I think USC and UCLA will ultimately push for more west coast partners to be included in the B1G once travel costs start piling up. UW and Oregon might not be going now but they will be eventually, and hopefully Cal can hitch a ride. Everyone's thinking it.
So I think the calculus we're seeing is whether the Four Corners schools consider it more valuable to stay put until that time comes or to preemptively jump ship. The equation seems to have tilted in favor of maintaining the PAC for a few more years for the time being.
I expect Pac-12 After Dark viewership to dip, not because the audience is smaller but because the B1G is definitely going to be doing their best to cut into that market. At least half of the LA schools' home games are going to be night games, meaning we'll be seeing a B1G night game in maybe 8 of the 13 weeks of the regular season.
I think the only certainty we can count on is that TV money will decide how all this turns out. FOX and ESPN are calling the shots now. Certainly not individual schools. Not conferences either (unless they happen to want what the TV money wants). The spiraling cost of running a football program has made schools more & more dependant on TV money; Like any addict, getting your next fix becomes all consuming.
Except that Utah, Cal aren't even wanted by the Big 12 (they have BYU) and Stanford is only valuable to the Big Ten if it helps them get Notre Dame. The only valuable schools in the Pac are UW and UO, and both will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten in three years.
Except that Utah, Cal aren't even wanted by the Big 12 (they have BYU) and Stanford is only valuable to the Big Ten if it helps them get Notre Dame. The only valuable schools in the Pac are UW and UO, and both will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten in three years.
Except that Utah, Cal aren't even wanted by the Big 12 (they have BYU) and Stanford is only valuable to the Big Ten if it helps them get Notre Dame. The only valuable schools in the Pac are UW and UO, and both will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten in three years.
So basically no one does anything until the Big 10 decides on further expansion. A lot of this also might be contingent on the ACC and whether or not their top schools can get poached. And all of it depends on Notre Dame.
I just don't see why the BIG would want any other schools (except maybe ND). For admission, a school would need to bring $75M-$100M annual media rights value just to pull their own weight, let alone add value to the conference. No remaining PAC or BIG12 school can do this. And similarly, it looks like the 10 remaining PAC schools together still have more media value than the BIG12, maybe in the $30M range. So the only move for the PAC and individual schools is to find something, anything better to make a move. Otherwise, it's better to stand pat.
It feels inevitable that these conferences will do away with equal revenue share though, making it more realistic to expand. They already somewhat do it for new members by ramping it yearly (see Rutgers in B1G), but it only makes sense to restructure this entirely (even for their current members), if and when the legal mechanisms allow for it.
In the near term, yes. But in the long term, if the SEC starts to gobble up more teams then there could be an escalated arms race between them (ESPN) and the B1G (Fox) and now their motivation is to get the best brands/markets before the other guy does. Then programs like Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal become more important. Big brands, big markets.
Here we have it. According to Wilner, the remaining PAC schools have more media value than the remaining Big12 schools. 1.0 rating equated to 1.5 million households:
Number of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 30
Pac-12: 64
Percentage of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 27.7%
Pac-12: 58.7%
Number of games with a 2.0 rating (3.5 million viewers) that did not include departing teams:
Very deceiving stats actually. The ratings game will change dramatically when the new B12 teams are added. BYU and The LA schools will cut into the after dark monopoly of the time slot the PAC has currently. The other 3 are in major markets like Houston and Orlando plus Cincy is an NFL city as well. Give them a P5 schedule and those ratings will go way up. The P10 doesn’t have any So Cal schools now to help prop up the ratings either soon. Once the dust settles the ratings differences are going to narrow or go away all together.
I could see it going either way. If B1G schedules some of the big marquee matchups in the after dark time slot (i.e. Ohio State vs USC) it would certainly pull away some eyeballs from the Pac-12 games. But I suspect a game like that would get a much better time slot if only because the viewership numbers are going to be a lot bigger and a game like that will compete well against the SEC matchups.
So if that means we end up with USC vs Rutgers in the after dark time slot, I just don't think that is going to be compelling enough match-up to keep Midwest and east coast viewers up late at night, and it is certainly not going to pull away too many PAC-12 fans who are likely the bulk of the after dark viewership.
I also think it is going to take a few years, if not more, for inter-conference rivalries to build. I imagine USC vs Cal draws a fair number of eyeballs, despite the fact that most years that is not a very competitive match-up. What is going to replace that when they are in the B1G? It will probably be a few years, possibly even a decade, before some of these lower key rivalries form. And in the meantime, we are probably going to see some Pac-12 teams step up to fill the void left behind by USC and UCLA (hopefully Cal), and that could trigger a resurgence in the fan bases for those schools and that could potentially make up for some of the viewership that we lost in LA. Unlike the Big-12, we have a lot of big public schools in our conference and fan engagement would likely increase significantly from those schools if a more competitive team emerges from this chaos. Probably just wishful thinking, but I definitely could see how a post-USC/UCAL Pac-12 could work out better for us.
I like how you included Cal in your list of examples! :) But still, doesn't the SEC have the same calculus --- any potential new school would need to bring $X million media value to the table. Plus, the ACC is locked in for like the next 30 years and none of the PAC/Big12 have that level of value, otherwise they probably would've invited them already.
I'm not sure how "locked in" the ACC really is. There's a penalty for leaving early, but at some point the penalty might become worth it.
I included Cal in the list because I'm looking at Pac-12 teams only. You could possibly include the Arizona schools in there too (Phoenix is getting pretty big).
Anyway, the point is that these things can shift pretty quickly.
The issue is not how much money a school will make by leaving the ACC. The issue is how many schools will make money by leaving. If 8 schools vote to leave the conference is toast and no one pays anything to go.
I don't think you're going to hear anything interesting. I think all you'll hear from Cal (and Stanfurd and UW and Oregon) is going to be platitudes supporting the Pac-12 while desperately waiting for that Big 10 invite, cause there is nothing appealing about the Big-12 or the ACC.
I would suspect he’ll have say something when they have their annual Pac-12 conference meetings later this week, although I suspect to hear a lot of rah-rah “We’re committed to the Pac-12 and we’re in a great position going forward” speak.
I think USC and UCLA will ultimately push for more west coast partners to be included in the B1G once travel costs start piling up. UW and Oregon might not be going now but they will be eventually, and hopefully Cal can hitch a ride. Everyone's thinking it.
So I think the calculus we're seeing is whether the Four Corners schools consider it more valuable to stay put until that time comes or to preemptively jump ship. The equation seems to have tilted in favor of maintaining the PAC for a few more years for the time being.
I expect Pac-12 After Dark viewership to dip, not because the audience is smaller but because the B1G is definitely going to be doing their best to cut into that market. At least half of the LA schools' home games are going to be night games, meaning we'll be seeing a B1G night game in maybe 8 of the 13 weeks of the regular season.
Great point.
A Pac, ACC, Notre Dame merger would be ideal here. They would cover all time zones and have content all day.
The more that WSU and OSU get optimistic, the less that I feel optimistic for Cal.
Cal. Stanford, Oregon and Washington to Big 10.
WSU, OSU, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah to Big 12.
Done!
I think the only certainty we can count on is that TV money will decide how all this turns out. FOX and ESPN are calling the shots now. Certainly not individual schools. Not conferences either (unless they happen to want what the TV money wants). The spiraling cost of running a football program has made schools more & more dependant on TV money; Like any addict, getting your next fix becomes all consuming.
Except that Utah, Cal aren't even wanted by the Big 12 (they have BYU) and Stanford is only valuable to the Big Ten if it helps them get Notre Dame. The only valuable schools in the Pac are UW and UO, and both will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten in three years.
The Utah BYU rivalry is always a big draw. I think the Big 12 would take them if they have the chance, but it seems like Utah prefers the PAC12.
Yeah that may be. I just keep reading mainly about the Arizona schools and possibly CU, but the Holy War would be an asset for them no doubt.
Yeah, I think the Big12 would love to have Utah, ASU, UofA and Colorado.
Except that Utah, Cal aren't even wanted by the Big 12 (they have BYU) and Stanford is only valuable to the Big Ten if it helps them get Notre Dame. The only valuable schools in the Pac are UW and UO, and both will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten in three years.
Except that Utah, Cal aren't even wanted by the Big 12 (they have BYU) and Stanford is only valuable to the Big Ten if it helps them get Notre Dame. The only valuable schools in the Pac are UW and UO, and both will either be in the Big 12 or Big Ten in three years.
So basically no one does anything until the Big 10 decides on further expansion. A lot of this also might be contingent on the ACC and whether or not their top schools can get poached. And all of it depends on Notre Dame.
I just don't see why the BIG would want any other schools (except maybe ND). For admission, a school would need to bring $75M-$100M annual media rights value just to pull their own weight, let alone add value to the conference. No remaining PAC or BIG12 school can do this. And similarly, it looks like the 10 remaining PAC schools together still have more media value than the BIG12, maybe in the $30M range. So the only move for the PAC and individual schools is to find something, anything better to make a move. Otherwise, it's better to stand pat.
It feels inevitable that these conferences will do away with equal revenue share though, making it more realistic to expand. They already somewhat do it for new members by ramping it yearly (see Rutgers in B1G), but it only makes sense to restructure this entirely (even for their current members), if and when the legal mechanisms allow for it.
In the near term, yes. But in the long term, if the SEC starts to gobble up more teams then there could be an escalated arms race between them (ESPN) and the B1G (Fox) and now their motivation is to get the best brands/markets before the other guy does. Then programs like Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal become more important. Big brands, big markets.
Here we have it. According to Wilner, the remaining PAC schools have more media value than the remaining Big12 schools. 1.0 rating equated to 1.5 million households:
Number of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 30
Pac-12: 64
Percentage of games with 1.0 rating that did not include any departing teams:
Big 12: 27.7%
Pac-12: 58.7%
Number of games with a 2.0 rating (3.5 million viewers) that did not include departing teams:
Big 12: 9
Pac-12: 17
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/pac-12/tv-ratings-suggest-pac-12-has-advantage-over-big-12-but-will-it-come-out-swinging-this-week/
Very deceiving stats actually. The ratings game will change dramatically when the new B12 teams are added. BYU and The LA schools will cut into the after dark monopoly of the time slot the PAC has currently. The other 3 are in major markets like Houston and Orlando plus Cincy is an NFL city as well. Give them a P5 schedule and those ratings will go way up. The P10 doesn’t have any So Cal schools now to help prop up the ratings either soon. Once the dust settles the ratings differences are going to narrow or go away all together.
I could see it going either way. If B1G schedules some of the big marquee matchups in the after dark time slot (i.e. Ohio State vs USC) it would certainly pull away some eyeballs from the Pac-12 games. But I suspect a game like that would get a much better time slot if only because the viewership numbers are going to be a lot bigger and a game like that will compete well against the SEC matchups.
So if that means we end up with USC vs Rutgers in the after dark time slot, I just don't think that is going to be compelling enough match-up to keep Midwest and east coast viewers up late at night, and it is certainly not going to pull away too many PAC-12 fans who are likely the bulk of the after dark viewership.
I also think it is going to take a few years, if not more, for inter-conference rivalries to build. I imagine USC vs Cal draws a fair number of eyeballs, despite the fact that most years that is not a very competitive match-up. What is going to replace that when they are in the B1G? It will probably be a few years, possibly even a decade, before some of these lower key rivalries form. And in the meantime, we are probably going to see some Pac-12 teams step up to fill the void left behind by USC and UCLA (hopefully Cal), and that could trigger a resurgence in the fan bases for those schools and that could potentially make up for some of the viewership that we lost in LA. Unlike the Big-12, we have a lot of big public schools in our conference and fan engagement would likely increase significantly from those schools if a more competitive team emerges from this chaos. Probably just wishful thinking, but I definitely could see how a post-USC/UCAL Pac-12 could work out better for us.
I like how you included Cal in your list of examples! :) But still, doesn't the SEC have the same calculus --- any potential new school would need to bring $X million media value to the table. Plus, the ACC is locked in for like the next 30 years and none of the PAC/Big12 have that level of value, otherwise they probably would've invited them already.
I'm not sure how "locked in" the ACC really is. There's a penalty for leaving early, but at some point the penalty might become worth it.
I included Cal in the list because I'm looking at Pac-12 teams only. You could possibly include the Arizona schools in there too (Phoenix is getting pretty big).
Anyway, the point is that these things can shift pretty quickly.
And Cal/Stanford are in the no. 6 media market, according to this site:
6 San Francisco-
Oakland-
San Jose 2.653M Warriors 49ers Giants, A’s Sharks
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nba-market-size-nfl-mlb-nhl-nielsen-ratings/
And if you added Sacramento to that calculation it looks even better.
The issue is not how much money a school will make by leaving the ACC. The issue is how many schools will make money by leaving. If 8 schools vote to leave the conference is toast and no one pays anything to go.
I’m not sure what Knowlton would even say, but I’m itching to hear something, anything from Cal
I don't think you're going to hear anything interesting. I think all you'll hear from Cal (and Stanfurd and UW and Oregon) is going to be platitudes supporting the Pac-12 while desperately waiting for that Big 10 invite, cause there is nothing appealing about the Big-12 or the ACC.
I would suspect he’ll have say something when they have their annual Pac-12 conference meetings later this week, although I suspect to hear a lot of rah-rah “We’re committed to the Pac-12 and we’re in a great position going forward” speak.
It will be interesting to here what commissioner George says on Friday morning. Hopefully a shiny new TV deal announcement, but probably not.