(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

Anyone would think they won't because that is what media consultants are telling the school admins.

(08-03-2022 01:59 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 11:14 AM)Boots Wrote:  Here is Mandels mailbag from this morning...some juicy information he sounds confident in...summary...

-If PAC expands he feels confident it would be SDSU and SMU
-If one conference is poaching...much more likely it is the PAC taking from the Big 12...not the reversal.
-Also very possible they stay at 10.

Here is the Q & A....

I am a lifelong Southerner, but pulling for the Pac-12 to survive and prosper. After San Diego State, are either Nevada or UNLV acceptable candidates? — Mark C.

Nothing against either of those two fine institutions, but if the Pac-12 brought either of them in, the remaining schools would basically have to write them a check from their own bank accounts, because they’re bringing zero new dollars to the league’s next TV deals.

Based on the conversations I’ve had, and reading between some tea leaves, the only remaining Group of 5 schools on the Pac-12’s radar are San Diego State and SMU. The former is fairly obvious, both due to its location and its strong athletic department. SMU’s appeal is part getting into the Dallas recruiting and TV market, and part that it’s highly ranked in academics (No. 68 nationally in US News) — which Pac-12 presidents really do care about. However, it’s also debatable whether either or both will add enough per-school value to prevent the existing 10 from getting their slice of the pie.

I would not discount two other possibilities for the Pac-12. One is the league stays at 10 programs. It would be much the same strategy the Big 12 followed from 2011-21, which benefitted its schools financially but then of course left them a sitting duck when Oklahoma and Texas left. This to me is the likely outcome if they end up landing a less-than-desired number from their next set of media rights. (If that happens, I’d also expect to see Oregon and possibly others push for a bigger slice of the revenue).

Or — they do better than expected, and try to use it as incentive to add schools from the Big 12.

Obviously, the Pac-12 had that opportunity a year ago and declined. (The LA Times recently reported that of all people, USC president Carol Folt put the kibosh on expansion at that time.) I’ve been told the conference did its diligence and found that only a couple of the Big 12 holdovers would have added any value. But circumstances have changed, and if commissioner George Kliavkoff and/or his presidents deem it important to get into Texas, it would make sense to pursue TCU and Baylor, or perhaps even Houston, before turning to SMU and San Diego State.

The tricky thing is that the Big 12 Grant of Rights goes for a year longer than the Pac-12’s, so it wouldn’t line up with the start of the Pac-12’s next TV deal. But that could also work to their advantage. The Pac-12 is going to know its post-USC/UCLA valuation a year or more earlier than the Big 12 schools find out their post-Oklahoma/Texas fate. Probably before the end of this calendar year. That guaranteed money could be tempting to a school like TCU that will still have no idea the new Big 12’s value. And, if they wait until 2025, they can defect without having to pay an exit fee.

To be clear, I would not place the likelihood of this scenario particularly high, though certainly higher than anyone going in the reverse direction.

Seemed plausible and "insider-ish" enough, but loses all credibility when he pitches Baylor as a possibility to the current Pac. Stanford and Cal (and probably others) will never, ever, let that happen.

Also he's too lazy (or ignorant) to mention that the Big 12 exit fee pretty much prohibits anyone jumping from there to the Pac.

Just realignment clickbait (the article, not the poster).

Bingo. Realignment click bait. Hook, line and sinker.

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

This just underlines the common misconception. Schools, and therefore conferences, aren't paid according to the value of the schools. Media partners don't buy schools, they buy the rights to football games (which are matchups of two schools). The value of the yearly set of Arizona football games, or any other school absolutely depends on who they're playing, and the conference affiliation is the largest factor in deciding they're schedule.

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

Sounds right to me. To extend this, as long as a university president is confident that he isn't putting his school in longterm jeapordy by signing on with the Pac12, a few million bucks/year should not matter.

Now Canzano piling on Big 12....

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-th...lar-threat

Canzano: There is a singular threat to Pac-12 now -- the Big Ten
Pac-12 AD calls Big 12 threat "laughable."

John Canzano
3 hr ago

The Pac-12 Conference athletic directors are anxiously waiting to see what happens in the next 24 hours. The conference’s 30-day, exclusive negotiating period with ESPN and Fox is set to expire Aug. 4.

The ADs I spoke with said they haven’t seen any potential revenue numbers yet.

Former Fox Sports Networks president Bob Thompson recently told me he’d be shocked if a deal got done with ESPN in the early negotiating window. That dovetails with the remarks from Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff last Friday, who pumped the brakes on the timeline. I left media day thinking it might be early September before we get resolution.

