|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 7, 2023 21:20:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing about much of anything, but I do not think it would be possible to get the MWC deal to double. First, the deal doesn't expire until the end of 2026, I think, so that's two years before you can even renegotiate. CBS and Fox would have to agree to add the Pac-4, but they're holding all of the leverage here, so I don't know why they'd up the amount. They'd obviously have to agree to raise the $270MM overall amount by at least $16MM just to pay each of the Pac-4 $4MM (I doubt the existing MWC teams would reduce their own share of the $270MM just for the privilege of playing the Pac-4). I'm not even sure it's possible to get CBS and Fox to agree to that $16MM increase, since they just paid a premium for the right to broadcast some more attractive West Coast games (the inventory from the new members of the Big Ten), and Fox also just paid for the additional inventory of the new Big-12 members. CBS and Fox might actually be looking for ways to decrease their MWC inventory to make room for late-night Big Ten/Big-12 games. My point is that there doesn't seem to be a path to increasing the per-school payout until at least after 2026, and maybe not even then. Second, even if there were broadcasting demand and capacity, to increase that share, you'd have to expect better ratings from games involving the Pac-4 teams than the best of the existing teams. Are you really drawing a significantly larger audience, and significantly greater TV revenue, from each of the Pac-4 teams' games than from games involving SJSU, SDSU, and Boise State? It's probably a larger number for Stanford and Cal, maybe even for OSU and WSU (though who knows, especially in the absence of the draw of the teams they used to play), but I doubt it's significant, other than the Stanford-Cal game. Would it justify doubling the MWC's per-game deal? I'm skeptical. Third, the math is awful here. Are you suggesting that CBS/Fox would double the entire package, so that every team in the MWC gets double? I doubt CBS/Fox would agree to that. But then are you suggesting that Stanford/Cal/OSU/WSU would get $8MM and the existing MWC teams would get a reduced share of their own TV contract? Hard to see them swallowing that. Or maybe you're thinking CBS would only increase the per-game payout for games involving the Pac-4 teams? Still a stumbling block for the MWC, and even then you'd still need to increase the size of the contract beyond the additional $32MM for the Pac-4 teams so that their opponents in the games broadcast would also benefit from that. It's just very hard to see a path to anything beyond $4MM/year (if even that) in the MWC through the end of the 2025-2026 basketball season, and hard to see any significant increase even then. As for going it as an independent like Notre Dame, is anybody going to pay more than $4MM a year for the right to broadcast all of Stanford's home games? At best, Stanford is going to have one game against Notre Dame every other year and maybe one or two other top-25 teams on a home-and-home every other year. After Week 3, every college team other than Notre Dame (and the other Pac-4 teams, maybe) will be locked into its conference season. Basically, Stanford needs to get into a conference, and it needs to do it quickly so it can start playing in the new conference in 2024. There are a lot of reasons why the Big Ten might take Stanford, and also a lot of reasons why it might not. But Stanford's position as a non-FB athletic powerhouse and its utopian view that athletic conferences should have some academic and cultural similarity makes it a tough fit with any other surviving conference. ...but this isn't academic research. People aren't paying to watch the linear accelerator matches between Cal and Stanford. Actually there’s a significant research consortium associated with the Big 10, so that’s not quite true. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 7, 2023 21:38:28 GMT -5
...but this isn't academic research. People aren't paying to watch the linear accelerator matches between Cal and Stanford. Actually there’s a significant research consortium associated with the Big 10, so that’s not quite true. Really? Fix would pay Stanford ?25 mil a y ear for broadcasting linear accelerator show? |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 7, 2023 21:47:59 GMT -5
Actually there’s a significant research consortium associated with the Big 10, so that’s not quite true. Really? Fix would pay Stanford ?25 mil a y ear for broadcasting linear accelerator show? It’s called the Big Ten Academic Alliance now. “BTAA members, when viewed collectively, conducted a combined total of $9.8 billion in funded research and BTAA libraries own over 110 million volumes.[13] Don’t have a year on that. But yes. Stanford’s addition (and Cal’s) could help earn the collective $25 mi per school in funding. Not saying it would, but it could. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 7, 2023 21:53:24 GMT -5
Really? Fix would pay Stanford ?25 mil a y ear for broadcasting linear accelerator show? It’s called the Big Ten Academic Alliance now. “BTAA members, when viewed collectively, conducted a combined total of $9.8 billion in funded research and BTAA libraries own over 110 million volumes.[13] Don’t have a year on that. But yes. Stanford’s addition (and Cal’s) could help earn the collective $25 mi per school in funding. Not saying it would, but it could. Or not, cal stanford could compete for those same funds now, their joining wouldnt increase funds the academic world competes for, they might be better off guven their academic stature above all the biG schools |
|
|
|
Post by potato518 on Aug 7, 2023 21:55:18 GMT -5
Who’s got the spark notes for those essays above?
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 7, 2023 22:00:22 GMT -5
It’s called the Big Ten Academic Alliance now. “BTAA members, when viewed collectively, conducted a combined total of $9.8 billion in funded research and BTAA libraries own over 110 million volumes.[13] Don’t have a year on that. But yes. Stanford’s addition (and Cal’s) could help earn the collective $25 mi per school in funding. Not saying it would, but it could. Or not, cal stanford could compete for those same funds now, their joining wouldnt increase funds the academic world competes for, they might be better off guven their academic stature above all the biG schools I’m saying it’s possible. You’re saying maybe it’s not possible. To me that sounds like the end of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 7, 2023 22:08:19 GMT -5
Or not, cal stanford could compete for those same funds now, their joining wouldnt increase funds the academic world competes for, they might be better off guven their academic stature above all the biG schools I’m saying it’s possible. You’re saying maybe it’s not possible. To me that sounds like the end of the discussion. exactly, a good ending to the tangent you brought up IOTW, Cal / Stanford want the B1G for sports money, and to not 'hurt' their academic image they don't want it for academic money, because they don't need it. they really wouldn't join the B1G for academics, if that was the case, they'd phone the IVY league - the only conference in their 'league' (my opinion) |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 7, 2023 22:16:37 GMT -5
I’m saying it’s possible. You’re saying maybe it’s not possible. To me that sounds like the end of the discussion. exactly, a good ending to the tangent you brought up IOTW, Cal / Stanford want the B1G for sports money, and to not 'hurt' their academic image they don't want it for academic money, because they don't need it. they really wouldn't join the B1G for academics, if that was the case, they'd phone the IVY league - the only conference in their 'league' (my opinion) That misses the point. The Big 10 won’t value Stanford/Cal for their football programs, but they very well might value them for their academic research. You implied Stanford/Cal’s excellence in research doesn’t matter at all, and I disagree with that. The Acadenic Alliance is a big deal, and the addition of Stanford/Cal would make it way more valuable. Hence, there is value in Stanford and Cal’s expertise in linear acceleration among many other research ventures both schools embark upon. Which you were being dismissive of. I didn’t bring it up. You did. I feel you were erroneous in the point you made, and now you’re saying it wouldn’t be of any value to Stanford or Cal, which makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 7, 2023 22:18:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing about much of anything, but I do not think it would be possible to get the MWC deal to double. First, the deal doesn't expire until the end of 2026, I think, so that's two years before you can even renegotiate. CBS and Fox would have to agree to add the Pac-4, but they're holding all of the leverage here, so I don't know why they'd up the amount. They'd obviously have to agree to raise the $270MM overall amount by at least $16MM just to pay each of the Pac-4 $4MM (I doubt the existing MWC teams would reduce their own share of the $270MM just for the privilege of playing the Pac-4). I'm not even sure it's possible to get CBS and Fox to agree to that $16MM increase, since they just paid a premium for the right to broadcast some more attractive West Coast games (the inventory from the new members of the Big Ten), and Fox also just paid for the additional inventory of the new Big-12 members. CBS and Fox might actually be looking for ways to decrease their MWC inventory to make room for late-night Big Ten/Big-12 games. My point is that there doesn't seem to be a path to increasing the per-school payout until at least after 2026, and maybe not even then. Second, even if there were broadcasting demand and capacity, to increase that share, you'd have to expect better ratings from games involving the Pac-4 teams than