(08-31-2022 02:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  The point is you have lots of trouble in business if you treat your suppliers like sh**.

Even Google will eventually end up paying for their arrogance. ESPN doesn't have Google's power.

@ACCisSetUntil2036

(08-31-2022 01:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:56 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:44 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  More from George K's PR release ... Canzano's article:

"One of the Pac-12’s Four Corners athletic directors I spoke with on Wednesday morning said that the Big 12 opening discussions on the media rights front is a “non-factor” for his university. He maintained there has been no contact with the Big 12 and that his university is committed to the Pac-12."

"A whole lotta lying going on right now"

"One of the PAC 12's Four Corners athletic directors...."

Sounds like Utah's AD, if I had to guess. Utah is all in and desperate for the PAC 12's survival.

From the Big 12's perspective, Utah is dilutive in the smallest of the Four Corner states at issue, so not likely as high on the Big 12's wish list.

Of the 4C, really only ASU should be confident. The big 12 could invite any combination of Pac schools that includes ASU, but the only reason ASU wouldn't get an invite would be if they were already moving to the B1G. Colorado is a shell of its former self, and Utah and UA are unnecessary when there are better options in their states for the big 12.

Here's a fun thought: the B1G says flat out "No" to the NW4. Not "no for now" but "no forever". The big 12 media deal looks to be far superior to the Pac, and in fact is better than the ACC's by quite a bit. Oregon, Washington, ASU, and 1 other get invites to join the big 12. Who is the 4th? I feel like Stanford would say no thanks but Cal would be super passive aggressive about it but probably go for it. Would the Big 12 take Cal over Utah or UA? Or all 3?

I still think Stanford and Arizona State are the next B10 invites, with or without WA or OR.

So yes, I think the rest are gettable by the B12.

(08-31-2022 01:49 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:56 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:44 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  More from George K's PR release ... Canzano's article:

"One of the Pac-12’s Four Corners athletic directors I spoke with on Wednesday morning said that the Big 12 opening discussions on the media rights front is a “non-factor” for his university. He maintained there has been no contact with the Big 12 and that his university is committed to the Pac-12."

"A whole lotta lying going on right now"

"One of the PAC 12's Four Corners athletic directors...."

Sounds like Utah's AD, if I had to guess. Utah is all in and desperate for the PAC 12's survival.

From the Big 12's perspective, Utah is dilutive in the smallest of the Four Corner states at issue, so not likely as high on the Big 12's wish list.

Of the 4C, really only ASU should be confident. The big 12 could invite any combination of Pac schools that includes ASU, but the only reason ASU wouldn't get an invite would be if they were already moving to the B1G. Colorado is a shell of its former self, and Utah and UA are unnecessary when there are better options in their states for the big 12.

Here's a fun thought: the B1G says flat out "No" to the NW4. Not "no for now" but "no forever". The big 12 media deal looks to be far superior to the Pac, and in fact is better than the ACC's by quite a bit. Oregon, Washington, ASU, and 1 other get invites to join the big 12. Who is the 4th? I feel like Stanford would say no thanks but Cal would be super passive aggressive about it but probably go for it. Would the Big 12 take Cal over Utah or UA? Or all 3?

Wouldn't that instantly stabilize the PAC by not having a risk of the top brands going elsewhere, and therefore take away what people have been saying is a bargaining chip for the B12 to get a better media deal?

I'm not sure where your "far superior" comment comes from, since they seemed to be relatively similar WITHOUT the PAC having the risk of the NW4 leaving attached to it.

What numbers are you actually using here for that comparison?

I was giving a "what if" scenario, not predicting that.

(08-31-2022 02:06 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 02:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  The point is you have lots of trouble in business if you treat your suppliers like sh**.

Even Google will eventually end up paying for their arrogance. ESPN doesn't have Google's power.

@ACCisSetUntil2036

That was a mutually agreed upon FMV deal at the time. Everyone was pretty enthused about that being a good deal back in 2011. What is being suggested is trying to force a below market deal.

ESPN is not taking advantage of the ACC. And BC and Wake are not taking advantage of FSU and Clemson. They could have moved to the Big 12 if they wanted and maybe even to the SEC. They chose to sign the GOR. It would be unfair to ESPN to get out of the deal unless there was a way for ESPN to make more money, a win-win.

The SEC was pretty ticked at CBS for keeping their $55 million a year deal and that was a fair deal at the time it was signed. A&M and Missouri added no value to CBS, so there was no reason to increase it. And it still lead the SEC to look at another partner when they had the opportunity.

(08-31-2022 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:44 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  More from George K's PR release ... Canzano's article:

"One of the Pac-12’s Four Corners athletic directors I spoke with on Wednesday morning said that the Big 12 opening discussions on the media rights front is a “non-factor” for his university. He maintained there has been no contact with the Big 12 and that his university is committed to the Pac-12."

"A whole lotta lying going on right now"

Well I think the Utah AD he talks to probably does want the Pac 10 to stay together. But its really the Big 10 he has nightmares about. Especially if they only take two when Utah could end up stranded.

Interesting. Utah is still claiming that it’s had no contact with the Big 12 and is committed to the Pac-12.

Maybe that has nothing to do with Utah’s level of interest (or lack of interest) in joining the Big 12. Maybe Utah isn’t hearing from the Big 12 because the Big 12 has limited or no interest in Utah.

Let’s assume for a moment that Wilner is right about Ohio State blocking further Big 10 expansion. If in fact the Big 10 has made its final move in this round of realignment, then the door is open for the Big 12 to seek an expansion with the cream of the remaining Pac-12 schools. In that scenario the Big 12’s top targets will be Oregon and Washington, followed by some combination of Stanford, Arizona State, Arizona and Colorado (possibly all four). Utah will be a low priority because BYU is already in the fold.

Of course there’s no way of knowing yet whether the Big 12 will be able to put offers on the table that appeal to any of the remaining Pac-12 members. But if the Big 12’s upcoming negotiations with ESPN and Fox were to put the conference in a position to do so, the outcome could be an 18-member Big 12 with a coast-to-coast footprint and a badly wounded but still living Pac-12 with enough remaining members (Utah, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State) to rebuild with 6-8 MWC schools.

I would hate to see this scenario unfold given the longer-term risk it would pose to Hawaii of being left behind in a shattered MWC. But it could be in the cards.

Edit: I see that as I was writing this, bryanw1995 floated a similar scenario. The “speed of speculation” on this board is truly impressive. It can be hard to keep up!

https://mobile.twitter.com/slmandel/stat...41/photo/1

"extension of its current agreements" says to me keep the current deal past 2025 and
1. same payout without OUT and or
2. additional membership beyond the 14 after OUT

(08-31-2022 02:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:49 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 01:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:56 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:44 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  More from George K's PR release ... Canzano's article:

"One of the Pac-12’s Four Corners athletic directors I spoke with on Wednesday morning said that the Big 12 opening discussions on the media rights front is a “non-factor” for his university. He maintained there has been no contact with the Big 12 and that his university is committed to the Pac-12."

"A whole lotta lying going on right now"

"One of the PAC 12's Four Corners athletic directors...."

Sounds like Utah's AD, if I had to guess. Utah is all in and desperate for the PAC 12's survival.

From the Big 12's perspective, Utah is dilutive in the smallest of the Four Corner states at issue, so not likely as high on the Big 12's wish list.

Of the 4C, really only ASU should be confident. The big 12 could invite any combination of Pac schools that includes ASU, but the only reason ASU wouldn't get an invite would be if they were already moving to the B1G. Colorado is a shell of its former self, and Utah and UA are unnecessary when there are better options in their states for the big 12.

Here's a fun thought: the B1G says flat out "No" to the NW4. Not "no for now" but "no forever". The big 12 media deal looks to be far superior to the Pac, and in fact is better than the ACC's by quite a bit. Oregon, Washington, ASU, and 1 other get invites to join the big 12. Who is the 4th? I feel like Stanford would say no thanks but Cal would be super passive aggressive about it but probably go for it. Would the Big 12 take Cal over Utah or UA? Or all 3?

