|
|
Post by aztucho on Jul 8, 2022 15:46:40 GMT -8
SDSU should join with Arizona, ASU, and Colorado and solidify the western wing on the Big 12. Much more likely they would consider us now, due to the academic restrictions the Pac 12 has.
WEST (8): SDSU, ZONA, ASU, COLO, BYU, TEXAS TECH, HOUSTON, TCU
EAST (8): BAYLOR, OKLA ST, KANSAS, KSTATE, UCF, WV, IOWA ST, CINCY
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jul 8, 2022 16:11:57 GMT -8
SDSU should join with Arizona, ASU, and Colorado and solidify the western wing on the Big 12. Much more likely they would consider us now, due to the academic restrictions the Pac 12 has. WEST (8): SDSU, ZONA, ASU, COLO, BYU, TEXAS TECH, HOUSTON, TCU EAST (8): BAYLOR, OKLA ST, KANSAS, KSTATE, UCF, WV, IOWA ST, CINCY my guess is that this is wicker's best hope and what his is pimping for. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 8, 2022 16:22:30 GMT -8
SDSU should join with Arizona, ASU, and Colorado and solidify the western wing on the Big 12. Much more likely they would consider us now, due to the academic restrictions the Pac 12 has. WEST (8): SDSU, ZONA, ASU, COLO, BYU, TEXAS TECH, HOUSTON, TCU EAST (8): BAYLOR, OKLA ST, KANSAS, KSTATE, UCF, WV, IOWA ST, CINCY my guess is that this is wicker's best hope and what his is pimping for. But I think it will take more "Wicken", than Wicker, to make this happen, yes? |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jul 8, 2022 16:38:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jul 8, 2022 17:39:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Jul 8, 2022 18:02:39 GMT -8
www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-turned-down-1b-offerHere is the full article CONFIDENCE: The talk about the Big 12 Conference poaching Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado is dramatically overstated. I don’t blame the Big 12 for angling and dreaming about possibly adding a Pac-12 university. I don’t blame conference universities for making a contingency plan. But I’m convinced that the Pac-12’s remaining 10 members are galvanized right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztucho on Jul 8, 2022 18:13:12 GMT -8
www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-turned-down-1b-offerHere is the full article CONFIDENCE: The talk about the Big 12 Conference poaching Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado is dramatically overstated. I don’t blame the Big 12 for angling and dreaming about possibly adding a Pac-12 university. I don’t blame conference universities for making a contingency plan. But I’m convinced that the Pac-12’s remaining 10 members are galvanized right now. In other words, none of us got a Big 10 invite yet, so we are pretending to care about each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Jul 8, 2022 19:09:57 GMT -8
Well the Stand-on 10 option SUCKS for us. snipit from the SJ Mercury News PAC 12 writer Jon Wilner. www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/07/pac-12-survival-guide-media-valuations-suggest-expansion-doesnt-make-financial-sense/In the summer of 2021, it decided not to expand. Now? It could come to the very same conclusion. The available options don’t add significant financial value for the continuing members and aren’t ideal institutional fits, leaving Pac-12 presidents and chancellors with a decision: Expand for the sake of bulk, because there’s safety in numbers, or hunker down? With just 10 schools, the conference would be the smallest in the Power Five. The presidents could deem that a palatable existence if the Pac-12 partners with the ACC — a development reported Wednesday night by Sports Illustrated and originally sketched on the Hotline earlier this week. But what if there’s no partnership with the ACC and no desire to expand? This installment of our series on Pac-12 survival — a series designed to address every option so readers aren’t surprised by any outcome — examines what lurks behind Door No. 3. Let’s call it the Stand-on-10 option.First, we apologize if you were told there would be no math, because this discussion is all about the math. It’s a back-of-the-envelope look at the dollars and sense that come with hunkering down. For help, we turned to a trusted source in the sports media industry, someone with experience on the deal-making side. “I’d consider not adding any schools — split up whatever money fewer ways,” the source said. “There’s not a lot to be gained by combining with others. Sure, it’s possible. But I think the Pac-12 will do better on a per-school basis (by not adding). “Even if they can’t do better and the money is even, I’d still prefer that option and being with like-minded institutions, making rules that are in our best interests.” How would the math work?Let’s start with the assumption that the conference, if whole, would have generated $500 million annually in the next contract cycle from three revenue streams: broadcast rights to football and men’s basketball games, plus revenue from the four-team College Football Playoff and the NCAA Tournament. Without USC and UCLA, that figure drops substantially. A second Hotline source, one familiar with Pac-12 finances, estimated that USC alone was worth 30 percent of the conference’s value. Because UCLA occupies the same media market, the impact of its departure is somewhat limited. Let’s set the total reduction at 40 percent.That would leave the 10-team conference with approximately $300 million in average annual value, or $30 million per continuing member. In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value. There simply aren’t any available. “There is really no more water that can be squeezed out of the rock,” the media industry source said. “The value of any individual school that’s outside the Pac-12 — while some might have slightly more than others — is minuscule.” Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television.
