Not sure if it is real or not, but Sankey coming out and saying that the SEC staying at 16 could be a fairly big deal. If, as they said, college football nationwide is good for the SEC and for the game as a whole, maybe we have a chance to grab a couple of teams (SMU for Texas and SDSU for SoCal?) and then go for a great streaming deal along with trying to get creative to keep money coming in with some sort of ACC alliance, and continue to keep the Pac12 somewhat relevant and alive. Sankey also said 8 teams, all at large could be acceptable. Seems that gives us as much of a chance to make the playoffs as we have now. Probably a bit pollyanna but it may be our best option for now.
It's real....right up until the moment someone the SEC really likes (Clemson, North Carolina, etc) calls them up and says they want to join. When that will happen is anyone's guess, but it'll happen eventually. But make no mistake, the SEC, the Big Ten, and their puppet-master networks do not care one bit about a bunch of schools that will get kicked to the curb in the process.
"But the Big Ten was also focused, first and foremost, on its own wellbeing. The league formed its working group and used four primary principles to evaluate potential additions, which ranged from academic and cultural profiles to competitiveness and financial sustainability. The league had conversations with and about a number of schools — but multiple sources said USC and UCLA both reached out to the Big Ten first."
You know in business/economics if your extravagant overhead and expenses generate great revenue, but still produces deficits, plan B is to lower overhead expenses, which will reduce revenue, but can actually generate a profit. If you don't adapt, you go bankrupt and no longer have a product.
Jul 12, 2022·edited Jul 12, 2022Liked by John Canzano
John - I’m curious on your thoughts in regards to looking toward the future and trends vs. just immediate dollars. Obviously the ability to earn revenue is critical but shouldn’t the Pac 12 (10) look strategically at the future. Recruiting California is king but football participation levels continue to decline in the state and opening up a Texas and other states seems to make sense. I would have loved to see Houston last year and perhaps one additional Texas school. Maybe SMU is the play today and a UTSA in the future (I know UTSA is not prime time ready today athletic or academically) As San Antonio is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, fertile recruiting grounds and a large Spanish demographic. Today the schools are not worth 30 million but you could approach about a lesser share and get in. That investment could blossom in ten years.
If they do nothing and stick to ten haven’t we seen that movie before ? Big 12 before Texas and Oklahoma bolted. Great companies see trends and the future. SDSU makes sense for the same reasons. It seems time to approach Gonzaga and someone else for hoops. I think their baseball team made the NCAA tournament as well. Look forward
I like the idea of a partnership with the ACC... and some kind of merger with the Big 12 or potentially taking Houston and/or SMU/Baylor. If you want to keep pace with the Big Ten and SEC you have to use your numbers and the strength of ESPN.
Regarding UCLA: I think the Bruins will recruit better and can also pay assistants more money in the Big 10. They weren’t winning even division championships in the PAC so it can’t get much worse. They will need a new head coach though to get them to the promised land.
Any additional info on the rumor SMU might become a target of the Pac 10?
It plays in a beautiful setting about 1 mile from my home, although attending daytime September games there is like sitting in an oven.
When TCU joined the Big 12, the Fort Worth community really rallied behind the program. I think the same could happen in Dallas and Dallas is a huge TV market.
Further, SMU has some extremely well heeled boosters who would likely take the steps necessary to make SMU competitive.
Asked Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Mac Engel about SMU's interest in the Pac-12. He said, "They would run over all of their mothers if they could get it."
Not sure SMU brings much more than a tiny footprint in the DFW area. But it's something.
Least we forget SMU was 31-5 1982-1984 before getting the death penalty from the NCAA. Yes, they cheated, but that's old news and I reckon they would thrive in the Pac 12 under the new rules.
It's really hard to say how the MetroPlex would react to teams like Stanford, Washington and Oregon coming in for games, but I think it might be favorable. In fairness to Engel, no one else wants SMU and perhaps the other conferences' assessment is valid.
My thought-just as Utah was able to take advantage of its connections to the Pac-12 and improve its programs, I suspect SMU could as well.