the best of the existing teams. Are you really drawing a significantly larger audience, and significantly greater TV revenue, from each of the Pac-4 teams' games than from games involving SJSU, SDSU, and Boise State? It's probably a larger number for Stanford and Cal, maybe even for OSU and WSU (though who knows, especially in the absence of the draw of the teams they used to play), but I doubt it's significant, other than the Stanford-Cal game. Would it justify doubling the MWC's per-game deal? I'm skeptical. Third, the math is awful here. Are you suggesting that CBS/Fox would double the entire package, so that every team in the MWC gets double? I doubt CBS/Fox would agree to that. But then are you suggesting that Stanford/Cal/OSU/WSU would get $8MM and the existing MWC teams would get a reduced share of their own TV contract? Hard to see them swallowing that. Or maybe you're thinking CBS would only increase the per-game payout for games involving the Pac-4 teams? Still a stumbling block for the MWC, and even then you'd still need to increase the size of the contract beyond the additional $32MM for the Pac-4 teams so that their opponents in the games broadcast would also benefit from that. It's just very hard to see a path to anything beyond $4MM/year (if even that) in the MWC through the end of the 2025-2026 basketball season, and hard to see any significant increase even then. As for going it as an independent like Notre Dame, is anybody going to pay more than $4MM a year for the right to broadcast all of Stanford's home games? At best, Stanford is going to have one game against Notre Dame every other year and maybe one or two other top-25 teams on a home-and-home every other year. After Week 3, every college team other than Notre Dame (and the other Pac-4 teams, maybe) will be locked into its conference season. Basically, Stanford needs to get into a conference, and it needs to do it quickly so it can start playing in the new conference in 2024. There are a lot of reasons why the Big Ten might take Stanford, and also a lot of reasons why it might not. But Stanford's position as a non-FB athletic powerhouse and its utopian view that athletic conferences should have some academic and cultural similarity makes it a tough fit with any other surviving conference. I'm just going by that if Moutain west w/o teh Pac-4 is 4 mil / team, then adding those shoudl increase some premium / team, so yeah, probably not double then if Apple was able to offer $20 mil/ team, the Pac-4 is probaby worth less, maybe $12 mil/ team, so the Mtn West might draw some interest to up their contract, but who knows. still, it's hard to see Stanford stooping to teh Mountain West, and especially if they were only able to get a paltry 8 mil / year. the thing is Stanford doesn't have the leverage they think they have - it's a tough pill to see yourself as 'deserving' of $50 mil a year, and all anybody will offer is $25 mil a year or even mjuch less, ouch! to me, Stanford won't chomp at a low offer, but that's not good. Stanford can only have leverage by waiting out for a better scenario, that miht not every happend. if any school can wait it out for 3-4, maybe 5 years with some success (maybe not football success) it's Stanford.this just has all the earmarks of a disaaster for Cal, maybe not as much for Stanford. hard to see how it ends well, B1G, ACC, Big 12, whoever offers is gonna ask for a lower thatn the standard shared rate. what happens when there is no path - that's where this may go. Cal has to be begging the B1G at this point, but this isn't academic research. People aren't paying to watch the linear accelerator matches between Cal and Stanford. It's why I think Stanford / Cal might choose to stall by parking their sports in the WCC/Big West for a while, simply because it's the least cost 'waiting' option, assuming either of those would entertain that, if approached. to most people that sounds laughable, but the Mountain West would want permanency. it's like it'll be all or nothing. Have you done the math as to how much lost revenue that comes out to be? Meanwhile, those schools who are not losing that revenue are making improvements to athletic facilities, investing in their athletic programs by hiring more support staff, and poaching coaches from those programs who don't have the money to get into a bidding war to retain them. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Aug 7, 2023 23:41:50 GMT -5
Who’s got the spark notes for those essays above? This is the Stanford thread, Potato. People here ought to be able to read an essay. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 7, 2023 23:55:19 GMT -5
as to $4 mil, have to believe if teh Pac-4 joined the Mtn West, they coudl get that to double (something) but yeah not near what they get. It's why I think Stanford at least for interim (if lobbying the B1G to relent doesn't work) will look at either trying to be football indepedent and putting Olympic in Big West or WCC, or carving a deal with the Mountain West but doubt they'll committ to anything beyond 3-5 years and agree to some high exit fee, it has to be a potentially mid-term deal that benefits both IMO. I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing about much of anything, but I do not think it would be possible to get the MWC deal to double. First, the deal doesn't expire until the end of 2026, I think, so that's two years before you can even renegotiate. CBS and Fox would have to agree to add the Pac-4, but they're holding all of the leverage here, so I don't know why they'd up the amount. They'd obviously have to agree to raise the $270MM overall amount by at least $16MM per year just to pay each of the Pac-4 $4MM (I doubt the existing MWC teams would reduce their own share of the $270MM just for the privilege of playing the Pac-4). I'm not even sure it's possible to get CBS and Fox to agree to that $16MM increase, since they just paid a premium for the right to broadcast some more attractive West Coast games (the inventory from the new members of the Big Ten), and Fox also just paid for the additional inventory of the new Big-12 members. CBS and Fox might actually be looking for ways to decrease their MWC inventory to make room for late-night Big Ten/Big-12 games. My point is that there doesn't seem to be a path to increasing the per-school payout until at least after 2026, and maybe not even then. Second, even if there were broadcasting demand and capacity, to increase that share, you'd have to expect better ratings from games involving the Pac-4 teams than the best of the existing teams. Are you really drawing a significantly larger audience, and significantly greater TV revenue, from each of the Pac-4 teams' games than from games involving SJSU, SDSU, and Boise State? It's probably a larger number for Stanford and Cal, maybe even for OSU and WSU (though who knows, especially in the absence of the draw of the teams they used to play), but I doubt it's significant, other than the Stanford-Cal game. Would it justify doubling the MWC's per-game deal? I'm skeptical. Third, the math is awful here. Are you suggesting that CBS/Fox would double the entire package, so that every team in the MWC gets double? I doubt CBS/Fox would agree to that. But then are you suggesting that Stanford/Cal/OSU/WSU would get $8MM and the existing MWC teams would get a reduced share of their own TV contract? Hard to see them swallowing that. Or maybe you're thinking CBS would only increase the per-game payout for games involving the Pac-4 teams? Still a stumbling block for the MWC, and even then you'd still need to increase the size of the contract beyond the additional $32MM for the Pac-4 teams so that their opponents in the games broadcast would also benefit from that. It's just very hard to see a path to anything beyond $4MM/year (if even that) in the MWC through the end of the 2025-2026 basketball season, and hard to see any significant increase even then. As for going it as an independent like Notre Dame, is anybody going to pay more than $4MM a year for the right to broadcast all of Stanford's home games? At best, Stanford is going to have one game against Notre Dame every other year and maybe one or two other top-25 teams on a home-and-home every other year. After Week 3, every college team other than Notre Dame (and the other Pac-4 teams, maybe) will be locked into its conference season.
Basically, Stanford needs to get into a conference, and it needs to do it quickly so it can start playing in the new conference in 2024. There are a lot of reasons why the Big Ten might take Stanford, and also a lot of reasons why it might not. But Stanford's position as a non-FB athletic powerhouse and its utopian view that athletic conferences should have some academic and cultural similarity makes it a tough fit with any other surviving conference. I honestly think an independent Stanford very well could get less than $4 million per year for its football games. I also think the days may be numbered for the Stanford/Notre Dame series. It's only scheduled through 2024, and Notre Dame is not above canceling games if it suits them. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Aug 8, 2023 0:11:54 GMT -5
I also think the days may be numbered for the Stanford/Notre Dame series. It's only scheduled through 2024, and Notre Dame is not above canceling games if it suits them. That’s probably right, especially if, as media people are suggesting, Notre Dame will need to join a conference to get the kind of payout it’s seeking. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 8, 2023 0:26:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing about much of anything, but I do not think it would be possible to get the MWC deal to double. First, the deal doesn't expire until the end of 2026, I think, so that's two years before you can even renegotiate. CBS and Fox would have to agree to add the Pac-4, but they're holding all of the leverage here, so I don't know why they'd up the amount. They'd obviously have to agree to raise the $270MM overall amount by at least $16MM per year just to pay each of the Pac-4 $4MM (I doubt the existing MWC teams would reduce their own share of the $270MM just for the privilege of playing the Pac-4). I'm not even sure it's possible to get CBS and Fox to agree to that $16MM increase, since they just paid a premium for the right to broadcast some more attractive West Coast games (the inventory from the new members of the Big Ten), and Fox also just paid for the additional inventory of the new Big-12 members. CBS and Fox might actually be looking for ways to decrease their MWC inventory to make room for late-night Big Ten/Big-12 games. My point is that there doesn't seem to be a path to increasing the per-school payout until at least after 2026, and maybe not even then. Second, even if there were broadcasting demand and capacity, to increase that share, you'd have to expect better ratings from games involving the Pac-4 teams than the best of the existing teams. Are you really drawing a significantly larger audience, and significantly greater TV revenue, from each of the Pac-4 teams' games than from games involving SJSU, SDSU, and Boise State? It's probably a larger number for Stanford and Cal, maybe even for OSU and WSU (though who knows, especially in the absence of the draw of the teams they used to play), but I doubt it's significant, other than the Stanford-Cal game. Would it justify doubling the MWC's per-game deal? I'm skeptical. Third, the math is awful here. Are you suggesting that CBS/Fox would double the entire package, so that every team in the MWC gets double? I doubt CBS/Fox would agree to that. But then are you suggesting that Stanford/Cal/OSU/WSU would get $8MM and the existing MWC teams would get a reduced share of their own TV contract? Hard to see them swallowing that. Or maybe you're thinking CBS would only increase the per-game payout for games involving the Pac-4 teams? Still a stumbling block for the MWC, and even then you'd still need to increase the size of the contract beyond the additional $32MM for the Pac-4 teams so that their opponents in the games broadcast would also benefit from that. It's just very hard to see a path to anything beyond $4MM/year (if even that) in the MWC through the end of the 2025-2026 basketball season, and hard to see any significant increase even then. As for going it as an independent like Notre Dame, is anybody going to pay more than $4MM a year for the right to broadcast all of Stanford's home games? At best, Stanford is going to have one game against Notre Dame every other year and maybe one or two other top-25 teams on a home-and-home every other year. After Week 3, every college team other than Notre Dame (and the other Pac-4 teams, maybe) will be locked into its conference season.
Basically, Stanford needs to get into a conference, and it needs to do it quickly so it can start playing in the new conference in 2024. There are a lot of reasons why the Big Ten might take Stanford, and also a lot of reasons why it might not. But Stanford's position as a non-FB athletic powerhouse and its utopian view that athletic conferences should have some academic and cultural similarity makes it a tough fit with any other surviving conference. I honestly think an independent Stanford very well could get less than $4 million per year for its football games. I also think the days may be numbered for the Stanford/Notre Dame series. It's only scheduled through 2024, and Notre Dame is not above canceling games if it suits them. When it comes to strength of schedule, Stanford no longer playing 9 games against PAC (P5) opponents certainly isn't gonna help Notre Dame as it vies for a spot in the College Playoffs each season. |
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 8, 2023 9:15:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Aug 9, 2023 20:43:18 GMT -5
|
|
