What happens to Kliavkoff's negotiations with potential media partners?

How does that impact any dealings or moves among the Four Corners 4 and the Big XII?

Can the Pac even get a media deal if UW and UO won't sign a GoR?

Is the conference kaput?

(01-28-2023 10:59 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  What happens to Kliavkoff's negotiations with potential media partners?

How does that impact any dealings or moves among the Four Corners 4 and the Big XII?

Can the Pac even get a media deal if UW and UO won't sign a GoR?

Is the conference kaput?

Why would they not sign a GOR for a 5- or 6-year media deal? The Big Ten is done expanding for now. The 12-team playoff starts in 2024 and that is actually better for Oregon and Washington. They have a better shot at making the playoffs in the PAC. Football recruiting is going well for Oregon and Washington and for the conference as a whole. It is not an ACC GOR that ties them to the PAC through 2036. It would make no sense not to sign it.

(01-28-2023 11:28 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 10:59 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  What happens to Kliavkoff's negotiations with potential media partners?

How does that impact any dealings or moves among the Four Corners 4 and the Big XII?

Can the Pac even get a media deal if UW and UO won't sign a GoR?

Is the conference kaput?

Why would they not sign a GOR for a 5- or 6-year media deal? The Big Ten is done expanding for now. The 12-team playoff starts in 2024 and that is actually better for Oregon and Washington. They have a better shot at making the playoffs in the PAC. Football recruiting is going well for Oregon and Washington and for the conference as a whole. It is not an ACC GOR that ties them to the PAC through 2036. It would make no sense not to sign it.

Good comments.

What are your thoughts about the questions asked, including what happens if Oregon and Washington say they are not signing a GoR with the Pac-12?

(01-28-2023 11:28 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 10:59 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  What happens to Kliavkoff's negotiations with potential media partners?

How does that impact any dealings or moves among the Four Corners 4 and the Big XII?

Can the Pac even get a media deal if UW and UO won't sign a GoR?

Is the conference kaput?

Why would they not sign a GOR for a 5- or 6-year media deal? The Big Ten is done expanding for now. The 12-team playoff starts in 2024 and that is actually better for Oregon and Washington. They have a better shot at making the playoffs in the PAC. Football recruiting is going well for Oregon and Washington and for the conference as a whole. It is not an ACC GOR that ties them to the PAC through 2036. It would make no sense not to sign it.

1. The Big 10 says that. It doesn't mean they won't.
2. The 12 team playoff is both a reason for Washington and Oregon to stay, and a reason for the SEC and Big 10 to expand. If we move to a P2 or P3 playoff money will help to fund those moves as those 2 conferences (a) seek to form an upper tier, and (b) jockey for as large a piece of that pie as possible.
3. I don't see anything which has substantively changed for any conference in recruiting. NIL + The Transfer Portal = More Parity.
4. The reason for not signing it is that it wipes out a certain number of years in the last of the golden years for revenue in college athletics. The freedom to move when needed could mean 10's of millions of dollars to the schools with options.
5. As the Boomers die out, so too does the largest % of the college sports market. The die off has begun and will be at a crescendo by 2030 and a tipping point by 2036.
6. Perhaps we could see 2 year renewable contracts as there is much risk on both sides of the equation. But seriously in the ACC, Big 12, and PAC 12 I see no need to have them at this time. The three are at relatively equal value, and no Big 10 or SEC school will be joining them. If someone leaves finding another school of relative value, or merging becomes an easy option for them (except the ACC).

GORs are relatively new and we’re done for network startups. They aren’t essential. There are conference composition clauses

If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

The big issue would be if the other conference members want to implement an exit fee. I think that would be a hard no for both Washington and Oregon.

(01-28-2023 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 11:28 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 10:59 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  What happens to Kliavkoff's negotiations with potential media partners?

How does that impact any dealings or moves among the Four Corners 4 and the Big XII?

Can the Pac even get a media deal if UW and UO won't sign a GoR?

Is the conference kaput?

Why would they not sign a GOR for a 5- or 6-year media deal? The Big Ten is done expanding for now. The 12-team playoff starts in 2024 and that is actually better for Oregon and Washington. They have a better shot at making the playoffs in the PAC. Football recruiting is going well for Oregon and Washington and for the conference as a whole. It is not an ACC GOR that ties them to the PAC through 2036. It would make no sense not to sign it.

1. The Big 10 says that. It doesn't mean they won't.
2. The 12 team playoff is both a reason for Washington and Oregon to stay, and a reason for the SEC and Big 10 to expand. If we move to a P2 or P3 playoff money will help to fund those moves as those 2 conferences (a) seek to form an upper tier, and (b) jockey for as large a piece of that pie as possible.
3. I don't see anything which has substantively changed for any conference in recruiting. NIL + The Transfer Portal = More Parity.
4. The reason for not signing it is that it wipes out a certain number of years in the last of the golden years for revenue in college athletics. The freedom to move when needed could mean 10's of millions of dollars to the schools with options.
5. As the Boomers die out, so too does the largest % of the college sports market. The die off has begun and will be at a crescendo by 2030 and a tipping point by 2036.

