Conference Realignment

[azcat49]

I agree with Choo’s assessment to nuke the thing but that doesn’t seem likely. Every time I see another big 12 game on ESPIN I just cringe thinking how bad this conference is going to be in a couple of years

[ChooChooCat]

I agree with Choo’s assessment to nuke the thing but that doesn’t seem likely. Every time I see another big 12 game on ESPIN I just cringe thinking how bad this conference is going to be in a couple of years

The TV deal is going to be atrocious. It's going to make it literal malpractice to remain in this conference.

[AzCatFan2]

The PAC is on life support. SDSU isn't a UC school, but it is ranked in the top 100 public schools on most lists. And again, it's absolutely the best option for the PAC to maintain a presence in Southern California. The PAC will survive this round of negotiations, but having a S. Cal school is a necessity to have a chance of surviving the next round. Odds still aren't great, especially if the SEC and B1G decide to expand beyond 16.

UNLV has a long way to go to academically, but is it far behind where ASu was circa 1979? Being added to the PAC was a boon to both Arizona schools, and we became an AAU school in 1985. We were on the path, but being aligned with the likes of CAL, UCLA, and Washington didn't hurt, and likely quickened our addition to the AAU. Again, if the PAC is thinking of survival beyond just this contract negotiation cycle, having a presence in Las Vegas, which is usually top 10 in fastest growing metro areas is a positive. And maybe, if UNLV were in the PAC, the academics will improve a bit? Tougher pill to swallow than SDSU, but SMU, a religious school, isn't an easy pill to swallow for PAC Presidents either.

[Merkin]

Even though SDSU is the only game in town with the Chargers gone, they still can't get attendance up to PAC levels. Believe at one time the PAC was looking for minimum 40K attendance.

SDSU AD John David Wicker finds mostly positives in new facility, where Aztecs’ announced attendance averaged 29,225 (21,565 turnstile) for 2022 season

That's WSU levels, and WSU would not be admitted today to the PAC if they applied.

Did something change where PAC presidents will now accept lower tier academic schools? SDSU and UNLV have been discussed for decades.

PAC presidents have wanted elite academic schools going back to 1978 when they added Arizona. It sure wasn't for the UA sports programs.

Also, is SMU still a religious school (Southern Methodist)? Also something the PAC presidents have frowned upon.

Good point, and why BYU was never in the equation even before Utah was brought in.

[EastCoastCat]

I have an idea. Why don't we just let them in and re-name the conference to the "LACK-12"?

[azgreg]

SMU has split from the Methodist Church over the church's views on the LGBTQ community.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/comment ... -policies/

[dirtbags]

i realize this is an unpopular opinion here, but i liked the PAC's unwritten policy of high-level academics and nonsecular schools - do good for student athletes by rising up on both fronts. but with the socal unis gone and the conference in need of patching its media footprint, that'll obv get thrown out the window.

for all his bumbling, i thought larry scott had a pretty solid hypothesis early on in supporting the PAC's olympic sports (our competitive advantage) and perhaps seeking media $$$ & recruiting opportunities in china / the APAC region, europe, and latin america - esp as our schools establish satellite campuses and footprints globally. there's probably a pretty penny up to be made with overseas media, deep-pocketed international alumni / fans / family, and sponsorships. but larry just kinda sat on the idea and didn't seem to do anythign with it. wtf

similarly, it sucks that the conf can't actually invest and build towards something. would be great if UCSB and UCI (for example) stepped up and said hey, we want to be PAC-12 members and will make an investment in D1 athletics, starting with basketball and building towards football. or if a clause in a UNLV or UNM invite apportioned a % of athletic revenue to support academics and research, or a path towards AAU membership. just spitballing.

[RichardCranium]

i realize this is an unpopular opinion here, but i liked the PAC's unwritten policy of high-level academics and [s]non[/s] secular schools - do good for student athletes by rising up on both fronts. but with the socal unis gone and the conference in need of patching its media footprint, that'll obv get thrown out the window.
[snipity-snip snip snip]

Pretty sure you meant secular. BYU, SMU and Notre Dame are nonsecular. Arizona, SDSU, and UNLV are secular.