|
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 8, 2022 19:27:14 GMT -8
Well the Stand-on 10 option SUCKS for us. snipit from the SJ Mercury News PAC 12 writer Jon Wilner. www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/07/pac-12-survival-guide-media-valuations-suggest-expansion-doesnt-make-financial-sense/In the summer of 2021, it decided not to expand. Now? It could come to the very same conclusion. The available options don’t add significant financial value for the continuing members and aren’t ideal institutional fits, leaving Pac-12 presidents and chancellors with a decision: Expand for the sake of bulk, because there’s safety in numbers, or hunker down? With just 10 schools, the conference would be the smallest in the Power Five. The presidents could deem that a palatable existence if the Pac-12 partners with the ACC — a development reported Wednesday night by Sports Illustrated and originally sketched on the Hotline earlier this week. But what if there’s no partnership with the ACC and no desire to expand? This installment of our series on Pac-12 survival — a series designed to address every option so readers aren’t surprised by any outcome — examines what lurks behind Door No. 3. Let’s call it the Stand-on-10 option.First, we apologize if you were told there would be no math, because this discussion is all about the math. It’s a back-of-the-envelope look at the dollars and sense that come with hunkering down. For help, we turned to a trusted source in the sports media industry, someone with experience on the deal-making side. “I’d consider not adding any schools — split up whatever money fewer ways,” the source said. “There’s not a lot to be gained by combining with others. Sure, it’s possible. But I think the Pac-12 will do better on a per-school basis (by not adding). “Even if they can’t do better and the money is even, I’d still prefer that option and being with like-minded institutions, making rules that are in our best interests.” How would the math work?Let’s start with the assumption that the conference, if whole, would have generated $500 million annually in the next contract cycle from three revenue streams: broadcast rights to football and men’s basketball games, plus revenue from the four-team College Football Playoff and the NCAA Tournament. Without USC and UCLA, that figure drops substantially. A second Hotline source, one familiar with Pac-12 finances, estimated that USC alone was worth 30 percent of the conference’s value. Because UCLA occupies the same media market, the impact of its departure is somewhat limited. Let’s set the total reduction at 40 percent.That would leave the 10-team conference with approximately $300 million in average annual value, or $30 million per continuing member. In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value. There simply aren’t any available. “There is really no more water that can be squeezed out of the rock,” the media industry source said. “The value of any individual school that’s outside the Pac-12 — while some might have slightly more than others — is minuscule.” Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television. As I said earlier: We are screwed |
|
|
|
Post by sdmotohead on Jul 8, 2022 19:30:25 GMT -8
We shouldn't be asking the Pac10 or B12 for membership, we should be kissing ESPN's or Fox Sport's asses so they insist these conferences invite us if they want a sweet tv contract!
