Realignment talk not going away

[Uncle Nate 2097]

 

 

[SimkinsMan 4386]

To watch Scripps Sports one will need to get a digital antenna to watch their favorite Pac-tion. All the cool kids are doing it.

Quote

E. W. Scripps President-CEO Adam Symson told Wall Street analysts Friday morning that there is a big opportunity in sports for the company.

"For us, we see the right live sports as an unparalleled opportunity to drive the value of our linear television streams even higher. Locally, live sports will draw young new audiences to our brands as fervent fans employ digital antennas to watch their favorite local teams for free again,” the CEO said.

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

41 minutes ago, SimkinsMan said:

To watch Scripps Sports one will need to get a digital antenna to watch their favorite Pac-tion. All the cool kids are doing it.

 

 

Their brands once included Food Network, HGTV, etc, so they do know how to form and grow channels, but, after selling to Discovery, Ion, Bounce, Grit, and Court TV are what's left.

They definitely could become a player in this sports space with RSN's melting down rapidly, but they're a "grow with us" choice.

[DCLonghorn 244]

Not so fast ION/Scripps

[DCLonghorn 244]

6 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

Not so fast ION/Scripps

@slmandel: ION/Scripps Sports is not involved in the Pac-12's TV negotiations, a source with direct knowledge of the situation tells @TheAthletic

No idea how you smart fuckers post the clickable image of a tweet. 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

23 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

@slmandel: ION/Scripps Sports is not involved in the Pac-12's TV negotiations, a source with direct knowledge of the situation tells @TheAthletic

No idea how you smart fuckers post the clickable image of a tweet. 

 

Stew has a history of being wrong when trying to go against McMurphy.

[Davis Lane 5580]

24 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

@slmandel: ION/Scripps Sports is not involved in the Pac-12's TV negotiations, a source with direct knowledge of the situation tells @TheAthletic

No idea how you smart fuckers post the clickable image of a tweet. 

 

#iykyk

['stache 21799]

I believe McMurphy over Mandel but ION? Feels like a stretch. UO and UW would probably go Indy before that humiliation. At least Apple might be willing to overpay.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

Hayes: Sources convinced Big Ten isn't finished raiding the Pac-12

Quote

So we’re going to continue with this charade, this exercise in futility, despite the inevitable.

The Pac-12 may soon sign a new, undervalued media rights deal. The Pac-12 may soon believe it has saved itself for the time being.

But ladies and gentlemen, the Pac-12 isn’t long for the new college sports landscape.

“If anyone thinks the Big Ten isn’t coming back for more, they’re not following along,” an industry source told Saturday Out West this week.

The official end of the wildly underrated Pac-12 arrives when the Big Ten finds a media rights partner — network or cable television, and/or a streaming service — to foot the bill for the conference to add more schools from the Pac-12.

Because the Big Ten isn’t leaving USC and UCLA alone on the West coast. It must protect its investment.

The Big Ten won’t force student-athletes from 2 of its top 5 brands to play all road conference games from 1,500 (Lincoln, Neb.) to 2,800 miles (Piscataway, N.J.) from campus. When USC and UCLA begin Big Ten play in 2024, the top 5 pecking order of Big Ten brand recognition is Ohio State, Michigan, USC, UCLA and Penn State.

And everybody else.

Just to be clear: If the UCLA women’s volleyball team is playing a game at Rutgers, that’s a round trip of 5,600 miles — or about 6.5 hours each way on a plane. That can’t be done without 2 nights in a hotel, and 3 days away from campus.

Those numbers are similar for every sport, every road trip, taken by USC and UCLA. (And every road trip taken to USC and UCLA.)

Last July, a mere week after USC and UCLA officially informed Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff of their intention to join the Big Ten, Kliavkoff spoke to the travel issues USC and UCLA would face.

The money they’d make in the move, he said, would be mitigated with travel costs and academic issues for student-athletes. And he wasn’t wrong.

He also should’ve known right then that the Big Ten wasn’t done expanding, no matter how former Big Ten chameleon — I mean, commissioner — Kevin Warren spoke on a weekly basis. The Big Ten, which holds itself as a conference of elite academia, isn’t going make college life more difficult for student-athletes just for media rights billions.

You can call university presidents many things, they’re not calculatingly and purposefully adding 2 universities more than half a continent away — and leaving them on an athletic and academic island.

Warren’s move to the NFL’s Bears may have slowed the process, but the Big Ten isn’t done expanding. Not by a long shot.

