The Pac-12 President that reportedly pushed the $50M figure, a dramatic overestimate of their own worth that ultimately doomed the conference, was Utah President Taylor Randall. https://t.co/6StmHAxbF0

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) October 6, 2023

okaydo said:

---

The Pac-12 President that reportedly pushed the $50M figure, a dramatic overestimate of their own worth that ultimately doomed the conference, was Utah President Taylor Randall. https://t.co/6StmHAxbF0

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) October 6, 2023

---

Way to go, eh?

Was this with the LA schools or without? A lot depends on what is included or not included but articles like this:
https://nvgt.com/blog/power-5-conference-payout-estimates/
…support that number as a total. I've seen another article where the B-12 media payout for 2023 (with Texas and Oklahoma) is $42 million.

In any case, it is a negotiation and Randall is just one president. What was ESPN's counter-offer?

calumnus said:

---

Was this with the LA schools or without? A lot depends on what is included or not included but articles like this:
https://nvgt.com/blog/power-5-conference-payout-estimates/
…support that number as a total. I've seen another article where the B-12 media payout for 2023 (with Texas and Oklahoma) is $42 million.

In any case, it is a negotiation and Randall is just one president. What was ESPN's counter-offer?

---

If I understand rightly, "goodbye."

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Was this with the LA schools or without? A lot depends on what is included or not included but articles like this:
https://nvgt.com/blog/power-5-conference-payout-estimates/
…support that number as a total. I've seen another article where the B-12 media payout for 2023 (with Texas and Oklahoma) is $42 million.

In any case, it is a negotiation and Randall is just one president. What was ESPN's counter-offer?

---

If I understand rightly, "goodbye."

---

.

They spit out their coffee in disbelief first.

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Was this with the LA schools or without? A lot depends on what is included or not included but articles like this:
https://nvgt.com/blog/power-5-conference-payout-estimates/
…support that number as a total. I've seen another article where the B-12 media payout for 2023 (with Texas and Oklahoma) is $42 million.

In any case, it is a negotiation and Randall is just one president. What was ESPN's counter-offer?

---

If I understand rightly, "goodbye."

---

.

They spit out their coffee in disbelief first.

---

LOL

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

Cananzo's article actually interviews Randall to get his side of the story:

Quote:

---

Utah president Taylor Randall offered a statement on that front:

Quote:

---

"The Pac-12 Presidents and Chancellors worked collectively in pursuit of a new media rights agreement. Though an offer was made by one of our media partners, we elected to take the rights to market to get the best deal. Throughout the process, many of the CEOs including myself pushed to ensure that the conference was aggressive to secure the very best agreement we could. Several conference schools retained their own consultants to value the league, which resulted in a range of estimations. It is my understanding that any mention of $50 million, which was higher than any valuation, was only as a potential starting point in negotiations to help get us to the estimated true value."

---

---

So he doesn't shy away from the $50M figure, he just asserts that it was meant to be a negotiation starting point and not a hardline minimum. Later on it puts the blame more on Kliavkoff on mishandling that negotiation (from an unnamed source not Randall):

Quote:

---

One Pac-12 president told me Kliavkoff and Sports Media Advisors completely misplayed the $50 million counteroffer: "The instructions were to negotiate. This wasn't supposed to be a 'take your ball and go home' scenario."

---

Sounds like they were all being morons.

philbert said:

---

Sounds like they were all being morons.

---

Except maybe for UW and Oregon. They are essentially/eventually getting more in the B1G, and may have even had that offer in hand, so $50 million would be a reasonable demand.

Cantanzo may be deflecting for them.

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

That's what I heard.

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

That's what I heard.

---

The guy in Colorado thought the other CEOs were clueless . He may have been right, and he led the charge out of the Pac. Arizona guy made some audacious remarks, but always seemed to be inclined to keep the Pac together. The reality is that the Commissioner went back to ESPN with a huge number, and he could only do that with the approval of the CEOs. A Commissioner that knew something about athletics and being a Commissioner might have handled this situation better. (see Big 12 Commissioner) Too much outside the box thinking on Commissioners by Pac CEOs.

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

This article is sourced though. Do you have a link to anything credible for the ASU rumor? Also doesn't mean both thought $50 million was a reasonable ask.

The real issue is that there was no one telling these presidents (GK, athletic directors, etc) that $50 million was not even remotely reasonable without any LA schools. If bigger schools felt like they deserved that amount, it would have to come from uneven revenue sharing.

And while we are on the subject, by my quick math ESPN is paying the ACC 20-25% more per added school (SMU, Stanford, Cal) than ESPN/Fox are paying for the 4 corner schools going to the Big 12. Remember that the 31 million value floated around is average value for the B12 over 6 years starting in 2025. There are yearly inflation escalators in all of these contracts (standard is 5%). So first year will pay around $27 million. ACC is paying $31 millon per school THIS year (24 for primary + 7 for ACC net). Add two year at 5% escalation to the 24 million to get to 2025, and the 2025 media payout per school will average $36 million of ACC net rev is constant. That's $9 million more than the Big 12. I know, the new schools don't get a full cut, but ESPN is paying a full amount. The extra money 'donated' back to the ACC will total around $60 million in 2025, so the current ACC schools will average media payments of ~$40 million per school (I know some will be performance based). So the average ACc school will be far better off than a Big 12 schools (~40 million vs ~27 million in media payout for 2025).

I'd love to see the professor's math on this $50 million.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

This article is sourced though. Do you have a link to anything credible for the ASU rumor? Also doesn't mean both thought $50 million was a reasonable ask.

The real issue is that there was no one telling these presidents (GK, athletic directors, etc) that $50 million was not even remotely reasonable without any LA schools. If bigger schools felt like they deserved that amount, it would have to come from uneven revenue sharing.

And while we are on the subject, by my quick math ESPN is paying the ACC 20-25% more per added school (SMU, Stanford, Cal) than ESPN/Fox are paying for the 4 corner schools going to the Big 12. Remember that the 31 million value floated around is average value for the B12 over 6 years starting in 2025. There are yearly inflation escalators in all of these contracts (standard is 5%). So first year will pay around $27 million. ACC is paying $31 millon per school THIS year (24 for primary + 7 for ACC net). Add two year at 5% escalation to the 24 million to get to 2025, and the 2025 media payout per school will average $36 million of ACC net rev is constant. That's $9 million more than the Big 12. I know, the new schools don't get a full cut, but ESPN is paying a full amount. The extra money 'donated' back to the ACC will total around $60 million in 2025, so the current ACC schools will average media payments of ~$40 million per school (I know some will be performance based). So the average ACc school will be far better off than a Big 12 schools (~40 million vs ~27 million in media payout for 2025).

I'd love to see the professor's math on this $50 million.

---

Exactly, the whole thing depends on what we are talking about: starting number, levelized number over the contract….

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

ESPN's proper response is "$30 million is our best offer" not "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Basically, you have a duopoly, Fox and ESPN, where Fox refused to deal from the get go, and ESPN refused to deal once negotiations started.

Fox then funded the B1G to get UW and Oregon and Fox and ESPN jointly funded the B12 to get the Four Corners schools (preplaned with B-12 to be four "P5" ie PAC-12 schools). ESPN then funded the ACC to get Cal and Stanford.

Assuming $70 million for B1G, $40 million for ACC and $30 million for B-12, if WSU and OSU end up in the B-12, that is exactly $40 million per school that Fox and ESPN will be paying for the PAC-10 schools next year.

So $40 million per school even without UCLA and USC is supportable.

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

This article is sourced though. Do you have a link to anything credible for the ASU rumor? Also doesn't mean both thought $50 million was a reasonable ask.

The real issue is that there was no one telling these presidents (GK, athletic directors, etc) that $50 million was not even remotely reasonable without any LA schools. If bigger schools felt like they deserved that amount, it would have to come from uneven revenue sharing.

And while we are on the subject, by my quick math ESPN is paying the ACC 20-25% more per added school (SMU, Stanford, Cal) than ESPN/Fox are paying for the 4 corner schools going to the Big 12. Remember that the 31 million value floated around is average value for the B12 over 6 years starting in 2025. There are yearly inflation escalators in all of these contracts (standard is 5%). So first year will pay around $27 million. ACC is paying $31 millon per school THIS year (24 for primary + 7 for ACC net). Add two year at 5% escalation to the 24 million to get to 2025, and the 2025 media payout per school will average $36 million of ACC net rev is constant. That's $9 million more than the Big 12. I know, the new schools don't get a full cut, but ESPN is paying a full amount. The extra money 'donated' back to the ACC will total around $60 million in 2025, so the current ACC schools will average media payments of ~$40 million per school (I know some will be performance based). So the average ACc school will be far better off than a Big 12 schools (~40 million vs ~27 million in media payout for 2025).

I'd love to see the professor's math on this $50 million.

---

Exactly, the whole thing depends on what we are talking about: starting number, levelized number over the contract….

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

ESPN's proper response is "$30 million is our best offer" not "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Basically, you have a duopoly, Fox and ESPN, where Fox refused to deal from the get go, and ESPN refused to deal once negotiations started.

Fox then funded the B1G to get UW and Oregon and Fox and ESPN jointly funded the B12 to get the Four Corners schools (preplaned with B-12 to be four "P5" ie PAC-12 schools). ESPN then funded the ACC to get Cal and Stanford.

Assuming $70 million for B1G, $40 million for ACC and $30 million for B-12, if WSU and OSU end up in the B-12, that is exactly $40 million per school that Fox and ESPN will be paying for the PAC-10 schools next year.

So $40 million per school even without UCLA and USC is supportable.

---

Yeah, negotiation means a back and forth until one party says this is our last best. There's something fishy about it all.

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

This article is sourced though. Do you have a link to anything credible for the ASU rumor? Also doesn't mean both thought $50 million was a reasonable ask.

The real issue is that there was no one telling these presidents (GK, athletic directors, etc) that $50 million was not even remotely reasonable without any LA schools. If bigger schools felt like they deserved that amount, it would have to come from uneven revenue sharing.

And while we are on the subject, by my quick math ESPN is paying the ACC 20-25% more per added school (SMU, Stanford, Cal) than ESPN/Fox are paying for the 4 corner schools going to the Big 12. Remember that the 31 million value floated around is average value for the B12 over 6 years starting in 2025. There are yearly inflation escalators in all of these contracts (standard is 5%). So first year will pay around $27 million. ACC is paying $31 millon per school THIS year (24 for primary + 7 for ACC net). Add two year at 5% escalation to the 24 million to get to 2025, and the 2025 media payout per school will average $36 million of ACC net rev is constant. That's $9 million more than the Big 12. I know, the new schools don't get a full cut, but ESPN is paying a full amount. The extra money 'donated' back to the ACC will total around $60 million in 2025, so the current ACC schools will average media payments of ~$40 million per school (I know some will be performance based). So the average ACc school will be far better off than a Big 12 schools (~40 million vs ~27 million in media payout for 2025).

I'd love to see the professor's math on this $50 million.

---

Exactly, the whole thing depends on what we are talking about: starting number, levelized number over the contract….

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

ESPN's proper response is "$30 million is our best offer" not "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Basically, you have a duopoly, Fox and ESPN, where Fox refused to deal from the get go, and ESPN refused to deal once negotiations started.

Fox then funded the B1G to get UW and Oregon and Fox and ESPN jointly funded the B12 to get the Four Corners schools (preplaned with B-12 to be four "P5" ie PAC-12 schools). ESPN then funded the ACC to get Cal and Stanford.

