End of Pac12? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-06-2022
One quick note as you go through a fast-moving period of rumors:
Those who know likely aren’t talking, and those who are talking, likely don’t know.
At best, we are likely trafficking in informed speculation. It might be right, of course, but we shouldn’t hang on every tweet from a random account that purports to tell us what is going on.
BC
RE: End of Pac12? - Mick - 07-06-2022
(07-05-2022, 07:49 PM)chrisk Wrote:(07-05-2022, 06:45 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote: While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined. So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.
The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave. I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.
If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge. Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC. The ACC is stronger right now. And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC. Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation. And it combines two conference with strong academics.
I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......
An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.
I don't want to shack up. I want a ring on my finger...
RE: End of Pac12? - Softball Fan - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 06:01 AM)Mick Wrote:(07-05-2022, 07:49 PM)chrisk Wrote:(07-05-2022, 06:45 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote: While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined. So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.
The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave. I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.
If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge. Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC. The ACC is stronger right now. And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC. Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation. And it combines two conference with strong academics.
I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......
An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.
I don't want to shack up. I want a ring on my finger...
Yeah the PAC-12 got burned by the last alliance with the BIG 10. The PAC-12 is smarter now entering any new relationship. A solution may be an ironclad contract that any team wanting to leave the alliance must pay a zillion dollar exit fee.
At the moment I prefer a deal with the ACC over the Big-12 if something can be worked out to minimize cross country travel for Olympic sports.
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-06-2022
Interesting discussion on the Athletic here (might be behind a paywall):
https://theathletic.com/3397692/2022/07/05/college-football-tv-espn-fox/?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220706&instance_id=65891&nl=the-morning®i_id=112348342&segment_id=97717&te=1&user_id=ceb8dc75e6018f57e5d7fc74f24220a2
Two interesting thoughts:
First, Would the SEC and B1G merge, and set up a bidding war between ESPN and Fox? Would serve the networks right; after all, they created this monster.
Second,Interesting that they bring up the Premier league. Could you have a system of promotions and relegations between secondary conferences and the two big ones? I mean, Vandy and Indiana are both zeroes football wise who just happened to have a legacy attachment to the SEC and B1G, respectively.
BC
RE: End of Pac12? - cardcrimson - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 08:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Interesting discussion on the Athletic here (might be behind a paywall):
https://theathletic.com/3397692/2022/07/05/college-football-tv-espn-fox/?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220706&instance_id=65891&nl=the-morning®i_id=112348342&segment_id=97717&te=1&user_id=ceb8dc75e6018f57e5d7fc74f24220a2
Two interesting thoughts:
First, Would the SEC and B1G merge, and set up a bidding war between ESPN and Fox? Would serve the networks right; after all, they created this monster.
Second,Interesting that they bring up the Premier league. Could you have a system of promotions and relegations between secondary conferences and the two big ones? I mean, Vandy and Indiana are both zeroes football wise who just happened to have a legacy attachment to the SEC and B1G, respectively.
BC
Not far-fetched. High Schools have had separation by divisions for years, mainly by size of school, but when one is successful, it moves up. . . .
RE: End of Pac12? - CTcard - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 08:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: First, Would the SEC and B1G merge, and set up a bidding war between ESPN and Fox? Would serve the networks right; after all, they created this monster.
Second,Interesting that they bring up the Premier league. Could you have a system of promotions and relegations between secondary conferences and the two big ones? I mean, Vandy and Indiana are both zeroes football wise who just happened to have a legacy attachment to the SEC and B1G, respectively.
BC
Anything is possible. But, it would have to be in enough folks' with power self interest for it to happen - it won't happen simply because some sports writer thinks it would be neat.
I guess the merger is possible. Of course a 40-ish member conference isn't really a conference. But that is more or less the case anyways now, a conference is mostly just a media rights negotiation bloc.
To happen, you'd have to get more total money out of the one network that wins that comes from the two networks combined. Not sure if the risk and amount of prime air time available makes that logical or not.
As for different level conferences and relegation, whose interest does that serve?
