(06-04-2015 07:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline Was just on with @1280sports & they asked about #Pac12 expansion as means to drive future revenue (1/3)

Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline My response: No expansion b/c no good fits for splitting $$$ pie more ways & increasing size of each slice. (2/3)

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline · 14h14 hours ago
BYU & MW schools don't work on so many levels. Oklahoma was best option (w/ OSU) and that Sooner Schooner has left the station


http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Few people realize how poorly the UC's reach CA. Ohio State enrolls 50% of applicants versus UCLA's 6%. Cal and Stanford are even more selective. Todays Pac 12 would be wise to solidify Ca by inviting the Cal States.

While I agree that it would help create a larger following, there is no way they would ever invite Cal State Schools, just a totally different level academically...

Davis would probably be a better candidate. Sactowndog is right though, bc of the lack of state funding the public schools are forced to admit a larger out of state population so as cover more costs. It's costing them the ability to enlarge their in state fan base.

Take my wife's school CSUCI!!! Beautiful location.

(06-04-2015 10:13 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline Was just on with @1280sports & they asked about #Pac12 expansion as means to drive future revenue (1/3)

Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline My response: No expansion b/c no good fits for splitting $$$ pie more ways & increasing size of each slice. (2/3)

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline · 14h14 hours ago
BYU & MW schools don't work on so many levels. Oklahoma was best option (w/ OSU) and that Sooner Schooner has left the station


http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Few people realize how poorly the UC's reach CA. Ohio State enrolls 50% of applicants versus UCLA's 6%. Cal and Stanford are even more selective. Todays Pac 12 would be wise to solidify Ca by inviting the Cal States.

While I agree that it would help create a larger following, there is no way they would ever invite Cal State Schools, just a totally different level academically...

Yeah, the Pac-12 is pretty close to the Big Ten in emphasizing academics. The other UC schools are on the Pac-12 level academically, but none of them have FBS programs. The Pac-12 isn't going to budge on that front (or else they'd be going after a school like UNLV, which truly provides a brand new lucrative market without any pro sports competition).

Plus, the flip side of the UC schools having larger out-of-state enrollments is that all of the non-California Pac-12 schools are seeing massive numbers of California students:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/04/...e-20120604

Arizona, Arizona State and Oregon all had over 1000 California freshmen as of 3 years ago and that number is rising faster and faster. So, the Californians that return to LA may have their loyalties split among different Pac-12 schools (similar to how you see many grads from all of the Big Ten schools in the Chicago area).

(06-04-2015 07:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline Was just on with @1280sports & they asked about #Pac12 expansion as means to drive future revenue (1/3)

Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline My response: No expansion b/c no good fits for splitting $$$ pie more ways & increasing size of each slice. (2/3)

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline · 14h14 hours ago
BYU & MW schools don't work on so many levels. Oklahoma was best option (w/ OSU) and that Sooner Schooner has left the station


http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Few people realize how poorly the UC's reach CA. Ohio State enrolls 50% of applicants versus UCLA's 6%. Cal and Stanford are even more selective. Todays Pac 12 would be wise to solidify Ca by inviting the Cal States.

Irrelevant stat. They still have 30-40k students with a huge alumni base. And other than Fresno and SDSU, the Cal St.'s and other UC schools have fan bases you have to find with a microscope. With all their state schools, they only have 9 who haven't dropped football (2 Pac 12, 3 MWC, 3 Big Sky, 1 Div. II). California is just not big into watching HS and college sports

(06-03-2015 06:35 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:28 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 01:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  A lot of those G5 schools do get more viewers on ESPN than several ACC and a couple of PAC 12 teams. Teams like Boise State gets build up as a Cinderella story which sells big time. As it is, the P5 schools do need some of these G5 schools like Boise to get viewers. Several schools in the P5 are struggling with viewers like Miami Florida.

