PAC-12 Chaos

[CL82]

This has been my conspiracy theory for a few weeks now. It makes sense. The PAC-12 doesn’t want the Big 12 to gloat about taking PAC schools during Big 12 Media Days. Likewise, the PAC-12 does not want to field questions about losing members during PAC-12 Media Day.

The PAC-12 is the only P5 to not have a multiple day media day event, as has been the case for a few years now. That tells you all you need to know about their football priorities.

I think it may be simpler than that. When you're in a precarious position without a viable way out, the best thing you can do is buy yourself time. That's what I think the Pac 12 is doing, buying time and hoping that they can pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last moment.

The four corners schools' indecision is an unintended slap in the face to the big 12. I think that's what Brett Yormark's comment about being all in was aimed at. Eventually, that hesitancy may end up being costly to some of them.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I think it may be simpler than that. When you're in a precarious position without a viable way out, the best thing you can do is buy yourself time. That's what I think the Pac 12 is doing, buying time and hoping that they can pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last moment.

The four corners schools' indecision is an unintended slap in the face to the big 12. I think that's what Brett Yormark's comment about being all in was aimed at. Eventually, that hesitancy may end up being costly to some of them.

They just don't know what they are comparing the B12 against. There's no Pac deal so they can't know. Nothing can happen until the schools see what a Pac12 media deal looks like. But the risk of schools leaving has made it harder to get such a deal. I think the current quiet is to help the conference find a media partner, when they do, and the schools see the numbers and the GOR commitment, they'll make their decision.

My guess remains the same. Colorado will say nope and leave. UConn and Colorado join the Big XII. Utah may try to condition staying on Utah State getting Colorado's spot. Don't know what the Arizona schools will do. If the money is close, and only Colorado is leaving they would probably stay.

 

[LBird33]

PAC 12 media deal is like Waiting for Godot

 

[LBird33]

The play consists of conversations between Vladimir and Estragon, who are waiting for the arrival of the mysterious Godot, who continually sends word that he will appear but who never does.

 

[huskymedic]

Assisted access <<

-> Meanwhile, the conference faces a fast-approaching, albeit informal, deadline. Its mid-summer media showcase, designed to promote the players and coaches powering the most anticipated football season in years, is scheduled for July 21 at Resorts World Las Vegas.

If commissioner George Kliavkoff doesn’t provide clarity on the contract negotiations over the next 10 days, the existential crisis could dominate the Las Vegas event and create unseemly optics. (The tangible impact of not having a media deal in place by July 21 would be negligible, however. The Pac-12’s negotiating partners are discussing deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually and don’t care about bad press from a single media event.)

How should Pac-12 fans define clarity on the negotiations? The conference doesn’t need to unveil a finalized long-form contract, which could take months to complete. But it cannot simply offer another “statement of unity” from the presidents, akin to the one issued in February. Nor can it hide behind optimistic but vague comments by Kliavkoff.

After so many months of silence, it must offer concrete evidence that a satisfactory deal is on the table and resolution is close on three tracks:

— The media rights contract. The annual valuation matters immensely, but so does the means of delivery. How many football games will be placed on a streaming platform and how many will be available on linear television?
— The grant-of-rights agreement. There is no collective security without this document, which is signed by the schools and binds their media revenue to the conference. (The Pac-12 likely is targeting a medium-term agreement that covers five or six years.)
— The decision on expansion. Should the conference add two members — SMU and San Diego State are the favorites — or move forward with 10? <-

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This has been my conspiracy theory for a few weeks now. It makes sense. The PAC-12 doesn’t want the Big 12 to gloat about taking PAC schools during Big 12 Media Days. Likewise, the PAC-12 does not want to field questions about losing members during PAC-12 Media Day.

The PAC-12 is the only P5 to not have a multiple day media day event, as has been the case for a few years now. That tells you all you need to know about their football priorities.

You have been predicting the Pac 12's demise for months now, yet not a single Pac 12 school has headed for the exit. What do you know that no person at any Pac 12 school knows? Put another way, wow did you get smarter than everyone at Stanford?

 

[Jimdish255]

You have been predicting the Pac 12's demise for months now, yet not a single Pac 12 school has headed for the exit. What do you know that no person at any Pac 12 school knows? Put another way, wow did you get smarter than everyone at Stanford?

Did everyone at Stanford know USC and UCLA were leaving?

 

[gioff2323]

Frankly, we should be empathizing with PAC. We’ve been there. It sucks. Someone could/will get left behind. If any fan base should know how much their situation sucks, it’s us.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Frankly, we should be empathizing with PAC. We’ve been there. It sucks. Someone could/will get left behind. If any fan base should know how much their situation sucks, it’s us.

I’m post-empathy.

 

[UConnJim]

Frankly, we should be empathizing with PAC. We’ve been there. It sucks. Someone could/will get left behind. If any fan base should know how much their situation sucks, it’s us.

I don't think it's comparable. The Pac 12 could have raided the Big 12 and grabbed Oklahoma and a few other schools and maybe even Texas. They would have been the clear #3 conference. And, the Pac12 Network debacle is clearly on the conference. Their mismanagement and hubris has resulted in a collapsing conference that doesn't appear to have a future.

 

[Skiblets]

I don't think it's comparable. The Pac 12 could have raided the Big 12 and grabbed Oklahoma and a few other schools and maybe even Texas. They would have been the clear #3 conference. And, the Pac12 Network debacle is clearly on the conference. Their mismanagement and hubris has resulted in a collapsing conference that doesn't appear to have a future.

And they owe Comcast big $$ as part of their settlement

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Frankly, we should be empathizing with PAC. We’ve been there. It sucks. Someone could/will get left behind. If any fan base should know how much their situation sucks, it’s us.

Instead, somehow over half of the CR board is rooting against the Pac 12, including making up an alternate reality without providing a shred of evidence or even a logical fact pattern that supports this Pac 12 doomsday scenario. And, if these posters are somehow correct about this doomsday scenario, it would be devastating for UConn's athletic program, but these same posters are actually rooting for it to happen yet claiming to be UConn fans.

This board has left reality.

 

[uconnyankee]

Instead, somehow over half of the CR board is rooting against the Pac 12, including making up an alternate reality without providing a shred of evidence or even a logical fact pattern that supports this Pac 12 doomsday scenario. And, if these posters are somehow correct about this doomsday scenario, it would be devastating for UConn's athletic program, but these same posters are actually rooting for it to happen yet claiming to be UConn fans.

This board has left reality.

Well there are a significant amount of basketball only fans that don’t want to leave the Big East so it’s not surprising they would root for a scenario that would essentially kill UConn’s P5 ambitions.

 

[Ldandy]

I’m post-empathy.

I feel you. No fanbase shed a tear for your program when it got left behind in The AAC. Its more likely that fans of the schools that got the call pointed fingers and snickered at your turn of events. Now a number of them want to close the door behind them as they move into nicer digs. Hopefully the Big 12 Invite materializes as I'll enjoy watching your school repay their "kindness."

 

[Jimdish255]

Instead, somehow over half of the CR board is rooting against the Pac 12, including making up an alternate reality without providing a shred of evidence or even a logical fact pattern that supports this Pac 12 doomsday scenario. And, if these posters are somehow correct about this doomsday scenario, it would be devastating for UConn's athletic program, but these same posters are actually rooting for it to happen yet claiming to be UConn fans.

This board has left reality.

I'm not sure who you are referring to or what poll you've taken on the subject but there's a couple of things you seem to willfully misinterpret. First is the fact that nothing posted on this board will impact the future of the PAC 12. The damage was done by the B1G taking their 2 marquis programs. Second is the fact that we probably need a partner and Colorado is a strong lean to leave the PAC with a pay raise from the Big12. The Big12 would probably like AZ and another school of value to join them and shooting the messenger doesn't change that reality. We can all get on our knees and pray for the PAC12 and as much as I liked staying up until 2am watching those games it won't change a thing. My take is that the Big12 will take between 1 and 3 PAC teams and UConn. Our chances MAY be slightly better if it's just CU, but not by much. And most of the other schools stay either because they prefer the geography and fit, or don't want to disrupt their situation while they wait on the B1G. We are a plug and play option without the drama and that works in our favor. The PAC will survive in some form but it's out of our control.

Most on this board root for UConn, then UConn, then UConn, with a few nostalgists who root for the old Big East to reform.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm not sure who you are referring to or what poll you've taken on the subject but there's a couple of things you seem to willfully misinterpret. First is the fact that nothing posted on this board will impact the future of the PAC 12. The damage was done by the B1G taking their 2 marquis programs. Second is the fact that we probably need a partner and Colorado is a strong lean to leave the PAC with a pay raise from the Big12. The Big12 would probably like AZ and another school of value to join them and shooting the messenger doesn't change that reality. We can all get on our knees and pray for the PAC12 and as much as I liked staying up until 2am watching those games it won't change a thing. My take is that the Big12 will take between 1 and 3 PAC teams and UConn. Our chances MAY be slightly better if it's just CU, but not by much. And most of the other schools stay either because they prefer the geography and fit, or don't want to disrupt their situation while they wait on the B1G. We are a plug and play option without the drama and that works in our favor. The PAC will survive in some form but it's out of our control.

Most on this board root for UConn, then UConn, then UConn, with a few nostalgists who root for the old Big East to reform.

I think a lot of posters, yourself included, would rather dance on someone else's grave than have UConn succeed. Or maybe you just don't realize what you are advocating.

This "Pac 12 is collapsing" narrative, pushed by Big 12 Twitter posters and amplified by Big 10 posters like the OP of this thread, is an example. There is NO SCENARIO in which The Pac 12 comes apart and it is good for UConn. I have seen a few posters like yourself argue that the Big 12 needs a Pac 12 school to go with UConn. If that is the case, UConn is in trouble, because there is no way just one school leaves the Pac 12. If Colorado heads for the door, they will all be heading for the door, and UConn loses to Washington, Oregon, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, California, and Stanford in that situation. I think we are ahead of Utah, although we are not a lock, and I believe UConn is ahead of Washington State and Oregon State.

The other issue with a Pac 12 collapse scenario is that it would signal that the market for college sports is consolidating, in which case UConn is also dead.

So back to the original question. Why are you rooting for something that would be bad for UConn? Whether you can make anything happen or not, you are advocating for an event on a UConn board that would be very, very bad for UConn if it happened? Are you trolling us? Or do you not realize that the OP has trolled you into rooting for something that would be bad for UConn?

 

[AzHusky]

Some people on here like to point out that the Big12 can't be very good cause they lost two of their best teams, but ignore that the PAC lost two of their best teams also. So how is the PAC in a better position?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Did everyone at Stanford know USC and UCLA were leaving?

Not even close to the correct analogy.

The key difference is that there was not an obvious next step for Stanford when USC and UCLA left the league. So whether Stanford and the other schools knew the LA schools were leaving or not (I expect that they had an inkling well before it happened) was not going to change anyone's actions. But now, if the Pac 12 has no TV contract, as you and the 5 posters that liked the post above believe, then there is a very clear next step for Stanford. Be the first to abandon ship. Every other school can reach the same conclusion. Yet no one is trying to leave.

You are arguing that the Pac 12 administrators are too stupid to see what you and thousands of message board posters and Twitter "experts" blather about every day. Why are the Pac 12 administrators too stupid to see this but you do?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Assisted access <<

-> Meanwhile, the conference faces a fast-approaching, albeit informal, deadline. Its mid-summer media showcase, designed to promote the players and coaches powering the most anticipated football season in years, is scheduled for July 21 at Resorts World Las Vegas.

If commissioner George Kliavkoff doesn’t provide clarity on the contract negotiations over the next 10 days, the existential crisis could dominate the Las Vegas event and create unseemly optics. (The tangible impact of not having a media deal in place by July 21 would be negligible, however. The Pac-12’s negotiating partners are discussing deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually and don’t care about bad press from a single media event.)

How should Pac-12 fans define clarity on the negotiations? The conference doesn’t need to unveil a finalized long-form contract, which could take months to complete. But it cannot simply offer another “statement of unity” from the presidents, akin to the one issued in February. Nor can it hide behind optimistic but vague comments by Kliavkoff.

After so many months of silence, it must offer concrete evidence that a satisfactory deal is on the table and resolution is close on three tracks:

— The media rights contract. The annual valuation matters immensely, but so does the means of delivery. How many football games will be placed on a streaming platform and how many will be available on linear television?
— The grant-of-rights agreement. There is no collective security without this document, which is signed by the schools and binds their media revenue to the conference. (The Pac-12 likely is targeting a medium-term agreement that covers five or six years.)
— The decision on expansion. Should the conference add two members — SMU and San Diego State are the favorites — or move forward with 10? <-

I agree that getting a media contract to a term sheet should not take this long. That is a bad sign, but none of the Pac 12 schools are heading for the door, so they must think something good is going to happen. One scenario that could fit the fact pattern we are seeing from the Pac 12 is if they are in advanced discussions with the ACC for a merger. That would be a much more complicated deal that a simple media contract, and would take more time. It would result in a good outcome, so if the Pac 12 schools thought it was going to happen, then they would stick around to see it through. And, that scenario would enable the ACC to revisit its undermarket TV contract with ESPN at a time when ESPN has to be nervous about losing a big content provider like the ACC if the ACC did something like merged into the Pac 12.

There was a lot of discussion of a merger in May, and then it quieted down. But a merger, if it was happening, would be on lockdown in terms of communications. Most of the Pac 12 Administrators have been quiet for the last month or so.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I agree that getting a media contract to a term sheet should not take this long. That is a bad sign, but none of the Pac 12 schools are heading for the door, so they must think something good is going to happen. One scenario that could fit the fact pattern we are seeing from the Pac 12 is if they are in advanced discussions with the ACC for a merger. That would be a much more complicated deal that a simple media contract, and would take more time. It would result in a good outcome, so if the Pac 12 schools thought it was going to happen, then they would stick around to see it through. And, that scenario would enable the ACC to revisit its undermarket TV contract with ESPN at a time when ESPN has to be nervous about losing a big content provider like the ACC if the ACC did something like merged into the Pac 12.

There was a lot of discussion of a merger in May, and then it quieted down. But a merger, if it was happening, would be on lockdown in terms of communications. Most of the Pac 12 Administrators have been quiet for the last month or so.

This would be the right move for the ACC and the PAC-12. However, it probably won't happen due to all the complexities of a merger. It would make a 22 team conference plus ND. This can make things much more interesting.

 

[auggie22]

I agree that getting a media contract to a term sheet should not take this long. That is a bad sign, but none of the Pac 12 schools are heading for the door, so they must think something good is going to happen. One scenario that could fit the fact pattern we are seeing from the Pac 12 is if they are in advanced discussions with the ACC for a merger. That would be a much more complicated deal that a simple media contract, and would take more time. It would result in a good outcome, so if the Pac 12 schools thought it was going to happen, then they would stick around to see it through. And, that scenario would enable the ACC to revisit its undermarket TV contract with ESPN at a time when ESPN has to be nervous about losing a big content provider like the ACC if the ACC did something like merged into the Pac 12.

There was a lot of discussion of a merger in May, and then it quieted down. But a merger, if it was happening, would be on lockdown in terms of communications. Most of the Pac 12 Administrators have been quiet for the last month or so.

I would imagine a merger would open the door to break the GOR, which would almost certainly relieve the ACC of its four most valuable teams. A merger would probably also be the impetus for the BIG to finish its plans, whatever they may be. So it would be the merger of ACC leftovers with the PAC 12 leftovers. Still, probably the best scenario to secure the future of both leagues.

 

[dayooper]

Not even close to the correct analogy.

The key difference is that there was not an obvious next step for Stanford when USC and UCLA left the league. So whether Stanford and the other schools knew the LA schools were leaving or not (I expect that they had an inkling well before it happened) was not going to change anyone's actions. But now, if the Pac 12 has no TV contract, as you and the 5 posters that liked the post above believe, then there is a very clear next step for Stanford. Be the first to abandon ship. Every other school can reach the same conclusion. Yet no one is trying to leave.

You are arguing that the Pac 12 administrators are too stupid to see what you and thousands of message board posters and Twitter "experts" blather about every day. Why are the Pac 12 administrators too stupid to see this but you do?

The #1 priority of the PAC is to stay together under a viable contract. They want to stay together as a conference, but know if the media payout and platforms are not viable, they will have to go their separate ways. The PAC schools would do themselves a disservice if they didn’t wait it out and see what the contract will be. As they want to stay together, they can wait until they either get an acceptable contract or run out of time to integrate into their new homes. At that point, they can make their decision.

Schools like Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Arizona and ASU seem to have a spot all ready while Stanford and Utah might be a bit more dicey. Cal might find a more difficult time finding a home that fits their academic needs. WSU/OSU might just keep the PAC name and combine with the MWC.

I take the reason the contract is taking so long to announce is they don’t have a viable contract to sign. The PAC seems to be waiting on finding partners and it just isn’t happening. I hope they do find partners as the PAC is a staple of college football and to see it decimated is rough.

 

[GoKU]

I think a lot of posters, yourself included, would rather dance on someone else's grave than have UConn succeed. Or maybe you just don't realize what you are advocating.

This "Pac 12 is collapsing" narrative, pushed by Big 12 Twitter posters and amplified by Big 10 posters like the OP of this thread, is an example. There is NO SCENARIO in which The Pac 12 comes apart and it is good for UConn. I have seen a few posters like yourself argue that the Big 12 needs a Pac 12 school to go with UConn. If that is the case, UConn is in trouble, because there is no way just one school leaves the Pac 12. If Colorado heads for the door, they will all be heading for the door, and UConn loses to Washington, Oregon, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, California, and Stanford in that situation. I think we are ahead of Utah, although we are not a lock, and I believe UConn is ahead of Washington State and Oregon State.

The other issue with a Pac 12 collapse scenario is that it would signal that the market for college sports is consolidating, in which case UConn is also dead.

So back to the original question. Why are you rooting for something that would be bad for UConn? Whether you can make anything happen or not, you are advocating for an event on a UConn board that would be very, very bad for UConn if it happened? Are you trolling us? Or do you not realize that the OP has trolled you into rooting for something that would be bad for UConn?

Pay attention man. They just put the Arizona president on the board. They ain't leaving.

 

[NH Husky]

This discussion makes a lot of sense. I’m loving the idea of us an CO to the Big 12. Better yet if Arizona and one of (AZ st or UNLV).
If that were to happen the PAC and ACC would be very wise to negotiate some consolidation.
It would leave four very viable national conferences (national vs regional seems to be the current direction).

 

[jostar1]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[jostar1]

John Canzano is a reporter for the PAC 12.


Canzano: Waking up to East Coast bias
Glaring issue when it comes to exposure, brands, kickoff times.
JOHN CANZANO
JUL 12

NEW YORK — I woke on Wednesday morning in a hotel not far from Central Park.

The sounds of the city climbed from the streets to my window on the 20th floor. Wailing sirens. A driver blasting his horn. That morning chorus came amid a sobering thought — it was still 3 a.m. on the West Coast — and my readers in the Pac-12 footprint were likely asleep.

We’re on an extended family trip to New York. We saw the Statue of Liberty, visited the Natural History Museum and the 9/11 Memorial & Museum.

My three daughters stood on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, watched a Broadway production of “The Lion King” and got to spend time with a couple aunts who live nearby.

(I deleted some talk about his family).

A former newspaper colleague from the West Coast who took a job in the Eastern Time Zone told me that one of the first things he noticed after his move was how much that three-hour time difference mattered when it came to sports habits.

By the time the Pac-12 kicks off a Saturday college football game, the Big Ten, ACC and SEC have saturated the market with highlights, scores, storylines and content.

“Anything west of the Rockies,” he lamented, “feels like it’s happening on another planet.”

The “Pac-12 After Dark” stuff is fun branding. The games are interesting to college football fans in the Pacific Time Zone, but by 7:30 p.m. PT the East Coast is more interested in finding a pillow.

One morning during the current family trip, I waited for noon ET to arrive. I had a column to file, but didn’t want to bother a source before business hours on the West Coast. While I waited, I lamented to my Aunt Sally that posting at 9:45 a.m. Pacific Time probably meant that I was missing a swath of potential readers on the East Coast.

“By that time,” my aunt said, “my day is half over.”

On Tuesday, I watched the MLB All-Star Game from the hotel. The post-game show on FOX featured a roundtable of former star players. Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter and David Ortiz sat on a set at T-Mobile field in Seattle after the National League’s 3-2 victory.

Rodriguez sounded amazed when he said at one point: “The sun isn’t even down here yet.”

The Pac-12 is negotiating its long-awaited media-rights deal. Football Media Day is next week in Las Vegas. I’m left thinking about what a Pac-12 partnership with Apple-TV might do to ease some of those late kickoff times.

The Pac-12 won’t want to go head-to-head vs. the top SEC and Big Ten games. That doesn’t make sense. Also, there’s demand from ESPN and FS1 for the late Pacific Time Zone windows on Thursday, Friday and Saturdays. The conference still covets that linear exposure and the glow it brings. But the Pac-12’s best games shouldn’t be tucked away in those extreme late-night windows on the Pac-12 Network where the rest of the country can’t see them.

Would a deal with a streaming partner give the Pac-12 more control over some of its kick-off times? Certainly, the 7 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. or even 8 p.m. kicks we’ve seen on the Pac-12 Network could slide to 5:30 p.m. or 6 p.m. PT with little consequence. If you’re streaming, the traditional kickoff windows become less vital.

I’ve talked with conference athletic directors in the last few years who not only lament the exposure hit that a 7:30 p.m. PT kickoff brings, but also worry that playing so late hurts football season-ticket sales.

I’m eager to see the Pac-12’s media deal and unpack the details. The revenue matters. The partners matter. But those kickoff times are an interesting sideshow. The competition for your attention should never be a pillow.

 

[Fishy]

The PAC12 has a time zone issue, but it also has something far worse than a time zone issue.

If they go head to head to other conferences, people in the midwest and east coast are simply going to chose not to watch.

Nobody on the east coast is going to pick Stanford-Cal at noon on Saturday.

 

[Hoophound]

The PAC12 has a time zone issue, but it also has something far worse than a time zone issue.

If they go head to head to other conferences, people in the midwest and east coast are simply going to chose not to watch.

Nobody on the east coast is going to pick Stanford-Cal at noon on Saturday.

Yep. I never watch the PAC. Sometimes I do for a minute, but only to ponder who actually watches the PAC. I’d rather watch the Sunbelt.

 

[NowInStorrs]

They also have a network problem. I've rarely ever had the Pac-12 Network on any cable package or streaming service I've had over the years. Even if I want to watch the occasional P12 game, I usually have no way of doing so.