I prefer this take to all the self loathing.calumnus said:philly1121 said:
Without NIL i would probably agree. But this is not 2004. That was nearly 20 years ago. The landscape has changed.
I'm struggling to understand how we could possibly compete in the NIL market if we were to go to the B1G. We currently have less NIL competition in the P12. Going to the B1G would only add competitors. Success would require a commitment we currently do not enjoy and may never. We somehow catch a 7-5 or 8-4 season every 10 years isn't something that excites me. Yes that's how things are now, but we go to a bigger pond, our odds get smaller. We'll see I guess.
On another note, now that Oklahoma and Texas are now going to leave the B1G a year early, this may hasten the departure of the Arizona schools, Utah and/or CU. This media deal has to get done. The clock is ticking.
Our potential in the NIL era is as good as anyone's, better than most. We have tended to play by the rules when others did not, so legal payments to players is an advantage for us. We have a large, wealthy alumni base and are the premier college team in the 4th largest media market, and the NFL team that directly competed for local fandom recently moved out of the area. Our team bears the name of the nation's most populous and wealthiest state. Our potential is great. If we get it right, players from the Midwest will look West.
Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff visiiting SMU
117,305 Views |
1094 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by calumnus
From the hinterlands of ohio
Econ141, I would say that Florida State may be the only one outside of the SEC and Big 10 that could get $50 million (besides Notre Dame).
Some information on the Big 10 that may help explain what is going on or not going on.
Read some info on a Big 10 forum where the commentator mentioned how new the Big 10 Presidents are. Did a little research and found out the following about the Presidents of the Big 10 and their tenure.
Illinois - since 9/16 (oldest tenure)
Indiana - since 7/21
Iowa - since 7/21
Maryland - since 7/20
Michigan - 10/22
Michigan State - interim
Minnesota - 11/19
Nebraska - retires 6/23
Northwestern - 9/22
Ohio State - since 9/20 - being forced out come June (some type of scandal) by Board of Regents
Penn State - since 5/22
Purdue - since 1/23
Rutgers - since 7/20
Wisconsin - since 8/22
The Commissioner leaves this spring. The good news is that the administrative staff that would do the number crunching and work out the details are still there. When Nebraska was added, it was the staff of the Big 10 with the staff at Nebraska that worked out the details. Delaney and Perleman (President of Nebraska) were more the face men of the deal who relied on their staff to do the dirty work.
Looking at the Presidents, they all are pretty much new to their school, let alone their knowledge of the Big 10 and its workings. I believe this is part of the reason why the Big 10 Presidents are averse to expansion. The ADs are opposed to expansion because they are concerned about their OWN funding.
Big10 (most presidents) are averse to risk and want stability. In the past, when the Big 10 expanded, they did it slowly and the new member was slowly introduced to the workings of the Big 10. In the past, they usually had 2 or more years to integrate in the new members. Just recently, various Big 10 members were at USC and UCLA talking about their integration into the Big 10 and reviewing their facilities. More schools, more moving parts and more problems. The Big 10 had issues when Penn State was added and they learned from it. But I believe it made them averse to expansion and wanted to do it right moving forward (which they did with Nebraska). They have gotten better and learning but still leery.
Given the newness of the Presidents and how I believe they don't want to be responsible for killing the PAC, much like what the ACC did to the Big East. I do believe that if the Big 12 took certain universities and it looked poorly for the existence of the PAC. The Big 10, may at that point intervene and reach out to California, Stanford, Washington and Oregon (to a lessor degree). California, Stanford and Washington would be great additions from a research perspective and they all have good athletic backgrounds.
Could the Big 10 work a deal with the networks to squeeze more money out to pay for the addition of the 4 PAC schools. I believe it can be done. i.e. Add 7:30 Friday night games and 9:30 PM Saturday night games. That would increase the inventory by 20 to 24 games a year. On Friday's (September) have Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska play directional schools (their fan bases which are large, will watch anything). Saturday night games (9:30), match a west coast school with a mid west school. Get eyes from the mid west to watch (which they will). Being an Ohio State alum/fan, if Ohio State is going to play California & Minnesota in the coming weeks and they are playing this week, I will watch to get a gauge of both teams.
In the example above. The Big 10 could get about $200 million (according to reports at the time of the media deal, that if the Big 10 expanded they could get up to an additional $200 million). If each Big 10 school would take a $3 million dollar cut, they could generate another $48 million for the new schools. Thus we would be looking at $248 million or about $62 million for each of the new schools. Not an equal share BUT an equal share when the next deal is cut (would be viewed as buying in under the current deal).
I would argue that it would be worth the $3 million dollar cut for each school, GIVEN the collaboration opportunities that they could have with California, Stanford and Washington.
As I stated earlier. Given the lack of leadership in the Big 10 office and the newness of the Big 10 Presidents, I believe they are leery of expansion. But given the right circumstances, things can change. It will be very telling who the next Big 10 commissioner is.
Good luck and hope all works out for you.
Econ141, I would say that Florida State may be the only one outside of the SEC and Big 10 that could get $50 million (besides Notre Dame).
Some information on the Big 10 that may help explain what is going on or not going on.
Read some info on a Big 10 forum where the commentator mentioned how new the Big 10 Presidents are. Did a little research and found out the following about the Presidents of the Big 10 and their tenure.
Illinois - since 9/16 (oldest tenure)
Indiana - since 7/21
Iowa - since 7/21
Maryland - since 7/20
Michigan - 10/22
Michigan State - interim
Minnesota - 11/19
Nebraska - retires 6/23
Northwestern - 9/22
Ohio State - since 9/20 - being forced out come June (some type of scandal) by Board of Regents
Penn State - since 5/22
Purdue - since 1/23
Rutgers - since 7/20
Wisconsin - since 8/22
The Commissioner leaves this spring. The good news is that the administrative staff that would do the number crunching and work out the details are still there. When Nebraska was added, it was the staff of the Big 10 with the staff at Nebraska that worked out the details. Delaney and Perleman (President of Nebraska) were more the face men of the deal who relied on their staff to do the dirty work.
