|
Post by baytree on Aug 14, 2023 8:54:40 GMT -5
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. I agree but they didn't know how things would play out and thought that they could get $50M in the PAC. If schools knew how things would play out, I'm sure many (including Stanford) would have done things very differently.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 14, 2023 9:49:34 GMT -5
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. I agree but they didn't know how things would play out and thought that they could get $50M in the PAC. If schools knew how things would play out, I'm sure many (including Stanford) would have done things very differently. I guess I don't know why the Pac-12 felt like they could get that kind of money after USC and UCLA were gone.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Aug 14, 2023 9:58:35 GMT -5
Also the Pac 12 is not setting any sort of upheavel record. Meanwhile, other conferences sniffing around the remaining PAC4
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 14, 2023 10:05:20 GMT -5
I agree but they didn't know how things would play out and thought that they could get $50M in the PAC. If schools knew how things would play out, I'm sure many (including Stanford) would have done things very differently. I guess I don't know why the Pac-12 felt like they could get that kind of money after USC and UCLA were gone. I don't either. But I heard rumors last fall that a few schools expected/were demanding that. Now Schultz confirmed it. I trust what Schultz says. He has been on the PAC's executive committee since USC/UCLA left and would have more knowledge than almost anyone.
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 14, 2023 10:06:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 14, 2023 10:39:03 GMT -5
I guess I don't know why the Pac-12 felt like they could get that kind of money after USC and UCLA were gone. I don't either. But I heard rumors last fall that a few schools expected/were demanding that. Now Schultz confirmed it. I trust what Schultz says. He has been on the PAC's executive committee since USC/UCLA left and would have more knowledge than almost anyone. Oh, I believe that they thought that. I think they just had a major misread on the market.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 14, 2023 10:47:02 GMT -5
I don't either. But I heard rumors last fall that a few schools expected/were demanding that. Now Schultz confirmed it. I trust what Schultz says. He has been on the PAC's executive committee since USC/UCLA left and would have more knowledge than almost anyone. Oh, I believe that they thought that. I think they just had a major misread on the market. Clearly. I have no idea why they ever thought they could get that much w/o USC/UCLA. I guess there was some hope that Apple, Google, or Amazon would overpay to get into the market but I don't know why they thought they would overpay by that much.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 14, 2023 10:50:00 GMT -5
Oh, I believe that they thought that. I think they just had a major misread on the market. Clearly. I have no idea why they ever thought they could get that much w/o USC/UCLA. I guess there was some hope that Apple, Google, or Amazon would overpay to get into the market but I don't know why they thought they would overpay by that much. Or they didn't actually think that. They just knew they could get that amount elsewhere, so that was the price needed to stay.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 14, 2023 10:52:05 GMT -5
Clearly. I have no idea why they ever thought they could get that much w/o USC/UCLA. I guess there was some hope that Apple, Google, or Amazon would overpay to get into the market but I don't know why they thought they would overpay by that much. Or they didn't actually think that. They just knew they could get that amount elsewhere, so that was the price needed to stay. But then why not just be upfront about that instead of insisting that the PAC could get $50M/school? How does that benefit them?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 14, 2023 10:54:34 GMT -5
Or they didn't actually think that. They just knew they could get that amount elsewhere, so that was the price needed to stay. But then why not just be upfront about that instead of insisting that the PAC could get $50M/school? How does that benefit them? Because then if they DID somehow get that amount, they never had to show their hand of having interest in leaving. Publicly flirting with leaving a conference almost never works out well (see San Diego State) and just pisses people off.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 14, 2023 11:02:26 GMT -5
But then why not just be upfront about that instead of insisting that the PAC could get $50M/school? How does that benefit them? Because then if they DID somehow get that amount, they never had to show their hand of having interest in leaving. Publicly flirting with leaving a conference almost never works out well (see San Diego State) and just pisses people off. It was already well known that Oregon, Washington, and Arizona were looking to leave. Everyone knew that Phil Knight was trying to get a B1G invitation. There was less info about the PAC discussions than about Arizona wanting to leave for the Big 12 or Washington or esp Oregon trying to land a B1G invitation.
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 15, 2023 9:53:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Aug 15, 2023 12:02:01 GMT -5
Oliver Luck getting into the mix seems like a prudent decision at this point. Not sure why he wasn't brought in sooner (other than possibly hubris by Kliavkoff)
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Aug 16, 2023 10:12:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Aug 16, 2023 15:31:11 GMT -5
|
|