|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 4, 2024 7:59:02 GMT -5
The Big Ten is still only going to invite programs who increase their per-school payout. And at this point, that means the school has to be VERY valuable. The best example of this is Stanford and Cal. Both in a huge TV market, but no one cares enough to watch their games. That's why they had to accept an ACC offer at a fire sale price. Washington, and perhaps more strongly Oregon, are the ones who destroyed what could have been a perfectly good remainder PAC conference.
USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten was fine. If WA and OR were worthy of invites, they would have been invited at the same time. The Big Ten presidents did their homework, in consultation with their TV partners, and found that those two schools did not warrant invites and full shares of revenue.
Disgracefully, they lowered the amount they were willing to take, and that's what got them in and destroyed the PAC.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 4, 2024 8:01:19 GMT -5
The Big Ten is still only going to invite programs who increase their per-school payout. And at this point, that means the school has to be VERY valuable. After the powers that be realize that they overpaid for the LA schools, when they start to actually apply some smarts in these decisions, they'll realize that they'll get more bang for the their buck by getting rid of schools rather than adding them (Notre Dame notwithstanding). At least so far up through the entire history of the power conferences .... this is not a thing.
Granted that we're in a new world and new things are happening every year.
Far more likely would be some kind of brand new entity, where only the best of the best are invited, and the leftovers stay where they are. But that could still be some time away. The, at times borderline absurd, level of pride in the brands "Big Ten" and "SEC" are still too great to concede to the other, in any way, shape, or form.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Jul 4, 2024 18:49:04 GMT -5
The best example of this is Stanford and Cal. Both in a huge TV market, but no one cares enough to watch their games. That's why they had to accept an ACC offer at a fire sale price. Washington, and perhaps more strongly Oregon, are the ones who destroyed what could have been a perfectly good remainder PAC conference.
USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten was fine. If WA and OR were worthy of invites, they would have been invited at the same time. The Big Ten presidents did their homework, in consultation with their TV partners, and found that those two schools did not warrant invites and full shares of revenue.
Disgracefully, they lowered the amount they were willing to take, and that's what got them in and destroyed the PAC.
The Pac was going to die as soon as the LA schools announced. The media rights offer from Apple was in the low $20m range with no over air broadcasts. This gave the schools minimal national visibility and they would receive $40m per year less than BIG or SEC teams. Schools that wanted to remain relevant, and had a choice, left. Oregon and UW will immediately get full shares of the non-media rights revenue. Then get equal shares of that after six years.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 4, 2024 19:15:33 GMT -5
Washington, and perhaps more strongly Oregon, are the ones who destroyed what could have been a perfectly good remainder PAC conference.
USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten was fine. If WA and OR were worthy of invites, they would have been invited at the same time. The Big Ten presidents did their homework, in consultation with their TV partners, and found that those two schools did not warrant invites and full shares of revenue.
Disgracefully, they lowered the amount they were willing to take, and that's what got them in and destroyed the PAC.
