"Thompson reminded me that Amazon Prime is only available in 42 percent of internet households in the country."
How many households have Fox Sports or ESPN? Just trying to get a comparison between those and Amazon households. 42% of internet households is still a LOT of people that can be reached, and for anyone not currently on the plan it is a lot easier and cheaper to pick up Prime then a stand alone ESPN/Fox.
One huge issue I have is with all the various services I have to obtain to watch my favorite team. It really shouldn't be so difficult and ideally not as expensive. As a current Amazon subscriber, I'd love nothing more than for as many games as possible on the service. I've been really pleased with the quality of Thursday Night NFL games so far.
Just an FYI, Amazon has been using NBC for much of their production on the Thursday night broadcast. That’s one of the reasons Amazon would probably be interested in the PAC-12 network infrastructure, so they could take it all in-house. But I do agree that the TNF broadcasts have been great (many of the games not so much though!).
Streaming is still a far from mature and ubiquitous format. It works well in some leading edge markets and settings, but lags significantly in many areas, and a substantial portion of the average college football team's audience base fall in those areas. My concern is the rush to the future that doesn't have an infrastructure widely in place to support it yet is the further erosion of a customer base that has already been bombarded by disincentives, with comparatively few advances. There is a reason why attendance is eroding generally for CFB & CBB.
And the complexity and cost of the mushrooming plethora of services that don't individually come close to meeting many people's needs, yet simultaneously produce massive overlap and resulting over-charging,
Streaming has to be (for the time being) understood to be a supplement of, not a replacement for, traditional coverage.
ESPN/ABC does bring the widest pre-built distribution, and also brings a much larger reach with ESPN+, but might not bring as large a bid. Chasing top $ previously has bitten the conference due to lack of performance criteria in contracts. Also, ESPN is a polarizing carrier for some.
Careful. They may want it that way, and it drives ESPN’s bid down.
I’m honestly dumbstruck at the lack of interest in having West Coast inventory. The conference is going to need Washington — maybe Colorado or one of the Arizona schools — to become national football brands alongside Oregon. That’s probably the best hope of raising the league profile at this point.
Anytime there is an overall lack of competition in bidding you don't get the best deal. Recall last time ESPN/Fox offered an additional sum at the last minute.
ESPN needs inventory. 4 channels plus ESPN+ to fill for.
I think Comast is a player for Pac 12N as it holds local cable franchises in most P12 territories.
I have to believe more people have Amazon Prime vs. an active ESPN plus subscription.
I see 3 valid competitors for P12 Networks. Amazon Prime, ESPN Plus, Comcast.
Comcast is dominant cable company in P12 region. Comcast lost the Blazers, what else really ties us to Comcast? Pac 12 Network, and they own the data wires.
Comcast operates RSNs and full channels. I see this as a good fit for them
Fully concur John with your “Media Company” position. The Pac 12 leadership (Presidents, Chancellors and AD’s) have proven they can’t effectively oversee a network president and operations, what makes them think they could effectively oversee a media company?
I don’t buy Bob Thompson’s assumption that 49% of households in the Country have Amazon Prime. If that was so. Why did NFLs Thursday night football choose them then.
I don’t buy not going all in for a streaming service too. Because if that is so then why is the NFL going all in on U Tube tv. I would go for PAC-12 being a top billing with one service. Because I am sick and tired of the PAC-12 conference being treated like a red headed stepchild by ESPN FOX ABC CBS . I would like to tune in and watch baseball basketball football track and field soccer wrestling swimming softball anytime I like and to be able to watch any PAC-12 school I like. Since I am a Direct TV customer I don’t get anything. But I am an Amazon Prime customer so I would get all of it.
MONEY, MONEY, MONEY...College is for education, football should be about competition and fun. College coaches, assistant coaches and ADs should be paid according to the same scale and professors, assistant profs and instructors. TV money should be reinvested in educational programs including scholarships for athletes and non-athletes. Our values are upside down.
You may not have a problem, but the people who have already shelled out the investment for a P5 program, and the businesses that are built around CFB game days, do.
Some did. I was a 'gentleman C' student. But I did manage to scrabble together a few bucks.
Oregon goes D3 and it's a waste of a billion or so dollars in athletic facility improvements and a drop in applications; particularly, out-of-state applications with students paying full tuition.
If you study the overall finances at Alabama, Nick Saban at approximately $10M a year is a steal.
THIS is what Pac-12 administrators need to understand.
So would most people connected to the Ivy League, from the several games a year I watch on tv. Even Harvard Yale can't get a decent turnout. But - they don't see that as their mission in life (and Stanford can be suspect at times; they seem to be more focused on moving civilization forward than entertaining us Duck fans.)
"I’d watch PAC12 vs Boise State, SD State or Fresno." - which is exactly why they should be brought into the fold. The Big 12 doesn't have or need the games, and most of the ACC games (Syracuse, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest...you aren't getting Clemson or Florida St to come to Pullman, Corvallis, or Tucson) will not draw an audience on tv or in the stadium.
It is frustrating to see all of this drug out so long. And frankly, there really isn't any kind of "home run" to wait for. The absolute best thing the conference can score at this point is the 2nd worst Power conference TV deal and an announcement of irrelevant new members. Let that sink in. You can talk up SDSU, or any other school mentioned in this article, but the fact is you're buying a K-Mart shirt to replace the name brand designer shirt that was torn to shreds last year.
Things aren't all horrible, and there is a path forward. But everything that followed "USC and UCLA leaving" has been applying polish to a turd.
The only way this could actually be good news (and fun) is if the announced expansion included Baylor, TTU, and TA&M. And that is fantasy land.
Of course, SEC member A+M is out but I can see OR, UW, CU, Utah, AZ, and ASU joining the reorganized B12. SMH. Oregon could have had KS, K St, Iowa St, OK St, TX Tech, Baylor, TCU, and Houston as member schools.
I live 22 time zones away - New Zealand - and still get Amazon and Amazon Prime - available in 200 nations around the world. Imagine the ad revenue such a footprint could generate - assuming people elsewhere want to watch US college football. Also I get, ESPN, Disney+ and HBO Max above board, but have no access to FOX, NBC ABC, TBS etc. Well, no authorized access. My 22 y/o and a blowtorch VPN has me covered there.
I'm all for expansion, the sooner the better. SDSU of course, and I'd really like to get Texas on the team so yeah, SMU makes sense, distance be damned. If we could somehow convince Houston and, say Fresno State to join, the PAC will be set.
I agree that the PAC-12 needs to start showing some urgency in a public way. I’m sure there are plenty of things happening behind the scenes (and maybe we’ll hear more after this weeks meetings), but I really feel it’s time for TV and expansion news.
As for expansion, SDSU is a no brainer. Makes total sense. After that I’m still stuck though. Boise State and Fresno State seem like a step down, both market and product wise. UNLV with added investment would make sense with the growing Vegas market and good geography for the conference. SMU makes some sense because they seem to have good support and are in a good market, but it feels like if SMU is added the Pac will have to become a 14 team conference and add a couple other Texas schools. I’m not sure that makes sense in the long run though.
Nobody in Texas cares about SMU, outside of alums and parents. UT and A&M carry the water in Texas. Even TCU and Houston are lesser lights. You get Texas by adding UT and A&M, not SMU.
UNLV and SDSU make the most sense. Huge metro areas, lots of eyeballs, easy travel partners, the Pac-12 already has a footprint in Vegas with the basketball tournaments and bowl game, and SDSU and UNLV already have a rivalry from their years together in the MWC, unlike Colorado and Utah when they entered the league.
You are correct Flash. You have about a half of a percent change to lure A&M just based on the fact that they left the 12 to get away from UT. And that half percent chance would only be valid if the money was there.
It isn't and won't be.
The part you are missing is that none of the eyeballs in the respective SD LV markets care about their NCAA sports programs. Eyeballs alone don't create ratings.
