(01-21-2023 10:02 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's clear from some of the commentary on Kevin Warren that the Big Ten wasn't interested in his vision of adding more schools in the West. With that said, that doesn't automatically mean whoever becomes the next Big Ten commissioner won't have a mandate that alters the calculus. I'm not saying they'll reverse course and expand West. I'm just saying whatever new approach the league takes could still have some serious ripple effects.

So what you're saying is, "Maybe. Or maybe not"

...he's saying there's a chance.

EDIT: video unavailable, but you know what I'm linking to

(01-21-2023 10:02 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's clear from some of the commentary on Kevin Warren that the Big Ten wasn't interested in his vision of adding more schools in the West. With that said, that doesn't automatically mean whoever becomes the next Big Ten commissioner won't have a mandate that alters the calculus. I'm not saying they'll reverse course and expand West. I'm just saying whatever new approach the league takes could still have some serious ripple effects.

So what you're saying is, "Maybe. Or maybe not"

Could be a little of this, could be a little of that.

Occam’s Razor folks. The simplest explanation is generally the most likely. A Pac12 tv deal hasn’t been signed because the Pac12 hasn’t been able to get a deal good enough to prevent the 4 corners defection. If they really had a deal that was in the 30-to-40 million per team range they would have already signed it and secured the Pac12 mid-term future. When your commissioner says dumb stuff like women’s basketball is a value key to a tv deal—or the Pac12 media value is now higher because Colorado hired Prime Time—-you can sense just how desperate conference leadership really is.

The fact is---assuming the Big10 isnt going to raid the Pac12 any further this round---then the Pac is currently "stable"---but they only remain stable IF they can sign a TV deal reasonably similar to the Big12's TV deal. The Pac12 leadership knows this. It took the Big12 all of a month to reach an agreement with FOX and ESPN---so common sense tells us if there was an acceptable deal on the table that was similar or better than the Big12's TV deal---it would have already been signed. That tells me that the Pac12 knows what the bidders have on the table and they cant accept the current bids without destabilizing the 4-corners.....so Pac12 leadership is delaying hoping they can somehow pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat.

(01-21-2023 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Occam’s Razor folks. The simplest explanation is generally the most likely. A Pac12 tv deal hasn’t been signed because the Pac12 hasn’t been able to get a deal good enough to prevent the 4 corners defection. If they really had a deal that was in the 30-to-40 million per team range they would have already signed it and secured the Pac12 mid-term future. When your commissioner says dumb stuff like women’s basketball is a value key to a tv deal—or the Pac12 media value is now higher because Colorado hired Prime Time—-you can sense just how desperate conference leadership really is.

I'd say they were grasping at straws, but didn't the west coast states ban them?

https://www.beimpasta.com/blogs/plastic-...tic-straws

(01-21-2023 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Occam’s Razor folks. The simplest explanation is generally the most likely. A Pac12 tv deal hasn’t been signed because the Pac12 hasn’t been able to get a deal good enough to prevent the 4 corners defection. If they really had a deal that was in the 30-to-40 million per team range they would have already signed it and secured the Pac12 mid-term future. When your commissioner says dumb stuff like women’s basketball is a value key to a tv deal—or the Pac12 media value is now higher because Colorado hired Prime Time—-you can sense just how desperate conference leadership really is.

The fact is---assuming the Big10 isnt going to raid the Pac12 any further this round---then the Pac is currently "stable"---but they only remain stable IF they can sign a TV deal reasonably similar to the Big12's TV deal. The Pac12 leadership knows this. It took the Big12 all of a month to reach an agreement with FOX and ESPN---so common sense tells us if there was an acceptable deal on the table that was similar or better than the Big12's TV deal---it would have already been signed. That tells me that the Pac12 knows what the bidders have on the table and they cant accept the current bids without destabilizing the 4-corners.....so Pac12 leadership is delaying hoping they can somehow pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat.

100% Spot On!

Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is that they don't have a deal because the schools don't agree on some important aspect of the deal.

(01-20-2023 03:14 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  “The Pac-12 cannot get overconfident,” said a Hotline source in the sports media space. “If we know anything about college sports, it’s that you can’t assume the status quo will last.”

“If you slow-play it,” the source said, “you become vulnerable to the unknowns.”

Boom. Pac 12 Network fraud.

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

We all knew GOR would be a sticking point for schools like Oregon with their eyes on the Big 10. And that assumed traditional platforms like ESPN/FOX.

Not surprising that the issue is magnified for a non-traditional platform like Amazon.

I can't see Oregon pledging a GOR to anyone longer than 2029-30, the end of the new Big 10 deal.

I think most of you have figured it out. If the Pac-12 can't get a TV deal close to the Bi2 12, then they are going to have schools leave for the Big 12. Certain schools do not want to sign a GOR. Certain schools do not want to be on Amazon. It puts the Pac in a huge pickle.

(01-25-2023 06:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is that they don't have a deal because the schools don't agree on some important aspect of the deal.

But if the money were good, I don't think there'd be much heartburn about Amazon as a streaming partner (and the NFL ratings on Amazon have exceeded expectations, for what it's worth).

(01-25-2023 09:31 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 06:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is that they don't have a deal because the schools don't agree on some important aspect of the deal.

But if the money were good, I don't think there'd be much heartburn about Amazon as a streaming partner (and the NFL ratings on Amazon have exceeded expectations, for what it's worth).

There's a huge difference between Amazon being *a* TV partner (e.g. splitting the rights between ESPN and Amazon) and Amazon being *the* TV partner (where there isn't a separate deal with ESPN or another linear TV provider).

Amazon offered more money to the Big Ten than either CBS or NBC for the Saturday Night Football package, but the Big Ten ultimately decided that the OTA platform was more important (or at least Amazon wasn't offering enough of a premium compared to the OTA networks to move such valuable games to streaming exclusive). The Big Ten also then turned around and sent some football games (honestly not a big deal) and a lot of basketball games (honestly a much bigger deal for the average Big Ten fan that is often getting glossed over in the hyper-focus on football) to Peacock, which is an objectively worse streaming platform than Amazon... but that was the trade-off for getting so much revenue and OTA coverage for the league's marquee football games. The point is that the Big Ten was fine with *some* streaming, but it wasn't going to give up OTA exposure even though they would have gotten more money from an Amazon deal.

The Pac-12 doesn't have the same type of leverage as the Big Ten, but the school presidents and ADs are certainly going to be cognizant of the exposure issue. It's easy for us to just sit and say, "Take the money!" However, if the main issue that the Pac-12 has had all along about maximizing its value is that it hasn't been able to garner the same broad-based national audiences compared to the Big Ten and SEC, then going to 100% streaming is going to exacerbate that even worse. Even for lower tier games, remember that the Pac-12 has suffered the last decade with the Pac-12 Networks being in the wilderness and getting so little carriage compared to the BTN and SECN.

Sure - if Amazon is throwing out a number that's 2 or 3 times as much as ESPN, then it's hard to turn that down. I doubt that is what's happening, though. If Amazon is offering something more along the lines of a 10-20% premium over the linear networks (which I think is probably closer to what's happening), then that's not exactly a no-brainer for anyone in the Pac-12.

I've said all along that I would be absolutely flabbergasted if the Pac-12 sold ALL of its rights to Amazon or another streaming provider. 50/50 between ESPN and Amazon is certainly very possible (and that's what I'd predict), but I can't see how any university president signs off on going 100% to Amazon unless the economics are so mind-bogglingly more (200-300% more, not just 10-20% more) that you can't turn it down.

Frank, note that I didn't say they should take the Amazon money (or even that the Pac-12 would ever accept a deal where all their inventory is on Amazon). My point was that if they had multiple good options, they would evaluate the trade-offs and they'd have already made a decision.

But the lack of a new contract suggests that none of their options are very good.

(01-20-2023 06:06 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 04:26 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  They have until 06/2023 to work something out or schools might decide it is time to make a deal with a known quantity (Big 12) or accept some untenable terms (all digital). I believe schools have until 07/01/2023 to announce if they are leaving before the 2024-2025 season. If there is no deal in place, it is hard to see them sticking around at that point.

In other words, expect the Big 12 (soon to be Big 16) hammer to come down around June 25th. They'll offer to six schools (Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona) and take the first four that jump.

If they are smart they go Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona to start, Cal and Stanford can be ignored, neither is leaving the comfort of the coast for the Big XII.

(01-25-2023 09:29 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I think most of you have figured it out. If the Pac-12 can't get a TV deal close to the Bi2 12, then they are going to have schools leave for the Big 12. Certain schools do not want to sign a GOR. Certain schools do not want to be on Amazon. It puts the Pac in a huge pickle.

Yep, in the end Cal and Stanford, who run the PAC will destroy the league.

(01-25-2023 10:24 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 06:06 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 04:26 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  They have until 06/2023 to work something out or schools might decide it is time to make a deal with a known quantity (Big 12) or accept some untenable terms (all digital). I believe schools have until 07/01/2023 to announce if they are leaving before the 2024-2025 season. If there is no deal in place, it is hard to see them sticking around at that point.

In other words, expect the Big 12 (soon to be Big 16) hammer to come down around June 25th. They'll offer to six schools (Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona) and take the first four that jump.

If they are smart they go Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona to start, Cal and Stanford can be ignored, neither is leaving the comfort of the coast for the Big XII.

I guess it depends what "close to Big 12 money" would be.

However, I continue to believe that a lot of people *severely* underrate how much the Pac-12 schools are institutionally aligned with each other. Washington is every bit as snobby (to put it bluntly) as Cal and Stanford while everyone else in the league is as California-focused as institutions in the Big 12 are Texas-focused.

Even when UT and OU were still in the Big 12, my belief was that the members of the Big 12 liked the money but couldn't stand the conference, whereas the members of the ACC and Pac-12 loved their conference but weren't happy with the money. So, that has to be weighed here: the Pac-12 members truly *do* love their group and would be leaving *only* for money purposes, whereas the only reason why the Big 12 members are staying (to the extent of them even have other conference options) is *because* of the money. Don't get me wrong - money is the single most powerful force, so I'm not underrating it here. Rather, it's going to take a LOT more (not just a little bit or even a medium bit more) for the Big 12 to pry any Pac-12 school. I don't even think a gap of $10 million in TV money per year would move the needle. It would need to be a gap of $20 million-plus (e.g. the new Pac-12 deal isn't merely underwhelming, but rather an outright disaster).

(01-20-2023 05:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 03:19 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Thinks Womens BB is a big part of the TV deal? really? Bottom line Pac can send anything it wants, ESPN and Amazon don't have to answer. As 4 the 4 corner schools, until a TV deal is worked out, No one knows what can or can't happen.

Really! Is Kliavkoff really that clueless?
So maybe you get $20,000 per school for women's basketball instead of $10,000. Its not even rounding error in the TV contract.

Hey my consumption of women's basketball has gone from 2 to 4 mins a week. Maybe Kliavkoff is on to something.

(01-25-2023 10:26 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  Yep, in the end Cal and Stanford, who run the PAC will destroy the league.

And oddly, both schools might literally just call it quits on football if they don't get the deal they want out of this (take their ball and go home). If I'm Oregon or Washington, I'd be working hard to box out Cal and Stanford, because their long-term goals might be completely different.

(01-25-2023 10:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I continue to believe that a lot of people *severely* underrate how much the Pac-12 schools are institutionally aligned with each other. Washington is every bit as snobby (to put it bluntly) as Cal and Stanford while everyone else in the league is as California-focused as institutions in the Big 12 are Texas-focused.

Even when UT and OU were still in the Big 12, my belief was that the members of the Big 12 liked the money but couldn't stand the conference, whereas the members of the ACC and Pac-12 loved their conference but weren't happy with the money.

Agreed, but don't you think Washington and Oregon could find the same snobbery in the ACC as part of a western flank? I'm sure they're at least testing the waters with the networks to see if this is financially viable.

PAC has to do a solid to it's "4 corners schools" and the other 6 schools.. Deal with Amazon and make the contract short like the Big12 or the BiG contract.. I think they can all get close to 45..maybe 50 mil with the additions of the new expanded CFP deal incoming.. (along with selling it's other rights to ESPN or FOX)

They will have a 6 year window to show it's schools that it's still a very viable conference.. including football. If it comes crashing down, then so be it.. at least they tried, right?

Also.. no to expansion unless it becomes necessary.