(09-14-2022 05:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:21 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  Wilner has an article (subscriber) saying he think the P5 setup holds, but that 2030 is a turning point. That's his teaser.

There's a link on his twitter for anyone who is a subscriber.

That's not really saying much. Everyone thinks 2030-ish is a major turning point. It's also such a long ways away that we can't anticipate all the moves that will happen between now and then. The ACC may very well figure out an extension of their GoR, and then we'll all be saying "2050 is the next turning point".

The hint is that Wilner, a big Pac propagandist, implies that he think the Pac blows up in 2030. But I don't have access to the article. Still he's leaving that impression which is very different from his normal tone.

You can get Wilner’s articles without a paywall here:

https://www.ksl.com/sports/pac-12-hotline

His 3rd article from top has an interesting take on Amazon. If I'm Kliavkoff, I'd take a couple million per year more from Amazon, and if it's really big money, like $5m+ per year, that's an absolute no brainer.

They need to give up on the Pac 12 Network or sell it.

(09-14-2022 07:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  They need to give up on the Pac 12 Network or sell it.

Nobody's going to pay anything for it. Just shut it down and walk away, like the Mountain West did with their failed network.

(09-14-2022 04:58 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Timestamp Start = 17:40

Quote:Marchand: A little nugget, this is interesting for our College Football fans. I think the PAC12 and ESPN, hundred of millions apart. They are not even close. That is going to be interesting, where that goes, in terms of negotiations, and will teams jump.

Because when your that far apart that means something has to happen... and... I'm not saying this is about to happen. I don't have information on this... but something, maybe just a little conjecture...

Do one of the digital partner somehow get involved with the PAC12?

Right, Apple for example loves to buy everything and then sell subscriptions and they did that with the MLS.
The PAC12 just had this problem with not being... you know... with the PAC12 Network, you couldn't find it, you know, obviously not as successful as the ones that partnered with Fox or ESPN. But money talks...and... if Apple can make the case that we're going to pay you, we're going to bundle the PAC12 and they can get the money that they're looking for... maybe they come into the picture, but right now...

The issue for the PAC12 and perhaps the Big12 as well is just leverage. Right, They've [ESPN] already spent a lot of money. That doesn't mean a deal wont happen. But they are going to somehow have to strengthen their hand, if you're both, especially the PAC12. The Big12 already expanded a little bit. I think they could try to pick off some PAC12 teams. That is something to watch for our College Football fans out there.

Ourland: I would be absolutely, I want to upgrade shocked, gobsmack is that more than shocked? I would be gobsmacked if ESPN doesn't find a way to do a deal with the PAC12. But when you bring up Amazon and you bring up Apple and Google is sitting as well. That's not insubstantial. You're sitting in New York and I'm in DC. We do have an East Coast bias here, because that's all we are consuming.

Amazon is [near] the University of Washington. Apple is right there with Cal and Stanford. These are people that work for these companies. These are companies that are in PAC12 country. Would they want a PAC12 that doesn't have UCLA and USC? I would think so. I think that's a pretty good bet as well. There is going to be some sort of package that the PAC12 will create for the streamers.

Marchand: Apple wants it all. That's what they're trying to do. Then they can sell the subscription. It might make some sense. Does it work? I don't know about that.

Thanks for the synopsis AUKnight! Appreciate when folks on the board take the time to transcribe and post things likely to interest many here.

ESPN likely sees the writing on the wall out West. Pursuing an agreement with an already diminished Pac-10 — with possibly four more schools ready to jump to a non-ESPN property at any moment — makes zero sense.

And if you're Amazon and/or Apple, why bother overpaying for the Pac, when you can get a much bigger piece of the piece of the pie if/when UW, UO, Cal and Stanford move to the B1G. That fourth B1G window at 10ish Eastern ET/7ish Pacific linked with and promoted by FOX, CBS and NBC is far more valuable than a weakened and fraying Pac.

My guess is ESPN knows it can do fine with a late night package that includes the Four Corners Four and perhaps WSU, OSU and San Diego State as well if Yormark puts the pedal to the medal on his expansion-mobile

(09-14-2022 06:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:21 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  Wilner has an article (subscriber) saying he think the P5 setup holds, but that 2030 is a turning point. That's his teaser.

