Given the importance of major college football to the remaining Pac 12 Universities, I am surprised that the states involved and major businesses in those states are not stepping up to the plate to develop a gameplan to assure the financial survival and success of this Conference.
So far, I've only heard from Governor Newsome of California, a true leader and visionary.
Several years ago, I served on the Board of Visitors for the U of O Law School for 8 years, during an era when Dave Frohnmayer was the Dean and then the President of U of O.
He emphasized that the success of the football program stemming from the 1994 Rose Bowl changed UO's world, both in terms of interest by students around the Country and alumni involvement and pride in the University. The money followed, in a big way, and not just for sports.
And this started before the rise to ongoing national prominence by the sports programs.
There is a lot at stake for these Universities that goes far beyond their football programs and as a result, a lot is at stake for the states of Oregon, Washington, California (to some extent), Utah, Colorado and Arizona.
I would expect alumni to be all over this, or encouraged to do so.
I would expect state political leaders to be paying attention.
Ironically, the amount necessary per year to assure these schools succeed at the highest level athletically ($80 million or so per school, including TV revenue) is a paltry sum compared to the potential harm if the conference fails.
In other words, if the TV deal from ESPN, etc. is really only $35 million a year, raising another $45 million per year per school is likely going to assure considerably more cash flow for the University from other sources over times, is going to increase visibility of the University, increase alumni interest and involvement and attract students around the Country.
The pac-12 is doomed and it is their own fault. This new leader they got a year ago has done nothing, and now that the two LA schools will be in the Big-10 in football in two years, the pac-10 will slide further into oblivion. I will say it again: TV money rules all sports. ESPN is worth more in billions, than ALL pro teams in all sports combined. The only way ESPN would want the -pac-12 for football is if they decided to show west coast games starting at 10 or 10:30 pm est. when there is nothing much on, to compete for the advertising dollars. Check out how many times the Pac-12 has been in the final four of the college football play-offs compared to the SEC and the Big-10. Pac-12 has two. It will take at least five years for this league to catch the big boys in football and basketball, the only two sports that bring in revenue to the schools. I say five if they get a new tv contract now, which does not appear to be happening yet. UCLA and USC will get around $30 million more per year than if they stayed in the Pac-12. Do the math; and maybe you will get it. Do you think any team in the Pac-12 could improve their football team or their facilities with 30 million more dollars per year? That they could pay their players more, or get better new players coming in? I am sure they could. They could pay their coaches more, and do many other things too. USC and UCLA were smart to leave the Pac-12. Huge money rules the world, and controls sports on tv. Without ESPN the Pac-12 is going nowhere. This new commisch of the Pac-12 claims he was caught unaware that the two LA schools were leaving. Baloney to this I say. It should have been his number one priority when he got the job to start trying to get a new tv deal for the major sports. So what if their current tv deal is a bad joke, and is still valid? He did nothing and now he claims he had no idea what could happen if any schools left. I am a long-time Duck fan and I love the Pac-12. Am sad that the only way the Pac-12 will ever be a major conference, which they currently are not, is to get a big tv deal with ESPN. With the two LA schools, and all their millions of tv sets, gone, each remaining school stands to make a lot less per year. The rich, like the SEC, get richer and the others get poorer. Clock is ticking loudly on the Pac-12 and their current tv deal. Is now or never, and please miss me with the idea of the Pac-12 adding more schools. No school in the country can match the LA tv market. GO DUCKS
Ummmm ESPN might not even be on the air today if they were not owned by Disney. Forbes types watch this. There is a reason why ESPN laid off HUNDRES including on air types the last few years. ESPN has lost MILLIONS of subscibers iin the last few years. The subscriber fees was the single larges source of profit for them. Many viewers and cable systems said NO to $8 a month several years ago. The cable model is fading . It will take years but these huge increses in Cable deals will flattern out in the next fo around. And Netflix for one is in trouble so dont count on streaming to really pick up the slack.
My view is the PAC has an entertaining product and good anchor markets. Whether they get $40 or $45 million each doesn't really matter. The PAC can lead the way way back to financial sanity. When they do the NON mega rich programs will be fighting to join the PAC! Several (Rutgers0 BIG 10 programs are debt ridden and supported by loans from the conference. The Rutgers boss already said the NIL level is unreachable by them. How many of the 130 programs think cahseing $70, $80 million rights deal is reasonable. Saban gets it. He has been clear. "Super conferences" limited to the super rich is very bad for college football.
Yes, ESPN want 10 and 10:30et games for the west coast audiences. With its LA acquisition, I assume the B1G will likely counter program with the LA schools playing all or the majority of their home games at night.
Would the other Big10 teams agree to always playing west coast away games at the equivalent of 10:30 PM their home EST (would seem to give a real advantage to the players used to playing on PST)? Plus would give each LA school a semi-weekly national TV spot that none of the other Big10 teams would also get (unless their name is OSU or Michigan, of course).
Hey John: As I said yesterday, the Pac-12 is on the verge of not being able to compete with the SEC and Big-10 in football for years to come. The rich get richer, and it comes from large tv revenue. The live gate and concessions, and parking revenue, do not factor into the income a major football program needs to continue to stay on top. Huge money rules the world, and it also runs all the major sports shown on tv. All the pro teams and all the college teams, in football and basketball, would not even exist if not for television revenue. The pros split all the tv ad money equally, and this is how they survive and grow in value. Even though the value of most any professional team is in billions of dollars, many people fail to realize, that the combined value of all pro teams is less than the value of ESPN. ESPN rules college football, and any game shown on this network means millions of dollars to each school. The pros do have fox, nbc, cbs, and a few others, but they all pale in comparison to ESPN. Face the reality and go ahead and fact check me if you doubt the value of ESPN. The Pac-12 has to have ESPN in order to try and keep up with the real teams of the SEC and Big-10, in football and basketball. These two sports pay for all the other college sports. If the new leader of the Pac-12, who has been on the job for a year, has any smarts and business saavy, he will do anything it takes to obtain an ESPN tv contract to show conference games. Losing the two LA schools of his league, could be the beginning of the end of the Pac-12 as we know it. The LA tv market (total number of households with tvs) is gigantic, and the Pac-12 should have been working on a new tv deal long ago. Does not matter about the current tv deal still being in effect; it was a very poor deal for all schools. The league opened up their new potential tv deal too late. The LA school were smart to get out when they did, as they knew the Pac-12 is on the verge of falling further behind. Is called money, folks, and if you want to compete with the big boys, you need to have it, and lots and lots and more and more coming in yearly. Schools can now offer money to the kids to play sports, and still give them full scholarships. If a high school athelete is having a hard time choosing a school to go play at, perhaps extra money going to him and his family, could sway his decision. Pretty simple. USC and USC now will have somewhere around an extra $30 million per year to run their athletic programs, than had they stayed in the PAC-12. A real no brainer and these programs will find it a heck of a lot easier to catch Alabama or Ohio State on the field or court, with this huge increase. I know, Mr. Canzano , that you have stated much of this recently, but judging by comments from some of your readers, I feel the average college football fan just does not get it. If you think the college sports scene is not based on money, then turn off your tv next time Alabama plays another good team. Change sports you like to others you do not care about. Get a hobby, or better yet, sell your tv. Stop spending hours and hours watching major sports on tv, as I do. Nobody cares about what you will do. Once again, there would be no sports without tv advertising, so grin and bear it. Alabama football does not need some ignorant fans who claim they are done watching the SEC because of huge money given to the schools. I love football and if it had not been on tv for many years, my love for it would not exist. GO DUCKS
I’m an SEC guy who loves the PAC 12. I grew up in Philadelphia and I can remember watching USC-UCLA on a gray November day and seeing that brilliant sunshine and all the flashcards they used back then. It is my first memory of college football. College football needs to be strong on the West Coast. It’s good for the game and it’s good for the fans. Unfortunately the only thing that matters now is money. I hope the Pac 12 can find a way to not just survive but also thrive.
Timing is everything. Yogi's book might be late. Recruiting, developing young QBs has compleetely changed. Even the elite programs rarely have starting QBs that spend their entire career at one school. Almost all are transfers now.
Of course, the worst case scenario is still in play: the Big 10 takes only 2-4 teams and ruins the conference completely. If that happens, I can't imagine I continue to follow this sport for long.
I agree with you. If the idea is to destroy traditional college football to set up a junior/minor league NFL all for the sake of $$, I wont follow the sport anymore either. I have already stopped watching the SEC games.
I love satire. You assume that all the northwest . bay area schools would prefer to leave the PAC? And NO conference wants to pick up four or six additional programs....except for the Big 12 who desperately needs some markets. Make me GOD and I would take Utah, the Oregon, Washington schools and anyone else who wanted to stay. I would require a 4-6 year contractual commitment. Would be nice to keep the current 10 and call it good. I would even be fine with a PAC 8. Expansion for expansion sake is fog. If the Big 10 is so valuable why are they expanding at all? I guess Fox begged them to. The 10 already has at least four, or more programs that contribute nothing to the conference value. Add Rutgers for the NY market? What a joke. Take a train into the city and go find a Rutgers football bar. I think the cable guys are getting stupid. This is the same bunch that brings us Thursday night NFL games. First significant ratings loser with more to come. At least the NFL does NOT work hard to screw its fellow programs like CFB does. All pretty sad
Looking at that list, all but ASU and Nebraska are AAU members. No other conference like it in terms of academics, which we all know doesn't matter to those pulling the strings at Fox/ESPN. Still, that would be closer to the old Pac/Big ideal than anything else could be.
Can't wait to read Yogi's book. Agreed the B1G is the biggest threat. I wouldn't say the "only" threat though. Any and all organizations attempting to shut out other conferences from the playoff are a threat. If the PAC-N can secure an automatic bid in an expanded playoff this somewhat mitigates the threat from the B1G somewhat.
Working with the thought that it is the number of viewers that matters to the networks....The thing that always bothered me about the Big12 is where was the extra money. Often they would reference how much they get with their TV deal but aren't they in a similar situation with 2 major programs leaving? Or are they hoping people are overlooking that point?
If the Pac12/10 gets low balled on their TV offer shouldn't it stand to mean the Big12 following there after would likely be similar and potentially split between more teams? If so to me the Big12's gambit has to be the demise of the Pac12 or else their the Pac12 likely sets their media rights as well.
On the Big 10 front, I wonder. Right now in America it is hard to find consensus on anything that involves more than 2 people (and even then that doesn't work sometimes). Imagine putting even more University presidents in a room together to come up with one statement that they all support? I cannot help but wonder if this is the reason the SEC who touts their need for 75% to vote in favor of major changes seeks regionality and fears expanding. If 8 out of 24 disagree then you almost have enough to break away for a new conference ... could this be what David Shaw was referring to?
Actually the Big 12 is in a much weaker position. Not just because they lost Okla and Tex. They have almost no other major markets to themselves. The Texas teams and Florida teams they are picking up will NOT deliver high viewrship from those states. This would be like picking up Fresno State and claiming the LA market. A smaller PAC with the Seattle , Portland, Bay area markets would be significant. Its not just population, its demographics. The Portland market is much more valuable than the Orlando market considering demographics. Its not just about ratings....
At this stage, which schools in the conference don’t have collectives? Is it anticipated they will, or is it just so culturally out of tune with those places it won’t happen? Seems they’re increasingly becoming table stakes for being a P5 program, and you can see a world where that becomes the dividing line in forming the superconference.
Given the importance of major college football to the remaining Pac 12 Universities, I am surprised that the states involved and major businesses in those states are not stepping up to the plate to develop a gameplan to assure the financial survival and success of this Conference.
So far, I've only heard from Governor Newsome of California, a true leader and visionary.
Several years ago, I served on the Board of Visitors for the U of O Law School for 8 years, during an era when Dave Frohnmayer was the Dean and then the President of U of O.
He emphasized that the success of the football program stemming from the 1994 Rose Bowl changed UO's world, both in terms of interest by students around the Country and alumni involvement and pride in the University. The money followed, in a big way, and not just for sports.
And this started before the rise to ongoing national prominence by the sports programs.
