Just speculating here but does anyone else here think that the Pac 12 might be more valuable if it was broken up in parts among a couple conferences?

4 CA schools to the Big Ten

Ariz, Ariz St, Colo, Utah, Ore, and Wash to the Big 12 creating the Big 16.

MWC takes in Ore St and Was St

(05-31-2019 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just speculating here but does anyone else here think that the Pac 12 might be more valuable if it was broken up in parts among a couple conferences?

4 CA schools to the Big Ten

Ariz, Ariz St, Colo, Utah, Ore, and Wash to the Big 12 creating the Big 16.

MWC takes in Ore St and Was St

No. Value comes from the number of viewers you command and from the level of donations your games could generate, and from tickets sold, all of which reveal the strength of your program.

The PAC has some venerated names with legacy resume's. What they don't have are viewers, subscribers, and attenders. They have some donors.

So putting them in the Big 12 or Big 10 is not going to change the numbers that drive the payouts. They would add some market presence to the Big 12 but not enough to really catch the Big 10. They might not pay their way into a Big 10 worth 54 million.

(05-31-2019 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just speculating here but does anyone else here think that the Pac 12 might be more valuable if it was broken up in parts among a couple conferences?

4 CA schools to the Big Ten

Ariz, Ariz St, Colo, Utah, Ore, and Wash to the Big 12 creating the Big 16.

MWC takes in Ore St and Was St

A conference from Seattle to West Virginia? It would take a lot of TV money to convince schools to do that.

(05-31-2019 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just speculating here but does anyone else here think that the Pac 12 might be more valuable if it was broken up in parts among a couple conferences?

4 CA schools to the Big Ten

Ariz, Ariz St, Colo, Utah, Ore, and Wash to the Big 12 creating the Big 16.

MWC takes in Ore St and Was St

Really? You are actually speculating about this? You are speculating about a solution to a problem that does not exist. If you spent some time in the west, you would realize that these schools are pretty tight and any speculation that they would breakup is ridiculous.

(05-31-2019 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 02:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just speculating here but does anyone else here think that the Pac 12 might be more valuable if it was broken up in parts among a couple conferences?

4 CA schools to the Big Ten

Ariz, Ariz St, Colo, Utah, Ore, and Wash to the Big 12 creating the Big 16.

MWC takes in Ore St and Was St

No. Value comes from the number of viewers you command and from the level of donations your games could generate, and from tickets sold, all of which reveal the strength of your program.

The PAC has some venerated names with legacy resume's. What they don't have are viewers, subscribers, and attenders. They have some donors.

So putting them in the Big 12 or Big 10 is not going to change the numbers that drive the payouts. They would add some market presence to the Big 12 but not enough to really catch the Big 10. They might not pay there way into a Big 10 worth 54 million.

The L.A. schools bring the most value especially blue blood USC. I wouldn’t be shocked if half the Pac-12 value is based on just USC and UCLA. Los Angeles County alone has about 10 million people.

SoCalBobcat78 hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head, IMO.

Calm down folks just spitballing. The PAC 12 is lagging in revenue--sometimes if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

(05-31-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Calm down folks just spitballing. The PAC 12 is lagging in revenue--sometimes if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The PAC isn't lagging in revenue, unless you mean they are lagging the B1G in revenue, but then again everyone else is too, even the SEC.

PAC revenue is fine, it's more than the Big 12 and ACC, and that's despite a poor model for exploiting it. Their problem right now is on the cost side, starting with the pay of their inept commissioner.

(05-31-2019 09:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Calm down folks just spitballing. The PAC 12 is lagging in revenue--sometimes if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The PAC isn't lagging in revenue, unless you mean they are lagging the B1G in revenue, but then again everyone else is too, even the SEC.

PAC revenue is fine, it's more than the Big 12 and ACC, and that's despite a poor model for exploiting it. Their problem right now is on the cost side, starting with the pay of their inept commissioner.

