Conference Realignment again

[mikegarrison]

Until (and unless) they announce a new deal, it's all just rumor. Maybe accurate rumor, maybe not. But still rumor.

[bluepenquin]

Jul 18, 2023 17:16:25 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

Jul 18, 2023 17:04:47 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Eh, that's a question for the lawyers. The Mountain West accepted their resignation before they withdrew it.

OK, well, we'll see what happens then.

As expected - the Mountain West told SDSU they are back in the conference in good standing yesterday.  They will not release the money owed to SDSU - less legal fees incurred.

[bluepenquin]

Jul 18, 2023 17:10:29 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Jul 18, 2023 16:36:45 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38031370/source-pac-12-media-rights-deal-expected-future

Great news for the PAC. ESPN report saying a deal close to being done and will be similar in $'s to ACC and B12. Combination of linear and streaming. Details are really going to be interesting - will there be equal revenue sharing? Sounds like the GOR will run same length as TV contract. Very curious to see who is the linear partner here. As of now - CBS hasn't mentioned this story - so ESPN has the jump on it.

Also - expansion from 10 looks unlikely at this point - all the more reason for SDSU to find their way back to the Mountain West. Now if Colorado were to bolt for the B12 - then that could change things. That being said - I cannot see any reason for the B12 to invite Colorado. Especially if it didn't also include Arizona (which is now looking unlikely).

Hmm, we'll see. The Pac-12 has supposedly been close to a deal for like eight months. Lol, I initially misread the report and thought the deal would be announced at Pac-12 media day on Friday. But it actually says that it won't be announced then. So this may be an attempt to spin the lack of a deal. The ESPN report doesn't really say that the deal is actually close. It says that a league source asserted that it was close. As I said, we'll see.

CBS sports is now reporting that linear options are now in discussion with the PAC that were not at the table over the last several months.  They are now saying multiple sources believe that the PAC deal will be similar $'s to the B12 and ACC - and that the money these sources believe they will get is higher than what they were being offered 3 and 6 months ago.

Obviously nothing is settled w/o a deal and things can turn out bad from here, but it seems to me likely outcome from this:

1) PAC will hold together with the existing 10 (possible Colorado leaves, but I think that is unlikely now).  
2) Money will be good enough to keep them competitive with the B12 and ACC.
3) GOR will lock these 10 teams together through the length of the new TV contract.  Guessing it will be a 5 or 6 year deal.  Making it very unlikely that any of the 10 leave after the contract is signed.
4) Expansion for the PAC is probably unlikely in the short term - new CFP system makes having just 10 far more appealing to Oregon/Utah or anyone else wanting to be in the football playoffs.


And then speculation - the PAC will tilt more streaming vs. linear than any of the other conferences.  

[bbg95]

Jul 19, 2023 7:56:47 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Jul 18, 2023 17:10:29 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Hmm, we'll see. The Pac-12 has supposedly been close to a deal for like eight months. Lol, I initially misread the report and thought the deal would be announced at Pac-12 media day on Friday. But it actually says that it won't be announced then. So this may be an attempt to spin the lack of a deal. The ESPN report doesn't really say that the deal is actually close. It says that a league source asserted that it was close. As I said, we'll see.

CBS sports is now reporting that linear options are now in discussion with the PAC that were not at the table over the last several months.  They are now saying multiple sources believe that the PAC deal will be similar $'s to the B12 and ACC - and that the money these sources believe they will get is higher than what they were being offered 3 and 6 months ago.

Obviously nothing is settled w/o a deal and things can turn out bad from here, but it seems to me likely outcome from this:

1) PAC will hold together with the existing 10 (possible Colorado leaves, but I think that is unlikely now).  
2) Money will be good enough to keep them competitive with the B12 and ACC.
3) GOR will lock these 10 teams together through the length of the new TV contract.  Guessing it will be a 5 or 6 year deal.  Making it very unlikely that any of the 10 leave after the contract is signed.
4) Expansion for the PAC is probably unlikely in the short term - new CFP system makes having just 10 far more appealing to Oregon/Utah or anyone else wanting to be in the football playoffs.

And then speculation - the PAC will tilt more streaming vs. linear than any of the other conferences.  

I just checked CBS, and they seem to be reporting what everyone else is, namely that there won't be a deal announced by media day, which is the real headline. The rest is clearly coming from sources within the conference that are motivated to spin their lack of a deal. I'm not saying that the Pac-12 won't have a deal that is competitive with the Big 12 and ACC at the end of the day. But I don't think these reports mean much. For the record, Arizona beat reporter Jason Scheer (to be fair, he seems to be a proponent of a move to the Big 12, so take that for what it's worth) is saying that nothing has changed.

[horns1]

Personally, I believe the PAC 12 overplayed their hand. The number of interested TV suitors has dropped; there really is no bidding war or competition for PAC 12 content. The interested media parties hold all the leverage; PAC 12 has no real bargaining power.

I don't believe they will end up with a financial contract which is on par with the Big 12. If initial contract negotiations have been this tough and drawn out, contract extensions/renewals will be even tougher, IMO.

[bluepenquin]

Jul 19, 2023 9:07:37 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Jul 19, 2023 7:56:47 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

CBS sports is now reporting that linear options are now in discussion with the PAC that were not at the table over the last several months.  They are now saying multiple sources believe that the PAC deal will be similar $'s to the B12 and ACC - and that the money these sources believe they will get is higher than what they were being offered 3 and 6 months ago.

Obviously nothing is settled w/o a deal and things can turn out bad from here, but it seems to me likely outcome from this:

1) PAC will hold together with the existing 10 (possible Colorado leaves, but I think that is unlikely now).  
2) Money will be good enough to keep them competitive with the B12 and ACC.
3) GOR will lock these 10 teams together through the length of the new TV contract.  Guessing it will be a 5 or 6 year deal.  Making it very unlikely that any of the 10 leave after the contract is signed.
4) Expansion for the PAC is probably unlikely in the short term - new CFP system makes having just 10 far more appealing to Oregon/Utah or anyone else wanting to be in the football playoffs.

And then speculation - the PAC will tilt more streaming vs. linear than any of the other conferences.  

I just checked CBS, and they seem to be reporting what everyone else is, namely that there won't be a deal announced by media day, which is the real headline. The rest is clearly coming from sources within the conference that are motivated to spin their lack of a deal. I'm not saying that the Pac-12 won't have a deal that is competitive with the Big 12 and ACC at the end of the day. But I don't think these reports mean much. For the record, Arizona beat reporter Jason Scheer (to be fair, he seems to be a proponent of a move to the Big 12, so take that for what it's worth) is saying that nothing has changed.

Depends on the sources.  

From the CBS article:


<<new bidders have emerged, according to multiple media reports.>>  This is encouraging, but the source here isn't direct to CBS.  However, I don't think CBS would have put this in the first paragraph unless they believed it to be true?


<<Anonymous sources told multiple outlets that they believe that "patience will pay off.">>.  Again, not direct source to CBS and anonymous, but this in the 2nd paragraph.  

I guess when I first read the article, that these were direct sources to CBS - and that isn't the case.  The sources are coming from other media outlets (the Athletic being specifically cited).

[bbg95]

Jul 19, 2023 10:28:39 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Jul 19, 2023 9:07:37 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

I just checked CBS, and they seem to be reporting what everyone else is, namely that there won't be a deal announced by media day, which is the real headline. The rest is clearly coming from sources within the conference that are motivated to spin their lack of a deal. I'm not saying that the Pac-12 won't have a deal that is competitive with the Big 12 and ACC at the end of the day. But I don't think these reports mean much. For the record, Arizona beat reporter Jason Scheer (to be fair, he seems to be a proponent of a move to the Big 12, so take that for what it's worth) is saying that nothing has changed.

Depends on the sources.  

From the CBS article:

<<new bidders have emerged, according to multiple media reports.>>  This is encouraging, but the source here isn't direct to CBS.  However, I don't think CBS would have put this in the first paragraph unless they believed it to be true?

<<Anonymous sources told multiple outlets that they believe that "patience will pay off.">>.  Again, not direct source to CBS and anonymous, but this in the 2nd paragraph.  

I guess when I first read the article, that these were direct sources to CBS - and that isn't the case.  The sources are coming from other media outlets (the Athletic being specifically cited).

