Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

Is the PAC12 on the verge of blowing up? Power 4?

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Del Scorcho said:

this is absurd. 

When has a college football game in Phoenix or Tuscon ever been played before 7 PM Pacific Time before the month of November?  August and October are hot in the desert, they aren't clamoring for home games to start earlier in the day.

Just take a look at football rosters for UA and ASU.  Half of the players on those rosters are California products, every program out West relies heavily on California for talent.  The Arizona schools can't risk losing that.  The Arizona schools have built rivalries in the PAC-10 over the last 40 years, are they going to give up playing USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon and Washington to play KSU, Kansas, Iowa St and Texas Tech?

:hookah:

I agree. Do I buy the Arizona schools having issues with the PAC right now? Sure. They are falling behind in revenue and would probably make a lot more money if they could sell their tier 3 tv rights like they could in the Big 12. Does the PAC have issues? Sure. But leaving a conference they have been in for decades for a conference that is less stable? I don’t buy that. Say what you want about the PAC, but all 8 of the original Pac-8 are still there, while the Big 12 lost 4 members in the last round of realignment. 

Plus like you said, their California recruiting would take a big hit. Sure they would be able to better recruit Texas, but geography would keep them from recruiting it as well as they currently recruit California. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Scott is way, way, way overpaid imo and I haven't made any secret about how I feel about Scott on this board and the Pac-12 board.

My prediction is that the LA schools will try to leverage things to a revenue distribution more to their liking before resigning the grant of rights.  If the LA schools get the minimum revenue they are looking for, equal revenue sharing will be there to stay.

Football makes up like 80-90% of media rights deals...the upcoming NFL deal will be the first deal signed after the disruption to traditional TV.  If the money ain't there for the NFL, it'll really impact the B1G, Big 12, and Pac-12 media rights which will be up after the NFL.  That could level the playing field but we'll see.

Larry's job is riding on the next deal.  He's signed through 2022 and by that time, the Pac should have a new deal in place.

This isn't the first time the Pac has fallen behind the other conferences.  I recall seeing how much less the Pac schools were getting paid compared to the Big 12 when CU was a member of the Big 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

I agree. Do I buy the Arizona schools having issues with the PAC right now? Sure. They are falling behind in revenue and would probably make a lot more money if they could sell their tier 3 tv rights like they could in the Big 12. Does the PAC have issues? Sure. But leaving a conference they have been in for decades for a conference that is less stable? I don’t buy that. Say what you want about the PAC, but all 8 of the original Pac-8 are still there, while the Big 12 lost 4 members in the last round of realignment. 

 Plus like you said, their California recruiting would take a big hit. Sure they would be able to better recruit Texas, but geography would keep them from recruiting it as well as they currently recruit California. 

I'm for each Pac-12 school having their own tier three deals like CU had in the Big 12.  I think the LA schools will force that issue and shut the P12N down.

The AZ schools are able to recruit Texas well but it wouldn't be a good idea to forsake the west coast alumni base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pac 12 blowing up? No way! It's the end of the academic year and these nonsense articles always pop up to keep people viewing their websites over the Summer break. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much wishful thinking in here.  It's like the people in the trailer park really hoping that the nice part of town burns down.

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jared said:

Yes and no.  As to power, you're right.  But as to money, it's different.  The Big12 allows Tier 3 to go to the individual schools and Texas makes about $15 million per year from the LHN (escalating to $20 million until 2032), so they get the Big12's $39 million + $15 million, which puts the Longhorns above the Big 10 at $54 million.  And OU, WVa. and KU make about $5-8 million on their Tier 3's, so they're above the SEC schools at roughly $44-47 million.  The rest of the Big12 make about $1 million or so, so we're roughly at $40 million; $10-11 million over the Pac-12 and the ACC per year (and escalating). And the Big10's new deal is very frontloaded so they're not going to continue escalating at the same rate.

All of the various realignment gibberish scenarios need to take all this into account - no school is going to voluntarily take less money.  UT is not going to voluntarily give up the LHN.  Plus, UT's leadership has changed - their new AD is Chris Del Conte, who was with TCU for 9 years.  We're not dealing with DeBoss or Steve Patterson anymore.  Y'all need to catch up.

 

I believe starting next year Rutgers will be getting a full cut of the B1G media deal so next year Rutgers will be making as much or more than Texas.  Make no mistake about it.  There's a Power Two in power AND money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, k5james said:

I believe starting next year Rutgers will be getting a full cut of the B1G media deal so next year Rutgers will be making as much or more than Texas.  Make no mistake about it.  There's a Power Two in power AND money. 

Rutgers?! What a joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, k5james said:

I believe starting next year Rutgers will be getting a full cut of the B1G media deal so next year Rutgers will be making as much or more than Texas.  Make no mistake about it.  There's a Power Two in power AND money. 

But Rutgers deserves it.  Don’t they deliver the NYC/NJ market???  :hahaha:

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, k5james said:

I believe starting next year Rutgers will be getting a full cut of the B1G media deal so next year Rutgers will be making as much or more than Texas.  Make no mistake about it.  There's a Power Two in power AND money. 

I don’t think Rutgers will make more than Texas as Texas should be pulling in 54ish this year with a light bump next year. Although I think they’ll only be a couple million behind. 

Although that’s what I think will be the undoing of the Big 12. When Texas is passed up in revenue and Oklahoma is left further behind, can they stomach being in a less prestigious conference, making less money than Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Purdue or is having the control worth that much?

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, k5james said:

I believe starting next year Rutgers will be getting a full cut of the B1G media deal so next year Rutgers will be making as much or more than Texas.  Make no mistake about it.  There's a Power Two in power AND money. 

Rutgers doesnt get a full cut until 2020-21.  And Jared is correct - add the money from LHN to the Big 12 distribution and Texas is at the top of the heap even as the new Big 10 TV deal kicks in.  Plus, the folks in Austin enjoy the branding that having their own network brings.  Which is why a deal to convert LHN into a Big 12 Network never got very far, and its why Texas wont be going anywhere anytime soon, unless its ESPN that pulls the plug on LHN (which is less likely now that LHN is now profitable on a yearly basis).

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, UTAlrightGuy said:

I don’t think Rutgers will make more than Texas as Texas should be pulling in 54ish this year with a light bump next year. Although I think they’ll only be a couple million behind. 

Although that’s what I think will be the undoing of the Big 12. When Texas is passed up in revenue and Oklahoma is left further behind, can they stomach being in a less prestigious conference, making less money than Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Purdue or is having the control worth that much?

Texas will be getting annual bumps from both the LHN and the Big12 conference payout, which will at least equal the small escalation that the new Big10 deal provides.  And that's just TV and what the conference earns (primarily NCAA hoops credits).  On everything else, including ticket sales, parking, concessions, brand name, merchandising etc..., Texas absolutely dwarfs Rutgers in every way.  The overall budgets are not remotely comparable.  I don't think UT has any real worries in that regard (and CDMFC is an absolute bear at raising money).  And escalation will be exponential if Texas ever starts winning big again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, k5james said:

I believe starting next year Rutgers will be getting a full cut of the B1G media deal so next year Rutgers will be making as much or more than Texas.  Make no mistake about it.  There's a Power Two in power AND money. 

Not really.  Texas makes about $11 million per year (on TV and conference payouts) more than each and every SEC school and about $4 million more than each and every Big10 school.  And on everything else, the difference is much bigger v. every school but Ohio State and Bama (and maybe 1-2 others).  I agree with you on power, but even with relatively weak performances for nearly a decade (by their standards), UT is rolling in money; better than anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also will add this about the Pac-12 versus the Big 12:

  1. The presidents of the Pac think much differently than their Big 12 peers and also the rest of the country.  I have really noticed this from the CU administration of late and they do not have the same kind of mindset that they had in the Big 12.  They are much more concerned about their fans & alumni in the conference footprint watching their games than the rest of the country which makes sense and that is the mindset that has been in Boulder for many years.  I can't see this changing at all.
  2. Pac footprint doesn't have the same kind of fervor that the Big 12, B1G, and SEC footprints have for football and it is reflected in the money the Pac-12 is receiving especially when football makes up a huge percentage of the media rights deals.  The MWC is pretty much in the same footprint and that is why the upcoming MWC media rights deal could be a big deal to the Pac.
  3. Those late starts will never fly with the central time zone schools in the Big 12.  I hate those late starts and have started to long for the Big 12 in some ways.  Those Big 12 schools will listen to those fans and I am much less convinced that the Big 12 schools would join the Pac-12 than back in 2011.  Raiding the MWC is the most likely expansion outcome.
  4. As long as Texas and Oklahoma are getting more money in the Big 12 than they would get from the Pac, there's no reason for them to move.  Their money streams would take a huge hit if they forced their fans to deal with those late night starts.
  5. In the event that the popularity of football takes a nosedive in the next decade, the Pac will be in better position than the Big 12 to absorb such hits to the athletic budgets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Texas is making at least $15M from the LHN, I'd say in a couple of years, Texas will be getting $50M per year total.  I don't think the Pac will be able to come up with that kind of coin to get Texas to move west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Jared said:

Texas will be getting annual bumps from both the LHN and the Big12 conference payout, which will at least equal the small escalation that the new Big10 deal provides.  And that's just TV and what the conference earns (primarily NCAA hoops credits).  On everything else, including ticket sales, parking, concessions, brand name, merchandising etc..., Texas absolutely dwarfs Rutgers in every way.  The overall budgets are not remotely comparable.  I don't think UT has any real worries in that regard (and CDMFC is an absolute bear at raising money).  And escalation will be exponential if Texas ever starts winning big again.