The Pac was going to die as soon as the LA schools announced. The media rights offer from Apple was in the low $20m range with no over air broadcasts. This gave the schools minimal national visibility and they would receive $40m per year less than BIG or SEC teams. Schools that wanted to remain relevant, and had a choice, left. Oregon and UW will immediately get full shares of the non-media rights revenue. Then get equal shares of that after six years. Nah, the Pac-12 had an offer from ESPN for about what the Big 12 got, and that was after USC left. They decided to go to the open market and paid the price the same way that the old Big East did a decade earlier. The Pac-12 died as the result of years of mismanagement.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 4, 2024 20:49:43 GMT -5
The Big Ten is still only going to invite programs who increase their per-school payout. And at this point, that means the school has to be VERY valuable. After the powers that be realize that they overpaid for the LA schools, when they start to actually apply some smarts in these decisions, they'll realize that they'll get more bang for the their buck by getting rid of schools rather than adding them (Notre Dame notwithstanding). I think you've seen with Texas and FSU, the preferred method isn't to drop them, it's to make them take an unequal share for the privilege of playing you. Doesn't mean they don't drop them eventually, but the next phase is to have Indiana, Rutgers, Mississippi State and Vandy take fractions of what the bigger draws make.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jul 4, 2024 20:57:25 GMT -5
After the powers that be realize that they overpaid for the LA schools, when they start to actually apply some smarts in these decisions, they'll realize that they'll get more bang for the their buck by getting rid of schools rather than adding them (Notre Dame notwithstanding). I think you've seen with Texas and FSU, the preferred method isn't to drop them, it's to make them take an unequal share for the privilege of playing you. Doesn't mean they don't drop them eventually, but the next phase is to have Indiana, Rutgers, Mississippi State and Vandy take fractions of what the bigger draws make. Hey, that's not a bad idea. Instead of squeezing them out entirely, you could simply keep them around as cannon fodder for the good teams to boost their w-l records with, while giving the good team players an opportunity to pad their stats and increase their draft stock.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 5, 2024 1:03:00 GMT -5
After the powers that be realize that they overpaid for the LA schools, when they start to actually apply some smarts in these decisions, they'll realize that they'll get more bang for the their buck by getting rid of schools rather than adding them (Notre Dame notwithstanding). At least so far up through the entire history of the power conferences .... this is not a thing. Granted that we're in a new world and new things are happening every year. Far more likely would be some kind of brand new entity, where only the best of the best are invited, and the leftovers stay where they are. But that could still be some time away. The, at times borderline absurd, level of pride in the brands "Big Ten" and "SEC" are still too great to concede to the other, in any way, shape, or form.
Boosters are now actively and openly paying college athletes for doing nothing more than committing and playing for their school of choice, something that used to be so bad that national championships were FORFEITED. Let’s stop with this “history” argument, it’s fast becoming irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 5, 2024 1:22:25 GMT -5
The best example of this is Stanford and Cal. Both in a huge TV market, but no one cares enough to watch their games. That's why they had to accept an ACC offer at a fire sale price. Washington, and perhaps more strongly Oregon, are the ones who destroyed what could have been a perfectly good remainder PAC conference. USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten was fine. If WA and OR were worthy of invites, they would have been invited at the same time. The Big Ten presidents did their homework, in consultation with their TV partners, and found that those two schools did not warrant invites and full shares of revenue. Disgracefully, they lowered the amount they were willing to take, and that's what got them in and destroyed the PAC.
Meh - Washington as a market and Oregon, as a brand, are more valuable than 2/3rds of the Big 10, including your preferred school, Minnesota. The Big 10 saw it as an opportunity to get those schools at a discount because of the landscape, not a determination on the schools value. It was a smart move on the Big 10’s part. Also, the Big 10 didn’t even want UCLA originally, they wanted USC and Oregon, UCLA came as a package for USC, so let’s not pretend that all invitations are as granularly applied as you are making it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 5, 2024 8:58:53 GMT -5
The Pac was going to die as soon as the LA schools announced. The media rights offer from Apple was in the low $20m range with no over air broadcasts. This gave the schools minimal national visibility and they would receive $40m per year less than BIG or SEC teams. Schools that wanted to remain relevant, and had a choice, left. Oregon and UW will immediately get full shares of the non-media rights revenue. Then get equal shares of that after six years. Nah, the Pac-12 had an offer from ESPN for about what the Big 12 got, and that was after USC left. They decided to go to the open market and paid the price the same way that the old Big East did a decade earlier. The Pac-12 died as the result of years of mismanagement. Agree with this, but even through all that there was a plenty good enough deal on the table to save the PAC(-10) and which Oregon/Wash I believe had said the night before they were good to go on. Then the next day they flushed the conf down the toilet. It was their action that did it. That's what the history books will say.
