bryanw1995
+12 Hackmaster
Posts: 12,818
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 1307
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
|
RE: When are we going to hear something from the Pac?
(01-21-2023 04:20 PM)Skyhawk Wrote: (01-21-2023 02:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote: (01-20-2023 06:05 PM)Skyhawk Wrote: (01-20-2023 03:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote: (01-19-2023 11:22 PM)Skyhawk Wrote: never said they didn't have value. I just meant that not having them, shouldn't reduce the overall PAC conference media deal much.
My thought is that the difference between 8 and 10 when it isn't usc, ohio state, alabama, texas, etc., probably doesn't make that huge of a difference for overall payment to a conference.
but for the individual schools, dropping to 8, makes a big deal in the "per school" dollars.
if everyone was at 25 each for 10, dividing up the 50 for the other 8is over 5M extra, each. Which puts them in the range of the B12 deal.
And along those lines, another way the PAC could do this could be to retain those schools and wave goodbye to OSU and WSU instead.
Or just swap OSU for SDSU, or or or.
But in their current situation, they would seem to need to either go big or go small. Middle ground isn't likely going to cut it.
And going big means adding schools like SDSU and Fresno state, plus maybe a texas pod of UTSA, SMU, Rice, and then Tulane (aau) or maybe Air force.
And for some PAC schools that might be a tough pill to swallow. so going smaller might be their better option.
If they drop the Arizonas and Colorado, I think they reduce their need to add socal. Hence, AZ, AZ state, Colorado and SDSU to the B12.
So it all depends.
It doesn't work that way. Networks need a critical mass of games to fill all of their slots. Going from 17 to 16 schools by taking out the 8th most valuable Brand probably would have little if any impact on the media rights. But going from 10, which is already marginal to fill all slots, down to 7...that's a scary drop, and they won't stay together if they drop down to 7 then add 1 to get to 8.
Think of it:
P2 - 16 each
ACC- 14.5
nbig 16 (after stealing from the Pac and grabbing sdsu) - 16
nPac 8
Keep in mind that the Pac no longer has an "Alpha". No Texas, No USC, No OU, No UCLA. What they do have is some good Betas and a bunch of pretty good but not great Brands. One of those betas is ASU, and possibly CU now that they've gotten serious again about Athletics. And UArizona isn't bad, either. Losing both AZ schools could very well be terminal in fact. The Pac has good value still, but those 3 schools represent about 30% of that value, and the revised media rights deal would reflect that.
the number of schools is not equal to the number of games.
this is about matchups. and if the conference can show a certain amount of games. 2 less schools is not going to impact that much.
and one example of a value for espn here is that there's a decent chance PAC school will have games against big 10 schools. and espn doesn't currently have a media deal with the big 10. so that's also a value.
these deals aren't just a counting of heads and weighing the seeming value of a school. they are not that at all.
Only 8 schools runs a much higher risk of several consecutive down years by all programs. With 12, you'll always have some ranked, UW or UO is up when USC and Utah are down, etc etc. But with 8? You could have a 7-5 or 8-4 team win the conference 3 years in a row, and no good content for TV partners. If I'm a TV partner, and I can have a 12 team big 12 that's in a great Football footprint, just had a solid season, and put a team in the Title Game for $30m, then what's an 8 team Pac worth? $18m? $21m? The Pac needs 10 for sure, and 12 is probably better, for their next media rights deal. They'll sign the new deal (if they ever get everything sorted out) with 10 teams but a wink-wink agreement on who the 11th and 12th will be, with all terms worked out ahead of time with both the broadcast partner(s) and the new schools.
the first part of your response is a completely different argument. And I disagree with your supposition there. Every school wants to think they can win the conference, and having more schools in a conference are more steps in my way of winning the conference.
And the second part that you build on from it, that the possibility of the schools getting to winning the conference, gains them more money, is immaterial.
I hate to break it to fans, but media companies don't care if you win or lose.
Just ask the Cubs, the Red Sox, and any number of other sports groups.
Media companies just want eyeballs - ad revenue.
And to ask the question directly - Would you continue to watch Texas A&M if they had less than a stellar season this year, next year, and every year until the end of the media contract?
If yes, then your argument fails on all counts.
You think that the ACC CCG has 3m viewers the past 2 years if Clemson is #1? Or that A&M-bama draws so many fans if we never beat them? Certainly, A&M is going to draw a lot more fans than, say, TCU, all things being equal. But if we win 5 games a year for a decade and TCU wins 10, they'll get a lot more "big" games and, thus, a lot more viewers. If you had an 8 team conference with huge state schools then you could get away with a 7-5 champ every year, maybe, but without any games of national or even regional importance, the viewership would have a cap on it. And in the new 12 team CFP format, 7-5 or 8-4 won't get you even 1 team into the Playoff. How many years must that happen before your conference is relegated to g5 payouts instead of p5 payouts?
|
|