(07-21-2023 10:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 09:52 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 09:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  The pac12 has not intentions of expanding unless one of their 10 schools leave. Their intention is to stay a 10 school conference.

Knew that from the beginning when George said they’d do a media deal then expands. The sequence is backward and frankly disingenuous.

Proven sequence is to expand, like the BIG , Big12 did, then shop the package to networks.

Given the comments that 2 schools are against any expansion, and maybe more against SDSU or SMU in particular, the PAC could risk losing schools if it first expanded

For example, if Oregon is one of those schools, they can threaten to go to Big 12 if PAC were to expand prior to GOR, which would end the PAC.

Why would the AZ schools in particular want SDSU. USCLA going to BIG has not changed anything in regards to hierarchy in SoCal. If anything, perhaps they now have a better chance for kids that don’t want to play in Iowa or Nebraska or Minnesota

Adding SDSU is just another mouth to feed in that regard. I’m guessing there are several against adding a Cal St school

Adding SDSU also isn’t a defensive move for PAC. The Big 12 doesn’t want to add SDSU, and likely can’t given pro rate is only for P5.

The big 12 could add SDSU and pay them $10m a year until 2031, certainly they could get at least that much from their partners. However, why would they? The Pac, being the Pac, doesn't seem to want them, anyway.

There isn’t interest in using a full membership spot on a G5 that requires paying that school $10 million to make it financially viable. Having a school at that much of a disadvantage is asking for a cancer

The PAC may be that desperate, but the Big 12 can wait

SDSU’s only Big 12 chance is 3 PAC schools willing to leave, and asking SDSU be addition #4

(07-21-2023 09:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  The pac12 has not intentions of expanding unless one of their 10 schools leave. Their intention is to stay a 10 school conference.

Knew that from the beginning when George said they’d do a media deal then expands. The sequence is backward and frankly disingenuous.

Proven sequence is to expand, like the BIG , Big12 did, then shop the package to networks.

Correct. The PAC is currently timezone locked into the late slot with a population that doesnt watch college football at the percentage that the mid-south does. That impacts their media contract.

And nothing against SDSU, but the PAC adding SDSU does nothing to improve that media situation. Its another school in the same timezone and population that doesnt even have the draw of the other schools in the west.

SMU would be a different story.

When talking about B12 pro-rata, there is only non-military G5 school at the moment that could deliver that rate, and its Memphis. Followed by SMU/USF, and then maybe Tulane, as they sit in a higher density of college football viewers than anyone on the west coast.

The conference that actually dominates the late-night slot is the SEC. Last I checked, they had 2.5 times the viewers of the PAC in the late night slot. And the reason is because they sit in the middle of a population that watches college football, and will even stay up later to watch it. The PAC draws a fraction of the SEC late night numbers even though its primetime for their viewers.

The PAC could easily solve their media issues by going the way of the B12. Add Memphis, USF, Tulane, and SMU. USF and Tulane are AAU, Memphis is R1 and on its way to becoming AAU. Not sure if SMU is R1 yet, but the PAC doesnt seem to have much of an issue with them at the moment.

Done. They would be adding a school in Texas, two in the middle of the SEC footprint, one in FLorida. Two of the teams went to a NY6 bowl in the past 3 years.

Quality football. Quality institutions academically. Quality media markets. If the PAC teams really want to stay together, and it appears they do, this would be the solution.

(07-21-2023 09:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  The pac12 has not intentions of expanding unless one of their 10 schools leave. Their intention is to stay a 10 school conference.

Knew that from the beginning when George said they’d do a media deal then expands. The sequence is backward and frankly disingenuous.

Proven sequence is to expand, like the BIG , Big12 did, then shop the package to networks.

I agree. The order of their process is weird.

(07-21-2023 09:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  The pac12 has not intentions of expanding unless one of their 10 schools leave. Their intention is to stay a 10 school conference.

Knew that from the beginning when George said they’d do a media deal then expands. The sequence is backward and frankly disingenuous.

Proven sequence is to expand, like the BIG , Big12 did, then shop the package to networks.

About the bolded, I agree, and it's the main reason I am skeptical about invites to SMU and/or SDS. It seems to me that if SDS/SMU added value to the TV deal, it would be better for the nPAC to have them on board during the negotiations. Otherwise, a network might say "well, how do we know you're going to invite them"?

Doesn't compute for me.

So I suspect that expansion could come after the TV deal - if the TV deal is lousy and some current teams flee.

Pure speculation though. I've been wrong before. But that's what makes more sense to me.

(07-22-2023 02:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 09:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  The pac12 has not intentions of expanding unless one of their 10 schools leave. Their intention is to stay a 10 school conference.

Knew that from the beginning when George said they’d do a media deal then expands. The sequence is backward and frankly disingenuous.

Proven sequence is to expand, like the BIG , Big12 did, then shop the package to networks.

Correct. The PAC is currently timezone locked into the late slot with a population that doesnt watch college football at the percentage that the mid-south does. That impacts their media contract.

And nothing against SDSU, but the PAC adding SDSU does nothing to improve that media situation. Its another school in the same timezone and population that doesnt even have the draw of the other schools in the west.

SMU would be a different story.

When talking about B12 pro-rata, there is only non-military G5 school at the moment that could deliver that rate, and its Memphis. Followed by SMU/USF, and then maybe Tulane, as they sit in a higher density of college football viewers than anyone on the west coast.

The conference that actually dominates the late-night slot is the SEC. Last I checked, they had 2.5 times the viewers of the PAC in the late night slot. And the reason is because they sit in the middle of a population that watches college football, and will even stay up later to watch it. The PAC draws a fraction of the SEC late night numbers even though its primetime for their viewers.

The PAC could easily solve their media issues by going the way of the B12. Add Memphis, USF, Tulane, and SMU. USF and Tulane are AAU, Memphis is R1 and on its way to becoming AAU. Not sure if SMU is R1 yet, but the PAC doesnt seem to have much of an issue with them at the moment.

Done. They would be adding a school in Texas, two in the middle of the SEC footprint, one in FLorida. Two of the teams went to a NY6 bowl in the past 3 years.

Quality football. Quality institutions academically. Quality media markets. If the PAC teams really want to stay together, and it appears they do, this would be the solution.

Maybe the question is why would those schools go to the PAC?

(07-21-2023 10:13 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 09:55 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 09:48 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 07:49 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I smell the old Big East all over this.

The backstabbers taking a deal with a new conference. The votes of confidence by the leftovers. The never received media deal.

Also, the Big East turning down ESPN's initial offer, thinking a better one would follow.

*Pittsburgh’s president…while negotiating with the ACC

Cincy fans will never forget about that. It was pretty duplicitous from Pitt.

Can't really blame them. They were carrying on a proud BEFC tradition. VT did it when it looked like SU and BC were going to join Miami. Then BC did it after they were left out the first round. Then Syracuse (minus Boheim). Then WVU. Not terribly different than the AAC defections is it?

(07-22-2023 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2023 09:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  The pac12 has not intentions of expanding unless one of their 10 schools leave. Their intention is to stay a 10 school conference.

Knew that from the beginning when George said they’d do a media deal then expands. The sequence is backward and frankly disingenuous.

Proven sequence is to expand, like the BIG , Big12 did, then shop the package to networks.

About the bolded, I agree, and it's the main reason I am skeptical about invites to SMU and/or SDS. It seems to me that if SDS/SMU added value to the TV deal, it would be better for the nPAC to have them on board during the negotiations. Otherwise, a network might say "well, how do we know you're going to invite them"?

Doesn't compute for me.

So I suspect that expansion could come after the TV deal - if the TV deal is lousy and some current teams flee.

Pure speculation though. I've been wrong before. But that's what makes more sense to me.

It’s clear they either don’t add value to the prospective TV deals…

…or there are enough PAC schools against expanding even if slightly additive.

If you’re Oregon, why add schools and split up the CFP money and limited linear exposure with more schools?

And if AZ, ASU, Utah etc, why add SDSU as a peer in SoCal? Another school competing for resources after USC and UCLA, but much closer. UCLA and USC hasn’t changed much in terms of recruiting, adding SDSU would. Just play Cal or Stanford in LA every year. It’s not like those Bay Area schools are out much giving up a home game.

SMU at G5 rate makes some sense. That’s expansion and the folks in Highland Park will make it accretive this round.

This is the PAC, so anything is possible. But that includes the PAC for a year telling SDSU they have an invite coming, only for it to never come after the PAC realized the Big 12 was not interested in adding SDSU

Hopefully Big 12 fans get a break from checking this board every thirty seconds soon.

(07-21-2023 09:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  The pac12 has not intentions of expanding unless one of their 10 schools leave. Their intention is to stay a 10 school conference.

Knew that from the beginning when George said they’d do a media deal then expands. The sequence is backward and frankly disingenuous.

Proven sequence is to expand, like the BIG , Big12 did, then shop the package to networks.

Wrong. In early May of 2022, almost two months before USC & UCLA were invited to join the Big Ten, the Big Ten had a $1 billion annual deal in place. The Big Ten was able to shop the package and then add the LA schools without losing per school money and giving USC & UCLA an equal share.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...orial-day/

The Big 12 approved the addition of BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, and Houston in September of 2021. They were down to eight schools. They had to add schools. Yormark was hired officially on August 1, 2022. Three months later Yormark completed an extension with ESPN and FOX, going early to market. All 12 schools got an equal share. Expansion in the Big 12 was about survival and the TV deal was not related to expansion. The TV deal was about stability.

The PAC is doing a ten team TV deal, but as Kliavkoff said yesterday in an interview, they are talking with their potential media partners on which expansion schools bring the most value. Kliavkoff was also asked if any schools that they were looking at in expansion were similar to Utah, a school that moved up from the MWC with very good results. The answer was an emphatic "Yes." Kliavkoff said in an interview with Canzano and Wilner about six months ago that the expansion schools would be added on a pro-rata basis. They are not going to get the same amount of money as the other ten schools, nor should they. But they will get an invite.