.

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

Its only coming from message board posters who have absolutely nothing to base it on, but they "feel" the Big 12 should get less than now. If they say that, they are someone who should probably be ignored on the topic. And are pretty ignorant about TV ratings and the relative strength of the conferences on the field (which has some influence on TV ratings).

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Well my answer would be that I expect both the nB12 and nPAC to see very substantial reductions compared to what they would have gotten had the four schools not left the respective conferences.

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

Multiple possibilities come to mind:

Perhaps the PAC was undervalued in the old deal.

Perhaps OUT was a bigger share of the B12 value than USCLA is of the PAC. The PAC still has six state flagships. Does the B12 have any?

B12 is adding schools that didn't make the cut in the last few rounds. PAC has not diluted like that.

Maybe a lot of people are wrong.

(08-05-2022 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

Its only coming from message board posters who have absolutely nothing to base it on, but they "feel" the Big 12 should get less than now. If they say that, they are someone who should probably be ignored on the topic. And are pretty ignorant about TV ratings and the relative strength of the conferences on the field (which has some influence on TV ratings).

That may be so. What's mystifying to me is why there was so much of a hubbub about the huge revenue cuts the Big XII would receive, yet complete silence about revenue cuts for the PAC.

It's especially baffling when one notes the fact that the Big XII is reloading (adding Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, and BYU), while there are no signs that the PAC will replace USC or UCLA. One would think that the conference that has announced it's reloading would be viewed as protecting its revenue stream to some extent, and that the conference that doesn't reload would be expected to take a greater revenue hit.

.

The truth is UCLA has been a shell of its former self even in comparison to how far USC has been down the last decade. So from a viewership perspective losing UCLA doesnt appear that bad when you look at the tv numbers in the PAC. Basically the PAC lost the number 1 and 5 most watched teams in the conf whereas the B12 lost 1 & 2. That said losing LA is going to hurt and I still think both conferences will have comparable tv deals.

(08-05-2022 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Well my answer would be that I expect both the nB12 and nPAC to see very substantial reductions compared to what they would have gotten had the four schools not left the respective conferences.

That's what I would expect, too.

How substantial the reductions might be is something many of us are probably very curious about.

If I had to guess, I would think that if OU and Texas account for 40-50% of the Big XII's net worth (as some have suggested), the addition of Cincinnati, UCF, Houston, and BYU would partially offset the loss of revenue, so that the Big XII remainers might "only" lose 20% or 25% of their revenue.

USC and UCLA might not account for 40%+ of the PAC's broadcasting revenue, but it seems possible that they may account for 25% or 30% of it

.

(08-05-2022 04:19 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

Multiple possibilities come to mind:

Perhaps the PAC was undervalued in the old deal.

Perhaps OUT was a bigger share of the B12 value than USCLA is of the PAC. The PAC still has six state flagships. Does the B12 have any?

B12 is adding schools that didn't make the cut in the last few rounds. PAC has not diluted like that.

Maybe a lot of people are wrong.

Kansas & West Virginia are state flagships in the B12. ISU, KSU, and oSu are state land grants.

(08-05-2022 04:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 04:19 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

Multiple possibilities come to mind:

Perhaps the PAC was undervalued in the old deal.

Perhaps OUT was a bigger share of the B12 value than USCLA is of the PAC. The PAC still has six state flagships. Does the B12 have any?

B12 is adding schools that didn't make the cut in the last few rounds. PAC has not diluted like that.

Maybe a lot of people are wrong.

Kansas & West Virginia are state flagships in the B12. ISU, KSU, and oSu are state land grants.

Ah, forgot about those two. I would think the land grant distinction is pretty irrelevant to the average fan. They 'know' Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma are the big dogs in each state.

(08-05-2022 04:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  The truth is UCLA has been a shell of its former self even in comparison to how far USC has been down the last decade. So from a viewership perspective losing UCLA doesnt appear that bad when you look at the tv numbers in the PAC. Basically the PAC lost the number 1 and 5 most watched teams in the conf whereas the B12 lost 1 & 2. That said losing LA is going to hurt and I still think both conferences will have comparable tv deals.

