Realignment talk not going away

[Laxtonto 12085]

My guess is that the final media offer is going to be meh and they will implement unequal revenue sharing to keep the band together for a shorter reup.

While I think that it makes more sense for all of CFB longterm to see the P12 go the way of the dodo, the ones looking to get left out will make it very hard politically (not just state level politics but national level academic and grant funding leverage) for any one team to make the move. 

If I was Cal or OSU or WSU I am doing everything I can to keep my spot at the big boy table.

I have limited faith that the four corners will make the move and separate from the California market without another catalyst to close the deal. The loss of USC and UCLA hurts the brand, but is that enough to convince a total upheaval and move on?

 

So the real question will be what is the difference between meh and time to move on? What is the real floor? How willing are some of these school to debase themselves and take a significantly smaller part of the pie? How much less than what a B12 total future annual payout would be would the four corner schools be willing to agree on to not be know as the school that killed the P12?

Part of the problem is the comcast mess, which hampers cash flow, the P12 overinflated operating costs, and the money pit that is the P12 network. How much can they legitimately scrape together and how in the world do you convince OU and UW to sign a GOR to be able to cement any offer? No one is going to pay without one and any short term deal with a GOR won’t pay anything like a mid or longterm deal… 

 

I would love to see the 4 corners bail, but I am losing faith that any individual school has the balls to be the first one gone to start the dominoes rolling.

[Gaffords 755]

4 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

My guess is that the final media offer is going to be meh and they will implement unequal revenue sharing to keep the band together for a shorter reup.

While I think that it makes more sense for all of CFB longterm to see the P12 go the way of the dodo, the ones looking to get left out will make it very hard politically (not just state level politics but national level academic and grant funding leverage) for any one team to make the move. 

If I was Cal or OSU or WSU I am doing everything I can to keep my spot at the big boy table.

I have limited faith that the four corners will make the move and separate from the California market without another catalyst to close the deal. The loss of USC and UCLA hurts the brand, but is that enough to convince a total upheaval and move on?

 

So the real question will be what is the difference between meh and time to move on? What is the real floor? How willing are some of these school to debase themselves and take a significantly smaller part of the pie? How much less than what a B12 total future annual payout would be would the four corner schools be willing to agree on to not be know as the school that killed the P12?

Part of the problem is the comcast mess, which hampers cash flow, the P12 overinflated operating costs, and the money pit that is the P12 network. How much can they legitimately scrape together and how in the world do you convince OU and UW to sign a GOR to be able to cement any offer? No one is going to pay without one and any short term deal with a GOR won’t pay anything like a mid or longterm deal… 

 

I would love to see the 4 corners bail, but I am losing faith that any individual school has the balls to be the first one gone to start the dominoes rolling.

Utah isn't even the captain, but seem to be determined to go down with the ship. 

[Gaffords 755]

On 3/10/2023 at 7:46 AM, Crockett said:

Utah's whole identity is the P12 and that they have been a "peer" of Stanford, Cal, UCLA, UW, etc. When they got into the P12 you saw P12 stickers on cars all over the place. Driving from Utah County (where Provo is located) north to the neighboring Salt Lake County with Salt Lake City in it, there was a billboard placed just inside the county line stating "Welcome to P12 country". 

This is a very confusing and scary time for Utah, so be patient with them as they process the stages of grief. 

 

To quote a Utah upper management guy, "Give me a break"...

I'm pretty sure that Oregon and Washington know whether they have a B1G invite coming or not.  The GOR will be revealing (if they get anywhere in the ballpark of the  BIG 12). 

If they know they aren't on the B1G's A list, they are likely to both snag a BIG 12 spot the day the PACs 22 million deal breaks, leaving 2 of the corners standing there with their thumbs up their ass..

Oregon and Washington both like their football more than they do rubbing shoulders with Stanford...

They will be the first to cut their losses and salvage the most they can from a bad situation. 

 

 

[LTbear 4170]

1 hour ago, Laxtonto said:

My guess is that the final media offer is going to be meh and they will implement unequal revenue sharing to keep the band together for a shorter reup.

