Mercury News Column

Quote:That’s the reason the ratings are relevant: The Pac-12 has undertaken this vast, expensive endeavor in the name of Olympic sports that, at any given time, only a few hundred people are watching.

Remember, Pac 12 Network is actually 7 different channels, the national feed and the 6 local feeds. That, combined with televising tons of Olympic sports (and basketball) which may have more people in the stands than watching at home, is pretty expensive.

This article doesn't really mention one major reason that the PAC-12 network isn't the moneymaker the Big Ten and SEC networks are--PAC football doesn't have the same leverage out west that Ohio STate or Michigan or Georgia or LSU football have in their backyards.

(09-22-2017 01:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mercury News Column

Quote:That’s the reason the ratings are relevant: The Pac-12 has undertaken this vast, expensive endeavor in the name of Olympic sports that, at any given time, only a few hundred people are watching.

Remember, Pac 12 Network is actually 7 different channels, the national feed and the 6 local feeds. That, combined with televising tons of Olympic sports (and basketball) which may have more people in the stands than watching at home, is pretty expensive.

This article doesn't really mention one major reason that the PAC-12 network isn't the moneymaker the Big Ten and SEC networks are--PAC football doesn't have the same leverage out west that Ohio STate or Michigan or Georgia or LSU football have in their backyards.

Actually, it says that the football ratings are good enough to cause problems with carriers refusing to add the network. The issue is the entire purpose of the very expensive 6-regional network structure of the Pac-12 network appears to be wasted. The purpose was to expand the exposure of the Pac-12 olympic sports. If apepars that a tremendous amount of money is being spent so a few hundred people can watch these events. Basically, there is little real value in that kind of exposure---certainly not enough to justify the current Pac12 Network expenditures.

(09-22-2017 01:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mercury News Column

Quote:That’s the reason the ratings are relevant: The Pac-12 has undertaken this vast, expensive endeavor in the name of Olympic sports that, at any given time, only a few hundred people are watching.

Remember, Pac 12 Network is actually 7 different channels, the national feed and the 6 local feeds. That, combined with televising tons of Olympic sports (and basketball) which may have more people in the stands than watching at home, is pretty expensive.

This article doesn't really mention one major reason that the PAC-12 network isn't the moneymaker the Big Ten and SEC networks are--PAC football doesn't have the same leverage out west that Ohio STate or Michigan or Georgia or LSU football have in their backyards.

That is because Wilner spent the majority of the last six weeks detailing the network in a separate multi-part series. Not being on DirecTV is one major factor and Wilner spoke with the now former DirecTV exec who was in on the negotiation was part 2.

The series started on August 15.
http://www.mercurynews.com/tag/pac-12-networks/

At best...they should have two channels. A huge money-suck to have that much production.

(09-22-2017 03:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  At best...they should have two channels. A huge money-suck to have that much production.

Yes, but that goes against the PAC culture, which takes pride in Olympic sports. The PAC is fond of boasting about having "more NCAA championships" and "more Olympic gold medalists" than any other conference. Of course, most of those titles are won in sports like women's rowing and men's badminton, as the PAC hasn't had a men's basketball champ in more than 20 years and a football national title in even longer (no, USC's 03-04 probation teams don't count).

Nobody else cares about those distinctions, but they are a big badge of honor to the PAC. So putting up a network that basically just shows what people want to watch - PAC football, men's basketball, and some baseball - would go against that culture. They will come around to it eventually out of necessity, but it's not easy for them to do.

PS - you in town for the Syracuse - LSU game?

(09-22-2017 01:57 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 01:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mercury News Column

Quote:That’s the reason the ratings are relevant: The Pac-12 has undertaken this vast, expensive endeavor in the name of Olympic sports that, at any given time, only a few hundred people are watching.

Remember, Pac 12 Network is actually 7 different channels, the national feed and the 6 local feeds. That, combined with televising tons of Olympic sports (and basketball) which may have more people in the stands than watching at home, is pretty expensive.

This article doesn't really mention one major reason that the PAC-12 network isn't the moneymaker the Big Ten and SEC networks are--PAC football doesn't have the same leverage out west that Ohio STate or Michigan or Georgia or LSU football have in their backyards.

That is because Wilner spent the majority of the last six weeks detailing the network in a separate multi-part series. Not being on DirecTV is one major factor and Wilner spoke with the now former DirecTV exec who was in on the negotiation was part 2.

The series started on August 15.
http://www.mercurynews.com/tag/pac-12-networks/

Read a few of the pieces/parts and they are very good, kind of shows why the B12 should never get a B12 Network, they will be even worse off if the have a out of primary market rate clause.

The P5 will be the P2 eventually.

(09-22-2017 04:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 03:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  At best...they should have two channels. A huge money-suck to have that much production.

Yes, but that goes against the PAC culture, which takes pride in Olympic sports. The PAC is fond of boasting about having "more NCAA championships" and "more Olympic gold medalists" than any other conference. Of course, most of those titles are won in sports like women's rowing and men's badminton, as the PAC hasn't had a men's basketball champ in more than 20 years and a football national title in even longer (no, USC's 03-04 probation teams don't count).

Nobody else cares about those distinctions, but they are a big badge of honor to the PAC. So putting up a network that basically just shows what people want to watch - PAC football, men's basketball, and some baseball - would go against that culture. They will come around to it eventually out of necessity, but it's not easy for them to do.

PS - you in town for the Syracuse - LSU game?

Nope... sorry should have reached out to you and Terry, I wasn't going to attend. I'm doing 8 games but LSU fell on a bad week for me.

(09-22-2017 04:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 03:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  At best...they should have two channels. A huge money-suck to have that much production.

Yes, but that goes against the PAC culture, which takes pride in Olympic sports. The PAC is fond of boasting about having "more NCAA championships" and "more Olympic gold medalists" than any other conference. Of course, most of those titles are won in sports like women's rowing and men's badminton, as the PAC hasn't had a men's basketball champ in more than 20 years and a football national title in even longer (no, USC's 03-04 probation teams don't count).

Nobody else cares about those distinctions, but they are a big badge of honor to the PAC. So putting up a network that basically just shows what people want to watch - PAC football, men's basketball, and some baseball - would go against that culture. They will come around to it eventually out of necessity, but it's not easy for them to do.

PS - you in town for the Syracuse - LSU game?

It makes sense to take pride in your Olympic sports, and I'm sure there are people who want to see it, but it would have made more sense for them to go the Big Ten route and make that stuff digital subscription based. I'm willing to pay about $10 for the one month of non conference basketball games that Rutgers has on BTN Plus, but I'm not going to subscribe for the entire year, but I'm sure there are.

The P12 seems a little bipolar when it comes to Olympic sports. Olympic Sports used to be big time at the California schools. Not so much any more:

The P12 no longer sponsor mens gymnastics, only 2 schools have mens teams.
The P12 no longer sponsor mens volleyball, only 3 schools have mens teams.
The P12 no longer sponsor mens water polo, only 4 schools have mens teams.

You may be able to pick a random sport here or there (like track at Oregon) but nothing that warrants a 24/7 network dedicated to 2 schools.

At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, the folks on the left coast are a little different. They simply don't have the same fervor for college sports that most of the country has. The PAC 12 can't capitalize on something that doesn't exist.
CJ

(09-23-2017 06:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, the folks on the left coast are a little different. They simply don't have the same fervor for college sports that most of the country has. The PAC 12 can't capitalize on something that doesn't exist.
CJ

Here were conference per school revenue distributions for the last year available, 2016:

SEC ... $40m (range from 39m to $41m depending on bowl participation)
B1G ... $34m (excluding UNL, MD, Rutgers, all got less)
PAC ... $28.7m
B12 ... $28.5m (range from $28m to $28.9m depending on bowls)
ACC ... $26m (range from $23m to $28m depending on bowls)

So the PAC is right there, they are capitalizing as well as the B12 and ACC.

The ACC is strange, their range is big. E.g., Clemson made almost $28m while G-Tech made just $23m.

(09-23-2017 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 06:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, the folks on the left coast are a little different. They simply don't have the same fervor for college sports that most of the country has. The PAC 12 can't capitalize on something that doesn't exist.
CJ

Here were conference per school revenue distributions for the last year available, 2016:

SEC ... $40m (range from 39m to $41m depending on bowl participation)
B1G ... $34m (excluding UNL, MD, Rutgers, all got less)
PAC ... $28.7m
B12 ... $28.5m (range from $28m to $28.9m depending on bowls)
ACC ... $26m (range from $23m to $28m depending on bowls)

So the PAC is right there, they are capitalizing as well as the B12 and ACC.

That's with no network distribution for The Big 12 or ACC. Even with the most conservative projections one should expect The ACC to move up this list once The ACC Network launches. The point is The PAC isn't growing subscriptions.
CJ

(09-23-2017 07:42 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 06:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, the folks on the left coast are a little different. They simply don't have the same fervor for college sports that most of the country has. The PAC 12 can't capitalize on something that doesn't exist.
CJ

Here were conference per school revenue distributions for the last year available, 2016:

SEC ... $40m (range from 39m to $41m depending on bowl participation)
B1G ... $34m (excluding UNL, MD, Rutgers, all got less)
PAC ... $28.7m
B12 ... $28.5m (range from $28m to $28.9m depending on bowls)
ACC ... $26m (range from $23m to $28m depending on bowls)

So the PAC is right there, they are capitalizing as well as the B12 and ACC.

That's with no network distribution for The Big 12 or ACC. Even with the most conservative projections one should expect The ACC to move up this list once The ACC Network launches. The point is The PAC isn't growing subscriptions.
CJ

Yes, but sometimes the problem isn't just revenues, its costs. E.g., the PACN generated $128m in revenue last year, a 10% increase over the year before.

That's not a ton, but it's not chicken feed either. But the per-school payout was only around $2m, because network costs were almost $100m, thanks to the 7-channel feed.

If they cut out some of those channels, the PACN would likely be a much bigger revenue generator for the schools even with the current subscription base.

The PAC is using a different model for its network. We'll see if it works in the long run.

(09-22-2017 01:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Mercury News Column

Quote:That’s the reason the ratings are relevant: The Pac-12 has undertaken this vast, expensive endeavor in the name of Olympic sports that, at any given time, only a few hundred people are watching.

Remember, Pac 12 Network is actually 7 different channels, the national feed and the 6 local feeds. That, combined with televising tons of Olympic sports (and basketball) which may have more people in the stands than watching at home, is pretty expensive.

This article doesn't really mention one major reason that the PAC-12 network isn't the moneymaker the Big Ten and SEC networks are--PAC football doesn't have the same leverage out west that Ohio STate or Michigan or Georgia or LSU football have in their backyards.

That's not the take-away I got from that article. The takeaway is this: the SEC and the Big Ten have demand from coast to coast and even the ACC has significant demand outside of its target area. The PAC 12, especially its Olympic sports doing the heavy lifting does not have that kind of appeal. The Pac 12 could fix this problem two ways: take away the premium games from ESPN & FOX, but lose visibility, or reduce its networks from six to one, and let football & men's basketball do the heavy lifting while the Olympic sports would be filler programming, more or less.

(09-23-2017 06:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, the folks on the left coast are a little different. They simply don't have the same fervor for college sports that most of the country has. The PAC 12 can't capitalize on something that doesn't exist.
CJ

I'm from California. It's always been that way and it'll never change. People in the West Coast are more outdoorsy than people in the South and Midwest. All Pac-12 schools with the exception of Wazzu are in or near mid-size to large metro areas with plenty of entertainment options which include pro sports teams. If you live in Seattle and it's a nice Saturday afternoon with sunny skies, more than likely attending a Washington Huskies game will not be one of your priorities even if there's still seats available at a discounted price. The same goes if you live in L.A., the Bay Area, Portland, Phoenix and Denver.

Olympic sports get a lot of priority for the Pac-12. Its slogan is "the Conference of Champions" because they take pride in all their sports, not just football and basketball. And it's not just at the college level, it's in high school too. My high school in LA was one of the best football programs in Southern California. But you would never knew if you were just a visitor from Texas or Ohio based on the fan support. But soccer and baseball had decent fan support and even swimming. The HS I graduated in Texas was just football and the rest didn't even matter. To me that was a culture shock.

I can see that being true for the Bay Area (SF & Oak are extremely popular out there), and maybe LA in the past, maybe even the present too, but for Seattle, Phoenix, Portland too??? I would think that Seattle would have at least divided loyalties & Phoenix too. I don't know why Portland even cares about the NFL seeing they have no franchise to pull for.

(09-24-2017 02:48 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I can see that being true for the Bay Area (SF & Oak are extremely popular out there), and maybe LA in the past, maybe even the present too, but for Seattle, Phoenix, Portland too??? I would think that Seattle would have at least divided loyalties & Phoenix too. I don't know why Portland even cares about the NFL seeing they have no franchise to pull for.

That's why Portland, SLC, Tucson, and Spokane markets have college football viewership numbers equal to Austin and better than SA, Houston, Dallas DMAs. Denver and Seattle are on par with Houston, SA, and Dallas. The PAC viewership problem is really an LA, Bay Area, and Phoenix problem. The other markets watch CFB.

DTV was able to block the PAC Network by giving away free NFL Sunday ticket in the PAC footprint (mostly CA) to retain customers. If DTV ever lost Sunday Ticket, they'd have to pick up the PAC.

(09-24-2017 10:17 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 02:48 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I can see that being true for the Bay Area (SF & Oak are extremely popular out there), and maybe LA in the past, maybe even the present too, but for Seattle, Phoenix, Portland too??? I would think that Seattle would have at least divided loyalties & Phoenix too. I don't know why Portland even cares about the NFL seeing they have no franchise to pull for.

That's why Portland, SLC, Tucson, and Spokane markets have college football viewership numbers equal to Austin and better than SA, Houston, Dallas DMAs. Denver and Seattle are on par with Houston, SA, and Dallas. The PAC viewership problem is really an LA, Bay Area, and Phoenix problem. The other markets watch CFB.

LA and the Bay Area are the two heavyweight metros that make the PAC vaguely competitive with the SEC and Big Ten footprints. "The other markets" are basically MWC country plus Seattle.

Quote:DTV was able to block the PAC Network by giving away free NFL Sunday ticket in the PAC footprint (mostly CA) to retain customers. If DTV ever lost Sunday Ticket, they'd have to pick up the PAC. go out of business.

Slight correction there.

A problem for low ratings in the west coast is the games are starting late and nobody is used to watching them. The Pac-12 isn't much more valuable than the AAC from a ratings standpoint.