Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
Author Message
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #41
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-03-2011 11:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Then you need to tell me how PAC-10 got such crappy media deal previous to this. BE is screwed pretty much the same way. PAC-12 is getting paid and I have maintained that BE will get paid huge as well while some here have claimed BE is lucky to double its current $36M laughable TV contract.

The problem is you are focusing way too much on just the local markets. Most of these games will be on nationally and many will be watched by folks outside of teams' immediate media markets.

The Pac-10 deal wasn't really that crappy at the time it was signed. It became crappy over the passage of time as other conferences signed new deals. As I've noted, we have to separate the factors as to how each individual deal is being calculated. It's a given that all sports rights fees are going up right now at a very fast rate. What's more instructive are how much sports rights fees are rising in relation to each other.

I don't think I'm focusing too much on local markets - it's just that in the case of the Pac-12, its geographic monopoly is a unique advantage. Fox also owns or partially owns regional sports networks in California and Arizona. In particular, FS West (which is Fox's most valuable RSN as it covers the LA market) is losing the Lakers next year to a new competing network that's going to be owned by the team, so it had a big-time incentive to ensure that it didn't lose Pac-12 games (specifically USC and UCLA) on top of that. That would've been the local equivalent of ESPN losing both the NFL and SEC in the same year. This regional pressure in the LA market is very relevant to how the Pac-12 came out on this deal.

From a national perspective, it's instructive to see that ESPN is getting 4 Thursday night and 4 Friday night games as part of this deal. As we've talked about a lot here, ESPN is pretty much tapped out in terms of Saturday time slots. They seem to be looking to upgrade the quality of their weeknight games (and are willing to pay for it). If there's a national takeaway from this deal, that's a big one.
05-04-2011 12:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
superdeluxe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,759
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 44
I Root For: UW
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-03-2011 11:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Then you need to tell me how PAC-10 got such crappy media deal previous to this.

No leadership and a lack of innovative ideas.
05-04-2011 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user
mattsarz Offline
TV Guide
*

Posts: 7,159
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 110
I Root For: SU, Ariz. St.
Location: Painesville, OH
Post: #43
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-04-2011 12:57 AM)superdeluxe Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 11:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Then you need to tell me how PAC-10 got such crappy media deal previous to this.

No leadership and a lack of innovative ideas.

Yep, the universities were too passive, so Tom Hansen often didn't push things with network partners.

It was a very bold, sharp decision when they hired Scott.
05-04-2011 05:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
KnightLight Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,664
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 700
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-03-2011 11:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 10:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 06:58 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 06:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Colorado doesn't carry the Denver market at the moment. They want to see a decent team, and the Buffs ain't it...

I am not sure they ever will. Denver is pro sports town with Broncos getting way more attention than Buffs. This is the same for many PAC-10 markets including the Bay Area. This is definitely pro sports oriented with 49ers/Giants/Sharks/As/Raiders dominating the local markets.

I agree with Denver being a pro sports town, but there are few major markets that aren't outside of the Southeast. The threshold is more whether a college team can carry a market or interest that's at least comparable to a non-NFL pro sports team. (Comparing the NFL versus anything else is pretty much going to be landslide no matter where you are outside of maybe Jacksonville.)

In that respect, I believe Colorado fits that criteria. The Buffs aren't ever going to be more popular than the Broncos, but can they draw interest in line with the Nuggets or Avalanche? Absolutely - they've proven that before. They certainly can be counted on to deliver the Denver market and guarantee that ABC will always show a Pac-12 game there over a Big 12 game more than, say, BC delivering Boston.

One of the Pac-12's advantages that I've mentioned before but probably underestimated is that it has a complete BCS monopoly in its footprint. With the addition of Colorado and Utah, it is the only BCS league located in the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. In contrast, every other conference has to compete directly with at least 2 other BCS conferences in their respective footprints. In the case of the Big East, it's competing in the footprints with all of the other BCS conferences except for the Pac-12.

Then you need to tell me how PAC-10 got such crappy media deal previous to this. BE is screwed pretty much the same way. PAC-12 is getting paid and I have maintained that BE will get paid huge as well while some here have claimed BE is lucky to double its current $36M laughable TV contract.

1) Good pt...as the Pac-10 previously had the 2nd lowest TV deal out of the 6 BCS Conferences.

2) Can't recall many if any that thought the Big East would only make $72 Million per year....as I think the only question was how close they were going to get to the other BCS Conferences...and now with the Pac-12 earning $240 Million - $300 Million per year...the stakes are raised.

Hopefully, the Big East can get close or surpass the ACC TV deal that they signed last year which I think is around $155 Million or so per year.
05-04-2011 06:51 AM
Find all posts by this user
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #45
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-04-2011 06:51 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 11:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 10:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 06:58 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 06:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Colorado doesn't carry the Denver market at the moment. They want to see a decent team, and the Buffs ain't it...

I am not sure they ever will. Denver is pro sports town with Broncos getting way more attention than Buffs. This is the same for many PAC-10 markets including the Bay Area. This is definitely pro sports oriented with 49ers/Giants/Sharks/As/Raiders dominating the local markets.

I agree with Denver being a pro sports town, but there are few major markets that aren't outside of the Southeast. The threshold is more whether a college team can carry a market or interest that's at least comparable to a non-NFL pro sports team. (Comparing the NFL versus anything else is pretty much going to be landslide no matter where you are outside of maybe Jacksonville.)

In that respect, I believe Colorado fits that criteria. The Buffs aren't ever going to be more popular than the Broncos, but can they draw interest in line with the Nuggets or Avalanche? Absolutely - they've proven that before. They certainly can be counted on to deliver the Denver market and guarantee that ABC will always show a Pac-12 game there over a Big 12 game more than, say, BC delivering Boston.

One of the Pac-12's advantages that I've mentioned before but probably underestimated is that it has a complete BCS monopoly in its footprint. With the addition of Colorado and Utah, it is the only BCS league located in the entire Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. In contrast, every other conference has to compete directly with at least 2 other BCS conferences in their respective footprints. In the case of the Big East, it's competing in the footprints with all of the other BCS conferences except for the Pac-12.

Then you need to tell me how PAC-10 got such crappy media deal previous to this. BE is screwed pretty much the same way. PAC-12 is getting paid and I have maintained that BE will get paid huge as well while some here have claimed BE is lucky to double its current $36M laughable TV contract.

1) Good pt...as the Pac-10 previously had the 2nd lowest TV deal out of the 6 BCS Conferences.

2) Can't recall many if any that thought the Big East would only make $72 Million per year....a

There was an article last year from some media company that stated that the BE could double their tv deal. Several folks mentioned that the BE should be ecstatic about the prospect of doubling their current deal.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2011 07:12 AM by cuseroc.)
05-04-2011 07:01 AM
Find all posts by this user
ecuacc4ever Offline
Resident Geek Musician
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 239
I Root For: ACC
Location:

SkunkworksDonatorsPWNER of Scout/Rivals
Post: #46
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
Can someone make a legit clone of Larry Scott and have him immediately take over as ACC Commissioner? Like, yesterday...?
05-04-2011 07:34 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #47
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-03-2011 09:55 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 07:06 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Seriously? You are comparing CUSA to BCS conferences? I am sure even you know the difference 01-wingedeagle

Quo was disputing the statement that inventory is king. Apparently inventory is not king in that case.

Exactly. If "Inventory is King" then whether a conference is BCS-AQ or not shouldn't matter.

But as we all (except maybe Husky?) know, the reason the Big 10 gets huge bucks and C-USA doesn't, the reason it is AQ and C-USA isn't, is because of the perceived 'quality' of its schools - their history, pedigree, size, media presence, etc.
05-04-2011 07:46 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #48
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-03-2011 11:23 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  PAC-12 is showing that its their turn to get paid.

I think everyone agrees that the Big East is in line to receive a very large increase over our current deal. But since everyone else has gotten large increases as well, the relevant standard for judging the performance of our negotiators will be how much we closed the gap between our deal and those of other conferences.

Historically, i think we have benchmarked ourselves most closely to the ACC. But we might need to modify that, given that previously the ACC was on a par with the Big 12 and Pac 10 in terms of media deals, and now those conferences have surpassed them.

With the deals going up and up, we're trying to hit a moving target ...
05-04-2011 07:55 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #49
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-04-2011 07:34 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Can someone make a legit clone of Larry Scott and have him immediately take over as ACC Commissioner? Like, yesterday...?

You make a good point: Just 6 months ago, everyone was praising the ACC commissioner to high-heaven, because he landed that $155 million TV deal that boosted their per-team pay from $5 million a year to $13 million a year.

But, the Pac 10 and Big 12 have now signed deals that soar way past that, to the neighborhood of $20 million per year per school.

This matters a lot, because previously, before this latest round of deals, there were three tiers of money in the BCS: the SEC and Big 10 got the most, the Big East got the least, and the Pac 10, Big 12, and ACC were in the middle.

Now, the Pac 10 and Big 12 are in the same money range as the SEC and Big 10, getting significantly more than the ACC, so the ACC is the big loser in terms of relative dollars, and despite getting $8 million more than they previously were, it's your standing relative to the other major conferences that matter most.
05-04-2011 07:59 AM
Find all posts by this user
mattsarz Offline
TV Guide
*

Posts: 7,159
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 110
I Root For: SU, Ariz. St.
Location: Painesville, OH
Post: #50
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
Just to further the point on Hansen (and the conference presidents), some curious decsions were made that set the conference back

1) Held fast to a Thursday-Saturday scheduling rotation of conference basketball games with some exceptions. The problem with that was that FSN had an exclusive telecast window on Thursdays, when tip times are kinda limited. Schools either had to do early tip times (6:30pm MT/5:30pm PT) to get on local TV or go without TV for weeknight games. Coaches were also upset at the regional coverage that FSN provided and that the east coast sometimes was shut out of games.

2) ABC had requested in previous seasons to be able to reverse mirror Pac-10 games (ie. show a game on ESPN/ESPN2 in markets receiving Big Ten games on ABC at 3:30pm). ABC and FSN had worked out a deal for some Big 12 games, but Hansen requested double payment for games that were reverse mirrored. ABC balked. Scott has allowed ABC to mirror these games for no additional fee.

3) Until signing a limited deal with games on ESPN in 2006, no Thursday night games. It limited telecast windows. Because of the different network partners, no more than three Pac-10 games could air on TV on a Saturday. ABC and FSN could not air concurrent games starting at the same time.

4) FOX was given control of waiver requests if a team wanted to bypass the national Pac-10 game on FSN to televise the local team, even if a regional affiliate was not carrying FSN programming (ie. Oregon & Cal, who were on Comcast SportsNet affiliates that were not affiliated with FSN).

Last year Scott requested amendments to the ABC/ESPN and FSN contracts for football, allowing for ESPN and FSN telecasts for football to coexist and for more games to air on ESPN (the previous split was 12-14 on ABC, 6-8 on ESPN/ESPN2; last year was a 50-50 split). He allowed all network partners to be more flexible with their existing rights in order to maximize both the national telecasts, but to televise games on a local/regional basis.

Only one Pac-10 game last year went without TV last year. Washington St. at Arizona St. on 10/30 was not televised. It was ASU's homecoming game and decided to retain an early afternoon kickoff time that would conflict with an FSN national window. In previous season, at least 10 Pac-10 games a year would go without TV.

People ***** about "Providence", but there was some stone-age **** going on in Walnut Creek, CA too. And like I harped on in the other thread, sometimes its the ADs and presidents who can't get out of their own way.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2011 08:20 AM by mattsarz.)
05-04-2011 08:03 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #51
RE: Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year
(05-04-2011 07:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-03-2011 11:23 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  PAC-12 is showing that its their turn to get paid.

I think everyone agrees that the Big East is in line to receive a very large increase over our current deal. But since everyone else has gotten large increases as well, the relevant standard for judging the performance of our negotiators will be how much we closed the gap between our deal and those of other conferences.

Historically, i think we have benchmarked ourselves most closely to the ACC. But we might need to modify that, given that previously the ACC was on a par with the Big 12 and Pac 10 in terms of media deals, and now those conferences have surpassed them.

With the deals going up and up, we're trying to hit a moving target ...

Very well said Quo.
05-04-2011 08:08 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.