(07-07-2022 02:20 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Think of the BB the PAC would have with Kansas, Gonzaga, Baylor, Tech and Oklahoma State.

That is additive to me. That tells the networks to place the money with the PAC and not the XII.

Is it worth $80 million for KS, Baylor, TT and OK State to leave the Big 12, in the central time zone, a stronger league, better fan base, more exposure, to go to play in the PAC 12, pacific time zone, for a sport which brings in far less revenue than football?

Basketball does not drive realignment.

(07-07-2022 12:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value.

There simply aren’t any available.

“There is really no more water that can be squeezed out of the rock,” the media industry source said. “The value of any individual school that’s outside the Pac-12 — while some might have slightly more than others — is minuscule.”

Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television.

“Look at it this way,” the source explained. “There are only so many window openings on the schedule. Those are going to be filled by the big brands, no matter which league they’re in. Because they have more than others, the Big Ten and SEC are going to take most of them.

“Then other big-brand games like Clemson-Miami or Oregon-Washington, are going to have a place in those windows.

“(But) Cal vs. Oregon or San Diego State vs. Arizona is going to find a secondary platform, where the bulk of (college football) is going to be.

“Unless (expansion involves) a school that can find its way to the main-platform windows, its value is the same as the others in the bulk bin.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/07/pa...ial-sense/

I understand the point but isn’t staying at ten a little too precarious in the era of super conferences?

At this stage, the Pac should add schools not for the money but for the defense.

(07-07-2022 04:02 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  In practice the Big 12 has settled for about fifty cents on the dollar (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M), which was withholding a single year as they walked out almost immediately.

I don't see that likely to change should a school bolt. Also incoming schools like Houston can be intercepted without real penalty.

None of these schools are moving to the PAC 12. Not a single one. It may be fun to dream, but no Big 12 school is leaving for the PAC 12. If the PAC 12 fills it will be from the MWC. The money is not there to attract Big 12 schools. Speculation is fun, but Bay area Californians will eventually have to face reality.

(07-07-2022 04:20 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 04:02 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  In practice the Big 12 has settled for about fifty cents on the dollar (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M), which was withholding a single year as they walked out almost immediately.

I don't see that likely to change should a school bolt. Also incoming schools like Houston can be intercepted without real penalty.

None of these schools are moving to the PAC 12. Not a single one. It may be fun to dream, but no Big 12 school is leaving for the PAC 12. If the PAC 12 fills it will be from the MWC. The money is not there to attract Big 12 schools. Speculation is fun, but Bay area Californians will eventually have to face reality.

100% correct. The Big 12 is more attractive to it's members (think central and eastern exposure rather than Pacific) and more stable. The Big 12 will either raid the PAC 12 or both conferences fail to exchange members and the PAC adds SDSU and BSU.

(07-07-2022 04:18 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 12:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value.

There simply aren’t any available.

“There is really no more water that can be squeezed out of the rock,” the media industry source said. “The value of any individual school that’s outside the Pac-12 — while some might have slightly more than others — is minuscule.”

Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television.

“Look at it this way,” the source explained. “There are only so many window openings on the schedule. Those are going to be filled by the big brands, no matter which league they’re in. Because they have more than others, the Big Ten and SEC are going to take most of them.

“Then other big-brand games like Clemson-Miami or Oregon-Washington, are going to have a place in those windows.

“(But) Cal vs. Oregon or San Diego State vs. Arizona is going to find a secondary platform, where the bulk of (college football) is going to be.

“Unless (expansion involves) a school that can find its way to the main-platform windows, its value is the same as the others in the bulk bin.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/07/pa...ial-sense/

I understand the point but isn’t staying at ten a little too precarious in the era of super conferences?

Not if it cuts the per-school paycheck.

Let's sketch out the PAC media deals next cycle and make wild guesses. Let's say $100M for an OTA game-of-the-week, $100M from ESPN for two games every Saturday, one afternoon / primetime Eastern game and one "PAC After Dark" game, $100M for the rest on streaming.

Adding 2 schools, all you're really adding is streaming content. You're not growing the audience, because the MWC schools don't have much of an audience.

(Boise State gets a lot less interesting nationally when they're no longer the plucky Cinderella challenging the traditional powers, but just another 8-4 power conference team, or sort-of-power anyway)

There's a reason that the Big 12 stayed at 10 for 10 years.

Quote:At this stage, the Pac should add schools not for the money but for the defense.

There is no "defense" though. If the Big Ten grabs PAC schools, the left-behind PAC schools will scramble for Big 12 invites whatever number of schools are in the PAC. The AAC had 11, 3 schools left. CUSA had 14, 9 schools left. Sun Belt had 10--and 4 schools joined.

(07-07-2022 04:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 04:18 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 12:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value.

There simply aren’t any available.

“There is really no more water that can be squeezed out of the rock,” the media industry source said. “The value of any individual school that’s outside the Pac-12 — while some might have slightly more than others — is minuscule.”

Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television.

“Look at it this way,” the source explained. “There are only so many window openings on the schedule. Those are going to be filled by the big brands, no matter which league they’re in. Because they have more than others, the Big Ten and SEC are going to take most of them.

“Then other big-brand games like Clemson-Miami or Oregon-Washington, are going to have a place in those windows.

“(But) Cal vs. Oregon or San Diego State vs. Arizona is going to find a secondary platform, where the bulk of (college football) is going to be.

“Unless (expansion involves) a school that can find its way to the main-platform windows, its value is the same as the others in the bulk bin.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/07/pa...ial-sense/

I understand the point but isn’t staying at ten a little too precarious in the era of super conferences?

Not if it cuts the per-school paycheck.

Let's sketch out the PAC media deals next cycle and make wild guesses. Let's say $100M for an OTA game-of-the-week, $100M from ESPN for two games every Saturday, one afternoon / primetime Eastern game and one "PAC After Dark" game, $100M for the rest on streaming.

Adding 2 schools, all you're really adding is streaming content. You're not growing the audience, because the MWC schools don't have much of an audience.

(Boise State gets a lot less interesting nationally when they're no longer the plucky Cinderella challenging the traditional powers, but just another 8-4 power conference team, or sort-of-power anyway)

There's a reason that the Big 12 stayed at 10 for 10 years.

Quote:At this stage, the Pac should add schools not for the money but for the defense.

There is no "defense" though. If the Big Ten grabs PAC schools, the left-behind PAC schools will scramble for Big 12 invites whatever number of schools are in the PAC. The AAC had 11, 3 schools left. CUSA had 14, 9 schools left. Sun Belt had 10--and 4 schools joined.

My point was that the Pac should find a way to add the B12 schools maybe with some help from the ESPN. But I understand your point. If B12 schools are not coming, there’s no point to add the MWC schools.

(07-07-2022 04:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 04:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 04:18 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 12:11 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value.

There simply aren’t any available.

“There is really no more water that can be squeezed out of the rock,” the media industry source said. “The value of any individual school that’s outside the Pac-12 — while some might have slightly more than others — is minuscule.”

Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television.

“Look at it this way,” the source explained. “There are only so many window openings on the schedule. Those are going to be filled by the big brands, no matter which league they’re in. Because they have more than others, the Big Ten and SEC are going to take most of them.

“Then other big-brand games like Clemson-Miami or Oregon-Washington, are going to have a place in those windows.

“(But) Cal vs. Oregon or San Diego State vs. Arizona is going to find a secondary platform, where the bulk of (college football) is going to be.

“Unless (expansion involves) a school that can find its way to the main-platform windows, its value is the same as the others in the bulk bin.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/07/pa...ial-sense/

I understand the point but isn’t staying at ten a little too precarious in the era of super conferences?

Not if it cuts the per-school paycheck.

Let's sketch out the PAC media deals next cycle and make wild guesses. Let's say $100M for an OTA game-of-the-week, $100M from ESPN for two games every Saturday, one afternoon / primetime Eastern game and one "PAC After Dark" game, $100M for the rest on streaming.

Adding 2 schools, all you're really adding is streaming content. You're not growing the audience, because the MWC schools don't have much of an audience.

(Boise State gets a lot less interesting nationally when they're no longer the plucky Cinderella challenging the traditional powers, but just another 8-4 power conference team, or sort-of-power anyway)

There's a reason that the Big 12 stayed at 10 for 10 years.

Quote:At this stage, the Pac should add schools not for the money but for the defense.

There is no "defense" though. If the Big Ten grabs PAC schools, the left-behind PAC schools will scramble for Big 12 invites whatever number of schools are in the PAC. The AAC had 11, 3 schools left. CUSA had 14, 9 schools left. Sun Belt had 10--and 4 schools joined.

My point was that the Pac should find a way to add the B12 schools maybe with some help from the ESPN. But I understand your point. If B12 schools are not coming, there’s no point to add the MWC schools.

Big 12 has a whopping exit fee relative to Big 12 / PAC income. Two years of conference distributions. So $80M or so if you leave before 2025, who knows after that (depends on the new CFP Contract and the new Big 12 media contract, but 2x whatever the Big 12 per-school income is)

Houston and BYU (probably) aren't under the Big 12 exit fee bylaws yet, but who knows if they want to jump, and / or what TV value they'd bring

(07-07-2022 12:30 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Kansas (BB brand)
Gonzaga (BB brand)
Hawaii FB (takes reduced payout)

Surely there has to be value in a BB conference with Gonzaga, Zona and Kansas.

Subtraction by addition. None of those schools brings anywhere near $30m of revenue to the PAC. This isn't 2003 anymore. Mens basketball is only evaluated at about 20% of football. All other olympic sports combined aren't even evaluated at that level. Football is at least 65-75% of the total value of a conference's tv contract. Two basketball first schools don't bring in anywhere near the revenue to offset two football schools. Hawaii doesn't even have a stadium to play in right now. The PAC could take all three and your previously mentioned OkSt and still wind up loosing ground to the other power conferences.

Nobody adds $30M. So the only reason to expand would be for market/recruiting access. Southern California and Texas (either Houston or Dallas-Ft. Worth) are the only markets worth bothering with.

San Diego State is your only option in SoCal, and while it helps perhaps even into OC and inland a bit, it doesn't get you the bulk of LA. They certainly are not worth $30M, perhaps $10M because of market (that's optimistic).

Your Texas options are Texas Tech, TCU, SMU, Houston and Baylor (UTSA, North Texas and Rice were valued at around $3-4M for the AAC, so even doubling they still are not worth enough to even consider). Texas Tech is not in either of those prime Texas recruiting zones. Baylor is another problematic honor code school like BYU, which aren't going to fly with the California and Pacific Northwest schools. So you have SMU and TCU in DFW and Houston in Houston. SMU is a pale carbon paper version of TCU, mired in the AAC and not one of the properties worth more than the league average of $7M or so each. TCU is acceptable on AI, but who knows if the West Coast schools will take them given their name. That leave Houston, who the Big 12 valued in the $10-15M range, which is likely a little more valuable to the Pac.

That gives you Houston and San Diego State, which helps a bit in recruiting and reach but likely brings down your per school take $2-3M. You probably do marginally better with TCU and Houston, as that puts you more solidly in Texas.

At the end of the day I think the Pac-12 stays pat and rebrands itself the Pac-10. Should Notre Dame join the Big Ten in 2026 and drag with them say Stanford as a partner, I expect the Pac-12 to just add San Diego State and call it a day.

If no school adds $30M (which I believe is accurate), it really makes you think what the Big 12's new media rights deal will be worth. It's the elephant in the room that so many overlook in potential realignment. The Big 12's rights should take a nose dive, which interestingly can make it more worth while for someone to leave down the road (though not sure there are any good options to go to).