Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hurtlocker

  1. Exactly, and they pay for it with late night games. Oregon/Washington, if they were two of that four, may actually increase the payout. If not immediately, definitely in 2031.
  2. Yeah and they're not available. Oregon/Wash are the two biggest brands in the Pac, but Colorado/Arizona are in the tier right below them. If you get Arizona you could be done, looks good on a map, better brands than Houston, and increases your footprint in more populated areas. At that point, will Oregon and Washington want to wait it out 6 years for a B1G invite when one may never come? ND is the crown jewel of their desire and may want UVA/UNC over you, not to mention Stanford in your own conference. Also, the B1G, like the SEC, has absolutely ZERO need to expand past 16. They control the current narrative and literally any add besides ND waters down their power. So do you sit it out adding Boise's and SMUs and the like, or do you make the jump to your second-best long-term option, though best short term, and become THE brand in a 16 team conference that gives you games you can win all over the nation? The fact that the Pac allowed itself to get here is a stunning failure, far worse than the old B12 being unable to work as a team. Instead of working against each other, they destroyed what they had as a team. And now a couple will have an option and are fighting against teammates to survive. Whoever doesn't win out has no option left, but relegation.
  3. Yeah, should this be legit, it isn't USC or Texas moving, but its still a major deal. Its passing the instability hat to the Pac 12, who now will have lost three members in a year with little to no options to stop the bleeding. They could have stuck together at ten, but at nine, they can't. Colorado doesn't have the brand value of Texas, but it has a brand value and that is leaps and bounds ahead of any G5 school. So not only did the B12 pick up a geographically attached Power Five school, it destabilized the Pac12 even more. The probability of other Pac schools now reaching out to the B12 are much, much greater than they were last week. And while nailing down an Oregon/Washington would possibly even add more value, just grabbing Arizona adds more brand cache to the conference. The Pac, on the other hand, is painted into a corner, literally. There are no P5 schools available to them to expand with. SDSU or SMU don't bring same value, let alone increasing it. So of the 9 who are left, how confident are you on your future? Its a bad place to be.
  4. That would surprise me, since Arizona's been noisy for months and the Pres didn't seem very loyal today when quoted. Then again, Oregon and Washington would shock the hell out of me too so...
  5. Yeah, the fuck, that would be like Pete Davidson swooping in to pick up the next random hotty on the rebound
  6. From the BuffaloWire, seems the PR machine is starting: Why returning to the Big 12 is right for Colorado
  7. Not really, but its the one year notice date. If Colorado leaves tomorrow, Friday should be something.
  8. Sources: Colorado Nearing Move to Big 12, With Others Potentially to Follow Colorado would be the first Power 5 team to switch conferences in the latest wave of realignment—and could soon be followed by a number of schools.
  9. twitter starting to sense blood in the water:
  10. But if I'm the B1G, i don't care about Oregon, I'm taking Stanford to lure ND so all their main rivals outside Army/Navy are now in the B1G. Also, more academic cache for those who give a fuck about graduate crap in an undergrad athletic conference.
  11. I had to read that statement a few times and process how the stability battle was lost by the Pac.
  12. They're not overpaying to facilitate the move. The move was facilitated by Fox getting Michigan/Texas. Most reports are that after the Pac decided to go to market, the B12 accepted a discount to lock in more slots and marketing.
  13. Its an anchor right now due to, as you mention, the sunkin cost fallacy. Could they write it off, yes, but most of these schools can barely weather a buyout, let alone owing more. But, I don't think they OWE $100m. What they lose is their investment in it. So if Colorado leaves, and the Pac sells the PACN for $100m, now they're splitting it 9 ways instead of 12 and Colorado nets nothing. My guess is someone is floating a potential sale, they see the value of this extra cash, and are unwilling to move until they know its real or not. If I'm the commish though, i'm not saying its real or not until after the last date you can give notice to ensure you're stuck with the deal. They need to consolidate it at a minimum and put less football on it, because the more they put on it the less they can sell. The B12 sells all their games and got $32m. That means the Pac needs to sell 60% of their games (40% currently goes to PacN) for $29m, since the remaining 40% is only paying out $3-4m currently. Or, they need it to pay out $10m/team, since 60% of the B12 deal is $20m. Here's part of the problem -subs per channel (carriage): Pac-12/National: 14.8 million ($0.13/mo) Pac-12/Los Angeles: 3.0 million ($0.73) Pac-12/Bay Area: 2.1 million ($0.80) Pac-12/Washington: 1.1 million ($0.98) Pac-12/Mountain: 1.0 million ($0.53) Pac-12/Arizona: 0.7 million ($0.91) Pac-12/Oregon: 0.6 million ($0.52) Wilner wrote this in March of 2021: Sound familiar?
  14. It does, all the season ticket holders got it for free too, but, like yours, someone paid for it - even if it was bought in bulk on a discount.
  15. They got 1m subscribers to MLS, mostly by financing it off the clubs paying for season ticket holders and then bringing in Messi. which brought in 300k new subscribers alone. Kind of agree they won't want to give away the big games. I think its far more likely they buy the PacNet and turn it into AppleSports to show MLS/MLB/Pac's biggest games for carriage than selling off the stuff people want to see. The trick is not losing your streaming audience in the process of gaining linear.
  16. I agree with all that. They're in a bad place being wedged into a geographic corner. If you're going to be wedged in, be wedged into the east, not the west. They do have enough sluggers though to get into the post season without USC. That's the interesting side angle to this moving to 12 thing. Most of the conversation is about who is going to dominate it. But there are going to be a lot of teams who start getting exposure they never had before in the B12 and Pac. Most brands are built over decades so, like Oregon 20-30 years ago, or FSU/Miami before them in the 80s-90s, someone is going to start getting a lot more eyeballs if they can take advantage of their situation.
  17. They don't really get a lot of exposure as it is and still put together recruiting classes and field teams. And, I'm not sure why you think they'd only get one team in with 12. There may be a cage match this year with Oregon, Washington, Utah and USC, with UCLA a definite spoiler. Remove the LA schools and they could still get multiple teams in the playoffs just as well as the B12 or ACC could. They're not getting three, but they've got the properties to fight for 2. Their issue is very basic: Keeping Oregon and Washington. Without them all of this conjuncture changes over night. Ridding themselves of the PacNet. If Oregon/Washington can't commit, there isn't enough to hold it together. If the Pac needs to keep supporting a handful of floundering linear stations they can't grow, then they'll never be able to maximize revenue. If those two things can be solved the rest is simple.
×
×
  • Create New...