CSNbbs

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

pretty much cements the idea that (at least for ESPN) the value of the PAC12n as it stands now is zero

there is no indication that the extension of the media rights included any bump in money (other than probably the same scaling it has now) and the ACC and SEC SEC SEC (the SEC SEC SEC never shy about talking about money) never indicated they got more money for their extensions that were associated with a network (but the ACC got LOOKINS!!!!!!!)

plus we do not know if "taking over distribution" included taking over production that would be a big cost savings to the PAC12n.....the way this reads with "distribution" and the fact that the PAC 12 turned it down would lead me to believe they would still be on the hook for production because if they were off the hook for that well the cost savings would be massive after ESPN started firing people

but perhaps IF ESPN was taking over production they wanted wanted 100% of any cost savings for themselves plus I am sure they wanted a large % of any new distribution dollars generated if they could force carriage

if it was a straight ESPN takes over distribution and the PAC 12 stays on the hook for production and ESPN got a large % of the increased distribution income I can see (to a degree) why the PAC 12 turned it down because they are forgoing a lot of potential income with a rights extension that probably only continues at the same growth rate (probably about a little less than $1 million per team per year)

the other issues is with no extension from Fox unless ESPN was guarantying to pick up those Fox rights in the future and continue a similar scale up yearly that leaves those rights and their value dangling in the wind

Fox actually stepped up and wanted the Big 10 first tier rights and out bid ESPN for those and left second tier content on the table for ESPN....if Fox had an interest in that PAC 12 first tier content in the future instead of the second tier then the PAC 12 may well have found themselves locked into a less lucrative offer with ESPN AND Fox not really wanting to pay a lot for the second tier (or not wanting them at all) and then ESPN or others could snag them on the cheap which would be a real blow

of course in 6 years this could look like a terrible deal if the PAC 12 tier 1 and 2 rights do not get a big increase

(03-25-2019 11:42 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]pretty much cements the idea that (at least for ESPN) the value of the PAC12n as it stands now is zero

there is no indication that the extension of the media rights included any bump in money (other than probably the same scaling it has now) and the ACC and SEC SEC SEC (the SEC SEC SEC never shy about talking about money) never indicated they got more money for their extensions that were associated with a network (but the ACC got LOOKINS!!!!!!!)

plus we do not know if "taking over distribution" included taking over production that would be a big cost savings to the PAC12n.....the way this reads with "distribution" and the fact that the PAC 12 turned it down would lead me to believe they would still be on the hook for production because if they were off the hook for that well the cost savings would be massive after ESPN started firing people

but perhaps IF ESPN was taking over production they wanted wanted 100% of any cost savings for themselves plus I am sure they wanted a large % of any new distribution dollars generated if they could force carriage

if it was a straight ESPN takes over distribution and the PAC 12 stays on the hook for production and ESPN got a large % of the increased distribution income I can see (to a degree) why the PAC 12 turned it down because they are forgoing a lot of potential income with a rights extension that probably only continues at the same growth rate (probably about a little less than $1 million per team per year)

the other issues is with no extension from Fox unless ESPN was guarantying to pick up those Fox rights in the future and continue a similar scale up yearly that leaves those rights and their value dangling in the wind

Fox actually stepped up and wanted the Big 10 first tier rights and out bid ESPN for those and left second tier content on the table for ESPN....if Fox had an interest in that PAC 12 first tier content in the future instead of the second tier then the PAC 12 may well have found themselves locked into a less lucrative offer with ESPN AND Fox not really wanting to pay a lot for the second tier (or not wanting them at all) and then ESPN or others could snag them on the cheap which would be a real blow

of course in 6 years this could look like a terrible deal if the PAC 12 tier 1 and 2 rights do not get a big increase

Your post is pretty much right, except for the Big Ten.... Fox doesn't have Big Ten first tier rights. It's pretty damn close to 50/50. ESPN is guaranteed the perceived 2nd best game every single season.... There were 8 Big Ten regular season games over 5 million viewers last year, and ABC got 4 and Fox got 4.

