📡 Cal Football Players Leading Pac-12 Boycott if Players' Demands Aren't Met - Hero Sports (ESPN now reports)

[planomateo]

~20 million homes is the Pac12 networks footprint. Let that sink in.

That's less than 1/3 of the SEC estimates.

 

[planomateo]

Football on the left coast is doing down and nothing can be done about it. UCLA and USC should have millions of bucks to waste but neither do.

Spent lots on contract buyouts. Gonna do it again soon.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Football on the left coast is doing down and nothing can be done about it. UCLA and USC should have millions of bucks to waste but neither do.

Thats true these days...but west coast football...usc...ucla..stanford...etc
Have a lot of NCs

 

[JoseyWalesTheOutlaw]

Thats true these days...but west coast football...usc...ucla..stanford...etc
Have a lot of NCs

I used to have hair as well.

 

[OldPlayer]

One example of how this would work if passed in its current form.

UofSC has 570 athletes.
Expenses last report: $140,146,333
Revenue last report: $140,295,659
Total revenue minus expenses: $149,326.
50%: 74,663
per athlete: @ $131 per.

From day one it's been said "once they start with this, they'll want more, and more."

Stipend. Fair move, they can't work.

NLI: As it's being written they're asking for more.

Demanding or we'll quit.

Does this revenue include conference revenue share too? Or does that go to the school, not the athletic department?

 

[50+yeartidefan]

I used to have hair as well.

Lol.....just saying...west coast down at present....in football...but have long and rich history.....

 

[TerryP]

For less or more money?

You didn't look.

 

[TerryP]

Does this revenue include conference revenue share too? Or does that go to the school, not the athletic department?

Yes, athletic side

 

[Tidestalker]

You didn't look.

I looked at their last ESPN & Fox contract.. It was worth $3 Billion over 12 years, through 2023. Might as well have been begging in front of the Wal Mart, eh? . I'm aware that falls short of other conference deals, some in large significance.

Looks like the future is a little more uncertain. They turned down a potential deal from ESPN in 2019. Likely in hopes to get a more lucrative deal. Which may or may not work out for them. Crazy how that works, someone hoping to maximize their potential leverage. It's almost like... a theme.

 

[TerryP]

looked at their last ESPN & Fox contract.. It was worth $3 Billion over 12 years, through 2023. Might as well have been begging in front of the Wal Mart, eh? . I'm aware that falls short of other conference deals, some in large significance.

Falls short of other conferences deals. Exactly. They were looking for private investors a few months ago to keep things competitive...which they aren't.

The PAC's deal with Fox is one of the worst thought out TV deals we've seen.

 

[planomateo]

Read an article recently that suggests any new deals for the Pac12 will occur after the NFL renegotiates their TV contracts which is later this year potentially.

 

[Tidestalker]

Falls short of other conferences deals. Exactly. They were looking for private investors a few months ago to keep things competitive...which they aren't.

The PAC's deal with Fox is one of the worst thought out TV deals we've seen.

I think you're completely missing the original point... That when they go to negotiate, it's to get the most $ possible.

Whether or not the market will agree with them is up for debate, but I don't believe you or anyone else would disparage them for the act of negotiating.

 

[TerryP]

Whether or not the market will agree with them is up for debate, but I don't believe you or anyone else would disparage them for the act of negotiating.

Negotiating and "do it my way or I'm quitting" aren't equatable in my view. I don't regard threats as the beginning of negotiation.

 

[Tidestalker]

Negotiating and "do it my way or I'm quitting" aren't equatable in my view. I don't regard threats as the beginning of negotiation.

What do you mean? Every negotiation has that underlying idea... Otherwise there would be no point. If someone doesn't get enough of what they want, there is no deal, and 1 or both sides quit or find other opportunities.

Something tells me if the verbiage was more sensitive to your views, you'd still take the same stance. I have no issue with them demanding something directly as opposed to beating around the bush.

 

[footballer]

Aren't TV contracts made on the basis of market value? How much are advertisers willing to pay for TV time based on viewership? Everybody
wants a slice of the pie, but the pie is only so big. They can't dole out what isn't there.

 

[OldPlayer]

Aren't TV contracts made on the basis of market value? How much are advertisers willing to pay for TV time based on viewership? Everybody
wants a slice of the pie, but the pie is only so big. They can't dole out what isn't there.

Market value = potential viewership. Ad sales are based on expected viewership. That's why they change the game of the week to pick a bigger viewing game = higher ad sales. Although the TV contracts with each conference stipulate that each shool needs to be shown, they will create an initial list of games for each week and then change those games weekly to pick the "best" game.

 

[Rsedge72]

Yeah I say go ahead and pay them. Then charge them for the room, board and tuition.
Plus they will lose pell grant money...
Then they’ll bitch about that, I guess...

 

[TerryP]

What do you mean? Every negotiation has that underlying idea... Otherwise there would be no point. If someone doesn't get enough of what they want, there is no deal, and 1 or both sides quit or find other opportunities.

Something tells me if the verbiage was more sensitive to your views, you'd still take the same stance. I have no issue with them demanding something directly as opposed to beating around the bush.

No. Every negotiation does not begin with "do this or I'll quit." I've never had to address my employer in a manner like that and in spite of bi-annual raises I had a salary negotiation with him. It started respectfully, "this is what the market pays for this skill."

Moreso, the mere absurdity of their "demands" takes negotiations off the table—at the very least it cuts the legs off said table.

Care to speculate on how much athletes at the University of Colorado will receive if this goes through? As much as they're getting now. Zero. And that's not even mentioning the 44 MM not allocated to specific genders or sports.

 

[Tidestalker]

No. Every negotiation does not begin with "do this or I'll quit." I've never had to address my employer in a manner like that and in spite of bi-annual raises I had a salary negotiation with him. It started respectfully, "this is what the market pays for this skill."

Moreso, the mere absurdity of their "demands" takes negotiations off the table—at the very least it cuts the legs off said table.

Care to speculate on how much athletes at the University of Colorado will receive if this goes through? As much as they're getting now. Zero. And that's not even mentioning the 44 MM not allocated to specific genders or sports.

THEN TELL THEM TO F-OFF!

All I'm saying is I don't have a problem with anyone asking for more... And I'm not sensitive to how they ask for it.

Everyone has a right to say yes, no, or negotiate. And it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with what they're asking for... I'm all for the ability to ask for it. That simple.

 

[RTB X Bot]