(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 05:42 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:36 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:33 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:25 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/...ad101b75bd

The number presently on the table for the Pac 12 has been reported as $25 million per school with the contract length at the moment uncertain while the final details are being ironed out. At present, the Pac 12 hopes to have a deal worth $40 million per team per year. That might be a bit high given the recently completed Big 12 deal with ESPN and Fox at six-year “worth a total of $2.28 billion or about $31.5 million per school ending in 2030-31.

They aren't getting $40 million.

Maybe not, but their TV deal won’t be so bad that it would push schools to Big 12…

Really? Have you seen the national media reports over the last few days? The financial numbers and exposure are causing a giant rift in the Pac-12. Truthfully if I were Memphis I would be engaging with Pac-12 schools. If they do lose a few schools to the Big 12 then Eastern expansion becomes more enticing for them. It sounds crazy but all it would be is B1G expansion in reverse geographically. Or similar to Big 12 expansion with West Virginia and later Cincinnati and UCF.

Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

*Sigh*. No I'm not. I am comparing it to the other part of my post, Cincinnati, UCF and West Virginia. My point about the B1G is that they were willing to go West for more value and if they're willing to do it anyone is, no matter the size of the brand. Thus my point, the Pac-12 may look to expand east if they lose members. For example, if the Pac-12 loses the Arizona schools suddenly they're down to 8 and they lose two major basketball brands and another market. You add San Diego State for that, and SMU comes along. Then you add a new time zone and major markets, Memphis could be that and they help significantly with basketball, solid football and academically Memphis is R1. And you look for a geographical partner (shockingly Pac-12 fans are talking Tulane which is wild despite their academica) And you add Gonzaga. That's my point. As crazy as it sounds a scenario like that could manifest itself. That's why I'm saying that, hopefully, Memphis is turning over that rock and is making some calls.

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

Exactly, thank you! :)

(02-10-2023 08:30 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 05:42 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:36 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:33 PM)Stammers Wrote:  They aren't getting $40 million.

Maybe not, but their TV deal won’t be so bad that it would push schools to Big 12…

Really? Have you seen the national media reports over the last few days? The financial numbers and exposure are causing a giant rift in the Pac-12. Truthfully if I were Memphis I would be engaging with Pac-12 schools. If they do lose a few schools to the Big 12 then Eastern expansion becomes more enticing for them. It sounds crazy but all it would be is B1G expansion in reverse geographically. Or similar to Big 12 expansion with West Virginia and later Cincinnati and UCF.

Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

*Sigh*. No I'm not. I am comparing it to the other part of my post, Cincinnati, UCF and West Virginia. My point about the B1G is that they were willing to go West for more value and if they're willing to do it anyone is, no matter the size of the brand. Thus my point, the Pac-12 may look to expand east if they lose members. For example, if the Pac-12 loses the Arizona schools suddenly they're down to 8 and they lose two major basketball brands and another market. You add San Diego State for that, and SMU comes along. Then you add a new time zone and major markets, Memphis could be that and they help significantly with basketball, solid football and academically Memphis is R1. And you look for a geographical partner (shockingly Pac-12 fans are talking Tulane which is wild despite their academica) And you add Gonzaga. That's my point. As crazy as it sounds a scenario like that could manifest itself. That's why I'm saying that, hopefully, Memphis is turning over that rock and is making some calls.

You had me believing this till you said Gonzaga. While they are a nice program for basketball, realignment is for football. I don't see any basketball only schools being added.

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

Duh, geographic comparison, really? But the geographical example only occurred because it involves USC/UCLA, got it?

(02-10-2023 09:07 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

Duh, geographic comparison, really? But the geographical example only occurred because it involves USC/UCLA, got it?

USC and UCLA are incidental at best and never even mentioned in his post. How did you come to that conclusion? Specifically, he's making a geographic comparison suggesting that with the B1G looking to expand to the west, it may be in the PAC's best interests to consider further expansion east. He also suggested that Memphis might do well to start putting out feelers and planting seeds. Does that clarify?

(02-10-2023 09:07 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

Duh, geographic comparison, really? But the geographical example only occurred because it involves USC/UCLA, got it?

The Big 12 added West Virginia out of desperation 15 years ago. Making a southeastern pod out of desperation is unlikely but not impossible.

(02-10-2023 08:51 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 08:30 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 05:42 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:36 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Maybe not, but their TV deal won’t be so bad that it would push schools to Big 12…

Really? Have you seen the national media reports over the last few days? The financial numbers and exposure are causing a giant rift in the Pac-12. Truthfully if I were Memphis I would be engaging with Pac-12 schools. If they do lose a few schools to the Big 12 then Eastern expansion becomes more enticing for them. It sounds crazy but all it would be is B1G expansion in reverse geographically. Or similar to Big 12 expansion with West Virginia and later Cincinnati and UCF.

Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

*Sigh*. No I'm not. I am comparing it to the other part of my post, Cincinnati, UCF and West Virginia. My point about the B1G is that they were willing to go West for more value and if they're willing to do it anyone is, no matter the size of the brand. Thus my point, the Pac-12 may look to expand east if they lose members. For example, if the Pac-12 loses the Arizona schools suddenly they're down to 8 and they lose two major basketball brands and another market. You add San Diego State for that, and SMU comes along. Then you add a new time zone and major markets, Memphis could be that and they help significantly with basketball, solid football and academically Memphis is R1. And you look for a geographical partner (shockingly Pac-12 fans are talking Tulane which is wild despite their academica) And you add Gonzaga. That's my point. As crazy as it sounds a scenario like that could manifest itself. That's why I'm saying that, hopefully, Memphis is turning over that rock and is making some calls.

You had me believing this till you said Gonzaga. While they are a nice program for basketball, realignment is for football. I don't see any basketball only schools being added.

Gonzaga has had legitimate discussions with the Pac-12 and Big 12. The Big 12 had a meeting last week at Dallas Fort-Worth and part of the agenda was to discuss their candidacy.

(02-10-2023 09:32 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 09:07 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

Duh, geographic comparison, really? But the geographical example only occurred because it involves USC/UCLA, got it?

USC and UCLA are incidental at best and never even mentioned in his post. How did you come to that conclusion? Specifically, he's making a geographic comparison suggesting that with the B1G looking to expand to the west, it may be in the PAC's best interests to consider further expansion east. He also suggested that Memphis might do well to start putting out feelers and planting seeds. Does that clarify?

Thank you, that is it in a nutshell. With all of the G5 being scooped up I have a feeling that things are going to get weird, especially on the Pac-12

(02-10-2023 09:34 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 09:07 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

Duh, geographic comparison, really? But the geographical example only occurred because it involves USC/UCLA, got it?

The Big 12 added West Virginia out of desperation 15 years ago. Making a southeastern pod out of desperation is unlikely but not impossible.

Yep, exactly. But if the Pac-12 loses schools the more they lose the more likely that southeastern pod becomes.

(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 05:42 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:36 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:33 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 03:25 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/...ad101b75bd

The number presently on the table for the Pac 12 has been reported as $25 million per school with the contract length at the moment uncertain while the final details are being ironed out. At present, the Pac 12 hopes to have a deal worth $40 million per team per year. That might be a bit high given the recently completed Big 12 deal with ESPN and Fox at six-year “worth a total of $2.28 billion or about $31.5 million per school ending in 2030-31.

They aren't getting $40 million.

Maybe not, but their TV deal won’t be so bad that it would push schools to Big 12…

Really? Have you seen the national media reports over the last few days? The financial numbers and exposure are causing a giant rift in the Pac-12. Truthfully if I were Memphis I would be engaging with Pac-12 schools. If they do lose a few schools to the Big 12 then Eastern expansion becomes more enticing for them. It sounds crazy but all it would be is B1G expansion in reverse geographically. Or similar to Big 12 expansion with West Virginia and later Cincinnati and UCF.

Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

Wtf are you talking about?

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

(02-10-2023 09:32 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 09:07 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 07:32 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  It's a geographic comparison you bitter weirdo

Duh, geographic comparison, really? But the geographical example only occurred because it involves USC/UCLA, got it?

USC and UCLA are incidental at best and never even mentioned in his post. How did you come to that conclusion? Specifically, he's making a geographic comparison suggesting that with the B1G looking to expand to the west, it may be in the PAC's best interests to consider further expansion east. He also suggested that Memphis might do well to start putting out feelers and planting seeds. Does that clarify?

Don't be so simple minded. I clearly understand the geography part of his story but I'm saying it doesn't happen without it being USC/UCLA in the largest city west of the MS River. I'm saying it took that dynamic to make that selection work for geography. As for the WVA move, it is still debated by all parties involved if it were worth it with WVA continually looking for a ACC bid or a travel partner. So I'm saying geography alone doesn't move the needle, it requires another dimension like population, following or performance which USC/UCLA bring. And I'm saying that neither Memphis or anyone else available available would bring that dimension for the PAC to move east. Does that clarify.

(02-11-2023 07:08 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 09:32 PM)msu35 Wrote:  USC and UCLA are incidental at best and never even mentioned in his post. How did you come to that conclusion? Specifically, he's making a geographic comparison suggesting that with the B1G looking to expand to the west, it may be in the PAC's best interests to consider further expansion east. He also suggested that Memphis might do well to start putting out feelers and planting seeds. Does that clarify?

Don't be so simple minded. I clearly understand the geography part of his story but I'm saying it doesn't happen without it being USC/UCLA in the largest city west of the MS River. I'm saying it took that dynamic to make that selection work for geography. As for the WVA move, it is still debated by all parties involved if it were worth it with WVA continually looking for a ACC bid or a travel partner. So I'm saying geography alone doesn't move the needle, it requires another dimension like population, following or performance which USC/UCLA bring. And I'm saying that neither Memphis or anyone else available available would bring that dimension for the PAC to move east. Does that clarify.

That's not what he was saying. Don't be such a bitter weirdo.

The point is any prospective new member is going to have to bring a TV market &/or perceived value to justify its equal split of TV revenue. UCLA & USC deliver the nation’s #2 TV market & the Big 10 offered them an annual payout of 80-100 million per year.

Would Memphis, Tulane or any other G5 school in the midwestern or southeastern sections of the country offer the Pac-10 access to markets that would justify an invitation? SMU maybe… Rice maybe… Tulane, likely not… Memphis, likely not. Through all of this ridiculous TV maneuvering, the conferences are losing the geographic interest that made college football what it is; and that’s the catch. Interest in TV increases with cross sectional matchups, but ticket sales lag, as traveling fans find it more difficult to make cross continental matchups. Too, as devoted fans fall off, will TV numbers eventually be impacted? Is college football becoming a Saturday afternoon version of the NFL?

I hate the nationalization of what has traditionally been a regional sport. Are Pitt fans happy with a matchup with NC State at the expense of their “Backyard Brawl” game with West Virginia? Will an OU-Ole Miss matchup replace the bedlam series between OU & Oklahoma State? I think it’s terrible for the sport overall, yet the TV revenue is obviously very good for two leagues.

(02-11-2023 10:01 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The point is any prospective new member is going to have to bring a TV market &/or perceived value to justify its equal split of TV revenue. UCLA & USC deliver the nation’s #2 TV market & the Big 10 offered them an annual payout of 80-100 million per year.

Actually, no. That's not the point at all. The point is that the OP made a statement, and Atlanta misinterpreted his statement, which is unsurprising considering how he grossly misinterpreted the AD's statements regarding expectations for the football team. Anything else is beyond the scope of what everybody is replying about. The OP's opinion is not one that I share, I was only lending clarity to those who completely missed the OP's point. Thus far that would be the short list of you and Atlanta.

(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

The answer to that question is no, it was merely a geographic comparison. Whether you agree with that comparison or not doesn't matter as it had nothing to do with USC or UCLA, other than incidental factors, nor did he even mention those schools even once. It didn't imply the PAC would have any interest in Memphis and he never states as much. Got it?

Edit: Look at it in these terms. It's somewhat like the OCS debate. He believes the PAC isn't interested in Memphis, but Memphis wants to get into a P5 conference. You and Atlanta want an OCS, but there is no OCS currently in the pipeline. So he's saying instead of writing a thousand bitter weirdo posts expressing anger towards the administrators and whining about not being in a P5 conference, Memphis could be proactive and try to lobby their case so that future inclusion can be influenced or facilitated.

(02-11-2023 10:13 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:01 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The point is any prospective new member is going to have to bring a TV market &/or perceived value to justify its equal split of TV revenue. UCLA & USC deliver the nation’s #2 TV market & the Big 10 offered them an annual payout of 80-100 million per year.

Actually, no. That's not the point at all. The point is that the OP made a statement, and Atlanta misinterpreted his statement, which is unsurprising considering how he grossly misinterpreted the AD's statements regarding expectations for the football team. Anything else is beyond the scope of what everybody is replying about. The OP's opinion is not one that I share, I was only lending clarity to those who completely missed the OP's point. Thus far that would be the short list of you and Atlanta.

(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

The answer to that question is no, it was merely a geographic comparison. Whether you agree with that comparison or not doesn't matter as it had nothing to do with USC or UCLA, other than incidental factors, nor did he even mention those schools even once. It didn't imply the PAC would have any interest in Memphis and he never states as much. Got it?

Edit: Look at it in these terms. It's somewhat like the OCS debate. He believes the PAC isn't interested in Memphis, but Memphis wants to get into a P5 conference. You and Atlanta want an OCS, but there is no OCS currently in the pipeline. So he's saying instead of writing a thousand bitter weirdo posts expressing anger towards the administrators and whining about not being in a P5 conference, Memphis could be proactive and try to lobby their case so that future inclusion can be influenced or facilitated.

No, “the point” is any move the PAC 12 makes will be dependent on the value they bring, both in terms of prestige &/or potential TV $/sets. Everything is pointless rambling.
USC & UCLA brought both to the Big 10… Who brings it to the Pac 10/12?

(02-11-2023 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  No, “the point” is any move the PAC 12 makes will be dependent on the value they bring, both in terms of prestige &/or potential TV $/sets. Everything is pointless rambling.
USC & UCLA brought both to the Big 10… Who brings it to the Pac 10/12?

Flew over your head again. It has nothing to do with anything aside from trying to explain the intention of the OP's post, which both you and Atlanta can't seem to comprehend. Read the reply from Atlanta that initiated this tangent in the first place. Do you get it now? If not, please repeat until it's clear. Here it comes, the answer to his question: no he wasn't attempting to do that. See how simple that is?

(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

Pretending to not know how to read, to impress your buddy, is a bit silly don't you think?

(02-11-2023 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:13 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:01 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The point is any prospective new member is going to have to bring a TV market &/or perceived value to justify its equal split of TV revenue. UCLA & USC deliver the nation’s #2 TV market & the Big 10 offered them an annual payout of 80-100 million per year.

Actually, no. That's not the point at all. The point is that the OP made a statement, and Atlanta misinterpreted his statement, which is unsurprising considering how he grossly misinterpreted the AD's statements regarding expectations for the football team. Anything else is beyond the scope of what everybody is replying about. The OP's opinion is not one that I share, I was only lending clarity to those who completely missed the OP's point. Thus far that would be the short list of you and Atlanta.

(02-10-2023 07:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Are you really attempting to equivocate a USC/UCLA move to the B1G with a PAC potential interest in Memphis?

The answer to that question is no, it was merely a geographic comparison. Whether you agree with that comparison or not doesn't matter as it had nothing to do with USC or UCLA, other than incidental factors, nor did he even mention those schools even once. It didn't imply the PAC would have any interest in Memphis and he never states as much. Got it?

Edit: Look at it in these terms. It's somewhat like the OCS debate. He believes the PAC isn't interested in Memphis, but Memphis wants to get into a P5 conference. You and Atlanta want an OCS, but there is no OCS currently in the pipeline. So he's saying instead of writing a thousand bitter weirdo posts expressing anger towards the administrators and whining about not being in a P5 conference, Memphis could be proactive and try to lobby their case so that future inclusion can be influenced or facilitated.

No, “the point” is any move the PAC 12 makes will be dependent on the value they bring, both in terms of prestige &/or potential TV $/sets. Everything is pointless rambling.
USC & UCLA brought both to the Big 10… Who brings it to the Pac 10/12?

I don't see what is so difficult to understand. The 4 additions bring the same value to the Big 12 as Texas and Oklahoma did? Wtf are you talking about?

Forget this round of contracts.

It is the next rounds that will be telling.

When the TV ratings start coming in the next couple of years Big 12 sponsors are going to look at their ROI and not be happy.

50% of college football fans root for just 16 teams.

8 of the 16 are in the SEC.

There is only 1 P5 conference that doesn't have a team in those 16 schools, the Big XII.

Among what was called the remaining 8 Big XII schools only 2 had a fan base of over 1 million.

Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.

Before adding BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston the total Big 12 fan base had dropped to around 8 million.

While conference sponsors will find themselves in large markets, they will find very few eyes in those markets tuned in.

Ever noticed that in all of the realignment talk that almost no one ever mentions Temple?

Philadelphia is the #4 TV market in the US.

But very few people in the market follow Temple football.

They have a very very small fan base.

Everyone is so focused on TV markets.

The SEC doesn't have a single team that is actually located in a top 20 TV market.

But they control almost every top 20 TV market located in the state where they have a team.

The AAC has teams in the metro area of right at 6 of the top 20 TV markets, but they don't control a single one of the markets.

SDSU & SMU are at the right place geographically at the right time.

It would be much better if the PAC could hold off on SDSU until they are sure they can succeed at the level they will need them too, but the PAC is taking a big risk by waiting. This is not a team that has done much of anything to be looking at a P5 invite. However, the B12 would love to be on the west coast and sunny southern CA would be really nice. The B12, with their likely slightly better money contract and better overall media contract could easily snipe SDSU before the PAC if the PAC waited. Southern Cali is VERY important to the PAC, so they may not wait. But this is literally UAB getting an SEC invite type of move, other than SDSU has a large enrollment and sits in an enormous DMA (which they control little of).

SMU is SMU. Average AAC team with below average AAC attendance numbers, but an endowment which rivals the national debt. And they are in Dallas, TX. If there are any schools in Texas left that has a pulse and that can kind of match up as a serious institution like what the PAC is used to, I guess its SMU. They could have had Houston not that long ago. But not now.

Honestly, the PAC could hold off on SMU and invite Tulane, a school who's football is excellent at the moment, and who's institution is PAC worthy. Cause SMU aint going anywhere.