There’s some customary back-channeling going on right now. Consultants are involved. It’s in the conference’s best interest to go slow, allow the Big Ten to set the market, and give some other bidders a chance to weigh in.

Thompson said: “I think the conference will be wise and want to see who is on the outside looking in when the Big Ten option ends. There’s going to be some folks who expressed an interest in collegiate football who aren’t going to get it in the Big Ten deal.”

In the meantime, the athletic directors of the Pac-12’s remaining 10 universities are still communicating regularly and tell me they’re upbeat.

Said one AD, “The dialogue, candor, and environment have been positive. Everyone is moving in the same direction.”

Are there still threats out there?

Sure.

Said the AD: “It’s a singular threat — the Big Ten and the Big Ten only. That’s it. The Big 12 threat is laughable.”

Would the Big Ten decide to further expand and add Oregon and Washington? Or maybe chase Stanford? I’m going to dive deeper into the calculus of that in the coming days. But the prevailing thought is that none of those universities generate enough potential media rights value by themselves to make doing so a no-brainer.

In fact, I floated that Oregon-Washington-Stanford question to a current Big Ten Conference athletic director, who waved it off.

“I think Stanford might be interesting to our conference presidents just because of the academic piece,” he said, “but unless Notre Dame is coming in too, I don’t think further expansion happens in this cycle.”

The Pac-12 mostly laughed off the Big 12 threat last Friday at media day. It makes sense that those two entities are at odds. There’s only so much money in the college football ecosystem. The SEC ate first, now the Big Ten is feasting. The ACC is waiting for 2036, while Pac-12 and Big 12 are left to fight over what’s left.

There have been reports about the Big 12 trying to poach Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU. Nobody at those universities seems much interested at this point. The financial advantage just doesn’t appear to be there. But the noise annoyed the Pac-12 anyway.

Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff holds a degree in journalism from Boston University. He told me on Friday that he is frustrated with the Big 12’s tactics.

“It’s incredibly destructive, but that’s why they do it,” he said. “When I was in journalism school we were taught you had to source things from two reliable sources and you can’t run with it until. Now, we’ve got folks in the national media reporting stuff that is on burner Twitter accounts. It’s unfortunate. It’s the world we live in. I don’t have thin skin. I’m OK with this stuff, but it does destabilize people.”

Kliavkoff said that several Pac-12 universities have shared communications they’ve received from the Big 12 and other conferences.

“If they hear something or if someone from a different conference is approaching them, they forward those messages,” he said. “Those are fun to read. I’ve read every single one that has been sent to our conference over the last three weeks. It’s amazing how brazen those other conferences are.”

(08-03-2022 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 01:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

He is either operating fully on emotion or a simpleton that is out of touch with the realities of today.

You know what is worth even less than $5 million, conference pride between rump conferences. The only tenable path forward is getting a 3rd super conference of P5 leftovers ASAP.


Regardless of which conference name survives, the leftovers need consolidation as much as the P2.

It just so happens to be that the PAC the worst positioned for that. It is simply false that a school's valuation is static. The PAC schools are worth more the less PAC they become, due to some pretty basic econometrics.
Then there is the risk and uncertainty of the BIG continuing to remind the PAC it is nothing more than fodder. Waiting on the BIG to finish the PAC is not risk free for the 4 corners.

He talks about that. That is his point about potentially there being a 48 team top division and a leaky boat. He talks about some seeing safety in numbers. He doesn't think it helps.

1. There is a long, long list of widely believed hot media takes which are nothing but a BS souffle' cooked up to jazz public interest or anger to drive hits and and sell papers. We live in an information age when 99.9% of it is flawed or simply not so.

2. As to the formation of a tweener conference, it will happen naturally as the need arises and 40 million is a solid blanket figure for one as it covers B12, PAC and ACC numbers and the formation of such will give access and a cover payout to eliminate damages and it will permit the 2 x 24 to form.

Agree. Some of the angst is that it seemingly can't happen yet (ACC schools are grounded) so the rest are jockeying for position. If the central and western schools were sure they wouldn't be left out of a consolidation from 3 to 2 conferences we would all be talking about how our teams are going 12-0 this year.

(08-03-2022 01:47 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  There’s just a lot of denial/anger/bargaining from the BigXII driving the conversation.

If/WHEN we get a roughly 48 team breakaway, it’s over if you’re on the outside. There is no rearranging of chairs that keeps you relevant. Interest in your product will drop precipitously and the TV revenue will follow shortly. The MAC looks better set up to weather that storm than a transcontinental monstrosity like the BigXII.

I anticipate a return to the good ol’ skyline/RMAC days. Maybe with a CCG versus the border conference. This panicked need to grab hold of others before the bottom falls out isn’t going to help anyone.

It is the Pac schools that are scrambling, not the Big 12. The only denial regarding the Big 12 is nixing a merger.

(08-03-2022 01:59 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 11:14 AM)Boots Wrote:  Here is Mandels mailbag from this morning...some juicy information he sounds confident in...summary...

-If PAC expands he feels confident it would be SDSU and SMU
-If one conference is poaching...much more likely it is the PAC taking from the Big 12...not the reversal.
-Also very possible they stay at 10.

Here is the Q & A....

I am a lifelong Southerner, but pulling for the Pac-12 to survive and prosper. After San Diego State, are either Nevada or UNLV acceptable candidates? — Mark C.

Nothing against either of those two fine institutions, but if the Pac-12 brought either of them in, the remaining schools would basically have to write them a check from their own bank accounts, because they’re bringing zero new dollars to the league’s next TV deals.

Based on the conversations I’ve had, and reading between some tea leaves, the only remaining Group of 5 schools on the Pac-12’s radar are San Diego State and SMU. The former is fairly obvious, both due to its location and its strong athletic department. SMU’s appeal is part getting into the Dallas recruiting and TV market, and part that it’s highly ranked in academics (No. 68 nationally in US News) — which Pac-12 presidents really do care about. However, it’s also debatable whether either or both will add enough per-school value to prevent the existing 10 from getting their slice of the pie.

I would not discount two other possibilities for the Pac-12. One is the league stays at 10 programs. It would be much the same strategy the Big 12 followed from 2011-21, which benefitted its schools financially but then of course left them a sitting duck when Oklahoma and Texas left. This to me is the likely outcome if they end up landing a less-than-desired number from their next set of media rights. (If that happens, I’d also expect to see Oregon and possibly others push for a bigger slice of the revenue).

Or — they do better than expected, and try to use it as incentive to add schools from the Big 12.

Obviously, the Pac-12 had that opportunity a year ago and declined. (The LA Times recently reported that of all people, USC president Carol Folt put the kibosh on expansion at that time.) I’ve been told the conference did its diligence and found that only a couple of the Big 12 holdovers would have added any value. But circumstances have changed, and if commissioner George Kliavkoff and/or his presidents deem it important to get into Texas, it would make sense to pursue TCU and Baylor, or perhaps even Houston, before turning to SMU and San Diego State.

The tricky thing is that the Big 12 Grant of Rights goes for a year longer than the Pac-12’s, so it wouldn’t line up with the start of the Pac-12’s next TV deal. But that could also work to their advantage. The Pac-12 is going to know its post-USC/UCLA valuation a year or more earlier than the Big 12 schools find out their post-Oklahoma/Texas fate. Probably before the end of this calendar year. That guaranteed money could be tempting to a school like TCU that will still have no idea the new Big 12’s value. And, if they wait until 2025, they can defect without having to pay an exit fee.

To be clear, I would not place the likelihood of this scenario particularly high, though certainly higher than anyone going in the reverse direction.

Seemed plausible and "insider-ish" enough, but loses all credibility when he pitches Baylor as a possibility to the current Pac. Stanford and Cal (and probably others) will never, ever, let that happen.

Also he's too lazy (or ignorant) to mention that the Big 12 exit fee pretty much prohibits anyone jumping from there to the Pac.

Just realignment clickbait (the article, not the poster).

Up until June 30th, I would have agreed with you on the prospect of Baylor going to the Pac-12, but I think the goalposts have shifted where they're not completely off the table. (BYU, on the other hand, would still be a non-starter as long as the Pac-12 schools that the Big Ten would conceivably want are still there.) Baylor is actually the highest-ranked Big 12 school in the US News rankings, has been one of the most viewed football teams in the league next to TCU and Oklahoma State when you strip out the boost of any OU/UT games, and has turned into a top tier basketball program. I'm not saying that Baylor would be a slam dunk to go to the Pac-12 to the extent that they could poach the Big 12 at any level, but the narrative has seemed to have shifted where there's no longer the knee-jerk outright objection to Baylor based on a lack of institutional fit. There are only so many schools in the Western half of the US that have both athletic value while meeting the Pac-12's requisite academic standards and I'd say Baylor is now on that list.

Which conference commissioner specifically and defensively referenced the other conference several times during HIS conference's media days?

That tells you all you need to know.

(08-03-2022 02:03 PM)splitstud Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

Anyone would think they won't because that is what media consultants are telling the school admins.

You got a link for that? please share.

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

I'd argue that legacy Big 12 schools would rather be associated with p5 academic schools than the new Big 12 from a prestige perspective. Incentive need not be money. Kansas as the remaining AAU school may have reasons beyond athletics at this point if all things are equal money wise

(08-03-2022 02:51 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

The bolded is some context that ought to be obvious but doesn't always seem to be the case in these discussions. Sometimes, it feels as if though the belief that League A getting $1 more in TV money compared to League B means that League A is going to be able to poach League B, but that isn't the case in reality.

At the P5 level, it's becoming clear that a school will jump if they'll get a monster increase in revenue (as is the case in going from the Pac-12/Big 12 to the Big Ten/SEC) no matter what the geography or other cultural factors there might be.

However, "just" a few million bucks isn't moving the needle at least at the P5 level, so if the Pac-12 and Big 12 are really going to the same tier financially no matter what combo of schools that you take from either league, then there really isn't much incentive to move in either direction.

I'd argue that legacy Big 12 schools would rather be associated with p5 academic schools than the new Big 12 from a prestige perspective. Incentive need not be money. Kansas as the remaining AAU school may have reasons beyond athletics at this point if all things are equal money wise

That's essentially the Pac-12's selling point, although I'd couch as more than prestige where the Pac-12 simply has many more of the *types* of schools that, if/when further consolidation or separation happens, are less likely to get left behind. No matter how they're playing football at any given time, the AAU flagship members of California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah and Arizona at a minimum aren't getting left behind (however that's defined) and neither are Stanford or Arizona State. I really only see Washington State and Oregon State being shut out of the overall power *system* in a collapse of the Pac-12, whereas there are a lot more Big 12 members that are at risk there if it ends up being the Big 12 that collapses (which makes sense since they just added several schools that haven't even been a part of the power system during the CFP era until now).

I think that's really the bigger picture - getting a group of schools that's going to be the #3 or #4 conference where you look at it and say, "That group isn't getting relegated no matter what happens."

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont.

I'll tell you why I think they get pretty much interchangeable TV deals, assuming the PAC-10 and new Big 12 go to market with their current lineups (PAC 10 signs a GOR or puts in a big exit fee or something).

Because the primary TV value of both conferences is as P5 filler, patching whatever gaps in the ESPN / Fox schedule cannot be filled by SEC, Big Ten and ACC games (ACC games aren't better, but they're already paid for), and bulk up the ESPN+ offerings.

Everything else pretty much balances out in the wash.
PAC-10 late night timeslots? On the one hand, those are pretty much PAC-10 exclusive, but on the other hand they're invisible to 75% of the country (Eastern, Central time zones).
Big 12 has Texas football culture, Florida and Ohio access? True, but the Big 12 is a distant No 2 (or No 3 in Florida) in those regions.
PAC-10 dominates it's remaining markets (SEattle, Portland, NorCal, Utah, Colorado, Arizona)? True, but college football fervor is lacking in those areas.

Quote:Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception.

Which is cool and everything, but I don't think it moves the needle much for Fox or ESPN.

Quote:The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

Which is cool and everything, but the time is long gone when local newspapers or the reach of over-the-air antenna signals mattered much. It's not at all clear that it's better to be the No 1 college football conference in Northern California is better than being the No. 2 in Texas. My strong suspicion is that, if you don't have top-25-or-so brands, it doesn't matter and you're just filling in timeslots. Oregon State, Oklahoma State, NC State, it doesn't really matter, it's just filling time between the Michigan State game and the LSU game.

(08-03-2022 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC need to sit down and consolidate into two. The Big and SEC are at 16 and making tons more. There is benefit in consolidation to counter that power.
If they don't, some of their members will be left behind.

There are a lot of vulnerable schools-Oregon St., Washington St., Utah, possibly even Cal, WVU, UCF, Cincinnati, Iowa St., Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech. Any of them could be left out depending on how things shake out. That's why the 3 conferences need to consolidate now (or at least once Notre Dame and the Big 10 reach decisions and stopping points this fall).

I believe that they need to consolidate into one conference.

Guy walks into a bar....

Guy: Hey I realize this is a matchup of two ranked BXII teams, but is it alright if we turn it to Cal v. Stanford? Those two have the better Computer Science programs.

(08-03-2022 03:05 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC need to sit down and consolidate into two. The Big and SEC are at 16 and making tons more. There is benefit in consolidation to counter that power.
If they don't, some of their members will be left behind.

There are a lot of vulnerable schools-Oregon St., Washington St., Utah, possibly even Cal, WVU, UCF, Cincinnati, Iowa St., Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech. Any of them could be left out depending on how things shake out. That's why the 3 conferences need to consolidate now (or at least once Notre Dame and the Big 10 reach decisions and stopping points this fall).

