Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pac-12 Network Payouts
Author Message
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,587
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 531
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #41
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-21-2021 06:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-21-2021 06:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 05:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If the TV money is right, would a PAC 20 work?

This would solve the potential travel problem as non revenue sports would be completely divisional.

Original Pac 10 in one division

Other division:
Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Revenue sports would pretty much be completely divisional as well. The divisions would act as two separate conferences, just with one conference commissioner and headquarters.

That's too many to be profitable. Eliminating 1 conference overhead adds about 2 million per school in a 16 member conference.

Arizona, Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

That's 16 schools grouped into two distinct regions with better academics and a larger total market.

Put Nebraska in there instead of Utah (unrealistic I know) and you have a pretty sweet Big 8
03-22-2021 09:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 38,810
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1230
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #42
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-20-2021 01:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  And anyone wonders why Larry Scott was terminated?

I am curious what the revamped P12N looks like with then next media contract they'll negotiate next year. I am sure everything will be different.

I tend to agree. It is likely that the PAC membership has had enough of the PACN experiment. The regional networks have to go, and the PAC membership will be very inclined to listen to offers from media companies that involve dissolving the PACN in to a network run by the media companies, ala the ESPN networks with the SEC and ACC, and FOX-BTN. Scott, the architect of the current PACN, was probably not viewed as the man to lead that transition.
03-22-2021 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 38,810
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1230
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #43
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-20-2021 03:45 PM)schmolik Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 03:31 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 01:31 PM)schmolik Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 12:15 PM)schmolik Wrote:  If they get more money from the networks to do so, they have to consider it. Otherwise, of course they won't.

Why would the networks want to give Texas and Oklahoma more money to have them leave the Big 12 for the Pac 12? Combine Texas/Oklahoma with the California schools, Oregon, and Washington and not have to pay the Little Eight.

Texas and OU are making lots of money now playing teams they care about. And they are going to give that up to travel to Oregon and San Francisco?

Better chance that the Arizona schools join the B12. Which is not happening either.

Do they really care about Iowa State, West Virginia, and the Kansas twins? It's debatable Texas and Oklahoma really care about Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor as well, the advantage is they and their fans can drive there. We know Texas doesn't care about A&M at all. I'm guessing Texas cares about one school, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma two schools, Texas and Oklahoma State. The advantage of the other Big 12 schools are they're teams to fill out a schedule. West Virginia's in the Big 12 because they were desperate. If the networks paid Texas and Oklahoma as much to be in the AAC as they did the Big 12, UT and OU would replace Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor with Houston, SMU, and Tulsa.


There is no debate that Texas fans care about playing Tech and Baylor and TCU, because it is obvious they do care. Same with Oklahoma with Oklahoma State and their Big 8 brethren. You can pretend that 100+ years of history with your conference teammates don’t matter, you can pretend that geographic proximity to your rivals doesn’t matter, you can pretend that bragging rights to your office co-workers doesn’t matter, but you would be wrong every time. Your NFL-lite pipe dreams will never work with college football because it is an entirely different sport and an entirely different beast.

Texas had a 100+ year history with A&M as well. Same with Houston and SMU.

Right. But Texas didn't break its 100+ year relationship with A&M, A&M did. And Houston and Texas did not have a 100+ year relationship. They've played their new foes from the Big 8 almost as many times as they have played Houston.

I'm not a Texas alum so don't know for sure. But it seems inconceivable to me that Texas (or Oklahoma) would give up games vs very close rivals that it has played 100 times and the like to play teams out in California, Oregon and Washington. Not unless it was literally an offer it could not refuse, meaning WAY more money than the Big 12 offers.

And given the current state of the PAC and Big 12, I see no reason to think the PAC would be able to offer that kind of money. Heck, they wouldn't be able to offer more than the B1G or SEC, so might as well join one of those if they wanted to leave.
03-22-2021 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 99
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-20-2021 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  ...or why they'll be calling Texas and Oklahoma sooner rather than later.

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...ibers.html

Why would they be calling Texas and Oklahoma? Interest in West Coast football would likely be even lower in those states than they are in the existing PAC 12 footprint.

Your kidding right? The Pac-12 NEEDS large population states with viewers that actually care about football--thats why. The real question is why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma actually agree to any Pac-12 offer? Hey, come add a bunch of excessive travel to play schools your fans dont care about---oh---and you'll do it for a smaller share of a smaller smaller pie. I suspect thats not likely to be the most enticing offer Texas and Oklahoma will see over the next few years.

