Don't Think the Pac-12 Should Expand? Check out These Revenue Projections from Jon Wilner

[Jon Joseph]

Projected P5 conference revenues for 2022 through 2024, when the current PAC-12 media deal ends.

 

B1G - $250.6 M

 

SEC - $195 M

 

B 12 - $161.8 M

 

ACC - $146.5 M

 

Pac-12 - $134.9 M

 

Now, imagine that we were on the verge of a Pac-20 (OK ST, TX TECH, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Kansas, K ST, Iowa St) with the B12 gone as a competitor for media rights. And with the Pac-12 in the central time zone including football crazy Texas. 

 

Now imagine the new subscribers who would have subscribed to the Pac-20 Network saving the Pac-12 Network from financial insolvency, returning the capital Pac-12 schools originally invested plus a ROI and quite likely convincing a media entity like FOX to be the owner/operator of the Pac-20 Network.

 

A tragic business mistake. As is, the new Pac-12 media deal will not significantly close this revenue disparity; not even close.

[kirklandduck]

I wince every time I see something like this as I was a proponent of expansion.  Pulling in those SW/midwest teams would have greatly benefited the conference in so many ways...

[HappyToBeADuck]

Jon, this topic is so depressing for me on so many levels. I am glad you keep bringing it up though. Let me share with you a real life experience that parallels the choices that confronted the PAC Conference and P12 Cartoon Network.

 

During the latter part of the Great Recession, my son came to me with  2 business decisions. I had turned the company over to him to run in 2006 just after he graduated college with 2 degrees. But in 2009 the economy was struggling. Some of our customers were closing their doors. Decisions about the future had to be made.

 

First decision. Dad, all of our competitors are laying off people and cutting back to save money. That means potential customers  will be seen less by our competition. If mom, you and I take pay cuts we can keep all of our field staff in place. We can go see our competitors customers. Our company can take over their service and product needs  We did and as result we doubled our account base in 2 years. We took less money in the short term to make more money in the long term.

 

Second decision.  After we eliminate our local competition then we must expand our virtual foot print. More boots on the ground in more states. Seeing more people, sharing our products with more eyeballs will bring greater returns. 12 plus years later, from that conversation, we have grown the account base 6 times and revenues are up 400%. Our paychecks are substantially larger today.

 

Forward vision and a plan of action prepared us for the future. We were also positioned with cash and staff to grow during the pandemic.  2020 was our greatest year of 42 years of business. We exceeded 2020 sales in August 2021. 

 

Opportunity and preparedness must meet at the same time to capitalize on the moment........

 

Do we feel the P-12 Network team was prepared to actually build a sports network platform? They weren't capable. They spurned ESPN and or Fox Networks offer to partner with them. They couldn't come to money broadcast terms with all the cable giants. Thus less eyeballs watching resulted in less money for the network and each school. The 12 Presidents and the tennis guru did not want to share revenues. They didn't want to take less money. Essentially the got what they wanted, less money.......

 

Then the great opportunity was presented by the giant Texas Longhorn and Oklahoma Sooners egos. Their departure left the PAC with the opportunity to eliminate a competitor. But better yet, simply merge those 8 assets and expand the PAC footprint. The opportunity to grow without spending any money. The opportunity to add 50 million plus eyeballs at the right time. Enter media marketing rights negotiations with a full house. Nope the Presidents didn't want to take less money by sharing revenues with a lesser conference. Please understand they didn't have to share any revenues with the merger. This was complete as ignorant a business decision as any person with academic prowess could make.

 

So OBD Forum ask your self: Were the 12 Presidents prepared when the opportunity presented itself?

 

I think not......... sorry for the rant.

[30Duck]

On 2/10/2022 at 3:04 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

. sorry for the rant.

That was anything but a rant. I'm very happy that your decisions turned out so well for your family and business. But, as you told Jon, it was very sad to once again be reminded of how the Pac-12 operated. It's tiring also, but true that the SEC is the monster it is because all the parties involved there share the vision of being the dominant conference.

[HappyToBeADuck]

30 Duck..... thank you. You are so right that the SEC schools share a vision of being the dominant conference. But consider that the SEC leadership makes quality business decisions. They use forward thinking with great vision.

While most conferences and schools were reeling from the financial disaster of the pandemic the SEC expanded with 2 blue blood programs.

