What If Montana and Montana State got a Pac-12 Invite?

[bigsky33]

It is all about the money. The Montana schools, although both have a good following, are not even anywhere close to being in a market that would be attractive to the PAC 12. My take is the PAC 12 will fold as now member schools will be going to the Big 10 or Big 12.

What makes you think that they will fold just from losing 2 schools? It used to be Pac-10 for many years. Yes the California market is giant but look at what USC and UCLA football has done over the last decade (or two)? The powerhouse programs from the last decade in the Pac-12 are still currently intact (Oregon, Utah etc). When is the last time USC or UCLA actually won the Pac-12 Football championship anyway ? I believe for USC it's 2008, and UCLA 1998?
Now if Oregon and/or Utah announce moving to another conference, then I would definitely agree that it could be bad news bears for the Pac-12 Football Conference.
Regarding your claim that Montana is not an attractive market for the Pac-12: see tweet below, PAC-12 Commisioner said he's interested in "our continued leadership position
in college football across western and mountain time zones"... Well, Montana = Mountain Time zone, what say you to that.
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1553044300031823872?s=20&t=k41R0OI9jwlldqxMFdm7aQ

That southern Cal market is a huge part of the reason why they get big TV rights money. Their contract for TV rights is coming up and ESPN has already low balled them on their offer without UCLA and SO CAL. The adding of the Montana schools would not help with that.

 

[griz4life]

What if ifs and buts were candy and nuts?

 

[kemajic]

It is all about the money. The Montana schools, although both have a good following, are not even anywhere close to being in a market that would be attractive to the PAC 12. My take is the PAC 12 will fold as now member schools will be going to the Big 10 or Big 12.

What makes you think that they will fold just from losing 2 schools? It used to be Pac-10 for many years. Yes the California market is giant but look at what USC and UCLA football has done over the last decade (or two)? The powerhouse programs from the last decade in the Pac-12 are still currently intact (Oregon, Utah etc). When is the last time USC or UCLA actually won the Pac-12 Football championship anyway ? I believe for USC it's 2008, and UCLA 1998?
Now if Oregon and/or Utah announce moving to another conference, then I would definitely agree that it could be bad news bears for the Pac-12 Football Conference.
Regarding your claim that Montana is not an attractive market for the Pac-12: see tweet below, PAC-12 Commisioner said he's interested in "our continued leadership position
in college football across western and mountain time zones"... Well, Montana = Mountain Time zone, what say you to that.
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1553044300031823872?s=20&t=k41R0OI9jwlldqxMFdm7aQ

I don't think time zone will be a key determinate.

 

[bigsky33]

What makes you think that they will fold just from losing 2 schools? It used to be Pac-10 for many years. Yes the California market is giant but look at what USC and UCLA football has done over the last decade (or two)? The powerhouse programs from the last decade in the Pac-12 are still currently intact (Oregon, Utah etc). When is the last time USC or UCLA actually won the Pac-12 Football championship anyway ? I believe for USC it's 2008, and UCLA 1998?
Now if Oregon and/or Utah announce moving to another conference, then I would definitely agree that it could be bad news bears for the Pac-12 Football Conference.
Regarding your claim that Montana is not an attractive market for the Pac-12: see tweet below, PAC-12 Commisioner said he's interested in "our continued leadership position
in college football across western and mountain time zones"... Well, Montana = Mountain Time zone, what say you to that.
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1553044300031823872?s=20&t=k41R0OI9jwlldqxMFdm7aQ

I don't think time zone will be a key determinate.

You are right. The time zone doesn’t mean anything. UCLA and So Cal left because they get a lot more money in the Big 10. Other schools will soon leave the PAC 12 because they can get much more money in the Big 12 or Big 10. The PAC 12 will be history when their remaining members leave. I don’t see anyway the PAC 12 can get the TV rights money needed to keep it together.

 

[grizare#1]

I think not

 

[grizare#1]

I think not

 

[Pounder]

Other schools will soon leave the PAC 12 because they can get much more money in the Big 12 or Big 10. The PAC 12 will be history when their remaining members leave. I don’t see anyway the PAC 12 can get the TV rights money needed to keep it together.

The Big 10, duh.

If Big 12 schools are going to get $30M per school and the Pac $25M per school, and the valuable “assets” in the Pac are four of the coastal schools, then why would the Big 12 try to get the Mountain schools? Big 12 schools won’t get rewarded for it, and the coastal schools will hold out for better.

The Big 12 already sort of bet (not much of one) that the coastal schools would not hold out. They found out different.

There’s a wildcard. Apple just signed with Major League Soccer as primary streamer at a minimum of $250 million per year. Apple getting secondary broadcasts is something the Pac might pull while the Big 12 doesn’t necessarily pull it.

Meanwhile, ESPN can continue to designate a 7:30 pm Saturday slot for the Pac that nobody else can fill. The Big 12 pretty much has to play at the same time as SEC and B1G schools. Not that Pac fans like night games (for the most part, we don’t), but that’s where the money will be.

 

[bigsky33]

Other schools will soon leave the PAC 12 because they can get much more money in the Big 12 or Big 10. The PAC 12 will be history when their remaining members leave. I don’t see anyway the PAC 12 can get the TV rights money needed to keep it together.

The Big 10, duh.

If Big 12 schools are going to get $30M per school and the Pac $25M per school, and the valuable “assets” in the Pac are four of the coastal schools, then why would the Big 12 try to get the Mountain schools? Big 12 schools won’t get rewarded for it, and the coastal schools will hold out for better.

The Big 12 already sort of bet (not much of one) that the coastal schools would not hold out. They found out different.

There’s a wildcard. Apple just signed with Major League Soccer as primary streamer at a minimum of $250 million per year. Apple getting secondary broadcasts is something the Pac might pull while the Big 12 doesn’t necessarily pull it.

Meanwhile, ESPN can continue to designate a 7:30 pm Saturday slot for the Pac that nobody else can fill. The Big 12 pretty much has to play at the same time as SEC and B1G schools. Not that Pac fans like night games (for the most part, we don’t), but that’s where the money will be.

There are a lot of different scenarios at play. I just cannot see the PAC 12 coming out of this with the kind of money that will make the mountain schools stay. If they go then what? The bottom line is, I don’t think the Montana schools figure into any of it. Montana just does not have the media market.

 

[SaskGriz]

The Big 10, duh.

If Big 12 schools are going to get $30M per school and the Pac $25M per school, and the valuable “assets” in the Pac are four of the coastal schools, then why would the Big 12 try to get the Mountain schools? Big 12 schools won’t get rewarded for it, and the coastal schools will hold out for better.

The Big 12 already sort of bet (not much of one) that the coastal schools would not hold out. They found out different.

There’s a wildcard. Apple just signed with Major League Soccer as primary streamer at a minimum of $250 million per year. Apple getting secondary broadcasts is something the Pac might pull while the Big 12 doesn’t necessarily pull it.

Meanwhile, ESPN can continue to designate a 7:30 pm Saturday slot for the Pac that nobody else can fill. The Big 12 pretty much has to play at the same time as SEC and B1G schools. Not that Pac fans like night games (for the most part, we don’t), but that’s where the money will be.

There are a lot of different scenarios at play. I just cannot see the PAC 12 coming out of this with the kind of money that will make the mountain schools stay. If they go then what? The bottom line is, I don’t think the Montana schools figure into any of it. Montana just does not have the media market.

We don't. And no we didn't "miss" an opportunity to move up. There is no "up" for us to move to. The Mountain West or Pac ? or whatever, don't really exist anymore for football. The NCAA are no longer a major player in big time College Football. They may still have a name on it, like Democratic Republic of Congo, most of those words are meaningless. There are 40-60 teams that will play for the eight or so playoff positions, maybe 20 that are actually competitive. The others will be deep pocket legacy teams like Purdue, UCLA and maybe like a Vanderbilt. Watch for the New Mexico's, Western Kentucky's and Central Michigan's of the world to start falling back towards the Griz. Many recent move ups like Application State and Costco Carolina are going be doing the prodigal son deal.

 

[Hoops watcher]

Other schools will soon leave the PAC 12 because they can get much more money in the Big 12 or Big 10. The PAC 12 will be history when their remaining members leave. I don’t see anyway the PAC 12 can get the TV rights money needed to keep it together.

The Big 10, duh.

If Big 12 schools are going to get $30M per school and the Pac $25M per school, and the valuable “assets” in the Pac are four of the coastal schools, then why would the Big 12 try to get the Mountain schools? Big 12 schools won’t get rewarded for it, and the coastal schools will hold out for better.

The Big 12 already sort of bet (not much of one) that the coastal schools would not hold out. They found out different.

There’s a wildcard. Apple just signed with Major League Soccer as primary streamer at a minimum of $250 million per year. Apple getting secondary broadcasts is something the Pac might pull while the Big 12 doesn’t necessarily pull it.

Meanwhile, ESPN can continue to designate a 7:30 pm Saturday slot for the Pac that nobody else can fill. The Big 12 pretty much has to play at the same time as SEC and B1G schools. Not that Pac fans like night games (for the most part, we don’t), but that’s where the money will be.

You must be talking about European soccer rights, not MLS. That league brings in less than that in total revenue now. Or Apple waaaaaaay overpaid. https://www.zippia.com/major-league-soccer-careers-30197/revenue/

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

The Big 10, duh.

If Big 12 schools are going to get $30M per school and the Pac $25M per school, and the valuable “assets” in the Pac are four of the coastal schools, then why would the Big 12 try to get the Mountain schools? Big 12 schools won’t get rewarded for it, and the coastal schools will hold out for better.

The Big 12 already sort of bet (not much of one) that the coastal schools would not hold out. They found out different.

There’s a wildcard. Apple just signed with Major League Soccer as primary streamer at a minimum of $250 million per year. Apple getting secondary broadcasts is something the Pac might pull while the Big 12 doesn’t necessarily pull it.

Meanwhile, ESPN can continue to designate a 7:30 pm Saturday slot for the Pac that nobody else can fill. The Big 12 pretty much has to play at the same time as SEC and B1G schools. Not that Pac fans like night games (for the most part, we don’t), but that’s where the money will be.

You must be talking about European soccer rights, not MLS. That league brings in less than that in total revenue now. Or Apple waaaaaaay overpaid. https://www.zippia.com/major-league-soccer-careers-30197/revenue/

Actually it is a 10 year $2.5 billion deal with MLS.

 

[NavyBlue]

You must be talking about European soccer rights, not MLS. That league brings in less than that in total revenue now. Or Apple waaaaaaay overpaid. https://www.zippia.com/major-league-soccer-careers-30197/revenue/

Actually it is a 10 year $2.5 billion deal with MLS.

$2.5 billion for soccer in North America...Apple will regret that...

 

[indian-outlaw]

Actually it is a 10 year $2.5 billion deal with MLS.

$2.5 billion for soccer in North America...Apple will regret that...

I disagree, MLS seems to be growing. They are a huge draw in Seattle.

 

[kemajic]

$2.5 billion for soccer in North America...Apple will regret that...

I disagree, MLS seems to be growing. They are a huge draw in Seattle.

The Left Coast can replace PAC-12 games with MLS.

 

[Pounder]

Actually it is a 10 year $2.5 billion deal with MLS.

$2.5 billion for soccer in North America...Apple will regret that...

There have been weekends this summer where ESPN put a second division game (USL Championship) on a 1 pm ET time slot and beat out half the MLS games with it. So I was also almost of a thought that Apple overpaid.

Just keep in mind that Apple is heavily in the data business. They’re going to get more value than just advertising dollars here. Not that this doesn’t concern me at least a bit.

You have some markets that were thought to be bad sports market (Atlanta and Seattle among them) that draw very well for MLS. Outside of LA, major markets have not been big draws for the league, but wherever you have a youth influx, they draw better. Portland had a sellout streak until the pandemic, though the ownership is doing nearly everything it can to piss it away. Austin is a tough ticket. Nashville built a 30,000-seat stadium and is mostly filling it. Thing is, and the other reason I brought up USL, is because a lot of the secondary markets are building stadiums (often 10-15K), mostly filling them, and even getting local TV contracts. It’s not the case that American soccer is getting even NBA ratings (most of the time; there are some matchups that work), but what’s going on is kind of NHL-level attention where most markets have dedicated followings and aren’t going anywhere. A few exceptions, but that hasn’t been an issue like it used to be.