Great ESPN article on how this (SC/UCLA) went down

[ttowncoug]

Also, very helpful that we are seeing facts get out.

I think the Big-12 and their aggressive actions, when we gave them space last year, should be frankly open target for cherry picking.

Secret meetings and survival mode: Inside the stunning USC-UCLA move and the chaos it caused

When the Big Ten landed USC and UCLA, it rocked the sports world. Here's how the move happened and the scramble it unleashed once word got out.

www.espn.com

 

[CougInSpain]

Also, very helpful that we are seeing facts get out.

I think the Big-12 and their aggressive actions, when we gave them space last year, should be frankly open target for cherry picking.

Secret meetings and survival mode: Inside the stunning USC-UCLA move and the chaos it caused

When the Big Ten landed USC and UCLA, it rocked the sports world. Here's how the move happened and the scramble it unleashed once word got out.

www.espn.com

Big-12 alliance (or absorption) makes the most sense logistically. If we're going to cherry pick.... Baylor, OK St, Kansas St and Kansas (strictly for the sake of basketball).

 

[ttowncoug]

Agree on absorption. Big-12 is likely to expand. I think they go west. We likely need to move on SDSU and maybe Fresno. Big-12 likely grabs Boise, Colorado St and maybe a few Cali schools.

 

[SaveFerris]

Big-12 alliance (or absorption) makes the most sense logistically. If we're going to cherry pick.... Baylor, OK St, Kansas St and Kansas (strictly for the sake of basketball).

In that scenario I would substitute Baylor for TCU or Houston. Both bigger markets but more importantly Baylor has a history of beyond slimeball behavior in both football and hoops.

 

[CougInSpain]

In that scenario I would substitute Baylor for TCU or Houston. Both bigger markets but more importantly Baylor has a history of beyond slimeball behavior in both football and hoops.

I was thinking that but just went with the bigger name is all. I guess I should've just thought of the Waco Whacko's and said "Nope!" and be done with them.

 

[95coug]

In that scenario I would substitute Baylor for TCU or Houston. Both bigger markets but more importantly Baylor has a history of beyond slimeball behavior in both football and hoops.

SMU is in there too.

Now that what they did is pretty much legal, they should be restored, right?

 

[dgibbons]

Big-12 alliance (or absorption) makes the most sense logistically. If we're going to cherry pick.... Baylor, OK St, Kansas St and Kansas (strictly for the sake of basketball).

Baylor, OK State, TTU and Houston. The TV markets are what counts. Kansas and K-State don't move the needle there.

 

[dgibbons]

This is from the ACC part of the article regarding Memphis, but notable: Multiple sources in the league kept coming back to the same central question: "Where is the financial value?"

This is what people need to keep in mind when throwing out expansion candidates. A school like Boise State does approximately nothing to add value, and probably decreases value. Boise is the 101st TV market in the country. For comparison, Spokane is 66th. And Boise State is not what it used to be in football, for those that think winning matters.

List of television stations in North America by media market - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikalalas]

This is from the ACC part of the article regarding Memphis, but notable: Multiple sources in the league kept coming back to the same central question: "Where is the financial value?"

This is what people need to keep in mind when throwing out expansion candidates. A school like Boise State does approximately nothing to add value, and probably decreases value. Boise is the 101st TV market in the country. For comparison, Spokane is 66th. And Boise State is not what it used to be in football, for those that think winning matters.

List of television stations in North America by media market - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BSU is ONLY a consideration, IF Pac 12 went SMU, SDSU, UNLV, Fresno St. SJSU, BSU, Airforce, and Iowa St, to become a Pac 18, to become the best midmajor, group of 5, non power 5, almost power 5 conference, etc, in America, that better then the MWC, WCC, Sun Belt, AAC, etc, IF IF the Pac 12 couldn't raid the Big 12, and couldn't merge, ally with the ACC, BIG 12, etc.

Iowa St is only mentioned because Big 12 would not care if Pac 12 raided Iowa St from Big 12.

In all other scenarios BSU loses, has no value.

SMU, SDSU, UNLV combined with either 1 Big 12 team, an or Gonzaga, an or Fresno St, to become the Pac 14+ to then either ally, merge with ACC, or Big 12, with a ESPN media deal, is the only thing that makes sense.

SMU carries, opens up the DFW for TV, and recruiting.

SDSU provides TV, expands recruiting area footprint.

UNLV provides a wonderful bball program, TV, and Las Vegas as spot to hold conference tournament, championship, playoffs, etc.

Your right about what does BSU provide? NOTHING, except living off it's reputation that it and Utah had before Utah joined Pac 12.

But that's the past, and BSU is not that good anymore, and would need the Pac 12, Big 12 more then the Pac 12, Big 12 need it.

BSU is really just a best of the rest filler team in a emergency, if SDSU, SMU, UNLV, Fresno St, SJSU, etc, either weren't available, or if needed to go-to a Pac 16, Pac 18, if Pac 12 couldn't raid Big 12.

So BSU is just a worthless, run of the mill emergency, best of rest, after everyone else not available, filler team.

 

[95coug]

BSU is ONLY a consideration, IF Pac 12 went SMU, SDSU, UNLV, Fresno St. SJSU, BSU, Airforce, and Iowa St, to become a Pac 18, to become the best midmajor, group of 5, non power 5, almost power 5 conference, etc, in America, that better then the MWC, WCC, Sun Belt, AAC, etc, IF IF the Pac 12 couldn't raid the Big 12, and couldn't merge, ally with the ACC, BIG 12, etc.

Iowa St is only mentioned because Big 12 would not care if Pac 12 raided Iowa St from Big 12.

In all other scenarios BSU loses, has no value.

SMU, SDSU, UNLV combined with either 1 Big 12 team, an or Gonzaga, an or Fresno St, to become the Pac 14+ to then either ally, merge with ACC, or Big 12, with a ESPN media deal, is the only thing that makes sense.

SMU carries, opens up the DFW for TV, and recruiting.

SDSU provides TV, expands recruiting area footprint.

UNLV provides a wonderful bball program, TV, and Las Vegas as spot to hold conference tournament, championship, playoffs, etc.

Your right about what does BSU provide? NOTHING, except living off it's reputation that it and Utah had before Utah joined Pac 12.

But that's the past, and BSU is not that good anymore, and would need the Pac 12, Big 12 more then the Pac 12, Big 12 need it.

BSU is really just a best of the rest filler team in a emergency, if SDSU, SMU, UNLV, Fresno St, SJSU, etc, either weren't available, or if needed to go-to a Pac 16, Pac 18, if Pac 12 couldn't raid Big 12.

So BSU is just a worthless, run of the mill emergency, best of rest, after everyone else not available, filler team.

Depends on how much the media contract comes out to, but even at the value of the current contract not many of those teams bring as much as they’d take. It doesn’t make sense to expand just to add teams, they have to add value.

I think pre-COVID the value was near $30M per school, and is projected to get back there. It was closer to $20M in 2021. Assuming the conference stayed with equal revenue sharing, any teams they add need to bring at least that much value, otherwise they’re taking away from the others. I’m not sure any of them bring $20M, much less $30M.

SDSU and SMU have some appeal for recruiting and large markets. The others…not so much. We already have tournaments in Vegas, don’t need to invite UNLV. Their only real draw is the local market…which probably doesn’t reach the threshold that makes them worthwhile.

Bigger problem is that if you really look at the numbers, even though they’re in decent sized markets (SMU #5, SDSU #27, UNLV #40), none of those teams get good on-site attendance or TV viewers. We outdraw all of them in both categories. So they’re in the markets but don’t have the brand following, which is at least as important in the current service model. Even BSU, who does outdraw us, only does well enough to land at #8 in the Pac-12, behind Stanford and ASU.

In the end, it means that none of them are going to add much value to a media deal, and adding them to the conference will mean smaller pieces of the pie for everyone.

 

[mikalalas]

Depends on how much the media contract comes out to, but even at the value of the current contract not many of those teams bring as much as they’d take. It doesn’t make sense to expand just to add teams, they have to add value.

I think pre-COVID the value was near $30M per school, and is projected to get back there. It was closer to $20M in 2021. Assuming the conference stayed with equal revenue sharing, any teams they add need to bring at least that much value, otherwise they’re taking away from the others. I’m not sure any of them bring $20M, much less $30M.

SDSU and SMU have some appeal for recruiting and large markets. The others…not so much. We already have tournaments in Vegas, don’t need to invite UNLV. Their only real draw is the local market…which probably doesn’t reach the threshold that makes them worthwhile.

Bigger problem is that if you really look at the numbers, even though they’re in decent sized markets (SMU #5, SDSU #27, UNLV #40), none of those teams get good on-site attendance or TV viewers. We outdraw all of them in both categories. So they’re in the markets but don’t have the brand following, which is at least as important in the current service model. Even BSU, who does outdraw us, only does well enough to land at #8 in the Pac-12, behind Stanford and ASU.

In the end, it means that none of them are going to add much value to a media deal, and adding them to the conference will mean smaller pieces of the pie for everyone.

I see the Pac 12 adding at least SMU, SDSU, and Iowa St, and 1 other college, to go-to Pac 14 at extreme minimum.

Part of the reason the Pac 12 was Vulnerable was failing to expand, add 2 more teams of Value.

SMU, SDSU, have GOOD football teams, and bball teams, better then even a couple, few, some of the Big 12, and Pac 12 football, bball programs.

You rightly pointed out that SMU, SDSU being in such large TV markets, etc, that they don't have the brand, etc.

But if they join the Pac 12, their brand in those very large TV markets would grow.

Also part of what makes a conference have higher value to media, and be more resistant to defections, departures, raiding, etc, is having GOOD FOOTBALL PROGRAMS IN VERY LARGE TV MARKETS.

SMU, SDSU provide that.

Also if Pac 12 goes to Pac 14, with SMU, SMU, Iowa St, and 1 other college, then while that would dilute in short term, that Pac 14, would be more Palatable to either allying with ACC, with a bigger Joint Media Deal with ESPN, or Merge with either ACC, Big 12, with a BIGGER MEDIA DEAL.

So because of that, any dilution in the short term would be overcome in long term with better media deals via allying or merging with ACC, Big 12, etc.

Pac 12 needs SMU, SDSU, to make it more stable, more resistant to raiding, etc, to make the Pac 12 more competitive, more Palatable to better media deals, and more Palatable as a ally, merge, etc, for recruiting, etc.

