Mailbag: Pac-12 vs. Big 12, ESPN vs. Amazon, UCLA vs. UC Regents and loads more (2023)

The Hotline mailbag is published every Friday. Send questions topac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.comor hit me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline.

Please note: Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Does ESPN have both the Pac-12 and Big 12 over a negotiating barrel? — @BruinSharman

Any updates on how the Pac-12 media negotiations are going? — @Vakaviti

Two questions focused on the conference’s existential crisis that seem particularly timely given what we think we know about the negotiations.

I framed it that way because we don’t really know. The Pac-12 has done a fabulous job to this point of preventing leaks. That’s unfortunate for us but good for the conference, because the fear of leaks can impact internal trust and strategic decisions.

But here’s our guess …

When the Pac-12 announced in early July that the presidents and chancellors had authorized commissioner George Kliavkoff to begin media rights negotiations, it avoided any reference to the timing:No date was given for the start of the 30-day exclusive negotiating window for ESPN and Fox.

We believe that window was delayed until the Big Ten concluded its media deal, which was announced Aug. 18.

If the Pac-12’s exclusive negotiating period opened days later, then it would be coming to a close right about now.

And that meshes with the comment earlier this week, by New York Post media reporter Andrew Marchand, that ESPN and the Pac-12 are hundreds of millions of dollars apart.

If the 30-day window is closing this week or next, then it would be about time for ESPN to place a firm offer on the table. And that offer could be well short of Pac-12 expectations.

We never expected the conference to sign an agreement during the exclusive period. All signs pointed to Kliavkoff taking the inventory to the marketplace and seeking bids from other companies. (After all, why would ESPN bid against itself?)

The report about the two sides being “hundreds of millions” apart — if we assume that’s true for the purposes of this exercise — doesn’t come as a surprise.

If, for example, the Pac-12 asked for $400 million over five years and ESPN countered with $330 million over five years, that’s a difference of $350 million. It doesn’t mean the sides will end up that far apart.

But therein lies the trick for the conference, and why these negotiations were always going to be difficult: The lack of competition for its inventory.

NBC, CBS and Turner don’t appear to be serious players. And we’re skeptical about Fox’s interest — that network already has what it wants (the Los Angeles market) through its deal with the Big Ten.

So the Pac-12’s best option for competition seemingly is from Amazon, which is both good and bad.

It’s good because Amazon has plenty of cash and probably would pay the Pac-12 more than the games are actually worth — the value for the company comes from the marketing benefits, not the football itself.

But it’s bad because Amazon doesn’t provide maximum visibility or media messaging opportunities. ESPN drives the narrative in college football, and the Pac-12 must have a partnership with ESPN in some form or fashion.

(Amazon made what we’re told is a strong offer for a piece of the Big Ten’s football inventory, but the conference passed because it was concerned about being sequestered on Amazon. Cash is critical, but so are eyeballs.)

That’s one advantage for the Big 12, in our opinion. We believe both ESPN and Fox are interested in the Big 12, in part because its basketball brand is strong. (ESPN isn’t part of the Big Ten rights agreement and, as a result, needs Big 12 basketball to fill the inventory demands for ESPN+.)

When you slice and dice everything, it becomes clear that the Big 12 has some advantages over the Pac-12 and the Pac-12 has some advantages over the Big 12. And that’s exactly why we believe the conferences are in roughly the same position.

One of them will end up with a media rights deal worth several million dollars more per school than the other, but the difference won’t be transformational — not like the massive revenue bump that USC and UCLA will receive in the Big Ten.

At the same time, the two leagues have been stripped of their most valuable assets over the past 14 months and will, to a certain extent, have to accept whatever ESPN and/or Fox is willing to offer.

The networks won’t miss a chance to drive down the price, especially given what they are paying for the SEC and Big Ten.

If the Thursday night NFL game on Amazon Prime gets bad ratings, would that be a concern to the Pac-12? — @LAWomensHoops

I don’t think so, primarily because the expectations are low.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Thursday Night Football averaged 16.4 million viewers when Fox owned the game.

Amazon projected an average viewership of 12.6 million for this season, its first as the exclusive provider, per the WSJ.

It could take weeks or perhaps months — and maybe several years — to reach that audience level, much less equal what Fox drew each week.

The question for the Pac-12 is whether Amazon Prime will become a mainstream platform for football viewing. And if so, when?

Our hunch: After the Pac-12’s next contract cycle begins (fall of 2024) but before that contract cycle ends (spring of 2029, probably).

The conference was watching Thursday night more for the production value and streaming quality (glitches, latency, etc) than for ratings.

I realize revenue distributions still need to be ironed out for the 12-team College Football Playoff. But assuming a $2.2 billion (annual) media rights deal, what is your best guess for the expected minimum payout to the Pac-12? — @TerryTerry79

The current broadcast agreement for the CFP (and the New Year’s Six bowls that don’t host playoffs) is reportedly worth about $670 million per year.

Of that, 63 percent is a base payment to the conferences. And of that, about 67 percent goes to the Power Five.

My hunch is the performance share will increase from 37 percent to closer to 50 percent in the expanded version — more for the SEC and Big Ten, which figure to dominate the field.

So let’s assume half of the $2.2 billion becomes a base payment to the leagues. Next, take two-thirds of that 50 percent as the Power Five allocation. That’s about $750 million.