Wouldn't that instantly stabilize the PAC by not having a risk of the top brands going elsewhere, and therefore take away what people have been saying is a bargaining chip for the B12 to get a better media deal?

I'm not sure where your "far superior" comment comes from, since they seemed to be relatively similar WITHOUT the PAC having the risk of the NW4 leaving attached to it.

What numbers are you actually using here for that comparison?

I was giving a "what if" scenario, not predicting that.

Fair - I just don't see anything beyond the first statement happening should the B1G door be permanently shut for the NW4.

(08-31-2022 02:26 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:44 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  More from George K's PR release ... Canzano's article:

"One of the Pac-12’s Four Corners athletic directors I spoke with on Wednesday morning said that the Big 12 opening discussions on the media rights front is a “non-factor” for his university. He maintained there has been no contact with the Big 12 and that his university is committed to the Pac-12."

"A whole lotta lying going on right now"

Well I think the Utah AD he talks to probably does want the Pac 10 to stay together. But its really the Big 10 he has nightmares about. Especially if they only take two when Utah could end up stranded.

Interesting. Utah is still claiming that it’s had no contact with the Big 12 and is committed to the Pac-12.

Maybe that has nothing to do with Utah’s level of interest (or lack of interest) in joining the Big 12. Maybe Utah isn’t hearing from the Big 12 because the Big 12 has limited or no interest in Utah.

Let’s assume for a moment that Wilner is right about Ohio State blocking further Big 10 expansion. If in fact the Big 10 has made its final move in this round of realignment, then the door is open for the Big 12 to seek an expansion with the cream of the remaining Pac-12 schools. In that scenario the Big 12’s top targets will be Oregon and Washington, followed by some combination of Stanford, Arizona State, Arizona and Colorado (possibly all four). Utah will be a low priority because BYU is already in the fold.

Of course there’s no way of knowing yet whether the Big 12 will be able to put offers on the table that appeal to any of the remaining Pac-12 members. But if the Big 12’s upcoming negotiations with ESPN and Fox were to put the conference in a position to do so, the outcome could be an 18-member Big 12 with a coast-to-coast footprint and a badly wounded but still living Pac-12 with enough remaining members (Utah, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State) to rebuild with 6-8 MWC schools.

I would hate to see this scenario unfold given the longer-term risk it would pose to Hawaii of being left behind in a shattered MWC. But it could be in the cards.

Edit: I see that as I was writing this, bryanw1995 floated a very similar scenario. The “speed of speculation” on this board is truly impressive. It can be hard to keep up!

I REALLY hope that Hawaii ends up in the SEC. Yeah, it's really hard to see how we get there, but imagine the Road Trip potential!

(08-31-2022 02:26 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Let’s assume for a moment that Wilner is right

Or, more precisely: Let’s assume for a moment that George K is right — because at this point, Wilner is just the Pac-12 commissioner's mouthpiece on matters of realignment.

And it's pretty apparent George K is just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping it'll stick as he tries to keep his conference from unraveling

(08-31-2022 01:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 12:03 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 11:57 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  Can someone explain how the Pac12 can simultaneously have less value than the Big12 but also the most valuable programs for expansion?

Great point. But...

Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Case in point with the Big 12 right now. There are a few outliers with huge potential, but the rest are very solid programs that build on each other.

The PAC12 without LA is a mortal wound, worse than OUT, because there are no decent backfills. LA has come and gone. It is like Ohio St and PSU joining the SEC. How much does that destroy the B1G's value (forget about upping the SECs value)? Or Fla/UGa leaving for the B1G... the gap that creates is equivalent at least on a % basis.

You simply cannot survive when you are completely stripped of a vital market. Whereas the Big 12 added new markets and patched existing markets.

You'd need to remove tOSU/PSU/Michigan as a trio to deal that kind of blow to the B1G. And for the SEC, it's probably more like UF, UGA and LSU leaving, or both of the big schools leaving from alabama or Texas. If you lose bama you still have auburn, if you lose A&M you still have texas and OU coming soon, plus LSU is very strong in parts of Texas, if you lose UGA you could backfill with GT. But you can't get cover back into Florida until the ACC drama is done, quite possibly 2036, and you could never backfill into Louisiana. And let's be honest, LA the state is probably just as big for CFB as the city of LA.

