(06-26-2022 07:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, I think the ACCN is making good money. It isn't making the kind of money that can seriously close the expanding gap with the SEC and B1G, but IMO it is making enough to keep it on the same level as the PAC and ahead of the new Big 12.

I bet that by 2023, ACC teams will be making around $8m to $10m more per team thanks to the ACCN than they would have made without it. To me, that's pretty serious.

The ACC will likely gross over $600m in revenue this year. That only looks weak because of what the SEC and B1G are making. But it's not bad in a general sense.

Question quo, when you mention $600 million in revenue this year for the ACC, is that all revenue? Does that include CFP revenue and NCAA Basketball tournament revenue?

I am not sure but I believe it would include all revenue as reported on the IRS Form 990. Last year, for 2020-2021, the ACC reported $578m in revenue, so I am predicting a slight boost that would put them over $600m. I do know it means more than just TV revenue, as that was around $400m.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...855686002/

(06-26-2022 09:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, I think the ACCN is making good money. It isn't making the kind of money that can seriously close the expanding gap with the SEC and B1G, but IMO it is making enough to keep it on the same level as the PAC and ahead of the new Big 12.

I bet that by 2023, ACC teams will be making around $8m to $10m more per team thanks to the ACCN than they would have made without it. To me, that's pretty serious.

The ACC will likely gross over $600m in revenue this year. That only looks weak because of what the SEC and B1G are making. But it's not bad in a general sense.

Question quo, when you mention $600 million in revenue this year for the ACC, is that all revenue? Does that include CFP revenue and NCAA Basketball tournament revenue?

I am not sure but I believe it would include all revenue as reported on the IRS Form 990. Last year, for 2020-2021, the ACC reported $578m in revenue, so I am predicting a slight boost that would put them over $600m. I do know it means more than just TV revenue, as that was around $400m.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...855686002/

Thanks. I hear these numbers being thrown around for different conferences and I am never quite sure if they are including an estimate on other revenue or if they are just talking TV revenue. I had read that the ACC Network was doing well financially.

Jon Wilner has predicted that the average annual value of the next Pac-12 media deal will be $600 million:
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2022/04...otiations/

"In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)"

Wilner is well connected, but he could be wrong or he could be right. He could understating or overstating the value of the next contract. But I do agree with you that $600 million only looks weak in comparison to the the Big Ten and SEC. I agree that "it's not bad in a general sense."

(06-26-2022 10:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 09:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, I think the ACCN is making good money. It isn't making the kind of money that can seriously close the expanding gap with the SEC and B1G, but IMO it is making enough to keep it on the same level as the PAC and ahead of the new Big 12.

I bet that by 2023, ACC teams will be making around $8m to $10m more per team thanks to the ACCN than they would have made without it. To me, that's pretty serious.

The ACC will likely gross over $600m in revenue this year. That only looks weak because of what the SEC and B1G are making. But it's not bad in a general sense.

Question quo, when you mention $600 million in revenue this year for the ACC, is that all revenue? Does that include CFP revenue and NCAA Basketball tournament revenue?

I am not sure but I believe it would include all revenue as reported on the IRS Form 990. Last year, for 2020-2021, the ACC reported $578m in revenue, so I am predicting a slight boost that would put them over $600m. I do know it means more than just TV revenue, as that was around $400m.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...855686002/

Thanks. I hear these numbers being thrown around for different conferences and I am never quite sure if they are including an estimate on other revenue or if they are just talking TV revenue. I had read that the ACC Network was doing well financially.

Jon Wilner has predicted that the average annual value of the next Pac-12 media deal will be $600 million:
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2022/04...otiations/

"In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)"

Wilner is well connected, but he could be wrong or he could be right. He could understating or overstating the value of the next contract. But I do agree with you that $600 million only looks weak in comparison to the the Big Ten and SEC. I agree that "it's not bad in a general sense."

I agree with Wiliner and think the PAC is in strong position to get a good deal in 2024.

I also think the PAC should emulate the B1G and avoid the problem the SEC and ACC have had of signing long deals. The 2024 deal should be for six or seven years, IMO.