Assuming $70 million for B1G, $40 million for ACC and $30 million for B-12, if WSU and OSU end up in the B-12, that is exactly $40 million per school that Fox and ESPN will be paying for the PAC-10 schools next year.

So $40 million per school even without UCLA and USC is supportable.

---

Yeah, negotiation means a back and forth until one party says this is our last best. There's something fishy about it all.

---

And "This is our last best. Our current contract expires a year from now. Go ahead and explore your other options. Give us a call when you are ready to sign."

Instead, when the initial ESPN offer under the exclusive negotiation period was not immediately accepted, and the Pac-10 was free to explore other options, both Fox and ESPN "refused to deal" (and given their duopoly status as confirmed in previous rulings, a violation under the Sherman Antitrust Act) leaving the PAC-10 only a $20 million streaming deal.

However, Fox and ESPN had already jointly armed the B-12 with automatic $30 million slots for four "P5 teams" which could only be PAC-12 teams since the ACC was locked up (and better paid) and no B1G or SEC team was jumping to the B-12 for $30 million. Those slots and their amount shows premeditation.

If the PAC-10 had been able to go back and accept the $30 million ESPN offer, the Four Corner schools do not jump. But with that offer no longer on the table, first Colorado jumps for one of the B-12 slots, Oregon and UW exercise their previously negotiated B1G offers (funded by Fox) and the rest of the Four Corners follow. Leaving Cal, Stanford, OSU and WSU as the PAC-4. Probably with the intention of us being relegated. Jim Knowlton immediately set up a meeting with the MWC, conveniently near to his home in Colorado Springs, to execute a deal (and us),

However, Notre Dame, the 400 lb gorilla, spoke up for Calford. ESPN, wanting to placate Notre Dame, the ACC, avoid litigation and preserve some late night West Coast kick off slots, pushed for Cal and Stanford to the ACC, even offering to make up for the additional travel expenses for ACC members.

What remains of the saga, other than potential litigation, is the fate of WSU, OSU and the Pacific conference itself.

Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, the two big sports media companies who killed the PAC-12 push stories blaming the PAC-12 entirely for its own demise, which like most successful propaganda, works because there is some truth to it.

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

This article is sourced though. Do you have a link to anything credible for the ASU rumor? Also doesn't mean both thought $50 million was a reasonable ask.

The real issue is that there was no one telling these presidents (GK, athletic directors, etc) that $50 million was not even remotely reasonable without any LA schools. If bigger schools felt like they deserved that amount, it would have to come from uneven revenue sharing.

And while we are on the subject, by my quick math ESPN is paying the ACC 20-25% more per added school (SMU, Stanford, Cal) than ESPN/Fox are paying for the 4 corner schools going to the Big 12. Remember that the 31 million value floated around is average value for the B12 over 6 years starting in 2025. There are yearly inflation escalators in all of these contracts (standard is 5%). So first year will pay around $27 million. ACC is paying $31 millon per school THIS year (24 for primary + 7 for ACC net). Add two year at 5% escalation to the 24 million to get to 2025, and the 2025 media payout per school will average $36 million of ACC net rev is constant. That's $9 million more than the Big 12. I know, the new schools don't get a full cut, but ESPN is paying a full amount. The extra money 'donated' back to the ACC will total around $60 million in 2025, so the current ACC schools will average media payments of ~$40 million per school (I know some will be performance based). So the average ACc school will be far better off than a Big 12 schools (~40 million vs ~27 million in media payout for 2025).

I'd love to see the professor's math on this $50 million.

---

Exactly, the whole thing depends on what we are talking about: starting number, levelized number over the contract….

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

ESPN's proper response is "$30 million is our best offer" not "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Basically, you have a duopoly, Fox and ESPN, where Fox refused to deal from the get go, and ESPN refused to deal once negotiations started.

Fox then funded the B1G to get UW and Oregon and Fox and ESPN jointly funded the B12 to get the Four Corners schools (preplaned with B-12 to be four "P5" ie PAC-12 schools). ESPN then funded the ACC to get Cal and Stanford.

Assuming $70 million for B1G, $40 million for ACC and $30 million for B-12, if WSU and OSU end up in the B-12, that is exactly $40 million per school that Fox and ESPN will be paying for the PAC-10 schools next year.

So $40 million per school even without UCLA and USC is supportable.

---

Yeah, negotiation means a back and forth until one party says this is our last best. There's something fishy about it all.

---

And "This is our last best. Our current contract expires a year from now. Go ahead and explore your other options. Give us a call when you are ready to sign."

Instead, when the initial ESPN offer under the exclusive negotiation period was not immediately accepted, and the Pac-10 was free to explore other options, both Fox and ESPN "refused to deal" (and given their duopoly status as confirmed in previous rulings, a violation under the Sherman Antitrust Act) leaving the PAC-10 only a $20 million streaming deal.

However, Fox and ESPN had already jointly armed the B-12 with automatic $30 million slots for four "P5 teams" which could only be PAC-12 teams since the ACC was locked up (and better paid) and no B1G or SEC team was jumping to the B-12 for $30 million. Those slots and their amount shows premeditation.

If the PAC-10 had been able to go back and accept the $30 million ESPN offer, the Four Corner schools do not jump. But with that offer no longer on the table, first Colorado jumps for one of the B-12 slots, Oregon and UW exercise their previously negotiated B1G offers (funded by Fox) and the rest of the Four Corners follow. Leaving Cal, Stanford, OSU and WSU as the PAC-4. Probably with the intention of us being relegated. Jim Knowlton immediately set up a meeting with the MWC, conveniently near to his home in Colorado Springs, to execute a deal (and us),

However, Notre Dame, the 400 lb gorilla, spoke up for Calford. ESPN, wanting to placate Notre Dame, the ACC, avoid litigation and preserve some late night West Coast kick off slots, pushed for Cal and Stanford to the ACC, even offering to make up for the additional travel expenses for ACC members.