I think it is ridiculous to think that "the Pac-12 needs large population states that actually care about football." Outside of Texas, what large population states does the Big 12 have? California has about ten million more people than Texas. I realize that Texas is a football crazy state, but it is not like people hate football in California or anywhere in the west. There is just not the same reverence for football that they have in Texas.

The Pac-12 Network Payment issue is about the incompetence of the Pac-12 leadership. Only the Pac-12 can fix that. Texas cannot fix that and UT is not going to give up their $15 million dollar a year payment from the Longhorn Network for a less than $2 million payment from the Pac-12 Network.
03-22-2021 10:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,354
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 95
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #45
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
For those who ask why Texas would ever want to play in the Pac-10 footprint, there were once those who asked why Texas would want to be in the Big 8, either.

The short answer is that the "Conference of Champions" needs a lifeline or the bell cows of that conference (USC, UCLA, Oregon) will start looking.
03-22-2021 11:15 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,710
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 647
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #46
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-22-2021 10:58 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  ...or why they'll be calling Texas and Oklahoma sooner rather than later.

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...ibers.html

Why would they be calling Texas and Oklahoma? Interest in West Coast football would likely be even lower in those states than they are in the existing PAC 12 footprint.

Your kidding right? The Pac-12 NEEDS large population states with viewers that actually care about football--thats why. The real question is why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma actually agree to any Pac-12 offer? Hey, come add a bunch of excessive travel to play schools your fans dont care about---oh---and you'll do it for a smaller share of a smaller smaller pie. I suspect thats not likely to be the most enticing offer Texas and Oklahoma will see over the next few years.

I think it is ridiculous to think that "the Pac-12 needs large population states that actually care about football." Outside of Texas, what large population states does the Big 12 have? California has about ten million more people than Texas. I realize that Texas is a football crazy state, but it is not like people hate football in California or anywhere in the west. There is just not the same reverence for football that they have in Texas.

The Pac-12 Network Payment issue is about the incompetence of the Pac-12 leadership. Only the Pac-12 can fix that. Texas cannot fix that and UT is not going to give up their $15 million dollar a year payment from the Longhorn Network for a less than $2 million payment from the Pac-12 Network.

I agree with this. The long-term demographic and population trends actually favor the Pac-12 more than any other power conference: Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah all have among the hottest real estate markets in the country on top of the already huge California population. Plus, the demographic growth isn't just coming from people looking for the cheapest prices or lowest taxes: the major Pac-12 markets are getting disproportionately high numbers of highly educated high income workers.

Meanwhile, the Big 12's population "advantage" is *entirely* due to Texas. (Don't get me wrong - Texas in and of itself is a monster.) All of the other states in the Big 12 are low growth or no growth states whose largest TV markets consist of Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

I also push back on the oft-cited time zone issue. Long-term, the Pac-12 has a power conference *monopoly* on the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. We're talking about a region with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake City and they have a *monopoly*. Regardless of how many homes might be in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, 4 power conferences have to fight directly with each other for that territory while the Pac-12 doesn't have to fight anyone in their region that has *massive* fast-growing markets.

Add on to the fact that these schools are *fantastic* institutional and academic fits with each other (arguably better aligned than any other P5 league, including my Big Ten). Even if you took away the 4 most valuable Pac-12 schools (let's say USC, UCLA and any other two schools), you're still going to be left with a power conference that's going to have flagship schools in fast-growing states and top academics (e.g. Stanford, Cal, Washington). In contrast, all it takes is for Texas to get itchy (which has *directly* happened with the breakup of the SWC in the 1990s and their own flirtation with the old Pac-10 in 2010) and the rest of the Big 12 starts scattering for cover. Texas (both the school and state) has mega-power, but people seem to have such short memories of how much that mega-power masks so many underlying issues with the Big 12 overall.

Now, the fact that the Pac-12 hasn't managed their demographic advantages and time zone monopoly well at all is an entirely different issue. Pac-12 Network management was always a problem from day one. I thought from the beginning that it was a mistake for the Pac-12 to "go it alone" as opposed to partnering with ESPN or Fox for distribution. They saw the Big Ten making a lot of money owning 50% of the BTN, so the Pac-12 got starry-eyed about what they could get with 100% ownership of their own network. It's a classic story of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered". The Pac-12 wanted 100% ownership to be a hog and it backfired on them.
03-22-2021 11:43 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,829
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 230
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #47
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
Frank, I have to disagree with the assertion that the PAC 12 is on its way up. Yes, those states are growing but interest in collegiate sports is decreasing.

Moving to Phoenix does not automatically make you a Sun Devils fan
03-22-2021 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,074
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 201
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #48
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
The only Texas schools that move the needle are Texas and Texas A&M. The rest are just part of a package deal. The #3 school in Texas would not get an invitation by themselves to the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC and ACC. As another poster pointed, Texas is not going to fix something the Pac-12 needs to fix on their own.

The Conference of Champions needs to hire somebody with a media background. That would be a good start.
03-22-2021 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,754
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 278
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #49
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
Agree with Frank, it's all Texas for the Big 12, and I mean the University of Texas at Austin. Take that school away and the conference is nothing but dust bowl schools.

The best move for the Pac-12 is to "start over" on it's next contract with a completely revamped P12N, giving a large share to a network partner who will run it --basically the B1G model-- eliminating much of the current overhead and the useless duplicate regional networks. Those moves will double the revenue from the Network overnight, probably triple it. New T1 & T2 contracts will also see significant increases, as the old one was a decade long. Stop being a hogs.

I don't see expansion or realignment mattering. Only Texas would changes the Pac-12 materially, and they are definitely not interested, nor should they be. Big 12 problems are worse, because it's not something a change in management can fix. The Big 12 is really Texas and friends, and the most important friend is Oklahoma, who may well leave. Nobody in their right mind would join that.
03-22-2021 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jared7 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 76
Joined: Apr 2019
Reputation: 33
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
Agree with Frank. Texas is a football-crazed high-population state that already supports 12 Division 1 teams, 5 P5 teams and numerous FCS, Division 2, Division 3 and NAIA Division 1 and 2 teams. And fans in Texas don't just support one college team, they support their HS team, their local college team, the Cowboys (and sometimes the Texans) and whatever other team they might like that is winning. None of that is going to change regardless of where UT plays its conference games (in all sports). That culture does not exist in the Pac 12. Moreover, the Pac 12 has money problems, TV problems, distribution problems and competitiveness problems and makes significantly less money than the Big 12 (not to mention the SEC and Big10). Only USC moves the needle of the Pac 12 schools and that's based on a past that is becoming more and more distant. Nobody in their right mind would join the Pac 12 right now and that includes UT.
03-22-2021 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,410
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 303
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #51
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-22-2021 11:48 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Frank, I have to disagree with the assertion that the PAC 12 is on its way up. Yes, those states are growing but interest in collegiate sports is decreasing.

Moving to Phoenix does not automatically make you a Sun Devils fan

Agreed. Having potential doesn't automatically generate results. Whatever the issues the P12N had, the viewership for broadcast conference games just isn't there.
03-26-2021 07:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,691
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 147
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-22-2021 11:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 10:58 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  ...or why they'll be calling Texas and Oklahoma sooner rather than later.

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...ibers.html

Why would they be calling Texas and Oklahoma? Interest in West Coast football would likely be even lower in those states than they are in the existing PAC 12 footprint.

Your kidding right? The Pac-12 NEEDS large population states with viewers that actually care about football--thats why. The real question is why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma actually agree to any Pac-12 offer? Hey, come add a bunch of excessive travel to play schools your fans dont care about---oh---and you'll do it for a smaller share of a smaller smaller pie. I suspect thats not likely to be the most enticing offer Texas and Oklahoma will see over the next few years.

I think it is ridiculous to think that "the Pac-12 needs large population states that actually care about football." Outside of Texas, what large population states does the Big 12 have? California has about ten million more people than Texas. I realize that Texas is a football crazy state, but it is not like people hate football in California or anywhere in the west. There is just not the same reverence for football that they have in Texas.

The Pac-12 Network Payment issue is about the incompetence of the Pac-12 leadership. Only the Pac-12 can fix that. Texas cannot fix that and UT is not going to give up their $15 million dollar a year payment from the Longhorn Network for a less than $2 million payment from the Pac-12 Network.