Looking at the Presidents, they all are pretty much new to their school, let alone their knowledge of the Big 10 and its workings. I believe this is part of the reason why the Big 10 Presidents are averse to expansion. The ADs are opposed to expansion because they are concerned about their OWN funding.
Big10 (most presidents) are averse to risk and want stability. In the past, when the Big 10 expanded, they did it slowly and the new member was slowly introduced to the workings of the Big 10. In the past, they usually had 2 or more years to integrate in the new members. Just recently, various Big 10 members were at USC and UCLA talking about their integration into the Big 10 and reviewing their facilities. More schools, more moving parts and more problems. The Big 10 had issues when Penn State was added and they learned from it. But I believe it made them averse to expansion and wanted to do it right moving forward (which they did with Nebraska). They have gotten better and learning but still leery.
Given the newness of the Presidents and how I believe they don't want to be responsible for killing the PAC, much like what the ACC did to the Big East. I do believe that if the Big 12 took certain universities and it looked poorly for the existence of the PAC. The Big 10, may at that point intervene and reach out to California, Stanford, Washington and Oregon (to a lessor degree). California, Stanford and Washington would be great additions from a research perspective and they all have good athletic backgrounds.
Could the Big 10 work a deal with the networks to squeeze more money out to pay for the addition of the 4 PAC schools. I believe it can be done. i.e. Add 7:30 Friday night games and 9:30 PM Saturday night games. That would increase the inventory by 20 to 24 games a year. On Friday's (September) have Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska play directional schools (their fan bases which are large, will watch anything). Saturday night games (9:30), match a west coast school with a mid west school. Get eyes from the mid west to watch (which they will). Being an Ohio State alum/fan, if Ohio State is going to play California & Minnesota in the coming weeks and they are playing this week, I will watch to get a gauge of both teams.
In the example above. The Big 10 could get about $200 million (according to reports at the time of the media deal, that if the Big 10 expanded they could get up to an additional $200 million). If each Big 10 school would take a $3 million dollar cut, they could generate another $48 million for the new schools. Thus we would be looking at $248 million or about $62 million for each of the new schools. Not an equal share BUT an equal share when the next deal is cut (would be viewed as buying in under the current deal).
I would argue that it would be worth the $3 million dollar cut for each school, GIVEN the collaboration opportunities that they could have with California, Stanford and Washington.
As I stated earlier. Given the lack of leadership in the Big 10 office and the newness of the Big 10 Presidents, I believe they are leery of expansion. But given the right circumstances, things can change. It will be very telling who the next Big 10 commissioner is.
Good luck and hope all works out for you.
airspace said:
From the hinterlands of ohio
Econ141, I would say that Florida State may be the only one outside of the SEC and Big 10 that could get $50 million (besides Notre Dame).
Some information on the Big 10 that may help explain what is going on or not going on.
Read some info on a Big 10 forum where the commentator mentioned how new the Big 10 Presidents are. Did a little research and found out the following about the Presidents of the Big 10 and their tenure.
Illinois - since 9/16 (oldest tenure)
Indiana - since 7/21
Iowa - since 7/21
Maryland - since 7/20
Michigan - 10/22
Michigan State - interim
Minnesota - 11/19
Nebraska - retires 6/23
Northwestern - 9/22
Ohio State - since 9/20 - being forced out come June (some type of scandal) by Board of Regents
Penn State - since 5/22
Purdue - since 1/23
Rutgers - since 7/20
Wisconsin - since 8/22
The Commissioner leaves this spring. The good news is that the administrative staff that would do the number crunching and work out the details are still there. When Nebraska was added, it was the staff of the Big 10 with the staff at Nebraska that worked out the details. Delaney and Perleman (President of Nebraska) were more the face men of the deal who relied on their staff to do the dirty work.
Looking at the Presidents, they all are pretty much new to their school, let alone their knowledge of the Big 10 and its workings. I believe this is part of the reason why the Big 10 Presidents are averse to expansion. The ADs are opposed to expansion because they are concerned about their OWN funding.
Big10 (most presidents) are averse to risk and want stability. In the past, when the Big 10 expanded, they did it slowly and the new member was slowly introduced to the workings of the Big 10. In the past, they usually had 2 or more years to integrate in the new members. Just recently, various Big 10 members were at USC and UCLA talking about their integration into the Big 10 and reviewing their facilities. More schools, more moving parts and more problems. The Big 10 had issues when Penn State was added and they learned from it. But I believe it made them averse to expansion and wanted to do it right moving forward (which they did with Nebraska). They have gotten better and learning but still leery.
Given the newness of the Presidents and how I believe they don't want to be responsible for killing the PAC, much like what the ACC did to the Big East. I do believe that if the Big 12 took certain universities and it looked poorly for the existence of the PAC. The Big 10, may at that point intervene and reach out to California, Stanford, Washington and Oregon (to a lessor degree). California, Stanford and Washington would be great additions from a research perspective and they all have good athletic backgrounds.
Could the Big 10 work a deal with the networks to squeeze more money out to pay for the addition of the 4 PAC schools. I believe it can be done. i.e. Add 7:30 Friday night games and 9:30 PM Saturday night games. That would increase the inventory by 20 to 24 games a year. On Friday's (September) have Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska play directional schools (their fan bases which are large, will watch anything). Saturday night games (9:30), match a west coast school with a mid west school. Get eyes from the mid west to watch (which they will). Being an Ohio State alum/fan, if Ohio State is going to play California & Minnesota in the coming weeks and they are playing this week, I will watch to get a gauge of both teams.
