Why a rumored Big-12 invite (even partial) makes sense....

[ttowncoug]

Let's think media strategy....

WSU, OSU plus a new look Pac-12 provide intrigue to me. If the new look Pac-12 were to sign up with the CW and Fox (like our current deal is), ESPN has limited west coast (WA, OR, CA) inventory (only Cal, Stanford in ACC). UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA are all on Fox. This puts the Apple Cup, Civil War on Fox and whoever we sign a TV deal with...assuming it's not ESPN.

Also, if we grab Fresno St. and SDSU (which we will) then the majority of California schools and games are not on their network.

Why is this a factor? ESPN is going all in with streaming. $40+ a month. CW Sports is a platform where games are free to watch and exposure (due to household reach) is wide. For CW, we make sense as they can pay us less per game that what Fox or ESPN has to pay the SEC or Big-10. As the CW gets more contracts, over time, this could be a threat as their network doesn't require "subs" like ESPN does and more and more people are cutting the cord.

On media strategy, Fox and ESPN can pay the Big-12 for WSU and OSU say $18M per team ($36M total) to drive out competition. If this happens, the Mountain West would stay in much of its current form and any rebirth of the Pac-12 and maybe CW Sports as the primary partner, go away as a competitive threat.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Let's think media strategy....

WSU, OSU plus a new look Pac-12 provide intrigue to me. If the new look Pac-12 were to sign up with the CW and Fox (like our current deal is), ESPN has limited west coast (WA, OR, CA) inventory (only Cal, Stanford in ACC). UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA are all on Fox. This puts the Apple Cup, Civil War on Fox and whoever we sign a TV deal with...assuming it's not ESPN.

Also, if we grab Fresno St. and SDSU (which we will) then the majority of California schools and games are not on their network.

Why is this a factor? ESPN is going all in with streaming. $40+ a month. CW Sports is a platform where games are free to watch and exposure (due to household reach) is wide. For CW, we make sense as they can pay us less per game that what Fox or ESPN has to pay the SEC or Big-10. As the CW gets more contracts, over time, this could be a threat as their network doesn't require "subs" like ESPN does and more and more people are cutting the cord.

On media strategy, Fox and ESPN can pay the Big-12 for WSU and OSU say $18M per team ($36M total) to drive out competition. If this happens, the Mountain West would stay in much of its current form and any rebirth of the Pac-12 and maybe CW Sports as the primary partner, go away as a competitive threat.

No way we take a discount. No way.

Tear down the crown. Let ESPN burn. It'll be the best thing for college sports in the long run.

Will CW get bought or merge at some later date? Probably. But in the near and mid term the shake up would be great to mitigate the bs Disney et al are creating in college sports.

 

[95coug]

Let's think media strategy....

WSU, OSU plus a new look Pac-12 provide intrigue to me. If the new look Pac-12 were to sign up with the CW and Fox (like our current deal is), ESPN has limited west coast (WA, OR, CA) inventory (only Cal, Stanford in ACC). UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA are all on Fox. This puts the Apple Cup, Civil War on Fox and whoever we sign a TV deal with...assuming it's not ESPN.

Also, if we grab Fresno St. and SDSU (which we will) then the majority of California schools and games are not on their network.

Why is this a factor? ESPN is going all in with streaming. $40+ a month. CW Sports is a platform where games are free to watch and exposure (due to household reach) is wide. For CW, we make sense as they can pay us less per game that what Fox or ESPN has to pay the SEC or Big-10. As the CW gets more contracts, over time, this could be a threat as their network doesn't require "subs" like ESPN does and more and more people are cutting the cord.

On media strategy, Fox and ESPN can pay the Big-12 for WSU and OSU say $18M per team ($36M total) to drive out competition. If this happens, the Mountain West would stay in much of its current form and any rebirth of the Pac-12 and maybe CW Sports as the primary partner, go away as a competitive threat.

Your post is full of wishful thinking, and ignores a plain fact: ESPN could have engineered WSU & OSU to the Big 12 or Big 10 a year ago. They didn't. Absolutely nothing has happened that would change their math.

