Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

And money.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal Insider said:

---

read as it says above that NC state will do whatever UNC does. Also, UNC feels they might in a good position if the ACC dissolves. They feel good about joining the SEC or at least think it will shake out in their favor.

---

I'm pretty sure they have their eyes set on the B1G, not the SEC.

---

i think we can all agree that NC State is smoking broken windows

I;m not entirely sure why either the SEC or B1G would want either North Carolina school for football, they would definitely want UNC and Duke for college basketball, though. but NC State? Is there something about them that I don't know about?

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

the ACC is a dying conference and they all know it. They don't want to be tied to a dying conference. they all want to join the SEC or B1G, because everyone knows that Clemson and Florida St. are gone.

dimitrig said:

---

BarcaBear said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

the ACC is a dying conference and they all know it. They don't want to be tied to a dying conference. they all want to join the SEC or B1G, because everyone knows that Clemson and Florida St. are gone.

---

They are all dying conferences. I truly believe that not one conference as we know it will survive. The weak sisters in the big conferences are going to be jettisoned just like Cal, Stanford, OSU, and WSU. Cal and Stanford are actually much stronger programs than some and yet still face an uncertain future.

The sooner that USC, Texas, Notre Dame, Clemson, and their media overlords stop deciding the futures of other programs the better because there's a lot more at stake with these dumb conference realignments than just college football revenues. It's impacting other sports, academic reputations (undeservedly so but nonetheless) , donations for other programs, and even livelihoods (e.g., people who work events).

None of this was well considered or globally optimized. It's a potential disaster. I hope the TV execs who masterminded this bull**** and destroyed a century of tradition rot in hell.

---

I'm hoping that a school figures out how to spin off their athletics department to make them semi-pro, and have an agreement where the corporation pays the university for name and image rights.

NCAA is out, the athletes can a pay bump and stop this NIL nonsense (which will get blown up by the IRS soon enough)and they don't have to pretend to go to class *cough* USC, Ohio St. SEC, etc., *cough*. Usher in the streaming giants, and proper playoffs.

They can still give athletes the option of guaranteed enrollment to the University for a college degree if their careers don't go pro.

once streaming giants step in then ESPN and Fox college football are toast.
ultimately, this idea highlights the reality of college football, its all about the laundry, not about them being student and they have all been getting exploited for far too long, along with average students who have no interest and or connection to athletics.

sidenote: Cal and Stanford are not weak schools. We are facing opposition because of USC and UCLA wanting no competition for recruits.. The Bay Area is the nations #10 media market. That is a stronger position than Oregon, or uDub. ESPN and Fox want the #10 market, it is university presidents that don't want Cal or Stanford, and only permitting the 2 schools to join if they can place a financial penalty so large that the two schools struggle to compete.

Seems unlikely that ACC would admit us and would we even want to buy a ticket on the Titanic?

The extreme alternative I read about in Berkeleyside was that Cal and Stanford can simply start paying athletes.

A number of you are wondering why North Carolina State is going along with North Carolina in voting "no" on us. It is (as Cliff Clavin used to say on Cheers) a little-known fact that the two schools are considered part of the University of North Carolina system -- and are governed by the same Board of Regents.

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

LOL. This guy read the espn dot com article that was posted an hour before his tweet, and he claims he has sources.

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

Maybe we can have our players and cheerleaders wear more adult uniforms to improve our late night ratings.

I know what you're thinking… WHAT cheerleaders? We need to fix that. We wonder why no one thinks we have a big time football product and we couldn't even get cheerleaders.

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

sycasey said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

A number of you are wondering why North Carolina State is going along with North Carolina in voting "no" on us. It is (as Cliff Clavin used to say on Cheers) a little-known fact that the two schools are considered part of the University of North Carolina system -- and are governed by the same Board of Regents.

---

That doesn't mean they have to vote the same way. Would Cal and UCLA have voted the same way on everything?

---

On an issue as important this, yes. The Regents run the University of California; in the last analysis, they control what happens-- the chancellors are just their employees. As a chancellor once observed to me at a Board of Regents meeting, "we have a worm's eye view of these proceedings!"

gardenstatebear said:

---

A number of you are wondering why North Carolina State is going along with North Carolina in voting "no" on us. It is (as Cliff Clavin used to say on Cheers) a little-known fact that the two schools are considered part of the University of North Carolina system -- and are governed by the same Board of Regents.