The football powers like having a few Vandy/Indianas around to boost their records. And the Vandy/Indianas desperately would not like to be relegated. I supposed any teams like Oregon that might get left out of a mega-conference and think they could win their way in would like it - but I don't see how they would have enough clout.
-----------
As for our situation, I think a rump-Pac 10 is a better situation than anything else on the table right now - except of course I don't really know what is on the table. [including whether a rump Pac 10 is an option, but really if it were minimally stable it would be better for UA, ASU etc. than joining the dregs of the Big 12]
RE: End of Pac12? - 81alum - 07-06-2022
(07-05-2022, 10:00 PM)thatboy Wrote:With the exception of 2-3 teams with gigantic stadiums that sell out regularly, the money from football is almost entirely in the form of TV revenues given to the leagues and then shared out to the members of the league. In what used to be the power 5 conferences it varied from $15-30 million or so per team. The problem is that with the departure of USC and UCLA the Pac 10 won't get even a fraction of the low end of that (per school.) The WAC last I checked was getting $2-3 million a team (although this is admittedly dated information.) A football team--including coaches salaries, travel, scholarships, etc. will cost nearly $15 million a year, so Stanford was probably already just breaking even on that team. Without the Pac 12, it changes from being a money generating machine to being a money sink.(07-05-2022, 02:50 PM)DenverCard Wrote: Given my interests and preferences, I favor going independent and remaining a force in college sports, but jettisoning football. But I appreciate how painful that would be to those who love football, and how it does feel like quitting -- taking our ball and going home in the face of adversity.
I don't follow these things as closely as most of you, but from my cursory knowledge wouldn't this be cost-prohibitive? I was under the impression that Stanford's other sports depend largely on money from football. So if we dropped football how would we finance everything else? I'm not opposed to this idea in theory, but just not sure if it's viable.
RE: End of Pac12? - BigJohn043 - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 09:25 AM)81alum Wrote:(07-05-2022, 10:00 PM)thatboy Wrote:With the exception of 2-3 teams with gigantic stadiums that sell out regularly, the money from football is almost entirely in the form of TV revenues given to the leagues and then shared out to the members of the league. In what used to be the power 5 conferences it varied from $15-30 million or so per team. The problem is that with the departure of USC and UCLA the Pac 10 won't get even a fraction of the low end of that (per school.) The WAC last I checked was getting $2-3 million a team (although this is admittedly dated information.) A football team--including coaches salaries, travel, scholarships, etc. will cost nearly $15 million a year, so Stanford was probably already just breaking even on that team. Without the Pac 12, it changes from being a money generating machine to being a money sink.(07-05-2022, 02:50 PM)DenverCard Wrote: Given my interests and preferences, I favor going independent and remaining a force in college sports, but jettisoning football. But I appreciate how painful that would be to those who love football, and how it does feel like quitting -- taking our ball and going home in the face of adversity.
I don't follow these things as closely as most of you, but from my cursory knowledge wouldn't this be cost-prohibitive? I was under the impression that Stanford's other sports depend largely on money from football. So if we dropped football how would we finance everything else? I'm not opposed to this idea in theory, but just not sure if it's viable.
Not sure why you think it is only 2-3 teams. By my count:
Bama
UGA
Auburn
LSU
Tennessee
Florida
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Wisconsin
That is 10. And there are probably more depending on your definition.
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-06-2022
It appears these are key factors at play:
- No current Pac member after USCLA will get more money in the Big XII than in the Pac, and might get less, so it is looking like the Big XII was trying to bite off more than it could chew by stealing 6 Pac teams.
- The Bay Area TV market (#6; Phoenix #12, Seattle #14) is now the most valuable in the remaining Pac footprint, and helps all the other schools*
- Adding any other member beyond 10 will dilute the Pac revenue below what it would be staying at 10, assuming equal shares for new members.
