(03-03-2020 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 10:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 07:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 07:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:30 PM)schmolik Wrote:  When the Pac-12 first decided on their network model (not to partner with a broadcast partner), there weren't that many other comparisons. There was no SECN or ACCN, only the BTN and the Mountain West Sports Network, which failed. When you go without a sports network to back you up you get all of the benefits but you take on all the costs (and there were certainly a ton of them in the P12's case and that's what's hurting them). The BTN and SECN are succeeding but that's mainly because their products and brands are stronger. We'll see if the ACCN takes off. Certainly men's basketball is stronger (although this year is a down year for the ACC and a stunningly good one for the Pac-12) but the ACC outside of South Carolina isn't much better than the Pac-12. If the ACCN is more successful than the Pac-12, then the P12N really is a failure. If it isn't, then it's the on field product.

The reports that we have had, linked to the ACC board, from the media, is that the ACCN is doing very well and started with more subscribers than the SECN had when it started.

I don't doubt that, but that was inevitable given the success of the SECN. ESPN has basically piggybacked the ACCN off of the SECN.

Also, ESPN would have gained a lot of insight from their experience with the SECN getting started that they were able to use to get the ACCN going. The PACN could have benefited from this same experience and influence.

Thing is, for all the troubles with the PACN, they haven't done anything that can't be quickly undone. E.g., just a few months ago ESPN offered to distribute the PACN, in exchange for an extension of their rights that expire in 2024 out in to the 2030s, much as they have with the SEC and ACC. The PAC said no.

So the PAC is still wedded to the current model, which is to try a massive cash-in in 2024, despite the obvious restlessness among the members. But unlike the SEC (save for the CBS package) and ACC, who are basically beholden to ESPN until the 2030s, the PAC does still have options and flexibility.

What options Quo? Their viewer participation numbers for their footprint is in the tank. Their actual ratings are almost eclipsed by the AAC. Their current model frequently runs at little to no value for T3 rights. They are dead last for butts in the stands among the P5. And their favored time for televising games either runs concurrently with much better watched teams in the East or comes after those on the East Coast have gone to bed.

ESPN and FOX only want their product for late night filler.

So from where I sit I see a poorly supported, poorly funded, and uncompelling product that not even the Tech companies wanted to purchase.

So quite frankly I see no options other than to sell out to ESPN or FOX but at a continued lowball rate and that is why they stand pat.

In other words Quo there are no options that improve their situation or surely rational people would have taken them. And if that is indeed the case then Larry Scott is an expensive and unnecessary part of the remaining milieu.

And because all of the above is true there will be no miracle merger with the Big 12 to pull their bacon out of the fire, or to even enough heat to smoke Bevo's brisket.

(03-02-2020 06:47 PM)YNot Wrote:  Even out West, Boise State and the MWC make too big of a dent in the PAC 12's competitiveness and coverage. The MWC and WCC are likely to have 1 seeds in March Madness, while the PAC will be lucky to have more than a single team play a tournament game west of St. Louis.

Okay, let's keep things in perspective. Boise State and the MWC are not making a big dent in the Pac-12's competitiveness. There is a problem with the top teams in college football getting the top football talent in the west. Pac-12 revenue is not meeting expectations, but they still get $33 million per school from their media deals. That dwarfs the MWC TV revenue. Boise State has a very good football program but they are not a Pac-12 school. The 38-7 loss to Washington illustrates that. Gonzaga and San Diego State are having great seasons but they are not in the Pac-12. The latest projection from Joe Lunardi of ESPN has the Pac getting seven schools into the tournament. There are no easy opponents in the Pac-12. The last place Washington Huskies beat Baylor. Utah, the 10th place team in the conference, beat Kentucky.

As we are all aware of by now, the Pac-12 is falling behind the SEC and the Big Ten in revenue and the gap is growing. Of the top 25 football programs, in terms of football profit, only three came from the Pac-12. Ten come from the SEC and seven from the Big Ten.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/...dbb428a2e7

So, things are not trending well for the Pac-12. Scott is pinning his hopes on 2024, when the Pac-12 renegotiates their new deal. The conference cannot wait until 2024. They will be too far behind by then. There needs to be new leadership in the conference, a more realistic approach to the world of college athletics. A new voice leading the conference.

