Jon Joseph

I certainly understand your POV. President Schilz is on the conference executive committee and in close contact with the commissioner, George Kliavkoff. Totally objective? Of course not but what source is totally objective? He is a direct source. What is the source for the take on the Huskie's board? Denis Dodd, Brent McMurphy, and the Twitterati? If you believe all of the articles to date and I am not saying you do so, the four corners schools should already be headed to the B12, Oregon, and Washington to the B1G, OSU and WSU to the Mountain West with CAL and Stanford going the Ivy League route. The media economy today even compared to a year ago stinks. ESPN is going through another round of employee cuts and salary reductions. Fox laid off a number of people from one of its affiliates. Amazon has gone through a series of employee reductions. (Apple has not.) No 3rd party streaming company has ever entered into a big-time deal to stream college sports. Guys like the B12 commissioner can talk a big game about expansion but the B12 is not the entity that has to write the checks. Losing the LA schools was a crippling blow. I recall many a post where folks opined that the Pac-12 didn't need the LA schools to be good, etc. In fact, to be good financially, the conference does, or did, need the LA schools. When you are in a relatively weak negotiating position you do not have the leverage to force anything, including when a transaction is consummated. The stock markets are roiling. And the economy has not yet recovered from COVID. Add that to the recent inflation and the rise in interest rates and this is not a good time to be doing a media deal. Is some of this on the conference and its timing? Heck yes. But it is what it is and GK and no one else, has the power to alter market dynamics. As one of our former Presidents oft said, 'I feel your pain.' I am as frustrated as you and all Pac fans over this seeming inertia. Perhaps I am naive but I still believe the conference will end up with a new media deal that will not make moving to the B12 a financially sound move. And I am certain that until any institution in the Pac and any entity hoping to poach Pac-10 teams, knows what the bottom line is, a baseline is established, that Fox and junior partners CBS and NBC are not going to come up with an offer for Oregon and Washington. It stinks to have to wait through all of 'this stuff; especially, for an impatient person such as me. But the existing deal does not expire for some time yet. Was the B12 smart to make an early deal for $30M a team per annum? Maybe, but it remains to be seen. This deal is not a heck of a lot better than the ACC deal and the B12 is not bringing in additional income from its own network. The Ducks brand is strong and while Oregon sports are of course reliant upon a media deal, media money is but one source of Oregon's income. Economics 101 is now adjourned and no one in their right mind should pay money to listen to Professor JJ. One way or another this too shall pass. -

The B12 struck while the Pac-10 fiddled. I have serious doubts about GK but in today's market, I don't think that any person no matter how gifted a negotiator would have an easy time of it making a deal. And the inventory he has for sale is what it is. Rock and a hard place. Perhaps I am foolish but I still believe that the Pac-10 will conclude a deal within the range of the B12 and better than that of the ACC. Today, the ACC, B12, and Pac-10 are in a race for the bronze medal. What GK should have done is to push harder to go to a Pac-20 and bury the B12 but that like the water the gentleman is drowning in is over the dam.

IMO, Oregon, and UW will not agree to a significant exit fee. Nor should they. And IMO these 2, especially Oregon should negotiate a bigger piece of the media pie. Oregon in particular brings a bigger piece of pie to the table than any other Pac team including Washington.

KK, any idea that helps out Oregon is a good idea. I just don't think that if Oregon did its own deal which would hurt the Pac-9's new deal the members of the Pac would want to do anything to help out Oregon. Would an ND-like ACC deal be doable? Maybe. But the remaining Pac-9 members would have to swallow a lot of hard feelings.

Dan Lanning continues to use the portal masterfully to plug holes in the roster.

It's not over before the fat ladies close their respective purses. ESPN and Fox and still in play. A streaming partner is still in play. There is a timeline out there for MW schools. If the Pac-10 wants to expand and add SDSU (and/or Fresno, UNLV, CO St, Boise) Mountain West schools need to give notice to the MW by 6/30/23 or the exit fee will go from $16M to 30+M.

If Oregon was to do its own deal and not sign the new conference grant of rights it would no longer be a member of the conference. Far better IMO to sign the new grant of rights and negotiate for a bigger slice of the media pie. Before Larry the Pac conference had unequal revenue shares. Thanks again, Larry. USC noted its displeasure at the time and remained disgruntled. One of the B1G reasons that Troy is going B1G. UCLA would not have been invited without USC.