Right. ESPN, The Athletic and I think a few others are all basically reporting the same thing from what I can tell, which is that there won't be a media deal by Friday, but sources within the conference are optimistic. Of course, they've been optimistic for a full year at this point, so... We'll see.

[brooselee]

Why would CBS Sports offer big money to the PAC 12 when they don't have the market size of a P 5 conference and no bidding war going on?

Seems kind of strange for a network to come out of nowhere and throw money at a conference in shambles. CBS Sports is also not the big broadcast giant but the one on cable. I don't they have that deep a pocket.i know they have a contract with the MWC and others.

[bluepenquin]

Jul 19, 2023 14:16:02 GMT -5 brooselee said:

Why would CBS Sports offer big money to the PAC 12 when they don't have the market size of a P 5 conference and no bidding war going on?

Seems kind of strange for a network to come out of nowhere and throw money at a conference in shambles. CBS Sports is also not the big broadcast giant but the one on cable. I don't they have that deep a pocket.i know they have a contract with the MWC and others.

Curious - is it being reported that CBS Sports is potentially in the mix here?

My assumption - much of the money will come from streaming (Apple or something like this) - with linear being something like CW.  It could also include CBS or ESPN, but I don't think the bulk of the money will come from linear (but then I really don't know).

[bbg95]

Jul 19, 2023 14:21:31 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Jul 19, 2023 14:16:02 GMT -5 brooselee said:

Why would CBS Sports offer big money to the PAC 12 when they don't have the market size of a P 5 conference and no bidding war going on?

Seems kind of strange for a network to come out of nowhere and throw money at a conference in shambles. CBS Sports is also not the big broadcast giant but the one on cable. I don't they have that deep a pocket.i know they have a contract with the MWC and others.

Curious - is it being reported that CBS Sports is potentially in the mix here?

My assumption - much of the money will come from streaming (Apple or something like this) - with linear being something like CW.  It could also include CBS or ESPN, but I don't think the bulk of the money will come from linear (but then I really don't know).

I don't think so. I get the feeling that a lot of networks might be interested if the price is right. But I think you're probably right that Apple is the most likely streaming partner, and the CW or ESPN might get a smaller linear package. Supposedly, Apple would want everything, though. At least that's what the more plugged-in reporters (e.g. the guy at the Sports Business Journal who broke the Big 12 deal) are saying.

[BeachbytheBay]

maybe the Pac-10 can get some Saudi money, everybody wins!

[bbg95]

This is interesting. Colorado apparently lost close to $70 million with its move to the Pac-12. I don't think there's any question that Colorado is the biggest conference realignment loser in recent memory, at least for schools that chose their fate. Nebraska might lose a lot of football games, but at least they have money. To be fair to Colorado, there was real fear at the time that they might get left out if they didn't go. But still. Ouch.

[bluepenquin]

www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-media-day-2023-george-kliavkoff-stands-firm-on-media-rights-timeline-downplays-realignment-concerns/

The last paragraph from this article quoting George Kliavkoff is very interesting as it may pertain to volleyball:

<<Amid the chaos of federal intervention with the regulation of name, image and likeness rules, Kliavkoff pegged the "employee status" of athletes as a "bigger and existential threat" to college athletics than the uncertainty around NIL.

"Are student-athletes deemed to be employees if they are unionized and collectively bargained?" he said. "We end up in a place where I don't think most of our schools or schools around the country will be able to support our olympic sports, our women's sports. I think that money dries up. I think we have work to do there.">>

I don't think this will happen - but interesting comment.

[mikegarrison]

Why does "that money dry up" if the players are deemed to be employees? (By the way, I think such a designation is entirely reasonable.)

[bluepenquin]

Jul 21, 2023 16:53:08 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

Why does "that money dry up" if the players are deemed to be employees? (By the way, I think such a designation is entirely reasonable.)

I take this as some sort of scare tactic - or threat if college players unionize as college employees.  

I just don't see women's college sports being eliminated on a large scale anytime in the future - no what happens with NIL/Employee status.  

I do agree that NIL and some of these issues are a threat to change business as usual with some unknown consequences - and why it appears the commissioners are looking to congress to solve.  I now think congressional solutions are more likely to occur now.