(02-26-2020 08:00 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 07:43 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 06:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:57 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/usc/Articl...144248076/

USC fans are not happy with PAC-12

I stand by my prediction that the Big XII will poach the Pac-12 for the Arizona Twins or Utah & Colorado if not all 4.

Yes, because the Arizona Schools want to double their travel costs, fly Women's volleyball to Morgantown , get the prime recruiting hotspots of Ames, Manhattan, Stillwater and Lubbock and give up two close games in LA, two reasonable trips to the tiny Bay Area, and pass up Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake and Denver.

Not to mention Colorado left the Big 12 to go to the Pac 12 not even 9 years ago.

When they were making less in the Big XII than what the Pac was making,times have changed.

(02-26-2020 10:01 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 08:00 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 07:43 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 06:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:57 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/usc/Articl...144248076/

USC fans are not happy with PAC-12

I stand by my prediction that the Big XII will poach the Pac-12 for the Arizona Twins or Utah & Colorado if not all 4.

Yes, because the Arizona Schools want to double their travel costs, fly Women's volleyball to Morgantown , get the prime recruiting hotspots of Ames, Manhattan, Stillwater and Lubbock and give up two close games in LA, two reasonable trips to the tiny Bay Area, and pass up Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake and Denver.

Not to mention Colorado left the Big 12 to go to the Pac 12 not even 9 years ago.

When they were making less in the Big XII than what the Pac was making,times have changed.

it should be noted that there was not a time when the PAC 10/12 was paying more than the Big 12

https://www.foxsports.com/other/story/tv...ion-061710

Scott said the conference has explored the possibility of a network with different teams and different numbers of teams. It hired the Creative Arts Agency to help determine how much money it can make under different plans. The Pac-10 pays out the least of any of the six BCS conferences, with the latest figures showing Stanford getting less than $7 million and Southern California receiving about $11.5 million.

and from a year prior

https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/i...ring-funds

And here's how the BCS-affiliated conferences rank:

1. Big Ten: $154.2 million
2. ACC: $137.6 million
3. SEC: $135 million
4. Big 12: $103.1 million
5. Pac-10: $80.1 million
6. Big East: $77.6 million

on a per team average basis the Big 12 would have been $500,000 higher

it should also be noted that the PAC 10 had unequal revenue sharing as the above articles attest to and as the one below does

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/pac-...questions/

The back story there is that the Pac-10 has a dramatically uneven split in parceling out its TV revenue, while the Big Ten, ACC and Big East share it equally, and the SEC comes close.

in addition even with the new TV deal USC and UCLA demanded a guarantee

https://www.espn.com/college-football/ne...id=5711336

he more important decision came in regards to revenue sharing. The conference will switch from an appearance-based model where the Los Angeles schools traditionally earned more money to an equal sharing of football television revenues when a new TV deal kicks in starting in September 2012.

USC and UCLA got some protection as both schools will get a $2 million bonus if the conference media revenues fall below $170 million. The conference currently generates about $60 million a year in television revenues, but that is expected to rise significantly when a new television deal is negotiated.


so unequal revenue sharing is not unusual in the PAC 10/12 and in fact that how it was in the past and USC and UCLA demanding more money is not unusual either and is a part of the current TV deal, but was not needed because the contract averaged over $170 million per year

and while I see it as unlikely that the Arizona schools specifically would leave the PAC 12 for the big 12 without a significant number of other PAC 12 schools they both run embarrassingly high academic subsidies and have high debt loads with ongoing projects adding to that debt

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

AU with $11,331,638 in academic subsidies after $1.1 million in student fees and ASU $12,286,325 from the academic side after almost $11 million in student fees

that is not going to continue forever and in the case of ASU that student fee is relatively new so they are hammering their students as it is now and have gone to that well for about all they can

only Rutgers has a higher total dollar hit to students as a P5 than ASU and in addition to those two only Virginia and Maryland are above AU

then Utah is next after that then Colorado then Oregon State

and it gets better....in the case of ASU for that reporting year their revenues INCLUDING those academic subsidies were $113.6 million but their expense were $126.7 so they ran a $13.1 million dollar deficit that year even with those academic subsidies

in the case of AU $95.8 in revenues with $103.3 in expenses so a $7.5 million dollar deficit

Utah was was revenue positive while CU broke exactly even and Oregon State $80.7 in revenues and $$88.6 in expenses....so $8 million in the hole

then there is WSU $5.3 million in total subsidies and still in the hole $8.6 million and they have been in the hole for several years and their academic side has stated it will be paid back at some point

then there is Cal and their $400 million in debt and their total cooking of their athletics books at this point

at some point something has to give you cannot be last in P5 revenues while having a ton of programs with high academic subsidies, deficits annually AFTER those subsidies, and high debt loads (the PAC 12 is probably the leading P5 conference with that issue as well)

(02-26-2020 06:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:57 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/usc/Articl...144248076/

USC fans are not happy with PAC-12

I stand by my prediction that the Big XII will poach the Pac-12 for the Arizona Twins or Utah & Colorado if not all 4.

They might poach some conference, but I doubt it would be the PAC, or any P5 conference, for that matter.

1) The Big-12 has little to offer schools in the other P5 conferences that they don't already have. They couldn't offer much larger payments, and even if they could, the $ would be offset by increased travel costs, with the exception of Colorado.

2) The non Big-12 P5 schools have many institutional ties in their conferences and a shared cultural identity. Culturally, the Big-12 has a rough and tough FB reputation and a red state swag. The PAC schools, except Utah, are in bluer and purple states, and they may have more in common culturally with the B1G and east coast.

--Culturally, the Big-12 has the most in common with the SEC, but the trend has been to lose schools to the SEC (and B1G and PAC), rather than the other way 'round.

3) In Colorado's case, they decided years ago that they'd had enough with the Big-12. It's hard to think of any reason for them to reverse that decision.

4) The reason why the Big 12 only has 10 schools is that Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, & Colorado all sought greener pastures elsewhere. They were fortunate to get WVU as a result of the Big East's impending dissolution and to get a massively improved TCU from their back yard.

5) Q: Why did the Big-12 lose 4 prestigious universities?
A: Texas is apparently not an ideal partner.

Texas has had the reputation of a "conference destroyer," after causing the SWC to implode and a bit of a domineering bully within the conference, due to their huge broadcasting network and market share. UT hasn't hesitated to throw their weight around, and the other Big-12 schools don't like it. UT has de facto veto power over any decision, such as adding potential members and broadcasting agreements.

It has been said that, of all the B-12 schools, UT is the most reluctant to approve expansion beyond 10 members, because they would stand to lose the most income if the pie were to be split 11 or 12, rather than 10 ways.

Under those circumstances, any school other than a G5 or independent would probably have major reservations about moving to the Big-12.

--------

UT's reputation as somewhat of a swaggering bull(y) may also make it difficult for them to switch conferences.

This^^^^^.

(02-27-2020 01:30 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 06:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:57 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/usc/Articl...144248076/

USC fans are not happy with PAC-12

I stand by my prediction that the Big XII will poach the Pac-12 for the Arizona Twins or Utah & Colorado if not all 4.

They might poach some conference, but I doubt it would be the PAC, or any P5 conference, for that matter.

1) The Big-12 has little to offer schools in the other P5 conferences that they don't already have. They couldn't offer much larger payments, and even if they could, the $ would be offset by increased travel costs, with the exception of Colorado.

2) The non Big-12 P5 schools have many institutional ties in their conferences and a shared cultural identity. Culturally, the Big-12 has a rough and tough FB reputation and a red state swag. The PAC schools, except Utah, are in bluer and purple states, and they may have more in common culturally with the B1G and east coast.

--Culturally, the Big-12 has the most in common with the SEC, but the trend has been to lose schools to the SEC (and B1G and PAC), rather than the other way 'round.

3) In Colorado's case, they decided years ago that they'd had enough with the Big-12. It's hard to think of any reason for them to reverse that decision.

4) The reason why the Big 12 only has 10 schools is that Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, & Colorado all sought greener pastures elsewhere. They were fortunate to get WVU as a result of the Big East's impending dissolution and to get a massively improved TCU from their back yard.

5) Q: Why did the Big-12 lose 4 prestigious universities?
A: Texas is apparently not an ideal partner.

Texas has had the reputation of a "conference destroyer," after causing the SWC to implode and a bit of a domineering bully within the conference, due to their huge broadcasting network and market share. UT hasn't hesitated to throw their weight around, and the other Big-12 schools don't like it. UT has de facto veto power over any decision, such as adding potential members and broadcasting agreements.

It has been said that, of all the B-12 schools, UT is the most reluctant to approve expansion beyond 10 members, because they would stand to lose the most income if the pie were to be split 11 or 12, rather than 10 ways.

Under those circumstances, any school other than a G5 or independent would probably have major reservations about moving to the Big-12.

--------

UT's reputation as somewhat of a swaggering bull(y) may also make it difficult for them to switch conferences.

at some point reality sets in

1. the PAC 12 has the lowest TV revenues by far and that does not look to be changing

2. the PAC 12 has the most programs with the highest academic side subsidies and those are very large subsidies and the next is the ACC

3. the PAC 12 has the most programs running annual deficits AFTER those annual academic side subsidies are included

4. the PAC 12 has the most programs with the highest amount of athletics debt and the highest annual debt service for athletics

5. even with those academic side subsidies the PAC 12 has the most programs with the lowest revenues in the P5

6. at some point "institutional ties" really mean nothing if you are tied to a bunch of programs with high subsidies, low revenues, annual debt, high overall debt, and high debt service (which means less of the revenues are going to the actual programs).....and it means even less when you are making a lot less in TV revenues for having all of those ties

7. no one cares what Colorado thinks including many people in Colorado.....if Colorado cared they would not be listening to their former AD that lived in Boulder from the age of 1 year old until he graduated high school and that became the AD of a P5 program in the city where he grew up for all of his young life and then LEFT to go to a G5 school......now at USC talking about everything is on the table as far as conference affiliation and TV dollars for USC.....he left Colorado because he realized that Colorado does not care about athletics they left the Big 12 so they could go to the PAC 12 and skate by and talk about academics.......while ignoring that universities in Colorado are under financial pressure on the academic side as well

8. NU, aggy, and Missouri were all in favor of unequal revenue sharing and there is a good chance Colorado was as well......attempting to blame that on Texas is just nonsense and has been disproved time and again including from the mouth of the chancellor of NU and from the lawsuits where aggy threatened to sue the Big 12 for uneven revenues while saying they were staying....and then left

in addition it is well known that NU and OU were 100% against a conference network as was aggy......any of them with a change of vote probably could have pushed through a conference network for the Big 12, but none did

no matter what people on the www and forums like this think those that actually make the decisions know how programs voted on the various issues with the Big 12....along with that apart from more money how are NU, CU and MU doing in their new conferences?......and even aggy is just a hanger on er and a laughing stock to the members of the SEC SEC SEC.....but hey no more Daddy Texas now Daddy Alabama, LSU, Auburn and probably a couple of others most years

Texas has a reputation of a "conference destroyer" with fans of programs that got in a conference and then allowed their facilities, programs, fan support, and administrations decline to garbage and apathy because they expected Texas to hold their hand and carry the weight for them

9. why would Texas or any member of the Big 12 expand with new members so that all the members of the Big 12 could take less revenues....that makes no sense at all

that is nonsense put forth by people that think some magic number of members in a conference makes it more stable....or people that think stupid thoughts like "add more members which helps to lower revenues so you can still be around as a conference when the top programs leave"

by that logic the PAC 12 should be calling SDSU, Fresno, CSU, and BYU now to prepare in case USC and UCLA leave.....never mind the massive hit to payouts for everyone in the conference that would further drive top members out

just nonsense

10. none of the above means that USC or any other program will leave the PAC 12 for any other conference including the Big 12, but it is ridiculous to think that a conference with the most teams doing the least well financially is somehow stable or that their top programs moving to another conference might benefit them financially........which makes much more sense than a conference that has much more financial stability and higher TV revenues losing top members (that actually earn more) to another conference that clearly struggles the most financially with the highest number of members doing so

PS travel cost are not a product of distance in many cases they are a product of available services in the cities being traveled to and from

again none of the above means that any program leaves the PAC 12 for the Big 12 or any other conference, but in terms of finances and program financial stability from top to bottom the Big 12 is in far better shape than the PAC 12 and in better shape than the ACC as well

the Big 12 has most of their teams with extremely low debt, making money or breaking even season after season, most of them have competitive facilities in terms of size and age and the ones expanding or renovating are doing so mostly with cash and little debt, and they have very low academic side subsidies including student fees...even though some are at the lower end of overall revenues they still are able to break even or show a slight profit and the lower debt and debt service means more money goes to the programs....and they are doing that with less off the backs of students

all of those financial issues will be much more relevant to programs looking at options vs the www reputation of "Texas" or long term ties (to programs with large financial issues)

USC's dissatisfaction and mega programs propping up weak P-5 schools (e.g., Alabama and Vandy) increases the probability of the mega programs splitting off into their own "semi-pro" division. In the long run they will tire of sharing the wealth, IMO.

(02-26-2020 06:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:57 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/usc/Articl...144248076/

USC fans are not happy with PAC-12

I stand by my prediction that the Big XII will poach the Pac-12 for the Arizona Twins or Utah & Colorado if not all 4.

I don't claim to be Nostradamus, and I won't go back and dig up for the umpteenth time the details, but I am 100% confident that the Arizona schools, who overwhelmingly draw their students from California and whose two biggest out of state alumni bases are in the LA area and the Bay area, will never willingly go to the Big XII and walk away from their financial base. Believe it or not, there's far more to a university than athletics.

USFFan

As others have pointed out, this is 100% a play by Bohn to move away from the even distribution of media rights. The Pac-12 doesn't have to wait until new revenue streams come in to start paying USC more than they pay Oregon State and Wazzou, and this gauntlet is being thrown down to make sure those presidents realize what's at stake if they don't do something.

That being said, most of USC's problems are less about the Pac-12's media rights and more about the horrible job(s) their athletic office has done with hiring coaches. FFS, they've followed up Pete Carroll with Lane Kiffin (who was unprepared for the job), Steve Sarkisian and now Clay Helton. Who's lining up to hire any of those guys for what should be one of the top jobs in the US? The only guy they had worth a crap (Orgeron) they let walk in favor of Sark.

It's reminiscent of the way Bama always wanted one of the family to be a coach instead of just hiring the best coach available. That's how they ended up with terrible coaches like Ray Perkins, Mike DuBose and Mike Shula. Just go hire the best coaches and don't worry about keeping it "in the family."

USFFan

(02-27-2020 10:52 AM)usffan Wrote:  As others have pointed out, this is 100% a play by Bohn to move away from the even distribution of media rights. The Pac-12 doesn't have to wait until new revenue streams come in to start paying USC more than they pay Oregon State and Wazzou, and this gauntlet is being thrown down to make sure those presidents realize what's at stake if they don't do something.

That being said, most of USC's problems are less about the Pac-12's media rights and more about the horrible job(s) their athletic office has done with hiring coaches. FFS, they've followed up Pete Carroll with Lane Kiffin (who was unprepared for the job), Steve Sarkisian and now Clay Helton. Who's lining up to hire any of those guys for what should be one of the top jobs in the US? The only guy they had worth a crap (Orgeron) they let walk in favor of Sark.

It's reminiscent of the way Bama always wanted one of the family to be a coach instead of just hiring the best coach available. That's how they ended up with terrible coaches like Ray Perkins, Mike DuBose and Mike Shula. Just go hire the best coaches and don't worry about keeping it "in the family."

USFFan

I think part of the issue is college football is not a priority on the West Coast like in the past or compared to other parts of the country.

(02-27-2020 10:08 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  USC's dissatisfaction and mega programs propping up weak P-5 schools (e.g., Alabama and Vandy) increases the probability of the mega programs splitting off into their own "semi-pro" division. In the long run they will tire of sharing the wealth, IMO.

I think some iteration of that is a given. It's simply a matter of how many other schools they drag along with them, b/c they have to play somebody. There are only about 20-25 CFB teams that make a difference to TV contracts.

I do find it funny that a man who was fine with $7M/team/year a little under 6 months ago is now unhappy with $33M/team/year

Further to the point about how athletic money is in the noise...

https://chancellor.ucla.edu/news/ucla-ra...niversity/

The Pac-12 isn't getting raided...

USFFan

(02-27-2020 12:48 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I do find it funny that a man who was fine with $7M/team/year a little under 6 months ago is now unhappy with $33M/team/year

Well, he wasn't fine with the $7M. And of course, now that he is at USC he is looking at the budget and the $33M in revenue seems tight. I am sure he is also getting an earful from boosters, donors, alumni and coaches telling them what they need.

My thoughts on this is that Bohn is appropriately laying out all options for potential future negotiations; whether it be media rights deals, his conference leadership, or even his conference mates within in the PAC12.

(02-27-2020 12:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-27-2020 10:08 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  USC's dissatisfaction and mega programs propping up weak P-5 schools (e.g., Alabama and Vandy) increases the probability of the mega programs splitting off into their own "semi-pro" division. In the long run they will tire of sharing the wealth, IMO.

I think some iteration of that is a given. It's simply a matter of how many other schools they drag along with them, b/c they have to play somebody. There are only about 20-25 CFB teams that make a difference to TV contracts.

The D1 FBS/FCS split was supposed to be that divider but the requirements are easily manipulated like minimum average attendance. I don't think there will be another break off but I do think you'll see some tightening of the requirements and a good number of teams drop down to FCS.

For example, what would be the best path for the SEC to get rid of Vanderbilt? Kicking them out would result is law suits and a lot of money. If you form a "new" conference and don't invite them you have to pay a bunch of buyout money to the SEC. Would something like this would need a vote by the autonomy conferences to restructure membership for a true playoff system? If so, is their enough dead weight in the autonomy conferences to kill the vote?

(02-27-2020 12:48 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I do find it funny that a man who was fine with $7M/team/year a little under 6 months ago is now unhappy with $33M/team/year

It bothers me when people try to compare apples with oranges.

33M is their total revenue. Their TV is 21M per, ours is 7. That's apples to apples.

Our total revenue will probably be somewhere between 10-15M per year. This includes all revenue (TV, NCAA credits, bowls, etc.) That is apples to apples with their 33M.

(02-27-2020 09:14 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(02-27-2020 12:48 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I do find it funny that a man who was fine with $7M/team/year a little under 6 months ago is now unhappy with $33M/team/year

It bothers me when people try to compare apples with oranges.

33M is their total revenue. Their TV is 21M per, ours is 7. That's apples to apples.

Our total revenue will probably be somewhere between 10-15M per year. This includes all revenue (TV, NCAA credits, bowls, etc.) That is apples to apples with their 33M.

it will not be $10 for a number of years (probably 7 or 8 at least) and probably barely that in those future years

a 12 year deal that AVERAGES $7 million per year will not be paying out $7 million per year until well into the mid years of that deal so 5+ years from now

in addition NCAA football pays $90 million split by the G5 which equals about $2 million for the ACC when you include making the NY6 bowl

and the NCAA tournament pays about $1 million per team per year right now to the ACC

so well less than $7 (to start the TV deal) = less than ($7) + $2 + $1 is less than $10 million per year and nowhere close to $15

SO... Kiss the AAC goodbye, there is no other conference worth poaching!!!