Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17440]

13 hours ago, bullet said:

Loftin said the same thing a year after the move in an article in the aggy student paper.  He said he decided to wait for the right time after he couldn't do it in 2010.  And the reason he did it was for branding.  When they did surveys outside the state of Texas, nobody saw any difference between aggy, sand aggy and 3rd ward aggy.

He also said he told the other presidents in 2010 that he was committed to the Big 12 "as it existed."  In his mind, that meant with Nebraska and Colorado, even though everyone was talking about the Big 12 w/o Nebraska and Colorado.  That way he could say he wasn't lying when he said it!!!!  aggys are SOOO pathetic.

Aggy doesn't like, cheat or steal but they do leave out pertinent facts. 

[billfromlaketravis 11464]

I respect how OK State has carried themselves during the process. No bitching and moaning at congressional hearings. No strategic leaks in attempt to blow the deal up. No embarrassing public statements from leadership. Gundy cried about it a little bit at Big 12 Media Days, but he didn't say anything that embarrassed his school. 

I have no interest in playing the Pokes anymore, but I wish them well. 

[Satchel 6938]

4 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I respect how OK State has carried themselves during the process. No bitching and moaning at congressional hearings. No strategic leaks in attempt to blow the deal up. No embarrassing public statements from leadership. Gundy cried about it a little bit at Big 12 Media Days, but he didn't say anything that embarrassed his school. 

I have no interest in playing the Pokes anymore, but I wish them well. 

Yeah, we like it when a school that knows its place stays in it. 

['stache 21805]

On 8/13/2022 at 9:02 AM, billfromlaketravis said:

I loved how UT conducted themselves when the SEC move was leaked. Eltife/Hartzell/CDC did it in absolute secrecy with OU. This was a huge accomplishment considering the politics of the move. Aggy leaking the story and then publicly shitting themselves was a nice bonus. 

But the plan to leave the Big 12 has disappointed me. Extremely passive. For years we've read over and over again that UT's attorneys would crush the GOR in 5 minutes. But here we are in Year 2 without any semblance of an exit date. Remember those regarded aggys got out in 12 months. 

We assume Texas won't play U of H in their joke of a stadium. We assume that no Manning will ever play outside of the SEC. Better hurry up and do something about it. 

Wut? You have an exit date, it's 2025. You (the fans) want out earlier. That's still in discussion.

On 8/13/2022 at 10:07 AM, thunderlounge said:

We’re where ESPN wants us, for now. CBS is the sticking point, which is up soon. 

If ESPN is trying to buy out the rest of that CBS deal, what’s that say? They want us to move yesterday, but they absolutely don’t want CBS to have access to UT content at the current CBS rate. Of course CBS wouldn’t up the rate for UT/OU, so here we are.

The money to leave is there, and has been. So what else could be holding it up? 
 

First it was big12 won’t faithfully negotiate, then it was new commish might.

Maybe to some extent, but not the big sticking point. Exiting is like being a pawn at the moment during business chess.

Does it suck? Fuck yes.

ESPN has the leverage over the b12, but they also won’t just allow CBS to have access to UT/OU for the fractions of pennies CBS is currently paying.

CBS tells SEC no increase if they join during CBS contract, so here we are.

If ESPN is willing to buy it out from CBS early, as has been reported recently, then you know they’re trying their best to get shit rolling for next year.

 

 

This. These moves are all based on broadcast money. You'll move when the networks want you to move. What's the point of negotiating an early exit if the networks say they aren't ready for you? You'll enter the SEC when the network says so, and if its before 2025, they'll be a big part of the early buyout negotiations.

On 8/13/2022 at 1:58 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

So we’re screwed unless TV changes their mind. Cool, cool. 

That’s what I call leadership at the flagship university in the second largest state in the US. 

No individual school can dictate what the broadcast people want. You're certainly one of the bluebloods with significant influence, but you can't force their hand until they are ready. I'm sure there are plenty of discussions between your leadership and the networks about how this will play out and I'm almost certain that there will be a deal that gets you to the SEC before the newbs show up. There's still lots of time to work that out and we're still not that far out from the latest USC/UCLA bombshell that has changed the scenarios drastically. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

35 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm sure there are plenty of discussions between your leadership and the networks about how this will play out and I'm almost certain that there will be a deal that gets you to the SEC before the newbs show up. There's still lots of time to work that out and we're still not that far out from the latest USC/UCLA bombshell that has changed the scenarios drastically. 

Yeah, I just don't see UT playing any games against UH, BYU, UCF, or Cincy as Big 12 members. Yormark seems like a forward-thinking guy who's willing to play ball. He knows it's better to be rid of us sooner rather than later.

It'll look bad if UT or OU wins a league title after the newbies join. He's gotta sell the new configuration. I hope he's better at it than the empty suit, Bowlsby.

['stache 21805]

9 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Yeah, I just don't see UT playing any games against UH, BYU, UCF, or Cincy as Big 12 members. Yormark seems like a forward-thinking guy who's willing to play ball. He knows it's better to be rid of us sooner rather than later.

It'll look bad if UT or OU wins a league title after the newbies join. He's gotta sell the new configuration. I hope he's better at it than the empty suit, Bowlsby.

You're still focusing on the conference "playing  ball." Until ESPN says they want you earlier there's not really much to discuss. I'm certain those are just part of the discussions being had as part of the chaos of realignment right now.

[DFW Horn 6123]

Just now, 'stache said:

You're still focusing on the conference "playing  ball." Until ESPN says they want you earlier there's not really much to discuss. I'm certain those are just part of the discussions being had as part of the chaos of realignment right now.

ESPN can't take the lead openly or it may be construed as "collusion", right? Kinda like we needed to go through back channels to gain the necessary votes and approval before being "invited" to join the SEC. It's fait accompli if Yormark is willing to make it happen.

['stache 21805]

20 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

ESPN can't take the lead openly or it may be construed as "collusion", right? Kinda like we needed to go through back channels to gain the necessary votes and approval before being "invited" to join the SEC. It's fait accompli if Yormark is willing to make it happen.

Maybe with regard to poaching new members, but that's already been announced. They are certainly active in determining what they pay and broadcast, right? If there is an advantage to getting you early, they'll make it happen. Has anyone ever actually gotten in trouble for "collusion"? Some governors or lawmakers from the "left behind" states will say something, and then literally nothing will happen. Was there any follow up to the show hearings at the Texas leg last year? I didn't think so.

[Deej 76760]

7 hours ago, utee94 said:

There's a whole generation of Longhorn fans now, that doesn't know the joy of hollering "Poooooooooorrrr Aaaggggiiiieeeeeeeeeeess."  But they will learn, oh yes, they will learn.

Every school in the nation needs to learn that chant. 

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

Yeah, I just don't see UT playing any games against UH, BYU, UCF, or Cincy as Big 12 members. Yormark seems like a forward-thinking guy who's willing to play ball. He knows it's better to be rid of us sooner rather than later.

It'll look bad if UT or OU wins a league title after the newbies join. He's gotta sell the new configuration. I hope he's better at it than the empty suit, Bowlsby.

Well, we are running out of time for 2023.  And CBS still has the SEC game of the week in 2023.    Newbies arrive in 2023.  I think it will be 2024, same as USC and UCLA.

[billfromlaketravis 11464]

I don’t think CBS wants the SEC at 230pm on their network next year. They’re going to promote the shit of the Big Ten, and give them that time slot. They can hold ESPN’s feet to the fire, but I think logic wins out and ESPN purchases the 230 game. 
 

If the SEC doesn’t push back the 2023 schedule drop, we’re screwed for another year. I doubt they’d release schedules and then claw it back if something changes. 
 

 

[Deej 76760]

The new schools should have to play at our place if we have to play them, but then again, I don't know if I can handle watching us lose to them in person. 

[thunderlounge 7817]

I would also prefer to not significantly increase their ticket price for the day as well.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

Well, think of it this way:

• The exit fee is two years of withheld revenue
• Adding 4 programs increases the number of mouths at the table
• That reduces the per team averages paid out by the Big 12
• Exit fee is reduced by 28.5%

[Satchel 6938]

Changes may be in store for big baller, shot caller, ESPN:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/disney-responds-letter-activist-investor-dan-loeb

 

 

[billfromlaketravis 11464]

3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Changes may be in store for big baller, shot caller, ESPN:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/disney-responds-letter-activist-investor-dan-loeb

 

 

If Loeb doesn’t get board seats, this is a nothing burger. 
 

The Mouse does need to do better on live sports. Losing cricket, and chasing  that with losing the Big Ten will hurt. 

[TKthunder2 4990]

6 hours ago, 'stache said:

Was there any follow up to the show hearings at the Texas leg last year? I didn't think so.

Tell me that you don’t know much about a Texas politics without telling me…fuck it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty-seventh_Texas_Legislature

Bicameral means every two years.

87th Legislature ran until May 31st, 2021

The SEC move didn’t leak until July 22nd, 2021 (this was intentional, the circle was kept on a very small need to know basis until the Regular Session ended in May).

The legislature was in on a special session, however…

https://texasscorecard.com/commentary/what-is-a-special-session/

Quote

Special sessions are different from regular sessions in many ways. In a regular session, lawmakers can pass legislation covering any topic they chose.

Not so in a special session. During these periods, the legislation that can be covered is limited by the governor, through means of the gubernatorial proclamation calling the special session. Anything else is out of order.

So the legislature could call its dog and pony show since they were technically “in session” but without Abbott (like it or not, a UT grad) putting higher education review or something similar on his agenda they could do anything until Jan 2023.

Will anything happen? I’m sure some new bill will pop up trying to force tech or cougar high into the PUF but as long as aggy doesn’t fuck it up those will fail like usual.  There will be some unkind words at the higher ed committee with legislators trying to get easy layup sounds bites for their constituents, but at this point the genie is likely not going back in the bottle for two reasons:

#1 everyone can now see the endgame (Thanks USC/UCLA/B1G) and having two schools in the cool kids club when certain states may soon have zero is better than the status quo.  Plus if there is a chance to  get Tech in, it will only come with both UT & aggy pushing for it from within. It’s basically been settled and the public has moved on, trying to turn back UT to the B12 will not happen. Our legislators will be armed with prepared talking note about how aggy left without a big fuss or how UH just ditched SMU without a big hoopla and how this an “opportunity for all” which leads me to…

#2 Most of the state of Texas D1 outside of came out ahead in these last few rounds of realignment.  aggy then Texas> SEC, TCU then UH > B12, SMU then Rice/UNT/UTSA > AAC, and SHSU > CUSA, TX St > SunBelt, SFA/ACU/Tarelton/UTRGV > WAC, TAMU-Commerce > Southland. That’s only baylor (rape), tech (bad market/bad timing/bad decade), and UTEP (incompetence) stalling out/not advancing and those three don’t really have enough pull to do much other than kick and scream a little.

[closetohumping 17440]

6 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Well, think of it this way:

• The exit fee is two years of withheld revenue
• Adding 4 programs increases the number of mouths at the table
• That reduces the per team averages paid out by the Big 12
• Exit fee is reduced by 28.5%

I’d bet the four newbs don’t get a dime of the exit fees.  It’s for the jilted 8. 

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Tell me that you don’t know much about a Texas politics without telling me…fuck it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty-seventh_Texas_Legislature

Bicameral means every two years.

87th Legislature ran until May 31st, 2021

The SEC move didn’t leak until July 22nd, 2021 (this was intentional, the circle was kept on a very small need to know basis until the Regular Session ended in May).

The legislature was in on a special session, however…

https://texasscorecard.com/commentary/what-is-a-special-session/

So the legislature could call its dog and pony show since they were technically “in session” but without Abbott (like it or not, a UT grad) putting higher education review or something similar on his agenda they could do anything until Jan 2023.

Will anything happen? I’m sure some new bill will pop up trying to force tech or cougar high into the PUF but as long as aggy doesn’t fuck it up those will fail like usual.  There will be some unkind words at the higher ed committee with legislators trying to get easy layup sounds bites for their constituents, but at this point the genie is likely not going back in the bottle for two reasons:

#1 everyone can now see the endgame (Thanks USC/UCLA/B1G) and having two schools in the cool kids club when certain states may soon have zero is better than the status quo.  Plus if there is a chance to  get Tech in, it will only come with both UT & aggy pushing for it from within. It’s basically been settled and the public has moved on, trying to turn back UT to the B12 will not happen. Our legislators will be armed with prepared talking note about how aggy left without a big fuss or how UH just ditched SMU without a big hoopla and how this an “opportunity for all” which leads me to…

#2 Most of the state of Texas D1 outside of came out ahead in these last few rounds of realignment.  aggy then Texas> SEC, TCU then UH > B12, SMU then Rice/UNT/UTSA > AAC, and SHSU > CUSA, TX St > SunBelt, SFA/ACU/Tarelton/UTRGV > WAC, TAMU-Commerce > Southland. That’s only baylor (rape), tech (bad market/bad timing/bad decade), and UTEP (incompetence) stalling out/not advancing and those three don’t really have enough pull to do much other than kick and scream a little.

['stache 21805]

6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Tell me that you don’t know much about a Texas politics without telling me…fuck it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty-seventh_Texas_Legislature

Bicameral means every two years.

87th Legislature ran until May 31st, 2021

The SEC move didn’t leak until July 22nd, 2021 (this was intentional, the circle was kept on a very small need to know basis until the Regular Session ended in May).

The legislature was in on a special session, however…

https://texasscorecard.com/commentary/what-is-a-special-session/

So the legislature could call its dog and pony show since they were technically “in session” but without Abbott (like it or not, a UT grad) putting higher education review or something similar on his agenda they could do anything until Jan 2023.

Will anything happen? I’m sure some new bill will pop up trying to force tech or cougar high into the PUF but as long as aggy doesn’t fuck it up those will fail like usual.  There will be some unkind words at the higher ed committee with legislators trying to get easy layup sounds bites for their constituents, but at this point the genie is likely not going back in the bottle for two reasons:

#1 everyone can now see the endgame (Thanks USC/UCLA/B1G) and having two schools in the cool kids club when certain states may soon have zero is better than the status quo.  Plus if there is a chance to  get Tech in, it will only come with both UT & aggy pushing for it from within. It’s basically been settled and the public has moved on, trying to turn back UT to the B12 will not happen. Our legislators will be armed with prepared talking note about how aggy left without a big fuss or how UH just ditched SMU without a big hoopla and how this an “opportunity for all” which leads me to…

#2 Most of the state of Texas D1 outside of came out ahead in these last few rounds of realignment.  aggy then Texas> SEC, TCU then UH > B12, SMU then Rice/UNT/UTSA > AAC, and SHSU > CUSA, TX St > SunBelt, SFA/ACU/Tarelton/UTRGV > WAC, TAMU-Commerce > Southland. That’s only baylor (rape), tech (bad market/bad timing/bad decade), and UTEP (incompetence) stalling out/not advancing and those three don’t really have enough pull to do much other than kick and scream a little.

So you agree with me. Some lawmakers might dog and pony a bit for their “left behind” constituents and nothing will come if it, so much for “collusion” or other reasons that network discussions can’t take place for early exit.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I’d bet the four newbs don’t get a dime of the exit fees.  It’s for the jilted 8. 

What I meant was the exit fees will be lower for Texas and Oklahoma with the four new ones, not that they'll get a cut.

Made up numbers:

• $500m / 10 schools = $50m/school
• $500m / 14 schools = $36m/school

Texas and OU's baseline just dropped from $100m per school to $72m.  

[oSuJeff97 3435]

22 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I respect how OK State has carried themselves during the process. No bitching and moaning at congressional hearings. No strategic leaks in attempt to blow the deal up. No embarrassing public statements from leadership. Gundy cried about it a little bit at Big 12 Media Days, but he didn't say anything that embarrassed his school. 

