IIRC if UO/UW gave notice today they would need to stay until Summer 2025. Perhaps that could change with a buyout, but the time window for any type of move prior to that is rapidly closing. UCLA/USC gave notice in June of 2022 for a Summer 2024 departure. Also, from what I've seen/heard, UCLA/USC are opposed to this because it ruins their exclusivity, much the same way TAMU was opposed to UT in the SEC, etc. I think the B1G is going to let things simmer a bit and pick them off whenever they negotiate their new TV deal. So, UO/UW are probably telling the PAC privately that they are not willing to commit to anything beyond 2030, and if possible, they want the door left open regardless. That's probably part of what is making this take so long on the PAC side. They have an unstable product going to market into brutal economic headwinds at a time where there is minimal shelf space available at the major traditional linear sports networks. The PAC is now just stuck waiting for something beyond their control to change in their favor. We could legit still be waiting on them to sign a deal in Spring of 2024. The question is will the conference survive to that point. Every day Kliavkoff can't get a deal done is another drop of doubt in the collective bucket for PAC school leadership. If we suddenly see a flurry of "X school is leaving" activity, that probably means the deal that ended up on the table was as bad as we thought it was going to be. If that happens, there's a legitimate chance of the entire thing going belly up (a plurality of the league leaving, thereby dissolving it and voiding all of the stipulations and penalties around leaving, etc) and then all bets are off. I'm with you that I don't really see why these schools and conferences tend to piecemeal their plans and move so damned slowly. The B1G will end up with some combination of Stanford, Cal, UW, and UO eventually. Why the hell schools like AZ and Colorado are waiting around for that to happen is beyond me. Go ahead and make your bed while you have first mover advantage. Stop being reactive, be proactive.
The goal post shifting at this point is beyond comical. The first line in the sand was drawn in like February... now we're expecting August? Just shut up, guys. You clearly have no idea when this will conclude, so stop digging holes for yourself to trip over.
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/the-pac-12s-timeline-for-a-new-tv-deal-is-sliding-back-again.html https://www.outkick.com/pac-12-new-media-rights-deal-end-of-march-report/ https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...ectations-deadlines-big-12-interest-and-more/ https://www.si.com/college/stanford...c-12-to-expand-and-secure-a-media-rights-deal Folks either in or near the PAC (reporters) keep saying "expect it by X" and the timeline just keeps getting pushed back.
So maybe we have a different definition of what drawing a line in the sand means but you just linked a bunch of anonymous reporting of when some pac 12 officials think the deal might go through. Surely you can see how those two things are fundamentally different? A best guess vs a line in the sand? I get you don't want to see the big 12 implode like the Big East did but come on.
I've been following this since like December and I can recall several times folks in and close to the PAC stating quite definitively that they expect deal done by X. This is mostly reporters who claim to be PAC insiders (Canzano and Wilner in particular have been constantly pinning their hopes) with sources inside the PAC leadership. A few PAC brass have chimed in here and there (most recently AZ President Robbins saying he expected April 15th) with vague/soft expectations, but even those have proven to not come true. I'm not worried about the future of the Big 12 (nor does this really have anything to do with it). May I ask why you're so persnickety and defensive about the PAC 12?
lol, persnickety? I'm just calling it like I see it. This is a complicated negotiation and it's funny to see sports bloggers frustrated that they don't have fodder to push to all their subscribers. Just seems like they're trying to create turmoil while the actual pac 12 members seem united and focused on locking down a deal. Trying to hit some non-existent deadline bc normies are restless is not how you negotiate.
I largely agree, and it's why I've been saying this might still be going on practically a year from now. The Twitterverse getting angsty has no effect on things, however, the PAC hasn't really done itself many favors to reduce that angst. PAC leadership set unrealistic expectations from the get-go and for some reason continue to do so... or otherwise create their own PR blunders. In terms of "calling it like you we see it", it's not outlandish to say the PAC is in a tricky spot. They're trying to get their media deal, GOR, and expansion done all basically at the same time... in fairly unfriendly conditions. I've been a betting man favoring team "nothing happens" for a while, but I cannot say I'd be super happy or confident right now if I were a PAC fan.
Thats my sense as well. The Pac also doesn't have these regular beat writers/youtubers that the other conferences have. Its just not a big concern/story/drama for the members or fans. I think most of us are perfectly content with how things are. Something will happen at some point, but its not so dramatic
So this doesn’t concern y’all at all? I understand the sports fodder angle but the fact that these 2 schools have remained virtually silent (as far as I am aware) is very telling IMO.
The PAC does have both traditional and non-traditional content producers. Obviously they have far fewer when you compare it to the field, but they have their own voices and followers who keep up with this stuff and have a vested interest in more drama and content. Perhaps less so dramatics, but content nonetheless. As for whether this is overblown? Maybe. I'm not sure. I'd call the situation 'precarious'. Most college sports media rights deals seem to get secured between the 16 to 12 months out from their expiration. With the PAC, we're almost at the 13 month mark, and there has been constant reassurance since basically the Holidays that a deal is imminent, so folks are not wrong in being a little wound up over it as the PAC's new deal could mean significant changes to the college football landscape and will be the last domino to fall for another 5+ years after what was a very turbulent last 2 years.
They're supposed to be silent. That's what all of their lawyers are telling them to do. To shut the **** up. MAYBE they are going to announce a move to the big 10 tomorrow. It's totally possible. But the idea that silence itself is anything but silence is silly. If they come out and say they are weighing ALL their options then yeah, that's bad. But you can project whatever you want when there are not much of any public statements.
https://theathletic.com/4529638/2023/05/18/college-football-realignment-acc-pac-12/ Everyone out west remains in a holding pattern as administrators await the presentation of the league’s new media rights deal(s). Multiple league sources have told The Athletic that such deals are expected to be announced this summer, and Washington State president Kirk Schulz said the same earlier this month in a conversation with a Wazzu regent. Schulz attributed the delay in negotiations to “the uncertainty in the economy, the layoffs in the tech sector and other places. … Clearly, the optics are something those folks are really worried about. … If you said when would be the worst time in the last six years to try and negotiate a media deal, probably the last five months is pretty close to the worst.” “I know our fans are frustrated,” Schulz told Cougfan.com Friday. “I ask everybody to be patient because we have more bidders coming to the table, more people interested as the time goes on, and the 10 schools are as unified as I’ve ever seen them.” The negotiation process is different (and slower) with media companies that have little to no experience with college football rights. ESPN remains involved in the bidding process, too. If there is any package of games on ION or The CW, a source briefed on the negotiations said, it would be very small and for the lowest-tier offerings. The league still plans to finish its media rights negotiations before adding any members. It is highly unlikely the Pac-12 would add more than two schools to backfill after USC and UCLA depart for the Big Ten in 2024, Pac-12 sources said. It is also possible the league opts to stay at 10 members (assuming it fends off overtures from the Big 12) or adds just one new member and operates as an 11-team league, much like the Big Ten did after it added Penn State. One important date — not exactly a deadline per se, but a key marker — is June 30, 2023. If San Diego State were to try to leave the Mountain West after that date to join the Pac-12 for the summer of 2024, its exit fee (of about $17 million) would triple. So either the Pac-12 will make its long-awaited decision on the Aztecs by June 30, or the earliest San Diego State could compete in the Pac-12 would be fall 2025. Although it’s hard to speak in absolutes with the Pac-12’s media deal still in flux, there is optimism among key administrators the deal will be sufficient for the league’s survival and relatively short-term, keeping all current members together with a contract and subsequent grant of rights that stretches anywhere from four to six years. Such an arrangement would stabilize the league for a few years, allowing members to brace for additional poaching efforts ahead of the Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC’s next contract negotiations. … It’s certainly no secret at this point that the Big 12 is interested in swiping Colorado and Arizona from the Pac-12. But with that league’s media rights negotiations dragging on into the summer and the leaders at those schools continuing to stand by for a final offer, the wait will test the patience of Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark. Yormark continues to explore his options for expanding the Big 12 into a 14- or 16-member conference going forward. Nothing seems imminent in terms of extending invitations to new members, but the first-year commissioner is doing his homework and UConn is one of several schools on his radar, Big 12 sources told The Athletic. Westward expansion has been an open ambition ever since Yormark was hired in July, giving the Big 12 more a national presence and TV inventory in all four time zones. But Yormark has also made it well-known that he’s willing to double down on the Big 12’s advantage as the strongest college basketball conference in the country if he sees targets that add value. UConn men’s basketball’s title run this spring certainly sparked more interest for Yormark, and the school is viewed as a potential good fit for several strategic reasons. Championship-caliber men’s and women’s basketball tournaments are certainly high on that list of pros, but so is the opportunity to establish more of a presence in the New York City market. Sources within UConn’s current league (the Big East) and past home (the AAC) both expressed skepticism about the Huskies’ interest in leaving for the Big 12. One of UConn’s biggest frustrations as a member of the AAC was the disjointed and spread-out nature of the conference, as well as the loss of traditional basketball rivals in the Northeast. When the Huskies returned to the Big East in June 2019, they celebrated the announcement at Madison Square Garden with banners, signs and paraphernalia that made it clear they felt they were back where they belonged. “They just worked so hard to get out of a league that required them to go play UCF just to go back to a league where they’ll have to go play UCF?” one Big East source said. “I don’t see it.” … There’s a belief among administrators both in and out of the Big 12 that Yormark’s envelope-pushing plans go far broader than simply poaching a couple of Pac-12 schools or leaning into basketball pedigree. He’s trying to position the Big 12 to be the third-strongest power conference moving forward — or perhaps the third and final power conference standing, if instability within the Pac-12 and ACC leads to exits that break open those leagues. Yes, the most valuable schools would flock to the SEC and the Big Ten, were they to garner invites. But what about that second tier? Schools like Louisville, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech or Duke could be fits for the Big 12 if the dominoes fall this way. It might be worth waiting to see what happens elsewhere before making expansion decisions.
You do know majority of the schools have made public comments about it right? Some of which directly contradict one another. Guess they are getting different legal advice… I have to admit that I was wrong about Oregon being silent on the matter. The incoming President weighed in back in March. Thoughts? ”I cannot answer that question right now. I am a hardcore Oregon Duck now; so I very much want to see what’s in the best interest of this university,” Scholz explained when asked about Oregon’s conference preference moving forward, according to the same Oregon Live report.”
That's pretty much as close to silent as you can be without actually being silent. Practically every AD/Prez would say that without hesitation. Found a couple of legacy nuggets from the ASU AD and WSU Prez, respectively. Back in February they were publicly suggesting/hoping for a March resolution to all this. The ASU AD in particular sounded fairly frustrated and not super upbeat about the process and outlook.
I believe he's referencing this: https://thedesk.net/2023/01/comcast-pac-12-network-overpayment-rebate/