Nobody in New Jersey or Maryland cares about college football either. That didn't stop the Big Ten adding Rutgers and Maryland, because they added huge markets that can be leveraged into higher commercial charges and higher carriage charges to cable/internet companies, whether people are watching or not.
Compared to which Pac-12 teams? A new stadium with the opportunity to go to 55,000 seats. A team that has been more than competitive in CFB/CBB against the Pac-12.
Huge population. Large alumni base. What candidate for expansion is better than SDSU?
That's a pretty subjective opinion, especially if you look at the long term impact of having the San Diego market and school system. They are on the right trajectory to be exactly the kind of school the PAC wants in their conference footprint.
There are serious and legitimate concerns about losing SDSU to the Big12. It would hurt recruiting and it also likely reduce future media dollars (we benefit from the pacific time zone monopoly we currently have in P5 conferences). If the Big12 is suddenly competing for our time slots, that makes it harder to negotiate future conference value, etc.
I'm just saying that it's not so much of a clear step up/down in bringing SDSU into the fold. There are likely serious repercussions for leaving them out of the PAC. Ultimately it could be a bigger step down for the conference if the BIG12 scenario plays out. Big12 gains in CA are loses for the PAC. Simple as that IMO.
Agreed. Neither USC & UCLA, or comparable replacements, are or will be available. Makes much more sense to develop and grow the growing options that are actually available.
I've still never been convinced that expansion makes sense, at least not with the candidates usually mentioned (SDSU, SMU, etc). I'm all for expansion into Texas if it means stealing Big12 teams. Otherwise, it still just looks like more mouths to feed. If expansion is on the list of demands from Amazon or Fox/ESPN, then, sure, do it. Otherwise, this idea of using SDSU to recruit SoCal seems a bit out of touch with what recruiting is.
I think I know why they are taking so long with media stuff...they must be working on my proposal: https://chng.it/Y5wtKLrd
John, if a decision is made at this meeting on media rights (and I assume the LA school reps would be excluded from that discussion), how soon would you anticipate an announcement?
"in the neighborhood of $27 million to $29 million".
So we Pac-12 fans have been lied to /mislead again!! I thought the Pac-12 leadership was confident to beat the B-12 number just a month ago. All this hubris that the all schools are committed and galvanized in staying together?? Seems like the news is changing constantly.
The announcement has brutally dragged on, the news coming from Kliavkoff probably isnt good.
Given that there are well over 110M internet subscribers in the US, Amazon is gaining on ESPN, which has been bleeding subscribers for years.
It would be nice to do a deal with Amazon that gives the Pac12 sports ‘most favored nation’ status for a few years past the expiration dates of the B1G and Big12 media contracts. That would freeze those conferences out of jumping the financial line. But, I'm just dreaming.
May have been said before but…why all the freakin’ love for Vegas? They are not part of the PAC 12 yet it is suggested or planned the Title games for conference are played there and sounds like conference meetings are or will be in Vegas…….fiddlydoo on Vegas….plenty of wonderful cities are located within Conference.
UNLV makes sense as an expansion candidate with the money the Frettia's have poured into facilities and playing in Allegiant Stadium.
Very few cities in the conference footprint that are not conference members have the population of LV. A population that continues to rapidly increase.
When John was covering the Runnin' Rebels I had season tickets to what were some outstanding basketball teams. UNLV is not an AAU member but neither are WSU, OR ST, ASU, and San Diego State.
"Thompson reminded me that Amazon Prime is only available in 42 percent of internet households in the country."
How many households have Fox Sports or ESPN? Just trying to get a comparison between those and Amazon households. 42% of internet households is still a LOT of people that can be reached, and for anyone not currently on the plan it is a lot easier and cheaper to pick up Prime then a stand alone ESPN/Fox.
One huge issue I have is with all the various services I have to obtain to watch my favorite team. It really shouldn't be so difficult and ideally not as expensive. As a current Amazon subscriber, I'd love nothing more than for as many games as possible on the service. I've been really pleased with the quality of Thursday Night NFL games so far.
