George Kliavkoff: The PAC12 is actively exploring expansion opportunities
Interesting comments:
Brett McMurphy
@Brett_McMurphy
Pac-12’s George Kliavkoff: “We are actively exploring expansion opportunities. As we consider these opportunities, we will look at media value, athletic strength, academic & cultural fit & geography from a recruiting & student-athlete experience standpoint.”
Brett McMurphy
·P-12’s George Kliavkoff: “I’ve been spending 4 weeks trying to defend against grenades that have been lobbed in from every corner of the Big 12 trying to destabilize our remaining conference. When you look at the relative media value b/w the conferences I get why they're scared”
Brett McMurphy
Pac-12’s George Kliavkoff: “I hope that we regain that collegiality (b/w commissioners) because I actually think that’s the way you solve problems. I think it’s unfortunate we’ve gone the other direction”
Brett McMurphy
It. Is. On.
Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff about Big 12’s Brett Yormark’s comment about Big 12 is open for business. “I appreciate that. We haven’t decided if we’re going shopping there or not”
39 Replies
4y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
S
Stech
4y
Like it or not, the most aggressive Conferences have been winning for 15+ years.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
San Diego State and UNLV?
Boise State and Fresno State? Not much to pick from and none of them will replace UCLA and USC's value.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
4y
They need to run the numbers on all members of the Mountain West and Big XII. Need new states. Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Hawaii, New Mexico, etc. I like San Diego Sate to get back into Southern California.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
4y
1. UNLV would have access to the Raiders' new stadium for home games.
2. Las Vegas could become a popular destination for visiting team's fans. FWIW a larger portion of the Vegas Golden Knights' attendance is the visiting team's fans than the other NHL teams. The same could be true for UNLV given it is a relatively short flight to Las Vegas from anywhere west of the Great Plains.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
Not a good look. I know he's in a bind, but
he rips the BigXII when the B1G is doing all the damage. Classic projection.
If you believe BTM and Dude of MN, they think it is likely that UO, UW and Stanford (and maybe Cal) will get B1G invites in the fall. I don't know if it's true or not, but I reckon those schools think it might be, so they are probably in a holding pattern. Meanwhile, the rest of the teams are looking for some security, and the BigXII can at least provide some.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
V
Vippie1
4y
trying to destabilize the PAC. Big12 is the one that knows it has the most vulnerable hand and is desparate . . they made a play that now looks stupid last year. Bet the farm that in a decade the remaining PaC teams will be in a much better situation that almost all, if not all, Big 12 schools.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
M
Marooned
4y
There are no options for the PAC to expand that would pull other P5 teams in and there are no G5 teams that make sense.
The B12 is not being led around by UT anymore. They are a conference with teams in a growing, football crazed part of the country with programs already flirting with playoff contention even before UT and OU bolt. They will be more than fine.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
4y
As things stand, the BIG12 is undeniably in the worst position and the PAC commish is just calling like it is. But if UW, UO or Stanford bolt for the BIG, it’s over.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
The Pac-X will be able to do nothing long term unless B1G gives
Oregon, Stanford and Washington a hard long-term no.
The BigXII has the same problem, but for a different reason, as the ACC: none of their members are going anywhere. The ACC due to the GOR. The BigXII because no one wants any of their members.
Pac-12 has a better brand. But that might not mean much in the end.
TWA and Pan Am have better brands than Spirit, but only one is flying planes.
Although I found the quote interesting that the Pac-12 might raid the BigXII. Probably just empty threats and trolling. Who would they even take? Oklahoma State? Kansas? I mean, seriously.
(In response to this post by VT Pops)
4y
I've seen the Dude of Minnesota's tweets. Constantly suggesting that those PAC12 schools and ND are coming to the B1G. Now they no longer talk about the revenue. It's marketshare. I guess for Fox Sports. Maybe they'll all settle for less.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
The Big East and Pac12 always had some issues. The 9 team ACC Swofford inherited was a golden goose. He ran this thing into the ground as much as he could while here and he even left the league a nice little 15 year parting gift that is the GOR.
If we can’t get out of this league, Turning UNC into ECU is what Swofford’s accomplished.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
4y
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
(In response to this post by 133743Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
4y
You really ought to think before you type. Both Mike Tranghese and Larry Scott were worse than Swofford by leaps and bounds.
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
Most will end up better off than ACC schools if we can’t get out of this GOR deal. Half the PAC 12 is headed to the B1G and those left behind will make similar money to the ACC schools once they merge with the Big12. And don’t forget that the Pac12 has averaged better payouts the last decade than the ACC.
The Big East was always a hodgepodge of schools. They started off in a hole and was so successful for their programs that several were able to graduate up to a more secure league. The legacy of a Swofford is each and every ACC program is worse off now than it was because of his work, including this horrible TV deal and GOR. And also, even Big12 programs like WVU have been averaging better payouts than Clemson, UNC, or FSU for a while now.
Swofford May have killed off what Frank built here in Blacksburg. He sure did practically everything he could to do it.
** Edited by BBBDatVT at 7/30/2022, 7:08:34 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4y
you should think before you post. Outside of possibly USC and UCLA, all you have is supposition about how the PAC 12 might fair. What is fact at present is the PAC 12 is in scramble mode. The Big East is dead, enough said. The ACC at present, and with noted challenges, is still functioning as an operating conference. All this is even before comparing the national championships won in revenue sports by the ACC in this period compared to the PAC 12 and the dead Big East. You, whether you are little Chuckie reincarnated or just a twin son by a different mother, need to get a clue about the collegiate sports landscape. Your first attempts here on this board show you have little to no real understanding.
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
4y
It’s basically just trolling at this point since their posts ignore facts, contracts, and history. They either don’t understand or they are purposely focusing on whining that it’s not fair that some get paid more than others.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
The Pac12 has some inherent issues that caused its lack of success lately. Primary reason being that people out west just aren't all that passionate about college athletics. Been that way for decades, yet the Pac12 schools have been receiving bigger payouts the last decade or so than the ACC. Despite all the ACC's obvious advantages. Facts.
The BigEast was an upstart inferior football conference to begin with. Fact. Heck, the BigEast was the perfect platform for VT, WVU, Miami, etc. for a very long while despite that. Yes Tranghese made major mistakes, but he wasn't working with a lot to begin with.
Swofford took the premier league down a horrible path. Consider this, the ACC's bowl tie in pays out $27 million while the B1G, Pac12, SEC and even the ten member Big12's pays out $40 million. That's a cool million bucks a year those schools have to play with. What a horrible negotiation that must have been.
And even worst, Swofford's work is the gift that keeps on giving because ACC schools are now relatively stuck. USC/UCLA are accepting their spot right now into the top tier of college athletics with more Pac12 schools to come.
The ACC schools are still having to figure out how much it's gonna cost them to do so because of the most poorly negotiated sports television contract in recent history.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
4y
comedy and killing time to explore the depths of his ignorance, which seems bottomless.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
Sorry you have been in denial for many many years now. Sorry you can't apprecate those who were/are not.
Point is, if you think the ACC has been run fairly well in recent history, there's really not much i can do for you.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
D
daveinop
4y
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
2
2hhoop3
4y
much you can do for anybody and your current posts just confirm that once again. The debate has never centered on how well or poorly the ACC was run. The current debate did center on whether it has been run better or worse than the Big East and the PAC 12 and only someone entirely ignorant of college sports could look at the body of work of those three conferences in the age of expansion and try to argue for the Big East or PAC 12. As far as your opening goes, the problems as all can see clearly reside on your end. I am not angry but, I am amused that you continue to tilt at the same windmills with the same lame and empty arguments.
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
Wish more folks around this league had been aware of what was happening. Anyone who offered critique of how this league was run would be dismissed and shut down by the party line folks around here.
AND HERE WE ARE. THE ACC SUCKS. AND ITS CONTRACTED TO SUCK FOR ANOTHER DOZEN YEARS.
The folks like you who have been ok with the directon of things should be the ones who are looking themselves in the mirror right now.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4y
and you continue down that path. I guess your dozen year claim is your way of indirectly admitting you are little chuckie. As far as spot on how did your PAC 12 network prediction turn out sport? They can't even give it away and the west coast schools rode the elevator all the way down while Larry Scott was putting their money in his pocket. You now have UCLA and Cal and several other schools in tough financial situations. You got Phil Knight calling anybody and everybody to take the Ducks. You never got shot down with valid critiques but, you always got challenged when you overreached or fail to recognize the actual realities of the landscape existing at the time. Moreover, you cannot even recognize the difference between recognizing and dealing with actual reality versus "being ok" with the league direction. Lots of people recognized errors and failings, they just chose not to incessantly chirp like you while looking at one side versus all sides. Now you decide to grace us with your presence once again to moan but, just like before most of us will watch to see how things work out knowing that your predictions for the ACC are likely to be even more inaccurate than your previous ramblings about the PAC 12 Network.
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
And now, the quality programs in the Pac12 have much better options than the ACC’s. At least they aren’t scraping and clawing as they try to figure out a way to get out.
And even if the B1G only takes USC and UCLA, I am quite certain that the remaining Pac12 and Big12 schools are gonna be more profitable than the current ACC set up. Heck, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, and Cal may go to the B1G and I think the remaining schools might still be able to put together a deal that’s more profitable than the ACCs.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4y
your definition of far more and even then you're dead wrong. The ACC Network in its brief existence has more than doubled the PAC12 in subscribers and in the most recently released year the ACC almost doubled the PAC12 in distribution payments. You embarrass yourself even further with each post. I will repeat the original advice once again, you need to actually think before you post and dig your hole deeper.
Just in case you decide to educate yourself you can find any number of articles by Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News that details the failing PAC 12 Network.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 7/30/2022, 3:30:43 PM
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
Yes, the ACCN is currently outperforming the Pac12 Network, but the Pac12 network was up and running years before Swofford could get things together for an ACCN. And that network has been costly.
And that conference payout for the Pac12 is misleading because of Covid. They got hit incredibly hard in 20 and 21 because they were playing far less games. That's not a fair comparison.
But for the last decade, excluding Covid years, the Pac12 have been distributing more than the ACC. The Big12 too.
That tells ya all ya need to know about how this league's been run.
I used to live in SoCal, hardly anybody cares about college athletics out there. Yet, those schools were bringing in more TV and bowl money than the ACC? Crazy.
And that will be the legacy because both those leagues are about to be gone, at least as we know them.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4y
Been running for right at a decade. Huge start up costs and distributions at their best were $2 - $3 MM greater than ACC, a cumulative difference that was almost completely wiped out in 2021 and will be obliterated in 2022 and beyond, which makes your original " far more" claim a joke. I pointed you in the direction to educate yourself and quit cluttering the board with incorrect information. Before you lecture someone else about thinking in the abstract you would be well served to examine your own point of view to ensure you can think at all.
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT)
2
2hhoop3
4y
there were big startup costs to the ACCN as well, however, you have once again neglected to consider and evaluate the whole story. Those startup costs were split between ACC and its partner ESPN unlike the PAC12 who went as the lone ranger. Do yourself a favor and take the advice honestly offered. Do some more research and get a better understanding of the situation as your current incomplete and/or totally erroneous understanding contributes very little to a discussion of the actual realities.
(In response to this post by BBBDatVT_)
B
BBBDatVT
4y
If the goal was to keep them together on a sinking ship toward irrelevancy, Swofford did even better. He failed far worse than any Big East or Pac12 leaders. In fact, each and every ACC program has been suffering with unjust payouts compared to peers in other leagues for a decade now. And unless they overcome Swofford’s work, they’re gonna suffer into irrelevancy over the next 14 years. The ACC was the premier league when Swofford took over. Each school is weaker because of him. Even the recent ad ons aren’t doing much better than had they been left out. Remember, for most of the past decade even Big12 and Pac12 schools have been bringing in more money from bowls and TV than ACC schools.
Think before you post. Save me the Hoo86 and Stech lines.
** Edited by BBBDatVT at 7/30/2022, 8:39:21 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
If it's true, I think it is bad business by the B1G to string schools along
like they are doing. They keep moving to goalposts. It reminds me of the ACC raid of the Big East debacle. First it was MIA, SU, BC. Then it was MIA, BC, VT. Then down the road it was PIT, SU... Just bad.
I also don't get the Notre Dame obsession by the B1G. On one hand the B1G is jerking good schools around. On the other hand, they are d***riding Notre Dame. Just pathetic. Also a bad look.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
4y
Just look at how much content and interest they have created from the poaching and the speculation of more poaching. This is great material for all the various media channels and also acts as a big advertisement for the Big Ten just before the season starts.
From a media perspective, their approach has been fantastic.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
4y
There is clearly some bad blood now between the PAC and B12. Interesting that he only calls them out. I guess that just leaves the ACC as on good terms with the PAC. Will be interesting to see if that leads to anything.
I also agree with George that the PAC is the better brand conference. I still think there is more news to come this year on expansion.
Hurry up ND and make a decision on the tv contract so that we can get this show started.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
V
Vippie1
4y
In every way then the big 12, even without USA and UCLA. I'd bet, if not locked down, any school west of the Mississippi in the big 12 would bolt to the PAC in a heartbeat if they had the chance.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
T
Truthahn
4y
The PAC is only 10 teams, so they can add up to six reasonably. The P10 plus the top six western B12 teams, would be pretty good (or 5 with SDSU), and would crush the B12 as competition.
That seems very likely to me, if the B10 (and the ACC) leaves them as is for a few years.
** Edited by Truthahn at 7/31/2022, 9:32:05 PM
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
O
obguthr
4y
Pac-12 is doomed. The best of what is left will leave, eventually. The only question is who goes where. ACC is better than either of them now but may also be doomed. B12 and its island of misfit toys will survive, but as a lower tier conference.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
V
Vippie1
4y
So much for Commish nice speak about each other.
But as I figured out on my own, the Big 12 is the one with the weakest hand .
Remaining PAC has options, some which involve that ACC.
Big 12 already played it's hand...poorly and way too quickly.
(In response to this post by HOO86)