Scottsdale is fun

Want to know the funny part about this big mess?

This is going to be the most coverage the PAC-12 gets until football season is over. This big fuss is being made about this media deal then no one is going to watch our damn middle of the night games.

(05-04-2023 09:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Time is running out on the Pac-12/10. They either need to all agree within 60 days or teams will be bailing.

Flugaur claims May 17th is a big day.

I'm inclined to go with you--around June 30th. They are just not likely to accept not having a deal with less than a year to go on the contract.

Some can relate to this...

(05-04-2023 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. Increasing the number of conference games doesn't actually create more total inventory (and in fact could actually reduce the total inventory since a bunch of payday non-conference games will likely go away), albeit the *quality* of the inventory would be improved.

The other thing that came to my mind is that if ESPN isn't willing to pay enough to the SEC for a 9th conference game when the SEC just added Texas and Oklahoma, then people *really* need to put the "ESPN will fund teams moving from the ACC to the SEC" hypotheticals on ice that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. That would indicate that ESPN is in total austerity mode.

You are speaking emphatically about details which are yet unknown.

The only contract "detail" that is spoken about "emphatically" in the comments is that the SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. The rest of the first paragraph is not a contract detail, but rather arithmetic, and second paragraph is entirely conditional.

______________

(05-04-2023 04:41 PM)U-C-FKnights Wrote:  I'm not entirely sure what to make of the conflicting reports.

I suspect it is a situation where nobody is wrong or lying.

Even if the Big 12 read on the situation is accurate and ESPN is basically telling them they will not get the PAC T1 rights, they likely technically remain a bidder because they have an offer on the table, or have a number in mind. They may feel the PAC won't sign with them at that number and don't intend to offer more, but I am sure there is a price ESPN would take them for.

I kind of think Dodd made this unnecessarily muddy. It would have been more clear if he tried to make a distinction between being priced out, or unwilling to bid more and not being a bidder, if that is what is going on.

Yes. For one thing, there is the question of what ESPN was trying to say. It's entirely possible ESPN was trying to say "don't worry about us playing favorites with our two full-rights conferences versus the split-rights we have with you, the fact that you are one of our three Power 5 conferences at this point in time should tell you that you are an important part of our programming strategy" ... and Big12 people, in the middle of gossiping with each other about whether the PAC media deal is going to lead to some new Big12 members, hear "that's it, we're locked down with these three P5 conferences, you are one of the three on the inside, the PAC and Big Ten are on the outside".

It is plausible that none of Dodd's sources were from the ESPN side and all of his sources were on the Big12 side, and so the Big12 interpretation of the subtext is going to be what he was told and was able to report.

(05-04-2023 10:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Time is running out on the Pac-12/10. They either need to all agree within 60 days or teams will be bailing.

Flugaur claims May 17th is a big day.

I'm inclined to go with you--around June 30th. They are just not likely to accept not having a deal with less than a year to go on the contract.

B1G tv deal was announced on 8/18/22 for the 2023 season. Obviously the B1G were taking up new, higher end offers following the UCLA/USC move, which caused the announcement delay. Wouldn’t be shocked if the Pac 12 deal moves into late July. Around Big 12 money.

(05-04-2023 10:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. Increasing the number of conference games doesn't actually create more total inventory (and in fact could actually reduce the total inventory since a bunch of payday non-conference games will likely go away), albeit the *quality* of the inventory would be improved.

The other thing that came to my mind is that if ESPN isn't willing to pay enough to the SEC for a 9th conference game when the SEC just added Texas and Oklahoma, then people *really* need to put the "ESPN will fund teams moving from the ACC to the SEC" hypotheticals on ice that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. That would indicate that ESPN is in total austerity mode.

You are speaking emphatically about details which are yet unknown.

The only contract "detail" that is spoken about "emphatically" in the comments is that the SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. The rest of the first paragraph is not a contract detail, but rather arithmetic, and second paragraph is entirely conditional.

The entire second paragraph is conjecture. Words have meanings and nuance.

(05-04-2023 11:01 PM)BruinNation Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 10:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Time is running out on the Pac-12/10. They either need to all agree within 60 days or teams will be bailing.

Flugaur claims May 17th is a big day.

I'm inclined to go with you--around June 30th. They are just not likely to accept not having a deal with less than a year to go on the contract.

B1G tv deal was announced on 8/18/22 for the 2023 season. Obviously the B1G were taking up new, higher end offers following the UCLA/USC move, which caused the announcement delay. Wouldn’t be shocked if the Pac 12 deal moves into late July. Around Big 12 money.

If I recall correctly, the BIG was targeting June to announce their Media Then Boom, USC and UCLA happened. Several networks, bringing in two behemoths, yet they were able to negotiate a mega deal within 7 months.

(05-04-2023 11:01 PM)BruinNation Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 10:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Time is running out on the Pac-12/10. They either need to all agree within 60 days or teams will be bailing.

Flugaur claims May 17th is a big day.

I'm inclined to go with you--around June 30th. They are just not likely to accept not having a deal with less than a year to go on the contract.

B1G tv deal was announced on 8/18/22 for the 2023 season. Obviously the B1G were taking up new, higher end offers following the UCLA/USC move, which caused the announcement delay. Wouldn’t be shocked if the Pac 12 deal moves into late July. Around Big 12 money.

Well the Big 10 had a strong idea of the structure in May. Then it was just determining who won the bids. And nobody in the Big 10 was any threat to leave.

Let see, Say Dodd is correct,

Alabama vs A&M on ABC.
Michigan vs Penn State on Fox, CBS or NBC
Oklahoma state vs Texas Tech on ESPN.
Oregon vs Washington on apple tv.

(05-04-2023 03:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ...

It's a good listen this week because they do get into the Fiesta Summit meetings where multiple conferences (included the Big 12 and Pac-12) are gathered (which naturally brings up a lot of conference realignment discussions) and also the status of the finalization of the SEC scheduling format and whether ESPN will pay enough money to justify moving to a 9-game conference schedule. (Essentially, it looks like the decision between 8 or 9 conference games is truly coming down to what ESPN is paying or not paying. IMHO, I still can't fathom the SEC having any less than 9 conference games in the 16-team structure regardless of what ESPN might be paying, but it is what it is.)

The message we are hearing is that ESPN is strapped for money, so they have to prioritize what they'd be willing to spend it on. A 9th SEC game is probably more valuable than anything else in CFB.

How locked in is the SEC with ESPN? Is there room to build say a Friday night package for an Amazon? Or are they totally dependent upon ESPN?

I fully understand the SEC holding out going to 9 games until they get a network to pay for it. It's definitely a card I would not want to play until I got paid for it.

I will quote JRsec's post for you, but I will add in one caveat: radio is a huge unknown, IMO. The last time I checked, the SEC is still in with Learfield. However, yes, ESPN does have their own radio network too!! Something to keep in mind, possibly, is ESPN going for those rights as well. I have not thought about that angle until now.

(05-04-2023 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The message we are hearing is that ESPN is strapped for money, so they have to prioritize what they'd be willing to spend it on. A 9th SEC game is probably more valuable than anything else in CFB.

How locked in is the SEC with ESPN? Is there room to build say a Friday night package for an Amazon? Or are they totally dependent upon ESPN?

I fully understand the SEC holding out going to 9 games until they get a network to pay for it. It's definitely a card I would not want to play until I got paid for it.

The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. Increasing the number of conference games doesn't actually create more total inventory (and in fact could actually reduce the total inventory since a bunch of payday non-conference games will likely go away), albeit the *quality* of the inventory would be improved.

The other thing that came to my mind is that if ESPN isn't willing to pay enough to the SEC for a 9th conference game when the SEC just added Texas and Oklahoma, then people *really* need to put the "ESPN will fund teams moving from the ACC to the SEC" hypotheticals on ice that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. That would indicate that ESPN is in total austerity mode.

You are speaking emphatically about details which are yet unknown. Anyone who claims to have the details of the SEC/ESPN contract is lying. They haven't been made public. Only speculation exists as to the amount. It's all a big we'll see. I doubt ESPN or the SEC would be so negligent as to not have contingencies for the number of conference games, especially since ABC wanted some flexibility for additional time slots.

The SEC did sign a contract to provide rights to all of its games outside of the Game of the Week to ESPN several years ago.

The SEC and ESPN then more recently signed a separate deal for the Game of the Week to move over from CBS to ESPN.

You're correct that I have no idea whether ESPN is obligated to pay more for additional SEC conference games or not. However, ESPN definitely has comprehensive rights to all SEC games for the next decade-plus via those two contracts. So, my response isn't about ESPN paying or not paying for more conference games, but rather that the SEC can't carve out a package for Amazon or a different media company unless ESPN gives rights back to the SEC (which my educated guess is that's something ESPN wouldn't reasonably do).

And gee, all this time I thought 100% of the rights covered all of that without any guesswork or speculation to be done! All I was illustrating is that the amount, details, and contingencies are yet unknown. You guys are arguing and speculating about will the SEC be paid for 8 or 9 conference games. All I did was say if there are contingencies, which would be a reasonable assumption for the SEC and ESPN, they are in the contract details which we do not know! How many angels dance on the head of a pin? You were trying to create an issue which either doesn't exist or is unknown. There's plenty of value in an 8 game SEC conference schedule. If it's 9 it just means we have better inventory and a more reasonable way to navigate the rotation. It's a nothing burger and you are asking mustard and ketchup only, or all the way! Last time I checked ABC is in with ESPN and they were the ones who wanted flexibility in scheduling additional time slots. 100% of the rights means 100% of the rights. Nobody has even mentioned selling rights or buying them back or any of the nonsense you introduced into the discussion. You continue to do this, introduce something which nobody has brought up and then use it as an argument. You'll be 10 times better read and followed if you drop that nonsense.

(05-04-2023 11:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 10:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. Increasing the number of conference games doesn't actually create more total inventory (and in fact could actually reduce the total inventory since a bunch of payday non-conference games will likely go away), albeit the *quality* of the inventory would be improved.

The other thing that came to my mind is that if ESPN isn't willing to pay enough to the SEC for a 9th conference game when the SEC just added Texas and Oklahoma, then people *really* need to put the "ESPN will fund teams moving from the ACC to the SEC" hypotheticals on ice that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. That would indicate that ESPN is in total austerity mode.

You are speaking emphatically about details which are yet unknown.

The only contract "detail" that is spoken about "emphatically" in the comments is that the SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. The rest of the first paragraph is not a contract detail, but rather arithmetic, and second paragraph is entirely conditional.

The entire second paragraph is conjecture.

And presented as such.

Quote: Words have meanings and nuance.

Yes, that was my point. The second paragraph begins by explicitly presenting a conjecture and then continues to make a conjectural point. It makes no claims regarding the details of the contract.

(05-05-2023 12:14 AM)Acres Wrote:  Let see, Say Dodd is correct,

Alabama vs A&M on ABC.
Michigan vs Penn State on Fox, CBS or NBC
Oklahoma state vs Texas Tech on ESPN.
Oregon vs Washington on apple tv.

If that is the scenario with the most money for the PAC, you can see why Oregon and Washington would be more nervous about it than Arizona or Cal.

Of course, if Alabama vs A&M is at 3:30 on ABC, and Michigan vs Penn State on CBS at 3:30, ideally the AppleTV game kicks off at 5pm and one or the other game is well in hand and there are people channel hopping.

But getting them to channel hop to whatever secondary OTA network is simulcasting the game is another challenge.

Straight from the horse's mouth...Dodd stands by his report made 48 hours ago and vetted his ESPN sources...

(05-04-2023 10:32 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Want to know the funny part about this big mess?

This is going to be the most coverage the PAC-12 gets until football season is over. This big fuss is being made about this media deal then no one is going to watch our damn middle of the night games.

the PAC-12 might have the best group of QBs of any conference going into the 2023 season.

Fox/ESPN are going to want some of the games in Prime time, especially since ESPN won’t have the SEC or Big 10 to choose from for their Saturday Night ABC game

Straight from Ross Dellenger's mouth...

(05-05-2023 09:03 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Straight from Ross Dellenger's mouth...

So, summation:
1. Everyone in the PAC has a similar statement officially and a different story variation individually and he thinks tensions are higher than reported, and programs are nervous.

2. He agrees with Swarbrick that more consolidation is coming.

3. He's excited about the playoffs.

So basically Dellenger also says the Pac is going away. The only question is now, 6 years or 14 years. Consolidation is inevitable was his conclusion. He quoted Swarbick who said 2 conferences way ahead in revenues couldn't last as it is now.

So Dodd confirms that he meant ESPN out for Tier1, but may still be in the frame for the Saturday Late Night slot.

Confirms that all of the PAC people are confident they have a Tier1 deal lined up, but nobody in the industry can work out who it might be.

And spells out that the presumption that the PAC doesn't have a good enough deal lined up is an inference rather than reporting, (..."it's 1 plus 1 is 2") based on no deal signed as of yet.

We will see whether the President of Washington State saying that "someone" wouldn't announce a deal until six weeks after layoffs (*cough*ES*cough*PN*cough*) was really what is going on or is a clever just-so story to buy time when talking to boosters in early June ... when the hypothetical six week blackout for one of the highest profile layoffs that fit the "someone" would expire.

If it's true that poor wittle ESPN can't announce a new deal so soon after a sweeping wave of layoffs to avoid hurting peoples fee-fees, then until early June, there wouldn't be any rush on finalizing Tier3 details or, even, if there are more than one Tier1 bid, selecting which Tier1 bid to go with (which would both explain confidence that a Tier1 bid was lined up combined with nervousness that the Tier1 bid that particular school preferred would not be picked).

Michelle Bodkin, who covers the Utes for KSL, said that she spoke with a source who said the PAC lineal deal has been finalized and they are now waiting on the streaming portion of the deal which is complex because they are setting "precedence" in much of what they are doing and steps have to be repeatedly referred back to lawyers to review.

She discounts the Dodd piece by saying his source is a B12 person who isn't inside these meeting and would not have any first hand information.


PAC media talks starts with 3:05 to go.