I have no interest in playing the Pokes anymore, but I wish them well. 

I think this is born of two things:

1. Our administration actually thinks and behaves like adults, not psycho message board posters (*cough* Aggy *cough*).

2. Our administration is pretty confident that we end up in an acceptable spot when all of the dust finally settles; and that spot could very well be the Prestige Worldwide version of the SEC when it expands to 18-24 schools, so it's best to not go burning bridges in the short term.

[harold 81]

Biennial-every 2 years

Bicameral-two chambers

[bullet 1596]

20 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

What I meant was the exit fees will be lower for Texas and Oklahoma with the four new ones, not that they'll get a cut.

Made up numbers:

• $500m / 10 schools = $50m/school
• $500m / 14 schools = $36m/school

Texas and OU's baseline just dropped from $100m per school to $72m.  

I think the 4 new schools only get a half share at the start.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

4 minutes ago, bullet said:

I think the 4 new schools only get a half share at the start.

Haha, we're focusing on the wrong thing here.   More schools equates to a lower starting point in a buyout negotiation.    

['stache 21805]

23 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I respect how OK State has carried themselves during the process. No bitching and moaning at congressional hearings. No strategic leaks in attempt to blow the deal up. No embarrassing public statements from leadership. Gundy cried about it a little bit at Big 12 Media Days, but he didn't say anything that embarrassed his school. 

I have no interest in playing the Pokes anymore, but I wish them well. 

Gundy cried? As much as we struggle in the gam, he knows Bedlam is big for the fans and for the state and he's not happy it's going away. There might be a way to preserve it as a non-con, but it's going to be a pain in the ass, especially when conference schedules expand. Not to mention that OU also likes having one P5, one G5, and an FCS every few years, it will be difficult on both sides.

18 hours ago, Satchel said:

Yeah, we like it when a school that knows its place stays in it. 

How endearing. It's always a shock that so many people (not me) hate UT.

[TKthunder2 4990]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

So you agree with me. Some lawmakers might dog and pony a bit for their “left behind” constituents and nothing will come if it, so much for “collusion” or other reasons that network discussions can’t take place for early exit.

I agree that’s what will happen this time in Texas. I disagree that it was a forgone conclusion.  If they had no power Texas and the SEC would have announced it earlier, but as we’ve seen in previous attempts to join the SEC and PAC they can  prevent a move like this if they have enough time to plan and get out in front of it. The secrecy, timing, and B1G/LA moves is what has cemented this in place, not because the legislature is incapable.

What everyone is waiting on:

Big Ten TV deal to be finalized.

What does CBS do with two contracted games in the midday time slots in 2023?

What shakes out with the PAC/B12.

 

ESPN will have a large hole to fill without B1G content.  Adding UT/OU games against the big brands of the SEC will be novel and fill those spots in their lineup. They can also stop doing their one off LHN/Sooner stuff and roll that into the SECN.

Unless CBS has some beneficial language in their deal, they likely can’t keep both games.  Maybe FOX buys out the first year but if that seemed like a good plan why include CBS at all? Selling the SEC to ESPN at a high rate could give them a year if the Big Ten effectively free. Then ESPN only has to deal with the Big 12 who gets the last two years of conference payout from departing members.

Since the new B12 members don’t bring in any more money until the next contract they’ll only be shrinking the slice of pie everyone gets when they join AND the exit fees UT/OU are leaving behind. Also as it’s been pointed out UT/OU winning the conference would not be a great look.  Seems like a missed opportunity when you had Baylor/Okie St playing for it all last year to say we don’t need you but with the 2020 COVID season I get why they wanted to wait until at least this year.

Still IF ESPN decides to make this play then working with the B12 to peel off PAC12 schools will benefit both the B12 and ESPN in the long run.  Some could come to the B12 others May take a haircut in the B1G, but either way ESPN would own 3 of the 4 Power leagues and the Big 12 (and ACC) would be in better positions with the PAC12 losing their power status both competitively and financially.

The only problem here is FOX.  They still have a midday slot that needs filling and the B12 is the conference that owns that spot currently.  They may be willing to negotiate early and get out under that contract, however since they needs content that seems unlikely and I assume holding and reevaluating the landscape might be beneficial after these last moves.  The only reason for FOX to play ball is to get USC/UCLA to the B1G sooner or to facilitate the next B1G expansion West.

[Trojan Man 429]

I don't think there's any urgency from Fox, the Big 10 or the schools themselves to get USC and UCLA to the Big 10 earlier.  You need to keep in mind USC and UCLA aren't tied to the Pac 12 as long as Texas and Oklahoma are to the Big 12.  The LA schools are only in the Pac 12 through the summer of 2024, meaning fall of 2024 is the first season in the Big 10.  One more academic year, then we're gone with zero fees or penalties or buyouts.  I have no idea what the buyout would look like, but I'm guessing the people who are supposed to know that kind of thing have done the math and determined it makes the most sense to stay in the Pac 12 one more year and leave freely when the GOR expires.

Frankly, from a football perspective, I'm fine with it.  I'm happy with another year of Riley rebuilding the program and restoring our reputation in the Pac 12.  Year 3 is when you can expect big things from new hires at rebuilds and 2024 will be year 3 for Riley, so it all lines up nicely.  Also, in 2024 USC and LSU play in Las Vegas week 1 so we'll see which program made the better hire last fall and how much validity there is to the Sooner conspiracy theory that Riley is scared of the SEC.

I'm also not sure how eager the Big 10 is to add more Western schools.  If they wanted more Pac teams they would already have received invitations.  If you want Oregon and Washington why wait to invite them until after they negotiate a new TV deal and sign a new GOR with somebody else?  Stanford is the only one I can see getting an invitation in the near future and that's only if Notre Dame insists on dragging them along.  I think the Big 10 is going with either 16 or 18 teams for the next decade or so, along with the SEC staying at 16 during the same time.  They're both waiting for the ACC's GOR to expire or get overturned in court or reach a point where the buyout isn't financially devastating for the schools that leave for their next feeding frenzy.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

Pac-12 Networks: The rise, fall and future of a conference TV dream

Spoiler

There were no cups, so the only option Rick Neuheisel, Ronnie Lott, Summer Sanders, and everyone else in the Pac-12 Networks green room had for this occasion was to pass the bottle of Dom Pérignon and drink straight from it.

It was Aug. 15, 2012, and all the conference’s presidents/CEOs and athletic directors had been invited to the studio to watch the live launch of the Pac-12 Networks.

In the green room afterward, Neuheisel, a 25-year coaching veteran, gave a de facto victory speech.

“(Rick) basically was like, I learned when I was a coach, you have to celebrate every win because you never know when you’re gonna get the next one,” said Pac-12 Networks host Ashley Adamson, “and this right here is a win and to be here with all of you. It’s just this inspirational, unbelievable speech that still gives me goosebumps to think about.”

When the network hit television airwaves 10 years ago today, it was supposed to put the Pac-12 ahead of its peers in the media landscape and usher in a new era of revenue and exposure for the league. The ensuing decade has instead been defined by a string of public embarrassments: questionable strategy and spending by former commissioner Larry Scott, whiffed coaching hires by multiple football programs, apathetic fan bases and USC and UCLA’s stunning decampment for the Big Ten.

But there’s been no greater poster for the conference’s issues than the network that started as a bold vision and endures as a cautionary tale. While the remaining Pac-12 members ponder their next broadcast rights deal, the network presses on with more questions than ever. Ten years later, DirecTV still doesn’t carry the networks — though it turns out the league’s own presidents once turned down that opportunity.

With a decade behind it and an uncertain future ahead of it, here is the story of the rise and fall of the Pac-12 Network through the eyes of the executives, on-air talent and league members who were a part of it. Scott, ousted as commissioner last year, declined to comment for this story, citing his separation agreement with the conference.

