USC/UCLA to the Big Ten in 24?

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
92,517
48,574
113
52
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
I find it extremely difficult to believe they are that far apart. That doesn’t pass the smell test.
Why? Some of the remaining schools are trying to keep the thing from flying apart, so it wouldn't be all that strange to have them pushing for big numbers, both to see if they can get it, and also to have numbers that are interesting enough to keep certain programs from jetting until they find out the final number.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,236
3,251
113
Fwiw, some are speculating in the comments of that thread that it’s more likely ESPN’s offer on only half (assuming the PAC-12 is trying to obtain a combined Amazon/ESPN type deal). Say Amazon matches, that’s $32M per and a lot more in line with the initial reports, right?

Still think the networks aren’t going to keep a termination clause off the table though, or it’ll be low at that.

Which is why people have reported the issue is the PAC10 doesn’t have enough quality inventory to get the numbers they want from both

A Big 16 or Big 18 would.
 

cyman05

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 7, 2010
2,072
238
63
Could be a lot of reasons for it.

PAC 12 self-valuation seems pretty high.
ESPN could be low-balling.

Also, that ESPN valuation may be the valuation without the termination clause.

IF the numbers are/were true, it’s likely a number with no termination clause. Oregon/Washington don’t want to sign anything right now, and ESPN knows that if those two bolt then the conference collapses. PAC12 likely wants to see what it could potentially get without a grant of rights being signed first.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
11,022
10,884
113
Why? Some of the remaining schools are trying to keep the thing from flying apart, so it wouldn't be all that strange to have them pushing for big numbers, both to see if they can get it, and also to have numbers that are interesting enough to keep certain programs from jetting until they find out the final number.
$16M/per/per has to be nearing G5 conference levels doesn’t it? The two sides are basically at X and .5X right now. With .5X being 16% of what Fox is paying the b1g teams per year. If I have all the numbers correct. No matter how you look at it, this doesn’t bode well for us.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
92,517
48,574
113
52
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
$16M/per/per has to be nearing G5 conference levels doesn’t it? The two sides are basically at X and .5X right now. With .5X being 16% of what Fox is paying the b1g teams per year. If I have all the numbers correct. No matter how you look at it, this doesn’t bode well for us.
If the PAC 12 implodes, the Big 12 should gain desirability with added membership (and across more time zones). It also sets up the potential that when the ACC is raided, we could be down to three power conferences (and be one of them, even if with lesser power). We would be better off if the PAC 12 breaks apart than if they don't.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
11,022
10,884
113
If the PAC 12 implodes, the Big 12 should gain desirability with added membership (and across more time zones). It also sets up the potential that when the ACC is raided, we could be down to three power conferences (and be one of them, even if with lesser power). We would be better off if the PAC 12 breaks apart than if they don't.
What I’m struggling to say is the PAC staying together and being forced to accept a lowball offer while we’re in the midst of negotiating is not beneficial to us.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: StPaulCyclone

CoKane

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 26, 2013
16,922
9,271
113
Cedar Rapids
I would say at this point in the game, when you are talking perception of the conference, yes, 100% being G5 is an auto DQ. There is no one out there who would make an impact to improve the status of the conference. This is now 100% on the perception of the league and retaining our P? status. Adding more G5 schools only devalues the league.

Give me some SDSU numbers, not Boise St. What does Boise St. outperforming OSU have to do with SDSU joining the Big 12? P.S. I don't want Boise St. either.
I brought up Boise because im arguing some of the G5 are still better adds than some of the p5 left. Not that SDSU is an undisputed good add. I don't think ive even seen numbers on them yet tbh.

If adding SDSU gets us more money then you add them. I dont think SDSU themselves is what would get us more money, it would be having a team to stick in the late night timeslot. And if it comes down to that id rather take SDSUs potential to grow over teams like Cal, Washington State, or Oregon State who regularly suck. Those 3 having a P5 label is literally just superficial because they do not bring anything either.

Also, cant find the post back but to the point about Cals potential, I can see the argument, but whats stopped them from giving a **** about their sports before? They haven't had a reason to not try while being in the PAC. If they wanted to be better they easily could be. So why would that change now? Adding teams who dont care and lose would be far worse for the conference than adding G5s
 

CoKane

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 26, 2013
16,922
9,271
113
Cedar Rapids
$16M/per/per has to be nearing G5 conference levels doesn’t it? The two sides are basically at X and .5X right now. With .5X being 16% of what Fox is paying the b1g teams per year. If I have all the numbers correct. No matter how you look at it, this doesn’t bode well for us.
The Mountain West gets 4 million and the AAC is somewhere in the 7-9 million range. Idk what the Sun Belt gets and the MAC and CUSA certainly dont get more than that
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Acylum

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
6,799
7,007
113

If the PAC is even close to right about their media value... wouldn't they be best off to just go all in on the P12 network? Just get into the TV business, basically. That's obviously easier said than done, and way outside of core business, but you'd have to think they could get AT LEAST what ESPN is offering with potential upside. And maybe you could still sell some individual big games to CBS, Fox, etc.

It's also possible that it is total posturing by Kliavkoff and his bluff has been called.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
6,799
7,007
113
What I’m struggling to say is the PAC staying together and being forced to accept a lowball offer while we’re in the midst of negotiating is not beneficial to us.
Well, maybe. The question is what are those games really worth?

If they are not worth much, then the B12 may not be worth much either, and we are indeed in trouble.

But if they are more valuable, then ESPN may be trying to break up the P10 by scaring some into joining their property in the Big12. The probably reckon that some of Stanford, ORWA are likely going to be Fox property in the B1G eventually, but maybe they can get them if they force their hand now, before the B1G is ready to move.
 

sunset

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
2,639
698
113
San Diego, CA
I brought up Boise because im arguing some of the G5 are still better adds than some of the p5 left. Not that SDSU is an undisputed good add. I don't think ive even seen numbers on them yet tbh.

If adding SDSU gets us more money then you add them. I dont think SDSU themselves is what would get us more money, it would be having a team to stick in the late night timeslot. And if it comes down to that id rather take SDSUs potential to grow over teams like Cal, Washington State, or Oregon State who regularly suck. Those 3 having a P5 label is literally just superficial because they do not bring anything either.

Also, cant find the post back but to the point about Cals potential, I can see the argument, but whats stopped them from giving a **** about their sports before? They haven't had a reason to not try while being in the PAC. If they wanted to be better they easily could be. So why would that change now? Adding teams who dont care and lose would be far worse for the conference than adding G5s
I’ve lived in San Diego for twenty years and have really tried to grow some sort of emotional attachment to the program but simply can’t. Even when the ex hawk Chuck Long was here I wanted to cheer for them but alwaysfound something else to do on saturdays. I don’t know what it is, but there are a lot of people here just like me. The basketball team draws well when they are winning so I won’t say never, but I don’t see it.

As an aside, the new stadium is horrible. Just plain terrible.
 

SCNCY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 11, 2009
8,043
5,353
113
35
La Fox, IL
I’ve lived in San Diego for twenty years and have really tried to grow some sort of emotional attachment to the program but simply can’t. Even when the ex hawk Chuck Long was here I wanted to cheer for them but alwaysfound something else to do on saturdays. I don’t know what it is, but there are a lot of people here just like me. The basketball team draws well when they are winning so I won’t say never, but I don’t see it.

As an aside, the new stadium is horrible. Just plain terrible.

The argument PAC 12 media likes to make for poor attendance at college athletic events on the west coast is that their location allows for a lot of activities for people to do. Like go mountain climbing, hiking, go to the beach, some festival, etc. All that really is code for 'college athletics is not a high priority for the majority of people that live there.' I agree that those things on the west coast are nice. I live in the east coast, first in Rhode Island walking distance to the beach (our house actually had water views), and even here in New Jersey, we've been no more than an hour drive to various beaches. But when it comes to Saturday, I make the choice to set time aside for college football. The west coast doesn't do that.

Also, not directing this as anger towards you, it's just your bolded sentence that I have seen on Twitter and other media sites arguing this as a reason for poor attendance.
 

jcyclonee

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
20,684
22,385
113
Minneapolis
The argument PAC 12 media likes to make for poor attendance at college athletic events on the west coast is that their location allows for a lot of activities for people to do. Like go mountain climbing, hiking, go to the beach, some festival, etc. All that really is code for 'college athletics is not a high priority for the majority of people that live there.' I agree that those things on the west coast are nice. I live in the east coast, first in Rhode Island walking distance to the beach (our house actually had water views), and even here in New Jersey, we've been no more than an hour drive to various beaches. But when it comes to Saturday, I make the choice to set time aside for college football. The west coast doesn't do that.

Also, not directing this as anger towards you, it's just your bolded sentence that I have seen on Twitter and other media sites arguing this as a reason for poor attendance.
If there's one thing I've known since Jaws came out in the late 70's, it's that the beaches of the Northeast are full of Great White Sharks.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: StPaulCyclone

Clonefan94

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
9,709
3,782
113
Schaumburg, IL
I brought up Boise because im arguing some of the G5 are still better adds than some of the p5 left. Not that SDSU is an undisputed good add. I don't think ive even seen numbers on them yet tbh.

If adding SDSU gets us more money then you add them. I dont think SDSU themselves is what would get us more money, it would be having a team to stick in the late night timeslot. And if it comes down to that id rather take SDSUs potential to grow over teams like Cal, Washington State, or Oregon State who regularly suck. Those 3 having a P5 label is literally just superficial because they do not bring anything either.

Also, cant find the post back but to the point about Cals potential, I can see the argument, but whats stopped them from giving a **** about their sports before? They haven't had a reason to not try while being in the PAC. If they wanted to be better they easily could be. So why would that change now? Adding teams who dont care and lose would be far worse for the conference than adding G5s
I know this is a moot point with you, since everyone has said it multiple times, but again, SDSU will not get us more money. Adding a late night slot won’t mean anything if SDSU is playing in that slot. No one watches them.
 
Last edited:

BuffettClone

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
2,540
1,770
113
The argument PAC 12 media likes to make for poor attendance at college athletic events on the west coast is that their location allows for a lot of activities for people to do. Like go mountain climbing, hiking, go to the beach, some festival, etc. All that really is code for 'college athletics is not a high priority for the majority of people that live there.' I agree that those things on the west coast are nice. I live in the east coast, first in Rhode Island walking distance to the beach (our house actually had water views), and even here in New Jersey, we've been no more than an hour drive to various beaches. But when it comes to Saturday, I make the choice to set time aside for college football. The west coast doesn't do that.

Also, not directing this as anger towards you, it's just your bolded sentence that I have seen on Twitter and other media sites arguing this as a reason for poor attendance.

I've never understood that argument. I do believe it to be true, but to me it would just reinforce the decision of the networks to not top dollar for their media rights. They're basically saying "You should pay us a ton of money for our media rights because we have a lot of fans, even though our fans have better things to do and don't watch our games."
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
53,652
46,797
113
Not exactly sure.
$16M/per/per has to be nearing G5 conference levels doesn’t it? The two sides are basically at X and .5X right now. With .5X being 16% of what Fox is paying the b1g teams per year. If I have all the numbers correct. No matter how you look at it, this doesn’t bode well for us.
1). Big ten doesn’t hit 100 until the playoffs change, LA enters and near the end. 2) that includes all tiers 3) included bowls, playoffs and everything, this is just some of the TV rights.
 

sunset

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
2,639
698
113
San Diego, CA
The argument PAC 12 media likes to make for poor attendance at college athletic events on the west coast is that their location allows for a lot of activities for people to do. Like go mountain climbing, hiking, go to the beach, some festival, etc. All that really is code for 'college athletics is not a high priority for the majority of people that live there.' I agree that those things on the west coast are nice. I live in the east coast, first in Rhode Island walking distance to the beach (our house actually had water views), and even here in New Jersey, we've been no more than an hour drive to various beaches. But when it comes to Saturday, I make the choice to set time aside for college football. The west coast doesn't do that.

Also, not directing this as anger towards you, it's just your bolded sentence that I have seen on Twitter and other media sites arguing this as a reason for poor attendance.
I’ve been down this road before and don’t want to get into an argument about it. It is simply true, the lifestyle here is built around the beach/ocean and, to a lesser extent, mountains/hiking/biking/etc more than any place I’ve ever been or seen. BuffetClone has it right, it should factor in to tv contract decisions because it is a reality.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SCNCY