Realignment talk not going away

[BurntOrange&White 42,010]

57 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

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. 

I'm not sure how significant it may or may not be but it's a pitch that will be used regardless. I lean more to thinking it's still a pretty big deal considering a sizeable percentage of recruits come from not great financial backgrounds.

 

 

Exposure to the masses is also huge for the programs. 2/3 or 3/4 of your games being on some fucked streaming platform is horrible. When your primary conference rivals such as Big 12, ACC, BIG, and SEC will ALL be on various versions of all the major networks.

Edited March 15, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

2 minutes ago, CustersDoctor 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.

And, as we've all said for awhile now, it's not just the money, though.  If that deal has less over-the-air/linear and more streaming than what the Big 12 will have, then you would have to think they bolt even if the money is equal just to ensure their programs have needed exposure.

[Thiefery 5,112]

they'll stick together for this contract, the next one will be the bigger one.. everyone will be looking for the best deal.. including schools in the Big12

[BurntOrange&White 42,010]

1 minute ago, Thiefery said:

they'll stick together for this contract, the next one will be the bigger one.. everyone will be looking for the best deal.. including schools in the Big12

I'm not sure about that one. Guess we will see with the alleged deadline for a not dog shit network deal allegedly being the end of this month/beginning of April.

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

2 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

they'll stick together for this contract, the next one will be the bigger one.. everyone will be looking for the best deal.. including schools in the Big12

Depends on what this contract ends up being.  They may not be able to afford to stick together for another 5-6 years if they run the risk of losing exposure.

[BurntOrange&White 42,010]

This portion of that athletic article stuck out to me. 

 

"competitive" can mean a lot of things - money, exposure, tv views, etc. The way this is written it sounds like if Arizona has to they would pull a Oklahoma and split from their rival to better themselves.


The only definitive statements seem to have come from the Utah guy but seems like they're happy with PAC because that's who invited them to the p5 dance. The ASU guy was doing some gymnastics with his words, and the Arizona guy seems like it's whatever is best for Arizona.

Edited March 15, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[USC_TMB 405]

7 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I'm not sure how significant it may or may not be but it's a pitch that will be used regardless. I lean more to thinking it's still a pretty big deal considering a sizeable percentage of recruits come from not great financial backgrounds.

 

 

Exposure to the masses is also huge for the programs. 2/3 or 3/4 of your games being on some fucked streaming platform is horrible. When your primary conference rivals such as Big 12, ACC, BIG, and SEC will ALL be on various versions of all the major networks.

It’s 2023, You have to explore the vertical synergies created by NIL and Booster Collectives… “come play for us and we’ll provide an Amazon Prime account or Apple TV+”.

/sarcasm

[Laxtonto 13,328]

13 minutes ago, CustersDoctor 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.

My guess is that on paper it will be 2 or 3 million less, and then once you take off the top that the P12 are paying all the production cost that number becomes 5-8 million less with much less visibility.

 

Neither of those university presidents boxes themselves in. Same shtick as the Utah mouth peice. “Why would leave.. it’s wonderful here. We are going to get a gray deal..” Yada Yada Yada. Until they serve up the shit sandwich to the school presidents and force them to try to eat it, conference unity is the correct PR move.

[oSuJeff97 3,439]

14 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

And, as we've all said for awhile now, it's not just the money, though.  If that deal has less over-the-air/linear and more streaming than what the Big 12 will have, then you would have to think they bolt even if the money is equal just to ensure their programs have needed exposure.

Not to mention the length of the deal.

I'm assuming whatever new deal they sign is going to be short AF because there's NO WAY Oregon/Wash will lock themselves into a long-term deal when their ultimate goal is (obviously) to get into the B1G ASAP.

So what that means is if you sign a deal for $29mm now, you are (a) signing up for less money than you would get in the Big 12 right now and (b) just kicking the can down the road a few years to be right back in the same spot you're in now but with an even less attractive conference.

[BurntOrange&White 42,010]

5 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

My guess is that on paper it will be 2 or 3 million less, and then once you take off the top that the P12 are paying all the production cost that number becomes 5-8 million less with much less visibility.

 

Neither of those university presidents boxes themselves in. Same shtick as the Utah mouth peice. “Why would leave.. it’s wonderful here. We are going to get a gray deal..” Yada Yada Yada. Until they serve up the shit sandwich to the school presidents and force them to try to eat it, conference unity is the correct PR move.

This article brings things more into perspective than just TV deal money as well.

 

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2022/10/31/is-big-12-now-positioned-to-count-to-50-million-in-revenue/

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

18 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

they'll stick together for this contract, the next one will be the bigger one.. everyone will be looking for the best deal.. including schools in the Big12

The difference is Pac 12 schools right now have options that are probably better than what they're going to get from the Pac 12.  The Big 12 schools don't, and won't.  And the Big 12 is looking like a better option than being in the Pac 12.

