Numbers Can Show What You Want, But Seven Pac-12 Teams Topping Cowboys on TV?

Good write up. The Mandel piece using raw numbers was flawed on so many levels, but he and two other Pac 12 cheerleaders all wrote similar stories within the last three days, obviously in tandem because they all basically said the same thing, trying to puff up that league after it had received an offer from ESPN for less than half what the Big 12 is expected to pay per team.

The thing about the Big 12 is it has several schools with large brand valuations -- Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas would all fall within the Top 5 behind Oregon and Washington in the Pac 12, and after that it's a sharp drop off. In the Big 12, KSU, WVU, BYU also have large brand valuations and large alumni and fanbases.

Texas Tech is a team that when it's winning has some of the highest ratings in the conference as they did from 2000 - 2010. It remains to be seen whether their new coach is the answer, but he certainly seems to be getting them on the right track quickly. A Big 12 with a strong Oklahoma State and Texas Tech sitting in for OU and Texas isn't a bad thing.

When the dust settles revenue is what rules, and I doubt the revenue will be there for the Pac 12. You can't blame them for trying to figure out a way forward as a conference (The Big 12 was in that same situation a year ago), but at the end of the day there is no one for them to add that will both A) accept an invitation and B) add value. The west coast wishful thinking about poaching Big 12 schools is just that -- wishful thinking. But give them credit for at least trying to make it work.

Yeah Mandel's piece was a real exercise in the math you want, not the math that points towards valid info. Taking schools 1-3 network appearances on unopposed PT prime time TV, and comparing that to 10 games including all the bad ones against KU on FS27, and you'll get results you want.

It's really a sad effort because his numbers, nor ours are what matters. What matters is the PAC has a solid $245M a year offer from ESPN, nothing from FOX, and is hoping they find someone in the market that might want some of their games to add to this (yet no one is seen to even be hinting. Meanwhile all indications are the Big XII could be in the $45-55M range.

Mandell wants something to be true, and he's trying to "jouirnalize" it into reality.

more ridiculous nonsense about TV viewing numbers....

what outcome do you want to see? I'll compile some more numbers to show you whatever story that you want to tell.

my goodness Robert, you're using nonsense statements from call-ins. You're making up stuff about what networks "think" by twisting nonsense. It doesn't matter what the "networks think", the people did not agree with them.

and please, please, please no more talk about adding Oregon or Washington.... no. just no. They are way too woke and way too far out in woke land to be welcomed additions to the conference. sorry, if the B1G can use the politics of "academics" to vet teams, then political wokeness is in play as well.

enough already. The whole subject is nothing more than clickbait nonsense.

If we win and continue to win, then we will be valuable. Nothing else matters because it's all contrived.

Yes, please. Add Oregon, Washington, Utah and 1 other (CU, ASU or AZ. If the B12 is not willing to add those teams at a minimum, the league is essentially asking to be permanently relegated to 2nd tier status alongside the AAC, CUSA and others.

And yes, the league and it followers need to listen to the networks (media) because that's who determines distribution and courts advertisers which both in- turn pay the bills.

Numbers aside for a brief moment - where OSU lands on the channel line-up and time slot says almost everything you need to know. Given the options, we get the treatment of a valuable program.

And by all means, choose carefully who you listen to. A lot of callers and posters have good thoughts. However some couldn't spell cat if you spotted them a "c" and "t".

did not.

did too.

did not.

SMH

One thing about which Yormark must be careful is the "wokeness" of the PAC school's leadership. It was not that long ago that the Colorado President fired a very good head football coach because of "wokeness" (a term that had not yet even been invented) when former Big 12 Coach of the Year Gary Barnett was sent packing. Within seven years a woke Colorado had found a home amongst fellow woke universities in the PAC. Not sure we would even want Colorado back in the Big 12, and I'm pretty sure they are looking down their noses (and holding them too) at the very thought of coming back, hat in hand, begging to be rescued. On the other hand, I do think having a couple of woke schools (Oregon and Washington) in the conference would be soothing salve for ESPN talking heads, and Utah is a no brainer IMO. I agree with Robert, those three only, then we need to reserve a fourth slot for another team on the eastern front, should the ACC break apart, to help the eastern teams out with travel. I really like 16 teams max.

make no mistake that OSU is extremely woke, with the Hubbard/Gundy silly incident, and the transgenders reading books to kids, et al.

my comment regarding wokeness was with regard to the citizens, not the radical higher education system.

Portland burned for over 100 nights straight, Seattle is a total freaking mess, there is nothing on the planet that compared to Bezerkley, and Palo Alto is not much better, the whole SF Bay area for that matter.

Half of Washington and Oregon are trying to succeed into Idaho, and California has been proposing votes about breaking into multiple States for a decade. It's not just the Universities on the West Coast, it is the plurality of the citizenship.

Looks like ESPN has offered the PAC $325mm/yr for 12 years and requires a GOR. Word is the B12 can get $600mm/yr for the soon to be new B12.

Why would a PAC school sign up for $32mm/yr when they could probably get $50mm/ yr with the B12?

Yeah, propaganda! Not many people outside the Left Coast watch a whole lotta Pac-12 games, they come on very late and many finish around 1 am CST. I'm probably one of the few who will watch a few of their games but it's not the most exciting brand of football. I like watching Utah out of all the Pac-12 teams.

Mandel is a bit of a clown. He almost ALWAYS won't rate us in his Top 25, not that that is a big deal, and then is late to the party once we're rated and climb into the top 10. I've seen it many times. He's really a blue blood HOMER to the Nth degree. Good prose and knows a lot but I stopped subscribing to The Athletic. I like Andy Staples a lot more!

Welcome to the Big XII and counting, Arizona, Az State, Utah and not Colorado (because some of their higher-ups don't want to come back, so let them enjoy the Mountain West, LOL), so one other team....OreGONE maybe!

Barnett was an a-hole, good coach but good riddance! I agree with you about the WOKEness though, the Left Coast is a whack job. I would've preferred Colorado over OreGONE just for geography reasons and add Zona, AZ State and Utah, but the higher-up clowns at UC don't want to rejoin the Big XII so off to the Mountain West w/ them clowns.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Looks like ESPN has offered the PAC $325mm/yr for 12 years and requires a GOR. Word is the B12 can get $600mm/yr for the soon to be new B12.

Why would a PAC school sign up for $32mm/yr when they could probably get $50mm/ yr with the B12?

---

We have pretty good coverage on the $24.5 offer. That higher/longer offer is only in one source, and so I wouldn't count on it since no one else has mentioned it.

Aside from yesterday's report, I heard $30mm/yr over the weekend. Whether it's $25, $30, or $35, I think the remaining 10 PAC schools will have wandering eyes……..unless the B1Gs commissioner's remarks yesterday keeps some of the PAC hopeful of a B1G invite.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Aside from yesterday's report, I heard $30mm/yr over the weekend. Whether it's $25, $30, or $35, I think the remaining 10 PAC schools will have wandering eyes……..unless the B1Gs commissioner's remarks yesterday keeps some of the PAC hopeful of a B1G invite.

---

There was speculation it would be around $30, but it has been revealed the actual number was $24.5. Jason Scheer from UA board has confirmed that with UA sources. He's also confirmed that unequal distribution is on the table.

On the other hand Mack Rhodes the BU AD said on the radio yesterday he expected our new contract to at least match the $42.6M we saw this year, and that the league would probably go to 14 or 16 depending on where the financial tipping point is.

NJAggie said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Aside from yesterday's report, I heard $30mm/yr over the weekend. Whether it's $25, $30, or $35, I think the remaining 10 PAC schools will have wandering eyes……..unless the B1Gs commissioner's remarks yesterday keeps some of the PAC hopeful of a B1G invite.

---

There was speculation it would be around $30, but it has been revealed the actual number was $24.5. Jason Scheer from UA board has confirmed that with UA sources. He's also confirmed that unequal distribution is on the table.

On the other hand Mack Rhodes the BU AD said on the radio yesterday he expected our new contract to at least match the $42.6M we saw this year, and that the league would probably go to 14 or 16 depending on where the financial tipping point is.

---

aren't all of these number simply "initial projections"? The PAC was going to have exclusive negotiations in the first 30 days, then open it up for other bids (which I suspect is what is happening now). What if that low-ball ESPN bid is beaten by somebody else? Or, what if the "bid" does not include all of their content, and they subsequently sign an additional agreement with somebody else for the excess (unclaimed) programming (much like the ESPN / Fox deal that the B12 has)

and seriously folks, our contract is not up for 2 years, so any numbers being "guessed" at are merely idle speculation made by insecure people trying to get their name in the news (i.e., the BU AD).

The only thing that is certain is that other conferences will sign contracts before our bid needs to be decided. The B1G contracts expire at the end 2022 (currently with ESPN/ABC/CBS), the PAC contract expires in 2024.
Notre Dame is also currently working on their contract.

The alleged ESPN offer to the PAC is not surprising, since negotiations often begin with a low-ball offer, and negotiations ensue from there.

It's waaay to soon to continually fret about the early stages of college football negotiations.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Aside from yesterday's report, I heard $30mm/yr over the weekend. Whether it's $25, $30, or $35, I think the remaining 10 PAC schools will have wandering eyes……..unless the B1Gs commissioner's remarks yesterday keeps some of the PAC hopeful of a B1G invite.

---

There was speculation it would be around $30, but it has been revealed the actual number was $24.5. Jason Scheer from UA board has confirmed that with UA sources. He's also confirmed that unequal distribution is on the table.

On the other hand Mack Rhodes the BU AD said on the radio yesterday he expected our new contract to at least match the $42.6M we saw this year, and that the league would probably go to 14 or 16 depending on where the financial tipping point is.

---

aren't all of these number simply "initial projections"? The PAC was going to have exclusive negotiations in the first 30 days, then open it up for other bids (which I suspect is what is happening now). What if that low-ball ESPN bid is beaten by somebody else? Or, what if the "bid" does not include all of their content, and they subsequently sign an additional agreement with somebody else for the excess (unclaimed) programming (much like the ESPN / Fox deal that the B12 has)

and seriously folks, our contract is not up for 2 years, so any numbers being "guessed" at are merely idle speculation made by insecure people trying to get their name in the news (i.e., the BU AD).

The only thing that is certain is that other conferences will sign contracts before our bid needs to be decided. The B1G contracts expire at the end 2022 (currently with ESPN/ABC/CBS), the PAC contract expires in 2024.
Notre Dame is also currently working on their contract.

The alleged ESPN offer to the PAC is not surprising, since negotiations often begin with a low-ball offer, and negotiations ensue from there.

It's waaay to soon to continually fret about the early stages of college football negotiations.

---

I get it. Discussing reports in the media or potentially informed comments on the radio should be avoided. That would be idiotic. SMH.

Get lost Ron.

NJAggie said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Aside from yesterday's report, I heard $30mm/yr over the weekend. Whether it's $25, $30, or $35, I think the remaining 10 PAC schools will have wandering eyes……..unless the B1Gs commissioner's remarks yesterday keeps some of the PAC hopeful of a B1G invite.

---

There was speculation it would be around $30, but it has been revealed the actual number was $24.5. Jason Scheer from UA board has confirmed that with UA sources. He's also confirmed that unequal distribution is on the table.

On the other hand Mack Rhodes the BU AD said on the radio yesterday he expected our new contract to at least match the $42.6M we saw this year, and that the league would probably go to 14 or 16 depending on where the financial tipping point is.

---

Seems evident things aren't positive for the future of the PAC. Hopefully that means an opportunity for the B12.

Well in the case of the PAC it's been confirmed that FOX did not bid, and ESPN offered them $24.5M.

Networks and schools can talk outside of official negotiations. So when one of the AD's from a conference that is in the midst of serious talks on many fronts says he's seen numbers that indicate what we can expect I'd say that's solid info.

I know you demand nothing be discussed until the copies of the deals can seen, but that's really not what discussion boards are for.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I get it. Discussing reports in the media or potentially informed comments on the radio should be avoided. That would be idiotic. SMH.

Get lost Ron.

---

I see you offer nothing again... as usual.

"reports" are usually factual, not rumors. Reports of rumors is not "reporting".

I love your spin doctoring of the words too..... "potentially informed comments"... (i.e. rumors)

and I was responding to NJ, not to you.

Get lost Lunchpail Joe

Actually, I offered media reports which you feel should banned, apparently. You on the other hand offer only arguments with no information.

Some readers might actually be interested in what's reported. If Ron ain't interested, like most normal people, Ron would click out and go about his own business. Alas, that's just not Ron's gig. Sigh

NJAggie said:

---

Well in the case of the PAC it's been confirmed that FOX did not bid, and ESPN offered them $24.5M.

Networks and schools can talk outside of official negotiations. So when one of the AD's from a conference that is in the midst of serious talks on many fronts says he's seen numbers that indicate what we can expect I'd say that's solid info.

I know you demand nothing be discussed until the copies of the deals can seen, but that's really not what discussion boards are for.

---

What good are signed deals? We've learned they can just be broken. Waiting on the new ACC tv deal.

This is going to be "fun" discussing "reports".

NJAggie said:

---

Well in the case of the PAC it's been confirmed that FOX did not bid, and ESPN offered them $24.5M.

Networks and schools can talk outside of official negotiations. So when one of the AD's from a conference that is in the midst of serious talks on many fronts says he's seen numbers that indicate what we can expect I'd say that's solid info.

I know you demand nothing be discussed until the copies of the deals can seen, but that's really not what discussion boards are for.

---

can you post links to those "confirmations"? I can't find it.

I think idle speculation is fine and sometimes interesting, especially when it's opinion, but some of the posts are stating rumors as if they are facts, or implying that one rumor provides justification for subsequent tangential rumors.

I would appreciate it if you could show where those 2 confirmations were made, and by whom

Thanks

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Actually, I offered media reports which you feel should banned, apparently. You on the other hand offer only arguments with no information.

Some readers might actually be interested in what's reported. If Ron ain't interested, like most normal people, Ron would click out and go about his own business. Alas, that's just not Ron's gig. Sigh

---

are you still banned from the rumor board?

It's not "reporting" that I challenge, it's how it is subsequently presented in the forums... as if were fact or had any factual relevance. They are almost all unsubstantiated rumors.

I'm fine with discussions and opinions, but please lets treat them a rumors.

you're always wrong, and all you do is post rumors and try to antagonize other posters with name calling and mockery. You already told us you do that.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

Well in the case of the PAC it's been confirmed that FOX did not bid, and ESPN offered them $24.5M.

Networks and schools can talk outside of official negotiations. So when one of the AD's from a conference that is in the midst of serious talks on many fronts says he's seen numbers that indicate what we can expect I'd say that's solid info.

I know you demand nothing be discussed until the copies of the deals can seen, but that's really not what discussion boards are for.

---

What good are signed deals? We've learned they can just be broken. Waiting on the new ACC tv deal.

This is going to be "fun" discussing "reports".

---

which "signed deals" have been broken? Sure contracts are negotiated out of all the time, but I presume that you're referencing signed deals related to conferences. Can you provide a recent example?

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

Well in the case of the PAC it's been confirmed that FOX did not bid, and ESPN offered them $24.5M.

Networks and schools can talk outside of official negotiations. So when one of the AD's from a conference that is in the midst of serious talks on many fronts says he's seen numbers that indicate what we can expect I'd say that's solid info.

I know you demand nothing be discussed until the copies of the deals can seen, but that's really not what discussion boards are for.

---

What good are signed deals? We've learned they can just be broken. Waiting on the new ACC tv deal.

This is going to be "fun" discussing "reports".

---

which "signed deals" have been broken? Sure contracts are negotiated out of all the time, but I presume that you're referencing signed deals related to conferences. Can you provide a recent example?

---

You mean which signed deal is gonna be broken. You know, the ACC GOR or ACC - ESPN deals. You advised us deals are there to be broken. There's like a 50 post thread on the subject.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

which "signed deals" have been broken? Sure contracts are negotiated out of all the time, but I presume that you're referencing signed deals related to conferences. Can you provide a recent example?

---

You mean which signed deal is gonna be broken. You know, the ACC GOR or ACC - ESPN deals. You advised us deals are there to be broken. There's like a 50 post thread on the subject.

---

that's what I thought... you got nothing... as usual.

I did say that the ACC GOR deal could be bought out, and it can, and you know it. But what you're omitting from my statement, just so you can play the antagonist, is that the ACC contract would not need to be adjusted or vetted until AFTER the other leagues actually sign their contracts in about 3-4 years, AND I SAID THAT, the ACC network, was just starting to provide additional revenue and it would be key to any potential GOR buyouts.

If there is any "contracts" to be negotiated out of, I would expect that ND would be the first, but frankly I don't think that they can afford the ACC GOR buyout. We shall see.

Well here is Jason Scheer. He's said this on numerous platforms. He has seen the figures given to UA. Most PAC 12 writers chose to deflect from the real numbers and attack the Big XII or come up with phony TV numbers. The podcast has a good overview of where things are at at UA right now. This was from this morning.

https://t.co/SWg6GqoAkG's @JasonScheer stopped by @3ManFront to discuss the current state of the @pac12 amidst conference expansion talks, programs that could be on the way out & more! https://t.co/Cp4OahzSFv

— WJOX 94.5 FM (@WJOX945) July 27, 2022

And here is Mack Rhoades talking about the TV value. Now it says in the tweet $42.6M, but what he actually says is that the numbers will be picking up right where they end with the current contract, so he's saying probably closer to $50M. It its not in this clip he also seems pretty certain that the Big 12 is going to be adding 2-4 teams from somewhere.

Baylor AD Mack Rhoades on the upcoming @Big12Conference TV deal, “I am really optimistic we will be at the same level, in terms of last season of the Big 12 contract [$42.6m], or better.”

That’s including the four future members (BYU, Cinci, UCF, UH) and not including UT or OU. pic.twitter.com/TSTF2NV7AJ

— 365 Sports (@SicEm365Radio) July 27, 2022

Also, if you haven't read it Dodd's gets in the weeds with the Kevin Warren, B1G commish's statements about expanding. Looks like they are seriously working on getting their TV people to add enough to the deal to bring in Oregon, Washington, Cal, & Stanford. This makes sense as they really need more than 2 west coast teams to operate.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-evaluating-cal-oregon-stanford-and-washington-from-pac-12-as-further-expansion-considered/

NJAggie said:

---

Well here is Jason Scheer. He's said this on numerous platforms. He has seen the figures given to UA. Most PAC 12 writers chose to deflect from the real numbers and attack the Big XII or come up with phony TV numbers. The podcast has a good overview of where things are at at UA right now. This was from this morning.

https://t.co/SWg6GqoAkG's @JasonScheer stopped by @3ManFront to discuss the current state of the @pac12 amidst conference expansion talks, programs that could be on the way out & more! https://t.co/Cp4OahzSFv

— WJOX 94.5 FM (@WJOX945) July 27, 2022

And here is Mack Rhoades talking about the TV value. Now it says in the tweet $42.6M, but what he actually says is that the numbers will be picking up right where they end with the current contract, so he's saying probably closer to $50M. It its not in this clip he also seems pretty certain that the Big 12 is going to be adding 2-4 teams from somewhere.

Baylor AD Mack Rhoades on the upcoming @Big12Conference TV deal, “I am really optimistic we will be at the same level, in terms of last season of the Big 12 contract [$42.6m], or better.”

That’s including the four future members (BYU, Cinci, UCF, UH) and not including UT or OU. pic.twitter.com/TSTF2NV7AJ

— 365 Sports (@SicEm365Radio) July 27, 2022

Also, if you haven't read it Dodd's gets in the weeds with the Kevin Warren, B1G commish's statements about expanding. Looks like they are seriously working on getting their TV people to add enough to the deal to bring in Oregon, Washington, Cal, & Stanford. This makes sense as they really need more than 2 west coast teams to operate.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-evaluating-cal-oregon-stanford-and-washington-from-pac-12-as-further-expansion-considered/

---

I've seen all of those, and all of them are conjecture from "journalists", or are simply speculation.

Sheerer says he HEARD, and his is nothing more than the WildCats version of Robert (no offense intended Robert).

Rhoades is talking out his arse, since there haven't been any real negotiations, and all the existing numbers are simply pundits crunching numbers, much like the computer polls projecting rankings (wild speculation)

The Dodd's article that I read specifically quoted Warren as saying that he would not confirm teams or names, and that if there was expansion it would not happen until AFTER the current contract is signed. It has nothing to do with "their TV people" and their current contract negotiations.

re: Sheerer:
"Now, granted this is just what is currently being reported, and this latest rumor is not yet completely substantiated."
https://zonazealots.com/2022/07/25/espn-reportedly-lowballs-pac-12-in-new-media-deal-offer/

We all know the dude (Ron) argues just to argue. And when Ron says something silly or dumb, he doubles down. His response above is a prime example.

Everyone knows you're just putting out there what's been reported and by whom. We're all (at least most of us) grown up enough to determine what and how much we want to place stock in without harpooning the messenger.

Keep it up, I like to hear what the rest of the world knows or is thinking.

So leave these conversations because they are never going to satisfy your demand for concrete evidence.

I'm sure you were sure USC would never leave the P12 for the B1G and would have said it was crazy talk, but it was being discussed pretty much non-stop since about March.

If you don't look at the leading evidence and wait for things to be settled you'll always be shocked and astounded.

Good stuff on this subject from Gumby and NJ Aggie especially the PAC offer which I respond with OUCH! They are in trouble!!!

Looks like the fate of the PAC (and likely the B12) lies in Fox's hands. If Fox is willing to sweeten the B1G deal by $400mm per year, they get UW, Ore, Cal and Stanford and the PAC is dead and Fox will unlikely be interested in a 16 or 18 team B12. In that case, I really think ESPN would rather sweeten the SEC deal to include some B12 teams (4?) to compete with the B1G than investing more money in a new deal with an expanded, but overall relatively weak B12.

Hopefully (for the B12) Fox would rather spend $800mm(ish) to get a new 16-team B12 thus giving them 4 times the content (16 teams vs 4 teams) for only twice the money (or some iteration of that calculus).

Regardless, I think the 10-team PAC is a goner.

The B12 (and OSU) is again entering the land of massive uncertainty. Fingers crossed (1) Fox rejects the idea of 4 more teams to the B1G, or (2) ESPN wants OSU in the SEC.

The ACC is still screwed.

Not sure how Notre Dame fits in all this.

NJAggie said:

---

So leave these conversations because they are never going to satisfy your demand for concrete evidence.

I'm sure you were sure USC would never leave the P12 for the B1G and would have said it was crazy talk, but it was being discussed pretty much non-stop since about March.

If you don't look at the leading evidence and wait for things to be settled you'll always be shocked and astounded.

---

I'll try to stay out if facts bother you that much.

I do not demand concrete evidence, but mindless rumor should not be the standard either.

I never said anything about USC, so you are wrong there, I never said anything about any team, or any crazy talk. All I've ever said was 1) the ACC riding their GOR contract to the end was crazy talk, because there is no way they will stay that far behind financially for a decade, and 2) the B12 should expand to 14 or more and not wait for whatever folks thought we should be waiting on (you agreed with me on that).

I won't be shocked or astounded by facts (i.e. evidence), but I would be fairly shocked if even one of these mumble mouth journalists got something right.

Enjoy your rumors, I'll try to let you juggle them without interference.

The ACC is not riding their GOR agreements. If anyone is riding those agreements it's (1) ESPN with a binding tv deal until 2036, and (2) the 8 or 10 ACC schools that are not likely to be coveted by other conferences. Absent something like a new CFP format that excludes the ACC, the GOR agreements will remain valid and binding for all 14 member schools through 2033, earliest.