- Apparently, the ACC footprint actually has more TV eyeballs to offer than even the Big Ten with USCLA
- A partnership between the ACC and Pac (apparently being discussed) would give it nearly 28 million households compared to the Big Ten's 14M and SEC's 15M**
The Big Ten and SEC make more money from media than their TV markets because they have more fan interest in general, and because (and this is related) these conferences have networks that generate money from cable and satellite carriers by forcing people to pay for them who don't even care about sports (though I think SEC Net is on a DTV sports package only, B1G is on all tiers). So even if the Pac region might be able to compete on a pure TV household basis for Tier 1 rights, the networks create another giant revenue stream it lacks.
It looks like the reality is the remaining Pac-12 schools are better off where they are, and Stanford and Cal become the new USCLA in terms of having the most value in the media rights world. Oh how this must kill Washington and Oregon.
* The market is telling Stanford and Cal they better improve their football and hoops programs if they want to get paid more in the future. There is a lot of revenue upside if they prioritize football more, including making themselves more attractive to the Big Ten.
** USCLA might well have acted prematurely by moving to the Big Ten, because a combined ACC/Pac arrangement would have been way easier on travel, and I don't know how long the network model is going to keep ringing the cash register as more people give up cable and satellite TV. I'd be surprised if the Pac and ACC weren't looking at some streaming service agreement like Apple TV that might boost the Pac revenue to what it could have been with a DirecTV deal. And unlike the Big Ten or SEC, the Pac/ACC can offer exclusive rights to streaming services for games not on broadcast or cable/satellite like on B1G Network.
Another note. It seems to be accepted fact that ESPN and Fox Sports will not have deals with the same leagues. Fox is married to the Big Ten, and won't be involved with the Pac after USCLA are gone. The ACC is with ESPN, so a partnership with the Pac would get it in bed with ESPN too. That would leave NBC, CBS, and Apple or Amazon as the other players.
RE: End of Pac12? - 81alum - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 10:48 AM)BigJohn043 Wrote:This was from the USA Today athletic financing reports, which unfortunately they have now put behind a paywall. I used to follow this fairly carefully and the ticket sales were--even at powerhouse schools--generally a small fraction of TV revenues. But I don't know whether things have changed in the 8-10 years since I was reading that carefully, and I can't get back in to the USA today database. Certainly the schools you list have many sell-outs, but whether this amounts to much revenue depends on other things like the price of tickets too. I remember Texas consistently leading the country in ticket revenue.(07-06-2022, 09:25 AM)81alum Wrote:(07-05-2022, 10:00 PM)thatboy Wrote:With the exception of 2-3 teams with gigantic stadiums that sell out regularly, the money from football is almost entirely in the form of TV revenues given to the leagues and then shared out to the members of the league. In what used to be the power 5 conferences it varied from $15-30 million or so per team. The problem is that with the departure of USC and UCLA the Pac 10 won't get even a fraction of the low end of that (per school.) The WAC last I checked was getting $2-3 million a team (although this is admittedly dated information.) A football team--including coaches salaries, travel, scholarships, etc. will cost nearly $15 million a year, so Stanford was probably already just breaking even on that team. Without the Pac 12, it changes from being a money generating machine to being a money sink.(07-05-2022, 02:50 PM)DenverCard Wrote: Given my interests and preferences, I favor going independent and remaining a force in college sports, but jettisoning football. But I appreciate how painful that would be to those who love football, and how it does feel like quitting -- taking our ball and going home in the face of adversity.
I don't follow these things as closely as most of you, but from my cursory knowledge wouldn't this be cost-prohibitive? I was under the impression that Stanford's other sports depend largely on money from football. So if we dropped football how would we finance everything else? I'm not opposed to this idea in theory, but just not sure if it's viable.
Not sure why you think it is only 2-3 teams. By my count:
Bama
UGA
Auburn
LSU
Tennessee
Florida
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Wisconsin
That is 10. And there are probably more depending on your definition.
RE: End of Pac12? - BigJohn043 - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 03:22 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It appears these are key factors at play:
- No current Pac member after USCLA will get more money in the Big XII than in the Pac, and might get less, so it is looking like the Big XII was trying to bite off more than it could chew by stealing 6 Pac teams.
- The Bay Area TV market (#6; Phoenix #12, Seattle #14) is now the most valuable in the remaining Pac footprint, and helps all the other schools*
- Adding any other member beyond 10 will dilute the Pac revenue below what it would be staying at 10, assuming equal shares for new members.
- Apparently, the ACC footprint actually has more TV eyeballs to offer than even the Big Ten with USCLA
- A partnership between the ACC and Pac (apparently being discussed) would give it nearly 28 million households compared to the Big Ten's 14M and SEC's 15M**
The Big Ten and SEC make more money from media than their TV markets because they have more fan interest in general, and because (and this is related) these conferences have networks that generate money from cable and satellite carriers by forcing people to pay for them who don't even care about sports (though I think SEC Net is on a DTV sports package only, B1G is on all tiers). So even if the Pac region might be able to compete on a pure TV household basis for Tier 1 rights, the networks create another giant revenue stream it lacks.
It looks like the reality is the remaining Pac-12 schools are better off where they are, and Stanford and Cal become the new USCLA in terms of having the most value in the media rights world. Oh how this must kill Washington and Oregon.
* The market is telling Stanford and Cal they better improve their football and hoops programs if they want to get paid more in the future. There is a lot of revenue upside if they prioritize football more, including making themselves more attractive to the Big Ten.
** USCLA might well have acted prematurely by moving to the Big Ten, because a combined ACC/Pac arrangement would have been way easier on travel, and I don't know how long the network model is going to keep ringing the cash register as more people give up cable and satellite TV. I'd be surprised if the Pac and ACC weren't looking at some streaming service agreement like Apple TV that might boost the Pac revenue to what it could have been with a DirecTV deal. And unlike the Big Ten or SEC, the Pac/ACC can offer exclusive rights to streaming services for games not on broadcast or cable/satellite like on B1G Network.
Another note. It seems to be accepted fact that ESPN and Fox Sports will not have deals with the same leagues. Fox is married to the Big Ten, and won't be involved with the Pac after USCLA are gone. The ACC is with ESPN, so a partnership with the Pac would get it in bed with ESPN too. That would leave NBC, CBS, and Apple or Amazon as the other players.
Really great post.
I can believe that the B12 would mean lower payouts than the P10 but haven't seen that anywhere. Do you have a source?
I absolutely believe that there is no member the P10 can add that would increase payout per member, although SDSU might be an investment to get back into SoCal.
I would love to believe that Stanford/cal are more marketable than UO/UW, but I am not sure I do. A source?
Finally, I am interested that the only schools not mentioned as going to the B12 are Stanford/cal. And we are clearly attractive and more so than others. Maybe we are too snooty given the academics of the B12. But maybe we think we have other options.
The only school that adds to revenue per member for the B10 is ND. And the B10 clearly wasn't interested in taking less per member to get UO/UW. But I think Hulk said it best in saying that the B10 Presidents would love to be associated with Stanford and Stanford/cal as well. I wonder if they would be willing to take less money for that combo?
I can imagine a scenario where their first choice is ND/Stanford but they will do Stanford/cal if not. There have been leaks about Stanford / B10 discussions. This might explain why Stanford / cal aren't being courted by the B12.
Just speculating.....
RE: End of Pac12? - TreesAndBirds - 07-06-2022
I enjoyed this article discussing what makes college football special, and why Im rooting for the Pac10 to stay together (perhaps with a meaningful alliance with another conference).
https://sports.yahoo.com/every-college-football-fan-should-be-rooting-for-the-pac-12-s-survival-190721042.html
RE: End of Pac12? - TonyLima - 07-06-2022
(07-05-2022, 09:43 AM)Phogge Wrote: The only statement that I am aware of is Muir's letter or email to the Board of the Buck/Cardinal Club. It's been made public on whatever the hell used to be called Facebook.
And isn't it time to dump the "cardinal" nickname? Robber Barons would have been extremely cool.
I voted it for it. IIRC the student body went for it with an overwhelming majority. Still have the t-shirt around somewhere.
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 03:58 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote:(07-06-2022, 03:22 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It appears these are key factors at play:
- No current Pac member after USCLA will get more money in the Big XII than in the Pac, and might get less, so it is looking like the Big XII was trying to bite off more than it could chew by stealing 6 Pac teams.
- The Bay Area TV market (#6; Phoenix #12, Seattle #14) is now the most valuable in the remaining Pac footprint, and helps all the other schools*
- Adding any other member beyond 10 will dilute the Pac revenue below what it would be staying at 10, assuming equal shares for new members.
- Apparently, the ACC footprint actually has more TV eyeballs to offer than even the Big Ten with USCLA
- A partnership between the ACC and Pac (apparently being discussed) would give it nearly 28 million households compared to the Big Ten's 14M and SEC's 15M**
The Big Ten and SEC make more money from media than their TV markets because they have more fan interest in general, and because (and this is related) these conferences have networks that generate money from cable and satellite carriers by forcing people to pay for them who don't even care about sports (though I think SEC Net is on a DTV sports package only, B1G is on all tiers). So even if the Pac region might be able to compete on a pure TV household basis for Tier 1 rights, the networks create another giant revenue stream it lacks.
It looks like the reality is the remaining Pac-12 schools are better off where they are, and Stanford and Cal become the new USCLA in terms of having the most value in the media rights world. Oh how this must kill Washington and Oregon.
* The market is telling Stanford and Cal they better improve their football and hoops programs if they want to get paid more in the future. There is a lot of revenue upside if they prioritize football more, including making themselves more attractive to the Big Ten.
** USCLA might well have acted prematurely by moving to the Big Ten, because a combined ACC/Pac arrangement would have been way easier on travel, and I don't know how long the network model is going to keep ringing the cash register as more people give up cable and satellite TV. I'd be surprised if the Pac and ACC weren't looking at some streaming service agreement like Apple TV that might boost the Pac revenue to what it could have been with a DirecTV deal. And unlike the Big Ten or SEC, the Pac/ACC can offer exclusive rights to streaming services for games not on broadcast or cable/satellite like on B1G Network.
Another note. It seems to be accepted fact that ESPN and Fox Sports will not have deals with the same leagues. Fox is married to the Big Ten, and won't be involved with the Pac after USCLA are gone. The ACC is with ESPN, so a partnership with the Pac would get it in bed with ESPN too. That would leave NBC, CBS, and Apple or Amazon as the other players.
Really great post.
I can believe that the B12 would mean lower payouts than the P10 but haven't seen that anywhere. Do you have a source?
I absolutely believe that there is no member the P10 can add that would increase payout per member, although SDSU might be an investment to get back into SoCal.
I would love to believe that Stanford/cal are more marketable than UO/UW, but I am not sure I do. A source?
Finally, I am interested that the only schools not mentioned as going to the B12 are Stanford/cal. And we are clearly attractive and more so than others. Maybe we are too snooty given the academics of the B12. But maybe we think we have other options.
The only school that adds to revenue per member for the B10 is ND. And the B10 clearly wasn't interested in taking less per member to get UO/UW. But I think Hulk said it best in saying that the B10 Presidents would love to be associated with Stanford and Stanford/cal as well. I wonder if they would be willing to take less money for that combo?
I can imagine a scenario where their first choice is ND/Stanford but they will do Stanford/cal if not. There have been leaks about Stanford / B10 discussions. This might explain why Stanford / cal aren't being courted by the B12.
Just speculating.....
It seems like Stanford/Cal and Oregon/Washington provide the gravity for each to stay in orbit if only around the other.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/status/1544735317915119617?cxt=HHwWgsClhculgPAqAAAA[/tweet]
RE: End of Pac12? - Hulk01 - 07-06-2022
The Big Ten is much more than an athletic conference. Membership, for example, allows each member school access to the research and libraries of all other schools. There are shared tutoring and training programs, as another example, for professors who are named heads of their departments. And the Big Ten is a buying/purchasing consortium that sends out purchasing requests en masse, and buys from the lowest bidder on the conference schools' massive combined request.
The Big Ten is a massive, synergistic partnership with an emphasis far beyond athletics.