Split that five ways, and the Pac-12 would collect $150 million annually — more than twice its current annual amount.

If there are only 10 teams, that would be $15 million per team, compared to the $6 million or so each school currently collects.

That’s a very rough look at the numbers.

What do you think the chances are that the UC Regents prevent UCLA from moving to the Big Ten? — @kentura82

There has been no change in our outlook since the mid-August meeting in which the Regents established the authority to squash the move.

That would be a momentous step, not only for this specific situation but for other matters (athletic, academic or otherwise) involving the 10 campuses in the UC system.

I’d set the chances of a reversal at 10-to-15 percent, which isn’t high but also isn’t nothing.

And that makes the situation worth monitoring.

Any chance of the Pac-12 convincing USC and UCLA to reverse course and remain in the conference, especially with the new College Football Playoff format? — Gerard Limtiaco

This is a different question than the one addressed above: Would either school willingly opt to remain in the Pac-12?

There is no chance USC has a change of heart — none, zero, zip.

The Bruins would only change willingly if the Regents ordered them to subsidize Cal to such an extent ($10 million or more annually) that the move wasn’t worthwhile financially.

And in that event, it really wouldn’t be a willing reversal.

As an Associated Press top-25 voter, can you explain why Texas A&M (No. 24) is ranked while Oregon State and Washington State are not? — Jon Joseph

I don’t have an answer for you. The AP gives voters a wide berth for determining their ballots but emphasizes that results should serve as the North Star.

— Washington State beat Idaho and won at No. 19 Wisconsin.

— Oregon State beat Boise State and Fresno State.

— Meanwhile, Texas A&M beat Sam Houston State and lost (at home) to Appalachian State.

And yet the Aggies are ranked while WSU, OSU and Appalachian State are not.

You cannot make a results-based argument for the Aggies over any of the three, meaning the only plausible explanations are 1) brand bias or 2) ignorance.

Who is on the Pac-12 hot seat this year? — @RealWebTraveler

Karl Dorrell’s seat is gaining heat by the week, even though this is just his third season. Yes, Colorado’s roster is young, but the product has been terrible thus far.

If the current trajectory continues, he could be in jeopardy of dismissal by the end of November.

Arizona State coach Herm Edwards seemingly has a murky future because of the NCAA investigation, although the 68-year-old Edwards might just retire before the axe falls.

We’d argue that David Shaw’s seat is thawing rapidly at Stanford, but I’m not sure his job is in jeopardy this year, or any year.

If you include men’s basketball in the hot seat calculation, the options expand: Cal’s Mark Fox, ASU’s Bobby Hurley, Oregon State’s Wayne Tinkle and perhaps even Stanford’s Jerod Haase could be vulnerable to termination by March.

If Oregon State somehow upsets USC and beats Montana State to go 4-0, is it reasonable to warrant high expectations? I won’t say playoff but maybe a high ranking and New Year’s Six bowl? — @OhItsPM

Not sure I would start dreaming of the New Year’s Six just yet, even with a victory over the Trojans.

Two things are equally true: OSU has been impressive so far, and there is a long, long way to go.

To be considered for an at-large berth — the Cotton is the only bowl available this season because of the semifinal rotation (Peach and Fiesta) — the Beavers would need a minimum of 10 wins. And to appear in the Rose Bowl, they would need to win the conference title.

I have seen nothing to indicate OSU has the talent or depth to navigate the weekly grind with just one or two losses. Their margin-for-error in that endeavor is microscopic.

But we have been surprised before, and that would be one heck of a story.

Does the construction at Oregon State’s Reser Stadium work against the Beavers when TV networks are selecting games, or passing the Beavers off to the Pac-12 Network? — @Jschamber2

Fair question and one that I cannot speak to with complete confidence — only Fox and ESPN know for sure.

But I doubt the construction is a factor in the weekly draft process. The networks want the best matchups, and the renovation doesn’t impact the size of the audience.

ESPN and Fox passed on the Oregon State-USC game (Sept. 24) because they want to preserve as much access to the Trojans later in the season as possible, when their games are most meaningful and viewership the highest (in theory).

USC must appear on the Pac-12 Networks at least three times (to match their number of non-conference home games). Had Fox or ESPN selected the Sept. 24 matchup, they would have reduced by one the number of USC games available for their broadcasts later in the season.

Anyone from the Pac-12 likely to be on the short list at Nebraska? — @MattRexroad

Given what happened the last time the Cornhuskers hired a Pac-12 head coach (Oregon State’s Mike Riley), I’m deeply skeptical the school would look to the West Coast for Scott Frost’s replacement.

Washington State coach Jake Dickert has roots in the Upper Midwest and, with a more accomplished resume, might be considered a candidate the next time Nebraska has an opening.

But the Huskers are fortunate in that there are several premium options in their neighborhood with Kansas State’s Chris Klieman and Kansas’ Lance Leipold.

Do you think Washington is back? — @ChantryStarr

I believe so, but check Saturday at 7:30 p.m. for confirmation.

Support the Hotline: Receive three months of unlimited access for just 99 cents. Yep, that’s 99 cents for 90 days, with the option to cancel anytime. Details are here, and thanks for your support.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline

*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.