Pac-12 Network is imploding - Printable Version

Pac-12 Network is imploding - 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: Pac-12 Network is imploding (/thread-18870.html)

Pages: 1 2

Pac-12 Network is imploding - winflop - 01-15-2020

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2020/01/canzano-pac-12-networks-strategy-moves-toward-a-bare-bones-spring.html

Rampant cost-cutting
More games being broadcast from studio while watching game on a monitor
More work being done by students and interns

I encourage each and every one of you to email the following people requesting they fire Larry Scott, split the conference and network, move both to lower-cost cities in the conference footprint, and hire replacements who will be a strong public face for both entities:

Howard Wolff - alumni association liason to the university - hwolf@stanford.edu
athleticdirector@stanford.edu
president@stanford.edu

Larry Scott is by far the highest-paid major conference commissioner and is without a doubt the worst-performing one. Not a good combination

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Canalejas - 01-15-2020

That sucks. As one of the few people that doesn't hate the conference network and has subscribed to it on two different providers over the years, I'm sad it hasn't turned the corner and is now cutting production value.

And while getting rid of the commish couldn't hurt, I'm also not sure it's going to fix as much as people are hoping for.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - cardcrimson - 01-15-2020

(01-15-2020, 09:01 PM)Canalejas Wrote: That sucks. As one of the few people that doesn't hate the conference network and has subscribed to it on two different providers over the years, I'm sad it hasn't turned the corner and is now cutting production value.

And while getting rid of the commish couldn't hurt, I'm also not sure it's going to fix as much as people are hoping for.

What's the Pac-12 Network?

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - rudruff - 01-15-2020

I never understood the conference HQ move from Walnut Creek to San Francisco.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - qwerty49 - 01-15-2020

(01-15-2020, 10:30 PM)rudruff Wrote: I never understood the conference HQ move from Walnut Creek to San Francisco.

"Status."

Interpret that any way you like, and it's probably correct.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - donkey687 - 01-15-2020

(01-15-2020, 07:34 PM)winflop Wrote: https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2020/01/canzano-pac-12-networks-strategy-moves-toward-a-bare-bones-spring.html

Rampant cost-cutting
More games being broadcast from studio while watching game on a monitor
More work being done by students and interns

I encourage each and every one of you to email the following people requesting they fire Larry Scott, split the conference and network, move both to lower-cost cities in the conference footprint, and hire replacements who will be a strong public face for both entities:

Howard Wolff - alumni association liason to the university - hwolf@stanford.edu
athleticdirector@stanford.edu
president@stanford.edu

Larry Scott is by far the highest-paid major conference commissioner and is without a doubt the worst-performing one. Not a good combination

These are smart moves. Spring sports like baseball and softball can't justify high production costs. They aren't cutting games. Most fans wouldn't even notice a change in coverage if there weren't articles and tweets about it. They never should have been so bloated to start with. They can produce the coverage for a lot less cost than what they have been doing. Better to right size it and make it economic and sustainable than go out of business and shut down entirely.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Spiny_Norman - 01-16-2020

Looks like they are in cash conservation mode. I understand moves to make the live broadcasts more economical. But it's a bad sign when your sales people start to leave. The P12N will shrink its way to growth! A strategy tried by many without success.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - M T - 01-16-2020

(01-15-2020, 11:45 PM)donkey687 Wrote: These are smart moves. Spring sports like baseball and softball can't justify high production costs. They aren't cutting games. Most fans wouldn't even notice a change in coverage if there weren't articles and tweets about it. They never should have been so bloated to start with. They can produce the coverage for a lot less cost than what they have been doing. Better to right size it and make it economic and sustainable than go out of business and shut down entirely.

After the NCAA MWP tourney, I wrote to the guy who was the announcer. I commented how, while it was unfortunate that there were so few WP games on PAC-12, that was more than available otherwise. I went on to suggest the network could install a few cameras with feeds back to the network office, and do the cutting between feeds & announcing there. While definitely, there is an advantage to having a full crew at a venue, it must cost a lot. For some sports, having any coverage seems better than having practically no coverage at all.

