(08-05-2021 09:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 08:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:49 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:25 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 02:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It still doesn’t make sense. Football is around 80-85% of the tv contract. How is adding 4-8 schools with an average football value of 12 million help the Pac12 teams close the revenue gap with the Big10 and SEC? It only makes sense if the Pac12 loses its tent pole teams to a Big10 raid. Otherwise—the Pac12 is better off continuing on as is.

I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

Think about it from a college president’s perspective.

OK, I'm the President of Oregon State or Arizona State. Bringing in K-State, West Viriginia, Oklahoma State doesnt grow the pie enough to pay 8 football shares.

I'm talking Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas St and Iowa St., 6 "football only" teams. Granted the Pac 12 may choose not to expand. But if they do want to get into Texas and the central time zone they will never have a better opportunity.

*** SMUstang ***

As I've stated before, getting into the Central Time Zone and/or the Texas market in and of itself is irrelevant if you don't have the schools to deliver those markets at maximum value.

UT and OU were the ones worth expanding for in the proposed Pac-16 because they were insanely valuable with the side benefit of also expanding into the Central Time Zone and the massive Texas market. The latter was a secondary benefit, but definitely not the primary issue. The school itself has to bring value - it can't just be trying to get into the Central Time Zone.

You know what would provide a lot better Central Time Zone (and Eastern Time Zone, for that matter) inventory for the Pac-12? Schedule more non-conference games against the Big Ten (and/or the SEC and ACC).

To be honest, I think this is the proverbial putting the cart before the horse. Why the heck should the Pac-12 be bent on getting games on at 11 am Central Time in places like Kansas and Oklahoma or being the secondary/tertiary teams in Texas markets when that means showing those games at 9 am in markets they *own* like freaking Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix and Seattle???

Once again, if the Pac-16 went through and they had added UT and OU, it would be a different story... but even if that occurred, no self-respecting TV network executive is going to be showing USC/UCLA/Oregon vs. Texas/Oklahoma at 9 am in Los Angeles. Those games would be shifted to late afternoon or prime time ET/CT, anyway.

The time zone issue is such a red herring for the Pac-12. Their big issue is that their conference network was totally mismanaged, so they're getting underpaid considering the incredibly great brands, assets and massive (and in many cases, fast-growing) markets that they have under control. The Big 12 up until now was the opposite, where everyone other than UT and OU was getting overpaid compared to what they brought to the table, which is why so many people mistakenly thought the leagues were on more equal ground when they clearly weren't when looking under the hood of the actual members (and the defections of UT and OU clearly exposed that here).

(08-05-2021 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 09:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 08:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:49 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:25 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

Think about it from a college president’s perspective.

OK, I'm the President of Oregon State or Arizona State. Bringing in K-State, West Viriginia, Oklahoma State doesnt grow the pie enough to pay 8 football shares.

I'm talking Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas St and Iowa St., 6 "football only" teams. Granted the Pac 12 may choose not to expand. But if they do want to get into Texas and the central time zone they will never have a better opportunity.

*** SMUstang ***

As I've stated before, getting into the Central Time Zone and/or the Texas market in and of itself is irrelevant if you don't have the schools to deliver those markets at maximum value.

UT and OU were the ones worth expanding for in the proposed Pac-16 because they were insanely valuable with the side benefit of also expanding into the Central Time Zone and the massive Texas market. The latter was a secondary benefit, but definitely not the primary issue. The school itself has to bring value - it can't just be trying to get into the Central Time Zone.

You know what would provide a lot better Central Time Zone (and Eastern Time Zone, for that matter) inventory for the Pac-12? Schedule more non-conference games against the Big Ten (and/or the SEC and ACC).

To be honest, I think this is the proverbial putting the cart before the horse. Why the heck should the Pac-12 be bent on getting games on at 11 am Central Time in places like Kansas and Oklahoma or being the secondary/tertiary teams in Texas markets when that means showing those games at 9 am in markets they *own* like freaking Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix and Seattle???

Once again, if the Pac-16 went through and they had added UT and OU, it would be a different story... but even if that occurred, no self-respecting TV network executive is going to be showing USC/UCLA/Oregon vs. Texas/Oklahoma at 9 am in Los Angeles. Those games would be shifted to late afternoon or prime time ET/CT, anyway.

The time zone issue is such a red herring for the Pac-12. Their big issue is that their conference network was totally mismanaged, so they're getting underpaid considering the incredibly great brands, assets and massive (and in many cases, fast-growing) markets that they have under control. The Big 12 up until now was the opposite, where everyone other than UT and OU was getting overpaid compared to what they brought to the table, which is why so many people mistakenly thought the leagues were on more equal ground when they clearly weren't when looking under the hood of the actual members (and the defections of UT and OU clearly exposed that here).

I think how favorably the Big 12 and PAC compare depends upon the point in time of the comparison. Realignment has gradually taken a toll on the Big 12 while the PAC has thus far remained unscathed. While they weren’t on par with Texas and Oklahoma, Nebraska, TAMU Colorado and Mizzou were comparable to schools in the PAC not named USC.

(08-05-2021 02:34 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  When you think about it, the PAC taking the L8 for football only makes sense. With the exception of KU and WVU. KU should be a full member, and WVU should go indy or join the ACC for football only and remain in the Big XII for all other sports. The Big XII would remain a conference, but not sponsor football. They could even invite some other non football schools to join.

*** SMUstang ***

It makes no sense. This is from the past decade of NFL drafts (2012-2021) from NFL Draft History. The Big 12 versus the Top 6 in the Pac-12 in that same period:
Oklahoma - 53
Texas - 28
WVU -28
TCU - 26
Baylor - 26
OSU - 19
KState - 14
Texas Tech - 13
Iowa State - 7
Kansas - 6
Total - 220

Stanford - 42
USC - 40
UCLA - 36
Oregon - 35
Washington - 35
Utah - 32
Total - 220

Once Oklahoma and the underperforming Texas Longhorns are gone, the conference is nothing special for football. There is no reason to add a Big 12 school for football. As for basketball, this is the list of players by college confence on opening day 2020-2021 NBA rosters:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ba-rosters
ACC- 88
SEC- 82
Pac-12- 65
Big 12 - 45
Big Ten - 44
Big East -35
American - 18
MWC -18

Of the 45 Big 12 players on NBA rosters, 11 are from Texas. The underperforming Longhorns manage to produce a lot of basketball talent, but have only been to one NCAA Final Four since 1947. But when they leave, that talent leaves. Kansas has 11 players on NBA rosters. If they leave, that turns the Big 12 into the AAC or MWC. The basic problem is that there is no way for the remaining eight Big 12 schools to match what OU and UT brought to the conference and there is no way for the the other power conferences to match what the SEC just accomplished. The Big 12 could survive and expand, but they will not be a power conference. The other three power conferences may be best advised to just get better and not make any moves. The Pac-12 could certainly get better. They have been underperforming and I really don't see how the Big 12 will help with that.

(08-05-2021 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 09:15 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 08:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:49 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 07:25 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I agree that this is the most likely outcome. Kliavkoff is putting expansion options on the table because that’s his job, but obviously standing pat is also an option on the table. The conference will look at them all and make its decision, and the logic you cite will prevail unless there’s a consensus among the presidents that it makes more sense strategically to take the Big 12 off the board as a football conference.

As I posted earlier, it’s interesting to ponder whether Big 12 members would accept football-only Pac-12 memberships, as that could determine whether a Pac-12 power play would succeed. But the reality is that it probably won’t come to that.

Think about it from a college president’s perspective.

OK, I'm the President of Oregon State or Arizona State. Bringing in K-State, West Viriginia, Oklahoma State doesnt grow the pie enough to pay 8 football shares.

I'm talking Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas St and Iowa St., 6 "football only" teams. Granted the Pac 12 may choose not to expand. But if they do want to get into Texas and the central time zone they will never have a better opportunity.

*** SMUstang ***

As I've stated before, getting into the Central Time Zone and/or the Texas market in and of itself is irrelevant if you don't have the schools to deliver those markets at maximum value.

UT and OU were the ones worth expanding for in the proposed Pac-16 because they were insanely valuable with the side benefit of also expanding into the Central Time Zone and the massive Texas market. The latter was a secondary benefit, but definitely not the primary issue. The school itself has to bring value - it can't just be trying to get into the Central Time Zone.

You know what would provide a lot better Central Time Zone (and Eastern Time Zone, for that matter) inventory for the Pac-12? Schedule more non-conference games against the Big Ten (and/or the SEC and ACC).

To be honest, I think this is the proverbial putting the cart before the horse. Why the heck should the Pac-12 be bent on getting games on at 11 am Central Time in places like Kansas and Oklahoma or being the secondary/tertiary teams in Texas markets when that means showing those games at 9 am in markets they *own* like freaking Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix and Seattle???

Once again, if the Pac-16 went through and they had added UT and OU, it would be a different story... but even if that occurred, no self-respecting TV network executive is going to be showing USC/UCLA/Oregon vs. Texas/Oklahoma at 9 am in Los Angeles. Those games would be shifted to late afternoon or prime time ET/CT, anyway.

The time zone issue is such a red herring for the Pac-12. Their big issue is that their conference network was totally mismanaged, so they're getting underpaid considering the incredibly great brands, assets and massive (and in many cases, fast-growing) markets that they have under control. The Big 12 up until now was the opposite, where everyone other than UT and OU was getting overpaid compared to what they brought to the table, which is why so many people mistakenly thought the leagues were on more equal ground when they clearly weren't when looking under the hood of the actual members (and the defections of UT and OU clearly exposed that here).

Frank, all of that may be true. But we are not in 2016 anymore, we have to deal with the reality we have today. If the Pac 12 does not act on the Big XII leftovers, the AAC will, and the L8 will not like that because it will be perceived as a downgrade. If that happens, the Big XII is probably dead unless the schools accept "football only" memberships and get paid less than the current AAC members other than Navy.

*** SMUstang ***

(08-05-2021 09:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='bullet' pid='17539828' dateline='1628174648'] The Big 12 gets $90 or so million a year from the CFP/NY6. That number will go up with the new deal. Splitting the pot 4 ways instead of 5 is a motivation for the Big 10 and Pac 12 to expand, especially the Pac 12. Its also something that will help hold the Big 12 together if only 1 or 2 leave. [/quotegy.

Now that might make some kind of sense. Normally you don't get a cookie for killing off another conference (something realignment junkies miss, because we get a huge rush out of contemplating the chaos). But this is a situation where the P4 *would* get a cookie for killing off another conference.

But if they want to get that cookie in 2023, they need to either get every single Big12 school to leave, or else give the Big12 a share that is big enough for the Big12 to agree that the revised share going ahead into the future is worth giving up the contracted share until 2026, since on the 2023 version, the Big12 still retains its veto.

And with all of the incentive for a school to stay to collect the money that is contracted to go to the Big12, the latter is a lot less risky than the first as a strategy.

Pac 12 is getting overpaid. They consistently have much weaker ratings than the Big 12 and ACC.

In the Pac 12, it just matters less. Those states just don't have the same passion for college sports.

The remaining 8 have better football attendance (and probably much better basketball attendance) than the Pac 12. They have better football attendance than the ACC.

The Pac 12 has potential. But it has not been realized. All that NBA and NFL talent has underperformed--or they don't have enough top college level talent to support those guys. Over the last 10 years, KSU, ISU, OSU and Baylor have in football far outperformed their pre-Big 12 history. Many of you fail to realize that.

(08-05-2021 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  Pac 12 is getting overpaid. They consistently have much weaker ratings than the Big 12 and ACC.

In the Pac 12, it just matters less. Those states just don't have the same passion for college sports.

The remaining 8 have better football attendance (and probably much better basketball attendance) than the Pac 12. They have better football attendance than the ACC.

The Pac 12 has potential. But it has not been realized. All that NBA and NFL talent has underperformed--or they don't have enough top college level talent to support those guys. Over the last 10 years, KSU, ISU, OSU and Baylor have in football far outperformed their pre-Big 12 history. Many of you fail to realize that.

That should be their slogan. In the Pac 12 it just matters less

From 2010-2019, TCU was 12th in AP poll points. Oklahoma St. 14th. Baylor 15th. Kansas St. 28th. WVU was 37th. ISU wasn't ranked, but they finished in the top 10 in 2020. (OU #4, UT#36).
From 2000-2009, TCU was #18, WVU #19, KSU #26, Texas Tech #30, KU #44, Oklahoma St. #53 (UT#1, OU#2).https://collegefootballnews.com/2016/08/ap-all-time-college-football-rankings-best-teams-2000s

(08-05-2021 10:23 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Frank, all of that may be true. But we are not in 2016 anymore, we have to deal with the reality we have today. If the Pac 12 does not act on the Big XII leftovers, the AAC will, and the L8 will not like that because it will be perceived as a downgrade. If that happens, the Big XII is probably dead unless the schools accept "football only" memberships and get paid less than the current AAC members other than Navy.

*** SMUstang ***

Why would the Pac-12 care what the AAC is up to? As Jon Wilner of The San Jose Mercury News reported the other day, "the Pac-12 will receive $291 million this year from ESPN and Fox for the football and basketball regular seasons and football title game, according to the term sheet of the Tier 1 rights agreement. That’s $24.3 million per school. Yes, those numbers are from contracts signed years ago and don’t reflect current market valuations."

The AAC has a new TV contract with ESPN that averages just under $84 million annually. In 2018-2019, the Pac-12 got $123 million in revenue from the Pac-12 Network. The Pac-12 Network made more in revenue than the AAC got on their ESPN deal. Anyway, if the AAC wants to invite the L8, the Pac-12 will not stand in their way.

If the Big XII leftovers stay together, is it possible that Fox or CBS will offer them more after 2025 than ESPN is currently paying the AAC? If it is, will they be able to poach the top AAC teams?

*** SMUstang ***