What remains of the saga, other than potential litigation, is the fate of WSU, OSU and the Pacific conference itself.

Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, the two big sports media companies who killed the PAC-12 push stories blaming the PAC-12 entirely for its own demise, which like most propaganda works because their is some truth to it.

---

I sure hope an antitrust case holds up and goes forward. Antitrust seems to be all but forgotten anymore if one considers how few corporations own 90% of the other corporations. And, of course they collaborate for their own mutual benefit. Little different than price-fixing, this dealing was.

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

This article is sourced though. Do you have a link to anything credible for the ASU rumor? Also doesn't mean both thought $50 million was a reasonable ask.

The real issue is that there was no one telling these presidents (GK, athletic directors, etc) that $50 million was not even remotely reasonable without any LA schools. If bigger schools felt like they deserved that amount, it would have to come from uneven revenue sharing.

And while we are on the subject, by my quick math ESPN is paying the ACC 20-25% more per added school (SMU, Stanford, Cal) than ESPN/Fox are paying for the 4 corner schools going to the Big 12. Remember that the 31 million value floated around is average value for the B12 over 6 years starting in 2025. There are yearly inflation escalators in all of these contracts (standard is 5%). So first year will pay around $27 million. ACC is paying $31 millon per school THIS year (24 for primary + 7 for ACC net). Add two year at 5% escalation to the 24 million to get to 2025, and the 2025 media payout per school will average $36 million of ACC net rev is constant. That's $9 million more than the Big 12. I know, the new schools don't get a full cut, but ESPN is paying a full amount. The extra money 'donated' back to the ACC will total around $60 million in 2025, so the current ACC schools will average media payments of ~$40 million per school (I know some will be performance based). So the average ACc school will be far better off than a Big 12 schools (~40 million vs ~27 million in media payout for 2025).

I'd love to see the professor's math on this $50 million.

---

Exactly, the whole thing depends on what we are talking about: starting number, levelized number over the contract….

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

ESPN's proper response is "$30 million is our best offer" not "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Basically, you have a duopoly, Fox and ESPN, where Fox refused to deal from the get go, and ESPN refused to deal once negotiations started.

Fox then funded the B1G to get UW and Oregon and Fox and ESPN jointly funded the B12 to get the Four Corners schools (preplaned with B-12 to be four "P5" ie PAC-12 schools). ESPN then funded the ACC to get Cal and Stanford.

Assuming $70 million for B1G, $40 million for ACC and $30 million for B-12, if WSU and OSU end up in the B-12, that is exactly $40 million per school that Fox and ESPN will be paying for the PAC-10 schools next year.

So $40 million per school even without UCLA and USC is supportable.

---

Yeah, negotiation means a back and forth until one party says this is our last best. There's something fishy about it all.

---

And "This is our last best. Our current contract expires a year from now. Go ahead and explore your other options. Give us a call when you are ready to sign."

Instead, when the initial ESPN offer under the exclusive negotiation period was not immediately accepted, and the Pac-10 was free to explore other options, both Fox and ESPN "refused to deal" (and given their duopoly status as confirmed in previous rulings, a violation under the Sherman Antitrust Act) leaving the PAC-10 only a $20 million streaming deal.

However, Fox and ESPN had already jointly armed the B-12 with automatic $30 million slots for four "P5 teams" which could only be PAC-12 teams since the ACC was locked up (and better paid) and no B1G or SEC team was jumping to the B-12 for $30 million. Those slots and their amount shows premeditation.

If the PAC-10 had been able to go back and accept the $30 million ESPN offer, the Four Corner schools do not jump. But with that offer no longer on the table, first Colorado jumps for one of the B-12 slots, Oregon and UW exercise their previously negotiated B1G offers (funded by Fox) and the rest of the Four Corners follow. Leaving Cal, Stanford, OSU and WSU as the PAC-4. Probably with the intention of us being relegated. Jim Knowlton immediately set up a meeting with the MWC, conveniently near to his home in Colorado Springs, to execute a deal (and us),

However, Notre Dame, the 400 lb gorilla, spoke up for Calford. ESPN, wanting to placate Notre Dame, the ACC, avoid litigation and preserve some late night West Coast kick off slots, pushed for Cal and Stanford to the ACC, even offering to make up for the additional travel expenses for ACC members.

What remains of the saga, other than potential litigation, is the fate of WSU, OSU and the Pacific conference itself.

Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, the two big sports media companies who killed the PAC-12 push stories blaming the PAC-12 entirely for its own demise, which like most propaganda works because their is some truth to it.

---

I sure hope an antitrust case holds up and goes forward. Antitrust seems to be all but forgotten anymore if one considers how few corporations own 90% of the other corporations. And, of course they collaborate for their own mutual benefit. Little different than price-fixing, this dealing was.

---

OSU and WSU want to secure their future first. Once things have settled and the damages can be assessed, the litigation will probably proceed. However, I also think it is likely Fox and ESPN find the money to get WSU and OSU into the B-12 so the PAC-12 can be liquidated, the P5 become the P4 with everyone finding a p4 home and everyone stays out of court.

okaydo said:

---

The Pac-12 President that reportedly pushed the $50M figure, a dramatic overestimate of their own worth that ultimately doomed the conference, was Utah President Taylor Randall. https://t.co/6StmHAxbF0

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) October 6, 2023

---

One university's president doesn't independently name a number in a television negotiation. This was a collective fail, not some loose cannon speaking out of turn.

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

okaydo said:

---

The Pac-12 President that reportedly pushed the $50M figure, a dramatic overestimate of their own worth that ultimately doomed the conference, was Utah President Taylor Randall. https://t.co/6StmHAxbF0

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) October 6, 2023

---

One university's president doesn't independently name a number in a television negotiation. This was a collective fail, not some loose cannon speaking out of turn.

---

This. Look Randall has a business background, but does anyone really think 10 other school CEOs let the Commissioner counter in that way based on what one guy said?