I believe that they need to consolidate into one conference.

One actually makes no sense.
One minor conference in the east and one in the west.
One major conference in the south one in the north.
Symmetry.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

I disagree. The media rights value can vary depending on who the media partner is.

Houston is likely more valuable to the PAC 12 media partners than the Big 12 because it would extend the PAC's media deal into Texas and the Central time zone. Houston's value is diminished if they remain in the AAC or moves to the MWC. Just like Oregon's or Stanford's value increases if they are part of the Big Ten lineup.

Arizona is likely more valuable to the Big 12 media partners than the PAC because it would extend the Big 12's media deal further into the western time zones.

So, it will really depend on the Big Ten's and Notre Dame's next media deals. That's the real issue with 'setting the market.' Which media partners will be looking for content and where and for which timeslots?

The question will be whether and by how much more valuable Houston is to the PAC or Arizona is to the Big 12 and whether there's enough of a difference to attract them away to overcome all the other various factors that motivate teams to affiliate in a conference.

(08-03-2022 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/f...he-pac-12/

This is Jon Wilner's interview with the former Utah AD:

"...Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league...."”

Reading comprehension 101: read the entire article. I read the article and Pat Hill talked about Utah liking playing in the Bay Area. My question to him is this: what happens when Cal and Stanford leave?? What happens when Oregon and Washington leave?? The reason he are not commenting on it, IMO, is that he knows that it is a real possibility. If there's one thing I have learned from all of this realignment news is that ADs and presidents keep their options open. They won't tell you this because a huge storm would break loose if they did.

(08-03-2022 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 12:43 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The remaining Pac 12 schools will get a much better tv deal than the B12. I dont see how anyone would think they wont. Remaining PAC schools are much better academically and have a much better cumulative national profile and perception. The Pac viewership is concentrated in better and more varied tv markets. Its not even worth debating in my mind.

People dont watch football based on how smart the schools are. Football is valuable because people care about it. If your located in a market where people dont care about it---your value has a cap. If your located in an area where only 20% of he nations TVs are located---you're ceiling is less than if you are located in an area where 80% of the TV's are located. The one thing the Pac12 has that is unique is late night P5 programming---but that has a cap because 80% of the TV's are asleep at that point---so nobody is going to overpay too much for that unique content. Still---thats always created some premium because the Pac12 was the only supplier of late night P5 western content. But is that still true? The fact is the Pac12 has already lost its unique stranglehold on that late night P5 programming with the exit of USC and UCLA. The Big10 can now offer some late night P5 inventory. BYU joining the Big12 added another conference that can potentially offer late night P5 programming. I think the amount of late night P5 content either of these alternative P5 sources can supply is still fairly limited----but if the Big12 nabs 2 to 4 Pac12 schools---the Pac12's position as the only substantial supplier of "unique" late night western P5 content would be significantly undermined.

That said---I dont think there will be much difference in contract values---assuming all stays "as is" for now. However, if the Pac12 loses more---that could quickly change. Where I think the HUGE difference comes is if you compare the value of the current Pac-10 to a potential Big16. I think there is a synergistic premium to be had there.

Let me state it another way. The estimates are that Texas and Oklahoma were worth between 65-70% of the B12 media package. They are leaving. If B12 was paying out $37 million per school, losing 65% would leave the payout at about $13 million per school. I dont think the B12 will get a paycut that deep, but you get the picture that it doesnt look too good for the B12.
Cincy, Houston, UCF and BYU will not close that gap. They are all great schools that play really good football. Cincy has been incredible the way they lose coaches and come back even better with a new coach. Houston, UCF and BYU have been amazing the last 5-10 years as well. But they dont come close to replacing the prestige of Texas and Oklahoma. Outside of WV and Kansas, all the B12 schools coming or going are not even the top schools in their respective States. Many of them are second or third or worse in popularity in their respective States. This just does not command big time media money.

Now regarding the PAC, these are all Big State schools or well respected popular privates, in Stanfords case. Almost all of them are first in their respective States. That means that they dominate their respective States tv eyeballs. Many of the States that the PAC works in, has not just the #1 school, but also the second most popular school in their respective States. The networks make their money by attracting large audiences. Which League do you think will have the larger audiences. The PAC losing USC and UCLA hurts but not as much as losing Texas/Oklahoma for the B12, since the PAC still have some Big names left in the league.

Arrogance will be the end of them... if this is really the rhetoric for the PAC 12, KU, OSU, Baylor, TTech should be running. They are not.