Too many teams. Each NFL team should get one minor league team. Play the games at existing stadiums. Charge the schools to wear their laundry by the week. Boosters who want championship level laundry wearers will pay to have it. Bowls go to the boosters who make the highest bid.
ACC drama may take heat off Pac-12 for a week
7,761 Views |
59 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by ColoradoBear
College football today is a sh*tstorm of selfishness.
It's about time our inept Cal administration starts looking out for Cal's best interests, instead of presiding over the decline of a great academic institution and a once competitive athletic program.philly1121 said:
I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.
And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.
In a sport that is driven by TV revenues having only 1 time slot that TV finds attractive (late window) in any way is not good. The other conferences have the better slots and have fans that watch. So for now streaming seems to be the only method to try and get the biggest revenue deal. But will suffer with distribution and exposure. The P12 is already there.philly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
The only real solution for the P12 is to merge with another conference (ACC or Big 12) or have various programs splinter off into whatever conference they can find a home. Not every program would likely land in a P5 program. But adding SDSU and SMU is not a good solution. The conference IMO is on life support as a stand alone conference. They may find some deal that keeps everyone together for the near term (that is what they hope) but the end is in sight IMO.
Unequal shares of the revenues may be necessary to keep UO and UW in house for now, but at what cost to the rest? College football needs to be more like the NFL in regards to revenue sharing. But won't happen in this world of P5 and G5 with multiple conferences. In the NFL every team has a realistic chance of success. It comes down to management more than anything. But in college there is wide disparity in revenues. Big differences in admissions, academic profiles, history etc that create a very unlevel playing field.
It is harder to cheat in the NFL where salary caps, drafts and roster size give every program a shot at success. In college cheating is rampant and nobody seems to want to go after the cheaters. After all the cheating programs win and TV loves winners.
College football needs a reset. This model with multiple conferences receiving widely different revenues has created a haves vs have not game. Now suddenly Rutgers is a have in terms of revenue simply because they are in a conference that has brokered a great TV deal. Certainly not because they are good at the revenue sports. Same with Vanderbilt in the SEC. They are one of the poorest football programs around in terms of on field results. But they are made whole by conference affiliation rather than performance.
The value of the P12 is only what somebody (TV) will pay for it. As we are seeing that number is low. The B1G and SEC took most of the money and time slots. It is what it is. The P12 is essentially negotiating against itself. So the deal almost certainly will be low. Lower than the Big 12? Maybe. Probably. The P12 is on life support and the biggest reason is not poor management (although it has been run poorly) it is being located in the western time zone. That is the worst time zone for TV. Too many options around the country to show games in the best time zones and a population base that is lower and less interested in college sports to begin with.
The west is IMO the best place to live. But not great if you are trying to forge a high revenue TV deal. Can't get a great TV deal for the P12. Oh well no matter. Many will be wine tasting, sailing, watching their kids activities, going to the beach, mountains or lakes anyway. Too much to do out west and not good enough ball to get folks in the stadiums or in front of their TVs.
TV is spending their dollars where it has the best chance of a return. That is not in the west. No matter how much we scream market size or some other factor. The ratings are clear. The attendance figures are clear. There is just not enough interest for some network or streamer to come in and pay the P12 anywhere near what it will take to keep up with the B1G or SEC. Merging or getting added to another conference is the best bet if you are trying to compete for revenues.
I like the idea of merging with the ACC, which has some top notch academic schools, to form a coast-to-coast conference. To provide balance and make this work, the Pac will need to add several (I think 6) schools. SDSU and SMU are a start.
I think that could work. But time is not on the side of that idea. The P12 has a deal that is expiring at the end of 2023 season. That is not much time. The ACC has a GOR that runs through 2036. There are already some programs (FSU, Clemson and Miami) making noise about breaking the GOR and leaving the ACC. Is the ACC very valuable without FSU and Clemson?southseasbear said:
I like the idea of merging with the ACC, which has some top notch academic schools, to form a coast-to-coast conference. To provide balance and make this work, the Pac will need to add several (I think 6) schools. SDSU and SMU are a start.
JMO but college football needs to align as a group, not be these seperate conferences with different TV deals and expiration dates. The revenue disparity is enormous. The thinking has to change. But why would the SEC want change? Or the B1G? Or TV?
There are too many cooks but just just a few kitchens. If college football is to truly survive and thrive for all there needs to be a big shift in thinking. But there is too much money and power involved and getting any sort of consensus thinking seems to be a pipe dream.
Unequal revenues are not the answer. UW and UO believe they are more valuable. Are they? Really?Fine UW go independent and lets see what your value really is. Sorry but you are not Notre Dame and even ND is trying hard to keep up and may need to change its thinking.
College football is getting closer and closer to the NFL each and every year. The players are getting paid via NIL and will be paid directly at some point. There is a case before the courts now asking to make the players employees. Games are at different times, different days. There is a transfer portal which is akin to NFL free agency and programs are hiring multiple staffers to manage the roster. Look at the support staff for Cal football. This is the professional model. But many still want to believe this is a amatuer sport played by students. All the while they negotiate huge contracts for coaches, have enormous payrolls for staff and talk about their teams as a "brand".
This is pro football without player representation, equal distributions of revenues, any sort of salary constraints or a draft. It is no longer cheering for the old alma mater. It is about money. Large piles of it. TV is doling it out where they believe it will return revenues back. Cal is not in the game. At least to the degree they need to be.
Just me but adding SDSU and SMU does not move the needle. IMO adding teams is not the answer. There is nobody to add that is not already in a P5 league that elevates the P12 to a level it needs to flourish. Kliavkoff will not be working for what is best for the members. He is working for a deal that keeps him employed. And he may find one. But it is a temporary solution at best. And even then when the realignment dance starts again when it is time to renegotiate these P12 teams will be almost $300M behind the B1G teams over the period.
I am still hoping Cal somehow finds it way into the B1G. College football has a problem. Having 2 mega conferences and everyone else is not a good solution. Unless you are in the B1G or SEC. Then you think it is great. Cal needs to find a home. The P12 is no longer the preferred neighborhood to live in.
What will prevent the same thing from happening in the Big 10? I'd guess that the combination of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, and USC will be responsible for over half the value. Why should Purdue and Iowa and Indiana get an equal payout?philly1121 said:I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.tequila4kapp said:The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not Ifphilly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.
