|
Post by akbar on Aug 22, 2023 13:28:38 GMT -5
The high point of Stanford athletics across the board is on the cliff unless the join a big conference.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 22, 2023 14:02:15 GMT -5
Interesting way to frame the story. One could have said: Washington and Oregon made a decision that effectively killed the PAC 12 because the Big Ten through their media contract and negotiations with FOX gave them a better deal than anything they could have gotten from the PAC via Apple. If Washington and Oregon believed that Apple had more value - or gave them more value - they may have made a different decision. Kind of hard to blame FOX for making too good of a deal to a couple Universities that acted in their own self-interest. I think it was the torpedoing of the ESPN deal that sank the Pac-12. The Apple deal was a non-starter - by then, everyone was looking for an exit. The question is which "prez" claimed that the Pac schools were worth $50 mil per, and got a respected prof to write a report to that effect? It had to have been Stanford, UW, or Oregon. If Stanford, they were either delusional or playing a very clever game. I'm not sure that UW or Oregon had the "sway" to get the others to follow their lead, although both had clearly been plotting to leave.
|
|
|
Post by savannahbadger on Aug 22, 2023 16:15:49 GMT -5
Kind of hard to blame FOX for making too good of a deal to a couple Universities that acted in their own self-interest. There was some concern about Apple encroaching in on the sports market, as they are a competitor when it comes to MLB and MLS. I’ve read that Fox didn’t want Apple involved in the CFB world. Conversely, Apple knew they were in a good position to make a lowball offer and see what happens. There was ZERO reason for them to overpay for what was left of the P12.
|
|
|
Post by ilikewaffles on Aug 22, 2023 16:31:37 GMT -5
Interesting way to frame the story. One could have said: Washington and Oregon made a decision that effectively killed the PAC 12 because the Big Ten through their media contract and negotiations with FOX gave them a better deal than anything they could have gotten from the PAC via Apple. If Washington and Oregon believed that Apple had more value - or gave them more value - they may have made a different decision. Kind of hard to blame FOX for making too good of a deal to a couple Universities that acted in their own self-interest. I think it was the torpedoing of the ESPN deal that sank the Pac-12. The Apple deal was a non-starter - by then, everyone was looking for an exit. The question is which "prez" claimed that the Pac schools were worth $50 mil per, and got a respected prof to write a report to that effect? It had to have been Stanford, UW, or Oregon. If Stanford, they were either delusional or playing a very clever game. I'm not sure that UW or Oregon had the "sway" to get the others to follow their lead, although both had clearly been plotting to leave. The rumor mill says Arizona State. www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/pac-12/2023/08/17/pac-12-collapse-rumors-include-arizona-state-michael-crow-professor/70613674007/
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Aug 22, 2023 17:15:36 GMT -5
I think it was the torpedoing of the ESPN deal that sank the Pac-12. The Apple deal was a non-starter - by then, everyone was looking for an exit. The question is which "prez" claimed that the Pac schools were worth $50 mil per, and got a respected prof to write a report to that effect? It had to have been Stanford, UW, or Oregon. If Stanford, they were either delusional or playing a very clever game. I'm not sure that UW or Oregon had the "sway" to get the others to follow their lead, although both had clearly been plotting to leave. The rumor mill says Arizona State. www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/pac-12/2023/08/17/pac-12-collapse-rumors-include-arizona-state-michael-crow-professor/70613674007/The question should be “Why did the league higher ups listened to Crow”? What was his reasoning on the PAC worth 50 mil and how did he come to that conclusion? The PAC other leaders should have been smart enough to not listen to one guy. This one guy could be full of himself and had a big ego. I hope other conferences will learn not to give one guy so much power and dictated the path of the conference. He destroyed a good conference and threw many programs into undesirable circumstances and 4 of them are on the verge of potential collapse with high debt and lower future payouts.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 22, 2023 18:24:26 GMT -5
The question should be “Why did the league higher ups listened to Crow”? What was his reasoning on the PAC worth 50 mil and how did he come to that conclusion? The PAC other leaders should have been smart enough to not listen to one guy. This one guy could be full of himself and had a big ego. I hope other conferences will learn not to give one guy so much power and dictated the path of the conference. He destroyed a good conference and threw many programs into undesirable circumstances and 4 of them are on the verge of potential collapse with high debt and lower future payouts. Per the LA Times story, Kliavkoff and the PAC media experts told the presidents that the PAC was worth ~35M/school. But two or three presidents latched on to the 50M and one even thought it should be in the 50s (i.e., maybe mid-50M). So Kliavkoff starting looking for a deal that would pay more. My question is, if it was only three presidents, why didn't the other seven outvote them? I've assumed that Oregon or Washington were one or two of the schools and the other presidents realized that if one of them left for the B1G, the other probably would too and then the PAC was dead. More info will probably come out about this.
A big part of the problem is that university presidents know very little about media rights or valuations. It's also not that important to many of them. E.g., UW had $6.571 B revenue in 2022. It had $145M (with $149M expenses) for sports. Stanford sports earned $134.1 M (with $145.6 M in expenses for varsity sports). Their operating revenues were $15.1 billion. $150M sounds like a lot (if you look at gross and not net) but it's 1% of their operating revenue. Sports is important but pales to how much universities get from research so it makes sense for university presidents to focus on that, not sports.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Aug 22, 2023 18:46:24 GMT -5
Interesting way to frame the story. One could have said: Washington and Oregon made a decision that effectively killed the PAC 12 because the Big Ten through their media contract and negotiations with FOX gave them a better deal than anything they could have gotten from the PAC via Apple. If Washington and Oregon believed that Apple had more value - or gave them more value - they may have made a different decision. Kind of hard to blame FOX for making too good of a deal to a couple Universities that acted in their own self-interest. I think it was the torpedoing of the ESPN deal that sank the Pac-12. The Apple deal was a non-starter - by then, everyone was looking for an exit. The question is which "prez" claimed that the Pac schools were worth $50 mil per, and got a respected prof to write a report to that effect? It had to have been Stanford, UW, or Oregon. If Stanford, they were either delusional or playing a very clever game. I'm not sure that UW or Oregon had the "sway" to get the others to follow their lead, although both had clearly been plotting to leave. Since the report said "his campus" we can rule out Washington Brett McMurphy
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 22, 2023 19:29:36 GMT -5
I think it was the torpedoing of the ESPN deal that sank the Pac-12. The Apple deal was a non-starter - by then, everyone was looking for an exit. The question is which "prez" claimed that the Pac schools were worth $50 mil per, and got a respected prof to write a report to that effect? It had to have been Stanford, UW, or Oregon. If Stanford, they were either delusional or playing a very clever game. I'm not sure that UW or Oregon had the "sway" to get the others to follow their lead, although both had clearly been plotting to leave. The rumor mill says Arizona State. www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/pac-12/2023/08/17/pac-12-collapse-rumors-include-arizona-state-michael-crow-professor/70613674007/But did ASU have the "sway" to get enough other members to get behind the proposal? I doubt it, unless Stanford hopped onboard, then UW and Oregon (who were already negotiating with the B1G).
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 22, 2023 19:48:40 GMT -5
I think it was the torpedoing of the ESPN deal that sank the Pac-12. The Apple deal was a non-starter - by then, everyone was looking for an exit. The question is which "prez" claimed that the Pac schools were worth $50 mil per, and got a respected prof to write a report to that effect? It had to have been Stanford, UW, or Oregon. If Stanford, they were either delusional or playing a very clever game. I'm not sure that UW or Oregon had the "sway" to get the others to follow their lead, although both had clearly been plotting to leave. Since the report said "his campus" we can rule out Washington Brett McMurphy
View AttachmentYep...and I don't think UW had enough "sway" anyway. I get that the members probably thought they were being low-balled, but you don't come back with a $50 mil counter-offer unless you want to sink the deal. That's American Pickers 101.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Aug 22, 2023 19:57:18 GMT -5
Yep...and I don't think UW had enough "sway" anyway. I get that the members probably thought they were being low-balled, but you don't come back with a $50 mil counter-offer unless you want to sink the deal. That's American Pickers 101. From the various reports, it sounds like one president, who relied on one professor, started the chain that sank the Pac.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 22, 2023 20:35:49 GMT -5
Yep...and I don't think UW had enough "sway" anyway. I get that the members probably thought they were being low-balled, but you don't come back with a $50 mil counter-offer unless you want to sink the deal. That's American Pickers 101. From the various reports, it sounds like one president, who relied on one professor, started the chain that sank the Pac. Only if you assume that Washington and Oregon were ok with making 50% of what Big Ten schools get for the next 20 years. It’s just as likely that they would’ve been MORE eager to leave if the early valuation was more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Aug 22, 2023 20:51:27 GMT -5
From the various reports, it sounds like one president, who relied on one professor, started the chain that sank the Pac. Only if you assume that Washington and Oregon were ok with making 50% of what Big Ten schools get for the next 20 years. It’s just as likely that they would’ve been MORE eager to leave if the early valuation was more accurate. They will both be getting over 50% for the remaining six years of the media contract. Will begin at approx $30m then increase by one million every year. Then will get full shares of the next deal starting in 2030. UW (not sure about Oregon) can also borrow up to $10m per year against the next contract for travel expenses. Not counting the possible loans, this is about 50% more than what Apple was offering the Pac.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 22, 2023 22:40:24 GMT -5
From the various reports, it sounds like one president, who relied on one professor, started the chain that sank the Pac. Only if you assume that Washington and Oregon were ok with making 50% of what Big Ten schools get for the next 20 years. It’s just as likely that they would’ve been MORE eager to leave if the early valuation was more accurate. It's 50% for six years, plus a $1 million increase each year, then a full share. UW and UO, although getting money similar to the ESPN offer, will come out way ahead down the road. Stanford isn't interested in being Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 23, 2023 8:28:41 GMT -5
Only if you assume that Washington and Oregon were ok with making 50% of what Big Ten schools get for the next 20 years. It’s just as likely that they would’ve been MORE eager to leave if the early valuation was more accurate. It's 50% for six years, plus a $1 million increase each year, then a full share. UW and UO, although getting money similar to the ESPN offer, will come out way ahead down the road. Stanford isn't interested in being Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I mean what the new PAC-12 deal would’ve been worth. I was generously saying it would be half of what Big Ten schools get. And what Oregon and Washington will be getting six years from now. Do people really think that a “realistic” approach to get a $25 mil per year media deal would kept Oregon and Washington from leaving for the Big Ten?
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Aug 23, 2023 10:18:45 GMT -5
I can't disagree with this Jordon Acker fella from Michigan....
|
|