ROFL @losing UGA & backfilling with GT. That's losing A&M and backfilling with TCU. Ask the Big 12 how that one turned out.

When the SEC lost GT, there was some commotion at first, but it died down pretty fast. When GT reapplied to join the SEC, they didn't have the votes to get back in. That's how big having UGA in the SEC is for the SEC, IMO.

I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember seeing a little cartoon with Hairy Dawg (UGA's mascot), Buzz, and Gus, GS' mascot. Hairy Dawg drew a map of the state of Georgia, and drew two little circles labeled "Ga Southern " & "Tech." The middle of the state had a great big "UGA " on it, symbolizing UGA's instate popularity. Buzz told Gus , "You'll get used to it. "

Sounds like ESPN plans to play both conferences off on each other to see who will accept the lower offer.

(08-31-2022 02:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Sounds like ESPN plans to play both conferences off on each other to see who will accept the lower offer.

why would big12 initiate discussion without needing to, to be played ?

(08-31-2022 02:48 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 02:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Sounds like ESPN plans to play both conferences off on each other to see who will accept the lower offer.

why would big12 initiate discussion without needing to, to be played ?

It's comical, he wants to have something concrete to show to the corner 4. Take 30 million staying here, or 40 million with us.

THamel said on ESPN CFL right now that the B12 wanted to see what kind of deal they could get and if it looked good enough, would put them in a stronger position than the PAC.

(08-31-2022 02:55 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  THamel said on ESPN CFL right now that the B12 wanted to see what kind of deal they could get and if it looked good enough, would put them in a stronger position than the PAC.

I mean yeah. That should have been obvious that it was the goal here. The question then becomes: what number makes it look good enough? Followed by: do they get that number?

(08-31-2022 02:55 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  THamel said the B12 wanted to see what kind of deal they could get and if it looked good enough, would put them in a stronger position than the PAC.

Being in better shape than a dead man walking shouldn't be too difficult

(08-31-2022 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  There is no legacy content provider last stand lockout of Big Tech. The Big Ten goes to market again in less than a decade. What’s to stop Amazon from offering Ohio State a helluva lot more for an exclusive football contract? Nothing. Stop acting like this is the endgame people. There is no endgame.

They couldn’t get in this round even overpaying.

Much easier for the networks to keep them out of two or three conferences than 5.

(08-31-2022 02:57 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 02:55 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  THamel said on ESPN CFL right now that the B12 wanted to see what kind of deal they could get and if it looked good enough, would put them in a stronger position than the PAC.

I mean yeah. That should have been obvious that it was the goal here. The question then becomes: what number makes it look good enough? Followed by: do they get that number?

It's probably more to do with, B12 hoping that there is a real fear in the B1G taking at least 2 more and the PAC schools knowing about it. They'd move to add the 4 corners and not sit back like the PAC did when it could have added Kansas, OSU, TT, KSU or TCU last year.

To me, I think if you consolidate the best performing football product and tv marketing? Boise State should be in the running and so is Memphis. I just can't see leaving money on the table if they are the best options better than several of the P5 schools. Even North Dakota State fans travel for away games. Arizona and Colorado adds nothing of value to the Big 12. Their viewership sucks big time. Same with Kansas, Duke and Wake Forest.

Let’s think about how this may look from ESPN’s perspective.

Which of the following deals is more attractive (assuming either will have to include an out for any schools that land a future Big 10 or SEC invitation)?

1. Pay $350 million per year for all of the content available from a 10-member Pac-12. That’s $35 million per school. All of the schools are in the Mountain and Pacific time zones, limiting the time slots this content can fill.

2. Pay $350 million per year for half of the content available from an 18-member Big 12 that includes Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona State, Arizona, and Colorado. Assuming Fox kicks in the same amount, that’s $700 million total or $39 million per school. The schools cover all four contiguous U.S. time zones, placing no limits on the time slots this content can fill.

Food for thought…