(07-18-2023 10:13 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Failing to get either UT or OU a decade ago was massive.

A Pac 16 with UT, OU, TTU, OSU, and 2 more Big 12 schools would have given them another time window, a ton more markets, more leverage for a league network, and two elite brands.

That was the only play to make. They got in their own way on it several times since the 90s.

Wrong. The Lubbock, TX and Stillwater, Ok markets werent saving the PAC.

(07-17-2023 10:27 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:18 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Listening to Huard, according to who he has talked to confirms my thought that the schools are daring each other to move first. In the end the Big Ten is the reason if the PAC dies. But it's like the schools are thinking the ones who leave next are the real ones to blame for the conference dying.

It's not the B1G's fault if the Pac dies, it will be the 12 members' fault. USCLA allowed it to happen by not pushing for more of a focus on Football and basketball, instead of everything else. Stanford and Cal were probably the driving forces behind it, but they could have been stopped if the others had bothered to consider the long-term ramifications.

I know that our UTEP friend will jump in on this presently, but I'll say it again: The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point. OUT would have been ideal, with other quality schools like Utah, CU, KU, Texas Tech, OSU, etc available to round things out over time. Voila, you're not stuck on the coast, you instead have half the country in your geographic footprint without significantly increasing travel times for anybody, certainly not more than modern day conferences have. If football still starts to fade in NorCal, you don't care b/c it's not fading in Texas, Oklahoma, SoCal, Washington, Oregon, Utah, etc etc etc.

They could have started with Texas, probably added OU soon afterwards...after that? They get ANYBODY they want. A fun thought exercise is to think about what happens if the B1G actually blocked PSU with a 6-4 instead of adding them with a 7-3 vote, while the Pac actually added UT with an 11-1 vote instead of blocking them with their galactically stupid "we must be unanimous" former rule to consider new members. The B1G very well might have ended up as the ones getting raided today, while the Pac could be fighting with the SEC in the new P2 for top dog honors.

The PAC schools just never thought anyone would/could leave, due to being academically elite and therefore above the Big XII, and being too far geographically from the Big Ten.

Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

(07-18-2023 10:53 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 10:13 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Failing to get either UT or OU a decade ago was massive.

A Pac 16 with UT, OU, TTU, OSU, and 2 more Big 12 schools would have given them another time window, a ton more markets, more leverage for a league network, and two elite brands.

That was the only play to make. They got in their own way on it several times since the 90s.

Wrong. The Lubbock, TX and Stillwater, Ok markets werent saving the PAC.

I scoffed at the idea about SMU, Tulane and Rice would save the PAC 12 either. SMU have returned after losing seasons, but they lost all those viewers when they got left behind by Texas and them.

Rice have no fanbase period, and their athletics are terrible fit for the PAC 12. They needed to get Houston instead and TCU.

Tulane have been up and down like a yo-yo. They get the views and fans when they are winning. But when they are losing? They could easily slip down below 20,000 in attendance.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma state, Fresno State, Boise State and Memphis are the ones to pick up.

(07-18-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

You're 100% right.

The B1G had an "alliance" with the PAC and stabbed them in the back. USC/UCLA literally F'd the PAC just like Pittsburgh did in the Big East while back-channeling their way into a new conference.

Yet somehow the Big 12 schools are the villains according to George Kliavkoff and PAC fans.

We're just being opportunistic

(07-18-2023 11:15 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

You're 100% right.

The B1G had an "alliance" with the PAC and stabbed them in the back. USC/UCLA literally F'd the PAC just like Pittsburgh did in the Big East while back-channeling their way into a new conference.

Yet somehow the Big 12 schools are the villains according to George Kliavkoff and PAC fans.

We're just being opportunistic

Yes, because BY is also being interference into the PAC 12 affairs throwing grenades at them as well. It is a combination of the bunch.

(07-18-2023 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:15 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

You're 100% right.

The B1G had an "alliance" with the PAC and stabbed them in the back. USC/UCLA literally F'd the PAC just like Pittsburgh did in the Big East while back-channeling their way into a new conference.

Yet somehow the Big 12 schools are the villains according to George Kliavkoff and PAC fans.

We're just being opportunistic

Yes, because BY is also being interference into the PAC 12 affairs throwing grenades at them as well. It is a combination of the bunch.

What grenades?

(07-18-2023 11:38 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:15 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

You're 100% right.

The B1G had an "alliance" with the PAC and stabbed them in the back. USC/UCLA literally F'd the PAC just like Pittsburgh did in the Big East while back-channeling their way into a new conference.

Yet somehow the Big 12 schools are the villains according to George Kliavkoff and PAC fans.

We're just being opportunistic

Yes, because BY is also being interference into the PAC 12 affairs throwing grenades at them as well. It is a combination of the bunch.

What grenades?

Basketball events in New York, games in Mexico, the number 14, etc.

(07-18-2023 11:38 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:15 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

You're 100% right.

The B1G had an "alliance" with the PAC and stabbed them in the back. USC/UCLA literally F'd the PAC just like Pittsburgh did in the Big East while back-channeling their way into a new conference.

Yet somehow the Big 12 schools are the villains according to George Kliavkoff and PAC fans.

We're just being opportunistic

Yes, because BY is also being interference into the PAC 12 affairs throwing grenades at them as well. It is a combination of the bunch.

What grenades?

Some on here seem to think that networks make major decisions based on Yormark responding to the PAC and GK's "not sure we're going shopping" dig.

(07-18-2023 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:15 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

You're 100% right.

The B1G had an "alliance" with the PAC and stabbed them in the back. USC/UCLA literally F'd the PAC just like Pittsburgh did in the Big East while back-channeling their way into a new conference.

Yet somehow the Big 12 schools are the villains according to George Kliavkoff and PAC fans.

We're just being opportunistic

Yes, because BY is also being interference into the PAC 12 affairs throwing grenades at them as well. It is a combination of the bunch.

How dare he sign a TV deal before the PAC?! /s

(07-17-2023 07:17 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  What does the Pac-12 need to do in order to survive long-term, meaning 20 years into the future? — @josephkirkpatri

John Wilner: To a certain extent, the fate of the conference is tied to the future of the Power Five structure itself. If the Big Ten and SEC opt to become mega-leagues with 20 or more schools, the Pac-12 as we know it will cease to exist.

But let’s imagine a scenario in which Big Ten and SEC membership remains fixed through the next two media contract cycles — it’s status quo for both conferences into the late 2030s.

How can the Pac-12 ensure competitive success and membership stability (e.g., prevent schools from departing for the Big 12) through the next 15 or 20 years? Obviously, commissioner George Kliavkoff must craft a satisfactory media rights deal this summer and convince the presidents to sign a medium-length (five-to-seven years) grant-of-rights agreement.

But because we’re taking the long view, let’s cast an eye to the media negotiations that, in theory, would take place in the late 2020s or early 2030s. Clearly, the present and future strategies are interconnected. Any decisions this summer must help position the Pac-12 for the next round of negotiations.

In that regard, one word seems applicable: chips.

The Pac-12 must craft a strategy that secures the greatest number of negotiating chips for the late 2020s or early 2030s.

Chips take the form of media markets (membership) and football brands (competitive success). The Hotline believes adding SMU this summer would give the conference a chip, the massive Dallas-Fort Worth market, for future negotiations. (That’s doubly true if the Mustangs are successful in elevating their program.)

We also believe adopting a revenue model that rewards teams for reaching the College Football Playoff would help the Pac-12’s top programs (Washington, Oregon and Utah) solidify their presence on the national stage and enhance their brand value.

There are other ways to promote competitive success — for example, smart scheduling — but those stand out: Do whatever is required to support your top programs and capture the DFW market by inviting SMU.

If the Mustangs are thriving at the end of the decade, the conference could explore two other schools in the region: Rice, which brings the Houston market, and Tulane, which is located in New Orleans.

Generally speaking, the conference must take a broad view with strategies that create pathways to future growth opportunities … and additional negotiating chips.

Link
https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat...9bc72.html

If Rice and Tulane are the Answer, I don't wanna know the Question.

(07-17-2023 08:14 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 05:24 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Let's just say the PAC today, has USC, UCLA, OU, TX in the league. They would not be in the same situation, in fact they would be poaching, the likely 3 in a P3 or P4.

The PAC with those four wouldnt be making anywhere near 70-75m per school/year. Prove me wrong.

TX/OU would have left sooner than the South California traitors. Prove that they would stay in a league with non-P2 money.

Prove to me that Big Bang happened less than 13.9 billion years ago. Or prove to me the exact location of an electron, along with it's speed and direction of travel. Oh, wait, you can't do that? Well, none of us can PROVE what would have happened to the Pac with OUT + a couple of others in the fold for the past 30 ish years. But we can guess, and we can use current valuations to do so.

Assume that OUT both moved to the Pac in the 1990-1995 range. Then, later, Utah and CU joined. Nobody else, just those 4, so the current Pac was at 14.

The current Pac is worth, what, $30-$35m a year on 100% OTA if they'd gone to market before the big 12 and we weren't in a horrible recession? Let's use $32.5m. Throw back in USCLA. $45m now? Then OUT. $60m? I think that their number would be about $60m as a group, and I can use the approximately $500m valuation of OUT and USCLA to justify that figure. $500m + $325m for the other 10 = $775m for 14 schools, or $59m per school. That's pretty close, right?

However, what will the B1G and SEC be looking at without OUT and USCLA? $60m each roughly?

It would literally be a P3 right now, there can be little doubt about it. OUT and USCLA aren't leaving the Pac if it's just to make a few million more per year unless they're REALLY unhappy with awesome academics and the great camaraderie that the Conference clearly enjoys. For $30m or $50m a year? Yeah, of course. But not for $5 or $10m. They might look to do some poaching, however. They'd talk to A&M a lot, and Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc, but none of us would be interested. Just as the SEC and B1G aren't going to poach from each other for the foreseeable future, neither would the Pac poach from them. It would be a true P3, with the ACC as a weak-ish 4th, while all of the old big 8/SWC schools merged long ago to form the "big 12". I'm not sure if they'd be getting $30m or $10m today on their media rights deal, but it seems quite unlikely that they'd be stronger than any of the actual "P4" or "P3" of the current era.

edit: and those numbers for the current Pac are low estimations, while it's difficult to estimate the impact of a much stronger PAC on the SEC and B1G. It's quite possible that the Pac would actually be #1 in media revenues in the current cycle.

(07-18-2023 11:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 10:53 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 10:13 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Failing to get either UT or OU a decade ago was massive.

A Pac 16 with UT, OU, TTU, OSU, and 2 more Big 12 schools would have given them another time window, a ton more markets, more leverage for a league network, and two elite brands.

That was the only play to make. They got in their own way on it several times since the 90s.

Wrong. The Lubbock, TX and Stillwater, Ok markets werent saving the PAC.

I scoffed at the idea about SMU, Tulane and Rice would save the PAC 12 either. SMU have returned after losing seasons, but they lost all those viewers when they got left behind by Texas and them.

Rice have no fanbase period, and their athletics are terrible fit for the PAC 12. They needed to get Houston instead and TCU.

Tulane have been up and down like a yo-yo. They get the views and fans when they are winning. But when they are losing? They could easily slip down below 20,000 in attendance.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma state, Fresno State, Boise State and Memphis are the ones to pick up.

For once, a quite reasonable post. Unfortunately, the Pac Presidents aren't desperate enough to add the g5s you listed yet, and Tech and OSU have a better contract and signed GoR through 2031, so...hard no on them.

Now, down the road, perhaps after some more defections? When they're desperate, they just might be able to convince themselves at Stanford and Cal that they can Academic-up Fresno, Boise and Memphis the way they did ASU and Utah. And they're probably right. But they won't allow themselves to consider such Academic afterthoughts (from their perspective, not mine. I have no issue with any of those schools academically) today.

(07-18-2023 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:15 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Or USC and UCLA actually torpedo in expanding with Big 12 schools knowing full well that they are going to get invited to the Big 10. It seemed they purposely sabotage the PAC 12 and their next media rights deal.

You're 100% right.

The B1G had an "alliance" with the PAC and stabbed them in the back. USC/UCLA literally F'd the PAC just like Pittsburgh did in the Big East while back-channeling their way into a new conference.

Yet somehow the Big 12 schools are the villains according to George Kliavkoff and PAC fans.

We're just being opportunistic

Yes, because BY is also being interference into the PAC 12 affairs throwing grenades at them as well. It is a combination of the bunch.

Warren shoots the Pac in the head, then, later on, BY throws a couple rocks sort of in the general direction of their writhing body without hitting anything, yet it's the big 12 at fault here. Such a joke. We should have gotten over this idiocy a long time ago. The big 12 never had the ability to damage the Pac. Until they were mortally wounded by the B1G, of course, and even then it's an open question whether the big 12 will even be able to feast on any part of the carcass. BY is doing what he can to stay alive and out of the hunter's line of sight.

(07-17-2023 08:14 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 05:24 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Let's just say the PAC today, has USC, UCLA, OU, TX in the league. They would not be in the same situation, in fact they would be poaching, the likely 3 in a P3 or P4.

The PAC with those four wouldnt be making anywhere near 70-75m per school/year. Prove me wrong.

TX/OU would have left sooner than the South California traitors. Prove that they would stay in a league with non-P2 money.

PAC would have been in a lot better shape with OU making the playoffs. There might have been enough value nobody leaves Pac

(07-18-2023 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 08:14 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 05:24 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Let's just say the PAC today, has USC, UCLA, OU, TX in the league. They would not be in the same situation, in fact they would be poaching, the likely 3 in a P3 or P4.

The PAC with those four wouldnt be making anywhere near 70-75m per school/year. Prove me wrong.

TX/OU would have left sooner than the South California traitors. Prove that they would stay in a league with non-P2 money.

PAC would have been in a lot better shape with OU making the playoffs. There might have been enough value nobody leaves Pac

Not just OU, but yeah, it's highly likely that somebody every year, or most years, would be in the playoff, and they probably get a title or 2 in the past decade, too. Combine that with the much more football and media-friendly larger geographic footprint, and you have a recipe for a solid and stable conference.

I'm happy it didn't work out that way, it's much better for the SEC with OUT in the fold and probably neutral for my Aggies (despite the very vocal whiny minority out there). But it's foolish to claim that a Pac with the right moves in the past wouldn't be in a MUCH better position to succeed today.

Had the PAC 16 came to fruition, let's say it was OU, UT, TTech, OSU (because they'd have wanted some travel partners), and I know it's been discussed extensively in older threads, but that deal would have netted 60-65 million per school. TTech and OSU would have been a bit of a drag. UT would not have a great rival aside from OU (A&M would have still been in the SEC in this hypothetical). I mean, probably close to B1G money but the dilution factor is there with those little brother land grant schools. The deal could have even been 70 million had the SEC re-upped with CBS, and ESPN/Fox decided to overpay. That Big 12 money would have been freed up.

For whatever reason, the PAC 12 probably just didn't want to add travel partners for OU and UT. I think pods would have been a good setup...almost too good:

PNW: UW, WSU, UO, OreSU
Cali: USCLA, Furd, Cal
Mountain: CU, Utah, ASU, AU
Central: OU, OkieSt, UT, TTech

I mean, how would that not be ideal for everyone? My only guess is, aside from the UT ego and wanting a bigger share/separate network, the snobbery of the conference made them a lot less keen on the central land grant schools. It's such a damn shame, because now the parity in CFB has completely tilted to the Southeast and the game has become hyper regionalized. The B1G can only compete by going national. They probably still need to add ND.

I expect the SEC will eventually grab Big 12 flagship schools like KU and even CU (if the B1G doesn't already take them), The B1G will have to grab the flagship school in every major market to stay ahead in terms of dollars and cents (Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, SLC/Denver).

(07-17-2023 02:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  (I hear this from FSU fans too, and various and sundry others who want to make excuses for why they can't pack in the fans),

Stop this. I've debunked it numerous times on this board but you keep throwing it out there every chance you get.

(07-18-2023 10:53 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-18-2023 10:13 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Failing to get either UT or OU a decade ago was massive.

A Pac 16 with UT, OU, TTU, OSU, and 2 more Big 12 schools would have given them another time window, a ton more markets, more leverage for a league network, and two elite brands.

That was the only play to make. They got in their own way on it several times since the 90s.

Wrong. The Lubbock, TX and Stillwater, Ok markets werent saving the PAC.

So much wrong with your take bud.

1- The PAC had three or four really strong brands as the original Pac 10 with the LA schools, Oregon, and Washington. Adding two bigger than any except maybe USC adds a TON of high value games to the top of any broadcast contract. MASSIVE missed opportunity.

2- The biggest weakness other than brands that the PAC has is they are WORTHLESS to any broadcaster at NOON eastern. That's several potential high dollar TV windows on FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, or ESPN they simply can't capitalize on. An eastern nucleus of Texas, OU, and 4 P5 schools would allow them to sell a ton of games in that window. That makes more money.

3- Delivering all of Texas and Oklahoma is a big addition of markets of 10% of the US tv homes. For context adding CU & Utah only added 2.7%.

4- The idea that markets are only delivered if you are "in" the market physically is dumb. Texas Tech and Baylor do as well or better in DFW than SMU does.
OSU draws strong eyeballs in all of OKC & Tulsa DMA's.

The Pac was foolish. They needed to do what the Big 8 wisely did before them in the 90's- get the big fish by any means possible to keep from being picked apart yourself. Instead they backed off of adding OU when it was OU/OSU.

(07-17-2023 08:14 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 05:24 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Let's just say the PAC today, has USC, UCLA, OU, TX in the league. They would not be in the same situation, in fact they would be poaching, the likely 3 in a P3 or P4.

The PAC with those four wouldnt be making anywhere near 70-75m per school/year. Prove me wrong.

TX/OU would have left sooner than the South California traitors. Prove that they would stay in a league with non-P2 money.

Assuming all were still there there's a lot to say they'd be the clear #3.

Whether they make it to the payout of the big 2 depends on if the P12 network is still a dumpster fire payout wise.

Their FOX/ESPN contract would absolutely kill it. Bare minumum 40-45M per year with more possibly linked to a better performing PAC network. They wouldn't match them but they'd get way ahead of the rest.

(07-18-2023 02:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 08:14 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 05:24 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 03:44 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(07-17-2023 02:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The Pac's refusal to expand their footprint into the midwest and southwest over the past few decades directly led them to this point.

The B1G and SEC have basically stayed in their footprints while their TV deals have exploded in value. I don't think that even with eastward expansion that the Pac-12 would be sitting at parity with the B1G and SEC, which therefore means they would still be at risk of losing members to either of the P2.

The Pac-12 has made many mistakes, but I'm not sure there's a scenario where they don't still end up in the same situation.

Let's just say the PAC today, has USC, UCLA, OU, TX in the league. They would not be in the same situation, in fact they would be poaching, the likely 3 in a P3 or P4.

The PAC with those four wouldnt be making anywhere near 70-75m per school/year. Prove me wrong.

TX/OU would have left sooner than the South California traitors. Prove that they would stay in a league with non-P2 money.

Assuming all were still there there's a lot to say they'd be the clear #3.

Whether they make it to the payout of the big 2 depends on if the P12 network is still a dumpster fire payout wise.

Their FOX/ESPN contract would absolutely kill it. Bare minumum 40-45M per year with more possibly linked to a better performing PAC network. They wouldn't match them but they'd get way ahead of the rest.

I wonder if ESPN will just wait for the MWC rights to come up and outbid FOX/CBSN or just get some late night games for their window?? I mean The deal runs through 2026 and the league is paid about $270 million. So ESPN can get a late night window with MWC for a really good deal in 2026.

I think the PAC might be screwed.