With the possible exception of Oregon and Washington, the Big 10 and SEC have taken what they wanted from the Pac 12 and Big 12.  The next realignment is those two conferences taking what they want out of the ACC, and what's left of the ACC hooking up with the Big 12/Big Whatever or moving on from higher level sports.

[Gaffords 778]

18 hours ago, bullet said:

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.

Waiting until 2030? That is borderline retarded...  Why would the corners hang around for 5-10 million less a year (assumed), knowing this is coming. And even more so, why would anyone those six decide to continue playing musical chairs knowing that around 2030, the number of chairs remaining stay the same, but the players on the field practically double...

2030 is close enough to the end of the ACC contract for those schools to become quite attractive.  Washington and Oregon will have some stiff competition for a B1G invite especially after 7 years of playing in an irrelevant PAC, and some of the ACC schools probably have more appeal already than the zona schools or Colorado (or a faded Utah that's as relevant as Boise St is today.  It would make more since for the Big 12 to expand East when the ACC becomes unstable, than to circle back around for the corners in 2030.  At least they do watch football in the East.  

Yes it would leave BYU on an island still, but it isn't like they aren't used to it.  In fact, they'll probably prefer it.  With the PAC lacking exposure, BYU will probably end up sitting on a recruiting goldmine. 

I don't know.  For Washington and Oregon It's a gamble either way.. jump now or take your chances in 2030...  but for the other PAC schools?  You aren't going to the B1G nor the SEC, and there isn't any magic fairy dust out there that's saving the PAC long term.  The Big 12 already snagged the best of the G5s with any recent consistency competing with the big boys.

Jump now or compete later on against VT-GT-NCST-ect...  I think we all know that there's going to be 3 conferences at the end.  2 power and 1 that is made up of passed overs... There is going to be lot more players than spots, and several schools are going to be left to fend for themselves. 

Those who already have their seat will keep their seats until they vacate it willfully, whose left without, well... If this PAC thing hasn't taught them that there's not going to be any free handouts by the networks just because they want to swim in the deep end, then they should all burn their degrees and start flipping burgers with the rest of "us".

 

[Trojan Man 429]

36 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Not to mention the length of the deal.

I'm assuming whatever new deal they sign is going to be short AF because there's NO WAY Oregon/Wash will lock themselves into a long-term deal when their ultimate goal is (obviously) to get into the B1G ASAP.

So what that means is if you sign a deal for $29mm now, you are (a) signing up for less money than you would get in the Big 12 right now and (b) just kicking the can down the road a few years to be right back in the same spot you're in now but with an even less attractive conference.

This should be the biggest motivation for the Four Corner schools to abandon ship.  If you wait until Oregon and Washington leave you're letting factors outside your control determine your fate.  There's a non-zero chance an ACC collapse prior to their GOR expiration and the ensuing feeding frenzy by the B1G/SEC is what lands UO/UW an invitation to the B1G, which puts the 4C schools in a precarious situation.  In that scenario they're competing with leftover ACC schools of comparable value to secure their seat at the third place table, whereas if they just rip off the band aid and do it now they are realigning on their terms instead of Oregon's/Washington's and guaranteeing they have a chair before the music stops playing.

Once you get through the stages of grief over the death of the Pac 12 elitism, meekness and pride are the only reasons not to join the Big 12.  Unfortunately for the 4C schools those are the first 3 attributes to come to mind when I think of Pac 12 leadership.  I wouldn't be surprised if they do something stupid like agree to a media contract and GOR that only exists to give Oregon and Washington somewhere to pass the time until the B1G wants them.  It would be especially dumb of Arizona to remain in the Pac 12.  Imagine being a basketball school that willingly stays in what will be a 1 or 2 bid league streaming all its games at 11 PM ET when you could join the Big 12, where the conference schedule features recent national champions and more games against tournament teams than non-tournament teams and good national media exposure.  They'd be choosing to become the next Gonzaga, which is pretty damning when you consider Gonzaga is trying to leave their shit conference for the Big 12.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3,522]

4 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

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

Leach's "Sometimes a Pirate can beat a Solider" an all time post game quote and gigantic middle finger to Aggy, loved it. Always rooted for Leach, but Tech gets all the bad things that they deserve for doing him dirty and running him out of town for CJK5H and his bitch ass kid.

[DanTheHorn 5,092]

58 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The only definitive statements seem to have come from the Utah guy but seems like they're happy with PAC because that's who invited them to the p5 dance. The ASU guy was doing some gymnastics with his words, and the Arizona guy seems like it's whatever is best for Arizona.

If Utah stays they will find themselves out of what will become the p4 dance. Oregon and Washington are bolting somewhere else as soon as they can and it will be more than official at that point that they are out. If the BIG 12 thought Oregon and Washington would stick around they would probably be going after them instead of Utah and ASU. Oregon, Washington, Arizona and Colorado would be a very good combo.

