Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: Which of these do you consider most likely?
Big 12 will lose 50% of revenue; PAC 10 will lose 0%
Big 12 will end up ahead of the "PAC-10"
PAC will add teams to stay even to
Big 12 and PAC will get similar broadcasting deals
Both will have to expand to maintain revenue streams
The conference with the most teams will earn the most revenue
Something else will happen (describe in comments)
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 01:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 08:54 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay.

They may be "okay" in some sense, but let's not kid ourselves - - the PAC isn't going to be the same without its two premier universities - - one of which (UCLA) is a top 5 all-time men's basketball blue-blood.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million.

So you're predicting a loss of 20% to 40% of their annual broadcasting revenue. Such a loss could have an adverse impact. It surely won't help.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16.

The Big 12 wasn't viewed as being "okay" after the UT/OU announcement, and a "PAC-10" might not be "okay" if the 12-team MWC moves ahead of them in the FB and MBB rankings, as well they might.

One could imagine the MWC competing very successful for viewership eyeballs with a "PAC-10," and this would be an absolute revenue bonanza for the MWC's broadcasting partners.

Most observers gave the Big 12 commissioner credit for reloading to help keep that conference from becoming irrelevant. The PAC's commissioner may come under pressure to do the same.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

2. One could imagine a lot of things, but then there is reality. The MWC is not close to the PAC in terms of history, talent or TV ratings. The Big 12 commissioner did what he had to do by adding four schools. They had to add at least two teams after losing Texas and Oklahoma. The four teams they added would not have made the cut when Oklahoma and Texas were in the conference. Same with the PAC. No expansion when UCLA and USC are in the conference. With them leaving, expansion is likely to happen, and happen with schools that would not have been invited with UCLA and USC in the conference.

3. UCLA and USC are great unversities in a premier market. I think there are other schools in the conference that feel that they are special, starting with Stanford and Cal. The PAC is going to lose revenue that they could have had with USC and UCLA leaving. Their departure will have an adverse effect on revenue. Same with Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12.

If you look at the average winning % from 2000-2009 and from 2010-2019, Oregon was #13 and then #7. A simple average of those two gets to 10. TCU averages 12 as they were #7 and #17. 2nd in the Pac is Utah who was 12 and 28 averaging 20. 3rd in the Pac is Stanford with 92 and 9 for an average of 50.5 None of the others were top 25 in either decade. 6 from the Big 12 were top 25 in at least one of the decades. TCU 12, WVU 29, Oklahoma St. 32, BYU 33, Cincinnati 34, KSU 38, Texas Tech 46 and UCF 47 are higher than Stanford and Houston at 52 is right behind. Baylor and ISU are lower, but both have top 10 finishes in the last 2 years. Even KU had a top 10 finish in 2007.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2022 03:02 PM by bullet.)
08-06-2022 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  
  • If you look at the average winning % from 2000-2009 and from 2010-2019, Oregon was #13 and then #7. A simple average of those two gets to 10.
    .
  • TCU averages 12 as they were #7 and #17.
    .
  • 2nd in the Pac is Utah who was 12 and 28 averaging 20.
    .
  • 3rd in the Pac is Stanford with 92 and 9 for an average of 50.5
    .
  • None of the others were top 25 in either decade.
    .
  • 6 from the Big 12 were top 25 in at least one of the decades.
    .
  • TCU 12, WVU 29, Oklahoma St. 32, BYU 33, Cincinnati 34, KSU 38, Texas Tech 46 and UCF 47 are higher than Stanford and Houston at 52 is right behind. .
  • Baylor and ISU are lower, but both have top 10 finishes in the last 2 years.
    .
  • Even KU had a top 10 finish in 2007.

These numbers suggest that the Big 12 has been/is a stronger football conference than the PAC.

.
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2022 12:16 AM by Milwaukee.)
08-06-2022 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,176
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #63
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 10:55 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

those numbers are pretty much guesses though.

Of course. But it is valuation lost. The Big 12 actually lost more than that because almost 70% of their highest rated audiences were games involving Texas or Oklahoma, and the Big 12 inventory with only 8 schools fell below the contractual minimum inventory of conference games. They had to get back to 10 just to be at the 50% drop point.

But we are talking base contract point. Typical boosts are about 20% , the Pac-12 was expecting closer to 40% because they did not have a reevaluation midway like the Big 12 did with the expansion threat -- the networks paid them for the 11th and 12th school under the condition they didn't add them, pushing the Big 12 ahead of the ACC and Pac-12.