CW Sports is picking up the scraps that Fox and ESPN didn't want. It's not a threat to ESPN - at least not yet - and ESPN isn't going to throw money at anyone to fix an issue that they don't recognize as an issue.

 

[Coug90]

Your post is full of wishful thinking, and ignores a plain fact: ESPN could have engineered WSU & OSU to the Big 12 or Big 10 a year ago. They didn't. Absolutely nothing has happened that would change their math.

CW Sports is picking up the scraps that Fox and ESPN didn't want. It's not a threat to ESPN - at least not yet - and ESPN isn't going to throw money at anyone to fix an issue that they don't recognize as an issue.

I’m not sure they’d be throwing any money at anything. They are basically playing robinhood in this scenario. We have plenty to offer and there’s a benefit for ESPN in cutting out a potential competitor or competitors.

 

[ttowncoug]

Your post is full of wishful thinking, and ignores a plain fact: ESPN could have engineered WSU & OSU to the Big 12 or Big 10 a year ago. They didn't. Absolutely nothing has happened that would change their math.

CW Sports is picking up the scraps that Fox and ESPN didn't want. It's not a threat to ESPN - at least not yet - and ESPN isn't going to throw money at anyone to fix an issue that they don't recognize as an issue.

CW Sports didn't exist as a competitive threat a year ago. I am also not convinced the Big-12 wanted us then. They were all in with Arizona, CU, ASU and Utah and were fine with that. As we know, expansion takes time.

As for ESPN and the cable networks, Discovery did a $9.1B write down in value yesterday due their subscriber loss. I'm not convinced ESPN can sustain their current model unless they have an essentially monopoly on sports through streaming services. That's why them and Fox were fine with breaking up the Pac-12 to ensure Apple didn't get in the game.

Like I said, even if it's $20M per school for WSU and OSU, they'll take the money at a discount. And as long as ESPN doesn't lose their ass on the investment ($3-4M per game), I can see it happening for strategic reasons.

 

[mikalalas]

Ttown, the only source for this is maybe 1 twitter rumor and MHver3, who when by himself, is not credible, when by himself, and nobody else saying what he is saying.

Nobody else is saying that WSU, OSU might do football only with Big 12. WSU, OSU, Big 12 would never do that, as that's how STUPID it is.

Nobody else is saying that, Not locked on College football, not Locked on Big 12, not Canzano, Not Wilner, Not Jim Williams, Not Greg Swaime. NOBODY, Only MHver3, and by himself he isn't credible.


The Reality is that FOR NOW, the Big 12 is not interested RIGHT NOW, but that the Big 12 MIGHT become interested later, IF the ACC disintegrates in 12 to 36 months, and IF, once the Big 12, along with SEC, Big 10 picks the ACC clean, and IF the PAC gets it's offer of scheduling alliance with Big 12, accepted by Big 12, and then IF PAC 2 proves worthy to the Big 12 of joining the Big 12.

Those things have been said by Locked on College Football, Locked On Big 12, Jim Williams, Greg Swaime, Canzano, Wilner, MHver3, Twitter Rumors, unnamed insiders sources telling all the above sources the same thing, all combined together, and is credible,

MHver3 is now contradicting that, by alone saying that WSU, OSU going to do football only with Big 12.

MHver3 by himself is not credible, as he just throws up whatever in order to see what sticks, and to see if he eventually gets something right, etc.

These collective sources have talked about PAC 2 talking to conferences, including the ACC, Big 12, and offering to do a scheduling alliance with the Big 12, Spending 65 million to get the best 6 teams from MWC, AAC, North Texas, NDSU, combined. Scot Barnes saying that PAC 2 only go to 8 at most for now, etc.

I have talked about these collective sources.

There is no need to talk about, post such silly noncredible, only said by MHver3 rumor about PAC 2 doing football ONLY, and no other sports with Big 12, and using the WCC, MWC for the non football sports. That would be a SILLY THING to do, therefore it won't likely be done, and it's not credible.