They shouldn't. It's unAmerican, even communist. DONOR'S RIGHTS TO PARTY AT BOWL GAMES MUST BE PRESERVED!maxer said:What will prevent the same thing from happening in the Big 10? I'd guess that the combination of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, and USC will be responsible for over half the value. Why should Purdue and Iowa and Indiana get an equal payout?philly1121 said:I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.tequila4kapp said:The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not Ifphilly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.
Also, keep the gubinmnt out of the private lives of scholar/athletes.
While I think what you wrote is valid, I also think that its quite pollyann-ish. The causes of the current state of play of college football economics has several milestones. Penn State joining the Big 10 in 1990. O'Bannon v. NCAA in 2009. Nebraska joining in 2011. NCAA v. Alston.6956bear said:I think that could work. But time is not on the side of that idea. The P12 has a deal that is expiring at the end of 2023 season. That is not much time. The ACC has a GOR that runs through 2036. There are already some programs (FSU, Clemson and Miami) making noise about breaking the GOR and leaving the ACC. Is the ACC very valuable without FSU and Clemson?southseasbear said:
I like the idea of merging with the ACC, which has some top notch academic schools, to form a coast-to-coast conference. To provide balance and make this work, the Pac will need to add several (I think 6) schools. SDSU and SMU are a start.
JMO but college football needs to align as a group, not be these seperate conferences with different TV deals and expiration dates. The revenue disparity is enormous. The thinking has to change. But why would the SEC want change? Or the B1G? Or TV?
There are too many cooks but just just a few kitchens. If college football is to truly survive and thrive for all there needs to be a big shift in thinking. But there is too much money and power involved and getting any sort of consensus thinking seems to be a pipe dream.
Unequal revenues are not the answer. UW and UO believe they are more valuable. Are they? Really?Fine UW go independent and lets see what your value really is. Sorry but you are not Notre Dame and even ND is trying hard to keep up and may need to change its thinking.
College football is getting closer and closer to the NFL each and every year. The players are getting paid via NIL and will be paid directly at some point. There is a case before the courts now asking to make the players employees. Games are at different times, different days. There is a transfer portal which is akin to NFL free agency and programs are hiring multiple staffers to manage the roster. Look at the support staff for Cal football. This is the professional model. But many still want to believe this is a amatuer sport played by students. All the while they negotiate huge contracts for coaches, have enormous payrolls for staff and talk about their teams as a "brand".
This is pro football without player representation, equal distributions of revenues, any sort of salary constraints or a draft. It is no longer cheering for the old alma mater. It is about money. Large piles of it. TV is doling it out where they believe it will return revenues back. Cal is not in the game. At least to the degree they need to be.
Just me but adding SDSU and SMU does not move the needle. IMO adding teams is not the answer. There is nobody to add that is not already in a P5 league that elevates the P12 to a level it needs to flourish. Kliavkoff will not be working for what is best for the members. He is working for a deal that keeps him employed. And he may find one. But it is a temporary solution at best. And even then when the realignment dance starts again when it is time to renegotiate these P12 teams will be almost $300M behind the B1G teams over the period.
I am still hoping Cal somehow finds it way into the B1G. College football has a problem. Having 2 mega conferences and everyone else is not a good solution. Unless you are in the B1G or SEC. Then you think it is great. Cal needs to find a home. The P12 is no longer the preferred neighborhood to live in.
Moves by Penn State, the Big East collapse and Nebraska moving to the B1G are all products of what those schools would describe as "watching out for themselves". So I suppose we could say that this has been going on for the past 30+ years. In this sense, there has always been a sense of inequity that has driven colleges and athletic programs to seek greener pastures.
It was not that long ago that the P12 was regarded as the premier conference for athletics and the academic programs of the representative colleges. Though academic regard remains, it has fallen to what many see on this board (I agree) and what social media sees as an inept conference. One that got it wrong on the P12 Network, saw USC and UCLA leave and did not act quickly to seal a media rights deal. Unfortunately, the P12 has now developed the stigma of being an "also-ran" conference of the unwanted.
My own personal opinion is that the conference can still be saved. I hope it is saved and we get 2-4 additions and then look to stabilize further or combine with another conference.
I feel like if we were to join the Big 10, we would be Rutgers and Maryland status only. It would certainly benefit non-revenue sports and they would be saved and we can continue to offer these important athletic programs. But I think the price is continued irrelevancy in football and basketball. Let's not kid ourselves that this is not the fate of football or basketball if we join the B1G.
The difference is that they negotiated that. So Michigan, Penn St., USC and Ohio State will have to live with it. Until the next round of negotiations. if we were to get an invite to the B1G, we would absolutely take a lesser share. Just calculate the amount of money it would take to keep non-revenue sports and accept the deal. Simple.maxer said:What will prevent the same thing from happening in the Big 10? I'd guess that the combination of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, and USC will be responsible for over half the value. Why should Purdue and Iowa and Indiana get an equal payout?philly1121 said:I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.tequila4kapp said:The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not Ifphilly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.
6956bear said:In a sport that is driven by TV revenues having only 1 time slot that TV finds attractive (late window) in any way is not good. The other conferences have the better slots and have fans that watch. So for now streaming seems to be the only method to try and get the biggest revenue deal. But will suffer with distribution and exposure. The P12 is already there.philly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
The only real solution for the P12 is to merge with another conference (ACC or Big 12) or have various programs splinter off into whatever conference they can find a home. Not every program would likely land in a P5 program. But adding SDSU and SMU is not a good solution. The conference IMO is on life support as a stand alone conference. They may find some deal that keeps everyone together for the near term (that is what they hope) but the end is in sight IMO.
Unequal shares of the revenues may be necessary to keep UO and UW in house for now, but at what cost to the rest? College football needs to be more like the NFL in regards to revenue sharing. But won't happen in this world of P5 and G5 with multiple conferences. In the NFL every team has a realistic chance of success. It comes down to management more than anything. But in college there is wide disparity in revenues. Big differences in admissions, academic profiles, history etc that create a very unlevel playing field.
It is harder to cheat in the NFL where salary caps, drafts and roster size give every program a shot at success. In college cheating is rampant and nobody seems to want to go after the cheaters. After all the cheating programs win and TV loves winners.
College football needs a reset. This model with multiple conferences receiving widely different revenues has created a haves vs have not game. Now suddenly Rutgers is a have in terms of revenue simply because they are in a conference that has brokered a great TV deal. Certainly not because they are good at the revenue sports. Same with Vanderbilt in the SEC. They are one of the poorest football programs around in terms of on field results. But they are made whole by conference affiliation rather than performance.
The value of the P12 is only what somebody (TV) will pay for it. As we are seeing that number is low. The B1G and SEC took most of the money and time slots. It is what it is. The P12 is essentially negotiating against itself. So the deal almost certainly will be low. Lower than the Big 12? Maybe. Probably. The P12 is on life support and the biggest reason is not poor management (although it has been run poorly) it is being located in the western time zone. That is the worst time zone for TV. Too many options around the country to show games in the best time zones and a population base that is lower and less interested in college sports to begin with.
The west is IMO the best place to live. But not great if you are trying to forge a high revenue TV deal. Can't get a great TV deal for the P12. Oh well no matter. Many will be wine tasting, sailing, watching their kids activities, going to the beach, mountains or lakes anyway. Too much to do out west and not good enough ball to get folks in the stadiums or in front of their TVs.
TV is spending their dollars where it has the best chance of a return. That is not in the west. No matter how much we scream market size or some other factor. The ratings are clear. The attendance figures are clear. There is just not enough interest for some network or streamer to come in and pay the P12 anywhere near what it will take to keep up with the B1G or SEC. Merging or getting added to another conference is the best bet if you are trying to compete for revenues.
Pac12 can provide multiple time slots, really 10am - 10pm. The uniqueness of the late slot is that we are the *only* power 5 conference that can offer games in that timeslot. At least we were until UCLA/USC bolted.
This is also why we are looking at providers that currently have no coverage. If *all* we offered was one time slot, Apple/Amazon wouldn't be that interested. The fact we can go the full day filling up 4 time slots (10am, 1pm, 4pm, 7pm exclusive) is valuable for a new network/provider looking to get their toes wet to see how deep they want to go in the space.
The problem the Pac12 has right now is that our value in the other slots (10am-4pm) is so much lower than the other conferences. That is largely due to a huge lack of exposure under the pac12 network, combined with a down period for USC partially brought on by sanctions.
In all honesty, Oregon and Washington have hurt the pac12 substantially as well by making it to the playoffs and failing so miserably. Had Oregon/Washington actually won on the national stage like USC did instead of face-planting in embarrassing fashion then we would be having a different conversation right now.
6956bear said:I think that could work. But time is not on the side of that idea. The P12 has a deal that is expiring at the end of 2023 season. That is not much time. The ACC has a GOR that runs through 2036. There are already some programs (FSU, Clemson and Miami) making noise about breaking the GOR and leaving the ACC. Is the ACC very valuable without FSU and Clemson?southseasbear said:
I like the idea of merging with the ACC, which has some top notch academic schools, to form a coast-to-coast conference. To provide balance and make this work, the Pac will need to add several (I think 6) schools. SDSU and SMU are a start.
JMO but college football needs to align as a group, not be these seperate conferences with different TV deals and expiration dates. The revenue disparity is enormous. The thinking has to change. But why would the SEC want change? Or the B1G? Or TV?
There are too many cooks but just just a few kitchens. If college football is to truly survive and thrive for all there needs to be a big shift in thinking. But there is too much money and power involved and getting any sort of consensus thinking seems to be a pipe dream.
Unequal revenues are not the answer. UW and UO believe they are more valuable. Are they? Really?Fine UW go independent and lets see what your value really is. Sorry but you are not Notre Dame and even ND is trying hard to keep up and may need to change its thinking.
College football is getting closer and closer to the NFL each and every year. The players are getting paid via NIL and will be paid directly at some point. There is a case before the courts now asking to make the players employees. Games are at different times, different days. There is a transfer portal which is akin to NFL free agency and programs are hiring multiple staffers to manage the roster. Look at the support staff for Cal football. This is the professional model. But many still want to believe this is a amatuer sport played by students. All the while they negotiate huge contracts for coaches, have enormous payrolls for staff and talk about their teams as a "brand".
This is pro football without player representation, equal distributions of revenues, any sort of salary constraints or a draft. It is no longer cheering for the old alma mater. It is about money. Large piles of it. TV is doling it out where they believe it will return revenues back. Cal is not in the game. At least to the degree they need to be.
Just me but adding SDSU and SMU does not move the needle. IMO adding teams is not the answer. There is nobody to add that is not already in a P5 league that elevates the P12 to a level it needs to flourish. Kliavkoff will not be working for what is best for the members. He is working for a deal that keeps him employed. And he may find one. But it is a temporary solution at best. And even then when the realignment dance starts again when it is time to renegotiate these P12 teams will be almost $300M behind the B1G teams over the period.
I am still hoping Cal somehow finds it way into the B1G. College football has a problem. Having 2 mega conferences and everyone else is not a good solution. Unless you are in the B1G or SEC. Then you think it is great. Cal needs to find a home. The P12 is no longer the preferred neighborhood to live in.
Good post. I agree, our best options are:
1. A Big 10 West Coast pod
2. An ACC/PAC West Coast pod
3. Trying to save the PAC by adding San Diego State and SMU is likely just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Number 1 is dependent on Cal administrators working with Stanford, UCLA and USC to get us in. We need to have them push for us as the first choice to maintain rivalries and traditions (and add arguably the third largest media market in the country). If UW and Oregon also get in, great. Theoretically Kliavkoff could work a deal (surrender), but it is unlikely.
Number 2 could be great too, especially because it includes Notre Dame's rights. It would help us leapfrog the B12 which has to compete with the SEC and B1G in their own markets and time zones. Eventually we could poach their teams (or merge?). It would create a coast to coast conference with the West, the Northeast and Southeast/Florida (plus Notre Dame in the Midwest). Maybe UCLA and USC join later? It is the power move for Kliavkoff, versus #3.
If college football is going to be reformed it will require enabling legislation from Congress. I think the ideal would be to do away with conferences and split the country into 4 regions: West, Midwest, East, South with multiple 10 team divisions in each region playing a round robin (plus two traditional rivals or other games with teams outside the region) and promotion and relegation between divisions each year like European soccer. Then there would be a 16 team playoff (top 2 teams from 1st division, champs of next two divisions). Congress could even restore amateurism or better, a revenue split where every player gets an equal scholarship and stipend. Funding for the player scholarships and stipends would come from the playoff revenues. Schools keep their own ticket sales and every week broadcasters would bid for the upcoming games in an auction with most of the revenues kept by the schools. I highly doubt we ever get to a point we're Congress thinks this is a good idea (too many votes for the SEC and B1G), but it would be ideal.
Anyway, I hope Christ is talking with UCLA and USC (and the B1G) and Kliavkoff is talking with the B1G and ACC.
Yes. This is why a streamer is likely to be a major carrier of conference games if they can even get a deal. The better time slots have been taken by the other conferences where there is a greater interest in watching. This is why the P12 had to get their deal before the Big 12. It may not have mattered but the Big 12 was smart to recognize where they stand in the overall landscape.MrGPAC said:6956bear said:In a sport that is driven by TV revenues having only 1 time slot that TV finds attractive (late window) in any way is not good. The other conferences have the better slots and have fans that watch. So for now streaming seems to be the only method to try and get the biggest revenue deal. But will suffer with distribution and exposure. The P12 is already there.philly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
The only real solution for the P12 is to merge with another conference (ACC or Big 12) or have various programs splinter off into whatever conference they can find a home. Not every program would likely land in a P5 program. But adding SDSU and SMU is not a good solution. The conference IMO is on life support as a stand alone conference. They may find some deal that keeps everyone together for the near term (that is what they hope) but the end is in sight IMO.
Unequal shares of the revenues may be necessary to keep UO and UW in house for now, but at what cost to the rest? College football needs to be more like the NFL in regards to revenue sharing. But won't happen in this world of P5 and G5 with multiple conferences. In the NFL every team has a realistic chance of success. It comes down to management more than anything. But in college there is wide disparity in revenues. Big differences in admissions, academic profiles, history etc that create a very unlevel playing field.
It is harder to cheat in the NFL where salary caps, drafts and roster size give every program a shot at success. In college cheating is rampant and nobody seems to want to go after the cheaters. After all the cheating programs win and TV loves winners.
College football needs a reset. This model with multiple conferences receiving widely different revenues has created a haves vs have not game. Now suddenly Rutgers is a have in terms of revenue simply because they are in a conference that has brokered a great TV deal. Certainly not because they are good at the revenue sports. Same with Vanderbilt in the SEC. They are one of the poorest football programs around in terms of on field results. But they are made whole by conference affiliation rather than performance.
The value of the P12 is only what somebody (TV) will pay for it. As we are seeing that number is low. The B1G and SEC took most of the money and time slots. It is what it is. The P12 is essentially negotiating against itself. So the deal almost certainly will be low. Lower than the Big 12? Maybe. Probably. The P12 is on life support and the biggest reason is not poor management (although it has been run poorly) it is being located in the western time zone. That is the worst time zone for TV. Too many options around the country to show games in the best time zones and a population base that is lower and less interested in college sports to begin with.
The west is IMO the best place to live. But not great if you are trying to forge a high revenue TV deal. Can't get a great TV deal for the P12. Oh well no matter. Many will be wine tasting, sailing, watching their kids activities, going to the beach, mountains or lakes anyway. Too much to do out west and not good enough ball to get folks in the stadiums or in front of their TVs.
TV is spending their dollars where it has the best chance of a return. That is not in the west. No matter how much we scream market size or some other factor. The ratings are clear. The attendance figures are clear. There is just not enough interest for some network or streamer to come in and pay the P12 anywhere near what it will take to keep up with the B1G or SEC. Merging or getting added to another conference is the best bet if you are trying to compete for revenues.
Pac12 can provide multiple time slots, really 10am - 10pm. The uniqueness of the late slot is that we are the *only* power 5 conference that can offer games in that timeslot. At least we were until UCLA/USC bolted.
This is also why we are looking at providers that currently have no coverage. If *all* we offered was one time slot, Apple/Amazon wouldn't be that interested. The fact we can go the full day filling up 4 time slots (10am, 1pm, 4pm, 7pm exclusive) is valuable for a new network/provider looking to get their toes wet to see how deep they want to go in the space.
The problem the Pac12 has right now is that our value in the other slots (10am-4pm) is so much lower than the other conferences. That is largely due to a huge lack of exposure under the pac12 network, combined with a down period for USC partially brought on by sanctions.
In all honesty, Oregon and Washington have hurt the pac12 substantially as well by making it to the playoffs and failing so miserably. Had Oregon/Washington actually won on the national stage like USC did instead of face-planting in embarrassing fashion then we would be having a different conversation right now.
So sure the P12 has one valuable slot. But really that late window is not as valuable as other time slots as many in the eastern and central time zones will not start watchng a game at 9:30 pm or 10:30 pm local time.
I am less certain that the streamers really value 4 open time slots. In fact there are reports that Amazon is really only interested in 1 game per week. ESPN would like the late window but has nobody competing for that slot at present so it can offer less.
I am in the end only really concerned about how all this impacts Cal. And right now it does not look good to me.
Isn't this where Cal is now? Poor football and basketball programs. But at least B1G affiliation can preserve the other sports. I still believe that the B1G is chock full of mediocre football programs. Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota are not much better than what Cal faces now. In fact Cal played 5 top 25 teams in conference and Notre Dame OOC just a season ago. Cal would not be playing OSU, Michigan and Penn St each and every season. Likely they would play the western pod annually and rotate among the remainder of the conference.philly1121 said:While I think what you wrote is valid, I also think that its quite pollyann-ish. The causes of the current state of play of college football economics has several milestones. Penn State joining the Big 10 in 1990. O'Bannon v. NCAA in 2009. Nebraska joining in 2011. NCAA v. Alston.6956bear said:I think that could work. But time is not on the side of that idea. The P12 has a deal that is expiring at the end of 2023 season. That is not much time. The ACC has a GOR that runs through 2036. There are already some programs (FSU, Clemson and Miami) making noise about breaking the GOR and leaving the ACC. Is the ACC very valuable without FSU and Clemson?southseasbear said:
I like the idea of merging with the ACC, which has some top notch academic schools, to form a coast-to-coast conference. To provide balance and make this work, the Pac will need to add several (I think 6) schools. SDSU and SMU are a start.
JMO but college football needs to align as a group, not be these seperate conferences with different TV deals and expiration dates. The revenue disparity is enormous. The thinking has to change. But why would the SEC want change? Or the B1G? Or TV?
There are too many cooks but just just a few kitchens. If college football is to truly survive and thrive for all there needs to be a big shift in thinking. But there is too much money and power involved and getting any sort of consensus thinking seems to be a pipe dream.
Unequal revenues are not the answer. UW and UO believe they are more valuable. Are they? Really?Fine UW go independent and lets see what your value really is. Sorry but you are not Notre Dame and even ND is trying hard to keep up and may need to change its thinking.