While I think that it makes more sense for all of CFB longterm to see the P12 go the way of the dodo, the ones looking to get left out will make it very hard politically (not just state level politics but national level academic and grant funding leverage) for any one team to make the move. 

If I was Cal or OSU or WSU I am doing everything I can to keep my spot at the big boy table.

I have limited faith that the four corners will make the move and separate from the California market without another catalyst to close the deal. The loss of USC and UCLA hurts the brand, but is that enough to convince a total upheaval and move on?

 

So the real question will be what is the difference between meh and time to move on? What is the real floor? How willing are some of these school to debase themselves and take a significantly smaller part of the pie? How much less than what a B12 total future annual payout would be would the four corner schools be willing to agree on to not be know as the school that killed the P12?

Part of the problem is the comcast mess, which hampers cash flow, the P12 overinflated operating costs, and the money pit that is the P12 network. How much can they legitimately scrape together and how in the world do you convince OU and UW to sign a GOR to be able to cement any offer? No one is going to pay without one and any short term deal with a GOR won’t pay anything like a mid or longterm deal… 

 

I would love to see the 4 corners bail, but I am losing faith that any individual school has the balls to be the first one gone to start the dominoes rolling.

I think if anyone is willing to jump, it's Arizona. They just lost their conference ties to southern California, they're not getting a B1G invite, and they care more about basketball. The Big XII is perfect for them. 

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

1 hour ago, Laxtonto said:

My guess is that the final media offer is going to be meh and they will implement unequal revenue sharing to keep the band together for a shorter reup.

While I think that it makes more sense for all of CFB longterm to see the P12 go the way of the dodo, the ones looking to get left out will make it very hard politically (not just state level politics but national level academic and grant funding leverage) for any one team to make the move. 

If I was Cal or OSU or WSU I am doing everything I can to keep my spot at the big boy table.

I have limited faith that the four corners will make the move and separate from the California market without another catalyst to close the deal. The loss of USC and UCLA hurts the brand, but is that enough to convince a total upheaval and move on?

 

So the real question will be what is the difference between meh and time to move on? What is the real floor? How willing are some of these school to debase themselves and take a significantly smaller part of the pie? How much less than what a B12 total future annual payout would be would the four corner schools be willing to agree on to not be know as the school that killed the P12?

Part of the problem is the comcast mess, which hampers cash flow, the P12 overinflated operating costs, and the money pit that is the P12 network. How much can they legitimately scrape together and how in the world do you convince OU and UW to sign a GOR to be able to cement any offer? No one is going to pay without one and any short term deal with a GOR won’t pay anything like a mid or longterm deal… 

 

I would love to see the 4 corners bail, but I am losing faith that any individual school has the balls to be the first one gone to start the dominoes rolling.

USC and UCLA already killed the Pac 12 and this is about who's the first one to accept that reality.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Texas already killed the Pac 12 and this is about who's the first one to accept that reality.

Come on, you know this. 

[BachelorTrek 2982]

25 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

USC and UCLA already killed the Pac 12 and this is about who's the first one to accept that reality.

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Come on, you know this. 

Sure, fuck it, why not.

If Texas and OU stay in the Big 12 and the Big 10 doesn't come for USC and UCLA yada yada yada.

Really, it seems more like media partners are the ones actually killing the league.  The Big 12 is going to be ok not because any one school saved it, but because the media partners saw a value in the product that they clearly don't see in what's left of the Pac 12.

[CustersDoctor 584]

We all agree that streaming is currently clunky. It lags behind the live broadcast: just try listening to the radio and watching a game on Prime at the same time. The stream is running about 30 seconds behind the radio broadcast. There is no regulatory reason for this, streaming DOES NOT have to lag in order to edit some obscenity like TV and Radio do. So actually streaming would be ahead of Radio and TV if it weren't for technical issues. I'm not sure what the technical issues are that make it lag so badly, but I'm pretty sure if I can play a video game seamlessly with people on three continents, that I should be able to watch a football game that is beaming from one single source.

[Satchel 6938]

25 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Sure, fuck it, why not.

If Texas and OU stay in the Big 12 and the Big 10 doesn't come for USC and UCLA yada yada yada.

