[2006alum]

So, mostly I agree with you.  However, if it looks like the Pac-12 is a sinking ship, I could see SC bailing despite the above.

BC

All my poo-pooing aside, I certainly think it's in U$C's interest to make the strategic feint, both to get the media's attention, and to alert other schools that at least a few of the (money grubbing) natives are restless. 

My long-term view remains unchanged, however: Larry Scott or no Larry Scott, it's not so much that the PAC-12 deal is underpriced, but that other conferences' deals are overpriced and ahistorical due to a temporary but unstable equilibrium in media consumption. Cord-cutting will beget cost-cutting, and provided Sling and other alternatives continue to emerge, the PAC-12 Network's market saturation will only improve over time. The bigger question is simply whether the IP rights the PAC-12 has retained are worth the cost efficiencies lost from not partnering with an ESPN or Fox Sports for production and distribution.

But, critically and more importantly, no media deal renegotiation will change the fact that folks in Arizona, California, and Colorado just don't care all that much about college sports, and Oregon, Utah, and Washington are not sufficiently populated (or rich) markets to draw brobdingnagian numbers of eyeballs (and Utah's biggest home team is arguably BYU, which is not even in the conference). Cal hoops << Warriors. Stanford football << Niners. UCLA << Lakers. Sun Devils << Cardinals. Buffs << Broncos. Etc.

At the end of the day, for the foreseeable future pro sports will likely dominate in the larger media markets along the big cities in the West Coast, and college sports will dominate the more rural and state-school-dominated SEC markets with no or bad pro sports teams. The midwest largely comfortably splits the difference and is in the middle on both fronts.

[2006alum]

So, mostly I agree with you.  However, if it looks like the Pac-12 is a sinking ship, I could see SC bailing despite the above.

BC

All my poo-pooing aside, I certainly think it's in U$C's interest to make the strategic feint, both to get the media's attention, and to alert other schools that at least a few of the (money grubbing) natives are restless. 

My long-term view remains unchanged, however: Larry Scott or no Larry Scott, it's not so much that the PAC-12 deal is underpriced, but that other conferences' deals are overpriced and ahistorical due to a temporary but unstable equilibrium in media consumption. Cord-cutting will beget cost-cutting, and provided Sling and other alternatives continue to emerge, the PAC-12 Network's market saturation will only improve over time. The bigger question is simply whether the IP rights the PAC-12 has retained are worth the cost efficiencies lost from not partnering with an ESPN or Fox Sports for production and distribution.

But, critically and more importantly, no media deal renegotiation will change the fact that folks in Arizona, California, and Colorado just don't care all that much about college sports, and Oregon, Utah, and Washington are not sufficiently populated (or rich) markets to draw brobdingnagian numbers of eyeballs (and Utah's biggest home team is arguably BYU, which is not even in the conference). Cal hoops << Warriors. Stanford football << Niners. UCLA << Lakers. Sun Devils << Cardinals. Buffs << Broncos. Etc.

At the end of the day, for the foreseeable future pro sports will likely dominate in the larger media markets along the big cities in the West Coast, and college sports will dominate the more rural and state-school-dominated SEC markets with no or bad pro sports teams. The midwest largely comfortably splits the difference and is in the middle on both fronts.