Jump to content

Pelado

Members
  • Posts

    3,633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pelado

  1. We hope you're OK and that, for the sake of all mankind, the vasectomy was performed successfully. God bless.
  2. You're taking this better than I expected.
  3. If you include the accounting office and not just the playing field, then Nebraska, West Virginia, A&M, Maryland, and Rutgers have done much better than they would have otherwise. Colorado is the only one who made less in their new conference than they would have received in their previous conference. I'm not sure why they're switching back now.
  4. This doesn't make much sense to me. B1G members will be getting around $70 million per team per year. Big 12 teams will be getting around $32 million per team per year. If Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and California are all worthy of B1G membership (even at a steep discount), and Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah are all worthy of Big 12 membership (at pro-rata rates), how is the PAC worth so little? Are Oregon State and Washington State really dragging down the value that much? Is George really that bad of a negotiator? I can see how Washington and Oregon could be very valuable - they both have proximity to large metropolitan areas with good fan support and very good football performance over the years. Stanford had some very successful football seasons recently and, like Cal (which has been - let's say - less successful), is located in a huge metropolitan area. So let's say there's at least potential there, plus they are both elite academic institutions. Are all of those schools really more valuable in different conferences than they would be together?
  5. I know I do. We were on the outside hoping for an invite for a long time. Now that BYU is in the Big 12, it's really interesting to see who else might be joining, as well as what will happen to our former conference-mates and independence rivals.
  6. That's based on an assumption that the recent reports are true (that the PAC is being offered much less than the Big 12 and/or primarily streaming). My "bottom feeder" comment was more about media value than last year's on-field football performance. That said, having a number of conference schools in the top 25 doesn't preclude that conference from having bottom feeders. And there's probably an argument to be made that fans of the Big 12 bottom feeders (traditionally Kansas, Iowa State, etc.) care a lot more about their teams than their counterparts in the PAC (Cal, Oregon State, etc.). The Big 12 bottom feeders still manage to pack their stadiums week after week because even though they are generally in lower population areas, college football is much more popular there than in the PAC. So there's probably a higher floor on value for Big 12 teams than for PAC teams.
  7. I don't think ESPN is conspiring with anyone. I think they just don't see the value in PAC games. And neither does Fox, since they've reportedly been out as a potential partner for a while now.
  8. ESPN has already lost out on the best brand(s) in the west - USC/UCLA. Throwing a bunch of money at the PAC bottom feeders won't change that. I am sympathetic to the issues you raise, though, which is why I expected the PAC to get a similar media payout per team to what the Big 12 is getting. I'm now recalibrating my assumptions.
  9. What makes you think that ESPN will be contracting with a gutted PAC? If they do, I would expect them to be paying a lot less per team than what they were offering for the 10 remaining teams.
  10. I would think that Oregon and Washington would be worth at least as much as the average Big 12 team. If the reports out there are true (that the PAC is only getting offers in the low $20 million range), that would mean to me that the potential media partners don't see much value in games against/between Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, and Washington State. Another issue for the PAC is that the traditional broadcast networks (ESPN/ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC) already have pretty full broadcast schedules. They don't really need a lot more content. The "after dark" window that the PAC has monopolized can be filled (to a degree) with other conferences that now have a foothold in the west (Big 12 with BYU/Colorado, B1G with USC/UCLA, MWC, etc.). The PAC has enjoyed pretty good ratings on those games in the past, but they were often the only game on at the time. If there is a USC game on at the same time going forward, the PAC ratings probably won't be as strong as they have been in the past. The PAC is also limited in what broadcast windows they can play in. The noon Eastern window is a bit too early for football games on the West Coast (9 am PT).
  11. I've had similar thoughts. What the TV networks seem to value above all else is big matchups. They want games that produce 4 million+ viewers. Having more big games to market in the regular season is what has led to the biggest brands consolidating under either the SEC or B1G banners to get the biggest paydays. Washington and Oregon could both still produce 4 million+ viewer games, even in a diminished PAC. I don't see Colorado or Arizona providing that very often in either the PAC or the Big 12. Maybe ESPN and Fox don't see a lot of potential for big-viewership games in the current PAC and don't want to shell out an additional $32 million for each additional PAC member. But that they wouldn't mind consolidating up to four PAC members into the Big 12 and then letting Apple (or whoever) contract with the PAC remnants. Still, $20 million per team on primarily linear networks vs $32 million per team primarily on streaming seems like an awfully big delta. Which is why I think that is either inaccurate or at least incomplete. The Arizona reporter was talking about how the purported deal probably has a base value in the low $20 millions per team, but also has various escalators that would put the PAC at least on par with the Big 12 deal. That would make more sense to me.
  12. I've heard it said that ESPN's pro-rata contract increase for P5 schools only applies to the first 4 additions (Colorado + up to three more), while the Big 12 only has authorization so far for pro-rata increases from Fox for up to two P5 additions (Colorado + one more). If that is correct, then the Big 12 would need to convince Fox to up their payments for all three of the remaining 4-corners schools instead of just one more.
  13. Wait until it's on Facebook, then we'll know it's real.
  14. The population numbers don't bother me at all. Your interpretation of Facebook data is pretty hilarious, though.
  15. I can understand your sensitivity with all that's happened with SDSU lately. Don't worry - if the PAC doesn't work out, they'll always have the MW. No need to lash out. Yeah - they should start a Pac-12 Network...
  16. There you go again, using erroneous data sets.
  17. Real talk? All of TheSanDiegans I've known think a lot more of their intellectual capabilities than their posts indicate they should.
  18. No, you're wrong. The only valid measure of BYU's fanbase and reach is based on Facebook and Twitter users. Surely, only 114k of Utah's residents (those in Provo) is the extent of BYU's reach. Nobody else attends their games, purchases their merchandise, or watches them on television.
  19. I mentioned this before, but in Colorado's press conference, they talked about how they really liked being partnered with ESPN and Fox. That could mean that the PAC media deal is with other partners (AppleTV, CW, whatever). As such, even if the PAC media pays as much or more as the Big 12 deal, Colorado may prefer the more traditional broadcast partners. I'm not saying the PAC deal will pay as much or more than the Big 12 deal, just that it could. My initial thought when Colorado decided to return to the Big 12 was that the PAC media deal must not be paying enough and that there would definitely be others making the jump. If the money is close, though, I can see the other schools sticking in the PAC even if the deal is with a non-traditional broadcast partner (like AppleTV).
  20. Yeah, I'd be much more excited about bringing in more PAC teams than bringing in UConn. Their basketball is obviously elite but their football (save one or two seasons) has been atrocious.
×
×
  • Create New...