FOX is going to one of our future media partners. Did you see the welcome they gave Yormark, saying there looking forward to working with him. Hint …Hint…wink…wink
1 Like
You still have link by chance?
This is my theory. I could be wrong but it would make a lot of sense. These are power plays between FOX and ESPN. Their interests do not align.
FOX controls BIG and BIG12 (with the addition of the PAC 6)… Once the conference realignment settles, back to the playoff expansion drawing board we go. First, FOX needs to fill their stables. This is the end game.
1 Like
No link here’s the statement
Fox Sports CEO and Executive Producer, Eric Shanks:
“On behalf of FOX Sports, we’d like to officially congratulate Brett Yormark on being named the new Commissioner of the Big 12,” said Eric Shanks, CEO and Executive Producer of FOX Sports. “Brett is a talented and innovative executive who brings a remarkably unique perspective to the position. Under his leadership and vision, the conference is set up for success, and we look forward to continuing to build on our relationship as a premier partner of the Big 12.”
Further info on him
“He was instrumental in securing TV rights contracts with networks while at NASCAR and the Nets. NASCAR closed a $2.4 billion deal with Fox/NBC to televise its races with Yormark’s help.”
8 Likes
Thanks!
1 Like
But what’s really in the Alliance for the ACC?
I might see it as legit if they (PAC) were stable with USCLA. But they hitching their mule to a whirlwind.
The Big 12 is attempting to do something the PAC did not have the balls to do last year- kill a wounded competing Power Conference!
Actually, the more i think about it, the more dumb the PAC looks for not killing a wounded Big 12 who now has grown strong enough to kill them…oh, the irony.
Just from a businesses standpoint, it would have made sense from a supply and demand angle- because they now would have been one of FOUR power conferences with content and now with Central Time Zone inventory but they PASSED!
What a dumb move and missed opportunity by the PAC.
ALWAYS kill a rival competitor if you have the chance!
2 Likes
Not if it means weakening yourself.
The big 12 taking the Arizona schools and Utah and also colorado would be a weakening of the big 12. Now, if the big 12 takes Washington and Oregon instead, that’s a different matter.
1 Like
It wouldn’t mean more money but it would be a strategic move.
The same principle applies for the PAC a year ago. If they moved to bring teams from B12, they wouldn’t have B12 threatening to kill off their conference and they would be in a stronger market position with teams in the Central zone.
Probably wouldn’t have increased their revenue, but would have been a solid strategic decision.
The gang has Tim Brando on.
1 Like
Weakening yourself to hurt a competitor is a bad strategic move. Especially when there are other competitors who will benefit even more by your taking the lowest value options off the table.
1 Like
Precisely! I don’t know why everybody is so fixed on Colorado, Cal, Stanford, ASU…they will bring the Big 12 no extra revenue. The targets must start with Oregon and Washington. Bring them on board and the PAC is dead.
The Big 12 obtaining other P5s, as compared to the G5s we thought we were going to have to expand with, isn’t weakening the conference.
1 Like
Anything that involves bringing Utah over is a conference strengthener. You get better. The PAC gets weaker.
And Brando sounds exactly like he’s owned by the mob. He keeps attacking people that state the obvious. Then, after repeatedly stating this is about football rules making he rationalizes the B10 taking UCLA because of their basketball. He’s way too defensive here.
1 Like
You just changed the argument to include adding G5 schools.
Expanding to get Arizona and Utah and colorado schools just because the PAC is vulnerable does weaken the conference.
How so? You just brought in a top 5 football program. You solidified your position as the top basketball conference. You essentially killed the PAC. And you left Oregon and Washington to decide whether they want the MWC or us. Its an absolute master stroke.
5 Likes
None of the four is a top 5 football program.
Basketball does improve tournament credit income but it’s offset by what, I believe, would be a decrease in total media income since football from those four schools wouldn’t increase the media package.
And Washington and Oregon could choose MWC or us. But they could also offer the b1g an offer it would have to think twice about in terms of reduced payouts. But, ultimately, that’s beyond our control.
Utah was close to a playoff slot last year and they around the top 5. They have a program that can win it all. They’ll more than likely win the PAC going away next year. How is that not a winning move?
So what if Wash and Oregon offer themselves at bargain prices to the B10? That just means there’s no way you could hold them anyway. They, effectively, are not in the equation because they have no interest in the B12.
3 Likes