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. ::)