The Pac-12 estimated valuation at $500M with USC and UCLA, accounted not just for eyeballs, but also for quality of viewer (higher incomes on the west coast, more industry connections) and for the valuable late slots. The Big 12 is competing with all the SEC and B1G for time slots as well as the American and ACC. So the same numbers or even slightly better for them is not worth as much due to the window. Still with Texas and Oklahoma a solid 20% bump would have taken the conference to around $45+M per school, compared to the $41-42M the Pac-12 was looking at. If the estimates are right the Big 12 has probably dropped to the $25-28M per school range (the four new schools are not zero value, so it's not a straight 50% drop to $22-23M per school) and the Pac-12 to around $30M per school. The Pac-12 due to it's close vicinity with streaming companies, including a lot of it's grads in the executive ranks of Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Meta as well as the Hollywood (LA) based traditional media companies, which seems to give them the decided edge. Especially as they have a P12N infrastructure that can be handed over. This is why some think the Pac-12 can claw back a significant chunk of the $10M per school they lost.

All this is speculative. But primarily it's having more flagship brands and west coast time slots, as well as higher income grads that give the Pac-12 the edge over the Big 12. IMO it doesn't look decisive. When adding digital content the Pac-12 is probably looking at the high 30s per school, while the Big 12 is looking at the low 30s in $millions per school. I honestly don't think it's a difference maker either way. Long term if there were no further raids the Big 12 is likely to see further slippage than the Pac-12 due to the lack of flagships and not having Pacific Coast time slots.

But all this is pointless. The money difference is hardly worth arguing over. The Big Ten will be pulling over $90M per school and accelerating up every year. The SEC is going to be $80M per school and accelerating up every year. Both should hit $100M in media revenue per school well before the end of the decade. The difference between say a Pac-12 $37M, and ACC $38M and a Big 12 $34M is negligible. Add $5M to the Big 12 to put them first among these three and it's still not a difference enough for anybody to move.

Also money at this level won't make anyone move. It's not a transformative $15-20M more per year than staying home with traditional rivals whom you can sell tickets easily. Culture and regional differences cement things.

But I'm not convinced the Big Ten is done. So that Pac-12 valuation could change for the worse. If not before this next contract, then for sure in the next one around 2030. No Pac-12 GOR will run longer than the 5-6 years of the next contract. Fracturing could happen in either of these windows. Arizona may have lost patience, so a single additional member loss could trigger a move by them.

But that is down the road. For now Big 12 schools are looking at $20M less than they would have gotten had Texas and OU stayed, and the Pac-12 schools are looking at $12M less than they would have gotten if USC and UCLA stayed. Hard to call anyone a winner here, except the four schools going to the B1G and SEC.
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2022 01:38 PM by Stugray2.)
08-06-2022 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #64
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-05-2022 04:38 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(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.

They are all 3 pretty decent second fiddles with big stadiums and arenas that sell out. Good traveling fans. Bowls like them as they bring fans. These aren’t second fiddles like Oregon St, Washington St and Colorado St for example.
08-06-2022 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2374
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #65
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 01:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 08:54 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay.

They may be "okay" in some sense, but let's not kid ourselves - - the PAC isn't going to be the same without its two premier universities - - one of which (UCLA) is a top 5 all-time men's basketball blue-blood.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million.

So you're predicting a loss of 20% to 40% of their annual broadcasting revenue. Such a loss could have an adverse impact. It surely won't help.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16.

The Big 12 wasn't viewed as being "okay" after the UT/OU announcement, and a "PAC-10" might not be "okay" if the 12-team MWC moves ahead of them in the FB and MBB rankings, as well they might.

One could imagine the MWC competing very successful for viewership eyeballs with a "PAC-10," and this would be an absolute revenue bonanza for the MWC's broadcasting partners.

Most observers gave the Big 12 commissioner credit for reloading to help keep that conference from becoming irrelevant. The PAC's commissioner may come under pressure to do the same.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

2. One could imagine a lot of things, but then there is reality. The MWC is not close to the PAC in terms of history, talent or TV ratings. The Big 12 commissioner did what he had to do by adding four schools. They had to add at least two teams after losing Texas and Oklahoma. The four teams they added would not have made the cut when Oklahoma and Texas were in the conference. Same with the PAC. No expansion when UCLA and USC are in the conference. With them leaving, expansion is likely to happen, and happen with schools that would not have been invited with UCLA and USC in the conference.

3. UCLA and USC are great unversities in a premier market. I think there are other schools in the conference that feel that they are special, starting with Stanford and Cal. The PAC is going to lose revenue that they could have had with USC and UCLA leaving. Their departure will have an adverse effect on revenue. Same with Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12.

About the bolded, the first part I agree with - if TX and OU don't leave, UCF, Houston, Cincy and BYU remain in the G-ranks, which IMO tells us something about their actual value.

About the second part - I think the PAC would be wise not to backfill. I would just stay at 10 rather than add schools that wouldn't have been added had USC and UCLA remained. IMO that just dilutes the brand.
08-06-2022 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
PAC 12 will get more than the Big 12 because you still have 4 big name brands left there while Big 12 have none.
08-06-2022 04:20 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,861
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains
(08-06-2022 02:07 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

Cincinnati, Baylor, and OK State were ranked ahead of Oregon in the final AP poll last season.

