Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17830]

6 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

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.

I actually quoted the wrong post.  It was the post about nobody outside of Oregon having name cache to make the playoffs.  Kind of irrelevant as both conferences will always have at least one representative when we go to a 12 team playoff. 

[89Horn 1742]

9 hours ago, Not a Sock said:

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.

If that happens, I suspect UT, OU, A&M, USC, UCLA would not go back to the PAC12/Big12.  They would form their own new power conference and with a condescending sigh say ok who do we add from our old conferences?  Fine, make it sustainable by adding seven schools to get to 12.  I further suspect AZ and AZ state could also get left behind under that scenario.  Just like 2010 again, but no LHN and USC/UCLA not having to worry about what Stanford and Cal think.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

9 hours ago, Not a Sock said:

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.

I think it’s just you, because I haven’t seen anyone say anything even insinuating such a thought. 
 

or maybe I’m reading the wrong media and tweets. 
 

Pretty certain 99% of the folks think the SEC and BIG are going to be just fine forever and it’s the other three that have unknown futures. 

[BurntOrange&White 42009]

5 hours 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 agree if it’s as good or better as suggested then why isn’t it signed sealed and delivered already? More importantly, why do they need a few more weeks to do so?

Edited March 16, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[closetohumping 17830]

10 hours ago, Not a Sock said:

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.

Nah, no chance they think that.

[USC_TMB 405]

12 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

What a cluster fuck

[TKthunder2 5060]

13 hours ago, Not a Sock said:

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.

UT/OU/aggy/Mizzou/Arkansas no, because like Neb/Maryland/Penn St/Rutgers in the B1G there is a close enough geographic fit that makes sense.

I do think there is a feeling that USC/UCLA is going to realize the grass 2000 miles away isn’t always greener.

But yeah if USC/UCLA decided the Big Ten wasn’t all it was made out to be (highly unlikely) they still wouldn’t go back to the PAC. They’d make a new Western conference and set their own rules/bylaws set it up the way they want and then invite only the schools that commit to their vision (where LA is recognized as above all others).

But again, it likely ain’t going to happen.

[bullet 1631]

5 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

I think it’s just you, because I haven’t seen anyone say anything even insinuating such a thought. 
 

or maybe I’m reading the wrong media and tweets. 
 

Pretty certain 99% of the folks think the SEC and BIG are going to be just fine forever and it’s the other three that have unknown futures. 

Well Texas will be just fine in Prestige Worldwide.

There is definitely a risk in getting bigger.  It means you are more likely to split into parts in the long run.  There have been a number of large conferences, but none have ever lasted very long.  Most recent examples are Big East and WAC 16.  In Division II the Lone Star Conference and Great West both collapsed shortly after mega-sizing.

 

[BurntOrange&White 42009]

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

Well Texas will be just fine in Prestige Worldwide.

There is definitely a risk in getting bigger.  It means you are more likely to split into parts in the long run.  There have been a number of large conferences, but none have ever lasted very long.  Most recent examples are Big East and WAC 16.  In Division II the Lone Star Conference and Great West both collapsed shortly after mega-sizing.

 

There has never been this much money and future money at stake. This isn't 1950s, 70s, or even 90s. 

[Al_4_ISU 12664]

The risk of consolidating too far is that once you start cutting out large groups of invested people, they stop caring.

If there was ever some 20 team super league that staged its own playoffs, absolutely no one that followed the other 40-50 schools that were part of major college sports would give a fuck, and the crazy ass money that exists today would diminish.  I think there's an assumption from networks that you could push out the OK States of the world and they'd just tune into OU instead (or that Tech/Baylor/TCU fans would adopt UT or Aggy).  Which is kind of a fundamental misunderstanding of what motivates CFB heads.

I think they're catching on to that, and that's part of why they decided to keep the Big 12 afloat and may do the same for the Pac 12.  They might be really close to the sweet spot for brand consolidation - at least in the SEC.

[Trojan Man 429]

20 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

UT/OU/aggy/Mizzou/Arkansas no, because like Neb/Maryland/Penn St/Rutgers in the B1G there is a close enough geographic fit that makes sense.