The ONE investor who could've ADDED VALUE to the PTN... turned down to chase i-dollars (that's math shorthand for imaginary)

Correct me if wrong but AAC 83M and PAC-12 30M

(03-25-2019 01:14 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if wrong but AAC 83M and PAC-12 30M

AAC $1 Billion! total....$83.33 million per year AVERAGE over 12 years for 12 teams for a yearly AVERAGE per team of $6.91 million

PAC 12 $3 Billion over 12 years for an AVERAGE per year of $250 million or an AVERAGE per team per year of $20.83 million

(03-25-2019 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

I think that's highly doubtful.

What Larry Scott and company just did was guarantee that the PAC Networks will flounder for several more years and that the PAC will continue to fall further behind on the off chance they get lucky in a few years.

Yes, they will go to open market, and if they think they're going to get distribution for the PAC Networks without a partner like ESPN taking control then they are totally fooling themselves.

More to the point, I can understand why they might hope that a large tech giant is coming to save them, but what is the PAC 12 worth to a company like Amazon or Google? Yes, they have more cash than Disney and could afford to pay more...that doesn't mean it would be a wise investment for them because it's not their core business. Either way, the PAC 12's exposure would lag with partners like that carrying major chunks of rights. They don't seem to care about that though.

In this business, you can deal with ESPN, FOX, and now maybe Warner Media(Turner). CBS and NBC don't dive deep into college sports so I'm not really including them. Warner Media is a maybe just because we don't know for certain what their new approach will be.

So in a few years, they're still going to have to give up control of the PAC Networks if they want good distribution, but now they've lost a few years worth of money/exposure. What did they gain?

In a few years, they will go to open market right around the same time the Big Ten, Big 12, and the SEC's 1st tier will. The quality of PAC 12 money sports is not in a good place right now. Is the PAC more desirable than any of those other leagues?

The Big East rebuffed an offer from ESPN and decided to go to the open market. They found out no one really wanted their content for what ESPN was offering. That's an extreme example, but it is not far-fetched at all to conclude the PAC won't get a truly competitive offer in a few years.

(03-25-2019 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

I suspect you have a very short term memory on this one Quo. It's the same song and dance as to why the PAC would only lease rights to FOX and ESPN and wanted total control of the PACN when it launched. They were going to make millions off of Asian distribution and control 100% of their own network profits remember? Now they pay 2-3 million a year to their schools for a network when the ACCN will double that in its first year and the PACN has been around how long now?

What's more is that their viewership numbers continue to flag. There goes the real gravy train which isn't carriage fees but ad revenue.

BTW: For the other posters ESPN's conference network model assumes the overhead and splits the profits 50/50. What is one of the PAC's biggest nightmares right now? Overhead. They can't run their own model efficiently. Personnel, office space, and production is killing them.

No sir, Larry Scott didn't get this one right at all, but what the hell, he didn't get the last one right either.

The PAC will never make enough off of streaming to do more than benefit a couple of their schools while the rest suffer which puts them exactly in the same destructive situation the LHN created in the Big 12.

So the only positive coming out of this for the PAC is that the refusal didn't immediately screw up their revenue sharing model, but streaming will if that is the avenue they pursue. Those schools selling the most views of games via streaming will get very hard to please in a revenue sharing model where 9 or 10 schools don't pull their weight.

The proper thing for Scott to have done is to make a counter offer and try to haggle out a slightly better 2nd offer from ESPN. And he should have immediately asked FOX if they were interested as well. But of course if they weren't he would have lost leverage. And the fact that he didn't is really interesting to me.

(03-25-2019 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

I suspect you have a very short term memory on this one Quo. It's the same song and dance as to why the PAC would only lease rights to FOX and ESPN and wanted total control of the PACN when it launched. They were going to make millions off of Asian distribution and control 100% of their own network profits remember? Now they pay 2-3 million a year to their schools for a network when the ACCN will double that in its first year and the PACN has been around how long now?

What's more is that their viewership numbers continue to flag. There goes the real gravy train which isn't carriage fees but ad revenue.

