DoubtfulBear said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

It is absolutely hearsay until verified from the actual source. Can you all stop the ridiculous chest pounding and just realize that neither are 100% certain if it is a one time payment or annual payments? I hope it is annual. I think it is annual.
Still, SMH at this air of arrogance.

---

It's annual.
And as opposed to others here that welch on bets, I'm willing to bet $1,000 on it being an annual payment.

---

That's a great idea. If it's not annual then I would like to see a receipt of your $1,000 donation to the NIL collective

---

Im more than happy to do so.
But you need to have some "skin" in the game.

How about you do the same with a $1,000 donation to NIL if I'm right?

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

FS1 will have the rights to 27-32 Big Ten games in addition to the Fox Big noon weekly game. I'll admit I haven't seen any indication from a real source whether FS1 is even allowed to move west coast games to 7pm PT. Non Fox partners (NBC and CBS) would certainly have no objection as FS1 games that are moved from afternoon to evenings would increase the big networks ratings with less competition.

If they aren't contractually allowable, that might be good for p12 media rights value as both ESPN and FS1 have those slots to fill. FS1 gets horrible ratings across the board, so they also might be content with putting MWC games at 7pm PT for almost no cost.

I'm still waiting with baited breath as to how the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment would apply to the regents and UCLA.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

Heard today that Cal is now complaining to the Regents about UCLA using newfound NIL $$$, saying that it's creating an uneven playing field with their sister school.

I guess UCLA has a new NIL collective and it's using it for recruiting both high schools and the transfer portal.

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

Are you suggesting that UCLA and Cal should be barred from using NIL $$$?

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

Cal is raising NIL and using it. They're also likely arguing that Ucla is able to raise more NIL based at least in part on their move to the B1G. There's no formula described for calculating the Item 11 tax; it's going to be based on a recommendation from the UC President with final determination by the Regents. In other words political. Hence the lobbying. According to your source Cal is being proactive for once. This should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

Vandalus said:

---

I'm still waiting with baited breath as to how the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment would apply to the regents and UCLA.

---

Similarly, I'd love to know how hearsay can occur outside a courtroom.

Walter, a loser is a loser. And you're the epitome of it. And next thing you'll probably claim you're a victim.

When your judgement is impaired by what you want, versus what is going to happen - you grasp at anything you can to try and make yourself fee better. I'll leave it at that. Cheers.

philly1121 said:

---

Walter, a loser is a loser. And you're the epitome of it. And next thing you'll probably claim you're a victim.

When your judgement is impaired by what you want, versus what is going to happen - you grasp at anything you can to try and make yourself fee better. I'll leave it at that. Cheers.

---

Leave it at what? That I was right about you being a fraud and never going to answer the questions I posed? Ok, cool.

philly1121 said:

---

Walter, a loser is a loser. And you're the epitome of it. And next thing you'll probably claim you're a victim.

When your judgement is impaired by what you want, versus what is going to happen - you grasp at anything you can to try and make yourself fee better. I'll leave it at that. Cheers.

---

There's only one "e" in judgment and it ain't between the "g" and the "m".

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

Cal is raising NIL and using it. They're also likely arguing that Ucla is able to raise more NIL based at least in part on their move to the B1G. There's no formula described for calculating the Item 11 tax; it's going to be based on a recommendation from the UC President with final determination by the Regents. In other words political. Hence the lobbying. According to your source Cal is being proactive for once. This should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

---

Doesn't sound like you understand how NIL $ works.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

Cal is raising NIL and using it. They're also likely arguing that Ucla is able to raise more NIL based at least in part on their move to the B1G. There's no formula described for calculating the Item 11 tax; it's going to be based on a recommendation from the UC President with final determination by the Regents. In other words political. Hence the lobbying. According to your source Cal is being proactive for once. This should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

---

Cal and UCLA, the campuses overseen by the Regents, are not raising NIL or spending it, their boosters are doing so independently. This is not money UCLA has. If anything, it is potential donor money they are losing. Thus the Regents have no power to reallocate NIL money, or even measure it to take money from UCLA as a proxy for it.

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

Are you suggesting that UCLA and Cal should be barred from using NIL $$$?