Pac 12 needs at least SMU, SDSU at the very minimum, or the Pac 12 risk dying to the Big 12, etc.

 

[95coug]

I see the Pac 12 adding at least SMU, SDSU, and Iowa St, and 1 other college, to go-to Pac 14 at extreme minimum.

Part of the reason the Pac 12 was Vulnerable was failing to expand, add 2 more teams of Value.

SMU, SDSU, have GOOD football teams, and bball teams, better then even a couple, few, some of the Big 12, and Pac 12 football, bball programs.

You rightly pointed out that SMU, SDSU being in such large TV markets, etc, that they don't have the brand, etc.

But if they join the Pac 12, their brand in those very large TV markets would grow.

Also part of what makes a conference have higher value to media, and be more resistant to defections, departures, raiding, etc, is having GOOD FOOTBALL PROGRAMS IN VERY LARGE TV MARKETS.

SMU, SDSU provide that.

Also if Pac 12 goes to Pac 14, with SMU, SMU, Iowa St, and 1 other college, then while that would dilute in short term, that Pac 14, would be more Palatable to either allying with ACC, with a bigger Joint Media Deal with ESPN, or Merge with either ACC, Big 12, with a BIGGER MEDIA DEAL.

So because of that, any dilution in the short term would be overcome in long term with better media deals via allying or merging with ACC, Big 12, etc.

Pac 12 needs SMU, SDSU, to make it more stable, more resistant to raiding, etc, to make the Pac 12 more competitive, more Palatable to better media deals, and more Palatable as a ally, merge, etc, for recruiting, etc.

Pac 12 needs at least SMU, SDSU at the very minimum, or the Pac 12 risk dying to the Big 12, etc.

You might be right that they’d grow a bigger following in the Pac-12. Problem you’re overlooking is that while they’re pretty good G-5 teams, they’ll probably be middle of the road - at best - in the Pac-12. Utah was a very good G5 team, and it took them the better part of 10 years to sniff the conference title. Neither SMU or SDSU is as good as Utah was. And Utah still averaged less than 1M viewers per game, in a season where they went to the rose bowl and were on national TV multiple times.

Result will be that none of these schools bring immediate value, which is what the conference needs. The per school share already lags well behind other conferences, none of the existing members will be interested in reducing it further, even if there’s a chance (and that’s all it is) that the next contract will be for more. They can’t afford to let the gap widen further.

The PAC-12 needs teams that will compete now. The best chance for that is an alignment with the ACC, if the ACC will go for it. Maybe the PAC can shoehorn in a couple expansion teams in conjunction with that, but not without it.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I'm quite skeptical of value being added by SDSU. That market, while technically meeting a favorable standard just doesn't seem to translate in sports viewership.

They lost an NBA team, an NFL team and seem to care very little about their MLB team. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[ttowncoug]

Moving forward, it's really the TV value. The Big-12, by adding the markets they did, is allegedly worth more (Per school) than our current footprint. I also think the Big-12 gets aggressive and goes west after MWC schools.

I think the big play is attempting to get Big-12 schools to jump ship to the Pac-12. That only works if the TV contract is more lucrative then theirs and our conference appears more stable than the Big-12.

 

[mikalalas]

Moving forward, it's really the TV value. The Big-12, by adding the markets they did, is allegedly worth more (Per school) than our current footprint. I also think the Big-12 gets aggressive and goes west after MWC schools.

I think the big play is attempting to get Big-12 schools to jump ship to the Pac-12. That only works if the TV contract is more lucrative then theirs and our conference appears more stable than the Big-12.

Which is why the Pac 12 needs SMU, SDSU, to stabilize, be more PALATABLE, as a conference, because of SMU's, and SDSU LARGE TV markets POTENTIAL, in order to have the POTENTIAL to have a BIGGER, BETTER media deal, to be able to either Ally, Merge with ACC, Merge with Big 12, raid the Big 12.

Even tho Oregon, UW, Stanford, Utah, makes the Pac 12 Better then the Big 12, football program wise, tradition, competitiveness, winning, etc, the one thing they lack is that they have equal or worse TV media deal.

Because of that 1 and only lack, Ok St and the better Big 12 programs won't want to go-to, and won't go to Big 12.

The ONLY way to be able to get Big 12 programs is to add SMU, SDSU, to provide more stability, more Palatableness as a conference, to have more POTENTIAL for a Bigger TV, media deal, etc, THEN the Pac 12 can raid Ok St, Baylor, TCU, etc from the Big 12.

Adding SMU, SDSU would also prove to the current Pac 12 schools, that the PAC 12 is SERIOUS about expanding and stabilizing, which would cause the current Pac 12 schools to not leave the Pac 12, and become more raid resistant.

And that's another thing that Big 12 teams need to see. Big 12 teams need to believe that there won't be any more Pac 12 teams leaving the Pac 12, before they will join the Pac 12.

If the Pac 12 adds SMU, SDSU, and starts to negotiate a alliance with ACC, starts negotiating a new POTENTIALLY better media deal, the Pac 12 would be more stable, the Pac 12 would have a better chance to get Big 12 teams, and probably no Pac 12 team would leave that, and because of that the Pac 12 would have a better chance, an or probably get Big 12 teams.

Also it's not just 1 thing like adding SMU, SDSU by itself that help the Pac 12.

It is a combination of these things that will cause a chain reaction, snowball going in right direction, cause and effect, etc, that will cause these things to happen, help the Pac 12.

And adding SMU, and SDSU to the Pac 12 is one of these good triggers.

If the Pac 12 does NOT add SMU, SDSU, then the Pac 12 won't stabilize, Pac 12 teams might semi probably leave Pac 12, and Pac 12 won't get a better Media deal, and Pac 12, might not be able to Ally with ACC, etc, and Pac 12 wouldnt get Big 12 teams, and Pac 12 would get raided by Big 12, and the Pac 12 WOULD DIE.

This is why the Pac 12, and the Commish, said that the PAC 12 is going to extremely aggressively expand.

The Commish know that he has to get SMU, SDSU, etc, to get Big 12 teams. That is why the Pac 12 has contacted SDSU, and Fresno St, about them joining the Pac 12(Pac 12 needs to drop Fresno St, and go after SMU)

 

[ttowncoug]

What has me somewhat optimistic about the Pac-12 TV deal is we inventory for the windows at the 7pm spot, (pacific) that no other P-5 league has. We could command a higher premium to put our games on ESPN exclusively.

I'm curious if the LA schools are going to be filling the programming for Fox on the 7pm window, namely if Fox loses the Pac-12. (I can't imagine those schools would be up for more than a few games, and it would likely have to be a west coast non-conference team).

I tend to think you are going to see some ratings dilution on the games that show up in "prime time" namely if ESPN, ABC, NBC (rumor for a new Big-10 5pm game).

Agreed we need to get SDSU. We need to take backfill the So. Cal market for recruiting and exposure. Ideally, we pluck some Big-12 members. I'd have to imagine those conversations are happening through back channels.

 

[Black&RedAttack]

No offense, but you are in no position to "cherry pick" the Big 12. This isn't last year, you don't have USC and UCLA and you don't have quality expansion candidates, the Big 12 took all of them last year. You gave the Big 12 "space" last year but it's not returning the favor. The only reason you couldn't expand last year was because Fox was setting you up to get raided by the B1G not out of the goodness of your heart. The only one doing the "cherry picking" will be the Big 12 and your school unfortunately won't be one of them. Dog eat dog. Sorry.

 

[TrumpCoug]

No offense, but you are in no position to "cherry pick" the Big 12. This isn't last year, you don't have USC and UCLA and you don't have quality expansion candidates, the Big 12 took all of them last year. You gave the Big 12 "space" last year but it's not returning the favor. The only reason you couldn't expand last year was because Fox was setting you up to get raided by the B1G not out of the goodness of your heart. The only one doing the "cherry picking" will be the Big 12 and your school unfortunately won't be one of them. Dog eat dog. Sorry.

HRYK

 

[dgibbons]

No offense, but you are in no position to "cherry pick" the Big 12. This isn't last year, you don't have USC and UCLA and you don't have quality expansion candidates, the Big 12 took all of them last year. You gave the Big 12 "space" last year but it's not returning the favor. The only reason you couldn't expand last year was because Fox was setting you up to get raided by the B1G not out of the goodness of your heart. The only one doing the "cherry picking" will be the Big 12 and your school unfortunately won't be one of them. Dog eat dog. Sorry.

How is that? For real, not just chest pounding. Be serious. The depleted Big XII doesn't have Texas or Oklahoma. A&M is long gone, as is Colorado and Nebraska. The Big XII has proven itself to be extraordinarily fragile.

 

[ttowncoug]

The new dog eat dog world is based on money. TV revenue is driving that. That is fact.

The reality is who actually can create the strongest economic model is going to be in the front. Whether the Pac-12 can create something greater than what the Big-12 can is the question.

And if the Pac-12 creates a stronger TV model moving forward, does say an Oklahoma St look at it? I do.

I personally think the Pac-12 looks at the markets in the mid-west that could drive TV distributions north of $50M per school. The math is possible.

The fact is the Texas and mid-west market gets shared by a few schools in the Big-12. There is dilution in from the way the network subscriptions work. Eliminating the dilution will drive up the numbers for the Pac-12 and any exiting Big-12 school.

Adding the Midwest would also give us a 9am window (noon eastern), which also drives up revenue.

Pac-12 will backfill LA with SDSU and Fresno. It won't make up for all the losses, but it will keep exposure in LA in tact.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Baylor, OK State, TTU and Houston. The TV markets are what counts. Kansas and K-State don't move the needle there.

Baylor is a relatively fringe religious institution that everyone that's not a fan hates. You are not getting the Dallas market by picking Baylor. SMU or TCU are the teams that you pick if you pick a Texas team.....not Baylor. Texas Tech would bring more fans than the Bears.

As for Kansas, their football sucks (and has for a while), but Lawrence is only 30 miles from the 31st largest metro area in the country with hundreds of thousands of basketball fans. I don't know that I'd blindly pick the Jayhawks to be in a conference based on football, but they'll bring more than you think if they can get their crap together. KSU is tougher. They have well over a million people in their footprint and they have some influence in the KC metro area (not nearly as much as KU or Missouri though). Oklahoma State is OU's little brother and their proximity to Oklahoma City is as relevant as our fanbase in Seattle. If not for T. Boone Pickens, the Pokes wouldn't even be worth having any kind of discussion about.

