There are reasons I can see UNLV being someone to take a look at for the Pac-12, but in general I don't think expansion as a defensive play is good strategy. For the same reason, we don't see the Big 12 courting SMU right now.
I agree. At the end of the day Universities are interested in athletic money to raise their academic prestige through improvements in staff, facilities, equipment, and programs. National championships are great for alumni bragging rights, and athletics are massive revenue drivers, but top tier schools are about the value of the degrees and research they produce. The means must justify the ends. The PAC has some very prestigious academic members. Any new collaborative member needs to fit in at the research club. It’s not only about how many TV sets they reach, even considering the lucrative potential in the steady proliferation of Vegas households. If UNLV makes the right moves and is seen as a fitting member, be it 5 or 10 or 20 years down the road, then there will be mutual interest.
Agree but the reality is it’s moving faster than the PAC-12 can keep up. No one is arguing the great academics and research pedigree of PAC 12 schools but the reality is the conference has lost leverage. The conference was struggling with exposure and time zone before UCLA and USC left. Remember the thought of 9:00 am kickoffs? USC and UCLA left because they knew the dollars wouldn’t be there vs. the Big 10 and SEC. Oklahoma and Texas did as well.
I ask a simple question. Would any PAC-12 school turn down an invitation to the Big 10 or perhaps the SEC if offered today? It’s time to be proactive and think toward the future and what could be vs. what is today.
A recent article from SMU land noted that the NCAA "Death Penalty" in 1987 damaged what had been a strong brand (undefeated 1982 season, and a 21-1-1 record during Eric Dickerson's last two seasons at SMU. After the NCAA death penalty sanctions and after the SWC disbanded, the Big12 refused to include SMU in its conference. Maybe that has continued to this day, although SMU has improved its on-field football product recently.
I have a close friend who just signed with SMU. Their NIL deal pays 3k a month to everyone on scholarship. SMU has been in the shadows but anyone in Dallas knows the $$$$$$ at SMU can compete with anyone. Think of what they could be in a key conference not what they are today. TCU exhibit A
As a parent, as a business owner, I have learned that sometimes rushing into a decision can be the poorest decision. Sometimes letting things simmer presents options and a far better solution than getting out the "paddle board". John, I think you are the one who is anxious. So far I still like what I am hearing or should that be NOT hearing.
Agree with much of what you say; however, I've also seen paralysis by analysis - the key is to know when to stop analyzing and procrastinating and just pull the trigger.
Hats off to John and Jon for all of the terrific reporting these last few months. It’s been outstanding. Meanwhile, I can’t help but wonder about potential bias from the sources that are providing all of the various media outlets with their insight (including J & J). A lot of solid journalists are working this story, but the interpretation of what’s happening is all over the map.
At this point I've lost respect and interest in USC and UCLA (and I'm a USC alumn). I'll never get over this. I don't care about the Big Ten and those fans and that money or whatever. The fit is bad and it's happening for the wrong reasons.
Would love to see the Pac-10 survive intact and become the focus of sports out West.
I have to believe the 4th school is in Texas. Rice or Houston make sense, but could it possibly be Baylor? I've always thought CSU makes sense to keep CU in the conf. Natural travel partner and rival.
Baylor still hasn't resolved the ugly sexual misconduct issues that went all the way to the President's office. PAC 10 should stay far away as possible. It would be hilarious to see PAC poach Houston from Big 12 but won't happen.
I like the Colorado State fit. Feels more like the culture and identity of a Pac12 School. I know people are hunting for media markets but I get the idea market size valuation is going to be a question the media partners are going to start to ask about. Like "Yea I hear you can get into Dallas market but how many people in that region will be watching?"
Burke Magnus at ESPN made it pretty clear what he valued, and that’s matchups/rivalries that draw eyes. Much more so than media market size. Have a hard time believing ESPN will be upping any offer they have on the table based on the edition of SDSU,, SMU, or Colorado St. Now, maybe an Apple or Amazon might, looking for additional tonnage?
The winners from conference realignment will be the SEC, and the stronger half of the B1G.
The losers will be the weaker half of the B1G (who now have USC as an opponent in the way of a conference championship), UCLA (who will now have to travel much farther to achieve the same above-average results, negating any benefits of their financial windfall), and the Big12 (whose acolytes continue to desperately try making the Pac12 look weak as compensation for losing Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC).
The parties for whom this will be neither a net gain nor a net loss are the Pac12 (losing USC and UCLA's market revenue will be offset by having an easier path to the CFP), USC (who will be good, but not great, in the B1G), and the ACC (who is patiently taking notes while they ponder their potential options a few years from now).