There is a lot at stake for these Universities that goes far beyond their football programs and as a result, a lot is at stake for the states of Oregon, Washington, California (to some extent), Utah, Colorado and Arizona.
I would expect alumni to be all over this, or encouraged to do so.
I would expect state political leaders to be paying attention.
Ironically, the amount necessary per year to assure these schools succeed at the highest level athletically ($80 million or so per school, including TV revenue) is a paltry sum compared to the potential harm if the conference fails.
In other words, if the TV deal from ESPN, etc. is really only $35 million a year, raising another $45 million per year per school is likely going to assure considerably more cash flow for the University from other sources over times, is going to increase visibility of the University, increase alumni interest and involvement and attract students around the Country.
Where is Kate Brown on this issue?
Or the Governor of Washington?
This goes far beyond athletics.
The pac-12 is doomed and it is their own fault. This new leader they got a year ago has done nothing, and now that the two LA schools will be in the Big-10 in football in two years, the pac-10 will slide further into oblivion. I will say it again: TV money rules all sports. ESPN is worth more in billions, than ALL pro teams in all sports combined. The only way ESPN would want the -pac-12 for football is if they decided to show west coast games starting at 10 or 10:30 pm est. when there is nothing much on, to compete for the advertising dollars. Check out how many times the Pac-12 has been in the final four of the college football play-offs compared to the SEC and the Big-10. Pac-12 has two. It will take at least five years for this league to catch the big boys in football and basketball, the only two sports that bring in revenue to the schools. I say five if they get a new tv contract now, which does not appear to be happening yet. UCLA and USC will get around $30 million more per year than if they stayed in the Pac-12. Do the math; and maybe you will get it. Do you think any team in the Pac-12 could improve their football team or their facilities with 30 million more dollars per year? That they could pay their players more, or get better new players coming in? I am sure they could. They could pay their coaches more, and do many other things too. USC and UCLA were smart to leave the Pac-12. Huge money rules the world, and controls sports on tv. Without ESPN the Pac-12 is going nowhere. This new commisch of the Pac-12 claims he was caught unaware that the two LA schools were leaving. Baloney to this I say. It should have been his number one priority when he got the job to start trying to get a new tv deal for the major sports. So what if their current tv deal is a bad joke, and is still valid? He did nothing and now he claims he had no idea what could happen if any schools left. I am a long-time Duck fan and I love the Pac-12. Am sad that the only way the Pac-12 will ever be a major conference, which they currently are not, is to get a big tv deal with ESPN. With the two LA schools, and all their millions of tv sets, gone, each remaining school stands to make a lot less per year. The rich, like the SEC, get richer and the others get poorer. Clock is ticking loudly on the Pac-12 and their current tv deal. Is now or never, and please miss me with the idea of the Pac-12 adding more schools. No school in the country can match the LA tv market. GO DUCKS
Ummmm ESPN might not even be on the air today if they were not owned by Disney. Forbes types watch this. There is a reason why ESPN laid off HUNDRES including on air types the last few years. ESPN has lost MILLIONS of subscibers iin the last few years. The subscriber fees was the single larges source of profit for them. Many viewers and cable systems said NO to $8 a month several years ago. The cable model is fading . It will take years but these huge increses in Cable deals will flattern out in the next fo around. And Netflix for one is in trouble so dont count on streaming to really pick up the slack.
My view is the PAC has an entertaining product and good anchor markets. Whether they get $40 or $45 million each doesn't really matter. The PAC can lead the way way back to financial sanity. When they do the NON mega rich programs will be fighting to join the PAC! Several (Rutgers0 BIG 10 programs are debt ridden and supported by loans from the conference. The Rutgers boss already said the NIL level is unreachable by them. How many of the 130 programs think cahseing $70, $80 million rights deal is reasonable. Saban gets it. He has been clear. "Super conferences" limited to the super rich is very bad for college football.
Good post, but Disney itself is in pretty good shape and its subscriber service, including packages with Hulu and ESPN thrown in, are growing.
They actually need content and are spending a lot of money on it.
I agree with the concept that it would be nice if the money issue solved itself.
Right now, Disney, Amazon and Apple mint money at an astonishing rate, even in a recession.