Unless ESPN is willing to overpay for the Pac-10 TV rights, which I doubt, I would look for other partnerships. They already have the SEC and ACC to air on ESPN/ABC, plus several G5s for their other channels. There's no way they would really value or promote the Pac-10 for anything other than filler content in the 10:30pm ET window. The rest of the games would probably be relegated to ESPN+.
FOX probably won't be interested now that the Big Ten has its West Coast foothold.
It's been said that CBS and NBC are interested in the Big Ten. Seems unlikely both will end up getting a piece, so I'd definitely reach out to whichever one does not. Maybe TBS/TNT would have some interest?
I'd be looking for a partner that would value the content, promote it and make sure it gets the widest distribution possible in the best time windows. That's not going to be ESPN. I might even be willing to take a little less money for better exposure.
Yet, I have read that ESPN needs additional content to fill their networks and ESPN+ streaming services on Saturday evening. As long as the Pac10 likes playing at a time slot that no one west of the Mississippi will ever see; they might do well at ESPN for a reasonable price.
Playing one game in that time slot for the money is probably fine. Playing all your games that late at night for most of the population just pushes you into irrelevancy (not to mention the fans who attend the games mostly hate it). Just as importantly, after USC/UCLA leave the Pac 10 will only have 5 games to sell most weeks of the season instead of 6. Assuming they still end up with a Friday game most weeks, that leaves just 4 games for some Saturdays. With a more limited inventory you have to make sure at least a couple of games are getting good TV exposure.
ESPN already has plenty of content under contract to fill their primary and secondary channels; starting in 2024 they'll exclusively own the SEC, ACC, AAC and Sun Belt. They also sublicense MAC games from CBS. They'll have at least one more season with a piece of the Big 12 in 2024 too. That's a lot of games.
They only want games for 10:30pm ET. I think it would be big mistake for the Pac 10 to give it to them. If the Pac-10 says no thanks, ESPN would probably just re-broadcast whatever the best SEC game of the day was and not lose a minute's sleep over it.
ESPN just isn't going to care about whether the Pac remains relevant. The days of College Gameday coming to Eugene and Lee Corso putting on the duck mascot's head gear are over. Find a broadcast partner that will see value in owning your games.
Hey John. I remember you during your Bee days in Fresno. I worked on and off at the Bee as well for many years. Nice to see you out on your own.
I see Fresno and SDSU being a good fit for the Pac12, esp on geographical and regional basis. Fresno travels well and San Diego is a great market. Fresno is the only Div1 in the entire valley. What are the chance the Pac12 invites Fresno, Boise, SDSU and maybe Nev or UNLV? I've always hoped that Fresno would make that jump into a power conference. They will be legit this year in football. Probably close to the best in the Pac12 if they were a member. Wouldn't be surprised to see them knock USC off.
I have asked this before, but how much of the revenue from an athletic department actually get transferred to a university's general fund? In fact, how many institutions support a portion of their athletic department's budget from the general fund? Of the 100+ Div I FBS schools, how many do not break even across their total sports' department budget?
I just found this post (don't know the accuracy) A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money. 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. {christopherlee.com)
So, if the story is true, that athletic programs are a big money drain....what happens to the millions of media money that is flowing in...besides big salaries to coaches, extravagant sports' facilities, and so on.
I think it's likely that the next 5-8 years keeps the remains 10 programs in the Pac-12 together. Mostly because I don't see the Big Ten or SEC making a big move. If they add teams... oregon, Washington, Stanford are likely defectors IMHO. That would change everything.
ESPN and Fox have the exclusive 30-day window to bid. The streamers will matter, but they'll come in later. I believe there could be a big opportunity there.
Do you know what happens if they can't agree on a deal with ESPN/FOX in 30 days? Do they get to bid on the open market right then, or do they have to wait until closer to the current contract expiration date? As I said below, I don't think either ESPN or FOX is the right partner for them now.