They can tell themselves that USC did it and it was over then, but that's not true.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 5, 2024 8:59:52 GMT -5
Let’s stop with this “history” argument I'll keep using it, for now. There are still plenty of areas where hopefully the folks in charge have enough sense not to cross those red lines.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 5, 2024 9:02:03 GMT -5
The Big 10 saw it as an opportunity to get those schools at a discount because of the landscape, not a determination on the schools value. If it was at a discount and because of the offered discount -- both correct -- then by definition it was because of the value. I don't understand what you're trying to say here, perhaps you could reword. they wanted USC and Oregon Anything official, not message board rumors or fan sites that circularly cite themselves or rumor Tweets, backing this up? Please and thank you!
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 5, 2024 9:03:46 GMT -5
Washington, and perhaps more strongly Oregon, are the ones who destroyed what could have been a perfectly good remainder PAC conference. USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten was fine. If WA and OR were worthy of invites, they would have been invited at the same time. The Big Ten presidents did their homework, in consultation with their TV partners, and found that those two schools did not warrant invites and full shares of revenue. Disgracefully, they lowered the amount they were willing to take, and that's what got them in and destroyed the PAC.
Meh - Washington as a market and Oregon, as a brand, are more valuable than 2/3rds of the Big 10, including your preferred school, Minnesota. The Big 10 saw it as an opportunity to get those schools at a discount because of the landscape, not a determination on the schools value. It was a smart move on the Big 10’s part. Also, the Big 10 didn’t even want UCLA originally, they wanted USC and Oregon, UCLA came as a package for USC, so let’s not pretend that all invitations are as granularly applied as you are making it out to be. The Big Ten wanted USC and Notre Dame, not Oregon, lol. If they wanted Oregon that bad, they wouldn't have forced them to take a half share*. Yes, UCLA got in as USC's plus one because USC was so valuable (the only Pac-12 school that was especially valuable) that they could dictate that. *Yes, I know they'll get a full share eventually, but that's because the Big Ten is not as smart about its moves as the SEC is.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 5, 2024 9:05:01 GMT -5
Nah, the Pac-12 had an offer from ESPN for about what the Big 12 got, and that was after USC left. They decided to go to the open market and paid the price the same way that the old Big East did a decade earlier. The Pac-12 died as the result of years of mismanagement. Agree with this, but even through all that there was a plenty good enough deal on the table to save the PAC(-10) and which Oregon/Wash I believe had said the night before they were good to go on. Then the next day they flushed the conf down the toilet. It was their action that did it. That's what the history books will say.
They can tell themselves that USC did it and it was over then, but that's not true.
Completely agree. The Pac-12 has no one to blame but themselves for alienating USC and then botching their subsequent media deal negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 5, 2024 9:11:51 GMT -5
*Yes, I know they'll get a full share eventually, but that's because the Big Ten is not as smart about its moves as the SEC is. You can call it not smart, and I can call it respectful, equitable, and honoring the tradition of what a conference is. And we can thus both be correct.
What how little it is worth, I wanted the Big Ten to stop at USC & UCLA and for the PAC to survive on as 10, plus adding San Diego State, etc. But alas, here we are.
|
|
|
Post by VBallLife on Jul 5, 2024 21:34:37 GMT -5
Washington, and perhaps more strongly Oregon, are the ones who destroyed what could have been a perfectly good remainder PAC conference. USC and UCLA going to the Big Ten was fine. If WA and OR were worthy of invites, they would have been invited at the same time. The Big Ten presidents did their homework, in consultation with their TV partners, and found that those two schools did not warrant invites and full shares of revenue. Disgracefully, they lowered the amount they were willing to take, and that's what got them in and destroyed the PAC.
Meh - Washington as a market and Oregon, as a brand, are more valuable than 2/3rds of the Big 10, including your preferred school, Minnesota. The Big 10 saw it as an opportunity to get those schools at a discount because of the landscape, not a determination on the schools value. It was a smart move on the Big 10’s part. Also, the Big 10 didn’t even want UCLA originally, they wanted USC and Oregon, UCLA came as a package for USC, so let’s not pretend that all invitations are as granularly applied as you are making it out to be. UCLA was always included with USC when it was announced two years ago. There was no,USC only.
|
|