(06-22-2022 11:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Ben Koo of Awful Announcement with a column on the options for the Pac-12 Networks with their recent struggles getting the content out there to viewers. He cites a tweet from Jon Wilner where Wilner thinks that football could be taken out of the Pac-12 Networks and sell them on the market.

Here's the big quote:

Quote:Given that the outlook and trajectory for the Pac-12 Networks has stayed consistently bleak compared to other conference networks, the takeaway here is that the conference is no longer interested in pursuing the long-term upside of propping up the Pac 12 Network with football games. It’s costing them money, and there isn’t reason to believe that’s going to stop. So why keep doing it? The writing is on the wall.

So if this comes to fruition, this really eliminates the option laid out of revising the model to match the Big Ten Network and SEC Network. Those networks have football. That’s where the value is. Eliminating football really leaves a pretty limited amount of options in a) shuttering the network and selling the content and or b) potentially pivoting the Pac-12 Networks into an Olympic sports-only streaming service.

https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...twork.html

From my standpoint, eliminating the PAC12N would put a lot of PAC third-tier games in limbo. I doubt it's possible that Cal vs UC Davis-type games would find takers without a dedicated network. Maybe Amazon might find a few of them valuable enough to take a few of them.

If I'm Fox then I should be looking seriously at buying the P12N if only to outmaneuver the likes of Amazon, Apple or Disney. Perhaps they can find a way to merge the P12N with BTN, allowing them to stretch the reach from the Midwest to the West and beyond.

I wonder why the Pac-12 doesn't get Stadium to help with their network. Much like Raycom does for the ACC via Bally Sublicense. Stadium just helped MWC & CUSA last year and they did a great job.

Link
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2021/09/02/c...-schedule/

(06-27-2022 08:28 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-22-2022 11:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Ben Koo of Awful Announcement with a column on the options for the Pac-12 Networks with their recent struggles getting the content out there to viewers. He cites a tweet from Jon Wilner where Wilner thinks that football could be taken out of the Pac-12 Networks and sell them on the market.

Here's the big quote:

Quote:Given that the outlook and trajectory for the Pac-12 Networks has stayed consistently bleak compared to other conference networks, the takeaway here is that the conference is no longer interested in pursuing the long-term upside of propping up the Pac 12 Network with football games. It’s costing them money, and there isn’t reason to believe that’s going to stop. So why keep doing it? The writing is on the wall.

So if this comes to fruition, this really eliminates the option laid out of revising the model to match the Big Ten Network and SEC Network. Those networks have football. That’s where the value is. Eliminating football really leaves a pretty limited amount of options in a) shuttering the network and selling the content and or b) potentially pivoting the Pac-12 Networks into an Olympic sports-only streaming service.

https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...twork.html

From my standpoint, eliminating the PAC12N would put a lot of PAC third-tier games in limbo. I doubt it's possible that Cal vs UC Davis-type games would find takers without a dedicated network. Maybe Amazon might find a few of them valuable enough to take a few of them.

If I'm Fox then I should be looking seriously at buying the P12N if only to outmaneuver the likes of Amazon, Apple or Disney. Perhaps they can find a way to merge the P12N with BTN, allowing them to stretch the reach from the Midwest to the West and beyond.

I wonder why the Pac-12 doesn't get Stadium or to help with their network. Much like Raycom does for the ACC vis Bally Sublicense. Stadium just helped MWC & CUSA last year and they did a great job.

Link
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2021/09/02/c...-schedule/

Because STadium is a low-rent outfit with no money and sub-Tiktok production values. If the PAC wanted to partner on the P12N, they could have done so a long time ago with ESPN or Fox or Comcast or AT&T Time Warner when it might have been a viable enterprise.

The good games that have been reserved for P12N will go to cable, the rest is fodder for a streaming service.

(06-26-2022 07:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The California schools are not joining the Big Ten and the Big Ten is not going to invite them.