I do think there is a feeling that USC/UCLA is going to realize the grass 2000 miles away isn’t always greener.

But yeah if USC/UCLA decided the Big Ten wasn’t all it was made out to be (highly unlikely) they still wouldn’t go back to the PAC. They’d make a new Western conference and set their own rules/bylaws set it up the way they want and then invite only the schools that commit to their vision (where LA is recognized as above all others).

But again, it likely ain’t going to happen.

That feeling is just sour grapes and butthurt from the left behind Pac 12 schools.  Every single one of them wishes they could make the same "mistake" USC and UCLA are making in joining the B1G and take the same trips to the Midwest.  Funny how other Pac 12 fans will say joining a distant conference is a terrible mistake and a travesty for the LA schools out of one side of their mouth, then talk about their school's chances of getting a B1G invitation out of the other side of their mouth.

As for the actual impact traveling that much will have it's not like USC and UCLA are leaving a compact, easy to travel conference.  Colorado, Utah and the PNW schools (especially Washington State) aren't exactly quick bus rides from LA.  Might as well fly an extra hour and replace those road games in front of 30K against scrubs like Colorado and Washington State that are buried with weeknight, Pac 12 Network, FS1, 10:30 PM ET etc kickoffs with primetime Fox/CBS/NBC road games in front of 70K+ against Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa.  Traveling a lot is already a fact of life for all Pac 12 athletes so a little more travel won't be the apocalypse some are hoping to see.  It's also important to consider the B1G is run by competent professionals instead of a bunch of assclowns like the Pac 12, so they will probably do things to help the LA schools with travel like giving USC a road game with Indiana or Purdue the week before/after playing at Notre Dame or back to back road games with Penn State and Maryland to minimize the number of cross country flights.

The flip side of all this travel is that half of USC's/UCLA's B1G games will be at home.  B1G teams do worse heading west than Pac 12 teams do heading east, and the B1G teams know it (see Ohio State canceling their Washington series).  Some of these B1G teams that build their roster to grind out low scoring slugfests in shitty weather will get boatraced when they come to the Coliseum to play in sunny 70 degree weather against an offense averaging 40+ PPG.

[Al_4_ISU 12664]

I see a lot more bemoaning of the USC/UCLA additions to the Big 10 coming from the local Iowa/Nebraska fans who realize they're going to regularly play games on the west coast against more talented schools that are going to help prevent them from ever sniffing relevancy again in a post-divisions Big 10.

The Big 10 West has been the only thing keeping them in the game.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[Trojan Man 429]

6 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I see a lot more bemoaning of the USC/UCLA additions to the Big 10 coming from the local Iowa/Nebraska fans who realize they're going to regularly play games on the west coast against more talented schools that are going to help prevent them from ever sniffing relevancy again in a post-divisions Big 10.

The Big 10 West has been the only thing keeping them in the game.

That change would happen with or without the B1G expanding.  The Pac 12 already eliminated divisions last year and the ACC is eliminating divisions this year.  The B1G and the SEC are waiting until they get to 16 teams to abolish divisions but they would be doing it now if they were staying at 14 teams.  CFP expansion necessitates the removal of divisions.

No divisions means more equal schedules for everyone instead of the teams in the good division going through a meatgrinder and knocking each other out of at large bid consideration while the teams in the weak division might only play one ranked conference opponent all year.  It also eliminates the possibility of an unranked team that is the fifth best team in its conference stealing a CFP bid because they pulled off a fluke upset in the CCG.  Then there is the financial angle.  Two good teams in the CCG will sell more tickets and get higher ratings than one good team blasting a sacrificial lamb.  Iowa and Nebraska may not like it but they won't get much sympathy over losing their welfare CCG bid from the East teams that currently have to conquer the Buckeye/Nittany Lion/Wolverine hydra to make the CCG.

[Al_4_ISU 12664]

21 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

That change would happen with or without the B1G expanding.  The Pac 12 already eliminated divisions last year and the ACC is eliminating divisions this year.  The B1G and the SEC are waiting until they get to 16 teams to abolish divisions but they would be doing it now if they were staying at 14 teams.  CFP expansion necessitates the removal of divisions.

No divisions means more equal schedules for everyone instead of the teams in the good division going through a meatgrinder and knocking each other out of at large bid consideration while the teams in the weak division might only play one ranked conference opponent all year.  It also eliminates the possibility of an unranked team that is the fifth best team in its conference stealing a CFP bid because they pulled off a fluke upset in the CCG.  Then there is the financial angle.  Two good teams in the CCG will sell more tickets and get higher ratings than one good team blasting a sacrificial lamb.  Iowa and Nebraska may not like it but they won't get much sympathy over losing their welfare CCG bid from the East teams that currently have to conquer the Buckeye/Nittany Lion/Wolverine hydra to make the CCG.

I think it's fucking hilarious, personally.  Every couple of years Iowa would get handed one of the worst schedules in the Power 5, and then eventually get embarrassed when they played a good team, after a season of analyzing their playoff chances, etc.

With USC coming in, it's just one more peg between them and achieving anything.  They'll brag about being grandfathered into the money club, but they're going to find themselves over the moon for a 6 win season real quick.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[Richard Kimball 1523]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

... They’d make a new Western conference and set their own rules/bylaws set it up the way they want...

With blackjack and hookers

!

[lemonandaturd 4289]

Just stopped by to say fuck Cal.  

[Gidnik 3506]

lots of shit getting talked on the twatter.  its hilarious. 

[General Specific 3508]

With blackjack and hookers
!

In that case I make a motion for the founding of, The University of Surly! All those in favor say aye!

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

8 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Gotta love Dodd...he knows that is going to trigger the Pac-12 Twitter Water-Carriers like Trump triggers MSNBC [/not CR].

[CustersDoctor 585]

8 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Drove to Phoenix from Lubbock this weekend to see my daughter. It's a 12 hour drive.  UA in Tucson is a little closer than that. I will certainly go to Tempe and Tuscon at least once if either join the New12.

[oSuJeff97 3439]

11 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

From the article -- talking about % of the new deal that would be streaming...

"Over 50%? No, I don't think so. I think that's too much. It's OK if it's 50-50. … You have to remember, guys our age, people that I went to high school with aren't going to want to deal with streaming.

"I don't think it will be more than 50%, but if it ended up 50%, I think it would be OK."

If it's anywhere near 50% they are fucked. 50% of your entire football inventory would be streaming? Not only does that reduce your overall visibility, but it exposes you to the PAC fans' well known apathy when it comes to football, because while random CFB fans may flip on to a PAC after dark game or any other broadcast PAC game on linear TV they sure as shit aren't seeking out a random PAC game on a random streaming service, so it's up to the PAC fans to provide the audience numbers for that and well... good luck with that...

[bullet 1631]

22 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

There has never been this much money and future money at stake. This isn't 1950s, 70s, or even 90s. 

And Prestige Worldwide means lots more money and you leave behind Purdue, Mississippi St., etc.

[bullet 1631]

22 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The risk of consolidating too far is that once you start cutting out large groups of invested people, they stop caring.

If there was ever some 20 team super league that staged its own playoffs, absolutely no one that followed the other 40-50 schools that were part of major college sports would give a fuck, and the crazy ass money that exists today would diminish.  I think there's an assumption from networks that you could push out the OK States of the world and they'd just tune into OU instead (or that Tech/Baylor/TCU fans would adopt UT or Aggy).  Which is kind of a fundamental misunderstanding of what motivates CFB heads.

I think they're catching on to that, and that's part of why they decided to keep the Big 12 afloat and may do the same for the Pac 12.  They might be really close to the sweet spot for brand consolidation - at least in the SEC.

Well even the SEC understands that.  It was why they were so in favor of expanding the playoffs.  The west coast was getting left out every year.  4 team worked fine for the SEC, but not for the long run health of the game.

[bullet 1631]

“"...I think everybody’s talking about it right now — I think there’s a lot of side conversations going on,” Rhoades continued. “I think it’s safe to say we’re all having conversations amongst the ADs within the Big 12 and certainly within the Pac-12. And I’d be disingenuous if we didn’t say that there’s Big 12 ADs talking with Pac-12 (ADs), relationships that go back years...."”

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/keeler-for-cu-buffs-big-12-talk-still-nothing-more-than-big-tease-why-wouldn-t-we-be-interested-baylor-ad-says-in-a-school-like-colorado/ar-AA18Jw9X

 

Clarifies the double talk from the ASU president.  Everybody IS talking to everybody.  May not be formal, but its happening.

[DFW Horn 6671]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

From the article -- talking about % of the new deal that would be streaming...

"Over 50%? No, I don't think so. I think that's too much. It's OK if it's 50-50. … You have to remember, guys our age, people that I went to high school with aren't going to want to deal with streaming.

"I don't think it will be more than 50%, but if it ended up 50%, I think it would be OK."

If it's anywhere near 50% they are fucked. 50% of your entire football inventory would be streaming? Not only does that reduce your overall visibility, but it exposes you to the PAC fans' well known apathy when it comes to football, because while random CFB fans may flip on to a PAC after dark game or any other broadcast PAC game on linear TV they sure as shit aren't seeking out a random PAC game on a random streaming service, so it's up to the PAC fans to provide the audience numbers for that and well... good luck with that...

I was thinking the same thing.

For a smart guy, Robbins didn't sound very intelligent with this commentary. Apathy is the PAC's biggest problem. Well, that and letting Cal and Stanford have too much say

[DFW Horn 6671]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

And Prestige Worldwide means lots more money and you leave behind Purdue, Mississippi St., etc.

Well, I'd lose interest if an 8-4 record merits a playoff berth. NIL makes CFB too much like the NFL already, IMO. The big dogs need their spares to build up the win-loss.

[Al_4_ISU 12664]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

Well even the SEC understands that.  It was why they were so in favor of expanding the playoffs.  The west coast was getting left out every year.  4 team worked fine for the SEC, but not for the long run health of the game.

Yeah, I agree.

Other than Mizzou (at the formation of SECN), the SEC has been far more focused on adding real brands.

[Vertigo 20502]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

From the article -- talking about % of the new deal that would be streaming...

"Over 50%? No, I don't think so. I think that's too much. It's OK if it's 50-50. … You have to remember, guys our age, people that I went to high school with aren't going to want to deal with streaming.

"I don't think it will be more than 50%, but if it ended up 50%, I think it would be OK."

If it's anywhere near 50% they are fucked. 50% of your entire football inventory would be streaming? Not only does that reduce your overall visibility, but it exposes you to the PAC fans' well known apathy when it comes to football, because while random CFB fans may flip on to a PAC after dark game or any other broadcast PAC game on linear TV they sure as shit aren't seeking out a random PAC game on a random streaming service, so it's up to the PAC fans to provide the audience numbers for that and well... good luck with that...

Not only that, but they don't advertise for games on streaming outside of banner ads. There is basically an understanding that you know why you are there. The P12 would be less watched than the MAC. 

[statsman 5698]

I think college football could end up looking like EPL soccer, with the CFP being the equivalent of the Wembley FA Cup (every English professional team, no matter how low the division, gets to compete in a nationwide single elimination tournament). 
 
I won’t be surprised when the B12, ACC and PAC institute salary caps in a few years. Why would they? Because most of the teams don’t want one school, say Baylor, to have a mega rich alum decide to outspend everyone else. 

[oSuJeff97 3439]

50 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I was thinking the same thing.

For a smart guy, Robbins didn't sound very intelligent with this commentary. Apathy is the PAC's biggest problem. Well, that and letting Cal and Stanford have too much say

Yeah being "OK" with 50% of your football inventory being on streaming services is pretty fucking stupid, IMO.

[BurntOrange&White 42009]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

I think college football could end up looking like EPL soccer, with the CFP being the equivalent of the Wembley FA Cup (every English professional team, no matter how low the division, gets to compete in a nationwide single elimination tournament). 
 
I won’t be surprised when the B12, ACC and PAC institute salary caps in a few years. Why would they? Because most of the teams don’t want one school, say Baylor, to have a mega rich alum decide to outspend everyone else. 

No

[Uncle Nate 2097]

I think Robbins is just playing the CYA card right now.  He's hedging his bets and trying not to say anything that would get the PAC up in arms against Arizona.  Let the process play out, pretend like you are completely on board with the PAC and George K. and are optimistic an acceptable TV deal is done, and then when it's not, he can say he tried but they didn't deliver.

Or...he's just a dumbass.

Regardless, I've pretty much stopped caring.  I see the PAC dying no matter what.  Either they agree to a crappy TV rights deal and fall off the college football radar the next few years, prompting Oregon and Washington to sell their souls to leave and the conference turning into WAC 2.0, or they end up turning into WAC 2.0 now when certain members bolt to the security that the Big 12 provides.  Either way, it's a dead conference walking...it's just a matter of when now.

[BurntOrange&White 42009]

He’s suspiciously too vocal. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

For a smart guy, Robbins didn't sound very intelligent with this commentary. Apathy is the PAC's biggest problem. Well, that and letting Cal and Stanford have too much say

Picture of Robbins when he was a high school football player:

[Fudbelty 2810]

Makes me wonder if he knows the difference between a sneeze and a wet fart!

[billfromlaketravis 11868]

Help me understand why the Big 12 wants Utah and Colorado. 

The Arizona schools make sense. Phoenix is 5th largest city in the country, and the state's population is growing rapidly. 

[CustersDoctor 585]

On 3/16/2023 at 1:05 AM, Jabberwocky said:

 

1st. I don't for a second think that the PAC12 deal will be equal to or superior to the NEW12 deal. 2nd Once the deal is revealed to the current PAC12th members they will probably have about a week to review it before signing their GOR. I guarantee you that if too much of the revenue promises are performance based some will reject it if those performance bonuses are likely to be unreasonable. And I guarantee you that even if the revenue promises are solid but rely to  heavily on not yet viable formats (like streaming) some will reject it. 3rd Can you imagine the fit that FSU is going to throw if the ACC contract is all the sudden the dead last revenue generator  of the P5.

Edited March 19, 2023 by CustersDoctor

[DFW Horn 6671]

54 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Help me understand why the Big 12 wants Utah and Colorado. 

The Arizona schools make sense. Phoenix is 5th largest city in the country, and the state's population is growing rapidly. 

Californians are relocating to CO and Utah, too.

[billfromlaketravis 11868]

5 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Californians are relocating to CO and Utah, too.

I guess they're playing the population models. Even then, Colorado and Utah seem like more trouble than they're worth. 

[BurntOrange&White 42009]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Help me understand why the Big 12 wants Utah and Colorado. 

The Arizona schools make sense. Phoenix is 5th largest city in the country, and the state's population is growing rapidly. 

Because it only helps to crater their competition as a conference?

[oSuJeff97 3439]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Help me understand why the Big 12 wants Utah and Colorado. 

The Arizona schools make sense. Phoenix is 5th largest city in the country, and the state's population is growing rapidly. 

Denver is a top 20 MSA and growing. Getting carriage fees there adds value. And heck, who knows... if Deion can get Colorado football going again they would add even more value in terms of program prestige.

Utah is a very good program and an obvious natural rival to BYU.

Oh and by taking those four you would nuke the PAC and solidify your position as the #3 conference in CFB.

 

[TKthunder2 5060]

Losing Colorado and Mizzou hurt the big TVs numbers when viewing through a lens of markets/demographics. Corn/aggy hurt from a competition/general interest standpoint. They also all hurt academically but that’s not all that important.

Getting Colorado and ASU back helps with markets, Utah and Colorado with Deon helps with general interest, Arizona helps with basketball, and all except ASU helps with academics.

[billfromlaketravis 11868]

It would a long, strange trip for Colorado to back in the Big 12. 
 

it feels like the Arizona schools are very gettable while Utah and Colorado are pretty reluctant. That said, I bet Utah isn’t too thrilled with Cal and Stanford’s disinterest in college football. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

[notre dame joe 205]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Losing Colorado and Mizzou hurt the big TVs numbers when viewing through a lens of markets/demographics. Corn/aggy hurt from a competition/general interest standpoint. They also all hurt academically but that’s not all that important.

Getting Colorado and ASU back helps with markets, Utah and Colorado with Deon helps with general interest, Arizona helps with basketball, and all except ASU helps with academics.

That may have been true 20 years ago.  ASU is now a respected academic school that has exploded in breadth.   However adding lot's of asian grad students and Californian transplants does nothing for interest in football or sports in general. 

 

Tangentially related: The Phoenix Coyotes will now play at ASU.   Maybe the Cardinals will take notice.

[closetohumping 17830]

5 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

That may have been true 20 years ago.  ASU is now a respected academic school that has exploded in breadth.   However adding lot's of asian grad students and Californian transplants does nothing for interest in football or sports in general. 

 

Tangentially related: The Phoenix Coyotes will now play at ASU.   Maybe the Cardinals will take notice.

 

 

[Left Coast 879]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

 ASU is now a respected academic school

No, it really isn’t.

But as we all know academics has fuck all to do with realignment.

[TrashMaster G 18134]

3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

That may have been true 20 years ago.  ASU is now a respected academic school that has exploded in breadth.   However adding lot's of asian grad students and Californian transplants does nothing for interest in football or sports in general. 

 

Tangentially related: The Phoenix Coyotes will now play at ASU.   Maybe the Cardinals will take notice.

*lots

[JMFP 1126]

On 3/17/2023 at 2:03 PM, statsman said:

I think college football could end up looking like EPL soccer, with the CFP being the equivalent of the Wembley FA Cup (every English professional team, no matter how low the division, gets to compete in a nationwide single elimination tournament). 
 
I won’t be surprised when the B12, ACC and PAC institute salary caps in a few years. Why would they? Because most of the teams don’t want one school, say Baylor, to have a mega rich alum decide to outspend everyone else. 

Conferences will be told to go pound sand if they try to tell an athlete how much he can earn. 

[Sandman 3435]

Quote

For the Pac-12 to reach the $300 million per year mark to basically match the deal the Big 12 received from ESPN and Fox Sports, the most likely platform to pay that at this point would be Apple, as we reported last month.

To be clear, we aren’t saying that is happening, but Apple is the company that could potentially reach that number, and adding Pac-12 rights does fit what Apple seemingly is trying to do in sports. But it figures to be an all-Apple deal.

However, Apple goes on Apple Watch time, which is to say it doesn’t jump for anyone. They didn’t do it for the NFL in its failed negotiations for Sunday Ticket. They didn’t do it for MLS. So if the Pac-12 wants answers by April 15, maybe it gets them from Apple, but it is not a sure thing. It is one of the most powerful and richest companies, and its decision-makers know it.

The Pac-12 could turn back to ESPN/ABC, but the deal that was once on the table — the same $31 million per year per team that the Big 12 got — is no longer there. If the Pac-12 returns to ESPN, it will likely mean it is willing to take less money in exchange for exposure. At this point, a deal with ESPN is not close.

 

Amazon Prime Video is an option, but they don’t want tonnage. A Friday night game might make sense with the promotion from Thursday Night Football, but, as we’ve said many times, Amazon will only do it if it makes sense. Amazon isn’t going to go crazy for the Pac-12.

 

This brings it back to Apple. The company is trying to figure out what it is doing in sports on Apple TV+. They have the $2.5 billion all-in MLS deal for a decade. With MLB, they pay $55 million a year in a rights fee and a guarantee of $30 million worth of advertising. Though it is just a start, a college football deal sort of fits in.

That said, Apple is persnickety and takes forever on deals. There is no proof that college sports being exclusively on a streamer would work.

And we don’t know for sure exactly where Apple stands in negotiations with the Pac-12. If not Apple, then who?

There always could be other wild cards, but they aren’t apparent right now. That’s why when University of Arizona president Robert Robbins says he has to see the numbers to compare with what the Big 12 could offer, that is the money quote from his interviews with CBS Sports and The Athletic.