Very risky. How many of the existing Pac-10 schools would schedule the Ducks in football, basketball, and non-revenue sports? OOC schedules are filled for many schools five years to a decade-plus out. The Ducks would likely end up being a quasi-member of the Mountain West and as an independent would not automatically make the playoff field in 2024/25. If Oregon made the field it could not be seeded higher than 5. And Oregon would not have a 13th champ game data point. Why would the Ducks on its own score a better deal than they will score in the Pac-10? Today, I very much doubt that ESPN will come with close to $90M for Pac media rights and see no way that ESPN would pay SEC-like money, $70M a team, for the Ducks. The Ducks have terrific value as a brand, no doubt, but I just do not think it is feasible for Oregon to join Army, UConn, UMass, Notre Dame, and NM State as an independent. Unlike Notre Dame, Oregon would not have a seat at the Playoff table. Notre Dame's deal with NBC is for @$30M a season. I think the new Pac-12 deal will at least meet this number. And I very much doubt that Oregon could find a scheduling agreement like ND has with the ACC. I think this is a case of hanging separately or hanging together.

Being an orphan looking for bread ($) is not easy.

NJ Duck thanks for the post but this is again, without naming sources, nothing but doom and gloom rumor-mongering. I prefer to rely upon WSU and Pac-12 executive committee member, President Schulz who recently said that everything is proceeding as well as can be expected in a media market far less robust than even 9 months ago. Which media outlet will pay $30M a year each for AZ, ASU, CU, and Utah's sports inventory? Fox with the LA market locked up is IMO, not paying for the inventory of any additional B12 schools. ESPN just went through a series of new layoffs and has to come up with an additional $140M for Oklahoma and Texas. Which advertisers are clamoring to fund and advertise any of the four corners schools' football programs? Conferences are not paying the freight. Advertisers have to pay the freight. And all advertisers have been affected negatively by a less-than-robust economy. Come up with advertising money for Oklahoma and Texas. Yes. For AZ, ASU, CU, and Utah? I do not see it. If ESPN wants late-night kick-off inventory it has to make a deal of some kind with the Pac-12. Fox has shut ESPN out of the B1G conference. These 'journalists' are very good at spending other people's money.

Charles, good calls by you and Happy. I think if Clemson and FSU were to join with SEC without any other teams to take the SEC to 18 teams that Clemson and FSU would be placed in a pod with South Carolina. The SEC IMO will not separate Georgia and Florida. Yes, a schedule against the teams you mentioned would be daunting. But the SEC also has Vandy, Kentucky, MS State, and other less formidable teams in the conference.

At the very least, Clemson and FSU want a far larger revenue cut than for example, BC and Wake Forest. Wake has the smallest stadium in FBS and the stadium at BC is not much larger. Clemson and FSU (like Oregon and UW in the Pac-10) draw the most eyeballs in the conference with UNC and Miami not that far behind.

I was pondering the matter of journalism last night and an old Russian joke about Moscow's two main newspapers came to mind. Pravda (Truth) Izvestia (News): there is no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.

As bad as things are on the West Coast when it comes to broadcast angst, in many ways, it is no better on the East Coast where the ACC is buried in a terrible media deal, $20M a year for each school, with Disney/ESPN. (This dollar amount is augmented by distributions from the ESPN-owned and operated ACC Network but this does not bring the ACC ahead of the B12's new media deal.) And this deal, already called out by ACC football heavyweights FSU and Clemson runs through 2036! The University of South Carolina and Florida University might not be happy about it, as Texas A+M was not pleased with Texas coming on board, but if these two schools can exit the onerous media deal, both are a slam dunk (it's the ACC, I had to get a CBB reference in there) to join the SEC. I don't like it but I believe that CFB is likely headed to a Power 2 Super Conference. Meanwhile, sit back, relax, and enjoy Ducks football. Clemson, Florida State teaming up to challenge ACC’s Grant of Rights FANSIDED.COM Clemson and Florida State are looking to take on the outdated ACC Grant of Rights they signed. Don't be shocked if Clemson and Florida State are the t...

The delay in implementing this rule could benefit a Texas Tech team that ran the most plays in the nation in 2022.

Nearer My Bankruptcy to Thee? And like The Ship That Couldn't Sink, there are not enough lifeboats on the good ship Pac-10. 'Captain, we are bailing water but the pumps are failing!'

The SEC is expected to go with 'pods.' 2 or 3 permanent opponents. If it is 3, Bama is expected to play Auburn of course, and Tennessee and LSU every season. Oklahoma, Texas, and A+M are expected to play every season. Saint Nick is not happy about this, boo-hoo. The Kentucky rung of the SEC wants to stay at 8 games but I doubt that ESPN will be on board with not playing a 9th conference game and being stuck with having to broadcast an SEC team versus Nothing-Burger State. You take the big media bucks and you have to pay a piece. I see Ohio State playing Michigan every season but not playing Penn State every season. USC and UCLA will play every season but will there be 2 or 3 other permanent opponents for the LA schools? I think SC and UCLA will play a majority of their conference games against what are now B1G West opponents. But Fox has to get its LA money-worth so I will not be surprised to see Ohio State as a permanent opponent for SC and Michigan as a permanent opponent for UCLA. I think powerhouse Ohio State AD Gene Smith got a heads-up on this which is one reason why Ohio State dropped UW. Michigan canceled a home-and-home series with UCLA which is one reason Michigan and UCLA had putrid OOC schedules in 2022 and have putrid OOC schedules in 2023.

And paid UW $500K to do so. Will tOSU drop the game scheduled at Oregon? Would not surprise me in the least. And if the Buckeyes are going to drop the Ducks they best do it far earlier than 1 year before the game is scheduled to be played. Giving UW one year to find a replacement stinks. I hope Mullens covered his posterior with a big-time buy-out number.

Yes, this is a WAG but I did find it interesting. According to CFN, 8 Pac-12 teams go bowling in 2023. Oregon, USC, and UW all finish 10-2. Oregon defeats USC but loses in Seattle. USC defeats UW in LA but loses in Eugene. UW defeats Oregon in Seattle but loses in LA. What 2 teams play in the conference champ game? https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings/pac-12-college-football-predictions-for-every-game-spring-version A few thoughts. Arizona - 6-6 - Wins against Oregon State and UCLA? ASU - 5-7 - Ducks win in Tempe. CAL - 5-7 -Ducks win but Oregon State takes an L in Berkeley? CU - 3-9 - Ducks win in Prime's first conference game. Oregon - 10-2 - L at UW is a reasonable prediction. But an L versus CAL? Oregon State - 7-5 - This IMO is a rock-bottom prediction for the Beavers in 2023. Stanford 2-10 - Hard to quibble with this. UCLA - 8-4 - I think the Bruins with a super soft OOC schedule win 9 games. USC - 10-2 - The loss in Eugene would be nice. I do not see SC losing to the Domers in South Bend. I don't see ND having enough firepower on O to keep up with Williams and the SC offense. Utah - 9-3 - CFN predicts the Ducks will take its 2nd loss in SLC. I am more optimistic; especially, if Rising isn't 100%. Washington - 10-2 - Huskies split with Oregon schools. Defeat the Ducks in Seattle but lose in Corvallis. With UW playing Utah and SC in LA before tripping to Corvallis, I can see this. Washington State - 7-5 - Wazzu is already a winner getting Wisconsin to trip to Pullman for a certain sellout. But defeating the Badgers two seasons in a row?

Know thy enemy - Sun Tzu https://collegefootballnews.com/cfn/washington-huskies-college-football-preview-2023-breakdown-prediction-top-players-win-total

I think McMurphy and Dodd are twins separated at birth. The Missouri School of Journalism that Dodd graduated from and wherever McMurphy graduated from should be vetted and closed down. When did rumor-mongering, outside of The National Enquirer, become journalism? I have more faith in my Magic 8-Ball. 'The answer is cloudy.;

"Facts are troublesome things." John Adams

I love this but do people in academia have the stomach to file collusion and/or anti-trust litigation? The former Oregon president is at Northwestern and the new Oregon president came to Oregon from the B1G. Any litigation would have to be approved by the conference presidents who have never been litigious. Except when dragged into litigation by the NCAA; litigation that the NCAA lost while spending multi-millions of dollars in the process. Unfortunately, sports fans do not have the required standing to bring suit against member schools and networks, and conferences that colluded to take SC and UCLA from the Pac and OK/TX from the B12. Even if "we" could bring suit I doubt that a decent law firm would take on any such case pro bono. So, who will pay the attorney's fees? The B1G and the SEC have the majority of the market share but enough to warrant an anti-trust suit. I don't see it.

McMurphy is often wrong but never in doubt. Vetted? By whom? The B1G presidents before the new commissioner hire got together and vetted the NW schools? The new commissioner settling into his job vetted the NW schools? Which of Fox, and junior partners CBS and NBC are going to come up with say, $100M or in that ballpark to finance adding Oregon and Washington? And ESPN? Fox elbowed ESPN out of being a B1G broadcast partner because Fox was ticked off that ESPN helped engineer the OK/TX move to the SEC. So why would ESPN want the 2 most-watched teams remaining in the Pac to go to the B1G? ESPN needs the west coast's late KO times. I do not see ESPN or Fox ponying up for more B12 inventory. And I don't see Arizona and CU, unless the new Pac-10 media deal is a complete loser, agreeing to take a lesser share than BYU and Cincinnati. It's a far different media market today than it was twelve months ago. I think the B12 commissioner's mouth is writing checks that can't be cashed. It's very easy for a sports "journalist" to spend other people's money. I don't see advertisers lining up to buy advertising time for AZ and CU football games. If B1G vetting is being done it has to be done by Fox, CBS, and NBC. I very much doubt that B1G broadcasters are going to approve the addition of the NW schools before knowing what the Pac-10 new media deal will be. Is there a business person in the house?

I would like to see an ACC - Pac Challenge in football and basketball. For football, it would be a home-and-home series. Both series would be more easily formatted if the Pac-10 were to add 4 teams. SDSU, UNLV, SMU, Tulane?