Based on Swarbrick's comments, I think AD's across the country feel that super leagues are inevitable, and it only takes 1 school to completely upend the Pac-12. If USC feels like they are strategically disadvantaged by remaining in the Pac-12, they will make a conference jump, and the flood gates will open.

(06-27-2022 10:39 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The California schools are not joining the Big Ten and the Big Ten is not going to invite them.

Based on Swarbrick's comments, I think AD's across the country feel that super leagues are inevitable, and it only takes 1 school to completely upend the Pac-12. If USC feels like they are strategically disadvantaged by remaining in the Pac-12, they will make a conference jump, and the flood gates will open.

Swarbrick was predicting conference realignment in the mid-2030's and he did not give any specifics, like California schools joining the Big Ten. His opinion is one of many on the subject. The California schools don't like to travel anymore than they have to travel. I am sure the Big Ten schools feel the same way, In football, USC's furthest trip east this year is to Salt Lake City. Next season they have a trip to Notre Dame and in 2024 they play LSU in Vegas and Notre Dame at home. Then there are the Olympic sports. The USC AD has already said that makes the idea of leaving the conference almost impossible, if they wanted to leave.

USC has won one conference title in the past 13 years in football. That is not on the Pac-12, that is on the incompetent hiring practices of the previous athletic leadership at USC. The Trojans have helped to put the Pac-12 at a strategic disadvantage with their underperforming football team. Lincoln Riley will fix that.

The four California schools have a lot of influence in the Pac-12 and they would lose that in the Big Ten. As Jon Wilner of the Mercury News said last year in an article, "The Pac-12 presidents care deeply about protecting their brand, which draws heavily on geographic alignment and the institutional ethos of the West Coast." The California schools have their academic egos and a lot of money. I just don't ever see these schools joining the Big Ten or any other conference.

...sorry to 'shift gears' here, but the one thing I DO like about the PAC-12 network is that they actually have multiple channels for pretty much each state (CA., OR., WA., mountain teams, etc)... I've wondered why the SEC Network, as well as the BIG 10 Network - doesn't do that... the SEC Network has an 'alternate channel' which they use maybe once or twice a month, at best... even if they split it into 2 'divisions' (or the upcoming 'pods'... well most likely NO divisions/pods...) it would allow for more programming...

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...sorry to 'shift gears' here, but the one thing I DO like about the PAC-12 network is that they actually have multiple channels for pretty much each state (CA., OR., WA., mountain teams, etc)... I've wondered why the SEC Network, as well as the BIG 10 Network - doesn't do that... the SEC Network has an 'alternate channel' which they use maybe once or twice a month, at best... even if they split it into 2 'divisions' (or the upcoming 'pods'... well most likely NO divisions/pods...) it would allow for more programming...

IMO, those multiple channels are a weakness not a strength. The PAC has IIRC lost a lot of money, or made a lot less than they could have, because of the overbuilt infrastructure created to have all of those specialized networks that have little viewership. IMO, those are of no value to any media partner, so there's no chance a FOX or ESPN or whoever would want to buy them.

To me, the best thing the PAC can do is shut down that regional infrastructure. Hell, the entire PACN once 2024 comes.

I imagine the SEC and B1G don't have those regional networks is because there is probably precious little demand for it.

(06-27-2022 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 09:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, I think the ACCN is making good money. It isn't making the kind of money that can seriously close the expanding gap with the SEC and B1G, but IMO it is making enough to keep it on the same level as the PAC and ahead of the new Big 12.

I bet that by 2023, ACC teams will be making around $8m to $10m more per team thanks to the ACCN than they would have made without it. To me, that's pretty serious.

The ACC will likely gross over $600m in revenue this year. That only looks weak because of what the SEC and B1G are making. But it's not bad in a general sense.

Question quo, when you mention $600 million in revenue this year for the ACC, is that all revenue? Does that include CFP revenue and NCAA Basketball tournament revenue?

I am not sure but I believe it would include all revenue as reported on the IRS Form 990. Last year, for 2020-2021, the ACC reported $578m in revenue, so I am predicting a slight boost that would put them over $600m. I do know it means more than just TV revenue, as that was around $400m.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...855686002/

Thanks. I hear these numbers being thrown around for different conferences and I am never quite sure if they are including an estimate on other revenue or if they are just talking TV revenue. I had read that the ACC Network was doing well financially.