Of course, that's why we are even having these discussions. WSU, OSU, Cal, Colorado, Stanford and Arizona are schools in more fringe locations or population bases that don't really care about college football. If you looked at the facilities that Kansas State has been building because of fan donations....you'd know that they are better prepared to be a major player than almost any Pac-12 school. They pretty much have, or are getting, everything that WSU fans have fantasized about for decades.

1) recently updated 50,000 seat stadium? check
2) new football operations building? check
3) new indoor practice facility? check
4) $97 million of the $127 million raised by cash donations in advance of construction? check

The arrogance of looking down our nose at schools like KSU is why a school like WSU or OSU is in danger of being in the Mountain West while the other teams in the conference end up in the Big 12 or B1G. I only pick on Baylor because their institutional ethics are disgusting.

 

[ttowncoug]

...and based on the dilution factor, WSU has the Seattle market, and would bring that value to any new conference we join (including the Big-12).

Our potential value is much higher than many of the existing Big-12 markets.

I don't see the Pac-12 folding up shop anytime soon outside of a few Big-12 fans stirring this up.

 

[SaveFerris]

I still believe there's strength in numbers outside the SEC & B1G. Question is whether the remaining conferences could manage to work together. That's a tall ask. Picking off each other's conference doesn't seem to move the needle too much. Coming together as a block might even if the numbers technically don't pencil out.

 

[dgibbons]

Baylor is a relatively fringe religious institution that everyone that's not a fan hates. You are not getting the Dallas market by picking Baylor. SMU or TCU are the teams that you pick if you pick a Texas team.....not Baylor. Texas Tech would bring more fans than the Bears.

As for Kansas, their football sucks (and has for a while), but Lawrence is only 30 miles from the 31st largest metro area in the country with hundreds of thousands of basketball fans. I don't know that I'd blindly pick the Jayhawks to be in a conference based on football, but they'll bring more than you think if they can get their crap together. KSU is tougher. They have well over a million people in their footprint and they have some influence in the KC metro area (not nearly as much as KU or Missouri though). Oklahoma State is OU's little brother and their proximity to Oklahoma City is as relevant as our fanbase in Seattle. If not for T. Boone Pickens, the Pokes wouldn't even be worth having any kind of discussion about.

Of course, that's why we are even having these discussions. WSU, OSU, Cal, Colorado, Stanford and Arizona are schools in more fringe locations or population bases that don't really care about college football. If you looked at the facilities that Kansas State has been building because of fan donations....you'd know that they are better prepared to be a major player than almost any Pac-12 school. They pretty much have, or are getting, everything that WSU fans have fantasized about for decades.

1) recently updated 50,000 seat stadium? check
2) new football operations building? check
3) new indoor practice facility? check
4) $97 million of the $127 million raised by cash donations in advance of construction? check

The arrogance of looking down our nose at schools like KSU is why a school like WSU or OSU is in danger of being in the Mountain West while the other teams in the conference end up in the Big 12 or B1G. I only pick on Baylor because their institutional ethics are disgusting.

Feel free to become a K-State fan.

 

[dgibbons]

The new dog eat dog world is based on money. TV revenue is driving that. That is fact.

The reality is who actually can create the strongest economic model is going to be in the front. Whether the Pac-12 can create something greater than what the Big-12 can is the question.

And if the Pac-12 creates a stronger TV model moving forward, does say an Oklahoma St look at it? I do.

I personally think the Pac-12 looks at the markets in the mid-west that could drive TV distributions north of $50M per school. The math is possible.

The fact is the Texas and mid-west market gets shared by a few schools in the Big-12. There is dilution in from the way the network subscriptions work. Eliminating the dilution will drive up the numbers for the Pac-12 and any exiting Big-12 school.

Adding the Midwest would also give us a 9am window (noon eastern), which also drives up revenue.

Pac-12 will backfill LA with SDSU and Fresno. It won't make up for all the losses, but it will keep exposure in LA in tact.

How does that add value? Answer- it doesn't.

 

[ttowncoug]

If the question is Fresno and SDSU and how they bring numbers.... Wilner, or someone mentioned the Central Cal region was like 6M homes, plus San Diego, also large. These add a needed recruiting footprint.

I personally like SDSU and UNLV. I think UNLV could be a real player soon. Think about NIL and Vegas. The Casinos could literally buy a good basketball team overnight. Same with a football team in Allegiant Stadium.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Feel free to become a K-State fan.

I do root for KSU even if I refuse to own any purple shirts. My point is that Waco (with a metro population of 280,000) is too small and everyone outside of Baylor grads hate the Bears means that only the uninformed thinks that the Bears are a good choice. I guarantee that their current success is based on cheating and it's only a matter of time before their next scandal comes to life. The entire Big 12 is flawed, but frankly so are most of the remaining Pac-12 schools.

Baylor is a cess pool that makes Boise State enticing in comparison.

 

[ttowncoug]

I'm personally curious on the media value of adding:
UNLV
SDSU
Kansas/KSU
TCU/Texas Tech.

That gets you to 16.

The media rights deal in my estimation needs to be around $800m/annually for the number to get to a round $50M+ annually. $50M, I think ,moves the needle and gets Big-12 schools on board.

Kansas would raise the basketball profile greatly and drive better TV revenue for this sport. Our TV basketball exposure is very poor. It feels like a place where we could see some growth.

 

[mikalalas]

No offense, but you are in no position to "cherry pick" the Big 12. This isn't last year, you don't have USC and UCLA and you don't have quality expansion candidates, the Big 12 took all of them last year. You gave the Big 12 "space" last year but it's not returning the favor. The only reason you couldn't expand last year was because Fox was setting you up to get raided by the B1G not out of the goodness of your heart. The only one doing the "cherry picking" will be the Big 12 and your school unfortunately won't be one of them. Dog eat dog. Sorry.

If Your partially right and wrong.

Oregon, UW, Stanford, Utah, Arizona, are better football programs then what the Big 12 has, except for Maybe Ok St, Baylor, TCU, KSU, BYU, but I would still take the Pac 12's 4,5,6 teams, against the Big 12's best 4 teams.

The 1 thing the Big 12 has right now, that the Pac 12 doesn't have, is that the Big 12 is more stable right now, because Pac 12 did give them space, and because the Big 12 has a about equal to better Media Deal then the Pac 12, and because the Big 12 isn't Knee Jerking, isn't panicking, like the Pac 12 teams were panicking Knee Jerking Because they temporarily wrongly thought that Oregon, UW, were going to the Big 10 and Big 12.

So because of that, your right that the Big 12 for now won't join the Pac 12.

BUT where your wrong about, is IF IF the Pac 12 stays together, IF No More Pac 12 teams leave, and IF the Pac 12 gets SMU, SDSU, and IF the Pac 12 starts negotiating a a binding non raiding alliance with ACC,and a new joint ACC/Pac 12, ESPN media deal, THEN IF PAC 12 DOES ALL THAT, THEN Pac 12 could get about 2,3,4 teams out of Ok St, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, KSU, Iowa St, etc, from the Big 12.

Admittedly a lot has to happen for the Pac 12 to have even a chance to do that.

But the Pac 12 has contacted SDSU to join the Pac 12, and the Pac 12 swear that they are sticking together for now, and the Pac 12 is in unofficial to OFFICIAL talks with representatives of ACC, ESPN, negotiating, brokering a OFFICIAL, BINDING NON RAIDING Alliance and Joint media deal between the ACC, Pac 12, ESPN. Each team would play it's separate conference schedule, and play intra conference noncon games between the Pac 12, and ACC. It just hasn't been FINALIZED YET, etc. Also this may eventually lead to a future Pac 12/ACC Merger.

But WHEN, IF it becomes official COMBINED with Pac 12 getting SMU, SDSU, THEN the Pac 12 could semi cherry pick some Big 12 teams.

But if NONE of this happens, the Big 12 would eventually cherry pick the Pac 12, and kill the Pac 12.

 

[mikalalas]

I'm personally curious on the media value of adding:
UNLV
SDSU
Kansas/KSU
TCU/Texas Tech.

That gets you to 16.

The media rights deal in my estimation needs to be around $800m/annually for the number to get to a round $50M+ annually. $50M, I think ,moves the needle and gets Big-12 schools on board.

Kansas would raise the basketball profile greatly and drive better TV revenue for this sport. Our TV basketball exposure is very poor. It feels like a place where we could see some growth.

SMU is better then UNLV, because of Dallas/Fort worth Metroplex, and because of Austin, Waco, Houston, etc, also supports SMU.

Kansas is good but sucks at football, and football is what's driving all this.

Baylor has had both awesome football and basketball.

So the best course would be to first get SMU, and SDSU, have a binding Alliance, joint media deal with ACC, ESPN.

THEN AFTER ALL THAT, get Oklahoma St, Baylor, TCU, KSU, Texas Tech, and 1 other team. Kansas, and Iowa St, stays in Big 12, because they USUALLY SUCK a FOOTBALL.

that Puts the Pac 12 as a Pac 14 to PAC 16 to PAC 18.

But I don't see the Pac 12 getting Big 12 teams UNTIL, WHEN, IF the Pac 12 either allies with ACC, does joint ESPN media deal with ACC, or MERGES with ACC.

 

[ttowncoug]

Agreed on timing. We need leverage and timing on our side. Big12 is blowing smoke to this point to what value they offer moving forward. They aren’t in negotiations with any media deals because they got told no thanks a while ago. We are at the table negotiating a deal.

 

[95coug]

...and based on the dilution factor, WSU has the Seattle market, and would bring that value to any new conference we join (including the Big-12).

Our potential value is much higher than many of the existing Big-12 markets.

I don't see the Pac-12 folding up shop anytime soon outside of a few Big-12 fans stirring this up.

If you consider only the size of the markets within our footprint, yes, we have more potential. Problem is that we have a low level of engagement in those markets.

Surprisingly, Oklahoma state, Iowa state, and Cincinnati all three averaged more viewers per game last season that USC and UCLA did. The only Pac-12 team that outdrew any of them was oregon. They all drew at least 25% more than the next Pac-12 team, Utah.

But…their teams draw more eyes. ALL of their current teams draw more than half our of remaining teams do. Even Kansas and K state. Only two of their incoming teams - UCF and Houston - draw less than we do. All of their current teams beat us.

