It's Oregon, then Everybody Else!

[30Duck]

[Jon Joseph]

The game in Columbus helped the cause with over 7M viewers. Good luck scoring a huge new media deal with these sorry numbers and deciding not to expand 'at this time.'

[jrw]

Over 4 million people have watched Arizona play football? 3 million of them may never watch another game.

[Steven A]

On 10/28/2021 at 11:45 AM, jrw said:

Over 4 million people have watched Arizona play football? 3 million of them may never watch another game.

I didn't realize the players had that many relatives.

[1Ducker1]

Poor Beavs

[Jon Joseph]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:54 PM, 30Duck said:

 

I should have noted that in addition to the OH ST game bumping up OR's #s the LSU game did the same for UCLA.

 

Query: You are the managing partner in a 12 person law firm. Should Oregon receive the same piece of the pie as partners who are bringing no where close to what Oregon is bringing to the bottom line? 

 

Do partners that budget and spend far less money than Oregon in an attempt to deliver a successful product deserve the same cut as Oregon?

 

If your answer is 'Yes,' to these questions, why would Oregon want to remain in this partnership?

 

Many of Oregon's 'partners' want to be the Ivy league of the West. Somehow, they expect to compete with the B1G and the SEC teams in football with the same budgets as many G5 programs. Or, they simply do not care at all about being competitive? Or they care but they do not, even when receiving the same share as Oregon, have the money necessary to compete.

 

The Alliance will not 'fix this.' 

[Jon Joseph]

On 10/28/2021 at 3:25 PM, Steven A said:

I didn't realize the players had that many relatives.

Stevan A and jrw, stop it! I'm rolling on the floor in laughter. But the laughter, like the truth, hurts!

[30Duck]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:43 PM, Jon Joseph said:

Query: You are the managing partner in a 12 person law firm. Should Oregon receive the same piece of the pie as partners who are bringing no where close to what Oregon is bringing to the bottom line? 

  Pardon the pun, Oregon has been the "Rainmaker" for a long time, and unlike one at a Law Firm, Oregon isn't realizing any perks for their productivity. USC is the old Warrior, "Fight On" but has not brought in anything for a long time. Washington just sits in a corner and howls, UCLA tries, just can not close the deal.

 

ASU, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, still don't really know where anything is, or where they are, actually. Stanford, Cal cite precedents. WSU would like to turn the Firm into a Co-Op, and Oregon State is very proud of their new copy machine.

[Steven A]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:43 PM, Jon Joseph said:

 

I should have noted that in addition to the OH ST game bumping up OR's #s the LSU game did the same for UCLA.

 

Query: You are the managing partner in a 12 person law firm. Should Oregon receive the same piece of the pie as partners who are bringing no where close to what Oregon is bringing to the bottom line? 

 

Do partners that budget and spend far less money than Oregon in an attempt to deliver a successful product deserve the same cut as Oregon?

 

If your answer is 'Yes,' to these questions, why would Oregon want to remain in this partnership?

 

Many of Oregon's 'partners' want to be the Ivy league of the West. Somehow, they expect to compete with the B1G and the SEC teams in football with the same budgets as many G5 programs. Or, they simply do not care at all about being competitive? Or they care but they do not, even when receiving the same share as Oregon, have the money necessary to compete.

 

The Alliance will not 'fix this.' 

I am going to disagree with the analogy.  Oregon shares the Pac 12 revenue, however it has it's side job with its own brand that does not share that revenue; jersey sales, ticket sales, donations, etc.  Plus, those "others" with their lagging production allows Oregon to pad their record and remain on top.

 

P.S. I survived a law firm where they had a Big 12 type partnership = unequal partners (talking Texas here), I got out 1 year prior to being offered one of those "prestigious labels"/partner.  I knew I made the right decision when years later I represented the top partner in his bankruptcy!

[Jon Joseph]

On 10/28/2021 at 4:20 PM, Steven A said:

I am going to disagree with the analogy.  Oregon shares the Pac 12 revenue, however it has it's side job with its own brand that does not share that revenue; jersey sales, ticket sales, donations, etc.  Plus, those "others" with their lagging production allows Oregon to pad their record and remain on top.

 

P.S. I survived a law firm where they had a Big 12 type partnership = unequal partners (talking Texas here), I got out 1 year prior to being offered one of those "prestigious labels"/partner.  I knew I made the right decision when years later I represented the top partner in his bankruptcy!

 

Steven, great point on the 'outside' income.

 

I believe there is a better association for Oregon and for football 'out west?' A line up that would unfortunately take away many the old rivalry but a line up that could save the 6, Pac-12 'bolters?'

The below operation could entice FOX to acquire the functionally insolvent Pac-12 Network and to consequently manage and operate a B18 Network? The B1G Network with FOX in charge is a big time operation. 

 

Combine the below 18 team media rights and you have an association that could stay within financial reach of the B1G and the SEC.

 

WEST - ASU, BYU, KS, K ST, OREGON, STANFORD, USC, UTAH and UW. [Stanford and USC do not need CA legislature approval to bolt. If BYU is redundant with Utah, swap the Utes for CU and the Denver market? BYU brings in SLC and has a nationwide following. Same for CU instead of ASU if the Arizona legislature balks.]

 

EAST  - BAYLOR, CINCINNATI, HOUSTON, IOWA ST,  OKLAHOMA ST, TCU, TEXAS TECH, UCF, WEST VIRGINIA.

 

The Pac-12 powers that be decided not to expand 'at this time,' thus failing to eliminate the B12 as a competitor. Bob Bowlsby, no surprise, acted with alacrity to save the B12 as a P5 conference. The B12 still has its eye on SMU and San Diego State.

 

The suggested conference would bring a strong, collective group of media rights to the table. 

 

Standing still after the OK/TX move to the SEC and the B12 expansion is moving backwards.

 

1 OOC game a year vs a B1G/ACC team is not going to entice folks to subscribe to the Pac-12 network; or, significantly improve the conference's bottom line.

 

You have to look at the long term situation and not reject new candidates because they do not immediately drop $ to the bottom line. IMO, this would bottom line be a better group of partners than Oregon has today.

 

[Charles Fischer]

Good gosh Jon....you own this subject. Really well-thought out and reasonable takes on this--whew!

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 10/28/2021 at 7:32 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Good gosh Jon....you own this subject. Really well-thought out and reasonable takes on this--whew!

 

 

Thank you Mr. FD. Not to expand 'at this time,' IMO, was tragic mistake for Oregon. When will there be a better time to expand than now? After the SEC did 'the dirty work' for you?

 

Go after B12 teams now and you are a skunk; just like SEC Commissioner Sankey. Strike before Bob Bowlsby strikes and you are a 'hero' for saving a bunch of B12 leftovers. THIS was the logical move if you have any intention of saving and growing the Pac-12 Network.

 

Compare the eyeballs watching TX TECH and OK ST for example, to those watching OR ST and WAZZU? It's not just the media market per se. It is the size of the number of folks watching your product. And the Dallas market and Houston market, if you added Houston and money bags supporter Fertitta, are huge and full of rabid CFB fans.? 

 

Lots of TX and AM fans live in Houston. But Houston, not Rice, is the 'it' Houston market team. And Houston is a tier 1 research school with many the graduate including a Heisman Trophy winner, Jim Nance and Freddy Couples.

 

It was a chance to move into the Central time zone, grow the network and get better kick off times. And get directly into the rich Texas recruiting area.

 

The Alliance may be a savior for GK's job but for the Pac-12 conference?

 

 

[C J]

The Beavers have only played maybe one game outside of the pac12 network this year, and I think it was late at night. Hence the low numbers.

 

They have a solid team with a great coach. I hate to see these numbers for them.

Edited October 29, 2021 by C J

[Tandaian]

I get it, but having more isn't always better.  Big 12 TV contract is going to be way less than Pac 12.  Even if the Pac 12 would have invited any from the 4: Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., TCU, Kansas, Kansas St., Houston, SMU, etc. It would not have been a boost to the Pac 12.  If those teams mattered for TV dollars, Texas and Oklahoma wouldn't have left.  Houston and SMU would have previously been invited into the Big 12.

 

Houston is trending the wrong way as well for home attendance.  Was at 38,000 in 2015 and was down to 25,000 in 2019.  Not sure how much we can take this season, but they are down to an average of below 24,000 this year.

https://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-football-attendance  Only Washington State has home attendance average that low.

 

B1G TEN and SEC will always be the top 2.  Their fans and school alumni base are huge.  ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 will jockey for 3rd.  I have a feeling the Pac 12 will actually be consistently #3 after Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12.

 

What each team was paid in 2020.

1. Big Ten: $54.3 million
2. SEC: $45.5 million
3. Big 12: ~$38 million
4. Pac-12: $33.6 million
5. ACC: ~$33 million

 

The ACC locked into a 20 year deal in 2016 for 4.8 billion.  That is an average of 240 mil per year.  The Pac 12 signed their old contract for 12 years for 3 billion, which is 250 mil per year.  The Big 12's current contract pays 200 mil a year.  

 

From a recruiting stand point, it would be nice, but not sure how much more we can ask for when these are our last 5 recruiting class rankings according to Rivals.

2021 #3

2020 #9

2019 #7

2018 #13

2017 #18

 

[DanLduck]

Oregon has been on TV more than other schools, particularly the Beavs.

 

Viewership will be off this year cuz Pac12 is pretty bad.

 

And left coast peops aren't crazy rabid about football.

[Jon Joseph]

On 10/29/2021 at 11:44 AM, Tandaian said:

I get it, but having more isn't always better.  Big 12 TV contract is going to be way less than Pac 12.  Even if the Pac 12 would have invited any from the 4: Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., TCU, Kansas, Kansas St., Houston, SMU, etc. It would not have been a boost to the Pac 12.  If those teams mattered for TV dollars, Texas and Oklahoma wouldn't have left.  Houston and SMU would have previously been invited into the Big 12.

 

Houston is trending the wrong way as well for home attendance.  Was at 38,000 in 2015 and was down to 25,000 in 2019.  Not sure how much we can take this season, but they are down to an average of below 24,000 this year.

https://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-football-attendance  Only Washington State has home attendance average that low.

 

B1G TEN and SEC will always be the top 2.  Their fans and school alumni base are huge.  ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 will jockey for 3rd.  I have a feeling the Pac 12 will actually be consistently #3 after Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12.

 

What each team was paid in 2020.

1. Big Ten: $54.3 million
2. SEC: $45.5 million
3. Big 12: ~$38 million
4. Pac-12: $33.6 million
5. ACC: ~$33 million

 

The ACC locked into a 20 year deal in 2016 for 4.8 billion.  That is an average of 240 mil per year.  The Pac 12 signed their old contract for 12 years for 3 billion, which is 250 mil per year.  The Big 12's current contract pays 200 mil a year.  

 

From a recruiting stand point, it would be nice, but not sure how much more we can ask for when these are our last 5 recruiting class rankings according to Rivals.

2021 #3

2020 #9

2019 #7

2018 #13

2017 #18

 

 

I'm not sure that the B12 will end up with a TV contract less than that of the Ducks? BYU has a nationwide following. Houston is a huge media market. Cincinnati is a decent sized market as is Orlando and UCF and Cincinnati will be bringing in additional eye balls from the eastern time zone.

I agree the Pac-12 will come nowhere close to the B1G and the SEC in the new media deal. But I believe expansion could have closed the gap more than will the Pac-12 negotiating as-is?

I also believe that with expansion the Network could have been brought to solvency and made a decent target for a buy out with the conference splitting the proceeds.

You are fine with standing pat? I get it. I hope it works out in the long run but I don't see it?

Recruiting #s for Oregon are fine. For the rest of the conference? They stink. 

Mario is the best recruiter in CFB. In the long run, what happens to recruiting once Mario departs?

I reiterate, I think the conference made the easy decision to stand pat which looks good in a number of ways today. But IMO this decision will not help the conference and the Ducks in the long run.

[Steven A]

On 10/29/2021 at 10:09 AM, Jon Joseph said:

 

I'm not sure that the B12 will end up with a TV contract less than that of the Ducks? BYU has a nationwide following. Houston is a huge media market. Cincinnati is a decent sized market as is Orlando and UCF and Cincinnati will be bringing in additional eye balls from the eastern time zone.

I agree the Pac-12 will come nowhere close to the B1G and the SEC in the new media deal. But I believe expansion could have closed the gap more than will the Pac-12 negotiating as-is?

I also believe that with expansion the Network could have been brought to solvency and made a decent target for a buy out with the conference splitting the proceeds.

You are fine with standing pat? I get it. I hope it works out in the long run but I don't see it?

Recruiting #s for Oregon are fine. For the rest of the conference? They stink. 

Mario is the best recruiter in CFB. In the long run, what happens to recruiting once Mario departs?

I reiterate, I think the conference made the easy decision to stand pat which looks good in a number of ways today. But IMO this decision will not help the conference and the Ducks in the long run.

Hoping Mario is here for the long run, 10+ years.  If so, when he is gone, we have learned that recruiting ability should be #1 on the new coaches resume.  And hopefully, as in the past, there is someone within to promote.

[Tandaian]

I'm not really fine with standing pat, but looking at the teams willing to move to the Pac 12, meh.  Also, not really willing to go the Conference USA route and have schools all over the country.  I wouldn't have been against BYU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and/or Houston joining the Pac 12, but I'm not upset we didn't go that direction.  We'll see what happens with the next round of TV contracts.

 

You do make a good point about recruiting for the rest of the conference.  They stink and having a college in Texas would likely help the conference and when Mario eventually leaves help the Ducks.

[Duck 1972]

I don't have a problem with the PAC as it is. It wouldn't matter if we expanded with the other schools because it still doesn't get rid of the East Coast bias and change time so the East would be able to watch us. 

The reality is we still have the Rose Bowl and 5 other bowls to play in. I believe the West Coast can only have 1 to 2 teams with top recruiting classes. And besides the transfer portal may have made recruiting a little less important.