[CardiacCats97]

Pretty sure we all knew what he meant. No reason to be a pedant.

[CatsbyAZ]

I also agree with UNLV over SMU...

I also agree with UNLV over most anyone else. For the reasons already stated (Clark County NV > 2M pop.) and the Pac 12 already plays it's championship games/tournaments in Vegas. But on top of all that 1) UNLV has access to stadiums (Allegiant) and arenas (TMobile) more than welcoming of hosting Pac 12 teams and 2) road attendance to UNLV games would be very inviting - Ducks, Sun Devils, Wildcats, Huskies, etc would readily make the easy trip and receive UNLV as a fellow rival, unlike SMU. I can't imagine those folks would care about hosting SMU or as excitedly flying to the Metroplex for a Ducks, Wildcats, etc road game.

As for UNLV's academics, who cares? We already have Arizona State and the Oregon schools who in no way foster university reputations based on academics.

[ChooChooCat]

I also agree with UNLV over SMU...

I also agree with UNLV over most anyone else. For the reasons already stated (Clark County NV > 2M pop.) and the Pac 12 already plays it's championship games/tournaments in Vegas. But on top of all that 1) UNLV has access to stadiums (Allegiant) and arenas (TMobile) more than welcoming of hosting Pac 12 teams and 2) road attendance to UNLV games would be very inviting - Ducks, Sun Devils, Wildcats, Huskies, etc would readily make the easy trip and receive UNLV as a fellow rival, unlike SMU. I can't imagine those folks would care about hosting SMU or as excitedly flying to the Metroplex for a Ducks, Wildcats, etc road game.

As for UNLV's academics, who cares? We already have Arizona State and the Oregon schools who in no way foster university reputations based on academics.

Ultimately here's the thing, UNLV would be a decent move for the long term of the Pac-12 based for every reason you named, but there's no such thing as long term and the Pac-12 or at least not in the way the conference is currently set up. The Pac-12 isn't long for this world and at best it'll survive as a Mountain West with some leftover PAC schools, so UNLV is destined to end up in the conference one way or the other. SDSU and SMU would get invites today solely for recruiting access purposes in the short term.

[dirtbags]

aw, it was my bad earlier. thinking and typing too fast. but yeah, high academic standards have previously kept the cal states, boise state, unlv, etc. out of the conference, and nonsecularity has been a non-starter for byu, gonzaga, tcu, pepperdine (as if), and so on. i can't remember which schools were the holdouts in prior conference expansion discussions (and maybe it doesn't matter) but i could see 'furd and UW - prob not cal anymore - taking a principled position over $$$ and not wanting to share an athletic conference with a nontraditional candidate school. iirc, a unanimous vote is required for expansion, and it didn't stop utah's entry, though who knows if concessions were made.

anyway, the PAC's quarterly meetings of presidents / chancellors are going on now in tempe, right? i suppose it'll be about the comcast clusterfk and gut-checking a strawman media deal and grant of rights framework, both which need to be adopted before the conference can meaningfully entertain expansion options. not expecting any big news unless kliakoff really falls short of member schools' minimum expectations.

[Merkin]

The PAC took a big academic hit from UCLA (20th) and USC (25th) leaving.

This is what's left:

Pac-12

Average ranking: 97th

Stanford — 3rd

California — 20th

Washington — 55th

Colorado — 97th

Arizona — 105th

Oregon — 105th

Utah — 105th

Arizona State — 121st

Oregon State — 151st

Washington State — 212th

More here on the other conferences, no surprise the Big 10 will be first now. ACC 2nd.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zac ... 2cd1c9511a


No doubt SDSU and UNLV are ranked higher than WSU.

No way Wazzu and ntOSU would be admitted today to the PAC if they applied, and not just academics.

[RichardCranium]

Pretty sure we all knew what he meant. No reason to be a pedant.

So I gently pointed out an error. No reason to be a boofhead.

[RichardCranium]

I also agree with UNLV over SMU...

I also agree with UNLV over most anyone else. For the reasons already stated (Clark County NV > 2M pop.) and the Pac 12 already plays it's championship games/tournaments in Vegas. But on top of all that 1) UNLV has access to stadiums (Allegiant) and arenas (TMobile) more than welcoming of hosting Pac 12 teams and 2) road attendance to UNLV games would be very inviting - Ducks, Sun Devils, Wildcats, Huskies, etc would readily make the easy trip and receive UNLV as a fellow rival, unlike SMU. I can't imagine those folks would care about hosting SMU or as excitedly flying to the Metroplex for a Ducks, Wildcats, etc road game.

As for UNLV's academics, who cares? We already have Arizona State and the Oregon schools who in no way foster university reputations based on academics.

The PAC12 has obviously been eyeing off UNLV for years.

[azgreg]

[wyo-cat]

That P12 Net overpayment clusterfuck has to be pushing some members into the arms of the B12.

[AZCatGirl]

That P12 Net overpayment clusterfuck has to be pushing some members into the arms of the B12.

If only we could be one of them.

[azcat49]

Rumors are they may add 4 teams and also invite UNLV and Tulane.

[AZCatGirl]

So the goal is to turn the Pac into a complete joke? Fantastic.

Can we leave now?

[CardiacCats97]

I mean, are North Texas and Chaminade not available?

[ChooChooCat]

So the goal is to turn the Pac into a complete joke? Fantastic.

Can we leave now?

To be fair we've been a complete joke for a long time now. I don't even care about these additions, although they're garbage, it's the fact that we're reportedly going to sign a deal with a vast majority of our games being streaming only. You can kiss any worthwhile coach goodbye for any school in this conference if that is in fact what we do.

[AzCatFan2]

I find it ironic people complaining that the PAC might grab some Group of 5 teams in order to survive. So, in response, we should flee to a conference that just (wait for it), promoted 4 Group of 5 teams to survive! I've said it before and I'll say it again. The PAC also-rans that include Oregon, Washington, and Stanford, are better than the BIG 12 also-rans that include Baylor, Texas Tech, and Kansas. It's why Colorado has called the BIG 12 a JV Conference, and Utah, Oregon, and UW seem to want no part of it at all. If we do land in the BIG 12, and take the other 4-corner PAC schools, plus maybe SDSU, that's not bad at all. But if remaining in the PAC is still an option, it's better than anything the BIG 12 has to offer.

Like it or not, streaming is the future of college sports. ESPN+ already streams a ton of games, and the Tier 3 BIG 12 games in the future will all be on ESPN+. It's certainly a gamble being the first conference to sign with someone other than ESPN+ for streaming, but what does the PAC have to lose? And streaming on Amazon Prime today is better than having games on the PAC 12 Network, which games need to be linked to a stream on this site for many to watch!

Rumors out there is ESPN is willing to give the PAC $30 million per school for the non-streaming package. Amazon in the $5 to $7 million range for the streaming, since it is a first of its kind, and a gamble for Amazon as well. But even at $35 million, that's over the $31.2 million BIG 12 schools will be receiving. That's an extra $3.8 million a year to help retain coaches. Not to mention, no in-conference travel to Orlando or W. Virginia to have to pay for every year.

It's no secret that the PAC is hanging by a thread. Oregon and UW want out, but the B1G refuses to give the PAC a death blow by taking any more teams. The 4-corner schools could kill the PAC by going to the BIG 12, but Utah and Colorado have made their decision that staying in the PAC as long as they can is better than the BIG 12.

[ChooChooCat]

Rumors out there is ESPN is willing to give the PAC $30 million per school for the non-streaming package. Amazon in the $5 to $7 million range for the streaming, since it is a first of its kind, and a gamble for Amazon as well. But even at $35 million, that's over the $31.2 million BIG 12 schools will be receiving. That's an extra $3.8 million a year to help retain coaches. Not to mention, no in-conference travel to Orlando or W. Virginia to have to pay for every year.

Ummm yeah those rumors only exist in your head. That's not what ESPN is offering at all and that's sure as shit not what Amazon is offering. Amazon wants Tier 1, they're offering more for it than ESPN is and that's one the main issues here.

I couldn't read the rest of your post, because the bullshit eminating from this one paragraph was so strong I almost vomited. Enough sunshine and rainbows, they don't exist in the situation the Pac 12 is in.

[azcat49]

Rumors I heard was ESPIN @25m a school and Amazon wanting a vast majority of the games. The conversations with the AD’s and Presidents was more money and less visibility or less money ir more visibility.

It sounds like they opted for more money(no surprise given the situation) and GK is out on an expansion tour.

[ChooChooCat]

Rumors I heard was ESPIN @25m a school and Amazon wanting a vast majority of the games. The conversations with the AD’s and Presidents was more money and less visibility or less money ir more visibility.

It sounds like they opted for more money(no surprise given the situation) and GK is out on an expansion tour.

That's not a sustainable situation for any athletic department though. Distribution is literally the point of having an athletic department. The purpose of athletics for any academic institution is recruiting students from all walks of life. You hide the majority of your sports on Amazon you will be an afterthought at best. It's not sustainable, something has to give here, or it is going to hurt a lot.

[AzCatFan2]

Rumors out there is ESPN is willing to give the PAC $30 million per school for the non-streaming package. Amazon in the $5 to $7 million range for the streaming, since it is a first of its kind, and a gamble for Amazon as well. But even at $35 million, that's over the $31.2 million BIG 12 schools will be receiving. That's an extra $3.8 million a year to help retain coaches. Not to mention, no in-conference travel to Orlando or W. Virginia to have to pay for every year.

Ummm yeah those rumors only exist in your head. That's not what ESPN is offering at all and that's sure as shit not what Amazon is offering. Amazon wants Tier 1, they're offering more for it than ESPN is and that's one the main issues here.

I couldn't read the rest of your post, because the bullshit eminating from this one paragraph was so strong I almost vomited. Enough sunshine and rainbows, they don't exist in the situation the Pac 12 is in.

Deflection and a misspelling. It's spelled emanating, with an A. Your debate skills make me sad that you are likely a UA grad.

Amazon wants Tier 1, but there is no way the PAC will agree to all T1 content with Amazon. Rumors were ESPN wanted to give only $25 million per school for the PAC, but recently upped their offer to $30 million. That's acceptable to the PAC, and rumors are, this part of the contract is all but signed. The question is the streaming portion. Which provider, how much, and just what split of the T1, T2, and T3 content will be streaming. Rumor is the deal will be signed before the beginning of March Madness, and the wait is on which teams to add. Most likely, the two will be SDSU and SMU, with others in consideration.

I can't confirm the rumors, but they come from various podcasts and reports on the web, including Canzano and Wilner, whom I believe to be two of the better PAC sources out there. But they are just rumors.

Now, can you tell me why SMU and SDSU are significantly worse than C. Florida, BYU, Cincinnati and Houston?

[Merkin]

Attendance figures for SDSU and SMU are both miserable.








If you allow in religious schools like SMU, then the PAC is better off with BYU. The Mormons have had a nationwide satellite feed for decades.

[ChooChooCat]

Rumors out there is ESPN is willing to give the PAC $30 million per school for the non-streaming package. Amazon in the $5 to $7 million range for the streaming, since it is a first of its kind, and a gamble for Amazon as well. But even at $35 million, that's over the $31.2 million BIG 12 schools will be receiving. That's an extra $3.8 million a year to help retain coaches. Not to mention, no in-conference travel to Orlando or W. Virginia to have to pay for every year.

Ummm yeah those rumors only exist in your head. That's not what ESPN is offering at all and that's sure as shit not what Amazon is offering. Amazon wants Tier 1, they're offering more for it than ESPN is and that's one the main issues here.

I couldn't read the rest of your post, because the bullshit eminating from this one paragraph was so strong I almost vomited. Enough sunshine and rainbows, they don't exist in the situation the Pac 12 is in.

Deflection and a misspelling. It's spelled emanating, with an A. Your debate skills make me sad that you are likely a UA grad.

Amazon wants Tier 1, but there is no way the PAC will agree to all T1 content with Amazon. Rumors were ESPN wanted to give only $25 million per school for the PAC, but recently upped their offer to $30 million. That's acceptable to the PAC, and rumors are, this part of the contract is all but signed. The question is the streaming portion. Which provider, how much, and just what split of the T1, T2, and T3 content will be streaming. Rumor is the deal will be signed before the beginning of March Madness, and the wait is on which teams to add. Most likely, the two will be SDSU and SMU, with others in consideration.

I can't confirm the rumors, but they come from various podcasts and reports on the web, including Canzano and Wilner, whom I believe to be two of the better PAC sources out there. But they are just rumors.

Now, can you tell me why SMU and SDSU are significantly worse than C. Florida, BYU, Cincinnati and Houston?

Probably because BYU, Cincinnati, and Houston have been competitive in the two major sports for a good while now, while SMU isn't competitive in anything and SDSU is ok in basketball. UCF sucks, but hey major market or whatever. Also how about the fact that the Big 12 had to add 4 G5 schools first and none of them were SDSU or SMU?

Canzano and Wilner most definitely did not say that ESPN would offer us $30 million for our non-streaming package and if the two biggest homer reporters aren't saying that then any other podcast you listened too sure isn't worth a damn. Marchand & Ourand's podcast sure didn't paint that rosy picture either.

You're full of it. This is a nightmare. Every single part of it is a nightmare and will make Arizona worthless on a national level. Your dream of getting into the B1G would die with this TV deal.

[azcat49]

IMO anything Canzano and Wilner say is worthless and homerism. The right play is to bolt and get out off this conference but it just doesn’t seem to be trending that way.

Hard to imagine we have been this poorly managed for more than a decade. A once proud conference is about to be blown up is sent to the scrap heap of history.

If it is that we go to a streamer I can’t say it’s much different than the conference channel. No one see’s us on that either. The Utah AD said he was in LA at a hotel and couldn’t even find the PAC channel in his hotel. So basically it’s the same as if we were being streamed

[ChooChooCat]

IMO anything Canzano and Wilner say is worthless and homerism. The right play is to bolt and get out off this conference but it just doesn’t seem to be trending that way.

Hard to imagine we have been this poorly managed for more than a decade. A once proud conference is about to be blown up is sent to the scrap heap of history.

If it is that we go to a streamer I can’t say it’s much different than the conference channel. No one see’s us on that either. The Utah AD said he was in LA at a hotel and couldn’t even find the PAC channel in his hotel. So basically it’s the same as if we were being streamed

Yes the Pac 12 Network has been a problem, but that's solely for Tier 3 games and makes up 40% or so of our total games. We had FOX/ESPN to even every thing out and make it feasible as still the vast majority of our games were on major TV networks. With this new deal roughly 70-75% of our games would be streaming only.

That is a problem and one that is not feasible to survive. Tier 3 on streaming is totally fine, Tier 1 and 2 is not fine.

[AzCatFan2]

SDSU won 12 football games in 2021, and why they were favored over us to begin the season. Ended up 7-6 in a disappointing year. SMU also finished 7-6 last year, and lost to BYU in a bowl game by 1. SMU is in a large metro area, and is akin to C. Florida. SDSU is also in a large market, and about equal to a Cincy. Cincy made the playoffs, in 2021, but SDSU wasn't that far behind, losing only 2 games.

Going streaming is better than the PAC-12 Network. Streaming is a growing market, and traditional cable is shrinking. The future of college sports is streaming, like it or not. It's a question of which providers and how much will they pay. I'm already getting ads for ESPN+ for mid-major and BIG 12 Basketball. It's only going to grow.

As for the rumors, there are a number of podcasts and reports out there. A lot of information, and a lot of unhappy schools in the PAC. Every one of us would jump to the B1G if they offered tomorrow, but that invite isn't coming until the next round of negotiations, if they ever come. The BIG 12 would take the 4-corners and Oregon/UW in a heartbeat, but none of those schools have left yet. The simple reality is, staying in the PAC is a better option right now than the BIG 12...A conference where a lot, if not all of their T3 games will be streaming on ESPN+ in the future.

[CardiacCats97]

The simple reality is, staying in the PAC is a better option right now than the BIG 12...

That is simply not true. And if it was, you wouldn’t have had to type literally 50+ posts and thousands of words over the past months trying to convince us it is.

[ChooChooCat]

The simple reality is, staying in the PAC is a better option right now than the BIG 12...

That is simply not true. And if it was, you wouldn’t have had to type literally 50+ posts and thousands of words over the past months trying to convince us it is.

And a better TV deal would've already been done if it was true.

Also Tier 3 streaming is fine. Tier 1 and 2 is not fine. I don't know how many times I need to fucking say it. The situation the Pac 12 was in with the Pac 12 Network and its Tier 3 games does not compare to the situation we'd be in with Tier 1/2 games being on streaming. It does not. We are in for a worse situation.

[ChooChooCat]

Look here's ultimately where the rubber meets the road. Talented recruits want to be on television. Coaches want to be on television, because they know it helps them land recruits. To land recruits and hire/retain good coaches you need to be on TV. The Big 12's TV deal has them on television much more than not. This upcoming Pac 12 TV deal will have us not on television much more than not. This isn't debatable. If you want to prioritize having a good athletics program you need to be on TV. There's only one possible solution for Arizona here.

[AzCatFan2]

The simple reality is, staying in the PAC is a better option right now than the BIG 12...

That is simply not true. And if it was, you wouldn’t have had to type literally 50+ posts and thousands of words over the past months trying to convince us it is.

If it were true, why haven't any PAC teams left? Why has Oregon said if they are leaving, it's either SEC or B1G? Why has Colorado called the BIG 12 a JV league? It is true. Actions speak loudest, and no PAC team has left for the BIG 12. And none will, unless the PAC disbands. And that happens if the B1G takes more teams.

As of right now, there are no T1 games streaming. But the future is with streaming, and it will fucking happen. It's inevitable given the shrinking traditional cable market and the growing streaming market. The content providers won't have the money to pay the conference contracts without moving some T1 games to streaming.

Professional leagues have figured this out. It's why the NFL has agreed with YouTube, MLS has agreed with Apple, and NASCAR with Peacock. Yes, it's a risk for the PAC to have the first T1 games streamed, but the higher the risk, the greater potential for rewards. And if streaming on Amazon doesn't work, we'll still survive. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has been a failure. We'll survive Amazon.

[ChooChooCat]

The simple reality is, staying in the PAC is a better option right now than the BIG 12...

That is simply not true. And if it was, you wouldn’t have had to type literally 50+ posts and thousands of words over the past months trying to convince us it is.

If it were true, why haven't any PAC teams left? Why has Oregon said if they are leaving, it's either SEC or B1G? Why has Colorado called the BIG 12 a JV league? It is true. Actions speak loudest, and no PAC team has left for the BIG 12. And none will, unless the PAC disbands. And that happens if the B1G takes more teams.

As of right now, there are no T1 games streaming. But the future is with streaming, and it will fucking happen. It's inevitable given the shrinking traditional cable market and the growing streaming market. The content providers won't have the money to pay the conference contracts without moving some T1 games to streaming.

Professional leagues have figured this out. It's why the NFL has agreed with YouTube, MLS has agreed with Apple, and NASCAR with Peacock. Yes, it's a risk for the PAC to have the first T1 games streamed, but the higher the risk, the greater potential for rewards. And if streaming on Amazon doesn't work, we'll still survive. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has been a failure. We'll survive Amazon.

Because the Pac 12 presidents and chancellors were cocky and felt superior to the Big 12 cause of muh academics, but are now staring their own demise in the face after being offered less money than they were expecting? I mean you're expecting the actions of the Pac 12 leaders to be coherent and with thought and purpose? They're trust fund babies who inherited a multi-million dollar business and are tanking it with their own actions and bad decisions. This isn't exactly hard to decode as this has been something these schools have been doing for decades. Making the wrong decisions and feeling holier than thou about it. It's what they do.

[AzCatFan2]

The simple reality is, staying in the PAC is a better option right now than the BIG 12...

That is simply not true. And if it was, you wouldn’t have had to type literally 50+ posts and thousands of words over the past months trying to convince us it is.

If it were true, why haven't any PAC teams left? Why has Oregon said if they are leaving, it's either SEC or B1G? Why has Colorado called the BIG 12 a JV league? It is true. Actions speak loudest, and no PAC team has left for the BIG 12. And none will, unless the PAC disbands. And that happens if the B1G takes more teams.

As of right now, there are no T1 games streaming. But the future is with streaming, and it will fucking happen. It's inevitable given the shrinking traditional cable market and the growing streaming market. The content providers won't have the money to pay the conference contracts without moving some T1 games to streaming.

Professional leagues have figured this out. It's why the NFL has agreed with YouTube, MLS has agreed with Apple, and NASCAR with Peacock. Yes, it's a risk for the PAC to have the first T1 games streamed, but the higher the risk, the greater potential for rewards. And if streaming on Amazon doesn't work, we'll still survive. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has been a failure. We'll survive Amazon.

Because the Pac 12 presidents and chancellors were cocky and felt superior to the Big 12 cause of muh academics, but are now staring their own demise in the face after being offered less money than they were expecting? I mean you're expecting the actions of the Pac 12 leaders to be coherent and with thought and purpose? They're trust fund babies who inherited a multi-million dollar business and are tanking it with their own actions and bad decisions. This isn't exactly hard to decode as this has been something these schools have been doing for decades. Making the wrong decisions and feeling holier than thou about it. It's what they do.

If they value their jobs and long term prospects, they will act in their own, and school's self interest. The Chancellors/Presidents of Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA all did when they agreed to bail on the BIG 12 and PAC respectively. Yormack has stated the BIG 12 is open for business, and they would add the 4-corner PAC schools and/or Oregon/UW in a heartbeat. If the PAC contract was really going to be significantly less than the $31.2 million per school/year than the BIG 12 was getting, there would be rumors flying about schools leaving for the BIG 12 right now. That's not happening. What are we hearing? The PAC will follow the BIG 12's lead and add some G5 schools to survive. And the TV contract level will be no worse than the BIG 12, and likely a little higher.

And I get you don't like any T1 games on streaming services. But that's the future of a lot of sports on TV. A lot of people thought MNF moving to cable was a huge mistake too, or the NFL streaming with Amazon would bomb. Didn't happen. Yes, that's the NFL, and they are the Kings of the US sports market, but they are also trend setters. And most of our T1 games will still very likely be on the ESPN family. And games streaming on Amazon will be no worse than games currently on the PAC-12 Network.

[EastCoastCat]

Is it Groundhogs day?

[PHXCATS]

Simple

If Amazon is basically taking over the existing PAC-12 Network games and the money is greater than what the Big-12 yearly payout is, stay
If Amazon is taking more inventory than that or the Big-12 is higher for the yearly payout, move (unless staying with the PAC-12 and Amazon is 50+ million a year to U of A which is it most certainly is not)

[PHXCATS]

With NIL now, I dont think people fully grasp how much media rights money means to the University

A lot of the money that boosters were giving to improve the locker room or weight room is now going to the NIL collectives. But Arizona still needs to keep its facilities up to date and with less booster donations this is how you make up for it, media rights

[AzCatFan2]

Simple

If Amazon is basically taking over the existing PAC-12 Network games and the money is greater than what the Big-12 yearly payout is, stay
If Amazon is taking more inventory than that or the Big-12 is higher for the yearly payout, move (unless staying with the PAC-12 and Amazon is 50+ million a year to U of A which is it most certainly is not)

I don't think Amazon will agree to just PAC-12 Network games. At the same time, while the ESPN family has several channels, they also have multiple contracts with other conferences and sports leagues. ESPN won't have the capacity to take all the games that are currently showing on the Fox family and put in on an ESPN channel.

With that said, games on Fox OTA (over-the-air) are T1 games, and ESPN will likely pick those up. For example, our game in Vegas against Indiana was on Fox, and ESPN will want games like this. It's T2 games that are on FS1 that ESPN may not have the capacity to show, and will likely end up streaming, likely on Amazon. Amazon is also likely going to want some T1 bones thrown their way as well. Likely where adding the 2 schools come in. Need more games/more content.

And agreed, it's mostly about the money. If staying in the PAC means a max contract of $25mil per school, then we should jump to the BIG 12 and take the extra $6mil. But rumors out there still stay the PAC will make more. And again, there is travel cost to consider. It's estimated that UCLA's travel budget will increase ~$5mil due to the B1G move (https://boardroom.tv/ucla-big-ten-pac-1 ... l%20burden.), but when you're making an additional $30mil, it's still worth it. Our move to the BIG 12 wouldn't cost us that much, but even an increase of $1mil to $2mil is significant. Again, if we can make $6mil more in the BIG 12, we should move. But if we can make more in the PAC, we should stay.

The 4-corner school options right now are BIG 12 or stay in the PAC. I believe Oregon and UW would love for us to leave, because that would leave the PAC with 6 schools, which would cause the NCAA to strip the PAC of its P5 status, and allow Oregon and UW to go B1G. It's why Oregon and UW are pulling for unequal distribution. Sour the milk to make the 4-corner schools leave. But if it's better for the 4-corners to stay with the PAC, then we stay. And personally, I find it hard to believe the PAC TV contract will be so bad that the 4-corner schools bail. At least for this round of contracts.

[Merkin]

So haven't been following this, like has been said, it's Groundhog Day again, but this this is the gist?

Amazon for most games streaming, with ESPN having first choice doing the 10pm ET games.

SDSU and SMU to join before the contract is signed.

Amazon/ESPN offering $250M, now is that for 10 or 12 schools?


Can't imagine PAC presidents relishing SDSU. There was a reason SDSU was never invited to the PAC for decades.

[azcat49]

The other night in the Big 12 a couple of top teams (they all are but this was Kansas/KState) we’re playing on +. You could hear the angst from Kansas fans when they couldn’t watch the game.

[CardiacCats97]

Three people with knowledge of the discussions said commissioner George Kliavkoff is struggling to find partners willing to pay close to what the league is seeking. Two of those sources said Kliavkoff overpromised his members on how many bidders there would be and what dollar amount they could command — a target north of $40 million per school, according to one league athletic director. Today, it’s uncertain whether the Pac-12 will even be able to exceed the $31.6 million average the Big 12 reportedly landed in a six-year extension with ESPN and Fox it reached last fall.

“(We) don’t have a deal because it hasn’t been good,” said the AD.

Kliavkoff made some key miscalculations. At last summer’s Pac-12 media day, he suggested the Big Ten’s pending jackpot — which wound up being for $8.1 billion over seven years — would have a ripple effect on the Pac-12. But the Big Ten is a much more watched conference that garnered interest from nearly every major linear and digital media company. The Pac-12, by contrast, has found fewer bidders since going to the open market. Fox, for one, has expressed little interest now that the Los Angeles schools are part of its prized Big Ten package. And CBS (Big Ten and Mountain West) and NBC (Big Ten and Notre Dame) are set in college football for the next several years.

[EastCoastCat]

But I thought streaming would save us...

[dmjcat]

The Pac-12's next media rights deal will be heavily reliant on a digital streaming partner. Significantly more than half of each season's Pac-12 football games will be primarily available via streaming as part of the conference's next rights deal, sources tell CBS Sports.

Such a ratio is unprecedented for a Power Five conference and for whichever streaming giant becomes the first to more fully embrace college sports. The move would likely upset Pac-12 coaches, athletic directors and administrators who rely on widespread visibility for their games via linear (cable) and network platforms for everything from athletic recruitment to university enrollment.


The Pac-12 has long suffered from substandard distribution resulting after deciding to go with the standalone, wholly owned Pac-12 Networks. A heavy streaming deal would further limit the conference's visibility.

[azcat49]

If this news doesn’t show desperation and weakness then I am not sure what would.

Really need to just put this animal down and make our move. Being laughed at is not fun

[CardiacCats97]

It’s all bad. Get Arizona the fuck out of this corpse of a conference please.

[AzCatFan2]

We survived with a significant portion of our games on the PAC-12 Network, which had less distribution than any streaming service. We won't die with half our games being streamed. In fact, we might actually thrive? It's high risk, but with high risk often comes high reward. And with more and more people cutting cords, and networks like Fox and ESPN getting less and less carriage fees from cable providers, as this article states, the future of live sports is streaming (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... itional-tv) It's not if, it's when.

Also remember, that the BIG 12 new contract basically designates all T3 content to ESPN+. It's not like we're going to get away from streaming, unless we can get an invite to the SEC of B1G. And fat chance of that happening any time soon, if ever.