I remember when people made fun of the PAC12 for negotiating a TV contract with a streaming partner

Amazon did a fair job working out the bugs for sports streaming with TNF.

Timing is a thing. I worked on corporate restructuring of companies in the below industries.

  • 2000: too much dark, un-lit fiber, not enough data packets.

  • 2002: too many cell towers, not enough mobile data (Nokia and BlackBerry still ruled).


NHL too. I just learned that next season, the only way to watch any non-nationally televised Seattle Kraken games will be on Prime streaming.

1 Like

Mariners too, they are on King5/Kong and streaming on Apple (I think).


So, I don’t follow the politics of major college football. It generally doesn’t interest me.
That said, in the last few days, I have been researching the Big 12 and our soon to be status in the conference. As you’d imagine, I have come across the work of Drake C. Toll. One of his video sessions noted that it was Utah who scuttled the Pac-12 ESPN deal through poor negotiation. It surprises me that I haven’t seen conversations on this board about this topic, but perhaps my disinterest in the general subject caused me to ignore them.
Thoughts on this?

Not sure what exactly is the truth, but this did come up a few months ago. I think Utah is one of the institutions that wanted $55mm (?) per year. Not surprised.


Fwiw, I have been sorely disappointed in P12 leadership, including university presidents, who didn’t seem to really understand market dynamics.


At this point what happened last year has become irrelevant. The finger pointing, conspiracies, and conjecture are moot.

Time to turn the page and move on as we can’t unwind the clock.

1 Like

That certainly makes sense. However, if Utah was the reason for the Pac-12 dissolve via revenue loss, all this complaining about the Big 12 being a stepping stone, a terrible place for our school, etc., is interesting. It feels more like we are lucky to be here.

This is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. People I know who are close to the President’s office indicate that there had been quite a bit of research done by folks in the School of Business and President Randal presented a $55 million number as an OPENING position knowing that you open high and then come down from that number to settle on something lower. Then the commissioner and his team decided to make that the FINAL number which caused a lot of consternation amongst some of the presidents as that was not what they wanted at all. Utah of course gets blamed as we are a convenient scapegoat.


That makes sense. Thank you. However, Toll’s argument is that the 50 million was an over-the-top opening offer that led to the broken deal.

Has P1 Jared written a song about our exodus to the Big 12 yet?
I would suggest lyrics to this diddy.

Let’s face it. Southern Cal killed the PAC. And then Oregon and Washington came in and bayoneted the corpse.


Or was it the 4 corners schools who vacated the conference, leaving it with less than the required 6 members?

His argument was debunked months ago.


Oh, good. What were the points of the debunking, if you don’t mind sharing? Not easy to find that info.



Exactly what others shared.

President Randall and his team did an analysis and recommended $50 Mil as a starting point

This was based on information given to the presidents that there were multiple suitors.

The commissioners office did not provide accurate information to the presidents, then played hardball without telling anyone they were doing it.

Basically the commissioner threw out a take it or leave it instead of negotiating, while telling the schools they were going to attract more and more offers…


oof. I haven’t seen anger on this forum towards that commissioner.
What happened to the commissioner?