 

Now with the virtual collapse of the NCAA we should expect further expansion. Jon may be spot on with the creation of a 24 team super conference. Think about it OBD forum, that conference will not have to share a dime of any money with any other division created this August.. They can and will court additional schools to join from coast to coast. The top schools in one conference will command the lions share of money from ALL the networks. 

 

Just a side note for those who may feel that the SEC did the BIG 12 a underhanded, dirty deal. My son did not ask our competitors if it was okay if he took their customers or expanded our company foot print. It was business survival. Expect the SEC to decimate other conferences and maybe come to a college town near you. Fun times.

[30Duck]

On 2/10/2022 at 3:38 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

They use forward thinking with great vision.

Exactly. the phrase, "It means more" is what drives the SEC in their decision making. Just like in games, when one team is more motivated than the other, that team will win. Same for the conferences; this is why the Pac-12 and the SEC are where they are now. 

[Guest Axel]

I'm against conference expansion primarily because it would water down rivalries. If the Ducks were in a super conference of 20 teams, they would not play Washington, Washington State, California, and Stanford every year. I'm not thrilled about putting Kansas, Houston, and Kansas State on the schedule. Nothing against the fine folks in Kansas--I love corn on the cob as much as anyone. 

 

Sure, there are financial benefits, but at what cost? In a colossal conference populated by teams like Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas A&M, not to mention USC, it would be more difficult for the Ducks to win conference championships. What's more, the pathway to a national championship would be exceedingly difficult, especially in the current four-team playoff format.  

 

Another point: good rivalries take years, if not decades, to develop. And regional rivalries are typically the strongest and most strident. The bitter rivalry between the Ducks and Huskies is a classic example. How many years would it take fans of Oregon and Baylor to despise each other? A Baylor Bear connotes something furry and friendly. Call me soft, but I cringe at the thought of hating a cute and cuddly teddy bear.

 

In a humongous 20-team confederation with many teams from the Central Time Zone, we would no longer belong to a Pacific conference. The Pacific-20 Conference would be an inappropriate appellation, and we might have to settle for something like "The West-of-the-Mississippi-20 Giga-Conference." And that would cause untold migraines for headline writers. 

 

Today's Pac-12 certainly has its challenges. However, creating a mega-conference with schools from far outside our region could well be a mega mistake.

[30Duck]

On 2/10/2022 at 4:01 PM, Axel said:

I'm against conference expansion primarily because it would water down rivalries

I hate Washington as much as anybody, but really, we've beaten them 15 of the last 17 times, that doesn't a rivalry make. But really, I would sacrifice playing Washington, even OSU regularly, if the alternative is Oregon being in the Super Conference moving forward. 

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/10/2022 at 7:01 PM, Axel said:

I'm against conference expansion primarily because it would water down rivalries. If the Ducks were in a super conference of 20 teams, they would not play Washington, Washington State, California, and Stanford every year. I'm not thrilled about putting Kansas, Houston, and Kansas State on the schedule. Nothing against the fine folks in Kansas--I love corn on the cob as much as anyone. 

 

Sure, there are financial benefits, but at what cost? In a colossal conference populated by teams like Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas A&M, not to mention USC, it would be more difficult for the Ducks to win conference championships. What's more, the pathway to a national championship would be exceedingly difficult, especially in the current four-team playoff format.  

 

Another point: good rivalries take years, if not decades, to develop. And regional rivalries are typically the strongest and most strident. The bitter rivalry between the Ducks and Huskies is a classic example. How many years would it take fans of Oregon and Baylor to despise each other? A Baylor Bear connotes something furry and friendly. Call me soft, but I cringe at the thought of hating a cute and cuddly teddy bear.

 

In a humongous 20-team confederation with many teams from the Central Time Zone, we would no longer belong to a Pacific conference. The Pacific-20 Conference would be an inappropriate appellation, and we might have to settle for something like "The West-of-the-Mississippi-20 Giga-Conference." And that would cause untold migraines for headline writers. 

 

Today's Pac-12 certainly has its challenges. However, creating a mega-conference with schools from far outside our region could well be a mega mistake.