In 2009, the Pac-10 hired Larry Scott as its new commissioner. Scott, previously CEO of the Women’s Tennis Association, made an early splash with his audacious attempt to add Texas, Oklahoma and four other Big 12 schools. Only Colorado and Utah joined, but in May 2011, Scott landed a massive 12-year, $3 billion deal with ESPN and Fox for the conference’s Tier 1 rights. The newly rebranded Pac-12 went from a distant fifth among conferences in TV revenue (around $60 million a year) to first (an average of $250 million a year).

The industry-changing Big Ten Network was then four years old. Scott, working closely with sports TV consultant Chris Bevilacqua, wanted a conference network of his own.

Kevin Weiberg, Pac-12 deputy commissioner (2010-14), previously VP of Big Ten Network: (Scott) very much liked the idea of the Pac having its own network, so that was definitely a focus for Larry … there was a lot of confidence in the idea that Larry could produce something really good from this network.

Bill Moos, Washington State’s AD (2010-18): I was thrilled with the whole concept. What I was excited about, being at Washington State, was the prospect of having tremendous exposure for our programs. I felt that we could get our message out, not just the Pac-12 message but Washington State’s message, and that it could be extremely beneficial in recruiting.

Weiberg: We went through a very exhaustive process of sort of thinking through what the options were. I spent a lot of time, as did Larry and other members of our staff, in New York, visiting with network leaders and people in the cable industry and so forth. Maybe with the exception of ESPN, almost every one of the major media companies at least looked at it and was willing to talk about it. I don’t think (ESPN) ever seriously expressed interest in it.

Whereas BTN was co-owned by the Big Ten and Fox, Scott and his conference presidents chose to retain full ownership of their network, a decision that would come to haunt the league down the road. At the time it was announced, the Pac-12 had already secured distribution agreements with its region’s four major cable providers, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox and Brighthouse — but notably, not DirecTV. The cable companies sought not just a national network but six regional Pac-12 networks (Oregon, Washington, Bay Area, Los Angeles, Arizona and Mountain) that would show programming and games specific to the schools in each area.

Kirk Reynolds, Pac-12 Networks VP of communications (2012-16): For those of us who hadn’t been in that space before, what we didn’t understand was the idea of distribution of that kind of content and seven networks — it was a novel idea. But that’s really the story we were telling. That’s the story that was celebrated, because it was something new and different. But now that we look back on it, was that the right approach?

Weiberg: I was really unsure about (the model), to be honest with you, because I had participated in the distribution effort for Big Ten Network with a major media company partner in Fox, and had we not had Fox as a partner, I’m not sure we would have achieved full distribution for Big Ten Network.

In August 2011, Scott hired Gary Stevenson, who previously helped launch Golf Network, as president of Pac-12 Enterprises (which included the networks). He and his senior staff had a year to locate space and construct a studio facility, sell sponsorships and hire a production staff and on-air talent. In February 2012, they broke ground at 360 3rd St. in San Francisco, in the same building as Comcast Sports Bay Area.

Bob Schmelzle, senior director of content production: They spent about 12 months putting together the senior staff and three months scrambling to put together everyone else.

Scott Adametz, director, system architecture & technology: The plan was to put everything in place in five months. Everyone told us we needed two years to do what we did in five months.

Rick Neuheisel, football studio analyst (2012-14): We were playing Oregon in the first-ever Pac-12 championship game (in 2011), and I had been told I was gone, so this was going to be my last game (at UCLA). And I remember being out on the field throwing some passes to my son before the team came out for warmups. Larry Scott came over and said, “I got a proposal for you. I want you to consider being on our air.”

Ashley Adamson, studio host and reporter: I remember I showed up Aug. 1, and from the second I sat down at my desk, those were like 12- to 16-hour days. We did a half-hour preview show on every single sport, and then we did one on every single football team. There was just so much (to do).

Schmelzle: The big thing for us was staffing. A (production assistant) was on a tour visiting a friend who worked here and had just graduated, so (senior vice president Leon Schweir) asked her, “Oh, you’re looking for a job in sports? Do you want to work here?” A giant box showed up four days later. Her mom had shipped up her clothes from San Diego.

Mike Yam, lead studio host (2012-20), hired from ESPN: I did “SportsCenter” on a Saturday, flew out on a Sunday and then was in an HR meeting Monday, then we launched on Wednesday. … I got pulled out of my HR meeting to go straight down to the studio to start working right away.

Adamson: The day before launch, I’m walking down the hallway and the tiles on the floor are pulled up and everyone’s scrambling, there’s wires everywhere. I remember thinking, how are we going to actually get on television?

Adametz: The main broadcast set had a “trophy case” that we had planned to fill with medals from the athletes. It was prominently behind the anchors on set. Problem was, we had no medals on launch day. Lydia Murphy-Stephans, our GM, happened to be an Olympian (in speed skating), so she brought in all her medals/trophies/awards.

Adamson: Launch night is still one of my favorite memories, personally and professionally. I’ve never been so nervous in my life.

Mark Petix, programming manager (2012-19): That launch night, I’ll never forget it. We had the mayor of San Francisco (Ed Lee) in the building. Everybody was kind of huddled around the main area there on the third floor near the reception desk. I still remember when 6 o’clock hit, there was a two-second delay before we actually went on air, and probably the longest two-second gasp you could possibly have. We came on the air with Yam and Ashley Adamson and our “Pac-12 Live” show, and it was just a huge party, to be honest.

Yam: Those were some great days, those early days at Pac-12 Network.

With the ESPN/Fox deal done, the initial intent behind the Pac-12 Networks wasn’t so much about money — nor was it about featuring the league’s best football games. It was about showcasing the conference’s Olympic sports. Before launching, Scott promised the Pac-12 presidents only that the networks wouldn’t lose money. This was later disputed.

Neuheisel: I said we need to have some good (football) games if we’re going to make people find the game. It was actually the same strategy the SEC Network employed when they started their network. Remember that South Carolina-Texas A&M game? That was on their channel. The ACC did the same thing when they started that opening weekend with all those conference games, making sure that people had to tune in.

Petix: I will never forget this. On one of (DirecTV’s) FAQ pages, they said, “We do not have any carriage deal with the Pac-12 Networks at this time. However, we can assure you the bulk of quality Pac-12 games can be seen on Fox and ESPN,” and then listed out the scores in weeks 1-3 of the games that were on Pac-12 Networks.  And it was one of the strongest flexes I’ve seen. It was bullet points of (blowout scores). You didn’t see a close result. [The average margin for all games aired by the network through its first five seasons was 23.7 points.]

Michael K. Young, Washington president (2011-15): The design was to make available (football) games of marginal interest. It sounds kind of insulting, but games that were not necessarily going to be picked up by ESPN. … And then to pick up an awful lot of the subsidiary sports.

Weiberg: I don’t remember Larry sort of trying to sell the idea that this could achieve at the high (revenue) level, but he certainly did explain the value of more exposure for a lot of sports that weren’t getting it and how it fit well with the culture and history of the Pac.

Arizona athletic director Greg Byrne (2010-17): I don’t remember it that way. It was absolutely a thought that the network was going to provide another revenue stream to support our athletes.

Adamson: We did so many different features on every single sport. There was “Sports Report.” We led with volleyball half the time.

Yam: We always talk about football, but the reality is, if you talk to the women’s basketball coaches, they’ll tell you how much Pac-12 Network was a game changer for them.

Cori Close, UCLA women’s basketball coach: I signed the No. 1 recruiting class in 2014. I just don’t think we could’ve done that without being able to say, “Hey, stay home. Play in front of your families. You can’t be on TV anywhere else other than the Pac-12 to get this much exposure.” You just saw a major shift. It used to be Stanford and the 11 dwarfs. … Since then, we’ve just been killing it.

Charmin Smith, California women’s basketball coach: You think about how we’ve had an increase in the number of teams to the Final Four, even back to 2013 when we made our run. And then Kelsey Plum came along and got Washington there (in 2016). And then Sabrina (Ionescu) comes along and gets Oregon there (in 2019). These types of things were a lot more visible because of the network.

