The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse (/thread-11759.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse (/thread-11759.html)
Pages:
1
2
The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - BostonCard - 03-22-2016
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25526149
Quote:LHN's struggles are well-documented. The school-centric network reportedly has lost $48 million since its launch in 2011. Its annual losses are now in the single-digit millions, according to a source. Both ESPN and Texas seem committed to the 20-year, $295 million agreement that would pay the school an average of $15 million per year.
Of course, it is a bit self-serving by the head coach of a rival school. Also, interesting that he thinks that if Texas doesn't form the longhorn network into a Big 12 network, it could come to the Pac-12, when, if I recall, the LHN was one of the stumbling blocks the last time the Pac looked at expansion.
BC
The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - BostonCard - 03-22-2016
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25526149
Quote:LHN's struggles are well-documented. The school-centric network reportedly has lost $48 million since its launch in 2011. Its annual losses are now in the single-digit millions, according to a source. Both ESPN and Texas seem committed to the 20-year, $295 million agreement that would pay the school an average of $15 million per year.
Of course, it is a bit self-serving by the head coach of a rival school. Also, interesting that he thinks that if Texas doesn't form the longhorn network into a Big 12 network, it could come to the Pac-12, when, if I recall, the LHN was one of the stumbling blocks the last time the Pac looked at expansion.
BC
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - 2006alum - 03-23-2016
Really interesting about Texas. I think a big part of the problem with the LHN is that they launched it right as UT hit a rough patch in its revenue sports, and I think that's had a fatigue effect throughout the university's alumni fan support. It's hard to justify having a network of your own when you're barely in the top half of your conference.
And re conference realignment, In many ways, UT is a better fit for the Pac-12 than the Big "12". The two major stumbling blocks, in my mind, are who they would pair with, and whether the regents would allow it. Post-Perry-stuffing the regents, I don't see them being very supportive of realigning with the Pac-12, which is perceived by many in that part of the country as full of elitist west coast liberal institutions.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - 2006alum - 03-23-2016
Really interesting about Texas. I think a big part of the problem with the LHN is that they launched it right as UT hit a rough patch in its revenue sports, and I think that's had a fatigue effect throughout the university's alumni fan support. It's hard to justify having a network of your own when you're barely in the top half of your conference.
And re conference realignment, In many ways, UT is a better fit for the Pac-12 than the Big "12". The two major stumbling blocks, in my mind, are who they would pair with, and whether the regents would allow it. Post-Perry-stuffing the regents, I don't see them being very supportive of realigning with the Pac-12, which is perceived by many in that part of the country as full of elitist west coast liberal institutions.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - OutsiderFan - 03-23-2016
Like this says, money talks and bullsh*t walks..
http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-la-tv-college-football-is-about-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/
The only thing that matters here is that the next objective is to go from a "Power 5" to a "Power 4" conference structure. And as discussed before on this board and others, that's going to mean four 16-team conferences. Makes the math pretty simple.
The Pac-12 expands to 16 by adding four teams. The Big Ten, SEC, and ACC add two each. Eight current Big 12 schools will find landing spots and two will be without a seat in the musical chairs game that is big money sports, because Notre Dame has to land in a conference, and probably UConn over Kansas State and Iowa. You really think the Texas board of regents is going to sit idly by as Texas faces being left out of a major conference? If giving up the LHN is the price of joining one, they absolutely will. And let's not pretend Mickey Mouse won't have a say in this.Â
Iowa State is gone, relegated to the AAC, along with probably Kansas State. So now you have: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, and West Virginia to divvy up. It could conceivably go like this:
Pac-12 gets:Â Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
SEC gets: TCU and Baylor
ACC gets: West Virginia and Notre Dame
Big Ten gets: Kansas and possibly UConn
Pac-16 West:
California
Oregon
Oregon State
UCLA
USC
Stanford
Washington
Washington State
Pac-16 East:
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Utah
Of course this also assumes schools like Vandy stay in the SEC and Wake Forest in the ACC. There is even talk in the article I linked about Washington State been ditched for Fresno State or San Diego State. I don't see that happening because Washington State was a founding member of the conference, but who knows.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - OutsiderFan - 03-23-2016
Like this says, money talks and bullsh*t walks..
http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-la-tv-college-football-is-about-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/
The only thing that matters here is that the next objective is to go from a "Power 5" to a "Power 4" conference structure. And as discussed before on this board and others, that's going to mean four 16-team conferences. Makes the math pretty simple.
The Pac-12 expands to 16 by adding four teams. The Big Ten, SEC, and ACC add two each. Eight current Big 12 schools will find landing spots and two will be without a seat in the musical chairs game that is big money sports, because Notre Dame has to land in a conference, and probably UConn over Kansas State and Iowa. You really think the Texas board of regents is going to sit idly by as Texas faces being left out of a major conference? If giving up the LHN is the price of joining one, they absolutely will. And let's not pretend Mickey Mouse won't have a say in this.Â
Iowa State is gone, relegated to the AAC, along with probably Kansas State. So now you have: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, and West Virginia to divvy up. It could conceivably go like this:
Pac-12 gets:Â Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
SEC gets: TCU and Baylor
ACC gets: West Virginia and Notre Dame
Big Ten gets: Kansas and possibly UConn
Pac-16 West:
California
Oregon
Oregon State
UCLA
USC
Stanford
Washington
Washington State
Pac-16 East:
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Utah
Of course this also assumes schools like Vandy stay in the SEC and Wake Forest in the ACC. There is even talk in the article I linked about Washington State been ditched for Fresno State or San Diego State. I don't see that happening because Washington State was a founding member of the conference, but who knows.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - rudruff - 03-23-2016
No way you are going to convince Colorado, Utah, Arizona and ASU to leave the Pac-12 South to join a division that is mainly based in Texas. That is enough votes to stop expansion right there.
I agree that there is some simplicity to 4 power conferences, but they aren't going to be the same size.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - rudruff - 03-23-2016
No way you are going to convince Colorado, Utah, Arizona and ASU to leave the Pac-12 South to join a division that is mainly based in Texas. That is enough votes to stop expansion right there.
I agree that there is some simplicity to 4 power conferences, but they aren't going to be the same size.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - OutsiderFan - 03-23-2016
Maybe, but access to Texas for recruiting can't be underestimated.Â
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - OutsiderFan - 03-23-2016
Maybe, but access to Texas for recruiting can't be underestimated.Â
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - Rally - 03-23-2016
As long as we're wishful thinking, Notre Dame in the Big10 and UConn in the ACC of course makes more sense. At least to me.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - Rally - 03-23-2016
As long as we're wishful thinking, Notre Dame in the Big10 and UConn in the ACC of course makes more sense. At least to me.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - CTcard - 03-23-2016
(03-23-2016, 07:15 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Like this says, money talks and bullsh*t walks. ...
The only thing that matters here is that the next objective is to go from a "Power 5" to a "Power 4" conference structure. And as discussed before on this board and others, that's going to mean four 16-team conferences. Makes the math pretty simple.
As far as I can see, making the math pretty simple is not the same thing as maximizing revenue. Mostly, I don't see an economic argument for creating four 16 team conferences.
Of course it could happen, but the driving force doesn't seem to be any innate need for mathematically simple conferences. Rather, I suspect the driving force would be if the members of one conference (Big 12) both hate each other so much and think they see self-interest over the fence that a critical mass simply runs away.
There is an odd dynamic as all of the have-nots are desperately trying to figure out how to become haves, and all the haves are trying to figure out both how to maintain their position as a have and also cut the slices of the pie everyone else is getting. But I don't see how going from 65 Power teams in five conferences plus one independent to 64 Power teams in four conferences changes that calculation much.
Quote:... and probably UConn over Kansas State and Iowa.Â
UConn would love that to be true, but at the moment there appears little eagerness for anyone to add UConn. The over-riding problem is their football tradition is just not strong enough - and that mostly people in the northeast don't care about college football.
There are stories that the balance of the ACC did want UConn to replace Maryland, but that BC blackballed them and Louisville went out bribing and got the spot.
p.s. in that linked article we had this quotation,
Quote:(Hereâs what room for growth looks like: Stanford â fresh off its 12-1 turnaround season under Jim Harbaugh â was sitting at #69 five years ago. With the Cards in market #6 and with three Rose Bowls in the last five years now behind them, you may safely assume their audience has grown in a big way.)
As far as I am aware, the Stanford audience has grown in a small way since the turnaround; enough to make a difference in the numbers in the stadium, not enough to sway Nielsen ratings around the Bay Area. Does anyone know any actual numbers?
Among the many things the author misses is the difficulties for a private school to develop a large population that considers that school "us" in the us vs them competition of sports. Some schools can do this through religion (und and BYU), U.-S.-C. seems to have done so merely by many decades of success, but there are few other private schools with large fan bases. Miami has had of exceedingly large proportions football success but has always struggled with audiences. Northwestern, Rice, Wake Forest, Duke etc. have smaller fan bases than Stanford.
Here are the 2013 attendance records for NCAA football teams.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2013Release.pdf
The only three private schools in the top 30 are und (#16), U.-S.-C. (#19), and BYU (#28).
Stanford comes in at 50,726.
That's a little behind Miami (53,837), which I think makes Stanford the #5 private school in attendance.
Of course attendance isn't TV audience, and Stanford might do better on the latter as it is more of a national institution than a regional one - but I would suspect there is some correlation between the two.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - CTcard - 03-23-2016
(03-23-2016, 07:15 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Like this says, money talks and bullsh*t walks. ...
The only thing that matters here is that the next objective is to go from a "Power 5" to a "Power 4" conference structure. And as discussed before on this board and others, that's going to mean four 16-team conferences. Makes the math pretty simple.
As far as I can see, making the math pretty simple is not the same thing as maximizing revenue. Mostly, I don't see an economic argument for creating four 16 team conferences.
Of course it could happen, but the driving force doesn't seem to be any innate need for mathematically simple conferences. Rather, I suspect the driving force would be if the members of one conference (Big 12) both hate each other so much and think they see self-interest over the fence that a critical mass simply runs away.
There is an odd dynamic as all of the have-nots are desperately trying to figure out how to become haves, and all the haves are trying to figure out both how to maintain their position as a have and also cut the slices of the pie everyone else is getting. But I don't see how going from 65 Power teams in five conferences plus one independent to 64 Power teams in four conferences changes that calculation much.
Quote:... and probably UConn over Kansas State and Iowa.Â
UConn would love that to be true, but at the moment there appears little eagerness for anyone to add UConn. The over-riding problem is their football tradition is just not strong enough - and that mostly people in the northeast don't care about college football.
There are stories that the balance of the ACC did want UConn to replace Maryland, but that BC blackballed them and Louisville went out bribing and got the spot.
p.s. in that linked article we had this quotation,
Quote:(Hereâs what room for growth looks like: Stanford â fresh off its 12-1 turnaround season under Jim Harbaugh â was sitting at #69 five years ago. With the Cards in market #6 and with three Rose Bowls in the last five years now behind them, you may safely assume their audience has grown in a big way.)
As far as I am aware, the Stanford audience has grown in a small way since the turnaround; enough to make a difference in the numbers in the stadium, not enough to sway Nielsen ratings around the Bay Area. Does anyone know any actual numbers?
Among the many things the author misses is the difficulties for a private school to develop a large population that considers that school "us" in the us vs them competition of sports. Some schools can do this through religion (und and BYU), U.-S.-C. seems to have done so merely by many decades of success, but there are few other private schools with large fan bases. Miami has had of exceedingly large proportions football success but has always struggled with audiences. Northwestern, Rice, Wake Forest, Duke etc. have smaller fan bases than Stanford.
Here are the 2013 attendance records for NCAA football teams.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2013Release.pdf
The only three private schools in the top 30 are und (#16), U.-S.-C. (#19), and BYU (#28).
Stanford comes in at 50,726.
That's a little behind Miami (53,837), which I think makes Stanford the #5 private school in attendance.
Of course attendance isn't TV audience, and Stanford might do better on the latter as it is more of a national institution than a regional one - but I would suspect there is some correlation between the two.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - CrazedZooChimp - 03-23-2016
Yeah, UConn isn't taking any spots away from Iowa or KState. Football is king, and UConn barely has it. Iowa and KState might be in smaller markets, but their fans fill up stadiums, travel across the country, and watch sports all Saturday. UConn, not so much. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing football in the AAC right now.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - OutsiderFan - 03-23-2016
I meant Iowa State. UConn is more attractive than Iowa State to big media, especially when that big media is a hop, skip, and jump from the UConn campus.
Hartford is the #30 media market. Des Moines/Ames is #72. I can tell you UConn is a pretty big deal in CT.
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - 82lsju - 03-23-2016
(03-23-2016, 10:22 AM)CTcard link Wrote:As far as I am aware, the Stanford audience has grown in a small way since the turnaround; enough to make a difference in the numbers in the stadium, not enough to sway Nielsen ratings around the Bay Area. Does anyone know any actual numbers?
......
Of course attendance isn't TV audience, and Stanford might do better on the latter as it is more of a national institution than a regional one - but I would suspect there is some correlation between the two.
but Stanford is critical to filling the crucial 7pm/7:30pm Pacific Time slot :(
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - Rally - 03-23-2016
(03-23-2016, 03:09 PM)82lsju link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=14779.msg159169#msg159169 date=1458753752]
As far as I am aware, the Stanford audience has grown in a small way since the turnaround; enough to make a difference in the numbers in the stadium, not enough to sway Nielsen ratings around the Bay Area. Does anyone know any actual numbers?
......
Of course attendance isn't TV audience, and Stanford might do better on the latter as it is more of a national institution than a regional one - but I would suspect there is some correlation between the two.
but Stanford is critical to filling the crucial 7pm/7:30pm Pacific Time slot :(
[/quote]
Not to mention the 11 am - noon Eastern time slot :(
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - CrazedZooChimp - 03-23-2016
(03-23-2016, 02:56 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I meant Iowa State. UConn is more attractive than Iowa State to big media, especially when that big media is a hop, skip, and jump from the UConn campus.
Hartford is the #30 media market. Des Moines/Ames is #72. I can tell you UConn is a pretty big deal in CT.
The question is not if UConn is a big deal, but only if UConn football is a big deal, and right now I'd guess the answer is no (especially if you look at attendance numbers).
Re: The Pac-12 Network... could be worse - OutsiderFan - 03-24-2016
We know they aren't, but assuming all things were equal, who would The Big Ten rather have, UConn or Rutgers? I'm pretty sure it would be UConn. Their football teams are basically about equal in accomplishment, and UConn hoops is vastly superior to Rutgers.
The UConn football team would get a giant boost from joining a "Power 4" conference." It doesn't have an on-campus stadium, and never will, but UConn football has potential to be pretty good. And with the money they would have as a result of being in a "real football conference," they'd probably be able to keep a guy like Diaco (who shows signs of being one of the top head coaches in the making in his generation), too.
I just know UConn sports are far more valuable than Iowa State or even Washington State for that matter. If media companies are driving the decisions as the author of the blog post suggests, it's just a matter of time before UConn is in probably the Big Ten.
Remember, the objective is to kill the Big 12.
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2016/1/20/10790646/big-ten-expansion-ohio-state-uconn-big-12