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

okaydo said:

---

The Pac-12 President that reportedly pushed the $50M figure, a dramatic overestimate of their own worth that ultimately doomed the conference, was Utah President Taylor Randall. https://t.co/6StmHAxbF0

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) October 6, 2023

---

One university's president doesn't independently name a number in a television negotiation. This was a collective fail, not some loose cannon speaking out of turn.

---

This. Look Randall has a business background, but does anyone really think 10 other school CEOs let the Commissioner counter in that way based on what one guy said?

---

Exactly. I view everything from Canzano with a grain of salt. He may not be the Nike U Minister of Information, but he is clearly drinking buddies with him and spreads his selected information or disinformation. Some of these things defy reason. However it is informative as far as knowing what Oregon wants known. He was the only source for reports on Wilcox's negations with Oregon, for example.

calumnus said:

---

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

---

The TV numbers aren't that high, though. I think it was Wilner who pointed out that the initial reports about the Big Ten's contract were inaccurately high, and that the real number is just over $60 million.

The ACC's $40 million per school is total conference distribution to each school, not just TV money. The TV money, including the ACC Network, is in the low 30s per school.

The Pac-12 initial ask was for annual TV money of over $15 million per school more than what the ACC gets. The Pac-12 without USC and UCLA is not worth $15 million per school more than the ACC. ESPN was probably pricing the LA-less Pac at about the same number as the ACC (and now Big 12). They were not going to go up to $40 million, let alone $50 million.

On top of that, dingbat Kliavkoff was telling the presidents that streaming would pay really big. He probably told them that Amazon or Apple would bid well over $30 million, and that gave the presidents the overconfidence to ask ESPN for the moon.

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Seems BS, the president most often mentioned with the conference implosion is the one in Tempe.

---

This article is sourced though. Do you have a link to anything credible for the ASU rumor? Also doesn't mean both thought $50 million was a reasonable ask.

The real issue is that there was no one telling these presidents (GK, athletic directors, etc) that $50 million was not even remotely reasonable without any LA schools. If bigger schools felt like they deserved that amount, it would have to come from uneven revenue sharing.

And while we are on the subject, by my quick math ESPN is paying the ACC 20-25% more per added school (SMU, Stanford, Cal) than ESPN/Fox are paying for the 4 corner schools going to the Big 12. Remember that the 31 million value floated around is average value for the B12 over 6 years starting in 2025. There are yearly inflation escalators in all of these contracts (standard is 5%). So first year will pay around $27 million. ACC is paying $31 millon per school THIS year (24 for primary + 7 for ACC net). Add two year at 5% escalation to the 24 million to get to 2025, and the 2025 media payout per school will average $36 million of ACC net rev is constant. That's $9 million more than the Big 12. I know, the new schools don't get a full cut, but ESPN is paying a full amount. The extra money 'donated' back to the ACC will total around $60 million in 2025, so the current ACC schools will average media payments of ~$40 million per school (I know some will be performance based). So the average ACc school will be far better off than a Big 12 schools (~40 million vs ~27 million in media payout for 2025).

I'd love to see the professor's math on this $50 million.

---

Exactly, the whole thing depends on what we are talking about: starting number, levelized number over the contract….

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

ESPN's proper response is "$30 million is our best offer" not "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Basically, you have a duopoly, Fox and ESPN, where Fox refused to deal from the get go, and ESPN refused to deal once negotiations started.

Fox then funded the B1G to get UW and Oregon and Fox and ESPN jointly funded the B12 to get the Four Corners schools (preplaned with B-12 to be four "P5" ie PAC-12 schools). ESPN then funded the ACC to get Cal and Stanford.

Assuming $70 million for B1G, $40 million for ACC and $30 million for B-12, if WSU and OSU end up in the B-12, that is exactly $40 million per school that Fox and ESPN will be paying for the PAC-10 schools next year.

So $40 million per school even without UCLA and USC is supportable.

---

Yeah, negotiation means a back and forth until one party says this is our last best. There's something fishy about it all.

---

And "This is our last best. Our current contract expires a year from now. Go ahead and explore your other options. Give us a call when you are ready to sign."

Instead, when the initial ESPN offer under the exclusive negotiation period was not immediately accepted, and the Pac-10 was free to explore other options, both Fox and ESPN "refused to deal" (and given their duopoly status as confirmed in previous rulings, a violation under the Sherman Antitrust Act) leaving the PAC-10 only a $20 million streaming deal.

However, Fox and ESPN had already jointly armed the B-12 with automatic $30 million slots for four "P5 teams" which could only be PAC-12 teams since the ACC was locked up (and better paid) and no B1G or SEC team was jumping to the B-12 for $30 million. Those slots and their amount shows premeditation.

If the PAC-10 had been able to go back and accept the $30 million ESPN offer, the Four Corner schools do not jump. But with that offer no longer on the table, first Colorado jumps for one of the B-12 slots, Oregon and UW exercise their previously negotiated B1G offers (funded by Fox) and the rest of the Four Corners follow. Leaving Cal, Stanford, OSU and WSU as the PAC-4. Probably with the intention of us being relegated. Jim Knowlton immediately set up a meeting with the MWC, conveniently near to his home in Colorado Springs, to execute a deal (and us),

However, Notre Dame, the 400 lb gorilla, spoke up for Calford. ESPN, wanting to placate Notre Dame, the ACC, avoid litigation and preserve some late night West Coast kick off slots, pushed for Cal and Stanford to the ACC, even offering to make up for the additional travel expenses for ACC members.

What remains of the saga, other than potential litigation, is the fate of WSU, OSU and the Pacific conference itself.

Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, the two big sports media companies who killed the PAC-12 push stories blaming the PAC-12 entirely for its own demise, which like most propaganda works because their is some truth to it.