Losing LA is going to hurt, especially if the PAC doesn't replace USC or UCLA.

It may be that both conference will have comparable TV deals, but it seems to me that, with Cincy, UCF, Houston, and BYU coming aboard, the Big XII is going to be a much stronger conference with greater viewership potential than a "PAC-10" would be.

The Big XII probably made a wise move by adding those four schools, and the PAC would be well advised to consider doing the same. In view of the fact that the SEC and Big Ten are about to become 16-team conferences, the time may have come for the PAC to expand, as well.

.

(08-05-2022 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Well my answer would be that I expect both the nB12 and nPAC to see very substantial reductions compared to what they would have gotten had the four schools not left the respective conferences.

I think thats what many people fail to understand when they start with the calculating. They take the present value of a over a decade old contract---subtract half the value---and then divide by 12 to generate a current Big12 per team value estimate. In 2011, the Big East was an AQ conference (BCS system) and had probably the best basketball leagues in the nation. The full members were making about 4 million each from TV. In late 2011 and 2012 the Big East lost almost all of its former P5 members, almost all of the old basketball league including Notre Dame and the C7----and had to replace those football/basketball loses with Navy and a bunch of CUSA schools. Just 9 years later---the rebuilt and renamed Big East successor conference (The American) landed a 7 million dollar per team deal---almost twice what the "AQ/P5" level Big East was paid in 2011 with its outstanding basketball league fully intact. The lesson here is those decade+ old TV deal values mean little today.

Yeah, the Big12 lost its brightest two brand names....but it still has 8 well known P5 names. It brought in 4 of the best from the non-P5 world---all 4 with very attractive football programs---and 3 of the 4 with very high level basketball programs. The current Big12's football will be better than the old Big East and its basketball league may be the best in the nation. The Big12 is going to end up with some very nice media offers because, despite the loses---it still represents a very attractive college sports property---it just wont be as attractive as it would have been with UT and OU. Still---wait and see----nobody in the Big12 is going to be taking a pay cut.

Yeah not sure. All the message boards I hang out on was assuming the PAC was taking a cut.

Specifically, the numbers I kept hearing was that the PAC media contract would have been $500M with USC and UCLA. Divided 12 ways that's $41M per school. I also head it would be $300M without USC and UCLA. Divided 10 ways that's $30M per school.

I also heard the Big 12 was expecting around $25M per school, although I am not sure if that was for just the old 8 schools or includes the 4 new schools as well.

So the consensus was that the PAC-10 had a small advantage over the Big 12 as long as no other schools leave the PAC for the Big Ten.

(08-05-2022 04:28 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

Well my answer would be that I expect both the nB12 and nPAC to see very substantial reductions compared to what they would have gotten had the four schools not left the respective conferences.

That's what I would expect, too.

How substantial the reductions might be is something many of us are probably very curious about.

If I had to guess, I would think that if OU and Texas account for 40-50% of the Big XII's net worth (as some have suggested), the addition of Cincinnati, UCF, Houston, and BYU would partially offset the loss of revenue, so that the Big XII remainers might "only" lose 20% or 25% of their revenue.

USC and UCLA might not account for 40%+ of the PAC's broadcasting revenue, but it seems possible that they may account for 25% or 30% of it

.

It all depends on how value is calculated. Is isn't just actual viewership but also things like primary market presence. USC/UCLA accounted for a significant portion of the PAC media value, but less than what OU/Texas accounted for in the Big 12. However, both those teams represented SoCal primary market access and SoCal is something like 70% of the PAC market value. I don't how you balance out Media Value and Market Value, but there seems to some distinction there. The Big 12 arguable lost no markets following the OU/Texas departure and their subsequent expansion. Houston was a mitigation addition that kept the Big 12 in the Houston market with primary market access (something that wasn't needed before given the number of Texas alumni and fans in Houston.) The Big 12 added Cincinnati and Orlando as markets to their contract, which is a decent offset to what was lost from Texas/OU. BYU also presence in SLC in addition to a more national presence amongst Mormons. While the Big 12 added two new mouths to the conference table, they also retained the market value while adding some new markets to their portfolio. This doesn't mean their overall media value won't be changed or harmed by the OU/Texas departure, just that the Big 12 responded with some strategic additions.

The PAC is in somewhat of a pickle in that there no teams in the LA market that can be added to mitigate the primary market access loss following USC/UCLA's departure. This is part of why you have seen some proposals for conference games to continue being played in LA. SDSU should be an attractive option for the PAC because, like Houston in the Big 12, it can help mitigate that market loss by giving primary access to San Diego. It isn't LA, but it is something and is reasonable pick when all things are considered. The only issue is that doesn't really add new markets so much as it helps recapture old ones while adding another mouth to feed. If they want to pair off or get another teams, someone like SMU might be attractive as well.

Location makes The PAC more valuable to ESPN than The Big 12. With The PAC ESPN would have games available in its last time slots. 11PM or Midnight on the east coast.

BYU would give The Big 12 the same opportunity but that would be the only team with that ability.

Keep in mind, replacing for the sake of replacing does not often mean more money per team. The Big 12 stayed at 10 for so long because any additions were likely to lower the average rather than increase it. Anyone new, will bring more money, but if it less than the current average, what each team makes goes down. That might well be where the PAC-12 is now.

As far as their respective strengths, I have seen plenty of people trying to belittle one or the other. The PAC-12 was probaby the most undervalued given they signed their deal the furthest back before a lot of the rise in value came. I personally think they'll be fairly close when all shakes out, but the PAC-12 does have the advantage of being able to offer late nights (when they are only P5 that can) and a few large state flagships and bigger markets. The Big 12 does have some advantages too, but overall I would guess a slight amount more for the PAC.

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

The only place anyone has talked about the Big 12 being in the teens, CSNBBS, message board bros, doing calculations based on hopes and dream and numbers they can only guess at. The reality, if reports from media sources with contacts inside networks and athletic departments are correct, the Big 12 and Pac 12 will both be in the mid- 20s. The big money will be spent by the networks in two places. B1G and SEC. The rest are just that, the rest.

(08-05-2022 05:17 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

The only place anyone has talked about the Big 12 being in the teens, CSNBBS, message board bros, doing calculations based on hopes and dream and numbers they can only guess at. The reality, if reports from media sources with contacts inside networks and athletic departments are correct, the Big 12 and Pac 12 will both be in the mid- 20s. The big money will be spent by the networks in two places. B1G and SEC. The rest are just that, the rest.

Since you wrote "Pac 12," are you assuming that they will reload by adding two teams, or that they will continue to refer to themselves as the "PAC 12" even though they only have 10 schools?

.

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

they won't. whoever you're listening to are either morons or wildly biased or both.

assuming nobody in the PAC jumps to the Big 22, they will get roughly comparable contracts.

Dennis Dodd reported the BXII was projected to get in the $30s. Depending on the source, the PAC is $21-25M.

(08-05-2022 05:17 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 03:49 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

There has been a lot of chatter about the possibility that the Big XII schools may receive less than $20 million per year in broadcasting revenue, due to the departure of OU & Texas.

This would represent a substantial revenue cut, in the range of $10 to $15 million/year less than what the Big XII schools are currently receiving from the broadcasters.

Yet those who argue that the PAC will stay put with only 10 schools seem to have the impression that their broadcasting revenue streams will be relatively unaffected by the departure of USC and UCLA.

Question: Why would the departure of OU and Texas have a devastating impact on the Big XII remainers' broadcasting revenue, while the departure of USC and UCLA would have only a trivial impact on the PAC remainers?

.

The only place anyone has talked about the Big 12 being in the teens, CSNBBS, message board bros, doing calculations based on hopes and dream and numbers they can only guess at. The reality, if reports from media sources with contacts inside networks and athletic departments are correct, the Big 12 and Pac 12 will both be in the mid- 20s.

That makes perfect sense. The idea that the Big 12's revenue would drop into the teens wasn't very convincing.

.