2021 FINAL AP RANKINGS:

#4 Cincinnati
#5 Baylor
#7 Oklahoma State
#22 Oregon

This is really not worth my time. The Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns were ranked higher than Oregon in the final AP Poll. That does not mean they are a better team or better brand or someone ABC would put on national TV during the regular season. Oregon went into Columbus last season and beat Ohio State. They are one of nine teams to have played in a national championship game since 2010 and they have done it twice.
Their brand allows them to recruit all over the country and helps make them one of the best teams in the country. It is not close and I am sorry that I spent this much time with it.
08-06-2022 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 03:11 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 01:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 08:54 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay.

They may be "okay" in some sense, but let's not kid ourselves - - the PAC isn't going to be the same without its two premier universities - - one of which (UCLA) is a top 5 all-time men's basketball blue-blood.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million.

So you're predicting a loss of 20% to 40% of their annual broadcasting revenue. Such a loss could have an adverse impact. It surely won't help.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16.

The Big 12 wasn't viewed as being "okay" after the UT/OU announcement, and a "PAC-10" might not be "okay" if the 12-team MWC moves ahead of them in the FB and MBB rankings, as well they might.

One could imagine the MWC competing very successful for viewership eyeballs with a "PAC-10," and this would be an absolute revenue bonanza for the MWC's broadcasting partners.

Most observers gave the Big 12 commissioner credit for reloading to help keep that conference from becoming irrelevant. The PAC's commissioner may come under pressure to do the same.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

2. One could imagine a lot of things, but then there is reality. The MWC is not close to the PAC in terms of history, talent or TV ratings. The Big 12 commissioner did what he had to do by adding four schools. They had to add at least two teams after losing Texas and Oklahoma. The four teams they added would not have made the cut when Oklahoma and Texas were in the conference. Same with the PAC. No expansion when UCLA and USC are in the conference. With them leaving, expansion is likely to happen, and happen with schools that would not have been invited with UCLA and USC in the conference.

3. UCLA and USC are great unversities in a premier market. I think there are other schools in the conference that feel that they are special, starting with Stanford and Cal. The PAC is going to lose revenue that they could have had with USC and UCLA leaving. Their departure will have an adverse effect on revenue. Same with Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12.

If you look at the average winning % from 2000-2009 and from 2010-2019, Oregon was #13 and then #7. A simple average of those two gets to 10. TCU averages 12 as they were #7 and #17. 2nd in the Pac is Utah who was 12 and 28 averaging 20. 3rd in the Pac is Stanford with 92 and 9 for an average of 50.5 None of the others were top 25 in either decade. 6 from the Big 12 were top 25 in at least one of the decades. TCU 12, WVU 29, Oklahoma St. 32, BYU 33, Cincinnati 34, KSU 38, Texas Tech 46 and UCF 47 are higher than Stanford and Houston at 52 is right behind. Baylor and ISU are lower, but both have top 10 finishes in the last 2 years. Even KU had a top 10 finish in 2007.

That's too many numbers for most readers to digest.

Can you summarize what all these numbers mean in a single sentence?

.

Oversimplified, but The Pac 12 has been mediocre in football other than Oregon and Utah while, the nBig 12 schools have been fairly good.
08-06-2022 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 03:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 10:55 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

those numbers are pretty much guesses though.

Of course. But it is valuation lost. The Big 12 actually lost more than that because almost 70% of there highest rated audiences were games involving Texas or Oklahoma, and the Big 12 inventory with only 8 schools fell below the contractual minimum inventory of conference games. They had to get back to 10 just to be at the 50% drop point.

But we are talking base contract point. Typical boosts are about 20% , the Pac-12 was expecting closer to 40% because they did not have a reevaluation midway like the Big 12 did with the expansion threat -- the networks paid them for the 11th and 12th school under the condition they didn't add them, pushing the Big 12 ahead of the ACC and Pac-12.

The Pac-12 estimated valuation at $500M with USC and UCLA, accounted not just for eyeballs, but also for quality of viewer (higher incomes on the west coast, more industry connections) and for the valuable late slots. The Big 12 is competing with all the SEC and B1G for time slots as well as the American and ACC. So the same numbers or even slightly better for them is not worth as much due to the window. Still with Texas and Oklahoma a solid 20% bump would have taken the conference to around $45+M per school, compared to the $41-42M the Pac-12 was looking at. If the estimates are right the Big 12 has probably dropped to the $25-28M per school range (the four new schools are not zero value, so it's not a straight 50% drop to $22-23M per school) and the Pac-12 to around $30M per school. The Pac-12 due to it's close vicinity with streaming companies, including a lot of it's grads in the executive ranks of Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Meta as well as the Hollywood (LA) based traditional media companies, which seems to give them the decided edge. Especially as they have a P12N infrastructure that can be handed over. This is why some think the Pac-12 can claw back a significant chunk of the $10M per school they lost.