Really, it seems more like media partners are the ones actually killing the league.  The Big 12 is going to be ok not because any one school saved it, but because the media partners saw a value in the product that they clearly don't see in what's left of the Pac 12.

Still laughing at the B1G and the Sec thinking they run anything. They will do as they’re told by the networks.

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Still laughing at the B1G and the Sec thinking they run anything. They will do as they’re told by the networks.

It's the networks' world and we're all a bunch of dancing monkeys.

Some monkeys just get a few more bananas.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[TrashMaster G 17558]

Larry Scott is really the one that killed the PAC.  He should get the lion's share of the blame/credit.

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

23 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Larry Scott is really the one that killed the PAC.  He should get the lion's share of the blame/credit.

Even this is probably a little reductionist.  I don't think UT/OU and a few clingers would have ever meshed.  Don't get me wrong, Larry Scott fucked a lot of shit up.  I just think it's even bigger forces at work.

The Pac schools are ultimately responsible because many of the old guard ones don't really value sports - football in particular - that highly, and this shit is all about sports.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[closetohumping 17442]

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

Larry Scott is really the one that killed the PAC.  He should get the lion's share of the blame/credit.

ESPN did.  We were headed there if they didn’t offer the network. Deloss and espn

[Magus Ossis 2800]

The Pac was founded in 1959 by four schools (Cal, UW, USC, UCLA) caught cheating in and unhappy with the old PCC. The AZ schools joined in the lates 1970s. It doesn't have to be killed by anybody. Its original raison d'être is gone: Cal doesn't care about football the way it did in the 1950s, and the 2 LA schools have moved on. It exists because forces actively seek to change it into something it never was and to prolong it. The Pac, when it dies, will die of natural causes.

[TKthunder2 4992]

5 hours ago, Saint Austin said:

In a "Football Is King" and post-Coach K world, I don't see Duke ever getting an SEC invite. Also, Kansas is too distant, both geographically and culturally (not to mention shitty in football) to get an invite either, but as an AAU school, I could see them being a one-day B1G invite as a bridge to the LA schools. I think Miami is out, too, due to their weak fanbase and fading legacy.

I think you underestimate the how much March Madness makes ($1.2b) and how much the P5 gets ($150m) and how much room basketball has to grow.

You take every FBS conference and plus the Big East and have a little extra realignment (like Gonzaga joins PAC/MWC) and you’d likely get every top 11 seed in the tournament outside of 5 seed St Mary’s.

If the SEC/B1G lead to way you can see them taking over management of the tournament, under the same organization as the CFP. Likely a very easy way to double their post season revenue that is too quick to be dismissed by people who simply too infatuated with the current tournament format.

On Kansas and geography, the graphic linked below was about Mizzou, but it also shows that Kansas is no way shape or form “too distant” from the SEC. They’d better tie Oklahoma/Mizzou into the conference, solidify KC as a SEC city (OU/KU/MU > ISU/KSU/OSU), and bring a bonafide  basketball blueblood into the conference. Yes football is poor but when UT/OU are added with no tagalongs, the SEC could be use a lackluster fb school to boost other areas and give the kid Teri SEC teams some fodder.

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/sports/map-distance-from-columbia-to-sec-big-12-schools/image_d4ef5261-c9d0-5761-ac3d-0202a83fd568.html

Again this is only under the scenario that the SEC is going to 24 (18 or 20 and Kansas likely isn’t in the conversation) but gaining 3 new SEC states (NC, VA, KA), 2 adding 2 FB powers (FSU, Clemson), claiming all 4 basketball bluebloods (UK, KU, UNC, Duke) and making pair of defensive plays (protecting markets/recruiting territory from the B1G in Miami and VT) seem logical to me.

The only other realistic candidates remaining (assuming the SEC isn’t moving any further West than Texas and isn’t poaching B1G members or going after their footprint) are: Georgia Tech, NC State, West Virginia, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. You can argue that they won’t go to 24 and that may be true, but IF they did, I think Kansas would make the cut.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

Still laughing at the B1G and the Sec thinking they run anything. They will do as they’re told by the networks.