 

[425cougfan]

Here's one way of looking at it, regarding ESPN not wanting WSU and OSU and nothing having changed:

Perhaps ESPN didn't want to pay the Big 12 $50m a year to add WSU and Oregon State ($25m/team), especially with only those two teams providing Pacific time zone inventory for their home games, but it might be interested in paying, say, $150m a year for a 10-team reconstructed Pac-10 with WSU, OSU, and 8 of the top MWC teams, with a shitload of Pacific time zone inventory.

So that would give WSU and Oregon State $15m/year each. From ESPN's perspective, it's then getting WSU and OSU at a discount, and it is getting a theoretical P5 competitor, not just the Mountain West. In fact, the more you think about it, this may be what their end game has been for some time. It screws us hard but is better than just getting shoved into the Mountain West.

Of course, another way ESPN could go about it would be to just focus on the Mountain West and continue to screw over WSU and OSU and a rebuilt Pac-12, and just hope WSU and OSU have no choice but to join it, or do some sort of reverse merger that either contractually or practically makes them even cheaper sources of inventory. I understand that the Mountain West is doing its own media rights negotiations right now ... will be interesting to see how that contract approaches realignment scenarios.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

It screws us hard but is better than just getting shoved into the Mountain West.

Can you elaborate? How does getting peanuts, whether from ESPN or in the G5, keep us competitive? If the goal is to stay P4, then it should also be to a) provide a quality product for the fans, b) produce a competitive product on the field and c) generate money for the school and the non-revenue sports.

How does being kicked in the teeth every year (competitively) on a gimped budget accomplish any of those goals outside of c, which would be a short term fix at best?

 

[95coug]

Here's another perspective to consider:

We've discussed before (a lot) the viewership numbers for WSU compared to the other programs. But that's probably not really the metric that the networks are looking at. The real interesting measure is, how much money are advertisers willing to pay for time during WSU and OSU games?

The viewership number might relate to that - although it's tough to say how well, knowing how dispersed our fan base is. But it's not going to be a linear predictor.

During a game between USC and Miami, you've got the national advertisers, a bunch of regional CA and FL advertisers, and a whole lot of local LA and Miami advertisers. It's easy to fill ad slots, and you can probably keep the price point relatively high because you've got a large pool of advertisers. The same logic even works if the game is between Stanford and Rutgers - where you've got the local advertisers from the Bay and the larger New York-New Jersey area.

But, if the game involves OSU or WSU...the pool of bidders for local advertising is much smaller, and the price point will need to be much lower. Chipman & Taylor isn't going to pay what John Elway is. And while the national and regional ads aren't going to totally go away, they are probably at a lower price point because the broadcast either isn't to as big a market or because it's not a national broadcast anyway.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Here's another perspective to consider:

We've discussed before (a lot) the viewership numbers for WSU compared to the other programs. But that's probably not really the metric that the networks are looking at. The real interesting measure is, how much money are advertisers willing to pay for time during WSU and OSU games?

The viewership number might relate to that - although it's tough to say how well, knowing how dispersed our fan base is. But it's not going to be a linear predictor.

During a game between USC and Miami, you've got the national advertisers, a bunch of regional CA and FL advertisers, and a whole lot of local LA and Miami advertisers. It's easy to fill ad slots, and you can probably keep the price point relatively high because you've got a large pool of advertisers. The same logic even works if the game is between Stanford and Rutgers - where you've got the local advertisers from the Bay and the larger New York-New Jersey area.

But, if the game involves OSU or WSU...the pool of bidders for local advertising is much smaller, and the price point will need to be much lower. Chipman & Taylor isn't going to pay what John Elway is. And while the national and regional ads aren't going to totally go away, they are probably at a lower price point because the broadcast either isn't to as big a market or because it's not a national broadcast anyway.

Could be that the demo of the WSU viewers is not desirable to advertisers. Not sure what that would be or means, but maybe we're all older? Or... ?

 

[95coug]

Could be that the demo of the WSU viewers is not desirable to advertisers. Not sure what that would be or means, but maybe we're all older? Or... ?

