What might the future of the Pac-12 be with all the departures?

[KevFu]

I’d be interested to know the financial details of the rumored proposal in ~2018 from ESPN to Larry Scott. In which ESPN would take over delivery of the PAC12 Network and extend their existing media deal with the PAC12 at “tier 1“ rates.

Hard to say without knowing the numbers, but that may have been a missed opportunity to avoid the USC/UCLA departure and keep the PAC intact.

One of the things I was saying back then, was that a "business merger" of the Big Ten/Pac-12 would be incredibly smart, with the key goal being the Big Ten Network absorbs the Pac-12 Network.

They still play as separate conferences with multiple auto-bids to tournaments; but with a season-long "Rose Series" of games -- like the ACC/Big Ten Challenge, but instead of taking 1-3 days on the calendar, it's one football game per week; and two basketball games every Saturday, and also has games by the top teams in every sport.

The Big Ten Network would get higher carriage numbers out west with Pac-12 games, and higher than the Pac-12 got without FOX backing.

And each side would be adding time slots of live games they didn't have before because of time zones.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

That might've been a smart play for the Pac in hindsight, but why would the Big Ten have agreed to that? They got to keep their money and poach at will. They gained everything and lost nothing from a dollars and cents standpoint.

 

[tucker3434]

Merge with the Mountain West and become a shell of its former self. Ridiculous how quickly we went from P5 to P2. There should’ve been 4 regional super conferences. Going to be really stupid when Cal and Stanford go to the ACC.

 

[KevFu]

That might've been a smart play for the Pac in hindsight, but why would the Big Ten have agreed to that? They got to keep their money and poach at will. They gained everything and lost nothing from a dollars and cents standpoint.

The carriage fees from being on basic cable in all of CA, AZ, WA, OR, UT, CO would be additional revenue, and would off-set the amount of money given to the Pac-12 because the network would have twice the available content and more timeslots.


Obviously, with what they DID, they get the benefit of LA, SEA, PORT and not sharing with 8 other members... But they also have to manage a bigger conference that's got a lot of headaches.

OF COURSE the Big Ten made out better in real life; but back then, no one thought THIS REALITY was even remotely possible.

USC/UCLA to the Big Ten broke the preconceived notions on conference expansion. The Big 12 seemed destined to be the one to break up for the same reason the SWC did: Their members could go in any direction.

And that WAS the plan for ESPN before they got caught red-handed and threatened with legal action by the Big 12. ESPN did/does not want their role in realignment to become public, so they gave the Big 12 the "4th" conference money, and dismantled the Pac-12.

 

[KevFu]

Merge with the Mountain West and become a shell of its former self. Ridiculous how quickly we went from P5 to P2. There should’ve been 4 regional super conferences. Going to be really stupid when Cal and Stanford go to the ACC.

The other caveat in all this is the concept of "unequal shares," that's a new thing as schools desperate to keep pace accept being second-class citizens in a rich conference instead of an equal partner in a now worse conference.

But I don't know how certain I'd be on a ACC expansion with Cal/Stanford. The Presidents like association with Stanford, but athletics doesn't want 15 teams in the Southeast, with some NE schools... and then the Bay Area. and 17 schools that take away basketball games from historical rivals.

And the ACC has a problem of being locked in until 2036. Cal/Stanford aren't upping the ante for a renegotiation from ESPN. Cal/Stanford would accept unequal shares rather than join the MWC, that's for sure. But I don't see how it's a financial smart play for the ACC.

 

[tucker3434]

The other caveat in all this is the concept of "unequal shares," that's a new thing as schools desperate to keep pace accept being second-class citizens in a rich conference instead of an equal partner in a now worse conference.

But I don't know how certain I'd be on a ACC expansion with Cal/Stanford. The Presidents like association with Stanford, but athletics doesn't want 15 teams in the Southeast, with some NE schools... and then the Bay Area. and 17 schools that take away basketball games from historical rivals.

And the ACC has a problem of being locked in until 2036. Cal/Stanford aren't upping the ante for a renegotiation from ESPN. Cal/Stanford would accept unequal shares rather than join the MWC, that's for sure. But I don't see how it's a financial smart play for the ACC.

The ACC has to be a bit desperate. All their best members would already be gone if they could reasonably pull it off. Even though I’d agree that Cal and Stanford make little sense, I don’t think either side could do better right now. They’re both left with the scraps.

 

[GindyDraws]

In English please?