Another industry source told Saturday Out West they still believe the 4 Pac-12 schools that last year told Kliavkoff they weren’t signing extended grant of media rights deals without an unfettered out to join the Big Ten — Washington, Oregon, Stanford and California — are the dream addition for the Big Ten if it can find the funding.

If it can only find funding for 2, Washington and Oregon are the preferred additions. The Action Network reported in November that Washington and Oregon held “preliminary discussions” about joining the Big Ten.

“I’m not sure it has to be an equal (Big Ten) share, either,” a second source said. “It just has to be more than what (the Pac-12) can provide. If you’re asked to accept less to survive, the choice is easy.”

As much as we’d like to think of the next round of expansion as academia related, let’s not be shortsighted: the move is also about strengthening a football conference that lags behind the SEC.

The Playoff moves to 12 teams for its final 2 years of the original contract, and will then be renegotiated for the following deal. The payout of the estimated $1.2 billion annually for the Playoff likely will be similar to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament model of “units” of money per game played.

Translation: the more games played by each conference team, the more money each conference earns.

Adding Washington and Oregon — whose odds to win the 2023 national championship are greater than every Big Ten team other than Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State — would give the Big Ten 2 legitimate football powers that not only have reached the 4-team Playoff, but are set up to consistently play November games of significance to reach a 12-team Playoff.

It also would give the Big Ten unique television markets (Seattle and Portland), and — this is hard to ignore — bring Nike founder and Oregon mega booster Phil Knight into the fold.

ESPN is the likely media rights partner for the Pac-12, but whenever a deal is complete, it won’t be enough to keep Washington and Oregon in the fold. It won’t be enough to keep the Big Ten from protecting its investment in USC and UCLA.

And once Washington and Oregon leave, the Pac-12 ceases to exist as a Power 5 conference.

The charade will finally, mercifully, end.

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I believe McMurphy over Mandel but ION? Feels like a stretch. UO and UW would probably go Indy before that humiliation. At least Apple might be willing to overpay.

The only area where it makes sense to me is Scripps has 61 local stations, channels already on carriage lacking content, and $14b from their recent sale to Discovery.

RSNs are melting down right now with Sinclair, who bought the regional fox channels from Disney, owning nearly $3b in rights fees.  Ion could, technically, buy the Pac12 Network for pennies on the dollar, save Sinclair, and build a sports business with college and local baseball rights pretty quick.

I doubt they'd overpay for the Pac's rights though.   This is a bit like when Fox started getting to the CFB market, it will take a contract or two to be built up.

[mdmost 43001]

And lolz at FSU. You're going to spend 120 million you don't have to get out of the ACC when the SEC really doesn't need you and I guess the Big 10 could take you but they'd prefer UNC and Virginia. 

Bottom line to all schools, don't sign a GOR

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by mdmost

[camel at sea 589]

14 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I don't see why either ESPN or the ACC would want that.

ESPN:  I mean, I guess the reasoning would be to keep Florida State and Clemson in an SEC broadcasted conference.  But they are already in an SEC broadcasted conference with an ESPN deal that is actually longer than the SEC's new deal by a couple of years.

ACC:  I see no benefit for them.  Each school keeps getting the same amount of money they would get and their conference gets markedly worse.

SEC:  Unless ESPN is going to pay the conference even more money per school, I do not see how the SEC agrees to this either - which just makes ESPN agreeing to it even less likely.

It seems like only FSU and Clemson win in this scenario.

The benefit for the ACC is financial.  Everyone took a COVID hit.  The FSU/Clemson buyout money would be a big deal at a lot of their member schools.  As for the conference getting worse, there's a tradeoff.  You lose the schools that have been carrying you, but the league is a little easier now for the next rung down and you free up the best TV windows for Miami / UNC /etc.  Those next rung down schools would suddenly be looking at more wins, higher rankings, CFP appearances, and brand growth.  As long as someone rose to the top, the ACC would be fine on that front.

Would the SEC want FSU and Clemson?  Both schools probably pass the "it just means more" test.  Adding those two locks the B1G out of the South (at least as to the high value expansion options.)  On the other hand, I don't know that ESPN wants to pay for it and I don't know that the SEC really needs either of them.  Adding them complicates scheduling quite a bit.  This probably just comes down to the money.  Do those two add ~$100M each to the media deal?  