All this is speculative. But primarily it's having more flagship brands and west coast time slots, as well as higher income grads that give the Pac-12 the edge over the Big 12. IMO it doesn't look decisive. When adding digital content the Pac-12 is probably looking at the high 30s per school, while the Big 12 is looking at the low 30s in $millions per school. I honestly don't think it's a difference maker either way. Long term if there were no further raids the Big 12 is likely to see further slippage than the Pac-12 due to the lack of flagships and not having Pacific Coast time slots.

But all this is pointless. The money difference is hardly worth arguing over. The Big Ten will be pulling over $90M per school and accelerating up every year. The SEC is going to be $80M per school and accelerating up every year. Both should hit $100M in media revenue per school well before the end of the decade. The difference between say a Pac-12 $37M, and ACC $38M and a Big 12 $34M is negligible. Add $5M to the Big 12 tp put them first among these three and it's still not a difference enough for anybody to move.

Also money at this level won't make anyone move. It's not a transformative $15-20M more per year than staying home with traditional rivals whom you can sell tickets easily. Culture and regional differences cement things.

But I'm not convinced the Big Ten is done. So that Pac-12 valuation could change for the worse. If not before this next contract, then for sure in the next one around 2030. No Pac-12 GOR will run longer than the 5-6 years of the next contract. Fracturing could happen in either of these windows. Arizona may have lost patience, so a single additional member loss could trigger a move by them.

But that is down the road. For now Big 12 schools are looking at $20M less than they would have gotten had Texas and OU stayed, and the Pac-12 schools are looking at $12M less than they would have gotten if USC and UCLA stayed. Hard to call anyone a winner here, except the four schools going to the B1G and SEC.

The 10:30 slot is NOT that valuable a window. Most of the nation is asleep by halftime. It is not valueless, but its not that big a deal.
08-06-2022 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 04:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 02:07 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

Cincinnati, Baylor, and OK State were ranked ahead of Oregon in the final AP poll last season.

2021 FINAL AP RANKINGS:

#4 Cincinnati
#5 Baylor
#7 Oklahoma State
#22 Oregon

This is really not worth my time. The Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns were ranked higher than Oregon in the final AP Poll. That does not mean they are a better team or better brand or someone ABC would put on national TV during the regular season. Oregon went into Columbus last season and beat Ohio State. They are one of nine teams to have played in a national championship game since 2010 and they have done it twice.
Their brand allows them to recruit all over the country and helps make them one of the best teams in the country. It is not close and I am sorry that I spent this much time with it.

Familiarity breeds contempt? Your time at Texas St. breeds contempt for the Big 12?
Oregon has been ranked 15 times since the start of the BCS era, 8 times in the top 10.
TCU has been ranked 12 times, 6 times in the top 10.

Advantage Oregon, but its not that big a difference.
08-06-2022 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,787
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 212
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 04:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 02:07 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

Cincinnati, Baylor, and OK State were ranked ahead of Oregon in the final AP poll last season.

2021 FINAL AP RANKINGS:

#4 Cincinnati
#5 Baylor
#7 Oklahoma State
#22 Oregon

This is really not worth my time. The Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns were ranked higher than Oregon in the final AP Poll. That does not mean they are a better team or better brand or someone ABC would put on national TV during the regular season. Oregon went into Columbus last season and beat Ohio State. They are one of nine teams to have played in a national championship game since 2010 and they have done it twice.
Their brand allows them to recruit all over the country and helps make them one of the best teams in the country. It is not close and I am sorry that I spent this much time with it.

FWIW, Louisiana has finished in the top 25 two years in a row.
08-06-2022 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,861
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains
(08-06-2022 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 01:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 08:54 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I have no idea what the PAC will end up with for a TV contract, but as long as they have Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal, they will be okay.

They may be "okay" in some sense, but let's not kid ourselves - - the PAC isn't going to be the same without its two premier universities - - one of which (UCLA) is a top 5 all-time men's basketball blue-blood.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No one is saying that the PAC will be unaffected by the loss of UCLA and USC. That loss could cost the PAC $200 million annually from what was expected. Or maybe just $100 million.

So you're predicting a loss of 20% to 40% of their annual broadcasting revenue. Such a loss could have an adverse impact. It surely won't help.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But they will be okay if the Big Ten stops at 16.

The Big 12 wasn't viewed as being "okay" after the UT/OU announcement, and a "PAC-10" might not be "okay" if the 12-team MWC moves ahead of them in the FB and MBB rankings, as well they might.

One could imagine the MWC competing very successful for viewership eyeballs with a "PAC-10," and this would be an absolute revenue bonanza for the MWC's broadcasting partners.

Most observers gave the Big 12 commissioner credit for reloading to help keep that conference from becoming irrelevant. The PAC's commissioner may come under pressure to do the same.