They need to add the Texas XII schools to the PAC. That would radically improve their profile in every sport.

New TV deal where you can own your own third tier for Texas and USC.

(03-03-2020 12:14 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They need to add the Texas XII schools to the PAC. That would radically improve their profile in every sport.

New TV deal where you can own your own third tier for Texas and USC.

That sounds good but Texas is making 51 million a year right now 36 million from Big 12 T1 and T2 rights and 15 million more from the LHN.

The PAC currently pays out 29 million a year to its member schools for all media rights. So why should Texas at 51 million agree to take a massive cut? Why should Oklahoma at 46 million agree to take a big cut?

The only locations where Texas and Oklahoma can increase their media revenue is in the SEC or Big 10. And since those are the only 2 programs from the Big 12 that move anyone's needle if they can't make more in the PAC then a move to the PAC simply isn't going to happen.

And this is what USC's comments were about. They want a stronger commissioner going into these contracts. Any conferences next contract is always important but the PAC 12's is detrimental. They've been left out of the CFP all but once, their kickoff times are terrible, their officiating crews have been embarrassing and their scheduling structure causes them to cannibalize each other.

USC gave a shot across the bow, have a plan to fix these issues or they'll go it alone.

(03-03-2020 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 10:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 07:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 07:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The reports that we have had, linked to the ACC board, from the media, is that the ACCN is doing very well and started with more subscribers than the SECN had when it started.

I don't doubt that, but that was inevitable given the success of the SECN. ESPN has basically piggybacked the ACCN off of the SECN.

Also, ESPN would have gained a lot of insight from their experience with the SECN getting started that they were able to use to get the ACCN going. The PACN could have benefited from this same experience and influence.

Thing is, for all the troubles with the PACN, they haven't done anything that can't be quickly undone. E.g., just a few months ago ESPN offered to distribute the PACN, in exchange for an extension of their rights that expire in 2024 out in to the 2030s, much as they have with the SEC and ACC. The PAC said no.

So the PAC is still wedded to the current model, which is to try a massive cash-in in 2024, despite the obvious restlessness among the members. But unlike the SEC (save for the CBS package) and ACC, who are basically beholden to ESPN until the 2030s, the PAC does still have options and flexibility.

What options Quo? Their viewer participation numbers for their footprint is in the tank. Their actual ratings are almost eclipsed by the AAC. Their current model frequently runs at little to no value for T3 rights. They are dead last for butts in the stands among the P5. And their favored time for televising games either runs concurrently with much better watched teams in the East or comes after those on the East Coast have gone to bed.

ESPN and FOX only want their product for late night filler.

So from where I sit I see a poorly supported, poorly funded, and uncompelling product that not even the Tech companies wanted to purchase.

So quite frankly I see no options other than to sell out to ESPN or FOX but at a continued lowball rate and that is why they stand pat.

In other words Quo there are no options that improve their situation or surely rational people would have taken them.

Well I don't think Scott has been rational, at least not effectively so, as the PACN has been a big giant failure and is largely why the PAC has fallen way behind in payout.

But, in 2012 FOX and ESPN signed the PAC to a deal that basically valued their product on a level with the SEC and B1G. Do you think that value has declined, such that when they are up for renewal in 2024 the amount will be less?

I'm not convinced of that. I think the PAC has a very good product that has been mismanaged by Scott. Which is why I think that without him the situation could change dramatically, and without any raids of the Big 12.

(03-03-2020 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 10:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 07:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't doubt that, but that was inevitable given the success of the SECN. ESPN has basically piggybacked the ACCN off of the SECN.

Also, ESPN would have gained a lot of insight from their experience with the SECN getting started that they were able to use to get the ACCN going. The PACN could have benefited from this same experience and influence.

Thing is, for all the troubles with the PACN, they haven't done anything that can't be quickly undone. E.g., just a few months ago ESPN offered to distribute the PACN, in exchange for an extension of their rights that expire in 2024 out in to the 2030s, much as they have with the SEC and ACC. The PAC said no.

So the PAC is still wedded to the current model, which is to try a massive cash-in in 2024, despite the obvious restlessness among the members. But unlike the SEC (save for the CBS package) and ACC, who are basically beholden to ESPN until the 2030s, the PAC does still have options and flexibility.

What options Quo? Their viewer participation numbers for their footprint is in the tank. Their actual ratings are almost eclipsed by the AAC. Their current model frequently runs at little to no value for T3 rights. They are dead last for butts in the stands among the P5. And their favored time for televising games either runs concurrently with much better watched teams in the East or comes after those on the East Coast have gone to bed.

ESPN and FOX only want their product for late night filler.

So from where I sit I see a poorly supported, poorly funded, and uncompelling product that not even the Tech companies wanted to purchase.

So quite frankly I see no options other than to sell out to ESPN or FOX but at a continued lowball rate and that is why they stand pat.

In other words Quo there are no options that improve their situation or surely rational people would have taken them.

Well I don't think Scott has been rational, at least not effectively so, as the PACN has been a big giant failure and is largely why the PAC has fallen way behind in payout.

But, in 2012 FOX and ESPN signed the PAC to a deal that basically valued their product on a level with the SEC and B1G. Do you think that value has declined, such that when they are up for renewal in 2024 the amount will be less?

I'm not convinced of that. I think the PAC has a very good product that has been mismanaged by Scott. Which is why I think that without him the situation could change dramatically, and without any raids of the Big 12.

Has the value of the PAC changed since 2012? Absolutely Quo. In 2012 the market footprint model determined value. Today it is content and actual rather than potential viewers because technology has changed the way advertising is sold. The PAC's viewing numbers is only slightly ahead of the AAC and behind the ACC and Big 12. So yes the product is worth less in today's pay model. And content value is not great either.

And understand that FOX and ESPN had little trouble valuing the PAC schools equally with the SEC and Big 10 in 2012 because of the limited amount of product they were purchasing. They both wanted a late night Saturday time slot filled and the PAC could produce 2 decent games a week so it met their needs.

However they both have much better product to show the rest of Saturday from noon to 8 PM. There is no interest in having more PAC product.

So there's you recipe for the decline. Actual number of viewers count. The percentage of actual viewers to potential viewers count. The demand for the product is limited due to the geography and time zones, and quite frankly brands like USC, UCLA, Washington have decline in stature and interest.

(03-03-2020 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:14 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They need to add the Texas XII schools to the PAC. That would radically improve their profile in every sport.

New TV deal where you can own your own third tier for Texas and USC.

That sounds good but Texas is making 51 million a year right now 36 million from Big 12 T1 and T2 rights and 15 million more from the LHN.

The PAC currently pays out 29 million a year to its member schools for all media rights. So why should Texas at 51 million agree to take a massive cut? Why should Oklahoma at 46 million agree to take a big cut?

The only locations where Texas and Oklahoma can increase their media revenue is in the SEC or Big 10. And since those are the only 2 programs from the Big 12 that move anyone's needle if they can't make more in the PAC then a move to the PAC simply isn't going to happen.

The PAC deal would be worth a lot more if Texas and Oklahoma were part of it.

A key point you are missing.

(03-03-2020 03:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:14 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They need to add the Texas XII schools to the PAC. That would radically improve their profile in every sport.

New TV deal where you can own your own third tier for Texas and USC.

That sounds good but Texas is making 51 million a year right now 36 million from Big 12 T1 and T2 rights and 15 million more from the LHN.

The PAC currently pays out 29 million a year to its member schools for all media rights. So why should Texas at 51 million agree to take a massive cut? Why should Oklahoma at 46 million agree to take a big cut?

The only locations where Texas and Oklahoma can increase their media revenue is in the SEC or Big 10. And since those are the only 2 programs from the Big 12 that move anyone's needle if they can't make more in the PAC then a move to the PAC simply isn't going to happen.

The PAC deal would be worth a lot more if Texas and Oklahoma were part of it.

A key point you are missing.

Define "a lot"? It would be worth more for the current PAC schools. But you would be merging two schools who have only elevated their conference revenue to 36 million with a conference whose top product has only elevated theirs to 29 million.

Perhaps you should work on your averaging skills but when you merge two higher averages with 12 lower averages it might yeild more for the PAC but it won't yield more for Texas or Oklahoma. Especially not 22 million more for the PAC which is what it would take to equal Texas's current media money, or even 17 million to equal what Oklahoma gets.

So I'm not missing the point at all. But neither do I possess magical thinking!

(03-03-2020 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:14 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They need to add the Texas XII schools to the PAC. That would radically improve their profile in every sport.

New TV deal where you can own your own third tier for Texas and USC.

That sounds good but Texas is making 51 million a year right now 36 million from Big 12 T1 and T2 rights and 15 million more from the LHN.

The PAC currently pays out 29 million a year to its member schools for all media rights. So why should Texas at 51 million agree to take a massive cut? Why should Oklahoma at 46 million agree to take a big cut?

The only locations where Texas and Oklahoma can increase their media revenue is in the SEC or Big 10. And since those are the only 2 programs from the Big 12 that move anyone's needle if they can't make more in the PAC then a move to the PAC simply isn't going to happen.

The PAC deal would be worth a lot more if Texas and Oklahoma were part of it.

A key point you are missing.

Define "a lot"? It would be worth more for the current PAC schools. But you would be merging two schools who have only elevated their conference revenue to 36 million with a conference whose top product has only elevated theirs to 29 million.

Perhaps you should work on your averaging skills but when you merge two higher averages with 12 lower averages it might yeild more for the PAC but it won't yield more for Texas or Oklahoma. Especially not 22 million more for the PAC which is what it would take to equal Texas's current media money, or even 17 million to equal what Oklahoma gets.

So I'm not missing the point at all. But neither do I possess magical thinking!

Pac 12 + Texas + Oklahoma per school has got to be more than $29 million.

The other question to ask is if you're FOX or ESPN is who's more valuable, the Pac-12 or the "little 8" of the Big 12? If the Pac-12 is more valuable, you find a way to make up the difference to get Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac-12. The big issue and what's making the Big 12 valuable to Texas is that Texas gets to keep the LHN and that's $15 million. To get Texas, they will have to pay from $29 million/member to $51 million/member (or allow all their members to keep 3rd tier rights which might not be a bad idea not only to keep Texas but to keep schools like USC happy as it clearly favors the more valuable schools). Maybe Pac-12 Los Angeles profits get split only between UCLA and USC, Pac-12 Bay Area between Cal and Stanford, etc, LHN becomes Pac-12 Texas.

(03-03-2020 04:09 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:14 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  They need to add the Texas XII schools to the PAC. That would radically improve their profile in every sport.

New TV deal where you can own your own third tier for Texas and USC.

That sounds good but Texas is making 51 million a year right now 36 million from Big 12 T1 and T2 rights and 15 million more from the LHN.

The PAC currently pays out 29 million a year to its member schools for all media rights. So why should Texas at 51 million agree to take a massive cut? Why should Oklahoma at 46 million agree to take a big cut?

The only locations where Texas and Oklahoma can increase their media revenue is in the SEC or Big 10. And since those are the only 2 programs from the Big 12 that move anyone's needle if they can't make more in the PAC then a move to the PAC simply isn't going to happen.

The PAC deal would be worth a lot more if Texas and Oklahoma were part of it.

A key point you are missing.

Define "a lot"? It would be worth more for the current PAC schools. But you would be merging two schools who have only elevated their conference revenue to 36 million with a conference whose top product has only elevated theirs to 29 million.

Perhaps you should work on your averaging skills but when you merge two higher averages with 12 lower averages it might yeild more for the PAC but it won't yield more for Texas or Oklahoma. Especially not 22 million more for the PAC which is what it would take to equal Texas's current media money, or even 17 million to equal what Oklahoma gets.

So I'm not missing the point at all. But neither do I possess magical thinking!

Pac 12 + Texas + Oklahoma per school has got to be more than $29 million.

The other question to ask is if you're FOX or ESPN is who's more valuable, the Pac-12 or the "little 8" of the Big 12? If the Pac-12 is more valuable, you find a way to make up the difference to get Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac-12. The big issue and what's making the Big 12 valuable to Texas is that Texas gets to keep the LHN and that's $15 million. To get Texas, they will have to pay from $29 million/member to $51 million/member (or allow all their members to keep 3rd tier rights which might not be a bad idea not only to keep Texas but to keep schools like USC happy as it clearly favors the more valuable schools). Maybe Pac-12 Los Angeles profits get split only between UCLA and USC, Pac-12 Bay Area between Cal and Stanford, etc, LHN becomes Pac-12 Texas.

Texas & Oklahoma aren't going to the Pac-12. First of all they have complete control over the Big 12, virtually every school that's left the Big 12 did so because of the death grip UT & OU have on it. Second if for some ungodly reason UT & OU did leave the Big 12 they're not going to the Pac-12 when they're having all these issues that if not fixed will make their conference irrelevant. If they "left" they would blow up the Big 12 and make a new conference just like they did with the SWC, old tricks for old dogs.

I could see it if the schools got to keep their third tier rights. But that's just the thing!! Without third tier rights, there is no PAC 12 Network!!! I can possibly see Texas and Oklahoma giving the Pac12 a look if they determine that 1. The Pac12 would allow them more opportunities to go to the CFP than the SEC or the Big Ten, and2. they would make more $$'s there than in the Big 12. I can see the first part, but I can't see the second.

A lot has changed in the past few years. USC and [insert Pac-12 member here] would leave for the Big 12 before Texas and Oklahoma would leave for the Pac-12.

(03-03-2020 08:22 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  A lot has changed in the past few years. USC and [insert Pac-12 member here] would leave for the Big 12 before Texas and Oklahoma would leave for the Pac-12.

HM, that is not correct:

https://www.pe.com/2020/03/02/alexander-...gs-up-but/

“We recognize the importance of being in our conference, (one) that continues to compete with some unique challenges,” Bohn said. “But we’re committed to reclaiming the torch, and we recognize that when we’re a part of those discussions on the national scene, that’s good for our league. And I believe that helps everybody in our conference, just like when we’ve seen other programs from time to time emerge.
“And again, our focus is on doing what’s right for USC, what makes sense for USC, knowing that also is going to help our other partners in the league.”

USC is basically taking control of the conference negotiations. They are going to start throwing their weight around. Larry Scott is a paper commissioner, an empty suit. An expensive suit, but an empty suit nonetheless. His days are numbered...

(03-03-2020 08:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:22 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  A lot has changed in the past few years. USC and [insert Pac-12 member here] would leave for the Big 12 before Texas and Oklahoma would leave for the Pac-12.

HM, that is not correct:

https://www.pe.com/2020/03/02/alexander-...gs-up-but/

“We recognize the importance of being in our conference, (one) that continues to compete with some unique challenges,” Bohn said. “But we’re committed to reclaiming the torch, and we recognize that when we’re a part of those discussions on the national scene, that’s good for our league. And I believe that helps everybody in our conference, just like when we’ve seen other programs from time to time emerge.
“And again, our focus is on doing what’s right for USC, what makes sense for USC, knowing that also is going to help our other partners in the league.”

USC is basically taking control of the conference negotiations. They are going to start throwing their weight around. Larry Scott is a paper commissioner, an empty suit. An expensive suit, but an empty suit nonetheless. His days are numbered...

(03-03-2020 10:01 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:22 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  A lot has changed in the past few years. USC and [insert Pac-12 member here] would leave for the Big 12 before Texas and Oklahoma would leave for the Pac-12.

HM, that is not correct:

https://www.pe.com/2020/03/02/alexander-...gs-up-but/

“We recognize the importance of being in our conference, (one) that continues to compete with some unique challenges,” Bohn said. “But we’re committed to reclaiming the torch, and we recognize that when we’re a part of those discussions on the national scene, that’s good for our league. And I believe that helps everybody in our conference, just like when we’ve seen other programs from time to time emerge.
“And again, our focus is on doing what’s right for USC, what makes sense for USC, knowing that also is going to help our other partners in the league.”

USC is basically taking control of the conference negotiations. They are going to start throwing their weight around. Larry Scott is a paper commissioner, an empty suit. An expensive suit, but an empty suit nonetheless. His days are numbered...

Remember, the other side of the equation is Texas and Oklahoma, and i agree with Mongoose that they are much less likely to be interested in the PAC than they were 10 years ago. The Big 12 with 10 model has proven to be competitive on the field and lucrative at the bank.

USC can counter by saying that the competition in the SEC & the Big Ten is very brutal, and the 'Horns and the Sooners best chance for making the CFP consistently while earning more $$'s lies with the Pac12. The burden of proof will be on USC and the Pac12 though.

USC needs to stop being a 8-5 team in Football to have that kind of power. A string of 12-1 seasons with Playoff berths would do the trick.

But USC still has Helton and the 55th ranked recruiting class (note, top 64 ranked by 247sports are P5, Virginia Tech is 72nd). So Bohn can sit down for the next couple years.

(03-03-2020 10:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, the other side of the equation is Texas and Oklahoma, and i agree with Mongoose that they are much less likely to be interested in the PAC than they were 10 years ago. The Big 12 with 10 model has proven to be competitive on the field and lucrative at the bank.

The Big 12 model was lucrative at the bank because of Texas and Oklahoma, not the Little Eight. If Oklahoma and Texas moved to the Sun Belt Conference, they'd be lucrative.

Let's talk ratings. You would think Texas and Oklahoma are top ratings winners. But in reality it's only when they play each other or when they play other top teams. When Oklahoma played West Virginia last year at noon ET on FOX, it got 2.54M viewers. In the same time slot, 2.70M viewers watched ... Nebraska at Purdue! One game featured a team that went to the College Football Playoff, the other game featured a team that finished 4-8 vs. a team that finished 3-9. Earlier in the season, Ohio State got 2.62M at noon on FOX when they played ... Florida Atlantic. When Oklahoma played Texas Tech, they got 2.81M viewers! Yay, they barely beat NEB/PUR and FATL/OSU! I'm not saying Texas and Oklahoma are (ratings) losers, I'm saying they are playing ratings losers. Yes, when Oklahoma played Baylor, viewers watched (6.79M). How many good Big 12 teams are there outside of the Big 12 are there a season? If Baylor goes back to being Baylor, OU/Bay goes back to a 3M game.

If ESPN and FOX can separate Texas and Oklahoma from the Little Eight and pay for only Texas and Oklahoma without paying for the Little Eight, it would make all the sense (and CENTS) in the world. If Texas continues to struggle on the field, the Big 12's ratings will continue to slide. Baylor is probably the last team the Big 12 wants to do well when it comes to ratings, they have the smallest fanbase in the conference. If ratings are down, don't expect a hefty increase in revenue in the next Big 12 contract (assuming the networks don't successfully get UT/UO out of the Big 12 to get out of paying them or paying them less).

(03-03-2020 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Has the value of the PAC changed since 2012? Absolutely Quo. In 2012 the market footprint model determined value. Today it is content and actual rather than potential viewers because technology has changed the way advertising is sold. The PAC's viewing numbers is only slightly ahead of the AAC and behind the ACC and Big 12. So yes the product is worth less in today's pay model. And content value is not great either.

I'm not sure there's that much of a one-to-one ratings correspondence between ratings and media payments. E.g., IIRC the AAC's football ratings aren't that much worse than the ACC's or Big 12's, but the AAC just signed a deal for a paltry $7m a year, way less than the ACC or Big 12. Yes, I know Aresco isn't very good at negotiating media deals, but still.

Nobody will know until 2024 what the PAC media deal will look like, but I will be surprised if they take a hit. Nobody has yet.