Schmelzle: It’s probably the only sports network in the world with gender equality, that’s producing more women’s sports events than men. … I (just) wish we’d done a little more with our messaging to explain what we’re about.

The Networks also gained industry praise for their creativity, especially on the technical side. In 2014 and 2015, the Networks received an Emmy nomination for their remote productions of games. Instead of using satellite uplink trucks, the Networks transported raw camera and audio feeds via the internet to the San Francisco headquarters. This made it possible to produce 850 live events. It also saved money.

Ryan Currier, senior vice president for engineering and products: We were the first network in the history of TV in the United States to launch a TV-everywhere product on the same day as a linear cable channel.

Adametz: There weren’t enough production trucks on the West Coast to produce the number of events we were supposed to do. We couldn’t do it as a traditional model. I remember meeting with Gary (Stevenson), pitching him on a different way to do it: using IP signals from all our campuses sent back to our production center, and doing multiple events simultaneously.

Adametz: ESPN came to see it. They were like, this can’t be real. How are you doing this? And we just showed them, because we were a not-for-profit, this is how we do it. We had a broadcaster fly in from Norway. They heard what we were doing and came and wanted to see it in person. It was pretty revolutionary.

Adamson: For all the criticism that I’ve heard over the years, no one’s ever criticized the product.

Still the number of events created issues. During the 2014-15 sports season, the Pac-12 Networks produced 850 events for linear TV. By comparison, the Big Ten Network reportedly produced 500. Another problem: While the six regional networks provided a local element to carriers and fan bases, it also caused problems. Notably, the channels all looked the same.

Moos: To some degree, (the regional networks model) had its assets, but it also had its liabilities. When you have an alumni base with a rural campus like Washington State, most of your alums aren’t in Pullman or even Spokane. There are a lot of them in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, and they weren’t able to get a lot of our content because it was primarily limited to the region.

Weiberg: The idea of 850 was a very large number.

Petix: It became like a weight around your neck as the years went on. There were just too many events that we were contractually obligated to air that simply didn’t generate revenue.

Young: What I think began to happen near the end of my tenure and accelerated after I left was the realization that expenses might be slightly out of control. That is to say where they chose to site the television station, the cost of renting that, the cost of going full-blown with all the equipment to broadcast all of these different games. The size of the capital investment and so forth was a little startling.

Petix: It all comes back to dollars. All roads were always leading back to, will we or won’t we with DirecTV?

For years, Scott faced some variation of the same question at media gatherings: Are you any closer to a deal with DirecTV? The network launched without carriage on the satellite giant, which meant millions of fans inside and outside the Pac-12 footprint couldn’t watch their teams on linear television. DirecTV wasn’t willing to pay the Pac-12’s asking price in part, it contended, because it already carried the league’s top games via Fox and ESPN — and because it didn’t want to pass the cost of Pac-12 Network fees to subscribers who might not actually want the channel. The Pac-12’s original carriage agreements also include a “Most Favored Nation” clause that prevents it from charging one carrier a lower rate than any other.

The two parties waged a p.r. battle, which included the Pac-12 using clever TV ads encouraging DirecTV subscribers to switch providers if they wanted the network. With neither side budging — and no major partner to apply pressure — the network trudged forward without it.

Reynolds: I remember (Michael) White, the head of DirecTV, came out and said right at the start: “We’ll never carry seven networks. There’s no way we’re going to do that.”

Mark Shuken, Pac-12 Networks president: Every other distributor in the space carries the networks under the same terms that were offered to DirecTV.

Moos: I know Larry dug his heels in. They dug their heels in. It just never seemed like we could get any compromise. Fox owned 51 percent of the Big Ten Network [now 61 percent]. They can go to DirecTV and say, “You’ve got to take the Big Ten Network, or you’re not getting this, that and everything else.” We never got the leverage because we didn’t go out to market.

Yam: We took a lot of pride in our work, but … you throw out “Pac-12 Network,” the two things that always came up were DirecTV, and then Larry’s name.

Don MacLean, basketball color analyst: I’ve loved working at the Pac-12 Network, but the thing that has always concerned me is I have friends, people I know, that have never heard or seen me call a Pac-12 Network game. I’ve always wondered about the sustainability of the network because no one got it.

Adamson: I always said if we ever get on DirecTV, I don’t know what people are going to talk to me about anymore. That was always the first question, and rightfully so.

According to a report by Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News in 2019, schools were initially told they could make as much as $10 million a year in revenue from the networks. Through the first six fiscal years they’d received less than $10 million per school, total. The perceived shortfall only magnified the DirecTV issue.

Moos: I had a high degree of confidence that we could realistically see through the Pac-12 Networks $6 (million), $7 (million), maybe even $10 million a year per institution, once it got on its feet and got the bugs worked out.

Byrne: We certainly thought into mid-seven figures and maybe higher than that, on an annual basis, could be another revenue stream for us. It never hit the number we were told.

Close: I thought that our alumni across the conference were going to say, “Heck no, DirecTV, we’re going to cancel everything if you don’t take on the Pac-12 Networks.” And that just didn’t happen. What we thought was this major innovative edge that the Pac-12 Networks had, it ended up actually being our Achilles’ heel.

Adamson: We wanted it more than anything, truly. And I think we all truly believed that we were gonna get it.

They came close, once, in September 2015, after AT&T — already a conference partner — took over DirecTV. According to a summary of the proposal provided to the conference CEO Group and obtained by The Athletic, the deal would have netted a projected $35 million in revenue in the first year (nearly $3 million per school), and would have put the network on DirecTV’s “Choice” tier — granting the Pac-12 access to some 16.4 million new households nationwide. The Pac-12 Networks’ entire subscriber base was estimated at around 19 million at its peak (it has since decreased, per Wilner).

Scott recommended AT&T’s offer to the conference presidents and chancellors for approval.

Ted Robinson, play-by-play broadcaster: In the conference office there was a whiteboard with the DirecTV channel assignments for this Saturday’s games. And down the hall in a meeting room, I’m told the lawyers for both sides were working out the deal. Everyone’s giddy. Everyone that knows about it thinks it’s going to happen.

Yam: It wasn’t this massive corporation where different departments were siloed. Everyone talked. So when they were running the tests on the DirecTV channels, we were like, “Oh, OK, this might be happening.” There was buzz, there was excitement, you could feel it.

Petix: It felt like we were at the goal line, to be as cheesy as possible with the analogy. It felt like we were an announcement away from being on DirecTV.

The network could have been available on DirecTV as soon as that weekend. But there was a catch. As part of the deal, the 12 universities would be required to spend in the seven figures annually on AT&T telecom services, with the company becoming a “preferred” provider. 

The presidents voted against accepting the deal.

Michael Crow, Arizona State president: It was a terrible deal and uninteresting people. They were basically not interested in doing a fair deal. No one saw that deal as fair.

Robinson: Sadly, that was the last gasp.

Adamson: That was the first time we all sort of realized: “We’re not getting on DirecTV.”

Yam: That’s when I think all of us said, “This is basically our team. Let’s just play ball. There’s nothing else we can do.”

By the time Shuken took over as Pac-12 Networks president in September 2017, two years after those failed DirecTV negotiations, the understanding was clear. “I was under no impression five years ago that at that stage DirecTV was going to launch the networks,” he said.

At that point, the Big Ten Network was already well-established. The ESPN-owned SEC Network launched in 2014 with full distribution. Both leagues utilized the success of their networks and their robust media rights deals to invest in coaches, facilities and recruiting staff. That intensified the scrutiny placed upon Scott, the media rights deal and the networks.

Neuheisel: Everybody was excited with the (financial) number, but because it was ESPN and Fox I didn’t know where we would fit in their priority list. And as it turned out, we didn’t fit very high…. And I still to this day say Christian McCaffrey lost his Heisman Trophy because of that television deal.

Schmelzle: It guaranteed us a profit for 12 years, it just didn’t guarantee the profit they expected.

Crow: People felt that because some other conferences were getting a bigger media deal that somehow we needed to get a bigger media deal, because then it would give us more resources to compete, etc. When in fact this network was established not related to that objective. … But we obtained our objective and couldn’t obtain any additional objective because of the lock-in with our media deal.

Scott was under heavy criticism for several reasons in the latter half of the decade. The football and men’s basketball product had slipped from national relevance, his spending was considered lavish, the media rights deals lagged and football officiating was subpar — and controversial.

The other issues the network had were only accelerated. Morale suffered when the pandemic arrived in 2020 and led to layoffs. Shuken said peak staffing was 165 people, but the network has now returned to staffing in the 150s and will adjust accordingly.

Shuken: When your revenue is driven by games and games don’t exist, we had to make some tough decisions in those days, but fortunately we’re back now.

Adamson: The criticism has always been there, but … (COVID) sped up a lot of things, created a lot more financial issues than even we thought we had to begin with.

In January 2021, the Pac-12 decided to move on from Scott as commissioner. In May of that year, it announced the hiring of George Kliavkoff, who inherited several challenges at an increasingly chaotic time in college athletics.

Crow: From my perspective, Larry was the transition commissioner, from a non-media modern conference to a media modern conference. … Some people became frustrated with Larry and wanted to go in a different direction, and I supported going in a different direction when it came down to those discussions. Yes, did I support Larry because of what he had done to move us in the right direction? Yes. But it was not going to work going forward.

The email landed in reporters’ inboxes at 4:41 p.m. on June 30, with a statement from USC athletic director Mike Bohn, who had just navigated his school’s move from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten in stealth fashion. “This is the most volatile and uncertain era in the history of American collegiate athletics,” Bohn said. “USC must ensure it is best positioned and prepared for whatever happens next.”

UCLA announced its intentions to join the Big Ten the same day, leaving the conference and its network without a foothold in the second-largest media market in the country.

A network television executive: I’m not sure what choice (USC and UCLA) had at the end of the day when the revenue is so much lower than the other schools you’re competing with.

Former senior Pac-12 Network employee: I couldn’t think of two schools who could replace them with their fan base and the amount of championships they have. That’s a gut punch. I don’t know how it’s sustainable. I don’t see how the network is in existence two years from now.

Last week, the Pac-12 received its first piece of good news in a while when it was announced that ESPN pulled out of the Big Ten media rights negotiations, seemingly increasing the network’s need for the Pac-12 and its valuable late-night Saturday time slots. 

Yam: I still think there’s value for having a hub for your content. … The bigger question is going to be, how does Kliavkoff navigate this? We already know the doors are closing on that facility [the conference announced in March it would leave its San Francisco offices in favor of a work-from-home model and move its broadcast production to a new facility in 2023]. That worries me a little bit. I’m so indebted to my time there and have a lot of really great memories — I want the network to still do well. I want the network to still exist. I don’t want people to be out of work.

Shuken: I would say doomsday for the network is an overstatement of any bad news, and in fact what really we’re planning on is being the production and distribution entity for our schools and our student-athletes moving forward and that’s the opposite of doomsday. … It’s very distinct from some scenario that has us shutting the doors in 2024. It’s actually the opposite of that. It’s opening the doors for us to figure out new distribution partners, mechanisms, approaches.

With some more time removed from the raw emotions of June’s realignment news, angst has seemingly calmed a bit within the league. Aug. 17 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the network’s first live event: a Stanford-Santa Clara women’s soccer match. The major existential question moving forward is how many more live events will the network air after the current media rights deal runs out in 2024.

Adamson: Probably the thing that weighs heavy on my heart is, it will always feel like there was an unfulfilled potential of Pac-12 Network and the vision for what it could be and ultimately what it turned out to be, for a variety of reasons — some self-inflicted, some not — that’s the hardest thing for me to swallow.

 

TLDR:

• PacNet was a tech and content pioneer
• Dropped the ball on carriage and not having leverage (Fox/ESPN/NBC/etc) to go national
• Dropped the ball on not putting featured games on PacN to push subscriptions
• Never could recover from failed Direct TV negotiation
• Tons of expense, next to no profit
• Covid accellerated the ending, liking shuttering soon

I highly doubt the Pac12 Net will survive this media contract, because the Pac, to stay even with the Big 12, will need to sell the inventory it currently is putting on the Pac12 Net.   With nothing of value left on the channels, there isn't a reason to exist.

 

[TKthunder2 4990]

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

I'm also not sure how eager the Big 10 is to add more Western schools.  If they wanted more Pac teams they would already have received invitations.  If you want Oregon and Washington why wait to invite them until after they negotiate a new TV deal and sign a new GOR with somebody else?  Stanford is the only one I can see getting an invitation in the near future and that's only if Notre Dame insists on dragging them along.  I think the Big 10 is going with either 16 or 18 teams for the next decade or so, along with the SEC staying at 16 during the same time.  They're both waiting for the ACC's GOR to expire or get overturned in court or reach a point where the buyout isn't financially devastating for the schools that leave for their next feeding frenzy.

I don’t think the Big Ten desperately wants more Western schools but FOX needs them.  Also this is the end game.  If they let the PAC school like Cal/Washington rot out West then they have only themselves to blame when they don’t have AAU level schools that fit the mold of what the Big Ten is looking for.

I don’t think the Big Ten is interested in diluting their payout by just expanding to expand, which is why they won’t without ND unless the noobs agree to a reduced revenue share throughout the terms of the current contract.  If the 16 team Big Ten pulls in $100 million per member per year but Oregon/Washington/Stanford/Cal only pull in $40 million then they’d make them a deal that they’ll only get 40 until the next renegotiation since the other members were unwilling to take pay cuts, and the new members really will have no choice but to accept.  I don’t see much of the ACC as a good value add for the Big Ten.  If they can get ND they’d still have 3 more spots for Miami, GT, UNC, UVA or whoever.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

45 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I don’t think the Big Ten desperately wants more Western schools but FOX needs them.  Also this is the end game.  If they let the PAC school like Cal/Washington rot out West then they have only themselves to blame when they don’t have AAU level schools that fit the mold of what the Big Ten is looking for.

I don’t think the Big Ten is interested in diluting their payout by just expanding to expand, which is why they won’t without ND unless the noobs agree to a reduced revenue share throughout the terms of the current contract.  If the 16 team Big Ten pulls in $100 million per member per year but Oregon/Washington/Stanford/Cal only pull in $40 million then they’d make them a deal that they’ll only get 40 until the next renegotiation since the other members were unwilling to take pay cuts, and the new members really will have no choice but to accept.  I don’t see much of the ACC as a good value add for the Big Ten.  If they can get ND they’d still have 3 more spots for Miami, GT, UNC, UVA or whoever.

Fox can get them cheaper by them being in the Pac10/Big12.   Why pay $100m for someone you can get for $50-70m?  

ESPN has some shoulder property for the SEC with the ACC, but could use more.    Fox bought the best Big Ten game, but needs shoulder property for the other time slots.

Whoever has the in with Fox I think wins this battle and the Big 12 is a bit more protected in the moment with a Gor through 2025.

So does Fox want to consolidate the properties it wants in the Big 12 or keep two afloat?   I'd guess if they consolidate, you'd see a 15-25% premium.   More if Fox also creates a linear channel for that entity to market next to the Big Ten Network.

[TKthunder2 4990]

33 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Fox can get them cheaper by them being in the Pac10/Big12.   Why pay $100m for someone you can get for $50-70m?  

ESPN has some shoulder property for the SEC with the ACC, but could use more.    Fox bought the best Big Ten game, but needs shoulder property for the other time slots.

Whoever has the in with Fox I think wins this battle and the Big 12 is a bit more protected in the moment with a Gor through 2025.

So does Fox want to consolidate the properties it wants in the Big 12 or keep two afloat?   I'd guess if they consolidate, you'd see a 15-25% premium.   More if Fox also creates a linear channel for that entity to market next to the Big Ten Network.

Again, they won’t pay them $100 million now.  They’ll only pay $50 million but it’ll secure their spot in a power conference so that’s a trade everyone of them will make.

Seattle and the Bay Area markets for the BTN might be too tempting plus Cal/Stanford make the presidents wet between the knees, Washington/Oregon are the best remaining fb properties not locked up for the next decade excluding ND.  Speaking of the Irish landing Stanford helps with getting them in the fold and makes the Big Ten the ideal academic conference that reflects the same ideals the Irish are striving for.

Once under contract with the Big Ten, Fox won’t have to complete with ESPN for the Big 12 (though they will because why cut your rival a break to save more capital for the next round of contract negotiations). FOX would have the best late night inventory and they’d barely have to pay anymore since they are competing against a low ball ESPN offer to the PAC and not a specific offer to UO/UW/Stan/Cal which is worth more due to markets/brand/success (omitting Cal on that last one).

Make $50 million a year in the Big Ten knowing you’ll make less than your conference mates until the next contract…or make $50 million a year in the Big 12.  Seems like a no brainer to me.

Its also why the 4 corner schools are dumb not to be forcing the issue now. The longer they wait the less leverage they have.  Allowing the Big Ten deal to close now isn’t helping Arizona&co, its only helping Oregon&co.

[66BUFF 2562]

5 hours ago, harold said:

Biennial-every 2 years

Bicameral-two chambers

 

[Zinhead 42]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I don’t think the Big Ten desperately wants more Western schools but FOX needs them.  Also this is the end game.  If they let the PAC school like Cal/Washington rot out West then they have only themselves to blame when they don’t have AAU level schools that fit the mold of what the Big Ten is looking for.

I don’t think the Big Ten is interested in diluting their payout by just expanding to expand, which is why they won’t without ND unless the noobs agree to a reduced revenue share throughout the terms of the current contract.  If the 16 team Big Ten pulls in $100 million per member per year but Oregon/Washington/Stanford/Cal only pull in $40 million then they’d make them a deal that they’ll only get 40 until the next renegotiation since the other members were unwilling to take pay cuts, and the new members really will have no choice but to accept.  I don’t see much of the ACC as a good value add for the Big Ten.  If they can get ND they’d still have 3 more spots for Miami, GT, UNC, UVA or whoever.

There was some scuttlebutt on a Stanford message board that the school had approached the BIG and offered to take a reduced payout tied to their market value. One can assume that UW, OU and Cal have done the same thing. 

[Satchel 6938]

I don’t understand why Cal and Stanford won’t go with the highest bidder. It’s not like the academic reputations will suffer because they rub shoulders with their academic inferiors. 

[camel at sea 589]

18 minutes ago, Zinhead said:

There was some scuttlebutt on a Stanford message board that the school had approached the BIG and offered to take a reduced payout tied to their market value. One can assume that UW, OU and Cal have done the same thing. 

Dennis Dodd reported something along those lines a couple weeks ago.  

The downside of that for the B1G is the threat that concept poses to existing B1G members.  Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc., are not going to want to introduce the idea that schools should be paid what they are worth.  Once implemented with the west coast schools, it could easily be turned around on them later.  At some point, Oregon would point out that they are more valuable than ____ and should be paid like it.  So... I could see the B1G and its expansion targets threading the needle by structuring a phase-in financial period for those expansion schools in such a way that the money works for everyone else.  They'd eventually have to pay the new schools equal shares but they could punt that decision a decade or more and make it a problem for the next rights deal.   

[Hurtlocker 2212]

46 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Again, they won’t pay them $100 million now.  They’ll only pay $50 million but it’ll secure their spot in a power conference so that’s a trade everyone of them will make.

Seattle and the Bay Area markets for the BTN might be too tempting plus Cal/Stanford make the presidents wet between the knees, Washington/Oregon are the best remaining fb properties not locked up for the next decade excluding ND.  Speaking of the Irish landing Stanford helps with getting them in the fold and makes the Big Ten the ideal academic conference that reflects the same ideals the Irish are striving for.

Once under contract with the Big Ten, Fox won’t have to complete with ESPN for the Big 12 (though they will because why cut your rival a break to save more capital for the next round of contract negotiations). FOX would have the best late night inventory and they’d barely have to pay anymore since they are competing against a low ball ESPN offer to the PAC and not a specific offer to UO/UW/Stan/Cal which is worth more due to markets/brand/success (omitting Cal on that last one).

Make $50 million a year in the Big Ten knowing you’ll make less than your conference mates until the next contract…or make $50 million a year in the Big 12.  Seems like a no brainer to me.

Its also why the 4 corner schools are dumb not to be forcing the issue now. The longer they wait the less leverage they have.  Allowing the Big Ten deal to close now isn’t helping Arizona&co, its only helping Oregon&co.

It doesn't make a ton of sense though.   The reason you "buy in" is because you come in the middle of a contract and everyone gets less growth to pay for you.   Like for the new kids in the Big 12, they may get a bump because of more inventory, but basically everyone is shaving their 4% riders, adding it up, and splitting that batch of money with the new 4.  But, the Big Ten is in the beginning of a contract that Fox controls and they're selling a ton of big match ups.   Oregon/Ohio State is worth more to Fox/NBC/CBS than Indiana/Ohio State, hell Oregon/Washington is worth more than that.   If they'd bring them in, they'd bring them in now.    The only reason to not bring them in is if Notre Dame is paying for them.   Washington, Oregon and either Stanford or Cal would be about the same value paired with ND, so its who do they want.     Long story short, if you come in at the beginning at half off, you'll always be half off or everyone else will get less the next deal.

With 61% ownership, DMAs do matter to Fox with BTN and, with this new deal, they'll have a lot of BTN content.  LA paid for UCLA, USC paid for itself as a brand.   I guarantee you you'll see a lot of UCLA's football/basketball games on BTN and USC's on Fox.   Oregon's DMA is tiny, so it needs to be valued as all national brand.   Washington likely makes $75m and the Bay area could do that with one team.   

The four corners schools are fucked regardless.  Doesn't really matter what they do now.   

The top end valuation is probably Big Ten growing to 18 with ND/Stanford and then stopping.   Taking Oregon/Washington to 20 is, worth less, but they only two other schools that even may make sense.   

The remaining top 4 joining the Big 12. (my guess is Oregon, Washington, Cal, and ASU - but I can see them going to 18 to get Colorado and Arizona or taking those two if Oregon/Washington bolt)

Everyone else boosts the MWC

[Vertigo 20276]

17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I don’t understand why Cal and Stanford won’t go with the highest bidder. It’s not like the academic reputations will suffer because they rub shoulders with their academic inferiors. 

Stanford's entire athletics department is fully endowed including the football program. They can afford to be snobby and elitist and pander to the silicon valley crowd while staying in their ivory tower of moral platitudes. Cal isn't in the same situation. On their own, they are at best 5th and probably 7th on the list of potential realignment targets. If the ACC were in play they would be in the teens. 

['stache 21805]

20 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I don’t understand why Cal and Stanford won’t go with the highest bidder. It’s not like the academic reputations will suffer because they rub shoulders with their academic inferiors. 

That's not how snobbery works. To even have their names anywhere near Texas Tech or Oklahoma State on a permanent basis is just unpalatable to them entirely. 

[bullet 1596]

6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I agree that’s what will happen this time in Texas. I disagree that it was a forgone conclusion.  If they had no power Texas and the SEC would have announced it earlier, but as we’ve seen in previous attempts to join the SEC and PAC they can  prevent a move like this if they have enough time to plan and get out in front of it. The secrecy, timing, and B1G/LA moves is what has cemented this in place, not because the legislature is incapable.

What everyone is waiting on:

Big Ten TV deal to be finalized.

What does CBS do with two contracted games in the midday time slots in 2023?

