Cacker Guy

From an article in Duckwire (I also saw these numbers somewhere else but I can't find it). Average viewers per week in 2022: Oregon 2.21 M Utah 1.16 M UW 1.15 M WSU 907 K Cal 857 K Stanford 846 K OSU 625 K Arizona 506 K ASU 314 K That adds to just under 8.6 M viewers per week. That doesn't mean 8.6 M would subscribe, but I would...

If the athletes survive the travel to Piscataway and East Lansing and Columbus, etc. ! Tweets I've seen from softball players are 100% negative on going to the B1G...

I agree, Jon, that this was the safer, more secure deal. I was hoping UO and UW would take a chance on the Apple deal for the sake of the minor sports, and preserving the PAC. And the whole regionality of college football. I admit my desires are more sentimental than practical and fiduciary. Somewhat akin to the Angels not trading Ohtani. Gutsy, but probably a bad move. Yes, this is what I meant! I admit under the conditions of a week ago, the B1G appeared to be a much better long term (10 years plus) option. Nevertheless, as an ex track (as well as football) athlete, it bothers me that these decisions are made solely for football. I wish that football conferences could be separate from the other sports to help preserve some regionality in the minor sports. But that is another can of worms.

I think 1.7 million subscribers is reasonable, which would have brought the PAC deal in almost $2M better than the B1G deal. I think I get why the presidents balked, but I wish they would have tried it. It is also reported that there was an opt out after 3 (or maybe 2) years.

This is what bothers me. I feel for all the athletes who play minor sports. I love following track & field, women's basketball and softball, and they will definitely suffer from the travel. I don't have cable and I prefer streaming but I'm probably unusual in my demographic (almost 70.) TV is probably better exposure for now, but I wonder what it will be like in 2 or 3 years...

Tandaian, for the next five years what I read from UW is that they will average $32/year. Starts at $30 M and increases $1 M per year. The Apple deal counteroffer was $25 M with incentives that would bring the amount to $28 M I think after the first quota is met. Plus an opt out after 3 years. So $30 M minus $28 M is $2 M. Yes, I'm assuming the first subscription bonus kicks in. Possibly wrongly. And I must agree that being in the B1G is almost undoubtedly more lucrative for the NEXT media deal cycle IF the current landscape remains similar. My point is that most are assuming the money difference between B1G and Apple is enormous, and I'm not sure that it would be. In addition, the difference is not a high percentage of the athletics budget. I believe the UO athletics budget is around $180 M (see fiscal year 2022 report). So the amount of money we get by joining the B1G is -- in my opinion -- not worth the extra travel, the hardship to student-athletes, the dissolution of a grand old conference and for many the demise much of what we like about college football. College football is obviously big money. But reducing revenue by 1 or 2% is doable. Just don't reupholster the seats in the jet. I'm sure it is better financially to join the B1G. But by how much? And what is the cost to athletics as a whole? I wanted UO to do something heroic, to put our fingers in the dike. But alas, most heroes meet an untimely demise anyhow...

Wrathis, I'm with you 100% on this. I think everyone panicked when the Apple deal had no linear component, so there would be insufficient national "exposure." Possibly true, but I'm not so sure the Apple deal was so terrible. I wish it would have been explored more. I think we were totally duped by Fox/ESPN. Half share?!! Are you kidding me? I hate it for every sport but football, and I'm not sure it will be good for football. In the final rankings last year we were sixth in of the 2024 B1G in football. That doesn't make the playoff in my opinion. And I don't think we will rise any higher. I just don't. I hope so but I fear it won't happen. Likely my sadness at this has destroyed my optimism. I wish our school would have had the guts to stand up to Fox / ESPN, give them the finger, and stay in the PAC and be at the forefront of the new technology. But our new president (who took office one month ago and came from the B1G) is not from the west and has no fealty to the PAC. Even if it cost us a couple million. We don't need another $2 million -- that's 1% of the athletics budget.

Thank you Santa Rosa Duck. Very good article!

Great post, Jemangi. I hope you are right! Go Ducks!

B1G mistake!! Reduces chances of getting to a football playoff IMO. Softball players hate it and I expect the other non-revenue sport athletes do too. Kicking tradition and history and regional rivalries to the curb for MUCH less than $10 M a year is a panic-driven act of cowardice. We will regret this day and deserve to be reviled by OSU and WSU fans. Don't see anything good about this at all. Not for football or any other sport. This decision was supposedly made for the long-term but I suspect college football will be so different 20 years from now I don't see how anyone can foresee that future. I guess I'm the only one with this opinion on OBDF but I hope it's okay to disagree. I hate it!!

I'm afraid this will come back to bite us. Time will tell I guess.

I'm very sad and disappointed to have the PAC fold up. It is so disappointing to have the beautiful game of college football so altered by TV money and greed. A beautiful landscape of tradition and regional rivalries is now littered and torn apart by dollar signs and animosity. Ever since ESPN got involved and the country thought we needed a single national champion things have gone downhill. It may be a good decision for UO, but as one who saw my first Ducks football game at Hayward Field, I am sad today.

I enjoy reading your thoughtful, intelligent, informed and passionate comments, Jon. Keep them coming!

