I see here that the PAC's Larry Scott feels the same way I do about things.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-model-us/
It's not really apples to apples, but the idea holds. You can get a few million more dollars now, or you can be a free agent down the line.
I personally would like the ACC not to extend their deal and go on the market at the end of the contract, and that looks like what the PAC will do, rather than selling off part of it's network.
Many industry analysts with zero stake in the race have told me in recent years that the Pac12Nets are, at best, a mild success.
So why does Scott consider the current model optimal?
Because of these seven words:
“We are taking the longer-term view.”
And because of this:
“I look at my role as the steward of the value of the content for the members.”
Scott is aware of the fan (and campus) frustrations with Pac12Nets distribution and revenue. But whether you agree or not, his priority is the long haul – and the presidents and chancellors support that approach.
Scott believes the windfall worth waiting for, even if it means the Pac12Nets distributions lags those of the B1G and SEC networks by $50 million (or more) annually.
*** What does the long haul mean?
It could mean up to eight more years. The current Tier 1 deal with ESPN and FOX expires in the summer of 2024. When that happens, the conference will take everything it owns to the market.
In Scott’s view, the confluence of rising demand for live sports (good insight here) … and changes in media landscape … and demand for Pac-12 content … will work to create a bonanza for the conference at the negotiating table with fill-in-the-blank (ESPN, FOX, Hulu, Facebook, Google, etc).
“We want to create the most long-term value,” he said. “That’s the mission.”
Is that the right move? Scott and his consultants believe it is. There’s no way to know for sure, of course. One could argue that an unforeseen development in the ever-changing landscape could leave the Pac-12 in a sub-optimal situation.
It's hard to think of a scenario where being locked in is better than being able to go open market. The main one I guess is if you fall so far behind that it's simply too late to catch up. Less likely, but possible, is if the TV networks sign so much content that there is no longer a demand for more?
(06-16-2016 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to think of a scenario where being locked in is better than being able to go open market. The main one I guess is if you fall so far behind that it's simply too late to catch up. Less likely, but possible, is if the TV networks sign so much content that there is no longer a demand for more?
Yep, those are the two arguments for making a deal now that extends the contract. That you can't keep the gap where it is now until 2027 and it expands too far. Or that the bottom falls out of rights deals.
(06-16-2016 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to think of a scenario where being locked in is better than being able to go open market. The main one I guess is if you fall so far behind that it's simply too late to catch up. Less likely, but possible, is if the TV networks sign so much content that there is no longer a demand for more?
There is one big example of when it is better being locked in. When the market has peaked. Scott's big gamble is that he will still be able to monetize at the highest levels. That may be passing. The longer he waits now the less he earns potentially. It's wonderful to have equity all things being equal. But 100% of less is still less.
You have to factor in exposure...the ACC looks willing to give up some $$$ to receive more exposure.
(06-16-2016 03:04 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]I see here that the PAC's Larry Scott feels the same way I do about things.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-model-us/
It's not really apples to apples, but the idea holds. You can get a few million more dollars now, or you can be a free agent down the line.
I personally would like the ACC not to extend their deal and go on the market at the end of the contract, and that looks like what the PAC will do, rather than selling off part of it's network.
Many industry analysts with zero stake in the race have told me in recent years that the Pac12Nets are, at best, a mild success.
So why does Scott consider the current model optimal?
Because of these seven words:
“We are taking the longer-term view.”
And because of this:
“I look at my role as the steward of the value of the content for the members.”
Scott is aware of the fan (and campus) frustrations with Pac12Nets distribution and revenue. But whether you agree or not, his priority is the long haul – and the presidents and chancellors support that approach.
Scott believes the windfall worth waiting for, even if it means the Pac12Nets distributions lags those of the B1G and SEC networks by $50 million (or more) annually.
*** What does the long haul mean?
It could mean up to eight more years. The current Tier 1 deal with ESPN and FOX expires in the summer of 2024. When that happens, the conference will take everything it owns to the market.
In Scott’s view, the confluence of rising demand for live sports (good insight here) … and changes in media landscape … and demand for Pac-12 content … will work to create a bonanza for the conference at the negotiating table with fill-in-the-blank (ESPN, FOX, Hulu, Facebook, Google, etc).
“We want to create the most long-term value,” he said. “That’s the mission.”
Is that the right move? Scott and his consultants believe it is. There’s no way to know for sure, of course. One could argue that an unforeseen development in the ever-changing landscape could leave the Pac-12 in a sub-optimal situation.
Maybe Swofford is smarter than he is given credit for being.
(06-16-2016 05:48 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-16-2016 03:04 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]I see here that the PAC's Larry Scott feels the same way I do about things.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-model-us/
It's not really apples to apples, but the idea holds. You can get a few million more dollars now, or you can be a free agent down the line.
I personally would like the ACC not to extend their deal and go on the market at the end of the contract, and that looks like what the PAC will do, rather than selling off part of it's network.
Many industry analysts with zero stake in the race have told me in recent years that the Pac12Nets are, at best, a mild success.
So why does Scott consider the current model optimal?
Because of these seven words:
“We are taking the longer-term view.”
And because of this:
“I look at my role as the steward of the value of the content for the members.”
Scott is aware of the fan (and campus) frustrations with Pac12Nets distribution and revenue. But whether you agree or not, his priority is the long haul – and the presidents and chancellors support that approach.
Scott believes the windfall worth waiting for, even if it means the Pac12Nets distributions lags those of the B1G and SEC networks by $50 million (or more) annually.
*** What does the long haul mean?
It could mean up to eight more years. The current Tier 1 deal with ESPN and FOX expires in the summer of 2024. When that happens, the conference will take everything it owns to the market.
In Scott’s view, the confluence of rising demand for live sports (good insight here) … and changes in media landscape … and demand for Pac-12 content … will work to create a bonanza for the conference at the negotiating table with fill-in-the-blank (ESPN, FOX, Hulu, Facebook, Google, etc).
“We want to create the most long-term value,” he said. “That’s the mission.”
Is that the right move? Scott and his consultants believe it is. There’s no way to know for sure, of course. One could argue that an unforeseen development in the ever-changing landscape could leave the Pac-12 in a sub-optimal situation.
Maybe Swofford is smarter than he is given credit for being.
So we are talking about the importance of taking the longer-term view while simultaneously dismissing the importance of the benefits that could/will be gained in a partnership between the conference and the undisputed king of the sports television distribution world?
Sometimes I think we are talking about entirely separate issues. The notion that it is imperative that the ACC takes a longer-term by eskewing ESPN just doesn't make any sense.
Look, I think everyone gets that it is not in the ACC's best interest to indefinitely sign over its media distribution rights to any outside entity. It's pretty self-evident.
However, it also doesn't make sense to try to go with Netflix or Hulu or whomever when we already have a partnership with a company that already has the infrastructure in place to give us the exposure we need and whose very business model is dependent on meeting our distribution needs.
To me, the Pac-12 article is damage control. It is no secret that they took a lot of risks to start and so far those have not worked out. This is a message to their shareholders not to panic because in the long term everything will work out. Like everyone else in this rapidly changing landscape, that verdict is still very much up in the air.
The Pac12 is unique in that while they have desirable product, they are isolated. Their strength is geography, time zone, population, and B1G Bowl partnership.
They are powerful in their isolation.
The ACC is the center of attention by all its close neighbors.
Isolation buys you time. The ACC doesn't have that luxury.
Proximity issues.
The PAC is going to the open market in 2024, according to the article. The ACC is under contract till 2027 or 28. If the ACC is offered a similar deal as the SEC, we should take it. It all depends on what is offered. Would the ACC lose the $45 million a year if it declines a network offer? To make a decision you would need to know the variables. Would Clemson & FSU stick it out with the status quo if ESPN becomes upset with an ACC rejection & offers to pay the SEC to extend an invitation? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
