06-20-2017, 02:15 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/20/pac-12/
The problems are that the B1G has it and the Pac-12 doesn't.
BC
The problems are that the B1G has it and the Pac-12 doesn't.
BC
Mo money mo problems
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/20/pac-12/
The problems are that the B1G has it and the Pac-12 doesn't.
BC
The problems are that the B1G has it and the Pac-12 doesn't.
BC
06-20-2017, 03:02 PM
I don't get the subject of this post in relation to the article.
The B1G doesn't have more problems with more money. The Pac-12 has more problems with less money.
The B1G doesn't have more problems with more money. The Pac-12 has more problems with less money.
I don't get the subject of this post in relation to the article.
The B1G doesn't have more problems with more money. The Pac-12 has more problems with less money.
The B1G doesn't have more problems with more money. The Pac-12 has more problems with less money.
06-20-2017, 03:07 PM
At the coaches reception in LA, Bernard Muir told me that the Pac 12 schools have a $20M gap in tv money compared to other conferences. I assume he meant Big 10 and SEC.
As Coach Shaw tells the football team, every day you can get better or fall behind. Right now, the Pac 12 is falling behind.
As Coach Shaw tells the football team, every day you can get better or fall behind. Right now, the Pac 12 is falling behind.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
At the coaches reception in LA, Bernard Muir told me that the Pac 12 schools have a $20M gap in tv money compared to other conferences. I assume he meant Big 10 and SEC.
As Coach Shaw tells the football team, every day you can get better or fall behind. Right now, the Pac 12 is falling behind.
As Coach Shaw tells the football team, every day you can get better or fall behind. Right now, the Pac 12 is falling behind.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
06-20-2017, 03:55 PM
It's the same story every time.
News flash: Citizens living in the SEC footprint care a lot more about college football than citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint. And football loving citizens living in the SEC footprint really just care about SEC football, and the few teams that might play in the CFP. Football loving citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint often don't really care about any of the Pac-12 schools.
Is that in dispute? Anyone?
So given the viewership realities. An SEC channel will command more money than a Pac-12 channel. This isn't that hard to understand.
This is like looking at the Yankees revenue from YES and then wondering why the A's can't get similar revenue from FSBayArea. Fun to look at it once and a while to see just how hard it is to compete against the Yankees payroll, but no reason to obsess over the disparity.
FWIW - Every Pac-12 school should understand that TV dollars will generally skew in favor of the SEC and BigTen. Therefore, Pac-12 schools should count on raising more funds through donations (very difficult for all the same passion reasons) or recruit players based on the training climate advantages or the economic advantages of getting a degree and then working in the Pac-12 region.
FWIW2 - The Pac-12 Olympic sports seem to have improved a lot thanks to the Pac-12 nets. My guess is the TV coverage for Olympic sports creates a competitive advantage for recruiting in those sports.
News flash: Citizens living in the SEC footprint care a lot more about college football than citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint. And football loving citizens living in the SEC footprint really just care about SEC football, and the few teams that might play in the CFP. Football loving citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint often don't really care about any of the Pac-12 schools.
Is that in dispute? Anyone?
So given the viewership realities. An SEC channel will command more money than a Pac-12 channel. This isn't that hard to understand.
This is like looking at the Yankees revenue from YES and then wondering why the A's can't get similar revenue from FSBayArea. Fun to look at it once and a while to see just how hard it is to compete against the Yankees payroll, but no reason to obsess over the disparity.
FWIW - Every Pac-12 school should understand that TV dollars will generally skew in favor of the SEC and BigTen. Therefore, Pac-12 schools should count on raising more funds through donations (very difficult for all the same passion reasons) or recruit players based on the training climate advantages or the economic advantages of getting a degree and then working in the Pac-12 region.
FWIW2 - The Pac-12 Olympic sports seem to have improved a lot thanks to the Pac-12 nets. My guess is the TV coverage for Olympic sports creates a competitive advantage for recruiting in those sports.
It's the same story every time.
News flash: Citizens living in the SEC footprint care a lot more about college football than citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint. And football loving citizens living in the SEC footprint really just care about SEC football, and the few teams that might play in the CFP. Football loving citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint often don't really care about any of the Pac-12 schools.
Is that in dispute? Anyone?
So given the viewership realities. An SEC channel will command more money than a Pac-12 channel. This isn't that hard to understand.
This is like looking at the Yankees revenue from YES and then wondering why the A's can't get similar revenue from FSBayArea. Fun to look at it once and a while to see just how hard it is to compete against the Yankees payroll, but no reason to obsess over the disparity.
FWIW - Every Pac-12 school should understand that TV dollars will generally skew in favor of the SEC and BigTen. Therefore, Pac-12 schools should count on raising more funds through donations (very difficult for all the same passion reasons) or recruit players based on the training climate advantages or the economic advantages of getting a degree and then working in the Pac-12 region.
FWIW2 - The Pac-12 Olympic sports seem to have improved a lot thanks to the Pac-12 nets. My guess is the TV coverage for Olympic sports creates a competitive advantage for recruiting in those sports.
News flash: Citizens living in the SEC footprint care a lot more about college football than citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint. And football loving citizens living in the SEC footprint really just care about SEC football, and the few teams that might play in the CFP. Football loving citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint often don't really care about any of the Pac-12 schools.
Is that in dispute? Anyone?
So given the viewership realities. An SEC channel will command more money than a Pac-12 channel. This isn't that hard to understand.
This is like looking at the Yankees revenue from YES and then wondering why the A's can't get similar revenue from FSBayArea. Fun to look at it once and a while to see just how hard it is to compete against the Yankees payroll, but no reason to obsess over the disparity.
FWIW - Every Pac-12 school should understand that TV dollars will generally skew in favor of the SEC and BigTen. Therefore, Pac-12 schools should count on raising more funds through donations (very difficult for all the same passion reasons) or recruit players based on the training climate advantages or the economic advantages of getting a degree and then working in the Pac-12 region.
FWIW2 - The Pac-12 Olympic sports seem to have improved a lot thanks to the Pac-12 nets. My guess is the TV coverage for Olympic sports creates a competitive advantage for recruiting in those sports.
06-21-2017, 05:30 AM
While I agree with the gist of Farm93's position, it doesn't factor in the equity issue. Let's pretend the Pac-12 partnered with ESPN for Pac-12 Network before the SEC did, and the SEC decided to go it alone as the Pac-12 did. What would things look like then?
Would the SEC and B1G networks be doing as well if they didn't have the carriage they do now? The main reason they do is a result of FOX and ESPN having equity stakes in them, that forced cable providers to include these networks on their systems. Would the SEC been able to force its way into the cable and satellite packages in say California, if on its own network? Doubtful. This to some degree weakens the "A's vs. Yankees" argument, because it doesn't take into account the promotional power ESPN has. If ESPN was giving Pac-12 football top billing and weekly prime viewing slots, I'm pretty sure the Pac-12 would be generating a lot more money, even if ESPN owned a 50% stake. The Pac-12 would be generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in Florida, forced to pay for Pac-12 Network to get ESPN. Right now, SEC schools are generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in California forced to pay for SEC Network to get ESPN. It's always better to have a smaller piece of a bigger pie, than a big piece of a small one.Â
All that said I'm a little confused about how B1G revenue is increasing at a time when cord cutting and cord nevers are starting to pile up. What keeps income going up when revenues are ostensibly going down?
Would the SEC and B1G networks be doing as well if they didn't have the carriage they do now? The main reason they do is a result of FOX and ESPN having equity stakes in them, that forced cable providers to include these networks on their systems. Would the SEC been able to force its way into the cable and satellite packages in say California, if on its own network? Doubtful. This to some degree weakens the "A's vs. Yankees" argument, because it doesn't take into account the promotional power ESPN has. If ESPN was giving Pac-12 football top billing and weekly prime viewing slots, I'm pretty sure the Pac-12 would be generating a lot more money, even if ESPN owned a 50% stake. The Pac-12 would be generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in Florida, forced to pay for Pac-12 Network to get ESPN. Right now, SEC schools are generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in California forced to pay for SEC Network to get ESPN. It's always better to have a smaller piece of a bigger pie, than a big piece of a small one.Â
All that said I'm a little confused about how B1G revenue is increasing at a time when cord cutting and cord nevers are starting to pile up. What keeps income going up when revenues are ostensibly going down?
While I agree with the gist of Farm93's position, it doesn't factor in the equity issue. Let's pretend the Pac-12 partnered with ESPN for Pac-12 Network before the SEC did, and the SEC decided to go it alone as the Pac-12 did. What would things look like then?
Would the SEC and B1G networks be doing as well if they didn't have the carriage they do now? The main reason they do is a result of FOX and ESPN having equity stakes in them, that forced cable providers to include these networks on their systems. Would the SEC been able to force its way into the cable and satellite packages in say California, if on its own network? Doubtful. This to some degree weakens the "A's vs. Yankees" argument, because it doesn't take into account the promotional power ESPN has. If ESPN was giving Pac-12 football top billing and weekly prime viewing slots, I'm pretty sure the Pac-12 would be generating a lot more money, even if ESPN owned a 50% stake. The Pac-12 would be generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in Florida, forced to pay for Pac-12 Network to get ESPN. Right now, SEC schools are generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in California forced to pay for SEC Network to get ESPN. It's always better to have a smaller piece of a bigger pie, than a big piece of a small one.Â
All that said I'm a little confused about how B1G revenue is increasing at a time when cord cutting and cord nevers are starting to pile up. What keeps income going up when revenues are ostensibly going down?
Would the SEC and B1G networks be doing as well if they didn't have the carriage they do now? The main reason they do is a result of FOX and ESPN having equity stakes in them, that forced cable providers to include these networks on their systems. Would the SEC been able to force its way into the cable and satellite packages in say California, if on its own network? Doubtful. This to some degree weakens the "A's vs. Yankees" argument, because it doesn't take into account the promotional power ESPN has. If ESPN was giving Pac-12 football top billing and weekly prime viewing slots, I'm pretty sure the Pac-12 would be generating a lot more money, even if ESPN owned a 50% stake. The Pac-12 would be generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in Florida, forced to pay for Pac-12 Network to get ESPN. Right now, SEC schools are generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in California forced to pay for SEC Network to get ESPN. It's always better to have a smaller piece of a bigger pie, than a big piece of a small one.Â
All that said I'm a little confused about how B1G revenue is increasing at a time when cord cutting and cord nevers are starting to pile up. What keeps income going up when revenues are ostensibly going down?
06-21-2017, 05:55 AM
(06-20-2017, 03:55 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:News flash:Â Citizens living in the SEC footprint care a lot more about college football than citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint.
...
FWIW2 - The Pac-12 Olympic sports seem to have improved a lot thanks to the Pac-12 nets. My guess is the TV coverage for Olympic sports creates a competitive advantage for recruiting in those sports.
Overall, that seems pretty clear.
There is no exact way to measure this, but one proxy is simple attendance. The official NCAA figures for 2016 are now available.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2016.pdf
The top Pac 12 team is $C (as always). But they are down at #22. Ahead of them are 7 Big Ten teams and 9 SEC teams.
By conference, average attendance per game, the numbers come in at :
#1 SECÂ Â Â Â 77,507
#2 Big Ten 66,151
#3 Big 12Â Â 57,531
#4 Pac 12Â Â 50,073
#5 ACCÂ Â Â Â 49,734
It's pretty clear that the main reason that the Pac 12 television (and anything else) brings in less money than the SEC and the Big Ten is simply that it is less popular.
-------------
It is not clear to me that Pac 12 Olympic sports have improved performances since the launch of the Pac 12 networks. The Pac 12 has always dominated these sports, particularly with the Big 3 schools, and that seems to be continuing.
There probably hasn't been enough time for the Pac 12 network to have a big effect on recruiting. At any rate, most recruiting is highly local (outside of Stanford anyway), giving the Pac 12 some cushion on compeititve balance versus the money situation. Though that isn't completely true. Look at the top softball teams - they are all dominated by California kids.
(06-20-2017, 03:55 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:News flash:Â Citizens living in the SEC footprint care a lot more about college football than citizens living in the Pac-12 footprint.
...
FWIW2 - The Pac-12 Olympic sports seem to have improved a lot thanks to the Pac-12 nets. My guess is the TV coverage for Olympic sports creates a competitive advantage for recruiting in those sports.
Overall, that seems pretty clear.
There is no exact way to measure this, but one proxy is simple attendance. The official NCAA figures for 2016 are now available.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2016.pdf
The top Pac 12 team is $C (as always). But they are down at #22. Ahead of them are 7 Big Ten teams and 9 SEC teams.
By conference, average attendance per game, the numbers come in at :
#1 SECÂ Â Â Â 77,507
#2 Big Ten 66,151
#3 Big 12Â Â 57,531
#4 Pac 12Â Â 50,073
#5 ACCÂ Â Â Â 49,734
It's pretty clear that the main reason that the Pac 12 television (and anything else) brings in less money than the SEC and the Big Ten is simply that it is less popular.
-------------
It is not clear to me that Pac 12 Olympic sports have improved performances since the launch of the Pac 12 networks. The Pac 12 has always dominated these sports, particularly with the Big 3 schools, and that seems to be continuing.
There probably hasn't been enough time for the Pac 12 network to have a big effect on recruiting. At any rate, most recruiting is highly local (outside of Stanford anyway), giving the Pac 12 some cushion on compeititve balance versus the money situation. Though that isn't completely true. Look at the top softball teams - they are all dominated by California kids.
06-21-2017, 08:20 AM
FWIW2 on Olympics was a glass half full view of the situation.
The football, and therefore TV, economics are pretty clear. On almost every metric the SEC and the BigTen are bigger draws, so it is logical that their networks would have bigger and more lucrative distribution rights and deals. Pac-12 tried to go with ownership to attempt to do something different to change the game. If the distribution game is in a steady state the BigTen and SEC will get more for their conferences, for sure. The Pac-12 deal makers have a far less attractive hand, so I find Wilner's dollar to dollar comparisons frustrating because he has to know the SEC has a stronger hand.
It was a miracle that the Pac-12 got even a few seasons with near revenue parity, but that was a function of different contract cycles really. To then expect that TV revenue parity to be maintained despite the differences in fan base size and passion is/was/will be crazy.
Back to my FWIW2 - I don't know if the Pac-12 TV exposure helps Stanford, USC or UCLA in their top sports in a meaningful way. I do think it helps the bottom teams of the Pac-12 in a given sport. A California softball player from San Diego might have offers for Fresno State, SJSU and Oregon State. The TV coverage really gives Oregon State a boost as the friends and family all have a way to see the player from time to time, and really it would be pretty cool to play college softball games on "national" TV.
In many ways the Pac-12 Nets focus on ample Olympic sport coverage is aligned to Stanford's needs. I am very confident a recruit's family will leave DirecTV and get Dish to watch their child. So the Pac-12 Nets allows Stanford to offer families and friends a way to watch their child that is unmatched by any school that is not in their local area.