I agree with this. The long-term demographic and population trends actually favor the Pac-12 more than any other power conference: Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah all have among the hottest real estate markets in the country on top of the already huge California population. Plus, the demographic growth isn't just coming from people looking for the cheapest prices or lowest taxes: the major Pac-12 markets are getting disproportionately high numbers of highly educated high income workers.

Meanwhile, the Big 12's population "advantage" is *entirely* due to Texas. (Don't get me wrong - Texas in and of itself is a monster.) All of the other states in the Big 12 are low growth or no growth states whose largest TV markets consist of Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

I also push back on the oft-cited time zone issue. Long-term, the Pac-12 has a power conference *monopoly* on the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. We're talking about a region with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake City and they have a *monopoly*. Regardless of how many homes might be in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, 4 power conferences have to fight directly with each other for that territory while the Pac-12 doesn't have to fight anyone in their region that has *massive* fast-growing markets.

Add on to the fact that these schools are *fantastic* institutional and academic fits with each other (arguably better aligned than any other P5 league, including my Big Ten). Even if you took away the 4 most valuable Pac-12 schools (let's say USC, UCLA and any other two schools), you're still going to be left with a power conference that's going to have flagship schools in fast-growing states and top academics (e.g. Stanford, Cal, Washington). In contrast, all it takes is for Texas to get itchy (which has *directly* happened with the breakup of the SWC in the 1990s and their own flirtation with the old Pac-10 in 2010) and the rest of the Big 12 starts scattering for cover. Texas (both the school and state) has mega-power, but people seem to have such short memories of how much that mega-power masks so many underlying issues with the Big 12 overall.

Now, the fact that the Pac-12 hasn't managed their demographic advantages and time zone monopoly well at all is an entirely different issue. Pac-12 Network management was always a problem from day one. I thought from the beginning that it was a mistake for the Pac-12 to "go it alone" as opposed to partnering with ESPN or Fox for distribution. They saw the Big Ten making a lot of money owning 50% of the BTN, so the Pac-12 got starry-eyed about what they could get with 100% ownership of their own network. It's a classic story of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered". The Pac-12 wanted 100% ownership to be a hog and it backfired on them.

This is exactly why the Big 12 should seriously consider western expansion. Instantly adds West Coast market share and the new timeslot inventory.

BYU v. Kansas State and San Diego State v. TCU can beat out Arizona v. Colorado or Utah v. Oregon State; whereas, TCU v. UCF or Kansas State v. Cincinnati isn't going to beat out most B1G or SEC inventory.
03-26-2021 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 38,810
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1230
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #53
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-26-2021 02:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 11:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 10:58 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  Why would they be calling Texas and Oklahoma? Interest in West Coast football would likely be even lower in those states than they are in the existing PAC 12 footprint.

Your kidding right? The Pac-12 NEEDS large population states with viewers that actually care about football--thats why. The real question is why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma actually agree to any Pac-12 offer? Hey, come add a bunch of excessive travel to play schools your fans dont care about---oh---and you'll do it for a smaller share of a smaller smaller pie. I suspect thats not likely to be the most enticing offer Texas and Oklahoma will see over the next few years.

I think it is ridiculous to think that "the Pac-12 needs large population states that actually care about football." Outside of Texas, what large population states does the Big 12 have? California has about ten million more people than Texas. I realize that Texas is a football crazy state, but it is not like people hate football in California or anywhere in the west. There is just not the same reverence for football that they have in Texas.

The Pac-12 Network Payment issue is about the incompetence of the Pac-12 leadership. Only the Pac-12 can fix that. Texas cannot fix that and UT is not going to give up their $15 million dollar a year payment from the Longhorn Network for a less than $2 million payment from the Pac-12 Network.

I agree with this. The long-term demographic and population trends actually favor the Pac-12 more than any other power conference: Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah all have among the hottest real estate markets in the country on top of the already huge California population. Plus, the demographic growth isn't just coming from people looking for the cheapest prices or lowest taxes: the major Pac-12 markets are getting disproportionately high numbers of highly educated high income workers.

Meanwhile, the Big 12's population "advantage" is *entirely* due to Texas. (Don't get me wrong - Texas in and of itself is a monster.) All of the other states in the Big 12 are low growth or no growth states whose largest TV markets consist of Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

I also push back on the oft-cited time zone issue. Long-term, the Pac-12 has a power conference *monopoly* on the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. We're talking about a region with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake City and they have a *monopoly*. Regardless of how many homes might be in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, 4 power conferences have to fight directly with each other for that territory while the Pac-12 doesn't have to fight anyone in their region that has *massive* fast-growing markets.

Add on to the fact that these schools are *fantastic* institutional and academic fits with each other (arguably better aligned than any other P5 league, including my Big Ten). Even if you took away the 4 most valuable Pac-12 schools (let's say USC, UCLA and any other two schools), you're still going to be left with a power conference that's going to have flagship schools in fast-growing states and top academics (e.g. Stanford, Cal, Washington). In contrast, all it takes is for Texas to get itchy (which has *directly* happened with the breakup of the SWC in the 1990s and their own flirtation with the old Pac-10 in 2010) and the rest of the Big 12 starts scattering for cover. Texas (both the school and state) has mega-power, but people seem to have such short memories of how much that mega-power masks so many underlying issues with the Big 12 overall.

Now, the fact that the Pac-12 hasn't managed their demographic advantages and time zone monopoly well at all is an entirely different issue. Pac-12 Network management was always a problem from day one. I thought from the beginning that it was a mistake for the Pac-12 to "go it alone" as opposed to partnering with ESPN or Fox for distribution. They saw the Big Ten making a lot of money owning 50% of the BTN, so the Pac-12 got starry-eyed about what they could get with 100% ownership of their own network. It's a classic story of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered". The Pac-12 wanted 100% ownership to be a hog and it backfired on them.

This is exactly why the Big 12 should seriously consider western expansion. Instantly adds West Coast market share and the new timeslot inventory.

BYU v. Kansas State and San Diego State v. TCU can beat out Arizona v. Colorado or Utah v. Oregon State; whereas, TCU v. UCF or Kansas State v. Cincinnati isn't going to beat out most B1G or SEC inventory.

San Diego State and BYU are not worth anything near the $42 million Big 12 teams are raking in. That would be serious money dilution. UCF and Cincy aren't either.

This isn't to say I disagree with FT's analysis. It is true that the B12 is dependent on two schools like no other conference is. But, there's literally nothing it can do to change that. No schools it can add will alter that basic fact. So given that reality ....

The best move for the Big 12 is to stand pat.
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2021 06:59 PM by quo vadis.)
03-26-2021 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 47,322
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1781
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-22-2021 11:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 10:58 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-19-2021 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  ...or why they'll be calling Texas and Oklahoma sooner rather than later.

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...ibers.html

Why would they be calling Texas and Oklahoma? Interest in West Coast football would likely be even lower in those states than they are in the existing PAC 12 footprint.

Your kidding right? The Pac-12 NEEDS large population states with viewers that actually care about football--thats why. The real question is why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma actually agree to any Pac-12 offer? Hey, come add a bunch of excessive travel to play schools your fans dont care about---oh---and you'll do it for a smaller share of a smaller smaller pie. I suspect thats not likely to be the most enticing offer Texas and Oklahoma will see over the next few years.

I think it is ridiculous to think that "the Pac-12 needs large population states that actually care about football." Outside of Texas, what large population states does the Big 12 have? California has about ten million more people than Texas. I realize that Texas is a football crazy state, but it is not like people hate football in California or anywhere in the west. There is just not the same reverence for football that they have in Texas.

The Pac-12 Network Payment issue is about the incompetence of the Pac-12 leadership. Only the Pac-12 can fix that. Texas cannot fix that and UT is not going to give up their $15 million dollar a year payment from the Longhorn Network for a less than $2 million payment from the Pac-12 Network.

I agree with this. The long-term demographic and population trends actually favor the Pac-12 more than any other power conference: Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah all have among the hottest real estate markets in the country on top of the already huge California population. Plus, the demographic growth isn't just coming from people looking for the cheapest prices or lowest taxes: the major Pac-12 markets are getting disproportionately high numbers of highly educated high income workers.

Meanwhile, the Big 12's population "advantage" is *entirely* due to Texas. (Don't get me wrong - Texas in and of itself is a monster.) All of the other states in the Big 12 are low growth or no growth states whose largest TV markets consist of Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

I also push back on the oft-cited time zone issue. Long-term, the Pac-12 has a power conference *monopoly* on the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. We're talking about a region with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake City and they have a *monopoly*. Regardless of how many homes might be in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, 4 power conferences have to fight directly with each other for that territory while the Pac-12 doesn't have to fight anyone in their region that has *massive* fast-growing markets.

Add on to the fact that these schools are *fantastic* institutional and academic fits with each other (arguably better aligned than any other P5 league, including my Big Ten). Even if you took away the 4 most valuable Pac-12 schools (let's say USC, UCLA and any other two schools), you're still going to be left with a power conference that's going to have flagship schools in fast-growing states and top academics (e.g. Stanford, Cal, Washington). In contrast, all it takes is for Texas to get itchy (which has *directly* happened with the breakup of the SWC in the 1990s and their own flirtation with the old Pac-10 in 2010) and the rest of the Big 12 starts scattering for cover. Texas (both the school and state) has mega-power, but people seem to have such short memories of how much that mega-power masks so many underlying issues with the Big 12 overall.

Now, the fact that the Pac-12 hasn't managed their demographic advantages and time zone monopoly well at all is an entirely different issue. Pac-12 Network management was always a problem from day one. I thought from the beginning that it was a mistake for the Pac-12 to "go it alone" as opposed to partnering with ESPN or Fox for distribution. They saw the Big Ten making a lot of money owning 50% of the BTN, so the Pac-12 got starry-eyed about what they could get with 100% ownership of their own network. It's a classic story of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered". The Pac-12 wanted 100% ownership to be a hog and it backfired on them.

Time zone is a negative. Noon ET starts are 9AM on the west coast. 8 PM west coast starts are 11 PM on the east coast. So the Pac only has two time windows they can play in: 8PM ET/5PM Pacific and 4PM ET and 1PM Pacific. Everybody else has 3 time windows. These late starts just simply don't draw enough from the bulk of the US population. And they can't do the 12 noon ET kickoffs.

And there is a lot of population growth, but its in low interest areas. The places where college football are popular are the south and midwest.
03-26-2021 07:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jared7 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 76
Joined: Apr 2019
Reputation: 33
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
ksl in Salt Lake City (unfortunately, I can't make the link work) published an article today suggesting that Utah team up with BYU and jointly make a proposal to the Big 12 about those 2 schools becoming the 11th and 12th members of the Big 12. Personally, I don't think those 2 are the western schools that UT (er, the Big12) would be interested in adding, but the article does show that the Pac 12 is seriously considering what the San Jose Mercury News' article was suggesting. That is, jettisoning the 6 PacN regionals (at least) immediately and then attempting an early re-negotiation of their existing Tier 1 deal (prior to its anticipated expiration in 2023). Nothing is likely until they get their new commissioner this summer, but if they do that, that could open any potential for realignment earlier than pre-2024 for a possible Pacific Southwest Conference, with the Big 12 as the poacher.

If anything, it could just mean that someone in Utah is getting nervous about the ongoing money differential and the anticipated gargantuan difference in the near future.
03-31-2021 11:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 38,810
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1230
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #56
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-31-2021 11:00 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  ksl in Salt Lake City (unfortunately, I can't make the link work) published an article today suggesting that Utah team up with BYU and jointly make a proposal to the Big 12 about those 2 schools becoming the 11th and 12th members of the Big 12.

...............

If anything, it could just mean that someone in Utah is getting nervous about the ongoing money differential and the anticipated gargantuan difference in the near future.

I think this is the link you wanted. It is an interesting idea. The Big 12 knows 12 is a good number to be at, but there is nobody in the G5 worth adding. Utah and BYU just might be, if the Arizona schools aren't interested, and I think the Arizona schools are more culturally comfortable with the PAC.

https://kslsports.com/456413/pitch-utah-...byu-along/
04-01-2021 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thiefery Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 621
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation: 21
I Root For: TEXAS
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
LOL. really? Big 12 finally goes to 12 with Utah and BYU? I'm sure the PAC will be heartbroken knowing Utah left.. I don't dislike Utah but the Big 12 would be smoking crack to actually add them with BYU. At that point, it's time to call it a day and let UT/ou walk.
04-01-2021 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,587
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 531
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #58
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(03-26-2021 06:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-26-2021 02:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 11:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 10:58 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(03-20-2021 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your kidding right? The Pac-12 NEEDS large population states with viewers that actually care about football--thats why. The real question is why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma actually agree to any Pac-12 offer? Hey, come add a bunch of excessive travel to play schools your fans dont care about---oh---and you'll do it for a smaller share of a smaller smaller pie. I suspect thats not likely to be the most enticing offer Texas and Oklahoma will see over the next few years.

I think it is ridiculous to think that "the Pac-12 needs large population states that actually care about football." Outside of Texas, what large population states does the Big 12 have? California has about ten million more people than Texas. I realize that Texas is a football crazy state, but it is not like people hate football in California or anywhere in the west. There is just not the same reverence for football that they have in Texas.

The Pac-12 Network Payment issue is about the incompetence of the Pac-12 leadership. Only the Pac-12 can fix that. Texas cannot fix that and UT is not going to give up their $15 million dollar a year payment from the Longhorn Network for a less than $2 million payment from the Pac-12 Network.

I agree with this. The long-term demographic and population trends actually favor the Pac-12 more than any other power conference: Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah all have among the hottest real estate markets in the country on top of the already huge California population. Plus, the demographic growth isn't just coming from people looking for the cheapest prices or lowest taxes: the major Pac-12 markets are getting disproportionately high numbers of highly educated high income workers.

Meanwhile, the Big 12's population "advantage" is *entirely* due to Texas. (Don't get me wrong - Texas in and of itself is a monster.) All of the other states in the Big 12 are low growth or no growth states whose largest TV markets consist of Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

I also push back on the oft-cited time zone issue. Long-term, the Pac-12 has a power conference *monopoly* on the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. We're talking about a region with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake City and they have a *monopoly*. Regardless of how many homes might be in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, 4 power conferences have to fight directly with each other for that territory while the Pac-12 doesn't have to fight anyone in their region that has *massive* fast-growing markets.

Add on to the fact that these schools are *fantastic* institutional and academic fits with each other (arguably better aligned than any other P5 league, including my Big Ten). Even if you took away the 4 most valuable Pac-12 schools (let's say USC, UCLA and any other two schools), you're still going to be left with a power conference that's going to have flagship schools in fast-growing states and top academics (e.g. Stanford, Cal, Washington). In contrast, all it takes is for Texas to get itchy (which has *directly* happened with the breakup of the SWC in the 1990s and their own flirtation with the old Pac-10 in 2010) and the rest of the Big 12 starts scattering for cover. Texas (both the school and state) has mega-power, but people seem to have such short memories of how much that mega-power masks so many underlying issues with the Big 12 overall.

Now, the fact that the Pac-12 hasn't managed their demographic advantages and time zone monopoly well at all is an entirely different issue. Pac-12 Network management was always a problem from day one. I thought from the beginning that it was a mistake for the Pac-12 to "go it alone" as opposed to partnering with ESPN or Fox for distribution. They saw the Big Ten making a lot of money owning 50% of the BTN, so the Pac-12 got starry-eyed about what they could get with 100% ownership of their own network. It's a classic story of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered". The Pac-12 wanted 100% ownership to be a hog and it backfired on them.

This is exactly why the Big 12 should seriously consider western expansion. Instantly adds West Coast market share and the new timeslot inventory.

BYU v. Kansas State and San Diego State v. TCU can beat out Arizona v. Colorado or Utah v. Oregon State; whereas, TCU v. UCF or Kansas State v. Cincinnati isn't going to beat out most B1G or SEC inventory.

San Diego State and BYU are not worth anything near the $42 million Big 12 teams are raking in. That would be serious money dilution. UCF and Cincy aren't either.

This isn't to say I disagree with FT's analysis. It is true that the B12 is dependent on two schools like no other conference is. But, there's literally nothing it can do to change that. No schools it can add will alter that basic fact. So given that reality ....

The best move for the Big 12 is to stand pat.
Exactly

The money has gotten so big that adding a team just isn't worth it. Unless a school can be added to convert a large population of the conference network to the in market rate, its going to be hard to justify a P5 confernce expanding.

With the 12 team rule for a CCG gone and no conference network, it would be hard to justify the Big 12 expanding with the current non P5 candidates and even some P5 candidates
04-01-2021 09:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 38,810
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1230
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #59
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
(04-01-2021 09:18 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(03-26-2021 06:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-26-2021 02:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 11:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-22-2021 10:58 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I think it is ridiculous to think that "the Pac-12 needs large population states that actually care about football." Outside of Texas, what large population states does the Big 12 have? California has about ten million more people than Texas. I realize that Texas is a football crazy state, but it is not like people hate football in California or anywhere in the west. There is just not the same reverence for football that they have in Texas.

The Pac-12 Network Payment issue is about the incompetence of the Pac-12 leadership. Only the Pac-12 can fix that. Texas cannot fix that and UT is not going to give up their $15 million dollar a year payment from the Longhorn Network for a less than $2 million payment from the Pac-12 Network.

I agree with this. The long-term demographic and population trends actually favor the Pac-12 more than any other power conference: Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah all have among the hottest real estate markets in the country on top of the already huge California population. Plus, the demographic growth isn't just coming from people looking for the cheapest prices or lowest taxes: the major Pac-12 markets are getting disproportionately high numbers of highly educated high income workers.

Meanwhile, the Big 12's population "advantage" is *entirely* due to Texas. (Don't get me wrong - Texas in and of itself is a monster.) All of the other states in the Big 12 are low growth or no growth states whose largest TV markets consist of Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

I also push back on the oft-cited time zone issue. Long-term, the Pac-12 has a power conference *monopoly* on the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. We're talking about a region with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake City and they have a *monopoly*. Regardless of how many homes might be in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, 4 power conferences have to fight directly with each other for that territory while the Pac-12 doesn't have to fight anyone in their region that has *massive* fast-growing markets.

Add on to the fact that these schools are *fantastic* institutional and academic fits with each other (arguably better aligned than any other P5 league, including my Big Ten). Even if you took away the 4 most valuable Pac-12 schools (let's say USC, UCLA and any other two schools), you're still going to be left with a power conference that's going to have flagship schools in fast-growing states and top academics (e.g. Stanford, Cal, Washington). In contrast, all it takes is for Texas to get itchy (which has *directly* happened with the breakup of the SWC in the 1990s and their own flirtation with the old Pac-10 in 2010) and the rest of the Big 12 starts scattering for cover. Texas (both the school and state) has mega-power, but people seem to have such short memories of how much that mega-power masks so many underlying issues with the Big 12 overall.

Now, the fact that the Pac-12 hasn't managed their demographic advantages and time zone monopoly well at all is an entirely different issue. Pac-12 Network management was always a problem from day one. I thought from the beginning that it was a mistake for the Pac-12 to "go it alone" as opposed to partnering with ESPN or Fox for distribution. They saw the Big Ten making a lot of money owning 50% of the BTN, so the Pac-12 got starry-eyed about what they could get with 100% ownership of their own network. It's a classic story of "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered". The Pac-12 wanted 100% ownership to be a hog and it backfired on them.

This is exactly why the Big 12 should seriously consider western expansion. Instantly adds West Coast market share and the new timeslot inventory.

BYU v. Kansas State and San Diego State v. TCU can beat out Arizona v. Colorado or Utah v. Oregon State; whereas, TCU v. UCF or Kansas State v. Cincinnati isn't going to beat out most B1G or SEC inventory.

San Diego State and BYU are not worth anything near the $42 million Big 12 teams are raking in. That would be serious money dilution. UCF and Cincy aren't either.

This isn't to say I disagree with FT's analysis. It is true that the B12 is dependent on two schools like no other conference is. But, there's literally nothing it can do to change that. No schools it can add will alter that basic fact. So given that reality ....

The best move for the Big 12 is to stand pat.
Exactly

The money has gotten so big that adding a team just isn't worth it. Unless a school can be added to convert a large population of the conference network to the in market rate, its going to be hard to justify a P5 confernce expanding.

With the 12 team rule for a CCG gone and no conference network, it would be hard to justify the Big 12 expanding with the current non P5 candidates and even some P5 candidates

Yes, the only way expansion would work is with two schools that networks would be willing to extend equal value to, thus not diluting the money for the current members.

The two Arizona schools possibly meet that criteria. Just about nobody else even slightly on the B12's radar could. And I don't think they are interested. But no G5 schools.
(This post was last modified: 04-01-2021 09:43 AM by quo vadis.)
04-01-2021 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,074
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 201
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #60
RE: Pac-12 Network Payouts
I don’t see an scenario where Utah leaves the Pac-12 on its own. The school is aligned with its peers academically and culturally especially with their new AAU membership......making it the 9th Pac-12 school in the AAU. This is not the Utah of the MWC and WAC where it needed BYU to get things done and could offer themselves as a package deal to any power conference. I’m sure BYU would jump at the opportunity to join the Big XII but not Utah.
04-01-2021 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.