---

Exactly. Just bcos the UC Regents are political hacks, doesn't mean every other state is lame.

btw: UVa & VaTech generally vote together on such things as well.

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

I agree, but owning the after-dark slots means grumbling alumni and lower attendance on the west side of the stadium. It's one thing to get out of there at 11 or midnight if you live in the east bay. Another entirely if you live in Livermore or Sacramento.

It's a mess to be sure. My best guess is that all of the PAC cash on hand will end up going to Comcast for the billing fiasco. To bring 4 non-independent schools in will somehow require raising capital to fund the buyouts.That won't be easy.

Serious question: Will OSU and WSU want to go along with this, or will they simply want to go to the MWC?

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

50 is nowhere near reasonable considering the TV numbers that PAC members absent USC pull in.

Big Dog said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

A number of you are wondering why North Carolina State is going along with North Carolina in voting "no" on us. It is (as Cliff Clavin used to say on Cheers) a little-known fact that the two schools are considered part of the University of North Carolina system -- and are governed by the same Board of Regents.

---

Exactly. Just bcos the UC Regents are political hacks, doesn't mean every other state is lame.

btw: UVa & VaTech generally vote together on such things as well.

---

Agreed. I seriously doubt that the the North Carolina Board of Regents is filled with political hacks.

he he he …

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

Oregon and Washington having one foot out the door probably hurt the negotiations a lot, just as USC having one foot out the door probably hurt previous efforts. That's an under-discussed element of this.

MTbear22 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

50 is nowhere near reasonable considering the TV numbers that PAC members absent USC pull in.

---

50 is no less unreasonable then ESPN walking away rather than continuing to negotiate.

phyrux said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

50 is nowhere near reasonable considering the TV numbers that PAC members absent USC pull in.

---

50 is no less unreasonable then ESPN walking away rather than continuing to negotiate.

---

that's not how business works. If you are asking for 50 as your opening bid, I assume that you will settle for 40+. But no way I a going to 40 or even close to 40, bcos my market data says your firm is not worth that much, so there is nothing to negotiate. It becomes a really short meeting unless you say, well ok, I'll take something starting with a 3.

This is no different that selling home. If the Seller massively overprices the home, they'll get some lookers, but no offers.

phyrux said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

50 is nowhere near reasonable considering the TV numbers that PAC members absent USC pull in.

---

50 is no less unreasonable then ESPN walking away rather than continuing to negotiate.

---

Completely disagree. ESPN was already cutting costs and could 1) continue talking to one potential client (PAC) who was completely out of touch and would be a time-sucking pain in the ass to negotiate with, or 2) take their money to a different client (Big XII) that was starting from a completely realistic and agreeable self-valuation that would allow for a relatively quick and painless negotiation.

Big Dog said:

---

phyrux said:

---

MTbear22 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

50 is nowhere near reasonable considering the TV numbers that PAC members absent USC pull in.

---

50 is no less unreasonable then ESPN walking away rather than continuing to negotiate.

---

that's not how business works. If you are asking for 50 as your opening bid, I assume that you will settle for 40+. But no way I a going to 40 or even close to 40, bcos my market data says your firm is not worth that much, so there is nothing to negotiate. It becomes a really short meeting unless you say, well ok, I'll take something starting with a 3.

This is no different that selling home. If the Seller massively overprices the home, they'll get some lookers, but no offers.

---

Exactly. In fact, there's a home for sale in my neighborhood right now with an asking price that is way too high. Very few people even stop by on the open house days. That won't change until the seller updates the listing with a significantly lower price.

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I think this is broadly true of any conference network, that you will get higher subscriber rates if you are "in region" on the local cable/satellite providers.

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

And espn disagrees with you.

The Pac-12 had an offer from ESPN of $30 million per school in the fall of 2022. The network wanted it all. But the presidents and chancellors wanted more.

“We said we want $50 million per school.”

ESPN's response?

“Goodbye.”

Read: https://t.co/5FvvINZHQ2 pic.twitter.com/E8FS2oRiXe

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) August 11, 2023