https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

Assuming that UW's account is accurate, why would GK/PAC-10 have walked away from a $30/team/year offer from ESPN? They did, didn't they? Or was ESPN's original offer much less? Dozens of CFB fans want to know.

(10-02-2023 07:46 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

Assuming that UW's account is accurate, why would GK/PAC-10 have walked away from a $30/team/year offer from ESPN? They did, didn't they? Or was ESPN's original offer much less? Dozens of CFB fans want to know.

30m per team was supposedly ESPNs final offer. If the PAC presidents thought they could get 35-40m then thats why they didnt accept 30m.

I kept saying this. People had their time-lines mixed up.

(10-02-2023 07:51 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  30m per team was supposedly ESPNs final offer.

It was their last offer which the Pac-12 never countered.

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

(10-02-2023 07:46 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  Assuming that UW's account is accurate, why would GK/PAC-10 have walked away from a $30/team/year offer from ESPN? They did, didn't they? Or was ESPN's original offer much less? Dozens of CFB fans want to know.

No one is going to publicly take the blame for the Pac-12 breaking up right now, so we'll probably never get the 100% true story, just bits and pieces from "sources".

(10-02-2023 07:51 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:46 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

Assuming that UW's account is accurate, why would GK/PAC-10 have walked away from a $30/team/year offer from ESPN? They did, didn't they? Or was ESPN's original offer much less? Dozens of CFB fans want to know.

30m per team was supposedly ESPNs final offer. If the PAC presidents thought they could get 35-40m then thats why they didnt accept 30m.

Such a stupid move by the Pac-12. They could've gotten the escalator kickers that the Big 12 got. They should've added SMU & Rice when they had the chance to turn Pac-12 LA into Pac-12 Texas for the Pac-12 Networks. What a dumb*** move by the conference. Still mad that USC & UCLA left the Pac-12.

(10-02-2023 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

Nobody in the article is saying they made the $50 million counter offer. ESPN has said they NEVER countered ESPN's final offer. The UW president who was head of the executive committee said she didn't know of any counter-offer. Its just a false narrative. Remember, it came from Canzano.

(10-02-2023 09:22 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:46 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  Assuming that UW's account is accurate, why would GK/PAC-10 have walked away from a $30/team/year offer from ESPN? They did, didn't they? Or was ESPN's original offer much less? Dozens of CFB fans want to know.

No one is going to publicly take the blame for the Pac-12 breaking up right now, so we'll probably never get the 100% true story, just bits and pieces from "sources".

The good news is that there's plenty of blame to go around. Every single Pac President for the past 30 years. Kliavkoff, sure, he gets his share of blame. Larry Scott probably gets as much as anybody. Even random professors with charts showing $50m get some blame. I mean, it's a very big list. Pac fans seem to blame Fox a whole lot, the Big 12 a little bit, and the B1G basically not at all, which I find to be quite hilarious.

The only entities NOT getting any blame today? Deion and Women's Basketball, both of which appear to be driving value these days (kudos to Kliavkoff for being right about something that didn't matter while being wrong about the only things that actually did matter).

(10-02-2023 11:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

Nobody in the article is saying they made the $50 million counter offer. ESPN has said they NEVER countered ESPN's final offer. The UW president who was head of the executive committee said she didn't know of any counter-offer. Its just a false narrative. Remember, it came from Canzano.

I don't know why this is important to you. But Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and multiple other sources confirmed the story. It did originally come from Canzano, who is a respected source for west coast college athletics. Kliavkoff is not talking. Maybe he will talk next week at the Pac-12 basketball Media Day event in Las Vegas. The real journalists covering this story did the best they could. Even now, there is more to this story that needs to be told. Ana Mari Cauce disputes a counteroffer of $50 million and other sources dispute her account. The truth will eventually come out.

(10-02-2023 11:25 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 09:22 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:46 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  Assuming that UW's account is accurate, why would GK/PAC-10 have walked away from a $30/team/year offer from ESPN? They did, didn't they? Or was ESPN's original offer much less? Dozens of CFB fans want to know.

No one is going to publicly take the blame for the Pac-12 breaking up right now, so we'll probably never get the 100% true story, just bits and pieces from "sources".

The good news is that there's plenty of blame to go around. Every single Pac President for the past 30 years. Kliavkoff, sure, he gets his share of blame. Larry Scott probably gets as much as anybody. Even random professors with charts showing $50m get some blame. I mean, it's a very big list. Pac fans seem to blame Fox a whole lot, the Big 12 a little bit, and the B1G basically not at all, which I find to be quite hilarious.

The only entities NOT getting any blame today? Deion and Women's Basketball, both of which appear to be driving value these days (kudos to Kliavkoff for being right about something that didn't matter while being wrong about the only things that actually did matter).

LOL! I think that encapsulates the Kliavkoff era perfectly.

(10-03-2023 12:15 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 11:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

Nobody in the article is saying they made the $50 million counter offer. ESPN has said they NEVER countered ESPN's final offer. The UW president who was head of the executive committee said she didn't know of any counter-offer. Its just a false narrative. Remember, it came from Canzano.

I don't know why this is important to you. But Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and multiple other sources confirmed the story. It did originally come from Canzano, who is a respected source for west coast college athletics. Kliavkoff is not talking. Maybe he will talk next week at the Pac-12 basketball Media Day event in Las Vegas. The real journalists covering this story did the best they could. Even now, there is more to this story that needs to be told. Ana Mari Cauce disputes a counteroffer of $50 million and other sources dispute her account. The truth will eventually come out.

The LA Times article threw out a $50m number, but I don't think that it said that Kliavkoff demanded that from ESPN. I also read a $41m number. It didn't really matter in the end, the Pac Presidents and Kliavkoff didn't have any sense of urgency, they wanted to go to market with the expectation that they'd get more money that way. It's easy for us to 2nd guess their decision, with hindsight it was clearly disastrous. However, the Pac Presidents and Larry Scott made a whole bunch of similarly-bad blunders over the decades, this was just the straw the broke the camel's back. They never would have been in such dire straights if they hadn't been standing on the shoulders of giants. Giant Idiots that is.

“We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

I still think that the whole situation was very odd. The B1G leaks to McMurphy stating that they'd look at the Pac again if there was further instability? We all thought that it sounded ridiculous, but it came from McMurphy...obviously, it was not ridiculous at all, but rather a public signal to UW/UO to hold on until CU left town. I mean, that basically guaranteed that nothing the Pac came up with would be good enough.

(10-03-2023 12:46 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:15 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 11:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

Nobody in the article is saying they made the $50 million counter offer. ESPN has said they NEVER countered ESPN's final offer. The UW president who was head of the executive committee said she didn't know of any counter-offer. Its just a false narrative. Remember, it came from Canzano.

I don't know why this is important to you. But Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and multiple other sources confirmed the story. It did originally come from Canzano, who is a respected source for west coast college athletics. Kliavkoff is not talking. Maybe he will talk next week at the Pac-12 basketball Media Day event in Las Vegas. The real journalists covering this story did the best they could. Even now, there is more to this story that needs to be told. Ana Mari Cauce disputes a counteroffer of $50 million and other sources dispute her account. The truth will eventually come out.

The LA Times article threw out a $50m number, but I don't think that it said that Kliavkoff demanded that from ESPN. I also read a $41m number. It didn't really matter in the end, the Pac Presidents and Kliavkoff didn't have any sense of urgency, they wanted to go to market with the expectation that they'd get more money that way. It's easy for us to 2nd guess their decision, with hindsight it was clearly disastrous. However, the Pac Presidents and Larry Scott made a whole bunch of similarly-bad blunders over the decades, this was just the straw the broke the camel's back. They never would have been in such dire straights if they hadn't been standing on the shoulders of giants. Giant Idiots that is.

My understanding is that the $50M number included UCLA while the $41M number was without UCLA.

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

Neither UW or UO want to be implicated in putting the final nail in the coffin of the PAC. Lawsuits are going to happen and I don't think those schools, FOX or the B1G want that to happen I keeps telling people the first lawsuits will likely be from athletes in non-revenue generating sports who are more impacted by travel while not getting the NIL money FB players get.

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

Neither UW or UO want to be implicated in putting the final nail in the coffin of the PAC. Lawsuits are going to happen and I don't think those schools, FOX or the B1G want that to happen I keeps telling people the first lawsuits will likely be from athletes in non-revenue generating sports who are more impacted by travel while not getting the NIL money FB players get.

I don’t understand the lawsuit angle (and I’m a lawyer that looks at everything through the eyes of whether a potential lawsuit is there).

This is a pure free market capitalism issue: Fox and the Big Ten made a larger offer of guaranteed money and exposure than the Pac-12 and Apple. Same thing with the Big 12 and ESPN/Fox. Apple is the wealthiest corporation in human history, so this isn’t a matter of a larger competitor boxing out a smaller one in an anticompetitive manner. Lots of non-revenue sports have long had rough travel schedules: see just Hawaii and Alaska along a school like Stanford that has been part of the America East for field hockey. There are no legal claims here. The Pac-12 schools that left got a better offer and took it: that’s the most legal thing that you can do in America.

(10-03-2023 12:15 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 11:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

Nobody in the article is saying they made the $50 million counter offer. ESPN has said they NEVER countered ESPN's final offer. The UW president who was head of the executive committee said she didn't know of any counter-offer. Its just a false narrative. Remember, it came from Canzano.

I don't know why this is important to you. But Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and multiple other sources confirmed the story. It did originally come from Canzano, who is a respected source for west coast college athletics. Kliavkoff is not talking. Maybe he will talk next week at the Pac-12 basketball Media Day event in Las Vegas. The real journalists covering this story did the best they could. Even now, there is more to this story that needs to be told. Ana Mari Cauce disputes a counteroffer of $50 million and other sources dispute her account. The truth will eventually come out.

Canzano, Wilner and Mandel-the 3 stooges of west coast reporting. Canzano has turned himself into a total clown.
The most reliable source is ESPN. They are also unbiased. Their president said there was no counteroffer. I don't know why it is so important to you to discount the one source without an agenda.