LOL!

then sell that name to the PAC12 when they go Big12 and start gobbling up commuter schools to try to stay relevant.

I've been calling them the PAC for a year. ** Edited by Truthahn at 7/1/2023, 11:01:40 AM

concept across the board, that you said at first.

The B1G XII must have turned them down, too. Believe it or not, I think SDSU would do at least as much for the BigXII than it would for the Pac-12.

They really just need one PAC team to jump ship and the rest will come crashing in. Colorado is the team they should be wooing. They seem the most likely to me, because of their history with those schools and proximity. Colorado and any of the Texas, Kansas, or OK schools fits well. But the B12 is really already wooing all of the 4 corners schools. IMO, Yormark only talks about SDSU, Memphis, UConn, etc. to try to rattle the 4 corners. Those schools won't make a vote into the B12, IMO, but they might spook a PAC team into coming over.

is really in a position where they can do nothing but wait. No G5 additions or basketball only additions will get them to the money Yormark has already promised through sources. IF the PAC stays together it will be fun to watch Yormark try and spin the the real B12 numbers. Those OU/UT exit fees can only subsidize for a brief period.

would probably be more accurately stated as, whatever it MIGHT become. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 7/1/2023, 1:20:10 PM

when they come out with their deal when they announce it as $33-$35 million per school. Looking at the fine print, you will see Pac handling the linear operating expenses. The streaming portion will be a tier approach based on subscribers. All of the above may not happen but that is the rumor going around with them being "forward thinking and creative".

what it is when and IF the fine print and details are released. That release, by the way, would be a damn sight more than anyone in a position of authority at the Big 12 has released so far on a deal they reportedly reached eight months ago. While you are taking shots at the rumored PAC fine print perhaps you should take your own advice and look at the Big 12 contract with the same critical eye, that is IF you can actually find any details or rumors.

and SEC. Sure, we can assume it doesn't matter since they are behemoths but might as well critique them too.

before and been told the details were out there all you have to do is look. That is true for the SEC and true for the B1G, subject to some clean up in a few pending areas Kevin Warren left hanging on his way out the door.

as the other conferences. All conferences explained the total amount, networks, and distribution. So what are the fine details you need to see? Unlike you, I am showing the courtesy to provide the Big 12 contract details link for you. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Breaking-N... ** Edited by HouClone at 7/2/2023, 12:37:52 AM

you linked as well as every other article in the intervening eight months and tell me where it says the Big 12, FOX or ESPN have confirmed the details. Then look at any number of articles on the SEC or Big Ten deals. The difference is "according to sources" is all you see in Big 12 info while the SEC, the BIG and their media partners are said to have confirmed the specifics of the deals. If you cannot understand that difference in level of sourcing and confirmation it is unlikely any links will help you further.

the Universities from the conference is public knowledge. The payments that are recorded when they happen will show whether the amounts are fudged with a performance stipulation or not. that includes the B12, and the ACC. What anyone says about the contract is irrelevent, as you have made that point many times. The amount of the distributions will tell the tape. Will Iowa State get more, less, or the same amount of money VT does will tell the tape. Playoff and NCAA units can be backed out pretty easily, so we will find out whether or not the divil in the details is nearly as important as you make them out to be. The ACC is reported to be "skating where the puck will be" (plagiarism from another poster on this board) with the ACCN. it is REPORTED that the payments will increase. Is that a fact, a belief, or what was reported?

of Big 12 numbers under their new contract is about 36 months off. So those details are a ways off yet for the Big 12. You can see the effect/increase of a full year of Comcast for the ACC next spring, less than 12 months away. While you're backing out playoff and NCAA units you will likely need to back out one time payments attributable to UT/OU exit fees that Big 12 schools receive.

with the B12 renegotiating their contract in 6 years, and the ACC doing it in 12 years, UCF and CINCY will be making more money than VT and FSU if the GOR holds true. The problem here isn't the B12, or their "reported" media money, or even why they are making the moves, real or otherwise. The problem is the ACC contract, and the ACC GOR. The rest of college football (PAC, B12, and G%) will have already moved on by the time the ACC contract is up. You can lay the blame on Yormarks tactics, or anything else you choose, but VT's survival is tied to the ACC until 2036. hell, by then, the PAC, B12, AAC, and even down to the MAC will have a chance to set the landscape. By the time 2036 comes around, it's all over but the crying unless the ACC gets off their ass, stops complaining, gets aggressive, and reshapes herself. What is VT going to do other then sit back and let others make the decisions for them?

associated with conference realignment you should do some more research to make sure you have an accurate understanding. The ACC will have had not one but TWO lookin periods on their contract before the Big 12 has their next renegotiation and your contention that UCF and Cincy will make more money than FSU or VT is likely more fantasy than reality driven by your inability to critically think about what and why the media puts out a lot of the trash they do these days. The REAL problem here is you allowing your insecurity about the Big 12 situation to override your ability to critically analyze and separate fact from fiction and media PR spin. The ACC has not lasted since 1953 while the SWC/Big8/Big12 has gone through multiple iterations, without knowing how to play the long game. Nobody knows where things will end up but, based on their history of survival the ACC is no worse than even money to be standing IF the Big 12, the PAC, the AAC and whatever other pretenders you would like to add to your group ever get a chance to set the landscape, a laughable assertion in itself given the SEC and B1G status. Do yourself a favor, take some deep breaths, get a little rest, clear your mind, do some research and try again after that to make a logical, factual and coherent counterargument.

what makes you think they are misquoting the numbers? Is there a history of Yormark, athletic directors, or University presidents lying about such matters? Or is it a personal bias as you don't believe for a second that the schools left in the B12 don't warrant that kind of money? It's a fair question - why do you doubt the reported amounts?

the media rights deal for the Big 12 increased or it decreased in value. One either believes that the B1G got a $7 billion deal or they didn’t. If our friend is not willing to accept the reporting from reputable sources including reporters who actually work for the media networks involved, then that is his prerogative. But at the same time he can’t pretend to know what the values are while arguing that the values aren’t known. If he truly believed in what he was saying, then he wouldn’t be able to infer that the values are lower than what is being reported. He wouldn’t be able to infer anything, and yet he does. It is just a silly game. Pete Thamel is a senior writer for ESPN (same network who now owns the TV contracts with the Big 12 and ACC). He was at ESPN before Yormark even interviewed to become the commissioner. Suggesting that he is a Big 12 media plant and a Yormark shill might just be borderline schizophrenia. He reported extensively on the new Big 12 contract relying on “ESPN sources” in more detail than most people would ever care about. See Link below. Someone’s imagination is working over time if they believe there is an orchestrated PR campaign to trick PAC 12 Presidents into leaving their conference, that the ESPN & Fox contracts with the Big 12 will be subsidized with UT/OU exit fees, and that playing a football & basketball game in Mexico is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide Brett Yormark real diabolical plans. My head is hurting just thinking about it. ** Edited by WBGV at 7/3/2023, 5:41:32 PM

and one I have answered before several times but, I will answer again. My skepticism stems from the fact that Yormark or other Big 12 headquarters officials or ESPN or FOX executives did not go on record either in late October or early November or in the intervening 7 or 8 months confirming even a broad outline of the deal. Even with today's ratification there are still no direct quotes or details. I am not accusing anybody of lying nor asserting any type of such history. I am contending they have been purposely vague because the actual details depend on future events, namely securing additional schools, before the "previously reported" amounts can be confirmed. My skepticism also arises from common sense. The previous Big 12 agreement which when originally signed included UT, OU and a total of 12 schools was $220 million a year. Subsequent to the signing 2 schools left and the remaining 10 were paid under the original agreement as if they were 12 for a number of years. Now, UT and OU are leaving and to be replaced by 4 G5 schools and the contact goes to $380 million a year. Even factoring in inflation that number seems high and the logical question is what has changed? Are the remaining Big 12 properties that much higher now and based on what? Are the 4 new additions that much more valuable than the 2 leaving? If the answers to those questions are no then the next logical step is to conclude those amounts must be coming from future schools expected to be added. I doubt ANY remaining G5s add that value so the next guess is PAC targets. Following on that line of thinking, Yormark, his Big 12 media plants and other shills have conducted an organized PR campaign aimed at undermining the PAC in hopes of driving some of their members to the Big 12. Additionally, he throws a variety of other projects and schools(Gonzaga, UConn, Mexico games, etc.) out to deflect from people questioning what is really going on behind the curtain. The remaining Big 12 members, aside from possibly KU basketball, really have no other options so they are all in as members of a "stable Big 12." In closing, to reemphasize, I am not questioning whether a contract framework exists but, I am questioning how firm final amounts are and whether "previously reported" amounts were firm at time of the report release or just potentially achievable based on the occurrence of certain future events.

that the contract numbers are based on future events, and additions to the conference. So give me some latitude here, You think that they are vague because their are colluding to undermine the PAC so they can pick up some PAC schools so that they could then get the numbers reported. That would mean that ESPN would be complicit (not a stretch), As the pro rata for ESPN is also reported to be out there, but "reports" say that it's not a slam dunk for FOX. The Baylor Athletic Director earlier this week stated that pro rata is in the contract for new teams or markets. He didn't differentiate between P5 or G5 Yormark stated just yesterday that he sees the conference expanding to 14. All of that goes up in smoke if the PAC falls apart. USCLA was announced 1 year ago, as was the addition of the 4 newbies in the conference, so none of those moves had anything to do with the what the BIG did to the PAC. Common sense - I'll give you that one, because I was very surprised to see what kind of contract they got, but the basketball may have pushed them up because FOX was involved. I also think that FOX and ESPN were bidding on the content, and ESPN has just lost the BIG - and that drove the numbers up. I have difficulty in seeing a conspiracy from the 12 and ESPN to try and dissolve the PAC, i say that because the few teams they are talking about defecting are not even close to the top brands in that conference. For your theory to be tru, they would be going after the higher rated teams - Oregon and Washington, and i don't see any scenario where the B12 picks up football brands like that. I think it's blind dumb luck being in the right place at the right time for Yormark. The PAC had a deal from ESPN on the table, and they rejected it, and put their conference out for bid. It was then that Yormark cut in line and signed a deal. Until I see differently, I'll have to disagree with your position, but if you turn out to be right, the drinks are on me.

about a conspiracy between the Big 12 and either ESPN or FOX? This is about the Big 12 making a smart move to get to the front of the negotiating line, getting an original number they did not like and then coming up with a number they wanted and being given the parameters of how they might get there. We certainly can disagree and I do not buy blind dumb luck anymore than you buy my theory. One thing is certain, we will see which one of us is closer to the truth in the near future.

local support - a fit for the Pac but not for the Big 12. ** Edited by HouClone at 7/1/2023, 5:21:03 AM

then, SDSU in the PAC was just a pipe dream, and the B12 in it's new form has/had them on their radar. The B12 has kept files on schools, like UCF, USF, Cincy, Houston, Memphis, SMU, UCONN, and a few others for a while, ever since A&M and Missouri left. SDSU is one of those schools. At the time, Texas was still in the B12, and nixed all of them, and is one of the reasons the B12 remained at 10 for years. Texas was only interested in adding P5 schools moving forward, but the B12 at the time, even with Texas and Oklahoma, there weren't any on the board, especially since the ACC signed such a long GOR. If you guys remember, with Texas and Oklahoma in the conference, teams like FSU and Clemson were talked about, but our uneven distributions with Texas negated any type of media deal that would have brought them over. After OUT announced leaving for the SEC, talk of adding any P5 university went out the window, but there were schools that added value - and they added them. The fact that the PAC is in such a predicament, and the B12 has a stable contract, are the only reasons the B12 could even think of adding P5 schools, especially from the PAC. No one, and i mean, no one saw the USCLA BIG thing coming. they also have a file on Fresno State, UNLV, and if the PAC comes out of all of this alive, There is a very real chance that the B12 adds 2 more, as has been reported. If any of the PAC schools become available, all bets are off the table, as any of them. or any P5 school brings more value then the G5 schools that the 12 has files on. We are in uncharted waters, and the PAC is currently in a **** show, so everything is on the board for now.

I went from there to Miami, where they have the rudest drivers I've ever encountered. A couple of examples: - If you weren't moving within 500 milliseconds after the light turned green, expect multiple horns to blare, even from people who aren't behind you. - Turn signals are a sign of weakness.

Yormark has stated repeatedly he wants a presence in all 4 time zones. The truth of the matter is that SDSU, despite their recent successes, is not as valuable as they have been promoted. Arguably, they are worth more than Washington State, probably on par with Oregon State or Wake Forest. But these schools are likely to be relegated to G5 status in the very near future.

** Edited by Stech at 6/30/2023, 9:45:22 PM

George Kliavkoff and the PAC 12 Presidents. Why didn’t they just tell SDSU that they weren’t planning on expanding instead of stringing them along and watching them give notice to the MWC only to have to embarrassingly withdraw that notice a few days later. After a year of unsuccessfully trying to get an acceptable media rights deal, the realization that one might not ever come has to start being considered by the PAC 12 Presidents. It’s doubtful that there is anyone new to talk too or anything new to say or any new option to discuss after a year of negotiating. It has been months since Kliavkoff has even made a public statement. Besides the exit fees to consider, there is also the amount of money that is lost by delaying joining a power conference by a year or more. ** Edited by WBGV at 6/30/2023, 7:02:49 PM

I’m joking, I’m joking! 🤣🤣