CSNbbs

From Jon Wilner at the Mercury News...

PAC 12 Network ratings solid for football but poor for Olympic sports

Some of these problems originate with the fact that there are 6 regional feeds instead of just one national channel. It would be less expensive that way and probably get better distribution at that.

I know PAC folks like to say that this media company has been an investment and is not merely a money-making enterprise. Well, that sounds good and all, but if business ventures aren't making money then at the end of the day that's just a crappy investment.

This experiment seems to have failed. If I'm the PAC then I'm starting with a radical reorganization of how this network operates.

Forget content additions at this point, no school outside of the G5 is going to want in on this deal unless a few Big 12 leftovers simply have no place else to go.

***Also of note, the Utah/Arizona game tonight just ended a little after 11PM local time. The attendance was about 36K. Now maybe a Friday night game isn't going to get quite the exposure a Saturday night game might get for various reasons, but the media deal the PAC has right now just plain sucks. If you're going to be forced to kick off late on a Friday night just so you can get a game on FS1 then you should at least be getting paid pretty good to do it. That is not the case.

(09-23-2017 01:20 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]From Jon Wilner at the Mercury News...

PAC 12 Network ratings solid for football but poor for Olympic sports

Some of these problems originate with the fact that there are 6 regional feeds instead of just one national channel. It would be less expensive that way and probably get better distribution at that.

I know PAC folks like to say that this media company has been an investment and is not merely a money-making enterprise. Well, that sounds good and all, but if business ventures aren't making money then at the end of the day that's just a crappy investment.

This experiment seems to have failed. If I'm the PAC then I'm starting with a radical reorganization of how this network operates.

Forget content additions at this point, no school outside of the G5 is going to want in on this deal unless a few Big 12 leftovers simply have no place else to go.

***Also of note, the Utah/Arizona game tonight just ended a little after 11PM local time. The attendance was about 36K. Now maybe a Friday night game isn't going to get quite the exposure a Saturday night game might get for various reasons, but the media deal the PAC has right now just plain sucks. If you're going to be forced to kick off late on a Friday night just so you can get a game on FS1 then you should at least be getting paid pretty good to do it. That is not the case.

IMO the only thing that pulls the PAC biscuits out of the fire now is for the conference to sell their T3 network to ESPN and push for ESPN to encourage Texas, and about 5 others from the Big 12 to join the PAC, convert the LHN into the new PACN, and let them all get paid about what the Big 12 has been being paid, 35 million plus whatever they can build the conference network into. If it is halfway profitable 42 million for the total package wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility in 3 to 5 years.

Then the SEC and Big 10 can get to work with feasting on the ACC. And if not at least there will be some balance. There's always T.C.U. for DFW and a 2nd Texas school and West Virginia who would dance a jig to get in.

And note: It has to be ESPN otherwise there will be no Texas contingent headed West.

Isn't the PAC "Network". Just a bunch of small networks similar in concept to the LHN?

(09-23-2017 09:12 AM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't the PAC "Network". Just a bunch of small networks similar in concept to the LHN?

Yes but usually two schools per PACN channel.

The whole thing is crap. If, IF the PAC wants to make money off of third tier, they need to condense all their regional channels into one PAC Network channel and sell buddies of Olympic sports packages to regional channels--similar to what the Big Ten is/will be doing.