Bear Down Wildcats

catgrad97 wrote:Not if ESPN's parent company (Zip-a-dee-Disney!) BUYS Fox.

Fox Sports assets must be sold off as part of the merger

PHXCATS wrote:

EVCat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

What he says is the truth. The next round for broadcast rights is going to go way down in terms of dollars for each school. ESPN and Fox wont be able to pay as much. And Hulu, Google and Netflix already make tons of money in their other core businesses, not live sports broadcasting. What that means is that they will not risk losing their nestegg to bring in live sports, which means their bids wont be that high. All the more reason why attendance matters so much.

There's just enough truth sprinkled into the patently false to make that seem reasonable.

There is a reason sports franchises are worth more than ever, and rising at a nearly absurd rate...advertising eyeballs.

While there was some overreach in the first round of league network contracts and sports contracts in general, it has more to do with an adjustment of how we view ratings and share than anything else. Commercials were effective tools before DVRs, and even more so before VCRs. You had a captured audience. Now...who watches a show when it airs? Not many, unless they are just guide-surfing and watching a bunch of different shows, still skipping the commercials.

So pay services with content have done well, but they are oversaturating the market with product. As long as subscribers keep coming back, who cares, I guess. But, like a restaurant with too many items, what happens is nothing is done well. We may be approaching that as more and more companies jump into content providing.

But the one live air item you can count on for eyeballs is sports. Some people DVR and zap through, but most enjoy the shared experience of watching live. And what we now know is it really isn't about the sheer number of eyeballs, but about brand recognition, viewer connection with ads, and how much the owner of the eyeballs is paying attention. That is something that is far more prevalent with sports viewers than general content viewers. We have to adjust the concept of ratings/share and come up with a new standard for absorption or effectiveness. Sports deliver, but those who have to spend the dollar have ample opportunity to use the outdated rating/share model to push for cheaper ad time. Like the FICO/Credit Score model that was developed to predict unsecured credit repayment being used for homes and cars, the ratings/share model is a square peg in a round hole. It was too much for creditors to custom score (most tried) on credit because of fair lending laws.

No such limitation exists within the ad world. So...the first company to property predict effectiveness of audience and weight the score with a modicum of documented success will run the ad rate world. In the meantime, the ad buyers were over-exuberant, and now are pushing back, in part to make up for their loss of effectiveness everywhere else.

But sports still provide brand-savvy and attentive eyeballs. The attendance at games will continue to shrink, and, frankly...no one is going to care as long as media rights cover the freight. Stadiums will get smaller and smaller with more and more amenities to capture high paying attendees, much like music promotion. Many will be priced out of the smaller, luxurious stadiums, but be able to watch games in between 4.5 minute ad holes.

Nothing you have said is false but it has not factored in how ESPN has lost so many subscribers. How the hell is ESPN going to offer that much for the broadcast rights when they have lost 120 Million plus in subscribership revenue and cash flow PER MONTH since the last time the PAC-12 and ESPN negotiated the broadcast rights. ESPN cant offer as much as they could before, do you think Fox will offer more when they dont have the competition?

I kind of made it clear an adjustment is coming after over-exuberance, and explained why numbers watching are not equal to quality ad penetration. So, no...I don't think Fox will offer more, and I explained why.

Attendance numbers at games being any kind of factor is the part that I was clearly rejecting, and explained why I was doing so. The total live audience will continue to shrink and become higher end and higher cost, like the music industry. Sports properties in a more scattered advertising world will continue to be crown jewels due to the immediacy of the experience. It is going to take a while for everyone to figure out how that is measured. But adding 10,000 more butts in the seats at $25 average per ticket isn't going to make any kind of substantive impact to the bottom line if you can keep the same attendance, charge more, and offer more amenities. And that is the wave of the future. You have to compete with an increasingly improving home-viewing experience. The key isn't to put discount butts in the seats...it's how to make the same money off of a guaranteed core attendance. More people in the stands helps the team, but it ebbs and flows with the team's winning percentage, and is slowly evaporating regardless of the team performance. That's true across the board...college football stadiums were built for a different era, by and large, and benches for 70,000 isn't the wave of the future. Seats and comfort for 50,000 at nearly the same ticket revenue is...

as for basketball...attendance is fine. It's a smaller total number and the college basketball game is a tick over 2 hours front to back. The experience for fan attendance is totally different. It's realistic on a work night, and can easily be worked around for a busy family on a weekend. Football is a nearly all-day affair. To get people to fight traffic of 50,000 rather than 14,000 pre and post-game, give up nearly 4 hours from butts in the seat to game end, and maybe tailgate a bit, you have to offer more. The game itself, being a 6 times (roughly) per season event and more popular, handles some of that. But to keep that core attendance from watching from home, you have to upgrade the experience, not shove more people in the seats.

From a fan perspective, attendance is important. It helps the team. But when you inject that into the discussion of multi-million dollar windfalls and pullbacks from media rights, it just isn't substantive to address as sheer numbers of butts in seats. It's the $ of each ticket sold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1PtJX81j5o" target="_blank

A vid on the fellow who changed a restaurant's cable package to get PAC12 Network so he could watch a UA game.

#goodfan

6 years in, still only on limited Cox and Comcast cable subscriptions in parts of the country, dish and sling TV with a worthless app.

FYI:
Looks like another promising year for us Expats to get the P12 Network (main channel only that I’ve found). It looks legit and worked well last year. Free P12 Network International Channel on YouTube. https://youtu.be/UMS-4hf9Yqo

I think this doesn’t work inside the US BUT if you used a VPN or IP Address for overseas then this should be an easy workaround for cheap. BTFD.

Not PAC12 network but the PAC12 has a tremendous opportunity in 2023 with a deal with CBS. CBS and SEC in all likelihood wont be renewing their deal so a prime time slot will be available. Currently the deal CBS has with the SEC is chump change but it could be good money when CBS wakes up and the SEC walks to ESPN 100%

Would CBS even want the Pac12? I guess we would be cheaper than the SEC.

DrWildcat wrote:Would CBS even want the Pac12? I guess we would be cheaper than the SEC.

ESPN owns all of the acc now and all of the sec except the one game a week and the title game. I think the Big ten and Fox are together so much with the Big Ten network that that isnt a possibility so it is between the Big 12 and PAC12 if CBS still wants a daytime Saturday game every week.

While big 12 fans are by far better and more passionate on a national scale the PAC12 is better. Only national brands are Texas and Oklahoma. PAC12 has UCLA USC Oregon Stanford and Washington

PHXCATS wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:Would CBS even want the Pac12? I guess we would be cheaper than the SEC.

ESPN owns all of the acc now and all of the sec except the one game a week and the title game. I think the Big ten and Fox are together so much with the Big Ten network that that isnt a possibility so it is between the Big 12 and PAC12 if CBS still wants a daytime Saturday game every week.

While big 12 fans are by far better and more passionate on a national scale the PAC12 is better. Only national brands are Texas and Oklahoma. PAC12 has UCLA USC Oregon Stanford and Washington

Yeah, the Pac12 has bigger TV markets but the product has been poor. CBS could just decide college football isn't worth the cost.

DrWildcat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:Would CBS even want the Pac12? I guess we would be cheaper than the SEC.

ESPN owns all of the acc now and all of the sec except the one game a week and the title game. I think the Big ten and Fox are together so much with the Big Ten network that that isnt a possibility so it is between the Big 12 and PAC12 if CBS still wants a daytime Saturday game every week.

While big 12 fans are by far better and more passionate on a national scale the PAC12 is better. Only national brands are Texas and Oklahoma. PAC12 has UCLA USC Oregon Stanford and Washington

Yeah, the Pac12 has bigger TV markets but the product has been poor. CBS could just decide college football isn't worth the cost.

Maybe but considering they pay on $55 Million for the SEC game of the week and SEC title game they are making money hand over fist so I doubt they will want to walk away from something completely that has been so good for them for so long

PHXCATS wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:Would CBS even want the Pac12? I guess we would be cheaper than the SEC.

ESPN owns all of the acc now and all of the sec except the one game a week and the title game. I think the Big ten and Fox are together so much with the Big Ten network that that isnt a possibility so it is between the Big 12 and PAC12 if CBS still wants a daytime Saturday game every week.

While big 12 fans are by far better and more passionate on a national scale the PAC12 is better. Only national brands are Texas and Oklahoma. PAC12 has UCLA USC Oregon Stanford and Washington

Yeah, the Pac12 has bigger TV markets but the product has been poor. CBS could just decide college football isn't worth the cost.

Maybe but considering they pay on $55 Million for the SEC game of the week and SEC title game they are making money hand over fist so I doubt they will want to walk away from something completely that has been so good for them for so long

CBS may be losing the SEC contract. https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/cbss ... pens-next/" target="_blank

Merkin wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:Would CBS even want the Pac12? I guess we would be cheaper than the SEC.

ESPN owns all of the acc now and all of the sec except the one game a week and the title game. I think the Big ten and Fox are together so much with the Big Ten network that that isnt a possibility so it is between the Big 12 and PAC12 if CBS still wants a daytime Saturday game every week.

While big 12 fans are by far better and more passionate on a national scale the PAC12 is better. Only national brands are Texas and Oklahoma. PAC12 has UCLA USC Oregon Stanford and Washington

Yeah, the Pac12 has bigger TV markets but the product has been poor. CBS could just decide college football isn't worth the cost.

Maybe but considering they pay on $55 Million for the SEC game of the week and SEC title game they are making money hand over fist so I doubt they will want to walk away from something completely that has been so good for them for so long

CBS may be losing the SEC contract. https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/cbss ... pens-next/" target="_blank

Hey I thought linking Clay Travis sas a huge no no. Also exactly what I was talking about with my post this am

So with sling do you get cbs? Like for tournament games?

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:So with sling do you get cbs? Like for tournament games?

No you would need an antenna

And also a mountain to put it on.

I ran into RJ at Club Congress Saturday night and chatted for a bit. Then this was my view at the game. He was wearing red Nikes too

Merkin wrote:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing more than once and expecting a different result.

Case study in how to build a television network and fail.

At what point do the AD’s and pac12 presidents that his pac12 boondoggle is less about athletics and the mission of the school and more about building an TV network (failing that is) ?

This is some seriously shit these schools are in. Like existential threat type shit.

The Cal president has a very expensive football stadium which they have no hopes of paying off any time soon, and I imagine she would lead the effort to get rid of Scott.

They’ll probably fire some low level ad sales manager who couldn’t afford to live anywhere close to the Pac-12 offices anyway and was commuting 4 hours a day to Larry Scott’s obscene monument to himself.

That should fix the problem...

I'm stunned that Larry Scott is still employed. What the hell are the 12 Pac 12 universities waiting for? Don't any of the college presidents have the guts to stand up and say this guy has been a disaster and needs to go immediately?

Just a reminder that ESPN wanted to save the PAC 12 Network and the PAC 12 CEOs said no.

ChooChooCat wrote:Just a reminder that ESPN wanted to save the PAC 12 Network and the PAC 12 CEOs said no.

Just a reminder that there are a lot of supposedly intelligent people who deserve a slap in the mouth.

ChooChooCat wrote:Just a reminder that ESPN wanted to save the PAC 12 Network and the PAC 12 CEOs said no.

When was the last time espn offered?

PHXCATS wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Just a reminder that ESPN wanted to save the PAC 12 Network and the PAC 12 CEOs said no.

When was the last time espn offered?

Year and a half ago. https://awfulannouncing.com/local-netwo ... nsion.html" target="_blank

To be fair ESPN wanted us to extend our deal with them (we’re going to sign with them regardless) and in return would take over the network and its distribution, but the PAC 12 CEOs wanted to play the market instead.

ChooChooCat wrote:To be fair ESPN wanted us to extend our deal with them (we’re going to sign with them regardless) and in return would take over the network and its distribution, but the PAC 12 CEOs wanted to play the market instead.

https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2021/0 ... r-arrives/

Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News performed an in-depth investigation of Pac-12 Network subscription numbers, payouts to Pac-12 member schools, and other details. The full report is a must-read, and the findings are alarming.

Input from college sports industry experts and Pac-12 watchers points to three central recommendations the conference, under its new commissioner, must consider in July of this year:

Get rid of the Pac-12 regional networks.
Close down the full Pac-12 Network and sell the content to high-end media or streaming outlets.
Attempt to negotiate a new Tier 1 media rights deal without delay, aiming to get rid of the current structure the league is locked into through 2024. Escape that mess and start fresh.

Here are two particularly relevant excerpts from Wilner’s expansive report:

“The conference needs to rethink everything it does,’’ an industry source explained. “Its position has weakened in the last two years. The whole notion of the Pac-12 Networks has to go.”

That weakness is clear in the latest subscriber data:

The Pac-12 Network (the national network) now has just 14.8 million subscribers, according to Dec. ’20 estimates provided to the Hotline by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

That figure represents a drop of 17 percent over the past two years, based on S&P data: In Feb. ’19, the national network had 17.9 million subscribers. (At its peak five years ago, it had more than 19 million.)

In comparison, the Big Ten and SEC networks are believed to have more than 50 million subscribers.

The Pursuit Channel reportedly has 35 million.

“People can’t watch us on our own networks,’’ a Pac-12 source said. “That hurts. We have to get our credibility back in football, and to do that, people need to be able to see us play.”

Here’s the second particularly relevant excerpt:

In the 2019 fiscal year (the most recent available), the Pac-12 Networks reported $123 million in revenue and $90 million in expenses, with an average of $2.8 million sent to each campus.

It’s not known what percentage of the operating expenses are tied to the six regional networks; the Pac-12 financial reports don’t break down line-item costs in that manner. But one thing is clear: The campus distribution figure is lower than even the lowest initial estimates.

During a gathering of conference executives before the networks were launched in Aug. ’12, commissioner Larry Scott thrilled the athletic directors with projections for annual distributions once the enterprise had exited the start-up phase.

According to a source in attendance at the meeting, those estimates were:

High end: $7 million-to-$10 million per school per year
Middle: $5 million-to-$7 million per school per year
Low end: $3 million-to-$5 million per school per year

Based on Hotline research and financial data provided by the conference, the networks have not yet distributed even $3 million to the campuses.

The wreckage of Larry Scott’s tenure was already known on a wide-ranging level, but this puts a lot more numerical meat on the bones. The Pac-12 CEO Group has to select a commissioner who can quickly and skillfully deal with this massive, multi-pronged problem.

More: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/18/ ... ce-behind/

Jefe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:36 pm The Pac-12 Network (the national network) now has just 14.8 million subscribers, according to Dec. ’20 estimates provided to the Hotline by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

I'm honestly shocked it's that high.

Of that #, I figure like 14,799,998 of them accidentally got it bundled with a normal package and may not even realize they have P12.

One less when I canceled Sling TV when the UA season ended.

I imagine many of those too are for the ESPN channels, not the PAC channels as part of the Sling sports package.

I canceled Sling yesterday so make that 2 less with me and Merk.


Oh, and fuck Larry Scott.

I cancelled Sling 2 months ago.

With our luck Robbins will try to become the new commissioner..... while running the UofA athletic department on the side.

I'll have sling til the tournament is over then, it's too nice here from may to october to watch tv

I canceled sling last summer. But generally speaking it's too nice here to watch tv from November to April.

I actually get pac 12 net and pac 12 AZ with my cable package

They mentioned only 700k subscribers in the whole state of Arizona as well. Quite a solid business model: people can only mostly watch Pac12 games on a network nobody has, often at times nobody wants to watch, resulting in revenues less than 25% of your competition in other conferences. Impressively done Pac-12!

Machina still thinks it's a bang up job though!

Well it's a good thing the pac 12 teams have been advancing so we can get some money from the tourney revenue since we don't get crap from the pac12 network.

U.P. Zona Fan wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 2:24 pm Well it's a good thing the pac 12 teams have been advancing so we can get some money from the tourney revenue since we don't get crap from the pac12 network.

The best part is everyone east of the Mountain time zone saying, “why the fuck haven’t I ever seen this team?”