|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 19, 2024 11:37:10 GMT -8
The P2 would give Stanford and Cal a full media share in a heartbeat, but not for $16M. Neither Oregon State nor Washington State could manage this type of a shortfall, both having athletic departments that are currently running on a budget that receives $25M per year. It would require a massive reorganization of the AD and neither one of the schools have sports that they can cut. The current OSU staff would not be tenable to retain. There are payments on a brand-new stadium to make. The number they need to be able to get to is a guaranteed $25M with the potential to make as much as $30M Oregon State is pot-committed to compete at a P5-equivalent level. They don't really have the luxury of taking a step back in funding. I think a step back in funding is inevitable unless you can buy into a conference and get full shares. And there is the rub. OSU is not going to accept that inevitability until all other avenues have been completely exhausted, because of what is at stake. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 19, 2024 13:25:19 GMT -8
I think a step back in funding is inevitable unless you can buy into a conference and get full shares. And there is the rub. OSU is not going to accept that inevitability until all other avenues have been completely exhausted, because of what is at stake. Some seem to forget. You can't simply "buy" you're way into a conference let alone get a full share without the media partner agreeing. The media is the one paying out a full share. If not you're taking a cut from every other school. Plus, "buying in"? Every conference has a fee structure to join. You buy in no matter what. I'm not sure what folks think will change to now have a some media partner give OSU the ok to join for a full share? Oregon, UW, Furd, Cal aren't getting full shares and all still has to pay entrance fees. I'm love to hear how, now OSU and WSU will suddenly get this type of offer when they weren't included before? |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 19, 2024 14:18:36 GMT -8
And there is the rub. OSU is not going to accept that inevitability until all other avenues have been completely exhausted, because of what is at stake. Some seem to forget. You can't simply "buy" you're way into a conference let alone get a full share without the media partner agreeing. The media is the one paying out a full share. If not you're taking a cut from every other school. Plus, "buying in"? Every conference has a fee structure to join. You buy in no matter what. I'm not sure what folks think will change to now have a some media partner give OSU the ok to join for a full share? Oregon, UW, Furd, Cal aren't getting full shares and all still has to pay entrance fees. I'm love to hear how, now OSU and WSU will suddenly get this type of offer when they weren't included before? Why do you think UO, UW, Stanford, Cal did that? For that matter, why do you think SMU is paying its way just to join the ACC? And SMU certainly got that "offer" once it made that offer to the ACC. What do you think the Pac-2's endgame priority is? And, again, if it's to merge with the MWC, why don't they just go ahead do so? They could announce an agreement for 2025-26 today. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 19, 2024 14:39:47 GMT -8
Some seem to forget. You can't simply "buy" you're way into a conference let alone get a full share without the media partner agreeing. The media is the one paying out a full share. If not you're taking a cut from every other school. Plus, "buying in"? Every conference has a fee structure to join. You buy in no matter what. I'm not sure what folks think will change to now have a some media partner give OSU the ok to join for a full share? Oregon, UW, Furd, Cal aren't getting full shares and all still has to pay entrance fees. I'm love to hear how, now OSU and WSU will suddenly get this type of offer when they weren't included before? Why do you think UO, UW, Stanford, Cal did that? For that matter, why do you think SMU is paying its way just to join the ACC? And SMU certainly got that "offer" once it made that offer to the ACC. What do you think the Pac-2's endgame priority is? And, again, if it's to merge with the MWC, why don't they just go ahead do so? They could announce an agreement for 2025-26 today. I'm curious how you think the schools mentioned have anything to do with OSU/WSU? They were all invited and accepted terms. Had OSU/WSU received some invite/terms were all missing? You and others seem too think that OSU & WSU control when they can merge. The MWC has a media deal in place. That media partner didn't ok (has no reason to) a change in that contract. That media deal will be extended or renegotiated fairly soon. Hopefully OSU/WSU are part of that as to have some sort of lifeline. Nor will those MWC schools ok a merger if they are required give up members to form some compposite league. Their commish has been very very adament about protecting all members. Hence, any merger requires a media partner and agreement from all MWC members. What is so hard to understand? OSU & WSU don't have any leverage to force any merger or any media deal... to any conference. They did not receive any invite to actually have the opportunity to agree to terms. They are not in the same situation as the schools you continually mention. OSU/WSU need a life line to begin to have some leverage if any other deal emerges. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 19, 2024 14:59:20 GMT -8