College football is getting closer and closer to the NFL each and every year. The players are getting paid via NIL and will be paid directly at some point. There is a case before the courts now asking to make the players employees. Games are at different times, different days. There is a transfer portal which is akin to NFL free agency and programs are hiring multiple staffers to manage the roster. Look at the support staff for Cal football. This is the professional model. But many still want to believe this is a amatuer sport played by students. All the while they negotiate huge contracts for coaches, have enormous payrolls for staff and talk about their teams as a "brand".
This is pro football without player representation, equal distributions of revenues, any sort of salary constraints or a draft. It is no longer cheering for the old alma mater. It is about money. Large piles of it. TV is doling it out where they believe it will return revenues back. Cal is not in the game. At least to the degree they need to be.
Just me but adding SDSU and SMU does not move the needle. IMO adding teams is not the answer. There is nobody to add that is not already in a P5 league that elevates the P12 to a level it needs to flourish. Kliavkoff will not be working for what is best for the members. He is working for a deal that keeps him employed. And he may find one. But it is a temporary solution at best. And even then when the realignment dance starts again when it is time to renegotiate these P12 teams will be almost $300M behind the B1G teams over the period.
I am still hoping Cal somehow finds it way into the B1G. College football has a problem. Having 2 mega conferences and everyone else is not a good solution. Unless you are in the B1G or SEC. Then you think it is great. Cal needs to find a home. The P12 is no longer the preferred neighborhood to live in.
Moves by Penn State, the Big East collapse and Nebraska moving to the B1G are all products of what those schools would describe as "watching out for themselves". So I suppose we could say that this has been going on for the past 30+ years. In this sense, there has always been a sense of inequity that has driven colleges and athletic programs to seek greener pastures.
It was not that long ago that the P12 was regarded as the premier conference for athletics and the academic programs of the representative colleges. Though academic regard remains, it has fallen to what many see on this board (I agree) and what social media sees as an inept conference. One that got it wrong on the P12 Network, saw USC and UCLA leave and did not act quickly to seal a media rights deal. Unfortunately, the P12 has now developed the stigma of being an "also-ran" conference of the unwanted.
My own personal opinion is that the conference can still be saved. I hope it is saved and we get 2-4 additions and then look to stabilize further or combine with another conference.
I feel like if we were to join the Big 10, we would be Rutgers and Maryland status only. It would certainly benefit non-revenue sports and they would be saved and we can continue to offer these important athletic programs. But I think the price is continued irrelevancy in football and basketball. Let's not kid ourselves that this is not the fate of football or basketball if we join the B1G.
I will take that for entrance to a real league that has a legit chance to provide the revenues needed to support a full slate of programs as Cal currently provides. Cal has been mostly weak in football for the better part of 60 years now. Lets get the money. Hopefully the current situation opens some eyes at Cal and they start to take this seriously. I doubt it, but the P12 seems unlikley to survive the next round of TV deals and expansion even if somehow they get a deal now.
Yes, this is where Cal is now. And my point was that the B1G would preserve the non-revenue sports.6956bear said:Isn't this where Cal is now? Poor football and basketball programs. But at least B1G affiliation can preserve the other sports. I still believe that the B1G is chock full of mediocre football programs. Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota are not much better than what Cal faces now. In fact Cal played 5 top 25 teams in conference and Notre Dame OOC just a season ago. Cal would not be playing OSU, Michigan and Penn St each and every season. Likely they would play the western pod annually and rotate among the remainder of the conference.philly1121 said:While I think what you wrote is valid, I also think that its quite pollyann-ish. The causes of the current state of play of college football economics has several milestones. Penn State joining the Big 10 in 1990. O'Bannon v. NCAA in 2009. Nebraska joining in 2011. NCAA v. Alston.6956bear said:I think that could work. But time is not on the side of that idea. The P12 has a deal that is expiring at the end of 2023 season. That is not much time. The ACC has a GOR that runs through 2036. There are already some programs (FSU, Clemson and Miami) making noise about breaking the GOR and leaving the ACC. Is the ACC very valuable without FSU and Clemson?southseasbear said:
I like the idea of merging with the ACC, which has some top notch academic schools, to form a coast-to-coast conference. To provide balance and make this work, the Pac will need to add several (I think 6) schools. SDSU and SMU are a start.
JMO but college football needs to align as a group, not be these seperate conferences with different TV deals and expiration dates. The revenue disparity is enormous. The thinking has to change. But why would the SEC want change? Or the B1G? Or TV?
There are too many cooks but just just a few kitchens. If college football is to truly survive and thrive for all there needs to be a big shift in thinking. But there is too much money and power involved and getting any sort of consensus thinking seems to be a pipe dream.
Unequal revenues are not the answer. UW and UO believe they are more valuable. Are they? Really?Fine UW go independent and lets see what your value really is. Sorry but you are not Notre Dame and even ND is trying hard to keep up and may need to change its thinking.
College football is getting closer and closer to the NFL each and every year. The players are getting paid via NIL and will be paid directly at some point. There is a case before the courts now asking to make the players employees. Games are at different times, different days. There is a transfer portal which is akin to NFL free agency and programs are hiring multiple staffers to manage the roster. Look at the support staff for Cal football. This is the professional model. But many still want to believe this is a amatuer sport played by students. All the while they negotiate huge contracts for coaches, have enormous payrolls for staff and talk about their teams as a "brand".
This is pro football without player representation, equal distributions of revenues, any sort of salary constraints or a draft. It is no longer cheering for the old alma mater. It is about money. Large piles of it. TV is doling it out where they believe it will return revenues back. Cal is not in the game. At least to the degree they need to be.
Just me but adding SDSU and SMU does not move the needle. IMO adding teams is not the answer. There is nobody to add that is not already in a P5 league that elevates the P12 to a level it needs to flourish. Kliavkoff will not be working for what is best for the members. He is working for a deal that keeps him employed. And he may find one. But it is a temporary solution at best. And even then when the realignment dance starts again when it is time to renegotiate these P12 teams will be almost $300M behind the B1G teams over the period.
I am still hoping Cal somehow finds it way into the B1G. College football has a problem. Having 2 mega conferences and everyone else is not a good solution. Unless you are in the B1G or SEC. Then you think it is great. Cal needs to find a home. The P12 is no longer the preferred neighborhood to live in.
