The Pac-20 that was voted down 9-3 - The Pac 12 +Kansas, K ST, OK ST, IA ST, TX Tech, Baylor, TCU and Houston. FWIW, Kansas and IA ST are AAU members and Houston is a tier 1 research institution.
The add-on teams would have come in for a lesser share of revenue, improved inventory in CFB and C…
The Pac-20 that was voted down 9-3 - The Pac 12 +Kansas, K ST, OK ST, IA ST, TX Tech, Baylor, TCU and Houston. FWIW, Kansas and IA ST are AAU members and Houston is a tier 1 research institution.
The add-on teams would have come in for a lesser share of revenue, improved inventory in CFB and CBB, probably would have allowed for the functionally insolvent Pac-12 Network to become solvent.
Different revenue sharing may have allowed the Pac-20 to retain the LA schools? Could keep OR + UW looking for a new home?
I worked on a lot of M+A deals in my career. It is the rare M+A deal that is immediately 'accretive.' The acquior expects to pay some kind of premium over 'book value' with the ROI to improve down the road after operating costs are paired and new markets bring in greater value.
Much of this media math is voodoo math as far as I am concerned; far too short sighted instead of looking down the road.
Formation of the Pac-20 would have resulted in 4 instead of 5 Power conferences.
Now? IMO the Pac-10 should add SDS, Fresno, UNLV, SMU, UTSA and Tulane.
But when has the conference ever shown foresight when it comes to the business of sports?
Yeah, it was arrogant and short-sighted. I think the most important thing for Pac to do is get a solid foothold in Texas. This is the one state with plentiful recruits west of the Mississippi. Plus major media markets. The Pac 20 would have solved both these, and like you say may have been just enough to keep the LA schools around, particularly if next rights agreement offers unequal payouts tied to post-season performance.
The B12 - OK/TX +BYU, Cincy, Houston and UCF.
The Pac-20 that was voted down 9-3 - The Pac 12 +Kansas, K ST, OK ST, IA ST, TX Tech, Baylor, TCU and Houston. FWIW, Kansas and IA ST are AAU members and Houston is a tier 1 research institution.
The add-on teams would have come in for a lesser share of revenue, improved inventory in CFB and CBB, probably would have allowed for the functionally insolvent Pac-12 Network to become solvent.
Different revenue sharing may have allowed the Pac-20 to retain the LA schools? Could keep OR + UW looking for a new home?
I worked on a lot of M+A deals in my career. It is the rare M+A deal that is immediately 'accretive.' The acquior expects to pay some kind of premium over 'book value' with the ROI to improve down the road after operating costs are paired and new markets bring in greater value.
Much of this media math is voodoo math as far as I am concerned; far too short sighted instead of looking down the road.
Formation of the Pac-20 would have resulted in 4 instead of 5 Power conferences.
Now? IMO the Pac-10 should add SDS, Fresno, UNLV, SMU, UTSA and Tulane.
But when has the conference ever shown foresight when it comes to the business of sports?
Yeah, it was arrogant and short-sighted. I think the most important thing for Pac to do is get a solid foothold in Texas. This is the one state with plentiful recruits west of the Mississippi. Plus major media markets. The Pac 20 would have solved both these, and like you say may have been just enough to keep the LA schools around, particularly if next rights agreement offers unequal payouts tied to post-season performance.