Do you think we finally get an answer on conference realignment by the end of the month? — @hmckee53
Until recently, I would have pegged the second half of October as the window for Pac-12 schools to sign a media rights deal (or experience an alternative outcome).
But commissioner George Kliavkoff’s recent comments on ‘Canzano and Wilner: The Podcast‘ suggest the process could last beyond the football season:
“I don’t feel, candidly, any sense of urgency at this point,” he said. “No one’s going anywhere; we’re all together; we’re focused on doing this.”
Let’s add two matters of context:
— The Big Ten’s media negotiations began in February or March — I’m not sure of the start date — and didn’t conclude until the middle of August.
Using that five-month timeframe as a guide, the Pac-12’s process could last into the winter.
— Had ESPN made an offer the Pac-12 couldn’t refuse during the exclusive negotiating period, the deal would be signed and sealed by now.
But why would ESPN have felt compelled to bid against itself? It didn’t make sense for the network to match the Pac-12’s ask, which we believe was in the range of $450 million to $500 million per year for five years.
Absent the killer offer from ESPN, the Pac-12 is now negotiating on the market and attempting to generate competitive bids that drive up the price.
To be clear: A deal could happen at any moment, but Kliavkoff’s response makes us believe a resolution remains months away.
What’s the worst-case scenario for the Pac-12, and how quickly could that be realized? — @RichParsonsTX
The worst-case scenario is extinction, an event that comes about if the Big Ten decides to invite Washington, Oregon and perhaps the Bay Area schools to form a western division.
In theory, a second Big Ten raid could happen anytime. We aren’t convinced something is imminent.
However much commissioner Kevin Warren might want to expand his conference and his legacy, we don’t get the sense a majority of his presidents are in favor of detonating the Pac-12.
Nor are the Big Ten’s media partners in position to hand over the billions of dollars required to add four West Coast schools while keeping the membership whole.
(In order to maintain the $70+ million annual payouts for the 16 schools, Fox, NBC and CBS would have to fork over $280 million annually for the incoming quartet. Over the lifetime of the Big Ten’s deal, that’s about $2 billion.)
So we’re back where we began on this issue: The worst-case scenario does not appear likely this fall.
That said, it’s realignment. Nothing is ever certain.
Is there a schedule scenario safe for the athletes where (in combination with the bye) the Pac-12 could put out a Thursday (or Wednesday) game each week? — @NIRVANwA
Playing on Wednesday might be a tad extreme for the Pac-12, with one exception: The day before Thanksgiving, which we have long felt is a broadcast window worth filling. (By 5 p.m., the holiday weekend is underway.)
But yes, the conference is undoubtedly exploring the possibility of playing regularly on both Thursday and Friday in the new media contract cycle, which starts in 2024.
We have touched on this issue before, but it’s worth repeating:
Alone among the Power Five conferences, the Pac-12 could offer network partners at least 26 kickoffs at 7:30 p.m. (13 on both Friday and Saturday). And that figure could increase to 39 windows if Thursday is included.
But in order to make the schedule work — to avoid forcing each team to play half its games on Thursday and Friday — the conference would need to boost its inventory.
That can only be accomplished via expansion, and it might require more than 12 teams.
Odds that any school is deemed worthy enough to get the votes needed to be invited into the Pac-12? — @bogeycat85
I believe the likelihood of expansion is high, for the reason stated above.
None of the available schools bring enough brand value to directly increase media rights revenue for the collective.
Instead, the value of expansion is indirect:
More teams would create more games, allow the conference to fill those 7:30 p.m. windows multiple times per week and potentially result in more lucrative media contracts.
The conference could expand into Texas (hello, SMU), but campuses in the Central Time Zone wouldn’t start home games at 9:30 p.m.
From the standpoint of scheduling flexibility, the Pac-12 would need to add schools in the Pacific Time Zone.
Given the similar media values of the two conferences, why is there any discussion of Pac-12 schools bolting for the Big 12 before the Big Ten finishes us off by taking our remaining high-value schools? — gk
Because the Big 12 and its representatives continue to publicly push the idea of raiding the Pac-12. It happened recently when commissioner Brett Yormark spoke of wanting to add teams from the Pacific Time Zone. Although he didn’t name names, the implications were clear.
But the bottom line has remained unchanged for months: The Big 12 is a backup option for Arizona, ASU, Colorado and Utah, to be utilized only in the event the Big Ten executes another raid.
If Washington, Oregon and perhaps the Bay Area schools join USC and UCLA to form a western division, there would be no Pac-12 left for the Four Corners universities.
I would urge readers to be wary of what you believe. Many reports by media outlets and rumors on social media are nonsense — and have been since July.
The most likely scenario, as we have stated repeatedly, is for the 10 remaining schools to sign a medium-term grant of rights agreement.
If and when the winds change, we will let you know.
What school has been on the Pac-12 Networks the most in a given year? Also, somewhat related: Since USC needs to be on the networks one more time, which game will it be: against Arizona or Cal? — JB
I don’t have an answer to your first question at the ready, but the second is something the Hotline has pondered.
USC’s remaining schedule is the following:
vs. Washington State (Fox)
at Utah (Fox)
at Arizona
vs. Cal
vs. Colorado (Friday, FS1)
at UCLA
vs. Notre Dame
One of the four games not currently assigned must be shown on the Pac-12 Networks, and it certainly won’t be either UCLA or Notre Dame.
The outcome is difficult to predict because we don’t know the broadcast windows Fox and ESPN have reserved for the Pac-12 on the Saturdays that USC faces Arizona (Oct. 29) and Cal (Nov. 5).
Fox is scheduled to show the World Series on both days (Game Two and Game Seven), so that could limit its interest in the Pac-12 and leave the decision to ESPN.
Would it move the financial needle at all if the Pac-12 added Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s as basketball-only members? — Jon Joseph
Our suspicion is that Gonzaga might increase the value of Pac-12 basketball by creating more must-see games and effectively replacing UCLA’s presence.
Instead of two Arizona-UCLA matchups in the annual inventory, Pac-12 media partners would have two Arizona-Gonzaga games.
(Saint Mary’s doesn’t carry the same impact and would probably be dilutive to the collective.)
That said, I haven’t sensed a strong desire within the conference to pursue schools for basketball-only membership. Of every dollar allocated to the conference for media rights, about 85 cents can be attributed to football.
But like so much else about realignment, the situation could change.