The Hotline mailbag is published every Friday. Send questions to [email protected] — and include ‘mailbag’ in the subject line — or hit me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline.
*** Please note: Several topics related to Pac-12 media rights and expansion will be answered separately, in forthcoming articles.
(Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.)
Since you’re reducing the odds for Pac-12 survival — and will continue to do so as long as there is no new media deal — does this indicate that you think commissioner George Kliavkoff made a mistake in waiting so long? If so, what should he have done differently? — @chetvancouver
In short, yes: We believe he erred in drawing the process out and addressed the timeline in a column published six weeks ago titled: Kliavkoff sees “no need for a rush”, but the strategy carries risk (this is realignment, after all).
Dragging the process out created doubt, anxiety and an opening for disruptive forces. Realignment is a rock fight. You cannot presume Robert’s Rules of Order and common sense will carry the day.
Now, let’s dig into the details, where valuable context can be found.
The terms of the current media rights contract gave Fox and ESPN an exclusive negotiating window of 90 days. It was triggered in early July and meant the Pac-12 had two options: Renew with both networks under the basic terms, only with changes to the valuation and annual payouts; or wait until October and take the inventory to the market.
Our understanding is the conference could only negotiate the existing packages with each partner. The Fox inventory could be negotiated only with Fox and the ESPN inventory only with ESPN.
But my understanding is that Fox wasn’t interested in a major partnership, and I’m not sure how interested the Pac-12 was in a major deal with Fox after what transpired on June 30.
The network extracted what it wanted from the Pac-12 when it helped orchestrate the departures of…
Read the full article here