---

I sure hope an antitrust case holds up and goes forward. Antitrust seems to be all but forgotten anymore if one considers how few corporations own 90% of the other corporations. And, of course they collaborate for their own mutual benefit. Little different than price-fixing, this dealing was.

---

OSU and WSU want to secure their future first. Once things have settled and the damages can be assessed, the litigation will probably proceed. However, I also think it is likely Fox and ESPN find the money to get WSU and OSU into the B-12 so the PAC-12 can be liquidated, the P5 become the P4 with everyone finding a p4 home and everyone stays out of court.

---

Latest supposedly is Big 12 is expanding..... Gonzaga will be announced in the next 2 weeks (not in football). Same sources said no OSU and WSU.

BREAKING: Gonzaga Expanding to the Big 12 in Basketball ...YouTube Locked On Big 122 minutes, 5 seconds12 hours ago

Big 12 In Talks To Add Gonzaga To Powerhouse Basketball ...Forbeshttps://www.forbes.com adamzagoria 2023/10/09 b...

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

---

The TV numbers aren't that high, though. I think it was Wilner who pointed out that the initial reports about the Big Ten's contract were inaccurately high, and that the real number is just over $60 million.

The ACC's $40 million per school is total conference distribution to each school, not just TV money. The TV money, including the ACC Network, is in the low 30s per school.

The Pac-12 initial ask was for annual TV money of over $15 million per school more than what the ACC gets. The Pac-12 without USC and UCLA is not worth $15 million per school more than the ACC. ESPN was probably pricing the LA-less Pac at about the same number as the ACC (and now Big 12). They were not going to go up to $40 million, let alone $50 million.

On top of that, dingbat Kliavkoff was telling the presidents that streaming would pay really big. He probably told them that Amazon or Apple would bid well over $30 million, and that gave the presidents the overconfidence to ask ESPN for the moon.

---

Woah, the last paragraph, if true, should be firing material. Commissioner one would have to come-up with some type of credible analysis before any CEO would believe that. Indeed, Amazon promised what would be around $30 million only if the remaining Pac actually his some ambitious numbers of new subscriptions, and guaranteed money was in the low 20's.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

---

The TV numbers aren't that high, though. I think it was Wilner who pointed out that the initial reports about the Big Ten's contract were inaccurately high, and that the real number is just over $60 million.

The ACC's $40 million per school is total conference distribution to each school, not just TV money. The TV money, including the ACC Network, is in the low 30s per school.

The Pac-12 initial ask was for annual TV money of over $15 million per school more than what the ACC gets. The Pac-12 without USC and UCLA is not worth $15 million per school more than the ACC. ESPN was probably pricing the LA-less Pac at about the same number as the ACC (and now Big 12). They were not going to go up to $40 million, let alone $50 million.

On top of that, dingbat Kliavkoff was telling the presidents that streaming would pay really big. He probably told them that Amazon or Apple would bid well over $30 million, and that gave the presidents the overconfidence to ask ESPN for the moon.

---

Ok, but mitigating that is:

1. Everyone was saying the ACC deal was too low and ESPN was getting a great deal.

2. At the time Kliavkoff and Christ were still trying to block UCLA from going to the B1G and may have thought they could succeed, especially if they could get to a number like $50 million from ESPN. So it may have been a "Including UCLA and the LA market" self-fullfilling ask. $50 million both to keep them and if we kept them.

3. UW and Oregon had already been reported to have met with the B1G and probably had their current deal in hand, which eventually gets them to full B1G shares. $50 million was probably a reasonable ask from their perspective.

4. Everyone knew what the B-12's deal was, including the 4 slots for PAC-12 teams, so they wanted something above that.

5. Others probably didn't know what was reasonable or unreasonable. They are not experts in the market.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

---

The TV numbers aren't that high, though. I think it was Wilner who pointed out that the initial reports about the Big Ten's contract were inaccurately high, and that the real number is just over $60 million.

The ACC's $40 million per school is total conference distribution to each school, not just TV money. The TV money, including the ACC Network, is in the low 30s per school.

The Pac-12 initial ask was for annual TV money of over $15 million per school more than what the ACC gets. The Pac-12 without USC and UCLA is not worth $15 million per school more than the ACC. ESPN was probably pricing the LA-less Pac at about the same number as the ACC (and now Big 12). They were not going to go up to $40 million, let alone $50 million.

On top of that, dingbat Kliavkoff was telling the presidents that streaming would pay really big. He probably told them that Amazon or Apple would bid well over $30 million, and that gave the presidents the overconfidence to ask ESPN for the moon.

---

Ok, but mitigating that is:

1. Everyone was saying the ACC deal was too low and ESPN was getting a great deal.

2. At the time Kliavkoff and Christ were still trying to block UCLA from going to the B1G and may have thought they could succeed, especially if they could get to a number like $50 million from ESPN. So it may have been a "Including UCLA and the LA market" self-fullfilling ask. $50 million both to keep them and if we kept them.

3. UW and Oregon had already been reported to have met with the B1G and probably had their current deal in hand, which eventually gets them to full B1G shares. $50 million was probably a reasonable ask from their perspective.

4. Everyone knew what the B-12's deal was, including the 4 slots for PAC-12 teams, so they wanted something above that.

5. Others probably didn't know what was reasonable or unreasonable. They are not experts in the market.

---

1. ESPN did not want to pay an LA-less Pac more than the ACC, regardless of whether others said the ACC was underpaid. See also number 5 below.

2. None of the stories about the $50 million price have said that it included UCLA. The Utah president said that he put forth the number, and he didn't mention UCLA at all.

3. UW and UO may not have had a firm offer from the Big Ten at that point, which was fall 2022. They may have been told they would get in eventually but that it might take a few years. There have been rumors that UW and UO had a firm offer from the Big 12 in case they didn't get Big Ten invitations. So they probably had nothing to lose by wanting the Pac to substantially exceed the Big 12's number.