I don't think it's age, I think it's geography. There just aren't enough of us all in one place

 

[425cougfan]

Can you elaborate? How does getting peanuts, whether from ESPN or in the G5, keep us competitive? If the goal is to stay P4, then it should also be to a) provide a quality product for the fans, b) produce a competitive product on the field and c) generate money for the school and the non-revenue sports.

How does being kicked in the teeth every year (competitively) on a gimped budget accomplish any of those goals outside of c, which would be a short term fix at best?

I think you and I are on the same side of this generally -- none of this is good or fair, and the only thing even remotely close to the "good old days" of only dozens of disadvantages, but media rights pretty close to teams outside the SEC and B1G, would come from a Big 12 invite with a full share, which seems highly unlikely -- but basically, it boils down to this:

Getting something like $15m a season in a conference that at least could be argued is a legitimate west coast competitor to the Big 12 and ACC is better than getting $7m a year, or whatever this MWC media deal is going to be, all to just have it said that we joined the MWC and renamed it, with a near-certainty of that conference being considered G of 5. I'm making those amounts up but I believe they're close enough when we're all speculating.

The rebuild has never been my preferred option, but the one very good thing about it is that if it can be considered a legitimate competitor to the Big 12 and ACC, schools in the conference would have a pretty compelling pitch to west coast and mountain state prospects. If you want to play high-level "power conference" football or basketball, but don't want to travel 22,000 miles for football like UCLA is about to do, you can stay in the Pac and have that opportunity while not having a ridiculous travel schedule. You can make that same pitch to an extent with the reverse merger, but really, that's no different from the existing "opportunity" with the MWC. A lot of kids who have options are not going to want to play in the G of 5.

 

[425cougfan]

I don't think it's age, I think it's geography. There just aren't enough of us all in one place

I think you're right, but what's wild to me is that their analyses should be much more complex than just "Team X brings this MSA or some portion of it." You'd think with modern data analytics and their viewership/streaming data, they could figure that out. They also should be able to get a decent idea of who is bringing viewers in the matchup, whether it's a chicken/egg issue with some schools having shitty ratings but that possibly being due to them being in bad time slots, on a bad network, or in low-end conference, and so on. On that note, I'm concerned the CW ratings aren't going to be that great, and that will be used as supposed evidence that WSU can't draw viewers.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I think you and I are on the same side of this generally -- none of this is good or fair, and the only thing even remotely close to the "good old days" of only dozens of disadvantages, but media rights pretty close to teams outside the SEC and B1G, would come from a Big 12 invite with a full share, which seems highly unlikely -- but basically, it boils down to this:

Getting something like $15m a season in a conference that at least could be argued is a legitimate west coast competitor to the Big 12 and ACC is better than getting $7m a year, or whatever this MWC media deal is going to be, all to just have it said that we joined the MWC and renamed it, with a near-certainty of that conference being considered G of 5. I'm making those amounts up but I believe they're close enough when we're all speculating.

The rebuild has never been my preferred option, but the one very good thing about it is that if it can be considered a legitimate competitor to the Big 12 and ACC, schools in the conference would have a pretty compelling pitch to west coast kids. If you want to play high-level "power conference" football or basketball, but don't want to travel 22,000 miles for football like UCLA is about to do, you can stay in the Pac and have that opportunity while not having a ridiculous travel schedule. You can make that same pitch to an extent with the reverse merger, but really, that's no different from the existing "opportunity" with the MWC. A lot of kids who have options are not going to want to play in the G of 5.

You hit on another point:

A lot of kids who have options will not want to play for left coast teams in the B1G/B12/SEC when they can play closer to home and not have the insane travel schedule.

Obviously part of what the P4 are wanting to do is exploit WSU and OSU for their location and give their conference members two additional close games, to which I say gfy (again).

