Friday, June 4, 2010

A Quick Thought About PAC-10 Expansion Rumors

I'm not naive, but I'm really not sure that anything is going to come out of the PAC-10 meetings, short of a PAC-10 network.

I suppose I need to see some better sources than Rivals.com team sites.

Here's a question that everyone needs to think about: How does Texas & Oklahoma moving west, having 1-2 games on the west coast every year, help their visibility? Sticking them in a division with the Arizona schools, who are on Pacific time during September-October portion of FB season, isn't cool.

Next, who is going to bid on a 16 team all-sports monstrosity, at least on cable? ESPN doesn't have the room to carry them, and they are only carrying the PAC-10 games now by moving them to 10:30pm and 11:15pm ET? Even if the PAC-16 took over most of the Big 12's ESPN MBK slots, each team would not be on TV enough (more teams, same number of slots). The more teams you have, the more money you require from a TV partner up front to keep everybody's mouths fed.

Since the talk is about what OU, TX would stand to gain, do the existing PAC-10 schools gain anything? USC is still going to be playing the lions share of its games out west, are they gaining any extra exposure? Same with UCLA basketball.

Everybody can want $22 million in rights fees from TV partners for a year, but you have to find someone able to provide that for 16 teams, or at least find enough TV partners to make up that amount. The PAC-10, like the Big 12, does not share revenue equally and it is my understanding that the PAC-10's formula for revenue distribution differs from the Big 12's.

OU, UT, USC, UCLA, WA, UO and others...that's a lot of egos in the room to supress.

3 comments:

Ed James said...

I'm pretty sure they'd go to Fox. The Pac 10 has a long relationship with FSN and Fox has been mentioned as a partner in a Pac-10 network.

And Fox would jump at the chance to get into college football with Texas, Oklahoma and USC on TV every week.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

The comment removed was so I could get Ed's comment to show. For some reason Blogger would not show it without a 2nd comment.