Are We Headed Towards 4 Conferences?

[Some guy]

I think if the big ten expands to 18 or 20…they’ll either add some sort of a semifinal system which hasn’t been approved by NCAA

or

They add a 10th game


Or

They go Covid style and make the last regular season week a game to be announced later.

So rivalry weekend moves to before thanksgiving weekend.

But then thanksgiving weekend they match 1-4 and 2-3 and then let all the 5 win teams play the dogs of the conference.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

and because Washington State didn't want to have all the fun - now the University of Washington is also dealing with deficits in the athletic department.

from the Seattle Times:

Despite a redemptive 2022 football season that included an 11-2 record, an Alamo Bowl win over Texas, a No. 8 national ranking and an undefeated 7-0 home slate, UW’s athletic department expects a loss of $5.8 million in financial year 2023 (which stretches from July 1, 2022, to June 30).

UW projects that deficit to expand to $7.8 million in the coming financial year.

Those deficits stem somewhat from continued severance payments following the firing of former UW coach Jimmy Lake, totaling $5 million in FY23 and a projected $3.8 million more in FY24.

UW’s losses in both FY23 and FY24 will be covered with the department’s dwindling reserves, which are estimated to total $9.1 million next July. (For perspective, they were $34.5 million before the pandemic, in 2019.)

In a report Thursday, the UW athletic department’s credit outlook was listed as “negative due to operating losses, sector uncertainty, and low and declining reserve levels.”

a big part of the problem is a drop in football season ticket sales - down 10% last year. Football accounts for roughly 1/3 of UW athletic department revenue.

that new Pac-12 media deal had better be good.

 

[Dave H]

"100% fan fiction clickbait!!"
-G4L probably

 

[swede2]

Washington be like: “how dare NBC, CBS, and FOX not ask us what we think we’re worth!!”

The Big Ten consulted with those three network partners on every PAC school to see what they’d pay for them.

None of them we worth enough money to be added.

Link?

 

[Gophers_4life]

You keep repeating the same lie that WA and OR were vetted before UCLA and USC were invited to join the B1G.
...
And why would the B1G vet WA and OR this spring if they had already vetted them last summer?

You're hung up on the word "vet". As if it's some special, official process where there's a ticker-tape parade held and Big Ten officials ride down campus in floats.

Whatever. You're trying to play a silly semantics game.


It doesn't matter when.


The Big Ten asked NBC, CBS, and FOX how much they'd pay for each PAC school, in addition to USC and UCLA.

None of the rest were worth enough to be added at the same time.

#facts

 

[Gophers_4life]

Link?

Common sense.


You'll make a silly argument of "but they didn't want to be seen as blowing up the PAC".

But they already were exactly framed as doing that, by taking USC and UCLA in the first place. So that's a giant nothingburger.

If you're already taking the cream, you're going to kick the tires on others to see if its worth taking a couple more at the same time. It wasn't.

 

[Gophers_4life]

that new Pac-12 media deal had better be good.

They aren't blowing it up over $5-10M a year, if it's even that.

#facts

 

[PMWinSTP]

Common sense.


You'll make a silly argument of "but they didn't want to be seen as blowing up the PAC".

But they already were exactly framed as doing that, by taking USC and UCLA in the first place. So that's a giant nothingburger.

If you're already taking the cream, you're going to kick the tires on others to see if its worth taking a couple more at the same time. It wasn't.

Those two words don't apply to you out here, ever.

 

[Gophers_4life]

When you buy something and they offer an add-on, very few to no people blunty say "NOPE, don't even say another word, I won't listen, I'm outta here!!!"

They say "oh yeah, how much?"

Because of course they do.


Ain't rocket science

 

[WAGopher]

You're hung up on the word "vet". As if it's some special, official process where there's a ticker-tape parade held and Big Ten officials ride down campus in floats.

Whatever. You're trying to play a silly semantics game.


It doesn't matter when.


The Big Ten asked NBC, CBS, and FOX how much they'd pay for each PAC school, in addition to USC and UCLA.

None of the rest were worth enough to be added at the same time.

#facts

So you used vetting many times and don’t know what it means. Here are two definitions of the verb ‘to vet’:
Oxford Dictionary: make a careful and critical examination of (something)
Merriam-Webster: to evaluate for possible approval or acceptance

Vetting is not a cursory discussion and it’s not semantics to use the word in it’s correct context.

I didn’t intend this to be an argument, which it’s turned into, so I’m checking out of this one.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

The Big Ten asked NBC, CBS, and FOX how much they'd pay for each PAC school, in addition to USC and UCLA.

None of the rest were worth enough to be added at the same time.

#facts

and you know this for a fact because..............?

Look, I don't want to waste my time on another p*ssing match.

But you keep stating things as #facts - at the very least suggesting that you have specific knowledge of major conference media deal negotiations. so you must have some very well-placed sources - assuming that you can back up what you suggest.

again, you have a right to your opinions. but opinions are not facts - unless you can provide specific information to show that there is a basis for what you suggest.

 

[Gophers_4life]

and you know this for a fact because..............?

It'd be silly not to ask. Doesn't hurt anything, and potentially better outcome.

Everyone and their grandmother is saying it didn't/doesn't make sense for Big Ten to add two schools in California without adding any other western schools. Because of course, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to think.

Unless there was some other factor. With the new TV contract explicitly spelling out what the conference would get only for Notre Dame, it's perfectly obvious that they asked the partners what they'd pay for other schools too. Washington and Oregon would be two really obvious ones to ask for.

They did. Weren't worth enough. Don't care if you (or anyone else) choose not to believe it. There's no proof one way or another.

 

[Ope3]

In a general college football discussion on the Tony Kornheiser show he asked Pat Forde if the Pac 12 should be concerned about losing Oregon & Washington. His response was "Yes, especially the media contract comes in low."

In the short term he also indicated if the Big 10 was interested right now, it would have already happened. Could seeing it down the road if ND joins and that eventually it will be just the Big 10 and SEC as the "major" players. The rest will be just fighting for scraps, more or less.

 

[PMWinSTP]

It'd be silly not to ask. Doesn't hurt anything, and potentially better outcome.

Everyone and their grandmother is saying it didn't/doesn't make sense for Big Ten to add two schools in California without adding any other western schools. Because of course, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to think.

Unless there was some other factor. With the new TV contract explicitly spelling out what the conference would get only for Notre Dame, it's perfectly obvious that they asked the partners what they'd pay for other schools too. Washington and Oregon would be two really obvious ones to ask for.

They did. Weren't worth enough. Don't care if you (or anyone else) choose not to believe it. There's no proof one way or another.

Nothingburger post with a side of word salad.

 

[Gophers_4life]

In the short term he also indicated if the Big 10 was interested right now, it would have already happened. Could seeing it down the road if ND joins and that eventually it will be just the Big 10 and SEC as the "major" players. The rest will be just fighting for scraps, more or less.

Sure.

"Short term", means all 10 PAC schools would do well to sign a new GoR for something like 5-6 years and then reevaluate.

 

[Gophers_4life]

@mngolf where we at, bud? Any new announcements coming?

Back on Friday, the Seattle Times published the WSU President saying this:

“I think it’s imminent; it’s been imminent for three months,” Schulz said, and when pressed put his confidence at a 7 out of 10 that the deal would be done by the end of the month. Schulz said, based on the numbers he’d seen, that the revenue deal would likely be “fairly flat” compared to the amount the university has received in the past, but he noted that WSU would also benefit financially from the expansion of the College Football Playoff to 12 teams in 2024 “to the tune, likely, of several million dollars per year, per school.”

 

[mngolf]

@mngolf where we at, bud? Any new announcements coming?

Back on Friday, the Seattle Times published the WSU President saying this:

“I think it’s imminent; it’s been imminent for three months,” Schulz said, and when pressed put his confidence at a 7 out of 10 that the deal would be done by the end of the month. Schulz said, based on the numbers he’d seen, that the revenue deal would likely be “fairly flat” compared to the amount the university has received in the past, but he noted that WSU would also benefit financially from the expansion of the College Football Playoff to 12 teams in 2024 “to the tune, likely, of several million dollars per year, per school.”

You left out the part where he also said that their budgetary problems are now exacerbated by the media deal not being what they were told it would be. They budgeted for a much higher number based on Kliavkoff's earlier statements.

 

[Gophers_4life]

You left out the part where he also said that their budgetary problems are now exacerbated by the media deal not being what they were told it would be. They budgeted for a much higher number based on Kliavkoff's earlier statements.

Can you post that bit? Why do I have a feeling you might be exaggerating a tad from what was actually said?

Any new announcements coming up??

 

[Gophers_4life]

How about this, my friend.

10 current PAC sign a GoR and a new media deal, to stay in the conference, for some single-digit number of years, before the start of this coming season = you owe me a beer.

Anything short of that = I owe you a beer.

 

[mngolf]

Can you post that bit? Why do I have a feeling you might be exaggerating a tad from what was actually said?

Any new announcements coming up??

No.

I don't know why. Maybe you don't like opposing points of view?

None that are now on a schedule. And that includes your proclamation that a deal would be completed earlier this year.

 

[Gophers_4life]

No.

I don't know why. Maybe you don't like opposing points of view?

None that are now on a schedule. And that includes your proclamation that a deal would be completed earlier this year.

Can you please post the other quote you referring to, thanks!

 

[mngolf]

There is no possible benefit for the Big Ten, the U, or college athletics for the PAC conference to dissolve.

It's laughable that there are people who (claim to) want that to happen. Makes no sense, other than as it gives people something to write about that people will click on.


Anyway, I'll declare victory here when the current, remaining 10, possible with 2 other new members, sign a new GoR coinciding with the announcement of their new TV/media deal, for let's say 3-5 years. That is perfectly reasonable, and I would expect that to get done and announced in the next couple months.

Here's one. From March.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Here's one. From March.

Can you please post the quote from Schulz where you claim: You left out the part where he also said that their budgetary problems are now exacerbated by the media deal not being what they were told it would be.

Any thoughts on post #409?

 

[PMWinSTP]

How about this, my friend.

10 current PAC sign a GoR and a new media deal, to stay in the conference, for some single-digit number of years, before the start of this coming season = you owe me a beer.

Anything short of that = I owe you a beer.

You are old enough to drink beer?

 

[swede2]

Common sense.


You'll make a silly argument of "but they didn't want to be seen as blowing up the PAC".

But they already were exactly framed as doing that, by taking USC and UCLA in the first place. So that's a giant nothingburger.

If you're already taking the cream, you're going to kick the tires on others to see if its worth taking a couple more at the same time. It wasn't.

Common sense does not equal #facts. Link?

 

[mngolf]

Can you please post the quote from Schulz where you claim: You left out the part where he also said that their budgetary problems are now exacerbated by the media deal not being what they were told it would be.

Any thoughts on post #409?

I already answered. No.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

so, FWIW, Jim Williams is a media guy I follow on Twitter. He had a link to a You Tube show by a group calling themselves "The Holy Rivals." they follow Big 12 and Pac 12 sports - sounds like a lot of focus on Utah and BYU.

in the new episode, they got into the Washington State financial report. Played some clips from President Schultz and some other people at the WSU board meeting, where they said they could not complete future athletic budgets until they had the numbers for the new media deal. Also had the quote from Schultz where he said his expectations were for a media deal that was "close to what it is now" - maybe a little more or possibly a little less. they said the WSU budget showed media revenue last year at $24.8-million.

then this show had a guest who got into conference TV deals, valuations, etc. He said based on the information that is available now, he could see the new Pac12 media deal coming in at anywhere from $19-million to $28-million per school. talked a lot about how much value the conference is losing with USC and UCLA and how that impacts a new TV deal.

also a lot of discussion about impact on exposure for the Pac-12 if a large part of the new deal winds up on streaming. they talked about what it means to the conference if their linear partner winds up being a CW or ION as opposed to ESPN.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Common sense does not equal #facts. Link?

Yep, I'll get that link to the public article where private, closed door discussions between the Big Ten and NBC, CBS, and FOX occurred, with in-depth details of trade secrets, is published.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I already answered. No.

I'll assume there is no such quote, then.

Burden of proof rests squarely on you, to prove the quote you claim exists actually exists. If you refuse, no one should believe you or lend any credibility to your claims.

 

[Gophers_4life]

they said the WSU budget showed media revenue last year at $24.8-million.

Yet your post #295 says the PAC gave out $37M to each school last year.

https://gopherhole.com/boards/threads/are-we-headed-towards-4-conferences.110054/post-2728089

He said based on the information that is available now

In other words, almost no actual information. Just "sources say" hearsay clickbait articles aplenty.

if their linear partner winds up being a CW or ION as opposed to ESPN.

In other words, PAC fans will be able to stick a cheap antenna on the wall in most US markets and watch PAC football games, as opposed to needing a paid subscription service to access ESPN and ESPN2 channels.