No, the P5 doesn't need them. That's the cold, hard truth. Boise State is a 1-in-a-million property - they are the exception. Miami might be struggling with actual attendance in the stands, but their TV value is still extremely high (and, in fact, among the highest in all of college football). To be clear, I have no personal desire to see the P5 split from the G5 and the rest of the NCAA, but the P5 absolutely does NOT somehow *need* the G5 at all at this juncture.

Besides, that wasn't my point. If the a la carte world gets pared down to only the 20 most popular channels that need to appeal to the broadest range of viewers possible, those TV executives aren't wasting their time and dollars on G5 conferences. No one gets fired for paying a lot of money for the NFL, NBA, MLB, or a power conference at a major network - even if some of the lesser games in those packages get lower ratings, they're looked at as very low risk. In contrast, paying a lot of money and/or providing good time slots to G5 conferences WILL get someone fired if the ratings don't go well.

What we'll get is what I described with the radio industry: the same 10 songs getting played over and over and over again. We see the same thing with the movie industry, where all of the large budget pictures effectively MUST be tied to a top tier existing brand (i.e. Marvel, Star Wars, DC Comics, Jurassic Park, etc.). When they don't tie to a great brand and end up underwhelming at the box office (i.e. Disney's attempts with John Carter and Tomorrowland), then heads start rolling. We'd all be more risk averse if our own jobs are on the line.

The flatter the landscape, the bigger the marquee properties look like mountains by comparison. When it comes to entertainment, the cultural landscape (fueled by the availability of options over the Internet) has effectively killed off the middle tier - you're either one of the handful of superstar properties or you in the great mass of properties that earn very little. Essentially, the "hills" in the landscape are now gone and you're either on a mountain or on flat land with little in between. The power conferences can maintain themselves as being superstar properties even in an a la carte world (even though they would prefer there to not be an a la carte world at all).

Paragraph 1: The top of the power five do not need the group of five. Who does then? It's the bottom of the power five - who need a few extra wins/competitive games to keep fans in the stands. The extra home games also keep those programs financially viable (although this is changing with the TV money).

Paragraph 2: I can follow along with this. No G5 conference makes enough money to where this is even a concern, however. Most G5 conferences are underpaid for this exact reason. "Oh look, the AAC conference game drew more than what we were expecting! Good stuff!"

Paragraph 3: We're there already. About half of the power five do not actually get great exposure - the money comes from the super-massive programs that carry the load. The number of televised college football programs could be reduced down to around 30-35 teams if it had to be.

Paragraph 4: That isn't the case in basketball, baseball, or smaller olympic sports. This mentality is confined to the college football world. The reason this exists is because the championship is pretty much a farce in how it is currently set up. The TV networks are trying to pick winners and losers when it should come down to the programs themselves.

I understand why the Ivy League has decided to not even bother with FBS.

Only the MWC that got a lot of money because of Boise State, and how many teams they got in bowl games and in the basketball tournament. MWC needs to get rid of San Jose State and UNLV, and bring back BYU and UTEP. This conference would be stronger in both football and basketball.
Besides, Boise State is already an affiliate in the PAC 12 for wrestling.

1. BYU doesn't want to be there, and there is no financial or football incentive for them to be.

2. How is getting rid of UNLV helping them in basketball? In football, exchanging them for UTEP is a wash

(06-04-2015 10:13 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline Was just on with @1280sports & they asked about #Pac12 expansion as means to drive future revenue (1/3)

Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline My response: No expansion b/c no good fits for splitting $$$ pie more ways & increasing size of each slice. (2/3)

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline · 14h14 hours ago
BYU & MW schools don't work on so many levels. Oklahoma was best option (w/ OSU) and that Sooner Schooner has left the station


http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Few people realize how poorly the UC's reach CA. Ohio State enrolls 50% of applicants versus UCLA's 6%. Cal and Stanford are even more selective. Todays Pac 12 would be wise to solidify Ca by inviting the Cal States.

