Wilner's full update-
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...venue-sharing-and-16-team-division-alignment/
Talked to several sources this weekend about Texas joining the Pac-12 and the future of the Longhorn Network.
Let’s get right to it.
***
Texas-to-the-Pac is not happening in the next 24 or 36 hours, folks. It could be a week, or weeks.
There are far too many issues still to be worked out, many of them involving UT’s ultimate willingness to make the concessions necessary to join the Pac-12.
Despite what you may have read, the school and the conference are “nowhere near any agreement,” according to one source.
(That doesn’t mean a deal won’t be reached, only that there are several layers to the negotiations and it could take time.)
*** The Austin-American Statesman reported that Texas could join the Pac-12 and keep the Longhorn Network, essentially with its
own revenue model:
The Longhorns would be able to keep all of their revenue from the network if that amount is greater than one-sixteenth of what the entire Pac-12 receives for its third-tier rights. However, if one-sixteenth of the money the Pac-12 receives from third-tier rights ends up being a larger amount, the schools would divide the revenue evenly and everybody would receive the same amount, the source said.
That is, at its very best, misleading.
For one thing, the Longhorn Network would have to be folded into the Pac-12 regional model — it wouldn’t exist as a separate entity.
What’s more, there is no chance that any school will have more than 1/16th of the revenue that comes from the conference’s first, second or third-tier rights. NO CHANCE.
We’re more likely to see USC give up football and join the Big West.
Remember, the Pac-12 CEOs would like to have Texas, but they
are not desperate to have Texas.
They have all the leverage.
Now … Would UT and ESPN have to work something out in regard to the $300 million Longhorn Network? Probably. A contract like that doesn’t simply get ripped up.
(Quick aside: Based on what media industry sources have told me about revenue projections for the league’s third-tier rights, they would trounce what Texas stands to make off TLN over time.)
***
Yes, yes, 100 times yes: The Pac-12 would add the Oklahoma schools and become a 14-team conference even if Texas follows a different path.
And if the number is 14, there’s a very good chance the conference would use the Zipper model for division alignment (i.e., split the natural rivals).
The league will not — I repeat: will not — pair USC and Oklahoma in the same division.
*** There’s a lot of confusion and concern about the division alignment in a 16-team league.
In particular, the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado don’t want to be in the eastern division — they don’t want to get cut off from Los Angeles.
Here’s
my educated guess as to how the conference would handle the situation:
1. Divide the 16 teams into pods of four: the Northwest schools, the California schools, the Mountain schools and the Texas/Oklahoma schools (or the Kansas/Oklahoma schools).
You’d play the three teams in your pod every year and two teams from each of the other three pods to form the nine-game league schedule.
2. Pair two sets of pods to create one eight-team division and two sets of pods to create another eight-team division.
3. Keep the pods together for two years to provide home-and-home scheduling, and then switch the pod pairings.
In other words, the California schools could be paired with the Mountain schools in a division for two years, and then the California schools could be paired with the Northwest schools in a division for two years … and so on.
It’s critical to remember that — as with the 12-school negotiations last fall on divisions, scheduling and revenue sharing — commissioner Larry Scott’s goal would be to find a Pac-16 infrastructure that satisfies everyone … even if it doesn’t thrill anyone.
***
Last point: I’ve read and heard a lot about whether Scott has the CEO support to expand or is getting significant push-back from a handful of presidents and chancellors. (Nine votes are needed to approve new members.)
Bottom line: If Scott needs the votes, he’ll have the votes.
lot:
