Realignment talk not going away

[LTbear 4219]

23 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

 

 @Al_4_ISU, @'stache, @oSuJeff97 @LTbear- would you guys watch the top 16 league in the first scenario ?  Or only watch the 17-70 league ?

The 16/20/24 league would play an NFL type of schedule and playoff.  The 17-80 league would look like CFB used to, with regional divisions, but with a playoff featuring the top two teams from each division.  

 

 

I left in the relevant part of your post. Personally, no, I wouldn't watch a top 16 league. My college football fandom is tied to regionality, rivalries, and the craziness and pageantry that is unique to the college game. 

There's no way to get 16 teams that feels at all regional, and you'd have also necessarily cut off most rivalries (a few big ones would remain, for sure - OU/ UT, UM/ OSU, etc.). But you've also completely neutered the potential for the holy-shit upset wildness that makes college football so, so much more damn fun than the NFL (think Purdue beating the shit out of Ohio State in the Tyler Trent game), not to mention the fun-as-hell pageantry of the smaller schools (the absolute mayhem of College Gameday opening at WSU with several hundred crimson flags flying). I love that shit. 

I completely understand if people would watch the 16 team league, it's just not for me. It would be nothing but a watered-down NFL, and I already watch Dallas play on Sundays. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by LTbear

[Al_4_ISU 12665]

21 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

 

 @Al_4_ISU, @'stache, @oSuJeff97 @LTbear- would you guys watch the top 16 league in the first scenario ?  Or only watch the 17-70 league ?

Does 17-70 feel inclusive because all similarly-resourced current "P5" teams would be in it, with only the top 16 being in a different league, whereas a 41-70 league would feel like relegation because 24 schools with similar to worse profiles than ISU, OSU, etc got in the top league simply because of historic ties ?

Would you rather compete in a 12 team playoff where B12 teams will usually get 2 slots, but will rarely get the benefit of the doubt from the committee and be unlikely to win it all ?  Or better to compete on an equal footing financially in the 17-70 league and have a very good chance to win it all ?

 

I've been thinking that the best way for the networks to retain viewership in the long run is to keep something similar to the current playoff structure, so that B12 fans and others will still be invested in games in the BIG and SEC, as the outcome of those games will affect at-large bids.  And then everyone would obviously watch the playoffs.  

But the one thing I've always disliked about CFB is the reliance on polls and rankings to determine a champ instead of direct, on-field results.

Al's post about the top 16 league has me wondering if the networks would get the best of both worlds with a top 16/20/24 league and a 17/21/25-80 league.

The 16/20/24 league would play an NFL type of schedule and playoff.  The 17-80 league would look like CFB used to, with regional divisions, but with a playoff featuring the top two teams from each division.  

No more polls, committees, rankings, etc.  There's a lot to like there.  I'd watch both leagues.    Curious what other people think.

 

Yes, I would watch the 1-16 league.  If there was a 40 team league my school was out of, I wouldn’t watch it much.

Yes, 17-70 feels more inclusive because you don’t have Indiana’s and Vanderbilt’s ahead of OK State and ISU.  Like I said, my resentment isn’t about the blue bloods getting together, it’s about the schools more on our level getting to go along for the ride.

I’m torn about whether or not I would prefer this to the current situation.  There’s things to like about both.

What really intrigues me is the possibility of geographical realignment in the top 16 split scenario.  ISU could easily find itself in a grouping with Iowa, KU, KSU, Mizzou, OK State, Minnesota, Illinois, etc

[ztejas 44286]

2 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

TCU wants to be the only P5 option in DFW.  They have kept SMU out of any Big 12 conversations and want SMU to become (more) irrelevant.

Which is fucking stupid. There is no "P5" anymore. The 6 highest ranked conference champions get auto bids. The remaining Pac12 members will likely absorb some/most of the AAC (including SMU) and instantly be the 5th best conference.

There won't be G5/P5 anymore. Right now there is tier 1 which is B10 and SEC - tier 2 which will be likely be B12 and whatever happens with the ACC - tier 3 which will be the new look Pac/American and then the rest. Eventually it will likely distill into six conferences with two in each "tier" - or maybe four in the CFP "bye" tier and two in the CFP autobid tier. 

The tier 1 and 2 schools will have a better shot at getting a bye into the 2nd round of the CFP but it may not be a guarantee. If you aren't one of the four best teams in the country, you will be lumped in with the 5th and 6th conference champions and have to battle in the first round. 

If you are a TCU that doesn't win the B12 then you are having to put your resume up against the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the B10 and SEC - while the Stanford/Cal/SMU/Memphis's of the world just have to win their meh conference. 

So, congrats, TCU? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. It would be super embarassing to lose the last meeting a la aggy. 

[ztejas 44286]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

Would you rather compete in a 12 team playoff where B12 teams will usually get 2 slots

Lol. Good luck. 

B12 gets its champ in. The SEC and B10 are probably (almost assuredly) getting 3 teams each in every year. Then there's three* more conference champs. 

I think if the 2nd best B12 team snags one of those remaining 2 spots half the time then they're doing very well. "Usually" might be a bit much. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by ztejas

[LTbear 4219]

16 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Which is fucking stupid. There is no "P5" anymore. 

Dude this is a really long post to get hung up on terminology. TCU doesn't want to help elevate SMU in any way, competitively or financially. But yes, they're pussies for taking that approach. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

ASU president is doubling-down on his stupidity.  Did no one have the talk with him after the last time?

 

 

[ztejas 44286]

7 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Dude this is a really long post to get hung up on terminology. TCU doesn't want to help elevate SMU in any way, competitively or financially. But yes, they're pussies for taking that approach. 

I'm not getting hung up on terminology. I'm responding to the idea that there is some sort of significant demarcation between TCU and SMU that hasn't already existed since TCU joined the B12. 

SMU will actually be better off with the expanded CFP than they were. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

It's cute how they have a full stadium in the renderings. 

Their going to paint the seats to make it look like people are sitting in them.

[LTtxfan 50036]

Watched part of the recent tech AD interview on a 365Sports podcast out of Waco.

I think the B12 without Texas/blOU has really invigorated the "Left Behind Eight" -- several seem to be vying to become the "New Big Dawgs of the B12".

Texas and blOU fans are so tired of all the negativity from their B12 brethren, and the  "Left Behind Eight" fans seem to feel the same towards Texas/blOU.

It was time for this divorce...

Texas/blOU fans are excited to play in the SEC.

The "Left Behind Eight" are excited to add 8 new teams and play in the B12.

Win... Win

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I'm not getting hung up on terminology. I'm responding to the idea that there is some sort of significant demarcation between TCU and SMU that hasn't already existed since TCU joined the B12. 

SMU will actually be better off with the expanded CFP than they were. 

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think you should be in the P5 (or whatever club we want to call it) if you don't have a baseball team.  Heck, you could even talk me into the idea that a school shouldn't be D1 without a baseball team.

I'm ready for your slings and arrows now.

[LTbear 4219]

5 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Watched part of the recent tech AD interview on a 365Sports podcast out of Waco.

I think the B12 without Texas/blOU has really invigorated the "Left Behind Eight" -- several seem to be vying to become the "New Big Dawgs of the B12".

Texas and blOU fans are so tired of all the negativity from their B12 brethren, and the  "Left Behind Eight" fans seem to feel the same towards Texas/blOU.

It was time for this divorce...

