Re: Conference Realignment
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:20 am
FSU most certainly has an out according to their legal counsel. It's just to going to cost them $120M.
A co-op community for Arizona Fans
http://beardownwildcats.com/
"One more possibility", dude, this is like your 4th time bringing this up.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:24 pm One more possibility. The ACC and the PAC merge to form the APAC. Probably won't happen this round, but talks are reportedly starting, and merge could potentially happen 4 or 5 years from now. The resulting super conference would have enough big names to be competitive. From Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews ... ger-talks/)
Also, from that same article:
"But the Big 12 targets are Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah making up what the media has dubbed “The Four Corner Schools,” which Yormark would like to add to his conference. The question is those four schools are far more valuable to the Big 12 than the few million dollars they might get for moving so why move?
'The answer is there is no reason for any of the Pac 12 members including the “Four Corner Schools to leave the conference at this point,” says Florida-based media consultant Jeff Edwards. “What the conference needs is to stay together and quickly ink a new four- or five-year media rights deal as we see how the college realignment saga plays out. I think that staying together and using that time to engage the ACC in talks about a future merger or alliance is in the best interest of both conferences. The chance to join the Big 12 will be there four years from now.”
Don't agree with the consultant, but can't argue he is wrong. What's left? Ad hominen attack and call the guy dumb.KillerKlown wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:51 pm"One more possibility", dude, this is like your 4th time bringing this up.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:24 pm One more possibility. The ACC and the PAC merge to form the APAC. Probably won't happen this round, but talks are reportedly starting, and merge could potentially happen 4 or 5 years from now. The resulting super conference would have enough big names to be competitive. From Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews ... ger-talks/)
Also, from that same article:
"But the Big 12 targets are Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah making up what the media has dubbed “The Four Corner Schools,” which Yormark would like to add to his conference. The question is those four schools are far more valuable to the Big 12 than the few million dollars they might get for moving so why move?
'The answer is there is no reason for any of the Pac 12 members including the “Four Corner Schools to leave the conference at this point,” says Florida-based media consultant Jeff Edwards. “What the conference needs is to stay together and quickly ink a new four- or five-year media rights deal as we see how the college realignment saga plays out. I think that staying together and using that time to engage the ACC in talks about a future merger or alliance is in the best interest of both conferences. The chance to join the Big 12 will be there four years from now.”
Nobody cares what some consultant from Florida says. Especially one as dumb as the one you quoted.
Merging with us does not help the ACC. It’s not happening. Only dipshits continue to bring it up.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
So, we can wait for something good in about 5 years. Or, take something mediocre now, and ruin our chances of something good. And if we wait, and nothing good comes our way, the mediocre will still be available to us. So, tell me again why we shouldn't wait?CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
So Forbes, a well respected financial magazine published for years, and published the article, is full of dipshits. Good to know! I'll certainly be taking advise and industry information from anonymous people from message boards from now. And forget Forbes!ChooChooCat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 4:54 pmMerging with us does not help the ACC. It’s not happening. Only dipshits continue to bring it up.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
OMG you are dense.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:03 pmSo, we can wait for something good in about 5 years. Or, take something mediocre now, and ruin our chances of something good. And if we wait, and nothing good comes our way, the mediocre will still be available to us. So, tell me again why we shouldn't wait?CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
We survived over a decade with the PAC12 Network. Whatever the PAC deal is, we'll survive that too. And, if in 5 years, a much better deal comes along, we'll be better for it. If nothing better comes to fruition, then we can go BIG12.
You wouldn't happen to be a consultant living in Florida would you? LolAzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:12 pmDon't agree with the consultant, but can't argue he is wrong. What's left? Ad hominen attack and call the guy dumb.KillerKlown wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:51 pm"One more possibility", dude, this is like your 4th time bringing this up.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 2:24 pm One more possibility. The ACC and the PAC merge to form the APAC. Probably won't happen this round, but talks are reportedly starting, and merge could potentially happen 4 or 5 years from now. The resulting super conference would have enough big names to be competitive. From Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews ... ger-talks/)
Also, from that same article:
"But the Big 12 targets are Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah making up what the media has dubbed “The Four Corner Schools,” which Yormark would like to add to his conference. The question is those four schools are far more valuable to the Big 12 than the few million dollars they might get for moving so why move?
'The answer is there is no reason for any of the Pac 12 members including the “Four Corner Schools to leave the conference at this point,” says Florida-based media consultant Jeff Edwards. “What the conference needs is to stay together and quickly ink a new four- or five-year media rights deal as we see how the college realignment saga plays out. I think that staying together and using that time to engage the ACC in talks about a future merger or alliance is in the best interest of both conferences. The chance to join the Big 12 will be there four years from now.”
Nobody cares what some consultant from Florida says. Especially one as dumb as the one you quoted.
Says the guy quoting Canzano and articles from last July.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:05 pmSo Forbes, a well respected financial magazine published for years, and published the article, is full of dipshits. Good to know! I'll certainly be taking advise and industry information from anonymous people from message boards from now. And forget Forbes!ChooChooCat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 4:54 pmMerging with us does not help the ACC. It’s not happening. Only dipshits continue to bring it up.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
You do realize that’s not a Forbes article written by a Forbes reporter, right? It’s from a “contributor” to Zenger News which is a paid partner of Forbes.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:05 pmSo Forbes, a well respected financial magazine published for years, and published the article, is full of dipshits. Good to know! I'll certainly be taking advise and industry information from anonymous people from message boards from now. And forget Forbes!ChooChooCat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 4:54 pmMerging with us does not help the ACC. It’s not happening. Only dipshits continue to bring it up.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
Not if the BIG12 makes us sign a GOR that lasts longer than 5 years. Or, if all 4 corner PAC schools leave, and the PAC dissipates, then UW and Oregon go B1G now at a discount. And that's the end of our options in the future.dmjcat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:29 pmOMG you are dense.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:03 pmSo, we can wait for something good in about 5 years. Or, take something mediocre now, and ruin our chances of something good. And if we wait, and nothing good comes our way, the mediocre will still be available to us. So, tell me again why we shouldn't wait?CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
We survived over a decade with the PAC12 Network. Whatever the PAC deal is, we'll survive that too. And, if in 5 years, a much better deal comes along, we'll be better for it. If nothing better comes to fruition, then we can go BIG12.
We can wait "for something better" for 5 years while we are in the Big12 Mr. One Dimensional Brain
First of all he doesn’t work for Forbes, second of all it was an opinion article. Any idiot can have an opinion article with no sources. Give it a try, I’m sure you’ll write great bullshit with all your free time.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:05 pmSo Forbes, a well respected financial magazine published for years, and published the article, is full of dipshits. Good to know! I'll certainly be taking advise and industry information from anonymous people from message boards from now. And forget Forbes!ChooChooCat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 4:54 pmMerging with us does not help the ACC. It’s not happening. Only dipshits continue to bring it up.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
LOL, you just tried to use Forbes rep to bolster your argument.
It’s a paid placement by Zenger News. You have no idea if it was vetted by Forbes. And you don’t know what his industry knowledge is. But you’ve now based your entire argument on this one piece so I can see why you’re getting defensive.
For all we know the P12 will require us to sign a longer GOR than the B12 will.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 6:24 pmNot if the BIG12 makes us sign a GOR that lasts longer than 5 years. Or, if all 4 corner PAC schools leave, and the PAC dissipates, then UW and Oregon go B1G now at a discount. And that's the end of our options in the future.dmjcat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:29 pmOMG you are dense.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:03 pmSo, we can wait for something good in about 5 years. Or, take something mediocre now, and ruin our chances of something good. And if we wait, and nothing good comes our way, the mediocre will still be available to us. So, tell me again why we shouldn't wait?CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 3:37 pm A merger with the ACC sounds great and we should do it now.
Oh, we’re talking maybe five years from now? And in the meantime we’ll make shitty money being streamed where no one gives a flying fuck?
Hard pass. Big12 now please and thank you.
We survived over a decade with the PAC12 Network. Whatever the PAC deal is, we'll survive that too. And, if in 5 years, a much better deal comes along, we'll be better for it. If nothing better comes to fruition, then we can go BIG12.
We can wait "for something better" for 5 years while we are in the Big12 Mr. One Dimensional Brain
And I know a Forbes writer didn't write the article. It was written likely by someone with industry knowledge, and vetted by Forbes. Not some dipshit. Here's a newsflash, not everyone who disagrees with you is a dipshit. Maybe you should listen to their argument make counter points instead of ad hominen attacks? Or is calling people who have a difference of opinion a dipshit the entire argument against waiting on this board?
Get your head out of your ass. They aren’t a wire agency. They are an “underground newspaper” that pays for placements in mainstream sources. I’m glad you can read the bio they provided but have you looked at any other source on them?AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:24 pm Zenger News is a wire agency that Forbes use as contributors. It's not a paid opinion piece at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews ... a7079213ab
"Gotten as far in life as I have"AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:24 pm Zenger News is a wire agency that Forbes use as contributors. It's not a paid opinion piece at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews ... a7079213ab
The only schools that would agree to a long PAC GOR are Oregon St. and Washington St. Every other school has good reason to limit the next contract to 5 years or less. The conference needs 3 no votes to reject something. Any GOR past 5 years would get a lot more than 2 no votes.
My arguments are backed by industry experts with sources I link to. Everyone else here seems to be talking out of their asses. If reading industry sources, and basing my opinion on the information I gather is considered illogical and lacking any thought process, it's a wonder I've gotten as far in life as I have!
Do you have proof Zenger pays for Forbes placements? Because the link I gave linked 7 stories in the past week, published in Forbes, from Zenger. Zenger makes money by embedding advertisements in their stories. Last I look, digital CPMs are cheap, and not a huge income source. Zenger also advertises itself as a digital wire service. I could be wrong, but I'd like to see proof.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:38 pmGet your head out of your ass. They aren’t a wire agency. They are an “underground newspaper” that pays for placements in mainstream sources. I’m glad you can read the bio they provided but have you looked at any other source on them?AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:24 pm Zenger News is a wire agency that Forbes use as contributors. It's not a paid opinion piece at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews ... a7079213ab
That article you linked is a single-source opinion piece masquerading as informed news. It’s not. And that you’ve based your entire opinion on this subject on it should be embarrassing for you. The fact that it’s not just shows how tightly you’re gripping to the notion that you’re the only informed person in this argument even though all logic, evidence, and subsequent news reports from real journalists shows otherwise.
Ha ha. Very funny. I don't like to brag, but I do quite well for myself. My oldest will be a freshman at UA next week, and let's just say we don't qualify for financial aid tuition assistance.dmjcat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:51 pm"Gotten as far in life as I have"AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:24 pm Zenger News is a wire agency that Forbes use as contributors. It's not a paid opinion piece at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews ... a7079213ab
The only schools that would agree to a long PAC GOR are Oregon St. and Washington St. Every other school has good reason to limit the next contract to 5 years or less. The conference needs 3 no votes to reject something. Any GOR past 5 years would get a lot more than 2 no votes.
My arguments are backed by industry experts with sources I link to. Everyone else here seems to be talking out of their asses. If reading industry sources, and basing my opinion on the information I gather is considered illogical and lacking any thought process, it's a wonder I've gotten as far in life as I have!
Just curious, would that be a Chimney Sweep or the guy who scrapes dead animals off the road???![]()
No source other than message board chatter for other PAC schools. Which is why I have always referred to a longer GOR for BIG12 entrance as a rumor.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:49 pm I just looked everywhere I could think of and didn’t see anything about this 10-year agreement requirement. Link it for us.
Yay! More ad hominem attacks! Don't like what the poster is saying, but can't argue against his points. So, let's attack the poster with a silly meme! That will show em! Certainly shows me that my logic is sound, and you have to resort to the Internet version of name calling.
And yet you’ve based most of your current argument against joining the Big12 on these message board rumors (which are able to be linked by the way, you just chose not to show us where you got this hot info from).AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 9:34 pmNo source other than message board chatter for other PAC schools. Which is why I have always referred to a longer GOR for BIG12 entrance as a rumor.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:49 pm I just looked everywhere I could think of and didn’t see anything about this 10-year agreement requirement. Link it for us.
A GOR only lasts as long as the TV deal lasts. Their TV deal isn't for 10 years. Another ridiculous argument.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:49 pm I just looked everywhere I could think of and didn’t see anything about this 10-year agreement requirement. Link it for us.
For two weeks now the argument has been that we shouldn’t join the Big12 because “rumor has it” the conference will want a long GOR from new members, maybe up to ten years, which would hamstring our future options like if the B1G or SEC come calling.ChooChooCat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:01 amA GOR only lasts as long as the TV deal lasts. Their TV deal isn't for 10 years. Another ridiculous argument.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:49 pm I just looked everywhere I could think of and didn’t see anything about this 10-year agreement requirement. Link it for us.
You should really just stop. You have become a satire account at this point. You are convincing no one, and despite your many, many, many long-winded diatribes about the value of waiting for something better to come along, not one person on this board has been persuaded to see things from your view point. You are wasting your time putting your opinion out there over and over and over. If you are ok with being the running joke on this board, I suppose that is up to you, but honestly it’s gotten a little sad to see someone consistently put themselves out there for so much abuse. Unless you are a serious masochist, you should find a different use for your time and energy.AzCatFan2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 8:55 am Oregon and Washington want no part of the BIG12. None. Why? Because they know, one way or another, bigger and better things are on their horizon. What that looks like is TBD, but it's likely one of three things, a B1G invite, a SEC invite, or an APAC. By the way, this dipshit from ACC country thinks the APAC is the ACC's best option (https://fansided.com/2023/02/26/clemson ... -acc-deal/), as is this writer from CAL (https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/pac-12 ... ec-big-ten). Guess there are dipshits from coast to coast?
Regardless, whatever happens, there is a chance that we get to tag along with UW and Oregon, and end up in a conference that is bigger and better than the BIG12. If that doesn't happen, then the PAC leftovers are the top targets for BIG12 expansion. Our future is more cloudy than Oregon and UW, but it either includes a better deal in a few years, or a soft landing in the BIG12. There is zero chance UW and Oregon take our BIG12 spot, and almost as small a chance that our worst case scenario isn't a BIG12 invite.
If we go BIG12 now, we cast our lot with them long term, even if the rumors are false about Yormark wanting a longer GOR to ensure PAC schools don't use and abuse the BIG12. If the 4-corners go BIG12 now, the PAC no longer becomes a P5 conference, and the B1G picks up Oregon, UW, and the Bays at a discount. The APAC has zero chance, and the SEC has no good options to expand westward. Even if it's just the two AZ schools going BIG12, really think the PAC would invite us back in five years to an APAC? Highly unlikely.
What we really should wish to avoid is going BIG12 now, only to have the future look like two majors, one with ESPN, and one with FOX, with the B1G and SEC picking the top ACC and BIG12 schools to fill out their line-ups. In this scenario, the SEC and B1G become 1A and 1B, and the leftovers, which may likely include us, all become second rate.
Here's a text recap I found on RedditChooChooCat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:07 am The new Ourand/Marchand podcast was absolutely brutal for the Pac 12.
This conference is fuckedPAC-12 running out of time, ESPN not as interested as they once were, CBS might be interested in the top PAC game each week, Apple deal won't come by the middle of March.
Segment about the PAC runs from roughly 18:00-22:20.
Time seems to be winding down on the PAC's ability to get a deal done, not a whole lot new besides the bits in the title. They said Apple is notoriously "persnickety" when it comes to negotiating deals and just based on how the timelines unfolded on the NFL Sunday Ticket bid and the MLS deal an Apple-PAC deal won't be done by the timeline that some PAC schools officials have publicly stated.
The CBS bit was more of a throw away line: "CBS might be interested in the top PAC game of the week, but even then not super interested". To me that also seems to run counter to Amazon's interest in the deal for their top game of the week, but would be an immensely better option for casual eyes than having their best game on streaming.
Why not? It’s the school presidents who sign off on the deals. They could easily tab five of them and their staffs to work it out.
Why not? What better way to put your stamp on your new regime than by pulling in two more money-making schools to round out your west coast presence?
Of course not. But it will likely be their best option.
Anything is possible. But it's the Commissioner that signs on the dotted line when it comes to expansion and GOR. I doubt an Acting Commissioner would sign such huge agreements. If things turn sour, it wouldn't be fair at all to the new guy. I know this is the B1G, and things rarely, if ever turn sour, but still, something this big requires to have a Commissioner.CardiacCats97 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 2:05 pmWhy not? It’s the school presidents who sign off on the deals. They could easily tab five of them and their staffs to work it out.
Why not? What better way to put your stamp on your new regime than by pulling in two more money-making schools to round out your west coast presence?
Of course not. But it will likely be their best option.
It still ends in the same way, the league will break up. You can’t have unequal revenue and have a league.azcat49 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 2:27 pm Say a deal comes in at 30-33m per with a 60% streaming and 40% linear output. You then give unequal revenue sharing rights n the CFP to the pacific NW schools and unequal revenue on the NCAA basketball revenue to AZ. Does that keep the biggest dissenters in the fold?