1. You can't go catatonic while you wait on the Big Ten to decide on their next move. A 5- or 6-year GOR is nothing. That will go by fast.

2. When the SEC and the Big Ten decide to expand, Oregon and Washington just need to put themselves in the best position possible in order to be members of the upper tier. Being in the playoffs every year will help. Blowing up the conference will not.

3. Oregon has a top ten recruiting class, as usual. Washington is loaded going into next season. They are returning everyone from the top passing offense in the nation. Oregon & Washington have done well with the transfer portal and NIL. The transfer portal and NIL have worked well for the Pac-12 to this point.

4. Again, it is a short term GOR. You can cost yourself millions by not signing it. You deal with the reality of where you are and not where you think things could be.

5. As a Boomer myself, I hope to be around for a while. College football is no different than any other sport. You have to keep evolving to be relevant. I am sure they will make the necessary changes to be relevant in the future to the younger generation.

They should be thrilled to sign another GOR, agree to equal revenue sharing, and invite San Diego State and UNLV (or whatever team the PAC would pair with SDSU) in order to further dilute the conference revenue.

(01-28-2023 12:27 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

The big issue would be if the other conference members want to implement an exit fee. I think that would be a hard no for both Washington and Oregon.

GORs are far more expensive than exit fees, and an exit fee could be passed over the objection of two members and possibly even four. I'm not sure if an exit fee requires a 75% vote or just a simple majority, but I seriously doubt it would require unanimous agreement like a GOR.

Jon Wilner of the Fightin' Wilzanos estimates the Pac's chances of near-term extinction (circa 2025) at 33 percent.

Interesting coming from a guy who has repeatedly pooh-poohed talk of the Good Ship Kilavkoff sinking since UCLA and USC bailed last summer

(01-28-2023 12:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  GORs are far more expensive than exit fees, and an exit fee could be passed over the objection of two members and possibly even four. I'm not sure if an exit fee requires a 75% vote or just a simple majority, but I seriously doubt it would require unanimous agreement like a GOR.

Are you sure if all proposed exit fees and GoR's must be written identical to the one(s) you are referencing?

(01-28-2023 12:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:27 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

The big issue would be if the other conference members want to implement an exit fee. I think that would be a hard no for both Washington and Oregon.

GORs are far more expensive than exit fees, and an exit fee could be passed over the objection of two members and possibly even four. I'm not sure if an exit fee requires a 75% vote or just a simple majority, but I seriously doubt it would require unanimous agreement like a GOR.

Where's Washington and Oregon going in the next 5-6 years? The MWC? The Big Sky? Because they're not going to the B1G. The financials don't work for the B1G so that move isn't going to happen in the next 5-6 years.

They should sign a short-term media deal with a short-term GOR and use that as leverage to ensure there is no exit fee when the GOR expires.

(01-28-2023 12:27 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

Another opinion from Wilner:

"... the remaining Pac-12 schools appear to be without a desirable option at this point. The path to the jackpot (in the Big Ten) is blocked while the only road available (into the Big 12) doesn't lead to a windfall. That said, keep four words in mind: The situation is fluid."

So things can change. How about that?

They aren't going to say that.

They'll say "We'll sign a 5 year Pac-12 GoR if you give us a bigger cut of the pie."

(01-28-2023 12:57 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:27 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

The big issue would be if the other conference members want to implement an exit fee. I think that would be a hard no for both Washington and Oregon.

GORs are far more expensive than exit fees, and an exit fee could be passed over the objection of two members and possibly even four. I'm not sure if an exit fee requires a 75% vote or just a simple majority, but I seriously doubt it would require unanimous agreement like a GOR.

Where's Washington and Oregon going in the next 5-6 years? The MWC? The Big Sky? Because they're not going to the B1G. The financials don't work for the B1G so that move isn't going to happen in the next 5-6 years.

They should sign a short-term media deal with a short-term GOR and use that as leverage to ensure there is no exit fee when the GOR expires.

You need to start pondering unequal revenue sharing for new members of the SEC and Big 10. It is possible that a school from the PAC 12, Big 12 (only Kansas), or ACC could add markets and value to the SEC or Big 10 if they didn't have to enter at full conference distribution, but rather at their actual value to the conference. The latter can be significant enough to the school if they can accept that they enter at their actual value.

So, let's say Washington is worth 50 million in the Big 10, but only 28 million if they remain in the PAC 12. The markets and West Coast time slot games are valuable to FOX and the other media partners and the number of games UW would play against better competition within the Big 10 adds real content value to the contract, just not enough to cover 75 million. Would the Huskies move for 22 million more? Likely. Would the Big 10 accept them at 50 million? If they want the added market and the synergy such a move could create on the West Coast for the BTN and to their other carriers, then yes. Would it require a departure from their current policies? Yes.