That's just plain wrong Quo. The PAC announced their payouts for 2018 and it was 29.5 million per team the same as the ACC and roughly 9 million in per school payouts behind the Big 12. And if you want to argue Gross Total Revenue the PAC was next to last lagging everyone significantly except the ACC. So TV revenues, cost side or not as that is factored in for everyone, is atrocious for the size of of their market footprint, the total number of possible viewers, and for a region that has no rivals.

Gross Total Revenue doesn't factor in overhead so there are no excuses. By the way the PAC schools averaged 105 million in Gross Total Revenue the ACC averaged over 101 million. And to put that into perspective the Big 12 average was 118 million, the Big 10's was 127 million, and the SEC was 133 million. In TV revenue alone the Big 10 earned 54 million the SEC 43.7, the Big 12 38.8, the ACC and PAC 29.5 million each.

And when you say someone is lagging another in revenue, be specific. The only revenue the SEC lags the Big 10 in is Media Revenue. The way you worded your reply is misleading since in all revenue the SEC led the Big 10 by 6 million average per school.

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-31-2019 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And when you say someone is lagging another in revenue, be specific. The only revenue the SEC lags the Big 10 in is Media Revenue. The way you worded your reply is misleading since in all revenue the SEC led the Big 10 by 6 million average per school.

No, I think your way of framing it is misleading, because it is obvious we are talking about conference-disbursements, not money generated and kept by individual schools.

E.g., if Alabama's overall athletic revenue is $170m and Purdue's is $100m, but the SEC distributed $44m to Alabama and the B1G distributed $54m to Purdue, it is perfectly accurate to say the SEC lags the B1G in money, because the B1G did in fact provide Purdue $10m more than the SEC provided to Alabama. That is what is being talked about, money distributed by the conference - which BTW isn't just media, it includes bowl revenue, CFP revenue, CCG game and hoops tournament ticket sales, NCAA hoops credits, etc. that are also earned by the conference.

The reason Alabama had $70m more in overall revenue than Purdue is because of "locally" generated revenue NOT provided by the conferences, such as attendance, ticket prices, parking revenue, concessions, school merchandise licensing, local sponsorships, etc. Including THAT money in an assessment of *conference* revenue would be very misleading. That is strictly a school-level comparison, Alabama vs Purdue, not SEC vs B1G.

The $54m vs $44m is SEC vs B1G.

The source of revenue I was focused on was the media revenue. The PAC 12 struggles in this regard because they can't utilize the noon EST timeslot. That pushes them into the 3:30 EST, Primetime, and late night slots.

Primetime is brutal because that's the slot everyone else is putting their very best content. It's a crowded and highly competitive slot to try to stake a claim in.

The late night slot is also problematic because most folks in the EST and CST have gone to bed. The potential audience is a lot smaller and the media partners are aware of that.

I've made the argument before with ACC and Big 12 schools--if a small handful of schools are the ones who merit the lions share of the conference's media value if you take those schools out of that conference and put them in a more valuable one the new conference is vastly increased because their overall percentage of high demand content has increased. With that said, I think the 4 CA schools, who one poster estimated was responsible for 50% or more of the PAC 12's media value, make vastly more money as a pod of an expanded Big Ten.

(06-01-2019 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2019 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And when you say someone is lagging another in revenue, be specific. The only revenue the SEC lags the Big 10 in is Media Revenue. The way you worded your reply is misleading since in all revenue the SEC led the Big 10 by 6 million average per school.

No, I think your way of framing it is misleading, because it is obvious we are talking about conference-disbursements, not money generated and kept by individual schools.

E.g., if Alabama's overall athletic revenue is $170m and Purdue's is $100m, but the SEC distributed $44m to Alabama and the B1G distributed $54m to Purdue, it is perfectly accurate to say the SEC lags the B1G in money, because the B1G did in fact provide Purdue $10m more than the SEC provided to Alabama. That is what is being talked about, money distributed by the conference - which BTW isn't just media, it includes bowl revenue, CFP revenue, CCG game and hoops tournament ticket sales, NCAA hoops credits, etc. that are also earned by the conference.

The reason Alabama had $70m more in overall revenue than Purdue is because of "locally" generated revenue NOT provided by the conferences, such as attendance, ticket prices, parking revenue, concessions, school merchandise licensing, local sponsorships, etc. Including THAT money in an assessment of *conference* revenue would be very misleading. That is strictly a school-level comparison, Alabama vs Purdue, not SEC vs B1G.

The $54m vs $44m is SEC vs B1G.

There is no argument so asinine as those which claim that what was being discussed was "obvious" when there was no such indicator, and nothing more tedious than those who quibble in defense of the indefensible. Revenue is a very broad term which requires specific qualifiers and even then not all comparisons are equal. For instance the Big 12's 38.8 doesn't count T3 revenue which is the property of each Big 12 school and not paid through the conference.

Besides your initial statement that the PAC had no problem in earning revenue because they were only behind the Big 10 and SEC was still grossly in error as the Big 12 was decidedly ahead of the PAC Media revenue by 9 million dollars (and that's not including their T3) and tied for last with the ACC with an average payout of 29.5 million. So what was once a leader among what are now called the P5 has been reduced to almost half of the media revenue of the Big 10, and are 14 plus million behind the SEC's media revenue, 9 million plus T3 behind the Big 12 and tied for last with the ACC. The PAC has a revenue problem as well as an inefficient and possibly corrupt conference leadership.

And I believe I know what constitutes the difference between Media Revenue and Gross Total Revenue. I only used Gross Total Revenue because it further illustrated that the problem in the PAC is not simply a matter of overhead, since that figure doesn't remove overhead.

I do not disagree that they are mismanaged or that their overhead is an issue, but their business model falls totally flat on its projections because the viewing audience and subscriber base simply isn't there and that Quo is the revenue problem. The mismanagement of expenses only exacerbates their existing problem with advertising rates and their subscription rates which when averaged in and out of footprint total .11 cents per. To put that into perspective the SEC's average rate for subscriptions in and out of the footprint is .74 cents and that average of the Big 10's is .49 cents.

They most definitely have a revenue problem and have it for many reasons besides mismanagement. And your assertion to the contrary, especially with regard to the Big 12, was in error.

(06-01-2019 10:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The source of revenue I was focused on was the media revenue. The PAC 12 struggles in this regard because they can't utilize the noon EST timeslot. That pushes them into the 3:30 EST, Primetime, and late night slots.

Primetime is brutal because that's the slot everyone else is putting their very best content. It's a crowded and highly competitive slot to try to stake a claim in.

The late night slot is also problematic because most folks in the EST and CST have gone to bed. The potential audience is a lot smaller and the media partners are aware of that.

I've made the argument before with ACC and Big 12 schools--if a small handful of schools are the ones who merit the lions share of the conference's media value if you take those schools out of that conference and put them in a more valuable one the new conference is vastly increased because their overall percentage of high demand content has increased. With that said, I think the 4 CA schools, who one poster estimated was responsible for 50% or more of the PAC 12's media value, make vastly more money as a pod of an expanded Big Ten.

Do you think that the West Coast is clamoring for 9 AM college football? At 9 AM, most people on the west coast are not looking to turn the TV on to watch Wisconsin vs Illinois or Northwestern vs Rutgers. There are too many other options that are more interesting. You do understand that west coast athletics have done very well over the last five decades with about being in the noon EST timeslot?

The TV deal that the Pac-12 signed with ESPN & FOX beginning in the 2012-2013 season was for a then record $3 billion over 12 years. The time zones did not effect that record deal. What happened was the Pac-12 TV revenue was eventually passed by the other conferences and the Pac-12 Network TV revenue and exposure have been an abysmal failure. It is not about the time zone.

The revenue per school in 2017-2018 was $31.3 million and the total gross revenue was $497 million. The Pac-12 Network revenue dropped 6 per cent year-over-year, they had a 22 percent drop in net advertising revenue and a 30 per cent plunge in digital revenue. The Pac-12 network is a joke. JRsec is correct when he states that, "their business model falls totally flat on its projections because the viewing audience and subscriber base simply isn't there." But that is their business model and until it changes, they need to significantly reduce their expenses.

You focus on California schools and act as if schools like Oregon and Washington are weak sisters. UW had $81 million in football revenue and a $42 million dollar profit from football. Oregon also had a profit in football of $42 million. The Arizona schools are never going to leave the Pac-12. This is a western conference and they are a tight knit group.

The commissioner is on his last legs. If he is successful in selling a small share of equity in the Pac-12 for about $500 million, he might save his job. That would get each school about $40 million. But I think it will only delay the inevitable for him.

(06-01-2019 03:43 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 10:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The source of revenue I was focused on was the media revenue. The PAC 12 struggles in this regard because they can't utilize the noon EST timeslot. That pushes them into the 3:30 EST, Primetime, and late night slots.

Primetime is brutal because that's the slot everyone else is putting their very best content. It's a crowded and highly competitive slot to try to stake a claim in.

The late night slot is also problematic because most folks in the EST and CST have gone to bed. The potential audience is a lot smaller and the media partners are aware of that.

I've made the argument before with ACC and Big 12 schools--if a small handful of schools are the ones who merit the lions share of the conference's media value if you take those schools out of that conference and put them in a more valuable one the new conference is vastly increased because their overall percentage of high demand content has increased. With that said, I think the 4 CA schools, who one poster estimated was responsible for 50% or more of the PAC 12's media value, make vastly more money as a pod of an expanded Big Ten.

Do you think that the West Coast is clamoring for 9 AM college football? At 9 AM, most people on the west coast are not looking to turn the TV on to watch Wisconsin vs Illinois or Northwestern vs Rutgers. There are too many other options that are more interesting. You do understand that west coast athletics have done very well over the last five decades with about being in the noon EST timeslot?

The TV deal that the Pac-12 signed with ESPN & FOX beginning in the 2012-2013 season was for a then record $3 billion over 12 years. The time zones did not effect that record deal. What happened was the Pac-12 TV revenue was eventually passed by the other conferences and the Pac-12 Network TV revenue and exposure have been an abysmal failure. It is not about the time zone.

The revenue per school in 2017-2018 was $31.3 million and the total gross revenue was $497 million. The Pac-12 Network revenue dropped 6 per cent year-over-year, they had a 22 percent drop in net advertising revenue and a 30 per cent plunge in digital revenue. The Pac-12 network is a joke. JRsec is correct when he states that, "their business model falls totally flat on its projections because the viewing audience and subscriber base simply isn't there." But that is their business model and until it changes, they need to significantly reduce their expenses.

You focus on California schools and act as if schools like Oregon and Washington are weak sisters. UW had $81 million in football revenue and a $42 million dollar profit from football. Oregon also had a profit in football of $42 million. The Arizona schools are never going to leave the Pac-12. This is a western conference and they are a tight knit group.

The commissioner is on his last legs. If he is successful in selling a small share of equity in the Pac-12 for about $500 million, he might save his job. That would get each school about $40 million. But I think it will only delay the inevitable for him.

I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at. The point I'm making is that as a tv comodity the PAC 12 deals with the problem that the late night slot is problematic in that there is a limited audience. The Primetime slot is fiercely fought over and the PAC 12 usually isn't the biggest draw.

Washington and Oregon are valuable--that's why I point to the fact that the Big 12 would want to grab them.

There is no expansion move that the Pac 12 can do to make more money. If they want to be more valuable they either need to field better football teams that are nationally competitive or align themselves with more valuable conferences.

(06-01-2019 03:57 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 03:43 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 10:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The source of revenue I was focused on was the media revenue. The PAC 12 struggles in this regard because they can't utilize the noon EST timeslot. That pushes them into the 3:30 EST, Primetime, and late night slots.

Primetime is brutal because that's the slot everyone else is putting their very best content. It's a crowded and highly competitive slot to try to stake a claim in.

The late night slot is also problematic because most folks in the EST and CST have gone to bed. The potential audience is a lot smaller and the media partners are aware of that.

I've made the argument before with ACC and Big 12 schools--if a small handful of schools are the ones who merit the lions share of the conference's media value if you take those schools out of that conference and put them in a more valuable one the new conference is vastly increased because their overall percentage of high demand content has increased. With that said, I think the 4 CA schools, who one poster estimated was responsible for 50% or more of the PAC 12's media value, make vastly more money as a pod of an expanded Big Ten.

Do you think that the West Coast is clamoring for 9 AM college football? At 9 AM, most people on the west coast are not looking to turn the TV on to watch Wisconsin vs Illinois or Northwestern vs Rutgers. There are too many other options that are more interesting. You do understand that west coast athletics have done very well over the last five decades with about being in the noon EST timeslot?

The TV deal that the Pac-12 signed with ESPN & FOX beginning in the 2012-2013 season was for a then record $3 billion over 12 years. The time zones did not effect that record deal. What happened was the Pac-12 TV revenue was eventually passed by the other conferences and the Pac-12 Network TV revenue and exposure have been an abysmal failure. It is not about the time zone.

The revenue per school in 2017-2018 was $31.3 million and the total gross revenue was $497 million. The Pac-12 Network revenue dropped 6 per cent year-over-year, they had a 22 percent drop in net advertising revenue and a 30 per cent plunge in digital revenue. The Pac-12 network is a joke. JRsec is correct when he states that, "their business model falls totally flat on its projections because the viewing audience and subscriber base simply isn't there." But that is their business model and until it changes, they need to significantly reduce their expenses.

You focus on California schools and act as if schools like Oregon and Washington are weak sisters. UW had $81 million in football revenue and a $42 million dollar profit from football. Oregon also had a profit in football of $42 million. The Arizona schools are never going to leave the Pac-12. This is a western conference and they are a tight knit group.

The commissioner is on his last legs. If he is successful in selling a small share of equity in the Pac-12 for about $500 million, he might save his job. That would get each school about $40 million. But I think it will only delay the inevitable for him.

I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at. The point I'm making is that as a tv comodity the PAC 12 deals with the problem that the late night slot is problematic in that there is a limited audience. The Primetime slot is fiercely fought over and the PAC 12 usually isn't the biggest draw.

Washington and Oregon are valuable--that's why I point to the fact that the Big 12 would want to grab them.

There is no expansion move that the Pac 12 can do to make more money. If they want to be more valuable they either need to field better football teams that are nationally competitive or align themselves with more valuable conferences.

You keep missing the point. They don't need to be making Big 10 money. They need to fix their Pac-12 Network business model and reduce expenses. The Pac-12 Network was projected to bring in about $10 million per school. It is bringing in less then $2 million per school. An extra $8 million per school does not get them to the Big 10 numbers, but helps. Better TV exposure from the Pac-12 Network would really help.

In football and basketball, they have never had a problem with talent:

https://www.pe.com/2019/05/30/pac-12-dom...nd-future/

The Pac-12 has more players on the Toronto and Golden State rosters than the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Big East.

In fact, it has more than twice as many as any other Power Six:
Pac-12: 8
ACC: 3
SEC: 3
Big Ten: 2

Big East: 2
Big 12: 1

The MWC has two players and even the WAC has one player, Pascal Siakam. On a side note, I don't know how Ben Howland let Kawhi Leonard get away. Leonard was from Riverside and wanted to played for UCLA. I don't worry about Pac-12 teams eventually improving in football and basketball, my concern is keeping the talent at home. If they keep the talent at home and the coaching improves, the Pac-12 will be fine.