Yeah, maybe - live network TV is dying and sports drive the vast majority of highly rated programs.  So yeah, the networks can tell them what to do but they'll be paying out the ass to do so.  

[bullet 1597]

7 hours ago, Gaffords said:

To quote a Utah upper management guy, "Give me a break"...

I'm pretty sure that Oregon and Washington know whether they have a B1G invite coming or not.  The GOR will be revealing (if they get anywhere in the ballpark of the  BIG 12). 

If they know they aren't on the B1G's A list, they are likely to both snag a BIG 12 spot the day the PACs 22 million deal breaks, leaving 2 of the corners standing there with their thumbs up their ass..

Oregon and Washington both like their football more than they do rubbing shoulders with Stanford...

They will be the first to cut their losses and salvage the most they can from a bad situation. 

 

 

I think they are pretty sure they get one in 2030 if not soon.  So I think they would prefer to stay put if its not awful.  And they can veto any big exit fee.

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Sure, fuck it, why not.

If Texas and OU stay in the Big 12 and the Big 10 doesn't come for USC and UCLA yada yada yada.

Really, it seems more like media partners are the ones actually killing the league.  The Big 12 is going to be ok not because any one school saved it, but because the media partners saw a value in the product that they clearly don't see in what's left of the Pac 12.

Stanford did when they vetoed Texas in 1990.

[JFKFC 4886]

3 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

The Pac was founded in 1959 by four schools (Cal, UW, USC, UCLA) caught cheating in and unhappy with the old PCC. The AZ schools joined in the lates 1970s. It doesn't have to be killed by anybody. Its original raison d'être is gone: Cal doesn't care about football the way it did in the 1950s, and the 2 LA schools have moved on. It exists because forces actively seek to change it into something it never was and to prolong it. The Pac, when it dies, will die of natural causes.

[flatdawgs 1278]

11 hours ago, Gaffords said:

The numbers I've seen floating around on sports talk is games that break the 4 million viewer mark, and UNC football and basketball combined don't scratch that. If this is true, it explains why Oregon and Washington are still sitting where they are.  They hardly ever get those numbers.  Not even when they play each other.  

Looked back the last few years (to 2016, not counting 2020), and Oregon had 9 4+ million viewer games, USC 8 and UW 7. Most weeks during the CFB season there are 3 or 4 of those, generally the usual suspects. Not great, but not as if the LA schools were far and away better. 

11 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

If I was Cal or OSU or WSU I am doing everything I can to keep my spot at the big boy table.

 

Two WSU grad legislators tried this in the last WA state legislative session with a bill that tied the two schools together athletically. It did not make it out of committee. It did not even get a reading in committee. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by flatdawgs
unlike aggy I tried to forget 2020

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

12 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Yeah, maybe - live network TV is dying and sports drive the vast majority of highly rated programs.  So yeah, the networks can tell them what to do but they'll be paying out the ass to do so.  

But live network tv is where the sports are most popular as opposed to streaming services. It’s why the PACs alleged deals are so bad because it’s predominantly streaming based. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[statsman 5471]

Ok, agree or disagree?

A program’s attractiveness to other conference is based much more on width and depth of fan support than in recent competitiveness. 
 
Example 1: Miami won four or five MNCs over a 20 year span, yet they are not one of the most desired programs. 
 
Example 2: Texas hasn’t done shit in 15 years, yet is very desired. 
 

This is why I doubt Oregon gets to dictate anything and why Clemson and FSU aren’t the big swinging ducks many think they are. 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Park Gothic 5042]

14 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Impressive amount of bullshit, but I enjoyed the following quotes:

"In February 2022, ASU Athletic Director Ray Anderson told Arizona Sports' Bickley and Marotta that Desert Financial Arena is in "dire need" of improvements, and he "anticipates ASU will be pivoting to that very quickly." "I don't know what he meant by 'dire,'" Crow said. "You've been there. It's completely functional. It's actually a fine facility and just needs some updates." 

Completely functional is quite the endorsement, especially for a stadium that looks like it hasn't been updated since the 70's. 

“There have been no discussions with the Big 12 conference on moving," Crow said. "I mean, there's been discussions between everyone everywhere on all things related to where our conference is going and where stuff's going to end up and what's happening. We are committed to the Pac-12."

We haven't talked to the Big 12 about moving, but we've talked to everyone about everything. 🥴

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, statsman said:

 

This is why I doubt Oregon gets to dictate anything and why Clemson and FSU aren’t the big swinging ducks many think they are. 

I'm just here for the Freudian Slips.

Edited March 15, 2023 by slorch

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

That Crow guy really doesn't want to associate with prairie trash, but we'll see how much he likes that $22M Amazon Prime deal.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

26 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

Impressive amount of bullshit, but I enjoyed the following quotes:

"In February 2022, ASU Athletic Director Ray Anderson told Arizona Sports' Bickley and Marotta that Desert Financial Arena is in "dire need" of improvements, and he "anticipates ASU will be pivoting to that very quickly." "I don't know what he meant by 'dire,'" Crow said. "You've been there. It's completely functional. It's actually a fine facility and just needs some updates." 

Completely functional is quite the endorsement, especially for a stadium that looks like it hasn't been updated since the 70's. 

“There have been no discussions with the Big 12 conference on moving," Crow said. "I mean, there's been discussions between everyone everywhere on all things related to where our conference is going and where stuff's going to end up and what's happening. We are committed to the Pac-12."

We haven't talked to the Big 12 about moving, but we've talked to everyone about everything. 🥴

Some verbal gymnastics going on there to be certain.

[Richard Kimball 1495]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Ok, agree or disagree?

A program’s attractiveness to other conference is based much more on width and depth of fan support than in recent competitiveness. 
 
Example 1: Miami won four or five MNCs over a 20 year span, yet they are not one of the most desired programs. 
 
Example 2: Texas hasn’t done shit in 15 years, yet is very desired. 
 

This is why I doubt Oregon gets to dictate anything and why Clemson and FSU aren’t the big swinging ducks many think they are. 

Troof. There's a paradox in sports viewership of habit and "new shiny thing."

A new shiny thing program has to have sustained success over a period of time in order to become a habit. 

In private schools, the only big brands I can think of are Southern Cal, Notre Dame and way further down the line, ...............Miami?

SoCal and Notre Dame both had on the field success, but more important was that SoCal became the "go to" team for movie studios back in the old days due to their proximity to most of the studios, and were featured in a lot of movies. The Catholic Church used to have an envoy to the movie industry. Knute Rockne, All American, was an advertisement for Notre Dame. If you look at all the old sports movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, if they featured football, the teams portrayed were either going to be SoCal or Notre Dame. 

Boise State shows the problem of a new shiny thing becoming a brand. To become a brand, you have to beat a brand. During their good runs, none of the brands wanted to play them, cause there was nothing in it for them. Beating Boise State didn't help their brand, and how much shit did Oklahoma catch for losing to them?

There are also some teams that will NEVER become brands, regardless of success on the field. TCU, Vanderbilt, Baylor, etc. 

There's only room for so many brands. Even in the NFL, regardless of on field success, I don't think you ever see the Jacksonville Jaguars or Tennessee Titans become a brand. In three more years will be the 60th Super Bowl. Dallas was last in Super Bowl 30. Unless they do something unexpected, it will be over half of Super Bowl history where the Cowboys haven't made an appearance, and they're still the most popular NFL team. Hell, the Cleveland Browns haven't been relevant since Art Modell fired Paul Brown in 1963 and ran off Jim Brown by fining him for missing part of spring camp while making The Dirty Dozen. They're still the tenth most popular franchise. 

When UT is good, it unites the entire state, except for College Station. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Richard Kimball said:

 

When UT is good, it unites the entire state, except for College Station. 

Straight up false.

I rooted for UT in the Rose Bowl because the national media was insane with their annointing of USC.  Besides that, fuck Texas...with all due respect.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

Straight up false.

I rooted for UT in the Rose Bowl because the national media was insane with their annointing of USC.  Besides that, fuck Texas...with all due respect.

Same.  I rooted for them in both Rose Bowls more because I was rooting against who they were playing.

[MAUFRAIS 6629]

Statement is true for people who have not gone through the college application process.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

14 minutes ago, slorch said:

Straight up false.

I rooted for UT in the Rose Bowl because the national media was insane with their annointing of USC.  Besides that, fuck Texas...with all due respect.

Wow, that's crazy. I never once rooted for your team and I hope you lose every game, pussy ass bitch.

 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect.

Edited March 15, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[TrashMaster G 17558]

11 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Wow, that's crazy. I never once rooted for your team and I hope you lose every game, pussy ass bitch.

 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect.

I always rooted for TTech against the aggies.  That was good entertainment, especially in the Pirate years.

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Ok, agree or disagree?

A program’s attractiveness to other conference is based much more on width and depth of fan support than in recent competitiveness. 
 
Example 1: Miami won four or five MNCs over a 20 year span, yet they are not one of the most desired programs. 
 
Example 2: Texas hasn’t done shit in 15 years, yet is very desired. 
 

This is why I doubt Oregon gets to dictate anything and why Clemson and FSU aren’t the big swinging ducks many think they are. 

Disagree partly.  Recent competitiveness increases TV ratings.  TV ratings are what primarily determine attractiveness.  Oregon has been competitive over an extended period, so they are the best of the rest in the Pac 12.  USC, UCLA and UW have markets and brands, but the rest don't.

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That Crow guy really doesn't want to associate with prairie trash, but we'll see how much he likes that $22M Amazon Prime deal.

And the point is they still have no idea how much they will be offered.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Wow, that's crazy. I never once rooted for your team and I hope you lose every game, pussy ass bitch.

 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect.

I laughed because I get it.

Would challenge the "pussy assed bitch" relevency when the post to which I replied said UT being good united the state.  Front running is the pussy ass bitch pinnacle of sports fandom. My teams have been my teams, although Jerrah is pushing my 45-ish year grip of Cowboy fandom off the cliff.  Still hanging on though.

Why would Texas' success drive me to pull for them?  

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Lou_Sassle 2875]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

I laughed because I get it.

Would challenge the "pussy assed bitch" relevency when the post to which I replied said UT being good united the state.  Front running is the pussy ass bitch pinnacle of sports fandom. My teams have been my teams, although Jerrah is pushing my 45-ish year grip of Cowboy fandom off the cliff.  Still hanging on though.

Why would Texas' success drive me to pull for them?  

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

1 minute ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

So you’re actually on TV and not streaming majority?

 

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

Boy, the difference between Wilner's tweet script and what Robbins actually says is something else.

It's very obvious that if the money and exposure are shit that Arizona's not sticking around.  They don't want to have to move, and they're giving Kliavkoff every opportunity to get it right, but if (when) he doesn't, they're gone.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Boy, the difference between Wilner's tweet script and what Robbins actually says is something else.

It's very obvious that if the money and exposure are shit that Arizona's not sticking around.  They don't want to have to move, and they're giving Kliavkoff every opportunity to get it right, but if (when) he doesn't, they're gone.

I’d bet I’d the deal is predominantly streaming teams will jump. There is no national visibility in that. 
 

 

Big 12, BIG, SEC team to a recruit-  “Why do you want to play out there your family can’t even watch you on tv without a subscription?”

[Uncle Nate 2097]

42 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Dear President Robbins:

Ask that same question to your football and basketball coaches.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[hook me 2092]

7 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Geez, sounds like they're getting the Hayes Faucett edit ready & are about to remove all Pac 12 references from their instagram & twitter. "Respect our decision" tweet  incoming...

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Someone post that athletic article

[field 225]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Someone post that athletic article

Spoiler

ASU, Arizona presidents address schools’ Pac-12 futures: What to make of their comments

---

The presidents of Arizona and Arizona State publicly addressed their schools’ futures within the Pac-12 this week as the conference continues to work toward securing a new media rights deal. Here’s what you need to know:

• Arizona State is “committed to the Pac-12,” school president Michael Crow told The State Press, ASU’s student newspaper, on Tuesday.
• In an interview with Bay Area News Group’s Jon Wilner, Arizona president Robert Robbins said that “I don’t think anybody wants to leave (the Pac-12)” but also that “it’s heavily dependent on (commissioner George Kliavkoff) and his team negotiating a good media deal for us to stay competitive.”
• The Athletic reported on March 3 that the Big 12 conference had been in recent contact with Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah as the Pac-12 continues to negotiate a new media rights deal.