BTW: For the other posters ESPN's conference network model assumes the overhead and splits the profits 50/50. What is one of the PAC's biggest nightmares right now? Overhead. They can't run their own model efficiently. Personnel, office space, and production is killing them.

No sir, Larry Scott didn't get this one right at all, but what the hell, he didn't get the last one right either.

The PAC will never make enough off of streaming to do more than benefit a couple of their schools while the rest suffer which puts them exactly in the same destructive situation the LHN created in the Big 12.

So the only positive coming out of this for the PAC is that the refusal didn't immediately screw up their revenue sharing model, but streaming will if that is the avenue they pursue. Those schools selling the most views of games via streaming will get very hard to please in a revenue sharing model where 9 or 10 schools don't pull their weight.

The proper thing for Scott to have done is to make a counter offer and try to haggle out a slightly better 2nd offer from ESPN. And he should have immediately asked FOX if they were interested as well. But of course if they weren't he would have lost leverage. And the fact that he didn't is really interesting to me.

No question, the current PAC Network structure, which Scott is the father of, is very poor, arguably a disaster. It is bloated, there should be one channel not seven, and the production costs are completely out of control. I've been among the most vocal around here saying so, IMO Scott is arguably even worse than Aresco in terms of the ratio between the value of his performance compared to his compensation.

My only point was that I suspect that ESPN made a peanuts offer to take the whole mess off the PAC's hands, hoping that in their desire to escape the current quandary they would take a bad deal.

(03-25-2019 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

I think that's highly doubtful.

What Larry Scott and company just did was guarantee that the PAC Networks will flounder for several more years and that the PAC will continue to fall further behind on the off chance they get lucky in a few years.

Yes, they will go to open market, and if they think they're going to get distribution for the PAC Networks without a partner like ESPN taking control then they are totally fooling themselves.

More to the point, I can understand why they might hope that a large tech giant is coming to save them, but what is the PAC 12 worth to a company like Amazon or Google? Yes, they have more cash than Disney and could afford to pay more...that doesn't mean it would be a wise investment for them because it's not their core business. Either way, the PAC 12's exposure would lag with partners like that carrying major chunks of rights. They don't seem to care about that though.

In this business, you can deal with ESPN, FOX, and now maybe Warner Media(Turner). CBS and NBC don't dive deep into college sports so I'm not really including them. Warner Media is a maybe just because we don't know for certain what their new approach will be.

So in a few years, they're still going to have to give up control of the PAC Networks if they want good distribution, but now they've lost a few years worth of money/exposure. What did they gain?

In a few years, they will go to open market right around the same time the Big Ten, Big 12, and the SEC's 1st tier will. The quality of PAC 12 money sports is not in a good place right now. Is the PAC more desirable than any of those other leagues?

The Big East rebuffed an offer from ESPN and decided to go to the open market. They found out no one really wanted their content for what ESPN was offering. That's an extreme example, but it is not far-fetched at all to conclude the PAC won't get a truly competitive offer in a few years.

I agree with you to a point especially about the network itself, but there is a big risk in taking the offer too

if the offer was just a straight extension of their existing deal (and lets say that ESPN also offered to pick up the Fox deal at the end of 6 years if Fox did not renew and ESPN would extend it the same) well doing the quick math

if the ESPN deal that averages $21.33 million per team per year scaled $1 million per year

well the first year of the deal would have been $15.33 million (about right looking at past PAC 12 payouts) and at the end of the deal it would be $26.33 million

so if they extended it 7 more years with that same scale factor (and IF ESPN was picking up the Fox deal if Fox or someone else did not make a better offer) the PAC 12 would be making $33.33 million in media rights (with NCAA credits, Rose Bowl, other bowls, and NCAA football playoff money in addition to the $33.33)

with the PAC 12 paying out $30.9 in FY 2017 when their media rights deal was 5 years in (started in 12/13 FY 2013) well that media rights deal would be paying $20.33 using the $1 million per year scale factor so that means other money was about $10.6 million

so if "other money" stays about the same that means in 2032 with a media rights deal paying $33.33 and "other money" still $10.6 the PAC 12 would be getting $43.93 million per team