Some seem to forget. You can't simply "buy" you're way into a conference let alone get a full share without the media partner agreeing. The media is the one paying out a full share. If not you're taking a cut from every other school. Plus, "buying in"? Every conference has a fee structure to join. You buy in no matter what. I'm not sure what folks think will change to now have a some media partner give OSU the ok to join for a full share? Oregon, UW, Furd, Cal aren't getting full shares and all still has to pay entrance fees. I'm love to hear how, now OSU and WSU will suddenly get this type of offer when they weren't included before? Why do you think UO, UW, Stanford, Cal did that? For that matter, why do you think SMU is paying its way just to join the ACC? And SMU certainly got that "offer" once it made that offer to the ACC. What do you think the Pac-2's endgame priority is? And, again, if it's to merge with the MWC, why don't they just go ahead do so? They could announce an agreement for 2025-26 today.Actually, we couldn't. We have an agreement with the WCC for many sports for 2024-25 and 2025-26. So we would be in violation of the agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 19, 2024 15:10:41 GMT -8
Why do you think UO, UW, Stanford, Cal did that? For that matter, why do you think SMU is paying its way just to join the ACC? And SMU certainly got that "offer" once it made that offer to the ACC. What do you think the Pac-2's endgame priority is? And, again, if it's to merge with the MWC, why don't they just go ahead do so? They could announce an agreement for 2025-26 today.Actually, we couldn't. We have an agreement with the WCC for many sports for 2024-25 and 2025-26. So we would be in violation of the agreement. Yes, you are correct. However, football is not under contract with the WCC. But yeah, it probably means the Pac-2 isn't going to commit to anything for the next two years. But that's the position I've been taking...that the Pac-2 is looking at other options than a full merger with the MWC. And I'm pretty sure the Pac-2 could pay a fee to the WCC to move on if something better came along in the meantime. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 19, 2024 15:20:34 GMT -8
Why do you think UO, UW, Stanford, Cal did that? For that matter, why do you think SMU is paying its way just to join the ACC? And SMU certainly got that "offer" once it made that offer to the ACC. What do you think the Pac-2's endgame priority is? And, again, if it's to merge with the MWC, why don't they just go ahead do so? They could announce an agreement for 2025-26 today. I'm curious how you think the schools mentioned have anything to do with OSU/WSU? They were all invited and accepted terms. Had OSU/WSU received some invite/terms were all missing? You and others seem too think that OSU & WSU control when they can merge. The MWC has a media deal in place. That media partner didn't ok (has no reason to) a change in that contract. That media deal will be extended or renegotiated fairly soon. Hopefully OSU/WSU are part of that as to have some sort of lifeline. Nor will those MWC schools ok a merger if they are required give up members to form some compposite league. Their commish has been very very adament about protecting all members. Hence, any merger requires a media partner and agreement from all MWC members. What is so hard to understand? OSU & WSU don't have any leverage to force any merger or any media deal... to any conference. They did not receive any invite to actually have the opportunity to agree to terms. They are not in the same situation as the schools you continually mention. OSU/WSU need a life line to begin to have some leverage if any other deal emerges. The media deal could easily be altered through an agreement with ESPN and then renegotiated when the time comes. Or it could even be renegotiated if ESPN agreed to do so. You seem to be convinced that ESPN would see a merger between the MWC and the Pac-2 to become the new Pac-12 as a negative. Again, the leverage would be an opportunity for the MWC to improve its station through improving the strength of the conference and the branding and possibly some of the assets. If you think the MWC does not want to merge and won't give ground on some points to allow it to happen, well, go right ahead and believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 19, 2024 15:57:44 GMT -8
I'm curious how you think the schools mentioned have anything to do with OSU/WSU? They were all invited and accepted terms. Had OSU/WSU received some invite/terms were all missing? You and others seem too think that OSU & WSU control when they can merge. The MWC has a media deal in place. That media partner didn't ok (has no reason to) a change in that contract. That media deal will be extended or renegotiated fairly soon. Hopefully OSU/WSU are part of that as to have some sort of lifeline. Nor will those MWC schools ok a merger if they are required give up members to form some compposite league. Their commish has been very very adament about protecting all members. Hence, any merger requires a media partner and agreement from all MWC members. What is so hard to understand? OSU & WSU don't have any leverage to force any merger or any media deal... to any conference. They did not receive any invite to actually have the opportunity to agree to terms. They are not in the same situation as the schools you continually mention. OSU/WSU need a life line to begin to have some leverage if any other deal emerges. The media deal could easily be altered through an agreement with ESPN and then renegotiated when the time comes. Or it could even be renegotiated if ESPN agreed to do so. You seem to be convinced that ESPN would see a merger between the MWC and the Pac-2 to become the new Pac-12 as a negative. Again, the leverage would be an opportunity for the MWC to improve its station through improving the strength of the conference and the branding and possibly some of the assets. If you think the MWC does not want to merge and won't give ground on some points to allow it to happen, well, go right ahead and believe that. Please read... mine and yours. You seem to miss multiple points and then make ridiculous assumptions. The media deal "could" be adjusted... IF CBS & Fox wanted it to be. OSU/WSU have no pull or say. As if now ESPN is not involved with the MWC unless it deals thru their media partners. Improving their "station"? That requires a better media package. There is none at this time. Hence your repeated assertions that a merger could be announced and that OSU has leverage is ludicrous. A merger could in fact be in the works... IF indeed a media partner is interested and it makes sense to all involved. But, it isn't the Pac2 with the leverage. It's the media providers. As for the MWC, they'd love more, but have a deal they are happy with for now. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 19, 2024 17:17:41 GMT -8
The media deal could easily be altered through an agreement with ESPN and then renegotiated when the time comes. Or it could even be renegotiated if ESPN agreed to do so. You seem to be convinced that ESPN would see a merger between the MWC and the Pac-2 to become the new Pac-12 as a negative. Again, the leverage would be an opportunity for the MWC to improve its station through improving the strength of the conference and the branding and possibly some of the assets. If you think the MWC does not want to merge and won't give ground on some points to allow it to happen, well, go right ahead and believe that. Please read... mine and yours. You seem to miss multiple points and then make ridiculous assumptions. The media deal "could" be adjusted... IF CBS & Fox wanted it to be. OSU/WSU have no pull or say. As if now ESPN is not involved with the MWC unless it deals thru their media partners. Improving their "station"? That requires a better media package. There is none at this time. Hence your repeated assertions that a merger could be announced and that OSU has leverage is ludicrous. A merger could in fact be in the works... IF indeed a media partner is interested and it makes sense to all involved. But, it isn't the Pac2 with the leverage. It's the media providers. As for the MWC, they'd love more, but have a deal they are happy with for now. The Pac-2 has some leverage that they can use, and more to the point they are fools if they waste that leverage. You keep pointing out the the media providers have "the leverage" as if it is binary, and by doing so you're missing all the possibilities that exist between and have convinced yourself that a reverse merger with the MWC is the only option period. I disagree, wholeheartedly. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 19, 2024 17:26:18 GMT -8
Yes, it's CBS and Fox. I just was thinking about another conference (ACC) when I mentioned ESPN. It doesn't change my point.
If the MWC has no reason to merge with the Pac-2, then why bother adding a part about negotiating a merger in the scheduling alliance contract? You seem to think that adding the Pac-2 and the Pac-12 brand would have no value to the MWC and media companies. Media companies always have some leverage but not all. There's competition for the broadcasting rights to even "lower" levels of football than the MWC.
