|
|
Post by 415hawaiiboy on Jan 18, 2024 9:59:05 GMT -8
I went to Hawaii and Cal so I’m a fan of both schools. When the PAC still had some life to it, I was pushing for Cal/Stanford to help create a California centered football league with the MWC and the remains of the PAC. The goal would be to revive college football in the West by creating drivable games/rivalries, much like what happens in the East with closer proximities. We would have regional battles right in CA, such as Fresno vs Cal, ideologically different folks and it would be a lot of fun. Nevada Reno fans packing I-80 to play Stanford, Cal or San Jose St. San Jose fans at Stanford. Just helps with attendance and relevance. Of course, Hawaii in the mix. California with its 40 million population, geographically wise half the Eastern seaborne. Then media deal with Apple/Amazon. If the ACC experiment fails, it is this vision that should be pushed for. Not P2-MWC-AAC hybrid. Cal/Stan coming back is a big IF which I’m going to assume won’t happen. But to make it enticing, it’s not to make a lesser version of the Big 12. It is to become the crown jewel of this new Western conference using a new age media partner. Hey man I just want to say that personally I love this idea. I think that a geographically centered league is absolutely the way to go. It just needs to be a package that can drive a significant media deal that keeps this West Coast-based conference at least competitive or equal to the Big12 and ACC. It's not going to be the SEC or the Big10, we all know that, but it has to have enough weight to keep this new conference in the same league as they are. Point blank: it either needs to start out with enough heavyweights to do that, or it needs to add only a few teams to leave room to add them in the future. That's why you won't get a full reverse merger of the MWC. The case for Full Merger: I think equal revenue share is in the past. An Amazon/Apple deal would have been also based on subscribers, and the associated school getting paid more because of that metric. A school such as Hawaii or New Mexico or Wyoming, thus becomes valuable because they own their markets, they are land grant flagship schools, and reps their states. To love my idea is to see value in the nuances. Not just look at market size alone. For example, Hawaii is unique in that they have a pay per view firewall for Hawaii residents. That costs $75 per game to watch the team play around 7 games a season (the rest are on some form of National tv). While that stupidly limits the broader fanbase ability to follow the program, it shows that with a captive market, subscriptions are valuable in captive markets as well. And that’s what you need along with a big base (Northern California) and pockets of captive markets. Oregon State and Wazzu the same thing would be a pocket. Again, don’t just look at a small conference to keep per team revenue higher, look at unequal revenue share based on performance and subscription (with Apple/Amazon). More teams the better because there’s more cross-fan interest and watching. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 18, 2024 10:23:56 GMT -8
Hey man I just want to say that personally I love this idea. I think that a geographically centered league is absolutely the way to go. It just needs to be a package that can drive a significant media deal that keeps this West Coast-based conference at least competitive or equal to the Big12 and ACC. It's not going to be the SEC or the Big10, we all know that, but it has to have enough weight to keep this new conference in the same league as they are. Point blank: it either needs to start out with enough heavyweights to do that, or it needs to add only a few teams to leave room to add them in the future. That's why you won't get a full reverse merger of the MWC. I think equal revenue share is in the past. An Amazon/Apple deal would have been also based on subscribers, and the associated school getting paid more because of that metric. A school such as Hawaii or New Mexico or Wyoming, thus becomes valuable because they own their markets, they are land grant flagship schools, and reps their states. To love my idea is to see value in the nuances. Not just look at market size alone. For example, Hawaii is unique in that they have a pay per view firewall for Hawaii residents. That costs $75 per game to watch the team play around 7 games a season (the rest are on some form of National tv). While that stupidly limits the broader fanbase ability to follow the program, it shows that with a captive market, subscriptions are valuable in captive markets as well. And that’s what you need. Big base (Northern California) and pockets of captive markets. Oregon State and Wazzu the same thing. I like that model. I'm a fan of the overall idea. I love the idea of a conference dominated by land grant universities. I've said for months that the only limiting factor for some of these programs is simply revenue, if you give them additional resources they will become more competitive. The Arizona schools joined the Pac8 back in the late 1970's from a mid-major level conference and there was lots of resistance from Pac8 schools about them being weak additions prior to them joining. There is no stigma surrounding those programs now. Programs can grow. I see it. But there will need to be more "marquee programs" in the conference to lend it overall credibility and draw the necessary media deal. We have to start with some heavyweights, or at least a bunch of really strong middleweights. Right now you have (from a national perception standpoint) 3 or at most 4 middleweights. OSU, WSU, BSU, SDSU (arguably). If you add Calfurd that's 6 middleweight type programs, and then you can add in a couple others that make sense regionally, on a case-by-case basis. |
|
|
|
Post by 415hawaiiboy on Jan 18, 2024 10:45:58 GMT -8
I think equal revenue share is in the past. An Amazon/Apple deal would have been also based on subscribers, and the associated school getting paid more because of that metric. A school such as Hawaii or New Mexico or Wyoming, thus becomes valuable because they own their markets, they are land grant flagship schools, and reps their states. To love my idea is to see value in the nuances. Not just look at market size alone. For example, Hawaii is unique in that they have a pay per view firewall for Hawaii residents. That costs $75 per game to watch the team play around 7 games a season (the rest are on some form of National tv). While that stupidly limits the broader fanbase ability to follow the program, it shows that with a captive market, subscriptions are valuable in captive markets as well. And that’s what you need. Big base (Northern California) and pockets of captive markets. Oregon State and Wazzu the same thing. I like that model. I'm a fan of the overall idea. I love the idea of a conference dominated by land grant universities. I've said for months that the only limiting factor for some of these programs is simply revenue, if you give them additional resources they will become more competitive. The Arizona schools joined the Pac8 back in the late 1970's from a mid-major level conference and there was lots of resistance from Pac8 schools about them being weak additions prior to them joining. There is no stigma surrounding those programs now. Programs can grow. I see it. But there will need to be more "marquee programs" in the conference to lend it overall credibility and draw the necessary media deal. We have to start with some heavyweights, or at least a bunch of really strong middleweights. Right now you have (from a national perception standpoint) 3 or at most 4 middleweights. OSU, WSU, BSU, SDSU (arguably). If you add Calfurd that's 6 middleweight type programs, and then you can add in a couple others that make sense regionally, on a case-by-case basis. Cal-Stanford is a big IF and I think the PAC-MW happens before that. That media deal coming at the end of the MW current deal in 2026 will likely be a rerun of the old: Fox and CBS likely, for the late afternoon and evening games, and Friday night games. $10MM give or take per school. Unequal revenue share based on performance, so range could be $7MM - $16MM. These deals are like 7-10 years long. The key is being able to kick start the streaming with some linear programming in 2026. With more teams, more inventory. Could the P2 share some $ with Cal And Stanford to entice them back? |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 18, 2024 12:36:25 GMT -8
I like that model. I'm a fan of the overall idea. I love the idea of a conference dominated by land grant universities. I've said for months that the only limiting factor for some of these programs is simply revenue, if you give them additional resources they will become more competitive. The Arizona schools joined the Pac8 back in the late 1970's from a mid-major level conference and there was lots of resistance from Pac8 schools about them being weak additions prior to them joining. There is no stigma surrounding those programs now. Programs can grow. I see it. But there will need to be more "marquee programs" in the conference to lend it overall credibility and draw the necessary media deal. We have to start with some heavyweights, or at least a bunch of really strong middleweights. Right now you have (from a national perception standpoint) 3 or at most 4 middleweights. OSU, WSU, BSU, SDSU (arguably). If you add Calfurd that's 6 middleweight type programs, and then you can add in a couple others that make sense regionally, on a case-by-case basis. Cal-Stanford is a big IF and I think the PAC-MW happens before that. That media deal coming at the end of the MW current deal in 2026 will likely be a rerun of the old: Fox and CBS likely, for the late afternoon and evening games, and Friday night games. $10MM give or take per school. Unequal revenue share based on performance, so range could be $7MM - $16MM. These deals are like 7-10 years long. The key is being able to kick start the streaming with some linear programming in 2026. With more teams, more inventory. Could the P2 share some $ with Cal And Stanford to entice them back? The P2 would give Stanford and Cal a full media share in a heartbeat, but not for $16M. Neither Oregon State nor Washington State could manage this type of a shortfall, both having athletic departments that are currently running on a budget that receives $25M per year. It would require a massive reorganization of the AD and neither one of the schools have sports that they can cut. The current OSU staff would not be tenable to retain. There are payments on a brand-new stadium to make. The number they need to be able to get to is a guaranteed $25M with the potential to make as much as $30M Oregon State is pot-committed to compete at a P5-equivalent level. They don't really have the luxury of taking a step back in funding. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 18, 2024 17:38:02 GMT -8
Lots of good thoughts and some info some also seem to forget, or not consider important:
- the MWC will have a new media deal (or extension) and exit fees before the 2026 season. They will probably be negotiating it within the next 9-12 months;
- a new MWC media deal is a "sure thing" for all the schools involved and the MWC has repeatedly said they will not leave members out;
- OSU/WSU and ?? will have to have a media deal offer in place to draw MWC interest. Most likely that deal would have to be negotiated with MWC involvement;
- OSU/WSU can't wait around for 12+ months to see what happens to the ACC. But, media negotiations can certainly have provisions for additional teams;
- what ever media deal is negotiated it is probably a short term deal with opportunities to extend based on what the landscape looks like;
- any media deal "amount" is more than $0 that OSU/WSU are currently getting. Sorry to say they do not have much leverage when it comes to making $ demands;
- the 2024 media "deals" on single games at home will be interesting to see and how it effects a future deal. I assume some games may be of interest to ESPN, Fox??
??'m still unclear on away game payouts... is there any revenue or do the MWC teams not have to pay anything out??
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 18, 2024 18:39:34 GMT -8
Lots of good thoughts and some info some also seem to forget, or not consider important: - the MWC will have a new media deal (or extension) and exit fees before the 2026 season. They will probably be negotiating it within the next 9-12 months; - a new MWC media deal is a "sure thing" for all the schools involved and the MWC has repeatedly said they will not leave members out; - OSU/WSU and ?? will have to have a media deal offer in place to draw MWC interest. Most likely that deal would have to be negotiated with MWC involvement; - OSU/WSU can't wait around for 12+ months to see what happens to the ACC. But, media negotiations can certainly have provisions for additional teams; - what ever media deal is negotiated it is probably a short term deal with opportunities to extend based on what the landscape looks like; - any media deal "amount" is more than $0 that OSU/WSU are currently getting. Sorry to say they do not have much leverage when it comes to making $ demands; - the 2024 media "deals" on single games at home will be interesting to see and how it effects a future deal. I assume some games may be of interest to ESPN, Fox?? ??'m still unclear on away game payouts... is there any revenue or do the MWC teams not have to pay anything out?? So what are you trying to say? That the Pac-2 is not going to be able to negotiate a media deal? I mean, yeah, it will be a short term one. They'll get a longer term one when they wind up with or in a conference with more than two teams. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Jan 18, 2024 20:07:54 GMT -8
Lots of good thoughts and some info some also seem to forget, or not consider important: - the MWC will have a new media deal (or extension) and exit fees before the 2026 season. They will probably be negotiating it within the next 9-12 months; - a new MWC media deal is a "sure thing" for all the schools involved and the MWC has repeatedly said they will not leave members out; - OSU/WSU and ?? will have to have a media deal offer in place to draw MWC interest. Most likely that deal would have to be negotiated with MWC involvement; - OSU/WSU can't wait around for 12+ months to see what happens to the ACC. But, media negotiations can certainly have provisions for additional teams; - what ever media deal is negotiated it is probably a short term deal with opportunities to extend based on what the landscape looks like; - any media deal "amount" is more than $0 that OSU/WSU are currently getting. Sorry to say they do not have much leverage when it comes to making $ demands; - the 2024 media "deals" on single games at home will be interesting to see and how it effects a future deal. I assume some games may be of interest to ESPN, Fox?? ??'m still unclear on away game payouts... is there any revenue or do the MWC teams not have to pay anything out?? So what are you trying to say? That the Pac-2 is not going to be able to negotiate a media deal? I mean, yeah, it will be a short term one. They'll get a longer term one when they wind up with or in a conference with more than two teams. So for the next two years the PAC 2 lives with maybe a $1 million dollar TV deal while bleeding cash. We will have little incoming TV money while paying the MWC $14 million a year and the WCC about $1 million a year for giving us schedules. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 18, 2024 20:19:26 GMT -8
So what are you trying to say? That the Pac-2 is not going to be able to negotiate a media deal? I mean, yeah, it will be a short term one. They'll get a longer term one when they wind up with or in a conference with more than two teams. So for the next two years the PAC 2 lives with maybe a $1 million dollar TV deal while bleeding cash. We will have little incoming TV money while paying the MWC $14 million a year and the WCC about $1 million a year for giving us schedules. Yeah, maybe it will be that low, but the thing is that the Pac-2 chose this road. If they really wanted to commit to an immediate merger with the MWC to become the new Pac, they could negotiate it with the stipulation that OSU and WSU get the future income from the Pac-12. Plus the Pac-2 will have the payout from the 10 for this year and all of the current assets. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 18, 2024 20:43:19 GMT -8
So for the next two years the PAC 2 lives with maybe a $1 million dollar TV deal while bleeding cash. We will have little incoming TV money while paying the MWC $14 million a year and the WCC about $1 million a year for giving us schedules. Yeah, maybe it will be that low, but the thing is that the Pac-2 chose this road. If they really wanted to commit to an immediate merger with the MWC to become the new Pac, they could negotiate it with the stipulation that OSU and WSU get the future income from the Pac-12. Plus the Pac-2 will have the payout from the 10 for this year and all of the current assets. They chose the only "road" possible. What was the other? A reverse merger could not occur until all legal issues with the 10 were settled... done. Not until all financial, asset, and liability issues are reviewed and finalized... not completed. Not until there is an interested media partner(s) to engage in negotiations. No interest from media partners... to add OSU/WSU to existing deal or new merger deal... there is no impetus for the MWC to move forward. So the no immediate merger vs two scheduling alliances has some logic that doesn't eliminate a reverse merger. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 18, 2024 21:26:28 GMT -8
Yeah, maybe it will be that low, but the thing is that the Pac-2 chose this road. If they really wanted to commit to an immediate merger with the MWC to become the new Pac, they could negotiate it with the stipulation that OSU and WSU get the future income from the Pac-12. Plus the Pac-2 will have the payout from the 10 for this year and all of the current assets. They chose the only "road" possible. What was the other? A reverse merger could not occur until all legal issues with the 10 were settled... done. Not until all financial, asset, and liability issues are reviewed and finalized... not completed. Not until there is an interested media partner(s) to engage in negotiations. No interest from media partners... to add OSU/WSU to existing deal or new merger deal... there is no impetus for the MWC to move forward. So the no immediate merger vs two scheduling alliances has some logic that doesn't eliminate a reverse merger. I'm not eliminating the possibility of a reverse merger at some point. So far, the Pac-2 have not chosen that road. Like you said they are done with the legal battle and IMO they are far enough into the financial issues (the money coming from the 10 schools is in part to hedge against possible liability issues) to make a decision. And the MWC and Pac-2 already signed a contract for a scheduling alliance that can be stretched for another season after 2024. So the MWC is already "moving forward" in that sense. Negotiations for a full merger are also accounted for in the contract. So all the Pac-2 and MWC would have to do is agree to merge. Then they would work together to negotiate a media deal. The impetus for the MWC to move forward would be to improve its station by become the new Pac-12 and share in the branding. At the very least it would become the strongest G5 conference or possibly it would be considered a power conference (it might at first anyway but would probably need more power conference teams added to keep that status, though). |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Jan 18, 2024 22:09:28 GMT -8
The MW does not have a GOR. It has exit fees. not close to the same thing You believe that there is a difference between writing it into the bylaws and doing it through a separate GOR? Any caselaw on point? In the ACC grant of media rights if you leave the conference your media rights stay with the ACC. Pay the exit fees but they still own your media rights. In the MWC, you can pay your exit fees and when you leave the conference you take your media rights with you to the new conference. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 18, 2024 22:14:39 GMT -8
You believe that there is a difference between writing it into the bylaws and doing it through a separate GOR? Any caselaw on point? In the ACC grant of media rights if you leave the conference your media rights stay with the ACC. Pay the exit fees but they still own your media rights. In the MWC, you can pay your exit fees and when you leave the conference you take your media rights with you to the new conference. So, the ACC GOR is more unconscionable? |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 18, 2024 22:41:40 GMT -8
Why wouldn’t a full reverse merger with the MWC include performance incentives (and a lower base revenue share) so schools who think they are the big dogs can earn it? Why leave MW schools stranded without a conference much like how OSU and WSU feel now? I don't think the issue is balking at paying full shares. It's just that those of us who have been really heavily dialed into this whole conference realignment have some kind of a decent picture of what we are collectively up against in negotiating a new media deal. What does the MW media deal net per school, something like $7M per year? OSU officials have indicated that they are targeting $30M a year for a media deal, and the dead honest truth is that OSU and WSU being added to the MW alone does not bridge that gap. We ain't that cool. We can't just write our own ticket. We have some advantages that we could use to pair up with a select number of schools and present something as a package that will earn somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M per year, so that OSU and WSU can remain competitive enough to make a run at a 16 team playoff. This is an absolute do or die situation because we JUST finished a $65M stadium renovation. It sucks that there are going to be some schools left without a chair when the music stops, but nobody can consider the feelings of programs that they have little or no affiliation with, historic or otherwise. The MWC media deal supposedly nets 4 million a team, except for BSU and maybe SDSU (can't remember if that is so) pulling in 7 mil or so. I'm not so sure OSU is expecting 30 mil out of a new media deal. Thought I heard Barnes mention we're going to have to rely on donations stepping up at some point through all that's gone down the last several months. My wild guess is they are hoping the negotiating situation improves in the next months to two years, via economic improvement or more players in the game wanting football, and they can still pull in a fair amount, say 17-22 million for example, a team. At that point they want a conference that has widespread eyeballs, by possibly bringing in Central time zone teams, and that OSU has a good shot at winning the conference title. Say what you want, but the odds of winning the conference title has always been against OSU. Setting up a conference that is competitive and competing for that 5th Power conference position, or at least the 5th strongest conference, where OSU has a decent shot at winning the conference championship, can be a very viable route to the playoffs. Do that, and the money will probably follow. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 18, 2024 22:51:47 GMT -8
So what are you trying to say? That the Pac-2 is not going to be able to negotiate a media deal? I mean, yeah, it will be a short term one. They'll get a longer term one when they wind up with or in a conference with more than two teams. So for the next two years the PAC 2 lives with maybe a $1 million dollar TV deal while bleeding cash. We will have little incoming TV money while paying the MWC $14 million a year and the WCC about $1 million a year for giving us schedules. Why stop at 1 million? The Pac 2 should ask for a thousand dollar deal! Seriously, the Pac-2 are probably going to lose money, as far as comparative media deal values go when comparing the last deal to whatever short term deal they can dig up this upcoming year, but I think they'll do better than a million. |
|
|
|
Post by 415hawaiiboy on Jan 18, 2024 23:45:23 GMT -8
Cal-Stanford is a big IF and I think the PAC-MW happens before that. That media deal coming at the end of the MW current deal in 2026 will likely be a rerun of the old: Fox and CBS likely, for the late afternoon and evening games, and Friday night games. $10MM give or take per school. Unequal revenue share based on performance, so range could be $7MM - $16MM. These deals are like 7-10 years long. The key is being able to kick start the streaming with some linear programming in 2026. With more teams, more inventory. Could the P2 share some $ with Cal And Stanford to entice them back? The P2 would give Stanford and Cal a full media share in a heartbeat, but not for $16M. Neither Oregon State nor Washington State could manage this type of a shortfall, both having athletic departments that are currently running on a budget that receives $25M per year. It would require a massive reorganization of the AD and neither one of the schools have sports that they can cut. The current OSU staff would not be tenable to retain. There are payments on a brand-new stadium to make. The number they need to be able to get to is a guaranteed $25M with the potential to make as much as $30M Oregon State is pot-committed to compete at a P5-equivalent level. They don't really have the luxury of taking a step back in funding. I think a step back in funding is inevitable unless you can buy into a conference and get full shares. |
|