What does such a departure mean for the SEC/Big 10 besides markets and content games? It means a likely consolidation to a P3, a possible breakaway from the NCAA in order to monetize not only football but hoops and by setting a new upper tier a larger share of the CFP, which is where the money will be. What do you think the networks and FOX/ESPN would rather have? A 12-team playoff in which 1/3rd of the schools was from lower viewership end of their marketing, or one where 12 schools were all large draws? The money is in the playoffs and the networks might be willing to put up with more consolidation if they could virtually guarantee large audience share for the 11 games.

For the Big 10 it will mean a broader door for the academic consortium and for the SEC it means more control of their region. For both conferences it means much more leverage in contract negotiations. What it requires is a mindset that says extraordinary times call for extraordinary adjustments. Rivalries can be preserved, regionality maintained, and conference objectives met by making the mandate for equal revenue distributions a value-based equation in terms of conference share and equity distributions. Our commissioners should be singing "Don't Fence Me In" to the presidents.

(01-28-2023 10:59 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  What happens to Kliavkoff's negotiations with potential media partners?

How does that impact any dealings or moves among the Four Corners 4 and the Big XII?

Can the Pac even get a media deal if UW and UO won't sign a GoR?

Is the conference kaput?

I think it would be a huge problem for him. That said, I think it is unlikely they refuse. They have nowhere to go that they want to go. Key for Pac 12 is a short term deal, maybe 5 years.

As I mentioned yesterday, I still haven’t seen any proof that the Big 12 has signed a GOR. There were multiple articles from right before the Big 12 deal was signed saying the conference was “expected” to sign a GOR, but after the Big 12 deal was signed I never saw an article definitively saying they actually had signed a GOR.


If the Big 12 didn’t sign a GOR, I doubt the PAC will.

No GoR would put a very low ceiling on the Pac's media rights negotiation. The only way they flat out refuse to sign a GoR is if:

1. They either now or expect to soon get the B1G Golden Ticket
2. The deals that Kliavkoff is negotiating are on the extreme low end of the rumors
3. The deals that Kliavkoff is negotiating are very long

Kliavkoff's job is to get the best media rights deal he can and then sell it to his members. But ESPN and Amazon know that they have the Pac over a barrel, if I were them I'd probably hit the Pac in the low 20s, but then offer a better number for longer term deals. Maybe something like:

$22m for a 5 year deal ending in 2029
$25m for a 10 year deal ending in 2034
$28m for a 15 year deal
$31.68m for a 25 year deal

Amazon is probably at a 10% premium or so over ESPN, with something in the middle if they end up sharing rights.

They'll present a "take it or leave it" offer b/c they're the only 2 bidders. They may or may not alter the offers after the Pac threatens to disintegrate. My guess is they won't unless another serious bidder jumps in. If this is what's really going on, and Kliavkoff knows that he can't sell this to his members, his best move is to...talk about Deion and women's basketball, make up excuses, leak NOTHING, and stall as long as he possibly can in the hope that things change. Maybe the economy starts looking better soon and Fox jumps back in to negotiations, or Apple decides that they to get into sports programming...something, anything.

Would be ironic if they end up going through Comcast, who then proceeds to underpay them by $5m a year forever.

(01-28-2023 12:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:27 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

The big issue would be if the other conference members want to implement an exit fee. I think that would be a hard no for both Washington and Oregon.

GORs are far more expensive than exit fees, and an exit fee could be passed over the objection of two members and possibly even four. I'm not sure if an exit fee requires a 75% vote or just a simple majority, but I seriously doubt it would require unanimous agreement like a GOR.

I'm more interested in seeing whether the PAC institutes an exit fee than whether they sign a GoR. I still can't believe they allowed themselves to be in a position where USCLA could leave with no penalty at all.

(01-28-2023 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 12:27 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  If Washington and Oregon can get a few extra million for signing a GOR, then they might as well sign it. The B1G isn't going to consider expansion again until their media contract is up so there's no reason to miss out on the extra money.

The big issue would be if the other conference members want to implement an exit fee. I think that would be a hard no for both Washington and Oregon.

GORs are far more expensive than exit fees, and an exit fee could be passed over the objection of two members and possibly even four. I'm not sure if an exit fee requires a 75% vote or just a simple majority, but I seriously doubt it would require unanimous agreement like a GOR.

I'm more interested in seeing whether the PAC institutes an exit fee than whether they sign a GoR. I still can't believe they allowed themselves to be in a position where USCLA could leave with no penalty at all.

Wouldn't that be closing the barn door after the cows got out? 2 cash cows and ratings cows have escaped. The two cash and ratings cows that are left will be standing in the doorway refusing to budge.