-
Finish your profile right here and directions for adding your Profile Picture (which appears when you post) is right here.
duckoflife
-
Posts
7 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Events
Posts posted by duckoflife
-
-
On 2/23/2023 at 12:09 PM, Duck Fan 76 said:
I don't think "sabotage" is the correct word, I hate to quibble but what Oregon needs to do is exactly what it is doing which is to stand up for it's own best interests. I think it's very likely that the reason GK hasn't got a deal inked is that it's not easy to get the remaining 10 schools to agree with the deals on the table. GK might be the negotiator but the school presidents are the deciders here.
What does Oregon want? To stay in the PAC and get enough media revenue from decent time slots to kick this ball down the field and see what's what in 3-5 years. What does a broadcast network want? To lock in Oregon and the PAC at a value for 10+ years. GK just wants to keep the PAC alive. Where is the likely deal going to land? Who knows but we have multiple professionals at work here and Larry Scott isn't in the room so we just have to wait and see at this point.
What does a home run look like for Oregon? Marquee matchups offered on a competing network that eat into ESPN and Fox timeslots making them pay a hefty price for not taking Oregon and the rest of the PAC off the table. How likely is this? Who even knows outside of the negotiating room. I will say that discussion about bringing in SDSU is meant to make Fox grind its teeth about splitting the SoCal media market into PAC fans and BIG10 fans.
What does a manageable deal look like for Oregon? 25+ million in a short term contract (3-5 years). Aka, Punt!
What does a disaster look like? The PAC12 network. Aka, use Bo as a running back late in the season.
There's also a possibility that a major shakeup could occur at some point. Disney could sell ESPN and decide to revive ABC sports as a third major competitor. CBS sports could find it's butt in the dark and decide to compete with ESPN and Fox instead of picking up breadcrumbs. Maybe PBS is interested in CFB.
I think the streaming only discussion is mostly smoke to be honest and possibly part of a negotiating tactic for GK regarding bringing in more competition to Fox and ESPN. I'd honestly sooner believe the PAC12 network is moving to the pay-per view model.
Noducknewby was suggesting that the Four Corners might have to go to the Big 12 before Oregon and UW can move to the Big 10, because the Big 10 doesn't want bad PR from destroying the PAC.
If that's the case, than Oregon and Washington's best interest seriously would be to make the TV contract something like $20 million and/or on some platform like Apple. Oregon and Washington's self interest would literally be to make the PAC's deal as terrible as possible. Anything to get the Four Corners to jump to the Big 12. So then Oregon and Washington can GTHO of the conference too. -
On 2/23/2023 at 1:49 PM, noDucknewby said:
Maryland and Rutgers were added in 2014 and their addition was all about getting the NY and DC markets. Much has changed since then, I doubt they'd get the same consideration right now and that may be true of Nebraska as well. Whether or not Oregon-Washington pencils out for the B1G members, it seems there was a real push-back from the university presidents not wanting to be responsible for the death of the P12. That may be naive on their part, the conference death blow may have already been dealt with the departure of the LA schools.
If and when the first domino falls, I'm betting the B1G changes their stance about Oregon-Washington. If any of the four corners schools bails and Oregon-Washington are still up for grabs then I think the B1G would much rather take them than see them go to the B12.
If the Big 10 seriously isn't willing to invite Oregon and Washington until after at least one Four Corners schools has joined the Big 12, then that means that Oregon and Washington seriously need to deliberately sabotage the PAC TV contract negotiations.
With the offers the PAC is getting, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Oregon and Washington are sabotaging the negotiations.
-
On 2/23/2023 at 1:56 PM, Jon Joseph said:
The ACC is getting $20M annually from ESPN for its media rights through 2038, with a bonus based on the number of subscribers to the ACC Network.
The B12 schools under the new media deal receive $31.7M a year from ESPN/FOX.
The Pac-10 may not finish ahead of the B12 media rights wise but it will finish ahead of the ACC's current deal.
There were posts on CSNBBS saying that the ACC is making about $37 million a year. (And that might be for 2021-22- it might be even higher for the 2022-23 school year.)
It might be $20 million + $17 million from the ACC network- I don't remember for sure.
-
On 2/23/2023 at 1:44 PM, Jon Joseph said:
One reason the ACC gets its team, Clemson, into the PO field of 4 is that even with the ACC dropping divisions the ACC is staying at 8 conference games. The rationale? The ACC plays 4 to 6 games every season vs Notre Dame. State-mandated games such as Clemson vs South Carolina, FSU vs Florida, Ga Tech vs UGA, and Louisville vs Kentucky add another P5 opponent.
SOS matters not to the PO Committee today; 2Ls and you are out. But it will matter when the field goes to 12 teams and IMO is likely to go to 16 teams when PO media rights go up for bid for the 2026 season. This is where playing 8 games could hurt the ACC, especially regarding seeding.
The Pac-12 definitely does not want to copy the ACC's media deal that stinks to the high heavens through 2036.
At this point, the PAC would be beyond ecstatic to get the money the ACC is getting (about $37 million a year currently), even using services like Amazon or God forbid Apple that are far less visible than the ACC Network.
The reason why the ACC tv contract was considered so bad is because until the last year or the ACC was getting about the same revenue as the PAC, even though the ACC has considerably better TV ratings than the PAC. (Even when USC and UCLA were still in the PAC.) The ACC is still undervalued, but not as much as they were until a year or two ago, when the ACC Network was still in its infancy.
That's why there are rumors about Oregon and Washington going to the ACC- the undervalued ACC tv contract is still considerably better than anything the PAC probably even has a 1% chance of getting.
-
Oregon easily has the best recruiting among PAC schools for players coming out of high school.
Even if we don't rank at the top of transfer rankings, we'd still rank highest in overall talent.
-
1
-
-
On 2/22/2023 at 8:19 PM, 2002duck said:
Except the PAC-12 has counted Apple among it's suitors from the beginning. The only difference in the Post article is a hypothetical scenario of Apple buying all rights.
Apple was right there with Amazon, and then Amazon (apparently) said they only wanted the few big games. Which is the opposite of what the PAC-10 needs.
We need to give streamers the crap games (think PAC-10 Network) and have the good games on TV. The problem is that the streamers are balking at that. And why wouldn't they? Most of these streaming companies are not making a profit.
As much as Americans think the Streaming Era is upon us, the reality is that that is not really true for mainstream live sports. And streamers are losing money elsewhere, like I said.
Streamers aren't charging enough to make money, and there are too many of them. I do not see live sports working out for another 15 years, whether younger generations call foul or not.
The answer is to take less money and go to the B1G like Charles said- heck- pay them to take us for the first year!
You're assuming that the Big 10 is actually willing to admit us, even at 1/2 shares or whatever.
It seems like the Big 10 doesn't want to invite Oregon or Washington. I can't figure out the logic of how a conference would be willing to invite Maryland and Rutgers, but wouldn't be willing to invite Oregon and Washington. But it seems like that's seriously what's going to happen.
Apple TV+ Could Decide Fate of PAC 12
in Our Beloved Ducks
Posted
The theories about UW and Oregon moving to the ACC are that UW and Oregon would join the ACC alone, probably without any partners. (At the very most also with Stanford and Cal) It wouldn't be some sort of PAC-ACC merger or non-conference scheduling agreement, as you're seeming to suggest.
There is some question about whether UW and Oregon would be enough for ESPN to re-negotiate its contract with the ACC. (Coupled with issues like the existing ACC members now getting less frequent games against ND with ND's 5 games now being split among 16 rather than 14 members, ACC teams getting less frequent games against other ACC teams who they actually have traditional relationships with, travel costs from adding UO and UW, etc.). But if the PAC as a whole can get such poor TV contract offers, it's even less likely that the ACC could get more money from adding the entirety of the PAC than from just adding UO and UW.