utenation Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Passing up conference exposure for limited viewership. This has been a big topic here this week. Our highest ranked matchup is being shoved on the P12 network. I understand UW/OR being first pick and on ABC but after that, with our exposure issues, this is a bad move. They should have passed on this game and let ESPN air it. The P12 network payout is peanuts per year so I don’t think they did anyone favors and this game wouldn’t change much. Especially for a conference struggling for credibility. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/09/the-curious-case-of-arizona-state-utah-why-the-showdown-is-on-the-pac-12-networks-and-not-espn2-u/amp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 This game wont change much. The thinking has to be that in order to increase the long term sales Of Pac 12 Network subscriptions And long term revenue to the schools from the same, they have to improve the content. Kind of a tug-of-war between short term access and long term revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MussMan Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 From the P12N's point of view, I don't blame them. I get the argument about exposure, and being petty isn't how you resolve issues like this. From their point of view, ESPN has been pissing on our conference for years, in part to spite the Pac 12 for owning our own network. On their college football live shows at the end of the year, they don't even mention the Pac-12 championship game that plays that very night. They like to ignore the Pac 12 every chance they get. From this standpoint, why would the P12N - who is looking for any leverage they can get to gain viewership - throw ESPN a bone? Yes, it would help the conference as a whole by giving more exposure to the teams, but from the P12N's view, they'll take what they can get. If they get to spite ESPN in the process of it, even better. From a fan's perspective, I like the Pac 12 Network's coverage better than the typical ESPN B or C team who can't pronounce half of our players names that they usually send out for Pac 12 games anyways. Since I'll be at the game, I like the earlier start time as well. From a big picture perspective, I'd prefer the game be on ESPN, but I'm not too worried about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, MussMan said: From the P12N's point of view, I don't blame them. I get the argument about exposure, and being petty isn't how you resolve issues like this. From their point of view, ESPN has been pissing on our conference for years, in part to spite the Pac 12 for owning our own network. On their college football live shows at the end of the year, they don't even mention the Pac-12 championship game that plays that very night. They like to ignore the Pac 12 every chance they get. From this standpoint, why would the P12N - who is looking for any leverage they can get to gain viewership - throw ESPN a bone? Yes, it would help the conference as a whole by giving more exposure to the teams, but from the P12N's view, they'll take what they can get. If they get to spite ESPN in the process of it, even better. From a fan's perspective, I like the Pac 12 Network's coverage better than the typical ESPN B or C team who can't pronounce half of our players names that they usually send out for Pac 12 games anyways. Since I'll be at the game, I like the earlier start time as well. From a big picture perspective, I'd prefer the game be on ESPN, but I'm not too worried about it. Good points but the P12 network business model and management of the network was flawed from the beginning. The problem is much deeper than throwing this game on the channel. I think maximum exposure is more important than trying to put a band aid on a compound fracture. For those that have the channel or are going to the game, it’s not an issue. But for the truck load of people that can’t watch, this is a shitty deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 It seems like the P12N does this at least once a year and that will be the norm until the new media rights deal takes effect in like 2024. The only reason why I subscribe to Sling is for the P12N that's it. It seems like DirecTV might be soon dropping the NFL Sunday Ticket after this season and if that happens, there's no excuse for DTV not to pick up the P12N before next season. Some P12 schools are spending $5-15M per year on athletics and that is pennies to a school or school system like CU's which is $5 billion for the four CU campuses (two do not have athletics teams). A $5M athletics expenditure is 0.001% of CU's system-wide $5B budget and there's marketing & advertising value from that. Fans & athletic department critics might be making mountains out of molehills when it comes to athletic budgets & revenue. Even a $50M athletic subsidy by the school removes just one zero to make it 0.01%. Honestly I don't give a hoot about how big CU's annual athletic budget which is closing on to $100M...I just want to watch my Buffaloes play in athletic contests that's all. Those P12 presidents know the expenditures of their schools and haven't really raised that big of a stink overall and those presidents know that football national championships are going to lead to a hike in more applications plus those application fees. Perhaps that is where the money that those national championship bonus money paid out to the coaches comes from for instance. I think putting all P12 games behind a paywall or service like the P12N beginning in 2024 is feasible and the P12N could sell highly anticipated games to the highest bidders out there. Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Fox, ESPN, CBS, and NBC would be able to drive up those prices per game. Given that Norte Dame plays at either USC or Stanford every year, NBC could pay the Pac-12 a nice amount of coin for that game. The P12N is its own brand and it's high time we just enjoy the games and not worry about the money flowing in and out. Is the P12N desperate? Depends on who you ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jalapeno said: Some P12 schools are spending $5-15M per year on athletics and that is pennies to a school or school system like CU's which is $5 billion for the four CU campuses (two do not have athletics teams). You are completely making these numbers up. CU's TOTAL university budget (not just athletics) for all schools is $4.5B. And not one athletic program in the Pac-12 spends $5M-$15M per year. WSU's expenditures for one year on athletics are around $77M, and that's the lowest total in the conference. Incidentally, CU's athletic expenditures are a $1.2M more than Oregon State, 3rd to last in the conference. http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scscsc89 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Jalapeno said: The P12N is its own brand and it's high time we just enjoy the games and not worry about the money flowing in and out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 2 hours ago, Orange said: You are completely making these numbers up. CU's TOTAL university budget (not just athletics) for all schools is $4.5B. And not one athletic program in the Pac-12 spends $5M-$15M per year. WSU's expenditures for one year on athletics are around $77M, and that's the lowest total in the conference. Incidentally, CU's athletic expenditures are a $1.2M more than Oregon State, 3rd to last in the conference. http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ Honestly I don't give a hoot whether I'm wrong about the numbers or not. Those numbers are old and the latest year I have read had CU at $94M athletic expenditures so you need to work on finding the latest information. It's possible CU hit $100M this academic year but I don't care. You are still wrong about CU's system budget: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2019/06/14/regents-approve-nearly-5-billion-system-wide-budget-free-expression-letter-incoming#targetText=Operating budget,-The board voted&targetText=The total budget for the CU Boulder campus is %241.9 billion. $4.79B is the correct number and CU Boulder is $1.9B. CU spent about $10.6M on the athletics department. 0.006% of the school budget...whoopie do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Jalapeno said: Honestly I don't give a hoot whether I'm wrong about the numbers or not. Those numbers are old and the latest year I have read had CU at $94M athletic expenditures so you need to work on finding the latest information. It's possible CU hit $100M this academic year but I don't care. You are still wrong about CU's system budget: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2019/06/14/regents-approve-nearly-5-billion-system-wide-budget-free-expression-letter-incoming#targetText=Operating budget,-The board voted&targetText=The total budget for the CU Boulder campus is %241.9 billion. $4.79B is the correct number and CU Boulder is $1.9B. CU spent about $10.6M on the athletics department. 0.006% of the school budget...whoopie do! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted October 16, 2019 Author Share Posted October 16, 2019 I don't care about "the P12 network money flowing in". It's chump change but I'm most certain our Presidents/AD's are very concerned considering what they were told in the beginning about revenue expectations.. I care about having our best products on the networks that have more than 17 million households. I actually like the content of the P12N... This was just a bad move for this matchup. I think this will be the 4th game on the P12N this year for Utah. NIU, Idaho State and OSU.. Fine. Not premier matchups.. I get it. Utah vs Cal is on FS1 next week. Which is where it should be.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azgreg Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastFan Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 34 minutes ago, azgreg said: Gotta pay the bills for the conference offices and Larry's mansion. Pac-12 priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAC MAN Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 Laying Larry Scott off would have been the best move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glduck Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted August 27, 2020 Author Share Posted August 27, 2020 44 minutes ago, glduck said: Having the corporate offices in San Francisco from day one was never smart. LOL at Scott only taking a 12% paycut.. Other than being at the right place at the right time when the 2010 TV contract was up, I think Scott's performance has been a complete sham to schools and fans.. Clearly now that you can't continue to put lipstick on the pig known as the P12 network model during this COVID crisis, more than a small haircut was needed.. Looks like a full body wax.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 When's the last time the Pac-12/10 had a decent commissioner? I honestly can't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azgreg Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, Orange said: When's the last time the Pac-12/10 had a decent commissioner? I honestly can't remember. There's only been four: Thomas J Hamilton 1959-1971 Wiles Hallock 1971-1983 Thomas C Hansen 1983-2009 Larry Scott 2010-Present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 Hansen served for 26 years?! Scott was supposed to take us into the future, and he's arguably worse than Hansen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azgreg Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted August 31, 2020 Author Share Posted August 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, azgreg said: Wait. An advisor to the presidents? Isn't that what we pay Larry nearly $5 mill for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.