AAC vs BIG XII

[DfromCT]

The PAC 12 would have made a lot more than $32M from media if they kept UCLA/USC. It probably would have been in the $40-45M range.

I don't know about that. From all accounts, the PAC 12 was counting on holding ESPN hostage vis a vis the new players in the market and nobody has stepped up. The last thing the conference wants is to go to a mostly streaming deal. The PAC 12 is on life support and scrambling to get a big enough deal to keep Oregon and Washington. Those two are the powerful ones as they have the most options available and are most attractive. Yeah, the Big 12 may be talking to the 4 corners schools, but nobody else is interested in them. The schools with the most options wield the power, which leaves WSU and Oregon State playing the "Hope" strategy! The conference might have been able to squeek out Big 12 money (@$31 mil) with USC and UCLA, but would have a tough time getting much more. Let's see if they even get there without them. I don't think so.

[Aberzombie1892]

The PAC 12 would have made a lot more than $32M from media if they kept UCLA/USC. It probably would have been in the $40-45M range.

I don't know about that. From all accounts, the PAC 12 was counting on holding ESPN hostage vis a vis the new players in the market and nobody has stepped up. The last thing the conference wants is to go to a mostly streaming deal. The PAC 12 is on life support and scrambling to get a big enough deal to keep Oregon and Washington. Those two are the powerful ones as they have the most options available and are most attractive. Yeah, the Big 12 may be talking to the 4 corners schools, but nobody else is interested in them. The schools with the most options wield the power, which leaves WSU and Oregon State playing the "Hope" strategy! The conference might have been able to squeek out Big 12 money (@$31 mil) with USC and UCLA, but would have a tough time getting much more. Let's see if they even get there without them. I don't think so.

At a fundamental level, USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington are each undoubtedly more valuable to media than any new look Big 12 program (Big 12 2025-on). Do you dispute that? If not, then I don’t understand the argument here - the Big 12 jumped the line because the PAC 12 lost teams. If the PAC 12 hadn’t lost teams, the PAC 12 would have a much better deal than what the Big 12 has the Big 12 would be begging right now.

[RobertM320]

One consideration. How ever many new teams are invited to the PAC, they almost surely won't get a full revenue share for some time. That will give Kliavkoff leverage to up the revenue take for the PAC12 legacy schools--thereby helping him get those schools at least equal to the Big 12 revenue take per school. So, there will be twice the leverage benefit with four new schools as opposed to two new schools. Kliavkoff's current mission 1 has to be trying to keep the remaining PAC 10 in the tent--and he has a better chance of doing that with four new schools taking lesser shares.

I guess if the PAC12 members were to get $32M a year with USC and UCLA, they could always add 4 schools and give us each $16M a year. Keeps the current schools at their level, and no total new expense. And we'd still be getting more than double what we get in AAC, Also, are we required to do some things in the AAC that we might not in the PAC? Like do our own TV production? I have no idea, just asking.

The PAC 12 would have made a lot more than $32M from media if they kept UCLA/USC. It probably would have been in the $40-45M range.

I agree. I'm just using that as an example of a possible split. Whatever they ultimately get, they can give the 4 new teams half shares and they'd all be happy with it.

[Tulane1111]

Well it is interesting to see how this all plays out…… if you were a Houston bball fan the logic says being in the AAC has really worked great for the Program.

Cincinnati was CUSA 1.0, it really worked for them.

[Greeniegb]

Current odds favor the Pac 12 to add only two teams SMU and San Diego St. Leaves Tulane looking at the Big 12 for expansion

The expansion calculation
Multiple sources believe the Pac-12 is considering three options for membership structure: add four schools, add two schools or don’t add any schools.

The final decision depends on the media deal and the relationship between inventory and valuation — whether the ability to play more games (e.g., a weekly Friday night kickoff) will increase revenue for the existing members.

Our view of the outcomes:
— Two schools: 50 percent
— Zero schools: 45 percent
— Four schools: 5 percent

SMU and San Diego State seemingly sit atop the candidate list but are not the only universities Kliavkoff has evaluated for membership. (We have been unable to confirm the others.)

The calculation for expansion is comparable to the decision on streaming: The Pac-12 must assess the long-haul benefits of both.

Would a partnership with Apple or Amazon become exponentially more beneficial by the end of the decade than it appears now?

Would the SMU and SDSU football brands be markedly stronger after five or six years in the Pac-12 than they are today?

Because ultimately, the decisions made this month are about strategic position for the next six or eight years..:

[RobertM320]

How about providing a source for this, rather than just an anonymous post?

Dont bother. He's a guy with a podcast on the Pac12. And the original article was almost a week ago. A lot has changed since then.

[Ruski]

The PAC 12 would have made a lot more than $32M from media if they kept UCLA/USC. It probably would have been in the $40-45M range.

I don't know about that. From all accounts, the PAC 12 was counting on holding ESPN hostage vis a vis the new players in the market and nobody has stepped up. The last thing the conference wants is to go to a mostly streaming deal. The PAC 12 is on life support and scrambling to get a big enough deal to keep Oregon and Washington. Those two are the powerful ones as they have the most options available and are most attractive. Yeah, the Big 12 may be talking to the 4 corners schools, but nobody else is interested in them. The schools with the most options wield the power, which leaves WSU and Oregon State playing the "Hope" strategy! The conference might have been able to squeek out Big 12 money (@$31 mil) with USC and UCLA, but would have a tough time getting much more. Let's see if they even get there without them. I don't think so.

The last PAC and Big12 deals were done basically the same time, for the same length. PAC with LA schools got $21mil per school. Big12 with Texas/OU got $20mil per school.

A PAC with the LA schools would've gotten way more than a OUT-less Big12.

PAC commish really screwed up. Could've read the writing on the wall and taken Houston, SMU, SDSU, Air Force, and ended up the #3 league.

[HoustonWave]

Whatever media deal Kliavkoff can craft, he can get more money to the legacy PAC schools, and maybe even a further sweetener for Oregon and Washington, if he has more (ie four) new schools from which he can leverage the payout on. Whatever he negotiates and structures will probably be relatively short term—all in hopes of demonstrating that they can add more CTZ eyeballs.

[HoustonWave]

Hopefully Kliavkoff had been made aware that our viewership rating is comparable, or better, than SMU’, SDSU, Colorado, and the Arizona schools.

[anEngineer]

Hopefully Kliavkoff had been made aware that our viewership rating is comparable, or better, than SMU’, SDSU, Colorado, and the Arizona schools.

I continue to be stunned by the viewership numbers that show us as comparable to other P5 programs. It was certainly verified with the attendance at the Cotton Bowl. It proves the latent enthusiasm that we all felt and hoped was out there. We now know that it's not just in NOLA, it's all over the country.

[HoustonWave]

Hopefully Kliavkoff had been made aware that our viewership rating is comparable, or better, than SMU’, SDSU, Colorado, and the Arizona schools.

I continue to be stunned by the viewership numbers that show us as comparable to other P5 programs. It was certainly verified with the attendance at the Cotton Bowl. It proves the latent enthusiasm that we all felt and hoped was out there. We now know that it's not just in NOLA, it's all over the country.

Hopefully the PAC, Big 12 and ACC all know that as well. In a time when conferences are trying to get coast-to-coast media coverage it would seem that Tulane's national audience would be a big plus for us--shared only by the military academies, Notre Dame, and BYU, that I can think of.

[DfromCT]

At a fundamental level, USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington are each undoubtedly more valuable to media than any new look Big 12 program (Big 12 2025-on). Do you dispute that? If not, then I don’t understand the argument here - the Big 12 jumped the line because the PAC 12 lost teams. If the PAC 12 hadn’t lost teams, the PAC 12 would have a much better deal than what the Big 12 has the Big 12 would be begging right now.

I don't disagree whatsoever. But you're comparing the "old look" PAC to the "New Look" Big 12. Compare apples to apples. The PST limits viewers because most of the eastern half of the country goes to bed. Even with USC and UCLA, the ratings were not going to justify ESPN overpaying the way it has in the past, and nobody was jumping up to play off against ESPN. Going to 100% stream, or primarily streaming with some games sold off to the ESPN+, CBSSN, FOXSN, etc of the world likewise would be foolish. Streaming ratings still lag TV ratings by a considerable margin.

Now as far as the PAC 12 getting $30 million/school without USC or UCLA, I don't think there's a chance. I could be wrong, but even if they add two or four schools and give them partial shares for a number of years, there's simply not the demand for the product that the conference was banking on. ESPN overspent for years, and the competition to outbid ESPN, which is now pulling back spending, simply is not there.

[DfromCT]

I continue to be stunned by the viewership numbers that show us as comparable to other P5 programs. It was certainly verified with the attendance at the Cotton Bowl. It proves the latent enthusiasm that we all felt and hoped was out there. We now know that it's not just in NOLA, it's all over the country.

Me too, to the point that I question the numbers. For years we didn't have a whole number in front of the decimal unless we played a service academy or a ranked team. As recently as the start of the season, there were more games that didn't draw enough audience to garner a rating as there were games with a whole number ahead of the decimal.

Green Wave Nation (I've come to accept that term) showed up in Dallas in a big way. It's why I still say for the program the attendance was a bigger win than the final score. That opened eyes, no doubt.

[Aberzombie1892]

At a fundamental level, USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington are each undoubtedly more valuable to media than any new look Big 12 program (Big 12 2025-on). Do you dispute that? If not, then I don’t understand the argument here - the Big 12 jumped the line because the PAC 12 lost teams. If the PAC 12 hadn’t lost teams, the PAC 12 would have a much better deal than what the Big 12 has the Big 12 would be begging right now.

I don't disagree whatsoever. But you're comparing the "old look" PAC to the "New Look" Big 12. Compare apples to apples. The PST limits viewers because most of the eastern half of the country goes to bed. Even with USC and UCLA, the ratings were not going to justify ESPN overpaying the way it has in the past, and nobody was jumping up to play off against ESPN. Going to 100% stream, or primarily streaming with some games sold off to the ESPN+, CBSSN, FOXSN, etc of the world likewise would be foolish. Streaming ratings still lag TV ratings by a considerable margin.

Now as far as the PAC 12 getting $30 million/school without USC or UCLA, I don't think there's a chance. I could be wrong, but even if they add two or four schools and give them partial shares for a number of years, there's simply not the demand for the product that the conference was banking on. ESPN overspent for years, and the competition to outbid ESPN, which is now pulling back spending, simply is not there.

The quoted post was in response to the assertion around it being unclear if the PAC12 w/USC and UCLA would have a better deal than the 2025-on Big 12. It seems like we are in agreement that that just wouldn’t be true and of course that PAC 12 would make more money.

[Greeniegb]

Sports illustrated, KEVIN BORBA MAR 5, 2023 3:14 PM EST

The more I look into candidates, the more evident it becomes that adding two programs will likely be the direction the Pac-12 goes. However, we may as well make sure that we cross every "t" and dot every "I" before we finally get confirmation. Here are three programs that could be potential long shots, meaning not very likely but would be an interesting discussion, candidates for that final spot of Pac-12 expansion assuming the conference added four programs.

1. UTSA
The Road Runners have an ascending football program in a very promising market in San Antonio Texas that ranks as the No. 31 market. Jeff Traylor has led the program to two 11 win seasons over the past couple years,

2. USF
USF is academically up to par with the Pac-12 besides the fact that it isn't an AAU university. They rank as high as Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, and Arizona academically, and football wise have had some promising years in the past.

3. Hawaii
There are some pros and cons to adding Hawaii. For starters, the program is in one of the most beautiful states in the country and they are set to receive a major stadium upgrade that is expected to cost around $500 million.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/foo ... pid=hawaii

[DfromCT]

Sports illustrated, KEVIN BORBA MAR 5, 2023 3:14 PM EST

The more I look into candidates, the more evident it becomes that adding two programs will likely be the direction the Pac-12 goes. However, we may as well make sure that we cross every "t" and dot every "I" before we finally get confirmation. Here are three programs that could be potential long shots, meaning not very likely but would be an interesting discussion, candidates for that final spot of Pac-12 expansion assuming the conference added four programs.

1. UTSA
The Road Runners have an ascending football program in a very promising market in San Antonio Texas that ranks as the No. 31 market. Jeff Traylor has led the program to two 11 win seasons over the past couple years,

2. USF
USF is academically up to par with the Pac-12 besides the fact that it isn't an AAU university. They rank as high as Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, and Arizona academically, and football wise have had some promising years in the past.

3. Hawaii
There are some pros and cons to adding Hawaii. For starters, the program is in one of the most beautiful states in the country and they are set to receive a major stadium upgrade that is expected to cost around $500 million.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/foo ... pid=hawaii

Hawaii is a long shot. Not only does the travel burden every program in the conference (even if they go football only) but 5 hour time difference from the East Coast is a dealbreaker. When Hawaii has good teams or marquis players why is it we're all saying "I want to see them play"? Because nobody watches Hawaii football that lives east of the Rockies. At best the Helos would be considered for Football only membership. No travel partner, either. Nothing appears at the table with Hawaii other than some nice scenery and maybe a new stadium. BFD.

[HoustonWave]

Sports illustrated, KEVIN BORBA MAR 5, 2023 3:14 PM EST

The more I look into candidates, the more evident it becomes that adding two programs will likely be the direction the Pac-12 goes. However, we may as well make sure that we cross every "t" and dot every "I" before we finally get confirmation. Here are three programs that could be potential long shots, meaning not very likely but would be an interesting discussion, candidates for that final spot of Pac-12 expansion assuming the conference added four programs.

1. UTSA
The Road Runners have an ascending football program in a very promising market in San Antonio Texas that ranks as the No. 31 market. Jeff Traylor has led the program to two 11 win seasons over the past couple years,

2. USF
USF is academically up to par with the Pac-12 besides the fact that it isn't an AAU university. They rank as high as Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, and Arizona academically, and football wise have had some promising years in the past.

3. Hawaii
There are some pros and cons to adding Hawaii. For starters, the program is in one of the most beautiful states in the country and they are set to receive a major stadium upgrade that is expected to cost around $500 million.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/foo ... pid=hawaii

No way those three schools even get a whif of the PAC. UTSA has zero academics and zero viewership--not even in the top 120 in viewership.

USF is ranked #95 in viewership and is waaaay too far east for the PAC.

Hawaii is waaay too far west, would lower that average academic rating of the PAC, and has a viewership ranking of 108.

All non-starters.

[Greeniegb]

Sports illustrated, KEVIN BORBA MAR 5, 2023 3:14 PM EST

The more I look into candidates, the more evident it becomes that adding two programs will likely be the direction the Pac-12 goes. However, we may as well make sure that we cross every "t" and dot every "I" before we finally get confirmation. Here are three programs that could be potential long shots, meaning not very likely but would be an interesting discussion, candidates for that final spot of Pac-12 expansion assuming the conference added four programs.

1. UTSA
The Road Runners have an ascending football program in a very promising market in San Antonio Texas that ranks as the No. 31 market. Jeff Traylor has led the program to two 11 win seasons over the past couple years,

2. USF
USF is academically up to par with the Pac-12 besides the fact that it isn't an AAU university. They rank as high as Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, and Arizona academically, and football wise have had some promising years in the past.

3. Hawaii
There are some pros and cons to adding Hawaii. For starters, the program is in one of the most beautiful states in the country and they are set to receive a major stadium upgrade that is expected to cost around $500 million.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/foo ... pid=hawaii

No way those three schools even get a whif of the PAC. UTSA has zero academics and zero viewership--not even in the top 120 in viewership.

USF is ranked #95 in viewership and is waaaay to far east for the PAC.

Hawaii is waaay to far west, would lower that average academic rating of the PAC, and has a viewership ranking of 108.

All non-starters.

Well Troy gave notice to the Big 12 when the Pac 12 contacted him. Not interested in the Pac 12 for many reasons, One being it is fighting for its survival and Troy wants one final move no interim move. If Pac 12 stays intact, the Big 12 will come calling.

[HoustonWave]

Sports illustrated, KEVIN BORBA MAR 5, 2023 3:14 PM EST

The more I look into candidates, the more evident it becomes that adding two programs will likely be the direction the Pac-12 goes. However, we may as well make sure that we cross every "t" and dot every "I" before we finally get confirmation. Here are three programs that could be potential long shots, meaning not very likely but would be an interesting discussion, candidates for that final spot of Pac-12 expansion assuming the conference added four programs.

1. UTSA
The Road Runners have an ascending football program in a very promising market in San Antonio Texas that ranks as the No. 31 market. Jeff Traylor has led the program to two 11 win seasons over the past couple years,

2. USF
USF is academically up to par with the Pac-12 besides the fact that it isn't an AAU university. They rank as high as Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, and Arizona academically, and football wise have had some promising years in the past.

3. Hawaii
There are some pros and cons to adding Hawaii. For starters, the program is in one of the most beautiful states in the country and they are set to receive a major stadium upgrade that is expected to cost around $500 million.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/foo ... pid=hawaii

No way those three schools even get a whif of the PAC. UTSA has zero academics and zero viewership--not even in the top 120 in viewership.

USF is ranked #95 in viewership and is waaaay to far east for the PAC.

Hawaii is waaay to far west, would lower that average academic rating of the PAC, and has a viewership ranking of 108.

All non-starters.

Well Troy gave notice to the Big 12 when the Pac 12 contacted him. Not interested in the Pac 12 for many reasons, One being it is fighting for its survival and Troy wants one final move no interim move. If Pac 12 stays intact, the Big 12 will come calling.

I agree with you on that, gb. And if the PAC12 doesn't stay intact, it will be calling. Like you, I would love to see us end up in the Big 12 or ACC--but it has to come down to who gives us the first offer. More than two years in the AACUSA and we'll be on a downward trajectory that will be very hard to pull out of.