There's a link on his twitter for anyone who is a subscriber.

That’s picked up steam since 6+6 format.

Imo, nearly anyone not a “sure” invite to P2 now isn’t getting an invite in 2030. ND an exception, maybe FSU if they get back to success. Maybe Stanford gets an exemption. Oregon and Clemson would need elite 8 years. The schools not in P2 will need to dominate at a level to get promoted.

More likely by 2030 the rump P5 conferences cannibalized and faded, and that the P2 can further separate.

Clemson is literally on an all-time great historical tear. They have had 11 top 25 finishes in a row, including 6 top 5's in a row with 2 Titles before slipping to #14 last year. Not sure how much more "elite" they would need to be than that. Even bama only has 3 Titles in 9 years.

Getting into the P2 nowadays has little to do with recent success on the field (see texas, ucla and USCw), so what are you basing your opinion on?

Another 8 years of elite success, and it’s more than just “recent success” .

UT may be decoupled from success in terms of having the valuation, but that is Clemson’s only path. And it may even then fall short, but ask what is their chance if they have 8 average years. This is basic stuff

(09-14-2022 07:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 07:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  They need to give up on the Pac 12 Network or sell it.

Nobody's going to pay anything for it. Just shut it down and walk away, like the Mountain West did with their failed network.

I agree. Maybe some of the infrastructure can be sold for scrap, or something.

(09-14-2022 06:38 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:21 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  The ACC may very well figure out an extension of their GoR ...

... and then we'll all be saying "2050 is the next turning point".

No ... and hell no

Ooh, you're making me want it to happen now.

(09-14-2022 07:10 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 06:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:21 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  Wilner has an article (subscriber) saying he think the P5 setup holds, but that 2030 is a turning point. That's his teaser.

There's a link on his twitter for anyone who is a subscriber.

That’s picked up steam since 6+6 format.

Imo, nearly anyone not a “sure” invite to P2 now isn’t getting an invite in 2030. ND an exception, maybe FSU if they get back to success. Maybe Stanford gets an exemption. Oregon and Clemson would need elite 8 years. The schools not in P2 will need to dominate at a level to get promoted.

More likely by 2030 the rump P5 conferences cannibalized and faded, and that the P2 can further separate.

Clemson is literally on an all-time great historical tear. They have had 11 top 25 finishes in a row, including 6 top 5's in a row with 2 Titles before slipping to #14 last year. Not sure how much more "elite" they would need to be than that. Even bama only has 3 Titles in 9 years.

Getting into the P2 nowadays has little to do with recent success on the field (see texas, ucla and USCw), so what are you basing your opinion on?

Another 8 years of elite success, and it’s more than just “recent success” .

UT may be decoupled from success in terms of having the valuation, but that is Clemson’s only path. And it may even then fall short, but ask what is their chance if they have 8 average years. This is basic stuff

So how did you arrive at Clemson needing 19 years instead of 11 years of truly all-time great performance on the field, when nobody else who's been added to the P2 other than Nebraska in the past couple decades had a similar run? Oh, and Clemson also won a title 40 years ago, it's not like this is an out of nowhere flash in the pan. In fact, Clemson has won more titles in the past 40 years than any team in the B1G and all but 2 teams in the mighty SEC. Clemson also has the biggest stadium outside of the P2 in all of College Football.

You're using a metric that nobody else is using, and you're setting the bar impossibly high using that metric. It's ridiculous and clear evidence of bias or at least ignorance on your part.

Now, if you think that they're going to come up short b/c their location isn't great, or because you question the staying power of their Brand, then that could potentially be a different discussion. But give us something more than an unsupported opinion at the very least.

(09-14-2022 07:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ooh, you're making me want it to happen now.

Your Gobblers can and will do better than Conference GoR

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:21 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  That’s picked up steam since 6+6 format.

Imo, nearly anyone not a “sure” invite to P2 now isn’t getting an invite in 2030. ND an exception, maybe FSU if they get back to success. Maybe Stanford gets an exemption. Oregon and Clemson would need elite 8 years. Maybe if basketball tournament money is redone.