I know one of the Presidents very well; she's my sister in law. (Not insignificant here that the majority of Big Ten presidents are women.) I've not spoken with her, but am confident she has a strong bias to adding Stanford next, a bias to Cal, and a clear preference for Washington over Oregon. Having the example of former power Nebraska in their conference, and the realization that Phil Knight is 85. each Big President will wonder about the long term strength of Oregon football. And none of them, I am confident, respect Oregon as an institution.
My guess is that they'd feel comfortable standing pat at Notre Dame and Stanford, and at 18 teams. They would not dread losing Oregon, Washington, or Cal, but could not miss the obvious travel advantages of having those three schools plus SC, Stanford, and UCLA in a Big Ten West. But again, to many of them, Oregon is in the mix for no other reason than football. The Ducks would become, from every perspective other than athletic, the Boise State of the Big Ten,
RE: End of Pac12? - chrisk - 07-06-2022
(07-06-2022, 06:33 PM)Hulk01 Wrote: The Big Ten is much more than an athletic conference. Membership, for example, allows each member school access to the research and libraries of all other schools. There are shared tutoring and training programs, as another example, for professors who are named heads of their departments. And the Big Ten is a buying/purchasing consortium that sends out purchasing requests en masse, and buys from the lowest bidder on the conference schools' massive combined request.
The Big Ten is a massive, synergistic partnership with an emphasis far beyond athletics.
I know one of the Presidents very well; she's my sister in law. (Not insignificant here that the majority of Big Ten presidents are women.) I've not spoken with her, but am confident she has a strong bias to adding Stanford next, a bias to Cal, and a clear preference for Washington over Oregon. Having the example of former power Nebraska in their conference, and the realization that Phil Knight is 85. each Big President will wonder about the long term strength of Oregon football. And none of them, I am confident, respect Oregon as an institution.
My guess is that they'd feel comfortable standing pat at Notre Dame and Stanford, and at 18 teams. They would not dread losing Oregon, Washington, or Cal, but could not miss the obvious travel advantages of having those three schools plus SC, Stanford, and UCLA in a Big Ten West. But again, to many of them, Oregon is in the mix for no other reason than football. The Ducks would become, from every perspective other than athletic, the Boise State of the Big Ten,
If the Big 10 expands much further, it will dilute the existing teams opportunity to play USC and UCLA.
Also, given the difficulty of breaking up the ACC, Notre Dame could continue its arrangement with the ACC and possibly play Pac-10 teams as part of an ACC/P10 arrangement. They can play OOC vs the Big 10 as well as Navy and the newly expanded Big 12.
(07-06-2022, 08:50 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-06-2022, 08:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Interesting discussion on the Athletic here (might be behind a paywall):
https://theathletic.com/3397692/2022/07/05/college-football-tv-espn-fox/?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220706&instance_id=65891&nl=the-morning®i_id=112348342&segment_id=97717&te=1&user_id=ceb8dc75e6018f57e5d7fc74f24220a2
Two interesting thoughts:
First, Would the SEC and B1G merge, and set up a bidding war between ESPN and Fox? Would serve the networks right; after all, they created this monster.
Second,Interesting that they bring up the Premier league. Could you have a system of promotions and relegations between secondary conferences and the two big ones? I mean, Vandy and Indiana are both zeroes football wise who just happened to have a legacy attachment to the SEC and B1G, respectively.
BC
Not far-fetched. High Schools have had separation by divisions for years, mainly by size of school, but when one is successful, it moves up. . . .
Can you imagine any of the current Big 10 or SEC members, let alone a supermajority, going for relegation?
RE: End of Pac12? - yvonne - 07-06-2022
If there's money to be made airing promotion games and a playoff, the Big Ten (and ESPN/Fox) will be for it.
RE: End of Pac12? - grendalor - 07-07-2022
(07-06-2022, 08:26 PM)chrisk Wrote: Notre Dame could continue its arrangement with the ACC and possibly play Pac-10 teams as part of an ACC/P10 arrangement. They can play OOC vs the Big 10 as well as Navy and the newly expanded Big 12.
Seems very likely what they are thinking right now.