Come to think of it, this could be a good way for student broadcasters to contribute. Would I rather watch a Stanford @ Cal water polo game with a Cal broadcaster than having no announcer at all, or not seeing the game at all. Yes. (I can always turn off the sound if it is too bothersome.) I often prefer KZSU's coverage than whomever is announcing on TV.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Farm93 - 01-16-2020

Why the Pac-12 Nets are not doing well has a lot more to do with trends in broadcasting than an individual. Ironic, that if anything, these moves suggest Scott and his various associates are capable of doing the right thing. Cut costs rather than raise fees do as much as possible to allow the Pac-12 nets to continue to broadcast the very sports where the Pac-12 member schools thrive.

The Olympic sports ratings are all awful. They have always been awful. That's not just a Pac-12 issue BTW. Most other conferences sell monthly access passes because they know the audiences are small, but very loyal.

Whether access fee restricted, or not, those audiences don't really need talking talent that just flew in for the game, doesn't know the teams or the sport. Loads of VERY high profile sports have commentators in a centralized facility. In many sports the crew at HQ or in the truck are able to track the action much easier than the talking talent court-side or in the booth.

For a number of our Olympic sports the venue based talent still can't see all of the action even if they bother to travel to the venue (golf, rowing, tennis and cross-country). Others sports really don't have a dynamic on-site environment that would add anything to the coverage (Men's volleyball, track & field, lacrosse, field hockey). Lower costs. Smart move.

BTW - Even if Larry Scott leaves this is a smart approach for the next commissioner. The Pac-12 should do EVERYTHING possible to keep an open broadcasting model of Olympic sports because excellence in these sports is "What makes us The Conference of Champions"

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Phogge - 01-16-2020

Poor production values in football coverage. Perhaps not enough good camera operators because they pay close to bottom dollar.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Papa John - 01-16-2020

Winflop, I'm by no means a Larry Scott fan, but what is your desired end game here? I mostly watch football, and men's and women's basketball, but I do occasionally watch other sports. The NCAA has the lowest production value possible for the women's tennis tournament (one camera per court, no announcers), but I don't think that's where this is headed.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - teejers1 - 01-16-2020

(01-16-2020, 08:10 AM)Farm93 Wrote: Why the Pac-12 Nets are not doing well has a lot more to do with trends in broadcasting than an individual. Ironic, that if anything, these moves suggest Scott and his various associates are capable of doing the right thing. Cut costs rather than raise fees do as much as possible to allow the Pac-12 nets to continue to broadcast the very sports where the Pac-12 member schools thrive.

The Olympic sports ratings are all awful. They have always been awful. That's not just a Pac-12 issue BTW. Most other conferences sell monthly access passes because they know the audiences are small, but very loyal.

Whether access fee restricted, or not, those audiences don't really need talking talent that just flew in for the game, doesn't know the teams or the sport. Loads of VERY high profile sports have commentators in a centralized facility. In many sports the crew at HQ or in the truck are able to track the action much easier than the talking talent court-side or in the booth.

For a number of our Olympic sports the venue based talent still can't see all of the action even if they bother to travel to the venue (golf, rowing, tennis and cross-country). Others sports really don't have a dynamic on-site environment that would add anything to the coverage (Men's volleyball, track & field, lacrosse, field hockey). Lower costs. Smart move.

BTW - Even if Larry Scott leaves this is a smart approach for the next commissioner. The Pac-12 should do EVERYTHING possible to keep an open broadcasting model of Olympic sports because excellence in these sports is "What makes us The Conference of Champions"

Are you related to Larry Scott? Employed by him? Know him socially/on a friendly basis?

And the move of HQ offices to SF was needed . . . why?

Look, I don't know if changing commissioners will right the ship. All I know is that the P12 Network has been the red-headed step-child of conference networks; the bowl alliances suck; and the major decisions made by Scott seemingly all bad (who ever thought a bowl game at Levi's would be better than one in S.F., even at a baseball stadium?).

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - 76lsjumb - 01-16-2020

(01-16-2020, 12:40 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(01-16-2020, 08:10 AM)Farm93 Wrote: Why the Pac-12 Nets are not doing well has a lot more to do with trends in broadcasting than an individual. Ironic, that if anything, these moves suggest Scott and his various associates are capable of doing the right thing. Cut costs rather than raise fees do as much as possible to allow the Pac-12 nets to continue to broadcast the very sports where the Pac-12 member schools thrive.

