The PAC 10 expansion groundswell

[myboynoah]

Interesting summation of the situation. Nothing new, but the preponderance of these types of articles in national media, coupled with GK going silent during the PAC BB tournament when interest and speculation is so high, can't been seen as good signs for the progress/expectations/outcome of the media negotiations.

Embedded Tweet

But on quibble. Apparently the author is not clued into the real interest the uofutah is drawing from the B1G and the SEC.

The “Four Corners” schools — Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah — don’t have to waste time thinking about the carrot of a Big Ten invite down the line. They could be enticed by the Big 12’s newfound stability, which comes from the fact that the league members already have accepted they aren’t likely to draw interest from the Power Two — the SEC and Big Ten — at any point in the future. The Big 12 is as good as it gets, and they’re all working together to make it better.

[myboynoah]

Dang. GK goes mum during the PAC tournament, but BY is all, "We're out there looking!"

Embedded Tweet

[SeattleUte]

The PAC12 literally tried to add non-AAU members Oklahoma state, Texas tech and Oklahoma just over a decade ago. Your memory is not very good.

False. Stop lying.

[beefytee]

False. Stop lying.

ESPN is so untrustworthy: Pac-12 working on deal for Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, according to source (espn.com)

Edit: Molier was probably referencing the original courtship though that Texas ended up breaking up: The superconference that wasn’t: How the Pac-16 plan changed college sports - The Athletic

[Jeff Lebowski]

ESPN is so untrustworthy: Pac-12 working on deal for Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, according to source (espn.com)

Boy, what a colossal mistake that was in hindsight (not adding those teams). Another case of P12 hubris.

[myboynoah]

Boy, what a colossal mistake that was in hindsight (not adding those teams). Another case of P12 hubris.

Yep.

[Uncle Ted]

Boy, what a colossal mistake that was in hindsight (not adding those teams). Another case of P12 hubris.

And not adding BYU! Now they looking seriously at SDSU and SMU. LOL

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

Adding USC and UCLA made the Big Ten a rumored $250 million extra annually to be distributed among the other 14 schools. The Big Ten and SEC are now so far ahead of the lesser three Power Fives that the excluded big football brands — other than Notre Dame, of course — are frothing at the mouth to get their due.
[...]
In the most literal terms, yes. One person I spoke with last week who is plugged into the media rights world thought the Pac-12 could have gotten a deal for a half-billion dollars if the L.A. schools were still around. Without USC and UCLA, it appears to be a struggle for Kliavkoff to negotiate an attractive package for the $300 million or so it would take to stay in the ballpark of the Big 12’s deal.

So, in short, USC and UCLA are worth as much as the Pac 12-2 leftovers put together. And Oregon and UW make up the lion's share of that.

This may be the best option for the Pac 12-2:

Embedded Tweet

With extra pie for FSU, Clemson, UNC, Oregon, and UW.

[myboynoah]

This may be the best option for the Pac 12-2:

Embedded Tweet

With extra pie for FSU, Clemson, UNC, Oregon, and UW.

Thanks for posting that. But I have a couple of questions.

1) So, it makes it sound like some big money comes from the ACC Network and that if the ACC expands into a new market (like Colorado) the cable subscribers will automatically get a $2 monthly fee for the ACC Network. Even if they have no interest in the ACC or sports? How can that happen? Can subscribers opt out of that?

2) I would think that if they opened up that ACC contract to add eight PAC teams (sorry OSU and WSU, you get left out in every scenario) then that would give some of the ACC teams the opportunity to bolt to a very willing B1G (UVA, UNC, GT, and/or Duke) or SEC (FSU, Miami, UNC, GT, etc.). Boom goes the ACC dynamite.

But he was very explicit about not allowing extra pie for any particular school. That kills conferences.

[The_Tick]

Thanks for posting that. But I have a couple of questions.

1) So, it makes it sound like some big money comes from the ACC Network and that if the ACC expands into a new market (like Colorado) the cable subscribers will automatically get a $2 monthly fee for the ACC Network. Even if they have no interest in the ACC or sports? How can that happen? Can subscribers opt out of that?