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jul 8, 2022 19:30:50 GMT -8
Well the Stand-on 10 option SUCKS for us. snipit from the SJ Mercury News PAC 12 writer Jon Wilner. www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/07/pac-12-survival-guide-media-valuations-suggest-expansion-doesnt-make-financial-sense/In the summer of 2021, it decided not to expand. Now? It could come to the very same conclusion. The available options don’t add significant financial value for the continuing members and aren’t ideal institutional fits, leaving Pac-12 presidents and chancellors with a decision: Expand for the sake of bulk, because there’s safety in numbers, or hunker down? With just 10 schools, the conference would be the smallest in the Power Five. The presidents could deem that a palatable existence if the Pac-12 partners with the ACC — a development reported Wednesday night by Sports Illustrated and originally sketched on the Hotline earlier this week. But what if there’s no partnership with the ACC and no desire to expand? This installment of our series on Pac-12 survival — a series designed to address every option so readers aren’t surprised by any outcome — examines what lurks behind Door No. 3. Let’s call it the Stand-on-10 option.First, we apologize if you were told there would be no math, because this discussion is all about the math. It’s a back-of-the-envelope look at the dollars and sense that come with hunkering down. For help, we turned to a trusted source in the sports media industry, someone with experience on the deal-making side. “I’d consider not adding any schools — split up whatever money fewer ways,” the source said. “There’s not a lot to be gained by combining with others. Sure, it’s possible. But I think the Pac-12 will do better on a per-school basis (by not adding). “Even if they can’t do better and the money is even, I’d still prefer that option and being with like-minded institutions, making rules that are in our best interests.” How would the math work?Let’s start with the assumption that the conference, if whole, would have generated $500 million annually in the next contract cycle from three revenue streams: broadcast rights to football and men’s basketball games, plus revenue from the four-team College Football Playoff and the NCAA Tournament. Without USC and UCLA, that figure drops substantially. A second Hotline source, one familiar with Pac-12 finances, estimated that USC alone was worth 30 percent of the conference’s value. Because UCLA occupies the same media market, the impact of its departure is somewhat limited. Let’s set the total reduction at 40 percent.That would leave the 10-team conference with approximately $300 million in average annual value, or $30 million per continuing member. In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value. There simply aren’t any available. “There is really no more water that can be squeezed out of the rock,” the media industry source said. “The value of any individual school that’s outside the Pac-12 — while some might have slightly more than others — is minuscule.” Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television. Lmfao. None of these schools bring that value otherwise they would be in the big 10. Oregon only brings 6 million. Lmao. It’s up to the tv execs. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 8, 2022 21:21:10 GMT -8
SDSU should join with Arizona, ASU, and Colorado and solidify the western wing on the Big 12. Much more likely they would consider us now, due to the academic restrictions the Pac 12 has. WEST (8): SDSU, ZONA, ASU, COLO, BYU, TEXAS TECH, HOUSTON, TCU EAST (8): BAYLOR, OKLA ST, KANSAS, KSTATE, UCF, WV, IOWA ST, CINCY Why are you pushing the BIG12 angle so hard? Personally I'd much rather be in the PAC12. |
|
|
|
Post by kozy on Jul 8, 2022 21:41:27 GMT -8
I am more confident that the P10 will no longer be in 2024. Itt's the Big East with longer travel. Gavin Newsome has said he holds the last refusal of any team that is in a state Californians can't travel to. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 9, 2022 5:09:45 GMT -8
www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-turned-down-1b-offerHere is the full article CONFIDENCE: The talk about the Big 12 Conference poaching Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado is dramatically overstated. I don’t blame the Big 12 for angling and dreaming about possibly adding a Pac-12 university. I don’t blame conference universities for making a contingency plan. But I’m convinced that the Pac-12’s remaining 10 members are galvanized right now. I can believe this... I assume the remaining 10 university presidents are quite happy with the (perceived) academic prestige in the PAC, which is greater than any other major conference besides the B1G (Ivy obviously excluded). And moving "down" to the BigXII would not be popular with significant corners of the faculty and alumni... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecterrier on Jul 9, 2022 5:10:53 GMT -8
They are looking at all of their options. Obviously if the B1G comes calling everything changes. Until that happens though, PAC12 teams going to the BIG12, or BIG12 teams going to the PAC12, is purely speculation. The BIG12 is the PAC12's equal at this point. As the landscape is laid out today, there is no way for OSU or WSU to remain Power 5 teams, NO MATTER what they do. The only argument against this, that I can see, is it would set an uncomfortable precedent for schools like Vandy, Kansas and Indiana, and therefore they will put whatever influence they have within these conferences to try to ensure "no school gets left behind (that's already in the club)". |
|
|
|
Post by aztecalum on Jul 9, 2022 6:53:20 GMT -8
My humble opinion:
1). The Pac10 realize they are in a stronger position than the B12
2). Without the LA market (SC/UCLA) and with the additions of BYU, Cinncy, Houston and UCF - the Pac10 has more DMA population compared to B12
3). Pac10 media rights will drop 30-40% with lost of SC/UCLA but so were B12 media rights was going to drop with lost of OU and Texas
4). As Pac10 negotiate their media rights they likely will get an estimate of what B12 rights will be in 2024. I suspect Pac10 rights will be larger because of larger TV markets.
5). Dividing the rights by 10 (current Pac10 membership) vs 14 (current B12 membership) favors Pac10 by a lot.
6). Pac10 can justify adding SDSU (SoCal market and recruiting) and SMU, Las Vegas or FSU to increase DMA media rights (not by $30M per team)
7). I think B12 is well aware of these facts thus aggressively trying to get Pac to make an immediate move. Pac10/12 is positioned to keep B12 as 5th Power 5 conference at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Jul 9, 2022 6:58:03 GMT -8
I still think the Pac is going to expand back to 12. SDSU would be the likely choice if and when that happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecalum on Jul 9, 2022 7:25:38 GMT -8
My humble opinion: 1). The Pac10 realize they are in a stronger position than the B12 2). Without the LA market (SC/UCLA) and with the additions of BYU, Cinncy, Houston and UCF - the Pac10 has more DMA population compared to B12 3). Pac10 media rights will drop 30-40% with lost of SC/UCLA but so were B12 media rights was going to drop with lost of OU and Texas 4). As Pac10 negotiate their media rights they likely will get an estimate of what B12 rights will be in 2024. I suspect Pac10 rights will be larger because of larger TV markets. 5). Dividing the rights by 10 (current Pac10 membership) vs 14 (current B12 membership) favors Pac10 by a lot. 6). Pac10 can justify adding SDSU (SoCal market and recruiting) and SMU, Las Vegas or FSU to increase DMA media rights (not by $30M per team) 7). I think B12 is well aware of these facts thus aggressively trying to get Pac to make an immediate move. Pac10/12 is positioned to keep B12 as 5th Power 5 conference at best. One additional advantage the Pac10 has over the B12 is the coveted PST time slot. For ESPN that want to carry live games on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night at 7:30pm PST or 8pm PST - Pac 10/12 has the advantage. Only option for B12 is BYU in Mountain time zone which is 8:30/9:00 local start, for rest of B12 it is not attractive for 9:30pm / 10pm CST local start times. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecterrier on Jul 9, 2022 7:44:16 GMT -8
If the world revolved around me the Aztecs would receive an invite along with UNLV, Fresno St. and BYU to the PAC. But since it doesn't, I would also accept the Aztecs being the sole recipient of an all-sports invite to the PAC. And because I know I can't have my way ALL of the time, I would also be 'okay' with an invitation to the BIG12 with Arizona, Arizona St. and UNLV. In the worst-case scenario, I could live with WSU, OSU and Cal being added to the MWC. But I won't accept anything less than that, except the status quo (of course).
Go Aztecs!
|
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jul 9, 2022 7:45:19 GMT -8
I still think the Pac is going to expand back to 12. SDSU would be the likely choice if and when that happens. I agree, but with no other teams departing the Pac-12 will have the luxury of biding its time, perhaps wait to see how interest in SDSU football plays out in the marketplace with the new stadium. |
|
