Bro...Those aren't PODS. It's all the BIG12 schools in alphabetical order.
He even used the font...
Bro...Those aren't PODS. It's all the BIG12 schools in alphabetical order.
I have a ton of respect for Klatt but I disagree with that take to some extent. I have always felt the PAC12 Network was a huge problem mostly because they did it without a media partner. Because of that they ended up with poor exposure, bad scheduling (night games when most of the country was in bed) which resulted in PAC12 fans and schools very upset and minimal income. USC was complaining years ago how lack of exposure was hurting recruiting - West coast recruits were no longer a USC or UCLA lock but going to other conferences for the exposure. I believe if they had started the PACN with a media partner, they would not be where they are today.Klatt talked about how while other leagues designed their scheduling to promote top programs and playoff berths, the Pac 12 pretty much scheduled to promote parity, which is partly why we haven’t seen the Pac 12 represented in the CFP much.
The new Big 12 is going to have natural parity, will likely only have two or so CFP representatives in a given year, and be a conference with fun, competitive matchups.
Translation "We wish they had added some teams that are as slow as we are, physically and mentally."
why don't you call him the party pooper now?I was told and confirmed they got full shares but I had COVID information it seems. Thanks!
The podcast is 15 minutes long and he spent about 8-10 minutes talking about exactly that. The Pac 12’s decision to not partner with a major distributor when they had the chance is the reason for their downfall. “Owning 100% of $1 instead of 50% of $20” is the way he put it.I have a ton of respect for Klatt but I disagree with that take to some extent. I have always felt the PAC12 Network was a huge problem mostly because they did it without a media partner. Because of that they ended up with poor exposure, bad scheduling (night games when most of the country was in bed) which resulted in PAC12 fans and schools very upset and minimal income. USC was complaining years ago how lack of exposure was hurting recruiting - West coast recruits were no longer a USC or UCLA lock but going to other conferences for the exposure. I believe if they had started the PACN with a media partner, they would not be where they are today.
NoHowever the current Pac-4 and merging conference end up, don’t they HAVE TO keep the “Pac” name in order to remain a “power” conference for auto but to the CFP?
Or is everyone going to see through that and they’re screwed?
Asking from a technical/legal perspective, not a “talking out ass” perspective.
I think there are now 6 or so teams any one of which could have a big breakout season in any given year, but right now I don’t see that a dominant powerhouse is going to develop and maintain that role. That’s good for the conference IMO.Klatt talked about how while other leagues designed their scheduling to promote top programs and playoff berths, the Pac 12 pretty much scheduled to promote parity, which is partly why we haven’t seen the Pac 12 represented in the CFP much.
The new Big 12 is going to have natural parity, will likely only have two or so CFP representatives in a given year, and be a conference with fun, competitive matchups.
He was also playing with a losing hand. From my perspective, it's hard to conclude that someone else should have been expected to fare much better.It is now pretty obvious why George Kliavkoff did not want to present his media deal numbers. Rumor was ESPN offered them initially $28.5 Million per team per year during the exclusive period but the PAC turned it down because they thought they were being lowballed and were shooting for $50 Million believing they were worth a lot more than they were in reality. The trouble was the market place had shifted and they were not attuned with it. Kliavkoff gets no pass from me, he was supposedly media savvy but turned out to be an idiot.
Keep in mind, that this was the guy that was right.Those aren't PODS. It's all the BIG12 schools in alphabetical order.
It’s a good bet that TCU, T Tech, and Okie State will be highly competitive most every Saturday.With Coach Prime bringing CU back to being good I can see CU, UU and KSU as the premier teams in football.
It’s a good bet that TCU, T Tech, and Okie State will be highly competitive most every Saturday.
Klatt talked about how while other leagues designed their scheduling to promote top programs and playoff berths, the Pac 12 pretty much scheduled to promote parity, which is partly why we haven’t seen the Pac 12 represented in the CFP much.
The new Big 12 is going to have natural parity, will likely only have two or so CFP representatives in a given year, and be a conference with fun, competitive matchups.
Klatt is a pretty sharp guy and he is right in this regard.I have a ton of respect for Klatt but I disagree with that take to some extent. I have always felt the PAC12 Network was a huge problem mostly because they did it without a media partner. Because of that they ended up with poor exposure, bad scheduling (night games when most of the country was in bed) which resulted in PAC12 fans and schools very upset and minimal income. USC was complaining years ago how lack of exposure was hurting recruiting - West coast recruits were no longer a USC or UCLA lock but going to other conferences for the exposure. I believe if they had started the PACN with a media partner, they would not be where they are today.
Considering that the MWC was paying between $3-4 million per school they remain an option for cheap programming.After the networks devour the ACC, I suspect the MWC will be next.
Assuming the AAC picks up the PAC-4 schools, they will be going after SDSU, Boise State, CSU, and Air Force.
I don’t think Fox will have any interest in the MWC after getting USC, UCLA, UO, and UW.
They haven’t won more than 8 games since Leach, however, they’re a dark horse to win the Big 12 this yearTCU and OSU have a good shot for sure. TTech has been a model of mediocrity since the Pirate was fired.
CU would have taken that B1G deal. We'd have taken less, actually. A major university and its boosters can weather 5+ years of AD budget shortfalls. And the number is just on media revenue. They will get a full share of other conference revenues.I still can’t get over the deal UW and UO are taking to get into the B1G. I guess if I were them, I’d be excited and it’s not like they had much of choice anyway. But it’s crazy to me to agree to make maybe as much money one day as the BIG12/ACC schools, which would still only put you at half the money of all the teams you’re actually playing against are making. Really the only benefit of this for them is that maybe they’ll get the same deal with the same conference structure that Rutgers gets now, in eight years. It seems like a pretty steep price to pay for ruining the competitiveness of your athletic program and becoming a cucked mockery for a decade.
It was easy to make sense of the unpopular direction college football was taking when the parties involved all benefited financially. When the schools start losing that benefit or are gambling their future on maybe having it, it does feel to me like a huge step towards finally breaking the whole thing and UW and UO will be the poster children of decisions that truly became illogical.
Considering that the MWC was paying between $3-4 million per school they remain an option for cheap programming.
AAC has been paying close to $7 million per school. Question is will ESPN be willing to sweeten the pot enough to pay that much to eight additional schools.
Also a real question at this point if Stanford and Cal want to continue to try to compete at the highest level. I could easily see Stanford deciding to go the route of the Ivies and Cal following them.
Yes Cal has a huge stadium debt and both schools have some wealthy alums who want to see them continue at FBS but getting left out of the big media money doesn't help them in any way.
You’re probably right about CU right now, especially with Prime, but we’ve never seen the shortfall and deficit that Oregon and Washington are going to experience vs their new conference peers. It’s going to be $40-$50m/year shortfall.CU would have taken that B1G deal. We'd have taken less, actually. A major university and its boosters can weather 5+ years of AD budget shortfalls. And the number is just on media revenue. They will get a full share of other conference revenues.
Given a choice between staying in a dying PAC, going to a second level B12, or taking a deal with the B1G that makes you a second class citizen for multiple years but still pays better than the other two options it isn't a hard choice and if Colorado had been given it I would fully expect us to take it as well.I still can’t get over the deal UW and UO are taking to get into the B1G. I guess if I were them, I’d be excited and it’s not like they had much of choice anyway. But it’s crazy to me to agree to make maybe as much money one day as the BIG12/ACC schools, which would still only put you at half the money of all the teams you’re actually playing against are making. Really the only benefit of this for them is that maybe they’ll get the same deal with the same conference structure that Rutgers gets now, in eight years. It seems like a pretty steep price to pay for ruining the competitiveness of your athletic program and becoming a cucked mockery for a decade.
It was easy to make sense of the unpopular direction college football was taking when the parties involved all benefited financially. When the schools start losing that benefit or are gambling their future on maybe having it, it does feel to me like a huge step towards finally breaking the whole thing and UW and UO will be the poster children of decisions that truly became illogical.
You’re probably right about CU right now, especially with Prime, but we’ve never seen the shortfall and deficit that Oregon and Washington are going to experience vs their new conference peers. It’s going to be $40-$50m/year shortfall.
Wait...isn't UCLA paying Cal a share of their B1G money? Maybe that will help out with the stadium debt. I think that stadium debt thing is being overplayed by social media and that is something that the school can be told to cover since those earthquake retrofits are not necessarily
ESPN has no west coast programming...they will have to pony up before Fox thinks about ponying up to the MWC to keep ESPN off the west coast. I know it's a petty competition between Fox and Disney.
As for the Ivy league, I would think establishing a west coast Ivy League would be a better way to go or they simply go to the WCC and go independent in football. I think Stanford & Cal would earn more from their local media deals than what the AAC is paying their schools (I think it's closer to $12-15M and ESPN could bump that up to $20M if those four join).
Also MHver had more to say this morning: