Realignment talk not going away

[DanTheHorn 4893]

2 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

1. They literally have a $100,000,000 tied up in it. 2. It actually functions really well and looks good. 3. They have a lot of tie ins. Like it comes with some cable packages and its free on a lot of cell phone plans. 4. Streaming really will be a big thing someday and the PACX will rue the day if they torch it.

Link?

[Hurtlocker 2208]

32 minutes ago, Jasper_Jester said:

$100M doesn't sound like a lot. Split 12 ways? Is that really it? 

Its an anchor right now due to, as you mention, the sunkin cost fallacy.     Could they write it off, yes, but most of these schools can barely weather a buyout, let alone owing more.  But, I don't think they OWE $100m.   What they lose is their investment in it.   So if Colorado leaves, and the Pac sells the PACN for $100m, now they're splitting it 9 ways instead of 12 and Colorado nets nothing.   My guess is someone is floating a potential sale, they see the value of this extra cash, and are unwilling to move until they know its real or not.   If I'm the commish though, i'm not saying its real or not until after the last date you can give notice to ensure you're stuck with the deal.

They need to consolidate it at a minimum and put less football on it, because the more they put on it the less they can sell.   The B12 sells all their games and got $32m.   That means the Pac needs to sell 60% of their games (40% currently goes to PacN) for $29m, since the remaining 40% is only paying out $3-4m currently.   Or, they need it to pay out $10m/team, since 60% of the B12 deal is $20m.

Here's part of the problem -subs per channel (carriage):

Pac-12/National: 14.8 million ($0.13/mo)
Pac-12/Los Angeles: 3.0 million ($0.73)
Pac-12/Bay Area: 2.1 million ($0.80)
Pac-12/Washington: 1.1 million ($0.98)
Pac-12/Mountain: 1.0 million ($0.53)
Pac-12/Arizona: 0.7 million ($0.91)
Pac-12/Oregon: 0.6 million ($0.52)

Wilner wrote this in March of 2021:

Quote

Multiple industry experts believe the conference should consider every option, including:

— Fold the Pac-12 regional networks, leaving only the national feed and creating a revised model that resembles the Big Ten and SEC networks.

— Shutter the Pac-12 Networks entirely, including the national network, and sell the content, which includes about 35 football games, to a major media company or perhaps a streaming service (for example: DAZN).

— Attempt to negotiate a new Tier 1 media deal immediately.

The third option would be the most lucrative but is also the trickiest to accomplish.

The Tier 1 agreements with ESPN and Fox expire in the summer of 2024 — the same end-point as the Pac-12 Networks distribution agreements with Comcast, DISH and others.

But 40 months is a long time to wait for a conference that already lags many of its peers by tens of millions of dollars annually in media rights revenue.

Industry experts and conference sources believe the Pac-12 cannot sit back as the resource gap expands.

In their view, Scott’s successor, who’s expected to be in place this summer, should immediately begin conversations with current media partners and scour the marketplace to assess the demand for Pac-12 content.

Whether ESPN and Fox would be willing to rip up the current deals is not known. But one source, who has spent a lifetime in the sports-media space, offered the following assessment: “It’s all solvable.”

An expedited Tier 1 negotiation could allow the Pac-12’s next contract cycle to begin in 2023, providing the athletic departments with needed cash 12 months ahead of schedule.

“They need to go early because the situation is getting worse,’’ a source said.

Here’s how:

ESPN, the most influential media entity in college sports, has lost approximately 10 million subscribers in the past five years, limiting its ability to purchase the broadcast rights to the top professional and collegiate sports leagues.

At the same time, it reportedly agreed to spend $300 million annually to broadcast the SEC’s ‘Game of the Week’ package. Add its ownership of the SEC Network, and the media giant’s plan is clear.

“In a diminishing ESPN economy,” a source said, “they are allocating a greater percentage of dollars to the SEC.”

Equally concerning to the Pac-12 is the timing of upcoming negotiations:

The Big Ten’s contracts expire in the summer of 2023, giving it access to ESPN and Fox dollars before the Pac-12.

How much cash, and how many premium broadcast windows, will remain after the heavyweights have fed at the trough?

“The Pac-12’s at a critical point,” a source said. “There’s only so much money to go around. It might be best to move to the front of the line.”

Sound familiar?

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Spoiler

One event, two athletic directors and an immeasurable difference in public commitments encapsulated the Pac-12’s wobbly present.

There was Utah’s Mark Harlan, sharing the main stage with commissioner George Kliavkoff late last week at the preseason media extravaganza in Las Vegas. Harlan fielded questions from the reporters and, in the process, doubled down on Utah’s allegiance.

“Our words and actions speak for themselves,” he said. “We are proud members of this conference.”

A few hours later, Colorado’s Rick George took the same stage for a 15-minute panel discussion on the College Football Playoff, then declined to take questions as he scurried out the rear exit.

“I’ve got a flight to catch,” he said.

Utah and Colorado joined the Pac-12 on the same day, July 1, 2011. By all accounts, the Utes are committed to a future in the conference despite the protracted media rights negotiations that have frustrated fans and campus officials alike.

But Colorado’s status isn’t as clear in the public sphere, with speculation swirling that the university could depart for the Big 12 as early as this week — a move that some believe would trigger an exodus and decimate the century-old league.

Would the Buffaloes leave for the Big 12 even if the annual broadcast revenue from ESPN and Fox ($31.7 million per school per year) is comparable to what they stand to earn in the Pac-12?

Would they accept an invitation from the Big 12 before seeing an official offer on the table in the Pac-12?

The Hotline won’t claim to know how the saga within a saga will end (or when it will end). Instead, this exercise is intended to illuminate the issues at the heart of Colorado’s decision — issues that are as unique as CU’s geography.

For all the uncertainty, three things are apparent:

1. Realignment rumors and grapevine position move in lockstep.

The closer your position to the front lines of college football — the space occupied by fans, media, coaches and even athletic directors — the more fervent the speculation that Colorado is prepared to leave the Pac-12.

But reverse course and head toward the ivory towers, where Colorado chancellor Phil DiStefano and his nine colleagues are in regular discussions about the Pac-12’s future, and the noise seems to subside.

2. Colorado’s situation is as complex as the map is simple.

The campus is not located on the West Coast or fixed in the Pacific Time Zone (even for half the year). In fact, it’s 200 miles closer to Dallas than Los Angeles. The school was in the Big Eight/Big 12 for 62 years and has been a member of the Pac-12 for just 12.

Yet in vibe, culture and politics, Boulder is more California than Texas, more West Coast than Southern Plains.

3. Colorado’s identity is at stake in realignment, but which identity?

The decision to remain in the Pac-12 or return to the Big 12 illuminates the university’s quest to define itself athletically and academically. What’s best for one might not be best for the other.

Athletically, a connection to Texas, to a greater extent than even California, is necessary for CU’s football recruiting. And there are more blue-chip prospects in the former than the latter: 63 per year in Texas compared to 33 annually in California. (Details below).

The power structure within Boulder reflects the potential for a Big 12 lean, as well.

Coach Deion Sanders, who has transformed the Buffaloes’ national profile since his appointment last winter, views the Lone Star State as imperative. Meanwhile, the chancellor, DiStefano, and athletic director, George, are nearing retirement. Their legacies are at stake.

Will they be swayed by Sanders? What are their priorities? Where are their loyalties? How deep are the scars from the Pac-12’s many missteps under former commissioner Larry Scott?

But when it comes to issues that impact the university in totality, including both the source and mouth of Colorado’s enrollment pipeline, the school seems more suited for the West Coast.

— The source: Colorado welcomed 36,000 students in the fall of 2022, according to the university’s office of data analytics, and slightly more than half (56 percent) were in-state residents.

The out-of-state student population tilts heavily to California. The Golden State is CU’s golden ticket — hello, full-cost tuition! — and accounts for 10 percent of the school’s total enrollment.

There are three times as many students from California as those from Texas.

— The mouth: Colorado has approximately 300,000 living alumni, according to the university. About 50 percent reside in Colorado, while the out-of-state alumni base tilts substantially to Northern and Southern California specifically and the West Coast generally.

There are more alumni in San Francisco than Colorado Springs, more in Seattle than Dallas.

Donations to the athletic department from California increased 903 percent during CU’s first four seasons in the Pac-12, the Boulder Daily Camera reported in 2015.

“Where we play is taking us to where our people are,” George said at the time.

And yet, here we are.

A dozen years after Colorado shifted its center of gravity from Texas to California, speculation is rampant that the Buffaloes will reverse course.

In that time, they have zero Pac-12 football titles, just two bowl appearances and a winning percentage of 26.2 in conference games.

Are their struggles on the field related to conference affiliation, questionable coaching hires or resources available? Would the Buffaloes have performed any better in the Big 12 over the past decade? Their final chapter in that league, in the mid-to-late 2000s, was littered with defeat, as well.

Athletically, the school feels forever adrift … not textbook Big 12 but not classic Pac-12 … reliant upon the Southern Plains and the West Coast for roster building … tied to its athletic past in a Texas-based league and to its institutional present in a California-centric conference …

Contiguous to two Power Five leagues but ideally built, it seems, for none.

 

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

 

[CustersDoctor 584]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Its an anchor right now due to, as you mention, the sunkin cost fallacy.     Could they write it off, yes, but most of these schools can barely weather a buyout, let alone owing more.  But, I don't think they OWE $100m.   What they lose is their investment in it.   So if Colorado leaves, and the Pac sells the PACN for $100m, now they're splitting it 9 ways instead of 12 and Colorado nets nothing.   My guess is someone is floating a potential sale, they see the value of this extra cash, and are unwilling to move until they know its real or not.   If I'm the commish though, i'm not saying its real or not until after the last date you can give notice to ensure you're stuck with the deal.

They need to consolidate it at a minimum and put less football on it, because the more they put on it the less they can sell.   The B12 sells all their games and got $32m.   That means the Pac needs to sell 60% of their games (40% currently goes to PacN) for $29m, since the remaining 40% is only paying out $3-4m currently.   Or, they need it to pay out $10m/team, since 60% of the B12 deal is $20m.

Here's part of the problem -subs per channel (carriage):

Pac-12/National: 14.8 million ($0.13/mo)
Pac-12/Los Angeles: 3.0 million ($0.73)
Pac-12/Bay Area: 2.1 million ($0.80)
Pac-12/Washington: 1.1 million ($0.98)
Pac-12/Mountain: 1.0 million ($0.53)
Pac-12/Arizona: 0.7 million ($0.91)
Pac-12/Oregon: 0.6 million ($0.52)

Wilner wrote this in March of 2021:

Sound familiar?

That Wilner March 21 reference is great, especially the part about, 'they need to go early, things could get worse'. Like you could lose USC & UCLA. Or while you're slow walking your negotiations the Big12 gets their deal done which locked up some of the TV slots that you were hoping for or you find out that you viewership claims were inflated meaning A. Your conference value is a little less than you claimed. B. You owe Comcast $50mill. A lot has happened since 03-21.

[Hagbard Celine 10734]

11 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Pac 12 failure is on the presidents, and I'm seeing 10 university presidents who seem completely incapable of making decisions, much less smart ones.  Maybe it's by design and a couple of these presidents are playing 4D chess, but I doubt it.

4D chess would have already resulted in the announcement of a linear deal that pays more than the big12

klittkoff stating in public that he needs 10 GOR signatures = 10 presidents with acumen measured in negative numbers

he is taking them for a ride every single paycheck

[Hagbard Celine 10734]

11 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

It's an interesting thing to watch play out.  I think Cal and Stanford are leaning to just being the West Coast version of the Ivy League, and CU is having an identity crisis on that front because they want to be in a Cal-Stanford Ivy League but at the same time they aren't willing to throw in the towel on the money sports.  UU is delusional in thinking they can have both.  Oregon and Udub just want to bide their time until a Big 10 invite comes along.  ASU has a bit of CU identity crisis happening, but to a lesser degree.  I honestly think Arizona knows what's best but is hesitant to make the move, and OSU and WSU are just praying it stays together because they literally have no other options other than to be relegated to G5.

I never thought I would see the day where there was a more dysfunctional athletic conference than that of the Big 12 back when Beebe was in charge, but here we are.  

this is the best summary yet written

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Its an anchor right now due to, as you mention, the sunkin cost fallacy.     Could they write it off, yes, but most of these schools can barely weather a buyout, let alone owing more.  But, I don't think they OWE $100m.   What they lose is their investment in it.   So if Colorado leaves, and the Pac sells the PACN for $100m, now they're splitting it 9 ways instead of 12 and Colorado nets nothing.   My guess is someone is floating a potential sale, they see the value of this extra cash, and are unwilling to move until they know its real or not.   If I'm the commish though, i'm not saying its real or not until after the last date you can give notice to ensure you're stuck with the deal.

They need to consolidate it at a minimum and put less football on it, because the more they put on it the less they can sell.   The B12 sells all their games and got $32m.   That means the Pac needs to sell 60% of their games (40% currently goes to PacN) for $29m, since the remaining 40% is only paying out $3-4m currently.   Or, they need it to pay out $10m/team, since 60% of the B12 deal is $20m.

Here's part of the problem -subs per channel (carriage):

Pac-12/National: 14.8 million ($0.13/mo)
Pac-12/Los Angeles: 3.0 million ($0.73)
Pac-12/Bay Area: 2.1 million ($0.80)
Pac-12/Washington: 1.1 million ($0.98)
Pac-12/Mountain: 1.0 million ($0.53)
Pac-12/Arizona: 0.7 million ($0.91)
Pac-12/Oregon: 0.6 million ($0.52)

Wilner wrote this in March of 2021:

Sound familiar?

Clearly, Klownkoff never read Wilner's article, as the PAC would be in exponentially better shape if he had.  Wilner was an actual journalist back then who had some very good ideas.

 

Also from the Wilner piece, I brought this idea up the other day, and it's really bad news for the PAC:

Quote

The Tier 1 agreements with ESPN and Fox expire in the summer of 2024 — the same end-point as the Pac-12 Networks distribution agreements with Comcast, DISH and others.

With USC and UCLA gone and cord cutting running rampant, how do you think the WACNet carriage renewal negotiations are going with the MSOs like Comcast and Charter ?  Not good- not good at all.  

The idiotic Presidents who enabled Champagne Larry and have trusted Klownkoff have really dug their own graves.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

That’s a home and home.

There is no way in hell Big 10 expansion leaks via that account 

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

40 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

There is no way in hell Big 10 expansion leaks via that account 

But it would be absolutely hilarious all the same, and fitting for the Pac's death blow to be delivered via the Twitter account of a collegiate mascot.

 

 

 

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

But it would be absolutely hilarious all the same, and fitting for the Pac's death blow to be delivered via the Twitter account of a collegiate mascot.

 

 

 

It would be absolutely hilarious, but the Big 10 has never been sloppy through the years on this shit.  Even the SEC fucked up (thank Christ, or we'd probably be in the same boat as the Pac) thanks to Aggy squealing in hopes that UT got blocked.

[closetojumping 62131]

43 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It would be absolutely hilarious, but the Big 10 has never been sloppy through the years on this shit.  Even the SEC fucked up (thank Christ, or we'd probably be in the same boat as the Pac) thanks to Aggy squealing in hopes that UT got blocked.

The SEC knew what ATM was going to do from the jump. They didn’t screw that up, ATM losing it was a feature, not a bug. The SEC did a great job, along with UT and OU, of keeping a lid on the whole thing until it was fait accompli and they had to let ATM know. Now, ATM going to the histrionic lengths they went to in order to embarrass themselves immediately? That might have been a surprise to everyone but us. 

[Josef Pwag 1721]

54 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

thank Christ, or we'd probably be in the same boat as the Pac

Explain

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

5 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

The SEC knew what ATM was going to do from the jump. They didn’t screw that up, ATM losing it was a feature, not a bug. The SEC did a great job, along with UT and OU, of keeping a lid on the whole thing until it was fait accompli and they had to let ATM know. Now, ATM going to the histrionic lengths they went to in order to embarrass themselves immediately? That might have been a surprise to everyone but us. 

In the list of embarrassing things the Aggies have done their tantrum over this is legitimately top 3 all time right? From their chancellor, to president to ad were crying 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

In the list of embarrassing things the Aggies have done their tantrum over this is legitimately top 3 all time right? From their chancellor, to president to ad were crying 

They were squeezing their nuts hoping the SEC would change their mind.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

58 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

Explain

From what I've read here, the original plan was that the SEC and UT/OU were going to stay quiet until 2022 and then announce it, probably around the same time that USC/UCLA to the Big 10 dropped.

If we don't find out you're leaving in 2021, the status quo maintains with Bowlsby, and the Big 12 gets the rug pulled out at the same time as the Pac 12 with an incompetent old world leader manning the ship.

Because that bomb got dropped on us '21, it forced us to take action, add schools, and ushered Bowlsby to the finish line while we started finding a better replacement.  Meanwhile, the Pac sat around laughing, puffing their chest about the Alliance, and punting on an opportunity to add all those public schools with more passionate fanbases than what they had because of culture and politics.  When the Pac got their rug pulled out last year, we had closed in on Yormark, added 4 schools, and had a pretty damn good TV deal in place before they had even figured out what happened.

If UT and OU leave in '22 with Bowlsby still in charge, the Big 12's a hell of a lot bigger mess.  IMO.

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

The SEC knew what ATM was going to do from the jump. They didn’t screw that up, ATM losing it was a feature, not a bug. The SEC did a great job, along with UT and OU, of keeping a lid on the whole thing until it was fait accompli and they had to let ATM know. Now, ATM going to the histrionic lengths they went to in order to embarrass themselves immediately? That might have been a surprise to everyone but us. 

I had got the impression that the SEC wanted to sit on this move for another yearish longer than they did, but Aggy forced it into the public eye early.

Like you said, maybe they assumed that from the get go.  But it definitely worked to the advantage of the Hateful 8 to be the first ones in that spot, as opposed to what the Pac 10 is dealing with.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Because that bomb got dropped on us '21, it forced us to take action, add schools, and ushered Bowlsby to the finish line while we started finding a better replacement.  Meanwhile, the Pac sat around laughing, puffing their chest about the Alliance, and punting on an opportunity to add all those public schools with more passionate fanbases than what they had because of culture and politics.  When the Pac got their rug pulled out last year, we had closed in on Yormark, added 4 schools, and had a pretty damn good TV deal in place before they had even figured out what happened.

 

I still get the schadenfreude thinking about how that all worked out...

"But, but...we had an alliance!  AN ALLIANCE!!"

['stache 21743]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

From what I've read here, the original plan was that the SEC and UT/OU were going to stay quiet until 2022 and then announce it, probably around the same time that USC/UCLA to the Big 10 dropped.

If we don't find out you're leaving in 2021, the status quo maintains with Bowlsby, and the Big 12 gets the rug pulled out at the same time as the Pac 12 with an incompetent old world leader manning the ship.

Because that bomb got dropped on us '21, it forced us to take action, add schools, and ushered Bowlsby to the finish line while we started finding a better replacement.  Meanwhile, the Pac sat around laughing, puffing their chest about the Alliance, and punting on an opportunity to add all those public schools with more passionate fanbases than what they had because of culture and politics.  When the Pac got their rug pulled out last year, we had closed in on Yormark, added 4 schools, and had a pretty damn good TV deal in place before they had even figured out what happened.

If UT and OU leave in '22 with Bowlsby still in charge, the Big 12's a hell of a lot bigger mess.  IMO.

I would counter that if they could have waited and OU/UT and USC/UCLA announced around the same time, we could have raided the PAC instead of the AAC. For all the consternation about valuation, I think the bulk of what the Big XII got was due to the legacy programs, and maybe BYU, the rest were added for content and potential, not bad programs per se, but they'll need to prove themselves. If UO and UW leave too, the eight legacy Big XII plus the PAC 8 would have made for a nice 16 team conference west of the Mississippi (plus WVU), and would have received the same or possibly a little higher payout per school. I think Yormark would have gotten the job either way and would have found a way to leverage the west coast markets despite the general lower level of interest in CFB (at least those programs don't have much in-state college competition whereas Cincy is far far far behind OHST in that market, UH is far far behind UT and aggy in that market, and UCF is far far behind UF and FSU in that market).

The counter to that, obviously, is that the new contract payout might be a little higher than valuation in exchange for letting OU/UT leave early, but I think the stronger brands of the PAC 8 would counter the lower value of the AAC squads we had to take. I could be wrong on value, but I just don't see Cincy, UCF, and UH as all that valuable, we brought them on more for their markets and potential. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by 'stache

[hook me 2080]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I would counter that if they could have waited and OU/UT and USC/UCLA announced around the same time, we could have raided the PAC instead of the AAC. For all the consternation about valuation, I think the bulk of what the Big XII got was due to the legacy programs, and maybe BYU, the rest were added for content and potential, not bad programs per se, but they'll need to prove themselves. If UO and UW leave too, the eight legacy Big XII plus the PAC 8 would have made for a nice 16 team conference west of the Mississippi (plus WVU), and would have received the same or possibly a little higher payout per school. I think Yormark would have gotten the job either way and would have found a way to leverage the west coast markets despite the general lower level of interest in CFB (at least those programs don't have much in-state college competition whereas Cincy is far far far behind OHST in that market, UH is far far behind UT and aggy in that market, and UCF is far far behind UF and FSU in that market).

The counter to that, obviously, is that the new contract payout might be a little higher than valuation in exchange for letting OU/UT leave early, but I think the stronger brands of the PAC 8 would counter the lower value of the AAC squads we had to take. I could be wrong on value, but I just don't see Cincy, UCF, and UH as all that valuable, we brought them on more for their markets and potential. 

Maybe. Or, maybe, it would have worked the other way & the PAC could have raided the Big 12 & taken a few TX teams & maybe KU & the rest of y'all would be holding your dicks wondering if you had enough juice left to lure Cincy/UH/BYU/UCF & a few more to cobble together a new Big 12. If you can't lure AZ, ASU, or CU now with your new TV deal & stability, what makes you think you would be luring them without a TV deal while you're floating in the same rudderless boat that they are? 

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I would counter that if they could have waited and OU/UT and USC/UCLA announced around the same time, we could have raided the PAC instead of the AAC. For all the consternation about valuation, I think the bulk of what the Big XII got was due to the legacy programs, and maybe BYU, the rest were added for content and potential, not bad programs per se, but they'll need to prove themselves. If UO and UW leave too, the eight legacy Big XII plus the PAC 8 would have made for a nice 16 team conference west of the Mississippi (plus WVU), and would have received the same or possibly a little higher payout per school. I think Yormark would have gotten the job either way and would have found a way to leverage the west coast markets despite the general lower level of interest in CFB (at least those programs don't have much in-state college competition whereas Cincy is far far far behind OHST in that market, UH is far far behind UT and aggy in that market, and UCF is far far behind UF and FSU in that market).

The counter to that, obviously, is that the new contract payout might be a little higher than valuation in exchange for letting OU/UT leave early, but I think the stronger brands of the PAC 8 would counter the lower value of the AAC squads we had to take. I could be wrong on value, but I just don't see Cincy, UCF, and UH as all that valuable, we brought them on more for their markets and potential. 

I'm fine with this outcome, assuming Yormark is in the commissioner's chair when that shit drops.

I still think the timing of how this unfolded ended up benefitting the Big 12.  If you have two conferences in chaos at the same time, I do think there would have been a greater likelihood of large scale merger, which I still think makes sense, but having watched how the Pac 12 has handled the last year, I can see lot of reasons why I'm just fine with that not having happened.

['stache 21743]

Just now, hook me said:

Maybe. Or, maybe, it would have worked the other way & the PAC could have raided the Big 12 & taken a few TX teams & maybe KU & the rest of y'all would be holding your dicks wondering if you had enough juice left to lure Cincy/UH/BYU/UCF & a few more to cobble together a new Big 12. If you can't lure AZ, ASU, or CU now with your new TV deal & stability, what makes you think you would be luring them without a TV deal while you're floating in the same rudderless boat that they are? 

OKST would have been included if that were the case, but the eight legacy XII programs were still stronger than the PAC minus USC/UCLA and especially if UW and UO make the move too, and would have bee the raiders most likely. Also, who says we can't lure the four corners schools? The hold up is that none of them know yet what their new contract would look like and it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to make such a drastic move without knowing for sure what you're leaving behind. All indications are that the PAC media offer is going to be terrible, and when they reach the end of those negotiations, there is still a really good chance those schools join the XII. I think it's more likely that it'll be enough for them to stick together for a little while longer, but the PAC's breakup is inevitable it seems. 

[hook me 2080]

17 minutes ago, 'stache said:

OKST would have been included if that were the case, but the eight legacy XII programs were still stronger than the PAC minus USC/UCLA and especially if UW and UO make the move too, and would have bee the raiders most likely. Also, who says we can't lure the four corners schools? The hold up is that none of them know yet what their new contract would look like and it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to make such a drastic move without knowing for sure what you're leaving behind. All indications are that the PAC media offer is going to be terrible, and when they reach the end of those negotiations, there is still a really good chance those schools join the XII. I think it's more likely that it'll be enough for them to stick together for a little while longer, but the PAC's breakup is inevitable it seems. 

I love the optimism that OKST would have definitely been included because.....? Why? The WC schools overwhelming desire to get the Stillwater market? The need for tips on how to grow an awesome mullet? I'm fairly certain OSU would have been left out of any Pac 12 raid unless another school passed or they hated the idea of religious schools so much that they passed over TCU/BU/BYU.  They would have taken just enough to get into the Texas market/central time zone & maybe BYU. OKST adds nothing to the Pac 12 that the Pac 12 actually cares about.

What tells me you wouldn't get the 4 corner schools is that you haven't gotten them despite almost a year of not-so-subtle courtship. They're going to successfully run the clock out (if they haven't already) & the Pac 12 will remain as it is (plus an addition or 2 if that works out but I'm thinking not). They obviously don't have the intestinal fortitude to make the change or they hate the idea of rubbing elbows with y'all so much that they're willing to forfeit millions of dollars a year to stay away. I'm not saying that's a good decision by them, but it's obviously their decision at the moment. The Big 12 only chance of getting them at this point is for Kliavkoff to literally not have a TV deal to present, or for AZ or CU to grow a pair of balls (& not care about being the nail in the coffin of the Pac 12 & the negative press that will come along with it) to jump ship. It's probably already too late for that to happen in time for next year, so you're looking at 2025 unless scenario #1 plays out & then all bets are off. In that case, it'd be much less "The Big 12 lured XYZ school away" & much more "the Pac 12 sunk & the Big 12 sent a life boat that only a few schools were allowed to jump in."

['stache 21743]

7 minutes ago, hook me said:

I love the optimism that OKST would have definitely been included because.....? Why? The WC schools overwhelming desire to get the Stillwater market? The need for tips on how to grow an awesome mullet? I'm fairly certain OSU would have been left out of any Pac 12 raid unless another school passed or they hated the idea of religious schools so much that they passed over TCU/BU/BYU.  They would have taken just enough to get into the Texas market/central time zone & maybe BYU. OKST adds nothing to the Pac 12 that the Pac 12 actually cares about.

What tells me you wouldn't get the 4 corner schools is that you haven't gotten them despite almost a year of not-so-subtle courtship. They're going to successfully run the clock out (if they haven't already) & the Pac 12 will remain as it is (plus an addition or 2 if that works out but I'm thinking not). They obviously don't have the intestinal fortitude to make the change or they hate the idea of rubbing elbows with y'all so much that they're willing to forfeit millions of dollars a year to stay away. I'm not saying that's a good decision by them, but it's obviously their decision at the moment. The Big 12 only chance of getting them at this point is for Kliavkoff to literally not have a TV deal to present, or for AZ or CU to grow a pair of balls (& not care about being the nail in the coffin of the Pac 12 & the negative press that will come along with it) to jump ship. It's probably already too late for that to happen in time for next year, so you're looking at 2025 unless scenario #1 plays out & then all bets are off. In that case, it'd be much less "The Big 12 lured XYZ school away" & much more "the Pac 12 sunk & the Big 12 sent a life boat that only a few schools were allowed to jump in."

Because our on-field success and TV ratings (even excluding UT/OU games) are in the upper echelon of the post OU/UT Big XII? You also realize that the games are broadcast in more places than Stillwater, right? No movement has happened because the PAC programs don't know what they might make. You can't compare USC/UCLA moving to the BIG because it was known with absolute certainty that they'd make more money there than any PAC possibilities. The longer this drags out, it increases their frustration within the PAC 10 that they can't make any decisions until Klavikoff gets off his ass and actually produced a real offer. Until then, no decision maker in their right mind would make a move without complete information. I get it, "OKST and everyone else are worthless." The media companies disagree, but the faction of surly-ites who insist that nobody else matters are gonna surly, which is fine, it's your board, just a bizarre theme to get hung up on in an otherwise interesting conversation.

Edited July 26, 2023 by 'stache

[oSuJeff97 3435]

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Because our on-field success and TV ratings (even excluding UT/OU games) are in the upper echelon of the post OU/UT Big XII? You also realize that the games are broadcast in more places than Stillwater, right? No movement has happened because the PAC programs don't know what they might make. You can't compare USC/UCLA moving to the BIG because it was known with absolute certainty that they'd make more money there than any PAC possibilities. The longer this drags out, it increases their frustration within the PAC 10 that they can't make any decisions until Klavikoff gets off his ass and actually produced a real offer. Until then, no decision maker in their right mind would make a move without complete information. I get it, "OKST and everyone else are worthless." The media companies disagree, but the faction of surly-ites who insist that nobody else matters are gonna surly, which is fine, it's your board, just a bizarre theme to get hung up on in an otherwise interesting conversation.

Yeah with everything that has been discussed and all of the data thrown into this thread over the past years I can't believe comments like this are still being made.

The data has conclusively shown that OSU has been consistently the #3 TV draw in the Big 12 after OU/Texas. It's not fucking complicated.  The idea that we wouldn't be included in any kind of PAC/legacy Big 12 merger is absurd.

[Crockett 480]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

They were squeezing their nuts hoping the SEC would change their mind.

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

4 minutes ago, Crockett said:

 

 

[n64ra 1075]

20 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

If the Pac does a deal with apple, it’s all or nothing. Apple doesn’t want just a piece. 

As an Apple shareholder, let me help. Apple - "nothing" is better than "all" when it comes to the Pac!

[Uncle Nate 2097]

31 minutes ago, Crockett said:

 

This is quintessential aggy.

Be thankful you don't live here.  We have to live and interact with these people.

[hook me 2080]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Because our on-field success and TV ratings (even excluding UT/OU games) are in the upper echelon of the post OU/UT Big XII? You also realize that the games are broadcast in more places than Stillwater, right? No movement has happened because the PAC programs don't know what they might make. You can't compare USC/UCLA moving to the BIG because it was known with absolute certainty that they'd make more money there than any PAC possibilities. The longer this drags out, it increases their frustration within the PAC 10 that they can't make any decisions until Klavikoff gets off his ass and actually produced a real offer. Until then, no decision maker in their right mind would make a move without complete information. I get it, "OKST and everyone else are worthless." The media companies disagree, but the faction of surly-ites who insist that nobody else matters are gonna surly, which is fine, it's your board, just a bizarre theme to get hung up on in an otherwise interesting conversation.

 

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Yeah with everything that has been discussed and all of the data thrown into this thread over the past years I can't believe comments like this are still being made.

The data has conclusively shown that OSU has been consistently the #3 TV draw in the Big 12 after OU/Texas. It's not fucking complicated.  The idea that we wouldn't be included in any kind of PAC/legacy Big 12 merger is absurd.

The phrase "OKST adds nothing to the Pac 12 that the Pac 12 actually cares about." is fairly essential to the statement. The Pac cares about academics, cultural fits, & city size in some order. OKST strikes out on all of those. Thanks for playing the game. Y'all would more likely be gobbled up by the ACC to form some sort of Central Time division along with some of the others if the ACC wanted to capitalize on that. Honestly, that would have been preferable to the Pac anyways.

[statsman 5406]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

 

The data has conclusively shown that OSU has been consistently the #3 TV draw in the Big 12 after OU/Texas. It's not fucking complicated.  The idea that we wouldn't be included in any kind of PAC/legacy Big 12 merger is absurd.

CU was consistently the #3 TV draw in the old Big 8. Mizzou was consistently the #4 TV draw in the old Big 8. Do the PAC and SEC have warm feelings when they tuck in at night, secure that they nabbed the Buffs and Tigers? I don’t know that being the #3 in the B12 is such a big deal, with TAMU, NU, CU and Mizzou gone  

 

 
 

[statsman 5406]

Perspective- Here is what I’m hearing on this thread:

”We’re going to take the weakest six programs from the 1991 SWC, and drop Rice and SMU. We’ll add the four weakest programs from the Big 8. Then, we’ll add WVU from the Big East, Cincy, UCF and BYU from wherever they’re from and we’ll mix it all together and be the third best conference, baby!”

Does that make sense to anyone? (I’ll concede that OSU was screwed out of the BCS CG in 2010, fwiw). 

[Hagbard Celine 10734]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

From what I've read here, the original plan was that the SEC and UT/OU were going to stay quiet until 2022 and then announce it, probably around the same time that USC/UCLA to the Big 10 dropped.

If we don't find out you're leaving in 2021, the status quo maintains with Bowlsby, and the Big 12 gets the rug pulled out at the same time as the Pac 12 with an incompetent old world leader manning the ship.

Because that bomb got dropped on us '21, it forced us to take action, add schools, and ushered Bowlsby to the finish line while we started finding a better replacement.  Meanwhile, the Pac sat around laughing, puffing their chest about the Alliance, and punting on an opportunity to add all those public schools with more passionate fanbases than what they had because of culture and politics.  When the Pac got their rug pulled out last year, we had closed in on Yormark, added 4 schools, and had a pretty damn good TV deal in place before they had even figured out what happened.

If UT and OU leave in '22 with Bowlsby still in charge, the Big 12's a hell of a lot bigger mess.  IMO.

so what you're saying here is, it took 33 years, but in the end, the big8/swc orphans all get a forever-home, thanks to aggy

okay then

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

 

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

so what you're saying here is, it took 33 years, but in the end, the big8/swc orphans all get a forever-home, thanks to aggy

okay then

I don't want to give them credit, but I think it's pretty clear that things worked out better for us with the UT/OU announcement happening in '21 rather than '22.  Someone tell me that it was always going to be announced in '21 and Aggy had nothing to do with it.

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

Perspective- Here is what I’m hearing on this thread:

”We’re going to take the weakest six programs from the 1991 SWC, and drop Rice and SMU. We’ll add the four weakest programs from the Big 8. Then, we’ll add WVU from the Big East, Cincy, UCF and BYU from wherever they’re from and we’ll mix it all together and be the third best conference, baby!”

Does that make sense to anyone? (I’ll concede that OSU was screwed out of the BCS CG in 2010, fwiw). 

You can call it nonsense, but that's kind of exactly what's happening as the result of brand consolidation.

['stache 21743]

13 minutes ago, statsman said:

Perspective- Here is what I’m hearing on this thread:

”We’re going to take the weakest six programs from the 1991 SWC, and drop Rice and SMU. We’ll add the four weakest programs from the Big 8. Then, we’ll add WVU from the Big East, Cincy, UCF and BYU from wherever they’re from and we’ll mix it all together and be the third best conference, baby!”

Does that make sense to anyone? (I’ll concede that OSU was screwed out of the BCS CG in 2010, fwiw). 

Do you work for ESPN or Fox? Because their opinion is all that matters and they’re paying a healthy sum to this group of former “cast offs” and “left behinds.”

[CustersDoctor 584]

First look at the new PACX Contract.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

46 minutes ago, statsman said:

Perspective- Here is what I’m hearing on this thread:

”We’re going to take the weakest six programs from the 1991 SWC, and drop Rice and SMU. We’ll add the four weakest programs from the Big 8. Then, we’ll add WVU from the Big East, Cincy, UCF and BYU from wherever they’re from and we’ll mix it all together and be the third best conference, baby!”

Does that make sense to anyone? (I’ll concede that OSU was screwed out of the BCS CG in 2010, fwiw). 

It's almost like some things might have changed over the past 32 years. Makes no sense.

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

 

[statsman 5406]

Out of curiosity- I get that Fox and ESPN are together paying the Big 12 $2.2 B through 2031. I see breakdowns of what each is getting in terms of games. My question is- What is Fox paying, and what were they paying?

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

 

 

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

57 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Do you work for ESPN or Fox? Because their opinion is all that matters and they’re paying a healthy sum to this group of former “cast offs” and “left behinds.”

It’s like all of them got a lot better since the Clinton Administration 

['stache 21743]

5 minutes ago, statsman said:

Out of curiosity- I get that Fox and ESPN are together paying the Big 12 $2.2 B through 2031. I see breakdowns of what each is getting in terms of games. My question is- What is Fox paying, and what were they paying?

I don't see where it says how much each is paying of the overall price, but it shows that ESPN gets the "A" package and first choice for the most attractive football matchups, so I assume ESPN is paying way more than Fox. 

 

For the “A” package, ESPN gets the top four football picks each season, six of the top eight picks, eight of the top 12 picks and 12 of the top 20 picks. As part of the deal, ESPN also gets the rights to the Big 12 football championship game and the basketball tournament championship game. The Big 12’s parity helped convince Fox, whose package includes 26 football games per season that will run on Fox broadcast network and FS1, to do the deal.

Spoiler

Big 12 scores big win by renewing media rights deal with ESPN, Fox

BY MICHAEL SMITH AND JOHN OURANDSunday, October 30, 2022

---

The once-beleaguered Big 12 has stabilized its future by coming to terms with ESPN and Fox Sports on a six-year media rights agreement worth a total of $2.28B, an annual average of $380M, according to sources. The Big 12 has two years remaining on its current deal, which runs through the 2024-25 season at an annual average of $220M in its final years. The new six-year extension runs through 2030-31.

The agreement represents a big win for the Big 12 and new commissioner Brett Yormark, who since starting his job on Aug. 1 immediately began plotting to get a new deal done with the Big 12’s incumbents, ESPN and Fox. The problem was that the Big 12’s exclusive negotiating window with those networks did not begin until February 2024, so the conference convinced the networks to start negotiating an extension early by telling them that any talks would not trigger the exclusive window. But Yormark moved quickly to get deals done with both ESPN and Fox in fewer than three months.

The Big 12’s ability to not only strike a new contract with the two networks, but also to generate a substantial raise in the rights fee, was considered a serious longshot last year when conference bluebloods Texas and Oklahoma said they would leave the Big 12 for the SEC. At that stage, the Big 12’s future appeared bleak and the forecasts from industry insiders said the Big 12 could see its media rights revenue cut in half with the loss of its two highest-profile schools, even as the conference, then under the direction of former commissioner Bob Bowlsby, moved swiftly to expand its footprint by adding four schools.

When Yormark took the Big 12’s reins on Aug. 1, he hired media consultants at Endeavor and IMG Media to assist in negotiating extensions and the Big 12’s fortunes rebounded when they were able to reach an agreement in recent days that will see a 72.7% increase in the average annual value of its current deal, which started in 2012. The difference between the rights fee ESPN and Fox will pay from the last year of the old deal in 2024-25 and the first year of the new deal in 2025-26 is much more modest.

In striking these deals prior to the exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and Fox, the Big 12 managed to achieve several of its primary objectives, namely stability and security, the ability to go back to its 12 member schools to seek an extended grant of rights and a leg up on any future conference expansion. The conference also likes the idea that the shorter six-year deal that runs through 2031 means that the Big 12 will be back in the market ahead of both the SEC, whose deal with ESPN goes through 2034, and the ACC, whose ESPN deal expires in 2036.

For the “A” package, ESPN gets the top four football picks each season, six of the top eight picks, eight of the top 12 picks and 12 of the top 20 picks. As part of the deal, ESPN also gets the rights to the Big 12 football championship game and the basketball tournament championship game. The Big 12’s parity helped convince Fox, whose package includes 26 football games per season that will run on Fox broadcast network and FS1, to do the deal.

From Fox’s perspective, the silver lining to the loss of Oklahoma and Texas is that the Big 12 will be more balanced and potentially deeper. For example, TCU and Kansas State sit atop the Big 12’s standings this season. Last season, it was Oklahoma State and Baylor. And the year before that, it was Iowa State. Fox’s deal also provides a slate of Big 12 college basketball games on Fox and FS1 for the first time.

The Big 12, which will add BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF next year, used a different negotiating approach than the Pac-12, whose media rights expire in 2024. The Pac-12 allowed its exclusive negotiating windows with ESPN and Fox Sports to lapse, enabling the conference to take its rights to the broader market. Incumbents ESPN and Fox are expected to be at the table, as well as digital media companies like Amazon and Apple.

In a best-case scenario for the conference, that could create the prospect of a bidding war and produce a healthy revenue increase. The specter of the Big 12 leaping ahead of the Pac-12 also creates greater uncertainty for the Pac-12 now. But after a destabilizing summer of conference realignment, the Big 12 decided that it was most important to get the security and stability that comes with these media rights deals.

Yormark led the talks for the Big 12, but worked closely with Mark Shapiro and Karen Brodkin from Endeavor, and Hillary Mandel from IMG Media. Disney Chair of ESPN & Sport Content Jimmy Pitaro and ESPN President/Programming & Original Content Burke Magnus were on point for the network during the negotiations alongside VP/Programming & Acquisitions Nick Dawson. On the Fox side, the deal team included Jordan Bazant, who joined the company earlier this year, along with CEO & Exec Producer Eric Shanks, President & COO Mark Silverman and EVP Larry Jones. This marks Bazant’s first major deal since joining the company.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by 'stache

['stache 21743]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It’s like all of them got a lot better since the Clinton Administration 

I mean, this is what our stadium looked like at the end of the Big 8 and for a few more years into the Big 12. We had piss troughs that were spray painted before each season to cover up the stains. Pat Jones has said that on campus visits included the entire campus, except the stadium. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by 'stache

[statsman 5406]

I’m asking because it has been proposed that ESPN/ABC is overpaying the B12 thru 2031 to facilitate Texas and OU leaving to the SEC. Evidence to support that would be if Fox were not paying more than before. I can’t understand why every report of the B12 contract states the combined amount the two different companies pay, when obviously they are two separate contracts. 

[statsman 5406]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I mean, this is what our stadium looked like at the end of the Big 8 and for a few more years into the Big 12. We had piss troughs that were spray painted before each season to cover up the stains. Pat Jones has said that on campus visits included the entire campus, except the stadium. 

And now, your stadium is the worst in the B12, with dangerously small sidelines, endangering players on and off the field. 
 
I don’t intend to be insulting, but just stating a fact. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by statsman

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

9 minutes ago, statsman said:

And now, your stadium is the worst in the B12, with dangerously small sidelines, endangering players on and off the field. 
 
I don’t intend to be insulting, but just stating a fact. 

I’ll be insulting. You’re stadium fucking sucks, your fans suck, your school sucks, your orange is a disgrace to oranges colors everywhere, your mascot is a piece of shit copy cat, and you smell. 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Perspective- Here is what I’m hearing on this thread:

”We’re going to take the weakest six programs from the 1991 SWC, and drop Rice and SMU. We’ll add the four weakest programs from the Big 8. Then, we’ll add WVU from the Big East, Cincy, UCF and BYU from wherever they’re from and we’ll mix it all together and be the third best conference, baby!”

Does that make sense to anyone? (I’ll concede that OSU was screwed out of the BCS CG in 2010, fwiw). 

It definitely doesn't make sense if your perspective on those programs is stuck in 1996.

Thankfully the people who make the decisions about where to invest their media money don't have a perspective stuck in 1996 and it makes sense to them so that's all that really matters.

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]