http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-c...t-deficit/

Quote:WSU took in $43,112,605 in operating revenue in 2015 – $314,212 less than the year before. This stems in part from a $400,901 decrease in contributions.

The Cougars also took in significantly less in Pac-12 Networks distribution revenue — $1.4 million – than they had hoped. WSU originally had projected the Pac-12 Networks’ distribution revenue at around $5 million or $6 million per school.

“We were being optimistic trying to compare it to the Big Ten Network, even though their footprint is significantly larger, because we own 100 percent of ours and they own 49 percent of their network,” Moos said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “They grew very fast, to almost $10 million per school. We were looking conservatively, by now, being at about $5 or $6 million. We thought that was fairly realistic.”

Still, things haven’t gone as well for the Pac-12 Networks as hoped, and the fact that the conference has yet to reach a deal with DirecTV remains a sticking point, and the subject of ongoing negotiations.

Moos, who has said he likes the conference having full ownership of its network, also mentioned that it has explored the possibility of taking the network to the open market.

“We’re optimistic that (Pac-12 Networks distribution) number will grow, but there’s also the prospect of going at this in a different manner, which might include going to market not unlike the SEC Network and Big Ten,” Moos said. “We’ve had discussions with the presidents to some degree, to look at some of the advantages and disadvantages. It’s something we’re exploring. It’s an option.”

The last paragraph is the most interesting, IMHO.

unfortunately for the PAC 12 their method of 100% ownership has pretty much killed the option of "going to market" and getting a partner

it is pretty clear there is no actual demand for the product and the only thing possible that a "partner" would bring would be the ability to do like ESPN did and threaten to withhold ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels from cable MSOs unless they also take the PAC12n (or the SECn or the LHN)

and it is just that "cramming" that is moving people off of cable and on to other methods of getting things to watch because they simply refuse to pay more money for more and more things they have no interest in watching

the PAC 12 lives under this foolish concept that people are out there clamoring for their network and mean evil cable and dish providers are refusing to give the people what they want

when of course we know that is not true because the PAC 12 and Dish Network ran a campaign specifically against Direct TV asking subscribers to switch to get the PAC12n and the answer from Direct TV and their subscribers was "meh"

then the narrative was "well wait until AT&T buys Direct TV they know the value of the PAC12n" and the answer from AT&T was to give the PAC 12 such a poor offer to carry the PAC12n on Direct TV that the PAC 12 did not even vote on it

and I believe I read (too lazy to look it up) that AT&T was also including some revisions to the contracts that AT&T had for terrestrial cable systems they own that carry the PAC12n (in AT&Ts favor of course) and possibly AT&T taking some "ownership" in the PAC12n in exchange for them trying to get better carriage

even worse for the PAC 12 is most of the "value" of the network is things that any "partner" already has like TV broadcast trucks, studio space, talking heads, "executives", sales teams and the like.....ESPN and Fox and most others need none of that it would all just be duplication for them and unneeded expenses for something that THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN ON and really DOES NOT WANT to watch or pay for

and when 56% of people surveyed said they would gladly drop ESPN and ESPN II to save $5 dollars a month on their cable bill we are pretty much approaching the time when cable MSOs take a stand and tell ESPN "fine we will go without ESPN, ESPN II, ABC and Disney Channels for a few months and lets see who blinks first"

and when ESPN/Disney Channels are taking in $6 dollars + per month well a cable MSO with 10 million subscribers would be costing ESPN/Disney $60 million per month in that stand off

while the MSO might take a hit as well that is quite a large amount of money for ESPN/Disney to eat to try and cram something like the PAC12n onto subscribers when it is clear that a huge number of people have no interest in it and 56% of the people have no interest in ESPN and ESPN II

and you can rent Disney crap on DVD or Netflix and little kids don't know the difference

the PAc 12 has no leverage and no market and the market has spoken clearly and loudly and their assets are assets that pretty much any partner already has

(03-15-2016 09:36 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-c...t-deficit/

Quote:WSU took in $43,112,605 in operating revenue in 2015 – $314,212 less than the year before. This stems in part from a $400,901 decrease in contributions.