What shakes out with the PAC/B12.

 

ESPN will have a large hole to fill without B1G content.  Adding UT/OU games against the big brands of the SEC will be novel and fill those spots in their lineup. They can also stop doing their one off LHN/Sooner stuff and roll that into the SECN.

Unless CBS has some beneficial language in their deal, they likely can’t keep both games.  Maybe FOX buys out the first year but if that seemed like a good plan why include CBS at all? Selling the SEC to ESPN at a high rate could give them a year if the Big Ten effectively free. Then ESPN only has to deal with the Big 12 who gets the last two years of conference payout from departing members.

Since the new B12 members don’t bring in any more money until the next contract they’ll only be shrinking the slice of pie everyone gets when they join AND the exit fees UT/OU are leaving behind. Also as it’s been pointed out UT/OU winning the conference would not be a great look.  Seems like a missed opportunity when you had Baylor/Okie St playing for it all last year to say we don’t need you but with the 2020 COVID season I get why they wanted to wait until at least this year.

Still IF ESPN decides to make this play then working with the B12 to peel off PAC12 schools will benefit both the B12 and ESPN in the long run.  Some could come to the B12 others May take a haircut in the B1G, but either way ESPN would own 3 of the 4 Power leagues and the Big 12 (and ACC) would be in better positions with the PAC12 losing their power status both competitively and financially.

The only problem here is FOX.  They still have a midday slot that needs filling and the B12 is the conference that owns that spot currently.  They may be willing to negotiate early and get out under that contract, however since they needs content that seems unlikely and I assume holding and reevaluating the landscape might be beneficial after these last moves.  The only reason for FOX to play ball is to get USC/UCLA to the B1G sooner or to facilitate the next B1G expansion West.

ESPN may be paying the Big 12 more for more inventory.

As for the holes, someone else pointed out that they have 14 games from the SEC CBS contract and 14 home games for UT and OU which pretty much covers what they lost from The Big 10.  Now they still have half of the Pac 12 and Big 12, so they will need to renew those deals.

 

The big hole for ESPN is basketball.  I've seen they covered as many as 80 Big 10 basketball games (but haven't seen that verified from a source such as SBJ).

[bullet 1596]

37 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That's not how snobbery works. To even have their names anywhere near Texas Tech or Oklahoma State on a permanent basis is just unpalatable to them entirely. 

At the same time, they regularly play such schools, even BYU.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9324]

Quote

 Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy said Tuesday that Oklahoma and Texas "took the money and ran" in leaving the Big 12 for the SEC.

"Let's just cut to the chase. They made a choice to financially secure their athletic departments for the next 12 to 15 years," Gundy told ESPN. "People can talk about all the reasons, but that's why they did it, all for the money, and took a lot of history out of this league and a lot of history out of college football with them. "Now, they're not the first ones to do it. Texas A&M did the same thing when they jumped ship to the SEC [in 2012]."

That's Gundy definitely NOT crying in his latest interview on ESPN. 

['stache 21805]

16 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

That's Gundy definitely NOT crying in his latest interview on ESPN. 

Totally agree. Telling it like it is, acknowledging that money is the driver, and that OU and Texas weren't the first or the last to make the jump. Says that it comes at the expense of history and rivalries, which is unequivocally true. Then moves on stating that the league, in his opinion, is still in a good place, and that his program is doing everything it can to put us in a good position.

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by 'stache

['stache 21805]

Wait, based on your laugh reaction, you were implying that that is "crying" about the move? What the actual fuck? What kind of response are you expecting here? "Yeah, they're great, and we're lowly pieces of shit. We're totally fucked. I think I'll just retire." 

I mean seriously, what else is there to say in response to this situation? The fans are pretty down and he's positive. He didn't say they should be sued or defunded by the state or that the OSU grad governor should prevent the move. Didn't say fuck 'em, we hate em, hope they rot. Didn't deride any coach or administrator at either ou or Texas or anyone with the SEC. I'm seriously at a loss how you could possibly interpret his comments as bad or negative considering the circumstance.

Edited August 16, 2022 by 'stache

[DFW Horn 6123]

38 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

That's Gundy definitely NOT crying in his latest interview on ESPN. 

Quote

Oklahoma State, ranked No. 12 in the AP preseason poll, has beaten Texas in eight of their past 12 meetings and has lost only once in Austin since 2008.

Furk...it's worse than I thought

[GhostOfTomJoad 9324]

Chill, @'stache. Gundy's the top dog coach in the new B12 (Baylor's not Aranda's dream job like oSu is to Gundy; he's gonna jet after another good year). 

Gundy's doing what Gundy does: be the "folksy" coach while getting in passive-aggressive shots when he has the chance. And he's putting as positive of a spin on it as he can, citing that UofH is going to bring in a "market we didn't have." Bravo.

Don't take my laughing at Coach I'm a Man too seriously. He's the best football coach the Pokes have ever had and are ever going to keep. He's built a formidable program. But he, Holder, Weiberg, etc thought that oSu was joined at the hip with OU and planned on going along to greener pastures with OU and Texas. He's putting great spin on it, knows that he can play the "we don't need 'em, we've got a better thing here and we're not greedy or nothin' like they are." 

 

['stache 21805]

1 minute ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Chill, @'stache. Gundy's the top dog coach in the new B12 (Baylor's not Aranda's dream job like oSu is to Gundy; he's gonna jet after another good year). 

Gundy's doing what Gundy does: be the "folksy" coach while getting in passive-aggressive shots when he has the chance. And he's putting as positive of a spin on it as he can, citing that UofH is going to bring in a "market we didn't have." Bravo.

Don't take my laughing at Coach I'm a Man too seriously. He's the best football coach the Pokes have ever had and are ever going to keep. He's built a formidable program. But he, Holder, Weiberg, etc thought that oSu was joined at the hip with OU and planned on going along to greener pastures with OU and Texas. He's putting great spin on it, knows that he can play the "we don't need 'em, we've got a better thing here and we're not greedy or nothin' like they are." 

 

That's unequivocally not true. Not sure where you might even speculate this to be the case. We know where we sit. We surely tried and continue to try everything in our power to get into the SEC. We have seen reports that OU has been supportive and will help but can't plausibly make a demand that OSU be included. Gundy famously said a few years ago "we have a brand too." Why would he say that if he thought we were equal to OU and Texas and inevitably tied to them in realignment? It's acknowledging that we're not a blueblood but we are begging the SEC to at some point let us in, like every other program that is currently on the outside. I think we have a good argument, but it's not easy with the numbers being thrown around. I appreciate the rest of your post but truly don't understand your characterization of his comments reflecting "crying" or even passive-aggressiveness. Even if its the latter, isn't this the right way for coaches to do this instead of going full jimbo?

[Steelers Roll Left 1168]

I don’t know, but it kind…..of feels like……realignment talk is indeed “going away”…..a little bit, for now….

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Totally agree. Telling it like it is, acknowledging that money is the driver, and that OU and Texas weren't the first or the last to make the jump. Says that it comes at the expense of history and rivalries, which is unequivocally true. Then moves on stating that the league, in his opinion, is still in a good place, and that his program is doing everything it can to put us in a good position.

 

We bring back bigger history with aggy and pig than we lose with the Big 8 schools or Tech and Baylor.

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

I don’t know, but it kind…..of feels like……realignment talk is indeed “going away”…..a little bit, for now….

What do you mean?  We aren't even halfway to 1,000 pagse.  Seems to me the number on Shaggy was 1,306 before the site was victim of a hostile takeover.

In a couple years it will be deja vu.  Florida St. and Clemson joining us talk will not go away.

[Satchel 6938]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

That's not how snobbery works. To even have their names anywhere near Texas Tech or Oklahoma State on a permanent basis is just unpalatable to them entirely. 

How could they stand being associated with Oregon State and Washington State? If two of the best schools in the world could tolerate those two, surely they can put up with flying to Stillwater for millions more.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Satchel