RMF5630 said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?

Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

---

If your first paragraph is true, then expansion is over for those two conferences. They now both total 32 when the current new additions are there.

canoso said:

---

montypython said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

The only difference between Berkley and Baylor is ALT-Left and ALT-Right crew.

---

Baylor isn't even close to Berkeley when it comes to academic reputation / prestige.

Also, it is Berkeley - not Berkley.

---

I've always longed for the prestige of being able to expound on the plethora of meanings of "is."

---

Bill Clinton has a few things to say about that.

LagunaBear said:

---

parch said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

The Big 10 expanded and got their big media deal. Something tells me they won't poach again for years, and I think Washington and Oregon know it.

---

I agree with you, I just think we're drawing different conclusions from that fact. I genuinely don't think the Pac-12 will have any defections until the Big 10 moves again, which is going to be a while. Nobody wants to jeopardize that meal ticket, no matter how remote the possibility.

The value of staying course will outweigh the value of leaving for TV revenue in the Big 12 which isn't going to be nearly enough to justify the cost of moving. The Pac-12 is going to end up signing a streaming deal with Amazon or ESPN+ that'll put them within $5-10 million/team of the Big 12 either way. No university is putting their athletic department through the anguish of a realignment for a slight pay bump that won't significantly impact your ability to do more than you already are.

The only reason Pac-12 teams were rumored to be interested in the Big 12 in the first place was because the league was in perceived danger of falling apart, not because they were eager to jump at Big 12 money. Nobody's leaving until the Big 10 takes their next WC teams, if they ever do, and at that point it'll be a free-for-all.

---

I tend to agree. If I'm a PAC 12 team, I don't see a huge benefit in leaving. I mean, they have stability if they want it for the next few years. They are basically trying to decide whether it's worth $5M to have the volleyball team travel to Texas or Iowa on a Wednesday night.

Who knows, if I'm Kliavkov (sp?) I'm working on a plan that allows playoff teams to keep most or all of their playoff related revenue money, which likely results in Washington or Oregon to making pretty big money almost every year.

The main reason I think something might happen is because Yormark has said the Big 12 is aggressively pursuing expansion.

Who knows?

---

I think part of Yormark's shtick is controlling the conversation and frankly saber rattling. He caught Kliavkoff completely by surprise when he started making extremely public comments about aggressive expansion after years of Bowlsby's passivity. It's not like he hasn't also accomplished things, but at least part of what Yormark seems to be doing is narrative shaping through public pressure and a whole lot of signal interference.

Honestly he probably knew all along none of those Pac-12 schools were even close to joining the Big 12 last summer, but it benefitted the league for the pressure to indicate there was a choice to be made.

parc said:

---

I think part of Yormark's shtick is controlling the conversation and frankly saber rattling. He caught Kliavkoff completely by surprise when he started making extremely public comments about aggressive expansion after years of Bowlsby's passivity.

---

The Big 12 was passive for so long it really hurt the conference.

Well, that and the fact that the two 'headlining' programs haven't won an mnc since 2005...

parch said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

parch said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

The Big 10 expanded and got their big media deal. Something tells me they won't poach again for years, and I think Washington and Oregon know it.

---

I agree with you, I just think we're drawing different conclusions from that fact. I genuinely don't think the Pac-12 will have any defections until the Big 10 moves again, which is going to be a while. Nobody wants to jeopardize that meal ticket, no matter how remote the possibility.

The value of staying course will outweigh the value of leaving for TV revenue in the Big 12 which isn't going to be nearly enough to justify the cost of moving. The Pac-12 is going to end up signing a streaming deal with Amazon or ESPN+ that'll put them within $5-10 million/team of the Big 12 either way. No university is putting their athletic department through the anguish of a realignment for a slight pay bump that won't significantly impact your ability to do more than you already are.

The only reason Pac-12 teams were rumored to be interested in the Big 12 in the first place was because the league was in perceived danger of falling apart, not because they were eager to jump at Big 12 money. Nobody's leaving until the Big 10 takes their next WC teams, if they ever do, and at that point it'll be a free-for-all.

---

I tend to agree. If I'm a PAC 12 team, I don't see a huge benefit in leaving. I mean, they have stability if they want it for the next few years. They are basically trying to decide whether it's worth $5M to have the volleyball team travel to Texas or Iowa on a Wednesday night.

Who knows, if I'm Kliavkov (sp?) I'm working on a plan that allows playoff teams to keep most or all of their playoff related revenue money, which likely results in Washington or Oregon to making pretty big money almost every year.

The main reason I think something might happen is because Yormark has said the Big 12 is aggressively pursuing expansion.

Who knows?

---

I think part of Yormark's shtick is controlling the conversation and frankly saber rattling. He caught Kliavkoff completely by surprise when he started making extremely public comments about aggressive expansion after years of Bowlsby's passivity. It's not like he hasn't also accomplished things, but at least part of what Yormark seems to be doing is narrative shaping through public pressure and a whole lot of signal interference.

Honestly he probably knew all along none of those Pac-12 schools were even close to joining the Big 12 last summer, but it benefitted the league for the pressure to indicate there was a choice to be made.

---

Yep,

Sometimes there are big pay offs by just talking like you are going on the attack.

Bowlsby never understood that.

We just looked like a dead whale under his leadership.

Yormark makes us look like more of a shark.

RMF5630 said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?


Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

---

Even if the Pac12 TV deal with streaming comes close to the Big 12 money the PAC schools won't accept that.

Linear and cable exposure is what they (the administration) uses for academic recruiting and selling the brand of their institution..in addition to greater exposure for their athletic programs... Streaming ain't gonna cut it..

Stefano DiMera said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?


Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

---

Even if the Pac12 TV deal with streaming comes close to the Big 12 money the PAC schools won't accept that.

Linear and cable exposure is what they (the administration) uses for academic recruiting and selling the brand of their institution..in addition to greater exposure for their athletic programs... Streaming ain't gonna cut it..

---

You may be 100% right. My suspicion is having dealt with Google, Spectrum, Verizon, and others is that they (Silicon Valley) are trying to change the industry revenue and service model paradigm. What you say has been true, I think they are looking to change it to a streaming, diverse revenue stream that relies less on linear and more on geometric multiples. I am seeing echos of the same trains of thought in my conversations on innovation and corridor provided information that the media stuff coming from PAC being reported.

My only issue is if you bring this up you are attacked as an assclown, when I sat with Google the same day and they explained their future business model using my toll roads ROW. They (communications/media) have a plan that I believe is much bigger than the PAC media deal. I find it interesting as *****

I may be wrong or 5 years too early, but there are some different ways of looking at service out there. EVERYONE is looking for revenue diversification from Magnolia in Waco to Google in SV..

RMF5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?


Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

---

Even if the Pac12 TV deal with streaming comes close to the Big 12 money the PAC schools won't accept that.

Linear and cable exposure is what they (the administration) uses for academic recruiting and selling the brand of their institution..in addition to greater exposure for their athletic programs... Streaming ain't gonna cut it..

---

You may be 100% right. My suspicion is having dealt with Google, Spectrum, Verizon, and others is that they (Silicon Valley) are trying to change the industry revenue and service model paradigm. What you say has been true, I think they are looking to change it to a streaming, diverse revenue stream that relies less on linear and more on geometric multiples. I am seeing echos of the same trains of thought in my conversations on innovation and corridor provided information that the media stuff coming from PAC being reported.

My only issue is if you bring this up you are attacked as an assclown, when I sat with Google the same day and they explained their future business model using my toll roads ROW. They (communications/media) have a plan that I believe is much bigger than the PAC media deal. I find it interesting as *****

I may be wrong or 5 years too early, but there are some different ways of looking at service out there. EVERYONE is looking for revenue diversification from Magnolia in Waco to Google in SV..

---

I don't think we're in an environment yet where a streaming-only or even streaming-heavy deal is particularly viable. The biggest issue is that most cord-cutters don't have a desire for or expectation of sports content on non-sports-centric streaming services, so you're peddling your product to an existing customer base that isn't particularly interested in it, forcing you to build a new audience that is.

This will gain Amazon some new subscribers, as PAC-12 fans migrate over there to view the games, but it does nothing to grow the audience and makes it harder for non-PAC-12 fans who might watch those games on linear television to find and access the product.

The are some advantages for the PAC-12 in a streaming environment -- the biggest being that they can schedule their own game times to maximize viewing windows. But the exposure issue that so many bring up is very, very real. There aren't many current Amazon subscribers who use that service for live sports, and many general college football fans simply won't follow the PAC-12 over there.

I guess I'm not understanding the details...

How would the PAC streaming service differ from what the B12 has on ESPN + ?

Due to a lack of a prime TV deal are they shifting higher value content to streaming partners?

What are the numbers like for Thursday Night Football on Amazon?

Like many have said, i think streaming will definitely be part of the future, i just dont think that we're there yet. It may play a much bigger role in the next alignment/deals in the early 2030's. Disney said that theyre starting to become penny pinchers, so it'll be interesting to see what they offer to the pac. With the statement from Bob Iger a few days ago, it makes Yormark's decision to go ahead and make a deal extremely good. We probably wouldnt have gotten the same offer today as we did in the fall. Thank God we have a competent commissioner

BearFan33 said:

---

I guess I'm not understanding the details...

How would the PAC streaming service differ from what the B12 has on ESPN + ?

Due to a lack of a prime TV deal are they shifting higher value content to streaming partners?

---

That's the speculation. Where most conferences are currently streaming their Tier 3 content, the PAC-12 will be streaming its top games.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?


Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

---

Even if the Pac12 TV deal with streaming comes close to the Big 12 money the PAC schools won't accept that.

Linear and cable exposure is what they (the administration) uses for academic recruiting and selling the brand of their institution..in addition to greater exposure for their athletic programs... Streaming ain't gonna cut it..

---

I think that is all that is on the table at this point for them.

PartyBear said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?


Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

---

Even if the Pac12 TV deal with streaming comes close to the Big 12 money the PAC schools won't accept that.

Linear and cable exposure is what they (the administration) uses for academic recruiting and selling the brand of their institution..in addition to greater exposure for their athletic programs... Streaming ain't gonna cut it..

---

I think that is all that is on the table at this point for them.

---

ESPN made a lowball offer back in September that averaged $24.5m per team. That is their floor.

Fox has declined to offer.

And, yes, a streaming only deal would look kind of like having all of your games on ESPN+.

The big difference is that the PAC would be featured when people open their Amazon Prime app. But, the PAC would 90% disappear from ESPN and Fox discussions where your sports viewers are located.

Podcast says Fox is out unless it’s pennies on the dollar.

Amazon doesn’t want tonnage. Could get Pac-12 but it would be a comparable price to networks. Amazon only wants the top game per week. Pac-12 trying to keep that.

Apple wildcard, but still a streamer and may not work. https://t.co/kWNEJr763D

— Jason Scheer (@jasonscheer) February 15, 2023

gobears20 said:

---

Podcast says Fox is out unless it’s pennies on the dollar.

Amazon doesn’t want tonnage. Could get Pac-12 but it would be a comparable price to networks. Amazon only wants the top game per week. Pac-12 trying to keep that.

Apple wildcard, but still a streamer and may not work. https://t.co/kWNEJr763D

— Jason Scheer (@jasonscheer) February 15, 2023

---

Just saw that a few minutes ago myself. It's hard to know what's true or not, but certainly it doesn't look good for the PAC.

Personally, I think streaming is a terrible idea for them. Simply because viewers will have to pay for the app and then know to go look for a particular game. There's no easy way to surf and check in on several games simultaneously. Plus, it lowers the chances that your games will be on at sports bars and restaurants. So viewership will tend to decline if they are not careful.

One thing I recall during the Alamo Bowl with UW playing Texas a couple of months ago. I recall the announcers mentioning the Washington QB and described him as QB most college football fans would have heard of if he wasnt always playing late at night. This is the Pac's problem and it sounds like it is about to get worse.

Bear2014 said:

---

What are the numbers like for Thursday Night Football on Amazon?

---

Better than expected, the drop was between 2-4 million eyeballs per game between Fox 2021 and Amazon 2022. For a first-time streaming experiment behind a paywall, that shattered expectations.

We're still not to the point where you won't lose viewers by switching to streaming. But the trend lines are in motion toward increasing streaming viewership and they're never going back. It will continue be a gradual migration, but a migration it is, and somebody has to jump in the pool first. The Pac will probably do so out of necessity.

