Editorโs note: Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Whatโs the deal with Fox? โ @Buffaloakk
Wilner: Good question: What is the deal with Fox?
There have been varying reports about Foxโs involvement in the Pac-12 media negotiations โ none of them mutually exclusive: Fox can be interested in a package of Pac-12 games but not actively involved at this point.
The situation reflects just how nuanced media negotiations can be and just how secretive the Pac-12โs process has been.
Our view hasnโt changed: Fox has a lot of Saturday night broadcast windows on FS1 that are currently devoted to Pac-12 content and must be filled in the next contract cycle.
Sure, it could slot Mountain West matchups and BYU home games into that window. But the network assuredly would want the option for Pac-12 games (at the right price, of course).
That said, there is no indication Fox wants a significant portion of Pac-12 inventory โ that it will, or has, bid on the Tier 1 (premium) games.
Those negotiations likely involve ESPN, Apple and Amazon.
More broadly, Fox has played a crucial role in moving the situation to this point.
As most fans are aware, the network orchestrated the Big Tenโs raid of USC and UCLA, according to โฆ well, according to every media industry source we have. (One sarcastically referred to the Big Ten as โFox Inc.โ)
It also has impacted the course of events for the Pac-12 relative to the Big 12, with a massive advantage to the latter.
Why? Fox has a longstanding contractual relationship with both conferences. In the case of the Big 12, Fox lost the premier brands when Texas and Oklahoma bolted for the SEC, which has an all-in contract with ESPN.
As a result, Fox needed Big 12 inventory to retain a presence in Texas.
With the Pac-12, the situation is reversed. Whereas Texas and Oklahoma left a conference aligned with Fox, the L.A. schools jumped into a Fox conference.
Because of its broadcast partnership with the Big Ten, the network can maintain its presence in the massive Southern California media market. It kept what it wanted, in other words, and has little motivation to maintain a major stake in the Pac-12.
It had to partner with the Big 12 to keep a foothold in Teas.
It doesnโt have to partner with the Pac-12 to keep its flag in California.
So in some respects, Fox bludgeoned the Pac-12 twice.
Which brings us to another issue the Hotline has pondered for months.
The Pac-12โs current contracts with Fox and ESPN gave the networks a 90-day exclusive negotiating window with the conference to hash out a new media deal.
We know that window opened in July and closed in early October.
We also know that the Pac-12 was unable to extricate itself from that window until the 90 days ended.
And we can assume that Fox, because it already had what it wanted โ the L.A. market โ did not make a serious offer for Pac-12 inventory.
Three weeks after the Pac-12โs exclusive negotiating window ended, the Big 12 announced an early renewal of its agreement with Fox and ESPN.
We would love to know the details of conversations between Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff and the Fox executives.
Unfortunately, that aspect of the saga likely will remain a mystery forever.
Following up to a good past article, you projected a $6 million gap (per school) between the Pac-12 and Big 12 distributions for the 2023 fiscal year. For 2025 and beyond, what are your projections? Do you see a continued $6 million or more gap? โ @vakaviti
Wilner: Yes, the Big 12 has already been distributing more cash to its schools than the Pac-12 โ a point many have missed during this saga.
The Big 12โs regular-season broadcast contracts with ESPN and Fox spin-off more money than the Pac-12 deals, and the Big 12โs total revenue for each school, which includes NCAA Tournament and the football postseason, is greater, as well.
But itโs too early to estimate the differences in the next contract cycle.
Once we see the Pac-12โs media rights deal and whether there is unequal sharing of postseason revenue โ that would be a smart move on several fronts, by the way โ the Hotline will offer new projections.
Would the Pac-12 ever consider a Friday night doubleheader and just own that space? Including non-conference games, it would require two or three games per team (assuming 12 members), so itโs a big commitment. โ @Smittytheclownn
Wilner: Probably too big, in our opinion.
The Friday night window has value, and it would certainly have value to Amazon coming out of the โThursday Night Footballโ broadcast.
But even if we ignore the non-conference piece and simply focus on league play, a Friday doubleheader over at least nine weeks would mean 18 games โ 18 out of the 54.
Thatโs a huge percentage, especially given that Friday nights arenโt necessarily easy for fans or the campuses.
We suspect the media deal will include a Friday package of games, but only one each week โ and maybe just six or eight throughout the season.
Could it be possible to move Pac-12 Network content to whichever streamer gets the rights starting next year and not wait? โ @CoachMorrowosu
Wilner: I donโt see how thatโs possible, given the contracts.
The Pac-12 created a coterminous situation: The distribution deals with Fox, ESPN and the Pac-12 Networkโs partners (Comcast, DISH, etc.) all expire at the same time, in the summer of 2024.
Itโs a smart strategy โ one of the few things former commissioner Larry Scott got right on the media front โ but our sense is the deals are unbreakable unless the partners agree. And thereโs no sign of that.
If Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark wants his conference coast-to-coast, the Pac-12 wants to stay together, and no one wants to be left out in the cold, why canโt everyone drop their swords and merge into the BigPac and get on with life? โ @HazzardCoEng
Wilner: The Hotline advocated years ago for the Pac-12 and Big 12 to create a partnership and argued again for that strategy last summer.
It would have enhanced media value, created a coast-to-coast product and strengthened both conferences against defections by the top brands.
But at this point, the chances of a partnership or merger are microscopic.
Dollars and egos always trump common sense.
Remember years ago when conferences implemented big exit fees to keep teams from defecting? What does that mean for the defections of USC and UCLA and possible additions of San Diego State and SMU? โ Doug Ware
Wilner: To the best of our knowledge, USC and UCLA are not paying any exit fees. Their departure tracks with the end of the Pac-12โs current media rights agreement, so they wonโt face a financial penalty.
My assumption is that any new members would have to agree to the terms of the next contract.
What those terms are, we cannot say. But itโs safe to assume exit fees and penalties are part of the ongoing discussion at the presidential level.
Is there a scenario where some of the second-level Pac-12 football rivalries might survive in some limited fashion, or are the remaining schools more likely to decline any future games with USC and UCLA? โ John Vietor
Wilner: I suspect the California schools will schedule each other. The Bay Area teams need ticket-selling opportunities, and the L.A. teams need non-conference games with limited travel.
But every school, from Tucson to Pullman, should attempt to schedule the Trojans and Bruins.
It will become increasingly difficult to get premier matchups, especially with Big Ten teams reluctant to make non-conference trips to the West Coast and with BYUโs availability limited by its move into the Big 12.
In some ways, the L.A. schools will become the new BYU, times two.
Is it frustrating for you to report sourced information about the Pac-12 media negotiations only to have national media people report conflicting information? โ @NewsManLou
Wilner: Very few people are aware of the details of the negotiations; the conference has kept the circle extremely tight.
As a result, the Hotline has taken great care to distinguish between facts (sourced reporting) and opinion (our best guesses, so to speak).
I am unaware of a specific instance in which the Hotline has reported something as fact only to have it refuted by a national media outlet.
Anytime the Hotline publishes opinion pieces or attempts to forecast events, itโs done with the understanding that we could be proven incorrect.
That said, for the past eight months, we have maintained the following:
Pac-12 survival is the most likely outcome but not guaranteed.
Pac-12 expansion is more likely than moving forward as a 10-school conference.
The Big Ten door is closed, likely through the remainder of the decade.
The Four Corners schools would prefer to remain in the Pac-12 than move to the Big 12.
The Pac-12 and Big 12 media valuations are similar; neither offers a transformational advantage.
We believe each aspect of that framework remains in place.
You said back in February that every week after mid-March of the Pac-12 not having a media deal in place drops the survival odds by half a point. Knowing what you do now, do you still hold to this belief? โ @SoCal_Pony
Wilner: Our general view is the following:
Regarding realignment, time and security move inversely: The longer a media rights deal takes to complete, the greater the likelihood of an unexpected occurrence โ and unexpected occurrences are rarely beneficial.
Our odds for Pac-12 survival have dropped to 4.5 points (from 5.5), which should be no surprise to anyone who read our early-March predictions.
We opted against setting the line a half-point lower โ at least for the moment โ because of the public comments from several presidents over the past two weeks.
If the situation appeared truly dire behind the scenes, the conference, which has been incredibly disciplined in its messaging, would not have sent them out with talking points.
Could Commissioner George Kliavkoff have misread the state of the negotiations, leaving the conference exposed to a massive downside surprise and, potentially, extinction?
That scenario seems unlikely but, once again, cannot be ignored until a contract is approved.