What else they said

Crow told The State Press, “There have been no discussions with the Big 12 conference on moving.” But he added: “I mean, there’s been discussions between everyone everywhere on all things related to where our conference is going and where stuff’s going to end up and what’s happening. We are committed to the Pac-12.”

Crow also said the Pac-12 is in the “final stages” of negotiating a new media rights deal. “We’re close to knowing where we’re going to be, and I think we’re close to a deal,” he said.

Said Robbins: “(Kliavkoff) has done a great job working on the media deal, and I think he’ll bring us something that’s good enough.”

Are Crow’s comments surprising?

This isn’t a surprise. Crow is loyal. He long supported Larry Scott while others questioned the former Pac-12 commissioner’s decision-making. His commitment to the Pac-12 falls along these same lines. Crow has said in the past that he feels the university better aligns with Pac-12 membership. He views Arizona State as a West Coast school.

“Arizona is, it’s just not the same as Iowa or Kansas,” he said last fall. “It doesn’t mean that we’re like a separate region or a separate country, it just means being part of the Pac-12 for the last 44 years has been a proud honor.” It would take a lot for Crow to change his mind on this. — Haller

What about the University of Arizona?

With Arizona State committed to the Pac-12, the focus turns to its rival in Tucson. Like ASU, Arizona would seem to be a natural fit for the Big 12. It makes sense geographically. It makes sense competitively. The Big 12 already fields the nation’s top basketball conference. Adding the Wildcats would make it even stronger.

But would Arizona separate from ASU? Ten years ago, maybe even five, that answer would be no. The Arizona Board of Regents likely would have a strong say in the matter as well. But times have changed. Robbins told The San Jose Mercury News that the Pac-12 schools are “joining arms” to try and stay together, but he added that much depends on the conference getting a media deal that allows them to be competitive.

Bottom line: Previous alliances don’t matter as much these days. Schools have little choice but to look out for themselves. — Haller

Backstory

The Big 12 expanded from 10 to 14 teams for the 2023 season with the additions of former AAC schools Cincinnati, Houston and UCF as well as independent BYU. However, the conference will lose two schools after the season concludes when Texas and Oklahoma join the SEC in 2024, a year earlier than they initially planned.

Last week, Yormark said he’s focused on expansion and “exploring every little possibility” for adding new members to his conference.

Last July, weeks after USC and UCLA’s stunning announcement that they would leave the Pac-12 for the Big Ten, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff made a bold realignment prediction: “No Pac-12 school is going to the Big 12.”

“With respect to the Big 12 being open for business, I appreciate that,” Kliavkoff added. “We haven’t decided if we’re going shopping there or not yet.”

 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I’d bet I’d the deal is predominantly streaming teams will jump. There is no national visibility in that. 
 

 

Big 12, BIG, SEC team to a recruit-  “Why do you want to play out there your family can’t even watch you on tv without a subscription?”

I don't know that the recruit's family's ability to watch is as much of an argument as it used to be. Most high school seniors have millennials for parents, and that generation largely doesn't have cable tv, anyway. It would actually be less burdensome for them to have the games on something like Amazon Prime. It's still a big deal for the overall exposure for the school, though, since the rest of college football is on ESPN and Fox. 

[CustersDoctor 584]

2 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

So he's saying if their deal is 29mil a year they won't move. I think that's been the general consensus from generally everybody ever since the NEW12 got their TV deal. But the general consensus is the PAC10's deal isn't going to be 29mil, so are they bolting if its 27mil? Being 2mil a year behind the Big12 for 6 years in $12,000,000. But being 4mil a year behind the Big12 over a 6 year deal is $24,000,000. Further more, just because they'll stay put for 29mil a year doesn't mean CU will.