(08-10-2023 09:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think the AAC makes the most sense for Cal/Stanford, at least as FO. Then split sports among WCC and Big West. Maybe Stanford goes one way and Cal the other. Otherwise, AAC all-sports. It also makes sense for ESPN. Lock these schools up on the cheap and fill some fourth window content.

This would ESPN’s desired outcome. It would also provide nice viability to the new PAC adds in an exclusive time slot on ESPN.

ESPN is unlikely to bump MWC schools up to pro-rata in the AAC, sans your SDSUs and maybe BSUs. That's why I don't expect them to make a serious move in '25-'26 to attack that league, unless they want to balloon the conference to 20-24 schools. I mean, maybe, CSU, SDSU, BSU can get AAC pro-rata, and then you'd have 3x7 divisions, and ESPN would fill their late window. First things first is landing the PAC4 in the AAC.

(08-10-2023 10:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 09:37 AM)TrackSuitAndTie Wrote:  It wouldn't make sense for ESPN to strike a media deal with the Pac-4 only to poach members from another ESPN property, the AAC.

it would make sense if the money was right for ESPN

ESPN was out on the PAC 12 because they wanted the best content of the PAC 12, but they did not want to pay the price to get that

Apple was willing to pay a price, but that price was for the top content and that left the PAC 12 with their top content on streaming and with no linear partner wanting to pay much if anything for the tier 2 PAC 12 content

for ESPN moving 4 schools from the AAC and taking that $7 million each from the AAC contract lessens the cost right there

now with ESPN no longer having to bid against what the Big 10 can offer some members and with Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and WSU looking at reality the cost to bid on the most desirable content of the PAC has become way more affordable for ESPN

If ESPN moves four schools from the AAC they're going to be paying them at least a few million more than $7m to join the Pac-12... Otherwise, why would they leave the AAC?

Not sure how poaching from the AAC to fill the Pac-12 is more cost-efficient to ESPN than putting Pac-12 schools, who have minimal leverage, in the AAC.

(08-10-2023 10:32 AM)TrackSuitAndTie Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 10:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 09:37 AM)TrackSuitAndTie Wrote:  It wouldn't make sense for ESPN to strike a media deal with the Pac-4 only to poach members from another ESPN property, the AAC.

it would make sense if the money was right for ESPN

ESPN was out on the PAC 12 because they wanted the best content of the PAC 12, but they did not want to pay the price to get that

Apple was willing to pay a price, but that price was for the top content and that left the PAC 12 with their top content on streaming and with no linear partner wanting to pay much if anything for the tier 2 PAC 12 content

for ESPN moving 4 schools from the AAC and taking that $7 million each from the AAC contract lessens the cost right there

now with ESPN no longer having to bid against what the Big 10 can offer some members and with Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and WSU looking at reality the cost to bid on the most desirable content of the PAC has become way more affordable for ESPN

If ESPN moves four schools from the AAC they're going to be paying them at least a few million more than $7m to join the Pac-12... Otherwise, why would they leave the AAC?

Not sure how poaching from the AAC to fill the Pac-12 is more cost-efficient to ESPN than putting Pac-12 schools, who have minimal leverage, in the AAC.

the numbers I have showed before have the PAC with an $8 million dollar advantage over a G5 conference with football playoff money and money from ownership of The Rose Bowl Game

I agree ESPN would probably pay more than $7 million to the schools that moved, but with that $8 million advantage they would not have to pay a great deal more to make is clearly worth it for an AAC school to move

ESPN does not need to go after 100% of the content either they can go after the top half and let the CW/TNT/? or some potential streamer go after some tier 2 content

the dynamics have completely changes now ESPN is not bidding against unrealistic PAC expectations nor are they bidding against what other conferences could offer members of the PAC 12

all options are on the table again for the PAC and any media partner and the PAC is coming to the table with football playoff money, 50% Rose Bowl ownership and in the case of ESPN they are break even at $7 million for any AAC legacy AAC member added

the cost of ownership of the 4 existing PAC members is dramatically lower now than it was so that opens up a lot of different bidders that can afford that

The B1G will assume most if not all the ownership of the RB game going forward. Not sure how long the current contract runs for.

(08-10-2023 10:46 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 10:32 AM)TrackSuitAndTie Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 10:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 09:37 AM)TrackSuitAndTie Wrote:  It wouldn't make sense for ESPN to strike a media deal with the Pac-4 only to poach members from another ESPN property, the AAC.

it would make sense if the money was right for ESPN

ESPN was out on the PAC 12 because they wanted the best content of the PAC 12, but they did not want to pay the price to get that

Apple was willing to pay a price, but that price was for the top content and that left the PAC 12 with their top content on streaming and with no linear partner wanting to pay much if anything for the tier 2 PAC 12 content

for ESPN moving 4 schools from the AAC and taking that $7 million each from the AAC contract lessens the cost right there

now with ESPN no longer having to bid against what the Big 10 can offer some members and with Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and WSU looking at reality the cost to bid on the most desirable content of the PAC has become way more affordable for ESPN

If ESPN moves four schools from the AAC they're going to be paying them at least a few million more than $7m to join the Pac-12... Otherwise, why would they leave the AAC?

Not sure how poaching from the AAC to fill the Pac-12 is more cost-efficient to ESPN than putting Pac-12 schools, who have minimal leverage, in the AAC.

the numbers I have showed before have the PAC with an $8 million dollar advantage over a G5 conference with football playoff money and money from ownership of The Rose Bowl Game

I agree ESPN would probably pay more than $7 million to the schools that moved, but with that $8 million advantage they would not have to pay a great deal more to make is clearly worth it for an AAC school to move

ESPN does not need to go after 100% of the content either they can go after the top half and let the CW/TNT/? or some potential streamer go after some tier 2 content

the dynamics have completely changes now ESPN is not bidding against unrealistic PAC expectations nor are they bidding against what other conferences could offer members of the PAC 12

all options are on the table again for the PAC and any media partner and the PAC is coming to the table with football playoff money, 50% Rose Bowl ownership and in the case of ESPN they are break even at $7 million for any AAC legacy AAC member added

the cost of ownership of the 4 existing PAC members is dramatically lower now than it was so that opens up a lot of different bidders that can afford that

If Apple was offering $23-25m per school, and they have $8m per school extra according to you, why couldn't they keep their own members? What about the $70m they owe Comcast for overpayments? Something doesn't add up to me here.

(08-10-2023 10:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The B1G will assume most if not all the ownership of the RB game going forward. Not sure how long the current contract runs for.

how exactly does the Big 10 just take something that another entity owns 50% of......they do not get to just "take the game" it is a business entity with 50% ownership between two owners.....like any business one 50% partner cannot just take 50% from another "because"

(08-10-2023 10:59 AM)TrackSuitAndTie Wrote:  If Apple was offering $23-25m per school, and they have $8m per school extra according to you, why couldn't they keep their own members? What about the $70m they owe Comcast for overpayments? Something doesn't add up to me here.

because that $25 million per school was 100% streaming

and in the case of the 4 corners schools the Big 12 with a "pro rata" media share of $31.6 million and a lot of content on linear TV is a much better deal than what the PAC would be

and the Big 12 still has their CFP money, Cotton Bowl ownership money and money from playing in The Sugar Bowl......which is why the Big 12 with a 13 year media deal that averages $20 million per year and right now is in year 12 of that deal just paid out $44 million per member based on year 11 media money of that 13 year deal....that means the Big 12 is getting about $24 to $25 million in year 11 of their media deal and that will grow about $1 million per year over the final two years

and the PAC 12 just ended fiscal year 2022-23 and just started fiscal year 2023-24

so the PAC 12 is in the process of collecting up the last of their money owed for fiscal year 2022-23 that will be distributed in May of 2024......Comcast can file to have that money held if they feel the need

and fiscal year 2023-24 is the last year of the current PAC 12 media deal.....that money will be fully collected after June or July of 2024 and available for distribution in May of 2025.....so comcast can also file to have that money held until their claims are settled

in addition comcast had been withholding payments from the PAC 12 to eat into that money owed so they most likely have already done that for fiscal year 2022-23 and will do so again for fiscal year 2023-24......so the money owed to them will be decreasing, but they have two years of PAC 12 distributions to attach to in court if they feel the need to do so

the presidents of the PAC 12 made it clear that the $25 million or so would have held them together, but it was it being 100% streaming that made it unworkable for them

and when 6 members had break even or better options with a large amount of linear carriage they jumped....not to mention for UW and Oregon the stability long term of the Big 10

the move was not simply about money it was about money and being seen on TV vs being relegated to streaming for 100% of their content

(08-10-2023 11:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  how exactly does the Big 10 just take something that another entity owns 50% of......they do not get to just "take the game" it is a business entity with 50% ownership between two owners.....like any business one 50% partner cannot just take 50% from another "because"

TV deal expires in '26. The PAC will just sell off the asset or let it roll off its books. There is no value there without a TV contract. The RB will just fall under the CFP umbrella going forward.

(08-10-2023 11:55 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 11:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  how exactly does the Big 10 just take something that another entity owns 50% of......they do not get to just "take the game" it is a business entity with 50% ownership between two owners.....like any business one 50% partner cannot just take 50% from another "because"

TV deal expires in '26. The PAC will just sell off the asset or let it roll off its books. There is no value there without a TV contract. The RB will just fall under the CFP umbrella going forward.

Tried to explain this earlier to him. He’s just being willfully ignorant at this point.

(08-10-2023 12:01 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 11:55 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 11:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  how exactly does the Big 10 just take something that another entity owns 50% of......they do not get to just "take the game" it is a business entity with 50% ownership between two owners.....like any business one 50% partner cannot just take 50% from another "because"

TV deal expires in '26. The PAC will just sell off the asset or let it roll off its books. There is no value there without a TV contract. The RB will just fall under the CFP umbrella going forward.

Tried to explain this earlier to him. He’s just being willfully ignorant at this point.

the one that is willfully ignorant is the one that thinks that the Sugar, Cotton, and Orange Bowls will go away.....they won't.....just like the Rose Bowl will not

the football playoffs exist now and those bowl games still exist.....the years they host a playoff game their teams play elsewhere, but the years they do not have a playoff game they host the agreed upon teams.....the Big 10 is not going to stop that for the Rose Bowl

(08-10-2023 01:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the one that is willfully ignorant is the one that thinks that the Sugar, Cotton, and Orange Bowls will go away.....they won't.....just like the Rose Bowl will not

the football playoffs exist now and those bowl games still exist.....the years they host a playoff game their teams play elsewhere, but the years they do not have a playoff game they host the agreed upon teams.....the Big 10 is not going to stop that for the Rose Bowl

It's willfully ignorant to state that something, especially a bowl game, will never go away.

(08-10-2023 01:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 12:01 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 11:55 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 11:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  how exactly does the Big 10 just take something that another entity owns 50% of......they do not get to just "take the game" it is a business entity with 50% ownership between two owners.....like any business one 50% partner cannot just take 50% from another "because"

TV deal expires in '26. The PAC will just sell off the asset or let it roll off its books. There is no value there without a TV contract. The RB will just fall under the CFP umbrella going forward.

Tried to explain this earlier to him. He’s just being willfully ignorant at this point.

the one that is willfully ignorant is the one that thinks that the Sugar, Cotton, and Orange Bowls will go away.....they won't.....just like the Rose Bowl will not

the football playoffs exist now and those bowl games still exist.....the years they host a playoff game their teams play elsewhere, but the years they do not have a playoff game they host the agreed upon teams.....the Big 10 is not going to stop that for the Rose Bowl

I was thinking that, with 12 teams, they'd all be CFP bowls every year.

-First round of 8 is on-campus, down to 4 plus those with byes = 8

-Quarter final, 8 teams playing 4 games at four of the NY6 bowls

-Semis at the other two NY6 bowls, 4 teams down to 2

-CFP championship bid out like the Superb Owl(figured this group would appreciate)

So all NY6 would be CFP games, can maybe rotate who is a quarter and who is a semi each year.

(08-10-2023 03:02 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 01:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 12:01 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 11:55 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 11:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  how exactly does the Big 10 just take something that another entity owns 50% of......they do not get to just "take the game" it is a business entity with 50% ownership between two owners.....like any business one 50% partner cannot just take 50% from another "because"

TV deal expires in '26. The PAC will just sell off the asset or let it roll off its books. There is no value there without a TV contract. The RB will just fall under the CFP umbrella going forward.

Tried to explain this earlier to him. He’s just being willfully ignorant at this point.

the one that is willfully ignorant is the one that thinks that the Sugar, Cotton, and Orange Bowls will go away.....they won't.....just like the Rose Bowl will not

the football playoffs exist now and those bowl games still exist.....the years they host a playoff game their teams play elsewhere, but the years they do not have a playoff game they host the agreed upon teams.....the Big 10 is not going to stop that for the Rose Bowl

I was thinking that, with 12 teams, they'd all be CFP bowls every year.

-First round of 8 is on-campus, down to 4 plus those with byes = 8

-Quarter final, 8 teams playing 4 games at four of the NY6 bowls

-Semis at the other two NY6 bowls, 4 teams down to 2

-CFP championship bid out like the Superb Owl(figured this group would appreciate)

So all NY6 would be CFP games, can maybe rotate who is a quarter and who is a semi each year.

there are going to be more stajiums bidding in too host some of those games.....that means the actual bowl games will still be taking place about as frequently as in the past (two out of three years)


Two sources – one conference and one industry – familiar with the negotiations told The Athletic that before Colorado’s departure, Kliavkoff believed he had pieced together a second option involving four media companies. Those sources described the deal as a combination of three linear partners (ESPN, Fox and CBS) and one streaming partner (Amazon), with CBS only bidding on a limited number of men’s basketball games. But around the same time Colorado left, Amazon declined to submit a formal proposal, according to a media executive familiar with the process, and the accompanying linear bids were viewed as too small to present to the conference.

The conference source said that Colorado’s departure also caused ESPN to pull back because it now owed the Big 12 an agreed-upon pro-rata share for adding a power-conference program. Apple was not interested in joining any linear partners as part of a deal, according to an industry source familiar with the negotiations.

the above is from an Athletic article that is just out

so Apple had no interest in anything other than 100% and ESPN was interested until they had to pay CU to be in the Big 12

Amazon did not make a formal bid

but it does say that CBS was interested in some basketball and Fox had some interest as well

things have changed dramatically for the PAC vs what it was, but it goes to show that interest is also based on price

CBS and Fox may well be interested again if they know that they would be paying a reasonable amount and then they can wait until the MWC deal ends and have some schools come over from the MWC

ESPN may be interested if they know that $7 million of what they would owe to some schools (from the AAC) would be break even because they can just cut that from the AAC deal

Amazon may be interested again if they know it is a very low cost option

a 12 team conference for $3 million each from several partners gets them to $9 to $12 million for a TV deal

ESPN with 4 teams from the AAC X $7 million each = $28 million.....so $8 more million out of pocket and ESPN has their $36 million covered

Fox with 3 from the MWC X $4 million each is $12 million so they only need $24 million more out of pocket to cover their $36

Amazon can pay $36 million a year to see how some college streaming goes for them for 5 to 7 years and not blink an eye

that leaves CBS, CW, NBC or who knows to come in for another $36 million per year

(08-04-2023 11:55 AM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  When FSU etc leave the ACC, who does the ACC backfill with?

Sources:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...atform=amp

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-says/amp/

AAC Relevance:
https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...candidates

https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/...conference

It appears that the ACC has spoke with SMU in the past already.

Charlotte would be the perfect fit.

@CoastalJ be careful to not speak the name Superb Owl in vain :haha:

(08-10-2023 02:03 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 01:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the one that is willfully ignorant is the one that thinks that the Sugar, Cotton, and Orange Bowls will go away.....they won't.....just like the Rose Bowl will not

the football playoffs exist now and those bowl games still exist.....the years they host a playoff game their teams play elsewhere, but the years they do not have a playoff game they host the agreed upon teams.....the Big 10 is not going to stop that for the Rose Bowl

It's willfully ignorant to state that something, especially a bowl game, will never go away.

The Rose Bowl is Granddaddy. It may change hands, it may not have the insane leverage about start time that has been such a PITA, but the Rose Bowl is going to be a playoff site. There's a lot of accumulated value in that broadcast property.