|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 15, 2023 7:31:06 GMT -5
Besides name recognition what PAC-12 assets are left? For one thing, I bet there is a huge archive of old video. Who has the rights to re-air a 1990 USC/Washington football game? USC? Washington? Or the PAC-12? Yes, I’d image the true value of “assets” is in the licensing and intangible value of historical content, not physical assets like property, physical inventory…maybe securities, but given how much cash teams need to burn through every year for operating costs, I can’t imagine the conference would collectively have much invested in securities.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 15, 2023 9:55:20 GMT -5
For one thing, I bet there is a huge archive of old video. Who has the rights to re-air a 1990 USC/Washington football game? USC? Washington? Or the PAC-12? Yes, I’d image the true value of “assets” is in the licensing and intangible value of historical content, not physical assets like property, physical inventory…maybe securities, but given how much cash teams need to burn through every year for operating costs, I can’t imagine the conference would collectively have much invested in securities. NCAA Basketball tournament units are also valuable and Washington State and Oregon State can probably only collect them if the conference continues to exist. The NCAA distributes about $2 million per game played by team in the conference over the course of 6 years. So some quick back of the napkin math... 2018 NCAAT 3 games (ouch!) 2019 NCAAT 7 games 2020 NCAAT COVID 2021 NCAAT 18 games 2022 NCAAT 7 games 2023 NCAAT TBD So payouts to the Pac-12 will be: 2024: 35 units = $11.7M 2025: 32 units = $10.7M 2026: 32 units = $10.7M 2027: 25 units - $8.3M 2028: 7 units = $2.3M Plus another $2m distributed over 6 years for however many games Pac-12 teams play in this year's tournament. So you're looking at something like $60 million that would be divided between Oregon State and Washington State if they keep the Pac-12 together.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 15, 2023 10:14:08 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . . This is great news! I wonder if the Cougs and Beavs will ever allow any of the former members back in once they realize what a mistake they have all made by leaving. I sure hope not, greedy bastards. Meanwhile, what will the new pac look like? WSU, OSU, Boise, San Diego, Nevada, San Jose, Hawaii? This should be fun forming a new conference from scratch. Go Cougs! From bottom of the PAC-12 in stature to the top in one fell swoop. How were Stanford and Cal greedy? They asked WSU and OSU if they wanted to come with them to the ACC and WSU and OSU said "no" bc they couldn't afford it. Going to the ACC didn't work for WSU or OSU and staying didn't work for Stanford or Cal. I don't see why there is animosity from either side.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 15, 2023 10:18:06 GMT -5
This is great news! I wonder if the Cougs and Beavs will ever allow any of the former members back in once they realize what a mistake they have all made by leaving. I sure hope not, greedy bastards. Meanwhile, what will the new pac look like? WSU, OSU, Boise, San Diego, Nevada, San Jose, Hawaii? This should be fun forming a new conference from scratch. Go Cougs! From bottom of the PAC-12 in stature to the top in one fell swoop. How were Stanford and Cal greedy? They asked WSU and OSU if they wanted to come with them to the ACC and WSU and OSU said "no" bc they couldn't afford it. Going to the ACC didn't work for WSU or OSU and staying didn't work for Stanford or Cal. I don't see why there is animosity from either side. Was the ACC actually interested in taking Washington State and Oregon State?
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 15, 2023 10:18:44 GMT -5
How were Stanford and Cal greedy? They asked WSU and OSU if they wanted to come with them to the ACC and WSU and OSU said "no" bc they couldn't afford it. Going to the ACC didn't work for WSU or OSU and staying didn't work for Stanford or Cal. I don't see why there is animosity from either side. Was the ACC actually interested in taking Washington State and Oregon State? From what I heard, this was well before the vote so negotiations never got that far.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 15, 2023 10:20:38 GMT -5
Was the ACC actually interested in taking Washington State and Oregon State? From what I heard, this was before the vote so negotiations never got that far. Hmm, I don't believe I've seen that reported anywhere. Even if Stanford and Cal asked them to come along, the existing ACC schools would make that call.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 15, 2023 10:22:34 GMT -5
From what I heard, this was before the vote so negotiations never got that far. Hmm, I don't believe I've seen that reported anywhere. Even if Stanford and Cal asked them to come along, the existing ACC schools would make that call. Of course the ACC would have to agree. I'm not saying they would have. They almost didn't agree to take Stanford and Cal. Adding OSU and WSU would have been more difficult. But apparently, neither WSU nor OSU were interested anyway.
ETA: I did see a couple of blurbs from legit sources about the WSU president saying that they couldn't afford the travel w ACC, esp if they didn't get full shares. I never saw anything published about OSU (IIRC).
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 15, 2023 10:27:45 GMT -5
Hmm, I don't believe I've seen that reported anywhere. Even if Stanford and Cal asked them to come along, the existing ACC schools would make that call. Of course the ACC would have to agree. I'm not saying they would have. They almost didn't agree to take Stanford and Cal. Adding OSU and WSU would have been more difficult. But apparently, neither WSU nor OSU were interested anyway. I guess I just don't give Stanford and Cal any credit for "offering" to take two schools along when they probably would get rejected anyway. Stanford and Cal themselves were a bit lucky to get a lifeline in the ACC, and they had to take a 30% distribution to do it. I don't see a world where the ACC would be interested in Oregon State and Washington State. Maybe if they took 0% like SMU did? But they can be hardly blamed for not wanting to do that. I don't blame Stanford and Cal for going to the ACC--it was objectively their best available option. But I don't think they really care about WSU/OSU.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 15, 2023 10:29:12 GMT -5
After reading the Reddit "game thread," it sounds (from basically everyone, including Washington fans) that Washington had a very poor attorney. Meanwhile, the Washington State attorney was getting praise across the board. It helps that Washington State probably had the better case, but still.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 15, 2023 10:30:01 GMT -5
Of course the ACC would have to agree. I'm not saying they would have. They almost didn't agree to take Stanford and Cal. Adding OSU and WSU would have been more difficult. But apparently, neither WSU nor OSU were interested anyway. I guess I just don't give Stanford and Cal any credit for "offering" to take two schools along when they probably would get rejected anyway. Stanford and Cal themselves were a bit lucky to get a lifeline in the ACC, and they had to take a 30% distribution to do it. I don't see a world where the ACC would be interested in Oregon State and Washington State. Maybe if they took 0% like SMU did? But they can be hardly blamed for not wanting to do that. I don't blame Stanford and Cal for going to the ACC--it was objectively their best available option. But I don't think they really care about WSU/OSU. I only asked how Stanford or Cal were greedy. I never suggested that they were heroes or had much clout with the ACC. But I don't understand how asking if WSU or OSU wanted to go to the ACC along with Cal and Stanford, then going alone when they said "no" makes them greedy.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 15, 2023 10:35:01 GMT -5
I guess I just don't give Stanford and Cal any credit for "offering" to take two schools along when they probably would get rejected anyway. Stanford and Cal themselves were a bit lucky to get a lifeline in the ACC, and they had to take a 30% distribution to do it. I don't see a world where the ACC would be interested in Oregon State and Washington State. Maybe if they took 0% like SMU did? But they can be hardly blamed for not wanting to do that. I don't blame Stanford and Cal for going to the ACC--it was objectively their best available option. But I don't think they really care about WSU/OSU. I only asked how Stanford or Cal were greedy. I never suggested that they were heroes or had much clout with the ACC. But I don't understand how asking if WSU or OSU wanted to go to the ACC along with Cal and Stanford, then going alone when they said "no" makes them greedy. Well, I'm not the one who called them greedy. And I'm not sure I've seen too many people call Stanford and Cal greedy (at least not compared to USC, UCLA, Washington, etc.). I think most people understand that they didn't have many options once the mass exodus happened. From what I can tell, Washington State and Oregon State were concerned that if the other 10 schools remained on the board, they would try to hold a meeting to dissolve and liquidate the conference and probably give Kliavkoff a golden parachute. WSU and OSU want to try to rebuild the conference and likely fire Kliavkoff.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 15, 2023 10:39:30 GMT -5
I only asked how Stanford or Cal were greedy. I never suggested that they were heroes or had much clout with the ACC. But I don't understand how asking if WSU or OSU wanted to go to the ACC along with Cal and Stanford, then going alone when they said "no" makes them greedy. Well, I'm not the one who called them greedy. And I'm not sure I've seen too many people call Stanford and Cal greedy (at least not compared to USC, UCLA Washington, etc.). I think most people understand that they didn't have many options once the mass exodus happened. From what I can tell, Washington State and Oregon State were concerned that if the other 10 schools remained on the board, they would try to hold a meeting to dissolve and liquidate the conference and probably give Kliavkoff a golden parachute. WSU and OSU want to try to rebuild the conference and likely fire Kliavkoff. No but the person I responded to did. And I've seen quite a few WSU and OSU fans say it or something similar. They're pissed that Stanford and Cal left them. I understand feeling betrayed but I don't understand why they think Stanford or Cal are some kind of traitors for leaving. Staying in the Pac-4 did not work for them any more than going to the ACC worked for WSU or OSU. I don't see any bad guys there, just four universities in a %*$#ty situation scrambling for something that would let them keep their programs afloat as much as possible. Unfortunately, that was two different things so they ended up going in different directions.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 15, 2023 10:42:30 GMT -5
Well, I'm not the one who called them greedy. And I'm not sure I've seen too many people call Stanford and Cal greedy (at least not compared to USC, UCLA Washington, etc.). I think most people understand that they didn't have many options once the mass exodus happened. From what I can tell, Washington State and Oregon State were concerned that if the other 10 schools remained on the board, they would try to hold a meeting to dissolve and liquidate the conference and probably give Kliavkoff a golden parachute. WSU and OSU want to try to rebuild the conference and likely fire Kliavkoff. No but the person I responded to did. And I've seen quite a few WSU and OSU fans say it or something similar. They're pissed that Stanford and Cal left them. I understand feeling betrayed but I don't understand why they think Stanford or Cal are some kind of traitors for leaving. Staying in the Pac-4 did not work for them any more than going to the ACC worked for WSU or OSU. I don't see any bad guys there, just four teams in a %*$#ty situation scrambling for something that would let them keep their programs afloat as much as possible. Unfortunately, that was two different things so they ended up going in different directions. Fair enough. Based on what I've seen, I think they're angry with all 10 schools, but I think they're most upset with USC, UCLA and Washington.
|
|
|
Post by Gladys Kravitz on Nov 15, 2023 10:43:24 GMT -5
You certainly do not see USC being concerned about any of this. They have class.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Nov 15, 2023 10:44:15 GMT -5
I guess I just don't give Stanford and Cal any credit for "offering" to take two schools along when they probably would get rejected anyway. Stanford and Cal themselves were a bit lucky to get a lifeline in the ACC, and they had to take a 30% distribution to do it. I don't see a world where the ACC would be interested in Oregon State and Washington State. Maybe if they took 0% like SMU did? But they can be hardly blamed for not wanting to do that. I don't blame Stanford and Cal for going to the ACC--it was objectively their best available option. But I don't think they really care about WSU/OSU. I only asked how Stanford or Cal were greedy. I never suggested that they were heroes or had much clout with the ACC. But I don't understand how asking if WSU or OSU wanted to go to the ACC along with Cal and Stanford, then going alone when they said "no" makes them greedy. Maybe an over generalization on a per team basis and the degree on which they bolted for bucks, but who cares, the fact of the matter is the PAC-12 was parred down to two schools because of money. Two schools who are willing to fight to keep the league in existence and willing to go the course in continuing the PAC-12s storied tradition.
|
|