There's the obvious posturing. However, it all comes down to the PAC receiving a media package that they find acceptable. The PAC will be gleeful if it ends-up being a tad better than a few of the dismal projections.

The only solid news beyond conjecture in The Athletic segment, is that a decision will likely be reached in two weeks or so. The PAC certainly needs for this to be a positive outcome.

(03-14-2023 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:42 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  (lots of snipping)

-Olson: Arizona is coveted by the B12 for their "elite top ten program" "basketball value". The idea is because of the B12's "depth", Arizona's addition would help "make up the revenue gap" vs. the B1G/SEC to "unbundle [product] by the end of the decade" and "sell it separately".

Just about the bolded: I get that the Big 12 has been the best basketball conference on the court the last couple of years, and that Arizona would make them even stronger.

But IMO, basketball value, like football value, is based on brand value, which translates in to TV ratings. Is there evidence that Big 12 hoops draws more viewers than SEC or B1G hoops? IDK.

Does anyone?

Here’s the thread of this year’s college basketball ratings:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-963435.html

This was my observation:

“Interesting data.

So, putting aside the anomaly of the DePaul-Creighton game getting its number because of people not switching the channel after an NFL game, (a) every game with 2 million or more viewers was a North Carolina-Duke game or involved one or both of Michigan State and Indiana, and (b) every game with 1.5 million or more had at least one of the following teams: UNC, Duke, Michigan State, Indiana, Michigan, UCLA, Kansas, and/or Kentucky.

Essentially, they’re all acknowledged basketball blue bloods plus Michigan. College basketball ratings are arguably even more top heavy with the elite brands than college football.”

So, Kansas is a true basketball TV brand in the Big 12. The Big Ten and ACC are the leagues with multiple consistent TV draws for basketball. It’s an important point to distinguish between the best basketball league performance-wise and who has the best brands because they’re not all one and the same.

Thanks - that's what I figured, and IMO it means that the nB12 isn't likely to be able to close revenue gaps with the B1G and SEC via any "unbundling" of basketball from football that might occur down the road. If unbundling happens, and there really is untapped basketball value (which btw I doubt, but if there is) that will be released, I suspect the ACC and B1G will be the biggest beneficiaries.

But we'll see.

"Closing the revenue gap" only means that the current overall contract numbers do not match the standard 20% value of the B12 contract in B12's eyes. They feel they can get more money with their basketball sold separately, especially if they can grab Arizona/Gonzaga.

"Closing the revenue gap" doesn't mean that the B12 thinks they will be anywhere close to B1G/SEC payouts in the future. It's a realization of a new reality: There aren't enough football properties left that move the needle far enough, and non-P2 conferences need to get creative to be competitive, both on the field and financially.

If anything, selling the basketball product separately might open up more bidders to the basketball product and also streamline negotiations on the football side as well. It's one of those moves that could backfire, but Fox's package shows that the demand is there.

It also "future-proofs" the conference if basketball ratings continues to increase because of its popularity with Millennial's and Zoomers. In seven years, the value might increase enough where you will see multiple conferences sell their product individually to maximize revenue.

(03-14-2023 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:44 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:42 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  Max Olson from the Athletic joins Stewart Mandel and Bruce Feldman on "The Audible" podcast. He was at the B12 Tournament "not for the basketball" and talked about what he heard regarding expansion:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0SgTtke...TRffw&nd=1

-Olson: Position of the B12 "is pretty clear", unchanged. 4C "is the priority". Gonzaga is on the back burner for now.

-Olson: He is "not hearing a lot of spin" from B12 officials regarding Pac contract numbers. They all have told him "they don't know... if it's a horrible deal" or "how it's gonna shake out" on Pac negotiations. There should be "a little bit more clarity in the next two weeks" on negotiations

-Olson: The "opportunity lies" with "targets" Arizona/Colorado first and hopefully the other two follow. Max gets the sense that those two "schools that are a little bit more nervous" about staying in the Pac. The two schools "have been pretty receptive" to talks with B12, and B12 is "optimistic" about talks.

-Olson: Arizona is coveted by the B12 for their "elite top ten program" "basketball value". The idea is because of the B12's "depth", Arizona's addition would help "make up the revenue gap" vs. the B1G/SEC to "unbundle [product] by the end of the decade" and "sell it separately".

-Olson: There's no "hard feelings there with Colorado if they were to... come back to the [B12]".

-Bruce: Every school in the Pac "has a natural rivalry". Colorado "didn't really have anybody".

-Mandel: Stew is "skeptical that any of [these] Pac schools will leave, but you never know in realignment". If Arizona/Colorado leaves, Stew was told by "somebody who [evaluates programs] for a living" "the per school average will go up". If they added SDSU, the average would "go back down".

-Mandel: Arizona/Colorado leaving "would not be the end of the conference". However, losing Oregon/Washington "would be the end of the conference", but B1G will not add them "in the next 2-3 months" because of the B1G lack of a commissioner. "Keeping the [Pac] conference together now is a short term win."

-Mandel: "Let's say [Pac] sign[s] a five year TV contract, what's gonna change in the next five years..."?

-Olson: "There's not expansion options out there.. [SMU/SDSU] isn't going to change the game at all."

-Mandel: "There aren't that many marquee programs that are left that the two big conferences would even want." Thinks SEC/B1G will expand with the 4-5 last schools that are valuable. "The SEC is not going to 32" because there are not enough programs out there that add value.

Mandel: "Pac 12 people are not talking", but "when they do talk, it's a different reality" than what you hear from other sources. They think "the TV deal will get done here soon", "not drastically more... or less" than B12, more streaming than B12 and will feature ESPN.

-Mandel: "Colorado is a complete wild card." "Deion might run the athletic department at this point" and could decide either B12 or PAC. "The other three, as long as the money is workable, aren't going anywhere."

Olson: For 4C, there's "no terms to negotiate". "Do you buy [Brett Yormark's] vision or not... for the rest of the decade". B12 is "not going to twist people's arms" and want schools who want to be in their conference.

Mandel: Utah doesn't "want to be in conference with BYU. The animosity there is too great". ASU President is "definitely Mr. Ivory Tower". Questions if the President wants to be in a conference "with all of the schools that two years ago" weren't "good enough to be in Pac 12"

Mandel: Resolution in "a couple of weeks". Pac Presidents meet next week and will be presented "with whatever George [Kliavkoff] has reached", and "they have to decide if they approve it".

This one's fun for me to read : )

Confirms a whole lot of things I've been saying.

It even confirms what I was saying about Colorado being a "wildcard" : )

What I didn't realize, was that the AZ schools are apparently somewhat split on this. That was a surprise.

And - "a couple of weeks" ???



But I want realignment nowwwww!...

*cough*

excuse me.

I think my inner child needs a naptime.

: )

It is a Tuesday, but its not the right Tuesday!

lol.

Wimpy might "gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy

It could be worse. It could be the second Tuesday of next week...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/second_Tu...f_the_week

(03-14-2023 11:14 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:29 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  SDSU doesnt deliver much of the Southern California market. SMU doesnt deliver much of the Dallas/Fort Worth Market. They are based in great locations but they are far down the list in their respective markets.

That may be true but SDSU and SMU playing a PAC schedule will undoubtedly increase the local interest, especially from casual fans that know of PAC brand names compared to who they are playing now. Nothing wrong with who they're playing now but brand recognition is a thing.

The others would have a spike too.

(03-14-2023 11:28 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 11:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 10:43 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:29 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  SDSU doesnt deliver much of the Southern California market. SMU doesnt deliver much of the Dallas/Fort Worth Market. They are based in great locations but they are far down the list in their respective markets.

SDSU actually doesn't have to immediately "deliver much" of the Southern California market. SDSU has to deliver a venue in Southern California market...where other PAC members can promote competitive games to donors and potential students. SDSU also has to be competitive in football & basketball and be able to lift its program to P5 standards...and SDSU revenues and winning percentages are well above G5 standards.

It's harder to explain the promotion of SMU, other than it's easier for the PAC to compete with an even number of teams. Adding SMU will be like the B12 & WVU addition (even somewhat like B1G & Rutgers, or SEC & Missouri, or ACC & Boston College). Die-hard realignment-ologists will constantly debate these additions.

The PAC doesn't have to pay these additions an immediate full-share. In a half dozen years they will be solid P5 members...and the PAC will be better positioned if another pair of programs leave.

You can't do a 9 game conference schedule with an odd number of teams. SMU has the largest G5 budget other than UConn. And the Pac has limited choices. Boise and Fresno are the only other schools that do anything for TV ratings.

I never heard anything for months about SMU and San Diego State joining the PAC until yesterday (when some ESPN bloggers wrote about it, but not people like Thamel who actually have sources), which has made me think the possibility of them getting PAC invites is pretty much dead.


Even Canzano, who two months ago seemed to be writing about PAC expansion as a near-certainty, doesn’t seem to think the PAC will expand anymore.

The lack of leaks has put everybody on edge. When even Wilzano aren't getting anything then who knows what's going to happen. It's hard to see how this is a good thing for the Pac but...maybe Apple threatened to walk if there is any leak of any kind? Seems unlikely, but if the price is right it would be hard to go against their desires.

(03-14-2023 01:26 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:54 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If Big 12 ends up with 2 of the 4C. That's still a win-win for both conferences.

I do think Yormark would love to add Coach Prime. Yormark is certainly a star power guy. It shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of conference realignment but its certainly a plus in Yormark's eyes. I can see marketing the New Big 12 with Coach Prime as the face of the league, Post-Texas/OU.

Seems like that would be the case, especially if Olson is right about the two being AZ and Colorado and that their leaving would bring up the per-school revenue in the PAC. The PAC could go back to being the PAC-8. Weren't they once the PCC with only 4 schools? (I do realize that was well before the NCAA placed a requirement for a minimum number of members. Heck, that may even have been before the NCAA existed.)

PCC was four teams for two years: Cal/Washington/Oregon/Oregon St. In a two year period, they added two schools (Washington St./Stanford) to bring the total to six. By 1930, they were a ten member conference with USC/Idaho/Montana/UCLA, and maintained that configuration for a couple of decades.

The only issue with a Pac 8... Would Utah/ASU be okay with staying in a conference that might fold if Washington/Oregon bolts? At eight, the PAC could be in danger of folding. If Arizona/Colorado leave, and the members agree to add two, then the Pac should continue to exist as a conference, at least in name. The Pac offices, along with Oregon St./Wazzu, will be pushing for expansion hard if that plays out.

(03-14-2023 12:10 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:57 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  For Frank the Tank, how likely is it that U of O (Oregon), Washington, Stanford, Cal, Utah Arizona State wind up in the B1G, should it decide to go to 24??

So many better options before Utah and Arizona State even come into play. Big Ten would have to lose out on all ACC targets.

They are at 16 right now + Wash, Oregon, Stanf, Cal brings them to 20. Hopefully ND is forced to stop their cake and eat it too existence, so that's 21. That's leaves 3 spots, just don't think those 2 would be the next targets.

I disagree, after UNC, FSU and Clemson, who out there in the ACC is better than ASU or Utah? UVA or VT are comparable. Miami is very far away and doesn't bring much unless they're winning big (unlikely in the very unbalanced B1G but at least possible). NC St? Duke?

If I was putting the PaCACC schools into tiers for the B1G, it would go something like:

Unanimous: UNC - ideal fit for B1G, should be their absolute #1 target. Which is too bad, b/c they're going to the SEC.

1. UW, UO - Academically acceptable, revenue neutral or better
2. FSU, Stanford - some issues either Academically or in Revenues but reasonable backup options
3. ASU, UVA, VT, Miami, Cal, Duke, NC St, Clemson, Utah, UArizona, Colorado, Kansas - multiple issues across academics, geography and/or revenues, but maybe if they go to 22-24.

It's not unreasonable to suppose that FSU and UNC join the SEC. How does the B1G respond? UW and UO, sure, but if they also want Stanford then they'll want a 4th. Any of those schools from line 3 could get the callup at that point, though the most likely option would probably be to stick at 18.

(03-14-2023 12:13 PM)Boots Wrote:  So let's just say the PAC announces a new TV deal, everyone stays....but decides to STAY at 10 and NOT EXPAND.

What does the Big 12 do?

1) Do they do nothing and wait for PAC (or even ACC) to explode in the future so they can pick up the 4Cs and other PAC teams?

2) Considering desire to get into west coast time slot, do they add SDSU and others?

3) If so....who would they add? Would they consider going to 16 by adding 4 with combination of SDSU, Boise, Fresno, SMU, Memphis, or USF? (If so they still would have room to add 4Cs in future.)

It seems to me Yormack has itchy trigger finger and wants to make his mark one way or another. So I think he does something. If he wants a coast to coast conference (which has stated several times)...he has a hole in the west, but also a huge hole in the east too. Got to think that bridge needs to be built further.

SDSU, Boise, Memphis, USF would go a long way to helping geography. SMU does nothing to help Big 12 geography.

What do you guys think?

As long as there's a threat of UW/UO joining the B1G, Yormark will want to keep his powder dry. Gonzaga is a tossup in my mind, I'm leaning towards no on them right now whether they get any of the 4c or not, but it's not a very strong lean, and that is the only reasonable move that Yormark could make until 2030-ish if the Pac holds it together. He's not spending slots on more g5's unless and until he needs to.

(03-14-2023 12:15 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:59 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 06:41 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Lost all credibility with this…..

“ -Olson: Arizona is coveted by the B12 for their "elite top ten program" "basketball value". The idea is because of the B12's "depth", Arizona's addition would help "make up the revenue gap" vs. the B1G/SEC to "unbundle [product] by the end of the decade" and "sell it separately".

But how are the former G5 schools (Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU) now worth $31 million a year? Were they undervalued? What makes them valued like this and schools like WSU/OSU not worth that? Is it their potential? Why are they valued at that rate, but not SDSU, Boise State, SMU, etc.?

I just don't see a difference between Cincinnati and SDSU, UCF and SMU. Does it really come down to a school having that one magical football season to elevate them to this point? If realignment is all about consolidation, why are we adding more to the table?

No, they aren't worth that amount. Funny thing is that the 4C would likely have been added before those 4 if they were available. But the denials here will be plenty.

Why would anybody deny that? Given the choice of 4 out of BYU, UCF, Cincy and UH and the 4c, I think that they take UH to shore up Texas then 3 of the 4c. If they had to choose between their 4 adds from 2021 or the 4c, they'd take the 4c without hesitation.

(03-14-2023 12:17 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 07:04 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Boy, those SMU/SDSU rumors died down quickly.

SMU to the Pac is not just a rumor.

All of us with our own eyes saw GK attended SMU’s basketball game very publicly.

This must have something to do with the media deal negotiation. I see two possibilities:

1) Amazon and/or Apple wants SMU and Texas exposure.
2) The Pac will have a media partnership with the ACC and ESPN wants the ACCN cover Texas (as in-network) by putting SMU in the Pac.

We will see.

I see it as possibly Kliavkoff trying to push his Presidents over the edge on SMU for expansion. Of course, if they can shoot down Texas numerous times, those Presidents will have no trouble shooting down SMU.

(03-14-2023 02:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:13 PM)Boots Wrote:  So let's just say the PAC announces a new TV deal, everyone stays....but decides to STAY at 10 and NOT EXPAND.

What does the Big 12 do?

1) Do they do nothing and wait for PAC (or even ACC) to explode in the future so they can pick up the 4Cs and other PAC teams?

2) Considering desire to get into west coast time slot, do they add SDSU and others?

3) If so....who would they add? Would they consider going to 16 by adding 4 with combination of SDSU, Boise, Fresno, SMU, Memphis, or USF? (If so they still would have room to add 4Cs in future.)

It seems to me Yormack has itchy trigger finger and wants to make his mark one way or another. So I think he does something. If he wants a coast to coast conference (which has stated several times)...he has a hole in the west, but also a huge hole in the east too. Got to think that bridge needs to be built further.

SDSU, Boise, Memphis, USF would go a long way to helping geography. SMU does nothing to help Big 12 geography.

What do you guys think?

As long as there's a threat of UW/UO joining the B1G, Yormark will want to keep his powder dry. Gonzaga is a tossup in my mind, I'm leaning towards no on them right now whether they get any of the 4c or not, but it's not a very strong lean, and that is the only reasonable move that Yormark could make until 2030-ish if the Pac holds it together. He's not spending slots on more g5's unless and until he needs to.

if ESPN signs with the pac10, i doubt there would be any money for the big 12 to expand west. If ESPN is locked out of the pac 10 media deal, then they might fund, at less than prorata for the big 12 to add g5s west. i that scenario i would like SDSU, BSU, FSU and one eastern all sports addition. 4 west, 4 north, 4 texas, 4 east.
it all depends on whether espn gets what it wants and how much a 4th broadcast window is worth to them.

(03-14-2023 01:26 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:54 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If Big 12 ends up with 2 of the 4C. That's still a win-win for both conferences.

I do think Yormark would love to add Coach Prime. Yormark is certainly a star power guy. It shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of conference realignment but its certainly a plus in Yormark's eyes. I can see marketing the New Big 12 with Coach Prime as the face of the league, Post-Texas/OU.

Seems like that would be the case, especially if Olson is right about the two being AZ and Colorado and that their leaving would bring up the per-school revenue in the PAC. The PAC could go back to being the PAC-8. Weren't they once the PCC with only 4 schools? (I do realize that was well before the NCAA placed a requirement for a minimum number of members. Heck, that may even have been before the NCAA existed.)

Even if the on-paper value of a theoretical 8 team Pac was higher, it would be difficult for them to properly monetize that due to dearth of game content. They'd be more likely to add SDSU and SMU in this scenario, and then perhaps look at 2 more on top of that.

(03-14-2023 01:26 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:54 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If Big 12 ends up with 2 of the 4C. That's still a win-win for both conferences.

I do think Yormark would love to add Coach Prime. Yormark is certainly a star power guy. It shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of conference realignment but its certainly a plus in Yormark's eyes. I can see marketing the New Big 12 with Coach Prime as the face of the league, Post-Texas/OU.

Seems like that would be the case, especially if Olson is right about the two being AZ and Colorado and that their leaving would bring up the per-school revenue in the PAC. The PAC could go back to being the PAC-8. Weren't they once the PCC with only 4 schools? (I do realize that was well before the NCAA placed a requirement for a minimum number of members. Heck, that may even have been before the NCAA existed.)

You could drop anyone but UW and Oregon and the average would go up.

(03-14-2023 01:35 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:17 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 07:04 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Boy, those SMU/SDSU rumors died down quickly.

SMU to the Pac is not just a rumor.

All of us with our own eyes saw GK attended SMU’s basketball game very publicly.

This must have something to do with the media deal negotiation. I see two possibilities:

1) Amazon and/or Apple wants SMU and Texas exposure.
2) The Pac will have a media partnership with the ACC and ESPN wants the ACCN cover Texas (as in-network) by putting SMU in the Pac.

We will see.

Or, that's what you do when you're showing respect, but not inviting...

No. Nobody ever does that unless they are serious.

Happens all the time.

It's similar to why a "short list" of candidates for a position (conference invitees, supreme court justice, next CEO of Disney, or whatever), "mysteriously" gets leaked to the press.

It's related to the obligatory phone call given to rejected candidates.

I'm not saying SMU is not happening, it still could. I'm just saying that his - rather ham-fistedly forced "accidental" photo-op - leaked appearance doesn't mean it's a lock.

It NEVER happens in college sports. Brett McMurphy made a comment in a tweet that he had never in his career seen a commissioner at a school before an invitation. Its called embarrassing them when they don't get an invite. That's why it doesn't happen. Short lists are very different than showing up at their house in front of cameras.

(03-14-2023 01:29 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:59 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 06:41 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Lost all credibility with this…..

“ -Olson: Arizona is coveted by the B12 for their "elite top ten program" "basketball value". The idea is because of the B12's "depth", Arizona's addition would help "make up the revenue gap" vs. the B1G/SEC to "unbundle [product] by the end of the decade" and "sell it separately".

But how are the former G5 schools (Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU) now worth $31 million a year? Were they undervalued? What makes them valued like this and schools like WSU/OSU not worth that? Is it their potential? Why are they valued at that rate, but not SDSU, Boise State, SMU, etc.?

I just don't see a difference between Cincinnati and SDSU, UCF and SMU. Does it really come down to a school having that one magical football season to elevate them to this point?

I feel like I told you this yesterday. The Big 12 and Pac are basically comparable products. but the Big 12 got their contract done with ESPN and Fox, filling ESPN and Fox's inventory needs. Meanwhile the PAC didn't make a serious attempt to negotiate during the "exclusive window", believing there would be plenty of platforms throwing money at them. That belief has not really panned out.

"The big 12 schools are worth $31M a year" is probably not the right way to look at the math. The Big 12 football package is worth about $5M per game. Or even more exactly, ESPN and Fox agreed to pay $5.2M per game for the Big 12's inventory, and programmed that into their schedules. ($380/72 = $5.2M)

Let's say a box of Honey Nut Cheerios and a box of Frosted Flakes both cost $3.99. You have a coupon for $1 off if you buy 2 boxes of Cheerios, you buy the Cheerios. You pass on the Frosted Flakes because you don't need 3 or 4 boxes of cereal in the house.

Except that you HAVE to sell the Frosted Flakes by the end of the week, for reasons. They go on the super-discount rack for $0.99, and maybe they sell maybe they don't.

The PAC-10 had an offer for $250M from ESPN, which divides to $4.2M per game. They turned it down, without any serious negotiations because they wanted to test the open market.

Seems like $25M per team now would keep everyone in the fold. I guess that's not likely, now that it has been rejected once?

we wont know until it happens. There is a number where somebody bolts to the Big 12, opening the floodgates. Is it $25M? $20M? WE don't know. But that number is lower the more streaming and less linear (ESPN) the package includes.

Is that number likely? I have no idea. The PAC sources who talk to journalists say that it is. Other journalists report that Amazon is playing hardball, that ESPN is only interested in After Dark games, and nobody outside Apple HQ knows what Apple is planning to do.

(03-14-2023 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:29 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:59 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 06:41 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Lost all credibility with this…..

“ -Olson: Arizona is coveted by the B12 for their "elite top ten program" "basketball value". The idea is because of the B12's "depth", Arizona's addition would help "make up the revenue gap" vs. the B1G/SEC to "unbundle [product] by the end of the decade" and "sell it separately".

But how are the former G5 schools (Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU) now worth $31 million a year? Were they undervalued? What makes them valued like this and schools like WSU/OSU not worth that? Is it their potential? Why are they valued at that rate, but not SDSU, Boise State, SMU, etc.?

I just don't see a difference between Cincinnati and SDSU, UCF and SMU. Does it really come down to a school having that one magical football season to elevate them to this point?

I feel like I told you this yesterday. The Big 12 and Pac are basically comparable products. but the Big 12 got their contract done with ESPN and Fox, filling ESPN and Fox's inventory needs. Meanwhile the PAC didn't make a serious attempt to negotiate during the "exclusive window", believing there would be plenty of platforms throwing money at them. That belief has not really panned out.

"The big 12 schools are worth $31M a year" is probably not the right way to look at the math. The Big 12 football package is worth about $5M per game. Or even more exactly, ESPN and Fox agreed to pay $5.2M per game for the Big 12's inventory, and programmed that into their schedules. ($380/72 = $5.2M)

Let's say a box of Honey Nut Cheerios and a box of Frosted Flakes both cost $3.99. You have a coupon for $1 off if you buy 2 boxes of Cheerios, you buy the Cheerios. You pass on the Frosted Flakes because you don't need 3 or 4 boxes of cereal in the house.

Except that you HAVE to sell the Frosted Flakes by the end of the week, for reasons. They go on the super-discount rack for $0.99, and maybe they sell maybe they don't.