4. The Big 12's deal may not have been finalized at the time the Pac asked ESPN for $50 million per school. Also, the rumors about the Big 12 offering UW and UO were out there, and the other schools would have known that they might be out if UW and UO were in..

5. This is one of the places where Kliavkoff failed at his job. Knowing the market, including hiring consultants who are experts, is a big part of the commissioner job. Knowing how to negotiate competently, so that ESPN doesn't just walk away, is also a big part of the job. The CEOs hire a commissioner to do these things because they are not experts in sports or TV. The CEOs' failing was hiring two bad commissioners in a row, and that might be the biggest reason why the Big 12 will continue to exist while the Pac-12 will not.

(For that matter, Cal and Stanford are fortunate that the ACC has a good commissioner who was persistent about trying to make a deal for Cal, Stanford, and SMU. If the ACC had a passive or incompetent commissioner, we'd be in the same boat today as OSU and WSU.)

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

If the ACC gets $40 million in a "bad" deal they signed years ago and the B1G gets $70 million with growth escalators, I don't see how $50 million is such a ridiculous counter to $30 million, especially if you think $40 million and equal to the ACC is where you should wind up. And I guess at the time they thought Cal could get the regents to drag UCLA back so we would have the LA market.

---

The TV numbers aren't that high, though. I think it was Wilner who pointed out that the initial reports about the Big Ten's contract were inaccurately high, and that the real number is just over $60 million.

The ACC's $40 million per school is total conference distribution to each school, not just TV money. The TV money, including the ACC Network, is in the low 30s per school.

The Pac-12 initial ask was for annual TV money of over $15 million per school more than what the ACC gets. The Pac-12 without USC and UCLA is not worth $15 million per school more than the ACC. ESPN was probably pricing the LA-less Pac at about the same number as the ACC (and now Big 12). They were not going to go up to $40 million, let alone $50 million.

On top of that, dingbat Kliavkoff was telling the presidents that streaming would pay really big. He probably told them that Amazon or Apple would bid well over $30 million, and that gave the presidents the overconfidence to ask ESPN for the moon.

---

Ok, but mitigating that is:

1. Everyone was saying the ACC deal was too low and ESPN was getting a great deal.

2. At the time Kliavkoff and Christ were still trying to block UCLA from going to the B1G and may have thought they could succeed, especially if they could get to a number like $50 million from ESPN. So it may have been a "Including UCLA and the LA market" self-fullfilling ask. $50 million both to keep them and if we kept them.

3. UW and Oregon had already been reported to have met with the B1G and probably had their current deal in hand, which eventually gets them to full B1G shares. $50 million was probably a reasonable ask from their perspective.

4. Everyone knew what the B-12's deal was, including the 4 slots for PAC-12 teams, so they wanted something above that.

5. Others probably didn't know what was reasonable or unreasonable. They are not experts in the market.

---

1. ESPN did not want to pay an LA-less Pac more than the ACC, regardless of whether others said the ACC was underpaid. See also number 5 below.

2. None of the stories about the $50 million price have said that it included UCLA. The Utah president said that he put forth the number, and he didn't mention UCLA at all.

3. UW and UO may not have had a firm offer from the Big Ten at that point, which was fall 2022. They may have been told they would get in eventually but that it might take a few years. There have been rumors that UW and UO had a firm offer from the Big 12 in case they didn't get Big Ten invitations. So they probably had nothing to lose by wanting the Pac to substantially exceed the Big 12's number.

4. The Big 12's deal may not have been finalized at the time the Pac asked ESPN for $50 million per school. Also, the rumors about the Big 12 offering UW and UO were out there, and the other schools would have known that they might be out if UW and UO were in..

5. This is one of the places where Kliavkoff failed at his job. Knowing the market, including hiring consultants who are experts, is a big part of the commissioner job. Knowing how to negotiate competently, so that ESPN doesn't just walk away, is also a big part of the job. The CEOs hire a commissioner to do these things because they are not experts in sports or TV. The CEOs' failing was hiring two bad commissioners in a row, and that might be the biggest reason why the Big 12 will continue to exist while the Pac-12 will not.

(For that matter, Cal and Stanford are fortunate that the ACC has a good commissioner who was persistent about trying to make a deal for Cal, Stanford, and SMU. If the ACC had a passive or incompetent commissioner, we'd be in the same boat today as OSU and WSU.)

---

Here is an LA Times article that gives the $50 million as the number needed to keep UCLA (and UW and Oregon):
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-08-16/pac-12-collapse-decisions-realignment-ucla-oregon

Oregon and UW began meeting with the B1G and aggressively and publicly pursuing admission immediately after USC and UCLA announced. Here is an article from August 2022:

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10046225-report-oregon-initiated-preliminary-talks-with-big-ten-to-determine-compatibility.amp.html

The B1G commissioner has released a narrative that it was Oregon and UW that aggressively pursued them, but they didn't consider them until after Colorado announced it was going to the B-12.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38346544/oregon-washington-had-inbound-interest-join-big-ten-commish-says?platform=amp

I am certain this is just the B1G's cover story to avoid antitrust liability. The B1G presidents voted unanimously to add Oregon and UW just days after Colorado announced it was going to the B-12. Clearly the terms of the deal, including payments from Fox, had long before been negotiated, agreed upon and circulated just awaiting formal acceptance of the deal by all parties once Colorado (or anyone else) jumped to the B-12. Note that the B-12 contract giving them the 4 bullets for PAC-12 schools was negotiated in Fall of 2022. It was all planned.

It is why I have been saying for over a year that if Christ and Knowlton want into the B1G it needed to be a similarly very aggressive and public effort. I was attacked for being a "Christ hater" and we were assured by insiders "Carol Christ is doing more than any other PAC-10 CEO to get into the B1G" only it was all being done secretly and covertly. Not sure it would have helped, but the route we took clearly did not get us into the B1G.

We are very fortunate others pulled us into the ACC. It is a great landing spot all things considered.

Quote:

---

Here is an LA Times article that gives the $50 million as the number needed to keep UCLA (and UW and Oregon):

---

The idea to pay UCLA $52 million in order to get the regents to block the UCLA move was separate from the demand to ESPN, which was $50 million for every school even without UCLA in the league.

As the article says, paying UCLA $52 million was shot down by Oregon because it would have meant UO and everyone else was taking much less, i.e. that the average per school paid by ESPN would be far less than that.

Quote:

---

Oregon and UW began meeting with the B1G and aggressively and publicly pursuing admission immediately after USC and UCLA announced. Here is an article from August 2022:

---

That article begins, "Oregon reportedly initiated low-level preliminary discussions with the Big Ten..." that "didn't include Oregon school president Michael Schill, athletic director Rob Mullens or Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren." Cal and Stanford presumably had similar contacts -- the article says Cal and Stanford were in the Big Ten's "group of targets", and there were reports in July and August this year that Big Ten presidents wanted to add Cal and Stanford but Fox wouldn't pay anything for them. Adding UO and UW only was a move dictated and paid for by Fox.

Perhaps they weren't aware that the UC Berkeley Bears draw more than 35,000 (tickets sold) on rare occasions?

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

Here is an LA Times article that gives the $50 million as the number needed to keep UCLA (and UW and Oregon):

---

The idea to pay UCLA $52 million in order to get the regents to block the UCLA move was separate from the demand to ESPN, which was $50 million for every school even without UCLA in the league.

As the article says, paying UCLA $52 million was shot down by Oregon because it would have meant UO and everyone else was taking much less, i.e. that the average per school paid by ESPN would be far less than that.

Quote:

---

Oregon and UW began meeting with the B1G and aggressively and publicly pursuing admission immediately after USC and UCLA announced. Here is an article from August 2022:

---

That article begins, "Oregon reportedly initiated low-level preliminary discussions with the Big Ten..." that "didn't include Oregon school president Michael Schill, athletic director Rob Mullens or Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren." Cal and Stanford presumably had similar contacts -- the article says Cal and Stanford were in the Big Ten's "group of targets", and there were reports in July and August this year that Big Ten presidents wanted to add Cal and Stanford but Fox wouldn't pay anything for them. Adding UO and UW only was a move dictated and paid for by Fox.

---

If you need $50 million to keep UCLA, but Oregon (and others) won't agree to UCLA getting more than the others then logically you need to ask for $50 million for everybody. Realistic or not, that is your ask. You would be remiss not to at least ask for it.

And keeping UCLA and the LA market was clearly Klisvkoff's goal in Fall of 2022, that was why he was at the Regents meeting, not to get Calimony for Cal (what Christ was arguing for).

That article was August of 2022. I can find other reports that show that Oregon and UW were in more serious meetings by Fall of 2022 including their ADs and presidents going to the Midwest. It would not have been tough to have a number from Fox and a conditional offer to UW and Oregon.

Again, by Fall of 2022, Oregon and UW probably had a good idea of what they might get from the B1G and so they gave Kliavkoff the number they needed to stay: $50 million. The same as UCLA.

UW and Oregon then waited to see what Klisvkoff could come up with and were able to execute a fully negotiated unanimous deal with the B1G almost immediately after Colorado jumped to the B-12 and that they were able to announce at the PAC-10 meeting for the vote, which reportedly caught Carol Christ by surprise as she was reportedly prepared to sign Kliavkoff's $20 million streaming deal.

Think about it. The B1G narrative is "We were done for now, but might have added teams a year or two from now." How could they have? UW and Oregon would have signed away their GORs and been at the beginning of a new contract cycle in the PAC-10/12. They do not have meetings with the B1G for an entire year and not think of that. They had their deal done. They just waited for the B-12 to use one of the four slots for Pac-10 teams they were given by Fox and ESPN (also in the Fall of 2022) first.

As you said, the B1G presidents expressed interest in Cal and Stanford in July and August of 2023 (in the midst of and after the PAC-10 collapse). That was when they found out Fox wouldn't offer anything for us. So we are to believe Cal had been meeting with the B1G for a year petitioning to get into the B1G (with no public reports) but no one at the B1G in that entire year's time thought to talk with Fox about it? Doesn't that defy reason?

calumnus said:

---

Think about it. The B1G narrative is "We were done for now, but might have added teams a year or two from now." How could they have? UW and Oregon would have signed away their GORs and been at the beginning of a new contract cycle in the PAC-10/12. They do not have meetings with the B1G for an entire year and not think of that. They had their deal done. They just waited for the B-12 to use one of the four slots for Pac-10 teams they were given by Fox and ESPN first.

---

The answer to that is: UW and UO were not going to sign a GOR. If the Big Ten had not gone ahead with an offer in early August, they would have agreed to the Apple deal but not a GOR, leaving them free to leave in a year or two or three when the offer came through. No one has reported that Apple required the Pac to execute a GOR. The fact that a GOR was allegedly negotiated long in advance doesn't mean much.

IMO, a lot of what happened was pretty much pre-ordained after the UCLA/USC departure. The general assumption in the industry was that the Pac would only survive until the Big Ten invited more Pac teams, that the Big 12 would get UU/CU/UA/ASU because the Big Ten was not interested in them, and that WSU and OSU would be left out in the cold.

Maybe the only uncertainty was with Cal and Stanford, and maybe it took several months for the Big Ten to finally give up on considering Cal and Stanford because Fox kept saying, hell no we won't pay for them. No doubt Fox's communications with the Big Ten were properly lawyered-up. Fox wouldn't explicitly say "We forbid you to add Cal and Stanford," they would just say, "There's no additional money available, so add them at your own expense if that's what you really want to do."

And then the only thing that was left was that the Big Ten wanted the Big 12 to pull the next Jenga piece so that the Big Ten could pretend they weren't the ones who collapsed the Pac-12.