Texas/blOU fans are excited to play in the SEC.

The "Left Behind Eight" are excited to add 8 new teams and play in the B12.

Win... Win

I think most see it this way. I'm very much looking forward to the new Big XII. 

2 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think you should be in the P5 (or whatever club we want to call it) if you don't have a baseball team.  Heck, you could even talk me into the idea that a school shouldn't be D1 without a baseball team.

I'm ready for your slings and arrows now.

Damn, Colorado is out. 

[Vertigo 20502]

5 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

ASU president is doubling-down on his stupidity.  Did no one have the talk with him after the last time?

 

 

Yeah, the fact that he is trying to explain the tenets of streaming to the audience is pretty hilarious. Also, the fact that he doesn't understand that his school would be a complete afterthought in sports even more than it already is should tell you all you need to know about the ivory tower P12 presidents. I don't think he understands that nobody will see their games unless they pay even more on top of an Apple TV+ subscription, and how many of your fans or fans of Cal and Stanford do you think actually care that much?

[Vertigo 20502]

8 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Their going to paint the seats to make it look like people are sitting in them.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3522]

12 minutes ago, ztejas said:

 SMU will actually be better off with the expanded CFP than they were. 

Everyone who isn't in one of the prestige world wide conferences is going to be better off with this expanded CFP and collapse of the PAC and merger of its remnants into existing conferences. Heck even my lowly Texas State Bobcats have a shot, they put it together and win the Sunbelt sometime after expansion and they have a decent chance of snagging that 6th (maybe even 5th if AAC and MWC champs have crappy years) auto bid.

...which is why I really don't think the 6 autobids will last very long, will get cut down to 5 or 4 pretty soon. But for a few brief glorious years, everyone has a legitimately achievalbe goal of "win the conference, make it to the playoff" 

[bullet 1631]

5 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

Fake poll since "None of the Above" is not an option.

Yeah,  KU is the only one with a non-zero chance (at least of the 2023 members).

[bullet 1631]

4 hours ago, statsman said:

When I used to buy TCU season tix, as a way to ensure getting UT game tix every other year, the SMU game was one of the few you could usually get close to face value for on StubHub. 
 
What’s the reason for dropping?

No upside for winning.  Big downside for losing.  

[DanTheHorn 5092]

17 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

ASU president is doubling-down on his stupidity.  Did no one have the talk with him after the last time?

 

 

He blames the overlords of media at the end of the youtube video for the death of the PAC 12.

['stache 22147]

@USC Traveler I personally would not watch much, if any, of a 16 team prestige worldwide conference. My viewing patterns are tied almost exclusively to teams I follow, including most notably my alma mater. Occasionally I'll tune in to other games, but it usually has something to do with OSU, either affect on the standings, rankings, or if ou is losing ('cause fuck 'em). To me, prestige worldwide would be like the English Premier League. I acknowledge that the best of the best play there, but I have no basis to really care about any of the outcomes. I'd rather watch my local USL team play and have a few beers at the stadium. 

I think, ultimately, a 16 team prestige worldwide would have better average ratings per game since there won't be many games that start with one team being favored by 30 ala Ohio State v. Indiana, but I think overall ratings would be down, because many of the fans of the next tier league will have no reason to really care since rankings and playoffs would be completely separate. 

[ztejas 44286]

22 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think you should be in the P5 (or whatever club we want to call it) if you don't have a baseball team.  Heck, you could even talk me into the idea that a school shouldn't be D1 without a baseball team.

I'm ready for your slings and arrows now.

SMU has a soccer team instead of baseball for whatever reason. And a good one at that. The B12 obviously doesn't even have men's soccer.

ISU, Wisconsin, Colorado and Syracuse are the four "P5" schools without baseball. 

Blame title 9.

[Zhorn96 1836]

27 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I think most see it this way. I'm very much looking forward to the new Big XII. 

Damn, Colorado is out. 

As they should be

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

SMU has a soccer team instead of baseball for whatever reason. And a good one at that. The B12 obviously doesn't even have men's soccer.

ISU, Wisconsin, Colorado and Syracuse are the four "P5" schools without baseball. 

Blame title 9.

Oh, I'm well aware.  I drive by the SMU Soccer practice field ever day.

They also have lacrosse and equestrian.

But...

[LTtxfan 50036]

33 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

ASU president is doubling-down on his stupidity.  Did no one have the talk with him after the last time?

 

Unbelievable... this guy is an idiot.  ASU needs to fire his ass pronto.

Yormark better shut this guy down soon... it's hurting the B12 !!!

[ztejas 44286]

Just now, Uncle Nate said:

Oh, I'm well aware.  I drive by the SMU Soccer practice field ever day.

They also have lacrosse and equestrian.

But...

We do not have a D1 lacrosse team. 

The SMU equestrian girls will fuck your shit up. Defending champs, bitches.

SMU would be a great baseball school. It's a shame. No softball, either.

[bullet 1631]

34 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think you should be in the P5 (or whatever club we want to call it) if you don't have a baseball team.  Heck, you could even talk me into the idea that a school shouldn't be D1 without a baseball team.

I'm ready for your slings and arrows now.

Syracuse, Iowa St., Wisconsin and Colorado.

Of course being in Division I in Texas and not having baseball is really strange-SMU.

[LTtxfan 50036]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

The SMU equestrian girls will fuck your shit up. Defending champs, bitches.  SMU would be a great baseball school. It's a shame. No softball, either.

Yeah don't mess with the horse ladies...

Ridiculous smu does not have baseball and softball... just terrible

[Uncle Nate 2097]

Just now, LTtxfan said:

Yeah don't mess with the horse ladies...

Ridiculous smu does not have baseball and softball... just terrible

Amen, brother.

Full disclosure...I have SMU football season tickets.  

[Don Johnson 4852]

 

[gatormarc 938]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

ASU president is doubling-down on his stupidity.  Did no one have the talk with him after the last time?

 

 

I bet he was really sold on being able to just zoom in to a big play.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

['stache 22147]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Same reason aggy didn’t want to play Texas and wanted to be the only Texas team in the SEC. They scared.

They want to be DFW’s only P4 team. SMU has more alumni money (for NIL), better academics, and is in the biggest/most recognizable city in the metro. Losing to them in games or via recruits (high school or transfers) is too much risk for them.

TCU will steal their “come home to DFW” shtick and take the SEC/B1G dropouts and JUCO stars and promote their playoff wins over Michigan and their Rose Bowl wins over Wisconsin. If they keep playing and SMU wins a few in a row they’ll just say TCU is ancient history. If TCU stops playing them, then their is not much SMU can do to ever level the playing field.

That sounds lame as hell. And nobody need make any comparison to Bedlam. Even if OSU was refusing to schedule that game (covered extensively elsewhere), at least there's a basis, they are a historic blueblood that has routinely beaten us, why not avoid it in the future? SMU is still a lower level league than SMU, worrying about losing to them is sad. You should beat them regularly, and if they win every now and then, well that's part of the game. Can't play Incarnate Word every week. 

['stache 22147]

Just now, Jabberwocky said:

 

I read that before, and I don't believe that it fell apart because of a counteroffer. Once it was clear that $50M wasn't happening, those schools would have accepted $30M, or asked for a little bit more. I don't see ESPN just deciding to walk away entirely and to kill the PAC because they didn't like the counter offer. 

[Francisco 2.0 32612]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I read that before, and I don't believe that it fell apart because of a counteroffer. Once it was clear that $50M wasn't happening, those schools would have accepted $30M, or asked for a little bit more. I don't see ESPN just deciding to walk away entirely and to kill the PAC because they didn't like the counter offer. 

 

I'm guessing ESPN was going to pay out around $30 million per year per school to one of the two conferences: Big 12 or Pac.  Whoever came to an agreement with ESPN first was going to be the survivor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chopper 17450]

5 hours ago, horn4life said:

Draining the bank roll of a bidder at auction over the course of the auction, can be every bit as important as the actual size of your bank roll, as the auction goes on.

I'm not sure which thread I grabbed this from but it reminds me of a suggestion I heard that Tree boosters should start fucking with every FSU and Clemson recruits' NIL and make those schools pay through the nose until they relent.

 

35 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Unbelievable... this guy is an idiot.  ASU needs to fire his ass pronto.

Yormark better shut this guy down soon... it's hurting the B12 !!!

I feel like the tag 'Michael Crow learns about streaming' was total oversell. He still doesn't get it.

[LTtxfan 50036]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I read that before, and I don't believe that it fell apart because of a counteroffer. Once it was clear that $50M wasn't happening, those schools would have accepted $30M, or asked for a little bit more. I don't see ESPN just deciding to walk away entirely and to kill the PAC because they didn't like the counter offer. 

 

Do-overs? Absolutely, Kirk Schulz has a list of decisions he’d like back following the collapse of the Pac-12.

The Washington State president and chair of the Pac-12 board was heavily involved in the media rights saga that spanned 13 months and ended last week in a failed effort to save the conference.

“We should have had a more robust conversations about our value in the marketplace,” Schulz told the Hotline on Friday.

The failure to accept market reality led the Pac-12 presidents last fall to reject an offer of $30 million per year (per school) from ESPN for the entirety of the conference’s football and men’s basketball media inventory, according to JohnCanzano.com.

Instead, the presidents instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to pursue a deal in the $50 million per-school range.

“Two or three schools were interested in that number,” Schulz said. “The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure.”

A source familiar with the negotiations told the Hotline this week that one president even believed the valuation “should be in the 50s” — meaning, more than $50 million per school. (The source declined to identify the president.)

ESPN declined the Pac-12’s counteroffer.

“They couldn’t save those guys from themselves,” the source said. “The people with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions …

“(But) if George had come to the presidents in October and said there was a deal out there at $32 million or so, they would have thrown him out of the room.”

Asked if Kliavkoff should have pushed back against the presidents, Schulz said: “I don’t know what the individual conversations were like between George and those schools.”

Kliavkoff declined to comment for this story.

The push for $50 million per school came after the Big Ten announced a deal with Fox, CBS and NBC valued in the $65 million range (per school per year) but before the Big 12 presidents agreed to a partnership with ESPN and Fox for $31.7 million per year.

Schulz served on the Pac-12’s three-person executive committee for the first year of the media negotiations, along with Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce and Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne; he became chair in July.

“Nobody wants to hear it,” Schulz said, “but sometimes you need a reality check …  rather than spending too much time chasing fantasy numbers.”

 

['stache 22147]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

I'm guessing ESPN was going to pay out around $30 million per year per school to one of the two conferences: Big 12 or Pac.  Whoever came to an agreement with ESPN first was going to be the survivor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That makes more sense. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

5 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

 

Do-overs? Absolutely, Kirk Schulz has a list of decisions he’d like back following the collapse of the Pac-12.

The Washington State president and chair of the Pac-12 board was heavily involved in the media rights saga that spanned 13 months and ended last week in a failed effort to save the conference.

“We should have had a more robust conversations about our value in the marketplace,” Schulz told the Hotline on Friday.

The failure to accept market reality led the Pac-12 presidents last fall to reject an offer of $30 million per year (per school) from ESPN for the entirety of the conference’s football and men’s basketball media inventory, according to JohnCanzano.com.

Instead, the presidents instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to pursue a deal in the $50 million per-school range.

“Two or three schools were interested in that number,” Schulz said. “The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure.”

A source familiar with the negotiations told the Hotline this week that one president even believed the valuation “should be in the 50s” — meaning, more than $50 million per school. (The source declined to identify the president.)

ESPN declined the Pac-12’s counteroffer.

“They couldn’t save those guys from themselves,” the source said. “The people with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions …

“(But) if George had come to the presidents in October and said there was a deal out there at $32 million or so, they would have thrown him out of the room.”

Asked if Kliavkoff should have pushed back against the presidents, Schulz said: “I don’t know what the individual conversations were like between George and those schools.”

Kliavkoff declined to comment for this story.

The push for $50 million per school came after the Big Ten announced a deal with Fox, CBS and NBC valued in the $65 million range (per school per year) but before the Big 12 presidents agreed to a partnership with ESPN and Fox for $31.7 million per year.

Schulz served on the Pac-12’s three-person executive committee for the first year of the media negotiations, along with Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce and Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne; he became chair in July.

“Nobody wants to hear it,” Schulz said, “but sometimes you need a reality check …  rather than spending too much time chasing fantasy numbers.”

 

I have a feeling Kirk Shulz's days at WSU are numbered.  That big-tittied Regent with the "groundhog day" comment a few months back was probably ready to fire him then.

[statsman 5698]

I’m guessing that after signing the B12,  ESPN didn’t have enough weekly game slots to justify giving the PAC $30M per school?

You have to wonder if the PAC’s counter of $50M per year encouraged ESPN to do the deal with the B12 at $30m per year? Knowing the B12 would be willing to work with you on scheduling for that value and the PAC would resent you at the same value?

[BurntOrange&White 42012]

5 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’m guessing that after signing the B12,  ESPN didn’t have enough weekly game slots to justify giving the PAC $30M per school?

You have to wonder if the PAC’s counter of $50M per year encouraged ESPN to do the deal with the B12 at $30m per year? Knowing the B12 would be willing to work with you on scheduling for that value and the PAC would resent you at the same value?

Big 12's deal is split between ESPN/FOX

[Francisco 2.0 32612]

8 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’m guessing that after signing the B12,  ESPN didn’t have enough weekly game slots to justify giving the PAC $30M per school?

You have to wonder if the PAC’s counter of $50M per year encouraged ESPN to do the deal with the B12 at $30m per year? Knowing the B12 would be willing to work with you on scheduling for that value and the PAC would resent you at the same value?

 

I'm just thinking that ESPN, sometime in 2021-22 decided that they only had enough in the checking account to sign one conference (of the two) at around $30 million per school and whoever came to an agreement first was the winner.  Obviously, ESPN didn't advertise it to the two as a duel to the death, but Yormark, to his credit, jumped when he had the opportunity.  Maybe it's possible that he had insight that ESPN was only going to do a deal with only one of the two conferences, but he was quick to negotiate, where the Pac had a exclusive window to negotiate and let that expire, possibly due to their overinflated self opinion.

 

Had the Pac taken something around $30 million per in 2022, then people would be saying similar things about the Big 12 (ESPN didn't have enough weekly game slots to justify giving the Big 12 $30M per school?). 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Francisco 2.0

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, LTbear said:

Personally, no, I wouldn't watch a top 16 league. My college football fandom is tied to regionality, rivalries, and the craziness and pageantry that is unique to the college game. 

