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