[Hagbard Celine 11,293]

On 3/14/2023 at 3:12 PM, CustersDoctor said:

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.

consumers of OTA and "cable" are consuming a single 1-to-many data source

at some point in the architectural distribution tree for streaming, it becomes 1-to-1, or in the case of NFL thursdays 11million-to-11million, the pipe is too thin the road is a finite size and there are lots of intersections where traffic gets congested.

this is why musk and multiple competitors are building leo internet constellations, it's many-from-1 reception that jumps intersections ("routers" - the birds) in real time in space

[Magus Ossis 3,004]

Link

Quote

Asked about the speculation over the future of the conference, Robbins rejected the notion that schools, including Arizona, would bolt for the Big 12 prior to being presented with a media rights proposal.

“It’s heavily dependent on (commissioner George Kliavkoff) and his team negotiating a good media deal for us to stay competitive,” he said.

“I don’t think anybody wants to leave. Why would you move for a couple million dollars a year more?”

He then compared the situation to competing for “a bronze medal.”

The Big Ten’s media rights contracts with Fox, CBS and NBC, signed in August, will distribute roughly $67 million per year to each campus.

The SEC’s all-in deal with ESPN is expected to spin off at least $60 million per school once Texas and Oklahoma come aboard in 2024.

Meanwhile, the Big 12 and Pac-12 are in the third tier, along with the ACC.

The Big 12 agreed in October to a renewal of its contracts with ESPN and Fox that will reportedly distribute $31.66 million annually.

“I would love to be closer to the Big Ten or SEC, but being closer to the Big 12 is more realistic,” Robbins said. “(Kliavkoff) has done a great job working on the media deal, and I think he’ll bring us something that’s good enough.”

Twice during a 10-minute conversation, Robbins made a reference to the Pac-12 as the “Conference of Champions.”

But he painted a nuanced picture for Arizona, citing the school’s proximity to the Big 12 footprint and that league’s powerhouse basketball brand as the basis for “some affinities.”

He also addressed the academic piece. Arizona is a member of the Association of American Universities — as is every school in the Pac-12 except Arizona State, Washington State and Oregon State.

(Kansas will be the only AAU school in the Big 12 once Texas departs.)

“That’s important to us in terms of research,” said Robbins, a cardiothoracic surgeon who ran the Texas Medical Center in Houston before taking charge of Arizona’s campus in 2017.

Asked about discussions between Arizona and the Big 12, Robbins didn’t answer directly but said he has friends in the conference and was in favor of adding the remaining Big 12 schools after Texas and Oklahoma announced they were joining the SEC in the summer of 2021.

“I personally liked the idea … of forming the Pac-20, or the Big Pac — whatever you’d want to call it,” he said.

“I thought it would have been really cool. But it got very complicated.”

Ultimately, Robbins framed the future of the Pac-12 as a business decision, with the onus on Kliavkoff to craft a competitive media rights deal.

“We’re all committed,” he said, “and I’m pretty confident George will bring us a deal that we’re happy with and that preserves the Pac-12 to make the next step together — or with 12 (schools) if we add anybody.”

In this article, Robbins is presented as rather politic and uncommitted. He manages to throw in a vote of confidence in Kliavkov's negotiation skills and multiple compliments for the Pac. He minimizes the idea of leaving over a "small" difference in payouts. He also mentioned his support in the past of uniting with the B12, friends he has in the B12, and the fact that this is a business decision, all without ever directly answering what negotiations he may have already had with the B12. He seems to know a thing or two about business, based on his tenure leading the Texas Medical Center. Unless the article does a really bad job of cherry picking quotations, it sounds like Robbins confirming that AZ is ready to jump if/when the Pac numbers aren't competitive.

[DanTheHorn 5,092]

2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

consumers of OTA and "cable" are consuming a single 1-to-many data source

at some point in the architectural distribution tree for streaming, it becomes 1-to-1, or in the case of NFL thursdays 11million-to-11million, the pipe is too thin the road is a finite size and there are lots of intersections where traffic gets congested.

this is why musk and multiple competitors are building leo internet constellations, it's many-from-1 reception that jumps intersections ("routers" - the birds) in real time in space

[BurntOrange&White 42,010]

Dude doesn’t even know how ESPN+ works 

Edited March 15, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Hagbard Celine 11,293]

reality distortion field

if wilner = zwerneman this thing is cooked in days not weeks

[Vertigo 20,502]

43 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

He also addressed the academic piece. Arizona is a member of the Association of American Universities — as is every school in the Pac-12 except Arizona State, Washington State and Oregon State.

This made me chuckle. EVERY TEAM IS IN THE AAU EXCEPT 25% of US!

[Trojan Man 429]

23 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

This made me chuckle. EVERY TEAM IS IN THE AAU EXCEPT 25% of US!

I get laid after every date if you ignore the all the times I don't get laid.