Jon Wilner has predicted that the average annual value of the next Pac-12 media deal will be $600 million:
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2022/04...otiations/

"In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)"

Wilner is well connected, but he could be wrong or he could be right. He could understating or overstating the value of the next contract. But I do agree with you that $600 million only looks weak in comparison to the the Big Ten and SEC. I agree that "it's not bad in a general sense."

I agree with Wiliner and think the PAC is in strong position to get a good deal in 2024.

I also think the PAC should emulate the B1G and avoid the problem the SEC and ACC have had of signing long deals. The 2024 deal should be for six or seven years, IMO.

By 2024 we will probably still be dealing with recession. The Prospects for a big payday for the PAC just doesn't look very good.

Yeah, you have to wonder if having a national network and six regional networks overcomplicated things and caused certain providers, such as AT&T, to not be interested in carrying all of that, whereas maybe they would have been more open to a single national network. I'm assuming once you had contracts with providers signed, you couldn't change your model with other potential providers. That's just my guess.

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...sorry to 'shift gears' here, but the one thing I DO like about the PAC-12 network is that they actually have multiple channels for pretty much each state (CA., OR., WA., mountain teams, etc)... I've wondered why the SEC Network, as well as the BIG 10 Network - doesn't do that... the SEC Network has an 'alternate channel' which they use maybe once or twice a month, at best... even if they split it into 2 'divisions' (or the upcoming 'pods'... well most likely NO divisions/pods...) it would allow for more programming...

Never understood having the second channel and putting literally all of the potential programming for that channel on streaming instead.

(06-27-2022 03:03 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...sorry to 'shift gears' here, but the one thing I DO like about the PAC-12 network is that they actually have multiple channels for pretty much each state (CA., OR., WA., mountain teams, etc)... I've wondered why the SEC Network, as well as the BIG 10 Network - doesn't do that... the SEC Network has an 'alternate channel' which they use maybe once or twice a month, at best... even if they split it into 2 'divisions' (or the upcoming 'pods'... well most likely NO divisions/pods...) it would allow for more programming...

Never understood having the second channel and putting literally all of the potential programming for that channel on streaming instead.

Is is streaming-exclusive, or is it linear-and-streaming?

Let's say Arizona has a volleyball game on right now, on streaming and not on P12N Arizona. Is the main Arizona channel, say, showing some other Arizona game live, or are they running a talking head show or a Utah-Cal women's basketball game? Or a rerun of last night's Arizona MBB game?

(06-26-2022 10:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 09:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, I think the ACCN is making good money. It isn't making the kind of money that can seriously close the expanding gap with the SEC and B1G, but IMO it is making enough to keep it on the same level as the PAC and ahead of the new Big 12.

I bet that by 2023, ACC teams will be making around $8m to $10m more per team thanks to the ACCN than they would have made without it. To me, that's pretty serious.

The ACC will likely gross over $600m in revenue this year. That only looks weak because of what the SEC and B1G are making. But it's not bad in a general sense.

Question quo, when you mention $600 million in revenue this year for the ACC, is that all revenue? Does that include CFP revenue and NCAA Basketball tournament revenue?

I am not sure but I believe it would include all revenue as reported on the IRS Form 990. Last year, for 2020-2021, the ACC reported $578m in revenue, so I am predicting a slight boost that would put them over $600m. I do know it means more than just TV revenue, as that was around $400m.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...855686002/

Thanks. I hear these numbers being thrown around for different conferences and I am never quite sure if they are including an estimate on other revenue or if they are just talking TV revenue. I had read that the ACC Network was doing well financially.

Jon Wilner has predicted that the average annual value of the next Pac-12 media deal will be $600 million:
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2022/04...otiations/

"In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)"

Wilner is well connected, but he could be wrong or he could be right. He could understating or overstating the value of the next contract. But I do agree with you that $600 million only looks weak in comparison to the the Big Ten and SEC. I agree that "it's not bad in a general sense."

$600 million TV money would be impressive. The ACC will hit the $500 million mark in 2024-2025 at the earliest. And the ACC has two more members and also has to pay ND a small amount.

(06-27-2022 02:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 09:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Question quo, when you mention $600 million in revenue this year for the ACC, is that all revenue? Does that include CFP revenue and NCAA Basketball tournament revenue?

I am not sure but I believe it would include all revenue as reported on the IRS Form 990. Last year, for 2020-2021, the ACC reported $578m in revenue, so I am predicting a slight boost that would put them over $600m. I do know it means more than just TV revenue, as that was around $400m.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...855686002/

Thanks. I hear these numbers being thrown around for different conferences and I am never quite sure if they are including an estimate on other revenue or if they are just talking TV revenue. I had read that the ACC Network was doing well financially.

Jon Wilner has predicted that the average annual value of the next Pac-12 media deal will be $600 million:
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2022/04...otiations/

"In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)"

Wilner is well connected, but he could be wrong or he could be right. He could understating or overstating the value of the next contract. But I do agree with you that $600 million only looks weak in comparison to the the Big Ten and SEC. I agree that "it's not bad in a general sense."

I agree with Wiliner and think the PAC is in strong position to get a good deal in 2024.

I also think the PAC should emulate the B1G and avoid the problem the SEC and ACC have had of signing long deals. The 2024 deal should be for six or seven years, IMO.

By 2024 we will probably still be dealing with recession. The Prospects for a big payday for the PAC just doesn't look very good.

Recessions have less of an effect on TV than you might think. I won't go as far as to say that TV is recession proof but it holds up pretty well. In the 4th quarter of 2008 there was a major up-tick in time in front of the television even though we were in the midst of a deep recession.

Advertisers will spend because people watch and as I'm sure you are aware the biggest thing selling on TV is live sports. As far as sports are concerned, NFL is #1, college football is #2. The PAC will do fine and I seriously doubt a recession will have any effect on lowering their TV value.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/history-a...l-gupta-1e

I added this link for a little read about TV and recessions, of note there is a lot of talk about how coronavirus was/is affecting ad spending. And we can all see how little that mattered when the SEC negotiated their TV contract in the middle of it.

(06-27-2022 06:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  $600 million TV money would be impressive. The ACC will hit the $500 million mark in 2024-2025 at the earliest.

ACC revenue was $578M for the most recent filing '20-21

(06-27-2022 08:15 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 06:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  $600 million TV money would be impressive. The ACC will hit the $500 million mark in 2024-2025 at the earliest.

ACC revenue was $578M for the most recent filing '20-21

Yes but that’s the total revenue including bowl money, NCAA money, and some other income. The money that the ACC got from the ESPN (and the ACCN) was less than $400 million. See this breakdown by HokieMark:

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2022/...e.html?m=1

(06-27-2022 01:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 10:39 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The California schools are not joining the Big Ten and the Big Ten is not going to invite them.

Based on Swarbrick's comments, I think AD's across the country feel that super leagues are inevitable, and it only takes 1 school to completely upend the Pac-12. If USC feels like they are strategically disadvantaged by remaining in the Pac-12, they will make a conference jump, and the flood gates will open.

Swarbrick was predicting conference realignment in the mid-2030's and he did not give any specifics, like California schools joining the Big Ten. His opinion is one of many on the subject. The California schools don't like to travel anymore than they have to travel. I am sure the Big Ten schools feel the same way, In football, USC's furthest trip east this year is to Salt Lake City. Next season they have a trip to Notre Dame and in 2024 they play LSU in Vegas and Notre Dame at home. Then there are the Olympic sports. The USC AD has already said that makes the idea of leaving the conference almost impossible, if they wanted to leave.

USC has won one conference title in the past 13 years in football. That is not on the Pac-12, that is on the incompetent hiring practices of the previous athletic leadership at USC. The Trojans have helped to put the Pac-12 at a strategic disadvantage with their underperforming football team. Lincoln Riley will fix that.