The Olympic sports ratings are all awful. They have always been awful. That's not just a Pac-12 issue BTW. Most other conferences sell monthly access passes because they know the audiences are small, but very loyal.

Whether access fee restricted, or not, those audiences don't really need talking talent that just flew in for the game, doesn't know the teams or the sport. Loads of VERY high profile sports have commentators in a centralized facility. In many sports the crew at HQ or in the truck are able to track the action much easier than the talking talent court-side or in the booth.

For a number of our Olympic sports the venue based talent still can't see all of the action even if they bother to travel to the venue (golf, rowing, tennis and cross-country). Others sports really don't have a dynamic on-site environment that would add anything to the coverage (Men's volleyball, track & field, lacrosse, field hockey). Lower costs. Smart move.

BTW - Even if Larry Scott leaves this is a smart approach for the next commissioner. The Pac-12 should do EVERYTHING possible to keep an open broadcasting model of Olympic sports because excellence in these sports is "What makes us The Conference of Champions"

Are you related to Larry Scott? Employed by him? Know him socially/on a friendly basis?

And the move of HQ offices to SF was needed . . . why?

Look, I don't know if changing commissioners will right the ship. All I know is that the P12 Network has been the red-headed step-child of conference networks; the bowl alliances suck; and the major decisions made by Scott seemingly all bad (who ever thought a bowl game at Levi's would be better than one in S.F., even at a baseball stadium?).

Say what you want about Larry Scott, but, with a red-headed daughter and two red-headed grandkids, I say lay off red-heads. In fact, if Larry Scott WERE red-headed, I have no doubt whatsoever he'd be doing a much better job...

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - winflop - 01-16-2020

(01-16-2020, 11:57 AM)Papa John Wrote: Winflop, I'm by no means a Larry Scott fan, but what is your desired end game here? I mostly watch football, and men's and women's basketball, but I do occasionally watch other sports. The NCAA has the lowest production value possible for the women's tennis tournament (one camera per court, no announcers), but I don't think that's where this is headed.

My desired end game is getting rid of Larry Scott and making structural changes to the Pac-12. Specifically:
- Fully separating the conference and network and hiring separate leaders for each
- Having a conference commissioner who is going to stand up for the conference in the face of transparent bias against it and be willing to call out the guilty parties in the media
- Relocating to significantly lower-cost major cities in the conference footprint such as Phoenix or Las Vegas. The conference needs to be much more prudent with its money. Instead it has been a profligate spender without corresponding results.

Much of the commentary has focused on the cost-cutting measures. I don't disagree with some of the comments but I was bringing it up as symptomatic of bigger problems stemming from a failed business model that continues to implode.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Farm93 - 01-16-2020

(01-16-2020, 12:40 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Are you related to Larry Scott? Employed by him? Know him socially/on a friendly basis?

And the move of HQ offices to SF was needed . . . why?

Look, I don't know if changing commissioners will right the ship. All I know is that the P12 Network has been the red-headed step-child of conference networks; the bowl alliances suck; and the major decisions made by Scott seemingly all bad (who ever thought a bowl game at Levi's would be better than one in S.F., even at a baseball stadium?).

Nope - Don't know him at all.
Do recognize reality.
The Pac-12 sits in a geographic area with a rather low population density.
The Pac-12 urban centers are generally full day drives or more away from other urban centers in the footprint.
The Pac-12 weekday contests will all begin when vast majority of the USA's TV watching population is heading to bed.
Oh and the worst part of all
The population demographics in the Pac-12 are problematic for college sports. Many residents were born in other parts of the USA and have sports loyalties to those regions. Others were born outside of the USA and are less inclined to follow college sports.

Bring it all together and market reality is the Pac-12 schools are not getting SEC TV money or bowl games. Larry Scott, Ted Turner, Roger Penske, or Young Hoon Eom would all have the same problem. The brand is just not as valuable as other conferences.

Things can be done over a very long period to try to increase the value of the Pac-12 football brand, but ultimately the SEC and BigTen will have many more opportunities to increase the values of their football brands. The bowls want the best brands possible, so the Pac-12 loses.

It is what it is. Asking Larry Scott to step down or resign is fine, but I can appreciate the market forces dominate especially with the bowl tie-in process.

Essentially the Pac-12 has to build a unique brand not try not to be SEC - West Coast, and then have a budget and approach consistent with the likely revenue. The move to cut costs to align to revenue realities is a good idea IMHO.

Moving to SF?
Not a big fan of that one, they should have stayed in the burbs. Maybe one day they will move to the burbs of Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Denver, or Phoenix.

I do believe the Pac-12 Nets ideally would not have the Pac-12 Commissioner as its Executive Chairman, but we need a person or doctrine powerful enough to reign in that endless quest for TV ad revenue. If not, 8PM Monday and Tuesday events would become much more common since that's a rather big hole in current sports programming in the USA.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Spiny_Norman - 01-16-2020

Seems to me that the real problem is that the P12N is spending at a level that anticipated additional revenue which never materialized. But I don't think they have many options to increase revenue until the next time that broadcast rights are up for bid in 2024. Which means that the P12 will fall further and further behind the B10, SEC and B12 in distributions to the conference schools. I believe that to be true whether Larry Scott is in charge or someone else is.

Reminder about the current gap between P12 and other conferences. Per-school distributions for FY2018:
Big Ten: $54M to 12 longest-standing schools
SEC: $43.7M to all except Mississippi (postseason ban)
Big 12: $34.7M
Pac-12 and ACC: $29.5M each

About all they can do is to hunker down and wait it out until they have a chance to put the rights up for bid again.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - BostonCard - 01-16-2020

Just so everyone's on the same page, here are the latest Pac-12 financials:

https://pac-12.com/article/2019/05/20/pac-12-announces-2017-18-financial-results

Total conference revenue is $496 million, of which $127 million comes from the Pac-12 nets.
Total conference and network expenses, excluding the payments to the member schools, is $140.6 million.
Salaries and wages of the trustees and key employees (which I assume includes Larry Scott) is $7.5 million, or about 600k per school. Occupancy, which I assume is the rent for all the buildings, is $8 million. There is money to be made from cutting costs there, but we are probably talking at most a few million total, which would be a few hundred thousand per school. The biggest single category is other salaries and wages, which amounts to $26 million and depreciation ($32 million), as well as technology for the Pac-12 nets ($10 million).

I agree that the Pac-12 offices and nets should move out of SF, and that compensation to the commissioner should be cut. But I'm also a realist that this will not magically improve the financial position of the Pac-12.

BC

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - 76lsjumb - 01-16-2020

(01-16-2020, 04:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just so everyone's on the same page, here are the latest Pac-12 financials:

https://pac-12.com/article/2019/05/20/pac-12-announces-2017-18-financial-results

Total conference revenue is $496 million, of which $127 million comes from the Pac-12 nets.
Total conference and network expenses, excluding the payments to the member schools, is $140.6 million.
Salaries and wages of the trustees and key employees (which I assume includes Larry Scott) is $7.5 million, or about 600k per school. Occupancy, which I assume is the rent for all the buildings, is $8 million. There is money to be made from cutting costs there, but we are probably talking at most a few million total, which would be a few hundred thousand per school. The biggest single category is other salaries and wages, which amounts to $26 million and depreciation ($32 million), as well as technology for the Pac-12 nets ($10 million).

I agree that the Pac-12 offices and nets should move out of SF, and that compensation to the commissioner should be cut. But I'm also a realist that this will not magically improve the financial position of the Pac-12.

BC

Yeah, but as those old MasterCard commercials used to say:

Watching Larry Scott suffer?
Priceless.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - Canalejas - 01-16-2020

Wouldn't moving to the burbs of LA make more sense? I assume LA has a bigger market for people in TV production.

RE: Pac-12 Network is imploding - 2006alum - 01-16-2020

Agree with those who recognize that many of these issues are endemic to the PAC-12 regardless of who's running the ship. The reason we used to be closer to other conferences was that all conferences had not been as monitized, so there was less money period. The more money involved, the more the SEC and Big 10 can exploit their edge in fan loyalty, intensity, and size.

Also, the reason the PAC-12's headquarters are in the Bay Area was as a compromise between the North and South. When USC and UCLA were stronger in notable sports like Basketball and Football, there was a concern that placing the headquarters in LA would lead to a similar Texas-and-seven-dwarfs effect that exists with the Big 12. Today, of course, that seems less relevant, given the decline of UCLA in basketball (and now football), and USC in both...