Slight pushback type question, JC. After UO and UT were poached by the SEC, and UCLA and USC by BIG10, it appears there is, in fact, a frenzy to create, and for schools to join, "superconferences" for the huge media rights money deals. Losing USC and UCLA, two of the top three schools in total Natties (with Stanford at the top, these three schools each have over 100 team Natties, more than double the #4 school Ok State, who has 52, 34 in wrestling), along with population base of LA, the prestige of the two, and combined with the negative of viewership back East of late games in the Pac TZ, is it possible that the Pres Council simply agreed to "speak positive and together" to get the best media deal available, which they surely hope can be somewhat comparable to the BIG10 and SEC, in order to keep other national brands from jumping? With Nike money, and the national brand they are already developing, as well as the new playoff structure, it may be unlikely that the UO would bolt. But the fact that USC and UCLA did bolt before a new media deal could be negotiated which could reduce the comparative gap with the BIG10 and SEC, may signal that presumption is not accurate. If the PAC cannot keep UO, UW, and/or Stanford in the fold, or if the reported interest in the Four Corner schools by the BIG12 is reciprocated in order for either of those school groups to follow the money like USC and UCLA, the PAC will lose a significant negotiating power. Did USC and UCLA advise the PAC that they were pursuing/being courted by the BIG10 in advance, or was that fact a complete surprise to the PAC until/when the deal was done? If it was sprung on the PAC when done, that could be a template for the other schools. I believe you are reporting what you are being told, but I wonder if the PAC sources are being completely transparent.
Good stuff, John. I'm guessing some folks in the know are happy to be able to talk to you, off the record of course, as a counter-balance to all the negativity out there right now.
Agree that Colorado State is redundant and would have little value. Also wondering who that 4th school might be? If SMU is in play, which it sounds like they are, wonder if it would be another school in the Central Time Zone that could expand the conference's reach by playing in that noon ET window. Tulane?
Good feedback. But somebody's toe must be getting really sore from kicking tires. Let's just hope we don't end up with a flat tire after all this negotiation.
Solid. I hope but doubt the streaming services could sell a package just for sports, or just for PAC12 sports, or something without having to join a full service. I know the point is to bring subscribers into the fold for the full subscription.
Measure twice. Cut once.
—No need to rush.
You are right. As much as I want a deal… now… you’re right
So both sides are playing hard ball. What's the drop dead date? I know we're talking April 1, but? Do they have to get it done by then????
Looking down the road 10 years I wonder if the UNLV decision won’t come back to bite them from an athletic standpoint.
If I’m the Big 12 I invite them and Fresno and I have an in to the west and Vegas $$$.
I will be interesting
There are reasons I can see UNLV being someone to take a look at for the Pac-12, but in general I don't think expansion as a defensive play is good strategy. For the same reason, we don't see the Big 12 courting SMU right now.
I agree. At the end of the day Universities are interested in athletic money to raise their academic prestige through improvements in staff, facilities, equipment, and programs. National championships are great for alumni bragging rights, and athletics are massive revenue drivers, but top tier schools are about the value of the degrees and research they produce. The means must justify the ends. The PAC has some very prestigious academic members. Any new collaborative member needs to fit in at the research club. It’s not only about how many TV sets they reach, even considering the lucrative potential in the steady proliferation of Vegas households. If UNLV makes the right moves and is seen as a fitting member, be it 5 or 10 or 20 years down the road, then there will be mutual interest.
Agree but the reality is it’s moving faster than the PAC-12 can keep up. No one is arguing the great academics and research pedigree of PAC 12 schools but the reality is the conference has lost leverage. The conference was struggling with exposure and time zone before UCLA and USC left. Remember the thought of 9:00 am kickoffs? USC and UCLA left because they knew the dollars wouldn’t be there vs. the Big 10 and SEC. Oklahoma and Texas did as well.
I ask a simple question. Would any PAC-12 school turn down an invitation to the Big 10 or perhaps the SEC if offered today? It’s time to be proactive and think toward the future and what could be vs. what is today.
A recent article from SMU land noted that the NCAA "Death Penalty" in 1987 damaged what had been a strong brand (undefeated 1982 season, and a 21-1-1 record during Eric Dickerson's last two seasons at SMU. After the NCAA death penalty sanctions and after the SWC disbanded, the Big12 refused to include SMU in its conference. Maybe that has continued to this day, although SMU has improved its on-field football product recently.
SMU has not only improved its on-field product, it has nice facilities and is in the process of improving them.
The setting is very nice-on campus in University Park, which gives easy access to students and the local fan base (many can just walk to the games).
I have a close friend who just signed with SMU. Their NIL deal pays 3k a month to everyone on scholarship. SMU has been in the shadows but anyone in Dallas knows the $$$$$$ at SMU can compete with anyone. Think of what they could be in a key conference not what they are today. TCU exhibit A
As a parent, as a business owner, I have learned that sometimes rushing into a decision can be the poorest decision. Sometimes letting things simmer presents options and a far better solution than getting out the "paddle board". John, I think you are the one who is anxious. So far I still like what I am hearing or should that be NOT hearing.
Wise.
Agree with much of what you say; however, I've also seen paralysis by analysis - the key is to know when to stop analyzing and procrastinating and just pull the trigger.
rushing?? 9 months later? If this was a race, the pac wouldn't just be last, they wouldn't finish at all
The most interesting thing from all this speculation outside the PAC 12 footprint, is our name is being repeatedly spoken by others.
What's the term... Any publicity is good publicity...
…”better schools, better markets and better ratings.” Love that attitude!
Don’t think it’s in the nature of the Pac-12 to trash talk… but the nonsense of today sparked some.
We need more smack talk like that. Tired of B12 trolls.
Hats off to John and Jon for all of the terrific reporting these last few months. It’s been outstanding. Meanwhile, I can’t help but wonder about potential bias from the sources that are providing all of the various media outlets with their insight (including J & J). A lot of solid journalists are working this story, but the interpretation of what’s happening is all over the map.
Thanks Pete. Means a lot.
And no bias from John?! Come on!
He just said the bias included Canzano and Wilner. Cool your jets.
At this point I've lost respect and interest in USC and UCLA (and I'm a USC alumn). I'll never get over this. I don't care about the Big Ten and those fans and that money or whatever. The fit is bad and it's happening for the wrong reasons.
Would love to see the Pac-10 survive intact and become the focus of sports out West.
I have to believe the 4th school is in Texas. Rice or Houston make sense, but could it possibly be Baylor? I've always thought CSU makes sense to keep CU in the conf. Natural travel partner and rival.
Baylor still hasn't resolved the ugly sexual misconduct issues that went all the way to the President's office. PAC 10 should stay far away as possible. It would be hilarious to see PAC poach Houston from Big 12 but won't happen.
Baylor and Houston reject the pac12 outright on the first phone call.
A good update. As many times as John has used the term “kick the tires,” I would not be surprised to see him owning a used car lot down the road. 😎
4th best Power 5 deal. Survive don’t thrive.
I like the Colorado State fit. Feels more like the culture and identity of a Pac12 School. I know people are hunting for media markets but I get the idea market size valuation is going to be a question the media partners are going to start to ask about. Like "Yea I hear you can get into Dallas market but how many people in that region will be watching?"
Burke Magnus at ESPN made it pretty clear what he valued, and that’s matchups/rivalries that draw eyes. Much more so than media market size. Have a hard time believing ESPN will be upping any offer they have on the table based on the edition of SDSU,, SMU, or Colorado St. Now, maybe an Apple or Amazon might, looking for additional tonnage?
The winners from conference realignment will be the SEC, and the stronger half of the B1G.
The losers will be the weaker half of the B1G (who now have USC as an opponent in the way of a conference championship), UCLA (who will now have to travel much farther to achieve the same above-average results, negating any benefits of their financial windfall), and the Big12 (whose acolytes continue to desperately try making the Pac12 look weak as compensation for losing Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC).
The parties for whom this will be neither a net gain nor a net loss are the Pac12 (losing USC and UCLA's market revenue will be offset by having an easier path to the CFP), USC (who will be good, but not great, in the B1G), and the ACC (who is patiently taking notes while they ponder their potential options a few years from now).
And there you have it. Canzano has officially gone beast mode. Solid, sourced, and succinct. This should douse more than a few fires!
All I can do is ask questions and get answers.
Slight pushback type question, JC. After UO and UT were poached by the SEC, and UCLA and USC by BIG10, it appears there is, in fact, a frenzy to create, and for schools to join, "superconferences" for the huge media rights money deals. Losing USC and UCLA, two of the top three schools in total Natties (with Stanford at the top, these three schools each have over 100 team Natties, more than double the #4 school Ok State, who has 52, 34 in wrestling), along with population base of LA, the prestige of the two, and combined with the negative of viewership back East of late games in the Pac TZ, is it possible that the Pres Council simply agreed to "speak positive and together" to get the best media deal available, which they surely hope can be somewhat comparable to the BIG10 and SEC, in order to keep other national brands from jumping? With Nike money, and the national brand they are already developing, as well as the new playoff structure, it may be unlikely that the UO would bolt. But the fact that USC and UCLA did bolt before a new media deal could be negotiated which could reduce the comparative gap with the BIG10 and SEC, may signal that presumption is not accurate. If the PAC cannot keep UO, UW, and/or Stanford in the fold, or if the reported interest in the Four Corner schools by the BIG12 is reciprocated in order for either of those school groups to follow the money like USC and UCLA, the PAC will lose a significant negotiating power. Did USC and UCLA advise the PAC that they were pursuing/being courted by the BIG10 in advance, or was that fact a complete surprise to the PAC until/when the deal was done? If it was sprung on the PAC when done, that could be a template for the other schools. I believe you are reporting what you are being told, but I wonder if the PAC sources are being completely transparent.
Good stuff, John. I'm guessing some folks in the know are happy to be able to talk to you, off the record of course, as a counter-balance to all the negativity out there right now.
Agree that Colorado State is redundant and would have little value. Also wondering who that 4th school might be? If SMU is in play, which it sounds like they are, wonder if it would be another school in the Central Time Zone that could expand the conference's reach by playing in that noon ET window. Tulane?
Good feedback. But somebody's toe must be getting really sore from kicking tires. Let's just hope we don't end up with a flat tire after all this negotiation.
Solid. I hope but doubt the streaming services could sell a package just for sports, or just for PAC12 sports, or something without having to join a full service. I know the point is to bring subscribers into the fold for the full subscription.