The four California schools have a lot of influence in the Pac-12 and they would lose that in the Big Ten. As Jon Wilner of the Mercury News said last year in an article, "The Pac-12 presidents care deeply about protecting their brand, which draws heavily on geographic alignment and the institutional ethos of the West Coast." The California schools have their academic egos and a lot of money. I just don't ever see these schools joining the Big Ten or any other conference.

I agree with these points. Yet I also see the money difference could become too great to bear by the 2030s that some might move.

To work the Big Team would have to take 6 of the Pacific Coast schools, and they'll have to have some kind of bridge with Colorado and Arizona at the minimum. At 8 schools you have enough to contain Olympic sports costs.

I see the same forces pulling the ACC to the SEC. But the target list would be smaller (Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Miami and probably Virginia). Again the money difference is too great. And quite frankly the SEC may strike first grabbing four of my list, forcing a B1G-P12 merger.

(06-27-2022 02:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...sorry to 'shift gears' here, but the one thing I DO like about the PAC-12 network is that they actually have multiple channels for pretty much each state (CA., OR., WA., mountain teams, etc)... I've wondered why the SEC Network, as well as the BIG 10 Network - doesn't do that... the SEC Network has an 'alternate channel' which they use maybe once or twice a month, at best... even if they split it into 2 'divisions' (or the upcoming 'pods'... well most likely NO divisions/pods...) it would allow for more programming...

IMO, those multiple channels are a weakness not a strength. The PAC has IIRC lost a lot of money, or made a lot less than they could have, because of the overbuilt infrastructure created to have all of those specialized networks that have little viewership. IMO, those are of no value to any media partner, so there's no chance a FOX or ESPN or whoever would want to buy them.

To me, the best thing the PAC can do is shut down that regional infrastructure. Hell, the entire PACN once 2024 comes.

I imagine the SEC and B1G don't have those regional networks is because there is probably precious little demand for it.

...yep, I concur that the model is pretty unsound financially, as it's the ol' 'too many pieces of pie' scenario, or perhaps more like 'watering down the product'... of course the advent of streaming and whatever else 'other than cable/dish' handles all of the 'lower tier' stuff, thus overrides the need for multiple channels...

...but its still sorta cool to have the 'lower tier' Quack games on to see (they are my PAC team, actually back from before they were any good...) while sitting here in the Ham... but again, streaming them isn't all that bad, either...

(06-27-2022 03:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 03:03 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:01 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...sorry to 'shift gears' here, but the one thing I DO like about the PAC-12 network is that they actually have multiple channels for pretty much each state (CA., OR., WA., mountain teams, etc)... I've wondered why the SEC Network, as well as the BIG 10 Network - doesn't do that... the SEC Network has an 'alternate channel' which they use maybe once or twice a month, at best... even if they split it into 2 'divisions' (or the upcoming 'pods'... well most likely NO divisions/pods...) it would allow for more programming...

Never understood having the second channel and putting literally all of the potential programming for that channel on streaming instead.

Is is streaming-exclusive, or is it linear-and-streaming?

Let's say Arizona has a volleyball game on right now, on streaming and not on P12N Arizona. Is the main Arizona channel, say, showing some other Arizona game live, or are they running a talking head show or a Utah-Cal women's basketball game? Or a rerun of last night's Arizona MBB game?

The PAC networks generally keep the 'region' channels exclusive for the 2-3 teams they are set up for (AZ/AZST in your example) - now, they have the 'main' PAC channel which they can show anything on... as to their streaming levels, I haven't gotten those (I only have ESPN+, '3', or whatever it is now...)

But in terms of the SEC Network, they have one 'always showing programming' channel, and another 'alternate' channel which is utilized perhaps 5-6 times a YEAR... typically the first few weeks of football, when all teams are playing nonconference, and there can be up to 14 games...

I DO think if you did a 'regional' channel thing it MAY have a fair-to-middlin' chance in the SEC... but then again, the Longhorn Network is a cautionary tale... and I DON'T see UTx and A&M 'sharing' a 'SEC-Texas' frequency together...