while the Big 10 is about to pay $50 now and will have negotiated another new deal in 6 years from now

even if you thought ESPN could cram the PAC12n as successfully as the SECn SECn SECn and you added $5 million to that you are at $48.93 so in 14 years the PAC 12 would be making less than the Big 10 is about to make NOW

now those media deals do not scale exactly $1 million per team per year the conferences generally have them worked to try and scale a bit more when they are not getting Rose or Sugar or Orange Bowl money so the payments equal out more in those off years

and "other money" from the NCAA BB, Football Playoffs, Rose Bowl and other bowls might increase, but if that increases it will for the others as well so an increase in that does not help the PAC 12 make up ground

the only thing that would help them is if the PAC12n was making more than the BTN or SECn SECn SECn and that is doubtful

now if the PAC 12 could have negotiated a bigger scale after 2025 and for the 7 years after that they would have more to think about

but if the scaling of the agreements was the same and worse if ESPN gave no guarantee to pick up the Fox tier 2 then the PAC 12 pretty much had to turn that deal down

network payments increasing now would only slightly close the gap with others and in the future the others would be pulling away again....and really adding $5 million a year for the network is not realistic considering it does pay out some money now just not a lot

(03-25-2019 02:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

I suspect you have a very short term memory on this one Quo. It's the same song and dance as to why the PAC would only lease rights to FOX and ESPN and wanted total control of the PACN when it launched. They were going to make millions off of Asian distribution and control 100% of their own network profits remember? Now they pay 2-3 million a year to their schools for a network when the ACCN will double that in its first year and the PACN has been around how long now?

What's more is that their viewership numbers continue to flag. There goes the real gravy train which isn't carriage fees but ad revenue.

BTW: For the other posters ESPN's conference network model assumes the overhead and splits the profits 50/50. What is one of the PAC's biggest nightmares right now? Overhead. They can't run their own model efficiently. Personnel, office space, and production is killing them.

No sir, Larry Scott didn't get this one right at all, but what the hell, he didn't get the last one right either.

The PAC will never make enough off of streaming to do more than benefit a couple of their schools while the rest suffer which puts them exactly in the same destructive situation the LHN created in the Big 12.

So the only positive coming out of this for the PAC is that the refusal didn't immediately screw up their revenue sharing model, but streaming will if that is the avenue they pursue. Those schools selling the most views of games via streaming will get very hard to please in a revenue sharing model where 9 or 10 schools don't pull their weight.

The proper thing for Scott to have done is to make a counter offer and try to haggle out a slightly better 2nd offer from ESPN. And he should have immediately asked FOX if they were interested as well. But of course if they weren't he would have lost leverage. And the fact that he didn't is really interesting to me.

No question, the current PAC Network structure, which Scott is the father of, is very poor, arguably a disaster. It is bloated, there should be one channel not seven, and the production costs are completely out of control. I've been among the most vocal around here saying so, IMO Scott is arguably even worse than Aresco in terms of the ratio between the value of his performance compared to his compensation.

My only point was that I suspect that ESPN made a peanuts offer to take the whole mess off the PAC's hands, hoping that in their desire to escape the current quandary they would take a bad deal.

I say that your assumption is in error. They were only offering for the PACN with an extension of their current rights. ESPN runs the network model as I laid out. They would have gotten the PACN greater distribution. They would have cleaned up the overhead. They would have paid out the same 50/50 share of profits that the SEC and ACC will get. The rest is up to the consumer. Where Scott should have haggled is over the lease extension for T1/T2 rights. He could have gotten a bit more there. But I use the words "a bit" for a reason. That figure is predicated on viewership and the corresponding ad rates that ESPN can derive for that product. Without expansion into the CTZ the PAC hasn't much wiggle room to demand more from anyone. They fill a finite niche time slot for FOX and ESPN. Until they market their product in the middle of the day to a broader national audience their earning potential is going to remain cropped. That's not the fault of the networks. From the time of the signing of his last lease with ESPN until now he probably could have gotten a 10% bump.

(03-25-2019 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

I think that's highly doubtful.

What Larry Scott and company just did was guarantee that the PAC Networks will flounder for several more years and that the PAC will continue to fall further behind on the off chance they get lucky in a few years.

Yes, they will go to open market, and if they think they're going to get distribution for the PAC Networks without a partner like ESPN taking control then they are totally fooling themselves.

More to the point, I can understand why they might hope that a large tech giant is coming to save them, but what is the PAC 12 worth to a company like Amazon or Google? Yes, they have more cash than Disney and could afford to pay more...that doesn't mean it would be a wise investment for them because it's not their core business. Either way, the PAC 12's exposure would lag with partners like that carrying major chunks of rights. They don't seem to care about that though.

In this business, you can deal with ESPN, FOX, and now maybe Warner Media(Turner). CBS and NBC don't dive deep into college sports so I'm not really including them. Warner Media is a maybe just because we don't know for certain what their new approach will be.

So in a few years, they're still going to have to give up control of the PAC Networks if they want good distribution, but now they've lost a few years worth of money/exposure. What did they gain?

In a few years, they will go to open market right around the same time the Big Ten, Big 12, and the SEC's 1st tier will. The quality of PAC 12 money sports is not in a good place right now. Is the PAC more desirable than any of those other leagues?

The Big East rebuffed an offer from ESPN and decided to go to the open market. They found out no one really wanted their content for what ESPN was offering. That's an extreme example, but it is not far-fetched at all to conclude the PAC won't get a truly competitive offer in a few years.

ESPN put a hit out on the Big East before it made it to open market. It was dismantled and sold for parts.

(03-25-2019 02:19 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-25-2019 11:15 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...nsion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect this was a rare good move by Scott and the PAC. ESPN was almost surely trying to take advantage of perceived panic in the PAC to strike quick and get a steal-deal that locks them up for decades.

At this point, wise of the PAC to let the current FOX/ESPN deal run its course and then negotiate a new deal in a few years.

I think that's highly doubtful.

What Larry Scott and company just did was guarantee that the PAC Networks will flounder for several more years and that the PAC will continue to fall further behind on the off chance they get lucky in a few years.

Yes, they will go to open market, and if they think they're going to get distribution for the PAC Networks without a partner like ESPN taking control then they are totally fooling themselves.

More to the point, I can understand why they might hope that a large tech giant is coming to save them, but what is the PAC 12 worth to a company like Amazon or Google? Yes, they have more cash than Disney and could afford to pay more...that doesn't mean it would be a wise investment for them because it's not their core business. Either way, the PAC 12's exposure would lag with partners like that carrying major chunks of rights. They don't seem to care about that though.

In this business, you can deal with ESPN, FOX, and now maybe Warner Media(Turner). CBS and NBC don't dive deep into college sports so I'm not really including them. Warner Media is a maybe just because we don't know for certain what their new approach will be.

So in a few years, they're still going to have to give up control of the PAC Networks if they want good distribution, but now they've lost a few years worth of money/exposure. What did they gain?

In a few years, they will go to open market right around the same time the Big Ten, Big 12, and the SEC's 1st tier will. The quality of PAC 12 money sports is not in a good place right now. Is the PAC more desirable than any of those other leagues?

The Big East rebuffed an offer from ESPN and decided to go to the open market. They found out no one really wanted their content for what ESPN was offering. That's an extreme example, but it is not far-fetched at all to conclude the PAC won't get a truly competitive offer in a few years.

I agree with you to a point especially about the network itself, but there is a big risk in taking the offer too

if the offer was just a straight extension of their existing deal (and lets say that ESPN also offered to pick up the Fox deal at the end of 6 years if Fox did not renew and ESPN would extend it the same) well doing the quick math

if the ESPN deal that averages $21.33 million per team per year scaled $1 million per year

well the first year of the deal would have been $15.33 million (about right looking at past PAC 12 payouts) and at the end of the deal it would be $26.33 million

so if they extended it 7 more years with that same scale factor (and IF ESPN was picking up the Fox deal if Fox or someone else did not make a better offer) the PAC 12 would be making $33.33 million in media rights (with NCAA credits, Rose Bowl, other bowls, and NCAA football playoff money in addition to the $33.33)