In all seriousness, there are only so many schools west of the Mississippi. Simon Fraser never had a winning season in football and they had to kill off their program due to the lack of local schools in their area (yes, they are the British Columbia college), and I'm not sure the other two expats in the Division III Lone Star Conference will hold our much longer. The WAC tried to revive itself at the FCS level with plans for FBS promotion but all that resulted was the lynchpin of its project, New Mexico State, going to Conference USA in all sports, defeating any hopes for the revival.

Merge with the Mountain West and become a shell of its former self. Ridiculous how quickly we went from P5 to P2. There should’ve been 4 regional super conferences. Going to be really stupid when Cal and Stanford go to the ACC.

Big problem, the Mountain West has a pittance in cable rights and with the exception of Wazzu, who is unfortunately in no situation to reject any offers, the remaining programs would rather eat lead.

 

[tucker3434]

In all seriousness, there are only so many schools west of the Mississippi. Simon Fraser never had a winning season in football and they had to kill off their program due to the lack of local schools in their area (yes, they are the British Columbia college), and I'm not sure the other two expats in the Division III Lone Star Conference will hold our much longer. The WAC tried to revive itself at the FCS level with plans for FBS promotion but all that resulted was the lynchpin of its project, New Mexico State, going to Conference USA in all sports, defeating any hopes for the revival.


Big problem, the Mountain West has a pittance in cable rights and with the exception of Wazzu, who is unfortunately in no situation to reject any offers, the remaining programs would rather eat lead.

Unless the Big12 throws them a lifeline, they don’t really have great options. But if I’m the SEC, Big10 or Big12, I’m not adding anyone else until I find out what is going to happen with the ACC and Clemson, FSU, UVA, Va Tech, UNC and Duke.

 

[KevFu]

Apparently the reason the ACC is considering Stanford/Cal and SMU is because of the language in the ESPN deal for ACC Network...

If a state has an ACC school, then the amount of money the conference gets from subscriptions in the state is set much higher.

So the ACC adds those three schools, and ESPN must pay them like $1.50 per in-state subscriber, per month... regardless of what the carriage fee the customers are actually paying.

So the idea is that if ACC Network is in 15m households in CA/TX, then ESPN pays them 13m more.... per month.


It sounds like ESPN wrote a contract based on the Big Ten model when the real world doesn't operate like that, but they could be on the hook for their short-sightedness. And it all could be a ploy to force ESPN to renegotiate the GOR.

 

[LadyStanley]

Where do Pac-12's remaining 4 end up after latest conference realignment shakeup?

Stanford, Cal, Oregon State and Washington State don't have too many options after being left behind, but it's clear which school will drive the conversation to a conclusion.

sports.yahoo.com

Stanford may be the leader for the remaining Pac12

 

[LadyStanley]

FSU, Clemson, NC State, UNC opposed Cal, Stanford adds to ACC

The conference would need 12 of 15 member schools to vote “yes” in order to add any new members.

theathletic.com

ACC contingent opposed to add Stanford/Cal

 

[LadyStanley]

Political football: ACC expansion candidates using powerful allies to try to get in the door

Will the lobbying efforts of powerful political figures change minds and alter the votes of dissenting ACC members?

sports.yahoo.com

Condoleza Rice (Stanford) and George HW Bush (SMU) lobbying to get ACC to change their minds.

 

[DaveG]

Well the Big 12 has been amputated in huge ways twice and survived. Including losing its very top two athletic programs just a few years ago. With no Oregon or Washington left like the PAC had after the LA schools announced.

I don’t think it was inevitable - at least not like it’s happening now. The PAC had plenty of opportunities to be proactive.

- Ok State, Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU were ready to jump ship after UT and OU announced by the PAC-12 presidents voted expansion down.

- They had an offer from Yormark to merge just last year in the “best interests” of survival of the two leagues.

- They had schools with lots of potential like San Diego State, Boise State and SMU begging to join. Maybe G5 - but worked like a charm for the Big 12. Take markets and brands you can grow, increase inventory. But the PAC presidents would have none of it.

- Kliavkoff could’ve gotten a linear guaranteed deal done with maximum exposure before the Big 12 did. Instead he was asleep at the wheel and let Yormark and the Big 12 eat up all the money.

People can blame the networks all they want - and it’s true they are the power that is reorganizing everything right now. But the PAC did not have to be the conference that got nuked. Scott, Kliavkoff and the university presidents dug the hole and then put the conference directly in it. The networks just shoveled the last few piles of dirt on. They could have been leaders of action - instead they sat around pretending to be too above others in collegiate athletics, saying stupid things like “the longer we wait the better the deal” and “we aren’t worried about our teams leaving the conference” and agreeing to absurd “gentlemanly alliances” with the B1G and ACC all while the B1G is getting the carving knives out in plain view.

It’s not just the PAC failing that is going to make a great 30 for 30…it’s how stunningly inept the process was and how astoundingly arrogant and clueless their leaders continued to sound right up until doomsday.

In fact not only were they asleep at the wheel on the TV contract situation, the offer they had from ESPN was essentially what they gave the Big 12 and the PAC responded by asking for a number closer to what the SEC is being paid per school. There's no negotiation to be had from that. I'm not even sure they get that with USCLA, but they sure as hell don't get it without those two.

The Pac had 3 chances to prevent this whole thing. Reallignment chaos 2010, Reallignment chaos 2021, and the merger offer from the Big 12. The last one especially should have happened but there are a few reasons it never did. Ironically two of those biggest reasons are currently trying like hell to get into a worse situation than the merger would have been but UNC and the conference malcontents aren't having it.

edit with numbers:

 

[famicommander]

Political football: ACC expansion candidates using powerful allies to try to get in the door

Will the lobbying efforts of powerful political figures change minds and alter the votes of dissenting ACC members?

sports.yahoo.com

Condoleza Rice (Stanford) and George HW Bush (SMU) lobbying to get ACC to change their minds.

George W. Bush. George H. W. Bush died in 2018.

 

[PCSPounder]

The other caveat in all this is the concept of "unequal shares," that's a new thing as schools desperate to keep pace accept being second-class citizens in a rich conference instead of an equal partner in a now worse conference.

I suspect that’s not really true. USC received unequal higher shares until the conference voted to equalize revenues. This was right after the Pac + Texas + Oklahoma expansion attempt fizzled in 2010.

Subsequently… Inside the Pac-12 collapse: Four surprising moments that crushed the conference

- The conference had a plan to bring UCLA back by offering UCLA $52 million per year from media revenue. Oregon vehemently objected.
- The rejection of the ESPN offer after the LA schools left was based on one school president (unnamed) relaying a professor’s assertion that the conference was worth $50M per school vice the ESPN $30M offer.
- George Kliavkoff backed a big 12 merger overture after Texas & Oklahoma announced their SEC move. USC vetoed it. There had been whispers about USC seeking greener pastures. Seems like a knife in the back to me.
- When the last Apple offer was presented, Phil Knight backed it (a surprise to me on more than one level). Washington cut off the vote Friday morning by announcing their departure, and Oregon immediately decided to go with Dub.

That article does point out that these schools were probably nowhere near on the same page.

As for what’s next… unless the ACC shakes loose a vote to add the Bay schools, the Pac-4 will next talk to the American about a merger. Stanford is driving that yacht.. but if that doesn’t result in an increase in media rights, OSU & WSU will jump to the Mountain West. I’m guessing that the Northwest schools would want at least $9M per year to manage travel costs, maybe $10M. A merger negates exit fees for AAC schools. But if Stanford and Cal create some alternate arrangement (which I think they prefer to a merger), and thus leave the Pac, then OSU and WSU would claim all the Pac credits and be able to make a full Mountain West merger possible. This is why I suspect OSU & WSU are content, to a degree, letting the Bay schools commit first.

 

[tank44]

What I've seen thrown around is a 2 year expansion for PAC with select pickings from AAC & MWC. They wouldn't get back to the power 5 level but would be likley the best G5 conference. For 2024, the remaining 4 teams add 4 teams from AAC to meet minimum conference numbers. This looks something like SMU, Rice, Memphis & Tulane. Then in 2025, they add 4 teams from MWC to get back to 12. This would likely be San Diego St, Fresno St, Colorado St & Boise St

 

[KevFu]

I suspect that’s not really true. USC received unequal higher shares until the conference voted to equalize revenues. This was right after the Pac + Texas + Oklahoma expansion attempt fizzled in 2010.

Sorry, I meant the concept of schools taking unequal shares as a way to join a conference. Basically begging to be let in via negotiated stakes in the conference.

Conferences giving bigger payouts to their meal tickets has been around for a long time; usually in the form of appearance fees.