---

Relax BigDaddy. He's salty. They're already calling the UCLA payments to Cal - Calimony. lol

If we're already complaining that UCLA has more dollars to work with for NIL - are we going to ask for a share of that too? Bad optics.

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

Cal is raising NIL and using it. They're also likely arguing that Ucla is able to raise more NIL based at least in part on their move to the B1G. There's no formula described for calculating the Item 11 tax; it's going to be based on a recommendation from the UC President with final determination by the Regents. In other words political. Hence the lobbying. According to your source Cal is being proactive for once. This should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

---

Doesn't sound like you understand how NIL $ works.

---

I thought your concern was Cal's complaining about Ucla's NIL (odd for a "Cal fan" IMO). What does that have to do with how NIL works?

philly1121 said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

Are you suggesting that UCLA and Cal should be barred from using NIL $$$?

---

Relax BigDaddy. He's salty. They're already calling the UCLA payments to Cal - Calimony. lol

If we're already complaining that UCLA has more dollars to work with for NIL - are we going to ask for a share of that too? Bad optics.

---

Only to idiots like you. Ucla works for Cal.

No I think you've got that wrong. lol

Before you go out tonight, make sure you wipe the L off your forehead.

calumnus said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

Cal is raising NIL and using it. They're also likely arguing that Ucla is able to raise more NIL based at least in part on their move to the B1G. There's no formula described for calculating the Item 11 tax; it's going to be based on a recommendation from the UC President with final determination by the Regents. In other words political. Hence the lobbying. According to your source Cal is being proactive for once. This should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

---

Cal and UCLA, the campuses overseen by the Regents, are not raising NIL or spending it, their boosters are doing so independently. This is not money UCLA has. If anything, it is potential donor money they are losing. Thus the Regents have no power to reallocate NIL money, or even measure it to take money from UCLA as a proxy for it.

---

Yes I understand that. I didn't introduce the shorthand, he did. Who says the Regents can't consider it if they determine it's related to the move?

calumnus said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

Cal is raising NIL and using it. They're also likely arguing that Ucla is able to raise more NIL based at least in part on their move to the B1G. There's no formula described for calculating the Item 11 tax; it's going to be based on a recommendation from the UC President with final determination by the Regents. In other words political. Hence the lobbying. According to your source Cal is being proactive for once. This should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

---

Cal and UCLA, the campuses overseen by the Regents, are not raising NIL or spending it, their boosters are doing so independently. This is not money UCLA has. If anything, it is potential donor money they are losing. Thus the Regents have no power to reallocate NIL money, or even measure it to take money from UCLA as a proxy for it.

---

Correct.

philly1121 said:

---

No I think you've got that wrong. lol

Before you go out tonight, make sure you wipe the L off your forehead.

---

I know you are but what am I? LOL Be better.

BigDaddy said:

---

calumnus said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

Cal is raising NIL and using it. They're also likely arguing that Ucla is able to raise more NIL based at least in part on their move to the B1G. There's no formula described for calculating the Item 11 tax; it's going to be based on a recommendation from the UC President with final determination by the Regents. In other words political. Hence the lobbying. According to your source Cal is being proactive for once. This should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

---

Cal and UCLA, the campuses overseen by the Regents, are not raising NIL or spending it, their boosters are doing so independently. This is not money UCLA has. If anything, it is potential donor money they are losing. Thus the Regents have no power to reallocate NIL money, or even measure it to take money from UCLA as a proxy for it.

---

Correct.

---

Why'd you say this? You must not understand how NIL works either.

BigDaddy said:

---

Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

---

philly1121 said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Good. Smart move. I suppose you think Cal should just settle for the $2M and not lobby for the $10M?

---

Not sure what that has to do with NIL $$$? Did you know the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed NIL into law? Curious as to why Cal isn't raising NIL $$$ and using it?

Are you suggesting that UCLA and Cal should be barred from using NIL $$$?

---

Relax BigDaddy. He's salty. They're already calling the UCLA payments to Cal - Calimony. lol

If we're already complaining that UCLA has more dollars to work with for NIL - are we going to ask for a share of that too? Bad optics.

---

Right? It's unbecoming and beneath the university.