More likely by 2030 the rump P5 conferences have faded enough that P2 can further separate.

I don't see any reason the Big 10 would decide its better to invite both Washington and Oregon in 2030 than now. If you bundle them with Notre Dame in 2030, they are still a bit of a drag as opposed to Notre Dame + 1.

In terms of valuations, I agree. Likely only to go down and be more costly to add.

The caveat being if it is even more like NFL expansion come 2030. The two conferences will have established such a brand that they can add new franchises, and those schools now instantly gain the casual viewer

Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't see any reason the Big 10 would decide its better to invite both Washington and Oregon in 2030 than now. If you bundle them with Notre Dame in 2030, they are still a bit of a drag as opposed to Notre Dame + 1.

In terms of valuations, I agree. Likely only to go down and be more costly to add.

The caveat being if it is even more like NFL expansion come 2030. The two conferences will have established such a brand that they can add new franchises, and those schools now instantly gain the casual viewer

Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Hey Pitt is on the rise, hope it continues

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  In terms of valuations, I agree. Likely only to go down and be more costly to add.

The caveat being if it is even more like NFL expansion come 2030. The two conferences will have established such a brand that they can add new franchises, and those schools now instantly gain the casual viewer

Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Yep, a 14 year long path. Enjoy the trek, things might look pretty different by the end of it!

TAMU of the famed P2 is the reason that the Miami-TAMU game isn't a headliner. Kind of funny, the mighty P2 with all their advantages over the last decade shat the bed vs a little ol' jug band. At home. Lol can't make this stuff up.

But please continue to wallow in the misery that the ACC's TV revenue deal is holding FSU back.

(09-15-2022 08:11 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Live view of Pete the Chop. Poor guy. Enjoy the next 14 seasons of ACC bawl!!!

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  In terms of valuations, I agree. Likely only to go down and be more costly to add.

The caveat being if it is even more like NFL expansion come 2030. The two conferences will have established such a brand that they can add new franchises, and those schools now instantly gain the casual viewer

Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Simple question..

What is more important to college football fans..
Making the playoffs or making the most money?
In the ACC, Clemson will be a playoff favorite yearly. In the SEC, most years they will be fighting to finish 3rd or 4th behind Bama, UGA, and whatever other schools are good in a given year. The SEC road is even tougher for FSU and Miami than it is for Clemson. Same thing would apply to schools like Washington and Oregon whose fans want them in the B1G. It would create scenarios of these schools actually being pretty good, but finishing 6th or 7th in a 20 school B1G or SEC and having no real shot of making a 12 team playoff more years than not.

It's not like fans get a cut of increased conference revenue. Banners don't get hung for most profitable athletic departments.. The bottom feeders in the SEC and B1G already make a lot more money that Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC schools, but that doesn't translate to better results than the upper tier schools in the less valuable conferences.

I just don't get the desire to move to the B1G or SEC so you can win less..

To be fair, ESPN and the Big Ten were likely "hundreds of millions apart" during their exclusive negotiating window, too.

When was the last time that an exclusive negotiating window actually resulted in a deal? It's essentially set up to fail in a rising sports rights fees environment. The conference has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they are completely blown over by an offer from the incumbent network when the overall market is paying more for sports rights. On the flip side, the incumbent network has a heavy incentive to only sign a deal in an exclusive negotiating window if they get a discount (on the theory that the conference should take the bird in hand as opposed to risking getting a lower value in the open market). Essentially, the incentives for the conference and networks are diametrically opposed to each other during the exclusive negotiating window.

So, if I was running the Pac-12, I wouldn't be worried about ESPN providing a lowball offer in an exclusive negotiating period. ESPN has done that to *everyone* in every instance. (I was listening to an entertainment industry insider podcast just a few days ago and they noted that Disney's whole M.O. in Hollywood is underpaying everyone from top talent to the accountants in the corporate office to the "Cast Members" at the theme parks because they legitimately believe that the intangible association with their brand can compensate for tangible dollars. They weren't even talking about sports in this instance, but that's certainly how ESPN approaches things - it's engrained in the culture of their parent company.)

Instead, what matters to me if I'm the Pac-12 is whether there are other bidders out there for my content when this inevitably goes to the open market. Or, maybe more appropriate, are there other bidders out there for my content that I *want* to fit the league's overall strategy. For instance, Apple might be willing to shell out a lot of money, but they're not going to do that just for some random Friday night games - they want an MLS-type deal with they own everything and can sell it as a separate subscription service. Amazon is a little different - they're looking for properties that bring a huge scale of viewers to their Prime platform, which is why they got the NFL and went hard for the Big Ten. So, a weakened Pac-12 may not fit into their strategy as Amazon is looking more for OTA-level content.

As much as it may pain the Pac-12 at this point considering everything that has happened up to this point, they need FOX involved in the negotiations or else ESPN is likely the only entity out there bidding for the linear TV component. NBC and CBS spent their college football cash on the Big Ten already - they're effectively off the market (which is another way that the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA damaged the Pac-12). That really just leaves FOX and ESPN available as potential linear TV partners. If FOX totally pulls out of the Pac-12, that just leaves ESPN there without anyone to bid against them... and as stated above, the Walt Disney Company and ESPN underpay everyone where they can.

(09-15-2022 08:30 AM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 07:39 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

Well, there's nowhere to go but up or sideways for FSU and Miami. The last 5 years for the Noles and the last 20 years for Miami have not exactly been stellar. But that doesn't mean they're on track to start winning NC's for the ACC. Or beat P2 teams with consistency as years of pay disparity take a toll (based on the present outlook). Maybe epic playoff cash makes the ACC more attractive to the "football schools". Beyond something like that...FSU/Clemson/Miami are gone as soon as they have a path to P2.

Simple question..

What is more important to college football fans..
Making the playoffs or making the most money?
In the ACC, Clemson will be a playoff favorite yearly. In the SEC, most years they will be fighting to finish 3rd or 4th behind Bama, UGA, and whatever other schools are good in a given year. The SEC road is even tougher for FSU and Miami than it is for Clemson. Same thing would apply to schools like Washington and Oregon whose fans want them in the B1G. It would create scenarios of these schools actually being pretty good, but finishing 6th or 7th in a 20 school B1G or SEC and having no real shot of making a 12 team playoff more years than not.

It's not like fans get a cut of increased conference revenue. Banners don't get hung for most profitable athletic departments.. The bottom feeders in the SEC and B1G already make a lot more money that Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC schools, but that doesn't translate to better results than the upper tier schools in the less valuable conferences.

I just don't get the desire to move to the B1G or SEC so you can win less..

That's extreme recency bias in terms of the teams you list. The SEC is tougher for everyone in the conference. Miami would have dominated the SEC in the early 00's. FSU would have been the best program in the SEC in the 90's (with UF and UTn being the runner-ups). In 5-10 years...Bama could very well hit a slump. Seems hard to imagine now...but was easy to see from 1980-2009...the Tide was not an elite program for that stretch of 3 decades, save a season or two. UGA struggled for decades and finally got it right lately. Texas...will eventually get it right. It's not just going to be Bama-UGA into eternity. There are several teams that have the resources and support to be the next heir to the throne. And then there will be another.

(09-14-2022 07:09 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 04:58 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Timestamp Start = 17:40

Quote:Marchand: A little nugget, this is interesting for our College Football fans. I think the PAC12 and ESPN, hundred of millions apart. They are not even close. That is going to be interesting, where that goes, in terms of negotiations, and will teams jump.

Because when your that far apart that means something has to happen... and... I'm not saying this is about to happen. I don't have information on this... but something, maybe just a little conjecture...

Do one of the digital partner somehow get involved with the PAC12?

Right, Apple for example loves to buy everything and then sell subscriptions and they did that with the MLS.
The PAC12 just had this problem with not being... you know... with the PAC12 Network, you couldn't find it, you know, obviously not as successful as the ones that partnered with Fox or ESPN. But money talks...and... if Apple can make the case that we're going to pay you, we're going to bundle the PAC12 and they can get the money that they're looking for... maybe they come into the picture, but right now...

