Ugh. Then likely UW and UO. Delusional.

movielover said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

Out of touch doesn't even begin to describe it. Don't know what those 'presidents' were smoking or drinking, but that sounds like a lot of serious kool-aid. Holy crap. What a mess

---

Who was pushing for $50M? USC, UO, and UW?

---

Exactly. These narratives of "the foolish PAC-10 presidents/Kliavkoff pushed for $50 million" and trying to imply that was Cal and Stanford so it is our hubris that brought us down are just wrong. Clearly it was the schools like UW and Oregon who were looking at other options and actually got them simply stating what THEY needed to stay.

Carol Christ has been loyal to Kliavkoff and was ready to sign a $20 million Apple streaming deal, I highly doubt she turned down 50% more if it was an increase over our current payout.

calumnus said:

---

movielover said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

Out of touch doesn't even begin to describe it. Don't know what those 'presidents' were smoking or drinking, but that sounds like a lot of serious kool-aid. Holy crap. What a mess

---

Who was pushing for $50M? USC, UO, and UW?

---

Exactly. These narratives of "the foolish PAC-10 presidents/Kliavkoff pushed for $50 million" and trying to imply that was Cal and Stanford so it is our hubris that brought us down are just wrong. Clearly it was the schools like UW and Oregon who were looking at other options and actually got them simply stating what THEY needed to stay.

Carol Christ has been loyal to Kliavkoff and was ready to sign a $20 million Apple streaming deal, I highly doubt she turned down 50% more if it was an increase over our current payout.

---

She isn't loyal to Kliavkoff. She is incompetent and was "sitting on the sidelines" the entire time. She was ready to sign anything so she could move on to her retirement plan.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

movielover said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

Out of touch doesn't even begin to describe it. Don't know what those 'presidents' were smoking or drinking, but that sounds like a lot of serious kool-aid. Holy crap. What a mess

---

Who was pushing for $50M? USC, UO, and UW?

---

Exactly. These narratives of "the foolish PAC-10 presidents/Kliavkoff pushed for $50 million" and trying to imply that was Cal and Stanford so it is our hubris that brought us down are just wrong. Clearly it was the schools like UW and Oregon who were looking at other options and actually got them simply stating what THEY needed to stay.

Carol Christ has been loyal to Kliavkoff and was ready to sign a $20 million Apple streaming deal, I highly doubt she turned down 50% more if it was an increase over our current payout.

---

She isn't loyal to Kliavkoff. She is incompetent and was "sitting on the sidelines" the entire time. She was ready to sign anything so she could move on to her retirement plan.

---

My point being the narrative of blaming the current PAC-4 for "arrogantly demanding $50 million" is false. The schools demanding it left for deals where they will get it within a couple of years.

movielover said:

---

Ugh. Then likely UW and UO. Delusional.

---

Delusional and then they went and got more.

ducktilldeath said:

---

movielover said:

---

Ugh. Then likely UW and UO. Delusional.

---

Delusional and then they went and got more.

---

Essentially. It was not an absurd demand, it was those schools' bottom line for staying in the PAC vs getting more elsewhere (from the same two media companies, btw).

Given that ESPN has offered full ACC shares for Cal and Stanford to go to the ACC, 10 of the 12 have been offered, or will make, more than Fox or ESPN offered the group together.

Way too much revisionist history here.

First, lets get the timeline right.

June 30th - USC and UCLA left the conference
Aug 18th - Big10 finalizes its deal worth 62.5 million per school.
Oct 30th - Big12 finalizes its deal worth 31.7 million per school.

Other conferences of note:
SEC - 49.9 million per year (Dec 2020)
ACC - 26.7 million per year (2013)

The ESPN offer was rumored to occur after the Big10 62.5 million per school deal, but BEFORE the Big12 31.7 million per school deal.

I don't think anyone had any delusions we were on the level of the B1G or the SEC, but we were offered less than HALF of what the B1G was getting, and was significantly less than what appeared to be the market rate.