While I agree that it would help create a larger following, there is no way they would ever invite Cal State Schools, just a totally different level academically...

I agree they are prisoners of their own elitism and it hurts them in CA. If the Big 12 ever chose to expand into CA they could grab a big chunk of the state.

(06-04-2015 10:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline Was just on with @1280sports & they asked about #Pac12 expansion as means to drive future revenue (1/3)

Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline My response: No expansion b/c no good fits for splitting $$$ pie more ways & increasing size of each slice. (2/3)

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline · 14h14 hours ago
BYU & MW schools don't work on so many levels. Oklahoma was best option (w/ OSU) and that Sooner Schooner has left the station


http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Few people realize how poorly the UC's reach CA. Ohio State enrolls 50% of applicants versus UCLA's 6%. Cal and Stanford are even more selective. Todays Pac 12 would be wise to solidify Ca by inviting the Cal States.

Irrelevant stat. They still have 30-40k students with a huge alumni base. And other than Fresno and SDSU, the Cal St.'s and other UC schools have fan bases you have to find with a microscope. With all their state schools, they only have 9 who haven't dropped football (2 Pac 12, 3 MWC, 3 Big Sky, 1 Div. II). California is just not big into watching HS and college sports

The vast majority of students in CA go to a Cal State. Much of football drop in college has to do with the Cal Now consent decree. Unless you know the terms of that you are missing significant data.

(06-04-2015 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:13 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline Was just on with @1280sports & they asked about #Pac12 expansion as means to drive future revenue (1/3)

Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline My response: No expansion b/c no good fits for splitting $$$ pie more ways & increasing size of each slice. (2/3)

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline · 14h14 hours ago
BYU & MW schools don't work on so many levels. Oklahoma was best option (w/ OSU) and that Sooner Schooner has left the station


http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Few people realize how poorly the UC's reach CA. Ohio State enrolls 50% of applicants versus UCLA's 6%. Cal and Stanford are even more selective. Todays Pac 12 would be wise to solidify Ca by inviting the Cal States.

While I agree that it would help create a larger following, there is no way they would ever invite Cal State Schools, just a totally different level academically...

Yeah, the Pac-12 is pretty close to the Big Ten in emphasizing academics. The other UC schools are on the Pac-12 level academically, but none of them have FBS programs. The Pac-12 isn't going to budge on that front (or else they'd be going after a school like UNLV, which truly provides a brand new lucrative market without any pro sports competition).

Plus, the flip side of the UC schools having larger out-of-state enrollments is that all of the non-California Pac-12 schools are seeing massive numbers of California students:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/04/...e-20120604

Arizona, Arizona State and Oregon all had over 1000 California freshmen as of 3 years ago and that number is rising faster and faster. So, the Californians that return to LA may have their loyalties split among different Pac-12 schools (similar to how you see many grads from all of the Big Ten schools in the Chicago area).

It's not just other Pac 12 schools they are going to. Most good or very good students who want a P5 football experience have to go out of state. Schools like TCU are also seeing a surge in CA enrollees.

The Pac-12 UC schools are significantly more selective in their undergrad programs than the Big 10 schools.

(08-07-2014 05:59 PM)goofus Wrote:  When are the Pac-12 and Big-12 going to realize they should just merge.

Give West Virginia an escape option to join the ACC, then the rest can form a happy 21-team conference.

either that, or USC-Stanford-Cal-UCLA will one day realize, maybe the B1G is where it's at....

Just curious how much Oregon State and Washington State add....

(06-03-2015 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 01:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  A lot of those G5 schools do get more viewers on ESPN than several ACC and a couple of PAC 12 teams. Teams like Boise State gets build up as a Cinderella story which sells big time. As it is, the P5 schools do need some of these G5 schools like Boise to get viewers. Several schools in the P5 are struggling with viewers like Miami Florida.

No, the P5 doesn't need them. That's the cold, hard truth. Boise State is a 1-in-a-million property - they are the exception. Miami might be struggling with actual attendance in the stands, but their TV value is still extremely high (and, in fact, among the highest in all of college football). To be clear, I have no personal desire to see the P5 split from the G5 and the rest of the NCAA, but the P5 absolutely does NOT somehow *need* the G5 at all at this juncture.

Besides, that wasn't my point. If the a la carte world gets pared down to only the 20 most popular channels that need to appeal to the broadest range of viewers possible, those TV executives aren't wasting their time and dollars on G5 conferences. No one gets fired for paying a lot of money for the NFL, NBA, MLB, or a power conference at a major network - even if some of the lesser games in those packages get lower ratings, they're looked at as very low risk. In contrast, paying a lot of money and/or providing good time slots to G5 conferences WILL get someone fired if the ratings don't go well.

What we'll get is what I described with the radio industry: the same 10 songs getting played over and over and over again. We see the same thing with the movie industry, where all of the large budget pictures effectively MUST be tied to a top tier existing brand (i.e. Marvel, Star Wars, DC Comics, Jurassic Park, etc.). When they don't tie to a great brand and end up underwhelming at the box office (i.e. Disney's attempts with John Carter and Tomorrowland), then heads start rolling. We'd all be more risk averse if our own jobs are on the line.

The flatter the landscape, the bigger the marquee properties look like mountains by comparison. When it comes to entertainment, the cultural landscape (fueled by the availability of options over the Internet) has effectively killed off the middle tier - you're either one of the handful of superstar properties or you in the great mass of properties that earn very little. Essentially, the "hills" in the landscape are now gone and you're either on a mountain or on flat land with little in between. The power conferences can maintain themselves as being superstar properties even in an a la carte world (even though they would prefer there to not be an a la carte world at all).

Unless the PAC 12 and ACC step up, I think you're going to see the SEC and B1G take over as the two competing labels....

It's monopoly....the SEC and B1G still have valuable properties to add. Who does the PAC 12 have to add? If Texas isn't coming, then its worthless....

(06-04-2015 12:54 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:13 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 07:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline Was just on with @1280sports & they asked about #Pac12 expansion as means to drive future revenue (1/3)

Jon WilnerVerified account
‏@wilnerhotline My response: No expansion b/c no good fits for splitting $$$ pie more ways & increasing size of each slice. (2/3)

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline · 14h14 hours ago
BYU & MW schools don't work on so many levels. Oklahoma was best option (w/ OSU) and that Sooner Schooner has left the station


http://1280thezone.com/index.php/story/r...rts_writer

Few people realize how poorly the UC's reach CA. Ohio State enrolls 50% of applicants versus UCLA's 6%. Cal and Stanford are even more selective. Todays Pac 12 would be wise to solidify Ca by inviting the Cal States.

While I agree that it would help create a larger following, there is no way they would ever invite Cal State Schools, just a totally different level academically...

Yeah, the Pac-12 is pretty close to the Big Ten in emphasizing academics. The other UC schools are on the Pac-12 level academically, but none of them have FBS programs. The Pac-12 isn't going to budge on that front (or else they'd be going after a school like UNLV, which truly provides a brand new lucrative market without any pro sports competition).

Plus, the flip side of the UC schools having larger out-of-state enrollments is that all of the non-California Pac-12 schools are seeing massive numbers of California students:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/04/...e-20120604

Arizona, Arizona State and Oregon all had over 1000 California freshmen as of 3 years ago and that number is rising faster and faster. So, the Californians that return to LA may have their loyalties split among different Pac-12 schools (similar to how you see many grads from all of the Big Ten schools in the Chicago area).

It's not just other Pac 12 schools they are going to. Most good or very good students who want a P5 football experience have to go out of state. Schools like TCU are also seeing a surge in CA enrollees.

The Pac-12 UC schools are significantly more selective in their undergrad programs than the Big 10 schools.

"P5 football experience"----I know a young man who's a genius. His last 2 school choices were Rice and Oregon St. He chose Oregon st for the "P5 experience" bawhahahahaha. Wait sorry, bawhahahaha.. I'll be serious now and uh...bawhahahahahaha

(06-04-2015 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, the Pac-12 is pretty close to the Big Ten in emphasizing academics. The other UC schools are on the Pac-12 level academically, but none of them have FBS programs. The Pac-12 isn't going to budge on that front (or else they'd be going after a school like UNLV, which truly provides a brand new lucrative market without any pro sports competition).

PAC 12 already does fine in the Las Vegas market. Adding UNLV wouldn't add much that the PAC 12 doesn't already have in Vegas...P12 network subscriptions might see a slight bump. The PAC 12 and BYU have more motivation to get the 60K-seat, state-of-art stadium in Vegas than UNLV does.

(06-03-2015 10:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-02-2015 08:13 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  So, what is the purpose to try and create new Networks for sports when cable companies are dropping these channels to help keep costs down? We lost the Viacom Channels for Longhorn and SEC Networks. The customers are right, and they should have a say what they want and do not want. Why does ESPN, PAC 12, and all these conferences and tv networks say what should be on tv and not on tv of the subscribers. Just keep the football games on the regular channels and stop creating these networks. There are a lot of backlash right now with these new Networks for conferences and so forth.

It's sort of a catch-22. The #1 reason why non-sports fans complain about the cost of cable is the existence of sports channels. However, the #1 reason why cable/satellite retains the subscribers that they have are sports fans that want the sports channels. So, sports channels (at least the ones with marquee properties) still have the most leverage in the cable industry. Very few people will cancel their subscriptions because of the lack of Viacom channels, but dropping (or not carrying) a popular sports channel has shown to cause people to act.

Now, we can argue that this model needs to fundamentally change, but consumers need to understand that they're not really going to have choices if it shakes out the way that they supposedly say that they want it to. Only the very top brands would survive in that environment (essentially, the basic cable package from 1990 consisting of ESPN, Disney Channel, MTV, USA, the Turner networks, etc.). Sure, you can have a lot of lower quality choices (i.e. the stuff being uploaded to YouTube) and well-subsidized platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime can some provide content as long as shareholders are just focused on subscriber growth instead of profits. However, the "choices" of 200-plus cable channels only exist because of the basic cable model. Without the basic cable model, the "choices" will be pared down to a more mainstream vanilla 20 or so choices.

Think of the radio today. There's more music available ever on paper because of the Internet, but mainstream radio stations actually play about half as many songs in their rotations than they did 20 years ago (i.e. where a top 40 station would play almost all of the top 40 in their rotations back in the 1990s, you now only hear the same 15 to 20 songs over and over and over again on the radio). This applies across all genres, whether it's top 40 (which is now a misnomer as they're basically now just top 20 or even top 10 stations), classic rock, country, etc. The irony of an iTunes/Pandora/Spotify world where you have millions of more songs available instantly is that it has caused mainstream radio stations to focus on only the same small handful of the most popular songs at the very top of the charts. The wide and instantaneous availability of so much music has made the mainstream appeal of a very small handful of superstars much more valuable to radio at the *complete* expense of anyone that doesn't carry 100% mainstream popularity. In turn, that small handful of superstars is the only group that makes any real money making music anymore and nearly all of that money is from tours. Even freaking U2 gave away its latest album for free to everyone with an iTunes account because downloads make so little money for artists now! (And the funny thing is that people COMPLAINED! Could you imagine how differently it would be perceived if U2 mailed millions of people a free copy of The Joshua Tree back in the 1980s?)

So, even those that would love to call schadenfreude on the Big Ten and SEC and see their respective cable networks collapse need to understand that if we live in a world with only 20 or so mainstream vanilla cable channels, guess which conferences are the ones that have enough viewership to get placement onto those mainstream vanilla cable channels? Hint: it ain't the MAC. The Big Ten and SEC are the college sports equivalent of the latest Taylor Swift song on the radio. Say goodbye to the indie bands (i.e. the G5 conferences) on any sort of mainstream TV in that scenario - they'll get to live in a world based on a tiny portion of a 99 cent download from a small number of hardcore fans after Apple or Google takes their cut. I know that's exactly what the G5 fans advocating cord cutting are hoping for, right?

I'll be honest with you. I really don't give a damn a this point. I suspect most g5 fans feel the same way. All we really want is to be able to see our games. If the only way that can happen is via the internet for peanuts so be it at least week get our Saturday afternoon games back.

As for the rest of your long winded post, it just proves how ******* fat, stupid and lazy most of America has become.

Fwiw, Indy bands never got on big radio just like no G5 ever gets a decent Saturday timeslot OTA or on ESPN1.

(06-03-2015 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What we'll get is what I described with the radio industry: the same 10 songs getting played over and over and over again.

Lmfao, that's what we've already got. Bama, OSU, Michigan, FSU, USC.... Same ******* rotation basically with an NCSU or VT types on Thursdays while you lazy bastards keep lapping it up.

When is the last time the Illlini got a prime football slot? I honestly can't recall it ever happening.

(06-04-2015 05:24 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, the Pac-12 is pretty close to the Big Ten in emphasizing academics. The other UC schools are on the Pac-12 level academically, but none of them have FBS programs. The Pac-12 isn't going to budge on that front (or else they'd be going after a school like UNLV, which truly provides a brand new lucrative market without any pro sports competition).

PAC 12 already does fine in the Las Vegas market. Adding UNLV wouldn't add much that the PAC 12 doesn't already have in Vegas...P12 network subscriptions might see a slight bump. The PAC 12 and BYU have more motivation to get the 60K-seat, state-of-art stadium in Vegas than UNLV does.

If Pac-12 was doing fine they would have more viewers and be carried on Direct TV. But that isn't their priority so they will lag the others. It is easier for me to get Big 10 and SEC games than Pac-12 games and I live in Sac area.

(06-03-2015 10:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even freaking U2 gave away its latest album for free to everyone with an iTunes account because downloads make so little money for artists now! (And the funny thing is that people COMPLAINED! Could you imagine how differently it would be perceived if U2 mailed millions of people a free copy of The Joshua Tree back in the 1980s?)

That's not why people complained.

C-H-O-I-C-E. People want it.

When you don't give them one, you risk quite a lot.

Maybe the better comparison would be adding the Radiohead's In Rainbows gimmick. It was downloaded, but will anyone get a straight answer as to its profitability and success? It definitely made money, but what really bothered executives and maybe the band was that the projections and expectations were nowhere close to what actually happened. There was definitely no control. U2, their label, Apple...they wanted that.

The current model is SoI, and it sucks (heh, just like the album). Ala-carte is IR, and is just too unpredictable.

Any heat I have toward the matter is at how ridiculous PAC-12 schools and the commissioner are for selling out its audience for specific services. It's bad enough games are bludgeoned and elongated by the sort of advertising and whatnot its endured, but Scott wanted people to specifically go out and get the provider they worked with, meaning, these schools, who don't pay taxes, call you for money, charge you an arm and a leg if you want to get in on watching the games live, including watching games stop so they can collect more money from advertising, and now tell you to spend more on something because they decided to take that choice away from you? I'm soooo happy the PAC isn't making major bank from this thing. On top of its other mistakes (backing out of B1G-PAC, turning away Oklahoma and OSU, and sluggishly moving on conference sponsorship of new sports), I'm loving this. It's the embarrassment greed deserves.

(06-05-2015 07:30 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 10:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even freaking U2 gave away its latest album for free to everyone with an iTunes account because downloads make so little money for artists now! (And the funny thing is that people COMPLAINED! Could you imagine how differently it would be perceived if U2 mailed millions of people a free copy of The Joshua Tree back in the 1980s?)

That's not why people complained.

C-H-O-I-C-E. People want it.

When you don't give them one, you risk quite a lot.

Maybe the better comparison would be adding the Radiohead's In Rainbows gimmick. It was downloaded, but will anyone get a straight answer as to its profitability and success? It definitely made money, but what really bothered executives and maybe the band was that the projections and expectations were nowhere close to what actually happened. There was definitely no control. U2, their label, Apple...they wanted that.

The current model is SoI, and it sucks (heh, just like the album). Ala-carte is IR, and is just too unpredictable.

Any heat I have toward the matter is at how ridiculous PAC-12 schools and the commissioner are for selling out its audience for specific services. It's bad enough games are bludgeoned and elongated by the sort of advertising and whatnot its endured, but Scott wanted people to specifically go out and get the provider they worked with, meaning, these schools, who don't pay taxes, call you for money, charge you an arm and a leg if you want to get in on watching the games live, including watching games stop so they can collect more money from advertising, and now tell you to spend more on something because they decided to take that choice away from you? I'm soooo happy the PAC isn't making major bank from this thing. On top of its other mistakes (backing out of B1G-PAC, turning away Oklahoma and OSU, and sluggishly moving on conference sponsorship of new sports), I'm loving this. It's the embarrassment greed deserves.

I'm thrilled to death at Scotts struggles as well. He took the job 5 years ago with b@@ls so big he had a hard time walking on to the press stage. PAC College football fans in China? PAC getting 100 mil subscribers? He's so full of sh!t and he's the WORST commissioner in college football. Craig Thompson (mwc) Mike Aresco (AAC) Karl Benson (SB) suck too but nothing is as bad as the predictions and boasts Scott has made and eventually PAC ADs will whack him. They are already starting to suspect he is full of feces.

(06-04-2015 07:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 05:24 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, the Pac-12 is pretty close to the Big Ten in emphasizing academics. The other UC schools are on the Pac-12 level academically, but none of them have FBS programs. The Pac-12 isn't going to budge on that front (or else they'd be going after a school like UNLV, which truly provides a brand new lucrative market without any pro sports competition).

PAC 12 already does fine in the Las Vegas market. Adding UNLV wouldn't add much that the PAC 12 doesn't already have in Vegas...P12 network subscriptions might see a slight bump. The PAC 12 and BYU have more motivation to get the 60K-seat, state-of-art stadium in Vegas than UNLV does.

If Pac-12 was doing fine they would have more viewers and be carried on Direct TV. But that isn't their priority so they will lag the others. It is easier for me to get Big 10 and SEC games than Pac-12 games and I live in Sac area.

The PAC 12 Network actually has 26 million subscribers and charges 80 cents per. The Big Ten Network has 58 million subscribers at an average of 44 cents per. Both are doing fine. Silly topic.

(06-05-2015 09:32 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm thrilled to death at Scotts struggles as well. He took the job 5 years ago with b@@ls so big he had a hard time walking on to the press stage. PAC College football fans in China? PAC getting 100 mil subscribers? He's so full of sh!t and he's the WORST commissioner in college football. Craig Thompson (mwc) Mike Aresco (AAC) Karl Benson (SB) suck too but nothing is as bad as the predictions and boasts Scott has made and eventually PAC ADs will whack him. They are already starting to suspect he is full of feces.

Ironic that he could get tossed out because the morons he works for can't make good decisions with which he can work. Larry didn't turn away the Oklahomas, walk away from B1G-PAC, and can't make schools field other programs for additional content. Telling fans to potentially give up more money so they can watch these schools play because the schools felt they should make even more money, Scott's merely a voice for twelve other buttheads who just think they're entitled to your wallet.

At some point, one has to ask...what are these places really giving back to folks?