The issue for the PAC12 and perhaps the Big12 as well is just leverage. Right, They've [ESPN] already spent a lot of money. That doesn't mean a deal wont happen. But they are going to somehow have to strengthen their hand, if you're both, especially the PAC12. The Big12 already expanded a little bit. I think they could try to pick off some PAC12 teams. That is something to watch for our College Football fans out there.

Ourland: I would be absolutely, I want to upgrade shocked, gobsmack is that more than shocked? I would be gobsmacked if ESPN doesn't find a way to do a deal with the PAC12. But when you bring up Amazon and you bring up Apple and Google is sitting as well. That's not insubstantial. You're sitting in New York and I'm in DC. We do have an East Coast bias here, because that's all we are consuming.

Amazon is [near] the University of Washington. Apple is right there with Cal and Stanford. These are people that work for these companies. These are companies that are in PAC12 country. Would they want a PAC12 that doesn't have UCLA and USC? I would think so. I think that's a pretty good bet as well. There is going to be some sort of package that the PAC12 will create for the streamers.

Marchand: Apple wants it all. That's what they're trying to do. Then they can sell the subscription. It might make some sense. Does it work? I don't know about that.

Thanks for the synopsis AUKnight! Appreciate when folks on the board take the time to transcribe and post things likely to interest many here.

ESPN likely sees the writing on the wall out West. Pursuing an agreement with an already diminished Pac-10 — with possibly four more schools ready to jump to a non-ESPN property at any moment — makes zero sense.

And if you're Amazon and/or Apple, why bother overpaying for the Pac, when you can get a much bigger piece of the piece of the pie if/when UW, UO, Cal and Stanford move to the B1G. That fourth B1G window at 10ish Eastern ET/7ish Pacific linked with and promoted by FOX, CBS and NBC is far more valuable than a weakened and fraying Pac.

My guess is ESPN knows it can do fine with a late night package that includes the Four Corners Four and perhaps WSU, OSU and San Diego State as well if Yormark puts the pedal to the medal on his expansion-mobile

Thanks for the reps.

I agree, ESPN/FOX will work with Big12 to poach PAC teams. ESPN is trying to make it work with the PAC but they aren't willing to overpay. If those turn sour, ESPN has the advantage of the exclusive Big12 window.

If PAC had more time I do think Apple could save them but Yormark and the Big12 are moving fast. I don't think Apple (or the other streamers) wants to make a rash decision in an environment they are unfamiliar with. ESPN/FOX will have the Big12 financial projections ready soon, with those they can lure PAC teams. Not sure what number the 4-corners need to see to flip. I assume its substantial since they value their academic allegiances so much.

Worst case, Big12 doesn't get enough to entice 4-corner flip. PAC stays united gets respectable money from steamers but receives less exposure. I think the ESPN/FOX Big12 will be more pay more and have more exposure.

(09-15-2022 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:49 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(09-14-2022 05:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't see any reason the Big 10 would decide its better to invite both Washington and Oregon in 2030 than now. If you bundle them with Notre Dame in 2030, they are still a bit of a drag as opposed to Notre Dame + 1.

In terms of valuations, I agree. Likely only to go down and be more costly to add.

The caveat being if it is even more like NFL expansion come 2030. The two conferences will have established such a brand that they can add new franchises, and those schools now instantly gain the casual viewer

Casual fans watch important games (ranked teams/popular rivalries) and games of regional interest.

Casual fans in Texas aren’t going to say “Jim, let’s go out to b-dubs and watch the Big Ten game!” Lol not happening.

The P2 will increasingly dominate the important games. The decline in casual viewership of non-P2 won’t be linear

Hmm, they took important games from the Big XII and Pac, the ACC remains untouched and continues with their Notre Dame deal. If FSU and Miami improve like I predict, the ACC actual increases important games.

Maybe we should start calling it the P3 since it’s looking like there won’t be a breakaway from the NCAA?

The ACC championship game was out-viewed by American.

The casual viewer already knows the ACC isn’t relevant