And when it comes to money...Well let's just say it like this.
Stanford $22+ billion
University of South Carolina $655 million.
Almost literally, DAPER has a bigger endowment than a typical SEC university.Â
A Pac-12 school just needs to be smart about expenses. If the SEC spends $300 million on a stadium, then a Pac-12 school would be smart to try to spend $100 million. Unless, you are UCB, then it is better to spend $500 million and cry to the Regents. ::)
The football, and therefore TV, economics are pretty clear. On almost every metric the SEC and the BigTen are bigger draws, so it is logical that their networks would have bigger and more lucrative distribution rights and deals. Pac-12 tried to go with ownership to attempt to do something different to change the game. If the distribution game is in a steady state the BigTen and SEC will get more for their conferences, for sure. The Pac-12 deal makers have a far less attractive hand, so I find Wilner's dollar to dollar comparisons frustrating because he has to know the SEC has a stronger hand.
It was a miracle that the Pac-12 got even a few seasons with near revenue parity, but that was a function of different contract cycles really. To then expect that TV revenue parity to be maintained despite the differences in fan base size and passion is/was/will be crazy.
Back to my FWIW2 - I don't know if the Pac-12 TV exposure helps Stanford, USC or UCLA in their top sports in a meaningful way. I do think it helps the bottom teams of the Pac-12 in a given sport. A California softball player from San Diego might have offers for Fresno State, SJSU and Oregon State. The TV coverage really gives Oregon State a boost as the friends and family all have a way to see the player from time to time, and really it would be pretty cool to play college softball games on "national" TV.
In many ways the Pac-12 Nets focus on ample Olympic sport coverage is aligned to Stanford's needs. I am very confident a recruit's family will leave DirecTV and get Dish to watch their child. So the Pac-12 Nets allows Stanford to offer families and friends a way to watch their child that is unmatched by any school that is not in their local area.
And when it comes to money...Well let's just say it like this.
Stanford $22+ billion
University of South Carolina $655 million.
Almost literally, DAPER has a bigger endowment than a typical SEC university.Â
A Pac-12 school just needs to be smart about expenses. If the SEC spends $300 million on a stadium, then a Pac-12 school would be smart to try to spend $100 million. Unless, you are UCB, then it is better to spend $500 million and cry to the Regents. ::)
FWIW2 on Olympics was a glass half full view of the situation.
The football, and therefore TV, economics are pretty clear. On almost every metric the SEC and the BigTen are bigger draws, so it is logical that their networks would have bigger and more lucrative distribution rights and deals. Pac-12 tried to go with ownership to attempt to do something different to change the game. If the distribution game is in a steady state the BigTen and SEC will get more for their conferences, for sure. The Pac-12 deal makers have a far less attractive hand, so I find Wilner's dollar to dollar comparisons frustrating because he has to know the SEC has a stronger hand.
It was a miracle that the Pac-12 got even a few seasons with near revenue parity, but that was a function of different contract cycles really. To then expect that TV revenue parity to be maintained despite the differences in fan base size and passion is/was/will be crazy.
Back to my FWIW2 - I don't know if the Pac-12 TV exposure helps Stanford, USC or UCLA in their top sports in a meaningful way. I do think it helps the bottom teams of the Pac-12 in a given sport. A California softball player from San Diego might have offers for Fresno State, SJSU and Oregon State. The TV coverage really gives Oregon State a boost as the friends and family all have a way to see the player from time to time, and really it would be pretty cool to play college softball games on "national" TV.
In many ways the Pac-12 Nets focus on ample Olympic sport coverage is aligned to Stanford's needs. I am very confident a recruit's family will leave DirecTV and get Dish to watch their child. So the Pac-12 Nets allows Stanford to offer families and friends a way to watch their child that is unmatched by any school that is not in their local area.
And when it comes to money...Well let's just say it like this.
Stanford $22+ billion
University of South Carolina $655 million.
Almost literally, DAPER has a bigger endowment than a typical SEC university.Â
A Pac-12 school just needs to be smart about expenses. If the SEC spends $300 million on a stadium, then a Pac-12 school would be smart to try to spend $100 million. Unless, you are UCB, then it is better to spend $500 million and cry to the Regents. ::)
The football, and therefore TV, economics are pretty clear. On almost every metric the SEC and the BigTen are bigger draws, so it is logical that their networks would have bigger and more lucrative distribution rights and deals. Pac-12 tried to go with ownership to attempt to do something different to change the game. If the distribution game is in a steady state the BigTen and SEC will get more for their conferences, for sure. The Pac-12 deal makers have a far less attractive hand, so I find Wilner's dollar to dollar comparisons frustrating because he has to know the SEC has a stronger hand.
It was a miracle that the Pac-12 got even a few seasons with near revenue parity, but that was a function of different contract cycles really. To then expect that TV revenue parity to be maintained despite the differences in fan base size and passion is/was/will be crazy.
Back to my FWIW2 - I don't know if the Pac-12 TV exposure helps Stanford, USC or UCLA in their top sports in a meaningful way. I do think it helps the bottom teams of the Pac-12 in a given sport. A California softball player from San Diego might have offers for Fresno State, SJSU and Oregon State. The TV coverage really gives Oregon State a boost as the friends and family all have a way to see the player from time to time, and really it would be pretty cool to play college softball games on "national" TV.
In many ways the Pac-12 Nets focus on ample Olympic sport coverage is aligned to Stanford's needs. I am very confident a recruit's family will leave DirecTV and get Dish to watch their child. So the Pac-12 Nets allows Stanford to offer families and friends a way to watch their child that is unmatched by any school that is not in their local area.
And when it comes to money...Well let's just say it like this.
Stanford $22+ billion
University of South Carolina $655 million.
Almost literally, DAPER has a bigger endowment than a typical SEC university.Â
A Pac-12 school just needs to be smart about expenses. If the SEC spends $300 million on a stadium, then a Pac-12 school would be smart to try to spend $100 million. Unless, you are UCB, then it is better to spend $500 million and cry to the Regents. ::)
06-21-2017, 10:53 AM
Just not buying the passion argument as a wholesale reason the Pac-12 is behind. Sports on TV are a different product than sports in person. Football is the most popular sport by far for TV viewing. You can get a decent audience for MAC Tuesday night games, FFS.Â
IOW, getting the product on TV is the battle with the model ESPN and their conference partners have build their businesses on. After that, the ratings will come and they don't matter much with guaranteed revenue, even if nobody watches. But if rating are important, does anyone honestly think the country wouldn't be interesting in watching the future NFL stars in the Pac-12, across the country? And this whole discussion about revenues is based on a what we know to be dying cable TV model. Which conference is better positioned when 25% fewer households don't have cable or satellite TV? How about 50%?Â
IOW, getting the product on TV is the battle with the model ESPN and their conference partners have build their businesses on. After that, the ratings will come and they don't matter much with guaranteed revenue, even if nobody watches. But if rating are important, does anyone honestly think the country wouldn't be interesting in watching the future NFL stars in the Pac-12, across the country? And this whole discussion about revenues is based on a what we know to be dying cable TV model. Which conference is better positioned when 25% fewer households don't have cable or satellite TV? How about 50%?Â
Just not buying the passion argument as a wholesale reason the Pac-12 is behind. Sports on TV are a different product than sports in person. Football is the most popular sport by far for TV viewing. You can get a decent audience for MAC Tuesday night games, FFS.Â
IOW, getting the product on TV is the battle with the model ESPN and their conference partners have build their businesses on. After that, the ratings will come and they don't matter much with guaranteed revenue, even if nobody watches. But if rating are important, does anyone honestly think the country wouldn't be interesting in watching the future NFL stars in the Pac-12, across the country? And this whole discussion about revenues is based on a what we know to be dying cable TV model. Which conference is better positioned when 25% fewer households don't have cable or satellite TV? How about 50%?Â
IOW, getting the product on TV is the battle with the model ESPN and their conference partners have build their businesses on. After that, the ratings will come and they don't matter much with guaranteed revenue, even if nobody watches. But if rating are important, does anyone honestly think the country wouldn't be interesting in watching the future NFL stars in the Pac-12, across the country? And this whole discussion about revenues is based on a what we know to be dying cable TV model. Which conference is better positioned when 25% fewer households don't have cable or satellite TV? How about 50%?Â
06-21-2017, 11:54 AM
While I dont doubt that SEC might have more/more dedicated fans/viewers than the Pac12, I wonder what the demographics are. If (and I mean if, as I dont know) Pac12 viewers are higher income, more educated, more willing to try new things, that might offset lower numbers. Having a conference viewership focused around LA, SF, SJ, Seattle and Phoenix might just seem more interesting to advertisers than what some of the other conferences have to offer.
I hope/assume the Pac12 network has looked into that and made the case to advertisers as appropriate.
I hope/assume the Pac12 network has looked into that and made the case to advertisers as appropriate.
While I dont doubt that SEC might have more/more dedicated fans/viewers than the Pac12, I wonder what the demographics are. If (and I mean if, as I dont know) Pac12 viewers are higher income, more educated, more willing to try new things, that might offset lower numbers. Having a conference viewership focused around LA, SF, SJ, Seattle and Phoenix might just seem more interesting to advertisers than what some of the other conferences have to offer.
I hope/assume the Pac12 network has looked into that and made the case to advertisers as appropriate.
I hope/assume the Pac12 network has looked into that and made the case to advertisers as appropriate.
06-21-2017, 01:19 PM
I go back-and-forth on whether TV networks are overpaying for CFB content.
Here's some data on average viewership of CFB from a 2016 SI article:
How big or small is that 2 million number? I'm really not sure. On the one hand, it's a lot lower than the top TV programs, according to Nielsen:
On the other hand, I don't know what the average show (I guess I'm thinking more like the median) gets in terms of viewership.
If you look at the dollars paid to broadcast NFL and expect a linear relationship between viewership and dollars paid for broadcast rights, you would probably think CFB remains a bargain. But because the NFL is almost the only "guaranteed" ratings draw--and thus commands a premium--I don't think it makes sense to scale things that way.
So, I think it's at least possible that networks will actually reduce what they're paying to conferences because they're not really buying "hit" shows that draw lots and lots of eyeballs. But I have not really heard that idea broached, so maybe I'm way off.
Here's some data on average viewership of CFB from a 2016 SI article:
Quote: In an email, ESPN released similar findings: To date, college football across all nationally-rated networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and FS1) is averaging 2,011,000 viewers per game (255 games), which is down 27,000 viewers per game from last season (one percent).
How big or small is that 2 million number? I'm really not sure. On the one hand, it's a lot lower than the top TV programs, according to Nielsen:
Quote:Â TOP 10 PRIMETIME TV PROGRAMS OF 2016 - REGULARLY SCHEDULED
Rank Program Originator Persons 2+ Rating Average No. of Viewers
1 BIG BANG THEORY, THE CBS 6.7 19,938,000
2 NCIS CBS 6.7 19,885,000
3 NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL NBC 6.4 19,283,000
4 WALKING DEAD AMC 6.3 18,824,000
5 BULL CBS 5.8 17,645,000
6 NCIS: NEW ORLEANS CBS 5.2 15,618,000
7 SUNDAY NIGHT NFL PRE-KICK NBC 5.0 14,952,000
8 DESIGNATED SURVIVOR ABC 4.9 14,915,000
9 CBS+NFLN THU NT FOOTBALL CBS 4.9 14,785,000
10 BLUE BLOODS CBS 4.8 14,414,000
On the other hand, I don't know what the average show (I guess I'm thinking more like the median) gets in terms of viewership.
If you look at the dollars paid to broadcast NFL and expect a linear relationship between viewership and dollars paid for broadcast rights, you would probably think CFB remains a bargain. But because the NFL is almost the only "guaranteed" ratings draw--and thus commands a premium--I don't think it makes sense to scale things that way.
So, I think it's at least possible that networks will actually reduce what they're paying to conferences because they're not really buying "hit" shows that draw lots and lots of eyeballs. But I have not really heard that idea broached, so maybe I'm way off.
I go back-and-forth on whether TV networks are overpaying for CFB content.
Here's some data on average viewership of CFB from a 2016 SI article:
How big or small is that 2 million number? I'm really not sure. On the one hand, it's a lot lower than the top TV programs, according to Nielsen:
On the other hand, I don't know what the average show (I guess I'm thinking more like the median) gets in terms of viewership.
If you look at the dollars paid to broadcast NFL and expect a linear relationship between viewership and dollars paid for broadcast rights, you would probably think CFB remains a bargain. But because the NFL is almost the only "guaranteed" ratings draw--and thus commands a premium--I don't think it makes sense to scale things that way.
So, I think it's at least possible that networks will actually reduce what they're paying to conferences because they're not really buying "hit" shows that draw lots and lots of eyeballs. But I have not really heard that idea broached, so maybe I'm way off.
Here's some data on average viewership of CFB from a 2016 SI article:
Quote: In an email, ESPN released similar findings: To date, college football across all nationally-rated networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and FS1) is averaging 2,011,000 viewers per game (255 games), which is down 27,000 viewers per game from last season (one percent).
How big or small is that 2 million number? I'm really not sure. On the one hand, it's a lot lower than the top TV programs, according to Nielsen:
Quote:Â TOP 10 PRIMETIME TV PROGRAMS OF 2016 - REGULARLY SCHEDULED
Rank Program Originator Persons 2+ Rating Average No. of Viewers
1 BIG BANG THEORY, THE CBS 6.7 19,938,000
2 NCIS CBS 6.7 19,885,000
3 NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL NBC 6.4 19,283,000
4 WALKING DEAD AMC 6.3 18,824,000
5 BULL CBS 5.8 17,645,000
6 NCIS: NEW ORLEANS CBS 5.2 15,618,000
7 SUNDAY NIGHT NFL PRE-KICK NBC 5.0 14,952,000
8 DESIGNATED SURVIVOR ABC 4.9 14,915,000
9 CBS+NFLN THU NT FOOTBALL CBS 4.9 14,785,000
10 BLUE BLOODS CBS 4.8 14,414,000
On the other hand, I don't know what the average show (I guess I'm thinking more like the median) gets in terms of viewership.
If you look at the dollars paid to broadcast NFL and expect a linear relationship between viewership and dollars paid for broadcast rights, you would probably think CFB remains a bargain. But because the NFL is almost the only "guaranteed" ratings draw--and thus commands a premium--I don't think it makes sense to scale things that way.
So, I think it's at least possible that networks will actually reduce what they're paying to conferences because they're not really buying "hit" shows that draw lots and lots of eyeballs. But I have not really heard that idea broached, so maybe I'm way off.
06-21-2017, 02:06 PM
this page
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/
has the ratings/viewership for many televised NCAA football games
#1. the NCG with 25.3m viewers
some others
The Rose Bowl 15.7m
Sugar Bowl 9.5m
Orange Bowl 11.5m
Sun Bowl 2.9m
regular season games
UM-OSU 16.8m (the most watched regular season game)
Stanford
OSU-Stanford 592K
Stanford-UA 370K
Stanford-ND 2.9m
Stanford-UW 3.3m
Stanford-UCLA 3.8m
the bulk of Power 5 conference games seem to fall in the 1m-4m viewer range
some of the non-power 5 games have <10K viewers
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/
has the ratings/viewership for many televised NCAA football games
#1. the NCG with 25.3m viewers
some others
The Rose Bowl 15.7m
Sugar Bowl 9.5m
Orange Bowl 11.5m
Sun Bowl 2.9m
regular season games
UM-OSU 16.8m (the most watched regular season game)
Stanford
OSU-Stanford 592K
Stanford-UA 370K
Stanford-ND 2.9m
Stanford-UW 3.3m
Stanford-UCLA 3.8m
the bulk of Power 5 conference games seem to fall in the 1m-4m viewer range
some of the non-power 5 games have <10K viewers
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
this page
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/
has the ratings/viewership for many televised NCAA football games
#1. the NCG with 25.3m viewers
some others
The Rose Bowl 15.7m
Sugar Bowl 9.5m
Orange Bowl 11.5m
Sun Bowl 2.9m
regular season games
UM-OSU 16.8m (the most watched regular season game)
Stanford
OSU-Stanford 592K
Stanford-UA 370K
Stanford-ND 2.9m
Stanford-UW 3.3m
Stanford-UCLA 3.8m
the bulk of Power 5 conference games seem to fall in the 1m-4m viewer range
some of the non-power 5 games have <10K viewers
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/
has the ratings/viewership for many televised NCAA football games
#1. the NCG with 25.3m viewers
some others
The Rose Bowl 15.7m
Sugar Bowl 9.5m
Orange Bowl 11.5m
Sun Bowl 2.9m
regular season games
UM-OSU 16.8m (the most watched regular season game)
Stanford
OSU-Stanford 592K
Stanford-UA 370K
Stanford-ND 2.9m
Stanford-UW 3.3m
Stanford-UCLA 3.8m
the bulk of Power 5 conference games seem to fall in the 1m-4m viewer range
some of the non-power 5 games have <10K viewers
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
06-21-2017, 02:26 PM
Hard to say if the next deal will be better or worse. The ever increasing cord-cutting trend means broadcasters NEED program that keeps people paying subscription fees. Live sports, particularly live sports with social shared experience elements, are now commanding dollars beyond the ratings because they often preserve subscription fees for a channel even if that channel only has live sports a few times a week. (Think TNT with the NBA)
On the demographics. There is no doubt that the Pac-12 footprint includes an exceptional quantity and quality of potential viewers that advertisers crave. However, relatively few of those potential viewers care about any of the Pac-12 schools. The SEC attracts more eyeballs and far more extremely loyal eyeballs. When promoting beer, or the next big movie, the number of viewers is more critical than the average wealth of the viewers.
If I am a broadcaster I am putting my best sports content on during the best Eastern/Central viewing times for sports.
And If I am the conference that is on during the best East Coast times for sports, I am demanding and commanding top dollar for my apparently coveted content (see SEC).
If I am a broadcaster I do want live content on as many hours as possible.
I also don't want my best content on at odd hours, but will place less valuable content into less desirable time slots (see Pac-12).
Proof is readily available in that ratings list FYI. When the SEC has a game at 7 or 7:30PM Eastern on Saturday nights, that game generally has better ratings than the Pac-12 featured game that starts at 7:45PM or 8PM Eastern on ESPN2/ABC or FOX. The top rated college football game on most weekends involved SEC teams. The Pac-12 only had one appearance as a weekly winner. That was USC when the played....Alabama....from the SEC.
TV Ratings and TV revenue do not mean the product on the field is better. It is a concept that my friends down here in SoCal struggle with too. 92,000 fans in the stands does not mean the team on the field is better than the program with 50,000 in their stands. And like with ratings, the head-to-head serves as an easy way to identify the stronger competitor on the field. ;D
On the demographics. There is no doubt that the Pac-12 footprint includes an exceptional quantity and quality of potential viewers that advertisers crave. However, relatively few of those potential viewers care about any of the Pac-12 schools. The SEC attracts more eyeballs and far more extremely loyal eyeballs. When promoting beer, or the next big movie, the number of viewers is more critical than the average wealth of the viewers.
If I am a broadcaster I am putting my best sports content on during the best Eastern/Central viewing times for sports.
And If I am the conference that is on during the best East Coast times for sports, I am demanding and commanding top dollar for my apparently coveted content (see SEC).
If I am a broadcaster I do want live content on as many hours as possible.
I also don't want my best content on at odd hours, but will place less valuable content into less desirable time slots (see Pac-12).
Proof is readily available in that ratings list FYI. When the SEC has a game at 7 or 7:30PM Eastern on Saturday nights, that game generally has better ratings than the Pac-12 featured game that starts at 7:45PM or 8PM Eastern on ESPN2/ABC or FOX. The top rated college football game on most weekends involved SEC teams. The Pac-12 only had one appearance as a weekly winner. That was USC when the played....Alabama....from the SEC.
TV Ratings and TV revenue do not mean the product on the field is better. It is a concept that my friends down here in SoCal struggle with too. 92,000 fans in the stands does not mean the team on the field is better than the program with 50,000 in their stands. And like with ratings, the head-to-head serves as an easy way to identify the stronger competitor on the field. ;D
Hard to say if the next deal will be better or worse. The ever increasing cord-cutting trend means broadcasters NEED program that keeps people paying subscription fees. Live sports, particularly live sports with social shared experience elements, are now commanding dollars beyond the ratings because they often preserve subscription fees for a channel even if that channel only has live sports a few times a week. (Think TNT with the NBA)
On the demographics. There is no doubt that the Pac-12 footprint includes an exceptional quantity and quality of potential viewers that advertisers crave. However, relatively few of those potential viewers care about any of the Pac-12 schools. The SEC attracts more eyeballs and far more extremely loyal eyeballs. When promoting beer, or the next big movie, the number of viewers is more critical than the average wealth of the viewers.
If I am a broadcaster I am putting my best sports content on during the best Eastern/Central viewing times for sports.
And If I am the conference that is on during the best East Coast times for sports, I am demanding and commanding top dollar for my apparently coveted content (see SEC).
If I am a broadcaster I do want live content on as many hours as possible.
I also don't want my best content on at odd hours, but will place less valuable content into less desirable time slots (see Pac-12).
Proof is readily available in that ratings list FYI. When the SEC has a game at 7 or 7:30PM Eastern on Saturday nights, that game generally has better ratings than the Pac-12 featured game that starts at 7:45PM or 8PM Eastern on ESPN2/ABC or FOX. The top rated college football game on most weekends involved SEC teams. The Pac-12 only had one appearance as a weekly winner. That was USC when the played....Alabama....from the SEC.
TV Ratings and TV revenue do not mean the product on the field is better. It is a concept that my friends down here in SoCal struggle with too. 92,000 fans in the stands does not mean the team on the field is better than the program with 50,000 in their stands. And like with ratings, the head-to-head serves as an easy way to identify the stronger competitor on the field. ;D
On the demographics. There is no doubt that the Pac-12 footprint includes an exceptional quantity and quality of potential viewers that advertisers crave. However, relatively few of those potential viewers care about any of the Pac-12 schools. The SEC attracts more eyeballs and far more extremely loyal eyeballs. When promoting beer, or the next big movie, the number of viewers is more critical than the average wealth of the viewers.