The Cougars also took in significantly less in Pac-12 Networks distribution revenue — $1.4 million – than they had hoped. WSU originally had projected the Pac-12 Networks’ distribution revenue at around $5 million or $6 million per school.

“We were being optimistic trying to compare it to the Big Ten Network, even though their footprint is significantly larger, because we own 100 percent of ours and they own 49 percent of their network,” Moos said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “They grew very fast, to almost $10 million per school. We were looking conservatively, by now, being at about $5 or $6 million. We thought that was fairly realistic.”

Still, things haven’t gone as well for the Pac-12 Networks as hoped, and the fact that the conference has yet to reach a deal with DirecTV remains a sticking point, and the subject of ongoing negotiations.

Moos, who has said he likes the conference having full ownership of its network, also mentioned that it has explored the possibility of taking the network to the open market.

“We’re optimistic that (Pac-12 Networks distribution) number will grow, but there’s also the prospect of going at this in a different manner, which might include going to market not unlike the SEC Network and Big Ten,” Moos said. “We’ve had discussions with the presidents to some degree, to look at some of the advantages and disadvantages. It’s something we’re exploring. It’s an option.”

The last paragraph is the most interesting, IMHO.

They do have some good Tier 3 content at least. Don't see a big bid for their network in the open market.

I wonder if the Pac 12 could get ESPN to take it and create a ACC-PAC network. For football Saturdays, you could have something like the following:

Noon ET/9:00 AM PT - Louisville vs. Boston College
3:30 PM ET/12:30 PM PT - Wake Forest vs. Georgia Tech
7:00 PM ET/4:00 PM PT - Oregon State vs. Utah
10:30 PM ET/7:30 PM PT - Washington State vs. California

Basketball season could actually look something like this on the weekends.

Noon ET/9:00 AM PT - Miami (FL) vs. Georgia Tech
2:00 PM ET/11:00 AM PT - Pittsburgh vs. Notre Dame
4:00 PM ET/1:00 PM PT - Arizona State vs. Washington
6:30 PM ET/3:30 PM PT - Utah vs. Stanford
8:30 PM ET/5:30 PM PT - Duke vs. North Carolina State
10:30 PM ET/7:30 PM PT - UCLA vs. Oregon

(03-15-2016 11:17 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I wonder if the Pac 12 could get ESPN to take it and create a ACC-PAC network. For football Saturdays, you could have something like the following:

Noon ET/9:00 AM PT - Louisville vs. Boston College
3:30 PM ET/12:30 PM PT - Wake Forest vs. Georgia Tech
7:00 PM ET/4:00 PM PT - Oregon State vs. Utah
10:30 PM ET/7:30 PM PT - Washington State vs. California

Basketball season could actually look something like this on the weekends.

Noon ET/9:00 AM PT - Miami (FL) vs. Georgia Tech
2:00 PM ET/11:00 AM PT - Pittsburgh vs. Notre Dame
4:00 PM ET/1:00 PM PT - Arizona State vs. Washington
6:30 PM ET/3:30 PM PT - Utah vs. Stanford
8:30 PM ET/5:30 PM PT - Duke vs. North Carolina State
10:30 PM ET/7:30 PM PT - UCLA vs. Oregon

ESPN could also create a new river rivalry. Have the PAC 12 add 2 MWC teams. Boise State and San Diego State. Boise State could play against Washington State to have the Snake River Shootout. Boise State fans could help fill the stands in Pullman since it would be a short travel. It could create a great rivalry game with Boise State against Washington, Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State.
Then have Boise State vs Virginia Tech and so forth. Could there be a future game between Notre Dame and Boise State in the future?

Title of this thread keeps messing with my head.

The SEC and B1G are college football. Their networks have succeeded. The BigXII has too limited of a footprint to succeed no matter who they add. Distributors can use pro-sports programming (Sunday ticket) to beat down carriage fees and distribution for PAC and ACC regions due to the greater relative popularity of professional sports in those footprints. If schools in the BigXII, ACC, and PAC want that network money, they're going to have to hope for B1G and SEC expansion. Alternately, a block including UT and OU could move to the ACC or PAC and give either a much needed college-first market.We don't have a P5 and a G5. We have a P2, 3 midmajor conferences, and then the minor conferences (Go5).