The Hotline mailbag is published each Friday. Send questions to [email protected] and include ‘mailbag’ in the subject line. Or hit me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline.
Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
If a media rights deal isn’t completed by football media day, will commissioner George Kliavkoff still speak there? Or will it be like the men’s basketball tournament, when he avoided speaking to reporters? — draywilson29
Our absolute, drop-dead, must-be-completed-and-announced deadline for the Pac-12’s media rights contract is Friday, July 21. Five short weeks from today.
That’s when the Pac-12 will stage its preseason football media extravaganza in Las Vegas, an event designed to showcase the teams, coaches and players ahead of the conference’s most anticipated season in eons.
The marketing potential is enormous. But if Kliavkoff doesn’t have a media deal signed and announced by that point, the existential crisis will suck oxygen from a first-rate football product.
In our opinion, it would be a PR nightmare.
Kliavkoff avoided public comments during the men’s basketball tournament in March for that very reason. He didn’t have a media deal to announce and wanted no part of standing in front of the assembled reporters and issuing denials, deflections and non-answers.
But there’s one crucial difference between the two events: The commissioner’s news conference is traditionally a secondary piece of the basketball tournament, typically occurring on the second or third day; with the Pac-12 football media festivities in July, the commissioner offers the opening remarks.
He welcomes the reporters, provides a state-of-the-conference update, then participates in a question-and-answer session. It’s not a basketball tournament. It’s a media event.
If Kliavkoff declines the traditional role, his absence — and what it says about the state of the negotiations and the future of the conference — would be the major story.
That said, Kliavkoff can do whatever he wants so long as the presidents are on board with the strategy.
He isn’t contractually bound to offer opening remarks and answer questions. The conference could simply introduce Colorado coach Deion Sanders, hand him the microphone for an hour and get on with the show.
After all, Kliavkoff’s public presence at football media day shouldn’t have a material impact on the course of the negotiations. The network partners don’t care. If PR hits played a relevant role, the conference would have dissolved months ago.
Which is why July 21 is merely an unofficial deadline for the conclusion of this saga.
We hear of schools not being added in realignment because they are dilutive. In the Football Bowl Subdivision, how many schools really aren’t dilutive if they want to change conferences? I’m thinking maybe 10, if that. — @draywilson29
It depends on the conference and the valuation threshold.
A bevy of current Power Five schools wouldn’t be dilutive if they wanted to join the ACC, Big 12 or Pac-12, and several would be additive. Clemson, Florida State, Washington and Oregon come immediately to mind as programs that exceed the average valuation for schools in those three conferences.
But raise the bar to the level required to be additive in the Big Ten and SEC, and only one school not currently in either conference that carries the $60 million (approximate) valuation necessary: Notre Dame.
Then again, there is value in numbers. A combination of the schools mentioned above — and perhaps a few others — could provide enough inventory to make eventual membership worthwhile for the Big Ten, SEC and their respective network partners.
In other words, Fox, which owns the Big Ten — err, owns the Big Ten’s media rights — might decide coastal divisions are financially beneficial and create a 20- or 24-team league.
But we aren’t there yet. And it could be many years before that day arrives.
I believe the Pac-12 will cobble together a deal in the next few weeks that keeps the schools together until at least 2030, when the next round of realignment hits. But should one or two schools panic and migrate to the Big 12, do you think there’s a path forward that includes six of the eight remaining? — @bdbigelow89
Put it this way: As long as Oregon and Washington are committed to membership in a conference based on the West Coast — we don’t envision them joining the Big 12, ever — the Pac-12 will survive in some fashion. It might be unrecognizable, but it will exist.
Why? Because any league with the Huskies and Ducks naturally would include Washington State and Oregon State, plus Stanford and Cal, which would have no path into the Big Ten and, like the Northwest powers, will never join the Big 12 (for a slew of reasons).
So that makes six schools — two in the massive Bay Area media market and two of the most valuable football brands not in the Big Ten or SEC.
(For the sake of argument, we’re assuming all of the Four Corners schools jumped to the Big 12.)
With six schools committed, the conference could add San Diego State and one more to make eight and move forward from there. At that size, it would be recognized by the NCAA and, crucially, qualify for inclusion in the College Football Playoff.
Granted, this is an extreme scenario — the one-percent scenario. But because other readers might be wondering the same thing, we thought it best to address the question.
When the Pac-12 presidents released their “statement of unity” in February, did they believe at that time they were close to a deal? Was there any sense who that was with and why it may have changed? — @kiwicanuck76
I cannot provide a definitive answer. But based on the public comments at the time from several presidents, it’s reasonable to conclude that they believed a deal would be completed in March or early April.
What happened? Three possibilities:
— They misinterpreted the talking points provided by the conference office.
— Something derailed Kliavkoff’s plans and forced him to start the negotiating process all over.
— The conference agreed to the framework of a deal in March but was forced to delay taking the final step until this spring.
Don’t discount that final option. The presidents have verbally agreed on a grant-of-rights contract, a step they would not have taken without some sense for the media rights contract.
If all 10 schools sign the grant-of-rights agreement, is that a sure sign they’re all-in for the length of the deal? I imagine the penalty for trying to break out of it would be too steep to contemplate? — @Cargoman0363
Yes, a grant-of-rights agreement would mean they are moving forward together.
We have assumed throughout the process that the conference would seek a medium-length contract (between five and seven years).
Nobody signs a grant-of-rights, then leaves a year or two later. Sure, you can announce intentions to switch conferences well in advance (hello, Texas and Oklahoma). But it doesn’t make sense financially to actually leave early in the contract cycle. The financial consequences are far too great.
Put it this way: If the Pac-12 presidents sign the grant-of-rights contract this summer, we fully expect the conference to remain intact through the end of the decade.
At that point, the Power Five could undergo a massive structural change.
The Big 12 announced expansion well before negotiations started on a new media deal. Why does the Pac-12 feel it should be done after the new TV deal? — @kirkkern
A fair question and one that has several possible answers, none of them concrete. (Perhaps we’ll gain clarity whenever Kliavkoff speaks publicly about the negotiations. For now, we can only guess.)
It’s possible the Pac-12 knew none of the available candidates were additive and would have to enter the league with reduced revenue shares, thus relegating the expansion piece to a secondary role.
But let’s be clear: Even if the media deal is made public before an expansion announcement, the issues are being addressed concurrently with the Pac-12’s media partners. They were always moving on parallel tracks.
Also, keep in mind that the Pac-12 and Big 12 situations are not identical.
For example, the announced departures of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC happened in the summer of 2021, four years before the Big 12’s media rights contract expired.
The Pac-12 lost USC and UCLA two years before its contract cycle ended and only six months before the normal window for negotiations to commence.
As the current realignment window seems to be coming to a head, what has happened to Boise State’s presence in these expansion discussions? After being discussed as a prime target, the Broncos seem to have dropped off the radar completely. — @DamonDennett
I cannot speak for other media reports, but the Hotline never considered Boise State a prime target for the Pac-12 or the Big 12.
The Broncos don’t have the academic reputation, media market or competitive juice to warrant membership in the former, and geography is working against them in the latter.
It makes sense for the Big 12 to create a travel partner for BYU, but only to a point. After all, the conference is based in the Southern Plains yet has members in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio and Utah.
If the current group of 10 presidents were granted one “do-over”, what would they do differently? — @Jalex0077
Using the broadest timeframe, two situations come to mind: 1) Avoid giving former commissioner Larry Scott a contract extension in the spring of 2017; and 2) accept ESPN’s offer in the fall of 2018 to extend the Tier I media agreement and take over operation of the Pac-12 Networks.
(Had the schools been locked into a long-haul deal with ESPN, there would have been no escape hatch for USC and UCLA.)
However, if we limit your “do-over” timeframe to the past 11 months, since the L.A. schools broke away, then a few possibilities come to mind:
— Take a more proactive approach in setting public and private expectations for the completion of the media negotiations.
— Seek an all-in deal with ESPN last fall, potentially at a lower valuation point than what the conference sought on the market.
— Avoid waiting for the UC Regents to render a decision on UCLA’s fate.
But those are just guesses.
We might never know how the presidents truly feel about Kliavkoff’s handling of the process.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to [email protected] or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.
Want more sports news? Sign up for the Sports Omelette to get all our analysis on Denver’s teams.
Source: Read Full Article
