|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 11, 2023 13:26:42 GMT -5
Correct. This was last fall during the exclusive negotiating window that the Pac-12 had with its existing partners, ESPN and Fox. I don't think the Pac-12 was dead, though. They apparently had a $30 million per year per school offer (sans USC and UCLA) and countered with $50 million per year per school. If they had just taken the offer, they would still have a conference, and the Big 12 may have been having a hard time finding a deal. Anyway, I suppose you can put more blame on the university presidents than Kliavkoff, and I think there's a fair case to do that. But they were the authors of their own demise. I don’t mean immediately. I’m saying with USC/UCLA departed and the Big 10 showing they’re willing to travel across the Rocky Mountains for travel, the PAC-12 was dead. You’re right, it wouldn’t have been as imminent as it has been, but it wasn’t going to last, either. No way Oregon and Washington were going to sign a long term GOR with the remaining schools. A short term GOR simply starts the clock for when the final nail is driven in. Sure, the conference was never going to be the same without USC and UCLA (mostly USC). And you're right that it probably was only was a matter of time before the conference blew up for good. Poor leadership just caused it to happen now rather than in five to seven years or so.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Aug 11, 2023 14:37:43 GMT -5
This has been rumored for a while. Just astonishing delusion on the part of Kliavkoff and the Pac-12 presidents. I get my timelines mixed up. This is after USC and UCLA had announced their departure, right? This is when ESPN suddenly dropped out of the negotiations, which really spelled doom for a floundering Pac-12. It’s just tough for me to paint Kliavkoff as the fall guy here. By this point the Pac-12 was a dead man walking, hence the thread title. The real problems were trying to run their own network, not accepting a bid to take it over in 2018, the rapidly declining interest in college football on the west coast, and the final kicker - the Big 10 willing to aggressively go after USC and UCLA in a bold move which I personally didn’t see coming at all, and we know it put the rest of the conference in shock. Whatever existence the PAC-12 was going to have after that was a dead cat bounce. I think this preceded the USC and UCLA departure. As for the Big Ten aggressively pursuing USC and UCLA, I think it was the other way around. It's my understanding that USC approached the Big Ten then asked UCLA if it wanted to come along for the ride. UCLA didn't want to be stuck on an island and immediately agreed.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 11, 2023 14:46:56 GMT -5
I get my timelines mixed up. This is after USC and UCLA had announced their departure, right? This is when ESPN suddenly dropped out of the negotiations, which really spelled doom for a floundering Pac-12. It’s just tough for me to paint Kliavkoff as the fall guy here. By this point the Pac-12 was a dead man walking, hence the thread title. The real problems were trying to run their own network, not accepting a bid to take it over in 2018, the rapidly declining interest in college football on the west coast, and the final kicker - the Big 10 willing to aggressively go after USC and UCLA in a bold move which I personally didn’t see coming at all, and we know it put the rest of the conference in shock. Whatever existence the PAC-12 was going to have after that was a dead cat bounce. I think this preceded the USC and UCLA departure. As for the Big Ten aggressively pursuing USC and UCLA, I think it was the other way around. It's my understanding that USC approached the Big Ten then asked UCLA if it wanted to come along for the ride. UCLA didn't want to be stuck on an island and immediately agreed. I'm sure there were a number of entities involved. What I was told is that Texas and OU approached the Big 10 about joining the conference. They were told it would need to be a transparent process and that some of the members were balking about inviting them in. So they went to the SEC who promised under the table discussions and a foregone conclusion. When USC approached the Big 10 there were concerns among a number of parties, most especially including Fox, that if the Big 10 didn't figure out a way to bring USC into the fold, the SEC/ESPN would. We'll never know, because it didn't get that far, but the process used to bring in USC/UCLA was much different than the process outlined to Texas/OU. Maybe USC/UCLA were better fits. They have a better academic profile, and there's already a historic association through the Rose Bowl. But from where I'm sitting it was a much more aggressive conversation than any they've had in their previous expansions, and a lot more hush hush than what they told Texas/OU it would be. I don't believe the $30m per school deal predates the USC/UCLA departure. I believe it came after. As bbg says, during the exclusive negotiating period ESPN and Fox were permitted per contract as existing partners.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 11, 2023 14:53:56 GMT -5
I get my timelines mixed up. This is after USC and UCLA had announced their departure, right? This is when ESPN suddenly dropped out of the negotiations, which really spelled doom for a floundering Pac-12. It’s just tough for me to paint Kliavkoff as the fall guy here. By this point the Pac-12 was a dead man walking, hence the thread title. The real problems were trying to run their own network, not accepting a bid to take it over in 2018, the rapidly declining interest in college football on the west coast, and the final kicker - the Big 10 willing to aggressively go after USC and UCLA in a bold move which I personally didn’t see coming at all, and we know it put the rest of the conference in shock. Whatever existence the PAC-12 was going to have after that was a dead cat bounce. I think this preceded the USC and UCLA departure. As for the Big Ten aggressively pursuing USC and UCLA, I think it was the other way around. It's my understanding that USC approached the Big Ten then asked UCLA if it wanted to come along for the ride. UCLA didn't want to be stuck on an island and immediately agreed. It was definitely after (fall 2022). Also, USC, Fox and the Big Ten all colluded in this. Who exactly approached who first is not interesting to me. You had a valuable school who wanted to leave, a conference that wanted to keep pace with the SEC and a network who wanted to consolidate. I agree with sixpress that if the Big Ten (and Fox) passed on adding USC, the SEC (and ESPN) may have scooped the Trojans up. So they likely felt like they had no choice.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Aug 11, 2023 14:55:20 GMT -5
I think this preceded the USC and UCLA departure. As for the Big Ten aggressively pursuing USC and UCLA, I think it was the other way around. It's my understanding that USC approached the Big Ten then asked UCLA if it wanted to come along for the ride. UCLA didn't want to be stuck on an island and immediately agreed. I don't believe the $30m per school deal predates the USC/UCLA departure. I believe it came after. As bbg says, during the exclusive negotiating period ESPN and Fox were permitted per contract as existing partners. You might be right on that point. I just can't get my head around ESPN offering that kind of money to each PAC school when the PAC had just lost USC and UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 12, 2023 8:33:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 12, 2023 8:35:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 12, 2023 8:36:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by toomuchvb on Aug 12, 2023 12:10:22 GMT -5
This thread name is killing me. I can’t help but laugh every time I scroll through the threads. But the OP didn’t lie!
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Aug 12, 2023 12:22:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 12, 2023 13:18:49 GMT -5
I don’t mean immediately. I’m saying with USC/UCLA departed and the Big 10 showing they’re willing to travel across the Rocky Mountains for travel, the PAC-12 was dead. You’re right, it wouldn’t have been as imminent as it has been, but it wasn’t going to last, either. No way Oregon and Washington were going to sign a long term GOR with the remaining schools. A short term GOR simply starts the clock for when the final nail is driven in. Sure, the conference was never going to be the same without USC and UCLA (mostly USC). And you're right that it probably was only was a matter of time before the conference blew up for good. Poor leadership just caused it to happen now rather than in five to seven years or so. I'm not sure how much was poor leadership and how much was Washington and Oregon deciding that they did not want to remain in the PAC unless they could get something close to $50M. "the Pac-12 presidents . . . reject[ed] an offer of $30 million per year (per school) from ESPN for the entirety of the conference’s football and men’s basketball media inventory, according to JohnCanzano.com. Instead, the presidents instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to pursue a deal in the $50 million per-school range. “Two or three schools were interested in that number,” [ Kirk ] Schulz said. 'The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure. A source familiar with the negotiations told the Hotline this week that one president even believed the valuation “should be in the 50s” — meaning, more than $50 million per school. (The source declined to identify the president.) . . . . “They couldn’t save those guys from themselves,” the source said. “The people with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions … “(But) if George had come to the presidents in October and said there was a deal out there at $32 million or so, they would have thrown him out of the room.”” www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/11/pac-12-media-rights-negotiations-multiple-presidents-pushed-for-unrealistic-deal-from-espn/It is partly leadership bc Kliavkoff and the other presidents should have talked the majority into a more realistic target. But they were probably (rightfully) afraid of Oregon and Washington bolting if they didn't get something close to $50M, in which case the conference is dead anyway.
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 12, 2023 20:44:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 12, 2023 21:57:55 GMT -5
Sure, the conference was never going to be the same without USC and UCLA (mostly USC). And you're right that it probably was only was a matter of time before the conference blew up for good. Poor leadership just caused it to happen now rather than in five to seven years or so. I'm not sure how much was poor leadership and how much was Washington and Oregon deciding that they did not want to remain in the PAC unless they could get something close to $50M. "the Pac-12 presidents . . . reject[ed] an offer of $30 million per year (per school) from ESPN for the entirety of the conference’s football and men’s basketball media inventory, according to JohnCanzano.com. Instead, the presidents instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to pursue a deal in the $50 million per-school range. “Two or three schools were interested in that number,” [ Kirk ] Schulz said. 'The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure. A source familiar with the negotiations told the Hotline this week that one president even believed the valuation “should be in the 50s” — meaning, more than $50 million per school. (The source declined to identify the president.) . . . . “They couldn’t save those guys from themselves,” the source said. “The people with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions … “(But) if George had come to the presidents in October and said there was a deal out there at $32 million or so, they would have thrown him out of the room.”” www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/11/pac-12-media-rights-negotiations-multiple-presidents-pushed-for-unrealistic-deal-from-espn/It is partly leadership bc Kliavkoff and the other presidents should have talked the majority into a more realistic target. But they were probably (rightfully) afraid of Oregon and Washington bolting if they didn't get something close to $50M, in which case the conference is dead anyway. Also, last year the PAC was leaking/saying they didn’t just want to play late night games…. They didn’t want to play midweek games… if you are going to be picky about the details, the price comes down. You don’t get to name your own deal.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 13, 2023 1:38:57 GMT -5
Sure, the conference was never going to be the same without USC and UCLA (mostly USC). And you're right that it probably was only was a matter of time before the conference blew up for good. Poor leadership just caused it to happen now rather than in five to seven years or so. I'm not sure how much was poor leadership and how much was Washington and Oregon deciding that they did not want to remain in the PAC unless they could get something close to $50M. "the Pac-12 presidents . . . reject[ed] an offer of $30 million per year (per school) from ESPN for the entirety of the conference’s football and men’s basketball media inventory, according to JohnCanzano.com. Instead, the presidents instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to pursue a deal in the $50 million per-school range. “Two or three schools were interested in that number,” [ Kirk ] Schulz said. 'The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure. A source familiar with the negotiations told the Hotline this week that one president even believed the valuation “should be in the 50s” — meaning, more than $50 million per school. (The source declined to identify the president.) . . . . “They couldn’t save those guys from themselves,” the source said. “The people with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions … “(But) if George had come to the presidents in October and said there was a deal out there at $32 million or so, they would have thrown him out of the room.”” www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/11/pac-12-media-rights-negotiations-multiple-presidents-pushed-for-unrealistic-deal-from-espn/It is partly leadership bc Kliavkoff and the other presidents should have talked the majority into a more realistic target. But they were probably (rightfully) afraid of Oregon and Washington bolting if they didn't get something close to $50M, in which case the conference is dead anyway. I'm skeptical that Oregon and Washington wouldn't have been okay with $30 million for an ESPN deal if they knew how things would play out. There were some advantages to staying in a viable Pac-12. Beyond the obvious ones (e.g. geography), it would have been easier to get into the CFP. Anyway, it doesn't matter now. And poor leadership includes everything in the Larry Scott era as well as the George Kliavkoff one. It was a very mismanaged conference.
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 13, 2023 10:58:27 GMT -5
|
|