 

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

I personally would not watch much, if any, of a 16 team prestige worldwide conference. My viewing patterns are tied almost exclusively to teams I follow, including most notably my alma mater. Occasionally I'll tune in to other games, but it usually has something to do with OSU, either affect on the standings, rankings

 

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yes, I would watch the 1-16 league.  If there was a 40 team league my school was out of, I wouldn’t watch it much.

 

Thanks for the responses gentlemen.  Forgot to add @Uncle Nate- would also be interested in your take on whether you'd watch a "super league".

 

Based on the 66% decline in viewership that would result from this small sample size of responses, that lines up with the idea that the networks/BIG/SEC would be setting themselves up to fail if they try to set up a breakaway league with its own playoff, or a BIG-SEC only playoff.  It would be a huge mistake.

We'll have to keep living with polls and committees, but at least if they keep 4-5 auto-bids (depending on the ACC's status over time), every team in the top 4-5 conferences will have a direct path to the playoffs based off on-field results, and the beauty pageant aspect will only apply to at-large teams.

I'd like to see them keep something similar to the current playoff structure from 2026 onwards, but start the season earlier, do the early rounds on campus, then play the semis on NYD in the Rose and Sugar.  That would preserve some great CFB traditions even as the sport changes dramatically.  It would also keep CFB from having to compete with the NFL playoffs into January.

 

[DanTheHorn 5092]

Quote

“Two or three schools were interested in that number,” Schulz said. “The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure.”

I am putting my marker down since eventually all the names will come out. It was Crow and his buddy professor that came up with the $50M and Oregon and Washington latched on to the number to delay the contract in hopes of getting to B1G.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

1 hour ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Everyone who isn't in one of the prestige world wide conferences is going to be better off with this expanded CFP and collapse of the PAC and merger of its remnants into existing conferences. Heck even my lowly Texas State Bobcats have a shot, they put it together and win the Sunbelt sometime after expansion and they have a decent chance of snagging that 6th (maybe even 5th if AAC and MWC champs have crappy years) auto bid.

...which is why I really don't think the 6 autobids will last very long, will get cut down to 5 or 4 pretty soon. But for a few brief glorious years, everyone has a legitimately achievalbe goal of "win the conference, make it to the playoff" 

It will end up at five very soon.   

Wasn't your point, but previous points that the ACC or B12 won't basically get 2 in a year are terrible maths.   

[Uncle Nate 2097]

11 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

 

 

 

Thanks for the responses gentlemen.  Forgot to add @Uncle Nate- would also be interested in your take on whether you'd watch a "super league".

 

Based on the 66% decline in viewership that would result from this small sample size of responses, that lines up with the idea that the networks/BIG/SEC would be setting themselves up to fail if they try to set up a breakaway league with its own playoff, or a BIG-SEC only playoff.  It would be a huge mistake.

We'll have to keep living with polls and committees, but at least if they keep 4-5 auto-bids (depending on the ACC's status over time), every team in the top 4-5 conferences will have a direct path to the playoffs based off on-field results, and the beauty pageant aspect will only apply to at-large teams.

I'd like to see them keep something similar to the current playoff structure from 2026 onwards, but start the season earlier, do the early rounds on campus, then play the semis on NYD in the Rose and Sugar.  That would preserve some great CFB traditions even as the sport changes dramatically.  It would also keep CFB from having to compete with the NFL playoffs into January.

 

My opinion is similar to LTBear's and 'stache's.

I already have the NFL.  I don't need mini-me NFL.  I'm a fanatical college football fan because I graduated from Texas Tech and most, if not all, of the games I watch either have a direct or indirect effect/relationship to Tech.  Same with basketball.

If my alma mater gets relegated, I'm spending more time on the golf course in the fall and only watching Tech's games.

[Laxtonto 13328]

Anyone have this?

 

[BurntOrange&White 42012]

[BachelorTrek 3326]

12 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Anyone have this?

 

Spoiler

Inside the Pac-12 collapse: Four surprising moments that crushed the conference
 
USC, Oregon and UCLA are among the eight schools leaving the Pac-12 after the 2023-24 season, decimating the conference.

 
BY J. BRADY MCCOLLOUGH
STAFF WRITER
AUG. 16, 2023 UPDATED 12:57 PM PT

As the calendar turned to December 2022, the Pac-12 Conference was in a precarious position.
Six months after USC and UCLA announced they were joining the Big Ten and the Pac-12 began its media rights negotiations early in response, the 10 remaining schools did not have a new TV deal in place. Worse than that, the Big 12 jumped the Pac-12 in line with ESPN and Fox, agreeing in October 2022 to extend its current deal through 2030-31.
But Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff was working on another way to save the 108-year-old conference. Multiple sources not authorized to speak publicly about negotiations shared the following outline of the plan and Pac-12 leaders’ response with The Times.
 

Publicly, the University of California Board of Regents’ threats to force UCLA to stay in the Pac-12 and avoid hurting UC Berkeley were viewed as posturing, pure bluffs to get attention and possibly some money from the departing Bruins.
Privately, Kliavkoff was deeply engaged with a small group of regents about the framework of a deal that would lead to the regents voting to block UCLA’s move — even though the regents did not want to set a precedent of overturning a monumental campus-specific decision.
The regents did the math. UCLA was supposed to make $62 million per year from the Big Ten’s new mega media rights deal. The Bruins’ travel costs to compete in the Midwest-based conference were expected to be in the range of $10 million to $12 million annually. So, the regents gave Kliavkoff a magic number. If he could guarantee the Bruins $52 million annually during the five years of the league’s next media deal, the regents promised Kliavkoff a vote heavily in favor of UCLA staying in the Pac-12.
It was not going to be easy for the remaining 10 to stomach giving UCLA a much bigger annual revenue share. The Pac-12’s math said that a media rights deal for 11 schools — even with the Los Angeles market back under the conference footprint — was not likely to net $52 million for each school.
Not only did Kliavkoff need the Pac-12 presidents to sign off on the guaranteed money, but they would also have to take the leap of faith to sign a grant of rights binding the schools together without knowing the exact details of what their media deal would be. Lastly, the Pac-12 would have to pay the $15-million fee UCLA would owe to the Big Ten for breaking its agreement.
 

When Kliavkoff presented the idea to the Pac-12 board, Oregon interim president Patrick Phillips vehemently shut it down. He said he would not have the Ducks in a conference where they have to take less money than UCLA, and any conversation about the possibility quickly died.
Kliavkoff declined to comment on the negotiations that played out quietly behind the scenes.
On Dec. 14, the UC Regents met and voted 11 to 5 to approve the Bruins’ exit to the Big Ten. While the vote was assumed by many to be mere formality, it certainly could have gone the other direction — a theme that would emerge time and again on the Pac-12’s road to ruin.
Today, the Pac-12 is now the Pac-4. Oregon and Washington are joining USC and UCLA in the Big Ten, and Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are headed to the Big 12. Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State are left to the whims of an industry that has become comfortable making momentous long-term decisions while under immense short-term pressure.
Following interviews with dozens of sources within the Pac-12 and in other corners of college athletics during the last two years, this is the story behind the Pac-12’s collapse.

The setup
The Pac-12 hired Kliavkoff in May 2021 to clean up a mess that was the making of his predecessor, Larry Scott, and the conference’s university leaders.
The league struggled in just about every facet other than the number of championships won in the lower-revenue Olympic sports. This allowed Scott to constantly trumpet the Pac-12 as the “Conference of Champions” while it fell drastically behind its peers in the Big Ten and SEC in media rights distribution dollars and its self-created Pac-12 Network wallowed in relative obscurity.
The league was not winning in football, the most visible and lucrative sport, either. USC was struggling to recover from crippling NCAA sanctions, and Pac-12 teams had made the new four-team College Football Playoff just twice.
 

Morale was down among Pac-12 athletic directors, who felt Scott was disconnected from campus realities, spending most of his time at the conference’s headquarters in downtown San Francisco.
Of course, morale wouldn’t have been an issue if Scott had backed up his promise to make the schools rich. He maintained until his last days leading the league that it was well-positioned to reach revenue goals in its next media rights agreement, but he would not be the one to see it through.
Kliavkoff was an entertainment executive at MGM Resorts in Las Vegas when he landed the Pac-12 job, but he previously worked at Major League Baseball and NBC Universal around the advent of streaming. At NBC, he was part of Hulu’s start. With that experience, it was reasonable for Pac-12 presidents to think he would be equipped to handle their media rights negotiations.
At the time he was hired, though, his most pressing task was mending campus relationships by showing schools that the league office cared about their various plights.
Kliavkoff’s plan was to spend his first weeks on the job as Kumbaya George, visiting each school and taking meetings with all stakeholders, understanding old grievances so he could help break them down.
But three weeks into his tenure, the whole college sports landscape shook from an unforeseen blast — Texas and Oklahoma were leaving the Big 12 for the SEC.
 

Kliavkoff established a war room devoted to making sure his schools would be safe amid the uncertainty. He told The Times in July 2021 that he thrived on solving complex puzzles and that navigating college sports’ next realignment wave was a welcome challenge.
But Kliavkoff couldn’t just go out and unilaterally fight for the Pac-12. His marching orders came from 12 university presidents and chancellors who, in the heat of battle, were about to show they were allies in name only.
To expand or not
Without Texas and Oklahoma, the eight schools left in the Big 12 were looking for a new home. Kliavkoff received word from Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby that the eight were interested in coming to the Pac-12 to make a Pac-20, playing games across every time zone. The Power Five conferences would become a Power Four.
Three sources with direct knowledge of the talks who were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly provided The Times with the following new details about the Big 12’s offer and the Pac-12’s response.
Kliavkoff was open to adding all eight, but the league was probably going to be more selective and look seriously at a few schools located in strategic markets.
The Pac-12 formed a membership subcommittee of six officials — three presidents and three athletic directors, each representing one of the league’s six travel pairings. USC president Carol Folt was chosen to represent the Trojans and Bruins.
 

Pac-12 officials prepared a 12-slide presentation deck explaining the merits of expansion leading into the first subcommittee meeting. About three slides in, Folt told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it.
The Times first reported last year that Folt objected to adding Big 12 teams, citing multiple sources not authorized to speak publicly about the committee’s discussions.
“We’re not going to respond to anonymous comments or hearsay,” Folt said in a statement to The Times when asked about the meeting.
Out of deference to the Trojans, whom members of the committee considered the linchpin to a strong future, the discussion ended.
“A lot of times, the way presidents’ rooms work, he or she who speaks the loudest and first kind of sets the dynamic,” a source with knowledge of the discussions recently told The Times. “And if there’s nobody else that has a real strong knowledge base or inclination to do something else, they say the person who has a real strong opinion must feel strongly for a reason.”
 

Kliavkoff, in his first weeks on the job, didn’t push back against Folt given USC’s importance to the league, a source said.
Kliavkoff declined to comment on the meeting.
Less than a year later, on June 30, 2022, the Pac-12 was caught off guard when USC and UCLA bolted for the Big Ten.
If the Pac-12 had added Big 12 schools when it had the chance, it would have remained the fourth-best conference without the L.A. schools.
Instead, the Big 12 survived and added four schools of its own from the “Group of Five” — BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF. The Big 12 was composed of 12 schools that were not of interest to the Big Ten and SEC, so they presented a united front.
The Pac-12 now featured 10 teams, with Oregon and Washington pining for a Big Ten invite. The timing of the events made the league even more vulnerable. With their media rights agreements complete in the spring of 2024, Pac-12 schools were free to leave and start play in another conference in 2024 with with no exit fees.
This time, a war room wouldn’t be enough for Kliavkoff. His wounded conference needed a MASH unit, too.
Dreaming too big
In October 2022, the Pac-12 completed its three-month exclusive negotiating window with Fox. The network, the Big Ten’s top media rights partner, was viewed as a catalyst in USC and UCLA’s move that bolstered its investment in the Big Ten Network and had little interest in bidding on the 10-team Pac-12’s media rights. But ESPN, which had enjoyed the “Pac-12 After Dark” games that kicked off in the 10 p.m. hour Eastern time, remained very interested, three sources told The Times.
 
Celebrity picker Bill Walton, left, reacts as Lee Corso puts on a bear head to indicate he’s picking UCLA to beat Oregon to close ESPN College GameDay’s broadcast from the UCLA campus on Oct. 23, 2021. 
(Courtesy of Joe Faraoni / ESPN Images)
Kliavkoff brought the schools an ESPN offer of $30 million per school annually for all of their rights. The Pac-12’s analysis said the schools would be worth somewhere in the mid-$30-million range apiece, so they could go back to ESPN with a reasonable counter in the high $30-million-range and maybe the two sides would end up around $35 million.
When the Pac-12 CEO group met to discuss the offer, one of the league presidents had other ideas. The president worked with a professor on his campus to come up with their own estimate of what the 10 schools should get based on their market value: $50 million.
“George and our media consultant were pretty clear there was some risk, but they said, ‘Nope, our numbers show we’re worth this, go ask for it,’” a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations not authorized to speak publicly about them told The Times. “... ESPN did not react very well to it.”
Given the stakes of negotiations, a source with experience negotiating media rights agreements told The Times, Kliavkoff should have been more forceful pushing back against the high counteroffer.
 

With the hopes of a potential Big Ten invite out there for Oregon and Washington, it was always going to be hard to persuade them to sign a grant of rights for what amounted to half a Big Ten distribution share. What if the Big Ten later decided to add them at full shares like USC and UCLA? There was no reason for the Ducks and Huskies, in particular, to box themselves in.
To the east in America’s heartland, the rejuvenated Big 12 was much more willing to band together at a rate dictated by the networks. On Oct. 30, the Big 12 announced it had re-upped early with Fox and ESPN with a deal that would pay its schools $31.7 million annually.
New Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark was able to convince his schools that stability was more important than fighting for every last dime.
As part of the Big 12’s deal, Yormark got the networks to agree that if he were to add “Power Five” schools in expansion, the networks would pay for the additions at the same annual rate.
The Pac-12 schools now had no exit fee and an attractive fallback plan in case the 10 couldn’t come to an agreement.
No more waiting
By the time 2023 hit, Kliavkoff was running out of moves. The Pac-12 presidents had nixed expansion, misread the ESPN negotiation and blocked a deal that could have returned UCLA to the Pac-12, albeit with a steep price tag and some kicking and screaming.
He waited out the economic downturn and hoped he could secure a palatable media rights deal.
Pac-12 officials knew that Colorado, in particular, had been flirting with the Big 12. The Buffaloes had been a national power in the Big Eight in the 1980s and 1990s and again emerged in the Big 12 in the early 2000s. As a Pac-12 member, however, they had been a South Division doormat. New football coach Deion Sanders and some influential donors were pushing for a move to the Big 12, a source told The Times.
 