I could see them being nudged into the B1G if they felt everything was consolidating quickly into B1G and SEC, and the writing was on the wall for the ACC anyway. That may all still be the case, but if it looks like they can kick the can down the road for another year or two, postpone making any big payout to the ACC, and see what happens when, they can hedge their bets while playing more or less the same schedule they do now with their own contract and money. With the ACC and the Pac doing an alliance, it really makes kicking the can that much more feasible for ND, and I'm guessing that the B1G sees it this way as well. Things were looking better for the B1G being able to bring more pressure on ND if the Pac were being eaten in large part by the B12 (as was thought as recently as 48 or so hours ago), but if the Pac survives for a bit as the Pac-10 with an ACC alliance, ND can remain independent for longer, which is clearly what they prefer.
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-07-2022
In my previous post, I suggested Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford are sort of co-dependent on each other. The same might be said about the Pac and ACC.
Fox Sports has indicated it will not bid on Pac media rights, which means there is a real possibility ESPN is the only bidder for them. At the same time, the ACC is locked into a rights deal until 2036 that carries a big penalty for schools to leave the ACC before it expires. This is one key reason why Notre Dame isn't moving to the Big Ten with alacrity, and why we don't hear anything about Clemson and Florida State to the SEC.
This means the ACC in its current form can't increase its revenues for a decade. The only way it can is partnering with the another conference in some form or fashion that links its markets with ACC markets to create more value than the current ACC deal. A Pac-ACC partnership could make the combined rights compelling enough to get another bidder involved, and because the ACC brings that extra value, the Pac would share revenue with the ACC as a partner.
To me, this is the only way for the Pac to get a streaming deal in place. The Pac doesn't have the geographic footprint for one with 10 schools, but create a package that gets East Coast and West Coast coverage, and you might have something that moves that needle.
RE: End of Pac12? - BigJohn043 - 07-07-2022
(07-06-2022, 06:33 PM)Hulk01 Wrote: The Big Ten is much more than an athletic conference. Membership, for example, allows each member school access to the research and libraries of all other schools. There are shared tutoring and training programs, as another example, for professors who are named heads of their departments. And the Big Ten is a buying/purchasing consortium that sends out purchasing requests en masse, and buys from the lowest bidder on the conference schools' massive combined request.
The Big Ten is a massive, synergistic partnership with an emphasis far beyond athletics.
I know one of the Presidents very well; she's my sister in law. (Not insignificant here that the majority of Big Ten presidents are women.) I've not spoken with her, but am confident she has a strong bias to adding Stanford next, a bias to Cal, and a clear preference for Washington over Oregon. Having the example of former power Nebraska in their conference, and the realization that Phil Knight is 85. each Big President will wonder about the long term strength of Oregon football. And none of them, I am confident, respect Oregon as an institution.
My guess is that they'd feel comfortable standing pat at Notre Dame and Stanford, and at 18 teams. They would not dread losing Oregon, Washington, or Cal, but could not miss the obvious travel advantages of having those three schools plus SC, Stanford, and UCLA in a Big Ten West. But again, to many of them, Oregon is in the mix for no other reason than football. The Ducks would become, from every perspective other than athletic, the Boise State of the Big Ten,
The addition of USC/UCLA was a bit of a no brainer for the B10. It increased their payout per member and at the same time increased their overall academic standings. A win for both the ADs and the Presidents.
Turning down UW/UO was similarly a no brainer. It would have decreased their payout per member and while UW would have fit well within the B10 academic world, only Nebraska has a lower academic standing that UO. And as Hulk has pointed out there is probably some buyers remorse with Nebraska.
If you look at the other members the B10 has added (PSU, MD & RTG) they are all strong academic schools in the middle of the rest of the B10. They also all added to media rights per member. MD & RTG added based on the importance of conference networks and charging higher cable rates for in network markets. My sense is that this has gotten a lot less important in the media world so the B10 might be a bit more thoughtful about this going forward.
That brings us back to Stanford & cal. We would be a big win in terms of academics. But it is clear that we would be a negative to media rights per member. Of course ND solves this for Stanford potentially. The other thing that solves this is agreeing for the first deal to take less. But to take Stanford & cal the B10 would have to do something they haven't done before.....