Peter Thamel says that sources say that No Pac 12, Big 12 Merger, alliance, etc.
- Thread starter mikalalas
- Start date
Sounds like the Pac 10 presidents are sticking together for now, it really boils down to money and where the next TV contract ends up, money changes everything. It was nice to hear Schultz talk about not just adding anyone, that we do have academic standards in the Pac 12/10, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I do believe in the long run they have to grow bigger to remain relevant, having the fewest number of teams in a power 5 conference won't cut it for long. And I do believe the "power 5" days will be over soon.
Sad, but I do have to agree, the PCC then the Pac, has been in existence, since 1915, but it's days are numbered. The PCC shut down in 1959 due to a scandal, at where else but the UW, then started back up again as the Pac 8 a few years later, UCLA tried to keep Stanford out, UW tried to eliminate WSU, some interesting history. Many are not aware of all the in fighting over the years, as it has been relatively stable for the last 50+ years other than adding 4 teams.
History of PCC and PAC
Yea, a couple more years of WSU football, and then I might have to tap out. It's a bummer, as my boys were planning on enrolling there in 2024. Really not sure where the University is headed now. A lot of questions need answering.
I am a fan of both Kansas State and Washington State. I had season tickets at K-State for more than 30 years before moving to Spokane and becoming a Washington State fan. I respectively suggest that Cougar fans take a look at this Youtube video by John Kurtz, a respected and knowledgeable Big 12 sportscaster:
This video presents the latest information about a possible merger of the Big 12 and PAC 12 from a Big 12 perspective. The Big 12 will have 12 members in 2023 when Oklahoma and Texas leave and BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF join. Now that a full merger of the Big 12/PAC 12 is off the table, Kurtz expects that the PAC 12 will stand pat until they get possible numbers for their new TV contract, which he expects will be lower than hoped for by the PAC 12. At that time, Kurtz thinks the Big 12 will take 2 - 4 of the PAC 12 universities with Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah being highest on the list. Most Big 12 observers do not think that Oregon and Washington are possible candidates for joining the Big 12.
This video presents the latest information about a possible merger of the Big 12 and PAC 12 from a Big 12 perspective. The Big 12 will have 12 members in 2023 when Oklahoma and Texas leave and BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF join. Now that a full merger of the Big 12/PAC 12 is off the table, Kurtz expects that the PAC 12 will stand pat until they get possible numbers for their new TV contract, which he expects will be lower than hoped for by the PAC 12. At that time, Kurtz thinks the Big 12 will take 2 - 4 of the PAC 12 universities with Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah being highest on the list. Most Big 12 observers do not think that Oregon and Washington are possible candidates for joining the Big 12.
Not adding anyone to go-to Pac 14 is PARTLY why Pac 12 is even in this mess to begin with.
Yes adding colleges, SDSU, even a Big 12 college semi temporarily takes away dilutes value and doesn't add enough value, etc, but it does stabilize Pac 12, and it helps prevent getting raided, and it helps allying, doing joint conference media deals with ACC, and helps getting semi BIGGER, better media deals, and if do get raided, lose ASU, etc, your only down to PAC 12, Pac 10 from Pac 14, Pac 12, instead of Pac 8, Pac 6, from Pac 10.
By Pac 12, not doing merger with Big 12, Pac 12 MUST Kill the Big 12, or be killed by the Big 12.
Not expanding will lead to a lesser media deal, and Colorado, Utah, Arizona, ASU, Oregon, UW, leaving to Big 12, Big 12 killing Pac 12 and leaves WSU, Ore St, Cal, etc, behind.
WSU president saying to Not expand, is, was stupid, naive, and contradicts the commissioner of the Pac 12 saying that the Pac 12 is going to aggressively look to expand, and the Pac 12 talking with SDSU about SDSU joining Pac 12.
If Schultz against expansion, he should have publically shut his trap, and only talk about his disapproval of expansion, with the Commish privately, and behind closed doors, etc.
This makes me less confident in Schultz.
I think adding more teams with the idea that it stabilizes the conference is more smoke and mirrors than actual stability. The reason the Pac lost USC and UCLA and there are rumors of others leaving is because of money. If another team/s join and they don't add value imediately, its not going to help our media contract. Sure there will be some projection, but no one knows how much SDSU, FSU, SMU, etc will bring to the table five years from now. What we do know is initially, and maybe for the long haul, each team's revenue will decrease as there are more mouths to feed. This will not sit well with a majority of our members. I believe I saw that some were projecting the new Pac contract to bring in 30 mil a year per school. I am not sure if that was if the Pac stays at 10, but I assume so. Adding a couple of members who don't bring much to the media deal could mean each team gets 25 mil. That reduced revenue makes it more likely to lose teams. What we need to find is schools that want to join and can immediately increase our value. The problem is, the pickings are slim and the ACC and Big 12 are looking for the same. We are all looking for unicorns and pots of gold.
I just don’t see this whole thing working out for the PAC-12. There does not appear to be a way to increase value for the conference for a number of reasons. It seems it would be in the PAC-12, Big 12 and the ACC‘s best, collective interests to work out some large conference agreement in order to stand up to the other two ‘super-conferences’. but I’m afraid they can’t see the forest through the trees. I’m pretty certain this new thing we call college football will will look way too much like the NFL and I stopped watching it at least 10 years ago. I can already feel my excitement and passion for the college game slipping away. It’ll sure save me a big chunk of change though when it come to losing interest in CF.
The Big XII needs to be broken up and absorbed, half into the ACC and half into the Pac-12.
By itself, adding SDSU, SMU, your right in what you said.
BUT IF PAC 12 gets SDSU, and either SMU, or Iowa St, or a big 12 team, that Big 12 doesn't care about as much, AND THEN used that to become more stable(It adds stability, because if Pac gets raided, it drops to PAC 10, instead of the Pac 8, Pac 6.), AND IF the Pac 12 leverages that, allies with ACC, does JOINT with ACC and ESPN media deal(Worth a estimated about 60 million per team(According to SI, other credible big name sports reporters, sources, insiders, etc, ), WHEN, IF that happens, THEN the Pac 12 would be able to cherry pick Big 12, AND AFTER THAT get a even bigger, better deal(In addition to, added to the 60 million, joint ACC, Pac 12, ESPN deal).
It's a chain reaction, triggered, combination of those things happening, starting with adding SDSU, etc.
If the Pac 12 doesn't add at least SDSU, doesn't add UCLA's footprint, LA TV market, recruiting territory, etc, via SDSU, then Pac 12 becomes unstabilized, stagnant, probably won't be able to Ally, etc, to ACC, etc, without at least SDSU, and can't demonstrate to remaining Pac 12 teams, and to media, and to other conferences, etc, that the Pac 12 is SERIOUS, about moving forward, retaining Pac 12 teams, stabilizing, increasing value to media deals, alliance with ACC, etc(And SDSU does add value to media deals, alliance with ACC), surviving, etc.
If Pac 12 stays at 10, doesn't add at least SDSU, and the right 1 other, then the Pac 10 will become the Pac 10, Pac 6 guaranteed, via Big 12 raiding the Pac 12.
If Pac 12 adds SDSU and the right 1 other, Pac 12 probably does alliance, media deal with ACC, ESPN, and Cherry picks Big 12.
But even if no alliance, etc, even if Big 12 raids 2+ teams, the Pac 12 would at least still be at 8 to 10, instead of Pac 4 to Pac 6, if the Pac at least SDSU, 1 other.
If the Pac 12 stays at 10, the conference is going to die, probably guaranteed.
And the only way Pac 12 cherry picks Big 12, instead of getting killed by Big 12, is by adding SDSU, and by doing alliance, media deal with ACC(worth 60 mill per team(vs 30 mill per team at Pac 10, no alliance, etc)
And the only way the Pac 12 will be able to do alliance, media deal with ACC, is to at least ADD SDSU.
EVERYTHING HINGES ON PAC 12 GETTING AT LEAST SDSU.
THAT IS WHY THE PAC 12 IS IN SERIOUS TALKS TRYING TO GET SDSU to join Pac 12.
And only a FOOL, or a person acting like a FOOL, like Schultz, idiotically contradicts the conference, like the NAIVE Person he is being.
The PAC is incapable of 'killing' the Big 12, simply because they - PAC - cannot offer a Big 12 team more money than it will receive from the Big 12 conference. Fox will probably only offer market value to the PAC since it is going to lay out a boat load of dough to the BIG 10. It will not be enough. The PAC must receive a deal that is above its true value from ESPN to have a chance. If its around 35 to 37 million per team, the PAC will probably stay together - until Oregon and Washington figure a way out. If the ESPN or FOX offer to the PAC comes in closer to 30 million per team - the fecal matter will hit the air distribution system. SDSU in the PAC will further reduce the per team yield. For several schools in the PAC, this is the 'wet ass' hour, but the PAC could still come through this...for now.
Your reading comprehension or memory isn't that good.
Now read AGAIN, very carefully.
I said that the ONLY way the Pac 12 could raid the Big 12, is IF IF.
1. Gets at least SDSU.
AND COMBINED WITH.
2. Getting SDSU will help the Pac 12 do a alliance, joint 60 million per team media deal between ACC, Pac 12, ESPN.
That is already being talked about by representatives of the Pac 12, ACC, ESPN, but nothing has been FINALIZED YET.
AND COMBINED WITH, THEN AND ONLY THEN AFTER THAT.
3. The Pac 12, AFTER the alliance, 60 million per team team, THEN AFTER THAT THEN raids the Big 12.
I said that IF the Pac 12 does not add SDSU, and does not do alliance, media deal with ACC, THEN IT WILL BE THE BIG 12 THAT KILLS THE PAC 12.
IF Schultz and others have their way, they will stop Commish George from adding SDSU(Serious talks between Pac 12, SDSU on, about that), and stop George from doing a 60 million per team alliance, joint media deal between ACC, Pac 12.
Please work on your reading comprehension and reading memory.
Not enough value there. If there was it would have already happened.
The Big XII doesn't need to be killed. It's already dead or dying. It's been by far the most fragile of the major conferences. A&M, Nebraska, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma all left. It borders every other conference, so geography works against it.
The value of the Pac-12 is as follows:
1. Merge the P-12 network with ESPN and the ACC.
2. Create "coast to coast time zone" programming.
3. Look toward the midwest to markets that would add value.
If you create a network that gets 60M+ subscribers, and you create new streaming platform that is part of an ESPN college bundle, I think you get some serious money.
If ESPN sees that FOX is potentially going for the Big-12, why wouldn't ESPN now, with the Pac-12 and the ACC, go after midwest markets that could benefit both sides. We are talking about creating a business strategy here where the number annually is $1B+ to the conference. We are talking about ESPN essentially having the PAC-12, ACC and the SEC.
On the dollars per school, we can "get there" ($50M+) if we have the right media markets and the right strategy. Our current numbers are lower due to the Pac-12 network strategy and a low (very low) number of subscribers due to Larry's poor execution. I posted a while ago on the number of total subscribers the Pac-12 network has. A fraction of the other ESPN/FOX run networks.
The other reality is, it won't be for months until this settles.
1. Merge the P-12 network with ESPN and the ACC.
2. Create "coast to coast time zone" programming.
3. Look toward the midwest to markets that would add value.
If you create a network that gets 60M+ subscribers, and you create new streaming platform that is part of an ESPN college bundle, I think you get some serious money.
If ESPN sees that FOX is potentially going for the Big-12, why wouldn't ESPN now, with the Pac-12 and the ACC, go after midwest markets that could benefit both sides. We are talking about creating a business strategy here where the number annually is $1B+ to the conference. We are talking about ESPN essentially having the PAC-12, ACC and the SEC.
On the dollars per school, we can "get there" ($50M+) if we have the right media markets and the right strategy. Our current numbers are lower due to the Pac-12 network strategy and a low (very low) number of subscribers due to Larry's poor execution. I posted a while ago on the number of total subscribers the Pac-12 network has. A fraction of the other ESPN/FOX run networks.
The other reality is, it won't be for months until this settles.
All due respect, but this guy doesn't know shit. Nobody does. No one could have called USC and UCLA bailing.
I'll believe something when it actually happens, until then its all speculation. And why anyone would willingly take the AZ schools is beyond me, given their recent and long term history and lack of TV eyes.
At some level, I agree. Nobody knows what will happen. I saw someone write after the USC/UCLA news dropped that it was "obvious" USC would leave after OK/TX went to the SEC, but I didn't see anyone predicting it.
That said, this guy not being a fortune teller doesn't mean some of this stuff isn't of interest. Andy Staples at the Athletic had a good mailbag piece today addressing this topic, though, and a point he made is that the Big 12 can put a lot of pressure on the Pac-12, and effectively kill it, by just scaring 2-4 of UT/CO and ASU/Arizona to go to the Big 12. There was a lot more covered, like a lot hinging on what the Pac-12 can get in a media deal with 10 teams, but his basic point basically was that Oregon and UW may not want to go to the Big 12, but they may not have much choice if the Big 10 invite isn't there and the Pac-12 loses 2 or 4 more teams.
The Big 12, despite looking (and being) really weak when it had to invite Cincy, BYU, UCF, and Houston, now has a core group of schools that has been together a while and doesn't have better options, and those new 4, despite not being all that strong on their own, are excited about being in the Big 12 and aren't going anywhere. So between the two groups of schools, the Big 12 has a group of schools that isn't at any real risk of falling apart, and now has an aggressive commissioner. The Pac-12 has some things going for it, too, like some better top markets and its time zone, while sucking in many ways, allowing it to offer more exclusive inventory in the evenings on the west coast. Sounds like a lot boils down to whether the Pac-12 can get closer to $40m than $30m per year per school in its current 10-team form. Even then, if the Pac-12 stayed together, the risk of further consolidation and UW/Oregon trying to get out would remain. It's not all that sustainable for the Pac-12 to get $37m/year per school in a pretty decent new rights deal while the Big Ten is paying schools $60m plus.
So I get the Pac 12 network via comcast, and comcast provides me with Big 10 and SEC, which I rarely watch, if I could cancel it I would. And maybe I will cancel everything get more active in streaming, knowing those 2 conference are counting me as a subscriber is a reason to eliminate them Being part of a package they have this huge subscriber base on the west coast, that probably never watches. That's one of the many areas where Larceny Larry messed up IMO. " we are going to own our network ourselves", in reality very few subscribed, and certainly very few outside of the pac region. Basic business lesson, sometimes if you share part of the ownership, it can greatly enhance sales. I guess since Larceny Larry was making over 5 million a year he didn't care, hell they could have fired him years ago and paid each school an extra 500,000 a year.
Give me an AppleTV deal. They're doing MLS, I could see them jumping into CFB.
Amazon is doing NFL's TNF and scored Al Michaels and Kirk Herbstreit...how many people already have Prime? Get into households.
Amazon is doing NFL's TNF and scored Al Michaels and Kirk Herbstreit...how many people already have Prime? Get into households.
Good post. At this point the PAC needs to see what the dollars will be for the ten schools, and what the dollars would be for any possible additions. What will be tough is the new GOR. It will be very telling to see how the two valuable brands react to a long term GOR, or signing one at all, which of course will be required to maximize media dollars. If Washington and Oregon truly have the Big 10 whispering in their ear, they will not commit to a long term deal. The ACC is in the same boat with regards to their primary brands desperate to get into one of the two super conferences. Virginia and North Carolina will have options. States where there are already SEC schools could be a little tricky - South Carolina and Florida. The SEC may have enough votes from member schools to take Clemson, Florida St. or Miami, over the objections of USC and the University of Florida, but they don't need them. The ACC GOR is tight for the time being, but if ND, and seven other schools have landing spots in the two power conferences, that is enough to blow it up. I don't think they can pull it off, even if ND lights the fuse. Sixty million per school in a PAC ACC merger is pure fiction. The numbers tell the story. There is a systemic problem in the West. Regardless of big populations, not enough people watch college sports. Hit 40 million on a new media deal, and I think the PAC stays together. The whole damn thing is crappy.
More from Tramel, this time discussing various possibilities, one of which is the Big 12 and Notre Dame both going to NBC. Lots of other stuff discussed. https://www.statesman.com/story/spo...-sidekick-with-notre-dame-on-nbc/65378103007/
Yeah, not Pete Thamel. Barry Tramel. Wanted to give a view from Big 12 country.
It would be amusing to see snooty leftist UW find themselves having to join red state Big 12. Same with Oregon.
I agree that it is not likely to happen.
Let's not let the corrupt and feckless university presidents off the hook. They allowed this fiasco to happen (Larry Scott). He's laughing all the way to the bank.
This is a conference of schools that allowed Larry Scott to be in charge for over a decade. There’s no predicting what will happen when these people have been pissing into the wind that long. Expect the worst and hope for the best.
