(03-05-2020 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  USC to the Big 12 = Texas to the ACC as a partial. Both are fantastical wishes of the respective recipients.

Why waste your fantasies shooting so low? Ohio State, Penn State, Georgia and Florida to the ACC!

(03-05-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 12:16 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 10:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Not happening. But good for Andy, he probably needed to stir the pot in the off season. USC wants to go back to uneven revenue sharing like they had prior to the PACN.

Yep.

Andy needed a filler article and this is what he came up with. He is stirring the pot or smoking the pot but either way his article missed badly. With the PAC-12 GOR, nothing could happen for the next four years. Bohn has clarified his remarks in a couple of follow-up interviews. USC is simply exerting their influence. Scott convinced the LA schools to accept an equal share. That will change down the road.

I suspect it will too. Scott was able to be convincing because the 2012 deal with FOX/ESPN was regarded as stupendously large at the time, such that there was a perception that now there was "plenty of money for everybody", and let's face it, a conference is always more stable with equal revenue sharing.

But now that Scott's PACN model has the PAC lagging behind in payout, the drumbeat from USC, and likely UCLA, will be heard on this, and I suspect there will be a new formula in place in a few years too.

But really, it's likely that for the next 4 years, all USC can do is grin and bear that big and widening revenue gap with their blue blood peers in the B1G, SEC, and Big 12.

They were actually really happy 8 years ago. But then the Big 10 and SEC got really big contracts. And they pay out less than the Big 12 and ACC despite similar contracts.

(03-05-2020 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  USC to the Big 12 = Texas to the ACC as a partial. Both are fantastical wishes of the respective recipients.

Why waste your fantasies shooting so low? Ohio State, Penn State, Georgia and Florida to the ACC!

All of those are lower than Texas.

Texas and Oklahoma limited the Big 12 to 10 because they wanted to bide their time until they could leverage their best advantages. That was a smart move. If they had moved in 2010-2 their value and leverage would not have been as high.

2024-5 will mark of the beginning of the last decade of the golden age of college football in terms of devotion by a generation. By 2035 Boomers will be statistically irrelevant and college football which will endure will enter an era where it has to attract fans from a generation that had a relatively low % of participants at the grade school level and therefore a much smaller group that identifies with it as a touchstone to their youth, other than as a family attendance event.

Texas and Oklahoma officials realize this and that this will be their last chance to truly cash in for some time to come. And the fact that it coincides with an downturn in population will exacerbate the importance of the decision as well. They are well aware of the Big 10's academics, but they are also well aware that a game their donors and alums love will endure longer in the South with its religious like following than elsewhere, and they realize that it is the South that is growing. Schools will want access to students, continued exposure, and revenue. This will be far more important for Oklahoma than it will be for Texas which has a steady outside revenue stream and is in a rapidly growing state.

It will be interesting to see what they do. But of all of those schools out there that generate movement rumors they ae the most likely to change conferences. They have the opportunity, the gravitas, and the leverage to do so. The real question will be is the money enough to be motive.

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ugh.

Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money. The Pac-12 schools actually *like* each other beyond just a revenue arrangement. It is arguably the most academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned out of all of the power conferences. No school was force-fitted into the Pac-12 as a pure revenue grab (and I say that wrote a lot about the importance of that revenue grab when it comes to conference realignment).

I've noted this previously: Texas left the old SWC (spearheading a mass defection) to create the Big 12 and then was moments away from spearheading a mass defection from the Big 12 to create the Pac-16. If the Big 12 loses Texas and Oklahoma (which was moments away from happening a decade ago), then it straight up *dies* as a power conference.

In contrast, if the Pac-12 loses USC and whoever you think is their second most valuable school (e.g. UCLA, Arizona, etc.), that conference is still one with key flagship and top academic schools that would 100% be within the power structure. There is structural safety in the *depth* of the Pac-12 membership, whereas the Big 12 revenue is the most top heavy of them all with the uniquely singular power of Texas plus some revenue from Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball... and that's basically it. As the old adage goes, easy come and easy go.

Also remember that part of this is simple timing where the Pac-12 currently has the oldest media deal among the P5. When the Pac-12 signed its ESPN/Fox deal, it was the largest deal in history for any college conference at the time. The Pac-12 Network was *definitely* mismanaged, but that's a problem that just changes to a different problem with the individualized third tier rights structure of the Big 12 (as opposed to being "solved" in the Big Ten, SEC or ACC). When it comes to a first tier TV deal, the Pac-12's history has shown that it will receive rights fees right in line with or even better than the other power conferences.

A conference change is a 50 to 100 year (or more as we've seen with the Big Ten) decision. I think people are overestimating the short-term revenue gain with the Big 12 compared to the Pac-12 and vastly underestimating the always-present earthquake fault line that's underneath the Big 12. The fault line might not be active right now and who knows if there will ever actually be an earthquake in the Big 12 like there was in the early-2010s for the foreseeable future... but the point is that the fault line is there in a way that doesn't exist for other conferences. A single school (Texas) can kill the Big 12 in a way that no other single school can kill any other conference... and Texas has actually done it with the SWC and threatened to do it as the Pac-12 presidents saw firsthand! If I'm a university president, it's buyer beware if you buy even a great mansion on a fault line. Sure, if you're in the AAC or MWC, you're taking that spot in a power conference even if you're buying a house that may plunge into a canyon, but that type of mentality doesn't make sense for a school like USC.

SMU killed the SWC after the Oilers and Cowboys wounded it.

Texas and Texas A&M kept it on life support about 5 years longer than necessary. Arkansas bailed in 1989 instead of staying.

And you are confusing your terms. I'm guessing you mean TV value instead of revenue. But in terms of revenue, Oklahoma is top 10. TCU and Kansas are very high in the rankings. WVU and Baylor do well. The Pac 12 has the bottom 2 and 6 of the bottom 12 P5 public schools (4 Big 12, 2 ACC) per the USA Today database. And 4 of those 6 show deficits. There are only 9 P5 schools that show deficits and 5 are in the Pac 12 (yes, this is questionable accounting, but the Pac 12 can't even cover it up with funny accounting).https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money.

Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

(03-05-2020 01:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:37 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I know Bohm said everything is on the table but I'm trying to believe the four California schools being split up and I'm having a hard time with it.

I'm having a hard time with that as well. I'm also having a hard time imagining the California schools splitting from Washington and Oregon. But I could imagine those six splitting off from the rest of the PAC12.

Question: Does the PAC have an exit fee, and if so, how much is it?

Another question: Which conference would these six schools want to be a part of, and would that conference take them?

I'm not sure it would make financial sense for the B1G to take all six if they all received an equal share of conference revenues. That would likely dilute the payments current members now receive. Would they offer to bring those six in at some amount between what they are now getting and what B1G members are now getting? Would they agree to move without being given equal shares?

The Big XII could probably afford to bring them all in. And, they would still only be at 16 members if they did. But would those six schools want to be part of a conference they probably don't consider academic peers?

There doesn't seem to be a scenario I can imagine that makes everybody happy (or at least happier than they are now). Which is why I've believed for some time now that the current alignment might last for a long time barring some complete game changer.

They left Oregon behind in the 60s along with Idaho, WSU and OSU. But they did bring UW along.

(03-05-2020 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ugh.

Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money. The Pac-12 schools actually *like* each other beyond just a revenue arrangement. It is arguably the most academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned out of all of the power conferences. No school was force-fitted into the Pac-12 as a pure revenue grab (and I say that wrote a lot about the importance of that revenue grab when it comes to conference realignment).

That captures it. These schools are very tight knit. In football, USC's biggest rivals are UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford. For UCLA, it is USC and Cal. These four California schools are not breaking up. Then the eight out-of-state schools are very tied to California. It is common to hear the term UC Arizona or Cal State Tempe or UC Oregon or Cal State Corvallis. Oregon has about 5,000 students from California and Arizona has about the same number. ASU has 10 recruiters based throughout California. Arizona has three. Colorado has five alumni chapters in California.

I disagree that all of the PAC-12 schools are "academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned"

The 4 CA schools and Washington? Absolutely. They are peers in every respect.

Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit in. But none of the 5 core members would look to them as a source of best practices in the way that, say, Illinois would try look at Ohio State or Indiana.

ASU, OSU, and especially WSU do not align institutionally with the rest of the conference. ASU is an urban research school that seeks to serve its metro, much like Cincinnati or Houston. (rather than serving the world like UCLA, Washington, or Ohio State).

WSU in the PAC-12 is a worse institutional fit than Nebraska in the Big 10.

Geographically? It's got more geographical/cultural diversity than the ACC. Seattle and Phoenix are as different as Boston and Clemson, SC. Going from San Francisco to LA is akin to crossing the Mason-Dixon line. And then there's the Mountain States - U of Utah is 37% Mormon, and Colorado is over 1000 miles away from every former Pac-8 member.

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money.

Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

I guess Sankey is sitting on the details until the Spring meeting. It is possible (from some rumors) that the SEC is renegotiating their T2 valuations and possibly might see some change to the T3. The T1 was not renegotiated. It is a new contract.

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ugh.

Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money. The Pac-12 schools actually *like* each other beyond just a revenue arrangement. It is arguably the most academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned out of all of the power conferences. No school was force-fitted into the Pac-12 as a pure revenue grab (and I say that wrote a lot about the importance of that revenue grab when it comes to conference realignment).

That captures it. These schools are very tight knit. In football, USC's biggest rivals are UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford. For UCLA, it is USC and Cal. These four California schools are not breaking up. Then the eight out-of-state schools are very tied to California. It is common to hear the term UC Arizona or Cal State Tempe or UC Oregon or Cal State Corvallis. Oregon has about 5,000 students from California and Arizona has about the same number. ASU has 10 recruiters based throughout California. Arizona has three. Colorado has five alumni chapters in California.

I disagree that all of the PAC-12 schools are "academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned"

The 4 CA schools and Washington? Absolutely. They are peers in every respect.

Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit in. But none of the 5 core members would look to them as a source of best practices in the way that, say, Illinois would try look at Ohio State or Indiana.

ASU, OSU, and especially WSU do not align institutionally with the rest of the conference. ASU is an urban research school that seeks to serve its metro, much like Cincinnati or Houston. (rather than serving the world like UCLA, Washington, or Ohio State).

WSU in the PAC-12 is a worse institutional fit than Nebraska in the Big 10.

Geographically? It's got more geographical/cultural diversity than the ACC. Seattle and Phoenix are as different as Boston and Clemson, SC. Going from San Francisco to LA is akin to crossing the Mason-Dixon line. And then there's the Mountain States - U of Utah is 37% Mormon, and Colorado is over 1000 miles away from every former Pac-8 member.

Agreed. The Big 10 is much more aligned with each other than the Pac 12. They are all Enormous State U. with lots of research. The Pac 12 core that stayed together in the split of the 60s are closely tied. The rest not so much. Certainly NOT Utah like a lot of posters seem to think.

(03-05-2020 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money.

Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

I guess Sankey is sitting on the details until the Spring meeting. It is possible (from some rumors) that the SEC is renegotiating their T2 valuations and possibly might see some change to the T3. The T1 was not renegotiated. It is a new contract.

Terminology wasn't correct, but they negotiated a new contract 4 years early. It was due to expire in 2025 as the Big 12 deal does. And they may be changing the CBS deal early.

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money.

Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

Yes, the bottom line is that recent events have highlighted disparities among the P5. The B1G and SEC are clearly the most valuable conferences. The B1G will be making a bit more than the SEC, but that's because Delaney was smarter than Slive, not because of inherently better properties. But they will be in the same ballpark, and it is a sure thing that their rights packages that come up in 2023 will draw big dollars.

The ACC, Big 12, and PAC are all pursuing strategies to stay in somewhat in range. The ACC doesn't have the uncertainty that the PAC and Big 12 have, because for better or worse, they are all-in with ESPN and now have the ACCN up and running. They will rise or fall based on how much additional money the ACCN brings in, and we should start to get some information on that pretty soon. ACC fans seem to sense optimism about this, but that is based on household penetration, which is clearly good, not carriage rates, which we haven't heard much about. The SECN makes a lot of money not just because it's in a lot of households, but because ESPN was able to negotiate high rates for it.

The PAC and Big 12 have big deals coming up in 2024/2025, but as you say, there are lots of variables in play, with the money-sucking nature of the B1G and SEC deals maybe hurting them. OTOH, they may each get a great deal. We shall see, but that's where the real uncertainty lies.

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ugh.

Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money. The Pac-12 schools actually *like* each other beyond just a revenue arrangement. It is arguably the most academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned out of all of the power conferences. No school was force-fitted into the Pac-12 as a pure revenue grab (and I say that wrote a lot about the importance of that revenue grab when it comes to conference realignment).

That captures it. These schools are very tight knit. In football, USC's biggest rivals are UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford. For UCLA, it is USC and Cal. These four California schools are not breaking up. Then the eight out-of-state schools are very tied to California. It is common to hear the term UC Arizona or Cal State Tempe or UC Oregon or Cal State Corvallis. Oregon has about 5,000 students from California and Arizona has about the same number. ASU has 10 recruiters based throughout California. Arizona has three. Colorado has five alumni chapters in California.

I disagree that all of the PAC-12 schools are "academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned"

The 4 CA schools and Washington? Absolutely. They are peers in every respect.

Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit in. But none of the 5 core members would look to them as a source of best practices in the way that, say, Illinois would try look at Ohio State or Indiana.

ASU, OSU, and especially WSU do not align institutionally with the rest of the conference. ASU is an urban research school that seeks to serve its metro, much like Cincinnati or Houston. (rather than serving the world like UCLA, Washington, or Ohio State).

WSU in the PAC-12 is a worse institutional fit than Nebraska in the Big 10.

Geographically? It's got more geographical/cultural diversity than the ACC. Seattle and Phoenix are as different as Boston and Clemson, SC. Going from San Francisco to LA is akin to crossing the Mason-Dixon line. And then there's the Mountain States - U of Utah is 37% Mormon, and Colorado is over 1000 miles away from every former Pac-8 member.

So much wrong in this post.

ASU has a global reach now. At the level of the others? Not quite yet, but getting there.

Seattle and Phoenix are far more similar than Boston and even say, Philadelphia.
NorCal and SoCal, while they hate each other, are still very similar.

Utah and Colorado look west. Denver/Phoenix/Seattle and California aren't that different, culturally.

(03-05-2020 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money.

Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

Yes, the bottom line is that recent events have highlighted disparities among the P5. The B1G and SEC are clearly the most valuable conferences. The B1G will be making a bit more than the SEC, but that's because Delaney was smarter than Slive, not because of inherently better properties. But they will be in the same ballpark, and it is a sure thing that their rights packages that come up in 2023 will draw big dollars.

The ACC, Big 12, and PAC are all pursuing strategies to stay in somewhat in range. The ACC doesn't have the uncertainty that the PAC and Big 12 have, because for better or worse, they are all-in with ESPN and now have the ACCN up and running. They will rise or fall based on how much additional money the ACCN brings in, and we should start to get some information on that pretty soon. ACC fans seem to sense optimism about this, but that is based on household penetration, which is clearly good, not carriage rates, which we haven't heard much about. The SECN makes a lot of money not just because it's in a lot of households, but because ESPN was able to negotiate high rates for it.

The PAC and Big 12 have big deals coming up in 2024/2025, but as you say, there are lots of variables in play, with the money-sucking nature of the B1G and SEC deals maybe hurting them. OTOH, they may each get a great deal. We shall see, but that's where the real uncertainty lies.

Quo the Slive remarks are old but true, but you need to keep up. The minimum per school media payout for the SEC will be at 67 million minimum starting in 2024, or earlier if the last 3 years of the CBS contract have been bought out by ABC/ESPN which we are still waiting to hear. The high end estimates of this contract have touched figures approaching 83 million. I think the final details will be closer to 70 than to 80 but regardless the Big 10 whose contract is just 6 years old will likely see a bump in the 5 to 10% range which might put them close to the SEC but they likely won't pass the SEC. We had a firm negotiate the contract for us this time around and by the ratings and penetration a new payout was determined.

The SEC might have made 7 million last year on the SECN down by about a 1/3 to a 1/4 from where it opened. The ACC will see a nicer bump over when they didn't have a network at all but they were getting 2 million per school per year from ESPN not to have one. That is gone. Because they open with a truncated year this year's payout will be low. You'll have to wait to see the payout for the this coming season to get a more realistic number. Remember the ACC's T1 and T2 doesn't expire until 2037. They are now locked in past the peak year's of Boomer love for football whereas everyone else renegotiates with a decade of Boomer love still involved. This aspect can't be stressed enough.

As to rates the SECN gets 1.35 for in state rates. The ACCN will get a 1.00. The SEC gets .25 cents for out of state rates. The ACCN will get .50 cents for out of state rates. That tells me they were more confident in drawing general sports interest from the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC's footprints than from their own. Smoke that over. If they get a 3 million dollar bump this year per team they'll be set next year to make about double that from their network. That's enough to catch up with the Big 12's T1 and T2 portion of their revenue ~36 to 37 million. That's a far cry from 67 for the SEC in 2024 and at 10% for the Big 10 60 million or 15% increase 64 million for the Big 10.

There's your difference. They and the PAC operated well enough when the deficit was 10 million. Triple that and it is a new paradigm.

(03-05-2020 04:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money.

Some of the relationships are tenuous, but some are not. The relations among the Texas schools are pretty solid, and between the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. What is tenuous are the true SWC - Big 8 fault lines, which is basically the Kansas schools and Iowa State. And they know what they are without the Texas schools. So in a shell, I think the Big 12 is more solid than you think.

But about the PAC, I agree. I think those who look at TV ratings and see the PAC getting a big haircut in its 2024 deal are in for a big surprise, as all the evidence suggests that the PAC will get paid at a P5 level. And as I've noted, the PACN situation is fixable, they haven't tied themselves in for any time with it at all, they could change course on that.

IOW's, I don't see either the Big 12 or PAC as being unstable, and do not anticipate either raiding the other in 2024/2025.

All that said, by 2024 we might all be dead from the coronavirus. The reality is that right now, the PAC is suffering revenue-wise because of the Scott PACN fumble, and that is where these drumbeats are coming from. A big danger to the PAC is that some very major college properties - the B1G's tier one rights, and the SEC's game of the week package - both come to market right before the PAC's rights in 2024, and those deals could suck the big money Scott and the PAC are banking on out of the room. Scott seems all-in on the "just wait for 2024" strategy, not surprising since it is his baby, and so he would likely have to go for the PAC to move sooner on a deal, which might be wise. Scott has to go in any event, LOL.

The SEC renegotiating Tier I early was a good strategic move. And it could make things more difficult for the Pac 12 and Big 12. ESPN has added more SEC content. Fox and ESPN will be bidding on Big 10 and only then will they get to the Pac 12 and Big 12. One of the two could conceivably have little room for content from the Pac 12 and/or Big 12. So with one less bidder, that means less money.

I guess Sankey is sitting on the details until the Spring meeting. It is possible (from some rumors) that the SEC is renegotiating their T2 valuations and possibly might see some change to the T3. The T1 was not renegotiated. It is a new contract.

Terminology wasn't correct, but they negotiated a new contract 4 years early. It was due to expire in 2025 as the Big 12 deal does. And they may be changing the CBS deal early.

Neither are your facts. The SEC contract with CBS expires after the 2024 football season's CCG. CBS requested the contract be renewed early. The SEC hired a sports rights negotiating firm to handle the process. CBS offered 300 million. ABC was rumored to have offered 335-345 million. In January FOX made a bid. ABC/ESPN countered. ABC/ESPN is trying to buy out the last 3 years of the CBS contract '22, '23, & '24.
We'll see how that goes.

So the SEC will be making minimally 67 million plus escalators either by the end of 2022 or the end of 2025 and we might well be making over 70 million. The Big 10 renews in 2024 and a 10% bump takes them to 60 million with escalators and a 15% bump (which I don't consider likely) takes them to 64 plus escalators.

It will be a new paradigm.

According to the B12 boards I have read the past 8 years, they hate city and directional schools- so I guess that leaves out UCLA and USC to the Big 12.

(03-05-2020 05:00 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  According to the B12 boards I have read the past 8 years, they hate city and directional schools- so I guess that leaves out UCLA and USC to the Big 12.

Then they must’ve really wanted West Virginia for some other reason

(03-05-2020 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ugh.

Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money. The Pac-12 schools actually *like* each other beyond just a revenue arrangement. It is arguably the most academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned out of all of the power conferences. No school was force-fitted into the Pac-12 as a pure revenue grab (and I say that wrote a lot about the importance of that revenue grab when it comes to conference realignment).

That captures it. These schools are very tight knit. In football, USC's biggest rivals are UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford. For UCLA, it is USC and Cal. These four California schools are not breaking up. Then the eight out-of-state schools are very tied to California. It is common to hear the term UC Arizona or Cal State Tempe or UC Oregon or Cal State Corvallis. Oregon has about 5,000 students from California and Arizona has about the same number. ASU has 10 recruiters based throughout California. Arizona has three. Colorado has five alumni chapters in California.

I disagree that all of the PAC-12 schools are "academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned"

The 4 CA schools and Washington? Absolutely. They are peers in every respect.

Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit in. But none of the 5 core members would look to them as a source of best practices in the way that, say, Illinois would try look at Ohio State or Indiana.

ASU, OSU, and especially WSU do not align institutionally with the rest of the conference. ASU is an urban research school that seeks to serve its metro, much like Cincinnati or Houston. (rather than serving the world like UCLA, Washington, or Ohio State).

WSU in the PAC-12 is a worse institutional fit than Nebraska in the Big 10.

Geographically? It's got more geographical/cultural diversity than the ACC. Seattle and Phoenix are as different as Boston and Clemson, SC. Going from San Francisco to LA is akin to crossing the Mason-Dixon line. And then there's the Mountain States - U of Utah is 37% Mormon, and Colorado is over 1000 miles away from every former Pac-8 member.

So much wrong in this post.

ASU has a global reach now. At the level of the others? Not quite yet, but getting there.

Seattle and Phoenix are far more similar than Boston and even say, Philadelphia.
NorCal and SoCal, while they hate each other, are still very similar.

Utah and Colorado look west. Denver/Phoenix/Seattle and California aren't that different, culturally.

I agree. A lot wrong with that post. They are all good schools academically and they are all R1 research universities. They are all western schools. The Pac-12 North schools have been in the same conference together since 1919. I don't see what Rutgers has in common with Nebraska or Maryland with Minnesota.

(03-05-2020 06:15 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 02:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 08:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Ugh.

Here's the core issue: the Pac-12 knows better than anyone how tenuous the relationships are in the Big 12 despite all of the money. The Pac-12 schools actually *like* each other beyond just a revenue arrangement. It is arguably the most academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned out of all of the power conferences. No school was force-fitted into the Pac-12 as a pure revenue grab (and I say that wrote a lot about the importance of that revenue grab when it comes to conference realignment).

That captures it. These schools are very tight knit. In football, USC's biggest rivals are UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford. For UCLA, it is USC and Cal. These four California schools are not breaking up. Then the eight out-of-state schools are very tied to California. It is common to hear the term UC Arizona or Cal State Tempe or UC Oregon or Cal State Corvallis. Oregon has about 5,000 students from California and Arizona has about the same number. ASU has 10 recruiters based throughout California. Arizona has three. Colorado has five alumni chapters in California.