In the example above. The Big 10 could get about $200 million (according to reports at the time of the media deal, that if the Big 10 expanded they could get up to an additional $200 million). If each Big 10 school would take a $3 million dollar cut, they could generate another $48 million for the new schools. Thus we would be looking at $248 million or about $62 million for each of the new schools. Not an equal share BUT an equal share when the next deal is cut (would be viewed as buying in under the current deal).
I would argue that it would be worth the $3 million dollar cut for each school, GIVEN the collaboration opportunities that they could have with California, Stanford and Washington.
As I stated earlier. Given the lack of leadership in the Big 10 office and the newness of the Big 10 Presidents, I believe they are leery of expansion. But given the right circumstances, things can change. It will be very telling who the next Big 10 commissioner is.
Good luck and hope all works out for you.
Thank you airspace for this excellent background and context. I remain very curious about the extent of discussions that have happened between Cal or Stanfurd and the B1G. Was Cal told "not now" like UW/UO?
I tend to be overly optimistic but even I am anxious about Cal's future. I think we will ultimately be fine but I just don't know how long we will remain in limbo. 1 year? 7 years? Longer?
I hope we are reunited with the other California schools because those are the games I care about year in and year out. I'm still surprised the LA schools cut us loose so easily. Cal is SC's most played series. Stanfurd is their oldest rival.
The scenario you outlined makes too much sense. A 7:30 window where each of Cal/Stanfurd/UW/UO plays an average of 3 games a year, while not ideal, would be fine for most of those fanbases. The LA schools (SC especially) don't want to play in the late night window. But maybe they can be talked into 1-2 games each.
Speaking as a Cal fan, I'm not gonna complain about late night games if we find a good landing spot in the B1G
The bolded part is how I see it. The B1G likely only adds if the Big 12 moves first with some P12 schools. I think the B1G is done unless they see the P12 is dissolving at least in this media cycle. But the concern for the P12 and Cal specifically is if the Big 12 wants UW and UO. The Big 12 and Cal is an odd fit and seems very unlikely IMO. Then I am not sure if the numbers work in Cals favor for a move to the B1G.airspace said:
From the hinterlands of ohio
Econ141, I would say that Florida State may be the only one outside of the SEC and Big 10 that could get $50 million (besides Notre Dame).
Some information on the Big 10 that may help explain what is going on or not going on.
Read some info on a Big 10 forum where the commentator mentioned how new the Big 10 Presidents are. Did a little research and found out the following about the Presidents of the Big 10 and their tenure.
Illinois - since 9/16 (oldest tenure)
Indiana - since 7/21
Iowa - since 7/21
Maryland - since 7/20
Michigan - 10/22
Michigan State - interim
Minnesota - 11/19
Nebraska - retires 6/23
Northwestern - 9/22
Ohio State - since 9/20 - being forced out come June (some type of scandal) by Board of Regents
Penn State - since 5/22
Purdue - since 1/23
Rutgers - since 7/20
Wisconsin - since 8/22
The Commissioner leaves this spring. The good news is that the administrative staff that would do the number crunching and work out the details are still there. When Nebraska was added, it was the staff of the Big 10 with the staff at Nebraska that worked out the details. Delaney and Perleman (President of Nebraska) were more the face men of the deal who relied on their staff to do the dirty work.
Looking at the Presidents, they all are pretty much new to their school, let alone their knowledge of the Big 10 and its workings. I believe this is part of the reason why the Big 10 Presidents are averse to expansion. The ADs are opposed to expansion because they are concerned about their OWN funding.
Big10 (most presidents) are averse to risk and want stability. In the past, when the Big 10 expanded, they did it slowly and the new member was slowly introduced to the workings of the Big 10. In the past, they usually had 2 or more years to integrate in the new members. Just recently, various Big 10 members were at USC and UCLA talking about their integration into the Big 10 and reviewing their facilities. More schools, more moving parts and more problems. The Big 10 had issues when Penn State was added and they learned from it. But I believe it made them averse to expansion and wanted to do it right moving forward (which they did with Nebraska). They have gotten better and learning but still leery.
Given the newness of the Presidents and how I believe they don't want to be responsible for killing the PAC, much like what the ACC did to the Big East. I do believe that if the Big 12 took certain universities and it looked poorly for the existence of the PAC. The Big 10, may at that point intervene and reach out to California, Stanford, Washington and Oregon (to a lessor degree). California, Stanford and Washington would be great additions from a research perspective and they all have good athletic backgrounds.
Could the Big 10 work a deal with the networks to squeeze more money out to pay for the addition of the 4 PAC schools. I believe it can be done. i.e. Add 7:30 Friday night games and 9:30 PM Saturday night games. That would increase the inventory by 20 to 24 games a year. On Friday's (September) have Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska play directional schools (their fan bases which are large, will watch anything). Saturday night games (9:30), match a west coast school with a mid west school. Get eyes from the mid west to watch (which they will). Being an Ohio State alum/fan, if Ohio State is going to play California & Minnesota in the coming weeks and they are playing this week, I will watch to get a gauge of both teams.
In the example above. The Big 10 could get about $200 million (according to reports at the time of the media deal, that if the Big 10 expanded they could get up to an additional $200 million). If each Big 10 school would take a $3 million dollar cut, they could generate another $48 million for the new schools. Thus we would be looking at $248 million or about $62 million for each of the new schools. Not an equal share BUT an equal share when the next deal is cut (would be viewed as buying in under the current deal).
I would argue that it would be worth the $3 million dollar cut for each school, GIVEN the collaboration opportunities that they could have with California, Stanford and Washington.
As I stated earlier. Given the lack of leadership in the Big 10 office and the newness of the Big 10 Presidents, I believe they are leery of expansion. But given the right circumstances, things can change. It will be very telling who the next Big 10 commissioner is.
Good luck and hope all works out for you.
airspace said:
From the hinterlands of ohio
Econ141, I would say that Florida State may be the only one outside of the SEC and Big 10 that could get $50 million (besides Notre Dame).
Some information on the Big 10 that may help explain what is going on or not going on.
Read some info on a Big 10 forum where the commentator mentioned how new the Big 10 Presidents are. Did a little research and found out the following about the Presidents of the Big 10 and their tenure.
Illinois - since 9/16 (oldest tenure)
Indiana - since 7/21
Iowa - since 7/21
Maryland - since 7/20
Michigan - 10/22
Michigan State - interim
Minnesota - 11/19
Nebraska - retires 6/23
Northwestern - 9/22
Ohio State - since 9/20 - being forced out come June (some type of scandal) by Board of Regents
Penn State - since 5/22
Purdue - since 1/23
Rutgers - since 7/20
Wisconsin - since 8/22
The Commissioner leaves this spring. The good news is that the administrative staff that would do the number crunching and work out the details are still there. When Nebraska was added, it was the staff of the Big 10 with the staff at Nebraska that worked out the details. Delaney and Perleman (President of Nebraska) were more the face men of the deal who relied on their staff to do the dirty work.
Looking at the Presidents, they all are pretty much new to their school, let alone their knowledge of the Big 10 and its workings. I believe this is part of the reason why the Big 10 Presidents are averse to expansion. The ADs are opposed to expansion because they are concerned about their OWN funding.
Big10 (most presidents) are averse to risk and want stability. In the past, when the Big 10 expanded, they did it slowly and the new member was slowly introduced to the workings of the Big 10. In the past, they usually had 2 or more years to integrate in the new members. Just recently, various Big 10 members were at USC and UCLA talking about their integration into the Big 10 and reviewing their facilities. More schools, more moving parts and more problems. The Big 10 had issues when Penn State was added and they learned from it. But I believe it made them averse to expansion and wanted to do it right moving forward (which they did with Nebraska). They have gotten better and learning but still leery.
Given the newness of the Presidents and how I believe they don't want to be responsible for killing the PAC, much like what the ACC did to the Big East. I do believe that if the Big 12 took certain universities and it looked poorly for the existence of the PAC. The Big 10, may at that point intervene and reach out to California, Stanford, Washington and Oregon (to a lessor degree). California, Stanford and Washington would be great additions from a research perspective and they all have good athletic backgrounds.
Could the Big 10 work a deal with the networks to squeeze more money out to pay for the addition of the 4 PAC schools. I believe it can be done. i.e. Add 7:30 Friday night games and 9:30 PM Saturday night games. That would increase the inventory by 20 to 24 games a year. On Friday's (September) have Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska play directional schools (their fan bases which are large, will watch anything). Saturday night games (9:30), match a west coast school with a mid west school. Get eyes from the mid west to watch (which they will). Being an Ohio State alum/fan, if Ohio State is going to play California & Minnesota in the coming weeks and they are playing this week, I will watch to get a gauge of both teams.
In the example above. The Big 10 could get about $200 million (according to reports at the time of the media deal, that if the Big 10 expanded they could get up to an additional $200 million). If each Big 10 school would take a $3 million dollar cut, they could generate another $48 million for the new schools. Thus we would be looking at $248 million or about $62 million for each of the new schools. Not an equal share BUT an equal share when the next deal is cut (would be viewed as buying in under the current deal).
I would argue that it would be worth the $3 million dollar cut for each school, GIVEN the collaboration opportunities that they could have with California, Stanford and Washington.
As I stated earlier. Given the lack of leadership in the Big 10 office and the newness of the Big 10 Presidents, I believe they are leery of expansion. But given the right circumstances, things can change. It will be very telling who the next Big 10 commissioner is.
Good luck and hope all works out for you.
Thanks for the background and insight.
I agree, the big value to be untapped is not just the late slots on the West Coast, but the ability to put Big 10 teams from other time zones in those slots to create late night games of national interest, plus eliminate games against FCs schools and reduce the number of low value games against directional schools. It is also unlikely the Big 10 presidents will want to pursue further expansion and risk running afoul of the antitrust laws.
That is why the best option for everyone is for Kliavkoff to negotiate a quasi-merger of the PAC-12 and Big-10 and the creation of the first (football) super conference. There would be 4 team regional pods, with annual local rivalries preserved but lots of cross country play. West Coast games would increasingly be late afternoon (great in most places) or evening (tge values of the Arizonas). The league championship game could even be treated as the traditional Rose Bowl, with all the revenue that would entail (likely the Rose Bowl would buy in).
Importantly, all other sports (including for UCLA and USC) would remain in the PAC-12, but with increased inter-league play. This would eliminate the upcoming travel problem for basketball and the non-revenue sports (and preserve Kliavkoff's job).
Given the huge increase in value created the Big 10 TV rights might need to be renegotiated or the PAC-10 teams could negotiate based on the additional value the above creates, with only a nominal increase going to the Big 10 teams to incentivize them and cover the additional travel costs (with UCLA and USC initially getting Big 10 shares).
I believe this solution would create huge value and revenues, avoid antitrust issues, give everyone more interesting football to watch, solve all the problems everyone currently faces, restore rivalries and even restore the Rose Bowl as the goal for PAC-12 and Big 10 teams.
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Bobodeluxe said:
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Sure, but the Midwest schools ARE interested in making more money and expanding without creating legal problems (plus solving the non-revenue sport travel problem) and the fans are interested In seeing their team play on television which is made possible by playing teams on the West Coast in later time slots. Plus the Rose Bowl is a Big 10 tradition too.
Adding teams to the B1G means dividing up more pieces of the financial pie. They were willing to do this for obvious reasons for SC and Southern Branch, but not for anyone else from the Pac. Eventually, they may decide to add UW and UO and maybe some teams from other regions. Cal is not even on their radar. Sure, if we could return to the days of Bruce Snyder (2 good years) or Jeff Tedford (about 5 good years) in football then maybe we could get under consideration. Unfortunately, that significant improvement is not likely as long as Knucklehead Knowlton remains our AD. Maybe in the next decade, but don't hold your breath.calumnus said:Bobodeluxe said:
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Sure, but the Midwest schools ARE interested in making more money and expanding without creating legal problems (plus solving the non-revenue sport travel problem) and the fans are interested In seeing their team play on television which is made possible by playing teams on the West Coast in later time slots. Plus the Rose Bowl is a Big 10 tradition too.
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
southseasbear said:Adding teams to the B1G means dividing up more pieces of the financial pie. They were willing to do this for obvious reasons for SC and Southern Branch, but not for anyone else from the Pac. Eventually, they may decide to add UW and UO and maybe some teams from other regions. Cal is not even on their radar. Sure, if we could return to the days of Bruce Snyder (2 good years) or Jeff Tedford (about 5 good years) in football then maybe we could get under consideration. Unfortunately, that significant improvement is not likely as long as Knucklehead Knowlton remains our AD. Maybe in the next decade, but don't hold your breath.calumnus said:Bobodeluxe said:
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Sure, but the Midwest schools ARE interested in making more money and expanding without creating legal problems (plus solving the non-revenue sport travel problem) and the fans are interested In seeing their team play on television which is made possible by playing teams on the West Coast in later time slots. Plus the Rose Bowl is a Big 10 tradition too.
My proposed solution (above) is for Kliavkoff to negotiate a surrender/semi-merger of the PAC-12 with the B1G to form a football only joint super conference, with the additional value created increasing the payout to the remaining PAC-10 schools above what it looks like they would get as the PAC-10+ SDSU and SMU, but probably less than full Big 10 payout, at least initially. Thus there would be no dilution of the Big 10 payout.
There is no indication that the B1G is interested. Right now their biggest competition is the SEC. Adding the likes of us, along with Oregon State and Washington State does nothing to help them.calumnus said:southseasbear said:Adding teams to the B1G means dividing up more pieces of the financial pie. They were willing to do this for obvious reasons for SC and Southern Branch, but not for anyone else from the Pac. Eventually, they may decide to add UW and UO and maybe some teams from other regions. Cal is not even on their radar. Sure, if we could return to the days of Bruce Snyder (2 good years) or Jeff Tedford (about 5 good years) in football then maybe we could get under consideration. Unfortunately, that significant improvement is not likely as long as Knucklehead Knowlton remains our AD. Maybe in the next decade, but don't hold your breath.calumnus said:Bobodeluxe said:
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Sure, but the Midwest schools ARE interested in making more money and expanding without creating legal problems (plus solving the non-revenue sport travel problem) and the fans are interested In seeing their team play on television which is made possible by playing teams on the West Coast in later time slots. Plus the Rose Bowl is a Big 10 tradition too.
My proposed solution (above) is for Kliavkoff to negotiate a surrender/semi-merger of the PAC-12 with the B1G to form a football only joint super conference, with the additional value created increasing the payout to the remaining PAC-10 schools above what it looks like they would get as the PAC-10+ SDSU and SMU, but probably less than full Big 10 payout, at least initially. Thus there would be no dilution of the Big 10 payout.
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
The Big 10 - Pac 12 Rose Bowl tradition is gone. A P10 team would have to make the CFP. In 2024, the Rose hosts a quarterfinal matchup. Even if we were to get in, which is unlikely, it may not pit the P10 team against the B10 team. It is unlikely that we would ever see that game again, especially if we were in the B1G. The way the selection process is made now, the P10 would have an easier time to get in than if we were in the B1G.calumnus said:Bobodeluxe said:
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Sure, but the Midwest schools ARE interested in making more money and expanding without creating legal problems (plus solving the non-revenue sport travel problem) and the fans are interested In seeing their team play on television which is made possible by playing teams on the West Coast in later time slots. Plus the Rose Bowl is a Big 10 tradition too.
philly1121 said:The Big 10 - Pac 12 Rose Bowl tradition is gone. A P10 team would have to make the CFP. In 2024, the Rose hosts a quarterfinal matchup. Even if we were to get in, which is unlikely, it may not pit the P10 team against the B10 team. It is unlikely that we would ever see that game again, especially if we were in the B1G. The way the selection process is made now, the P10 would have an easier time to get in than if we were in the B1G.calumnus said:Bobodeluxe said:
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Sure, but the Midwest schools ARE interested in making more money and expanding without creating legal problems (plus solving the non-revenue sport travel problem) and the fans are interested In seeing their team play on television which is made possible by playing teams on the West Coast in later time slots. Plus the Rose Bowl is a Big 10 tradition too.
The Rose Bowl can host BOTH. However, the B1G championship between the "East" division champ and the "West" division champ could be treated as the traditional Tournament of Roses game, with the bands later marching in the Rose Parade (held later). The CFP are an end to themselves.
I agree that in the short run, the P10 has an easier path to the CFP. However, how long do you think that will last if we become the equivalent of the MWC? I think we have to think about the natural progression things will take on thie current path, have an alternative vision for where we WANT things to end up and then try to make the desired future happen, before we resign ourselves to the MWC or it's equivalent.
Very strong Bobodeluxe. Strong thanks for asking!Bobodeluxe said:How is the tomato crop coming along?Cal Strong! said:Alkiadt posting weak today. Thinking soft . . . like baby poop. Cal not soft like baby food.Alkiadt said:Cal Strong! said:
Cal Strong strongly suggested we try to poach BYU and Nebraska. Pac-12 commissioner looking at SDSU instead. WEAK!!!!
What's "Weak" is thinking Nebraska would leave BIG money for Pac 12 scraps. You're as dumb as you come off sounding with the stupid meathead act of yours.
Pac-12 has their rivals and a stronger recruiting footprint . . . and a stronger chance for them to make the Rose Bowl. That might not matter to weak posters, but it matters to strong football fans.
It much stronger idea to go after them than San Diego State.
That just another weak thing about Alkiadt. Cal Strong no "meathead" . . . he a veggie head.
Eh, in order for the traditional matchup to happen in the CFP, a whole set of circumstances would have to fall into place. Its unlikely. And it rotates between quarterfinal and semifinal matchups every year. Your B1G championship game between east and west sounds nice but its rather far fetched.
I'll just put this out there that we are not far from a Super League. A league made up of perhaps 20 teams that are the best in the country. They would leave their "traditional" conferences behind and play only the top 20 and then the top 10 bowl games would host them all. They are trying to do this in European soccer and, in fact, tried to two years ago. The idea has now popped up again and may gain traction with the top teams in the Bundesliga, the Prem, Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1.
I could see that a top 20 ranking system to set it up initially. Bottom two finishers get relegated. Two top ranked teams (21st and 22nd) get promoted. OR...you take the top 4 teams from SEC, ACC, P10, B1G, B12 and then those teams play in a Super League. There's always movement in and out of the League. It preserves rankings and bowl games. But dumps everything else. We are probably 10 years or less away from this.
I'll just put this out there that we are not far from a Super League. A league made up of perhaps 20 teams that are the best in the country. They would leave their "traditional" conferences behind and play only the top 20 and then the top 10 bowl games would host them all. They are trying to do this in European soccer and, in fact, tried to two years ago. The idea has now popped up again and may gain traction with the top teams in the Bundesliga, the Prem, Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1.
I could see that a top 20 ranking system to set it up initially. Bottom two finishers get relegated. Two top ranked teams (21st and 22nd) get promoted. OR...you take the top 4 teams from SEC, ACC, P10, B1G, B12 and then those teams play in a Super League. There's always movement in and out of the League. It preserves rankings and bowl games. But dumps everything else. We are probably 10 years or less away from this.
I miss those traditions, too. But they are so 20th century. No matter how much we may care about those traditions the people that make decisions could not care less about them. They are gone forever.calumnus said:philly1121 said:The Big 10 - Pac 12 Rose Bowl tradition is gone. A P10 team would have to make the CFP. In 2024, the Rose hosts a quarterfinal matchup. Even if we were to get in, which is unlikely, it may not pit the P10 team against the B10 team. It is unlikely that we would ever see that game again, especially if we were in the B1G. The way the selection process is made now, the P10 would have an easier time to get in than if we were in the B1G.calumnus said:Bobodeluxe said:
Midwesterners have no interest in bailing out west coast institutions. Zero.
Sure, but the Midwest schools ARE interested in making more money and expanding without creating legal problems (plus solving the non-revenue sport travel problem) and the fans are interested In seeing their team play on television which is made possible by playing teams on the West Coast in later time slots. Plus the Rose Bowl is a Big 10 tradition too.
The Rose Bowl can host BOTH. However, the B1G championship between the "East" division champ and the "West" division champ could be treated as the traditional Tournament of Roses game, with the bands later marching in the Rose Parade (held later). The CFP are an end to themselves.
I agree that in the short run, the P10 has an easier path to the CFP. However, how long do you think that will last if we become the equivalent of the MWC? I think we have to think about the natural progression things will take on thie current path, have an alternative vision for where we WANT things to end up and then try to make the desired future happen, before we resign ourselves to the MWC or it's equivalent.
philly1121 said:
Eh, in order for the traditional matchup to happen in the CFP, a whole set of circumstances would have to fall into place. Its unlikely. And it rotates between quarterfinal and semifinal matchups every year. Your B1G championship game between east and west sounds nice but its rather far fetched.
I'll just put this out there that we are not far from a Super League. A league made up of perhaps 20 teams that are the best in the country. They would leave their "traditional" conferences behind and play only the top 20 and then the top 10 bowl games would host them all. They are trying to do this in European soccer and, in fact, tried to two years ago. The idea has now popped up again and may gain traction with the top teams in the Bundesliga, the Prem, Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1.
I could see that a top 20 ranking system to set it up initially. Bottom two finishers get relegated. Two top ranked teams (21st and 22nd) get promoted. OR...you take the top 4 teams from SEC, ACC, P10, B1G, B12 and then those teams play in a Super League. There's always movement in and out of the League. It preserves rankings and bowl games. But dumps everything else. We are probably 10 years or less away from this.
If we could really start with a blank slate, the best would be to split the country into 4 regions, East, West, South and Midwest and then have multiple divisions within each region, with placement in divisions determined (after initial placement based on ranking) by promotion and relegation like European soccer. Other than one rivalry game, all other games are within your regional division.
The four regional premier league champs plus 4 at large teams play a three round playoff to determine the national champion . Everyone else can play in bowl games as invited.
To recap the worst week in Pac-10/12's history ... so far:
Kliavkoff visited SDSU and SMU because rumors are that there isn't enough money to ink a media rights deal without expansion first.
Those same rumors suggest that the Pac will need to add these schools just to reach a $30 million per team payout that relies heavily on streaming rather than linear networks. It is nearly universally regarded that a streaming deal of X dollars is worth less than a linear deal for the same amount.
The Big XII just landed an additional $100 million in buyout money from Texas and Oklahoma that they will use to aggressively pursue expansion. Money they could potentially use the poach the four corner schools. And Yormark suddenly has a newfound interest in SDSU and SMU. The Big XII seems motivated to driving the Pac out of business and Yormark appears to be outflanking Kliavkoff.
All of that combined with Kevin Warren's departure to the NFL, any prospects of a Big Ten West Coast pod any time soon seems to have left with him.
Suddenly the prospects of the Pac surviving this round of conference expansion are a little dimmer and if the conference does survive, it will probably be with a deal that makes no one happy and the worst deal of the P5 conferences.
Kliavkoff visited SDSU and SMU because rumors are that there isn't enough money to ink a media rights deal without expansion first.
Those same rumors suggest that the Pac will need to add these schools just to reach a $30 million per team payout that relies heavily on streaming rather than linear networks. It is nearly universally regarded that a streaming deal of X dollars is worth less than a linear deal for the same amount.
The Big XII just landed an additional $100 million in buyout money from Texas and Oklahoma that they will use to aggressively pursue expansion. Money they could potentially use the poach the four corner schools. And Yormark suddenly has a newfound interest in SDSU and SMU. The Big XII seems motivated to driving the Pac out of business and Yormark appears to be outflanking Kliavkoff.
All of that combined with Kevin Warren's departure to the NFL, any prospects of a Big Ten West Coast pod any time soon seems to have left with him.
Suddenly the prospects of the Pac surviving this round of conference expansion are a little dimmer and if the conference does survive, it will probably be with a deal that makes no one happy and the worst deal of the P5 conferences.
KoreAmBear said:
That's sorry man. SDSU might be OK (new football stadium, great basketball program). SMU? Geez.
Totally agree.
F SMU.
F all of TX!!!!
I'm sure Pullman will love traveling for those contests, and vice versa.
It's 2700 miles from Seattle to Dallas as the crow flies.
It's 1700 miles from Seattle to San Diego as the crow flies.
okaydo said:
The PAC-12 needs some god-fearing schools to balance out the wokes.
I can't recall ever vomiting on one of your posts, but I think I just did.
concordtom said:okaydo said:
The PAC-12 needs some god-fearing schools to balance out the wokes.
I can't recall ever vomiting on one of your posts, but I think I just did.
It was a joke.
okaydo said:concordtom said:okaydo said:
The PAC-12 needs some god-fearing schools to balance out the wokes.
I can't recall ever vomiting on one of your posts, but I think I just did.
It was a joke.
Thank you for confirming.
That's what I was hoping and why I wrote that I think I did, rather than I did.
A couple of things to add to this...berserkeley said:
To recap the worst week in Pac-10/12's history ... so far:
Kliavkoff visited SDSU and SMU because rumors are that there isn't enough money to ink a media rights deal without expansion first.
Those same rumors suggest that the Pac will need to add these schools just to reach a $30 million per team payout that relies heavily on streaming rather than linear networks. It is nearly universally regarded that a streaming deal of X dollars is worth less than a linear deal for the same amount.
The Big XII just landed an additional $100 million in buyout money from Texas and Oklahoma that they will use to aggressively pursue expansion. Money they could potentially use the poach the four corner schools. And Yormark suddenly has a newfound interest in SDSU and SMU. The Big XII seems motivated to driving the Pac out of business and Yormark appears to be outflanking Kliavkoff.
All of that combined with Kevin Warren's departure to the NFL, any prospects of a Big Ten West Coast pod any time soon seems to have left with him.
Suddenly the prospects of the Pac surviving this round of conference expansion are a little dimmer and if the conference does survive, it will probably be with a deal that makes no one happy and the worst deal of the P5 conferences.
*The Big XII beat Kliavkoff to market on their media deal, which has limited Pac-12 options in terms of broadcast partners while also setting the market for media rights $$$.
*Internal audits revealed that under Larry Scott, the Pac-12 overcharged Comcast $50 million dollars and are now on the hook for that $$$
*Kliavkoff told Pac-12 member institutions they could expect $40 million per school in this next deal. It's now looking closer to $30 million. Lot of unhappy people at that news. Confidence in GK is waning.
*Kliavkoff has 4 schools in his camp. Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State. All four really need the league to remain as is (or with SDSU and SMU) due to what they see as a murky future in a post Pac-12 world and a lack of good options down the road. For instance, Wazzu and Oregon St. are Mountain West bound if the league falls apart.
*6 schools... Oregon, UW, Four Corners... are extremely unhappy with current leadership of the league, Not coincidentally, those 6 schools see a possible future with B1G and/or Big XII. None of the 6 is currently willing to sign any long term Grant of Rights.
*Oregon and Washington want a bigger slice of the new league media rights deal. Oregon/UW also extremely skeptical of streaming and Amazon as a significant part of overall deal, in terms of both $$$ and exposure. Both schools are waiting on news of the next B1G commissioner to see where they stand with that league. If it's Jim Phillips from the ACC, further westward expansion may be off the table. Oregon/UW do not want to sign any long term Grant of Rights.
*Four Corners refusing to give in on UO/UW getting a larger $ share, any long term GOR that would lock them into the Pac-12 and continue to see a soft landing spot in the Big XII.
*SI's Ross Dellenger says Brett Yormark and the Big XII have an interest in SMU, and may get aggressive again in expansion. Have to think they'd look hard at some or all of the Four Corner schools. Would they aggressively pursue Oregon? Stay tuned...
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Sure sounds like Pac-12 is hosed. UO and UW will be pissed they not getting at least what B12 teams are getting from a media deal.
The bolded part is true. The rest of the sentence, not so much. That $100 million will be divided 8 ways between the Big 12 holdovers. It's not money that will be shared even with the 4 new members of the Big 12, let alone with any school not already added.berserkeley said:
The Big XII just landed an additional $100 million in buyout money from Texas and Oklahoma that they will use to aggressively pursue expansion.
The Big 12's new TV deal also makes expansion of the Big 12 unlikely. Fox won't give the Big 12 any new money if new members are added. ESPN, which has about 60% of the new Big 12 deal, will give the Big 12 new money only for adding teams currently in "P5" conferences. Thus, the Big 12 gets no new dollars if they add SMU or SDSU or UNLV, etc., and only gets about 60 cents on the dollar if they add a Pac-12 team.
No doubt, Pac-12 members don't want to sign a long-term grant of rights that would prevent a future Big Ten invite or prevent them from bailing if Kliavkoff turns out to be an empty suit. But that's not a problem unless a TV partner demands a long-term grant of rights.
Whether the extra $100 million would go to the rest of the conference isn't an issue. If the P10 doesn't get any more than $30 million, and they likely won't, then it wouldn't make sense for SMU or SDSU to join the P10 anyway since they would be getting as much or more from the B12. That remains to be seen of course but from the standpoint of what money, networks and deals are still on the table - there may be nothing left for the P10.
It seems to me that this media deal should have been done months ago. Its not. And now Kliavkoff is hunting for value from mid majors. In an earlier post I mentioned that hunting around Texas may lead to the B12 reacting and trying to protect territory. Looks like they may try to keep us out. If they go looking to add SDSU, then that's their entry into the SoCal market. SDSU may be a necessity at this point.
It seems to me that this media deal should have been done months ago. Its not. And now Kliavkoff is hunting for value from mid majors. In an earlier post I mentioned that hunting around Texas may lead to the B12 reacting and trying to protect territory. Looks like they may try to keep us out. If they go looking to add SDSU, then that's their entry into the SoCal market. SDSU may be a necessity at this point.
Joint statement from the 10 Pac-12 Conference Board Members:#BackThePac pic.twitter.com/NN5sk0TmMl
— Pac-12 Conference (@pac12) February 13, 2023
The dreaded vote of confidence...
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Re: contract amount, he apparently didn't learn the adage 'under promise, over deliver'.
That's the entire reason for the delay, IMO. Kliavkoff overpromised. He claimed that he could deliver much more money than the Big 12 got -- and maybe he could, if the Pac turned its whole package over to Amazon, but most of the members don't want that.movielover said:
Re: contract amount, he apparently didn't learn the adage 'under promise, over deliver'.
THIS: why stop at SMU/SDSU? Rice / Houston, Tulane / NO and UNLV/Vegas…
RINSE AND REPEAT AS OFTEN AS NECESSARY
RINSE AND REPEAT AS OFTEN AS NECESSARY
There are a couple (or at least a handful) who know where this is all headed.BearSD said:That's the entire reason for the delay, IMO. Kliavkoff overpromised. He claimed that he could deliver much more money than the Big 12 got -- and maybe he could, if the Pac turned its whole package over to Amazon, but most of the members don't want that.movielover said:
Re: contract amount, he apparently didn't learn the adage 'under promise, over deliver'.
BearSD said:That's the entire reason for the delay, IMO. Kliavkoff overpromised. He claimed that he could deliver much more money than the Big 12 got -- and maybe he could, if the Pac turned its whole package over to Amazon, but most of the members don't want that.movielover said:
Re: contract amount, he apparently didn't learn the adage 'under promise, over deliver'.
Shouldn't the media companies be looking at this like an investment? I mean if they pay the team's more, the better they will be able to compete with B12 and BIG and SEC. The better our teams, the better the viewership will be, the higher the odds of one of these teams making the CFP.
If you just pay a crap price, the conference will just remain crap. Anyone know how this is thought about from a deal perspective?
I read some writer speculate that the Big XII could use that money to expand the conference. I am guessing that's because Yormark outlines his three objectives: new TV deal then Texas and Oklahoma buyout then further expansion.
Given that Yormark has exceeded expectations on his first two goals and he has stated that he now intends to aggressively pursue expansion, I think it's safe to assume that Yormark has an idea of how he can pay for it.
But, you may be right that it won't come from the buyout. It may come from Fox.
In looking at the Big XII's new deal closer, the reason the number is 63% is because ESPN (who makes up 63% of the Big XII deal) is willing to pay an equal share for every new P5 team the Big XII adds while Fox declined to write it into the contract. So it's possible Yormark simply plans to renegotiate with Fox to see how much more they would be willing to pay if the Big XII expands. If the Pac-10/12 deal is as bleak as it looks as of this week, it may not take much from Fox for the Big XII look like the better deal.
Given that Yormark has exceeded expectations on his first two goals and he has stated that he now intends to aggressively pursue expansion, I think it's safe to assume that Yormark has an idea of how he can pay for it.
But, you may be right that it won't come from the buyout. It may come from Fox.
In looking at the Big XII's new deal closer, the reason the number is 63% is because ESPN (who makes up 63% of the Big XII deal) is willing to pay an equal share for every new P5 team the Big XII adds while Fox declined to write it into the contract. So it's possible Yormark simply plans to renegotiate with Fox to see how much more they would be willing to pay if the Big XII expands. If the Pac-10/12 deal is as bleak as it looks as of this week, it may not take much from Fox for the Big XII look like the better deal.
anyone want to propose an over/under spread on the shelf-life of this statement? .BigDaddy said:Joint statement from the 10 Pac-12 Conference Board Members:#BackThePac pic.twitter.com/NN5sk0TmMl
— Pac-12 Conference (@pac12) February 13, 2023
whistle past the graveyardBigDaddy said:Joint statement from the 10 Pac-12 Conference Board Members:#BackThePac pic.twitter.com/NN5sk0TmMl
— Pac-12 Conference (@pac12) February 13, 2023
verb
[ol]
P12 PR sounds like Tarik Aziz. The conference is going to unravel promptly.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Portal Edge Defender Deamontae Diggs
by Jim McGill
NFL Draft results and their relation to Collegiate success
by Bear Insider