Getting that Axe to chop that annoying Tree two years in a row has been awesome!
Pac12 dissolution discussion
- Thread starter rotorocker
- Start date
Good move, yes, LA market presence, NO.
I have been hearing that "streaming exclusive is in the near future" for quite a while now, and yet I see no evidence that that is the case. Streaming providers either don't have the money or are unwilling to spend it to compete with the cable/satellite providers. In addition, cable/satellite providers have been successful in selling internet, either as a package with TV and phone, or stand alone. It is getting to the point for many people that you can't have streaming without a cable service. At some point cable companies can just increase their internet fees and reduce their TV fees to lock out the streamers. Finally, with high speed fiber optic cable direct to my house, I don't care if the internet is down or bandwidth is reduced. The predictions of death of cable/satellite is just a bit premature and may never happen.
Part of your argument is how you define a "market". I know there are defined TV markets for ratings purposes, but your argument wants to make the leap from local markets (Alabama, etc.) to national markets. College sports are actually a regional market. The SEC in the southeast, the Big Ten in the mid-west plus, etc. For instance, Alabama dominates in the Atlanta market, but is a blip in Los Angeles. Th Chicago market is the same for the Big Ten, LA wherever USC and UCLA are. Your examples of SMU, Houston and San Diego State, fail because, even though they are in large markets, they don't dominate those markets and can't bring those eyeballs with them.
You have fully bought into the streaming thing and the demise of cable/satellite. You have not evaluated the strength and weaknesses of each very well. The hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe billions) of cable/satellite infrastructure are not going away, in fact it has been seriously upgraded in the last few years by companies who do not seem to be worried about their demise. The fact that cable/satellite companies continue to raise their rates, as opposed to reducing them, are the best indication that they are not worried. When/if I see cable/satellite companies reducing their rates to compete with streaming then I will become a believer. Also when/if I see streamers compete for conference contracts, that will also be a sign. The one point that you fail to mention is for streamers to dominate college sports, one of two things has to happen; either the networks have to give up their best content or continue to outbid the streamers, or the streamers have to be willing to pay carriage fees to the networks which will price them out of the game. The bottom line is that for your scenario to happen, streamers have to beat out ALL the cable/satellite providers and ALL the networks currently paying billions for conference carriage rights. So far, there is no indication that any of the streamers have the desire or the ability to do so.
Finally, I don't like the cable/satellite fees any more than anyone else. I have seriously looked into streaming as a replacement several times. I have a list of 40 channels that my wife (mostly) and I watch on a regular basis. I have yet to find a streamer that provides all of those channels, and when I add high speed (streaming speed) internet to the cost of streamers for even most of those channels, the total is not that much less than the cable/satellite providers. When is this going to change?
They probably are because they're probably the best of what's in the G-5 to choose from.
UNLV might be a program worth taking in the future, but isn't a great choice at this time .
Another future candidate might be UTSA
In reality, there's not much the PAC has to choice from and all really won't really improve that conference much more than it looks like now
I have no inside information, but I wonder if it is politically feasible for San Diego State to join without Fresno State also joining.
I forgot all about Fresno State and unless Cal and or Stanford leaves, might not be a problem leaving them out.
But they might get a shot instead of SMU just because of travel costs
I would think that the revenue to the Pac-12 from being in the Dallas market would greatly outweigh travel costs. But you're right in suggesting that travel might be an issue. Dallas is two time zones away and so there would be more disruption to student athletes' schedules than Fresno State. (Utah and Colorado are only one time zone away.) I think the bigger issue is whether one of the two California State campuses with major athletic programs can as a matter of political reality do something without the other being a part of it.
Outside of the Southern Central Valley, I doubt any other California pols would try to tie SDSU & FSU together. Remember also that San Jose State is in the MWC (though the Pac 12 would never add the Spartans).
San Diego's metro is about 3x that of Fresno and is much richer. I cannot imagine the Pac 12 ever being interested in Fresno - unless a Pac 12/MWC merger were in the works (beyond doubtful, IMO).
Yes, and I had forgotten about San Jose State (which is weird because for years Cal scheduled them as a cupcake). BTW, there is talk that the Big 12 is interested in San Diego State.
As you may know, Fresno State fans have a very bad reputation. My understanding is that drinking is allowed in their stadium. I'm sure Cal and Stanford have no desire to have Fresno State as a regular opponent -- even leaving aside that probably Fresno State would beat them a lot of the time!
Washington looking more attractive by the day as far as a B1G target. With Oregon it would lock up the entire PNW for the BTN.
I don't disagree that Washington is attractive -- but what is making it increasingly attractive? Thanks!
academics only, nothing else from a financial or content standpoint. The only way Washington gets in is with a larger block of 'blockbuster' adds
U. Washington is an excellent school, no doubt about it. The problem , though, is Washington State. My guess is that the legislature and governor won't be willing to let U. Washington leave the Pac-12 unless Washington State, a fellow member, lands on its feet. In addition, the rivalry game between the two schools is a big deal in Washington and something has to be done to maintain that. BTW, U. Washington is located in Seattle, which is not a negligible media market.
Maybe they just pay stipends to WSU like UCLA is going to do with Cal-Berkeley.
Yes, that's a possibility. But maybe not. The difference is that UCLA's departure left a Pac-10 that could be viable. But if U. Wash leaves with other schools, the Pac-10 is going to be in big trouble. So maybe paying Wash. State wouldn't be considered enough. But who knows?
If you were the State of Washington, Oregon or California ( you could add N Catlolina and Virginia as well) wouldn’t you want at least one school in the Big 2 and then have to figure out how to move forward with the other school? Or would you prefer for both schools to be left behind? I don’t see any state doing that. There’s to much at stake.
You're probably right. It's not like Virginia, where U.Va could cast the deciding vote to invite Virginia Tech into the ACC. But I'm really not sure the Regents would have let UCLA join the Big Ten if there had been a huge injury to Cal that couldn't have been remedied with a pretty modest monetary sum. It might be OK if Washington State and Oregon State were guaranteed spots in, say, the MVC. But I don't think Arizona can go anywhere without taking Arizona State with them.
Washington will not be in the BIG unless with a 'few' blockbuster names. Washington and everyone NOT named ND does not add enough punch to make the other schools whole. Now a Stanford, ND, FSU, UNC does. Washington doesn't add anything other than academics.
Seattle, where UW's main campus is located, is the twelfth biggest media market in the country with 2 million TV households. I agree it makes no sense by itself, but with somebody else it could add a lot of revenue and ease scheduling problems.
Forgive a silly question, but how do you decide whether a school is worth $80mm a year or not? Certainly being in a big media market helps. And if UW isn't worth $80mm itself, then why do you think it might be admitted as part of a package with other schools?
I'm not sure if you're serious here. Seattle isn't a large tv market and I don't decide on that number, the new contract does
travel cost will be a major factor in the B1G adding Oregon and Washington
Making the West Coast B1G territory .
Cal's academic rating will help them become a member along with ( my opinion without one bit of proof to back it up) ending the money UCLA was forced to give the University of California for leaving the PAC.
Stanford will be added , after the B1G tries and fails to have Notre Dame join.
Last edited:
You don't think a market with over 2 million TV households is a large TV market? Remember that, at least for now, having a team in a market raises the carriage fees considerably; that's why Rutgers got into the Big Ten. As for the rest of your comment you may have misinterpreted my question. I know a school has to be worth $80 million to be worth adding under the new TV contract, but how can you be so sure that U. Washington isn't, or that some other school is? Certainly Notre Dame is worth adding -- but aren't there other schools that are worth $80 million? And how do we know whether they are or not.
There's also a theory that Notre Dame will demand that Stanford be admitted as part of Notre Dame's deal to join the Big Ten. Who knows? But I think Stanford and Cal will go into together. BTW, as a matter of nomenclature, UCLA was forced to give the money to Cal (formally, the University of California, Berkeley). Both schools are part of the University of California.
The B1G’s new media deal has made it nearly impossible for any additional Member to be additive.
Notre Dame may be the only exception, barring a major school defecting from the SEC, which seems very unlikely.
So the only new expansion would need to be justified for other reasons, as it will make all current members slightly poorer.
Not sure anything will happen within the next few years.
Notre Dame may be the only exception, barring a major school defecting from the SEC, which seems very unlikely.
So the only new expansion would need to be justified for other reasons, as it will make all current members slightly poorer.
Not sure anything will happen within the next few years.
Thanks! I can't conceive of Notre Dame not making the members richer. But who knows when Notre Dame would join, or whether (as some think) they would insist on Stanford being a member as part of the price for saying yes.
Cal fans, being pessimists, think that the Big Ten will offer them admission -- but not to give them a full share of revenue. The reason for thinking this is that the Pac-12's media rights may not longer be worth very much and so the Big Ten can drive a hard bargain, saying, in effect, "the tiny slice of cake we're giving you is at least better than what you would get staying in the Pac-12." To make it worse, the four non-Pacific schools in the Pac-12 will be tempted to jump to the Big 12, which would put Cal and the remaining Pac-12 schools in an untenable position. OTOH, it's not really sustainable to have only two West Coast teams -- but the Big Ten can play Washington/Oregon off against Cal/Stanford to be additional West Coast teams. I'm not sure I believe that the Cal fans' scenario will come true, but it certainly distresses them.
If they did add any schools (other than ND)
I’m sure there would be a buy in period similar to what we went through.
Maybe longer because the shares of BTN have gone up and media rights deal is so much bigger.
We were making 10mill with the big East the big went fro the mid 30’s to 50 in the 7 years it took us.
Today the pac 10 should be making around :35mill.and by the time the BIG expands again we might be up to 100mill.
Just spitballing so I’m sure my numbers are off but the bottom line is, as the disparity grows no team will ever bring value to either conference. That doesn't mean that they won’t expand for other reasons.
I’m sure there would be a buy in period similar to what we went through.
Maybe longer because the shares of BTN have gone up and media rights deal is so much bigger.
We were making 10mill with the big East the big went fro the mid 30’s to 50 in the 7 years it took us.
Today the pac 10 should be making around :35mill.and by the time the BIG expands again we might be up to 100mill.
Just spitballing so I’m sure my numbers are off but the bottom line is, as the disparity grows no team will ever bring value to either conference. That doesn't mean that they won’t expand for other reasons.
When I was still participating on the Cal board, I pointed out that every other new school got a phase in and eventually got a full share, but they are convinced this will not happen. Of course, they don't have any actual facts to support their view, but since when did that ever deter a chatboard poster? We will just have to see. My guess is that the Big Ten is going to take its time expanding. I wonder, though, if it made any commitment to USC/UCLA to get other Pacific Coast schools so that not every road game (except for USC v. UCLA) will involve traveling two time zones (and worse, traveling east, which produces more jet lag than traveling west.)
You never know with the BIG they might wait ten years to expand again or they could do it this summer. I couldn’t see the conference having a permanent prorated payout system for new members. I could see the buy in period. Maybe even an extended one but not a permanent one.
Remember the Big Ten is the only conference that shares partial gate revenues.Really unheard of for college sports.