Other Pac-12 schools certainly knew the Big 12 door was open to them as well.
The presidents and chancellors gave Kliavkoff a deadline of July 31 to present final media rights offers.
The commissioner had two options going. One was a package based on traditional linear TV distribution that had ESPN taking the top tier of content. NBC and Amazon were negotiating for the second tier, with Fox grabbing the third and CBS the lowest, which amounted to a handful of basketball games.
The second option was an all-streaming deal with Apple, which was excited to add the Pac-12 to its growing sports subscription offerings.
But on July 26, five days before the deadline, Colorado informed the Pac-12 that it wasn’t going to wait any longer. The Buffs were heading back to the Big 12.
“I applaud our [athletic director] Rick George for choosing the best scenario for all athletics at CU,” Sanders told 247Sports.com’s Carl Reed. “This move is a game-changer and we plan on changing the game.”
Soon, negotiations broke down with NBC and Amazon. The linear package was dead.
On Aug. 1, Kliavkoff met with the remaining presidents and chancellors, finally handing them the offer from Apple. Somehow, he was going to have to convince a group of presidents who loved the idea they were worth $50 million to consider an offer for … $23 million.
The final hours
The Apple deal was easy to mock once the number was leaked to the public. It didn’t matter that the deal included additional revenue based on subscriptions that could have put the payout to schools well above the Big 12 and the ACC, or that Apple believed in its ability to sell subscriptions to the Pac-12 content so much that it offered the schools an out after two years if they hadn’t reached the Big 12’s $31.7 million, two sources with direct knowledge of the offer told The Times.
The perception was that the deal was a failure far beyond the small annual distribution.
The offer did not guarantee teams any games on linear TV networks, although that was something that would have been under consideration.
 

Pac-12 football coaches were going to recruit kids without being able to tell them they would get to showcase their talent on the networks they grew up watching?
With the league clearly in crisis mode, the Big Ten began engaging again with Oregon and Washington, while the Big 12 was circling the Arizona schools and Utah.
Oregon and Washington were the key to keeping the league together, and the Apple deal had one very important Duck feather in its cap.
“Phil Knight loved it,” a source said.
The Nike CEO whose millions helped build Oregon into an upstart West Coast power saw the potential that Kliavkoff was pitching.
After two days of reports circulating that the Ducks and Huskies were pushing to leave for the Big Ten, there was a sudden turnabout. Reports from multiple outlets said the Pac-12 presidents were intending to meet on the morning of Aug. 4 to sign their grant of rights with a 10th school to be added later replacing Colorado.
 

Ten minutes before the meeting was to begin, however, Washington informed the Pac-12 that it was leaving for the Big Ten. The possibility of playing no games on the major linear networks was too tough of a sell for Washington football coach Kalen DeBoer, two sources told The Times.
“I give president [Ana Mari] Cauce and [athletic director] Jennifer Cohen a lot of credit, because these are not easy choices,” DeBoer told reporters after the move to the Big Ten was announced, according to the Seattle Times. “But just thinking years down the road, it came to a point where the resources that we need to be able to provide for our student-athletes … going to the Big Ten allowed for a lot of that.”
Once the Huskies left, the Ducks followed. The Arizona, Arizona State and Utah exodus to the Big 12 flowed naturally from there.
Washington and Oregon were charter members of the Pacific Coast Conference in 1916. They left the only home they’d ever known to join a conference based 2,000 miles away — a league that was only going to pay them each about half a share for the life of its current media deal.
What’s next?
Kliavkoff has been drawing up proposals for the four remaining Pac-12 teams — Stanford, Cal, Oregon State and Washington State.
But first he must wait until the ACC reaches what seems to be an inevitable conclusion. Despite Notre Dame’s pleas on behalf of fellow academic powers Stanford and Cal, the conference based in North Carolina desperately trying to compete with its better-funded neighbors in the SEC doesn’t see enough value in adding a West Coast flank.
 

Once the hope of a “power conference” lifeboat with the ACC is officially quashed in the next few weeks, the Pac-4 can work through expansion and merger options with the Mountain West and American Athletic Conference before resuming media rights negotiations.
If the Pac-12 brand makes it through this period of uncertainty as a transformed league, it will have an uphill battle to maintain its status within the College Football Playoff structure as one of the “autonomous five” conferences, which receive a higher share of the financial pie than the group of five schools.
The remaining four have hired consultants to help them clear this crisis, including Washington State hiring Oliver Luck, the former West Virginia athletic director and NCAA executive.
How much of a role Kliavkoff will have in charting the league’s course from this point on remains to be seen.
 

Boom!

Edited August 16, 2023 by BachelorTrek

[Uncle Nate 2097]

17 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Hey asshole...cite my work!

[bullet 1631]

19 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Isn't supposed to say, "And if you take SMU too, we'll give you $50 of free software.  But you only get the software if you take SMU."

[bullet 1631]

19 minutes ago, BachelorTrek said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Inside the Pac-12 collapse: Four surprising moments that crushed the conference
 
USC, Oregon and UCLA are among the eight schools leaving the Pac-12 after the 2023-24 season, decimating the conference.

 
BY J. BRADY MCCOLLOUGH
STAFF WRITER
AUG. 16, 2023 UPDATED 12:57 PM PT

As the calendar turned to December 2022, the Pac-12 Conference was in a precarious position.
Six months after USC and UCLA announced they were joining the Big Ten and the Pac-12 began its media rights negotiations early in response, the 10 remaining schools did not have a new TV deal in place. Worse than that, the Big 12 jumped the Pac-12 in line with ESPN and Fox, agreeing in October 2022 to extend its current deal through 2030-31.
But Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff was working on another way to save the 108-year-old conference. Multiple sources not authorized to speak publicly about negotiations shared the following outline of the plan and Pac-12 leaders’ response with The Times.
 

Publicly, the University of California Board of Regents’ threats to force UCLA to stay in the Pac-12 and avoid hurting UC Berkeley were viewed as posturing, pure bluffs to get attention and possibly some money from the departing Bruins.
Privately, Kliavkoff was deeply engaged with a small group of regents about the framework of a deal that would lead to the regents voting to block UCLA’s move — even though the regents did not want to set a precedent of overturning a monumental campus-specific decision.
The regents did the math. UCLA was supposed to make $62 million per year from the Big Ten’s new mega media rights deal. The Bruins’ travel costs to compete in the Midwest-based conference were expected to be in the range of $10 million to $12 million annually. So, the regents gave Kliavkoff a magic number. If he could guarantee the Bruins $52 million annually during the five years of the league’s next media deal, the regents promised Kliavkoff a vote heavily in favor of UCLA staying in the Pac-12.
It was not going to be easy for the remaining 10 to stomach giving UCLA a much bigger annual revenue share. The Pac-12’s math said that a media rights deal for 11 schools — even with the Los Angeles market back under the conference footprint — was not likely to net $52 million for each school.
Not only did Kliavkoff need the Pac-12 presidents to sign off on the guaranteed money, but they would also have to take the leap of faith to sign a grant of rights binding the schools together without knowing the exact details of what their media deal would be. Lastly, the Pac-12 would have to pay the $15-million fee UCLA would owe to the Big Ten for breaking its agreement.
 

When Kliavkoff presented the idea to the Pac-12 board, Oregon interim president Patrick Phillips vehemently shut it down. He said he would not have the Ducks in a conference where they have to take less money than UCLA, and any conversation about the possibility quickly died.
Kliavkoff declined to comment on the negotiations that played out quietly behind the scenes.
On Dec. 14, the UC Regents met and voted 11 to 5 to approve the Bruins’ exit to the Big Ten. While the vote was assumed by many to be mere formality, it certainly could have gone the other direction — a theme that would emerge time and again on the Pac-12’s road to ruin.
Today, the Pac-12 is now the Pac-4. Oregon and Washington are joining USC and UCLA in the Big Ten, and Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are headed to the Big 12. Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State are left to the whims of an industry that has become comfortable making momentous long-term decisions while under immense short-term pressure.
Following interviews with dozens of sources within the Pac-12 and in other corners of college athletics during the last two years, this is the story behind the Pac-12’s collapse.

The setup
The Pac-12 hired Kliavkoff in May 2021 to clean up a mess that was the making of his predecessor, Larry Scott, and the conference’s university leaders.
The league struggled in just about every facet other than the number of championships won in the lower-revenue Olympic sports. This allowed Scott to constantly trumpet the Pac-12 as the “Conference of Champions” while it fell drastically behind its peers in the Big Ten and SEC in media rights distribution dollars and its self-created Pac-12 Network wallowed in relative obscurity.
The league was not winning in football, the most visible and lucrative sport, either. USC was struggling to recover from crippling NCAA sanctions, and Pac-12 teams had made the new four-team College Football Playoff just twice.
 

Morale was down among Pac-12 athletic directors, who felt Scott was disconnected from campus realities, spending most of his time at the conference’s headquarters in downtown San Francisco.
Of course, morale wouldn’t have been an issue if Scott had backed up his promise to make the schools rich. He maintained until his last days leading the league that it was well-positioned to reach revenue goals in its next media rights agreement, but he would not be the one to see it through.
Kliavkoff was an entertainment executive at MGM Resorts in Las Vegas when he landed the Pac-12 job, but he previously worked at Major League Baseball and NBC Universal around the advent of streaming. At NBC, he was part of Hulu’s start. With that experience, it was reasonable for Pac-12 presidents to think he would be equipped to handle their media rights negotiations.
At the time he was hired, though, his most pressing task was mending campus relationships by showing schools that the league office cared about their various plights.
Kliavkoff’s plan was to spend his first weeks on the job as Kumbaya George, visiting each school and taking meetings with all stakeholders, understanding old grievances so he could help break them down.
But three weeks into his tenure, the whole college sports landscape shook from an unforeseen blast — Texas and Oklahoma were leaving the Big 12 for the SEC.
 

Kliavkoff established a war room devoted to making sure his schools would be safe amid the uncertainty. He told The Times in July 2021 that he thrived on solving complex puzzles and that navigating college sports’ next realignment wave was a welcome challenge.
But Kliavkoff couldn’t just go out and unilaterally fight for the Pac-12. His marching orders came from 12 university presidents and chancellors who, in the heat of battle, were about to show they were allies in name only.
To expand or not
Without Texas and Oklahoma, the eight schools left in the Big 12 were looking for a new home. Kliavkoff received word from Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby that the eight were interested in coming to the Pac-12 to make a Pac-20, playing games across every time zone. The Power Five conferences would become a Power Four.
Three sources with direct knowledge of the talks who were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly provided The Times with the following new details about the Big 12’s offer and the Pac-12’s response.
Kliavkoff was open to adding all eight, but the league was probably going to be more selective and look seriously at a few schools located in strategic markets.
The Pac-12 formed a membership subcommittee of six officials — three presidents and three athletic directors, each representing one of the league’s six travel pairings. USC president Carol Folt was chosen to represent the Trojans and Bruins.
 

Pac-12 officials prepared a 12-slide presentation deck explaining the merits of expansion leading into the first subcommittee meeting. About three slides in, Folt told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it.
The Times first reported last year that Folt objected to adding Big 12 teams, citing multiple sources not authorized to speak publicly about the committee’s discussions.
“We’re not going to respond to anonymous comments or hearsay,” Folt said in a statement to The Times when asked about the meeting.
Out of deference to the Trojans, whom members of the committee considered the linchpin to a strong future, the discussion ended.
“A lot of times, the way presidents’ rooms work, he or she who speaks the loudest and first kind of sets the dynamic,” a source with knowledge of the discussions recently told The Times. “And if there’s nobody else that has a real strong knowledge base or inclination to do something else, they say the person who has a real strong opinion must feel strongly for a reason.”
 

Kliavkoff, in his first weeks on the job, didn’t push back against Folt given USC’s importance to the league, a source said.
Kliavkoff declined to comment on the meeting.
Less than a year later, on June 30, 2022, the Pac-12 was caught off guard when USC and UCLA bolted for the Big Ten.
If the Pac-12 had added Big 12 schools when it had the chance, it would have remained the fourth-best conference without the L.A. schools.
Instead, the Big 12 survived and added four schools of its own from the “Group of Five” — BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF. The Big 12 was composed of 12 schools that were not of interest to the Big Ten and SEC, so they presented a united front.
The Pac-12 now featured 10 teams, with Oregon and Washington pining for a Big Ten invite. The timing of the events made the league even more vulnerable. With their media rights agreements complete in the spring of 2024, Pac-12 schools were free to leave and start play in another conference in 2024 with with no exit fees.
This time, a war room wouldn’t be enough for Kliavkoff. His wounded conference needed a MASH unit, too.
Dreaming too big
In October 2022, the Pac-12 completed its three-month exclusive negotiating window with Fox. The network, the Big Ten’s top media rights partner, was viewed as a catalyst in USC and UCLA’s move that bolstered its investment in the Big Ten Network and had little interest in bidding on the 10-team Pac-12’s media rights. But ESPN, which had enjoyed the “Pac-12 After Dark” games that kicked off in the 10 p.m. hour Eastern time, remained very interested, three sources told The Times.
 
Celebrity picker Bill Walton, left, reacts as Lee Corso puts on a bear head to indicate he’s picking UCLA to beat Oregon to close ESPN College GameDay’s broadcast from the UCLA campus on Oct. 23, 2021. 
(Courtesy of Joe Faraoni / ESPN Images)
Kliavkoff brought the schools an ESPN offer of $30 million per school annually for all of their rights. The Pac-12’s analysis said the schools would be worth somewhere in the mid-$30-million range apiece, so they could go back to ESPN with a reasonable counter in the high $30-million-range and maybe the two sides would end up around $35 million.
When the Pac-12 CEO group met to discuss the offer, one of the league presidents had other ideas. The president worked with a professor on his campus to come up with their own estimate of what the 10 schools should get based on their market value: $50 million.
“George and our media consultant were pretty clear there was some risk, but they said, ‘Nope, our numbers show we’re worth this, go ask for it,’” a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations not authorized to speak publicly about them told The Times. “... ESPN did not react very well to it.”
Given the stakes of negotiations, a source with experience negotiating media rights agreements told The Times, Kliavkoff should have been more forceful pushing back against the high counteroffer.
 

With the hopes of a potential Big Ten invite out there for Oregon and Washington, it was always going to be hard to persuade them to sign a grant of rights for what amounted to half a Big Ten distribution share. What if the Big Ten later decided to add them at full shares like USC and UCLA? There was no reason for the Ducks and Huskies, in particular, to box themselves in.
To the east in America’s heartland, the rejuvenated Big 12 was much more willing to band together at a rate dictated by the networks. On Oct. 30, the Big 12 announced it had re-upped early with Fox and ESPN with a deal that would pay its schools $31.7 million annually.
New Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark was able to convince his schools that stability was more important than fighting for every last dime.
As part of the Big 12’s deal, Yormark got the networks to agree that if he were to add “Power Five” schools in expansion, the networks would pay for the additions at the same annual rate.
The Pac-12 schools now had no exit fee and an attractive fallback plan in case the 10 couldn’t come to an agreement.
No more waiting
By the time 2023 hit, Kliavkoff was running out of moves. The Pac-12 presidents had nixed expansion, misread the ESPN negotiation and blocked a deal that could have returned UCLA to the Pac-12, albeit with a steep price tag and some kicking and screaming.
He waited out the economic downturn and hoped he could secure a palatable media rights deal.
Pac-12 officials knew that Colorado, in particular, had been flirting with the Big 12. The Buffaloes had been a national power in the Big Eight in the 1980s and 1990s and again emerged in the Big 12 in the early 2000s. As a Pac-12 member, however, they had been a South Division doormat. New football coach Deion Sanders and some influential donors were pushing for a move to the Big 12, a source told The Times.
 

Other Pac-12 schools certainly knew the Big 12 door was open to them as well.
The presidents and chancellors gave Kliavkoff a deadline of July 31 to present final media rights offers.
The commissioner had two options going. One was a package based on traditional linear TV distribution that had ESPN taking the top tier of content. NBC and Amazon were negotiating for the second tier, with Fox grabbing the third and CBS the lowest, which amounted to a handful of basketball games.
The second option was an all-streaming deal with Apple, which was excited to add the Pac-12 to its growing sports subscription offerings.
But on July 26, five days before the deadline, Colorado informed the Pac-12 that it wasn’t going to wait any longer. The Buffs were heading back to the Big 12.
“I applaud our [athletic director] Rick George for choosing the best scenario for all athletics at CU,” Sanders told 247Sports.com’s Carl Reed. “This move is a game-changer and we plan on changing the game.”
Soon, negotiations broke down with NBC and Amazon. The linear package was dead.
On Aug. 1, Kliavkoff met with the remaining presidents and chancellors, finally handing them the offer from Apple. Somehow, he was going to have to convince a group of presidents who loved the idea they were worth $50 million to consider an offer for … $23 million.
The final hours
The Apple deal was easy to mock once the number was leaked to the public. It didn’t matter that the deal included additional revenue based on subscriptions that could have put the payout to schools well above the Big 12 and the ACC, or that Apple believed in its ability to sell subscriptions to the Pac-12 content so much that it offered the schools an out after two years if they hadn’t reached the Big 12’s $31.7 million, two sources with direct knowledge of the offer told The Times.
The perception was that the deal was a failure far beyond the small annual distribution.
The offer did not guarantee teams any games on linear TV networks, although that was something that would have been under consideration.
 

Pac-12 football coaches were going to recruit kids without being able to tell them they would get to showcase their talent on the networks they grew up watching?
With the league clearly in crisis mode, the Big Ten began engaging again with Oregon and Washington, while the Big 12 was circling the Arizona schools and Utah.
Oregon and Washington were the key to keeping the league together, and the Apple deal had one very important Duck feather in its cap.
“Phil Knight loved it,” a source said.
The Nike CEO whose millions helped build Oregon into an upstart West Coast power saw the potential that Kliavkoff was pitching.
After two days of reports circulating that the Ducks and Huskies were pushing to leave for the Big Ten, there was a sudden turnabout. Reports from multiple outlets said the Pac-12 presidents were intending to meet on the morning of Aug. 4 to sign their grant of rights with a 10th school to be added later replacing Colorado.
 

Ten minutes before the meeting was to begin, however, Washington informed the Pac-12 that it was leaving for the Big Ten. The possibility of playing no games on the major linear networks was too tough of a sell for Washington football coach Kalen DeBoer, two sources told The Times.
“I give president [Ana Mari] Cauce and [athletic director] Jennifer Cohen a lot of credit, because these are not easy choices,” DeBoer told reporters after the move to the Big Ten was announced, according to the Seattle Times. “But just thinking years down the road, it came to a point where the resources that we need to be able to provide for our student-athletes … going to the Big Ten allowed for a lot of that.”
Once the Huskies left, the Ducks followed. The Arizona, Arizona State and Utah exodus to the Big 12 flowed naturally from there.
Washington and Oregon were charter members of the Pacific Coast Conference in 1916. They left the only home they’d ever known to join a conference based 2,000 miles away — a league that was only going to pay them each about half a share for the life of its current media deal.
What’s next?
Kliavkoff has been drawing up proposals for the four remaining Pac-12 teams — Stanford, Cal, Oregon State and Washington State.
But first he must wait until the ACC reaches what seems to be an inevitable conclusion. Despite Notre Dame’s pleas on behalf of fellow academic powers Stanford and Cal, the conference based in North Carolina desperately trying to compete with its better-funded neighbors in the SEC doesn’t see enough value in adding a West Coast flank.
 

Once the hope of a “power conference” lifeboat with the ACC is officially quashed in the next few weeks, the Pac-4 can work through expansion and merger options with the Mountain West and American Athletic Conference before resuming media rights negotiations.
If the Pac-12 brand makes it through this period of uncertainty as a transformed league, it will have an uphill battle to maintain its status within the College Football Playoff structure as one of the “autonomous five” conferences, which receive a higher share of the financial pie than the group of five schools.
The remaining four have hired consultants to help them clear this crisis, including Washington State hiring Oliver Luck, the former West Virginia athletic director and NCAA executive.
How much of a role Kliavkoff will have in charting the league’s course from this point on remains to be seen.
 

Boom!

Reads like something Wilner would write.  Source must be out of Kliavcoff's office, blaming the presidents, not the conference office.  We have heard it from enough sources to know ESPN offered $24-25 million at first.  That $30 million has come out lately, but it could be all from the same source.  The source seems to think they could have gotten upper $30s from ESPN, but at least $35.  Assuming the $30 really happened, I suspect $30 was ESPN's final offer, looking at the meager TV ratings of the Pac 10.  I think ESPN would have done both Big 12 and Pac 10, but with neither above $32 million.  With the market getting difficult and the Pac 10 difficult, ESPN decided not to do $30 million or even $25 million and walked away.  The Pac's exclusive window closed October 7th.  Doesn't say exactly when they got that offer.  Big 12 signed on October 30th and had already been talking since August.

The source also doesn't seem to understand how wrong it was for Kliavcoff to conspire with regents to try to force UCLA to stay.  Or getting schools to sign a GOR without even having any idea what the deal would be.

[statsman 5698]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

It will end up at five very soon.   

Wasn't your point, but previous points that the ACC or B12 won't basically get 2 in a year are terrible maths.   

Sure, if college football stays like it was in 2022. 
 
If the SEC and B10 SP2 conferences have a lot more money to pay in NIL, a lot more TV exposure, and are known as the path to the NFL, a gap will open up between the SP2 and the P2/3 greater than the current gap between the B12 and the AAC.