I've been sitting back waiting to see what happens and trying to stay calm. I listened to Dan Wetzel on one of his recent podcasts and he made a point I had not heard before. He asked why do schools need so much media money? They already make tons of money. How much do they need? Then he went through a litany of schools that have switched conferences and are now making lots more money, but not having much success athletically. Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M, Maryland, Colorado and probably more I can't remember. I think we can soon add UT, OU, USC and UCLA, and the new Big 12 schools. We are all complaining that media money is ruining college athletics. How much do we really need? I suck at finances, and many OBDF members are wizards at it. But I wonder if Wetzel has a valid point. So I hope that the PAC survives. Especially for the sake of non-revenue sports, which I think will really be harmed by a move to the B1G. After all, I'm pretty sure there are more non-football athletes at UO than football players. Maybe someone can shoot some holes in this. Is $40 M and a move to BIG really better than $20 M plus subscription incentives and staying home?

I agree, and I think it is the same model the Patriots used: clean up in a weak conference and be fresh for the playoffs. I don't much like the model, but it can work. Football season is a long, brutal grind and takes its toll on players' bodies. Belicheck's Patriots always had a good seed, a first round bye, and played their first playoff in cold New England fairly well-rested and healthy. And I hated them for it!

This dinosaur who enjoyed playing D2 sports agrees 100%!! I'm saddened as well. I think the PAC-whatever will survive, and I think UO will be fine no matter what happens. I hope for the sake of the non-football sports they end up in a conference that's good for these sports as well. It would stink to have to travel across country twice a week to play soccer or something.

Wilner: But anyone expecting bold action from the Pac-12 presidents is setting themselves up for disappointment. The group talks about a strategic approach that anticipates “where the puck is going.” In reality, it’s unable to see the puck until the conference gets whacked in the mouth.

Yes!!! I wish we could go back, but I doubt we can. The traditions and the rivalries are great. For sports other than football as well. Plus travel time and costs are lower, which helps athletic departments and "student-athletes."

I agree 100% with you Jon. The demand for a national champion was the start. It's kind of an American thing I think -- "second place is the first loser." I loved watching those top bowl games back before the BCS. And half those teams finished the season with a win. Since the BCS we have one winner and a bunch of losers. And now as you said, money trumps ethics. And tradition, geography, etc. I for one am sad. But I still love college football. I hate ESPN, and I've said since the 80's that it is ruining amateur sports. I started noticing my freshman basketball players unnecessarily dribbling behind the back, throwing no-look passes, and trying to dunk at lunch (when I wasn't supervising) because they were copying ESPN's top 10 plays. I know I just sound like a crazy dinosaur when I say it, but I guess I am.

That's an interesting perspective. I can see where you are coming from I think. I guess college football is such great entertainment that it generates so much interest - and therefore money - that the entertainment industry (and the almighty dollar) is now driving college football. Which in turn is driving other sports. It is sad in a way for us who played sports back in the olden days for fun and school glory. But I don't see how it can be reversed. There is always Willamette vs. Linfield and so on I guess. This snowball effect reminds me of a time I was convinced college scholarships were ruining high school sports -- players changing schools, parents badgering me about more touches for their son, kids specializing in one sport, etc. -- all to increase their chances of a scholarship. I wish they would have made the same effort in academics or career tech! It really bothered me, but what can you do? It's a different world. I'm curious to see how this will all shake out. I'll root for the Ducks, and I think they will be fine.

I kind of like this idea, but without the B12. 24 teams, 8 per division. The championship game would need to be worked out, but it's quite doable. It almost preserves the Pac 12/10/9. Is this even possible or economically feasible under the current ACC media rights deal? I'm too lazy to try to figure that out myself. I guess if you consider it adding 9 teams to the ACC it probably is.

I like Lanning a lot but this seems early to me. Last season was pretty good, but losing to both hated rivals on questionable game calls doesn't seem to warrant a raise and extension. Yet. I really hope he continues to grow and improve.

I truly hope Mario is successful at Miami. I know this may be unpopular, but I actually like him. I think he worked his tail off in Eugene, and I think his efforts really helped us after the Helfrich and Taggart regimes. I think he genuinely cared for his players, and his players respected him and that reestablished some team discipline. However, watching his offenses perform was excruciating. Maddening. I am happy that he left, and I think we are much better off with Coach Lanning. It doesn't bother me at all that he went home to his family and his roots and his alma mater. Yeah, maybe he checked out before the second Utah game, but ... whatever. So I wish him well at Miami. As long as they don't do better than the Ducks.

I agree, Dr. Hilarious. MH was not an HC. Even if he made better DC hires, he didn't have IT. There were discipline issues right off the bat, on field and off. I was immediately very concerned about this. It reflects weak leadership. This is it in my opinion. In my HS experience, being a coordinator is almost an intellectual activity. Not quite of course, but compared to HC you don't have to deal much with player discipline, motivation, and a host of other things. You mostly game plan and practice plan and coach your position group (usually QBs) and call plays during the game. Sure there is more, but it's pretty cerebral. When I was OC I could be strangely detached from some things that as a HC were vitally important -- I lived and breathed them and coached with my heart and my guts as well as my head. MH just wasn't a good leader.

This makes sense. Thank you. Peterson had been WR coach at Oregon for about six years before he went to Boise, so I figured he had some "within" connections. Not nearly as much as Helfrich in 2012 though I guess.