Cal is the flagship of the UC system. But instead of focusing on how to improve the sagging football and moribund basketball programs, upper management is running to the Regents every time UCLA does anything to whine and demand money or the Regents to step in?!

Embarrassing.

You guys are the worst type of self-loathing fans imaginable. There's not a single school that wouldn't leap at the chance to take $10M away from a rival. Not one. Picture U$C doing that. $10M from Ucla? No, thanks. Get a grip. Yet we're supposed to apologize? LOL

Yep. It is what it is mate. We need some structural decisions to be made in order to be ready in 2-3 years when the next round of realignment is likely to be announced. We shall see. .

WalterSobchak said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

I'm still waiting with baited breath as to how the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment would apply to the regents and UCLA.

---

Similarly, I'd love to know how hearsay can occur outside a courtroom.

---

Colloquially, people often use hearsay to mean "second hand information."

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

---

Here is a different opinion:
https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/?amp=1

Mandel sees those slots as the PACs best bargaining tool.

Again, the value to the B1G is being able to put games that matter to East Coast viewers into the late night slots. It is valuable to the PAC as Mandel argues, but it is even MORE valuable to the B1G. Not just content to sell to the broadcast networks but content for the Big-10 Network. They compete with the SEC for eyeballs in every other time slot.

That is why it makes sense for the B1G to expand further on the West Coast. I think that after Kliavkoff negotiates a deal the B1G will make a move on at least two more PAC schools before the GOR is signed away, with the offer being something more than Kliavkoff got, but less than full share in the B1G.

Heard that expression, "Get a room."? Well, some o' y'all ought to get an octagon or something. Seriously...

Just my 2 cents from the hinter lands of Ohio.

calumnus, I tend to agree with what you are saying.

More schools on the west coast, give more opportunities for more and later games (both Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night).

Think about it. With Thursday night, Friday night (which the Big Ten has placed games on Friday night), Saturday noon, Saturday at 4:00, Saturday at 7:30/8:00 and one at Saturday10:00/11:00, gives you 6 game slots for a conference with a potential of 20 teams (if the Big Ten expanded to 20 - which I believe they will) or 10 conference games.

To be honest the Big Ten is not going to have certain schools play on certain nights (unless prime time Saturday night). They are just too valuable. But you have enough other teams that can play in those slots which will give them exposure.

I believe the Big Ten is going to expand. It is just a matter of when. I also believe the Big Ten does not want to expand IF it is going to KILL the PAC. Yes, they have crippled them BUT not killed them. A lot of this goes back to what the ACC did to the Big East.

If the Big 12 takes 2 or 4 of the 4 corner schools (which looks like what they are trying to do). Then the Big Ten might act to offer a life boat to the 4 likely suspects.

I do believe that viewership on west coast games would increase IF they hosted Big Ten teams from the midwest. Currently they are only getting people from the west coast to watch (only ones with a vested interest). People out here will tune in it if a school they are familiar with is playing. If Cal hosted Minnesota, people will watch. They would have a more vested interest in watching, particularly if Cal is a Big Ten member to see what they are.

airspace said:

---

I believe the Big Ten is going to expand. It is just a matter of when. I also believe the Big Ten does not want to expand IF it is going to KILL the PAC. Yes, they have crippled them BUT not killed them. A lot of this goes back to what the ACC did to the Big East.

If the Big 12 takes 2 or 4 of the 4 corner schools (which looks like what they are trying to do). Then the Big Ten might act to offer a life boat to the 4 likely suspects.

---

This is exactly how I see it too. I also believe these discussions have already taken place, at least on preliminary and nonbinding basis.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

---

Here is a different opinion:
https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/?amp=1

Mandel sees those slots as the PACs best bargaining tool.

Again, the value to the B1G is being able to put games that matter to East Coast viewers into the late night slots. It is valuable to the PAC as Mandel argues, but it is even MORE valuable to the B1G. Not just content to sell to the broadcast networks but content for the Big-10 Network. They compete with the SEC for eyeballs in every other time slot.

That is why it makes sense for the B1G to expand further on the West Coast. I think that after Kliavkoff negotiates a deal the B1G will make a move on at least two more PAC schools before the GOR is signed away, with the offer being something more than Kliavkoff got, but less than full share in the B1G.

