(08-06-2022 08:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  Here are the facts:

1. The early media negotiations for the Pac12 has come and gone without a deal.
2. The Pac12 has considered unequal media revenue distribution.
3. The Big12 media contract to start in 2025 has not been agreed to, thus everything about what value it will be are pure speculation and projection; it is unknown X.

Conclusion:
1. The bid for the Pac12 media rights in the early window did not generate enough per individual programs for it to pass. The total $ to the Pac10 may have been more than the projected total to the big12 but if it doesn’t bring enough to enough individual programs whether because of unequal revenue sharing or the total $ was not enough even with equal sharing.

2. No pac10 program has outright rejected the Big12, except perhaps Utah who comes close but still nothing official. While a pac10 program may elect to stay in the pac10 for less money than projected to earn in the big12, none would consider moving to the big12 if the projected $ isn’t sufficiently more. Since everyone employs consultants there remains a difference between what that program would earn in the pac10 v big12, and this different may vary by program. Thus the projected income for the Pac12 on the market should be similar to the projected income for the big12, per program. It could also be less such that the gain in $ not enough to move.

The early period was never really intended to produce a deal. The PAC needed to go through it to get to the open market. It is a process that will take months, which is normal. Contract negotiations normally do to take a while (see the Big Ten). Your conclusions are not correct regarding projected income or unequal revenue sharing. These are just unfounded rumors.

The Big 12 has not gone to market yet for media negotiations. The PAC schools are concerned about the Big Ten. They are not at all focused on the Big 12. They need the Big Ten to finish their contract deal and then the PAC can move forward with their own contract negotiations, assuming the Big Ten is not interested in further expansion. The Big 12 is background noise. They are not relevant to what the PAC is dealing with.

I think more than anything this is just simple math.

The Big 12 had 10 schools. Each brought some value, though any individual school's value is debatable. The two biggest value earners left. So that greatly reduces the overall value. That leaves 8 schools. 4 new schools were then added, but these were schools no other power conference was inviting. So while they add something, not even the ACC or the old Big 12 thought they added enough value. But you also add more mouths to feed. So you take the 10 schools, remove the two largest chunks then add some back in and divide by 12.

The PAC had 12 schools. It also lost it's two biggest value earners. But, as of now, the PAC has not added any mouths to feed. It's also important to point out Texas/OU added more value that USC/UCLA. I would argue significant more value, though what significant means is a semantics debate. Still, you take big chunks out of 10 and dilute the remaining into 12 pieces. Or you take a smaller chunk out of 12 and don't dilute.

As an aside, I'd throw this out there. The old Big 12 was a decent conference. It wasn't as good as either the Big 10 or the SEC as evidenced by the fact those conferences are now superpowers and the Big 12 is not. But it had good schools and a solid base. Then it lost 6 of those schools. Arguably the top 6 by value (some may argue the exact ranking of some of the schools, but that's somewhat besides the point). For any conference to lose that much is pretty significant. Take the SEC from 20 years ago, back when it was 12 schools. Imagine the SEC losing it's top 6. Which would be Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, and let's say Auburn as #6. Look at the leftovers - Arkansas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Mississippi St., Vanderbilt, and Kentucky. Not horrible, but it's not a good football conference. Arkansas is not going to anchor a power conference. Kentucky is a somewhat better version of Kansas, elite basketball without complete crap football. I'm not sure the other 4 schools do a whole lot of needle moving. Point being that any conference, even the mighty SEC, can't really sustain losing the top half of the conference. Eventually you lose some status, particularly if you're just back filling with G5 schools.

(08-06-2022 10:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 08:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  Here are the facts:

1. The early media negotiations for the Pac12 has come and gone without a deal.
2. The Pac12 has considered unequal media revenue distribution.
3. The Big12 media contract to start in 2025 has not been agreed to, thus everything about what value it will be are pure speculation and projection; it is unknown X.

Conclusion:
1. The bid for the Pac12 media rights in the early window did not generate enough per individual programs for it to pass. The total $ to the Pac10 may have been more than the projected total to the big12 but if it doesn’t bring enough to enough individual programs whether because of unequal revenue sharing or the total $ was not enough even with equal sharing.

2. No pac10 program has outright rejected the Big12, except perhaps Utah who comes close but still nothing official. While a pac10 program may elect to stay in the pac10 for less money than projected to earn in the big12, none would consider moving to the big12 if the projected $ isn’t sufficiently more. Since everyone employs consultants there remains a difference between what that program would earn in the pac10 v big12, and this different may vary by program. Thus the projected income for the Pac12 on the market should be similar to the projected income for the big12, per program. It could also be less such that the gain in $ not enough to move.

The early period was never really intended to produce a deal. The PAC needed to go through it to get to the open market. It is a process that will take months, which is normal. Contract negotiations normally do to take a while (see the Big Ten). Your conclusions are not correct regarding projected income or unequal revenue sharing. These are just unfounded rumors.

The Big 12 has not gone to market yet for media negotiations. The PAC schools are concerned about the Big Ten. They are not at all focused on the Big 12. They need the Big Ten to finish their contract deal and then the PAC can move forward with their own contract negotiations, assuming the Big Ten is not interested in further expansion. The Big 12 is background noise. They are not relevant to what the PAC is dealing with.

Bird in hand is better than two in bush.
The pac didn’t need to go to market a year early. It did so to get valuations to stabilize the conference. Had ESPN and fox both offered good money, going to market wouldn’t have been necessary. Had ESPN and fox valued the pac 10 what the pac 10 valued itself then a deal would have been finalized before the media would risk a bidding war. No deal was finalized and fox wasn’t even interested. It isn’t that the pac 10 isn’t valuable. It is that the media isn’t sure what they will get without a gor and or for how long.
With the big 12 the media will know what they are getting.

(08-06-2022 05:34 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:07 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  For the Big 12, who is their Oregon?

Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati (FB) / Houston (MBB).

(08-05-2022 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  1. You cannot be serious. Oregon has been the top football program on the west coast since 2009 and one of the top football programs in the country in that period. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Cincinnati are not on the same level. If they were, you would not care that OU & UT are leaving for the SEC.

Cincinnati, Baylor, and OK State were ranked ahead of Oregon in the final AP poll last season.

2021 FINAL AP RANKINGS:

#4 Cincinnati
#5 Baylor
#7 Oklahoma State
#22 Oregon

This is really not worth my time. The Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns were ranked higher than Oregon in the final AP Poll. That does not mean they are a better team or better brand or someone ABC would put on national TV during the regular season. Oregon went into Columbus last season and beat Ohio State. They are one of nine teams to have played in a national championship game since 2010 and they have done it twice.
Their brand allows them to recruit all over the country and helps make them one of the best teams in the country. It is not close and I am sorry that I spent this much time with it.

Familiarity breeds contempt? Your time at Texas St. breeds contempt for the Big 12?
Oregon has been ranked 15 times since the start of the BCS era, 8 times in the top 10.
TCU has been ranked 12 times, 6 times in the top 10.

Advantage Oregon, but its not that big a difference.

LOL! When I was at Texas State, I was a fan of the Southwest Conference, like most people at school. The Big 8 was a good conference with OU and Nebraska. Oregon has put together a terrific athletic program, thanks in large part to Phil Knight. The athletic facilities are arguably the best in the country, especially in football and track & field. They just got a commitment from a five star basketball player from Florida in the 2023 class. They are on a roll and I just don't see them slowing down in any sport. UCLA and USC had to upgrade their football facilities in the past decade to try and keep up with Oregon.

I like Oregon track. Steve Prefontane. That ***** could run!

(08-07-2022 01:00 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 10:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 08:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  Here are the facts:

1. The early media negotiations for the Pac12 has come and gone without a deal.
2. The Pac12 has considered unequal media revenue distribution.
3. The Big12 media contract to start in 2025 has not been agreed to, thus everything about what value it will be are pure speculation and projection; it is unknown X.

Conclusion:
1. The bid for the Pac12 media rights in the early window did not generate enough per individual programs for it to pass. The total $ to the Pac10 may have been more than the projected total to the big12 but if it doesn’t bring enough to enough individual programs whether because of unequal revenue sharing or the total $ was not enough even with equal sharing.

2. No pac10 program has outright rejected the Big12, except perhaps Utah who comes close but still nothing official. While a pac10 program may elect to stay in the pac10 for less money than projected to earn in the big12, none would consider moving to the big12 if the projected $ isn’t sufficiently more. Since everyone employs consultants there remains a difference between what that program would earn in the pac10 v big12, and this different may vary by program. Thus the projected income for the Pac12 on the market should be similar to the projected income for the big12, per program. It could also be less such that the gain in $ not enough to move.

The early period was never really intended to produce a deal. The PAC needed to go through it to get to the open market. It is a process that will take months, which is normal. Contract negotiations normally do to take a while (see the Big Ten). Your conclusions are not correct regarding projected income or unequal revenue sharing. These are just unfounded rumors.

The Big 12 has not gone to market yet for media negotiations. The PAC schools are concerned about the Big Ten. They are not at all focused on the Big 12. They need the Big Ten to finish their contract deal and then the PAC can move forward with their own contract negotiations, assuming the Big Ten is not interested in further expansion. The Big 12 is background noise. They are not relevant to what the PAC is dealing with.

Bird in hand is better than two in bush.
The pac didn’t need to go to market a year early. It did so to get valuations to stabilize the conference. Had ESPN and fox both offered good money, going to market wouldn’t have been necessary. Had ESPN and fox valued the pac 10 what the pac 10 valued itself then a deal would have been finalized before the media would risk a bidding war. No deal was finalized and fox wasn’t even interested. It isn’t that the pac 10 isn’t valuable. It is that the media isn’t sure what they will get without a gor and or for how long.
With the big 12 the media will know what they are getting.

They went about 6-8 months sooner than they would have because of UCLA and USC and they had to. They needed to get on the open market. ESPN and FOX own the Tier 1 rights, 22 games per network, The Tier 2 & 3 rights are 100% owned by the PAC, about 35+ games a season in football. Those games do not need a 30 day window.

The 30-day window is good for ESPN and not the PAC. The Big Ten went to the open market and it looks like that will work out well for them. The ACC would love to be on the open market. The Big 12 is going to need to get to the open market when they start their media negotiations. That should be an easy concept to understand. Also, we have no idea what the PAC and ESPN have been talking about. We have no idea what FOX plans to do. We just have rumors and speculation.

(08-06-2022 10:08 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 08:13 PM)Huan Wrote:  Here are the facts:

1. The early media negotiations for the Pac12 has come and gone without a deal.
2. The Pac12 has considered unequal media revenue distribution.
3. The Big12 media contract to start in 2025 has not been agreed to, thus everything about what value it will be are pure speculation and projection; it is unknown X.

Conclusion:
1. The bid for the Pac12 media rights in the early window did not generate enough per individual programs for it to pass. The total $ to the Pac10 may have been more than the projected total to the big12 but if it doesn’t bring enough to enough individual programs whether because of unequal revenue sharing or the total $ was not enough even with equal sharing.

2. No pac10 program has outright rejected the Big12, except perhaps Utah who comes close but still nothing official. While a pac10 program may elect to stay in the pac10 for less money than projected to earn in the big12, none would consider moving to the big12 if the projected $ isn’t sufficiently more. Since everyone employs consultants there remains a difference between what that program would earn in the pac10 v big12, and this different may vary by program. Thus the projected income for the Pac12 on the market should be similar to the projected income for the big12, per program. It could also be less such that the gain in $ not enough to move.

The early period was never really intended to produce a deal. The PAC needed to go through it to get to the open market. It is a process that will take months, which is normal. Contract negotiations normally do to take a while (see the Big Ten). Your conclusions are not correct regarding projected income or unequal revenue sharing. These are just unfounded rumors.

The Big 12 has not gone to market yet for media negotiations. The PAC schools are concerned about the Big Ten. They are not at all focused on the Big 12. They need the Big Ten to finish their contract deal and then the PAC can move forward with their own contract negotiations, assuming the Big Ten is not interested in further expansion. The Big 12 is background noise. They are not relevant to what the PAC is dealing with.

Ehhh---while some of what you say is correct---none of this makes what he said incorrect.

1) If there was an acceptable deal in the exclusive period it would have been signed. There wasnt. Yes---maybe they never expected that it would be done in the exclusive period---but it still means no offer every member was happy with and willing to immediately sign was received in the exclusive period (thats simply a historic fact at this point).

2) As for uneven revenue sharing---we dont know if that card has been played or not---but thats why the Big12 is not "background noise". They remain a perfectly serviceable lever to goad the rest of the less vauable Pac12 membership into some sort of uneven revenue sharing structure that would result in awarding Oregon and Washington larger revenue shares. Once that discussion is triggered---the Big12 ceases to be "background noise" as they become a potential destination for anyone unhappy with uneven revenue distribution---or they become a potential destination for Oregon/Washington package that may find from networks they can earn more if surrounded by the deeper football quality (and more populated time zones) of the Big12.

That said---I dont think it much matters because I do tend to agree with you that the Big10 will end up being the key factor. I have a feeling the Big10 isnt done because the current travel situation is sort of horrific for USC/UCLA athletes. I suspect that will be remedied to a degree by taking 2 more Pac12 teams. Maybe that caring about the athletes stuff from new and old B10 parties is lip service---but I think everyone involved knows that something will need to be done to make the travel for those two new schools at least a little less onerous.

Yes the 30 days window is good for the network but it can also be good for the conference if both can agree. The open market can be good for conference but can also be good for the network. If there is no bid for the pac on the open market then ESPN could offer an even lower bid in a take it or leave it format. Fox reportedly did not engage in the exclusive window; they may not bid in the open market.
Bird in hand is better than two in tree.
Enemy of good is chasing better.

The big 12 regrouped and waited for scheduled negotiation period. There will be a year of big14 with the new 4 before renegotiation.

(08-07-2022 02:40 PM)Huan Wrote:  Yes the 30 days window is good for the network but it can also be good for the conference if both can agree. The open market can be good for conference but can also be good for the network. If there is no bid for the pac on the open market then ESPN could offer an even lower bid in a take it or leave it format. Fox reportedly did not engage in the exclusive window; they may not bid in the open market.
Bird in hand is better than two in tree.
Enemy of good is chasing better.

The big 12 regrouped and waited for scheduled negotiation period. There will be a year of big14 with the new 4 before renegotiation.

They have a good idea of the networks that are interested. Again, we do not know what the PAC and ESPN are talking about. It could be the same 22 game package , it could be an additional package of games 10-12 games, it could be for everything, it could be something they do with the ACC...we just don't know. If you want to get additional bidders involved, such as CBS, NBC, Turner, Apple and Amazon, it gets much more complicated. Then there is the issue of the PAC-12 Network. It is a complicated process that is certain to last months.

As for FOX, maybe they are done with the PAC. Maybe they are not. It probably does not matter. Their games on FS1 do not do well in TV ratings. I think the PAC would rather be with ESPN and who knows, maybe they are not happy with the fact that FOX helped to engineer the move of UCLA and USC to the Big Ten. Allegedly.

As for your clichés that a, "Bird in hand is better than two in tree," and the "Enemy of good is chasing better," I would counter with, “Good things come to those who wait” and “Think outside the box.”

ESPN didn’t bid in a vacuum. They have numbers on what offer would be profitable as well as who other bidders likely are and the likely competing bids