Jump to content

Picking Up The Pieces


Recommended Posts

On 11/3/2022 at 8:18 PM, EastCoastFan said:

We're stymied for the moment from pulling things together by a number of things, including the confusion caused by the Regents vote on UCLA; the continued comments by Kevin Warren that there might be more B1G expansion (e.g., the two NW flagships); and the likely demands from Amazon Prime for a large chunk of tier one inventory.  Keep in mind, though, that taking our time might be advantageous, not a sign of weakness.  As for Gonzaga, reportedly they've had talks with the Pac-12 and Big East as well as the Big-12, so that's not necessarily a minus either.  The Zags look more desireable with a UCLA departure, giving the Pac some hoops juice (and media interest) to make up for the loss.

You noticed I left myself a small get out jail free card with the cloak and dagger mention?  
I personally think the NW schools to the B10 is a dead horse this round. I think their new contract is built to flex, adapt and pounce if the SEC makes more moves down the road.  There might be loop holes in the GOR for the ACC or someone might pay exits fees if it’s worth it. 

Some of the stuff George has said about UCLA leaving is far off too.  But let’s see what he can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2022 at 3:58 PM, MrBug708 said:

Speaking of missing lots of spelling mistakes, whatever happened to the Aztec****** copycat? He hasn't been back since Arizona beat down SDSU 


This board is a bit slow when it comes to conference realignment. There are better places to get that information. Just checked in today because of Dan Patrick's statement today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2022 at 12:27 PM, Aztecgolfer said:

I stand corrected. But, the Bug guy seemed to make a huge issue over me transposing the L & S letters in MLS. San Diego appears a near lock to get then next MLS expansion team by the way. Will be playing at Snapdragon.

Are you also that @HLB dude?  You both have that distinctive, aggressively boring style.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NY  Times article on the UC Board of Regents meeting yesterday. The Board has postponed any action to another meeting on December 14.


Of note, it sounds like Kliavkoff has made attempts to lure UCLA back to the Pac12 with the promise of a "a little more" of the tv revenue if they stay: 

"But last month, the Pac-12 provided to several regents a glimpse of what its deal, which it has been negotiating for months, might look like if U.C.L.A. decided to remain: a range between $42 million and $47 million per school, with U.C.L.A. getting a little more than the remaining 10 schools in the Pac-12 once Southern California leaves for the Big Ten in 2024, according to two people familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss them. The holdovers in turn would be getting a little more than San Diego State if it left the Mountain West to become the conference’s 12th team.

Then the Big 12 announced its deal with Fox and ESPN, which will be worth $31.7 million per school.

That number was far enough below expectations that the Pac-12 lowered its estimates for the regents by about 10 percent.


The Pac-12’s willingness to sweeten the offer for U.C.L.A. also included a willingness to pay the buyout the Los Angeles school would have to fork over to break the Big Ten agreement. That buyout is $15 million, according to three people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal terms of the deal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Here is how the Athletic reported the "Calimony" (subsidy from UCLA to Cal): 

UCLA may also be compelled to pay a so-called “Berkeley Tax,” in which it contributes “$2 million to $10 million” of its coming Big Ten revenue annually to fellow system member Cal to support the athletes on that campus. According to a recommendation approved in a separate vote, the board will have the authority to determine the amount once the Pac-12’s pending media deal is finalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

It's a quiet time, so let's circle back to the original theme of this thread 16 pages ago -- what is the likely future of the Pac-12 as a conference and its schools?  Here are some thoughts for discussion, that is, if there's still life on this board looking for a back-and-forth dialogue.

  • On August 2, 2024 UCLA and USC enter the Big Ten.  It certainly appears that no other Pac-12 schools will be joining them on that date.  Perhaps some additional moves will happen later, but not in 2024.  The two L.A. schools will have dramatically different sports schedules.  Presumably, unless there's something that hasn't been publicized, their conference affiliation change will be for all sports.
  • A first question, of interest to the Bay Area schools, will be whether UCLA and/or USC will appear on their future out-of-conference football and basketball schedules.  It's possible the break will be like when A&M went to the SEC and their long-standing scheduling relationship with Texas totally ended.
  • The bigger question for the immediate future (e.g., 2024+), of course, is what happens with the remaining ten Pac schools.  Do they stay together as a Pac-10?  Do they add schools that previously would have been ignored?  Or do some of the ten schools get restless and hit the escape hatch?  We know very little more on this than we did a year ago.  Presumably all this awaits the media contract negotiations that George Kliavkoff currently is engaged in.  
  • The media deal that the Pac may put together probably will include streaming and traditional media outlets, and a move away from the Pac-12 Network as it's now configured.  Will Kliavkoff be able to land arrangements that match the Big-12's per-school payout of $31.6 million, or the ACC's payout of north of $36 million?  And will revenue be divided equally, or will unequal distributions be provided to media-magnets, as some have said Oregon and Washington want?  We should have these answers in a matter of months.
  • Other potential "futures" that once were discussed appear to have been shelved, but who knows, they could reappear.  One would be a contractual affiliation with the ACC for some media product, such as selected football crossover games, basketball touneys or challenges, etc.  Another would be a similar arrangement with the Big-12.
  • Another question that keeps surfacing is whether additions like San Diego State, SMU, Boise, Tulane, etc. make any sense.  There is a strong argument that they don't, unless the added schools have a significantly lower per-school media payout.
  • What appears most likely at this time, at least to me, are the following: (1) the Pac-10 will begin play in 2024 without expanding; (2) unequal payouts will be allowed based on what teams earn in bowl game payouts; (3) existing scheduling contracts will prevent a serious affiliation with another conference; (4) the Pac-s media contracts will lean heavily toward streaming, but not ttotally; and (5) the Pac-10 will play a nine game full-round-robin in-conference football schedule and an 18-game full double round-robin basketball schedule.
  • If it adds enough revenue, there might be an add-on arrangement for basketball with Gonzaga and perhaps somebody else, similar to what the ACC does with Notre Dame.
  • In the period from 2024 to 2028, each of the Pac-10 schools will be "auditioning" for entry to the B1G when the the B1G's next media negotiations begin.  Some schools like Oregon and Washington will be in the forefront of that discussion.  Legislative attempt to link in-state schools (Beavs/Ducks, UDub/WSU) might sound good, but they are likely to fail.  A question surrounds the Bay Area schools, in that they weren't attractive enough for the B1G to reach out for them in the last expansion, even though they represent the sixth largest media market in the U.S.  It's likely that we can expect a serious push from the two mountain schools for B1G admittance, both being AAU, Utah having serious football chops, and Colorado (at least currently) pushing the envelop with Prime Time.  The Arizona schools are an interesting story for the late 2020's -- it would not be surprising to see the SEC seeking to expand past Texas into additional sun belt territory.
  • The period from 2024 through the late 2020's will be a rough one for Pac-schools, because the revenue gap between the two conference dinosaurs and the Pac will be stunningly large and growing.  Purdue and Rutgers and South Carolina and Mizzou will be pulling in something like double the media-money that Washington, Oregon, and Arizona are.  The disparity might be sustainable for several years, but long term, it'll blow up.

The time is getting near for the next shoe to drop with the media Kliavkoff negotiations nearing a conclusion.  The entire future of the Pac is on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't the Pac-10 do like the NFL did with Prime, and add live sports to a Netflix stream on Saturdays?  Just spitballing here.  Since I've cut the cord, this helps me, personally, so that's why I ask, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...