---

I interpreted Mandel's article differently than you did.

He is saying that the Pac-10 is valuable enough to survive, and maybe make more TV money than the Big12 and ACC. He argues that to get that level of money, the Pac is going to have to schedule a ton of kickoffs after 10 pm ET. He is not saying that anyone in the Pac-10 has enough TV value to merit full shares of B1G revenue, given that the B1G's TV money per team is so much greater.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

---

Here is a different opinion:
https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/?amp=1

Mandel sees those slots as the PACs best bargaining tool.

Again, the value to the B1G is being able to put games that matter to East Coast viewers into the late night slots. It is valuable to the PAC as Mandel argues, but it is even MORE valuable to the B1G. Not just content to sell to the broadcast networks but content for the Big-10 Network. They compete with the SEC for eyeballs in every other time slot.

That is why it makes sense for the B1G to expand further on the West Coast. I think that after Kliavkoff negotiates a deal the B1G will make a move on at least two more PAC schools before the GOR is signed away, with the offer being something more than Kliavkoff got, but less than full share in the B1G.

---

I interpreted Mandel's article differently than you did.

He is saying that the Pac-10 is valuable enough to survive, and maybe make more TV money than the Big12 and ACC. He argues that to get that level of money, the Pac is going to have to schedule a ton of kickoffs after 10 pm ET. He is not saying that anyone in the Pac-10 has enough TV value to merit full shares of B1G revenue, given that the B1G's TV money per team is so much greater.

---

Right, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, there is MORE value to the B1G in obtaining more of those slots (plus adding additional markets) so after Kliavkoff comes up with a deal, before the GOR are signed, the B1G will likely make an offer to 2 or more PAC teams at an amount in between Kliavkoff's deal and full B1G payout.

With the only thing holding them back being antitrust concerns if they kill the PAC.

The next question is, would Cal and Stanford jump for an offer like that?

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

---

Here is a different opinion:
https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/?amp=1

Mandel sees those slots as the PACs best bargaining tool.

Again, the value to the B1G is being able to put games that matter to East Coast viewers into the late night slots. It is valuable to the PAC as Mandel argues, but it is even MORE valuable to the B1G. Not just content to sell to the broadcast networks but content for the Big-10 Network. They compete with the SEC for eyeballs in every other time slot.

That is why it makes sense for the B1G to expand further on the West Coast. I think that after Kliavkoff negotiates a deal the B1G will make a move on at least two more PAC schools before the GOR is signed away, with the offer being something more than Kliavkoff got, but less than full share in the B1G.

---

I interpreted Mandel's article differently than you did.

He is saying that the Pac-10 is valuable enough to survive, and maybe make more TV money than the Big12 and ACC. He argues that to get that level of money, the Pac is going to have to schedule a ton of kickoffs after 10 pm ET. He is not saying that anyone in the Pac-10 has enough TV value to merit full shares of B1G revenue, given that the B1G's TV money per team is so much greater.

---

Right, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, there is MORE value to the B1G in obtaining more of those slots (plus adding additional markets) so after Kliavkoff comes up with a deal, before the GOR are signed, the B1G will likely make an offer to 2 or more PAC teams at an amount in between Kliavkoff's deal and full B1G payout.

With the only thing holding them back being antitrust concerns if they kill the PAC.

The next question is, would Cal and Stanford jump for an offer like that?

---

Could UW deliver the Seattle market singlehanded? Could Cal deliver the Bay Area alone?

I am still so pissed at ucla sneaking out in the middle of the night, I'm for denying them a second west coast game. Let them rot in their deal (yeah, I know).

As for furd, they can hold their noses in the air forever.

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"

So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?

If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.

---

The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.

Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.

Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.

TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.

---

The B1G doesn't NEED the 6 pm EST and 9 pm EST start times, but if they don't have it they are leaving money on the table. The whole point of all this is increasing revenue.

So you are telling me that if Cal was playing an away game that was on TV at 9 ending at midnight on a Saturday, you wouldn't watch? That is too late for you? The whole success of SNL is that people watch TV late night on Saturdays.

Bars want to have sports on their TVs. Saturday night is a huge night for patronage of drinking places. They would love to be able to have a game their patrons care about. They would love nothing more than to have viewing parties.