Just an FYI, Amazon has been using NBC for much of their production on the Thursday night broadcast. That’s one of the reasons Amazon would probably be interested in the PAC-12 network infrastructure, so they could take it all in-house. But I do agree that the TNF broadcasts have been great (many of the games not so much though!).
Yes, this is solid for Amazon. It means they go full in on sports
Streaming is still a far from mature and ubiquitous format. It works well in some leading edge markets and settings, but lags significantly in many areas, and a substantial portion of the average college football team's audience base fall in those areas. My concern is the rush to the future that doesn't have an infrastructure widely in place to support it yet is the further erosion of a customer base that has already been bombarded by disincentives, with comparatively few advances. There is a reason why attendance is eroding generally for CFB & CBB.
And the complexity and cost of the mushrooming plethora of services that don't individually come close to meeting many people's needs, yet simultaneously produce massive overlap and resulting over-charging,
Streaming has to be (for the time being) understood to be a supplement of, not a replacement for, traditional coverage.
Agrees. Thursday game with Seahawks was a hard watch with impacted wires. My whole neighborhood probably watched
After that game it's been fine.
I think I now get why NFL mandates a broadcast in the home market. It just impacts the infrastructure too much.
Now why a big secondary market for Seahawks like Portland dies not also get one is one of the big questions
Andy, I dropped cable 5 years ago.
Streaming includes most cable products at this point.
As for the erosion of attendance-some of it may just be cost?
Good post, though.
Great comment. But don't forget that with ESPN you also get ABC and the same with 'big' FOX.
ESPN/ABC does bring the widest pre-built distribution, and also brings a much larger reach with ESPN+, but might not bring as large a bid. Chasing top $ previously has bitten the conference due to lack of performance criteria in contracts. Also, ESPN is a polarizing carrier for some.
Fox has done the conference wrong so many times, I want them out.
This latest remote broadcasting crap is ridiculous
Careful. They may want it that way, and it drives ESPN’s bid down.
I’m honestly dumbstruck at the lack of interest in having West Coast inventory. The conference is going to need Washington — maybe Colorado or one of the Arizona schools — to become national football brands alongside Oregon. That’s probably the best hope of raising the league profile at this point.
Anytime there is an overall lack of competition in bidding you don't get the best deal. Recall last time ESPN/Fox offered an additional sum at the last minute.
ESPN needs inventory. 4 channels plus ESPN+ to fill for.
I think Comast is a player for Pac 12N as it holds local cable franchises in most P12 territories.
We shall see.
And ESPN plus %?
I have to believe more people have Amazon Prime vs. an active ESPN plus subscription.
I see 3 valid competitors for P12 Networks. Amazon Prime, ESPN Plus, Comcast.
Comcast is dominant cable company in P12 region. Comcast lost the Blazers, what else really ties us to Comcast? Pac 12 Network, and they own the data wires.
Comcast operates RSNs and full channels. I see this as a good fit for them
Otherwise, I'm giddy I might get to bag Comcast!
Fully concur John with your “Media Company” position. The Pac 12 leadership (Presidents, Chancellors and AD’s) have proven they can’t effectively oversee a network president and operations, what makes them think they could effectively oversee a media company?
Have they proved they can run a P5 conference? I've seen no evidence of this.
Good God- that "media company" created by Scott is proving to be the the wild card here.
It is likely worth a fortune and guess what, the Conference under its George and the Presidents are all in.
They leased 42,000 Sq feet for the sole purpose of making sure the Conference can produce 850 events a year, at least.
Oh, and it is in one of the premier Real Estate developments in the nation.
Not worth a 'fortune.' The network is functionally insolvent.
I don’t buy Bob Thompson’s assumption that 49% of households in the Country have Amazon Prime. If that was so. Why did NFLs Thursday night football choose them then.