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

2. One could imagine a lot of things, but then there is reality. The MWC is not close to the PAC in terms of history, talent or TV ratings. The Big 12 commissioner did what he had to do by adding four schools. They had to add at least two teams after losing Texas and Oklahoma. The four teams they added would not have made the cut when Oklahoma and Texas were in the conference. Same with the PAC. No expansion when UCLA and USC are in the conference. With them leaving, expansion is likely to happen, and happen with schools that would not have been invited with UCLA and USC in the conference.

3. UCLA and USC are great unversities in a premier market. I think there are other schools in the conference that feel that they are special, starting with Stanford and Cal. The PAC is going to lose revenue that they could have had with USC and UCLA leaving. Their departure will have an adverse effect on revenue. Same with Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12.

About the bolded, the first part I agree with - if TX and OU don't leave, UCF, Houston, Cincy and BYU remain in the G-ranks, which IMO tells us something about their actual value.

About the second part - I think the PAC would be wise not to backfill. I would just stay at 10 rather than add schools that wouldn't have been added had USC and UCLA remained. IMO that just dilutes the brand.

As far as I know, San Diego State was never considered for expansion because of UCLA and USC. They just were not needed. Now they are. They will not dilute the brand because they have been beating Pac-12 teams in basketball and football. They are ready. The 12th team is problematic. There is no one that is clearly a slam dunk pick. It might be wise to stay at 11 for football for now.

At the Pac-12 Media day, George Kliavkoff was asked incessantly about San Diego State. He refused to answer, but the questions are being asked because reporters are hearing things.
08-06-2022 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,861
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains
(08-06-2022 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 04:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 02:07 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

Cincinnati, Baylor, and OK State were ranked ahead of Oregon in the final AP poll last season.

2021 FINAL AP RANKINGS:

#4 Cincinnati
#5 Baylor
#7 Oklahoma State
#22 Oregon

This is really not worth my time. The Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns were ranked higher than Oregon in the final AP Poll. That does not mean they are a better team or better brand or someone ABC would put on national TV during the regular season. Oregon went into Columbus last season and beat Ohio State. They are one of nine teams to have played in a national championship game since 2010 and they have done it twice.
Their brand allows them to recruit all over the country and helps make them one of the best teams in the country. It is not close and I am sorry that I spent this much time with it.

Familiarity breeds contempt? Your time at Texas St. breeds contempt for the Big 12?
Oregon has been ranked 15 times since the start of the BCS era, 8 times in the top 10.
TCU has been ranked 12 times, 6 times in the top 10.

Advantage Oregon, but its not that big a difference.

LOL! When I was at Texas State, I was a fan of the Southwest Conference, like most people at school. The Big 8 was a good conference with OU and Nebraska. Oregon has put together a terrific athletic program, thanks in large part to Phil Knight. The athletic facilities are arguably the best in the country, especially in football and track & field. They just got a commitment from a five star basketball player from Florida in the 2023 class. They are on a roll and I just don't see them slowing down in any sport. UCLA and USC had to upgrade their football facilities in the past decade to try and keep up with Oregon.
08-06-2022 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 03:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 10:55 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

those numbers are pretty much guesses though.

Of course. But it is valuation lost. The Big 12 actually lost more than that because almost 70% of there highest rated audiences were games involving Texas or Oklahoma, and the Big 12 inventory with only 8 schools fell below the contractual minimum inventory of conference games. They had to get back to 10 just to be at the 50% drop point.

But we are talking base contract point. Typical boosts are about 20% , the Pac-12 was expecting closer to 40% because they did not have a reevaluation midway like the Big 12 did with the expansion threat -- the networks paid them for the 11th and 12th school under the condition they didn't add them, pushing the Big 12 ahead of the ACC and Pac-12.

The Pac-12 estimated valuation at $500M with USC and UCLA, accounted not just for eyeballs, but also for quality of viewer (higher incomes on the west coast, more industry connections) and for the valuable late slots. The Big 12 is competing with all the SEC and B1G for time slots as well as the American and ACC. So the same numbers or even slightly better for them is not worth as much due to the window. Still with Texas and Oklahoma a solid 20% bump would have taken the conference to around $45+M per school, compared to the $41-42M the Pac-12 was looking at. If the estimates are right the Big 12 has probably dropped to the $25-28M per school range (the four new schools are not zero value, so it's not a straight 50% drop to $22-23M per school) and the Pac-12 to around $30M per school. The Pac-12 due to it's close vicinity with streaming companies, including a lot of it's grads in the executive ranks of Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Meta as well as the Hollywood (LA) based traditional media companies, which seems to give them the decided edge. Especially as they have a P12N infrastructure that can be handed over. This is why some think the Pac-12 can claw back a significant chunk of the $10M per school they lost.

All this is speculative. But primarily it's having more flagship brands and west coast time slots, as well as higher income grads that give the Pac-12 the edge over the Big 12. IMO it doesn't look decisive. When adding digital content the Pac-12 is probably looking at the high 30s per school, while the Big 12 is looking at the low 30s in $millions per school. I honestly don't think it's a difference maker either way. Long term if there were no further raids the Big 12 is likely to see further slippage than the Pac-12 due to the lack of flagships and not having Pacific Coast time slots.

But all this is pointless. The money difference is hardly worth arguing over. The Big Ten will be pulling over $90M per school and accelerating up every year. The SEC is going to be $80M per school and accelerating up every year. Both should hit $100M in media revenue per school well before the end of the decade. The difference between say a Pac-12 $37M, and ACC $38M and a Big 12 $34M is negligible. Add $5M to the Big 12 tp put them first among these three and it's still not a difference enough for anybody to move.

Also money at this level won't make anyone move. It's not a transformative $15-20M more per year than staying home with traditional rivals whom you can sell tickets easily. Culture and regional differences cement things.

But I'm not convinced the Big Ten is done. So that Pac-12 valuation could change for the worse. If not before this next contract, then for sure in the next one around 2030. No Pac-12 GOR will run longer than the 5-6 years of the next contract. Fracturing could happen in either of these windows. Arizona may have lost patience, so a single additional member loss could trigger a move by them.

But that is down the road. For now Big 12 schools are looking at $20M less than they would have gotten had Texas and OU stayed, and the Pac-12 schools are looking at $12M less than they would have gotten if USC and UCLA stayed. Hard to call anyone a winner here, except the four schools going to the B1G and SEC.

The 10:30 slot is NOT that valuable a window. Most of the nation is asleep by halftime. It is not valueless, but its not that big a deal.

Exactly. It has value---but its value is going to have a reasonable cap due to it having less potential viewers than any of the earlier windows. Yes---there may be a small premium due to the Pac-12 being the only supplier of P5 content in that window---but any premium is capped due there being only so many viewers that are ever going to watching in that window....and now the Big10 and Big12 each have the ability to offer a small amount of P5 late night content....further eroding any potential Pac12 premium.
08-06-2022 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 03:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 10:55 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

those numbers are pretty much guesses though.

Of course. But it is valuation lost. The Big 12 actually lost more than that because almost 70% of there highest rated audiences were games involving Texas or Oklahoma, and the Big 12 inventory with only 8 schools fell below the contractual minimum inventory of conference games. They had to get back to 10 just to be at the 50% drop point.

But we are talking base contract point. Typical boosts are about 20% , the Pac-12 was expecting closer to 40% because they did not have a reevaluation midway like the Big 12 did with the expansion threat -- the networks paid them for the 11th and 12th school under the condition they didn't add them, pushing the Big 12 ahead of the ACC and Pac-12.

The Pac-12 estimated valuation at $500M with USC and UCLA, accounted not just for eyeballs, but also for quality of viewer (higher incomes on the west coast, more industry connections) and for the valuable late slots. The Big 12 is competing with all the SEC and B1G for time slots as well as the American and ACC. So the same numbers or even slightly better for them is not worth as much due to the window. Still with Texas and Oklahoma a solid 20% bump would have taken the conference to around $45+M per school, compared to the $41-42M the Pac-12 was looking at. If the estimates are right the Big 12 has probably dropped to the $25-28M per school range (the four new schools are not zero value, so it's not a straight 50% drop to $22-23M per school) and the Pac-12 to around $30M per school. The Pac-12 due to it's close vicinity with streaming companies, including a lot of it's grads in the executive ranks of Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Meta as well as the Hollywood (LA) based traditional media companies, which seems to give them the decided edge. Especially as they have a P12N infrastructure that can be handed over. This is why some think the Pac-12 can claw back a significant chunk of the $10M per school they lost.

All this is speculative. But primarily it's having more flagship brands and west coast time slots, as well as higher income grads that give the Pac-12 the edge over the Big 12. IMO it doesn't look decisive. When adding digital content the Pac-12 is probably looking at the high 30s per school, while the Big 12 is looking at the low 30s in $millions per school. I honestly don't think it's a difference maker either way. Long term if there were no further raids the Big 12 is likely to see further slippage than the Pac-12 due to the lack of flagships and not having Pacific Coast time slots.

But all this is pointless. The money difference is hardly worth arguing over. The Big Ten will be pulling over $90M per school and accelerating up every year. The SEC is going to be $80M per school and accelerating up every year. Both should hit $100M in media revenue per school well before the end of the decade. The difference between say a Pac-12 $37M, and ACC $38M and a Big 12 $34M is negligible. Add $5M to the Big 12 tp put them first among these three and it's still not a difference enough for anybody to move.

Also money at this level won't make anyone move. It's not a transformative $15-20M more per year than staying home with traditional rivals whom you can sell tickets easily. Culture and regional differences cement things.

But I'm not convinced the Big Ten is done. So that Pac-12 valuation could change for the worse. If not before this next contract, then for sure in the next one around 2030. No Pac-12 GOR will run longer than the 5-6 years of the next contract. Fracturing could happen in either of these windows. Arizona may have lost patience, so a single additional member loss could trigger a move by them.

But that is down the road. For now Big 12 schools are looking at $20M less than they would have gotten had Texas and OU stayed, and the Pac-12 schools are looking at $12M less than they would have gotten if USC and UCLA stayed. Hard to call anyone a winner here, except the four schools going to the B1G and SEC.

To be fair, Texas and Oklahoma are probably bigger brands than anything the Pac12 had to start with. The networks were ALWAYS going to utilize the Texas/Oklahoma games in the best windows. If Oklahoma St or Baylor were in the Pac12 and doing well---they would probably take some of the best windows available to Pac12 teams (like Oregon for instance). I mean--Oregon was getting some better windows precisely because USC was NOT doing well while Oregon was doing well. Point being----placing a high performing Oklahoma St/TexasTech/Baylor type team in a window that would have gone to a .500 Texas team may not result in as large a drop of viewership as many might assume.
08-06-2022 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,861
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains
(08-06-2022 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 03:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 10:55 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Premise is wrong, the Pac-12 lost 40% of it's valuation, the Big 12 lost 50%.

those numbers are pretty much guesses though.

Of course. But it is valuation lost. The Big 12 actually lost more than that because almost 70% of there highest rated audiences were games involving Texas or Oklahoma, and the Big 12 inventory with only 8 schools fell below the contractual minimum inventory of conference games. They had to get back to 10 just to be at the 50% drop point.

But we are talking base contract point. Typical boosts are about 20% , the Pac-12 was expecting closer to 40% because they did not have a reevaluation midway like the Big 12 did with the expansion threat -- the networks paid them for the 11th and 12th school under the condition they didn't add them, pushing the Big 12 ahead of the ACC and Pac-12.

The Pac-12 estimated valuation at $500M with USC and UCLA, accounted not just for eyeballs, but also for quality of viewer (higher incomes on the west coast, more industry connections) and for the valuable late slots. The Big 12 is competing with all the SEC and B1G for time slots as well as the American and ACC. So the same numbers or even slightly better for them is not worth as much due to the window. Still with Texas and Oklahoma a solid 20% bump would have taken the conference to around $45+M per school, compared to the $41-42M the Pac-12 was looking at. If the estimates are right the Big 12 has probably dropped to the $25-28M per school range (the four new schools are not zero value, so it's not a straight 50% drop to $22-23M per school) and the Pac-12 to around $30M per school. The Pac-12 due to it's close vicinity with streaming companies, including a lot of it's grads in the executive ranks of Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Meta as well as the Hollywood (LA) based traditional media companies, which seems to give them the decided edge. Especially as they have a P12N infrastructure that can be handed over. This is why some think the Pac-12 can claw back a significant chunk of the $10M per school they lost.

All this is speculative. But primarily it's having more flagship brands and west coast time slots, as well as higher income grads that give the Pac-12 the edge over the Big 12. IMO it doesn't look decisive. When adding digital content the Pac-12 is probably looking at the high 30s per school, while the Big 12 is looking at the low 30s in $millions per school. I honestly don't think it's a difference maker either way. Long term if there were no further raids the Big 12 is likely to see further slippage than the Pac-12 due to the lack of flagships and not having Pacific Coast time slots.

But all this is pointless. The money difference is hardly worth arguing over. The Big Ten will be pulling over $90M per school and accelerating up every year. The SEC is going to be $80M per school and accelerating up every year. Both should hit $100M in media revenue per school well before the end of the decade. The difference between say a Pac-12 $37M, and ACC $38M and a Big 12 $34M is negligible. Add $5M to the Big 12 tp put them first among these three and it's still not a difference enough for anybody to move.

Also money at this level won't make anyone move. It's not a transformative $15-20M more per year than staying home with traditional rivals whom you can sell tickets easily. Culture and regional differences cement things.

But I'm not convinced the Big Ten is done. So that Pac-12 valuation could change for the worse. If not before this next contract, then for sure in the next one around 2030. No Pac-12 GOR will run longer than the 5-6 years of the next contract. Fracturing could happen in either of these windows. Arizona may have lost patience, so a single additional member loss could trigger a move by them.

But that is down the road. For now Big 12 schools are looking at $20M less than they would have gotten had Texas and OU stayed, and the Pac-12 schools are looking at $12M less than they would have gotten if USC and UCLA stayed. Hard to call anyone a winner here, except the four schools going to the B1G and SEC.

The 10:30 slot is NOT that valuable a window. Most of the nation is asleep by halftime. It is not valueless, but its not that big a deal.

Exactly. It has value---but its value is going to have a reasonable cap due to it having less potential viewers than any of the earlier windows. Yes---there may be a small premium due to the Pac-12 being the only supplier of P5 content in that window---but any premium is capped due there being only so many viewers that are ever going to watching in that window....and now the Big10 and Big12 each have the ability to offer a small amount of P5 late night content....further eroding any potential Pac12 premium.

If an ESPN game at 10:30 draws 1.5 million viewers and a 3:30 game on ESPN draws 1 million viewers, which has more value?
08-06-2022 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,437
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 72
I Root For: TTU, USA,
Location: Texas
Post: #77
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
Here are the facts:

1. The early media negotiations for the Pac12 has come and gone without a deal.
2. The Pac12 has considered unequal media revenue distribution.
3. The Big12 media contract to start in 2025 has not been agreed to, thus everything about what value it will be are pure speculation and projection; it is unknown X.

Conclusion:
1. The bid for the Pac12 media rights in the early window did not generate enough per individual programs for it to pass. The total $ to the Pac10 may have been more than the projected total to the big12 but if it doesn’t bring enough to enough individual programs whether because of unequal revenue sharing or the total $ was not enough even with equal sharing.

2. No pac10 program has outright rejected the Big12, except perhaps Utah who comes close but still nothing official. While a pac10 program may elect to stay in the pac10 for less money than projected to earn in the big12, none would consider moving to the big12 if the projected $ isn’t sufficiently more. Since everyone employs consultants there remains a difference between what that program would earn in the pac10 v big12, and this different may vary by program. Thus the projected income for the Pac12 on the market should be similar to the projected income for the big12, per program. It could also be less such that the gain in $ not enough to move.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2022 08:16 PM by Huan.)
08-06-2022 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 08:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  Here are the facts:

1. The early media negotiations for the Pac12 has come and gone without a deal.
2. The Pac12 has considered unequal media revenue distribution.

Not a fact.

After it was floated by a bigshot journalist (couple of beers into the night, don't remember which one, but Irish alzheimers where you forget everything but grudges will see me through), someone asked the Oregon AD at PAC media days. He said:

"When I first got into this league there was unequal sharing. TV was based on appearance and the level of appearance. The new deal, we were fortunate to get to a level where there was equal sharing and that was kind of the dream world. Things are changing and we have to be adaptive. That whole conversation may come full circle and be brought back open.

https://247sports.com/college/oregon/Lon...190701279/

Quote:3. The Big12 media contract to start in 2025 has not been agreed to, thus everything about what value it will be are pure speculation and projection; it is unknown X.

Agreed

Quote:Conclusion:
1. The bid for the Pac12 media rights in the early window did not generate enough per individual programs for it to pass.

Obviously. Or more diplomatically, agreed.

Quote:The total $ to the Pac10 may have been more than the projected total to the big12 but if it doesn’t bring enough to enough individual programs whether because of unequal revenue sharing or the total $ was not enough even with equal sharing.

Seems about right. IF the money were right, they'd have signed

Quote:2. No pac10 program has outright rejected the Big12, except perhaps Utah who comes close but still nothing official.

No outright rejections, but they're all singing from the unity hymnal.

Of course, they often do that until they sign the papers to jump.

Quote:While a pac10 program may elect to stay in the pac10 for less money than projected to earn in the big12, none would consider moving to the big12 if the projected $ isn’t sufficiently more.

The man is making sense, I think.


Quote:Since everyone employs consultants

Ahhh. You seem to believe in the value and integrity of the consultants. I am a cynical, battlescarred veteran of the keyboard wars of the New Big East. Consultants my Aunt Fanny.

Quote:there remains a difference between what that program would earn in the pac10 v big12, and this different may vary by program. Thus the projected income for the Pac12 on the market should be similar to the projected income for the big12, per program. It could also be less such that the gain in $ not enough to move.

sounds about right. Both the PAC and the new Big 12 are second-tier product, mainly useful to ESPN or Fox to fill holes in the schedule where they don't have Big Ten, SEC or ACC games. (ACC games are interchangeable with Big 12 / PAC games, but they're already paid for).

Apparently tonight I am an amiable jolly buzz, not an angry buzz.
08-06-2022 08:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,437
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 72
I Root For: TTU, USA,
Location: Texas
Post: #79
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
“ When I first got into this league there was unequal sharing. TV was based on appearance and the level of appearance. The new deal, we were fortunate to get to a level where there was equal sharing and that was kind of the dream world. Things are changing and we have to be adaptive. That whole conversation may come full circle and be brought back open.”

Why bring it up if it wasn’t under consideration?
This is a classic non-denial.
08-06-2022 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Why is Big XII rumored to lose 1/2 their broadcasting $, while PAC remains unscathed?
(08-06-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  “ When I first got into this league there was unequal sharing. TV was based on appearance and the level of appearance. The new deal, we were fortunate to get to a level where there was equal sharing and that was kind of the dream world. Things are changing and we have to be adaptive. That whole conversation may come full circle and be brought back open.”

Why bring it up if it wasn’t under consideration?
This is a classic non-denial.

because the question was asked. its a non-denial, nothing urgent answer
08-06-2022 08:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.