Pac12 dissolution discussion
- Thread starter rotorocker
- Start date
New commish isn’t officially stepping in til later in May.
I do have expect more from the west but who knows the timetable.
I think Oregon and Washington will be joining the B1G soon, but have my doubts the MB geniuses are right about the timing of invite.
I seem to remember a few other predictions they made and don't think any of them were right.
I'm gonna put these here because it's related to management of the B12 and how they're looking to differentiate themselves and think outside the box, like their conference wide pro day. Also read they may be playing some games in Mexico City.
I'd take the reliability of Auerbach/Dellenger over Dodd. I think ESPN would be interested PAC12 tier 1, but as you'd expect it's a matter of price.
Also
Also
Reading the Dodd article leaves me with a completely different impression than what he says in his tweet.
- So, an ESPN person told B12 officials that the B12 is one of 3 power conferences ESPN will be covering in the future. Well, that is the reality right now because that will s the contracts they have, but it doesn’t mean they won’t add a 4th at some point and ESPN would of course downplay P12 interest to drive the price down since they have little competition for the P12 rights.
- Dodd speculates that ESPN is only interested in some “secondary” late night games but not the whole package. I think it is more likely that ESPN is interested in the top PAC12 games (involving mostly Oregon and now Colorado) but little else.
Correlation is not causation. It doesn't make any sense that being or not being in the Big 12 makes a significant difference in how many applicants a school has. BTW, universities have presidents, not "CEOs."
Many universities that are part of state university systems have Chancellors not Presidents.
Your point is well-taken -- but they are still not called "CEOs." That just shows a pretty incredible level of ignorance by the poster. I have *never* heard the heads of universities collectively referred to as "CEOs" as though they were running companies: if you need a single word, "presidents" is the word you'll hear.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Isn’t the chancellor over the system of schools while individual schools with the system have presidents? Here in Texas that’s true of the A&M and UT systems…
It varies.At Rutgers, the individual campuses have chancellors --the one in New Brunswick is called the chancellor-provost -- but the president resigns supreme. It's the same at the University of California. California State University, though, follows the Texas model. So too does North Carolina. I think it often depends on whether the individual schools or the system were formed first. The University of California had a president when there was only one campus, and so it still has a president even though it now has ten campuses . So the heads of the individual campuses are called chancellors. The same is true of Rutgers -- the Newark and Camden campuses are much newer than the New Brunswick campus, and so the president of Rutgers remained the president and the three campuses each have chancellors.
By contrast, the California State University system was first separate colleges, each with its own president, so when the colleges were unified the head was called a chancellor. I think that is also what happened in North Carolina and Texas -- the individual institutions came first, and they were only later unified into one system.
Last edited:
In Wisconsin the head of the UW system is referred to as a President. The head of UW Madison is the Chancellor.
Just like Rutgers -- the school came first, and its head retained the title of president when more schools joined the system.
It is the opposite of that. The President is over the whole system and the Chancellors lead each campus.
I guess I wasn't successful in trying to explain above that there are systems in which the President is over the whole system and systems in which there is a Chancellor over the whole system. My teaching skills , such as they ever were, have obviously rotted.
Disney (the parent company of ESPN) reported quarterly results yesterday. It lost $659 million in its streaming business. The silver lining is that it had lost $1.1 billion the previous quarter.
But the really bad news is that operating income from Disney's linear networks (including ESPN) was down 35%. Sports programming costs are one reason; cord-cutting is another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/business/media/walt-disney-company-earnings.html
But the really bad news is that operating income from Disney's linear networks (including ESPN) was down 35%. Sports programming costs are one reason; cord-cutting is another.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/business/media/walt-disney-company-earnings.html
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Boy either of those moves…woof…talk about lose-lose🤢
That's why it's in the Message Board Geniuses tweet.
sometimes I feel those geniuses are looking for dummies
Yet our ACC friends keep jumping into this thread claiming ESPN is going to tear up the ACC contract and give them more money.
I've seen that twitter feed before. He posts all kinds of stuff on coaching searches and realignment, all kinds of scenarios from A to Z. It's just BS where if you post just about everything something could be right.
Keep believing financially struggling ESPN/Disney is going to allow anything that ends the most ESPN friendly sports rights contract that has 12 years left on its term.
Admitelly I’m not on Twitter so I don’t follow particular handles per se
What surprised me was Louisville being omitted from his list of schools looking to exit
They’ve poured a ton of money into athletics, and I can’t imagine them sitting idly by while falling further behind
Well that is interesting. The tweet states that there are currently seven ACC votes, including ND, to dissolve the conference. The implication is that with one more vote, the ACC goes bye-bye and let the chaos begin.
I have a very hard time believing that:
* I can't imagine that the ACC bylaws allow for dissolution by simple majority vote. I would think that would require some level of supermajority. But who knows.
* I also can't imagine that the ACC gave voting rights to partial-member ND. But again, who knows.
* Even so, I think this is moot because I don't know where that eighth vote is coming from. But if the deal is attractive enough, I guess an eighth voter can be bought.
I suggest we invest in popcorn futures.
I have a very hard time believing that:
* I can't imagine that the ACC bylaws allow for dissolution by simple majority vote. I would think that would require some level of supermajority. But who knows.
* I also can't imagine that the ACC gave voting rights to partial-member ND. But again, who knows.
* Even so, I think this is moot because I don't know where that eighth vote is coming from. But if the deal is attractive enough, I guess an eighth voter can be bought.
I suggest we invest in popcorn futures.
If you genuinely believe that this conference, in its current iteration, will be intact until 2036…. then Wel agree to disagree
If the ACC votes to dissolve, the contract becomes void, no? I am not a lawyer, but I would think that for an agreement to be binding, the parties have to actually exist.
8 is the number being thrown around for a majority vote to dissolve the conference
Issue is where r the schools going, as a vote without a landing spot doesn’t make sense
Re. ND and voting rights, I don’t know the answer to that, but nothing the ACC did, or does, would remotely surprise me
If the B1G wants 20 and prefers the ACC schools/ND over the Pac 12 schools, then give me ND, UVA, UNC and FSU. B1G can invite someone like Duke in as a B1G affiliate for Olympic sports like lax, baseball and soccer.
Teams will leave a few years early when the fees are outweighed by their increased revenue in their new conference, but t not anytime soon.
This tweet makes it sound like everything comes down to what certain conferences/schools want to do, and completely ignores that they can’t do shit without the approval of networks that control them.
The SEC is under complete control of ESPN, but the tweet says the SEC will be part of a reorganization that has ESPN pay 70-80% what they do now for the WHOLE ACC for the rights and partial rights that only add up to 30-40% of the content they have now with the whole ACC.
This would take away hundreds of hours of cheap live content for ESPN and they will just go along with it.