I don’t buy not going all in for a streaming service too. Because if that is so then why is the NFL going all in on U Tube tv. I would go for PAC-12 being a top billing with one service. Because I am sick and tired of the PAC-12 conference being treated like a red headed stepchild by ESPN FOX ABC CBS . I would like to tune in and watch baseball basketball football track and field soccer wrestling swimming softball anytime I like and to be able to watch any PAC-12 school I like. Since I am a Direct TV customer I don’t get anything. But I am an Amazon Prime customer so I would get all of it.
MONEY, MONEY, MONEY...College is for education, football should be about competition and fun. College coaches, assistant coaches and ADs should be paid according to the same scale and professors, assistant profs and instructors. TV money should be reinvested in educational programs including scholarships for athletes and non-athletes. Our values are upside down.
Chris, then go play D3. At Bowdoin College, we had more stray dogs attending the football games than fans in the stands.
P5 CFB/CBB is Big Business.
And I have no problem with that. And those Bowdoin football players got an education.
You may not have a problem, but the people who have already shelled out the investment for a P5 program, and the businesses that are built around CFB game days, do.
Some did. I was a 'gentleman C' student. But I did manage to scrabble together a few bucks.
Oregon goes D3 and it's a waste of a billion or so dollars in athletic facility improvements and a drop in applications; particularly, out-of-state applications with students paying full tuition.
If you study the overall finances at Alabama, Nick Saban at approximately $10M a year is a steal.
THIS is what Pac-12 administrators need to understand.
Absolutely. I have long been a proponent of the Ivy League approach. Well played, Chris. Charlie
Yech.
I'd rather go watch SOU play football than the Ivy League.
So would most people connected to the Ivy League, from the several games a year I watch on tv. Even Harvard Yale can't get a decent turnout. But - they don't see that as their mission in life (and Stanford can be suspect at times; they seem to be more focused on moving civilization forward than entertaining us Duck fans.)
Then expect a mostly empty Autzen Stadium except perhaps for the Civil War?
And compare Oregon's endowment with the Ivies? Kiss many of the now varsity sports a fond goodbye.
* Officiating stinks. Both in football and basketball. We put a million dollar product out there with hundred dollar refs.
* PAC 12 Network videos are sub par. Watching basketball makes you think you are getting a stream from someone’s phone half the time.
* Drop to 8 conference games in football. Play Big 12 and ACC opponents. I’d watch PAC12 vs Boise State, SD State or Fresno.
* Don’t expand. UCLA will be back, maybe not SC.
"I’d watch PAC12 vs Boise State, SD State or Fresno." - which is exactly why they should be brought into the fold. The Big 12 doesn't have or need the games, and most of the ACC games (Syracuse, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest...you aren't getting Clemson or Florida St to come to Pullman, Corvallis, or Tucson) will not draw an audience on tv or in the stadium.
Paul, with all due respect, if you do the above and there will be no conference to return to.
Sigh, "it's Chinatown, Jake."
Without the chopsticks.
It is frustrating to see all of this drug out so long. And frankly, there really isn't any kind of "home run" to wait for. The absolute best thing the conference can score at this point is the 2nd worst Power conference TV deal and an announcement of irrelevant new members. Let that sink in. You can talk up SDSU, or any other school mentioned in this article, but the fact is you're buying a K-Mart shirt to replace the name brand designer shirt that was torn to shreds last year.
Things aren't all horrible, and there is a path forward. But everything that followed "USC and UCLA leaving" has been applying polish to a turd.
The only way this could actually be good news (and fun) is if the announced expansion included Baylor, TTU, and TA&M. And that is fantasy land.
Of course, SEC member A+M is out but I can see OR, UW, CU, Utah, AZ, and ASU joining the reorganized B12. SMH. Oregon could have had KS, K St, Iowa St, OK St, TX Tech, Baylor, TCU, and Houston as member schools.
God I hope not.
If I were the Pac 10/11/12/13, I'd focus on SMU and UTSA (San Antonio), a major city that has a great stadium and very real fan support.
I don't know what to make of SDSU. I suppose it cannot hurt, but I would make it rename itself the University of Southern California, SD.
Love bringing in both SMU and UTSA. And there is no pro team there (maybe a soccer team?) that would take fans' interest away from the games.
