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.