Hey guess what, I agree with both of you. I havnt even bothered to comment in this thread because it's never going to happen. I mean come on.....the brand "March Madness" is just too strong and too well recognized.

(03-04-2015 01:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Hey guess what, I agree with both of you. I havnt even bothered to comment in this thread because it's never going to happen. I mean come on.....the brand "March Madness" is just too strong and too well recognized.

Holy crap, cats and dogs living together. adcorbett, stever20, and He1nousOne all in 100% agreement...

Another thing is the explosion of growth in Summer Collegiate Baseball leagues across the country. Millions of dollars are being made off it. It's the perfect answer for communities not large enough for affiliated minor league baseball or professional leagues. It's a golden goose because it costs nothing in terms of players salaries, and colleges love it because it keeps their players playing and they don't have the costs of keeping them on campus.

(03-04-2015 01:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 01:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Hey guess what, I agree with both of you. I havnt even bothered to comment in this thread because it's never going to happen. I mean come on.....the brand "March Madness" is just too strong and too well recognized.

Holy crap, cats and dogs living together. adcorbett, stever20, and He1nousOne all in 100% agreement...

End of the world is here. if JRSEC comes in and agrees with H1, I am just leaving and going to barricade myself in a cave.

As long as it's not my cave.

These conference commissioners are also now network executives. The money that's being left on the table right now, from the conference perspective, is the cut being taken by ESPN/ABC and FOX/FS1. If the conferences and their networks want to maximize revenue (I'm sure they do) then the next step is for the conference networks to compete directly with ESPN.

The two prerequisites for competing are 1) year round programming and 2) coverage across all time zones. HBO staggers their top original programming to maximize subscriber rates, and the conference networks would like to follow suit. The academic calendar is a more palatable excuse.

That the PAC (the only conference without ESPN/FOX ownership, and the only one that doesn't rely on piggybacking its carriage) is floating this idea is no surprise.

(03-04-2015 04:04 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  These conference commissioners are also now network executives. The money that's being left on the table right now, from the conference perspective, is the cut being taken by ESPN/ABC and FOX/FS1. If the conferences and their networks want to maximize revenue (I'm sure they do) then the next step is for the conference networks to compete directly with ESPN.

The two prerequisites for competing are 1) year round programming and 2) coverage across all time zones. HBO staggers their top original programming to maximize subscriber rates, and the conference networks would like to follow suit. The academic calendar is a more palatable excuse.

That the PAC (the only conference without ESPN/FOX ownership, and the only one that doesn't rely on piggybacking its carriage) is floating this idea is no surprise.

doesn't make it any more DOA.

(03-04-2015 04:04 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  These conference commissioners are also now network executives. The money that's being left on the table right now, from the conference perspective, is the cut being taken by ESPN/ABC and FOX/FS1. If the conferences and their networks want to maximize revenue (I'm sure they do) then the next step is for the conference networks to compete directly with ESPN.

The two prerequisites for competing are 1) year round programming and 2) coverage across all time zones. HBO staggers their top original programming to maximize subscriber rates, and the conference networks would like to follow suit. The academic calendar is a more palatable excuse.

That the PAC (the only conference without ESPN/FOX ownership, and the only one that doesn't rely on piggybacking its carriage) is floating this idea is no surprise.

There is a reason ESPN threw huge dollars at SEC and ACC to head off either starting their own network and Fox did similarly with B1G.

They have investments to protect.

The colleges are a different cat in the sports world as it is.

They aren't profit maximizers in the sense that NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL are even though they certainly like to get tractor trailer loads of cash, they just aren't going to do all the stuff to get the max dollar (playoff was staved off for nearly four decades, the academic rules, limited time to play rather than permitting a popular player to stay longer if not pro viable).

But they aren't the gazillionaires running the Masters either. The Masters prides itself on cheaper face value tickets, cheaper parking than the other majors and they won't do more than a year TV deal so they maintain maximum leverage and have given in very reluctantly to most everything TV requests, and still holds TV to fewer breaks.

They exist in a weird place between the two.

If the top 65 schools totally ran their TV, it would be a different environment because they would not do a lot of the revenue maximizers the networks insist on because with the middle man cut out they (potentially) could make more money while rolling back the number of time outs and such as well as alter the schedule as they saw fit.

(03-04-2015 04:04 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  These conference commissioners are also now network executives. The money that's being left on the table right now, from the conference perspective, is the cut being taken by ESPN/ABC and FOX/FS1. If the conferences and their networks want to maximize revenue (I'm sure they do) then the next step is for the conference networks to compete directly with ESPN.

The two prerequisites for competing are 1) year round programming and 2) coverage across all time zones. HBO staggers their top original programming to maximize subscriber rates, and the conference networks would like to follow suit. The academic calendar is a more palatable excuse.

That the PAC (the only conference without ESPN/FOX ownership, and the only one that doesn't rely on piggybacking its carriage) is floating this idea is no surprise.

It's a fine line, though. That "piggybacking" on the flip side means that ESPN and Fox have much more leverage with cable operators to be able to bundle channels like the SEC Network and BTN with other high value channels (i.e. the ESPN mothership, Disney Channel, FX, Fox News, YES in the New York market, etc.), which is a benefit that the Pac-12 doesn't have right now (which has translated in much lower national carriage for the Pac-12 Network). That may become much more important as the world transitions from cable/satellite to more streaming packages (where bundling may actually become even more explicitly prevalent, i.e. you buy a streaming bundle of all Disney-owned channels, etc.).

Sure, when you take 100% of the risk, you get 100% of the upside. The problem, of course, is that you also get 100% of the downside. When a cable carrier doesn't carry the Pac-12 Network, the Pac-12 can't threaten to withhold other channels like ESPN, Disney Channel, Fox News and YES in the way that Disney and Fox are able to do. Working with ESPN and/or Fox is a very large hedge against that downside risk that may very well be more valuable to a conference than completely maximizing the upside potential. The interesting thing is that the Big Ten and SEC are actually both much more suited to 100% go it alone with their respective networks compared to the Pac-12 (which has much less leverage in its home markets for distribution).

(03-04-2015 04:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:04 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  These conference commissioners are also now network executives. The money that's being left on the table right now, from the conference perspective, is the cut being taken by ESPN/ABC and FOX/FS1. If the conferences and their networks want to maximize revenue (I'm sure they do) then the next step is for the conference networks to compete directly with ESPN.

The two prerequisites for competing are 1) year round programming and 2) coverage across all time zones. HBO staggers their top original programming to maximize subscriber rates, and the conference networks would like to follow suit. The academic calendar is a more palatable excuse.

That the PAC (the only conference without ESPN/FOX ownership, and the only one that doesn't rely on piggybacking its carriage) is floating this idea is no surprise.

It's a fine line, though. That "piggybacking" on the flip side means that ESPN and Fox have much more leverage with cable operators to be able to bundle channels like the SEC Network and BTN with other high value channels (i.e. the ESPN mothership, Disney Channel, FX, Fox News, YES in the New York market, etc.), which is a benefit that the Pac-12 doesn't have right now (which has translated in much lower national carriage for the Pac-12 Network). That may become much more important as the world transitions from cable/satellite to more streaming packages (where bundling may actually become even more explicitly prevalent, i.e. you buy a streaming bundle of all Disney-owned channels, etc.).

Sure, when you take 100% of the risk, you get 100% of the upside. The problem, of course, is that you also get 100% of the downside. When a cable carrier doesn't carry the Pac-12 Network, the Pac-12 can't threaten to withhold other channels like ESPN, Disney Channel, Fox News and YES in the way that Disney and Fox are able to do. Working with ESPN and/or Fox is a very large hedge against that downside risk that may very well be more valuable to a conference than completely maximizing the upside potential. The interesting thing is that the Big Ten and SEC are actually both much more suited to 100% go it alone with their respective networks compared to the Pac-12 (which has much less leverage in its home markets for distribution).

Yup. It will be interesting to see how the media mergers do or do not play out. PAC12 is definitely sacrificing in the short term for- I guess- the greatest amount of flexibility in what is a pretty unsteady media landscape. I wonder if the current international PAC deal with Google/YouTube isn't a better indication of where they might be heading.
https://www.youtube.com/user/pac12networksintl

Back on topic. Right now the NCAA basketball regular season starts mid-November, if we pushed it back until let's say the weekend of the conference championship games or early December. Then cut a few OOC games out and shorten the season by a week. You could realistically have the Final Four the 3rd weekend in April. That would work out as the early rounds are still without competition and only the Final Four weekend is up against the very opening of the playoffs in the NHL/NBA.

(03-04-2015 08:01 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Back on topic. Right now the NCAA basketball regular season starts mid-November, if we pushed it back until let's say the weekend of the conference championship games or early December. Then cut a few OOC games out and shorten the season by a week. You could realistically have the Final Four the 3rd weekend in April. That would work out as the early rounds are still without competition and only the Final Four weekend is up against the very opening of the playoffs in the NHL/NBA.

just a total non-starter though. this little thing called the Masters.

They aren't cutting games and they aren't pushing back the season. its completely doa.

This thread is basically looking for solutions to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

Why again is the college basketball season in need of re-scheduling?

Is it because college football fans can't pay attention to a second sport until their regular season is over? I don't understand the problem in the first place.