The Pac-12 still doesn't have a new TV deal in place. Sources tell @TheAthletic a lack of bidders and the Big 12 jumping the line may result in less $$ than Kliavkoff envisioned.

Plus:
The latest on Pac-12 expansion and OU/Texas early Big 12 exits.https://t.co/CaY5Z2SYXX

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) February 9, 2023

Last July, shortly after USC and UCLA's defections, the Pac-12 opened negotiations for its next media rights contract, which would take effect with the 2024 football season. Seven months later, there's still no deal and people are getting antsy. With good reason.

Three people with knowledge of the discussions said commissioner George Kliavkoff is struggling to find partners willing to pay close to what the league is seeking. Two of those sources said Kliavkoff overpromised his members on how many bidders there would be and what dollar amount they could command a target north of $40 million per school, according to one league athletic director.

Today, it's uncertain whether the Pac-12 will even be able to exceed the $31.6 million average the Big 12 reportedly landed in a six-year extension with ESPN and Fox it reached last fall.

"(We) don't have a deal because it hasn't been good," said the AD.

Kliavkoff made some key miscalculations. At last summer's Pac-12 media day, he suggested the Big Ten's pending jackpot which wound up being for $8.1 billion over seven years would have a ripple effect on the Pac-12. But the Big Ten is a much more watched conference that garnered interest from nearly every major linear and digital media company.

The Pac-12, by contrast, has found fewer bidders since going to the open market. Fox, for one, has expressed little interest now that the Los Angeles schools are part of its prized Big Ten package. And CBS (Big Ten and Mountain West) and NBC (Big Ten and Notre Dame) are set in college football for the next several years. However, one Pac-12 administrator did indicate a new player emerged shortly after the new year.

Kliavkoff also sounded certain last summer that his league would be next in line after the Big Ten because its deal was up a year earlier than the Big 12's (which runs through 2025). But Big 12 counterpart Brett Yormark outflanked him, convincing existing partners ESPN and Fox to open up negotiations a year early.

Whereas Kliavkoff drew out the process by taking his rights to market, Yormark reached an extension of the current contract within a couple of months. And the Big 12's agreement may have provided its own ripple effect on negotiations by unofficially setting a ceiling.

"It's tough when your neighbor across the street sells his house for a low price," said the Pac-12 administrator.

https://theathletic.com/4171699/2023/02/09/college-football-realignment-pac-12-smu-big-12/

As if we didn't need more help burying our program.

Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado and Arizona will not be happy with piddling $ from a pac? Media deal.

wifeisafurd said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Wife's informed comment:
"Cal's Chancellor was taking a more holistic approach. She wants to know the economics, the academic fits, travel impacts, what alums and donors think, etc. She also is surprisingly nostalgic and more of a fan than I first appreciated. She was incensed by how UCLA handled all this. But my take as of two months ago, was she is willing to stay with the Pac if the economics make sense and do not make our programs less competitive. As for new teams, the schools have to have aspirations of being in the AAU. Given the noise about the TV contract, the academics of the new schools may be less priority"

My thoughts:

• I want to believe the best about Carol but "nostalgic" implies looking back, not forward, and when you combine it with her comment about college sports being about more than just winning, I worry that what she's nostalgic for is the communal aspect of fandom, not winning actual sports competition. I worry that she'll settle for a plan that just guarantees alums can still get together at a football game on a sunny October afternoon (and that they'll donate because of this).
• Regarding candidate schools needing to aspire to join the AAU, which has a research focus, wouldn't that eliminate San Diego St or Fresno since they don't have PhD programs?

---

When it comes to winning I can' t repeat the things she said about Notre Dame refs. Some of would not make it past the automatic censor. The comment about basketball and it not being all about winning is a bit out of context, and is something any school President would say. They always want to make it sounds like they are about educating student athletes, etc. and not just winning. You may to be aware, but she personally donates to the basketball programs.

SDSU now had PHD programs, an honors college and has upped its academic game with the view towards joining a P5 conference. Don't know much about FSU. Don't know much about UNLV, other than Vegas is growing considerably, a lot of Pac fans would travel there for games, and UNLV does have research and over 30 PHD program (it is real school). BYU had to be a non-starter with Sunday games. I would assume either Tulane and or Rice would be welcomed due to their TV markets and both are AAU. Tulane is good at football right now.

---

Agree with you analysis of SD St. and UNLV, but would add that the latter recently added a medical school.

I bet others will do better and that this idea is too simplistic. The talked about TV contract which is really about football and maybe basketball seems to want to be $40m. How could Cal make up that number with ticket prices using only football home games? If Cal only used conference games and was competitive which means a average conference attendance of 50000, Cal would need to raise prices by $160 per game. My season tickets in EE are $600.

For Cal TV = $40M / 5 Conference home games = $8M / 50000 seats = $160 per seat.

Of course, the other non conference games could be included as would basketball but imagine if we could go this route?


Ok, destroy this idea.

The Coliseum renovation and athletic performance facilities are NFL lite.

Pac-12 expansion requires approval by 75% of the schools. That process is drawing closer following a meeting last week. What you need to know about the top targets, SDSU and SMUhttps://t.co/fObWQ71DjW

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) February 9, 2023

Yeah, I mean what this seems to suggest is that this new courtship of SMU and SDSU are acts of a desperate Commissioner. He misread the tea leaves. The Pac 12 is just above the Mountain West in terms of importance and value for media deals.

What this also would suggest is that if a new media deal is delivered at a lesser amount than previously anticipated. If it doesn't even reach what the B12 got in their new 6 year deal, then the conference will be on life support. And no, I doubt that the collapse would offer any chance for us to join the B1G.

But let's say that we do get offered. And we get the west coast pod or "6-Pac" that we so desperately want.

UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Stanford and us

Besides Stanford, the 2nd win would be...where? Why would anyone want this? Relevancy? Money? To get our *sses kicked 4 weekends out of the season? In today's landscape? Come on guys.

Oski87 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Yeah, I mean what this seems to suggest is that this new courtship of SMU and SDSU are acts of a desperate Commissioner. He misread the tea leaves. The Pac 12 is just above the Mountain West in terms of importance and value for media deals.

What this also would suggest is that if a new media deal is delivered at a lesser amount than previously anticipated. If it doesn't even reach what the B12 got in their new 6 year deal, then the conference will be on life support. And no, I doubt that the collapse would offer any chance for us to join the B1G.

But let's say that we do get offered. And we get the west coast pod or "6-Pac" that we so desperately want.

UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Stanford and us

Besides Stanford, the 2nd win would be...where? Why would anyone want this? Relevancy? Money? To get our *sses kicked 4 weekends out of the season? In today's landscape? Come on guys.

---

Well, I would want that because of four things

1) eventually we would have a self-sufficient athletic department.
2) we will not have the AD who does not know how to fire people forever.
3) we would have more engaged alumni who would want to come see Cal vs Oregon or USC or UCLA vs Cal and SMU or SDSU. And our eventual road trips to Michigan and Ohio State and Wisconsin and even Nebraska would be fun. Or at least an experience. Remember that Cal is 9-3 again current Big 10.
4) it is the same thing we currently have.

---

Yes all of the above and relevancy. I mean it was great to win the NIT championship but how much did any of us brag about that at work let alone talk about it today?

I'd rather be a bottom feeder with misplaced hopes then a competitive team in what amounts to D2 football.

And let's be honest, Cal of fully capable of becoming g a bottom feeder in whichever league it ends up in. The folks at SDSU, Boise, Fresno. Etc - would be committed to their football programs getting better while we will continue to leave things up to chance (i.e. a miracle tedford-like hire).

philly1121 said:

---

Eh, I remember things different. Texas had their own network at the time and they would not agree to equal revenue sharing because, in part, of their network deal with ESPN. It was never going to fly unless everyone was an equal partner in the P12. So it got sunk.