Not sure if it is real or not, but Sankey coming out and saying that the SEC staying at 16 could be a fairly big deal. If, as they said, college football nationwide is good for the SEC and for the game as a whole, maybe we have a chance to grab a couple of teams (SMU for Texas and SDSU for SoCal?) and then go for a great streaming deal along with trying to get creative to keep money coming in with some sort of ACC alliance, and continue to keep the Pac12 somewhat relevant and alive. Sankey also said 8 teams, all at large could be acceptable. Seems that gives us as much of a chance to make the playoffs as we have now. Probably a bit pollyanna but it may be our best option for now.
The landscape needs stability. I'll take it.
It's real....right up until the moment someone the SEC really likes (Clemson, North Carolina, etc) calls them up and says they want to join. When that will happen is anyone's guess, but it'll happen eventually. But make no mistake, the SEC, the Big Ten, and their puppet-master networks do not care one bit about a bunch of schools that will get kicked to the curb in the process.
https://theathletic.com/3393936/2022/07/01/usc-ucla-big-ten-pac-12-explained/
"But the Big Ten was also focused, first and foremost, on its own wellbeing. The league formed its working group and used four primary principles to evaluate potential additions, which ranged from academic and cultural profiles to competitiveness and financial sustainability. The league had conversations with and about a number of schools — but multiple sources said USC and UCLA both reached out to the Big Ten first."
I love the idea of keeping the Pac 12 at 12, adding SMU and SDSU. If four Big 12 teams wanted to join the party, that would be a POWER conference.
Don't like the idea of SMU, but what about PAC-12 adding SDSU and Boise State, and/or Fresno State and UNLV?
You know in business/economics if your extravagant overhead and expenses generate great revenue, but still produces deficits, plan B is to lower overhead expenses, which will reduce revenue, but can actually generate a profit. If you don't adapt, you go bankrupt and no longer have a product.
John - I’m curious on your thoughts in regards to looking toward the future and trends vs. just immediate dollars. Obviously the ability to earn revenue is critical but shouldn’t the Pac 12 (10) look strategically at the future. Recruiting California is king but football participation levels continue to decline in the state and opening up a Texas and other states seems to make sense. I would have loved to see Houston last year and perhaps one additional Texas school. Maybe SMU is the play today and a UTSA in the future (I know UTSA is not prime time ready today athletic or academically) As San Antonio is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, fertile recruiting grounds and a large Spanish demographic. Today the schools are not worth 30 million but you could approach about a lesser share and get in. That investment could blossom in ten years.
If they do nothing and stick to ten haven’t we seen that movie before ? Big 12 before Texas and Oklahoma bolted. Great companies see trends and the future. SDSU makes sense for the same reasons. It seems time to approach Gonzaga and someone else for hoops. I think their baseball team made the NCAA tournament as well. Look forward
I like the idea of a partnership with the ACC... and some kind of merger with the Big 12 or potentially taking Houston and/or SMU/Baylor. If you want to keep pace with the Big Ten and SEC you have to use your numbers and the strength of ESPN.
Regarding UCLA: I think the Bruins will recruit better and can also pay assistants more money in the Big 10. They weren’t winning even division championships in the PAC so it can’t get much worse. They will need a new head coach though to get them to the promised land.
You could be right.
Any additional info on the rumor SMU might become a target of the Pac 10?
It plays in a beautiful setting about 1 mile from my home, although attending daytime September games there is like sitting in an oven.
When TCU joined the Big 12, the Fort Worth community really rallied behind the program. I think the same could happen in Dallas and Dallas is a huge TV market.
Further, SMU has some extremely well heeled boosters who would likely take the steps necessary to make SMU competitive.
Asked Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Mac Engel about SMU's interest in the Pac-12. He said, "They would run over all of their mothers if they could get it."
Not sure SMU brings much more than a tiny footprint in the DFW area. But it's something.
Least we forget SMU was 31-5 1982-1984 before getting the death penalty from the NCAA. Yes, they cheated, but that's old news and I reckon they would thrive in the Pac 12 under the new rules.
It's really hard to say how the MetroPlex would react to teams like Stanford, Washington and Oregon coming in for games, but I think it might be favorable. In fairness to Engel, no one else wants SMU and perhaps the other conferences' assessment is valid.
My thought-just as Utah was able to take advantage of its connections to the Pac-12 and improve its programs, I suspect SMU could as well.
Unless ESPN is willing to overpay for the Pac-10 TV rights, which I doubt, I would look for other partnerships. They already have the SEC and ACC to air on ESPN/ABC, plus several G5s for their other channels. There's no way they would really value or promote the Pac-10 for anything other than filler content in the 10:30pm ET window. The rest of the games would probably be relegated to ESPN+.
FOX probably won't be interested now that the Big Ten has its West Coast foothold.
It's been said that CBS and NBC are interested in the Big Ten. Seems unlikely both will end up getting a piece, so I'd definitely reach out to whichever one does not. Maybe TBS/TNT would have some interest?
I'd be looking for a partner that would value the content, promote it and make sure it gets the widest distribution possible in the best time windows. That's not going to be ESPN. I might even be willing to take a little less money for better exposure.
Yet, I have read that ESPN needs additional content to fill their networks and ESPN+ streaming services on Saturday evening. As long as the Pac10 likes playing at a time slot that no one west of the Mississippi will ever see; they might do well at ESPN for a reasonable price.
Playing one game in that time slot for the money is probably fine. Playing all your games that late at night for most of the population just pushes you into irrelevancy (not to mention the fans who attend the games mostly hate it). Just as importantly, after USC/UCLA leave the Pac 10 will only have 5 games to sell most weeks of the season instead of 6. Assuming they still end up with a Friday game most weeks, that leaves just 4 games for some Saturdays. With a more limited inventory you have to make sure at least a couple of games are getting good TV exposure.
ESPN already has plenty of content under contract to fill their primary and secondary channels; starting in 2024 they'll exclusively own the SEC, ACC, AAC and Sun Belt. They also sublicense MAC games from CBS. They'll have at least one more season with a piece of the Big 12 in 2024 too. That's a lot of games.
They only want games for 10:30pm ET. I think it would be big mistake for the Pac 10 to give it to them. If the Pac-10 says no thanks, ESPN would probably just re-broadcast whatever the best SEC game of the day was and not lose a minute's sleep over it.
ESPN just isn't going to care about whether the Pac remains relevant. The days of College Gameday coming to Eugene and Lee Corso putting on the duck mascot's head gear are over. Find a broadcast partner that will see value in owning your games.
Hey John. I remember you during your Bee days in Fresno. I worked on and off at the Bee as well for many years. Nice to see you out on your own.
I see Fresno and SDSU being a good fit for the Pac12, esp on geographical and regional basis. Fresno travels well and San Diego is a great market. Fresno is the only Div1 in the entire valley. What are the chance the Pac12 invites Fresno, Boise, SDSU and maybe Nev or UNLV? I've always hoped that Fresno would make that jump into a power conference. They will be legit this year in football. Probably close to the best in the Pac12 if they were a member. Wouldn't be surprised to see them knock USC off.
I have asked this before, but how much of the revenue from an athletic department actually get transferred to a university's general fund? In fact, how many institutions support a portion of their athletic department's budget from the general fund? Of the 100+ Div I FBS schools, how many do not break even across their total sports' department budget?
I just found this post (don't know the accuracy) A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) includes all BCS conferences (PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) so odds are your favorite athletic program is losing money. 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. {christopherlee.com)
So, if the story is true, that athletic programs are a big money drain....what happens to the millions of media money that is flowing in...besides big salaries to coaches, extravagant sports' facilities, and so on.
I think it's likely that the next 5-8 years keeps the remains 10 programs in the Pac-12 together. Mostly because I don't see the Big Ten or SEC making a big move. If they add teams... oregon, Washington, Stanford are likely defectors IMHO. That would change everything.
ESPN and Fox have the exclusive 30-day window to bid. The streamers will matter, but they'll come in later. I believe there could be a big opportunity there.
Do you know what happens if they can't agree on a deal with ESPN/FOX in 30 days? Do they get to bid on the open market right then, or do they have to wait until closer to the current contract expiration date? As I said below, I don't think either ESPN or FOX is the right partner for them now.
And don't forget Apple who is getting into the game and has more cash than any of them....