HickoryFlameFrog
Active Member
In answer to the question posed by the OP,
Sorry to report that after a minimal search I haven’t seen your plates.
Sorry to report that after a minimal search I haven’t seen your plates.
I wonder how many times a variation of this joke has been told over the 9623 pages on this thread? Maybe once every 100 pages?In answer to the question posed by the OP,
Sorry to report that after a minimal search I haven’t seen your plates.
I call next.I wonder how many times a variation of this joke has been told over the 9623 pages on this thread? Maybe once every 100 pages?
You’re in the club. Welcome to the thread!Yeah, I didn’t go back a hundred but it just seemed like it was about due. Just wanted to feel like I was contributing in a meaningful way to such a significant thread. Actually just bored waiting to watch the BB game.
TV consultants have them dreaming about a top 25 SMU team vs Oregon and how well that will draw in the DFW market. You also have the assumed brand impact and improved recruiting with a “base” in Texas.@Gary's Shirtless Revenge , What's all the noise about with SMU and the PAC meeting tomorrow? How is it possible that SMU could add value to any TV deal the PAC may be pursuing. Are their best offers that low?
TV consultants have them dreaming about a top 25 SMU team vs Oregon and how well that will draw in the DFW market. You also have the assumed brand impact and improved recruiting with a “base” in Texas.
I’d also imagine they must be thinking of keeping the PAC network so this could also be a distribution fee play.
TV consultants have them dreaming about a top 25 SMU team vs Oregon and how well that will draw in the DFW market. You also have the assumed brand impact and improved recruiting with a “base” in Texas.
I’d also imagine they must be thinking of keeping the PAC network so this could also be a distribution fee play.
Would this keep all the other PAC members happy or night there still be some defections?TV consultants have them dreaming about a top 25 SMU team vs Oregon and how well that will draw in the DFW market. You also have the assumed brand impact and improved recruiting with a “base” in Texas.
I’d also imagine they must be thinking of keeping the PAC network so this could also be a distribution fee play.
Has it sailed? I know BY was/is open to it but only on the Big 12’s terms. The only ship that doesn’t sail is a partnership, one conference would lead at the end of the day. I think there are just too many voices in the PAC against it to make it happen, and in general executives (GK) don’t bring forth big ideas that result in them losing their jobs…Sounds like in a similar way how a lot in the big 12 are dreaming of a Top a Top 25 TCU/Texas Tech/Baylor vs. a Top 10 Houston in H-Town. It's a long term gamble.
Instead of tanking the PAC, would it behoove the Big 12 to move to more of mutual benefit relationship? If yes, has that ship sailed. If no, is the Pac in a better position than us?
Honestly that’s what I’ve thought all along… Oregon is excited to add SMU? Here’s a thought… maybe they are thinking SMU and SDSU are so desperate to join the league that SMU/SDSU will take a crazy buy-in offer, essentially never get full share revenue during this next TV contract term, and thus the other members get to split what value they do bring as new members amongst themselves. It’d probably be more money than what the AAC is getting still, and certainly more prestige and brand awareness, so SMU might just say yes to that?Would this keep all the other PAC members happy or night there still be some defections?
Of course those whores would.Honestly that’s what I’ve thought all along… Oregon is excited to add SMU? Here’s a thought… maybe they are thinking SMU and SDSU are so desperate to join the league that SMU/SDSU will take a crazy buy-in offer, essentially never get full share revenue during this next TV contract term, and thus the other members get to split what value they do bring as new members amongst themselves. It’d probably be more money than what the AAC is getting still, and certainly more prestige and brand awareness, so SMU might just say yes to that?
*hookersOf course those whores would.
There used to be 5 more.*hookers
Do Oregon and Washington have enough clout to get near $40MM/year if they went independent? Just trying to gauge how much leverage they really have to command disparate revenue distribution from their peers. Because unless they could leave and go independent I just don't understand why/how Utah/Colorado/Arizonas don't see demonstrably better revenue opportunity with the B12 if the two power brokers get what they want. And if any of those schools leaves and has to be replaced with more G5s I just don't understand how Amazon would have any interest in paying the PAC $300MM a year. They would basically be taking the position that Oregon and Washington were worth about $200MM of that on their own even if they're playing G5s. If that was the case then those two should just go the independent route. None of this makes sense.Honestly that’s what I’ve thought all along… Oregon is excited to add SMU? Here’s a thought… maybe they are thinking SMU and SDSU are so desperate to join the league that SMU/SDSU will take a crazy buy-in offer, essentially never get full share revenue during this next TV contract term, and thus the other members get to split what value they do bring as new members amongst themselves. It’d probably be more money than what the AAC is getting still, and certainly more prestige and brand awareness, so SMU might just say yes to that?
Keep in mind what somebody is worth is different than what somebody will get paid. There are times and reasons why, when you go to monetize a widget, you get less cash than what that widget might be fairly valued at, and vice-versa.Do Oregon and Washington have enough clout to get near $40MM/year if they went independent? Just trying to gauge how much leverage they really have to command disparate revenue distribution from their peers. Because unless they could leave and go independent I just don't understand why/how Utah/Colorado/Arizonas don't see demonstrably better revenue opportunity with the B12 if the two power brokers get what they want. And if any of those schools leaves and has to be replaced with more G5s I just don't understand how Amazon would have any interest in paying the PAC $300MM a year. They would basically be taking the position that Oregon and Washington were worth about $200MM of that on their own even if they're playing G5s. If that was the case then those two should just go the independent route. None of this makes sense.
They don't want to associate with us due to our low academic standards. And our lack of "destination" campuses. They have LA (oops), SF, Portland, Seattle, SLC, Denver, Phoenix and Tucson. We have West Dallas, Houston, Orlando, KC and SLC. They don't seem to care for Lubbock, Waco, Stillwater, Ames, Cincinnati, and Morgantown.Keep in mind what somebody is worth is different than what somebody will get paid. There are times and reasons why, when you go to monetize a widget, you get less cash than what that widget might be fairly valued at, and vice-versa.
ORE and WASH are absolutely both worth significantly more than the bottom four members of that conference. There is a weird middle tier that’s hard to evaluate, and I’m sure those are really the folks who would adamantly stand against any significant revenue distribution changes.
Remember, Presidents and Chancellors make these decisions, and they think about more than just athletics. Many of these folks just don’t want to be in the Big 12 due to the “reputation” hit they think will happen to their academic institution, and/or there are some schools who are still thinking about “amateurism” and just aren’t committed to the path CFB is on currently. By that I mean, moving to being a semi-professional sport where the players have an economic arrangement with the schools.