The word is that ESPN wants the PAC12 deal badly AFTER they lost the BIG10 to Fox. And they want the west coast night games. ESPN used to own SEC, BIG10 & ACC. By losing BIG10 they just lost a boatload of revenue. I think by the time the deal is done and there are multiple media companies involved, the deal will be better than a lot o…
The word is that ESPN wants the PAC12 deal badly AFTER they lost the BIG10 to Fox. And they want the west coast night games. ESPN used to own SEC, BIG10 & ACC. By losing BIG10 they just lost a boatload of revenue. I think by the time the deal is done and there are multiple media companies involved, the deal will be better than a lot of naysayers are forecasting. And there are a lot of 'what ifs' in this story that really have no evidence to back up their premise. Let's wait and see what shakes out. Stay tuned.
Hoping you're right. I don't think anybody, including the parties involved in the negotiations, knows how this will shake out. But I do think it's evident that Kliavkoff is working his ass off for dollars wherever he can find them.
It does seem like The PAC and ESPN are the last ones at the bar at closing time and just need a little more flirting before they leave together.
Hardly. USC and UCLA bolting for the B1G completely out of the blue was absolutely not in the job description, and was the direct result of Larry F-ing Scott.
With respect, OCB…some things were definitely known…losing your 2 biggest brands after you took the gig and through nothing you did was not.
To anyone who is interested because way back during the season Kliavkoff said that he expected a deal to be done shortly after the season was over and it's obviously taken longer. my guess is the he and his team did an analysis of value adds by bringing different teams into the PAC12, and once that was determined he had to go out and figure out which teams were prospective members with legitimate interests in joining the PAC12. I'm sure he started with the teams that had the most media value. Will we just add 2 teams? How about 4 or 6? Will every team get the same revenue or will it be allocated based on media value. Teams like UNLV, SMU and Fresno state might make more in the PAC12 with a lesser share of revenue than they are currently pulling in. All this has yet to be announced. (As an example, Fresno State Football pulled in $13.361m from all sources last year. I couldn't get a media number. UNlV pulled in $12.223m from all sources. SMU made $21.2m from all sources. SDSU made $13.577 from all sources and ended up losing $3.323m. All of these teams would get bumps from joining a PAC12 collective even if they did not make as much as teams like UW, UO, CAL ad the rest of the staples of the PAC12 currently make).
The word is that ESPN wants the PAC12 deal badly AFTER they lost the BIG10 to Fox. And they want the west coast night games. ESPN used to own SEC, BIG10 & ACC. By losing BIG10 they just lost a boatload of revenue. I think by the time the deal is done and there are multiple media companies involved, the deal will be better than a lot of naysayers are forecasting. And there are a lot of 'what ifs' in this story that really have no evidence to back up their premise. Let's wait and see what shakes out. Stay tuned.
Hoping you're right. I don't think anybody, including the parties involved in the negotiations, knows how this will shake out. But I do think it's evident that Kliavkoff is working his ass off for dollars wherever he can find them.
It does seem like The PAC and ESPN are the last ones at the bar at closing time and just need a little more flirting before they leave together.
Agree
Poor guy inherited an absolute mess of a Conference from Larry Scott.
"poor guy"?
Oh please, the mess was obvious before he took the job. He's paid well as a fixer, but even fixer's fail bcos the business prop is in a death spiral.
Hardly. USC and UCLA bolting for the B1G completely out of the blue was absolutely not in the job description, and was the direct result of Larry F-ing Scott.
With respect, OCB…some things were definitely known…losing your 2 biggest brands after you took the gig and through nothing you did was not.
I hope you are right. But this statement begs the question: To whom is it targeted?
To anyone who is interested because way back during the season Kliavkoff said that he expected a deal to be done shortly after the season was over and it's obviously taken longer. my guess is the he and his team did an analysis of value adds by bringing different teams into the PAC12, and once that was determined he had to go out and figure out which teams were prospective members with legitimate interests in joining the PAC12. I'm sure he started with the teams that had the most media value. Will we just add 2 teams? How about 4 or 6? Will every team get the same revenue or will it be allocated based on media value. Teams like UNLV, SMU and Fresno state might make more in the PAC12 with a lesser share of revenue than they are currently pulling in. All this has yet to be announced. (As an example, Fresno State Football pulled in $13.361m from all sources last year. I couldn't get a media number. UNlV pulled in $12.223m from all sources. SMU made $21.2m from all sources. SDSU made $13.577 from all sources and ended up losing $3.323m. All of these teams would get bumps from joining a PAC12 collective even if they did not make as much as teams like UW, UO, CAL ad the rest of the staples of the PAC12 currently make).