As far as USC and UCLA keeping their intentions secret - we would have done the EXACT same thing.

And your last point has been "litigated" ad nauseum on this board. They didn't ignore anything. They broke no rule.

---

Point of clarification. The first time Larry Scott approached Texas and Oklahoma, ( w/OK St. and Texas Tech) in an effort to expand the Pac-12, was in 2010. At that time, The Longhorn Network did not exist.

ESPN got involved behind the scenes in scuttling that move... longer story... and the thing that got UT to remain in the Big XII was ESPN partnering with Texas to create LHN, a financial windfall for the school.

The second attempt at landing Texas and Oklahoma was 2011. Scott had been talking with Texas AD DeLoss Dodds and if I remember correctly school president Bill Powers. Scott thought he had a deal, as Texas was indicating that they had no issues with equal splits of league revenue.

But when Scott sat down with Dodds and Powers in Los Angeles to close the deal, Dodds refused to discuss rolling LHN into the Pac-12 Network, would not consider sharing LHN revenue with other schools, and demanded that Texas receive more money than other league members. Someone I know who was close to the negotiations called Dodds the "most arrogant guy I have ever met in my life".

Scott did bring the idea of adding Oklahoma and OK St to the school presidents later that year, but didn't have the votes to admit the Sooners and Cowboys on their own.

The Big 12 and its TV partners have reached an early exit agreement with Texas and Oklahoma, sources tell @SINow.

The schools will owe the league a combined $100 million in an exit fee, source says. They will begin play in the SEC in 2024 https://t.co/dTNlKT3EOL

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) February 10, 2023

concernedparent said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Houston is a much larger metropolitan area than Dallas

---

4
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA
7,759,615
7,637,387
+1.60%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA

5
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX MSA
7,206,841
7,122,240
+1.19%
Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

---

Your point is valid when considering the broader metropolitan areas. Although I didn't state it, I was thinking about the population of the cities of Dallas and Houston. According to the 2022 data I have, the population of Dallas is 1,400,000 and the population of Houston is 2,305,000. San Antonio actually has a larger population than Dallas.

Golden One said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Houston is a much larger metropolitan area than Dallas

---

4
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA
7,759,615
7,637,387
+1.60%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA

5
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX MSA
7,206,841
7,122,240
+1.19%
Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

---

Your point is valid when considering the broader metropolitan areas. Although I didn't state it, I was thinking about the population of the cities of Dallas and Houston. According to the 2022 data I have, the population of Dallas is 1,400,000 and the population of Houston is 2,305,000. San Antonio actually has a larger population than Dallas.

---

The most accurate way to analyze cities is by TV market:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market

juarezbear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Houston is a much larger metropolitan area than Dallas

---

4
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA
7,759,615
7,637,387
+1.60%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA

5
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX MSA
7,206,841
7,122,240
+1.19%
Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

---

Your point is valid when considering the broader metropolitan areas. Although I didn't state it, I was thinking about the population of the cities of Dallas and Houston. According to the 2022 data I have, the population of Dallas is 1,400,000 and the population of Houston is 2,305,000. San Antonio actually has a larger population than Dallas.

---

The most accurate way to analyze cities is by TV market:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market

---

Not sure this is appropriate in all cases for college athletics. I lived in Texas for 17 years, and I don't think the market for SMU extends very far out of Dallas and for Rice very far out of Houston.

If it does come to pass in 5-6 years that we join the B1G - that wouldn't make us relevant. It would get us paid. Nothing more. Strykur mentioned Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers. Are they relevant? No. They get beat up every year and get paid.

If that is a realistic outcome that supporters seem to want and are able to live with - great. But let's not complain then about coaching, or AD or Administration commitment to the program. The move would save all the other sports. Which perhaps is a noble reason for moving. But it it won't make us relevant.

philly1121 said:

---

If it does come to pass in 5-6 years that we join the B1G - that wouldn't make us relevant. It would get us paid. Nothing more. Strykur mentioned Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers. Are they relevant? No. They get beat up every year and get paid.

If that is a realistic outcome that supporters seem to want and are able to live with - great. But let's not complain then about coaching, or AD or Administration commitment to the program. The move would save all the other sports. Which perhaps is a noble reason for moving. But it it won't make us relevant.

---

You are right but I paid relevancy with hope. Most years yes we will be irrelevant but at least we have hope and I am sure there will be some year where we might compete for 1st - 3rd place in the conference. This is no different than our history in the pac12. We catch lightning in a bottle - a sweet 16 tourney appearance once every decade or two is worth more than any number of NIT championships. That's what I'm getting at.

philly1121 said:

---

If it does come to pass in 5-6 years that we join the B1G - that wouldn't make us relevant. It would get us paid. Nothing more. Strykur mentioned Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers. Are they relevant? No. They get beat up every year and get paid.

If that is a realistic outcome that supporters seem to want and are able to live with - great. But let's not complain then about coaching, or AD or Administration commitment to the program. The move would save all the other sports. Which perhaps is a noble reason for moving. But it it won't make us relevant.

---

You say those teams are irrelevant but they are strong in basketball. We're not.

southseasbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

If it does come to pass in 5-6 years that we join the B1G - that wouldn't make us relevant. It would get us paid. Nothing more. Strykur mentioned Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers. Are they relevant? No. They get beat up every year and get paid.

If that is a realistic outcome that supporters seem to want and are able to live with - great. But let's not complain then about coaching, or AD or Administration commitment to the program. The move would save all the other sports. Which perhaps is a noble reason for moving. But it it won't make us relevant.

---

You say those teams are irrelevant but they are strong in basketball. We're not.

---

Thanks to Knowlton and Fox we are in the midst of our worst season in program history as part of the worst 6 years in program history.

However 8 years ago we were undefeated at home, earned a 4 seed and finished ranked. We are typically about as good in basketball as we are in football.

Econ141 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

If it does come to pass in 5-6 years that we join the B1G - that wouldn't make us relevant. It would get us paid. Nothing more. Strykur mentioned Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers. Are they relevant? No. They get beat up every year and get paid.

If that is a realistic outcome that supporters seem to want and are able to live with - great. But let's not complain then about coaching, or AD or Administration commitment to the program. The move would save all the other sports. Which perhaps is a noble reason for moving. But it it won't make us relevant.

---

You are right but I paid relevancy with hope. Most years yes we will be irrelevant but at least we have hope and I am sure there will be some year where we might compete for 1st - 3rd place in the conference. This is no different than our history in the pac12. We catch lightning in a bottle - a sweet 16 tourney appearance once every decade or two is worth more than any number of NIT championships. That's what I'm getting at.

---

In 2004 we were the #2 team in the country according to Sagarin, losing in the regular season only to #1 USC on their own field due to special teams, but with a chance to win on the final play. Only three years before that we were 1-10.

The 2003 recruiting class featured 3 star recruits like Aaron Rodgers, JJ Arrington, and Brandon Mebane plus 2 stars like Thomas DeCoud.

Only then did we start getting 4 and 5 stars like Marshawn Lynch and Desean Jackson.

As you said, lightning in a bottle. We can do it again.

Well, this is the football forum so we are - I am - talking about football, right?

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.

---

The B1G 12 commish said they are now going to aggressively pursue expansion now that those two are going to pay up a hefty fine too.

It's like the world aligned to royally screw us and the pac-10 over after years of mismanagement.

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.

Strykur said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

The sad truth, or happy truth, depending on your perspective, is we might never play SC again. If they have 9 conference games and continue to play Notre Dame, it's going to be really difficult to fit into their schedule.

---

We probably end up in the Big Ten and it continues.

---

There doesn't seem to be any clear pathway for Cal to end up in the Big Ten. All the public comments from the presidents indicate the Big 10 is done expanding because they don't want to dilute the media rights. Either you add value or you're not going to be considered. Around 2030 or whenever the next media deal expires, Cal certainly won't be a more attractive commodity to the Big 10. I'm sure Cal will have found ways to further degrade its athletic status.

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.

---

Yes - my hopes rest on this and the B1G realizing the opportunity that Cal provides (one of the largest alumni bases and in an area where many B1G alums reside) once we have a change in management.

philly1121 said:

---

Well, this is the football forum so we are - I am - talking about football, right?

---

Yes it is, but you pointed to a half dozen schools current in the B1G and said they were irrelevant. Though your assessment is true for football, those teams are highly competitive in basketball. In other words, they offer value to the B1G. Sadly, we do not. Not football (where we are a perennial bottom dweller in a weak conference) and not in basketball (where we are possibly the worst in the nation).

Sure, we have academics, but that's all we have to offer. IF the B1G chooses to expand, there are many schools that will be added long before us. Our best bet is for the Pac 12/10 to expand to 14 or even 16 teams, widening its media base, to stabilize. Otherwise, we are looking at going to the MWC with Oregon State and Wazzu or trying to make it as an independent.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

There doesn't seem to be any clear pathway for Cal to end up in the Big Ten. All the public comments from the presidents indicate the Big 10 is done expanding because they don't want to dilute the media rights. Either you add value or you're not going to be considered.

---

There was a report the other day that Oregon and Washington have been told they don't add enough value to the Big Ten. If they don't, then no one in the Pac does.

Bottom line is that the Pac-10 teams have to figure out a way to make the Pac work, because no one here has a Big Ten level of TV value. (The fact that half of the Big Ten doesn't have that much value either doesn't help us. Those teams are already in and won't be kicked out.)

Would love to get people's thoughts on the following:

What teams that are not already a part of the B1G and SEC are worth 50mm outside of Notre Dame?

I imagine that UW and Oregon are not simply because of their media market. Cal/Stanford have the media market but are currently sucking therefore aren't a draw. If we moved forward Tedford's best years to the past 4-5, do people think we would be worth the add to B1G?

Completely agree. They have to figure out how to keep the current teams (except SC and UCLA) from bolting. If you're going to add SMU and SDSU, then its go big or go home. Add UNLV and one more.

I would say a venture into Texas may trigger the Big 12 but its about survival at this point. If you add Boise State (not saying we should) we would have a presence in every western state except New Mexico, Wyoming and Montana. The only current opportunity is to stay and try and make it work.

Without commenting on your post's content, I will write that this is the best, high quality sunshine post I have seen in a very long time. Props. I hope you're right.

philly1121 said:

---

Yeah, I mean what this seems to suggest is that this new courtship of SMU and SDSU are acts of a desperate Commissioner. He misread the tea leaves. The Pac 12 is just above the Mountain West in terms of importance and value for media deals.

What this also would suggest is that if a new media deal is delivered at a lesser amount than previously anticipated. If it doesn't even reach what the B12 got in their new 6 year deal, then the conference will be on life support. And no, I doubt that the collapse would offer any chance for us to join the B1G.

But let's say that we do get offered. And we get the west coast pod or "6-Pac" that we so desperately want.

UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Stanford and us

Besides Stanford, the 2nd win would be...where? Why would anyone want this? Relevancy? Money? To get our *sses kicked 4 weekends out of the season? In today's landscape? Come on guys.

---

We might also be facing a bunch of B1G teams we can beat. We may not be able to beat Nevada, but going back the last year 20 years, we won about 2/3 of the games against the B!G (at least teams who members when we played them. We don't play a lot of B1G teams interestingly. Last ten years was 2-2 (we played them a lot more in the prior decade). Cal can also play with the other schools, as all the other programs other than maybe Oregon, have had down years where they were beatable. A lot of success will be tied to what NIL and the Portal looks like in future years. One thing is that the incremental increase in conference revenues more than easily pays off Fox, Knowlton, etc.