OSU and WSU are moving forward as the Pac-2 for the next year, probably two. That is the point in a nutshell. It does not benefit the two schools to commit to a merger that will hurt their long-term financial situation unless it is necessary to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 19, 2024 18:45:58 GMT -8
Please read... mine and yours. You seem to miss multiple points and then make ridiculous assumptions. The media deal "could" be adjusted... IF CBS & Fox wanted it to be. OSU/WSU have no pull or say. As if now ESPN is not involved with the MWC unless it deals thru their media partners. Improving their "station"? That requires a better media package. There is none at this time. Hence your repeated assertions that a merger could be announced and that OSU has leverage is ludicrous. A merger could in fact be in the works... IF indeed a media partner is interested and it makes sense to all involved. But, it isn't the Pac2 with the leverage. It's the media providers. As for the MWC, they'd love more, but have a deal they are happy with for now. The Pac-2 has some leverage that they can use, and more to the point they are fools if they waste that leverage. You keep pointing out the the media providers have "the leverage" as if it is binary, and by doing so you're missing all the possibilities that exist between and have convinced yourself that a reverse merger with the MWC is the only option period. I disagree, wholeheartedly. Reading an issue? Vocab? When did I say it was the "only" option? It is the most viable and in negotiating provides some leverage in other possible options. Let me make it very rudimentary for you, OSU/WSU will not be joining a conference without a media deal that allows it. Conferences make a huge chunk of their money from these deals. No extra dollars from them no invites as other teams are not giving up dollars for OSU/WSU to join. As you and Gray like to say... "if so it would have already happened." The Pac2 does not have any leverage. Might adding them bring more money? Sure IF the media partner thinks so. Just glance back and see how much leverage the entire Pac10 had with ESPN. Offer, counter... leave the table. Dumb counter? Sure. But if the Pac10 had any leverage ESPN would have laughed and countered with the original $30 mil or a new #. But, nope, they just said see ya and good luck. And, please share with us the Pac2 leverage? As MWC has a solid media partner and deal without OSU/WSU. OSU/WSU have no media deal/partner as of now. OSU/WSU were not included by any media deal to be added to the B10, B12, ACC. Media deals require the media partner AND conference to approve any changes. The MWC will be able to renegotiate with CBS/FOX without OSU/WSU being involved. If OSU/WSU are involved with the MWC negotiation the media partner will determine the value of the deal and negotiate, NOT the Pac2. The Pac2 can try to "sell" their worth to get a deal... any deal... but they do not have any strategic advantage in making a deal happen. So... "binary"? What does stating the media partner has the leverage and "as if it's binary" even mean? Do you know what binary means?  |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 19, 2024 19:07:55 GMT -8
Yes, it's CBS and Fox. I just was thinking about another conference (ACC) when I mentioned ESPN. It doesn't change my point. If the MWC has no reason to merge with the Pac-2, then why bother adding a part about negotiating a merger in the scheduling alliance contract? You seem to think that adding the Pac-2 and the Pac-12 brand would have no value to the MWC and media companies. Media companies always have some leverage but not all. There's competition for the broadcasting rights to even "lower" levels of football than the MWC. OSU and WSU are moving forward as the Pac-2 for the next year, probably two. That is the point in a nutshell. It does not benefit the two schools to commit to a merger that will hurt their long-term financial situation unless it is necessary to do so. First highlight... doesn't change but minimizes if you can't delineate what point you're making. Second... Have zero idea where you get his out of my posts?? The Pac2 may add value... but, guess who decides that? Not the Pac2. And if there was competition for adding OSU/WSU, using your own words, wouldn't we have seen it by now?? Pretty simple, any media partner has the Pac2 over a barrel. They have no media deal... zip, zero, nada media dollars coming in via a short or long term contract... as of now. No media partner is going to feel "sorry" and up the ante when they do not have to to get inventory in a lower tier media market. Of course OSU/WSU bring value to the MWC. But, that isn't "leverage" when you have no other deal to negotiate against it. And, the Pac2 does not add value to the MWC if some deal requires them to break up their conference. As stated several times by their commissioner, they are going to protect the MWC as a whole. But, even so there would have to be a deal... and the media controls the IF and AMOUNT. As for the third highlight... again... what point? That was never part of the "leverage" discussion and a well known fact... as of now. But, the Pac2 has no long term financial situation as of now. That is the point... they need to have one. Hence, any media deal... MWC or  will be shorter term with a chance to see what unfolds in the next 2+ years, but bring in much needed money. As I've stated numerous times a short term deal does nothing but help in the short term. Plus if the Pac2 screws around too long even the MWC may be out of play. They can renew/extend with CBS and FOX for some type of minimal increase and be happy as a clam. And do not need OSU/WSU to do so. It would not be the growth they aspire to, but they'd be solid and secure as the college football landscape develops. While OSU/WSU need to be in a conference before the 2 year NCAA grace period expires. That means some kind of deal close or in place by the summer of '25. At that time the Pac2 is Have no idea... But, to provide some immediate revenue to get through to those 2+ years, they need revenue. More than selling individual homes games. So, |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 20, 2024 14:24:22 GMT -8
