• The KillerFrogs

Has anyone seen my specialty plates?

Finally had a minute to go pull this... Purely media-value rankings of remaining PAC 10 members, ignoring all other factors and adjusted for 2025 market size estimates:

1. Oregon
2. Washington
3. Cal
4. Arizona State
5. Utah
6. Colorado
7. Arizona
8. Oregon State
9. Stanford
10. Washington State
 

Eight

Member
Finally had a minute to go pull this... Purely media-value rankings of remaining PAC 10 members, ignoring all other factors and adjusted for 2025 market size estimates:

1. Oregon
2. Washington
3. Cal
4. Arizona State
5. Utah
6. Colorado
7. Arizona
8. Oregon State
9. Stanford
10. Washington State

how does cal carry a higher value that stanford and i would guess by a large margin since they are behind oregon state?
 
So, about that loose partnership between the ACC and PAC... This is the same discussion, literally, that the Alliance had last year. ESPN did the due diligence on it and came away with a clear opinion that it wasn't worth it, and that it was deeply complicated by the presence of the ACC and PAC networks and FOX's presence in the deal. Add to that what I have told you before, that ESPN is highly incentivized to see the current ACC contract remain, and as a result I find this reporting to be dubious. It *feels* like a leak from the PAC commish to try and head off negative headlines about members leaving.

Now, I could be wrong... Just as university presidents sometimes make bad economic decisions, sometimes network executives ignore their data and hired consultants (ahem) and just make "bold decisions" that have "vision" and [ #2020 ] like that. This could be one of those times! Possibly, ESPN is thinking they could grab the PAC and ACC together, lock them into their long-term ACC agreement with a slight boost in fees to make them happy, add more content for the ACC Network and ESPN+ in the process, and essentially form a new Power 3: BIG, SEC, ACC. Now, as I said, this doesn't seem likely to me given what I know, but it isn't impossible. It just seems like something the leagues would want to happen far more than the networks, and by leagues, I really mean the PAC far more than the ACC... I'd have to imagine the bottom ~8 members of the ACC are scared to even talk about changing their TV deal as it might allow some lawyer to figure out how to break out of it.

Also, about those press releases you saw from the four PAC members... I looked into that, and that has to do with their GOR and PAC bylaws. They all signed (including UW and UO) a LOI recently and initiated a contractual period of renegotiation with FOX/ESPN, which had the legal effect of pausing defections for thirty days because if any member left during this period they could be liable for damages and violating their agreements with the league. Once this window ends (and I'd guess the chances they don't get a deal are 99%), everyone is a free agent again. I imagine outside counsel at, for instance Colorado, advised their board to play dumb immediately to fight off any concern that they were violating their covenants.
Based on the level of smoke out there, seems like it may in fact be true and some ESPN executives have decided to try and play this game out.
 

HG73

Active Member
They can try but I don’t see a pac team turning down significantly more money.. especially if everyone there knows oregon and UW want out regardless and will take the first opportunity they get
What kind of TV deal will the PAC10 get, even with an alliance (of suckers) with the ACC? Can it be anywhere near what the Big12 will get? Without USC/UCLA? I think not.
 

Paul in uhh

Active Member
What kind of TV deal will the PAC10 get, even with an alliance (of suckers) with the ACC? Can it be anywhere near what the Big12 will get? Without USC/UCLA? I think not.
One estimate on Twitter was 22M annually for everyone but oregon and UW; the one would earn 35ish. Unequal revenue sharing and you know the latter two would still be begging for a b10 invite
 

HG73

Active Member
One estimate on Twitter was 22M annually for everyone but oregon and UW; the one would earn 35ish. Unequal revenue sharing and you know the latter two would still be begging for a b10 invite
And the Big12 estimate is close to $60M? Last gasp for the PAC. Even college presidents can understand that.
 

TCUdirtbag

Active Member
And the Big12 estimate is close to $60M? Last gasp for the PAC. Even college presidents can understand that.
Will defer to GSR, but don’t believe the Big 12 is looking at anything near $60M. The total (record high) distribution this year (media + bowls & CFP + ncaa) was about $43M. And that’s with UT sand OU in the fold.
 
Will defer to GSR, but don’t believe the Big 12 is looking at anything near $60M. The total (record high) distribution this year (media + bowls & CFP + ncaa) was about $43M. And that’s with UT sand OU in the fold.
All these numbers get mixed up because some people quote MEDIA RIGHTS per member and some quote total conference distribution per member, which includes media rights fees plus NCAA revenue, bowl revenue, CFP revenue, and other conference revenue like ticket sales at championship events.

Could the new Big 12 see $60 in total conference distribution per member by the end of its new deal? Yes. Media rights might be 55-60% of that, or less.

Keep in mind, people like me do estimates like these every day but you can only earn what somebody will actually pay... Who is going to pay the Big 12? Will there be any tradeoffs to achieve that? This is where the networks have such a heavy hand.
 

tcudoc

Full Member

AgitatedAccurateHarborseal-size_restricted.gif
 

MAcFroggy

Active Member
Finally had a minute to go pull this... Purely media-value rankings of remaining PAC 10 members, ignoring all other factors and adjusted for 2025 market size estimates:

1. Oregon
2. Washington
3. Cal
4. Arizona State
5. Utah
6. Colorado
7. Arizona
8. Oregon State
9. Stanford
10. Washington State

How would this look for the big 12 schools?
 
Top