BTW, if you are going to add USTA I'd also consider Tulane and its New Orleans location.
SMU, UTSA, and Tulane are all in the central time zone. 1 stop away from CU/Utah and the AZ schools for 6 months of the year.
If UTSA fits then SDSU most definitely fits.
BTW: UTSA, moving up to the AAC in 2023 was the 2022 Sun Belt champ and Tulane was the AAC champ.
All very good comments.
John, you need to focus on UT San Antonio as an expansion candidate.
Big City that supports football (look at the numbers). That weird league that folded a couple of years ago that Coach Riley handled had huge crowds.
You know him- call him and talk to him about San Antonio.
A great stadium and a 40,000 student University.
I live 22 time zones away - New Zealand - and still get Amazon and Amazon Prime - available in 200 nations around the world. Imagine the ad revenue such a footprint could generate - assuming people elsewhere want to watch US college football. Also I get, ESPN, Disney+ and HBO Max above board, but have no access to FOX, NBC ABC, TBS etc. Well, no authorized access. My 22 y/o and a blowtorch VPN has me covered there.
I'm all for expansion, the sooner the better. SDSU of course, and I'd really like to get Texas on the team so yeah, SMU makes sense, distance be damned. If we could somehow convince Houston and, say Fresno State to join, the PAC will be set.
Been there and I am envious.
It's great, all but the cost of living. Then again, no worse than Seattle, SFO, LA.
Nothing new in this column about media rights. Come back when there is a deal finalized.
I agree that the PAC-12 needs to start showing some urgency in a public way. I’m sure there are plenty of things happening behind the scenes (and maybe we’ll hear more after this weeks meetings), but I really feel it’s time for TV and expansion news.
As for expansion, SDSU is a no brainer. Makes total sense. After that I’m still stuck though. Boise State and Fresno State seem like a step down, both market and product wise. UNLV with added investment would make sense with the growing Vegas market and good geography for the conference. SMU makes some sense because they seem to have good support and are in a good market, but it feels like if SMU is added the Pac will have to become a 14 team conference and add a couple other Texas schools. I’m not sure that makes sense in the long run though.
Nobody in Texas cares about SMU, outside of alums and parents. UT and A&M carry the water in Texas. Even TCU and Houston are lesser lights. You get Texas by adding UT and A&M, not SMU.
UNLV and SDSU make the most sense. Huge metro areas, lots of eyeballs, easy travel partners, the Pac-12 already has a footprint in Vegas with the basketball tournaments and bowl game, and SDSU and UNLV already have a rivalry from their years together in the MWC, unlike Colorado and Utah when they entered the league.
When SMU was in a major conference, it had a strong following in the community, averaging about 45,000 people per game at old Cowboy Stadium.
In the right setting, SMU will be a big ticket item in this City. When Larry Brown coached at SMU, you couldn't get a ticket to the game.
There is no reason SMU cannot rebuild back to what it had, if it is a member of the Pac 10.
You are correct Flash. You have about a half of a percent change to lure A&M just based on the fact that they left the 12 to get away from UT. And that half percent chance would only be valid if the money was there.
It isn't and won't be.
The part you are missing is that none of the eyeballs in the respective SD LV markets care about their NCAA sports programs. Eyeballs alone don't create ratings.
Nobody in New Jersey or Maryland cares about college football either. That didn't stop the Big Ten adding Rutgers and Maryland, because they added huge markets that can be leveraged into higher commercial charges and higher carriage charges to cable/internet companies, whether people are watching or not.
Don't kid yourself, SDSU is a step down.
Compared to which Pac-12 teams? A new stadium with the opportunity to go to 55,000 seats. A team that has been more than competitive in CFB/CBB against the Pac-12.
Huge population. Large alumni base. What candidate for expansion is better than SDSU?
SMU and University of Texas San Antonio, for starters.
NO way IMO. The conference needs a school in southern CA>
Why?
There isn't one, frankly, so let's stop pretending.
San Diego is not going to "replace" USC or UCLA.
I've read this crap for 3 months and am tired of pretending.
San Diego is not going to replace USC-period..
However, powerful markets in a state with 30 million people that frankly have been ignored in recent years might make more sense.
SMU is a former national power in a major market with the ability to generate a huge fan base.
UT San Antonio already outdraws San Diego and frankly, it's untapped fan base is huge.
Name any franchise, pro or otherwise,, that has ever worked in San Diego.
There is a reason Justin Herbert lives in LA.
San Diego will not work.
I believe JH lives in LA because his team is located in LA.
And BTW, JH played P5 football and got a darn good education at the same time.
That's a pretty subjective opinion, especially if you look at the long term impact of having the San Diego market and school system. They are on the right trajectory to be exactly the kind of school the PAC wants in their conference footprint.
There are serious and legitimate concerns about losing SDSU to the Big12. It would hurt recruiting and it also likely reduce future media dollars (we benefit from the pacific time zone monopoly we currently have in P5 conferences). If the Big12 is suddenly competing for our time slots, that makes it harder to negotiate future conference value, etc.
I'm just saying that it's not so much of a clear step up/down in bringing SDSU into the fold. There are likely serious repercussions for leaving them out of the PAC. Ultimately it could be a bigger step down for the conference if the BIG12 scenario plays out. Big12 gains in CA are loses for the PAC. Simple as that IMO.
That's the best argument I've heard.
Any school is going to be a step down from USC and UCLA. Of course.
But if you're going to expand, get the best remaining schools. SDSU gives the Pac a presence in SoCal, and UNLV is a huge, growing, attractive market.
My view precisely.
Agreed. Neither USC & UCLA, or comparable replacements, are or will be available. Makes much more sense to develop and grow the growing options that are actually available.
Excellent analysis.
Charles, how do you square this comment with wanting to be like the Ivy League?
I've still never been convinced that expansion makes sense, at least not with the candidates usually mentioned (SDSU, SMU, etc). I'm all for expansion into Texas if it means stealing Big12 teams. Otherwise, it still just looks like more mouths to feed. If expansion is on the list of demands from Amazon or Fox/ESPN, then, sure, do it. Otherwise, this idea of using SDSU to recruit SoCal seems a bit out of touch with what recruiting is.
I think I know why they are taking so long with media stuff...they must be working on my proposal: https://chng.it/Y5wtKLrd
John, if a decision is made at this meeting on media rights (and I assume the LA school reps would be excluded from that discussion), how soon would you anticipate an announcement?
"in the neighborhood of $27 million to $29 million".
So we Pac-12 fans have been lied to /mislead again!! I thought the Pac-12 leadership was confident to beat the B-12 number just a month ago. All this hubris that the all schools are committed and galvanized in staying together?? Seems like the news is changing constantly.
The announcement has brutally dragged on, the news coming from Kliavkoff probably isnt good.
Given that there are well over 110M internet subscribers in the US, Amazon is gaining on ESPN, which has been bleeding subscribers for years.
It would be nice to do a deal with Amazon that gives the Pac12 sports ‘most favored nation’ status for a few years past the expiration dates of the B1G and Big12 media contracts. That would freeze those conferences out of jumping the financial line. But, I'm just dreaming.
May have been said before but…why all the freakin’ love for Vegas? They are not part of the PAC 12 yet it is suggested or planned the Title games for conference are played there and sounds like conference meetings are or will be in Vegas…….fiddlydoo on Vegas….plenty of wonderful cities are located within Conference.
UNLV makes sense as an expansion candidate with the money the Frettia's have poured into facilities and playing in Allegiant Stadium.
Very few cities in the conference footprint that are not conference members have the population of LV. A population that continues to rapidly increase.
When John was covering the Runnin' Rebels I had season tickets to what were some outstanding basketball teams. UNLV is not an AAU member but neither are WSU, OR ST, ASU, and San Diego State.
Las Vegas is attractive to some for 2 reasons; the presence of Allegiant Stadium and Gambling Casinos.