The Pac-2 has some leverage that they can use, and more to the point they are fools if they waste that leverage. You keep pointing out the the media providers have "the leverage" as if it is binary, and by doing so you're missing all the possibilities that exist between and have convinced yourself that a reverse merger with the MWC is the only option period. I disagree, wholeheartedly. Reading an issue? Vocab? When did I say it was the "only" option? It is the most viable and in negotiating provides some leverage in other possible options. Let me make it very rudimentary for you, OSU/WSU will not be joining a conference without a media deal that allows it. Conferences make a huge chunk of their money from these deals. No extra dollars from them no invites as other teams are not giving up dollars for OSU/WSU to join. As you and Gray like to say... "if so it would have already happened." The Pac2 does not have any leverage. Might adding them bring more money? Sure IF the media partner thinks so. Just glance back and see how much leverage the entire Pac10 had with ESPN. Offer, counter... leave the table. Dumb counter? Sure. But if the Pac10 had any leverage ESPN would have laughed and countered with the original $30 mil or a new #. But, nope, they just said see ya and good luck. And, please share with us the Pac2 leverage? As MWC has a solid media partner and deal without OSU/WSU. OSU/WSU have no media deal/partner as of now. OSU/WSU were not included by any media deal to be added to the B10, B12, ACC. Media deals require the media partner AND conference to approve any changes. The MWC will be able to renegotiate with CBS/FOX without OSU/WSU being involved. If OSU/WSU are involved with the MWC negotiation the media partner will determine the value of the deal and negotiate, NOT the Pac2. The Pac2 can try to "sell" their worth to get a deal... any deal... but they do not have any strategic advantage in making a deal happen. So... "binary"? What does stating the media partner has the leverage and "as if it's binary" even mean? Do you know what binary means? Why is it that you do not see the Pac2 as having ANY leverage? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 20, 2024 14:39:49 GMT -8
Reading an issue? Vocab? When did I say it was the "only" option? It is the most viable and in negotiating provides some leverage in other possible options. Let me make it very rudimentary for you, OSU/WSU will not be joining a conference without a media deal that allows it. Conferences make a huge chunk of their money from these deals. No extra dollars from them no invites as other teams are not giving up dollars for OSU/WSU to join. As you and Gray like to say... "if so it would have already happened." The Pac2 does not have any leverage. Might adding them bring more money? Sure IF the media partner thinks so. Just glance back and see how much leverage the entire Pac10 had with ESPN. Offer, counter... leave the table. Dumb counter? Sure. But if the Pac10 had any leverage ESPN would have laughed and countered with the original $30 mil or a new #. But, nope, they just said see ya and good luck. And, please share with us the Pac2 leverage? As MWC has a solid media partner and deal without OSU/WSU. OSU/WSU have no media deal/partner as of now. OSU/WSU were not included by any media deal to be added to the B10, B12, ACC. Media deals require the media partner AND conference to approve any changes. The MWC will be able to renegotiate with CBS/FOX without OSU/WSU being involved. If OSU/WSU are involved with the MWC negotiation the media partner will determine the value of the deal and negotiate, NOT the Pac2. The Pac2 can try to "sell" their worth to get a deal... any deal... but they do not have any strategic advantage in making a deal happen. So... "binary"? What does stating the media partner has the leverage and "as if it's binary" even mean? Do you know what binary means? Why is it that you do not see the Pac2 as having ANY leverage? Pretty much gave an itemized list of why. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 20, 2024 14:50:57 GMT -8
Why is it that you do not see the Pac2 as having ANY leverage? Pretty much gave an itemized list of why. The Pac-12 network may largely be sold off for parts but the infrastructure is there and the Pac2 own it. Estimated value is $250M and this has a solid value to building a conference or joining an established conference that does not own its' own network. Another lever is currently having so-called P5 status and the PacX branding, permitting OSU/WSU to operate as a 2 team conference and retain the conference as long as they add 6 new members prior to the beginning of the 3rd season. Perhaps you're thinking that I'm using "leverage" in the manner of "being able to force your will". If that's where the disagreement lies, I'll explain further - leverage is something in the business world that you have in varying degrees. It means you bring something to the negotiation which helps you gain some leverage in the negotiation process. If you have absolutely ZERO leverage, it means that you are basically reduced to groveling. I don't believe that is how you see the situation. I think we have a miscommunication of terms here. I also think you're unnecessarily pessimistic that OSU might receive an invitation to another conference in the future based on new developments, just because they did not receive any offer during *this* round. Things are changing fast. They will not remain static, you can bet on that. |
|
will be shorter term with a chance to see what unfolds in the next 2+ years, but bring in much needed money. As I've stated numerous times a short term deal does nothing but help in the short term.