The PAC-10 had an offer for $250M from ESPN, which divides to $4.2M per game. They turned it down, without any serious negotiations because they wanted to test the open market.

Seems like $25M per team now would keep everyone in the fold. I guess that's not likely, now that it has been rejected once?

we wont know until it happens. There is a number where somebody bolts to the Big 12, opening the floodgates. Is it $25M? $20M? WE don't know. But that number is lower the more streaming and less linear (ESPN) the package includes.

Is that number likely? I have no idea. The PAC sources who talk to journalists say that it is. Other journalists report that Amazon is playing hardball, that ESPN is only interested in After Dark games, and nobody outside Apple HQ knows what Apple is planning to do.

Every school would have a different number. Arizona wouldn't need as low a number to bolt as Stanford or California.

(03-14-2023 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:29 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:59 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  But how are the former G5 schools (Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU) now worth $31 million a year? Were they undervalued? What makes them valued like this and schools like WSU/OSU not worth that? Is it their potential? Why are they valued at that rate, but not SDSU, Boise State, SMU, etc.?

I just don't see a difference between Cincinnati and SDSU, UCF and SMU. Does it really come down to a school having that one magical football season to elevate them to this point?

I feel like I told you this yesterday. The Big 12 and Pac are basically comparable products. but the Big 12 got their contract done with ESPN and Fox, filling ESPN and Fox's inventory needs. Meanwhile the PAC didn't make a serious attempt to negotiate during the "exclusive window", believing there would be plenty of platforms throwing money at them. That belief has not really panned out.

"The big 12 schools are worth $31M a year" is probably not the right way to look at the math. The Big 12 football package is worth about $5M per game. Or even more exactly, ESPN and Fox agreed to pay $5.2M per game for the Big 12's inventory, and programmed that into their schedules. ($380/72 = $5.2M)

Let's say a box of Honey Nut Cheerios and a box of Frosted Flakes both cost $3.99. You have a coupon for $1 off if you buy 2 boxes of Cheerios, you buy the Cheerios. You pass on the Frosted Flakes because you don't need 3 or 4 boxes of cereal in the house.

Except that you HAVE to sell the Frosted Flakes by the end of the week, for reasons. They go on the super-discount rack for $0.99, and maybe they sell maybe they don't.

The PAC-10 had an offer for $250M from ESPN, which divides to $4.2M per game. They turned it down, without any serious negotiations because they wanted to test the open market.

Seems like $25M per team now would keep everyone in the fold. I guess that's not likely, now that it has been rejected once?

we wont know until it happens. There is a number where somebody bolts to the Big 12, opening the floodgates. Is it $25M? $20M? WE don't know. But that number is lower the more streaming and less linear (ESPN) the package includes.

Is that number likely? I have no idea. The PAC sources who talk to journalists say that it is. Other journalists report that Amazon is playing hardball, that ESPN is only interested in After Dark games, and nobody outside Apple HQ knows what Apple is planning to do.

Every school would have a different number. Arizona wouldn't need as low a number to bolt as Stanford or California.

The number that matters is the number for the first school to bolt. After that the whole thing collapses as schools scramble for lifeboats.

(03-14-2023 02:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:10 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:57 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  For Frank the Tank, how likely is it that U of O (Oregon), Washington, Stanford, Cal, Utah Arizona State wind up in the B1G, should it decide to go to 24??

So many better options before Utah and Arizona State even come into play. Big Ten would have to lose out on all ACC targets.

They are at 16 right now + Wash, Oregon, Stanf, Cal brings them to 20. Hopefully ND is forced to stop their cake and eat it too existence, so that's 21. That's leaves 3 spots, just don't think those 2 would be the next targets.

I disagree, after UNC, FSU and Clemson, who out there in the ACC is better than ASU or Utah? UVA or VT are comparable. Miami is very far away and doesn't bring much unless they're winning big (unlikely in the very unbalanced B1G but at least possible). NC St? Duke?

If I was putting the PaCACC schools into tiers for the B1G, it would go something like:

Unanimous: UNC - ideal fit for B1G, should be their absolute #1 target. Which is too bad, b/c they're going to the SEC.

1. UW, UO - Academically acceptable, revenue neutral or better
2. FSU, Stanford - some issues either Academically or in Revenues but reasonable backup options
3. ASU, UVA, VT, Miami, Cal, Duke, NC St, Clemson, Utah, UArizona, Colorado, Kansas - multiple issues across academics, geography and/or revenues, but maybe if they go to 22-24.

It's not unreasonable to suppose that FSU and UNC join the SEC. How does the B1G respond? UW and UO, sure, but if they also want Stanford then they'll want a 4th. Any of those schools from line 3 could get the callup at that point, though the most likely option would probably be to stick at 18.

Just basing this off your list criteria (and taking for granted that all would accept an invite), but I think that it would look more like:

1.) Virginia - contiguous, MD rivalry, academics, no real huge downsides - top pick.
1.) Stanford, NC - academics!, but shared market issues, and could turn down invite
2.) FSU, Miami - Florida presence, but geographic issues, and not AAU
2.) Kansas, Duke - Basketball! and academics, but football issues, and shared market.
3.) Colorado - contiguous, NE rival, market, but rebuilding program
3.) GT - Georgia/Atlanta presence, but geographic issues - though possible Florida school travel partner
3.) Washington - academics, but severe geographic issues

The rest have more and/or larger issues. Oregon's only shot would seem to be as Washington's partner, but that's nowhere near a guarantee.

And yes, I think a few of these might lean more in SEC's direction - "fit", geography, rivalries, etc.

Edit: Pittsburgh could possibly make the list, if that helped draw in ND in some way. otherwise, shared market issues, etc.

(03-14-2023 12:10 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 01:57 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  For Frank the Tank, how likely is it that U of O (Oregon), Washington, Stanford, Cal, Utah Arizona State wind up in the B1G, should it decide to go to 24??

So many better options before Utah and Arizona State even come into play. Big Ten would have to lose out on all ACC targets.

They are at 16 right now + Wash, Oregon, Stanf, Cal brings them to 20. Hopefully ND is forced to stop their cake and eat it too existence, so that's 21. That's leaves 3 spots, just don't think those 2 would be the next targets.

Sankey is going to make sure ND has playoff access to keep them out of the B1G. As of right now I think there's only one acceptable way for all parties involved that would allow ND to fully join a conference. And that would be a media deal with all the providers where the B1G and SEC essentially become the "AFC" and "NFC". All schools get the same money no matter which one they are in and the playoffs/championship are all included. This way ND is "forced" to join for money and postseason access. And the SEC doesn't have to worry about how much that tilts things in the B1G's favor since all the schools are in one league getting the same amount.

(03-14-2023 02:19 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:15 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 08:59 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 06:41 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Lost all credibility with this…..

“ -Olson: Arizona is coveted by the B12 for their "elite top ten program" "basketball value". The idea is because of the B12's "depth", Arizona's addition would help "make up the revenue gap" vs. the B1G/SEC to "unbundle [product] by the end of the decade" and "sell it separately".

But how are the former G5 schools (Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU) now worth $31 million a year? Were they undervalued? What makes them valued like this and schools like WSU/OSU not worth that? Is it their potential? Why are they valued at that rate, but not SDSU, Boise State, SMU, etc.?

I just don't see a difference between Cincinnati and SDSU, UCF and SMU. Does it really come down to a school having that one magical football season to elevate them to this point? If realignment is all about consolidation, why are we adding more to the table?

No, they aren't worth that amount. Funny thing is that the 4C would likely have been added before those 4 if they were available. But the denials here will be plenty.

Why would anybody deny that? Given the choice of 4 out of BYU, UCF, Cincy and UH and the 4c, I think that they take UH to shore up Texas then 3 of the 4c. If they had to choose between their 4 adds from 2021 or the 4c, they'd take the 4c without hesitation.

The four G5 adds stabilized the B12 to a point where they could field discussions with 4Cs about a potential invite. Without BYU/UC/UH/UCF, there are no 4C rumors. You might have had a B12/Pac merger with USCLA leaving, but the 4Cs would not even field calls about going to the B12 without the stability the G5s brought.