As for ESPN?  Yeah, I don't see why they'd facilitate FSU/Clemson's exit to the SEC unless the ACC deal is really undervalued currently.  The Big 12 minus Texas and OU was able to expand and keep conference distributions around status quo largely b/c status quo was operating from a really old and undervalued TV deal.  Once UT and OU were gone, then it was rightly valued so they just extended it.  I don't know that it would work that way in the ACC but that's probably the hope in Tallahassee.  

[DCLonghorn 244]

Click on this bitches! 

@mdmost not sure it's the web site or my tablet, but I have to type in any text before posting the link to get it to wondertwin activate. Otherwise it just posts link text. Thanks for the help. 

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

19 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

Click on this bitches! 

@mdmost not sure it's the web site or my tablet, but I have to type in any text before posting the link to get it to wondertwin activate. Otherwise it just posts link text. Thanks for the help. 

Hit space/return and wait for the tweet to load then hit post 

[DCLonghorn 244]

6 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Hit space/return and wait for the tweet to load then hit post 

I keep trying to repost your avatar but it just doesn't work! 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, mdmost said:

And lolz at FSU. You're going to spend 120 million you don't have to get out of the ACC when the SEC really doesn't need you and I guess the Big 10 could take you but they'd prefer UNC and Virginia. 

Bottom line to all schools, don't sign a GOR

 

Those are damning numbers for the ACC, they're properly fucked at the moment.   

Its like $500m ($120m is just the buyout, $350-400m is the rest of the grant of rights) for FSU to get out today.    Its $120m to get out in 2036.   By that time UCF would have made at least $190M more than FSU in media rights (likely more since the B12's deal goes out to bid 5 years before the ACC's is done) and Florida will have made at least $435m more.

[Deej 76755]

On 2/24/2023 at 1:53 PM, TKthunder2 said:

The fact that we didn’t play that card publicly either means we did so only privately

If we played that card privately, the little bitch schools in the Big12 would have leaked it immediately.

[statsman 5453]

Couple of thoughts-

1. Doesn’t the SEC have an agreement to not expand with a school in a state it’s already in, unless the add in is the flagship and clearly superior? Sorry for FSU. Don’t know about Clemson. 
2. So, USC, UCLA, Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford are the most valuable PAC-12 properties? Wasn’t that the PAC-6?

Edited February 25, 2023 by statsman

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Those are damning numbers for the ACC, they're properly fucked at the moment.   

Its like $500m ($120m is just the buyout, $350-400m is the rest of the grant of rights) for FSU to get out today.    Its $120m to get out in 2036.   By that time UCF would have made at least $190M more than FSU in media rights (likely more since the B12's deal goes out to bid 5 years before the ACC's is done) and Florida will have made at least $435m more.

Jesus H. Christ. FSU and Clemson should have left yesterday. $17 million a school is pathetic. 

I assume the SEC number is going up in 2024? 

[bullet 1596]

On 2/24/2023 at 4:23 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

If this whole SEC move has taught us anything, GOR have teeth. So Clemson and Florida State are probably going to take their medicine until 2035. 

We didn't get out until:

1) ESPN owned the whole SEC package and could benefit from us moving; 

2) Big 12 got their new TV contract;

3) Bowlsby was gone; and 

4) The R8 finally got to the acceptance stage of grieving and were willing to deal.

FSU/Clemson realignment rumors will continue until the ACC fixes their own version of 1)-4) above.  First, ESPN has to make enough extra ad revenue from FSUCU in SEC to offset the loss of ad revenue in the ACC and the extra FSUCU pay me amount.

[Gidnik 3268]

 

[bullet 1596]

22 hours ago, Gaffords said:

All these leaks have to be coming from the PAC's head office.  If he hadn't made a two day visit to SMU that included a very public appearance, not to mention allowing SDSU to put the word out they expect an invite any day now, I would think they were coming from Oregon or Washington, but these are starting to feel like desperation to drum up any interest in the PAC's rights.

I think it's about time to put a fork in them

And its hilarious how Wilner wrote an article today talking about how secretive the Pac has been!!!

[bullet 1596]

11 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Wonder if those rumors of them and Clemson joining had any truth?

It was talked about.  Don't know if it was ever real serious.  But Clemson addressed it twice in board meetings.  FSU did one time.

[bullet 1596]

7 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Stew has a history of being wrong when trying to go against McMurphy.

Ran across this today:

https://www.deseret.com/2023/2/24/23614091/whos-in-the-running-for-pac-12-media-rights

"...His update came after a week of uproarious criticism on the league from all corners of the country on social media.