You could argue that some of that is due to the number of times they were on, and on what channels…and that’s probably at least partially true. Our conference number would probably be higher if anybody actually got the PAC-12 networks. But the current data shows that they have more viewers per team than we do, and that’s significant. Probably means a higher valuation for their contract, and a greater allocation per school…which doesn’t give their institutions much incentive to move toward the PAC-12.

Some sort of alignment with the ACC could change that math. If ESPN is desperate to have a west coast presence, it could also swing the calculus. Opening the contract negotiations and getting some conversations with media may help figure out what moves make sense. If we can get with the ACC and get to $40M per school, Oklahoma state will listen. And it makes more sense to pull them than UNLV.

 

[mikalalas]

If you consider only the size of the markets within our footprint, yes, we have more potential. Problem is that we have a low level of engagement in those markets.

Surprisingly, Oklahoma state, Iowa state, and Cincinnati all three averaged more viewers per game last season that USC and UCLA did. The only Pac-12 team that outdrew any of them was oregon. They all drew at least 25% more than the next Pac-12 team, Utah.

But…their teams draw more eyes. ALL of their current teams draw more than half our of remaining teams do. Even Kansas and K state. Only two of their incoming teams - UCF and Houston - draw less than we do. All of their current teams beat us.

You could argue that some of that is due to the number of times they were on, and on what channels…and that’s probably at least partially true. Our conference number would probably be higher if anybody actually got the PAC-12 networks. But the current data shows that they have more viewers per team than we do, and that’s significant. Probably means a higher valuation for their contract, and a greater allocation per school…which doesn’t give their institutions much incentive to move toward the PAC-12.

Some sort of alignment with the ACC could change that math. If ESPN is desperate to have a west coast presence, it could also swing the calculus. Opening the contract negotiations and getting some conversations with media may help figure out what moves make sense. If we can get with the ACC and get to $40M per school, Oklahoma state will listen. And it makes more sense to pull them than UNLV.

Right now this very second, according to Sports Illustrated and other ACC, Pac 12, ESPN insiders, the Pac 12, ACC, ESPN, are have been unofficially to officially negotiating, brokering a Pac 12/ACC, Binding, non raiding, alliance, and a Joint ACC, Pac 12 media Deal.

But nothing has been FINALIZED YET.

My guess about why the talks are taking longer, etc, is that the ACC, probably wants to see if the Pac 12, Oregon, UW, Stanford, Utah, are really committed to staying together first, before the ACC commits to a Alliance and Joint media deal with Pac 12, ACC, ESPN, and wants to see Pac 12 get at least SMU, SDSU at minimum, and maybe Iowa St(Big 12 doesn't care about Iowa St), from Big 12, and show that the Pac 12 is SERIOUS about staying together, expanding, stabilizing, and will to negotiate, etc, first, before finalizing the Alliance, Joint conference media deal.

That deal will probably pay out about 53 to 55 to 57 to 60 to 63 million to each team in the Joint media deal.

40 million is Low-ball for the ACC, considering the ACC is getting close to around about, etc, 40 million already without a new joint media deal.

When, IF this ACC, Pac 12 alliance, and joint media deal gets done, its open season on the Big 12, as the ACC will probably get West Virginia Back, and Cincinnati, and UCF, and Kansas, KSU, Iowa St, and Pac 12 would get Oklahoma St, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, BYU, Houston.

Then the ACC, Pac 12, would probably merge into a 36+ team super conference after that.

 

[ttowncoug]

I also think the tv data is way off with the Pac12 networks and lack of reach.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Although I think UNLV should be on the table because of the Vegas market, the comments above about engagement in the West are spot on. There are over 2 million people in the Vegas market but there's probably fewer than 50,000 that care about UNLV football. They can't get more than 20,000 fans at a game unless it's visiting teams that travel well. We complain about WSU fan support, but they struggle to get 1% of the population within a 30 minute drive to show up. The more I think about the Rebels, the more I think that it's a bad idea.

If we end up with some partnership with the Big 12, it will have to include O-State, TCU, Texas Tech, KSU and KU. Adding SDSU into the mix to get to 16 makes sense. Iowa State would be a good add, but they would be the most disconnected from everyone else and more than anyone else is a good fit for the B1G geographically.....not that geography means anything nowadays. West Virginia needs to go to the ACC. Unfortunately, I think it's a pipe dream that the Pac-12 can break up the Big 12. Our best bet is to get some kind of coalition together with the Big 12 and ACC to provide enough value for a network to care. Refuse to ever play any of the teams from other leagues except in bowl games or a post-season playoff.

SEC won't look as great when they don't have 3-4 OOC cupcakes to feast on each year. Of course, they'll just play more FCS teams so even that won't work.

 

[ttowncoug]

I personally think the vision is what UNLV could be if they were in the PAC.

If they have in 6 PAC-12 games a year in Vegas, plus an OOC opponent that is decent, I think the interest in Vegas grows. You'd get casual sports fans attending games just to check it out.

Vegas would welcome the tourists and travel. I'd lay a decent amount of cash for the Cougs to cover the spread! Road trips would be a blast and meaningful because it's a conference opponent.

It's a market that now has an NFL team and stadium to go with it. They likely will get an NBA team when the Sonics get one. It seems logical that the town could/would support a decent college program.

