The Pac-12 awaits an upcoming media deal announcement
SicEm365 Co-Editor Grayson Grundhoefer provides updates on conference expansion, major news out of the Pac-12, impact on the Big 12, and more on Crystal Ball College Football.
SicEm365 Co-Editor Grayson Grundhoefer provides updates on conference expansion, major news out of the Pac-12, impact on the Big 12, and more on Crystal Ball College Football.
All the scenarios about adding Oregon or Wash seem to be about the B10 staying where they are. It may be click-bait or it may be smoke, but the equation changes if the B10 goes active again.BearFan33 said:
Gosh a lot to think about.
I do agree the B12 is in a more stable spot than PAC 12 and seemingly the ACC right now.
The PAC numbers are important. If decent I think they stay together for the time being with no GOR. If bad offer, I think we can expect some applications. If we get some I think we should take the best 2 to further destabilize the PAC. Teams not willing to sign a GOR or asking for unequal distribution should not be added.
I'm thinking we could really get good revenues if we could add Oregon and (somehow) lure FSU, Clemson and others to the B12. Still not SEC or B10 money but a solid 3rd place.
A lot would have to happen but one can dream right?
I agree. If the B10 starts making those rumblings, 4 Corners may move B12. I don't see FSU or Clemson coming B12, they may lose to UCF on the field but won't be in same Conference.Stefano DiMera said:
I think Big 10 will add.. they have to protect their west coast investment in USC and UCLA..
Some combination of linear/cable/streaming will make the numbers work where adding Oregon and Washington and maybe Cal and Stanford will be additive.
I don't think the media partners are agreeing to a PAC-12 deal without a GOR component. Those protect the network's investment as much as anything else. Those partners don't want to make a deal for one group of schools and end up being on the hook for a lesser set of schools.BearFan33 said:
Gosh a lot to think about.
I do agree the B12 is in a more stable spot than PAC 12 and seemingly the ACC right now.
The PAC numbers are important. If decent I think they stay together for the time being with no GOR. If bad offer, I think we can expect some applications. If we get some I think we should take the best 2 to further destabilize the PAC. Teams not willing to sign a GOR or asking for unequal distribution should not be added.
I'm thinking we could really get good revenues if we could add Oregon and (somehow) lure FSU, Clemson and others to the B12. Still not SEC or B10 money but a solid 3rd place.
A lot would have to happen but one can dream right?
This is the part few people talk about our acknowledge. The larger these conferences grow, the more money each new member must be worth to avoid being a dilutive addition. Each new school must be able to pay for itself, and that gets really hard when you're talking about $60-plus million a year.PartyBear said:
The Big 2 have to be very careful. Each of their current members and near future announced members are going to be making so much that a new member has to bring an astronomical value for it to work for these members of the new SEC and B10 to just make the same with the addition. I'm not sure any of these 16 in each conference are going to vote to make less than currently slated.
Then you have to look at these networks who are driving the realignment anyway, it isn't the schools. If the media partners of the ACC can televise Clemson at a lower cost. Why would the same media partners agree now 12 years before that contract ends to televise them for a lot more by moving them to one of the Big 2? Again FSU and Clemson can make threats but it really isn't the schools are conferences for that matter really making these calls, it is the networks.
I agree, it will have to be a big payday to make it work. I can see the following combos.bear2be2 said:This is the part few people talk about our acknowledge. The larger these conference grows, the more money each new member must be worth to avoid being a dilutive addition. Each new school must be able to pay for itself, and that gets really hard when you're talking about $60-plus million a year.PartyBear said:
The Big 2 have to be very careful. Each of their current members and near future announced members are going to be making so much that a new member has to bring an astronomical value for it to work for these members of the new SEC and B10 to just make the same with the addition. I'm not sure any of these 16 in each conference are going to vote to make less than currently slated.
Then you have to look at these networks who are driving the realignment anyway, it isn't the schools. If the media partners of the ACC can televise Clemson at a lower cost. Why would the same media partners agree now 12 years before that contract ends to televise them for a lot more by moving them to one of the Big 2? Again FSU and Clemson can make threats but it really isn't the schools are conferences for that matter really making these calls, it is the networks.
Pac contract might have a lot of loopholes for the network that leaves the conference very vulnerable.bear2be2 said:I don't think the media partners are agreeing to a PAC-12 deal without a GOR component. Those protect the network's investment as much as anything else. Those partners don't want to make a deal for one group of schools and end up being on the hook for a lesser set of schools.BearFan33 said:
Gosh a lot to think about.
I do agree the B12 is in a more stable spot than PAC 12 and seemingly the ACC right now.
The PAC numbers are important. If decent I think they stay together for the time being with no GOR. If bad offer, I think we can expect some applications. If we get some I think we should take the best 2 to further destabilize the PAC. Teams not willing to sign a GOR or asking for unequal distribution should not be added.
I'm thinking we could really get good revenues if we could add Oregon and (somehow) lure FSU, Clemson and others to the B12. Still not SEC or B10 money but a solid 3rd place.
A lot would have to happen but one can dream right?
RMF5630 said:I agree, it will have to be a big payday to make it work. I can see the following combos.bear2be2 said:This is the part few people talk about our acknowledge. The larger these conference grows, the more money each new member must be worth to avoid being a dilutive addition. Each new school must be able to pay for itself, and that gets really hard when you're talking about $60-plus million a year.PartyBear said:
The Big 2 have to be very careful. Each of their current members and near future announced members are going to be making so much that a new member has to bring an astronomical value for it to work for these members of the new SEC and B10 to just make the same with the addition. I'm not sure any of these 16 in each conference are going to vote to make less than currently slated.
Then you have to look at these networks who are driving the realignment anyway, it isn't the schools. If the media partners of the ACC can televise Clemson at a lower cost. Why would the same media partners agree now 12 years before that contract ends to televise them for a lot more by moving them to one of the Big 2? Again FSU and Clemson can make threats but it really isn't the schools are conferences for that matter really making these calls, it is the networks.
B10 - UNC and Duke is what I think they are wating on for the ultimate. (18)
SEC - Clemson and FSU gets them to 18
B12 - AZ, ASU, COL, Utah and NC State and Miami (18)
That is what I see...
I contacted 4 former @pac12 fb coaches to get their take on the current state of affairs. They are dismayed and sometimes fatalist: "It's teetering on the brink," former @oregonfootball coach Mike Bellotti. https://t.co/pNduzUWInO
— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 28, 2023
🚨 NEW EPISODE 🚨@Brett_McMurphy called in from a behind a mechanic's garage (fact!) to talk Pac-12/CFB TV deals and more looming realignment
— The Solid Verbal College Football Podcast (@SolidVerbal) February 28, 2023
🔉 Listen + Subscribe! https://t.co/uswp7WP4hO pic.twitter.com/pxO3dxPbpO
Reality is they are not going to get it in the per year limiting to the current population of schools. There is only so much. If that is the ONLY metric that will move the needle than there is no reason to expand and the 2 Super Conference model dies.PartyBear said:RMF5630 said:I agree, it will have to be a big payday to make it work. I can see the following combos.bear2be2 said:This is the part few people talk about our acknowledge. The larger these conference grows, the more money each new member must be worth to avoid being a dilutive addition. Each new school must be able to pay for itself, and that gets really hard when you're talking about $60-plus million a year.PartyBear said:
The Big 2 have to be very careful. Each of their current members and near future announced members are going to be making so much that a new member has to bring an astronomical value for it to work for these members of the new SEC and B10 to just make the same with the addition. I'm not sure any of these 16 in each conference are going to vote to make less than currently slated.
Then you have to look at these networks who are driving the realignment anyway, it isn't the schools. If the media partners of the ACC can televise Clemson at a lower cost. Why would the same media partners agree now 12 years before that contract ends to televise them for a lot more by moving them to one of the Big 2? Again FSU and Clemson can make threats but it really isn't the schools are conferences for that matter really making these calls, it is the networks.
B10 - UNC and Duke is what I think they are wating on for the ultimate. (18)
SEC - Clemson and FSU gets them to 18
B12 - AZ, ASU, COL, Utah and NC State and Miami (18)
That is what I see...
I don't see your scenario being the big pay day it needs to be for the big 2. The only one really not lined up with a Big 2 right now that I think without question brings the pay day necessary to one of the Big 2 is ND.
Oregon State president sounds off on Pac-12. We covered:
— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) February 28, 2023
- Media rights
- unequal distributions
- “noise”
- Higher Ed vs $$ https://t.co/cjuy0fuCxr
Today? No. Besides when the Olympics were truly amateurs' it has not existed. But look at the top money sports -CorsicanaBear said:
Is there an international market for college sports? I doubt it seriously. BB, Basketball, Olympic Sports, Lacrosse etc already have pros and pro leagues. To the extent it could be done it has probably been explored by the pro leagues. There's a much better chance you could make money showing International Cricket in the US than Lacrosse.
I agree.BluesBear said:
Big 12 with AZ, ASU, CU, UT, VT and Miami would be sweet!
Sadly, I'm thinking FSU is a no go for the B12, maybe Clemson too at this time. They will be invited to B10 or SEC in next round of re-alignment. Greyson had a report that FSU would be the third highest brand value in the SEC (or something along those lines). I'm thinking they eventually force the ACC into unequal sharing as they wait for an invite to a P2.fadskier said:
I don't want Oregon. They are another UT. I wish we'd take Arizona and Arizona State. We don't need Utah or Colorado but I know we will take them...THEN set our eyes back east and see what we can get. If Clemson and Florida State are a no-go, then go for Virginia Tech and North Carolina State