In quick order, Stewart Mandel, editor-in-chief for college football for The Athletic, who regularly runs interference for the Pac-12, contradicted the claim by McMurphy in a tweet, saying a ION negotiation with the Pac-12 is in fact not going on.

ION/Scripps Sports is not involved in the Pac-12's TV negotiations, a source with direct knowledge of the situation tells @TheAthletic.

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel)February 24, 2023

Soap opera.

McMurphy’s tweet was posted at 10:34 a.m.

Mandel’s call-out followed at 11:45 a.m.

McMurphy’s tweet climbed to 2 million views by late afternoon; Mandel’s retort was up to 500k.

To further pile on the debate, Jason Scheer, who covers the University of Arizona for 24/7sports, chimed in, reminding the Twitterverse the last time Mandel contradicted McMurphy was when McMurphy reported the San Francisco Bowl had been canceled.  Mandel said it had not, according to his sources. It had.

Scheer kept receipts...."

[bullet 1596]

7 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

The only area where it makes sense to me is Scripps has 61 local stations, channels already on carriage lacking content, and $14b from their recent sale to Discovery.

RSNs are melting down right now with Sinclair, who bought the regional fox channels from Disney, owning nearly $3b in rights fees.  Ion could, technically, buy the Pac12 Network for pennies on the dollar, save Sinclair, and build a sports business with college and local baseball rights pretty quick.

I doubt they'd overpay for the Pac's rights though.   This is a bit like when Fox started getting to the CFB market, it will take a contract or two to be built up.

Back to the Future?  Remember when games were on the Jefferson Pilot network?  Groups of independent stations.

[DCLonghorn 244]

 

 

[Vertigo 20276]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Couple of thoughts-

1. Doesn’t the SEC have an agreement to not expand with a school in a state it’s already in, unless the add in is the flagship and clearly superior? Sorry for FSU. Don’t know about Clemson. 
2. So, USC, UCLA, Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford are the most valuable PAC-12 properties? Wasn’t that the PAC-6?

1. How did that work out for aggy?

2. Yep

[FartingDreamer 138]

I remember when games were on TBS.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I assume the SEC number is going up in 2024? 

Doing some rough math I'm pretty sure that is taking into account all the moves happening in 2024.   Its just media rights, the rest of conference revenues, including whatever the post season works out to be, are not included.

The difference between the Big Ten's number and the SEC's number is 9 conference games vs 8, having 3 networks pitch for slots, and having an ownership stake in BTN.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Rimbo 25913]

30 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

 

 

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

[Deej 76755]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Couple of thoughts-

1. Doesn’t the SEC have an agreement to not expand with a school in a state it’s already in, unless the add in is the flagship and clearly superior? Sorry for FSU. Don’t know about Clemson. 
2. So, USC, UCLA, Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford are the most valuable PAC-12 properties? Wasn’t that the PAC-6?

You just triggered aggy. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

1 hour ago, DCLonghorn said:

 

 

Would a PAC/ACC merger nullify the ACC's grant of rights with ESPN? If not, this ain't happening. Good idea, though, I guess...

[DFW Horn 6123]

35 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Would a PAC/ACC merger nullify the ACC's grant of rights with ESPN? If not, this ain't happening. Good idea, though, I guess...

* ...nullify the ACC's grant of rights and, in turn, their media contract with ESPN

[Hurtlocker 2212]

9 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

* ...nullify the ACC's grant of rights and, in turn, their media contract with ESPN

doubtful, but they'd have a lot more inventory that isn't included on the ESPN contract, so they can bring in a second bidder.

The part I don't get is the being able to do a new contract in 4 years.   That seems pulled right out of buttdom 

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

2 hours ago, DCLonghorn said:

 

 

Lmao howd that ACC/big pac work out?

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

I don’t know what a good solution for Clemson and Florida State looks like. Seminoles are going to lose their shit if they make the playoffs this year and take home $17 million. 
 

I don’t want them in the SEC. They’re probably too good for the Big 12. 
 

I think ESPN understands they screwed the ACC. I think they also understand the SEC walked away from CBS because they wouldn’t rework their sweetheart 2:30 game of the week deal. Maybe ESPN tacks on a couple more years and make the TV money competitive with the Big 12? 

[Gaffords 755]

22 hours ago, mdmost said:

And lolz at FSU. You're going to spend 120 million you don't have to get out of the ACC when the SEC really doesn't need you and I guess the Big 10 could take you but they'd prefer UNC and Virginia. 

