone Duckett – Alameda, CA
Steven Hoffart – Oroville, CA
Devontae Butler-Booker – Sacramento, CA
Kalafitoni Pole – Union City, CA
David Gonzales – Fresno, CA
Matt Simmons – Torrance, CA
That’s 17 kids from California, just in last year’s class. Now, not all of the Cali kids are from northern California. But notice the trend of where the majority are coming from? Pittsburg, Fresno, Oakland, Sacramento, Antioch, Gilroy, etc. It’s pretty clear having the Bay Area schools in the same division means a lot to Paul Wulff and Washington State!
And, per Ted Miller’s latest on the whole LA schools thing? Really no big deal, at least according to the coaches:
The conventional wisdom is that Pac-10 schools from the Northwest need an annual trip to southern California for recruiting purposes. In the most likely model for the new Pac-10 — a North-South division split — that won’t happen.
The reaction to that possibility from Northwest coaches?
Sum it like this: “neh.”
“We’ve all got to be open for change because it’s coming anyway,” Washington State coach Paul Wulff said. “You’ve got to roll with it.”
Oregon’s Chip Kelly, who was busy watching film of New Mexico, was completely neutral on that matter.
“We’ll just line up and play whoever they want us to play,” he said. “It’s not like we won’t get enough exposure. Just tell me my schedule and let’s go play.”
And even the coach who could arguably be losing the most in all this in LA recruiting, UW’s head guy who used to be USC’s lead recruiter in SoCal?
Said Washington’s Steve Sarkisian, “We’ll get down there enough.”
And you think about it, well, it makes sense. Nine conference games, five against your own division, four against the other side, will keep things regular enough. You will only miss two schools per year in the South, and they can mix it up enough to hopefully see a road trip to LA on an every-other-year basis.
Let us add one thing to the mix. It was mentioned in the article, but there was a rumor making the rounds that Colorado and Utah were at one time projected to be in the Pac-12 NORTH. That would have removed California entirely from the NW schools, and that was something that was going to make ’em all scream. But that was very early on in the process. Now, even the Colorado AD has confirmed that being in the South was a big pull for Colorado to join, based on their large alumni base in the LA area.
The whole thing is coming together nicely, isn’t it?
Some other stuff out there:
Bob Condotta asks what will they call the new conference? He’s hearing Pac-12, like you might assume. Keeping the PAC in the name is important, but you might as well get the count of schools right? Can’t say that about the Big 12 though, they are going to keep their name for “branding” purposes….even though they have 10 schools. Whatever. They should just be called “BIG TEX” after the way that all went down.
Jon Wilner rolls out a long read of the possible revenue we could hope for in the new Pac-12. Wilner analyzes everything, from the possible revenues expected from the new TV network, the next ABC/ESPN contract, as well as the Pac-12 title game. SURVEY SAYS??
So that’s $150-160 million, or about $13 million per school — and the figures do not include BCS payouts and NCAA Tournament money.
(By the way, Navigate Marketing’s revenue models for the Pac-12 peg the per-school total even higher: $14.5 million.)
Yes, yes, yes: That’s a monumental increase over the Pac-10’s current per-team annual payout, which is $8-9 million for football and basketball TV, bowls and March Madness units.
Not the $20 million we hoped for when all this stuff began rolling out on the rumor mill, but still, $13 million per team for just the new TV deals and title game sounds good. HOWEVER, that’s if we have an equal, 12-team split of the pie. As Bill Moos mentioned yesterday in his KJR interview, right now there is not equal shares per team. But that is something that they are hoping/expecting to happen with this new expansion. The SEC has been winning BCS titles lately, and they currently split it all up equally, as does the Big Ten. The Pac-12 should fall in line.
Anyway, if that $13 million is the floor in all this, then again, WSU wins, pure and simple. We’ll say it again – be happy we have a seat at the table!
All for now. GO COUGS!
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