I disagree that all of the PAC-12 schools are "academically, institutionally and geographically-aligned"

The 4 CA schools and Washington? Absolutely. They are peers in every respect.

Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit in. But none of the 5 core members would look to them as a source of best practices in the way that, say, Illinois would try look at Ohio State or Indiana.

ASU, OSU, and especially WSU do not align institutionally with the rest of the conference. ASU is an urban research school that seeks to serve its metro, much like Cincinnati or Houston. (rather than serving the world like UCLA, Washington, or Ohio State).

WSU in the PAC-12 is a worse institutional fit than Nebraska in the Big 10.

Geographically? It's got more geographical/cultural diversity than the ACC. Seattle and Phoenix are as different as Boston and Clemson, SC. Going from San Francisco to LA is akin to crossing the Mason-Dixon line. And then there's the Mountain States - U of Utah is 37% Mormon, and Colorado is over 1000 miles away from every former Pac-8 member.

So much wrong in this post.

ASU has a global reach now. At the level of the others? Not quite yet, but getting there.

Seattle and Phoenix are far more similar than Boston and even say, Philadelphia.
NorCal and SoCal, while they hate each other, are still very similar.

Utah and Colorado look west. Denver/Phoenix/Seattle and California aren't that different, culturally.

I agree. A lot wrong with that post. They are all good schools academically and they are all R1 research universities. They are all western schools. The Pac-12 North schools have been in the same conference together since 1919. I don't see what Rutgers has in common with Nebraska or Maryland with Minnesota.

The amount of flow of people between Denver/Seattle/Portland/Phoenix/LA and the Bay Area is quite high.

It seems half of my friends have either moved to one of those places, or that is where they came from.

(03-05-2020 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  USC to the Big 12 = Texas to the ACC as a partial. Both are fantastical wishes of the respective recipients.

Why waste your fantasies shooting so low? Ohio State, Penn State, Georgia and Florida to the ACC!

C’mon Gobbler, we all know the SEC and the Big Ten still have the biggest outstanding crushes! Texas and Notre Dame ring a bell?!?!

(03-05-2020 04:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 05:37 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I know Bohm said everything is on the table but I'm trying to believe the four California schools being split up and I'm having a hard time with it.

I'm having a hard time with that as well. I'm also having a hard time imagining the California schools splitting from Washington and Oregon. But I could imagine those six splitting off from the rest of the PAC12.

Question: Does the PAC have an exit fee, and if so, how much is it?

Another question: Which conference would these six schools want to be a part of, and would that conference take them?

I'm not sure it would make financial sense for the B1G to take all six if they all received an equal share of conference revenues. That would likely dilute the payments current members now receive. Would they offer to bring those six in at some amount between what they are now getting and what B1G members are now getting? Would they agree to move without being given equal shares?

The Big XII could probably afford to bring them all in. And, they would still only be at 16 members if they did. But would those six schools want to be part of a conference they probably don't consider academic peers?

There doesn't seem to be a scenario I can imagine that makes everybody happy (or at least happier than they are now). Which is why I've believed for some time now that the current alignment might last for a long time barring some complete game changer.

They left Oregon behind in the 60s along with Idaho, WSU and OSU. But they did bring UW along.

The old PCC started falling apart in the late 1950's with payment scandals at UCLA, Washington, and others. Stanford moved to expel UCLA. In 1959 Washington, Cal, UCLA, and USC started the AAWU, Stanford came along a few months later. Those five didn't want to have to travel to Idaho, Pullman, Eugene, or Corvallis, but over the next 3 years WSU, then the Oregon schools were admitted. Idaho never "reapplied".

Because the PAC 8 retained the PCC's and AAWU's records they look more cohesive outside the core 5 schools than they really are. I wouldn't say Oregon or OSU were left behind. Left behind is what happened to Virginia Tech in 1954 and to Houston, SMU, and TCU in 1996.