with the PAC 12 paying out $30.9 in FY 2017 when their media rights deal was 5 years in (started in 12/13 FY 2013) well that media rights deal would be paying $20.33 using the $1 million per year scale factor so that means other money was about $10.6 million

so if "other money" stays about the same that means in 2032 with a media rights deal paying $33.33 and "other money" still $10.6 the PAC 12 would be getting $43.93 million per team

while the Big 10 is about to pay $50 now and will have negotiated another new deal in 6 years from now

even if you thought ESPN could cram the PAC12n as successfully as the SECn SECn SECn and you added $5 million to that you are at $48.93 so in 14 years the PAC 12 would be making less than the Big 10 is about to make NOW

now those media deals do not scale exactly $1 million per team per year the conferences generally have them worked to try and scale a bit more when they are not getting Rose or Sugar or Orange Bowl money so the payments equal out more in those off years

and "other money" from the NCAA BB, Football Playoffs, Rose Bowl and other bowls might increase, but if that increases it will for the others as well so an increase in that does not help the PAC 12 make up ground

the only thing that would help them is if the PAC12n was making more than the BTN or SECn SECn SECn and that is doubtful

now if the PAC 12 could have negotiated a bigger scale after 2025 and for the 7 years after that they would have more to think about

but if the scaling of the agreements was the same and worse if ESPN gave no guarantee to pick up the Fox tier 2 then the PAC 12 pretty much had to turn that deal down

network payments increasing now would only slightly close the gap with others and in the future the others would be pulling away again....and really adding $5 million a year for the network is not realistic considering it does pay out some money now just not a lot

I'm not sure what the Pac-12 thinks of itself right now, but I'm sure the more level-headed ADs and presidents of the Pac 12 schools know that they are way behind the Big Ten and the SEC, and I'm sure they know that isn't going to change for a very long time, if not ever. What the Pac 12 should use a gauge, IMO, is how the ACC is doing. The ACC is conference comparable to the Pac 12, IMO, so if the ACC were to be making more $$'s than the Pac 12 in the long run, that would be a dealbreaker for me. I would look for something at least comparable to the ACC.

(03-27-2019 07:15 AM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what the Pac-12 thinks of itself right now, but I'm sure the more level-headed ADs and presidents of the Pac 12 schools know that they are way behind the Big Ten and the SEC, and I'm sure they know that isn't going to change for a very long time, if not ever. What the Pac 12 should use a gauge, IMO, is how the ACC is doing. The ACC is conference comparable to the Pac 12, IMO, so if the ACC were to be making more $$'s than the Pac 12 in the long run, that would be a dealbreaker for me. I would look for something at least comparable to the ACC.

I agree that the ACC might be the best reference point for the PAC at this point.

The valuing problem all the P5 face right now is that while the great media rights revolution of circa 2010 revealed that ALL of the major conferences had been historically under-valued, further developments since then have revealed that they were not necessarily undervalued equally. This is resulting in big media payment gaps among the P5 that we've never seen before.

E.g., it is now clear that in circa 2005, when all the P5 conferences were getting about $6m a year for their media rights, that ALL of them were vastly under-valued. But, from a competitive POV, since they were all getting basically the same thing, it was easy for them to act as a united front.

But, now we have a situation where the B1G is distributing $50m, the SEC close to that, the Big 12 about $35m, the PAC about $27m, and the ACC also around $27m, but with more to come thanks to the ACCN.

Are these substantial gaps within the P5 a reflection of natural differences in value, or are they reflections of differences in negotiating skills vis-a-vis the media entities that pay them, e.g. strategic approaches to leveraging value made by commissioners?

That is what the PAC presidents have to sort out: Is the B1G getting paid $20m more a year than us because they are worth that much more, or because of choices that Delany and Scott have made?

If the former, then the only solution for the PAC is to build their fan bases and brand value up.

(03-27-2019 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The valuing problem all the P5 face right now is that while the great media rights revolution of circa 2010 revealed that ALL of the major conferences had been historically under-valued, further developments since then have revealed that they were not necessarily undervalued equally. This is resulting in big media payment gaps among the P5 that we've never seen before.

E.g., it is now clear that in circa 2005, when all the P5 conferences were getting about $6m a year for their media rights, that ALL of them were vastly under-valued. But, from a competitive POV, since they were all getting basically the same thing, it was easy for them to act as a united front.

But, now we have a situation where the B1G is distributing $50m, the SEC close to that, the Big 12 about $35m, the PAC about $27m, and the ACC also around $27m, but with more to come thanks to the ACCN.

Are these substantial gaps within the P5 a reflection of natural differences in value, or are they reflections of differences in negotiating skills vis-a-vis the media entities that pay them, e.g. strategic approaches to leveraging value made by commissioners?

That is what the PAC presidents have to sort out: Is the B1G getting paid $20m more a year than us because they are worth that much more, or because of choices that Delany and Scott have made?

If the former, then the only solution for the PAC is to build their fan bases and brand value up.

This is why I don't dismiss entirely that realignment could still happen. It HAS to grate the folks at, say, Florida State and USC, that Rutgers and Vanderbilt make nearly twice as much in distributed media rights for their athletic programs. Which is why I wouldn't be shocked at some kind of seismic shift (that was roundly dismissed when I proposed it) somewhere down the line.

For all the talk about whether Texas or Oklahoma would get a wandering eye, EVERY conference has their members sitting back collecting checks off the backs of the more valued members. I can't imagine FSU fans would miss their trips to Winston-Salem or Trojan fans would pine for a return to Pullman despite the "tradition" of playing them as conference foes regularly...

USFFan

I can see one of the Arizona Schools if not both heading to the BIG12 after this!

(03-25-2019 12:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]The ONE investor who could've ADDED VALUE to the PTN... turned down to chase i-dollars (that's math shorthand for imaginary)

Or worse, I-Squared Dollars! True Negative.

(03-27-2019 08:58 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2019 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The valuing problem all the P5 face right now is that while the great media rights revolution of circa 2010 revealed that ALL of the major conferences had been historically under-valued, further developments since then have revealed that they were not necessarily undervalued equally. This is resulting in big media payment gaps among the P5 that we've never seen before.

E.g., it is now clear that in circa 2005, when all the P5 conferences were getting about $6m a year for their media rights, that ALL of them were vastly under-valued. But, from a competitive POV, since they were all getting basically the same thing, it was easy for them to act as a united front.

But, now we have a situation where the B1G is distributing $50m, the SEC close to that, the Big 12 about $35m, the PAC about $27m, and the ACC also around $27m, but with more to come thanks to the ACCN.

Are these substantial gaps within the P5 a reflection of natural differences in value, or are they reflections of differences in negotiating skills vis-a-vis the media entities that pay them, e.g. strategic approaches to leveraging value made by commissioners?

That is what the PAC presidents have to sort out: Is the B1G getting paid $20m more a year than us because they are worth that much more, or because of choices that Delany and Scott have made?

If the former, then the only solution for the PAC is to build their fan bases and brand value up.

This is why I don't dismiss entirely that realignment could still happen. It HAS to grate the folks at, say, Florida State and USC, that Rutgers and Vanderbilt make nearly twice as much in distributed media rights for their athletic programs. Which is why I wouldn't be shocked at some kind of seismic shift (that was roundly dismissed when I proposed it) somewhere down the line.

For all the talk about whether Texas or Oklahoma would get a wandering eye, EVERY conference has their members sitting back collecting checks off the backs of the more valued members. I can't imagine FSU fans would miss their trips to Winston-Salem or Trojan fans would pine for a return to Pullman despite the "tradition" of playing them as conference foes regularly...

USFFan

Yes, and we saw that restlessness at Clemson and FSU exhibited a few years back. It has subsided thanks to (a) the GOR, which is perceived as formidable legal barrier, and (b) a wait and see attitude about the ACCN.

But if the ACCN doesn't produce the money that ACC schools are hoping it will, then like you it would not surprise me if an FSU and/or Clemson thinks about testing just how strong a barrier a GOR is to leaving ...