If Fox is indeed out, which would make sense as they have Big10/Big12/MW, Pac is going to need to test streaming waters with ESPN. Granted ESPN is a little tight on cash and has the SEC, Big12, ACC, plus their weeknight FunBelt and MACtion games. That is plenty of inventory. CBS has Mountain West to throw on late night for CBS Sports channel. Plus they gained the Big10 for their game of the week slot that was the SEC for the past while. Maybe they want a primetime late night slot to compete with ESPN and Fox?

Eventually some league was going to get caught with risking it on streaming and the PAC seems like they drew the short end of the stick. All the other leagues are going to watch intently to see how it works and what the numbers are like. Again their best bet is probably a combo deal. ESPN or another network plus giving Apple or Amazon games.

My hunch is ESPN wants to keep PAC12 after dark in some capacity and to make some more revenue one of the streamers plucks a game or two to experiment. Oregon and Washington will demand a short term deal or a weak agreement.

Final comment is to watch the ACC. Their deal sucks compared to big 2 and Big12.

Just starting to feel like a sell off is about to occur for the valuable schools https://t.co/1gTUrgHXnf

— Brian Ethridge (@BE_SicEm365) February 15, 2023

bear2be2 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?


Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

---

Even if the Pac12 TV deal with streaming comes close to the Big 12 money the PAC schools won't accept that.

Linear and cable exposure is what they (the administration) uses for academic recruiting and selling the brand of their institution..in addition to greater exposure for their athletic programs... Streaming ain't gonna cut it..

---

You may be 100% right. My suspicion is having dealt with Google, Spectrum, Verizon, and others is that they (Silicon Valley) are trying to change the industry revenue and service model paradigm. What you say has been true, I think they are looking to change it to a streaming, diverse revenue stream that relies less on linear and more on geometric multiples. I am seeing echos of the same trains of thought in my conversations on innovation and corridor provided information that the media stuff coming from PAC being reported.

My only issue is if you bring this up you are attacked as an assclown, when I sat with Google the same day and they explained their future business model using my toll roads ROW. They (communications/media) have a plan that I believe is much bigger than the PAC media deal. I find it interesting as *****

I may be wrong or 5 years too early, but there are some different ways of looking at service out there. EVERYONE is looking for revenue diversification from Magnolia in Waco to Google in SV..

---

I don't think we're in an environment yet where a streaming-only or even streaming-heavy deal is particularly viable. The biggest issue is that most cord-cutters don't have a desire for or expectation of sports content on non-sports-centric streaming services, so you're peddling your product to an existing customer base that isn't particularly interested in it, forcing you to build a new audience that is.

This will gain Amazon some new subscribers, as PAC-12 fans migrate over there to view the games, but it does nothing to grow the audience and makes it harder for non-PAC-12 fans who might watch those games on linear television to find and access the product.

The are some advantages for the PAC-12 in a streaming environment -- the biggest being that they can schedule their own game times to maximize viewing windows. But the exposure issue that so many bring up is very, very real. There aren't many current Amazon subscribers who use that service for live sports, and many general college football fans simply won't follow the PAC-12 over there.

---

I don't think you will have a choice. Think of games only available on NFL, ESPN 6, Think of how many streaming channels we use: NETFLIX, PRIME, paramount, HBO, etc... F1 has add on inside subscription service. PGA has competition, who would have called that?

All these are here. They are talking about monetizing safety in the car, you pay more for better connected safety products. Streaming as sole source no way, as part of network package, insider subscription and even auto connected?? Not to mention partnering and infrastructure? You can put together a hell of a package.

We will see.

Man, if truly feel for the reminents of the Pac 12. Their OUT has truly screwed them to the wall. The academic folks at SC and UCLA are not dummies. They probably had decided the Pac 12 rights were falling fast.

We faced the same issue. I really really do not understand how we were able to pull off the package that we did with OUT leaving.

The only thing I can say with certainity, unless you're in B1G or SEC your going to be churning.

It appears CBS is out as well. They are not going to negotiate anything with the PAC.

PAC will die eventually. They can't afford being in a one time zone conference when the other conferences are on tv all day.

With that said, regardless, I think the Big 12 should focus on developing more rivalries that will make TV contracts more lucrative.
Baylor/TCU
BYU/Utah
Arizona/Arizona State
Cincinnati/WVU
Etc…

The big conferences will have big games, but it will still be the big boys and then all the rest. Texas and OU aren't going to waltz in and become Georgia and Alabama.

Develop big rivalries that make the games fun to watch and people will tune in. Mark it down.

I posted this in another discussion, but thought I would also put it here

Was at the OSU - KU game last night. Was invited to attend a small event where Brett Yormark was the speaker. He said "major announcement in 30 days, maybe 60, but probably 30. We are going west. I want to be in all 4 time zones." The other nugget he said was that he has a strong desire to take the conference international. Plans on playing games in Mexico City. He also said he is still considering adding Gonzaga for basketball, but is very much on the fence. Didn't indicate who or how many west would be add or who would be added.

Viva Los Osos!!

baylorguy09 said:

---

PAC will die eventually. They can't afford being in a one time zone conference when the other conferences are on tv all day.

With that said, regardless, I think the Big 12 should focus on developing more rivalries that will make TV contracts more lucrative.
Baylor/TCU
BYU/Utah
Arizona/Arizona State
Cincinnati/WVU
Etc…

The big conferences will have big games, but it will still be the big boys and then all the rest. Texas and OU aren't going to waltz in and become Georgia and Alabama.

Develop big rivalries that make the games fun to watch and people will tune in. Mark it down.

---

LOVE that idea! Great rivalries make great TV. I was actually very impressed with the crowd last season when Pitt played W VA I. The backyard brawl. Big 12 can really benefit from more of these.

etj717 said:

---

I posted this in another discussion, but thought I would also put it here

Was at the OSU - KU game last night. Was invited to attend a small event where Brett Yormark was the speaker. He said "major announcement in 30 days, maybe 60, but probably 30. We are going west. I want to be in all 4 time zones." The other nugget he said was that he has a strong desire to take the conference international. Plans on playing games in Mexico City. He also said he is still considering adding Gonzaga for basketball, but is very much on the fence. Didn't indicate who or how many west would be add or who would be added.

---

Be nice to see some actual movement. The speculationgame gets old. Looking forward to seeing some moves and fallout from all the posturing. One lesson I learned over 40 years, everything is great until its not. Get some contracts signed....

What is happening as of now with all the media negotiations going bad for the Pac is somewhat reminiscent of the Big East and the eve of its collapse.

LagunaBear said:

---

LOVE that idea! Great rivalries make great TV. I was actually very impressed with the crowd last season when Pitt played W VA I. The backyard brawl. Big 12 can really benefit from more of these.

---

This ^^^

Looking back the SWC was destroyed when UT and aggy decided it was time to join the then powerful Big 8.

Then UT and Nebraska destroyed what was an actually very good conference with the exception of us. We picked the absolutely worst time to suck when we joined the Big 12.

The Big 12 had a chance to be better than B1G and would have been equal to SEC if not for UT and Nebraska greed.

Now our regional rivalries are BYU, UCF and Cincinnati?

At the time of its founding the XII and the SEC were essentially the two top conferences it essentially remained this way until turmoil around 2010 caused the XII to essentially cede its status to the B10. I will never get why University of Texas did not make sure its own conference it helped found based in its own state did not make sure it was today one of the Big 2. Had they it might today be the original XII with UCLA, USC, and the two biggest brands of the B10 coming instead of how it played out.

Nevertheless it appears it is going to turn out generally fine for the XII any way.

I believe it's called hubris.

gobears20 said:

---

---

As I said, they are looking for connectivity anywhere. The advertising dollars from a gas pump spend the same as from ESPN or FOX. Watch what the final package includes and totals. Yormark will tip his media-background cap. We are in "Don Draper-land" now, it is toasted... Will kill you just the same, but as long as it pays.

RMF5630 said:

---

gobears20 said:

---

---

As I said, they are looking for connectivity anywhere. The advertising dollars from a gas pump spend the same as from ESPN or FOX. Watch what the final package includes and totals. Yormark will tip his media-background cap. We are in "Don Draper-land" now, it is toasted... Will kill you just the same, but as long as it pays.

---

This is not a real image. It's a joke making fun of the P12's media contract situation.

Now the PAC 12 Network has pulled out of negotiations to carry the games.


I really wish I had thought of that one but I saw it on Twitter.