Oregon State Beavers 2025

Who do we believe?

 

Wow. That would be pure desperation.

 

I don't understand who doesn't like the addition of the four MWC schools to the PAC for OSU? Seems like a great deal to me.

Yes it was a lot of money in fees, but that's a one time cost and will be less significant after the next media deal and likely irrelevant after 2 or 3 cycles of media deals. Need to think long term, and luckily Beavs have that PAC settlement to fund this transition period.

Much stronger group of 6 than if they joined the existing 12 team MWC with some teams at the bottom not investing at all.

Keeps a good west coast footprint.

The big12 just wasn't an option for the Beavs so I dont see why anyone brought that up. If they could have joined they would have.

I'm excited to see what the next two schools will be and then a media deal.

Not saying it's a dream package or were better off than 4 years ago or anything. But compared to the destruction, despair and uncertainty of the last few years it's a great step.

 

Yeah, I'm happy for them. I hope they bring in two good schools who will help get them a great media deal. Maybe the same Apple deal that was on the table for the PAC 12? Maybe half?

I don't know. I want the PAC to be strong.

 

It's not a good look to take teams away from another conference, because that wrecked the pac 12.
The current discussion is about adding AAC teams not being good, because they are so far away.

 

How would the PAC have added teams without taking them from another conference?

Now I agree the PAC can no longer try to argue they were unfairly hurt in that way 2 years ago since they did it themselves to others. But that's just the reality of modern college football. Better to improve their own outlook than hold to some ideal that no other teams or conferences are following. Yes it does suck for remaining MWC schools, that's unfortunately just the cutthroat environment all colleges and conferences are in.

 

I don't like the idea of adding AAC schools, big advantage of the conference right now is it's the prime West coast conference. Selfishly Id love UTSA joining since I currently live nearby, but it's not a good idea IMO. I'm hoping the AAC chatter is more just a negotiation tactic being intentionally leaked. We didn't hear leaks of the recent 4 addition.

I think the best option is adding UNLV and one other Western school to get to needed 8 teams. Vegas and recent four additions will give the PAC a number of good TV markets. Not sure what other school is biggest TV market but that should probably be the 8th target. Retain West coast logistics. Then try to get CAL/Stanford to join eventually (I doubt that can be done in the next 1.5 years).

Conference would clearly be behind Big10/SEC. There was always zero chance of getting to that level. But it would be somewhat close to the level of Big12/ACC, at least much closer to that and above AAC/Sunbelt/MWC remnants/etc lesser conferences.

 

The Mountain West still has 8 teams, so still a viable conference. They aren't in a death spiral like the Pac was. There is a difference.

 

I still simply cannot fathom how the Pac 12 actually let the conference fail. So many people failed on this entire event.

 

U of Hawaii is not a full MWC member, they are football only. Maybe the PAC could add them for football only. Adding UNLV with Vegas and then the glamor of Hawaii trips every other year is an advantage no other conference would have.

Anyone know if the 8 team minimum for a conference is only for football or for all NCAA sports?

PAC could add a non football member if needed to get to 8 members but I'm just not seeing a great option.

 

It wasn't one single action that led to the fail, it was numerous bad decisions and bad plans. It was over many years and maybe even decades.

 

This. So much this.

 

it's all about money...as always

if 10 schools is the goal of the new Pac-X, the most logical additions are UNLV, Nevada, San Jose State and probably Air Force. Those schools would fit very well into the geographical footprint, as well as size of stadiums. And they have sufficient stature to enhance the brand. Maybe not by much but they wouldn't hurt it

the problem is that each additional MWC addition costs the Pac-6 another 27-30M in penalties and exit fees that go to what's left of the MWC. The estimate of the settlement the Pac-2 made with the 10 departing Pac-12 schools was 200-250M. The Pac-2 already burned thru 115-120M of that just in the exit fees they will pay for the 4 MWC schools. There is also a rumor that OSU/WSU agreed to funnel some additional money to each of the 4 new additions.

even is you credit the high end of the settlement estimate, 250M, the Pac-X would only have 130M left. And that's before calculating the expenses of the Pac-X for the next 2 years. They had to assume the lease agreement for the Pac-12 facilities. They have the administrative cost of the Conference commissioner and staff. Next season, I believe, they will have to cover the cost of officials for football and basketball games. Those costs will all be substantial and the only revenue coming in is from CW and Fox for this season, and that can't be much....maybe in the 15-20M range, at best.

in other words, adding 8 MWC schools rather than 4, would likely burn thru all of the settlement money, and maybe even leave a negative balance

on the other hand, the exit fees for each of the AAC schools may be less than half that of the MWC schools. Of course, most of that savings could be lost by additional travel expenses but that's a program expense, not a conference expense. Paying an additional 50-60M to reach 10 members probably looks a lot better for OSU/WSU than paying 120M. It would leave them with a substantial operating margin

but I'm wondering if those AAC schools are really interested in assuming some additional and substantial travel expenses without any guarantee of additional revenue. They get about 9M annually from the AAC's current media deal and it's not certain, at all, that the rebooted Pac-X will do better in their media deal in 2026

 

there were several pivot points and the Pac-12 chose the wrong path every single time

*********************************************************


That would have monumental. It would also have been forward-thinking and that kind of thinking never came out of Larry Scott's office or the offices of most Pac-10 (at the time) presidents

obviously, the Pac-12/16 may have had difficulty holding onto all of those schools, but the PAC would have probably had a lot more leverage than the Big-12 did

the next year, the Pac-10 became the Pac-12 after adding Colorado and Utah but the golden opportunity was missed
****************************************************************

* 2012 - the Pac-12 signed the richest media rights deal in history. It seemed like that was security forever, but there were two giant lumps of coal in the gift basket

one was that the Pac-12 signed a 12 year deal and that was simply way too long a time-frame. It didn't allow for the Pac-12 to leverage the changing media landscape like the Big-10 and SEC did with their shorter deals. By the time the Pac-12 was able to negotiate a new deal, the big boys of the Big-10 and SEC had taken the premium money off the table

the other major fuck-up was typical of so many fuck-ups: too many president's believed Larry Scott. In this instance he convinced them that the Pac-12 didn't need a media partner to share responsibility and ownership of the Pac-12 networks; like Fox does for the Big-10 or ESPN does for the SEC. The Pac-12 network was not the major money-maker that Scott promised; instead it was a major money-loser

and of course, then the Pac-12 was trying to negotiate a new media deal, no major networks had a stake in renewal. That left the Pac-12 without the leverage the other conferences had

and by the way, when the Pac-12 network was formed, the president of the new network just happened to be a long-time friend of Larry Scott. Imagine that
*****************************************************************

* when Texas and Oklahoma announced they were going to join the SEC, several remaining Big-12 schools petitioned the Pac-12 to join. Schools like Ok. State, Baylor, Kansas, Iowa State, TCU. These schools would have enhanced the stature of the Pac-12 in football, and substantially enhanced the stature of basketball

but, several Pac-12 schools led by USC, ASU, OSU, WSU, and Utah objected. Enough to shoot down the idea. What's especially galling is that it was the president of USC who led the 'no-to-the-Big-12 charge'. That same president had already, secretly, had preliminary talks with the Big-10 about USC bailing out of the Pac-12 and joining the Big-10. Yeah, USC had torpedoes loaded and were stealthily targeting the Pac-12 below the waterline

I've been told that the UofO argued in favor of adding Big-12 teams. And that OSU was opposed
**********************************************************************

* USC and UCLA announced they were leaving....BOOM!
***********************************************************************

a year before the Pac-12 officially folded, the conference had a major media offer from the networks. It was for 30-32M/year for each school, and the offer had positive escalator clauses. But Utah's president came up with some "data" that said the Pac-12 media rights was worth 50M/year to each school. He convinced enough school presidents of this that the Pac-12 rejected the media offer

again, I've been told the UofO wanted to accept the offer but OSU voted no. Which makes it doubly or triply ironical that OSU spent so much time blaming Oregon for the demise of the Pac-12. After ASU's president, OSU & WSU presidents were probably the biggest cheerleaders for Larry Scoot. Reap what you sow

and of course, less than a year later, those media interests pivoted to the Big-12 and made the same offer. The Big-12 accepted....effectively painting Larry Scott and the Pac-12 presidents into a corner in a cold, dark room

 

UNLV makes a lot of sense to add and is likely worth the cost of the ~30million buyout. I don't see much appeal in San Jose St, Nevada, or Air Force, and certainly not for all 3. Maybe one gets picked just to get to 8 teams but I don't see the need for then two more on top. Would be better to hold a 9-10 spot open for Cal/Stanford/etc types hopefully long down the road.

San Jose St with the bay area market is probably my pick if I had to choose an 8th. Nevada/Air Force for 60 million of buyout fee and each school getting a smaller share of all future media deal pie is clearly not worth it.

 

SJS with their new coach has them playing decent and I think the future with them/him looks good. UNLV & Memphis would be my other choices. Pac 9

 

that's all probably true

it may be the best option to just go for a Pac-8 and leave 40-50M in the settlement slush fund to cover future expenses. If the ceiling on a Pac-8 media deal is 9-10M/year per school...basically 70-80M/year; that amount won't increase by much at all by adding Air Force or Nevada. The per school share would just get diluted

logistically though, a 7 game conference football schedule would be a tough sell to any playoff committee. Unless the OOC schedules includes at least 2-3 power-4 teams. But those teams don't have schedule openings till the 2030's. I think that's why we are hearing chatter about a Pac-10; that way there could be a 9 game conference schedule

 

Memphis doesn't make sense location wise unless it's a group of ~four South/East teams. Way too far on its own. If Louisiana/Texas/etc also were in maybe there's a way it could work.

My theory is the AAC talk is just rumors and posturing for negotiations - but I guess we'll see.

 

OSU/WSU have their rival one game and a few power4 already scheduled so I think that's fine. If they really want to add some Power4 games urgently its likely easy to do as only a road game.

I think your way underestimating the 9-10million for a TV deal. Doubt the Pac2 is coughing up 100-200 million in these exit fees just to cash in 9-10 million. My opinion is they have intel they will make that up and then some. May not happen all at once or early on in a media deal, but I'd expect they model it will be well worth it in the long run.

The streaming landscape has really opened up options over what was available a couple years ago, or even last year. Look at how much the NBA cashed in, and now there's networks like TNT with a big hole of sports programming. Amazon/Apple/CBS/Peacock/etc want more too.