11-28-2018, 07:57 AM
I feel like the article was doing a lot of apples to oranges comparisons because of the differences in rights ownership and distribution. The absence of the Big 12 comparisons is especially damning, in my mind, because the Longhorn Network is actually the best data point for comparison - what is their staff budget, rent, etc.?
I will say this though: in a universe where ESPN doesn't get to collect $6 per month from approx. 100 million subscribers, all of these media deals are going to go down in value, and at that point, I do think the PAC-12's approach, long term, is far smarter. I'd easily pay $10-20 per month for a direct all-access PAC-12 package. As it is, I pay $35 per month for SLING essentially for Stanford sports plus the occasional other thing on ESPN or ESPN2.
Finally, I wonder how much of the relative weakness of the PAC-12 lately is simply that the Alabamas of the world are much more competitive when they can monetize their fanbases the way they've been able to over the past 20 years? Until the mid-late 90s, college sports didn't have a lot of money, and until then, the PAC-12 had so many natural advantages in recruiting and player development, be that weather, quality of school, location, etc. And sure enough, in the sports where there's not tons of money, we still dominate (i.e. everything but basketball and football). I guess I just am not that surprised that the SEC is going to generate more revenue than the PAC-12 from media rights, because let's be honest: college football in the south is just about THE most important culturally uniting force. There is nothing out west that's in any way comparable. As long as that fan passion can be monetized, I just don't think the PAC-12 is ever going to be on a level playing field to the SEC or the BIG 10. (And again note the absence of the Big 12 and ACC as comparator data points: I suspect those conferences suffer from problems more similar to ours.)
Anywho, my two cents.
I will say this though: in a universe where ESPN doesn't get to collect $6 per month from approx. 100 million subscribers, all of these media deals are going to go down in value, and at that point, I do think the PAC-12's approach, long term, is far smarter. I'd easily pay $10-20 per month for a direct all-access PAC-12 package. As it is, I pay $35 per month for SLING essentially for Stanford sports plus the occasional other thing on ESPN or ESPN2.
Finally, I wonder how much of the relative weakness of the PAC-12 lately is simply that the Alabamas of the world are much more competitive when they can monetize their fanbases the way they've been able to over the past 20 years? Until the mid-late 90s, college sports didn't have a lot of money, and until then, the PAC-12 had so many natural advantages in recruiting and player development, be that weather, quality of school, location, etc. And sure enough, in the sports where there's not tons of money, we still dominate (i.e. everything but basketball and football). I guess I just am not that surprised that the SEC is going to generate more revenue than the PAC-12 from media rights, because let's be honest: college football in the south is just about THE most important culturally uniting force. There is nothing out west that's in any way comparable. As long as that fan passion can be monetized, I just don't think the PAC-12 is ever going to be on a level playing field to the SEC or the BIG 10. (And again note the absence of the Big 12 and ACC as comparator data points: I suspect those conferences suffer from problems more similar to ours.)
Anywho, my two cents.