I disagree my friend. Oregon being in the Pac-10 division would play 8 teams in the division every year, OR ST being a permanent opponent. There would be 2 division cross over games. With 4 P4 conferences and a guarantee of the Pac-20 championship being in the playoff, you could even have 3 cross over games. Today, the Pac-12 is going to the media market place with the same 'goods' as before. Add the number of Pac-12 and the additional 8 teams whose players have been invited to the 2022 NFL combine and you do not close in on the SEC but you do significantly close in on the B1G. 

 

GK will do his best but as is the Pac-12 will not be able to close the financial and recruiting gap and the Pac-12 network will continue to struggle or more likely, close shop.

[HappyToBeADuck]

Axel,  you make some excellent points. Under no circumstances do I feel a super conference is the best direction. It could very well be a Mega mistake......

 

Rivalries would not have to disappear in the PAC 20. We need those NW rivalries. But consider, do we haveany  real rivalry with Colorado,  ASU , Arizona or Cal. Would it be bad to play Baylor, Houston, OK State or Texas Tech every 3rd or 4th year?  Especially if each school could reap $75-$100 million a year from Network contact's and the P-20 channel. How would that be a negative.

 

That kind of money salvages the non revenue sports. Especially women's sports.  Also, as a fan, none of us have to watch games we don't like. But I for one would love to know that the next Marcus or Justin can watch the P-20 network. However that's a dead horse because the SEC and B1G are positioned to dictate what future players watch. Including women's sports. We may not like it but more big changes our on the horizon. Too bad the PAC decided to be a spectator and not a participant.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/10/2022 at 7:50 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

Axel,  you make some excellent points. Under no circumstances do I feel a super conference is the best direction. It could very well be a Mega mistake......

 

Rivalries would not have to disappear in the PAC 20. We need those NW rivalries. But consider, do we haveany  real rivalry with Colorado,  ASU , Arizona or Cal. Would it be bad to play Baylor, Houston, OK State or Texas Tech every 3rd or 4th year?  Especially if each school could reap $75-$100 million a year from Network contact's and the P-20 channel. How would that be a negative.

 

That kind of money salvages the non revenue sports. Especially women's sports.  Also, as a fan, none of us have to watch games we don't like. But I for one would love to know that the next Marcus or Justin can watch the P-20 network. However that's a dead horse because the SEC and B1G are positioned to dictate what future players watch. Including women's sports. We may not like it but more big changes our on the horizon. Too bad the PAC decided to be a spectator and not a participant.

Great take. That kind of money also keeps coaches who are successful in any and all sports at home. CU had no shot of keeping Mel Tucker when Michigan State came calling with a whole lot of bread in hand. WAZZU could not match the salary offered to Mike Leach, plus the increase in pay for Leach's assistant coaches and a huge increase in the $ and resources for recruiting.

 

Like the G5 is for the P5, the Pac-12 is and will become more of a coaching training ground for the other P5 conferences. 

[Darren Perkins]

I still respectfully disagree. There's a reason the SEC stopped at Texas and Oklahoma, and that's because the rest of the schools didn't move the needle enough to invite in. None of the rest of the schools have a national brand, so they weren't invited.

 

Simply increading revenue is not enough, you have to increase the overall annual payout per school.

 

If it did make good business sense, I have no doubt the SEC would have invited more schools in, because as has been said here, the SEC makes smart decisions. 

 

And keep in mind, the BIG 12, minus Texas and Oklahoma, are not going to be able to demand nearly as much in their next tv deal, those current numbers above include Texas and Oklahoma.  

 

Plus, George can still invite teams in down the road if does make financial sense. We haven't seen the end of realignment. 

 

I read an Andy Staples article a few months ago, the big money generator in the eyes of the networks are football games that have at least 4 million viewers, The likes of 
Texas and Oklahoma will increase the number of these games for the SEC, the likes of Baylor and Kansas? Not so much. 

 

But, foregoing expansion for The Alliance, will generate more "4 million club" (i.e. Clemsion vs USC, Oregon vs Michigan) type games for the Pac-12 than playing Big-12 leftovers. 

 

From Staples article from last summer:

 

" … if the plan includes a scheduling alliance to create more games in the Four Million Club for each league, then it could be a valuable partnership for all of them. It also could benefit the viewers by giving us more interesting games to watch.

 

What’s the Four Million Club? It’s the group of football games that draw more than four million viewers.

 

These are the games networks are willing to pay premium prices for, and they’re also the type of games the SEC’s addition of Oklahoma and Texas will add to that league’s inventory. In conversations with television executives and consultants, conference officials and athletic directors, it has become clear that the hunt for premium television product will drive this round of realignment (or, in the case of the alliance, rearranging)."

[Goutes18]

The conference revenue numbers show that It is really money that wins championships.  We should get all our money back from idiot Larry Scott.  Missed opportunities at every turn.  As far as expansion goes, I would have to agree that more is not necessarily better.  Utah was in a lesser conference and playing 75% of your games against teams no one cares about sucks.  

 

That being said picking up a couple of key schools could make sense.  Strong media markets and fan base in areas that are recruiting targets - so definitely not Kansas - limited options for sure but maybe TxTech and OKSt.  To be perfectly honest, the last expansion may have helped a TINY bit and was necessary to get a conference championship in place, but you can’t add 6 or 8 more schools like that.  UT and CO were the big winners in the deal.  The unfortunate reality is that usc has to be better and help drive interest.  They are really the only other school besides Oregon that can pull nationally and if they are better, then all those ambivalent socal fans will tune in and help the tv deal as well.  And it would be great if Utah stays good and plays the picked on underdog role some fans can pull for!

[David Marsh]

The biggest question to ask whenever a conference is considering adding new teams is not just the gross additional income, which would increase, but instead looking at the change of income per school. 

 

For instance, adding Boise State and Fresno State to the Pac-12 may not increase the overall income of the rest of the Pac-12 schools but might actually reduce it because the overall payouts per school is no longer 12 ways but 14. Both Boise State and Fresno State have been solid teams over the year but hold relatively small media markets. Are they big enough to add more than they take? 

 

So unless a school is able to help generate more income for everyone then they should not be added because they will only hurt the rest of the conference. 

[Darren Perkins]

From a Wilner article the other Day, George Kliakov said this, and I gotta' say, I like it:

 

 

“My nirvana in football is eight conference games, one game against the Big Ten, one game against the ACC every year — each of those being either home or away — and the last two games to make the 12-game season would be up to the athletic director and the football coach to decide who they want to play. It will take a while to get to that eight-plus-one-plus-one because of existing contractual commitments.”

[Charles Fischer]

On 2/11/2022 at 12:51 PM, Darren Perkins said:

From a Wilner article the other Day, George Kliakov said this, and I gotta' say, I like it:

 

 

“My nirvana in football is eight conference games, one game against the Big Ten, one game against the ACC every year — each of those being either home or away — and the last two games to make the 12-game season would be up to the athletic director and the football coach to decide who they want to play. It will take a while to get to that eight-plus-one-plus-one because of existing contractual commitments.”

Right off the bat...the issue is that we really do not want to face an opponent from the other two Power Conferences that are among their best.  I would prefer to save that for a bowl game or the Playoff.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/11/2022 at 2:34 PM, Darren Perkins said:

I still respectfully disagree. There's a reason the SEC stopped at Texas and Oklahoma, and that's because the rest of the schools didn't move the needle enough to invite in. None of the rest of the schools have a national brand, so they weren't invited.

 

Simply increading revenue is not enough, you have to increase the overall annual payout per school.

 

If it did make good business sense, I have no doubt the SEC would have invited more schools in, because as has been said here, the SEC makes smart decisions. 

 

And keep in mind, the BIG 12, minus Texas and Oklahoma, are not going to be able to demand nearly as much in their next tv deal, those current numbers above include Texas and Oklahoma.  

 

Plus, George can still invite teams in down the road if does make financial sense. We haven't seen the end of realignment. 

 

I read an Andy Staples article a few months ago, the big money generator in the eyes of the networks are football games that have at least 4 million viewers, The likes of 
Texas and Oklahoma will increase the number of these games for the SEC, the likes of Baylor and Kansas? Not so much. 

 

But, foregoing expansion for The Alliance, will generate more "4 million club" (i.e. Clemsion vs USC, Oregon vs Michigan) type games for the Pac-12 than playing Big-12 leftovers. 

 

From Staples article from last summer:

 

" … if the plan includes a scheduling alliance to create more games in the Four Million Club for each league, then it could be a valuable partnership for all of them. It also could benefit the viewers by giving us more interesting games to watch.

 

What’s the Four Million Club? It’s the group of football games that draw more than four million viewers.

 

These are the games networks are willing to pay premium prices for, and they’re also the type of games the SEC’s addition of Oklahoma and Texas will add to that league’s inventory. In conversations with television executives and consultants, conference officials and athletic directors, it has become clear that the hunt for premium television product will drive this round of realignment (or, in the case of the alliance, rearranging)."

Darren, I predict that Clemson and FSU will be SEC members sooner rather than later. And that the B1G will possibly add AAU schools Pitt, UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Kansas.

 

Expansion will not stop as is today. BTW: B12 adding UCF, brilliant! Orlando just passed Miami in media size. Stayin as is and as noted above, the Pac-12 has no shot of closing the widening financial gap between it and the other P5 conferences including and as noted above, The ACC and the 'new' B12. And IMO, no chance at saving the Pac-12 Network.

[Darren Perkins]

On 2/11/2022 at 12:56 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Right off the bat...the issue is that we really do not want to face an opponent from the other two Power Conferences that are among their best.  I would prefer to save that for a bowl game or the Playoff.

 

I agree with that, but i'm trusting they would have sense enough to limit Pac-12 teams like Oregon to one "marqee" matchup and one low-middling matchup. 

[Quackerbacker]

I was anticipating that the Pac-12 would step in and take at least 4 of  the remaining Big 12 teams and form a super conference, when Texas and Oklahoma made their decision to move to the SEC.  It's really mind numbing the lack of vision and business acumen that the leaders of our Pac-12 Universities have.   Good grief most of the Pac-12 has highly thought of business schools you would think the Presidents would have at least talked to some of the leaders of these schools within their Universities to get a projection of revenues and eyeballs.   Like Happy to Be a Duck said that might have saved the PAC-12 Network or at least made it sellable.  

 

Now I'm concerned that it maybe the PAC-12 that disappears in the future due to the lack foresight by these jokers.   But I'm sure they all will keep their offices and jobs and get lots of kudos for what a good job they are doing!   

[Darren Perkins]

On 2/11/2022 at 1:03 PM, Jon Joseph said:

Darren, I predict that Clemson and FSU will be SEC members sooner rather than later. And that the B1G will possibly add AAU schools Pitt, UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Kansas.

 

Expansion will not stop as is today. BTW: B12 adding UCF, brilliant! Orlando just passed Miami in media size. Stayin as is and as noted above, the Pac-12 has no shot of closing the widening financial gap between it and the other P5 conferences including and as noted above, The ACC and the 'new' B12. And IMO, no chance at saving the Pac-12 Network.

Jon, if you can guarantee me that the annual payout per school will increase, I'd jump on your side in a split second, but I still don't see it, and the SEC didn't see it.  It doesn't matter what the rest of the country is doing, we can't make a move that will lower our per school payout. If there are jumbo conferences of 20-24, they are really two conferences under one hat.

 

I think The Alliance plan takes precedence and if that doesn't work out we can possibly look at expansion later if that makes sense. 

[OhioDuck]

On 2/10/2022 at 6:04 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

Jon, this topic is so depressing for me on so many levels. I am glad you keep bringing it up though. Let me share with you a real life experience that parallels the choices that confronted the PAC Conference and P12 Cartoon Network.

 

During the latter part of the Great Recession, my son came to me with  2 business decisions. I had turned the company over to him to run in 2006 just after he graduated college with 2 degrees. But in 2009 the economy was struggling. Some of our customers were closing their doors. Decisions about the future had to be made.

 

First decision. Dad, all of our competitors are laying off people and cutting back to save money. That means potential customers  will be seen less by our competition. If mom, you and I take pay cuts we can keep all of our field staff in place. We can go see our competitors customers. Our company can take over their service and product needs  We did and as result we doubled our account base in 2 years. We took less money in the short term to make more money in the long term.

 

Second decision.  After we eliminate our local competition then we must expand our virtual foot print. More boots on the ground in more states. Seeing more people, sharing our products with more eyeballs will bring greater returns. 12 plus years later, from that conversation, we have grown the account base 6 times and revenues are up 400%. Our paychecks are substantially larger today.

 

Forward vision and a plan of action prepared us for the future. We were also positioned with cash and staff to grow during the pandemic.  2020 was our greatest year of 42 years of business. We exceeded 2020 sales in August 2021. 

 

Opportunity and preparedness must meet at the same time to capitalize on the moment........

 

Do we feel the P-12 Network team was prepared to actually build a sports network platform? They weren't capable. They spurned ESPN and or Fox Networks offer to partner with them. They couldn't come to money broadcast terms with all the cable giants. Thus less eyeballs watching resulted in less money for the network and each school. The 12 Presidents and the tennis guru did not want to share revenues. They didn't want to take less money. Essentially the got what they wanted, less money.......

 

Then the great opportunity was presented by the giant Texas Longhorn and Oklahoma Sooners egos. Their departure left the PAC with the opportunity to eliminate a competitor. But better yet, simply merge those 8 assets and expand the PAC footprint. The opportunity to grow without spending any money. The opportunity to add 50 million plus eyeballs at the right time. Enter media marketing rights negotiations with a full house. Nope the Presidents didn't want to take less money by sharing revenues with a lesser conference. Please understand they didn't have to share any revenues with the merger. This was complete as ignorant a business decision as any person with academic prowess could make.

 

So OBD Forum ask your self: Were the 12 Presidents prepared when the opportunity presented itself?

 

I think not......... sorry for the rant.

Yes! How often life works this way. short term sacrifice leads to long term success, taking care of customers/clients/fans keep them with you and earns more business. 

[Steven A]

On 2/11/2022 at 12:56 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Right off the bat...the issue is that we really do not want to face an opponent from the other two Power Conferences that are among their best. 

My glass is half full.  Play the best and win and that is a step up towards the playoffs.  Lose, well, then maybe we aren't deserving of the playoff and let's win the Pac and get our NY6 game.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/11/2022 at 3:43 PM, David Marsh said:

The biggest question to ask whenever a conference is considering adding new teams is not just the gross additional income, which would increase, but instead looking at the change of income per school. 

 

For instance, adding Boise State and Fresno State to the Pac-12 may not increase the overall income of the rest of the Pac-12 schools but might actually reduce it because the overall payouts per school is no longer 12 ways but 14. Both Boise State and Fresno State have been solid teams over the year but hold relatively small media markets. Are they big enough to add more than they take? 

 

So unless a school is able to help generate more income for everyone then they should not be added because they will only hurt the rest of the conference. 

David, this issue is handled via negotiation. Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska agreed to a phased in full cut when they joined the B1G. Adding the 8 teams I mentioned would have been throwing them a lifeline. I have no doubt GK could have negotiated a revenue disbursement that made sense for the existing Pac-12 teams. BTW, does it make sense for Oregon to get the same share of proceeds as a WA ST that spends no where near what the Ducks spend on football?

 

First you increase your market size; market share with the right management in place will follow.

 

Love you, your articles and takes but this point is a red herring.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/11/2022 at 3:51 PM, Darren Perkins said:

From a Wilner article the other Day, George Kliakov said this, and I gotta' say, I like it:

 

 

“My nirvana in football is eight conference games, one game against the Big Ten, one game against the ACC every year — each of those being either home or away — and the last two games to make the 12-game season would be up to the athletic director and the football coach to decide who they want to play. It will take a while to get to that eight-plus-one-plus-one because of existing contractual commitments.”

And this will add how much to the bottom line? I like the idea of 8 but to have an annual game vs the B1G and the ACC will require the B1G to go to 8 conference games and take years for already agreed to schedules to play out. 

 

THIS all sounds good Darren but how will this close the financial gap with the other conferences? How much interest and additional income will OR ST at Duke and Rutgers at OR ST generate? 

 

The conference failed to increase market size and with this the chance to increase market share. For certain, an OOC game vs the B1G and ACC every year will not save the network even if you put these games on the network.

[Tandaian]

So, those are revenues, not TV contracts.  2021 each Pac 12 team brought in more money than ACC and Big 12.  Comparing apples to oranges.  

 

  Numbers from 2021.

 

ACC: 17 mil per school

Big 12:  20 mil per school

Pac 12:  21 mil per school

B1G Ten: 31.4 mil per school

SEC:  44 mil per school

 

The numbers above are unfortunately a straight out lie.  Every conference brings in more money just from their TV contract, perhaps he at the very least is misusing the term revenue.  Maybe, he is trying to say projected net income for each conference?  Revenue is only positive money, it doesn't include costs.

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/14/2022 at 12:26 PM, Tandaian said:

So, those are revenues, not TV contracts.  2021 each Pac 12 team brought in more money than ACC and Big 12.  Comparing apples to oranges.  

 

https://www.on3.com/news/conference-tv-deals-current-status-college-football/  Numbers from 2021.

 

ACC: 17 mil per school

Big 12:  20 mil per school

Pac 12:  21 mil per school

B1G Ten: 31.4 mil per school

SEC:  44 mil per school

 

The numbers above are unfortunately a straight out lie.  Every conference brings in more money just from their TV contract, than what Jon says.  He at the very least is misusing the term revenue.  Maybe, he is trying to say projected net income for each conference?  Revenue is only positive money, it doesn't include costs.

 

Sorry, that's all-in revenue. You can't be suggesting that the money distributed to Pac-12 teams comes close to the money distributed to B1G and SEC teams? The numbers you show are base madia deal numbers that do not include for instance the money the B1G and SEC networks bring in.

 

I'm very happy to compare all-in numbers but I assure you the the B1G and the SEC are way ahead of the 3 other P5 conferences and I also assure you that 'as is' the Pac-12 new media deal will bring in more money but will not close the gap on the wealthier conferences. 

 

Not once since its creation has the Pac-12 Network brought in the the lowest projected income.

 

As I so noted, the numbers I used come from Jon Wilner of the Mercury News, who does an excellent job of tracking conference finances. The SEC is trading its $55M a year media rights deal with CBS for a $300M+ media rights deal with ESPN. You see this kind of deal coming for the Pac-12?

 

The Pac-12 is being left in the financial dust. The new Pac-12 commissioner would be the first to agree.

[Jon Joseph]

FWIW (very little to nothing) Latest AP Top 25 BBall Poll

 

3 Arizona

6 Kansas

7 Baylor

11 Texas Tech

13 UCLA

14 Houston

17 USC

 

25% of Pac-12 ranked. 40% of Pac-20 ranked.

 

[Tandaian]

I should have been more precise.  I didn't even bother to see who started the post.  I was referring to Jon Wilner, not Jon Joseph. 

 

Jon Wilner is absolutely misusing the term revenue.  As the numbers I posted, from the article I attached, is way more than the numbers Jon Wilner posted.

 

I'm in no way saying Pac 12 brings in the same money as B1G or SEC.  However, we have been discussing a lot about money conferences bring in.  TV money and overall revenue are different.  I'd have to see how Jon Wilner is getting his numbers.  As far as I can tell, Pac 12 will have larger TV contracts than both ACC and Big 12 will in the next TV contract go around.  Not 100 positive, but based on TV contracts from the last go around, I don't see Big 12 getting a bigger TV contract while missing Texas and Oklahoma.

 

That is not the same thing as saying the Pac 12 will bring in more revenue than ACC and Big 12.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/14/2022 at 1:46 PM, Tandaian said:

I should have been more precise.  I didn't even bother to see who started the post.  I was referring to Jon Wilner, not Jon Joseph. 

 

Jon Wilner is absolutely misusing the term revenue.  As the numbers I posted, from the article I attached, is way more than the numbers Jon Wilner posted.

 

I'm in no way saying Pac 12 brings in the same money as B1G or SEC.  However, we have been discussing a lot about money conferences bring in.  TV money and overall revenue are different.  I'd have to see how Jon Wilner is getting his numbers.  As far as I can tell, Pac 12 will have larger TV contracts than both ACC and Big 12 will in the next TV contract go around.  Not 100 positive, but based on TV contracts from the last go around, I don't see Big 12 getting a bigger TV contract while missing Texas and Oklahoma.

 

That is not the same thing as saying the Pac 12 will bring in more revenue than ACC and Big 12.

The ACC is hobbled by its agreement with ESPN through 2036. I think the B12 by adding the Houston, Cincinnati and Orlando markets and the national following that BYU has, may well eclipse the Pac-12 in its new media deal? The B12 is now far more of a presence, with W VA, Cincy and UCF, in the eastern time zone.

 

We'll know in a few years? But as of now we do know the Pac-12 as currently constituted will fall financially farther being the B1G and the SEC and IMO, will not be able to continue to prop-up a financially insolvent network.