Moreover, fans of other teams in the other time zones are watching THEIR team earlier in the day. The later games have the ability to attract a general audience.

It is the huge value West Coast teams have that has barely been tapped. I think the B1G sees this and will expand to 4 or 6, but in the meantime Kliavkoff needs to capture it for the PAC, possibly through an alliance with the ACC, that would have OOC games spread through the season, or PAC-10 neutral site night games in LA or OC, or more likely the addition of SDSU with November featured night games played in Arizona or San Diego.

---

The TV networks have been broadcasting Pac-12 games every week at 10 or 10:30 pm ET for more than 10 years. It's not an untapped or undiscovered time slot, and they have plenty of data on it.

That data shows good games in that time slot do well on the west coast but don't attract many viewers in the east. Even the best weekly game in that late time slot is typically only about the 10th-most-watched game of its week. Last season, the best showing for a late Pac-12 game was 8th place for the week. Even the most watched late night game of the season had fewer than half the audience of the most watched CFB games that week.

(Oregon-Utah on Nov. 19 and Cal-USC on Nov. 5 were each #8 in their week. You can see the ratings for every CFB game this season here: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ )

And those games are maxing the west coast audience to compensate for having almost no eastern time zone audience. A Big Ten opponent with average audience appeal, say Michigan State, isn't going to make fans stay up late to watch. Lesser opponents will do even worse, in all time zones. Minnesota, Rutgers, or Indiana playing a 10:30 ET game at UCLA? The audience size would be so small that only Big Ten Network or a streaming service would want the game, and if the game is on one of those outlets it can be played at any time and doesn't need to fit into one of the noon/3:30/7:00/10:30 ET time windows anyway.

So, yeah, the existing data on games in the late night time slot shows that the time slot would be a poor way to use a game featuring any Big Ten team that has average or above-average appeal to the typical CFB fan. On top of that, the same data shows that games between two west coast teams in that time slot draw audiences that are solid by Pac-12 standards, but not large enough to justify the big dollars of the B1G TV contract that will be costing the TV networks about twice as much as the Pac's contract.

---

Here is a different opinion:
https://theathletic.com/3444339/2022/07/25/pac12-big12-tv-viewership/?amp=1

Mandel sees those slots as the PACs best bargaining tool.

Again, the value to the B1G is being able to put games that matter to East Coast viewers into the late night slots. It is valuable to the PAC as Mandel argues, but it is even MORE valuable to the B1G. Not just content to sell to the broadcast networks but content for the Big-10 Network. They compete with the SEC for eyeballs in every other time slot.

That is why it makes sense for the B1G to expand further on the West Coast. I think that after Kliavkoff negotiates a deal the B1G will make a move on at least two more PAC schools before the GOR is signed away, with the offer being something more than Kliavkoff got, but less than full share in the B1G.

---

I interpreted Mandel's article differently than you did.

He is saying that the Pac-10 is valuable enough to survive, and maybe make more TV money than the Big12 and ACC. He argues that to get that level of money, the Pac is going to have to schedule a ton of kickoffs after 10 pm ET. He is not saying that anyone in the Pac-10 has enough TV value to merit full shares of B1G revenue, given that the B1G's TV money per team is so much greater.

---

Right, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, there is MORE value to the B1G in obtaining more of those slots (plus adding additional markets) so after Kliavkoff comes up with a deal, before the GOR are signed, the B1G will likely make an offer to 2 or more PAC teams at an amount in between Kliavkoff's deal and full B1G payout.

With the only thing holding them back being antitrust concerns if they kill the PAC.

The next question is, would Cal and Stanford jump for an offer like that?

---

Could UW deliver the Seattle market singlehanded? Could Cal deliver the Bay Area alone?

I am still so pissed at ucla sneaking out in the middle of the night, I'm for denying them a second west coast game. Let them rot in their deal (yeah, I know).

As for furd, they can hold their noses in the air forever.

---

FWIW, I believe the conference looks for TV access not necessarily how much the region cares- Rutgers was added for the NYC metro area. Nobody in NY (or honestly NJ) cares about Rutgers football. But having them allows for TV access to the region. I think the idea is that we'd give any conference access to the Bay Area media market which is pretty large