2) I would think that if they opened up that ACC contract to add eight PAC teams (sorry OSU and WSU, you get left out in every scenario) then that would give some of the ACC teams the opportunity to bolt to a very willing B1G (UVA, UNC, GT, and/or Duke) or SEC (FSU, Miami, UNC, GT, etc.). Boom goes the ACC dynamite.

But he was very explicit about not allowing extra pie for any particular school. That kills conferences.

You can't opt out of anything. That is why they typically have tier based systems. Use ESPN for example...they are charging DirecTV like $8 per customer (or some crazy number like that), and it is available at basic tier level. So if you have DTV...you have ESPN. No choice. Revenue driver.

[Pelado]

Thanks for posting that. But I have a couple of questions.

1) So, it makes it sound like some big money comes from the ACC Network and that if the ACC expands into a new market (like Colorado) the cable subscribers will automatically get a $2 monthly fee for the ACC Network. Even if they have no interest in the ACC or sports? How can that happen? Can subscribers opt out of that?

2) I would think that if they opened up that ACC contract to add eight PAC teams (sorry OSU and WSU, you get left out in every scenario) then that would give some of the ACC teams the opportunity to bolt to a very willing B1G (UVA, UNC, GT, and/or Duke) or SEC (FSU, Miami, UNC, GT, etc.). Boom goes the ACC dynamite.

But he was very explicit about not allowing extra pie for any particular school. That kills conferences.

To convince the distibutors to carry the network on basic packages, there has to be enough demand from the customer base for the particular network. I'm unconvinced that adding many of the remaining P10 schools would lead to much increased distribution of the ACC channel. As evidence, look no further than the lackluster distribution of the PAC12 Networks.

Additionally, even if expansion with PAC schools did lead to significantly increased carriage of the ACC network, the ACC wouldn't directly benefit since the ACC Network is wholly owned by ESPN. The ACC would have to convince ESPN that adding one or more PAC schools to the ACC increases the value enough that ESPN should modify the ACC contract and dole out big raises.

Speaking of which - what network was it that is seemingly lukewarm on a TV contract for PAC schools?

[Uncle Ted]

Thanks for posting that. But I have a couple of questions.

1) So, it makes it sound like some big money comes from the ACC Network and that if the ACC expands into a new market (like Colorado) the cable subscribers will automatically get a $2 monthly fee for the ACC Network. Even if they have no interest in the ACC or sports? How can that happen? Can subscribers opt out of that?

As he mentioned that is written into the ACC contract if they expand into new states. Cable subscribers can always just cut their cable but they may find that Sling TV raised their prices as well.

2) I would think that if they opened up that ACC contract to add eight PAC teams (sorry OSU and WSU, you get left out in every scenario) then that would give some of the ACC teams the opportunity to bolt to a very willing B1G (UVA, UNC, GT, and/or Duke) or SEC (FSU, Miami, UNC, GT, etc.). Boom goes the ACC dynamite.

But he was very explicit about not allowing extra pie for any particular school. That kills conferences.

The ACC contract would stay in place if the conference just expanded, I believe. So the ACC would add Oregon, UW, Stanford, Cal, Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and maybe Utah. What is left over would be trimming the fat and thrown to the G5's (i.e., MWC). The teams that could bolt are Oregon and UW since they have "half of the pie" option in the B1G, it seems. Arizona may say we're going to the Big 12 to play basketball.

I think that the ACC needs to keep the regular season pie the same for everyone like he said but larger pieces of the pie need to go to the teams that make it into the the post season. If FSU makes it into the playoffs they get the extra playoff money. In short, all the schools have an equal chance to get the playoffs but those that do get rewarded.

[Omaha 680]

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

ESPN is so untrustworthy: Pac-12 working on deal for Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, according to source (espn.com)

Edit: Molier was probably referencing the original courtship though that Texas ended up breaking up: The superconference that wasn’t: How the Pac-16 plan changed college sports - The Athletic

SU will probably employ some circular logic here and claim that since they weren't invited, they weren't really considered.

Although, even if they had been invited and joined, they probably would have jumped to the SEC at first opportunity. They can't carry all the P12 deadweight any more than USC /UCLA can.

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet