One thing to consider is that it is not just the number of viewers today, but in 10 years that matter. These media contracts are long term and so priced on the future, not the present. The LA area continues to bleed viewers to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Texas. Being in the DFW market, along with the Las Vegas market and also the Denver and Salt Lake market is more important in the future than remaining in LA is at the present. Many of the viewers will have moved in 10 years. The trend is your friend
It's a good point. Speculative play... Las Vegas. Plus, a pile of potential gaming sponsorships are interesting. Could be a ton of money buried in Vegas.
And the Central Valley in California. What do the media households look like for Sacramento to Bakersfield instead of just Sacramento? I've lived in the Sacramento market since 2000. The growth of this market in the last 5 years has been exponentially stunning.
I struggle with the P12 academic peer argument given the new paradigm in college football. I'm not sure academics understand the draw universities in the Power 5 have with undergrads. Only four P12 schools will be in US News & World Report's Top 55 schools after USC & UCLA depart. You drive down the football brands in the P12 to a less than Power 5 level and you'll further impact that quality of the school's undergrad pool. Why would you go to Oregon State instead of Pepperdine or UC Santa Barbara if the football product was WAC or WCC level?
AND, what do you do if Stanford decides five years from now to pull out of the P12 because they cannot compete under the transfer portal free agency rules. What of Stanford's reluctance to add a Fresno State or a UNLV then?
You cannot get tonnage if you're obsessed with academic standing today. You can, however, improve the academic standards at universities moving forward if you lift up the attractiveness of the campus experience and get better undergrads.
I think what is also overlooked is how taking SDSU and not Fresno will play up and down the Central Valley. A coastal cities versus Ag interior is already an “us versus them”mentality to the point many want to split the state. This decision will further inflame those feelings. Saying Cal and Stanford capture Stockton/Modesto is like saying UT captures Oklahoma.
I envision football a lot like the Raiders...a good chunk of fans each week are visiting fans, Because Las Vegas does not have a perm population that is big enough to really support
Correct. CA is also in a bad position because CA's rights are not super rights. CA's rights to water from Lake Mead disappear before Nevada's rights. Arizona also has the same issues. And the problem has now been alleviated but Bend, OR, and OR cities were facing water issues caused by the long western drought.
Looks like Lake Powell dam has to go.
On the other hand, there is an NHL team and an NFL team located in Las Vegas and soon an MLB team, the Athletics, will be coming to Las Vegas.
Vegas continues to boom mainly as a result of Californians fleeing California.
And in the Pacific time zone with terrific CFB and CBB facilities. Already home to the CFB conference championship and the basketball tournament. A huge number of relatively cheap flights in and plenty of places to stay not all of which break the bank.
Academics have improved with the addition of the med school.
Viewers tune into compelling, relevant games with (wait for it) big brands. Spin this all you like, you’re adding SMU and SDSU you are massively downgrading in that dpt
TV execs tell me it's not as much about ratings... it's about capturing TV households. That's why the Big Ten wanted Rutgers (NY) and Maryland (DC). Value in selling TV homes. Brands help. Ratings are additive. It's why Oregon has unusual leverage in Pac-12.
If you're trying to argue that USC > SDSU... you get no argument here. But you're really arguing LA > SD from a TV household perspective.
The TV households factor used to be preeminent, because everyone paid for the cable bundle, even if the only sporting event ever watched was the Puppy Bowl. That's changing with the splitting off of sports packages within service options, the rise of streaming, and the proliferation of non-cable carrier offerings.
At some point viewers that are actually watching that advertisers will actually reach will take on a larger prominence. SMU is only a consideration because of the 3 million viewers in the market they sit in, even though they will probably be lucky to deliver 10% of that market, and of no value to western region advertisers. Fresno St and Boise St will actually deliver a lot more engaged viewers, and in the region many of the non-national advertisers the conference and its members actually do business with regularly.
I’m just not sure how much I buy that argument. Does Tuscaloosa have a big TV household metric? I understand you want to be included in as many cable packages as possible and TV households matter there but brands/product also carry significant weight. There’s a reason you can’t watch every U Portland game on TV here.
Tuscaloosa is basically grandfathered in. Would they expand there today? Maybe not? Would include the Birmingham TV market and parts of GA and FL as well.
Kind of like Oregon State and Washington State grandfathered in.
and there is a lot of old money in Alabama. And successful teams in the old past and the more recent past
But Rutgers was a mistake. It hasn't led to the ratings, money, or TVs that they hoped for. Each Big10 team would be making more money right now without the Rutgers and Maryland expansion.
The point is USC and UCLA have nothing to say about the Pac 12 TV contract so I am not sure why you are making any comments at all. USC is irrelevant to this converation. You are as irrelevant to me as Rutgers, which I never watch. I won't be watching USC either in the future since I have limited time and I prefer watching PAC 12 football which features the two universities I attended, Oregon State and Arizona State. I only cared about USC when they played my teams. No longer. Get used to watching Northwestern and Indiana football games. That is the decision your AD and regents made for you
They acted out of their own interest, yes, because Larry Scott wasn't acting at all! They acted out of their own interest just like Oregon and Washington did when they petitioned the B1G. They acted out of their own interest because NONE of the Pac-12 members acted for their defense when the NCAA came hunting, especially Scott. They acted out of their own interest when ALL of the Pac-12 favored revenue sharing while fully aware of its injustice. This Conference Band of Brothers thing you're trying sell has no substance in reality.
They're fucking cowards. They did their own share to create the Pac 12 mess, and then cut and ran. The very definition of a coward. They burned bridges
Scott smith, why didn't you say from the get go, that you were an arrogant USC elitist? That would have spared everyone having to wade through your whiney BS. Tulane says hello...LOLOL.
"They acted out of their own interest when ALL of the Pac-12 favored revenue sharing while fully aware of its injustice." What arrogant BS... ALL of the conference favored revenue sharing because it made the conference stronger as a whole. There was no injustice done, You're over playing the USC/UCLA card. Yes losing both hurts because of the 'RECRUITING FOOTPRINT', AND to a much lesser extent viewerships...I say that because those same viewers are not going to get up early to watch USC Rutgers, or USC Minnesota, at 9 am. Ain't gonna happen...they will record those games and still turn to Oregon vs UW, Or Stanford vs ASU at 1pm pacific time live. They grew up watching the Pac 10-12 live and will continue as always unless usc or ucla are at home. What you're trying to sell is a bunch of whiney BS.
I hope the PAC 12 sticks it to USC and UCLA. They will need non conference games in every sport, and I hope Pac 12 decines to even play them and makes it harder on them
and it will be fun seeing all that baseball and softball travel - and golf, and other sports - for nothing really.
Maybe it helps out Big 10 baseball because they can start the season in LA rather then Minneapolis.
I kind of agree, but it may make even less sense for USC and UCLA to play Pac-10 teams than vice versa, since they will have their hands full already in the B12. Pac-10 programs will still want to play in LA occasionally if they can for recruiting and to engage with their alumni, which are all large, in that market.
Wait, you're upset that SC/UCLA left because you loved the tradition of playing those teams, but because they're in a different conference now, you don't want to play them. Got it. Makes sense...to no one.
Btw, all those sports you mentioned travel no matter what conference, and they all do it "for nothing." They're non-revenue sports.
Makes sense to me! The only time I watched USC was when they were playing an opponent out of the conference BECAUSE they were a P12 team - NOT because they were USC. Let's be real for a second...USC hasn't been anything better than a mediocre mid-level disappointment for the P12 since Pete Carroll was here.
Chris, I know the "underhanded" or "misled" narrative has been spun, but none of us know enough information to make that judgment. You assume USC had an offer in hand from the B1G for some time and withheld it. But none of us know the timing. You also assume USC voted against expansion to purposely hurt the Pac-12, but again, none of us know the reasons, one of which may have been the proposal wasn't advantageous for the conference as a whole. Finally, why would USC, if they had an offer in hand, tell the other Pac-12 members before accepting? To leverage them for something? First, it's a bad look. Secondly, the Pac-12 had nothing close to counter offer and they knew it. So, you accept your invitation and dramatically improve your revenue. No evil conspiracy here...just a sound business decision.
I think you are in the minority there, most of "us" watch our own teams, but also important games involving high ranked teams, ie, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and USC
Right... Until you add a Mike Riley to the coaching staff and turn the doormat that Oregon State was into the 'Oops, USC almost sh*t their pants again' team that USC will be happy to miss in the B1G.
"Scforthewin", you must be referring to your tennis team...but I digress...your point is taken....nobody is arguing that the p12 would rather have you but that ship has sailed...SDSU is the best bad option. But with the CFP going to 12 teams we'll always be in there while your playing in the pinstripe bowl. Best of luck playing Minnesota in late november! GO DUCKS!
Fresno or Boise makes no sense academically their research per school is extremely small., and academic ranking not high enough. SDSU research is very low but getting better. in the 100 million range, FSU about nine million. However, USNWR collage ranking SDSU ranked 151,nationally Tied with Oregon State and above Wazzu ranked 212,.Unfortuzantely FSU and Boise not nearly close enough Fresno ranked 250 and Boise 331-440 .
You might have a point if the Tier 1 research university argument still was relevant...But that ship sailed with all the new rules, and Non rules, making athletes basically semi professionals. Now it's just athletic dept financial health, butts in the seats, Market share, and fan base/ Donor growth potential. which SDSU and Fresno state dwarf BSU in.
Now it's just athletic dept financial health, butts in the seats, Market share, and fan base/
That would make sense but it is not the way academia works. I lived it for forty years. I k ow most of the players in this some well ,some in passing.. The Egos are immense. The new schools will have to get eight votes out of ten. This is still academia and Stanford, Washington, and Cal look aghast at both Boise State and Fresno and the prospect of sitting down at the same table with them. The-Big 12 does not have such an ego.
"But that has no relevance to football or basketball marketability or viewership, etc.. That is very naïve. Academics are used to throwing away millions of dollars they many are terrible egomaniacs and bad business people. Personally I do not think they will be able to swallow having SDSU a lowly State University, at least two will choke on it. Stanford and Cal. Unless the media deal absolutely demands itthe Pac 12 will stay at 10.
"the relevant factors in conference makeup".is getting the Presidents to let you in. In those forty years it was not unusual for me to find millions of dollars unaccounted for or grossly misspent.
But that has no relevance to football or basketball marketability or viewership, or competitiveness, or ease or affordability of travel, or scheduling flexibility, or size/quality of facilities, which are the relevant factors in conference makeup.
Look at the latest recruiting numbers Dave and explain how this is going to happen. Yet again the SEC dwarfs all comers when it comes to recruiting and putting players in the NFL.
I agree Jon, I don't think the Pac 12 can go head to head with the SEC, or even the Big 10. If the teams (Pac 12) aren't very good, too much other stuff to do in LA, PDX, Boulder, Seattle, SLC to watch mediocre teams play each other. If the Pac 12 can get 2 teams in the top 10, annually, the eyeballs will follow. Where would the ACC have been without FSU in the 90s? Best,
100% agree with your channeling of Al Davis on this one. However, NOBODY is talking viewership in any of these scenarios. This is 100 percent about how many TV households are in the associated market.
True, good point. I just don’t want to see dilution of the Pac 12 product with lessor quality like SDSU or Boise State. Although it could mean a “win” most years with them in the Conf. Usually, lol.
SDSU & Boise St would likely finish in the top half of both FB & MBB most of the time, especially with increased recruiting budgets and exposure. They would boost, not dilute, the Pac-12 product.
SMU and SDSU are no-brainers to me. UNLV too, for all the reasons stated. I do wish another Texas school could be pulled in; Houston is a massive market, a proud athletic history and a good research profile. Could they be persuaded to break ranks to join the Pac 14?
I think this is really an undersold point. Geography still matters and lots of Pac 12 alums are still going to reside in the LA area and want to watch their teams.
John, are Tulane (New Orleans), UT San Antonio (Sam Antonio, Austin), Rice (Houston) any possibilities? If you need inventory and eyeballs, these are solid academic choices with large metro.
On Fresno State, don't those eyeballs already count in P12 numbers?
If they want Gonzaga, can also consider Loyola Marymount in LA , which has had decent teams in prior years. Does bring the LA market for basketball.
UNLV could be an option. It's proximate to LA to some degree.
San Antonio also supports football and is dying for an opportunity like this. Their team averaged 28 to 29 thousand fans at home against teams like N. Texas and UTEP.
The San Antonio Commanders of the short lived Alliance of American Football (coached by Mike Riley averaged 27,000 fans per game.
I'm not sure anyone knows what Rice actually wants over the next 10-20 years. I have to think if they were serious, they could have made it happen given their endowment and academic prestige, but they seem mostly content.
Thanks for the info John. I support the direction of the league with both SDSU and SMU. In hindsight I sure wish they would've taken BYU when they had the chance. Colorado and Utah are NOT rivals. I think Boise State and Fresno would be attractive from a competition standpoint, and if the Pac doesn't pick them up then they probably land somewhere else soon, Boise is a known football product. Having said that, they cannot let Boise in unless they change their turf to green, as a fan I cannot watch smurf turf every single season.
If Canzano isn't writing about it, I'm not interested... Seriously, the best PAC 12 reporting out there...i really hope you provide reporting on PAC 12 baseball.. Because your PAC 12 football reporting has been impeccable. Thanks, John!
John excellent stuff! UTSA is something that looks like a potential traveling partner for SMU. It’s starting to grow some momentum in some eyes. Thoughts? Oregon and U of W have a major power play with how long they grant their rights for an the opt out of the conference cheaply, and for a bigger cut since they are holding the pac 12 pants in national recognition. Do they play their hand?
Oh man, there's a lot in here, and I don't buy all of it. But at the end of the day, if Amazon says "add SDSU", I guess you plug your nose and do it. Otherwise, no thank you.
To say SDSU and SMU add millions of televisions is only technically true. In reality, neither team has a lot of local support. Neither has a sizeable following or fanbase.
To say that SDSU and SMU are "better academic fits" than other candidates is silly. They are both terrible academic fits. There's no way either would be considered by the Pac-12 as peer academic institutions.
At least San Diego is a great destination. The Pac-12 still rules supreme in that category (followed by the ACC, the SEC, the Big10, the AAC, the MWC, and the Big-12, in that order.)
If Amazon needs the inventory, they should think big and form the PACATAC: https://chng.it/Y5wtKLrd. They could add teams on both coasts instead of settling for leftovers.
Wow, sancho has straight hate for SDSU, not sure why. Weird. It might be harder to get into SDSU than half the PAC these days. And R1 status appears right around the corner.
Ha, I like San Diego a lot. Give me a road trip there over any place in the Big12. But it's not a good football program. It waters down the quality of the conference, and it's another mouth to feed. I just don't see any real pros for me or my school.
R1 is great, but that's still light years away from the AAU status of most of the Pac. It's a completely different level academically. I'm not sure that should matter. If the Aztecs were great at football with a large fan base, they'd be in yesterday, and we'd all be happy about it.
It’s a bad conference because it doesn’t have P5 money…yet. Look at where Utah was 10 years ago vs where they are now, and I’m pretty confident that’s SDSU’s trajectory if they get membership
Maybe, but Utah had already won the Fiesta and Sugar Bowls with unbeaten seasons prior to their invite. It’s not clear that Utah has ever surpassed those teams in the Pac. SDSU has been on the college footballl map once in my lifetime, when Faulk ran there decades ago.
Huh? Have you seen our record vs Pac the last 10 years? Agree, we should be better than we are, last season was especially disappointing, but we've fared fine against the PAC in recent years. So, not sure what you're talking about there. We'd do fine in the PAC, especially with the benefits that would come with being in a P5...as E2148 noted. Academics...same feeling, and discounting us vs the likes of OSU, WSU and ASU which are good schools, also makes no sense. I think your negativity towards SDSU is unfounded, and ignores future potential in P5 based on a past under different circumstances. Besides, the PAC has no better options now. It is a total no-brainier at this point. Thank you to USC and UCLA for their greediness and finally giving us our shot to get in! It's been my pipe dream for 25+ years. Overdue. You mention Faulk, he was a dream to watch. But Penny also wasn't too shabby and our teams 2015-2016 were damn good, spanking Cincy and Houston in bowl games those years. Yeah, those were minor bowls, but that's what we got being in a minor conference.
'Peer academic institutions?' 3 of the existing Pac-10 members are not 'peer institutions.' I respect the opinion but the conference is in Power 5 survival mode. In today's CFB world money trumps academics. Alabama, Georgia, and Clemson get championship trophies, not Stanford.
It's an 'elite club' going down the drain financially when it comes to sports. It's like an old gentlemen's club with frayed furniture, cobwebs in the corners, and old members snoozing away with a newspaper in their lap.
Being an elite club means zip to those willing to pay to broadcast sporting events. And very few of these elite members have the endowment of the Ivy League schools so the Pac can go the way of the Ivy League but it will field only club and not varsity sports.
I am not here to argue "elite sports" institutions. If PAC 10 leadership values their academic status above sports, then I guess we are headed toward club sports. So be it.
you are both right but those are two different arguments. the old tier 1 research institution argument "USED TO" hold lots of sway...But college athletics ain't what it used to be, and neither are the new rules. Personally I'd rather see the Pac 12 get Houston and SMU now and SDSU and Fresno state one year later... large media markets with good football and basketball and golf traditions.
When you're right you're right...It all (much of it) alumni interest and new donations, coincided with the 94-95 season & Rose bowl trip/game. And blew up from there.
I don't know if that is really true, or if some schools just lack the overall fan interest.
UW has invested heavily and even Cal and Stanford invested in massive stadium improvements (in the case of Cal) and a new stadium (in the case of Stanford).
UCLA built a $50 million sports facility a few years ago and I think USC dumped a ton of money into the renovation of Coliseum.
Oregon State is certainly enhancing its facilities.
You may have better insight than I do, but it seems to me there is a genuine interest in most Pac schools to be competitive and relevant.
That deal is breakable if over half the members vote to dissolve the ACC. That's how this works, the best parts of the Pac and ACC have to agree to leave the rest behind and to team up in a 16 team conference. That would be an amazing conference and a great conference for Amazon. But it does leave the Wake Forests behind.
You are NOT going to get the conference members to vote to breakup so some of them can join another conference and leave the others behind. Not gonna happen
Chris, generally I'd agree but the ACC media deal is so bad it could happen. Also, OK, TX, SC, and UCLA had no problem leaving 'friends' behind. Friends without enough benefits.
I'm not sure I was clear. All 16 ACC teams are underpaid currently because they are locked into a long term media deal that is now well below market. Any 8 of those teams could vote to dissolve the ACC in order to join the PACATAC. All 8 would then be making much more annually than they are now, and they would be in a much more relevant conference. I think we've seen that loyalty means little when it comes to realignment money. The difficulty is in identifying and coordinating the 8 teams.
I think this is the winning strategy for Amazon and CBS. Right now, those two networks are on the outside looking in. If they offer big money to 8 Pac teams and 8 ACC teams, they would have a conference on par with (or at least close to) the Big10 and SEC.
Yeah, it would be a stab in the back from half of the conference to the other half. But stabs in the back are what realignment is all about. I see no reason why they wouldn't (or shouldn't) do it. It could double their revenue from 25 to 50 million per year.
Sorry, I live in Sac and Stanford/Cal get no interest in the Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto DMA. More conversation about high school football than PAC-12 football. Fresno does have some reach into Modesto and Stockton as they pull a number of kids from those areas and it’s San Joaquin Valley.
It makes no sense that the Pac-12 will get no credit for LA area TV viewers next year when so many players in multiple sports come from that region. You know there are hundreds of thousand viewers watching Pac-12 sports in that area. I would like to hear Mr. Thompson's inside view of that point and what effect, if any, it should have on the media deal(s).
Exactly...it's not as though every single TV in the LA area will now ONLY watch big 10 sports and turn off the Pac 12...They've grown up watching the pac 12...it's pretty much all they've known...Those same TV's will now watch USC and UCLA when they play Big 10 games and then still watch PAC 12 games.
Amazon has 200M worldwide customers. 76.6M American households (59% of said households) have at least one 'agreement' with Amazon. Streaming could be difficult for the elder generation but a piece of cake for kids today.
IMO the Pac-12 needs this streaming partner relationship and would be well served to add SDSU, Fresno, UNLV (better academics since the addition of the medical school and state-of-the-art football and basketball facilities,) SMU. UTSA (San Antonio is a huge market without significant professional sports competition) and Tulane brings a decent-sized New Orleans TV market and gets the conference into SEC country. This move would block the B12 from any large Pacific time zone markets.
Academics? The conference is in survival mode and 3 of the current Pac-10 members are not AAU member institutions. The above 6 schools would bring in the defending AAC, MW, and CUSA champions.
All of the schools mentioned above would be willing to take a lesser cut than the Pac-10 schools. Why? MW schools today are receiving $4M each (slightly more for Boise) and the AAC schools Tulane, SMU, and new member UTSA are also receiving far less than what GK will be able to conjure up.
The Pac-12 has been reactionary ever since Larry's B12 move did not work out. Now, IMO it is time to be the aggressor.
It's fascinating to think that the same group of decision makers that have repeatedly made it clear BYU was a non-starter, despite the fact they would deliver a large and region-wide audience, and quality competition, for the sole reason of religious association, would suddenly embrace,,,a smaller school with a religious association, that will deliver only a small and distant audience. But this is the Pac-12, so no management mistake can ever be ruled out.
One thing to consider is that it is not just the number of viewers today, but in 10 years that matter. These media contracts are long term and so priced on the future, not the present. The LA area continues to bleed viewers to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Texas. Being in the DFW market, along with the Las Vegas market and also the Denver and Salt Lake market is more important in the future than remaining in LA is at the present. Many of the viewers will have moved in 10 years. The trend is your friend
It's a good point. Speculative play... Las Vegas. Plus, a pile of potential gaming sponsorships are interesting. Could be a ton of money buried in Vegas.
And the Central Valley in California. What do the media households look like for Sacramento to Bakersfield instead of just Sacramento? I've lived in the Sacramento market since 2000. The growth of this market in the last 5 years has been exponentially stunning.
I struggle with the P12 academic peer argument given the new paradigm in college football. I'm not sure academics understand the draw universities in the Power 5 have with undergrads. Only four P12 schools will be in US News & World Report's Top 55 schools after USC & UCLA depart. You drive down the football brands in the P12 to a less than Power 5 level and you'll further impact that quality of the school's undergrad pool. Why would you go to Oregon State instead of Pepperdine or UC Santa Barbara if the football product was WAC or WCC level?
AND, what do you do if Stanford decides five years from now to pull out of the P12 because they cannot compete under the transfer portal free agency rules. What of Stanford's reluctance to add a Fresno State or a UNLV then?
You cannot get tonnage if you're obsessed with academic standing today. You can, however, improve the academic standards at universities moving forward if you lift up the attractiveness of the campus experience and get better undergrads.
I used to live there and agree. Huge sports town and people often overlook that Sac-Stockton-Modesto is the #20 TV market.
I think what is also overlooked is how taking SDSU and not Fresno will play up and down the Central Valley. A coastal cities versus Ag interior is already an “us versus them”mentality to the point many want to split the state. This decision will further inflame those feelings. Saying Cal and Stanford capture Stockton/Modesto is like saying UT captures Oklahoma.
I envision football a lot like the Raiders...a good chunk of fans each week are visiting fans, Because Las Vegas does not have a perm population that is big enough to really support
Curious how Vegas is going to dig themselves of the impending water right disaster on their hands, but I suppose this isn’t the forum for that
THAT is a major issue. Somehow California has super rights to the Colorado River and AZ and NV are going to simply run out of water.
AZ is entertaining an idea to build a desalination plant in Mexico and move the water north.
Correct. CA is also in a bad position because CA's rights are not super rights. CA's rights to water from Lake Mead disappear before Nevada's rights. Arizona also has the same issues. And the problem has now been alleviated but Bend, OR, and OR cities were facing water issues caused by the long western drought.
Looks like Lake Powell dam has to go.
On the other hand, there is an NHL team and an NFL team located in Las Vegas and soon an MLB team, the Athletics, will be coming to Las Vegas.
Vegas continues to boom mainly as a result of Californians fleeing California.
And in the Pacific time zone with terrific CFB and CBB facilities. Already home to the CFB conference championship and the basketball tournament. A huge number of relatively cheap flights in and plenty of places to stay not all of which break the bank.
Academics have improved with the addition of the med school.
Spot on regarding gaming NIL deals.
Viewers tune into compelling, relevant games with (wait for it) big brands. Spin this all you like, you’re adding SMU and SDSU you are massively downgrading in that dpt
TV execs tell me it's not as much about ratings... it's about capturing TV households. That's why the Big Ten wanted Rutgers (NY) and Maryland (DC). Value in selling TV homes. Brands help. Ratings are additive. It's why Oregon has unusual leverage in Pac-12.
If you're trying to argue that USC > SDSU... you get no argument here. But you're really arguing LA > SD from a TV household perspective.
Amazon has 200M customers worldwide and growing and 79.9M customers in the USA and growing. Growing at a time when ESPN is losing customers.
Amazon is available unlike the Pac Network, on all televisions with some minor tweaking in the case of older televisions.
The TV households factor used to be preeminent, because everyone paid for the cable bundle, even if the only sporting event ever watched was the Puppy Bowl. That's changing with the splitting off of sports packages within service options, the rise of streaming, and the proliferation of non-cable carrier offerings.
At some point viewers that are actually watching that advertisers will actually reach will take on a larger prominence. SMU is only a consideration because of the 3 million viewers in the market they sit in, even though they will probably be lucky to deliver 10% of that market, and of no value to western region advertisers. Fresno St and Boise St will actually deliver a lot more engaged viewers, and in the region many of the non-national advertisers the conference and its members actually do business with regularly.
But what does that mean? "it's not as much about ratings...it's about capturing TV households."
I’m just not sure how much I buy that argument. Does Tuscaloosa have a big TV household metric? I understand you want to be included in as many cable packages as possible and TV households matter there but brands/product also carry significant weight. There’s a reason you can’t watch every U Portland game on TV here.
Tuscaloosa is basically grandfathered in. Would they expand there today? Maybe not? Would include the Birmingham TV market and parts of GA and FL as well.
Kind of like Oregon State and Washington State grandfathered in.
and there is a lot of old money in Alabama. And successful teams in the old past and the more recent past
No, but Tuscaloosa is part of the SEC CFB religion. Fan interest is off the charts and since the BCS and the Playoff Bama is a national CFB brand.
But Rutgers was a mistake. It hasn't led to the ratings, money, or TVs that they hoped for. Each Big10 team would be making more money right now without the Rutgers and Maryland expansion.
Not necessarily. NYC and Baltimore/Washington TV sets all pay the Big 10 as in market
The point is USC and UCLA have nothing to say about the Pac 12 TV contract so I am not sure why you are making any comments at all. USC is irrelevant to this converation. You are as irrelevant to me as Rutgers, which I never watch. I won't be watching USC either in the future since I have limited time and I prefer watching PAC 12 football which features the two universities I attended, Oregon State and Arizona State. I only cared about USC when they played my teams. No longer. Get used to watching Northwestern and Indiana football games. That is the decision your AD and regents made for you
They acted out of their own interest, yes, because Larry Scott wasn't acting at all! They acted out of their own interest just like Oregon and Washington did when they petitioned the B1G. They acted out of their own interest because NONE of the Pac-12 members acted for their defense when the NCAA came hunting, especially Scott. They acted out of their own interest when ALL of the Pac-12 favored revenue sharing while fully aware of its injustice. This Conference Band of Brothers thing you're trying sell has no substance in reality.
They also created Larry Scott. Come on man
They're fucking cowards. They did their own share to create the Pac 12 mess, and then cut and ran. The very definition of a coward. They burned bridges
Why didn't you just say at the beginning of this that you're an SC hater? You could have spared me trying to reason with you.
I never hated USC. they were a rival.
Now, yeah. Their conduct in hosing the Pac 12 started 12 months before. They plotted. They lied. They screwed the league that they helped create.
And the textbook definition of coward is exactly what USC is. You know the shoe fits. Clearly fits
And what's sad, these NIL deals will actually help USC. they'll just buy the players.
No doubt they'll struggle in Big 10. They are 1 of 16.
The Pac teams will make the playoffs while USC doesn't, with their huge payroll
Scott smith, why didn't you say from the get go, that you were an arrogant USC elitist? That would have spared everyone having to wade through your whiney BS. Tulane says hello...LOLOL.
"They acted out of their own interest when ALL of the Pac-12 favored revenue sharing while fully aware of its injustice." What arrogant BS... ALL of the conference favored revenue sharing because it made the conference stronger as a whole. There was no injustice done, You're over playing the USC/UCLA card. Yes losing both hurts because of the 'RECRUITING FOOTPRINT', AND to a much lesser extent viewerships...I say that because those same viewers are not going to get up early to watch USC Rutgers, or USC Minnesota, at 9 am. Ain't gonna happen...they will record those games and still turn to Oregon vs UW, Or Stanford vs ASU at 1pm pacific time live. They grew up watching the Pac 10-12 live and will continue as always unless usc or ucla are at home. What you're trying to sell is a bunch of whiney BS.
I hope the PAC 12 sticks it to USC and UCLA. They will need non conference games in every sport, and I hope Pac 12 decines to even play them and makes it harder on them
and it will be fun seeing all that baseball and softball travel - and golf, and other sports - for nothing really.
Maybe it helps out Big 10 baseball because they can start the season in LA rather then Minneapolis.
I kind of agree, but it may make even less sense for USC and UCLA to play Pac-10 teams than vice versa, since they will have their hands full already in the B12. Pac-10 programs will still want to play in LA occasionally if they can for recruiting and to engage with their alumni, which are all large, in that market.
Wait, you're upset that SC/UCLA left because you loved the tradition of playing those teams, but because they're in a different conference now, you don't want to play them. Got it. Makes sense...to no one.
Btw, all those sports you mentioned travel no matter what conference, and they all do it "for nothing." They're non-revenue sports.
Makes sense to me! The only time I watched USC was when they were playing an opponent out of the conference BECAUSE they were a P12 team - NOT because they were USC. Let's be real for a second...USC hasn't been anything better than a mediocre mid-level disappointment for the P12 since Pete Carroll was here.
Yep, exactly right. And USC hired Larry too. And USC hired Steve Sarkisan, knowing full well he was a drunk. They hired Clay Helton.
They underperformed
I think the way they did it was underhanded.
Last year the P12 saw value in some of the B12, but USC was not on board and misled.
Look, these are people/schools who have been in the same conference, (or related) of 80, 100 years.
If they were looking around, be honest.
Chris, I know the "underhanded" or "misled" narrative has been spun, but none of us know enough information to make that judgment. You assume USC had an offer in hand from the B1G for some time and withheld it. But none of us know the timing. You also assume USC voted against expansion to purposely hurt the Pac-12, but again, none of us know the reasons, one of which may have been the proposal wasn't advantageous for the conference as a whole. Finally, why would USC, if they had an offer in hand, tell the other Pac-12 members before accepting? To leverage them for something? First, it's a bad look. Secondly, the Pac-12 had nothing close to counter offer and they knew it. So, you accept your invitation and dramatically improve your revenue. No evil conspiracy here...just a sound business decision.
I think you are in the minority there, most of "us" watch our own teams, but also important games involving high ranked teams, ie, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and USC
Right... Until you add a Mike Riley to the coaching staff and turn the doormat that Oregon State was into the 'Oops, USC almost sh*t their pants again' team that USC will be happy to miss in the B1G.
"Scforthewin", you must be referring to your tennis team...but I digress...your point is taken....nobody is arguing that the p12 would rather have you but that ship has sailed...SDSU is the best bad option. But with the CFP going to 12 teams we'll always be in there while your playing in the pinstripe bowl. Best of luck playing Minnesota in late november! GO DUCKS!
Sure there are some leaving....bleed is not the right term. The combined metros of Dallas and Houston are still smaller than LA metro.
Which is why Fresno & Boise make sense. Both areas are growing rapidly, and have the space and opportunity to continue to grow for a long time.
Fresno or Boise makes no sense academically their research per school is extremely small., and academic ranking not high enough. SDSU research is very low but getting better. in the 100 million range, FSU about nine million. However, USNWR collage ranking SDSU ranked 151,nationally Tied with Oregon State and above Wazzu ranked 212,.Unfortuzantely FSU and Boise not nearly close enough Fresno ranked 250 and Boise 331-440 .
You might have a point if the Tier 1 research university argument still was relevant...But that ship sailed with all the new rules, and Non rules, making athletes basically semi professionals. Now it's just athletic dept financial health, butts in the seats, Market share, and fan base/ Donor growth potential. which SDSU and Fresno state dwarf BSU in.
Now it's just athletic dept financial health, butts in the seats, Market share, and fan base/
That would make sense but it is not the way academia works. I lived it for forty years. I k ow most of the players in this some well ,some in passing.. The Egos are immense. The new schools will have to get eight votes out of ten. This is still academia and Stanford, Washington, and Cal look aghast at both Boise State and Fresno and the prospect of sitting down at the same table with them. The-Big 12 does not have such an ego.
"But that has no relevance to football or basketball marketability or viewership, etc.. That is very naïve. Academics are used to throwing away millions of dollars they many are terrible egomaniacs and bad business people. Personally I do not think they will be able to swallow having SDSU a lowly State University, at least two will choke on it. Stanford and Cal. Unless the media deal absolutely demands itthe Pac 12 will stay at 10.
"the relevant factors in conference makeup".is getting the Presidents to let you in. In those forty years it was not unusual for me to find millions of dollars unaccounted for or grossly misspent.
But that has no relevance to football or basketball marketability or viewership, or competitiveness, or ease or affordability of travel, or scheduling flexibility, or size/quality of facilities, which are the relevant factors in conference makeup.
oh stop with the BSU nonsense...Nobody wants Truck-driver university in the PAC except Truck-driver U alumni.
Now Fresno is another story...much larger TV market, draws, has a bigger athletic footprint right now with much room to grow.
Bigger is not better. For the Pac-10 to get more viewership, “Just win baby”. Put a product on the field people want to watch.
Look at the latest recruiting numbers Dave and explain how this is going to happen. Yet again the SEC dwarfs all comers when it comes to recruiting and putting players in the NFL.
I agree Jon, I don't think the Pac 12 can go head to head with the SEC, or even the Big 10. If the teams (Pac 12) aren't very good, too much other stuff to do in LA, PDX, Boulder, Seattle, SLC to watch mediocre teams play each other. If the Pac 12 can get 2 teams in the top 10, annually, the eyeballs will follow. Where would the ACC have been without FSU in the 90s? Best,
Agreed...
100% agree with your channeling of Al Davis on this one. However, NOBODY is talking viewership in any of these scenarios. This is 100 percent about how many TV households are in the associated market.
True, good point. I just don’t want to see dilution of the Pac 12 product with lessor quality like SDSU or Boise State. Although it could mean a “win” most years with them in the Conf. Usually, lol.
I think if it was just sdsu and smu those progrums would elevate rather than dilute. Anybody watching Cal or Stanford lately?
Can't be worse than them.
SDSU & Boise St would likely finish in the top half of both FB & MBB most of the time, especially with increased recruiting budgets and exposure. They would boost, not dilute, the Pac-12 product.
SMU and SDSU are no-brainers to me. UNLV too, for all the reasons stated. I do wish another Texas school could be pulled in; Houston is a massive market, a proud athletic history and a good research profile. Could they be persuaded to break ranks to join the Pac 14?
They are overlooking the fact just because USC/UCLA are leaving doesn't mean that
every SoCal TV is going with them. There will be plenty of viewers that will still tune in
to Pac 12 football.
Ratings are not the primary factor here. It is TV household in markets. Like it or not that is the prime metric in these negotiations.
There are oddities here, (See SEC), but for what the PAC is facing, it is all about that one prime metric.
I think this is really an undersold point. Geography still matters and lots of Pac 12 alums are still going to reside in the LA area and want to watch their teams.
John, are Tulane (New Orleans), UT San Antonio (Sam Antonio, Austin), Rice (Houston) any possibilities? If you need inventory and eyeballs, these are solid academic choices with large metro.
On Fresno State, don't those eyeballs already count in P12 numbers?
If they want Gonzaga, can also consider Loyola Marymount in LA , which has had decent teams in prior years. Does bring the LA market for basketball.
UNLV could be an option. It's proximate to LA to some degree.
UTSA makes sense. SA is the 2nd largest city in Texas. They don't have another college team or an NFL team.
San Antonio also supports football and is dying for an opportunity like this. Their team averaged 28 to 29 thousand fans at home against teams like N. Texas and UTEP.
The San Antonio Commanders of the short lived Alliance of American Football (coached by Mike Riley averaged 27,000 fans per game.
It is a solid school as well. It is within an hour of Austin as well, so that population is in the TV mix.
I'm not sure anyone knows what Rice actually wants over the next 10-20 years. I have to think if they were serious, they could have made it happen given their endowment and academic prestige, but they seem mostly content.
I don't know if Rice is really the one to add, but it is a solid academic institution and brings a massive population.
What really bites is the Pac 12 could have had Houston easily , but the flaming A Holes of USC quashed that a year or so ago.
Thanks for the info John. I support the direction of the league with both SDSU and SMU. In hindsight I sure wish they would've taken BYU when they had the chance. Colorado and Utah are NOT rivals. I think Boise State and Fresno would be attractive from a competition standpoint, and if the Pac doesn't pick them up then they probably land somewhere else soon, Boise is a known football product. Having said that, they cannot let Boise in unless they change their turf to green, as a fan I cannot watch smurf turf every single season.
If Canzano isn't writing about it, I'm not interested... Seriously, the best PAC 12 reporting out there...i really hope you provide reporting on PAC 12 baseball.. Because your PAC 12 football reporting has been impeccable. Thanks, John!
John excellent stuff! UTSA is something that looks like a potential traveling partner for SMU. It’s starting to grow some momentum in some eyes. Thoughts? Oregon and U of W have a major power play with how long they grant their rights for an the opt out of the conference cheaply, and for a bigger cut since they are holding the pac 12 pants in national recognition. Do they play their hand?
Oh man, there's a lot in here, and I don't buy all of it. But at the end of the day, if Amazon says "add SDSU", I guess you plug your nose and do it. Otherwise, no thank you.
To say SDSU and SMU add millions of televisions is only technically true. In reality, neither team has a lot of local support. Neither has a sizeable following or fanbase.
To say that SDSU and SMU are "better academic fits" than other candidates is silly. They are both terrible academic fits. There's no way either would be considered by the Pac-12 as peer academic institutions.
At least San Diego is a great destination. The Pac-12 still rules supreme in that category (followed by the ACC, the SEC, the Big10, the AAC, the MWC, and the Big-12, in that order.)
If Amazon needs the inventory, they should think big and form the PACATAC: https://chng.it/Y5wtKLrd. They could add teams on both coasts instead of settling for leftovers.
Wow, sancho has straight hate for SDSU, not sure why. Weird. It might be harder to get into SDSU than half the PAC these days. And R1 status appears right around the corner.
Ha, I like San Diego a lot. Give me a road trip there over any place in the Big12. But it's not a good football program. It waters down the quality of the conference, and it's another mouth to feed. I just don't see any real pros for me or my school.
R1 is great, but that's still light years away from the AAU status of most of the Pac. It's a completely different level academically. I'm not sure that should matter. If the Aztecs were great at football with a large fan base, they'd be in yesterday, and we'd all be happy about it.
It’s a bad conference because it doesn’t have P5 money…yet. Look at where Utah was 10 years ago vs where they are now, and I’m pretty confident that’s SDSU’s trajectory if they get membership
Maybe, but Utah had already won the Fiesta and Sugar Bowls with unbeaten seasons prior to their invite. It’s not clear that Utah has ever surpassed those teams in the Pac. SDSU has been on the college footballl map once in my lifetime, when Faulk ran there decades ago.
Huh? Have you seen our record vs Pac the last 10 years? Agree, we should be better than we are, last season was especially disappointing, but we've fared fine against the PAC in recent years. So, not sure what you're talking about there. We'd do fine in the PAC, especially with the benefits that would come with being in a P5...as E2148 noted. Academics...same feeling, and discounting us vs the likes of OSU, WSU and ASU which are good schools, also makes no sense. I think your negativity towards SDSU is unfounded, and ignores future potential in P5 based on a past under different circumstances. Besides, the PAC has no better options now. It is a total no-brainier at this point. Thank you to USC and UCLA for their greediness and finally giving us our shot to get in! It's been my pipe dream for 25+ years. Overdue. You mention Faulk, he was a dream to watch. But Penny also wasn't too shabby and our teams 2015-2016 were damn good, spanking Cincy and Houston in bowl games those years. Yeah, those were minor bowls, but that's what we got being in a minor conference.
When SMU was in a competitive league (the old SWC) they averaged 45,000 plus fans a game and it was a great experience.
Even now, with no teams that would seemingly interest anyone, they pull in the mid 25,000's or so.
A few years ago, when Larry Brown coached SMU, every game was sold out.
There is no reason SMU cannot do in Dallas what TCU has done in Fort Worth.
There is a desire for affordable sports and the Cowboys are far from it.
'Peer academic institutions?' 3 of the existing Pac-10 members are not 'peer institutions.' I respect the opinion but the conference is in Power 5 survival mode. In today's CFB world money trumps academics. Alabama, Georgia, and Clemson get championship trophies, not Stanford.
All PAC 12 (PAC 10) members are Tier 1 Research Universities. It's an elite club with only 73 members nationwide. SDSU and SMU are not in the club.
It's an 'elite club' going down the drain financially when it comes to sports. It's like an old gentlemen's club with frayed furniture, cobwebs in the corners, and old members snoozing away with a newspaper in their lap.
Being an elite club means zip to those willing to pay to broadcast sporting events. And very few of these elite members have the endowment of the Ivy League schools so the Pac can go the way of the Ivy League but it will field only club and not varsity sports.
I am not here to argue "elite sports" institutions. If PAC 10 leadership values their academic status above sports, then I guess we are headed toward club sports. So be it.
you are both right but those are two different arguments. the old tier 1 research institution argument "USED TO" hold lots of sway...But college athletics ain't what it used to be, and neither are the new rules. Personally I'd rather see the Pac 12 get Houston and SMU now and SDSU and Fresno state one year later... large media markets with good football and basketball and golf traditions.
You are then tossing away billions of dollars of money spent on the improvement of sports facilities.
Pac 12 Presidents see athletics as an extracurricular activity first,
I don't think they do at Oregon.
I sat in on a number of Board Meetings with Dave Frohnmayer and he was well aware and appreciative of the impact sports has had on UO.
It has only gotten better.
Look up the numbers-the donations-the alumni interest.
It all started when that football team started winning in the mid-1990's.
When you're right you're right...It all (much of it) alumni interest and new donations, coincided with the 94-95 season & Rose bowl trip/game. And blew up from there.
Collectively.
I don't know if that is really true, or if some schools just lack the overall fan interest.
UW has invested heavily and even Cal and Stanford invested in massive stadium improvements (in the case of Cal) and a new stadium (in the case of Stanford).
UCLA built a $50 million sports facility a few years ago and I think USC dumped a ton of money into the renovation of Coliseum.
Oregon State is certainly enhancing its facilities.
You may have better insight than I do, but it seems to me there is a genuine interest in most Pac schools to be competitive and relevant.
At least if we’re talking about college football….
Without profitable CFB teams, you are talking G5 or lower for all sports.
Agree about the rabid fanbase SDSU brings. Nonexistent. Nothing is rabid in SD!
LOL! But my guess is that they will outdraw a number of Pac-10 teams simply due to Snapdragon Stadium.
SDSU basketball pretty rabid. Football will naturally improve if SDSU gets in the PAC.
Sounds good but ACC is locked into an ESPN TV deal for a LONG time.
Through 2036! IMO the ACC will not hold together for that long. Clemson, and UNC, and other ACC schools are prime targets for the SEC.
It surprised me to learn that the ACC only has 5 AAU members. Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVA and Pitt.
That deal is breakable if over half the members vote to dissolve the ACC. That's how this works, the best parts of the Pac and ACC have to agree to leave the rest behind and to team up in a 16 team conference. That would be an amazing conference and a great conference for Amazon. But it does leave the Wake Forests behind.
You are NOT going to get the conference members to vote to breakup so some of them can join another conference and leave the others behind. Not gonna happen
Chris, generally I'd agree but the ACC media deal is so bad it could happen. Also, OK, TX, SC, and UCLA had no problem leaving 'friends' behind. Friends without enough benefits.
I think its easier said than done. I think there's still a penalty to the TV guys
If not, it would be done.
Heck, Pac 12 would have done it too
I'm not sure I was clear. All 16 ACC teams are underpaid currently because they are locked into a long term media deal that is now well below market. Any 8 of those teams could vote to dissolve the ACC in order to join the PACATAC. All 8 would then be making much more annually than they are now, and they would be in a much more relevant conference. I think we've seen that loyalty means little when it comes to realignment money. The difficulty is in identifying and coordinating the 8 teams.
I think this is the winning strategy for Amazon and CBS. Right now, those two networks are on the outside looking in. If they offer big money to 8 Pac teams and 8 ACC teams, they would have a conference on par with (or at least close to) the Big10 and SEC.
If 100% of those members breakup and form.a new conference, maybe.
But there is no incentive for the entire conference to agree to break up and leave someone, or a lot of someone's behind
Yeah, it would be a stab in the back from half of the conference to the other half. But stabs in the back are what realignment is all about. I see no reason why they wouldn't (or shouldn't) do it. It could double their revenue from 25 to 50 million per year.
THIS could work for CFB and CBB while leaving the conferences intact for others then the money ball sports.
Man this guy gets it
Gonzaga makes ZERO sense for any of the involved parties. (Beyond potential $ from men’s hoops.)
1. Smaller, religious school. Not the conference profile.
2. No football.
3. PNW schools would veto. Geographic incursion; recruiting threat.
4. GU has no incentive to leave one conference they dominate for one in which they’d face legitimate competition.
If anyone cared about basketball, Kansas would be in the B1G already.
Sorry, I live in Sac and Stanford/Cal get no interest in the Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto DMA. More conversation about high school football than PAC-12 football. Fresno does have some reach into Modesto and Stockton as they pull a number of kids from those areas and it’s San Joaquin Valley.
Is there any chance that Houston could be poached or has that ship sailed?
Great comments. PLEASE do not overlook the market that Amazon brings with it. The market is huge and growing.
Looking at ESPN's and Disney's financials, one wonders if ESPN will fulfill its promises of payment without going primarily to streaming on ESPN3?
Amazon will do all it can to make access easier for the old tech clod like me.
It makes no sense that the Pac-12 will get no credit for LA area TV viewers next year when so many players in multiple sports come from that region. You know there are hundreds of thousand viewers watching Pac-12 sports in that area. I would like to hear Mr. Thompson's inside view of that point and what effect, if any, it should have on the media deal(s).
Love your columns and show.
Exactly...it's not as though every single TV in the LA area will now ONLY watch big 10 sports and turn off the Pac 12...They've grown up watching the pac 12...it's pretty much all they've known...Those same TV's will now watch USC and UCLA when they play Big 10 games and then still watch PAC 12 games.
Amazon has 200M worldwide customers. 76.6M American households (59% of said households) have at least one 'agreement' with Amazon. Streaming could be difficult for the elder generation but a piece of cake for kids today.
IMO the Pac-12 needs this streaming partner relationship and would be well served to add SDSU, Fresno, UNLV (better academics since the addition of the medical school and state-of-the-art football and basketball facilities,) SMU. UTSA (San Antonio is a huge market without significant professional sports competition) and Tulane brings a decent-sized New Orleans TV market and gets the conference into SEC country. This move would block the B12 from any large Pacific time zone markets.
Academics? The conference is in survival mode and 3 of the current Pac-10 members are not AAU member institutions. The above 6 schools would bring in the defending AAC, MW, and CUSA champions.
All of the schools mentioned above would be willing to take a lesser cut than the Pac-10 schools. Why? MW schools today are receiving $4M each (slightly more for Boise) and the AAC schools Tulane, SMU, and new member UTSA are also receiving far less than what GK will be able to conjure up.
The Pac-12 has been reactionary ever since Larry's B12 move did not work out. Now, IMO it is time to be the aggressor.
Thanks, John for the insightful take.
It's fascinating to think that the same group of decision makers that have repeatedly made it clear BYU was a non-starter, despite the fact they would deliver a large and region-wide audience, and quality competition, for the sole reason of religious association, would suddenly embrace,,,a smaller school with a religious association, that will deliver only a small and distant audience. But this is the Pac-12, so no management mistake can ever be ruled out.