Moves by Penn State, the Big East collapse and Nebraska moving to the B1G are all products of what those schools would describe as "watching out for themselves". So I suppose we could say that this has been going on for the past 30+ years. In this sense, there has always been a sense of inequity that has driven colleges and athletic programs to seek greener pastures.
It was not that long ago that the P12 was regarded as the premier conference for athletics and the academic programs of the representative colleges. Though academic regard remains, it has fallen to what many see on this board (I agree) and what social media sees as an inept conference. One that got it wrong on the P12 Network, saw USC and UCLA leave and did not act quickly to seal a media rights deal. Unfortunately, the P12 has now developed the stigma of being an "also-ran" conference of the unwanted.
My own personal opinion is that the conference can still be saved. I hope it is saved and we get 2-4 additions and then look to stabilize further or combine with another conference.
I feel like if we were to join the Big 10, we would be Rutgers and Maryland status only. It would certainly benefit non-revenue sports and they would be saved and we can continue to offer these important athletic programs. But I think the price is continued irrelevancy in football and basketball. Let's not kid ourselves that this is not the fate of football or basketball if we join the B1G.
I will take that for entrance to a real league that has a legit chance to provide the revenues needed to support a full slate of programs as Cal currently provides. Cal has been mostly weak in football for the better part of 60 years now. Lets get the money. Hopefully the current situation opens some eyes at Cal and they start to take this seriously. I doubt it, but the P12 seems unlikley to survive the next round of TV deals and expansion even if somehow they get a deal now.
But to be clear, we are now looking at any possible entry into the B1G as the preservation of non-revenue sports, yes? Not that we think we are going to be competitive in football or basketball. I just want to clear that up, I mean, if we're gonna be honest with ourselves here.
But that's pretty much it. I don't agree with some posters - and its not all of them but some - who say we will be competitive because we won't play Michigan, OSU or Penn State every year. And? A Western pod? We finished 2-7 against the teams that you want to go with us to the B1G. And we would likely have to play USC and UCLA to "preserve tradition". It really won't make a difference will it?
I don't know what the answer is. I would hope that minimally, the new media deal would provide every school with financial support to continue non-revenue sports. But I suppose if it doesn't, the conference is dead.
6956bear said:Yes. This is why a streamer is likely to be a major carrier of conference games if they can even get a deal. The better time slots have been taken by the other conferences where there is a greater interest in watching. This is why the P12 had to get their deal before the Big 12. It may not have mattered but the Big 12 was smart to recognize where they stand in the overall landscape.MrGPAC said:6956bear said:In a sport that is driven by TV revenues having only 1 time slot that TV finds attractive (late window) in any way is not good. The other conferences have the better slots and have fans that watch. So for now streaming seems to be the only method to try and get the biggest revenue deal. But will suffer with distribution and exposure. The P12 is already there.philly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
The only real solution for the P12 is to merge with another conference (ACC or Big 12) or have various programs splinter off into whatever conference they can find a home. Not every program would likely land in a P5 program. But adding SDSU and SMU is not a good solution. The conference IMO is on life support as a stand alone conference. They may find some deal that keeps everyone together for the near term (that is what they hope) but the end is in sight IMO.
Unequal shares of the revenues may be necessary to keep UO and UW in house for now, but at what cost to the rest? College football needs to be more like the NFL in regards to revenue sharing. But won't happen in this world of P5 and G5 with multiple conferences. In the NFL every team has a realistic chance of success. It comes down to management more than anything. But in college there is wide disparity in revenues. Big differences in admissions, academic profiles, history etc that create a very unlevel playing field.
It is harder to cheat in the NFL where salary caps, drafts and roster size give every program a shot at success. In college cheating is rampant and nobody seems to want to go after the cheaters. After all the cheating programs win and TV loves winners.
College football needs a reset. This model with multiple conferences receiving widely different revenues has created a haves vs have not game. Now suddenly Rutgers is a have in terms of revenue simply because they are in a conference that has brokered a great TV deal. Certainly not because they are good at the revenue sports. Same with Vanderbilt in the SEC. They are one of the poorest football programs around in terms of on field results. But they are made whole by conference affiliation rather than performance.
The value of the P12 is only what somebody (TV) will pay for it. As we are seeing that number is low. The B1G and SEC took most of the money and time slots. It is what it is. The P12 is essentially negotiating against itself. So the deal almost certainly will be low. Lower than the Big 12? Maybe. Probably. The P12 is on life support and the biggest reason is not poor management (although it has been run poorly) it is being located in the western time zone. That is the worst time zone for TV. Too many options around the country to show games in the best time zones and a population base that is lower and less interested in college sports to begin with.
The west is IMO the best place to live. But not great if you are trying to forge a high revenue TV deal. Can't get a great TV deal for the P12. Oh well no matter. Many will be wine tasting, sailing, watching their kids activities, going to the beach, mountains or lakes anyway. Too much to do out west and not good enough ball to get folks in the stadiums or in front of their TVs.
TV is spending their dollars where it has the best chance of a return. That is not in the west. No matter how much we scream market size or some other factor. The ratings are clear. The attendance figures are clear. There is just not enough interest for some network or streamer to come in and pay the P12 anywhere near what it will take to keep up with the B1G or SEC. Merging or getting added to another conference is the best bet if you are trying to compete for revenues.
Pac12 can provide multiple time slots, really 10am - 10pm. The uniqueness of the late slot is that we are the *only* power 5 conference that can offer games in that timeslot. At least we were until UCLA/USC bolted.
This is also why we are looking at providers that currently have no coverage. If *all* we offered was one time slot, Apple/Amazon wouldn't be that interested. The fact we can go the full day filling up 4 time slots (10am, 1pm, 4pm, 7pm exclusive) is valuable for a new network/provider looking to get their toes wet to see how deep they want to go in the space.
The problem the Pac12 has right now is that our value in the other slots (10am-4pm) is so much lower than the other conferences. That is largely due to a huge lack of exposure under the pac12 network, combined with a down period for USC partially brought on by sanctions.
In all honesty, Oregon and Washington have hurt the pac12 substantially as well by making it to the playoffs and failing so miserably. Had Oregon/Washington actually won on the national stage like USC did instead of face-planting in embarrassing fashion then we would be having a different conversation right now.
So sure the P12 has one valuable slot. But really that late window is not as valuable as other time slots as many in the eastern and central time zones will not start watchng a game at 9:30 pm or 10:30 pm local time.
I am less certain that the streamers really value 4 open time slots. In fact there are reports that Amazon is really only interested in 1 game per week. ESPN would like the late window but has nobody competing for that slot at present so it can offer less.
I am in the end only really concerned about how all this impacts Cal. And right now it does not look good to me.
Bars do not close at 9:30 on the East Coast. Increasingly people are cutting the cable and go to bars to watch games, especially if it is a game they really want to see, so those slots are valuable to Fox and ESPN. The key is not many on the East Coast care about the Pac-12 (or MWC) so the way to get eyeballs on the screen on the East Coast (and the rest of the country) is to have Eastern teams playing in those time slots, games that matter for the standings of your team, teams that you may be playing soon.
The B1G only partly accomplished that with the LA schools, as they would now have to play every home game at night to fill that slot. That is just one reason why the reports that the B1G is not done make sense.
Kliavkoff can capture that value by merging with the B1G or more likely the ACC. The "PACC" can have one game at 3:30 and one game at 6:30 (or some variation) on the West Coast featuring a current ACC team every week. The most likely buyer and partner for that would be ESPN who is the ACC's partner. Every week there would be two West Coast teams playing in the East in the earlier time slots. All other games would be available via streaming.
The advantage for Cal of having two potential "super conference" destinations is it gives us a little leverage where we currently have none. It may push the B1G to offer admission and at more than the rock bottom price we would get now.
I don't really understand this argument. Was the previous Pac-12 media deal not negotiated? USC should have negotiated themselves something better in 2011 or whenever it was.philly1121 said:The difference is that they negotiated that. So Michigan, Penn St., USC and Ohio State will have to live with it. Until the next round of negotiations. if we were to get an invite to the B1G, we would absolutely take a lesser share. Just calculate the amount of money it would take to keep non-revenue sports and accept the deal. Simple.maxer said:What will prevent the same thing from happening in the Big 10? I'd guess that the combination of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, and USC will be responsible for over half the value. Why should Purdue and Iowa and Indiana get an equal payout?philly1121 said:I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.tequila4kapp said:The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not Ifphilly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.
I'm saying that any conference is going to have members that create more revenue than others, which is offset by the fact that the big teams need other schools to play.
The Big Ten has no commissioner and is not ready to either add more Pac teams or definitively state that their expansion window is closed. So, "saved for now" is the likely scenario, perhaps with a media deal that will end at the same time as the new Big Ten media deal.philly1121 said:My own personal opinion is that the conference can still be saved. I hope it is saved and we get 2-4 additions and then look to stabilize further or combine with another conference.6956bear said:southseasbear said:
The media guys seem to think that two new members is most likely, but zero is possible if there's only enough media money for 10 teams. Four is possible if the overriding sentiment (which, for sure, would be the sentiment in Corvallis and Pullman) is that more is better in order to keep the conference going after the next round of departures.
maxer said:I don't really understand this argument. Was the previous Pac-12 media deal not negotiated? USC should have negotiated themselves something better in 2011 or whenever it was.philly1121 said:The difference is that they negotiated that. So Michigan, Penn St., USC and Ohio State will have to live with it. Until the next round of negotiations. if we were to get an invite to the B1G, we would absolutely take a lesser share. Just calculate the amount of money it would take to keep non-revenue sports and accept the deal. Simple.maxer said:What will prevent the same thing from happening in the Big 10? I'd guess that the combination of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, and USC will be responsible for over half the value. Why should Purdue and Iowa and Indiana get an equal payout?philly1121 said:I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.tequila4kapp said:The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not Ifphilly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.
I'm saying that any conference is going to have members that create more revenue than others, which is offset by the fact that the big teams need other schools to play.
In a conference, every team gets a vote, majority rule. The majority liked being subsidized by the minority. The majority supported tennis Larry. USC had three choices: 1) Leave, 2) Threaten to leave or 3) Accept it.
USC was also going through a low period and stuck with #3. They stepped up getting Riley, but need the revenues to make that work. They also did not want to jump to a conference in the Midwest and leave UCLA as the PAC-12 team in LA. Plus the rivalry. So they chose #1 and jumped.
Sure. And for now, that's ok for them, I guess (I predict the travel will become a larger problem than people think, but we'll see). They're making a ton more money. But eventually, they're going to look at Purdue's $75m/year or whatever it is and think "more of that should be mine".calumnus said:maxer said:I don't really understand this argument. Was the previous Pac-12 media deal not negotiated? USC should have negotiated themselves something better in 2011 or whenever it was.philly1121 said:The difference is that they negotiated that. So Michigan, Penn St., USC and Ohio State will have to live with it. Until the next round of negotiations. if we were to get an invite to the B1G, we would absolutely take a lesser share. Just calculate the amount of money it would take to keep non-revenue sports and accept the deal. Simple.maxer said:What will prevent the same thing from happening in the Big 10? I'd guess that the combination of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, and USC will be responsible for over half the value. Why should Purdue and Iowa and Indiana get an equal payout?philly1121 said:I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.tequila4kapp said:The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not Ifphilly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.
I'm saying that any conference is going to have members that create more revenue than others, which is offset by the fact that the big teams need other schools to play.
In a conference, every team gets a vote, majority rule. The majority liked being subsidized by the minority. The majority supported tennis Larry. USC had three choices: 1) Leave, 2) Threaten to leave or 3) Accept it.
USC was also going through a low period and stuck with #3. They stepped up getting Riley, but need the revenues to make that work. They also did not want to jump to a conference in the Midwest and leave UCLA as the PAC-12 team in LA. Plus the rivalry. So they chose #1 and jumped.
What I'm saying is this is going to happen again, over and over, until we have a "super league" made up of 15-20 super high revenue teams.
And they need weaker conference teams that they can reliably chalk up as wins.maxer said:
I'm saying that any conference is going to have members that create more revenue than others, which is offset by the fact that the big teams need other schools to play.
You rang?!?!Golden One said:And they need weaker conference teams that they can reliably chalk up as wins.maxer said:
I'm saying that any conference is going to have members that create more revenue than others, which is offset by the fact that the big teams need other schools to play.
MrGPAC said:6956bear said:In a sport that is driven by TV revenues having only 1 time slot that TV finds attractive (late window) in any way is not good. The other conferences have the better slots and have fans that watch. So for now streaming seems to be the only method to try and get the biggest revenue deal. But will suffer with distribution and exposure. The P12 is already there.philly1121 said:And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?tequila4kapp said:Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.sosheezy said:Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?philly1121 said:Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.Econ141 said:
Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?
I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.
I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.
The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.
Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.
There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.
The only real solution for the P12 is to merge with another conference (ACC or Big 12) or have various programs splinter off into whatever conference they can find a home. Not every program would likely land in a P5 program. But adding SDSU and SMU is not a good solution. The conference IMO is on life support as a stand alone conference. They may find some deal that keeps everyone together for the near term (that is what they hope) but the end is in sight IMO.
Unequal shares of the revenues may be necessary to keep UO and UW in house for now, but at what cost to the rest? College football needs to be more like the NFL in regards to revenue sharing. But won't happen in this world of P5 and G5 with multiple conferences. In the NFL every team has a realistic chance of success. It comes down to management more than anything. But in college there is wide disparity in revenues. Big differences in admissions, academic profiles, history etc that create a very unlevel playing field.
It is harder to cheat in the NFL where salary caps, drafts and roster size give every program a shot at success. In college cheating is rampant and nobody seems to want to go after the cheaters. After all the cheating programs win and TV loves winners.
College football needs a reset. This model with multiple conferences receiving widely different revenues has created a haves vs have not game. Now suddenly Rutgers is a have in terms of revenue simply because they are in a conference that has brokered a great TV deal. Certainly not because they are good at the revenue sports. Same with Vanderbilt in the SEC. They are one of the poorest football programs around in terms of on field results. But they are made whole by conference affiliation rather than performance.
The value of the P12 is only what somebody (TV) will pay for it. As we are seeing that number is low. The B1G and SEC took most of the money and time slots. It is what it is. The P12 is essentially negotiating against itself. So the deal almost certainly will be low. Lower than the Big 12? Maybe. Probably. The P12 is on life support and the biggest reason is not poor management (although it has been run poorly) it is being located in the western time zone. That is the worst time zone for TV. Too many options around the country to show games in the best time zones and a population base that is lower and less interested in college sports to begin with.
The west is IMO the best place to live. But not great if you are trying to forge a high revenue TV deal. Can't get a great TV deal for the P12. Oh well no matter. Many will be wine tasting, sailing, watching their kids activities, going to the beach, mountains or lakes anyway. Too much to do out west and not good enough ball to get folks in the stadiums or in front of their TVs.
TV is spending their dollars where it has the best chance of a return. That is not in the west. No matter how much we scream market size or some other factor. The ratings are clear. The attendance figures are clear. There is just not enough interest for some network or streamer to come in and pay the P12 anywhere near what it will take to keep up with the B1G or SEC. Merging or getting added to another conference is the best bet if you are trying to compete for revenues.
Pac12 can provide multiple time slots, really 10am - 10pm. The uniqueness of the late slot is that we are the *only* power 5 conference that can offer games in that timeslot. At least we were until UCLA/USC bolted.
This is also why we are looking at providers that currently have no coverage. If *all* we offered was one time slot, Apple/Amazon wouldn't be that interested. The fact we can go the full day filling up 4 time slots (10am, 1pm, 4pm, 7pm exclusive) is valuable for a new network/provider looking to get their toes wet to see how deep they want to go in the space.
The problem the Pac12 has right now is that our value in the other slots (10am-4pm) is so much lower than the other conferences. That is largely due to a huge lack of exposure under the pac12 network, combined with a down period for USC partially brought on by sanctions.
In all honesty, Oregon and Washington have hurt the pac12 substantially as well by making it to the playoffs and failing so miserably. Had Oregon/Washington actually won on the national stage like USC did instead of face-planting in embarrassing fashion then we would be having a different conversation right now.
"Agree wholeheartedly on that last point. By the way my knee wasn't down. Just ask E$PN and their officials"
- Michael Dyer
In all seriousness, the "neutral site" games were a joke. Either do a home and home (see: Cal / Ole Miss, fucla beating LSU, etc) or not at all. Shortsighted money grab and payoff, for conference damage when we're more or less equally competitive.
Still remember Black Mambas kickoff return fumble vs LSU in that neutral location to Louisiana…(checks notes)…Dallas
There will be further consolidation, but it won't go that far.maxer said:Sure. And for now, that's ok for them, I guess (I predict the travel will become a larger problem than people think, but we'll see). They're making a ton more money. But eventually, they're going to look at Purdue's $75m/year or whatever it is and think "more of that should be mine".calumnus said:maxer said:philly1121 said:maxer said:philly1121 said:tequila4kapp said:philly1121 said:tequila4kapp said:sosheezy said:philly1121 said:Econ141 said:
What I'm saying is this is going to happen again, over and over, until we have a "super league" made up of 15-20 super high revenue teams.
The football brand of Ohio State, Alabama, et al requires that they win 10-plus games almost every year. They can't do that if they only play against each other. Ohio State needs several Minnesota/Rutgers games, Alabama needs several Vanderbilt/Missouri games.
But that's all they need. They each need several teams they will beat over 90% of the time, but they don't need 100 teams like that.
BearSD said:There will be further consolidation, but it won't go that far.maxer said:Sure. And for now, that's ok for them, I guess (I predict the travel will become a larger problem than people think, but we'll see). They're making a ton more money. But eventually, they're going to look at Purdue's $75m/year or whatever it is and think "more of that should be mine".calumnus said:maxer said:philly1121 said:maxer said:philly1121 said:tequila4kapp said:philly1121 said:tequila4kapp said:sosheezy said:philly1121 said:Econ141 said:
What I'm saying is this is going to happen again, over and over, until we have a "super league" made up of 15-20 super high revenue teams.
The football brand of Ohio State, Alabama, et al requires that they win 10-plus games almost every year. They can't do that if they only play against each other. Ohio State needs several Minnesota/Rutgers games, Alabama needs several Vanderbilt/Missouri games.
But that's all they need. They each need several teams they will beat over 90% of the time, but they don't need 100 teams like that.
They might actually need 100 teams for that model to work - because they play 3-4 OOC games, 2-3 of which are bought as @home only games. If there is too much consolidation, will opponents for that dry up? Right now tier 2 teams are at least getting enough $$$ to buy some of their own wins and have some notion they are playing the same game.
Super conference as a closed system will not work long term, IMO. But it could take awhile for support to erode. So we're gonna see a decade or so of money grabbing.
Featured Stories
See All
15 Bears To Watch During 2026 NFL Draft
by Joaquin Ruiz
Bears Enjoy 'Exciting Times' In Fun Spring Game
by Joaquin Ruiz