Which I understand and am only speaking to TV and conference payouts. The problem comes if the LHN is shuttered at the end of its contract or before. Texas should be able to sign another lucrative contact, perhaps worth not as much and without all of the perks of the LHN. It creates a natural evaluate period to take a look at potential revenues elsewhere. Would a post-LHN Big 12 be lucrative enough to keep Texas where it's at? 

 

Also in regards to "everything else, including ticket sales, parking, concessions, brand name, merchandising etc...", they could all be more valuable in the SEC or Big 10 where Texas would/could be playing better teams/brands. A hypothetical SEC West (I know it's a super duper long shot) would sell way more tickets and create more demand on all of the ancillary products.

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original LHN contract ends in 2031, which is 6 years after the expiration of the current Big 12 deal.  But here's why it is unlikely to be shut down prematurely - 1) UT would be crazy to try to pull the plug themselves (no way no how they get a sweeter deal elsewhere), and 2) ESPN would be cutting their own throat to do so, because it would open a move to the Big 10 (where Fox is co-owner of BTN).  As long as ESPN makes a few bucks, they're fine, and as long as UT makes big bucks, they're more than fine.  And by 2031 who knows what the NCAA and TV landscapes will look like.

 

And the SEC has little interest in UT, because they already have A&M.  The SEC doesnt like doubling up, which is why Clemson and Florida State never got an invite, but Missouri did.

 

 

 

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LHN contract runs to 2031 and it is now profitable (to ESPN) - I don't see it being terminated by either side.  It is now much more widely available than it was in the early years and far more available (nationally) than the 7 Pac12 networks.

I also don't see Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota and Maryland as "better brand names" and certainly not "better teams."  Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin and Michigan State, however, are.  Would Longhorn fans really be satisfied with a steady diet of the "lower brand names" and poorly-regarded teams with the occasional big match-ups interspersed?  The SEC West, though, would be different  - UT would get prime match-ups most weeks.  But how well would they perform?  A&M hasn't really upset that league's hierarchy - would Texas?  Steady 4-8 seasons would have a downward impact, at least as much as you are hypothesizing the upside potential.  And would either the Big10 or the SEC allow the LHN to exist?  If not, that's a $20 million (or more) hit per year.  And college football attendance is falling nationally - would the other stuff produce enough to offset that?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  CDC and UT will face these issues going forward.  In about 4-5 weeks, Texas will be receiving $54+ million - the most of any school.  And they've done that despite losing 5 of 6 to TCU in the Big12.  Imagine how well they could do if they ever beat us.

If we've learned one thing from the Pac12's problems, it's that, if they don't turn it around, the window for them inviting Texas is closing because of the money disparities.  The Big10 and SEC are their only real options when conference realignment rears its ugly head again in a few years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clearly there have been problems with the PAC-12 network: 

- the costs associated with it are too expensive, Jon Wilner identified $100 million dollars over the last 5 years that isn't accounted for by the Network financials  https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/994944285056290818

- being HQ in SF, CA and the additional costs associated with that was a poor choice

- and the revenue forecast hasn't come close to hitting its mark (part of that is DTV)

However, in an era where TV everything is unbundeling (not sure if that's a word), I still think the PAC-12 is positioned pretty favorably for hosting their own network and owning their 3rd Tier rights.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jared said:

Texas will be getting annual bumps from both the LHN and the Big12 conference payout, which will at least equal the small escalation that the new Big10 deal provides.  And that's just TV and what the conference earns (primarily NCAA hoops credits).  On everything else, including ticket sales, parking, concessions, brand name, merchandising etc..., Texas absolutely dwarfs Rutgers in every way.  The overall budgets are not remotely comparable.  I don't think UT has any real worries in that regard (and CDMFC is an absolute bear at raising money).  And escalation will be exponential if Texas ever starts winning big again.

Yea, but what about OU and KU? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, RSF said:

The original LHN contract ends in 2031, which is 6 years after the expiration of the current Big 12 deal.  But here's why it is unlikely to be shut down prematurely - 1) UT would be crazy to try to pull the plug themselves (no way no how they get a sweeter deal elsewhere), and 2) ESPN would be cutting their own throat to do so, because it would open a move to the Big 10 (where Fox is co-owner of BTN).  As long as ESPN makes a few bucks, they're fine, and as long as UT makes big bucks, they're more than fine.  And by 2031 who knows what the NCAA and TV landscapes will look like.

 

And the SEC has little interest in UT, because they already have A&M.  The SEC doesnt like doubling up, which is why Clemson and Florida State never got an invite, but Missouri did.

 

 

 

UT won't shut it down. However, ESPN could shut it down as part of a move to another ESPN property. It's that simple. 

 

And the subscriber model is slowly winding down. It's potentially going to be replaced with a "name brand model" where individual interest in schools/programs/teams drive the majority of the value. We were operating under the subscriber model during the last realignment. Anyways, Clemson just isn't worth it. Now down the line Florida State could be once the new model kicks in further. Texas would be worth it. However, Texas always snubs its nose at the SEC..... which is why I'd love Oklahoma to move first and put the pressure on UT. 

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...