|
|
Post by Texaz on Apr 19, 2023 21:05:05 GMT -8
I admit to being rather rusty at math, but .3 x 31.7 = 9.5. But, if you want to make the claim that the B12 left nearly $14M on the table it helps mine and Boise's points. I do recall that Klavikoff had the PAC valued at about $45M/school which was higher than he valued the B12. (31.7/0.7) = 45.29 million (value of the contract if it was underpriced by 30%) 45.29 million - 31.7 mil = 13.59 million (money, per school, left on the table, if the contract was undervalued by 30%) As I said, I don't think that the Big 12 left money on the table. That's just the excuse that the pro-PAC crowd use for not meeting the inflated numbers that GK originally threw out as being a slam dunk. The relative value of their TV deals is meaningless as a measurement of the quality of the conferences because, the situations faced by the two conferences when they went to market were very different. Whether accidently or by design, by going to market first, the Big 12 filled most of the remaining product needs for the broadcasters. So when the PAC came along, the supply vs. demand situation was entirely different. The demand was way down because it had already largely been met. Add to that, broadcaster cutbacks reduced or eliminated the bidding war that might have occurred last summer. It's not that the Big 12 is a "better" conference than the PAC -- it's that they went to market at a time where the demand for product, relative to the supply, was much greater and when the broadcasters were willing to pay to fill that demand. Honestly, I don't know if it was brilliance on the part of Yormark or just dumb luck. But either way, it is causing the PAC all sorts of problems. But the one thing it doesn't do is prove that the Big 12 is better than the PAC. |
|
|
|
Post by Texaz on Apr 19, 2023 21:21:29 GMT -8
Other than TCU the Big 12 is a glorified AAC in football. What are you talking about assigning broadcasters to games? You don't know how much money was left on the table. No one knows other than the networks. What Big 12 teams are going to compete with Pac in the 5:00-5:30 PST time zone or 7:00-7:30 prime time spot CST? You speak as a Big 12 representative. I think you need to understand the Big 12 before you make these statements. Ive followed the Big 8 to its inclusion of the Texas 4 and all the good football schools have moved on except for FSU in your dreams.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteclou on Apr 19, 2023 21:31:04 GMT -8
Altimore states that he has been told by contacts that the paperwork has already been signed at least on a preliminary level for SDSU to join the PAC12. Those of us who remember the Dan Patrick slip months ago already know this. That’s when it all went down. PAC-12 has been a done deal for months. Anybody who thinks otherwise just hasn’t been paying attention. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 19, 2023 21:32:33 GMT -8
Texas Monthly is a well sourced straight-up magazine. I'm impressed your research found it. The article makes several good points and I witnessed the SWC breakup. Other than TCU what other school competes in football. I think going forward TCU leaves the Big 12 and what is left--basketball. Who knows what is going to happen? My guess is that the PAC will die first -- mostly raided of its top schools by the B1G. The ACC will get picked over as well -- by the B1G and the SEC. That leaves the Big 12, coast to coast, as the best of the rest conference. At some point, the top schools in the SEC and B1G will leave the NCAA, not taking their weak links with them, and they will cherry pick whatever remaining schools they need to fill out a total of 64 schools in four, 16 team regions. So 64 make it. Or maybe 48 make it. Or maybe only 32 make it. I could see 48 or 64 making it when the power schools only want 32 because, unlike the NFL, schools get tax money from Congress and that means pissed off voters and their representatives will exert pressure. But however it breaks out, most of the schools in the PAC, ACC and Big 12 will be left out. Except Fresno State, of course. I have a plan... But don't worry. We'll try to bring our little brother along with us... That last sentence was a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Texaz on Apr 19, 2023 21:39:02 GMT -8
You are a confused soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Apr 20, 2023 5:41:04 GMT -8
I admit to being rather rusty at math, but .3 x 31.7 = 9.5. But, if you want to make the claim that the B12 left nearly $14M on the table it helps mine and Boise's points. I do recall that Klavikoff had the PAC valued at about $45M/school which was higher than he valued the B12. I am not making any point, but I understand how one would get to 45M just as much as I understand how one would get $40M. The statement is not clear, they left 30% on the table. I read the statement as, they left money on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 20, 2023 6:41:11 GMT -8
I admit to being rather rusty at math, but .3 x 31.7 = 9.5. But, if you want to make the claim that the B12 left nearly $14M on the table it helps mine and Boise's points. I do recall that Klavikoff had the PAC valued at about $45M/school which was higher than he valued the B12. I am not making any point, but I understand how one would get to 45M just as much as I understand how one would get $40M. The statement is not clear, they left 30% on the table. I read the statement as, they left money on the table. I look at it a bit differently, they "consumed" 31.7 but could have "consumed" 30% more, 9.5. Anyway, it doesn't really change the point that the B12 was in a hurry to get a deal done before the PAC. Generally, when you rush things you don't get the best deal you can get. You are trading value for time. |
|
|
|
Post by darksidereturns on Apr 20, 2023 6:41:36 GMT -8
I admit to being rather rusty at math, but .3 x 31.7 = 9.5. But, if you want to make the claim that the B12 left nearly $14M on the table it helps mine and Boise's points. I do recall that Klavikoff had the PAC valued at about $45M/school which was higher than he valued the B12. I am not making any point, but I understand how one would get to 45M just as much as I understand how one would get $40M. The statement is not clear, they left 30% on the table. I read the statement as, they left money on the table. Dad, I just signed a contract for $31.7MM; I'm rich. Son you just left 30% on the table, you could have been richer. Wait, what do you mean 30%. Son that contract could have been 30% higher. So I could have made $45MM? No son, we are talking about your contract. Your contract exists. It could have been 30% higher. 30% of your current contract is $9.51MM thus your contract could have been $41,210,000. $45MM is a made up number that doesn't represent anything. Is that why you're a bean counter Dad? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Apr 20, 2023 6:59:37 GMT -8