The Big12 deal didn't exist on the market to compare to at the time. This seemed like a low ball offer at the time. They also wanted exclusivity, i.e. we couldn't even see if fox might give more money for some tier 2 rights to get the overall number up (like what happened with the Big12).

If we had taken that 30 million dollars and then the Big12 came in and got nearly 32 million we would have been ridiculed and the laughing stock of college football. It was a bad offer.

We also expected to have multiple suitors, and we were willing to dabble with streaming only providers believing we had an in with Amazon and/or Apple. That was why we hired George Kliavkoff in the first place, he had a history with media companies and specifically streaming. Of course those other suitors never came, meaning we didn't have anyone to pit against each other to drive the price up. ESPN and Fox unexpectedly pulled out completely as well leaving us in a bad spot.

We also don't know any of the specifics of this 30 million per year offer. How many years? Did they want to lock us up for 10 years like the ACC?

And lets not forget...the Big12 is getting roughly half what the B1G is. Is that really a smart decision? Yes, 32 million and existing is better than 0 and not having a conference. Are we going to be saying it was such a good deal 5 years from now when the B1G and the SEC are getting 3-5 teams into the playoffs annually and the Big12 is only getting their conference champion with a first round exit?

Huge discrepancies in money are also very bad for the sport. At this point its clear that Fox and ESPN don't care if they kill the sport as long as they can cash out as much money as they can in the short term. And lets face it, their long term futures don't look too hot either, so why would they care about the long term future of anyone else?

I still don't see how the non-football sports handle league play.

Will they fly back east and stay for a full week? Will student athletes then shift to some kind of remote learning? Between these remote games, do they work out at 24 Hour Fitness?

MrGPAC said:

---

Way too much revisionist history here.

First, lets get the timeline right.

June 30th - USC and UCLA left the conference
Aug 18th - Big10 finalizes its deal worth 62.5 million per school.
Oct 30th - Big12 finalizes its deal worth 31.7 million per school.

Other conferences of note:
SEC - 49.9 million per year (Dec 2020)
ACC - 26.7 million per year (2013)

The ESPN offer was rumored to occur after the Big10 62.5 million per school deal, but BEFORE the Big12 31.7 million per school deal.

I don't think anyone had any delusions we were on the level of the B1G or the SEC, but we were offered less than HALF of what the B1G was getting, and was significantly less than what appeared to be the market rate.

The Big12 deal didn't exist on the market to compare to at the time. This seemed like a low ball offer at the time. They also wanted exclusivity, i.e. we couldn't even see if fox might give more money for some tier 2 rights to get the overall number up (like what happened with the Big12).

If we had taken that 30 million dollars and then the Big12 came in and got nearly 32 million we would have been ridiculed and the laughing stock of college football. It was a bad offer.

We also expected to have multiple suitors, and we were willing to dabble with streaming only providers believing we had an in with Amazon and/or Apple. That was why we hired George Kliavkoff in the first place, he had a history with media companies and specifically streaming. Of course those other suitors never came, meaning we didn't have anyone to pit against each other to drive the price up. ESPN and Fox unexpectedly pulled out completely as well leaving us in a bad spot.

We also don't know any of the specifics of this 30 million per year offer. How many years? Did they want to lock us up for 10 years like the ACC?

And lets not forget...the Big12 is getting roughly half what the B1G is. Is that really a smart decision? Yes, 32 million and existing is better than 0 and not having a conference. Are we going to be saying it was such a good deal 5 years from now when the B1G and the SEC are getting 3-5 teams into the playoffs annually and the Big12 is only getting their conference champion with a first round exit?

Huge discrepancies in money are also very bad for the sport. At this point its clear that Fox and ESPN don't care if they kill the sport as long as they can cash out as much money as they can in the short term. And lets face it, their long term futures don't look too hot either, so why would they care about the long term future of anyone else?

---

What a gross post, and accurate. Yeeeesh this is a disaster.