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

consumers of OTA and "cable" are consuming a single 1-to-many data source

at some point in the architectural distribution tree for streaming, it becomes 1-to-1, or in the case of NFL thursdays 11million-to-11million, the pipe is too thin the road is a finite size and there are lots of intersections where traffic gets congested.

this is why musk and multiple competitors are building leo internet constellations, it's many-from-1 reception that jumps intersections ("routers" - the birds) in real time in space

I'm a Tech grad...can you explain this to me like I'm 5 please?

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

1 hour ago, Magus Ossis said:

Link

In this article, Robbins is presented as rather politic and uncommitted. He manages to throw in a vote of confidence in Kliavkov's negotiation skills and multiple compliments for the Pac. He minimizes the idea of leaving over a "small" difference in payouts. He also mentioned his support in the past of uniting with the B12, friends he has in the B12, and the fact that this is a business decision, all without ever directly answering what negotiations he may have already had with the B12. He seems to know a thing or two about business, based on his tenure leading the Texas Medical Center. Unless the article does a really bad job of cherry picking quotations, it sounds like Robbins confirming that AZ is ready to jump if/when the Pac numbers aren't competitive.

The PAC 12 apologists/water-carriers love to point out that he rejects the notion that schools would leave for the Big 12.  They conveniently ignore the important words "prior to being presented a media rights proposal".

 

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

 

[Deej 77,877]

6 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

[statsman 5,698]

I can see why Arizona and ASU might wait a while. Things change. 
 
Honestly, I am surprised the B12 looks more solid than the PAC, even after USC and UCLA bolted. 

what does the PAC have going against it? Not demographics- there are a bunch of people in PAC cities (except Corvallis, Pullman and Eugene). There are a lot of people in California and Arizona is really growing. 
 
It’s not lack of recruits. (Although USC and UCLA are doing the same dirty trick TAMu did- letting another conference have a major foothold in local recruiting). 
 
Also, they own half of the Rise Bowl game, and U doubt their partner to the east wants to let that drop, especially now that it reinforces California recruiting. 
 
It’s a lack of viewers and fan support. Is that an endemic problem? Or temporary? I know TCU was left out of the B12 in large part for lack of fan support in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s. They worked to fix that and made strides. 
 
If the PAC were to have a “come to Jesus” meeting, based on the idea that unless they fix this, their futures are either in the B12 (and you know ASU wants to trade road trips to San Hose for trips to Stillwater😂), or the Mountain West. 
 
One thing they could do is schedule like the SEC. No, not the November FCS games, the September league games. This is something the B12 schools, all following the Snyder program model, won’t do. Give the network an attractive game in week 1 and 2. 
 
If you get Cal and Stanford to promote, too, you’ve got something. They’ve done it before. 
 
A lot can change in a few years, with the right actions. It did for the B12. 
 
And, if they don’t want to change, we’ll, there’s no helping them. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by statsman

[billfromlaketravis 11,869]

14 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

I think they have to add for inventory/some presence in Southern California. 

But no good options for a 12th team. Boise is too small. Colorado State dilutes Colorado. UNLV is bad football/academics. Ditto for Nevada. SMU isn’t in the right time zone. 
 

Maybe SMU works if they agree to late kick offs for home games. 

[dogfarts 45]

I'm a Tech grad...can you explain this to me like I'm 5 please?

Sluts with looser pussys can take more cocks in a gang bang

[Big Frog II 522]

Wilner is the propaganda arm of the Pac 12.  This most likely will boil down to whether or not the Pac schools can stomach being on Apple or Amazon for a majority of their games for the duration of the contract.  They already suffer from the lack of exposure.  This will only make it worse.  I think some schools are doing their best to hold things together, OSU, WSU, and Utah.  Others are looking for an excuse to bolt, UA, ASU, and Colorado.  Even if they are presented a contract, will Oregon and Washington even sign a GOR for 6 years?  Time is running out.

[Trojan Man 429]

27 minutes ago, statsman said:

I can see why Arizona and ASU might wait a while. Things change. 
 
Honestly, I am surprised the B12 looks more solid than the PAC, even after USC and UCLA bolted. 

what does the PAC have going against it? Not demographics- there are a bunch of people in PAC cities (except Corvallis, Pullman and Eugene). There are a lot of people in California and Arizona is really growing. 
 
It’s not lack of recruits. (Although USC and UCLA are doing the same dirty trick TAMu did- letting another conference have a major foothold in local recruiting). 
 
Also, they own half of the Rise Bowl game, and U doubt their partner to the east wants to let that drop, especially now that it reinforces California recruiting. 
 
It’s a lack of viewers and fan support. Is that an endemic problem? Or temporary? I know TCU was left out of the B12 in large part for lack of fan support in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s. They worked to fix that and made strides. 
 