Bottom line to all schools, don't sign a GOR

 

I'm curious why FSU decided to do this during l a public venue. These things are disgusted behind closed doors to avoid beating your fan base into a frenzy. Even if it were directed at the conference, it would have been handled behind closed doors...

The only time these things have been done publicly before is when schools were on their way out.  Corn, aggy, Mizzou, even OU when it tried to bolt to the PAC.

Im not saying FSU has a foot out already, but there is something going on and this was a deliberate move by FSU to galvanize it's fan base for something. 

[mdmost 43001]

They're wanting unequal revenue sharing. Clemson probably chuckled since they've carried that conference since 2015. 

I agree with Dodd here. Yeah, you can threaten to leave, that doesn't mean ESPN is going to pay up. Bob Iger specifically said ESPN needs to be more choosey in what they're spending money on. Fox may pay more but I would think the death of regional networks is going to cause a burden on them to pick up the slack for MLB and NBA games. 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by mdmost

[TKthunder2 4985]

Maybe Florida State University will be closing its doors and selling its likeness and facilities to a completely unrelated entity called University of the State of Florida of Tallahassee.

Check…and…mate…ACC/ESPN

Joking not joking…losing out on $400 million dollars over the next decade might trigger some extreme solutions.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

They're wanting unequal revenue sharing. Clemson probably chuckled since they've carried that conference since 2015. 

Yeah this is the opening salvo.   The CFP playoff, which pays the ACC about $80m a year now, is going to be worth 3x more in 2024 and who knows how much more in 2026 when it can be fully bid.   That means the ACC is likely coming into a financial windfall soon.    FSU and Clemson are saying, "that's ours"

[Texas Wahoo 3390]

41 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

I'm curious why FSU decided to do this during l a public venue. These things are disgusted behind closed doors to avoid beating your fan base into a frenzy. Even if it were directed at the conference, it would have been handled behind closed doors...

The only time these things have been done publicly before is when schools were on their way out.  Corn, aggy, Mizzou, even OU when it tried to bolt to the PAC.

Im not saying FSU has a foot out already, but there is something going on and this was a deliberate move by FSU to galvanize it's fan base for something. 

The obvious distinction between the FSU situation and every other school that has moved so far is the fact that there is 13 years left on a GOR.  I am not sure why they are doing so much publicly, but I do not think it means anything vis-a-vis the other schools because the situation is so different.  

As others have said, it probably has something to do with embarrassing the ACC in order to get a more uneven share (whether through TV money, bowl money, etc.).  It may also be to point the ire of the fanbase, etc. on the conference and not on FSU.  "We are struggling because of the conference holding us back, not because of anything we have done wrong."

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

4 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

That’s just mean Amazon. You gotta leave something for your engineers to talk about at the water cooler. 

[statsman 5453]

Is there any kind of legal play where they say, “Fine. We’ll give you our media payments to the limit of the current contract ($17), and we’re keeping what we make over that”?

I guess the problem is that there needs to be another conference you can go to. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by statsman

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

It feels like the ACC is the PAC 2.0. This feels like the beginning of a failing conference. I don't think they'll make it to 2036. 

[statsman 5453]

The media companies are getting pickier about who they are willing to pay, and what for. Trends to follow:

1. I think ESPN got a better deal on the B12 contract than Fox. When ESPN has UH-OSU, for example, they’ll let it be in a slot to maximize viewers. When Fox has UH-OSU, ESPN can slot (for example) TAMU-OU opposite it, which will kill the B12 game ratings. 
2. I think this plays into the ACC’s crappy contract. The ACC shares a lot of media markets with the SEC, and those it doesn’t encroach close to B10 area. Fox has the B10 and ESPN has the SEC, so since they already have those markets, why pay the ACC more? (I’m sure the ACC is telling Fox, “Don’t you want to get into Florida and Georgia?” and Fox let’s them know just how FSU and GT ratings compare). 
3. The PAC has four desirable properties, and it’s not the “4 corners” that the B12 is discussing. They’re UW, Oregon, Cal and Stanford. Yes, the administrations of the latter two are uninterested in football. Administrations change. Those are still great programs when they decide to be (and they did “decide to be” more recently than the last time Texas was great). Yes, they want the B10. If the B10 stalls and the PAC collapses, you take them into the B12 if they sign an ironclad huge GOR. 
Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado- you think long and hard about them. They are all net importers of athletes and their viewerships are unexceptional. You only take them if your media partner assures you they add to your media value significantly. 
4. Does it feel like there needs to be a merger of conferences like hasn’t been seen since the Big XII was formed? 
5. So many old Lone Star conference schools have moved up to the AAC. Some old SWC schools moved down. There is an unofficial promotion/relegation happening. Does it need to be formalized?

Edited February 26, 2023 by statsman

[Hurtlocker 2212]

31 minutes ago, statsman said:

Is there any kind of legal play where they say, “Fine. We’ll give you our media payments to the limit of the current contract ($17), and we’re keeping what we make over that”?

I guess the problem is that there needs to be another conference you can go to. 

No, the GoR basically means you gave your rights to someone at a price you agreed to.   This is FSU's self created mess.   If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed.

[TKthunder2 4985]

3 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

It feels like the ACC is the PAC 2.0. This feels like the beginning of a failing conference. I don't think they'll make it to 2036. 

The big difference is that the ACC has numbers (14/15 w/ ND) and a bunch of options that are or have been in the Big6/P5 club. That’s something the PAC12 didn’t have which is why they are having to reach into Texas.

Say worse case scenario they lose FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VT to the SEC and Miami, GT, UNC, UVA and NDnonfb to the Big Ten they could still have the below teams that would be more respectable in the view of college administrators/fans

WVU, Cincy, UConn, Memphis, UCF, USF, Temple, Tulane and maybe even Army/Navy to go along with WF, Duke, Lville, Pitt, Syracuse, BC. That’s basically the old Big East sans Miami/VT plus Duke/WF and a few call ups and it would be enough to keep them afloat and likely keeps them in line with (or slightly behind) the Big 12 but well ahead of the PAC12.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

9 minutes ago, statsman said:

The media companies are getting pickier about who they are willing to pay, and what for. Trends to follow:

1. I think ESPN got a better deal on the B12 contract than Fox. When ESPN has UH-OSU, for example, they’ll let it be in a slot to maximize viewers. When Fox has UH-OSU, ESPN can slot (for example) TAMU-OU opposite it, which will kill the B12 game ratings. 
2. I think this plays into the ACC’s crappy contract. The ACC shares a lot of media markets with the SEC, and those it doesn’t encroach close to B10 area. Fox has the B10 and ESPN has the SEC, so since they already have those markets, why pay the ACC more? (I’m sure the ACC is telling Fox, “Don’t you want to get into Florida and Georgia?” and Fox let’s them know just how FSU and GT ratings compare). 
3. The PAC has four desirable properties, and it’s not the “4 corners” that the B12 is discussing. They’re UW, Oregon, Cal and Stanford. Yes, the administrations of the latter two are uninterested in football. Administrations change. Those are still great programs when they decide to be (and they did “decide to be” more recently than the last time Texas was great). Yes, they want the B10. If the B10 stalls and the PAC collapses, you take them into the B12 if they sign an ironclad huge GOR. 
Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado- you think long and hard about them. They are all net importers of athletes and their viewerships are unexceptional. You only take them if your media partner assures you they add to your media value significantly. 
4. Does it feel like there needs to be a merger of conferences like hasn’t been seen since the Big XII was formed? 
5. So many old Lone Star conference schools have moved up to the AAC. Some old SWC schools moved down. There is an unofficial promotion/relegation happening. Does it need to be formalized?

Man I'd love a promotion/relegation with like three levels of 24 (though it would most likely need to be 6 of 12, so everyone can play everyone else).   It would implode any notion of geography and travel would be horrendous, but it would be fun.  

The only way you could do it is pool ALL conference media rights into one group.   Then what likely would happen is you break it back out to regions with a champion pool.

• 1 - Champion's league of 12 with its own playoff at the end, bottom 3 drop back down.
• 6  - Regional Tier one 12 team geographic leagues.   (NE, SE, MW, SW, NW, SoCal?)  Each bracket sends their champ and their are 6 wildcards in a year end tourney.   Top three teams in the tourney are promoted.  
• You could also have relegation here too, but to smaller conferences.   So perhaps the MW relegates to the MAC, the SE to the Sunbelt, etc.

The logistics to manage the rising and falling teams over the massive geography of the US would be daunting.   But you could do it.   

[Hornius Emeritus 12450]

9 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

The logistics to manage the rising and falling teams over the massive geography of the US would be daunting.   But you could do it.   

No kidding.  We have ChatGPT now.