Yes, ESPN want 10 and 10:30et games for the west coast audiences. With its LA acquisition, I assume the B1G will likely counter program with the LA schools playing all or the majority of their home games at night.
Would the other Big10 teams agree to always playing west coast away games at the equivalent of 10:30 PM their home EST (would seem to give a real advantage to the players used to playing on PST)? Plus would give each LA school a semi-weekly national TV spot that none of the other Big10 teams would also get (unless their name is OSU or Michigan, of course).
Hey John: As I said yesterday, the Pac-12 is on the verge of not being able to compete with the SEC and Big-10 in football for years to come. The rich get richer, and it comes from large tv revenue. The live gate and concessions, and parking revenue, do not factor into the income a major football program needs to continue to stay on top. Huge money rules the world, and it also runs all the major sports shown on tv. All the pro teams and all the college teams, in football and basketball, would not even exist if not for television revenue. The pros split all the tv ad money equally, and this is how they survive and grow in value. Even though the value of most any professional team is in billions of dollars, many people fail to realize, that the combined value of all pro teams is less than the value of ESPN. ESPN rules college football, and any game shown on this network means millions of dollars to each school. The pros do have fox, nbc, cbs, and a few others, but they all pale in comparison to ESPN. Face the reality and go ahead and fact check me if you doubt the value of ESPN. The Pac-12 has to have ESPN in order to try and keep up with the real teams of the SEC and Big-10, in football and basketball. These two sports pay for all the other college sports. If the new leader of the Pac-12, who has been on the job for a year, has any smarts and business saavy, he will do anything it takes to obtain an ESPN tv contract to show conference games. Losing the two LA schools of his league, could be the beginning of the end of the Pac-12 as we know it. The LA tv market (total number of households with tvs) is gigantic, and the Pac-12 should have been working on a new tv deal long ago. Does not matter about the current tv deal still being in effect; it was a very poor deal for all schools. The league opened up their new potential tv deal too late. The LA school were smart to get out when they did, as they knew the Pac-12 is on the verge of falling further behind. Is called money, folks, and if you want to compete with the big boys, you need to have it, and lots and lots and more and more coming in yearly. Schools can now offer money to the kids to play sports, and still give them full scholarships. If a high school athelete is having a hard time choosing a school to go play at, perhaps extra money going to him and his family, could sway his decision. Pretty simple. USC and USC now will have somewhere around an extra $30 million per year to run their athletic programs, than had they stayed in the PAC-12. A real no brainer and these programs will find it a heck of a lot easier to catch Alabama or Ohio State on the field or court, with this huge increase. I know, Mr. Canzano , that you have stated much of this recently, but judging by comments from some of your readers, I feel the average college football fan just does not get it. If you think the college sports scene is not based on money, then turn off your tv next time Alabama plays another good team. Change sports you like to others you do not care about. Get a hobby, or better yet, sell your tv. Stop spending hours and hours watching major sports on tv, as I do. Nobody cares about what you will do. Once again, there would be no sports without tv advertising, so grin and bear it. Alabama football does not need some ignorant fans who claim they are done watching the SEC because of huge money given to the schools. I love football and if it had not been on tv for many years, my love for it would not exist. GO DUCKS
The only thing that is “laughable” is the PAC-12’s continued arrogance regarding other leagues, universities and athletic programs.
I’m an SEC guy who loves the PAC 12. I grew up in Philadelphia and I can remember watching USC-UCLA on a gray November day and seeing that brilliant sunshine and all the flashcards they used back then. It is my first memory of college football. College football needs to be strong on the West Coast. It’s good for the game and it’s good for the fans. Unfortunately the only thing that matters now is money. I hope the Pac 12 can find a way to not just survive but also thrive.
Timing is everything. Yogi's book might be late. Recruiting, developing young QBs has compleetely changed. Even the elite programs rarely have starting QBs that spend their entire career at one school. Almost all are transfers now.
I'd like to see less posturing between the PAC-N and the Big 12. I think I understand why this is happening but I'd like to see it dissipate quickly.
Thanks for this. I wish this whole process could be sped up.
Fingers crossed that the Pac-10 survives. That seems like the most realistic best case scenario.
For an unrealistic best case scenario: hey Big10, just add everyone (except WSU/OSU) to become the Big-24:
East: Michigan, MSU, OSU, Purdue, Indiana, Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
West: Iowa, Nebraska, USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Utah, CU, Arizona, ASU
9 division games, 2 from the other division, 1 OOC game. Rose Bowl is the title game. Give ND one last chance before pulling the trigger.
Of course, the worst case scenario is still in play: the Big 10 takes only 2-4 teams and ruins the conference completely. If that happens, I can't imagine I continue to follow this sport for long.
I agree with you. If the idea is to destroy traditional college football to set up a junior/minor league NFL all for the sake of $$, I wont follow the sport anymore either. I have already stopped watching the SEC games.
I love satire. You assume that all the northwest . bay area schools would prefer to leave the PAC? And NO conference wants to pick up four or six additional programs....except for the Big 12 who desperately needs some markets. Make me GOD and I would take Utah, the Oregon, Washington schools and anyone else who wanted to stay. I would require a 4-6 year contractual commitment. Would be nice to keep the current 10 and call it good. I would even be fine with a PAC 8. Expansion for expansion sake is fog. If the Big 10 is so valuable why are they expanding at all? I guess Fox begged them to. The 10 already has at least four, or more programs that contribute nothing to the conference value. Add Rutgers for the NY market? What a joke. Take a train into the city and go find a Rutgers football bar. I think the cable guys are getting stupid. This is the same bunch that brings us Thursday night NFL games. First significant ratings loser with more to come. At least the NFL does NOT work hard to screw its fellow programs like CFB does. All pretty sad
Looking at that list, all but ASU and Nebraska are AAU members. No other conference like it in terms of academics, which we all know doesn't matter to those pulling the strings at Fox/ESPN. Still, that would be closer to the old Pac/Big ideal than anything else could be.
Oh, and John, thank you for these columns.
You are providing meaningful insight that I am not finding anywhere else.
Can't wait to read Yogi's book. Agreed the B1G is the biggest threat. I wouldn't say the "only" threat though. Any and all organizations attempting to shut out other conferences from the playoff are a threat. If the PAC-N can secure an automatic bid in an expanded playoff this somewhat mitigates the threat from the B1G somewhat.
If some media platform wanted a merger between the Pac12/Big12 and suggested a tiered
payout with the least amount being 35 million per school I wonder if they would sign on?
Working with the thought that it is the number of viewers that matters to the networks....The thing that always bothered me about the Big12 is where was the extra money. Often they would reference how much they get with their TV deal but aren't they in a similar situation with 2 major programs leaving? Or are they hoping people are overlooking that point?
If the Pac12/10 gets low balled on their TV offer shouldn't it stand to mean the Big12 following there after would likely be similar and potentially split between more teams? If so to me the Big12's gambit has to be the demise of the Pac12 or else their the Pac12 likely sets their media rights as well.
On the Big 10 front, I wonder. Right now in America it is hard to find consensus on anything that involves more than 2 people (and even then that doesn't work sometimes). Imagine putting even more University presidents in a room together to come up with one statement that they all support? I cannot help but wonder if this is the reason the SEC who touts their need for 75% to vote in favor of major changes seeks regionality and fears expanding. If 8 out of 24 disagree then you almost have enough to break away for a new conference ... could this be what David Shaw was referring to?
Actually the Big 12 is in a much weaker position. Not just because they lost Okla and Tex. They have almost no other major markets to themselves. The Texas teams and Florida teams they are picking up will NOT deliver high viewrship from those states. This would be like picking up Fresno State and claiming the LA market. A smaller PAC with the Seattle , Portland, Bay area markets would be significant. Its not just population, its demographics. The Portland market is much more valuable than the Orlando market considering demographics. Its not just about ratings....
At this stage, which schools in the conference don’t have collectives? Is it anticipated they will, or is it just so culturally out of tune with those places it won’t happen? Seems they’re increasingly becoming table stakes for being a P5 program, and you can see a world where that becomes the dividing line in forming the superconference.