They used to play in Sam Boyd, which was out of town, and now they play right next to the strip.

 

[95coug]

Although I think UNLV should be on the table because of the Vegas market, the comments above about engagement in the West are spot on. There are over 2 million people in the Vegas market but there's probably fewer than 50,000 that care about UNLV football. They can't get more than 20,000 fans at a game unless it's visiting teams that travel well. We complain about WSU fan support, but they struggle to get 1% of the population within a 30 minute drive to show up. The more I think about the Rebels, the more I think that it's a bad idea.

If we end up with some partnership with the Big 12, it will have to include O-State, TCU, Texas Tech, KSU and KU. Adding SDSU into the mix to get to 16 makes sense. Iowa State would be a good add, but they would be the most disconnected from everyone else and more than anyone else is a good fit for the B1G geographically.....not that geography means anything nowadays. West Virginia needs to go to the ACC. Unfortunately, I think it's a pipe dream that the Pac-12 can break up the Big 12. Our best bet is to get some kind of coalition together with the Big 12 and ACC to provide enough value for a network to care. Refuse to ever play any of the teams from other leagues except in bowl games or a post-season playoff.

SEC won't look as great when they don't have 3-4 OOC cupcakes to feast on each year. Of course, they'll just play more FCS teams so even that won't work.

That pretty much sums it up. Their average TV viewership was about 34,000 per game last season - #107 out of 110 FBS programs. For butts in the seats, they averaged 22,357 (announced attendance...so actual butts in the seats was probably slightly less). So they sell tickets to almost exactly 1% of the Clark county population, and manage to get the equivalent of another 1.5% to tune in. Those numbers would have to get better to call them sad.

I initially liked the idea of including UNLV, but after looking closer, I've cooled on the idea. They bring almost nothing to the table at this point.

Media-wise, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are the most attractive for expansion (I was shocked at ISU's viewership...but I wonder how well sustained it is). ISU is a bit awkward geographically, but they could still work in the right alignment. Grabbing any 3 of OkSt, ISU, TTU, TCU, and Baylor would give us good viewership and a Texas presence (OkSt, ISU, and Baylor - in that order - have the most viewers). If you could only get 2 of those, SMU might be a fallback. West of the mountains, we grab SDSU. That would give us 14, with East/West divisions:

East:
OK State
Iowa State
Arizona State
Arizona
Colorado
Utah
Baylor/TTU/TCU/SMU

West:
WSU
UW
Cal
Stanford
UO
OSU
SDSU

Those 4 additions would actually more than replace the viewers lost in USC and UCLA, maintain a SoCal presence, and add a Texas presence. It would at least maintain our media value, and if there was any sort of alignment with the ACC we'd get very good value. And, especially if the ACC thing was happening, we could also add Kansas/Kansas state to the East, move Utah to the West, and have a 16 team conference.

 

[etowncoug]

I wonder what some sort of formal alliance with the ACC for out of conference games would be worth. There are currently so many dud games in Sept, I see real value in an inventory of games between decently sized schools for the this month. The ACC/B1G challenge has been a success in basketball too. Heck, do this with the B12 as well.

 

[etowncoug]

That pretty much sums it up. Their average TV viewership was about 34,000 per game last season - #107 out of 110 FBS programs. For butts in the seats, they averaged 22,357 (announced attendance...so actual butts in the seats was probably slightly less). So they sell tickets to almost exactly 1% of the Clark county population, and manage to get the equivalent of another 1.5% to tune in. Those numbers would have to get better to call them sad.

I initially liked the idea of including UNLV, but after looking closer, I've cooled on the idea. They bring almost nothing to the table at this point.

Media-wise, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are the most attractive for expansion (I was shocked at ISU's viewership...but I wonder how well sustained it is). ISU is a bit awkward geographically, but they could still work in the right alignment. Grabbing any 3 of OkSt, ISU, TTU, TCU, and Baylor would give us good viewership and a Texas presence (OkSt, ISU, and Baylor - in that order - have the most viewers). If you could only get 2 of those, SMU might be a fallback. West of the mountains, we grab SDSU. That would give us 14, with East/West divisions:

East:
OK State
Iowa State
Arizona State
Arizona
Colorado
Utah
Baylor/TTU/TCU/SMU

West:
WSU
UW
Cal
Stanford
UO
OSU
SDSU

Those 4 additions would actually more than replace the viewers lost in USC and UCLA, maintain a SoCal presence, and add a Texas presence. It would at least maintain our media value, and if there was any sort of alignment with the ACC we'd get very good value. And, especially if the ACC thing was happening, we could also add Kansas/Kansas state to the East, move Utah to the West, and have a 16 team conference.

From a long term perspective, I don't know how much most of the Midwest adds. Iowa is shrinking and Oklahoma will be boom and bust depending on the oil industry. I don't think the NBA is pleased with the decision to move to OKC.

Texas is a must, of course. The opportunity to add games in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and NoVA DC burbs is compelling.

 

[ttowncoug]

I think you could add KSU/Kansas and a TCU/T-Tech to the PAC to grow the TV market base. On top of 2 new west coast replacements. Gets you into Texas and the mid west markets for TV money and exposure. I like those schools can get us a much needed 9am (noon) window that gets our games on early. Same story during hoops season. You could have Pac-12 double-headers. 5pm and 7pm.