Pretty hard for George to read minds, as apparently lately USC and UCLA weren’t overtly screaming for bigger slices of the pie, and in any event it’s clear the other schools would have voted them down. The schools’ own self interest/greed blinded them to the value of the L.A. schools and the vast amounts of money they were leaving on the table. Kind of like in the workplace, you underpay your star performers at your peril, because they always have other opportunities.
Excellent analogy. Clearly, USC and UCLA were heavily subsidizing the other ten teams so is it really surprising that they decided to pursue other opportunities?
IMHO, the only beauty to this whole thing, John, is knowing that SC will remain as an also ran & UCLA ‘may occasionally’ get an invitation to the Dew Drop In Hotdog Bowl’.
My take is this is a mostly manufactured crises. Al this talk about TV revenue.....Oregon doesn't have to rely on it.
Look, we likely just got the best QB in the country to sign with the Ducks, plus the best running back is about to sign and several defensive line beasts are looking to jump on the Lanning train as well.
To me, this whole thing has become a non-issue.
The Ducks will be competing for a National Championship with the roster Lanning and Co. are putting together. Heck they might already compete this year and next before their first recruiting classes even start to see the field.
Regarding Oregon at least, I am looking at the bright side. Also the Beavers are on a roll as well. We are going to be just fine no matter how this all shakes.
I am officially putting it behind me. I hope UCLA and USC don't let the door hit them on the way out.
I'm with CJ! With this issue, as with life, you don't worry about what you can't control. It's a blast throwing out fake scenarios on what the conference can do, but I trust George! He's got the moxie to get in the ring and fight for the conference. I'm sure he relishes the challenge. Let's be more concerned about how Oregon competes or whether the Beavs will better last year's success.
Yeah, huge mistake equating what’s best for WSU with what’s best for the conference. Of course he never was the brightest bulb, plenty of stories about him being a disaster at Nebraska.
If he wasn't the brightest bulb, what does it say about the other 9 ADs who he apparently bamboozled into agreeing to those equal-revenue-sharing terms?
Nowhere is it said that he was the one doing the bamboozling. Undoubtedly there were other schools such as OSU, CU, UA, Stanford, and Cal which were happy to agree to receive tens of millions more than their brands and viewerships would command in the marketplace.
Actually, Stanford and Cal are currently valued 50% higher than Oregon or Washington ($45M each versus $30M each) by the media companies so they would be "donors" rather than "welfare recipients" in a future equal revenue distribution plan.
Money talks. For all the supposed collegiality BS, the Alliance, etc.. it is every man for himself, and keep an eye on your back. Opinion: TV networks have it all wrong, paying a premium for the LA market because you have UCLA & USC in your league makes no sense. If I have a choice as an LA resident to watch Maryland vs USC or Oregon vs Michigan, I am watching Oregon. Is Birmingham a big market? South Bend? Greenville SC? It is the content, not the schools location that is important.
If Oregon joined the Big Ten there would be an equal number of Oregon vs. Maryland and USC vs. Michigan games. Overall, the networks believe USC would attract far more viewers than Oregon in games versus Michigan and Maryland. (I don't have access to the pertinent data -- but they do so it is difficult to argue the point.)
Very little discussion anywhere about the affect on players regarding these emerging mega-conferences and media megadeals. The players are going to want more than NIL money. Eventually there will be unionization, players associations, etc. What a time for college football fans. Lesser schools within the mega-conferences will certainly want parity. Perhaps the teams left outside looking in will move on to reestablish a CFB atmosphere from the old days, less obsessed with the playoffs. The drama is just beginning. Hoping just to enjoy the Beavers play on Saturdays after some tailgating.
Do NOT expand...the object is to consolidate and maximize the revenue for schools. Not dilute it. There aren't any other schools out there that would increase revenues. The ONLY one, and I doubt they would increase media share payouts is BYU...and they just signed a deal with the Big 12. so basically it's 1). break up and the member schools go their separate ways. 2) figure out a way to stay together and join the Big-12. 3) Join the ACC in a sort of loose affiliation together East vs West. and Div. winners play each other for conf. championship. (that sounds the most prosperous, and fundamentally sound for all members.)
Agree except that I would not want to be in a conference with BYU. I don't feel that it is a level playing field when teenagers are playing 24-25 year old adults who are married with children. (Everyone is entitled to their view but I prefer playing teams with 18-23 year old kids versus 24-25 year old husbands and fathers. For me, the latter situation ruins the rah-rah college atmosphere that I love.)
Loyalty begets loyalty. George has done more good in a year than Larry ever did. Let the SoCal schools go, they're mediocre anyway. Enlist some rising schools like Fresno State and Boise State and a TV partner like ESPN so that college sports are still national and not focused on the Eastern Time Zone. Or let everyone sell out.
exactly...those two will be a drag on the remaining members...neither one would bring in a healthy media market. so the existing members would receive even less money in annual media share payouts. to expand it has to pencil out as even, an increase in market shares. Other wise why even go there? It's an exercise in futility.
Yes I am understanding the importance of the media market metrics so I can understand why the schools mentioned above don't cut it. But in another post I tried to make the case about how teams, and markets for that matter, can change. San Diego and Las Vegas both are major league markets. Boise is growing and changing (many from Cali are moving there).
Fox overvalued the L.A. schools and the L.A. school leaders sold high. Good move for them. I understand they didn't like the idea of sharing revenue equally but this should have been a very attractive concept for the liberal leaders overseeing and promoting socialist philosophies that permeate our educational institutions.
For the remaining members now is our chance to buy low and think long term. Compete and improve our brand.
The majority of USC alumni are wealthy Republicans.
Fox Sports is competent. People might think that they overvalued the LA schools but is that reality or wishful thinking? At the end of the day, your value is what Fox, ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc. is willing to pay for your media rights. USC and UCLA felt they were getting a bad deal in the Pac-12 and, frankly, if Fox values them at $200M and everyone else (collectively) at $300M, it is tough to argue that they were wrong.
George is an enormous improvement over Larry Scott and I think he will produce the best possible outcome of this situation. Nonetheless, did George and the Pac-12 CEO group mistakenly believe that USC did not have any other realistic options? Everyone knew USC was unhappy with equal revenue sharing and had to have realized that USC was exploring its options. Perhaps the real oversight was not recognizing that USC and UCLA were closely aligned and, if USC left, they would take UCLA with them?
Sorry to say, but this has been a dumpster fire of a conference for a long time and Larry Scott turned out to be the final mail in the coffin. I hope Oregon can escape to a conference that has a chance of not just surviving but actually thriving in whatever this new landscape looks like.
Can some one refresh my memory of the last time the LA schools deserted the NW? Was it in the days of the old PCC? I seem to recall a 6 school conference at one time. The LA schools eventually came back. Details?
Granted, they're not competitive in the TV world. But it's surprising how often they are really competitive with PAC12 schools. But college athletics are about money and TV, not sports, right?
Pretty hard for George to read minds, as apparently lately USC and UCLA weren’t overtly screaming for bigger slices of the pie, and in any event it’s clear the other schools would have voted them down. The schools’ own self interest/greed blinded them to the value of the L.A. schools and the vast amounts of money they were leaving on the table. Kind of like in the workplace, you underpay your star performers at your peril, because they always have other opportunities.
Excellent analogy. Clearly, USC and UCLA were heavily subsidizing the other ten teams so is it really surprising that they decided to pursue other opportunities?
IMHO, the only beauty to this whole thing, John, is knowing that SC will remain as an also ran & UCLA ‘may occasionally’ get an invitation to the Dew Drop In Hotdog Bowl’.
At the risk of oversimplifying, college sports is a broken model. More profound changes will have to occur in order to fix it.
My take is this is a mostly manufactured crises. Al this talk about TV revenue.....Oregon doesn't have to rely on it.
Look, we likely just got the best QB in the country to sign with the Ducks, plus the best running back is about to sign and several defensive line beasts are looking to jump on the Lanning train as well.
To me, this whole thing has become a non-issue.
The Ducks will be competing for a National Championship with the roster Lanning and Co. are putting together. Heck they might already compete this year and next before their first recruiting classes even start to see the field.
Regarding Oregon at least, I am looking at the bright side. Also the Beavers are on a roll as well. We are going to be just fine no matter how this all shakes.
I am officially putting it behind me. I hope UCLA and USC don't let the door hit them on the way out.
I'm with CJ! With this issue, as with life, you don't worry about what you can't control. It's a blast throwing out fake scenarios on what the conference can do, but I trust George! He's got the moxie to get in the ring and fight for the conference. I'm sure he relishes the challenge. Let's be more concerned about how Oregon competes or whether the Beavs will better last year's success.
Let's see, the Washington St. AD thinks parity in revenue is the best thing for the conference. Ha! Now that's a shock!
Yeah, huge mistake equating what’s best for WSU with what’s best for the conference. Of course he never was the brightest bulb, plenty of stories about him being a disaster at Nebraska.
If he wasn't the brightest bulb, what does it say about the other 9 ADs who he apparently bamboozled into agreeing to those equal-revenue-sharing terms?
Nowhere is it said that he was the one doing the bamboozling. Undoubtedly there were other schools such as OSU, CU, UA, Stanford, and Cal which were happy to agree to receive tens of millions more than their brands and viewerships would command in the marketplace.
Actually, Stanford and Cal are currently valued 50% higher than Oregon or Washington ($45M each versus $30M each) by the media companies so they would be "donors" rather than "welfare recipients" in a future equal revenue distribution plan.
Hang in there George and keep plugging away...I'm sure you'll find a way.
As always, another good read.
Money talks. For all the supposed collegiality BS, the Alliance, etc.. it is every man for himself, and keep an eye on your back. Opinion: TV networks have it all wrong, paying a premium for the LA market because you have UCLA & USC in your league makes no sense. If I have a choice as an LA resident to watch Maryland vs USC or Oregon vs Michigan, I am watching Oregon. Is Birmingham a big market? South Bend? Greenville SC? It is the content, not the schools location that is important.
If Oregon joined the Big Ten there would be an equal number of Oregon vs. Maryland and USC vs. Michigan games. Overall, the networks believe USC would attract far more viewers than Oregon in games versus Michigan and Maryland. (I don't have access to the pertinent data -- but they do so it is difficult to argue the point.)
Very little discussion anywhere about the affect on players regarding these emerging mega-conferences and media megadeals. The players are going to want more than NIL money. Eventually there will be unionization, players associations, etc. What a time for college football fans. Lesser schools within the mega-conferences will certainly want parity. Perhaps the teams left outside looking in will move on to reestablish a CFB atmosphere from the old days, less obsessed with the playoffs. The drama is just beginning. Hoping just to enjoy the Beavers play on Saturdays after some tailgating.
Great perspective. Nicely put JC.
Do NOT expand...the object is to consolidate and maximize the revenue for schools. Not dilute it. There aren't any other schools out there that would increase revenues. The ONLY one, and I doubt they would increase media share payouts is BYU...and they just signed a deal with the Big 12. so basically it's 1). break up and the member schools go their separate ways. 2) figure out a way to stay together and join the Big-12. 3) Join the ACC in a sort of loose affiliation together East vs West. and Div. winners play each other for conf. championship. (that sounds the most prosperous, and fundamentally sound for all members.)
Agree except that I would not want to be in a conference with BYU. I don't feel that it is a level playing field when teenagers are playing 24-25 year old adults who are married with children. (Everyone is entitled to their view but I prefer playing teams with 18-23 year old kids versus 24-25 year old husbands and fathers. For me, the latter situation ruins the rah-rah college atmosphere that I love.)
Loyalty begets loyalty. George has done more good in a year than Larry ever did. Let the SoCal schools go, they're mediocre anyway. Enlist some rising schools like Fresno State and Boise State and a TV partner like ESPN so that college sports are still national and not focused on the Eastern Time Zone. Or let everyone sell out.
Even wearing the rosiest of rose-colored glasses, Fresno St./Boise St. would be a massive step backwards from USC/UCLA. Sad it’s come to this.
Current PAC-10 + Fresno and Boise ain't gonna cut it. Neither will also adding SDSU and UNLV.
And the idea of Fresno and Boise in the PAC is ... profoundly distasteful.
I completely agree . . . and am impressed that you are functioning in reality rather than denial.
exactly...those two will be a drag on the remaining members...neither one would bring in a healthy media market. so the existing members would receive even less money in annual media share payouts. to expand it has to pencil out as even, an increase in market shares. Other wise why even go there? It's an exercise in futility.
Yes I am understanding the importance of the media market metrics so I can understand why the schools mentioned above don't cut it. But in another post I tried to make the case about how teams, and markets for that matter, can change. San Diego and Las Vegas both are major league markets. Boise is growing and changing (many from Cali are moving there).
Fox overvalued the L.A. schools and the L.A. school leaders sold high. Good move for them. I understand they didn't like the idea of sharing revenue equally but this should have been a very attractive concept for the liberal leaders overseeing and promoting socialist philosophies that permeate our educational institutions.
For the remaining members now is our chance to buy low and think long term. Compete and improve our brand.
The majority of USC alumni are wealthy Republicans.
Fox Sports is competent. People might think that they overvalued the LA schools but is that reality or wishful thinking? At the end of the day, your value is what Fox, ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc. is willing to pay for your media rights. USC and UCLA felt they were getting a bad deal in the Pac-12 and, frankly, if Fox values them at $200M and everyone else (collectively) at $300M, it is tough to argue that they were wrong.
George is an enormous improvement over Larry Scott and I think he will produce the best possible outcome of this situation. Nonetheless, did George and the Pac-12 CEO group mistakenly believe that USC did not have any other realistic options? Everyone knew USC was unhappy with equal revenue sharing and had to have realized that USC was exploring its options. Perhaps the real oversight was not recognizing that USC and UCLA were closely aligned and, if USC left, they would take UCLA with them?
Sorry to say, but this has been a dumpster fire of a conference for a long time and Larry Scott turned out to be the final mail in the coffin. I hope Oregon can escape to a conference that has a chance of not just surviving but actually thriving in whatever this new landscape looks like.
Can some one refresh my memory of the last time the LA schools deserted the NW? Was it in the days of the old PCC? I seem to recall a 6 school conference at one time. The LA schools eventually came back. Details?
Granted, they're not competitive in the TV world. But it's surprising how often they are really competitive with PAC12 schools. But college athletics are about money and TV, not sports, right?