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I think you're right, but what's wild to me is that their analyses should be much more complex than just "Team X brings this MSA or some portion of it." You'd think with modern data analytics and their viewership/streaming data, they could figure that out. They also should be able to get a decent idea of who is bringing viewers in the matchup, whether it's a chicken/egg issue with some schools having shitty ratings but that possibly being due to them being in bad time slots, on a bad network, or in low-end conference, and so on. On that note, I'm concerned the CW ratings aren't going to be that great, and that will be used as supposed evidence that WSU can't draw viewers.

I'm actually optimistic.

The available viewing base is WAY larger for the CW, so even with a lower percent viewership we'll still be in more homes. Cord cutters will be drawn to the content as Disney keeps their marquee games behind a paywall.

From the CW site:
The CW is America’s fifth major broadcast network and reaches 100% of US television households. The CW delivers 15 hours of primetime entertainment programming per week in addition to over 300 hours of sports per year as the broadcast home to LIV Golf, ACC football and basketball games, Pac-12 football games, “Inside the NFL,” and WWE NXT and NASCAR Xfinity Series beginning in Fall 2024. The fully ad-supported CW App, with more than 100 million downloads to date, is available for free to consumers on all major platforms and is home to the latest episodes and seasons of The CW’s primetime programming, live streaming of LIV Golf tournaments and a library of entertaining film and television content for on-demand viewing.

 

[Stretch 74]

CW Sports didn't exist as a competitive threat a year ago. I am also not convinced the Big-12 wanted us then. They were all in with Arizona, CU, ASU and Utah and were fine with that. As we know, expansion takes time.

As for ESPN and the cable networks, Discovery did a $9.1B write down in value yesterday due their subscriber loss. I'm not convinced ESPN can sustain their current model unless they have an essentially monopoly on sports through streaming services. That's why them and Fox were fine with breaking up the Pac-12 to ensure Apple didn't get in the game.

Like I said, even if it's $20M per school for WSU and OSU, they'll take the money at a discount. And as long as ESPN doesn't lose their ass on the investment ($3-4M per game), I can see it happening for strategic reasons.

Question-Did you mean Disney and not Discovery? Isn't it Disney that owns ESPN?

 

[UberCougars]

You hit on another point:

A lot of kids who have options will not want to play for left coast teams in the B1G/B12/SEC when they can play closer to home and not have the insane travel schedule.

Obviously part of what the P4 are wanting to do is exploit WSU and OSU for their location and give their conference members two additional close games, to which I say gfy (again).

Saavy kids with big NIL may want to play in the State of Washington to save state Income tax.

 

[Suudy]

Saavy kids with big NIL may want to play in the State of Washington to save state Income tax.

Does that matter? Especially for out of state students? I know many people who work in WA, but live in ID, that still pay ID income tax. Seems like it depends on your state of residency.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Does that matter? Especially for out of state students? I know many people who work in WA, but live in ID, that still pay ID income tax. Seems like it depends on your state of residency.

You are correct on this. Also, when I lived in Washington and worked in Idaho I had to pay Idaho income tax.

No idea what the rules are these days on residency - can a student "move" to Washington and gain residency?

 

[COUGinNCW]

Saavy kids with big NIL may want to play in the State of Washington to save state Income tax.

You’re way over estimating the financial acumen of 19 year olds.

And as far as Idaho goes, they nail you either way. Live in Wa, work in Idaho- Idaho income tax. Live in Idaho - work in Wa, Idaho income tax.

 

[Stretch 74]

You’re way over estimating the financial acumen of 19 year olds.

And as far as Idaho goes, they nail you either way. Live in Wa, work in Idaho- Idaho income tax. Live in Idaho - work in Wa, Idaho income tax.

Plus, states like Californicate tax athletes and entertainers (I think) for the prorated portion of the time they are in CA. So if the Mariners play 15 games in CA, the players must claim 15/162 of their total salary as CA State income and pay taxes on that amount. Not sure how they treat endorsement income, but it wouldn't surprise me if they grabbed taxes on that income also.

So if WSU plays away games at Fresno and San Diego State, will those getting any NIL money be forced to pay taxes on 2/12 of that amount? Maybe. And you can also bet that as soon as the athletes unionize that CA will treat their room and board, books, and tuition payments as income and will tax that also.