(08-10-2023 04:24 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 04:19 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I this was among the most interesting things in the article. Apparently, Kliavkoff had pieced together a second competing offer that had substantial linear network presence, but the early exit by Colorado appears to have had a role in derailing it.

Two sources – one conference and one industry – familiar with the negotiations told The Athletic that before Colorado’s departure, Kliavkoff believed he had pieced together a second option involving four media companies. Those sources described the deal as a combination of three linear partners (ESPN, Fox and CBS) and one streaming partner (Amazon), with CBS only bidding on a limited number of men’s basketball games. But around the same time Colorado left, Amazon declined to submit a formal proposal, according to a media executive familiar with the process, and the accompanying linear bids were viewed as too small to present to the conference.

The conference source said that Colorado’s departure also caused ESPN to pull back because it now owed the Big 12 an agreed-upon pro-rata share for adding a power-conference program. Apple was not interested in joining any linear partners as part of a deal, according to an industry source familiar with the negotiations.

Regardless, by the end-of-July deadline, there was no second offer.

I'm not buying that spin. Had months and months to deliver, CU finally (rightly) had enough and is then conveniently blamed for killing that evasive deal. Even if it's accurate, GK had to know he was up against a deadline even if he projected calm otherwise. CU was getting ready to walk for weeks if not months, had to deliver by media week and didn't. The real world doesn't always allow you to turn your work in late.

Yeah, blaming Colorado or any other school leaving misses the point. It was taking over ONE YEAR to coddle a deal together that was inferior compared to the rest of the leagues. Colorado correctly read the tea leaves and bolted first.

Thank you.

(08-10-2023 05:27 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 05:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 04:24 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Yeah, blaming Colorado or any other school leaving misses the point. It was taking over ONE YEAR to coddle a deal together that was inferior compared to the rest of the leagues. Colorado correctly read the tea leaves and bolted first.

Never mind the other Conferences, it was taking over a year to cobble together a deal that was inferior to the deal they could have had last summer with ESPN and Fox. The Pac was never going to be the equal of the B1G again, but if Kliavkoff had played his cards right then it would have been raiding the Big 12 instead of the other way around. The difference between Yormark and Kliavkoff is that Yormark can actually walk the walk to back up his bravado while Kliavkoff is the true "all hat no cattle" guy.

I would counter that AT THAT TIME they never anticipated the B12 would jump them in line to get a deal done. The B12 set the benchmark - as the article points out in its entirety - and they remained confident they could get in that range or better. IIRC, Kliavkoff was hopeful they could get closer to the ACC numbers. When it was finally presented they couldn't get there without escalators in streaming subscriptions the camel's back was broken. The bottom line is "all hell broke loose" because in the end the financials didn't offer the same [linear] security and payouts as the B12/ACC. Colorado prior saw the writing on the wall and had an offer in hand that they weren't going to blow. Credit to them and shame on the PAC for taking over one year to finally present something on paper to the Board.

Could be the impetus for Big XII to negotiate an extension/new contract had to do with ESPN wanting to get OU/UT into the SEC ASAP.

(08-10-2023 05:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 05:27 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 05:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 04:24 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Yeah, blaming Colorado or any other school leaving misses the point. It was taking over ONE YEAR to coddle a deal together that was inferior compared to the rest of the leagues. Colorado correctly read the tea leaves and bolted first.

Never mind the other Conferences, it was taking over a year to cobble together a deal that was inferior to the deal they could have had last summer with ESPN and Fox. The Pac was never going to be the equal of the B1G again, but if Kliavkoff had played his cards right then it would have been raiding the Big 12 instead of the other way around. The difference between Yormark and Kliavkoff is that Yormark can actually walk the walk to back up his bravado while Kliavkoff is the true "all hat no cattle" guy.

I would counter that AT THAT TIME they never anticipated the B12 would jump them in line to get a deal done. The B12 set the benchmark - as the article points out in its entirety - and they remained confident they could get in that range or better. IIRC, Kliavkoff was hopeful they could get closer to the ACC numbers. When it was finally presented they couldn't get there without escalators in streaming subscriptions the camel's back was broken. The bottom line is "all hell broke loose" because in the end the financials didn't offer the same [linear] security and payouts as the B12/ACC. Colorado prior saw the writing on the wall and had an offer in hand that they weren't going to blow. Credit to them and shame on the PAC for taking over one year to finally present something on paper to the Board.

All indications are that the Pac stays together if Kliavkoff moves on immediately from USCLA and stabilizes things last summer. His Quixotic quest for ACC or something close to B1G money ($50m was his original starting number according to sources) doomed him to failure and cracked the door for Yormark to kick it in. Even though people didn't expect Yormark to cut the line, Kliavkoff was remiss in his duty for not even contemplating the possibility. If he'd thought that it was possible, he'd have take the sure/easy deal on something short term, 5-7 years, then looked to stabilize and rebuild. Instead of stopping the bleeding, Kliavkoff went looking for more targets and bled out.

bryan, somewhere I saw a report that the PAC-12 presidents directed Kliavkoff to ask for $500M/year--$50M per school; they felt they should be worth close to the Big Ten, even though they'd just lost USCLA. Think that alienated ESPN. Wasn't their initial offer something like $24.5M per team?

(08-10-2023 03:58 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I thought that it was interesting that Oregon and Washington were hoping that Arizona would jump first so their exit would be easier. Meanwhile at the "all hell broke loose" Arizona BOR meeting, sounds like Arizona schools had been ordered to stay together and they were prepared to both sign the Apple deal. So in the end it was the Big 10 that delivered the final blow.

I don't believe Arizona was going to stay. The board did want them to stay together. Arizona had been accepted. The board was supposed to formalize that. Utah and ASU had apparently agreed to leave as well, but then the ASU president stunned everyone in the board meeting.

Arizona was just not going to sign that awful deal. Not sure Utah would either. Certainly UW and Oregon wouldn't. They would have settled for the Big 12.

(08-10-2023 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 05:05 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  We had always been wondering what the dropdead date was. Article mentioned the Pac-12 schools gave Kliavkoff a July 31 deadline -- though it was more of an August 1 deadline since that's the day Kliavkoff presented.

Me too. I was under the impression everyone was gung ho about giving Kliavkoff every chance possible to keep the conference together. I have to think that some schools were starting to be concerned that if they delayed too long their seat on the B12 life boat might get taken (so maybe the UConn leaks had a purpose?).

I think CU understood Kliavcoff was a con man. It was pretty obvious to a lot of us.
They gave him plenty of time.

(08-10-2023 06:25 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 05:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 05:27 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 05:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 04:24 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Yeah, blaming Colorado or any other school leaving misses the point. It was taking over ONE YEAR to coddle a deal together that was inferior compared to the rest of the leagues. Colorado correctly read the tea leaves and bolted first.

Never mind the other Conferences, it was taking over a year to cobble together a deal that was inferior to the deal they could have had last summer with ESPN and Fox. The Pac was never going to be the equal of the B1G again, but if Kliavkoff had played his cards right then it would have been raiding the Big 12 instead of the other way around. The difference between Yormark and Kliavkoff is that Yormark can actually walk the walk to back up his bravado while Kliavkoff is the true "all hat no cattle" guy.

I would counter that AT THAT TIME they never anticipated the B12 would jump them in line to get a deal done. The B12 set the benchmark - as the article points out in its entirety - and they remained confident they could get in that range or better. IIRC, Kliavkoff was hopeful they could get closer to the ACC numbers. When it was finally presented they couldn't get there without escalators in streaming subscriptions the camel's back was broken. The bottom line is "all hell broke loose" because in the end the financials didn't offer the same [linear] security and payouts as the B12/ACC. Colorado prior saw the writing on the wall and had an offer in hand that they weren't going to blow. Credit to them and shame on the PAC for taking over one year to finally present something on paper to the Board.

All indications are that the Pac stays together if Kliavkoff moves on immediately from USCLA and stabilizes things last summer. His Quixotic quest for ACC or something close to B1G money ($50m was his original starting number according to sources) doomed him to failure and cracked the door for Yormark to kick it in. Even though people didn't expect Yormark to cut the line, Kliavkoff was remiss in his duty for not even contemplating the possibility. If he'd thought that it was possible, he'd have take the sure/easy deal on something short term, 5-7 years, then looked to stabilize and rebuild. Instead of stopping the bleeding, Kliavkoff went looking for more targets and bled out.

bryan, somewhere I saw a report that the PAC-12 presidents directed Kliavkoff to ask for $500M/year--$50M per school; they felt they should be worth close to the Big Ten, even though they'd just lost USCLA. Think that alienated ESPN. Wasn't their initial offer something like $24.5M per team?

I've never heard that the Pac Presidents gave Kliavkoff exact instructions on the negotiations. In fact, the way I understand it, they were 100% following his lead. He only had one assistant with him in the room during negotiations, and was notoriously tight-lipped about negotiations, even with his Presidents. He was hired in large part b/c they wanted an "expert" in media negotiations. Apparently, Kliavkoff thought that "expert" meant "go for all the money even if it risks destroying the Conference if I fail".

(08-11-2023 12:30 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 06:25 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  bryan, somewhere I saw a report that the PAC-12 presidents directed Kliavkoff to ask for $500M/year--$50M per school; they felt they should be worth close to the Big Ten, even though they'd just lost USCLA. Think that alienated ESPN. Wasn't their initial offer something like $24.5M per team?

He only had one assistant with him in the room during negotiations, and was notoriously tight-lipped about negotiations, even with his Presidents. He was hired in large part b/c they wanted an "expert" in media negotiations. Apparently, Kliavkoff thought that "expert" meant "go for all the money even if it risks destroying the Conference if I fail".

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-an...medium=web

The Pac-12 got an offer of $30 million per school from ESPN in the fall of 2022. It included all the conference’s media rights, including the Pac-12 Network. But the conference presidents and chancellors believed they could do much better.

The board instructed Kliavkoff to reject ESPN’s proposal and make a lopsided counter-offer. The commissioner should have pushed back and managed expectations in the room. He should have been more tuned into the eroding media landscape. Kliavkoff followed the order and the consequences were grave.

Source to me: “You know what we told ESPN after their $30 million per-school offer?”

Me: “What?”

Source: “We said we want $50 million per school.”

Me: “What was the ESPN response?”

Source: “Goodbye.”

(08-11-2023 01:00 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 12:30 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 06:25 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  bryan, somewhere I saw a report that the PAC-12 presidents directed Kliavkoff to ask for $500M/year--$50M per school; they felt they should be worth close to the Big Ten, even though they'd just lost USCLA. Think that alienated ESPN. Wasn't their initial offer something like $24.5M per team?

He only had one assistant with him in the room during negotiations, and was notoriously tight-lipped about negotiations, even with his Presidents. He was hired in large part b/c they wanted an "expert" in media negotiations. Apparently, Kliavkoff thought that "expert" meant "go for all the money even if it risks destroying the Conference if I fail".

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-an...medium=web

The Pac-12 got an offer of $30 million per school from ESPN in the fall of 2022. It included all the conference’s media rights, including the Pac-12 Network. But the conference presidents and chancellors believed they could do much better.

The board instructed Kliavkoff to reject ESPN’s proposal and make a lopsided counter-offer. The commissioner should have pushed back and managed expectations in the room. He should have been more tuned into the eroding media landscape. Kliavkoff followed the order and the consequences were grave.

Source to me: “You know what we told ESPN after their $30 million per-school offer?”

Me: “What?”

Source: “We said we want $50 million per school.”

Me: “What was the ESPN response?”

Source: “Goodbye.”

I don't take Canzano's stuff seriously. He's been egregiously wrong on so many things. Sounds like CYA talk from Kliavcoff. Numerous other people have said the ESPN offer was $24-25 million. Maybe they did offer $30, but Canzano has no credibility.

Think this sums up what Stanford and Cal felt like after everything unraveled.