If the PAC were to have a “come to Jesus” meeting, based on the idea that unless they fix this, their futures are either in the B12 (and you know ASU wants to trade road trips to San Hose for trips to Stillwater😂), or the Mountain West. 
 
One thing they could do is schedule like the SEC. No, not the November FCS games, the September league games. This is something the B12 schools, all following the Snyder program model, won’t do. Give the network an attractive game in week 1 and 2. 
 
If you get Cal and Stanford to promote, too, you’ve got something. They’ve done it before. 
 
A lot can change in a few years, with the right actions. It did for the B12. 
 
And, if they don’t want to change, we’ll, there’s no helping them. 

In no particular order, here are the Pac 12's problems

-Shitty leadership; the presidents, ADs and commissioners run the conference like a country club instead of a business

-The Pac 12 footprint has a lot of people but many of them don't give a fuck about the schools or the sports; population growth in CA is mostly immigrants who prefer futbol over football or people from other states who already have a team while AZ gets the same immigrants as CA plus Californians and snowbird retirees, who also already have a team

-Continuing on the "people don't give a fuck about the schools" tangent it really hurts Pac 12 athletics that the Bay Area universities are snobby schools that get students from all over the world instead of party school Big State U types that admit anyone with a pulse and get most of its student body from within a day's drive of campus because the latter type of school has a much bigger fanbase and stronger devotion to sports than snooty schools like Cal and Stanford; if Cal was a Fresno State type of school they would have a huge fanbase and sell out their stadium every week instead of being mostly disconnected from their local population

-Lots of competition for entertainment budgets and attention from fans; most Pac 12 schools are competing with local pro sports franchises for fans and corporate dollars then there's other stuff like beaches, mountains and everything else going on in big cities

-The Rose Bowl's value has been decreasing ever since the BCS came into existence and when the CFP expands it will go from being a B1G/Pac 12 property to just another quarterfinal site; the time to try to preserve the magic of the Rose Bowl was 30 years ago, that ship has sailed

[Crockett 517]

4 hours ago, Gaffords said:

Yes it would leave BYU on an island still, but it isn't like they aren't used to it.  In fact, they'll probably prefer it.  With the PAC lacking exposure, BYU will probably end up sitting on a recruiting goldmine. 

Yup. I think most BYU fans would love to see Utah left behind and rot in obscurity, especially after we recently found out Utah stabbed BYU in the back when we were working on going independent. These two schools used to respectfully cooperate during the LaVell and McBride era, but once Urban Meyer took over and did douchey, petty stuff like not mentioning BYU by name ("the school down south") and putting BYU stickers in urinals, the tone forever changed. Kyle Whittingham went to the dark side and kept some of that petty stuff going, although not to the same degree as Meyer, who is up there in doucheyness. And now with the whole "we P12" elitist mentality these guys are insufferable. So we now say to Utah 🖕 and good riddance. Max Hall said it best:

 

[TKthunder2 5,060]

5 hours ago, Vertigo said:

This made me chuckle. EVERY TEAM IS IN THE AAU EXCEPT 25% of US!

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado are AAU

LA schools are gone which raises that number to 30%. SDSU and SMU join that number jumps to more than 40%. They add 4 including Colorado State and that number goes to 50%.

UW/UO have openly been talking/begging for a B1G invite. Odds that they are committed long term to the PAC12 is even on the board.

And even Cal/Stanford have been rumored as B1G targets but long shots.

So yeah hitch your wagon to WSU and OSU and the future MWC/AAC call ups.

[billfromlaketravis 11,869]

CBS paid the SEC $55 million a year for the game of the week. Obviously they lowballed the SEC, but they promoted the shit out of those games. 
 

I think the ESPN can offer the PAC the same deal on top of their Apple deal. Maybe they give the Mouse second pick every week. $5.5 million per game for 10 games, 9 conference and 1 good home OOC game.

I think PAC late night game of the week is the right approach for ESPN. Everyone is happy. ESPN exercises fiscal responsibility. The PAC gets a decent chunk of change and avoids national irrelevancy. And the gamblers/drunks/surly posters/football junkies get a half assed game to watch at 930 PM EST. 
 

Would I watch watch SMU at SDSU at 1030 PM CST? Yes, yes I would. 

As a football junkie, I love niche games. That was ESPN’s thing before they blew up. I miss the Big East Thursday night games. Throw the game on, tap the keg, and start the weekend. 

[Not a Sock 2,366]

Is it just me or is there a lot of fans, media and even administrators who based on some of the things they say have talked themselves into the belief that the B1G and SEC aren’t sustainable and that they will be a reckoning and they big 2 will collapse and UT,OU, A&M, USC, UCLA will come crawling back and Networks will have lost their investments? Like I definitely understand that belief for college athletics as a whole, but the idea that the Pac 12, ACC will put last the B1G/SEC even in a meager form is just laughable able to me.

[billfromlaketravis 11,869]

46 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado are AAU

LA schools are gone which raises that number to 30%. SDSU and SMU join that number jumps to more than 40%. They add 4 including Colorado State and that number goes to 50%.

UW/UO have openly been talking/begging for a B1G invite. Odds that they are committed long term to the PAC12 is even on the board.

And even Cal/Stanford have been rumored as B1G targets but long shots.

So yeah hitch your wagon to WSU and OSU and the future MWC/AAC call ups.

Yeah I wonder if Phil Knight’s last Crazy Ivan is to offer all the Big Ten Nike schools new merch deals to offset whatever money they’d lose in admitting Oregon. 

[DanTheHorn 5,092]

Arizona president changes tune?

Arizona president Robert C. Robbins: Pac-12 media deal will be ‘better’ than Big 12’s

https://theathletic.com/4314850/2023/03/15/arizona-president-robert-robbins-pac-12/

 

[Gaffords 778]

39 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

CBS paid the SEC $55 million a year for the game of the week. Obviously they lowballed the SEC, but they promoted the shit out of those games. 
 

I think the ESPN can offer the PAC the same deal on top of their Apple deal. Maybe they give the Mouse second pick every week. $5.5 million per game for 10 games, 9 conference and 1 good home OOC game.

I think PAC late night game of the week is the right approach for ESPN. Everyone is happy. ESPN exercises fiscal responsibility. The PAC gets a decent chunk of change and avoids national irrelevancy. And the gamblers/drunks/surly posters/football junkies get a half assed game to watch at 930 PM EST. 
 

Would I watch watch SMU at SDSU at 1030 PM CST? Yes, yes I would. 

As a football junkie, I love niche games. That was ESPN’s thing before they blew up. I miss the Big East Thursday night games. Throw the game on, tap the keg, and start the weekend. 

There's one major problem with that...

Let's say a miracle happened, ESPN and Amazon or Apple woke up one morning feeling generous and decided to save the PAC. Each one buys the rights to one game a week for a staggering deal where each PAC school pockets 40 million dollars a year...  

Sounds good and all, but it isn't. There are two components that are equally important to the schools.  Money and exposure.  Then talk shows mostly go on about the money.  But most reports that come out are about schools not being onboard with 95% of their content being solely in streaming services...

Their  own fan base doesn't care about their product as is, so how many fans in other parts of the country is going to pay for Amazon Prime or Apple just for PAC 12 football.  

The streaming only concern came out in the early stages of the negotiations. Things have gotten much worse since.  

There isn't nor has there been any negotiations in about a month between any of the parties. ESPN and Amazon put their final amount on the table and has said take it or leave it. Each one wants 1 game a week  Apple isn't up bidding.  FOX/CBS/NBC are all a hard pass. 

The only reason Universities have sports is for exposure. The list of schools who break even (or better) without handouts, is very small. 

So the bulk of PAC content untouched/unaired, is practically SMU's death sentence. 

[TKthunder2 5,060]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

CBS paid the SEC $55 million a year for the game of the week. Obviously they lowballed the SEC, but they promoted the shit out of those games. 
 

I think the ESPN can offer the PAC the same deal on top of their Apple deal. Maybe they give the Mouse second pick every week. $5.5 million per game for 10 games, 9 conference and 1 good home OOC game.

I think PAC late night game of the week is the right approach for ESPN. Everyone is happy. ESPN exercises fiscal responsibility. The PAC gets a decent chunk of change and avoids national irrelevancy. And the gamblers/drunks/surly posters/football junkies get a half assed game to watch at 930 PM EST. 
 

Would I watch watch SMU at SDSU at 1030 PM CST? Yes, yes I would. 

As a football junkie, I love niche games. That was ESPN’s thing before they blew up. I miss the Big East Thursday night games. Throw the game on, tap the keg, and start the weekend. 

The problem is the PAC12 generally only has 1 single game worth a damn each week and that’s WITH USC/UCLA included. Both ESPN and Amazon want that game if they are going to be in business with the PAC12, but most don’t see it as all that valuable. Amazon could sub license an ACC game from ESPN for far cheaper than $30 million a year per school, but they want a “big” game each week.

Excluding USCvUCLA (since that will be a Big Ten game) here was where the top PAC12 conference games landed starting week 13 back to week 4 (the * denote games that included USC or UCLA, BOLD denotes game was on FOX, Underlined denotes game was on ESPN)

8 on ABC,8,4,8*,9*,7*,4*,7*,9*,9

So ESPN had some PAC12 last year and only put 1 game on ABC, all other were in the ESPN late window. FOX had the best inventory but despite the huge advantage of being OTA they only landed 2 top 5 games (USC/Utah, UO/UW) and the others lucky enough to get on FOX ended up being the lowest rated OTA college football games of the week losing out to games on cable.

So yeah, ESPN wants the top game of the PAC. Which means 2-3 times a year they’ll get a game worthy of prime time ABC but most of the time it will go to ESPN main in the late window.

Getting 2 football games a week for ESPN is worth about $200 million a year or $20 million per school which is about what their rumored offer was.

So just to recap: the PAC12’s benefit of the LA schools pumping up their numbers has transferred to the Big Ten, and the benefit of being OTA on FOX pumping up their numbers has fully transferred to the Big12 (since B1G negotiated exclusive OTA agreements with CBS/NBC), and their exclusive P5 late night window that boosted rating is being targeted by the Big12. With those advantages the PAC12 averages around the 8th best game on any given week. Take away those advantages and the PAC12 likely won’t have many top 10 games, much less top 5.

I just don’t see how staying in the PAC12 is a good long term option, because the next contract will be worse than this one once you take away everything that was inflating the PAC12’s house of cards.

Edited March 16, 2023 by TKthunder2

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

 

[Gaffords 778]

8 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

The problem is the PAC12 generally only has 1 single game worth a damn each week and that’s WITH USC/UCLA included. Both ESPN and Amazon want that game if they are going to be in business with the PAC12, but most don’t see it as all that valuable. Amazon could sub license an ACC game from ESPN for far cheaper than $30 million a year per school, but they want a “big” game each week.

Excluding USCvUCLA (since that will be a Big Ten game) here was where the top PAC12 conference games landed starting week 13 back to week 4 (the * denote games that included USC or UCLA, BOLD denotes game was on FOX, Underlined denotes game was on ESPN)

8 on ABC,8,4,8*,9*,7*,4*,7*,9*,9

So ESPN had some PAC12 last year and only put 1 game on ABC, all other were in the ESPN late window. FOX had the best inventory but despite the huge advantage of being OTA they only landed 2 top 5 games (USC/Utah, UO/UW) and the others lucky enough to get on FOX ended up being the lowest rated OTA college football games of the week losing out to games on cable.

So yeah, ESPN wants the top game of the PAC. Which means 2-3 times a year they’ll get a game worthy of prime time ABC but most of the time it will go to ESPN main in the late window.

Getting 2 football games a week for ESPN is worth about $200 million a year or $20 million per school which is about what their rumored offer was.

So just to recap: the PAC12’s benefit of the LA schools pumping up their numbers has transferred to the Big Ten, and the benefit of being OTA on FOX pumping up their numbers has fully transferred to the Big12 (since B1G negotiated exclusive OTA agreements with CBS/NBC), and their exclusive P5 late night window that boosted rating is being targeted by the Big12. With those advantages the PAC12 averages around the 8th best game on any given week. Take away those advantages and the PAC12 likely won’t have many top 10 games, much less top 5.

I just don’t see how staying in the PAC12 is a good long term option, because the next contract will be worse than this one once you take away everything that was inflating the PAC12’s house of cards.

This...

I don't see them getting what the Big 12 did, but even if they did, I'm curious to see if Oregon and Washington will sign a long term grant of rights...  I can see them signing up to 5 years, but if I were a corner school, I'd have to do some major soul searching on whether to do this song and dance all over again in 5 years knowing that it's likely Wash/Duck are gone...  

"Hey there Big 12, good buddy, long time no see. I'm ready for that invite now. Mind sending it over?

Who is this?  Ummm, oh yeah I remember you, it took a second there...  Well, about that. We've gone in a different direction from way back when.  Damn, if you had called me a year or two ago, i could've helped you out.  It's good to hear from you again. Sorry I can't help you out right now, but if something comes up, I'll keep you in mind. I'm kinda busy right now, so I've got to run. I'll call you one of these days when I have a little time. 

Bye. 

[Hagbard Celine 11,293]

1 hour ago, DanTheHorn said:

Arizona president changes tune?

Arizona president Robert C. Robbins: Pac-12 media deal will be ‘better’ than Big 12’s

https://theathletic.com/4314850/2023/03/15/arizona-president-robert-robbins-pac-12/

 

paywall defeation

https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%3A//theathletic.com/4314850/2023/03/15/arizona-president-robert-robbins-pac-12/

[bullet 1,631]

1 hour ago, DanTheHorn said:

Arizona president changes tune?

Arizona president Robert C. Robbins: Pac-12 media deal will be ‘better’ than Big 12’s

https://theathletic.com/4314850/2023/03/15/arizona-president-robert-robbins-pac-12/

 

Yeah, before he implied he had no idea.  Now he says there is a "pretty good soft circle number" and that most games will be linear, not streaming.

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

Yeah, reading the whole interview he seems a little more optimistic that the Pac deal will be as good, but then he also couches it by saying he's less confident in that than he was last summer, and that they need to see a final deal before they make any decision.

If the Pac 12 had a better deal in hand than the Big 12, they'd have signed it by now.

It just seems that odd that after being at an impasse for 6 months that ESPN would suddenly sweeten the pot, especially after acknowledging how they've downsized between now and then.

