-
Pete Thamel, ESPN
Nearly two months ago in Washington, D.C., University of Arizona president Bobby Robbins sat on a panel with NCAA president Charlie Baker at an event Arizona organized about the future of college sports.
Little did Robbins know that within a few weeks, he’d be a central figure in determining the actual landscape of how college athletics is currently constructed.
With Colorado announcing its departure for the Big 12 last week, the future of the Pac-12 is uncertain. Commissioner George Kliavkoff has long told potential television partners he’d need clarity on what a television deal could look like by July 31.
The Pac-12 presidents are expected to meet Tuesday to finally get from Kliavkoff what they hope is a strong vision of what the league’s television deal will look like.
“The expectation is these schools want clarity and details on a number and that a deal is going to eventually get done,” said an industry source. “They want to know, ‘What are our deal options?'”
Arizona has been at the forefront for a potential move to the Big 12, as it had the most extensive talks with the league prior to the Colorado departure. A move by Arizona to the Big 12 would significantly weaken the Pac-12, putting an unstable league on the brink. And no one realizes this more than Robbins.
“He knows the gravity,” said a person familiar with Robbins’ thinking. “He does not want to be the one to break apart the Pac-12.”
That’s why sources say Arizona, Arizona State and Utah — the Pac-12’s remaining three of the so-called Four Corner schools — are expected to lump their futures together.
As another industry source pointed out: “I don’t see any of them having the fortitude to break up the Pac-12 themselves. They’ll break as three. It’s either going to be all three leave, or none leave.”
Will they stay? Will they go?
It all depends on what Kliavkoff presents on Tuesday as he looks to convince them there’s a deal with enough money and exposure to stay together.
The Pac-12’s deal expires after the upcoming school year, which would mean every school could walk without paying any type of exit fee. Just like USC, UCLA and now Colorado are doing.
Given the complexities of any additional moves, and the deliberate pace at which universities tend to operate, there’s likely not going to be any hard-and-fast decisions on Tuesday night. But the start of this week is going to set the table for the Pac-12’s stability and viability going forward.
What would it look like in the Big 12 if Arizona, Arizona State and Utah all joined the conference? Sources have indicated the Big 12 would work with its media partners to figure out a way to make the economics work.
Much of this ends up on Robbins’ plate because he’s the most entrenched of the presidents involved in the three remaining corner schools.
The tenor has changed from what Robbins said two months ago: “I’m not anxious about this,” he said in Washington, D.C. “I know it’s important. I have full confidence we’re going to get where we need to be.”
How could things unfold from here? As always with realignment, there are myriad possibilities with serious ripple effects for the Pac-12, Big 12, ACC and beyond.
What’s next for the Pac-12?
If the embattled Kliavkoff doesn’t have a TV deal that’s robust enough in both money and exposure, the future of the league will really be in flux.
Colorado’s departure was a blow to perception, but the loss of three additional schools to the Big 12 would completely kneecap the league and significantly decrease potential television revenue. Not only that, it would send Washington and Oregon begging to the Big Ten. Or, even more unappealing, contemplating life as independents.
Simply put, a deal has to be good enough to keep Arizona, Arizona State and Utah in the Pac-12. This all unfolds amid a backdrop where it’s an open secret that Oregon and Washington covet Big Ten invitations, where the TV payouts are nearly double that of any league not named the SEC. But the unknown variables on when the Big Ten could expand again are both time and the legal complications of any ACC school leaving. (More on that later.)
The cold reality is the remaining Pac-12 schools need to know any arrangement is temporary. The Pac-12 deal has long been believed to be a short one. And while the league has been quick to trumpet that a grant of rights has been agreed upon, that’s just rhetoric until there’s a deal attached to it.
One of the few certainties in a fluid situation is that no matter the league structure, Oregon and Washington don’t plan on committing to anything long term. Nor would they subject themselves to exorbitant exit fees.
So, what will Oregon and Washington do?
Oregon and Washington don’t want to go to the Big 12. If they are going to switch leagues, despite the hurdles, it’s likely for the Big Ten.
Much in the same way Robbins doesn’t want to be held responsible if the Pac-12 dissolves — or gets reduced to an unrecognizable form — the Big Ten presidents also don’t want to look predatory.
New Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti also doesn’t aspire to look like the saboteur. But he’s done some quiet diligence about the potential of Washington and Oregon, as the Pac-12’s vulnerability has made it obvious they could shake loose.
Any addition of Washington and Oregon would counter the wishes of USC, which viewed the competitive advantage of keeping schools like Oregon out of the Los Angeles recruiting market as a central part of its Big Ten move. Inviting them would negate that advantage. (Mike Bohn, the USC athletic director who negotiated the deal, is no longer at the school.)
The idea of West Coast expansion is intriguing to UCLA, but they’d have to thread a political needle after Cal got left behind in the last expansion. As always, realignment is complicated.
There’s a prevailing feeling Washington and Oregon could end up available for a cut rate. The Big Ten schools are projected to make in the neighborhood of $70 million in television money once the full deal kicks in. The Big 12 payouts are expected to be an annual average of $31.7 million starting in 2025.
For the Big Ten to move on Oregon and Washington, the league would need to bring in a fourth television partner. Former commissioner Kevin Warren was unable to land it when the Big Ten flirted with the idea in the wake of the USC and UCLA acquisition. The league’s presidents and athletic directors were ultimately cool on further expansion as well.
Part of that had to do with the quality of games that would be available to whoever that fourth television partner would be, as it wouldn’t be expected to secure any of the Big Ten’s top 50 contests. Could things change if the price is cut and Oregon and Washington aren’t brought in at a full share? Could a TV partner kick in some prime games as a sweetener to lure a fourth partner?
That’s all to be determined, but it isn’t something that could come together quickly.
Where’s the ACC in all this?
The ACC has been doing due diligence out west the same way the Big Ten has.
The geography and finances of any potential union there are muddled, as it has remained the prevailing thought that bringing in a handful of high-profile West Coast schools would not bring game-changing income to the ACC.
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told ESPN’s David Hale last week that the league is “highly engaged in looking at anything that makes us a better and stronger conference.”
As the ACC also explores and ponders from a distance, it is still dealing with the internal realities of something happening in its own league. The unhappy cohort of seven schools that have been chatting among themselves — Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina and NC State — hasn’t suddenly found happiness or a viable way to dramatically increase the ACC’s finances. But they are still bound together by the league’s restrictive grant of rights, which goes through 2036.
Florida State has long been the unhappiest of the unhappy ACC schools. If FSU, Clemson, Miami or any other aggrieved ACC school wants to, in theory, duck out for the 2024-25 school year, they’d have to notify the league in writing by Aug. 15.
That’s a short time to find a home, as that notice would hypothetically give them a chance to play in a new league for 2024. But no one knows what that league could be, which is perhaps the biggest issue: If you leave, where do you go? And will you win the legal battle to own your rights?
The SEC has been devout about staying put at 16 teams in the short term. And no league wants or can legally afford the exposure of taking a team before it untangles itself from its prior conference situation.
The only thing certain about the ACC is that any defections would create a flurry of lawsuits because the grant of rights tied to the television contract runs more than a decade. There’s always been an inevitability attached to when — not if — those would be tested.
Doing so in the next two weeks feels sudden, but nothing is impossible in realignment.