If I am a broadcaster I am putting my best sports content on during the best Eastern/Central viewing times for sports.
And If I am the conference that is on during the best East Coast times for sports, I am demanding and commanding top dollar for my apparently coveted content (see SEC).
If I am a broadcaster I do want live content on as many hours as possible.
I also don't want my best content on at odd hours, but will place less valuable content into less desirable time slots (see Pac-12).
Proof is readily available in that ratings list FYI. When the SEC has a game at 7 or 7:30PM Eastern on Saturday nights, that game generally has better ratings than the Pac-12 featured game that starts at 7:45PM or 8PM Eastern on ESPN2/ABC or FOX. The top rated college football game on most weekends involved SEC teams. The Pac-12 only had one appearance as a weekly winner. That was USC when the played....Alabama....from the SEC.
TV Ratings and TV revenue do not mean the product on the field is better. It is a concept that my friends down here in SoCal struggle with too. 92,000 fans in the stands does not mean the team on the field is better than the program with 50,000 in their stands. And like with ratings, the head-to-head serves as an easy way to identify the stronger competitor on the field. ;D
06-21-2017, 07:47 PM
The other stray thought I had on this topic is that the Big12 seems to also be in danger of falling way behind revenue-wise compared to the Big10 and SEC.
I think a 20-ish team, football-only "Big Pac" conference would attract TV dollars on par with the SEC and Big10, and the Big12 schools just might be desperate enough to give it a try.
Could it actually happen? Give Kansas to the SEC (the conference wants more respect for its basketball), West Virginia to the Big 10 (the conference wants cred in the East)--and those conferences would still object tremendously. But I'm sure somebody with influence has at least thought about this.
I think a 20-ish team, football-only "Big Pac" conference would attract TV dollars on par with the SEC and Big10, and the Big12 schools just might be desperate enough to give it a try.
Could it actually happen? Give Kansas to the SEC (the conference wants more respect for its basketball), West Virginia to the Big 10 (the conference wants cred in the East)--and those conferences would still object tremendously. But I'm sure somebody with influence has at least thought about this.
The other stray thought I had on this topic is that the Big12 seems to also be in danger of falling way behind revenue-wise compared to the Big10 and SEC.
I think a 20-ish team, football-only "Big Pac" conference would attract TV dollars on par with the SEC and Big10, and the Big12 schools just might be desperate enough to give it a try.
Could it actually happen? Give Kansas to the SEC (the conference wants more respect for its basketball), West Virginia to the Big 10 (the conference wants cred in the East)--and those conferences would still object tremendously. But I'm sure somebody with influence has at least thought about this.
I think a 20-ish team, football-only "Big Pac" conference would attract TV dollars on par with the SEC and Big10, and the Big12 schools just might be desperate enough to give it a try.
Could it actually happen? Give Kansas to the SEC (the conference wants more respect for its basketball), West Virginia to the Big 10 (the conference wants cred in the East)--and those conferences would still object tremendously. But I'm sure somebody with influence has at least thought about this.
(06-21-2017, 07:47 PM)needle link Wrote:I think a 20-ish team, football-only "Big Pac" conference would attract TV dollars on par with the SEC and Big10, and the Big12 schools just might be desperate enough to give it a try.
I don't quite see why this combined league would provide much more on a per team basis than the current average payout of the two leagues (which is relatively close).
Of course if you control all the product, you have lots of control of the price of that product, but college football product is hardly scarce right now.
Now if the top 10 to 12 draws from the Pac 12 and the Big 12 got together and cut everyone else out, then presumably those guys could each make more than currently. Unfortunately, that would probably mean cutting Stanford out from the pie.
[My guess is that the top draws in those two conferences closely mirrors attendance figures. The top 12 from 2016 would be:
Texas, Oklahoma, $C, UCLA, UW, Texas Tech, WVU, Oregon, Ok State, Iowa St, Kansas St, Arizona.
Of course even years are bad for Stanford; for 2015 I think we'd sneak into #12 slot or so.]
(06-21-2017, 07:47 PM)needle link Wrote:I think a 20-ish team, football-only "Big Pac" conference would attract TV dollars on par with the SEC and Big10, and the Big12 schools just might be desperate enough to give it a try.
I don't quite see why this combined league would provide much more on a per team basis than the current average payout of the two leagues (which is relatively close).
Of course if you control all the product, you have lots of control of the price of that product, but college football product is hardly scarce right now.
Now if the top 10 to 12 draws from the Pac 12 and the Big 12 got together and cut everyone else out, then presumably those guys could each make more than currently. Unfortunately, that would probably mean cutting Stanford out from the pie.
[My guess is that the top draws in those two conferences closely mirrors attendance figures. The top 12 from 2016 would be:
Texas, Oklahoma, $C, UCLA, UW, Texas Tech, WVU, Oregon, Ok State, Iowa St, Kansas St, Arizona.
Of course even years are bad for Stanford; for 2015 I think we'd sneak into #12 slot or so.]
Yes, the network revenue discrepancy is a deep concern. The haves are getting more, the have nots are falling incredibly far behind, and the dropoff to the second tier (Pac 12, Big 12), could be too great.
#1) Question: How much do people think the money discrepancy matters? Of course, it matters some. But what do people think this will translate into? The SEC and Big 10 already pay their coaches more. Assistants in the SEC can make more than head coaches elsewhere. Alabama can hire former head coaches like Sarkisian as "consultants." The money makes a big difference in coaching staff salaries. But what else? Even if SEC schools had $20MÂ more, I think Pac-12 student-athletes get better medical care, they get a better education, they get a more beautiful campus, and probably better training facilities. So, money matters, and I wish the discrepancy wasn't so large, and I wish Dish would pick up the darn Pac-12 network, but I am hopeful that Stanford and the Pac 12 will find other ways to stay competitive.
#2) I grew up in the Midwest following the Big 10, so I get what a big deal college football can be in those areas. Remember when Iowa went to the Rose Bowl, local banks offered special loans for fans to attend the game. That means that Rose Bowl trip was a once-in-five-years or even a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Southern California. That is how much sports matters to them. A few weeks ago I estimated the viewership populations of Pac-12 states vs. Big 10 states and SEC states (estimating how to split up states like Texas). And even though we think of California as this giant state, the combined populations of the Big 10 and SEC states are bigger. Four of the Pac 12 teams are clustered in 1 state (California). Even the puny state Utah (population-wise) also has BYU and Utah State, and I would guess BYU is the fan favorite. But states like Ohio, Minnesota and Missouri, which are pretty big states, really only have 1 major college to root for. That means the whole dang state is sitting there Saturday watching the game. Not only do their states have a larger combined population, there is often nothing else to do there, especially if it is snowing (in Big 10 country).