I am not making any point, but I understand how one would get to 45M just as much as I understand how one would get $40M. The statement is not clear, they left 30% on the table. I read the statement as, they left money on the table. Dad, I just signed a contract for $31.7MM; I'm rich. Son you just left 30% on the table, you could have been richer. Wait, what do you mean 30%. Son that contract could have been 30% higher. So I could have made $45MM? No son, we are talking about your contract. Your contract exists. It could have been 30% higher. 30% of your current contract is $9.51MM thus your contract could have been $41,210,000. $45MM is a made up number that doesn't represent anything. Is that why you're a bean counter Dad? Yes. This 30% stuff is like the trick math questions you see on twitter and it ends up with people arguing over the order of operations. I agree with you though. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 20, 2023 7:20:32 GMT -8
would have hoped that by 400 pages and numerous "Experts or Podcasters or Those who are well 'connected " that until there is a Verified Document about a TV Deal or Conference Expansion - consider most of those "reports " as speculation at best
So relax as there is not much most of us can do until there are official announcements - one way or another
|
|
|
|
Post by cvaztec on Apr 20, 2023 7:31:23 GMT -8
Dad, I just signed a contract for $31.7MM; I'm rich. Son you just left 30% on the table, you could have been richer. Wait, what do you mean 30%. Son that contract could have been 30% higher. So I could have made $45MM? No son, we are talking about your contract. Your contract exists. It could have been 30% higher. 30% of your current contract is $9.51MM thus your contract could have been $41,210,000. $45MM is a made up number that doesn't represent anything. Is that why you're a bean counter Dad? Yes. This 30% stuff is like the trick math questions you see on twitter and it ends up with people arguing over the order of operations. I agree with you though. Indeed. Another way to look at it would be if you had a whole pizza with 10 slices, and took 7 slices for yourself and left the rest on the table. In this example, you'd have literally left 30% (3 slices) on the table. This would align with those that are coming up with the $45 million dollar figure. |
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Apr 20, 2023 7:34:34 GMT -8
This 30% stuff is like the trick math questions you see on twitter and it ends up with people arguing over the order of operations. I agree with you though. Indeed. Another way to look at it would be if you had a whole pizza with 10 slices, and took 7 slices for yourself and left the rest on the table. In this example, you'd have literally left 30% (3 slices) on the table. But what if the train was traveling at 40 MPH? |
|
|
|
Post by cvaztec on Apr 20, 2023 7:38:57 GMT -8
Indeed. Another way to look at it would be if you had a whole pizza with 10 slices, and took 7 slices for yourself and left the rest on the table. In this example, you'd have literally left 30% (3 slices) on the table. But what if the train was traveling at 40 MPH? As long as the train stays in constant motion, the slices should stay on the table!  |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 20, 2023 7:57:03 GMT -8
This 30% stuff is like the trick math questions you see on twitter and it ends up with people arguing over the order of operations. I agree with you though. Indeed. Another way to look at it would be if you had a whole pizza with 10 slices, and took 7 slices for yourself and left the rest on the table. In this example, you'd have literally left 30% (3 slices) on the table. This would align with those that are coming up with the $45 million dollar figure. Fair… but it shouldn’t matter… it was my comment and I clarified it… the B12 signed a deal for $31.6m per team and there everyone agreed that by not going to an open bid the B12 left money in the table and there have been reports that the number could have been between $37m and $42m or about 20% to 30% more than the current contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 20, 2023 7:59:55 GMT -8
This 30% stuff is like the trick math questions you see on twitter and it ends up with people arguing over the order of operations. I agree with you though. Indeed. Another way to look at it would be if you had a whole pizza with 10 slices, and took 7 slices for yourself and left the rest on the table. In this example, you'd have literally left 30% (3 slices) on the table. This would align with those that are coming up with the $45 million dollar figure. Yeah, but you had the whole pizza at one point. The B12 never had the $45M/school. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 20, 2023 8:25:27 GMT -8
There's a fine line between being a visionary and a lunatic. The debate rages as to which side of the line I call home. |
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Apr 20, 2023 8:27:55 GMT -8
You sound like most of us
|
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Apr 20, 2023 8:31:00 GMT -8
My concern about going to the Pac 12 is what if we do so and then Washington and Oregon leave?
Without UCLA and USC, have to keep Washington and Oregon or else the conference becomes largely irrelevant yes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 20, 2023 8:37:23 GMT -8
My concern about going to the Pac 12 is what if we do so and then Washington and Oregon leave? Without UCLA and USC, have to keep Washington and Oregon or else the conference becomes largely irrelevant yes? I have no idea what the timing would be but I do think that the B1G will end up taking two more PAC schools. One will be Washington. The other could be either Oregon or Cal. They don't really need two members in the Pacific Northwest -- nor do they need two schools in the Bay Area. But they do need two more schools so that USC and UCLA can cut down their travel a little. I think that they will pick Cal over Oregon because it is one of the world's premier research institutions -- and the Big 10 would like to tap into it with their joint computer system. In any event, I think your concern is legitimate. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Apr 20, 2023 8:37:27 GMT -8
There's a fine line between being a visionary and a lunatic. The debate rages as to which side of the line I call home. There's a reason we're referred to as 'fanatics'. |
|