At the end of the day, I don't really care.  The Big 12 has a solid deal, a seat at the table, and some idea of where the future is going.

[BurntOrange&White 42,010]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, reading the whole interview he seems a little more optimistic that the Pac deal will be as good, but then he also couches it by saying he's less confident in that than he was last summer, and that they need to see a final deal before they make any decision.

If the Pac 12 had a better deal in hand than the Big 12, they'd have signed it by now.

It just seems that odd that after being at an impasse for 6 months that ESPN would suddenly sweeten the pot, especially after acknowledging how they've downsized between now and then.

At the end of the day, I don't really care.  The Big 12 has a solid deal, a seat at the table, and some idea of where the future is going.

It sounds like a coordinated effort from conference members to try and make the networks seem they're legitimately into staying.  Lets see reality though....it's not just about that base number but it's about the other shit as noted in that article I linked yesterday. 


 

Quote

The Big 12’s new television deal allows the league to provide close to $32 million to each of its 12 members, starting with the 2025-26 season.

The six-year extension will pay the league $2.28 billion, an annual average of $380 million.

So, that’s pretty simple math, right? Divide that $380 million per year by 12 members and you get a per-year payout of $31.6 million per year.

 

On Sunday, after the deal was reported, Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard was among the chorus of people projecting that the Big 12 would eventually be able to count to $50 million, as in per member.

No, Pollard isn’t bad at math. It’s just there’s more to college sports revenue than the major television contract. It’s one reason why I think there’s a good chance the Big 12 can reach that $50 million figure at some point in the six-year extension.

To understand how you have to look at where the Big 12 is now.

The league’s members received a record $42.6 million for the 2021-22 athletic year. That’s their entire revenue share. Per several sources, the league’s current TV deal pays each of its members about $28 million. So, simple math tells us that the Big 12 had to generate another $14.6 million per member to reach that payout.

 

How? Well, there are a number of ways. The Big 12’s major events generate revenue, including the championship game for football, and the championship tournaments for the other sports. That’s why commissioner Brett Yormark is exploring how to increase that revenue, along with creating new events to generate more revenue.

Another revenue is generated by third-tier media rights, which are usually the conference’s Olympic sports. These could be packaged in a number of ways, including through a network. Right now those rights belong to Big 12 Now on ESPN. It doesn’t look like that’s changing.

There is also the money generated by the league’s bowl game appearances and appearances in other NCAA championships. For instance, the Big 12 has benefited greatly from the revenue share it has received from the NCAA as Baylor and Kansas have won the last two men’s basketball championships. Each conference gets a share of the NCAA Tournament’s basketball fund for each game played. The unit share for the 2021 Tournament was $337,141. The Big 12 earned $32 million from the 2021 Tournament.

 

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

It sounds like a coordinated effort from conference members to try and make the networks seem they're legitimately into staying.  Lets see reality though....it's not just about that base number but it's about the other shit as noted in that article I linked yesterday. 


 

 

In other words, if you want to get paid more, root for all of the conference in the NCAA tourney. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Uncle Nate

[BurntOrange&White 42,010]

21 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

In other words, if you want to get paid, root for all of the conference in the NCAA tourney. 

or to make the CFB playoff

Outside of Oregon once USC leaves the PAC who are the teams who can make the CFB playoff consistently? Oregon? If they leave then who? Utah?

 

What's not mentioned is the effect USC leaving will have on pollsters as well, right? Will be see the polls giving less and less credit to the PAC going forward in 2024? Will the CFB committee do the same?

Edited March 16, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

or to make the CFB playoff

Outside of Oregon once USC leaves the PAC who are the teams who can make the CFB playoff consistently? Oregon? If they leave then who?

Washington and Oregon are the only Pac 12 schools that have even made the CFP, and it's been like 7 years I think.

[closetohumping 17,830]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, reading the whole interview he seems a little more optimistic that the Pac deal will be as good, but then he also couches it by saying he's less confident in that than he was last summer, and that they need to see a final deal before they make any decision.

If the Pac 12 had a better deal in hand than the Big 12, they'd have signed it by now.

It just seems that odd that after being at an impasse for 6 months that ESPN would suddenly sweeten the pot, especially after acknowledging how they've downsized between now and then.

At the end of the day, I don't really care.  The Big 12 has a solid deal, a seat at the table, and some idea of where the future is going.

I think that also applies to the remaining Big 12 schools, especially after your alpha laid an egg in the championship.  

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

I think that also applies to the remaining Big 12 schools, especially after your alpha laid an egg in the championship.  

The Big 12 has a deal in hand, so I don't know how that relates to TCU shitting the bed.

The Big 12 will have had schools in the last 2 playoffs, and one reached the championship by beating the Big 10 champion.  No one has any delusion that it's top end will be on par with whomever is atop the SEC or Ohio State, but it's definitely ahead of the Pac 12.