#3) My hopeful news is that I think the tide will turn and the industry's economics and demographics will favor the Pac-12... eventually. I read articles about how cable is dying -- ESPN is getting a much smaller share of each subscriber's monthly payment. And I don't know what the cable companies' user bases are like now, but I would bet they are already shrinking, and I think in the coming years, they are going to shrink a lot, lot more. I used to be a complete cable watcher, and now I can't even remember the last time I watched anything on broadcast TV or cable that wasn't sports (Go Warriors). I now subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO Now, and in the Fall I add Starz (to watch Ash vs. the Evil Dead) and I'm thinking of adding a Showtime streaming plan to watch Twin Peaks. Already, Amazon Prime scooped up Thursday Night Football. So, and this is widely-written-about phenomenon, but cable is dying. With the current situation -- when revenues are based on cable subscriptions, what matters are raw numbers. The older demographics, lower adoption of technology, and lower income per household (relative to CA, at least), don't matter. But some day -- and this could take 5-15 years -- I think the industry's economics will favor a younger, more digitally-savvy audience who aren't just watching things for "free" with their cable bill, but who are willing to pay $9-$15/a month for a premium streaming service, and willing to pay for many streaming services. Once ESPN and Pac-12 have established streaming options, it'll be a no-brainer for me to cancel my cable service completely. (Even if there is some streaming now, it needs to become established, with every broadcast, and in HD. With apps not just on iOS and Android devices, but also good, working apps for Samsung Smart TVs). I think millennials already have these media consumption patterns, and many of my Gen X friends are moving toward cutting the cable box. When the streaming media content world fragments into a constellation of streaming services, and SEC and Big 10 fans will have to pay $10-$25/month for streaming ESPN, I would guess far fewer of them will shell out that additional $10-$30/month for their conference network. And what is the broadband penetration in SEC households? Someday, I see the Pac-12 streaming service commanding the largest revenues... if the league doesn't screw it up. But the current contracts last many years, and the cable to streaming revolution could take a while, and how bad will the damage be in the meantime?
For now, I do think we could help with relentless, continued demands for Dish to pick up the Pac-12 networks.
#1) Question: How much do people think the money discrepancy matters? Of course, it matters some. But what do people think this will translate into? The SEC and Big 10 already pay their coaches more. Assistants in the SEC can make more than head coaches elsewhere. Alabama can hire former head coaches like Sarkisian as "consultants." The money makes a big difference in coaching staff salaries. But what else? Even if SEC schools had $20MÂ more, I think Pac-12 student-athletes get better medical care, they get a better education, they get a more beautiful campus, and probably better training facilities. So, money matters, and I wish the discrepancy wasn't so large, and I wish Dish would pick up the darn Pac-12 network, but I am hopeful that Stanford and the Pac 12 will find other ways to stay competitive.
#2) I grew up in the Midwest following the Big 10, so I get what a big deal college football can be in those areas. Remember when Iowa went to the Rose Bowl, local banks offered special loans for fans to attend the game. That means that Rose Bowl trip was a once-in-five-years or even a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Southern California. That is how much sports matters to them. A few weeks ago I estimated the viewership populations of Pac-12 states vs. Big 10 states and SEC states (estimating how to split up states like Texas). And even though we think of California as this giant state, the combined populations of the Big 10 and SEC states are bigger. Four of the Pac 12 teams are clustered in 1 state (California). Even the puny state Utah (population-wise) also has BYU and Utah State, and I would guess BYU is the fan favorite. But states like Ohio, Minnesota and Missouri, which are pretty big states, really only have 1 major college to root for. That means the whole dang state is sitting there Saturday watching the game. Not only do their states have a larger combined population, there is often nothing else to do there, especially if it is snowing (in Big 10 country).
#3) My hopeful news is that I think the tide will turn and the industry's economics and demographics will favor the Pac-12... eventually. I read articles about how cable is dying -- ESPN is getting a much smaller share of each subscriber's monthly payment. And I don't know what the cable companies' user bases are like now, but I would bet they are already shrinking, and I think in the coming years, they are going to shrink a lot, lot more. I used to be a complete cable watcher, and now I can't even remember the last time I watched anything on broadcast TV or cable that wasn't sports (Go Warriors). I now subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO Now, and in the Fall I add Starz (to watch Ash vs. the Evil Dead) and I'm thinking of adding a Showtime streaming plan to watch Twin Peaks. Already, Amazon Prime scooped up Thursday Night Football. So, and this is widely-written-about phenomenon, but cable is dying. With the current situation -- when revenues are based on cable subscriptions, what matters are raw numbers. The older demographics, lower adoption of technology, and lower income per household (relative to CA, at least), don't matter. But some day -- and this could take 5-15 years -- I think the industry's economics will favor a younger, more digitally-savvy audience who aren't just watching things for "free" with their cable bill, but who are willing to pay $9-$15/a month for a premium streaming service, and willing to pay for many streaming services. Once ESPN and Pac-12 have established streaming options, it'll be a no-brainer for me to cancel my cable service completely. (Even if there is some streaming now, it needs to become established, with every broadcast, and in HD. With apps not just on iOS and Android devices, but also good, working apps for Samsung Smart TVs). I think millennials already have these media consumption patterns, and many of my Gen X friends are moving toward cutting the cable box. When the streaming media content world fragments into a constellation of streaming services, and SEC and Big 10 fans will have to pay $10-$25/month for streaming ESPN, I would guess far fewer of them will shell out that additional $10-$30/month for their conference network. And what is the broadband penetration in SEC households? Someday, I see the Pac-12 streaming service commanding the largest revenues... if the league doesn't screw it up. But the current contracts last many years, and the cable to streaming revolution could take a while, and how bad will the damage be in the meantime?
For now, I do think we could help with relentless, continued demands for Dish to pick up the Pac-12 networks.
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2017, 03:37 AM by Snorlax94.)
Yes, the network revenue discrepancy is a deep concern. The haves are getting more, the have nots are falling incredibly far behind, and the dropoff to the second tier (Pac 12, Big 12), could be too great.
#1) Question: How much do people think the money discrepancy matters? Of course, it matters some. But what do people think this will translate into? The SEC and Big 10 already pay their coaches more. Assistants in the SEC can make more than head coaches elsewhere. Alabama can hire former head coaches like Sarkisian as "consultants." The money makes a big difference in coaching staff salaries. But what else? Even if SEC schools had $20MÂ more, I think Pac-12 student-athletes get better medical care, they get a better education, they get a more beautiful campus, and probably better training facilities. So, money matters, and I wish the discrepancy wasn't so large, and I wish Dish would pick up the darn Pac-12 network, but I am hopeful that Stanford and the Pac 12 will find other ways to stay competitive.
#2) I grew up in the Midwest following the Big 10, so I get what a big deal college football can be in those areas. Remember when Iowa went to the Rose Bowl, local banks offered special loans for fans to attend the game. That means that Rose Bowl trip was a once-in-five-years or even a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Southern California. That is how much sports matters to them. A few weeks ago I estimated the viewership populations of Pac-12 states vs. Big 10 states and SEC states (estimating how to split up states like Texas). And even though we think of California as this giant state, the combined populations of the Big 10 and SEC states are bigger. Four of the Pac 12 teams are clustered in 1 state (California). Even the puny state Utah (population-wise) also has BYU and Utah State, and I would guess BYU is the fan favorite. But states like Ohio, Minnesota and Missouri, which are pretty big states, really only have 1 major college to root for. That means the whole dang state is sitting there Saturday watching the game. Not only do their states have a larger combined population, there is often nothing else to do there, especially if it is snowing (in Big 10 country).
#3) My hopeful news is that I think the tide will turn and the industry's economics and demographics will favor the Pac-12... eventually. I read articles about how cable is dying -- ESPN is getting a much smaller share of each subscriber's monthly payment. And I don't know what the cable companies' user bases are like now, but I would bet they are already shrinking, and I think in the coming years, they are going to shrink a lot, lot more. I used to be a complete cable watcher, and now I can't even remember the last time I watched anything on broadcast TV or cable that wasn't sports (Go Warriors). I now subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO Now, and in the Fall I add Starz (to watch Ash vs. the Evil Dead) and I'm thinking of adding a Showtime streaming plan to watch Twin Peaks. Already, Amazon Prime scooped up Thursday Night Football. So, and this is widely-written-about phenomenon, but cable is dying. With the current situation -- when revenues are based on cable subscriptions, what matters are raw numbers. The older demographics, lower adoption of technology, and lower income per household (relative to CA, at least), don't matter. But some day -- and this could take 5-15 years -- I think the industry's economics will favor a younger, more digitally-savvy audience who aren't just watching things for "free" with their cable bill, but who are willing to pay $9-$15/a month for a premium streaming service, and willing to pay for many streaming services. Once ESPN and Pac-12 have established streaming options, it'll be a no-brainer for me to cancel my cable service completely. (Even if there is some streaming now, it needs to become established, with every broadcast, and in HD. With apps not just on iOS and Android devices, but also good, working apps for Samsung Smart TVs). I think millennials already have these media consumption patterns, and many of my Gen X friends are moving toward cutting the cable box. When the streaming media content world fragments into a constellation of streaming services, and SEC and Big 10 fans will have to pay $10-$25/month for streaming ESPN, I would guess far fewer of them will shell out that additional $10-$30/month for their conference network. And what is the broadband penetration in SEC households? Someday, I see the Pac-12 streaming service commanding the largest revenues... if the league doesn't screw it up. But the current contracts last many years, and the cable to streaming revolution could take a while, and how bad will the damage be in the meantime?
For now, I do think we could help with relentless, continued demands for Dish to pick up the Pac-12 networks.
#1) Question: How much do people think the money discrepancy matters? Of course, it matters some. But what do people think this will translate into? The SEC and Big 10 already pay their coaches more. Assistants in the SEC can make more than head coaches elsewhere. Alabama can hire former head coaches like Sarkisian as "consultants." The money makes a big difference in coaching staff salaries. But what else? Even if SEC schools had $20MÂ more, I think Pac-12 student-athletes get better medical care, they get a better education, they get a more beautiful campus, and probably better training facilities. So, money matters, and I wish the discrepancy wasn't so large, and I wish Dish would pick up the darn Pac-12 network, but I am hopeful that Stanford and the Pac 12 will find other ways to stay competitive.
#2) I grew up in the Midwest following the Big 10, so I get what a big deal college football can be in those areas. Remember when Iowa went to the Rose Bowl, local banks offered special loans for fans to attend the game. That means that Rose Bowl trip was a once-in-five-years or even a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Southern California. That is how much sports matters to them. A few weeks ago I estimated the viewership populations of Pac-12 states vs. Big 10 states and SEC states (estimating how to split up states like Texas). And even though we think of California as this giant state, the combined populations of the Big 10 and SEC states are bigger. Four of the Pac 12 teams are clustered in 1 state (California). Even the puny state Utah (population-wise) also has BYU and Utah State, and I would guess BYU is the fan favorite. But states like Ohio, Minnesota and Missouri, which are pretty big states, really only have 1 major college to root for. That means the whole dang state is sitting there Saturday watching the game. Not only do their states have a larger combined population, there is often nothing else to do there, especially if it is snowing (in Big 10 country).
#3) My hopeful news is that I think the tide will turn and the industry's economics and demographics will favor the Pac-12... eventually. I read articles about how cable is dying -- ESPN is getting a much smaller share of each subscriber's monthly payment. And I don't know what the cable companies' user bases are like now, but I would bet they are already shrinking, and I think in the coming years, they are going to shrink a lot, lot more. I used to be a complete cable watcher, and now I can't even remember the last time I watched anything on broadcast TV or cable that wasn't sports (Go Warriors). I now subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO Now, and in the Fall I add Starz (to watch Ash vs. the Evil Dead) and I'm thinking of adding a Showtime streaming plan to watch Twin Peaks. Already, Amazon Prime scooped up Thursday Night Football. So, and this is widely-written-about phenomenon, but cable is dying. With the current situation -- when revenues are based on cable subscriptions, what matters are raw numbers. The older demographics, lower adoption of technology, and lower income per household (relative to CA, at least), don't matter. But some day -- and this could take 5-15 years -- I think the industry's economics will favor a younger, more digitally-savvy audience who aren't just watching things for "free" with their cable bill, but who are willing to pay $9-$15/a month for a premium streaming service, and willing to pay for many streaming services. Once ESPN and Pac-12 have established streaming options, it'll be a no-brainer for me to cancel my cable service completely. (Even if there is some streaming now, it needs to become established, with every broadcast, and in HD. With apps not just on iOS and Android devices, but also good, working apps for Samsung Smart TVs). I think millennials already have these media consumption patterns, and many of my Gen X friends are moving toward cutting the cable box. When the streaming media content world fragments into a constellation of streaming services, and SEC and Big 10 fans will have to pay $10-$25/month for streaming ESPN, I would guess far fewer of them will shell out that additional $10-$30/month for their conference network. And what is the broadband penetration in SEC households? Someday, I see the Pac-12 streaming service commanding the largest revenues... if the league doesn't screw it up. But the current contracts last many years, and the cable to streaming revolution could take a while, and how bad will the damage be in the meantime?
For now, I do think we could help with relentless, continued demands for Dish to pick up the Pac-12 networks.
06-22-2017, 02:56 AM
(06-20-2017, 03:02 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I don't get the subject of this post in relation to the article.
The B1G doesn't have more problems with more money. The Pac-12 has more problems with less money.
The subject heading is from a song title. And as I explained in the body, the problem is that the B1G has "mo money" and as a consequence of that it spells "mo problems" for the PAC-12.
BC
(06-20-2017, 03:02 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I don't get the subject of this post in relation to the article.
The B1G doesn't have more problems with more money. The Pac-12 has more problems with less money.
The subject heading is from a song title. And as I explained in the body, the problem is that the B1G has "mo money" and as a consequence of that it spells "mo problems" for the PAC-12.
BC
06-22-2017, 10:02 AM
(06-22-2017, 02:56 AM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:#1) ... Even if SEC schools had $20M more, I think Pac-12 student-athletes get better medical care, they get a better education, they get a more beautiful campus, and probably better training facilities.Â
I think you are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions here.
I don't know anything that suggests any of those things are true overall, at least outside of my own (and probably your) personal opinion that west coast scenery is substantially better than southeastern.
[And several of those items depend upon financial resources, so even if the SEC has a deficit that would presumably change as they continually rake in substantially more dollars.]
What keeps the Pac 12 competitive on the field is that recruiting is overwhelmingly local, and there is enough high school football in the west to keep up the talent level at least for one conference.
Quote:#3) My hopeful news is that I think the tide will turn and the industry's economics and demographics will favor the Pac-12... eventually.
I don't see any form of industry economics that will favor teams with a small fan base over teams with a larger, more dedicated fan base.
(06-22-2017, 02:56 AM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:#1) ... Even if SEC schools had $20M more, I think Pac-12 student-athletes get better medical care, they get a better education, they get a more beautiful campus, and probably better training facilities.Â
I think you are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions here.
I don't know anything that suggests any of those things are true overall, at least outside of my own (and probably your) personal opinion that west coast scenery is substantially better than southeastern.
[And several of those items depend upon financial resources, so even if the SEC has a deficit that would presumably change as they continually rake in substantially more dollars.]
What keeps the Pac 12 competitive on the field is that recruiting is overwhelmingly local, and there is enough high school football in the west to keep up the talent level at least for one conference.
Quote:#3) My hopeful news is that I think the tide will turn and the industry's economics and demographics will favor the Pac-12... eventually.
I don't see any form of industry economics that will favor teams with a small fan base over teams with a larger, more dedicated fan base.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »