Att drops Pac12 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Att drops Pac12 (/thread-16904.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Att drops Pac12 (/thread-16904.html)
Att drops Pac12 - TreesAndBirds - 11-27-2018
Wilner article....
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/27/att-walks-away-and-takes-u-verse-with-it-what-it-means-for-the-pac-12-networks/
RE: Att drops Pac12 - 2006alum - 11-27-2018
I thought this was the especially interesting part:
Quote:Losing AT&T cannot be framed as anything other than a blow to the conference and commissioner Larry Scott — the networks are his brainchild; he is their chief executive.
But that’s due as much to the awful optics — to getting dropped by a partner of AT&T’s stature — as to the real-world impact.
The Pac-12 Networks are in approximately 20 million homes nationwide, with Comcast, Cox and DISH collectively occupying a significant share of the subscribers.
Our best guess is that approximately 400,000 – 500,000 subs watch the Pac-12 Networks on U-verse.
If we estimate a price point of approximately 85 cents per subscriber per month, that equates to roughly $5 million per year, or about $400,000 per school per year.
That’s 1.5 percent of the annual distribution paid by the conference to each campus (approximately $30 million per school).
So this seems more like a slap in the face than a punch to the gut.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - French Rage - 11-28-2018
Funny story, my wife and I were trying to find a spot on Castro Street in Mountain View to watch the UW game a few weeks back. Up until that point, I guess any game we tried to watch there was on a national network, so any spot had it. This time, being on the Pac-12 Network, the first few places didn't have it because they all had Direct-TV (which I'm assuming was for NFL games primarily). We finally went into St. Stephen's Green, where we met a father and son who had checked unsuccessfully at a few other restaurants. SSG did have Comcast, but only on a single TV by the bar; other than that, all TVs were Direct-TV. They also said that it was the only Comcast TV on the entire street. Being by the bar, the father and son could not sit there (the son being under 21), so my wife and I got those seats.
Long story short, there is one TV in downtown Mountain View showing the Pac-12 Network.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - yvonne - 11-28-2018
I've not been a fan of many of the TV changes that have happened under Scott. The one I'll never understand is Pac-12 After Dark. Games are already later than in other areas by dint of being in the Pacific time zone. So why put them later?
RE: Att drops Pac12 - French Rage - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 11:48 AM)yvonne Wrote: I've not been a fan of many of the TV changes that have happened under Scott. The one I'll never understand is Pac-12 After Dark. Games are already later than in other areas by dint of being in the Pacific time zone. So why put them later?
Because think of all of the people on the east coast just waiting WAITING to watch Arizona play Oregon State at 11:30pm. It can't fail!
Just like all of the people who want to watch a CCG on Friday night. Because that screams "college football"!
RE: Att drops Pac12 - CTcard - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 11:48 AM)yvonne Wrote: I've not been a fan of many of the TV changes that have happened under Scott. The one I'll never understand is Pac-12 After Dark. Games are already later than in other areas by dint of being in the Pacific time zone. So why put them later?
They were put later because the TV networks offered more money if the Pac 12 would put more games later.
It's been a year or more since I looked this up, but at that time it turned out that Pac 12 games in these later slots got bigger audiences than the Pac 12 games in early slots. Apparently this is because the TV networks are correct, and the competition with other games is more decisive than the competition with sleeping (or other night activities).
RE: Att drops Pac12 - yvonne - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 12:47 PM)CTcard Wrote:(11-28-2018, 11:48 AM)yvonne Wrote: I've not been a fan of many of the TV changes that have happened under Scott. The one I'll never understand is Pac-12 After Dark. Games are already later than in other areas by dint of being in the Pacific time zone. So why put them later?
They were put later because the TV networks offered more money if the Pac 12 would put more games later.
It's been a year or more since I looked this up, but at that time it turned out that Pac 12 games in these later slots got bigger audiences than the Pac 12 games in early slots. Apparently this is because the TV networks are correct, and the competition with other games is more decisive than the competition with sleeping (or other night activities).
There isn't competition. The Pac-12 games are already later than other conferences' games. A game at 4:00 is already at 7:00. Afternoon games are over by the time these start. Eastern games are played closer to noon, not at 7:00.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - Farm93 - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 12:51 PM)yvonne Wrote:(11-28-2018, 12:47 PM)CTcard Wrote:(11-28-2018, 11:48 AM)yvonne Wrote: I've not been a fan of many of the TV changes that have happened under Scott. The one I'll never understand is Pac-12 After Dark. Games are already later than in other areas by dint of being in the Pacific time zone. So why put them later?
They were put later because the TV networks offered more money if the Pac 12 would put more games later.
It's been a year or more since I looked this up, but at that time it turned out that Pac 12 games in these later slots got bigger audiences than the Pac 12 games in early slots. Apparently this is because the TV networks are correct, and the competition with other games is more decisive than the competition with sleeping (or other night activities).
There isn't competition. The Pac-12 games are already later than other conferences' games. A game at 4:00 is already at 7:00. Afternoon games are over by the time these start. Eastern games are played closer to noon, not at 7:00.
There are plenty of games that start at 4PM PDT or 7PM Eastern/6PM Central
The SEC's featured ESPN games are normally starting at 4:30PM PDT. They routinely have games that start at 5PM PDT. Sometimes later.
The Big12 has a bounty of games that start at 6PM PDT (8PM local). In fact, even those 8PM Pac-12 After Dark games are often kicked to obscure channels and/or webcasts as those Big12 games take FOREVER to complete.
The reality is that sports on the East Coast often end after midnight. And often start at 9PM local if the game is intended for a national audience or are played in "minor" conferences eager to get some of their teams on TV.
To get really clear of all of that content certain to generate higher ratings (SEC for football/ACC for hoops)
Pac-12 After Dark really means Pac-12 After more popular conferences end their day. And thanks to East Coast and Southern fans willingness to stay at stadiums and arenas well beyond midnight the truth is ESPN and Fox probably would prefer Pac-12 After Dark could provide 8PM or even 9PM kicks and tips.
The Pac-12 fans complain if games are too early or too late.
The Pac-12 fans complain if the sun is too bright or if the weather is not perfect. Worse the Cali fans don't even show up if there is rain in the forecast.
The Pac-12 fans grumble about trying to get through commute traffic for midweek games (rather than take the whole day off like the SEC types would do).
The true Pac-12 alums don't really have a ton of passion to watch their teams on the road.
And, worse, non-college educated citizens in the Pac-12 footprint generally don't care about college sports or the Pac-12.
The idea that the Pac-12 deal is even close to the SEC deal in financial terms is a miracle.
The Pac-12 fans that do watch are generally more affluent which is valuable to some advertisers, but for most products the passionate and numerous eyeballs watching the SEC is a better ad placement choice.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - BigEasyCard - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 10:16 AM)French Rage Wrote: Funny story, my wife and I were trying to find a spot on Castro Street in Mountain View to watch the UW game a few weeks back. Up until that point, I guess any game we tried to watch there was on a national network, so any spot had it. This time, being on the Pac-12 Network, the first few places didn't have it because they all had Direct-TV (which I'm assuming was for NFL games primarily). We finally went into St. Stephen's Green, where we met a father and son who had checked unsuccessfully at a few other restaurants. SSG did have Comcast, but only on a single TV by the bar; other than that, all TVs were Direct-TV. They also said that it was the only Comcast TV on the entire street. Being by the bar, the father and son could not sit there (the son being under 21), so my wife and I got those seats.
Long story short, there is one TV in downtown Mountain View showing the Pac-12 Network.
After years of skipping New Orleans viewing parties whenever the game was on Pac-12 network, we finally found a sports bar which carries it. Thanks to Mike Eubanks in the Athletics Department for connecting us to them.
During the UCLA game on Saturday, they even played "All Right Now" for us over their sound system. Can't wait for Big Game.
Geaux Cardinal!
RE: Att drops Pac12 - BostonCard - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 12:51 PM)yvonne Wrote:(11-28-2018, 12:47 PM)CTcard Wrote:(11-28-2018, 11:48 AM)yvonne Wrote: I've not been a fan of many of the TV changes that have happened under Scott. The one I'll never understand is Pac-12 After Dark. Games are already later than in other areas by dint of being in the Pacific time zone. So why put them later?
They were put later because the TV networks offered more money if the Pac 12 would put more games later.
It's been a year or more since I looked this up, but at that time it turned out that Pac 12 games in these later slots got bigger audiences than the Pac 12 games in early slots. Apparently this is because the TV networks are correct, and the competition with other games is more decisive than the competition with sleeping (or other night activities).
There isn't competition. The Pac-12 games are already later than other conferences' games. A game at 4:00 is already at 7:00. Afternoon games are over by the time these start. Eastern games are played closer to noon, not at 7:00.
This isn’t accurate. An 8pm eastern game is prime time, and there are plenty of east coast teams that kick off at the time. This week end, both the ACC and the Big-Ten championship games are at 8 pm. Generally speaking, the start times in most time zones are 12-1 pm, 3-4 pm, and 7-8 pm. Occasionally, you will get an earlier 10 am local time, game time (especially when a visiting team from the west coast is playing)
A network that is looking to fill its Saturday with wall-to-wall live football coverage will feature a 10 am eastern game, a 1 pm eastern game, a 4 pm eastern or 1 pm Pacific game, a 7 pm Eastern or 4 pm Pacific game, and a 7 pm Pacific game. Sprinkle in an evening game on Thursday and Friday, and you can run up to seven games without one confliCting.
BC
RE: Att drops Pac12 - Stymie - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 10:16 AM)French Rage Wrote: Funny story, my wife and I were trying to find a spot on Castro Street in Mountain View to watch the UW game a few weeks back. Up until that point, I guess any game we tried to watch there was on a national network, so any spot had it. This time, being on the Pac-12 Network, the first few places didn't have it because they all had Direct-TV (which I'm assuming was for NFL games primarily). We finally went into St. Stephen's Green, where we met a father and son who had checked unsuccessfully at a few other restaurants. SSG did have Comcast, but only on a single TV by the bar; other than that, all TVs were Direct-TV. They also said that it was the only Comcast TV on the entire street. Being by the bar, the father and son could not sit there (the son being under 21), so my wife and I got those seats.
Long story short, there is one TV in downtown Mountain View showing the Pac-12 Network.
I was in Half Moon Bay when Wazzu was breaking our heart and there were Zilch TV's showing the game publicly, Thank You, the Singularity....
RE: Att drops Pac12 - 2006alum - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 01:55 PM)Farm93 Wrote: The reality is that sports on the East Coast often end after midnight. And often start at 9PM local if the game is intended for a national audience or are played in "minor" conferences eager to get some of their teams on TV.
To get really clear of all of that content certain to generate higher ratings (SEC for football/ACC for hoops)
Pac-12 After Dark really means Pac-12 After more popular conferences end their day. And thanks to East Coast and Southern fans willingness to stay at stadiums and arenas well beyond midnight the truth is ESPN and Fox probably would prefer Pac-12 After Dark could provide 8PM or even 9PM kicks and tips.
The Pac-12 fans complain if games are too early or too late.
The Pac-12 fans complain if the sun is too bright or if the weather is not perfect. Worse the Cali fans don't even show up if there is rain in the forecast.
The Pac-12 fans grumble about trying to get through commute traffic for midweek games (rather than take the whole day off like the SEC types would do).
The true Pac-12 alums don't really have a ton of passion to watch their teams on the road.
And, worse, non-college educated citizens in the Pac-12 footprint generally don't care about college sports or the Pac-12.
The idea that the Pac-12 deal is even close to the SEC deal in financial terms is a miracle.
The Pac-12 fans that do watch are generally more affluent which is valuable to some advertisers, but for most products the passionate and numerous eyeballs watching the SEC is a better ad placement choice.
This, times 100. A ton of football games start at 8 p.m. EST and basketball games that start at 9 p.m. EST. I know folks out west forget this, but 76% of the country lives in the Eastern or Central time zones, which means that if you have any east coast/central teams playing at 8 p.m. EST/7 p.m. CST, why would ESPN carry a 5 p.m. PST game between west coast teams? There's no universe where Washington St v. Oregon attracts as many eyeballs as Miami vs. Florida State, even though this season the latter two teams were both markedly worse than the first two. My guess is 80% of the audience for PAC-12 games on ESPN lives in Mountain or Pacific time (which is 24% of the country).
I truly think when the cord-cutting dust settles in a decade, conferences will make money by extracting the greatest share of the revenue brought in for their sports, and owning the content and distribution platform will become key. The younger generation is used to everything on demand - why pay $100 month for Cable TV for the 10 hours of sports per month I want to watch on my tablet while multi-tasking? This is the future, and I do think the PAC-12 will be well positioned over time.
All that said, in the mean time, they really need to find a way to get it carried on more distributors. Until then, it's a liability, not a benefit.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - yvonne - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 06:49 PM)2006alum Wrote:(11-28-2018, 01:55 PM)Farm93 Wrote: The reality is that sports on the East Coast often end after midnight. And often start at 9PM local if the game is intended for a national audience or are played in "minor" conferences eager to get some of their teams on TV.
To get really clear of all of that content certain to generate higher ratings (SEC for football/ACC for hoops)
Pac-12 After Dark really means Pac-12 After more popular conferences end their day. And thanks to East Coast and Southern fans willingness to stay at stadiums and arenas well beyond midnight the truth is ESPN and Fox probably would prefer Pac-12 After Dark could provide 8PM or even 9PM kicks and tips.
The Pac-12 fans complain if games are too early or too late.
The Pac-12 fans complain if the sun is too bright or if the weather is not perfect. Worse the Cali fans don't even show up if there is rain in the forecast.
The Pac-12 fans grumble about trying to get through commute traffic for midweek games (rather than take the whole day off like the SEC types would do).
The true Pac-12 alums don't really have a ton of passion to watch their teams on the road.
And, worse, non-college educated citizens in the Pac-12 footprint generally don't care about college sports or the Pac-12.
The idea that the Pac-12 deal is even close to the SEC deal in financial terms is a miracle.
The Pac-12 fans that do watch are generally more affluent which is valuable to some advertisers, but for most products the passionate and numerous eyeballs watching the SEC is a better ad placement choice.
This, times 100. A ton of football games start at 8 p.m. EST and basketball games that start at 9 p.m. EST. I know folks out west forget this, but 76% of the country lives in the Eastern or Central time zones, which means that if you have any east coast/central teams playing at 8 p.m. EST/7 p.m. CST, why would ESPN carry a 5 p.m. PST game between west coast teams? There's no universe where Washington St v. Oregon attracts as many eyeballs as Miami vs. Florida State, even though this season the latter two teams were both markedly worse than the first two. My guess is 80% of the audience for PAC-12 games on ESPN lives in Mountain or Pacific time (which is 24% of the country).
I truly think when the cord-cutting dust settles in a decade, conferences will make money by extracting the greatest share of the revenue brought in for their sports, and owning the content and distribution platform will become key. The younger generation is used to everything on demand - why pay $100 month for Cable TV for the 10 hours of sports per month I want to watch on my tablet while multi-tasking? This is the future, and I do think the PAC-12 will be well positioned over time.
All that said, in the mean time, they really need to find a way to get it carried on more distributors. Until then, it's a liability, not a benefit.
If the country couldn't care less about a fair number of Pac-12 schools — something that could change had they the opportunity to watch teams — why is it necessary to play the majority of games at times inconvenient for fans? Only a few games, based on this reasoning, need to be played at 10:00 or later.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - 2006alum - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 07:13 PM)yvonne Wrote: If the country couldn't care less about a fair number of Pac-12 schools — something that could change had they the opportunity to watch teams — why is it necessary to play the majority of games at times inconvenient for fans? Only a few games, based on this reasoning, need to be played at 10:00 or later.
Because those games still draw more far more eyeballs on a Saturday night than the 12th edition of Sportscenter, so ESPN is happy to toss a bunch of cash at the Pac-12 to take that slot. I'm fairly confident when the next rounds of negotiations happen in the early/mid 2020s, that will no longer be the case, at which point they may revert to games that are better for fans than for networks. But by then we'll probably all be dead from [your choice of: global warming; global pandemic; AI overlords; nuclear winter], so debatable whether that's worth looking forward to...
RE: Att drops Pac12 - Farm93 - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 07:20 PM)2006alum Wrote:(11-28-2018, 07:13 PM)yvonne Wrote: If the country couldn't care less about a fair number of Pac-12 schools — something that could change had they the opportunity to watch teams — why is it necessary to play the majority of games at times inconvenient for fans? Only a few games, based on this reasoning, need to be played at 10:00 or later.
Because those games still draw more far more eyeballs on a Saturday night than the 12th edition of Sportscenter, so ESPN is happy to toss a bunch of cash at the Pac-12 to take that slot. I'm fairly confident when the next rounds of negotiations happen in the early/mid 2020s, that will no longer be the case, at which point they may revert to games that are better for fans than for networks. But by then we'll probably all be dead from [your choice of: global warming; global pandemic; AI overlords; nuclear winter], so debatable whether that's worth looking forward to...
All true. The sports nets would LOVE to have the Pac-12 play a few games with a 9PM PDT kick, if the Pac-12 were willing and the price was right. Loads of other conferences start at 9PM local time, so it is not impossible.
The SEC football teams are literally more valuable to their schools than the academic activities, and definitely more valuable to most citizens in those states than the academic efforts. It really is OK IMHO if Stanford is in a conference with a slightly different perspective on football, Olympic sports and academics.
FWIW - It is not those global events
- The general decline of mass market broadcasting
- Millenial viewing habits (They aren't big on traditional spectator sports)
- CTE
It will be much easier to drop football in 2040 if the Pac-16 is no longer financially competitive with the major conferences.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - winflop - 11-29-2018
Late kickoffs are here to stay. The main problems I see with them are
1. Networks have 100% say in who plays in those slots, which does not allow conference to market its teams as it wants to
2. No limits on the number of times a team can be put into those slots. In 2015 IIRC we had late kickoffs (6pm Pacific or later) in at least half of our games. I think that contributed to both us not being in the CFP and McCaffrey getting jobbed out of the Voldemort Trophy
3. No limits on the number of games each week in those slots
These things were sacrificed to the almighty dollar, and I think it will damage the conference in the long term.
RE: Att drops Pac12 - 2006alum - 11-29-2018
(11-29-2018, 05:06 AM)winflop Wrote: 2. No limits on the number of times a team can be put into those slots. In 2015 IIRC we had late kickoffs (6pm Pacific or later) in at least half of our games. I think that contributed to both us not being in the CFP and McCaffrey getting jobbed out of the Voldemort Trophy
I guess I remain unconvinced of this. Is there East Coast media bias? Of course. But Pac-12 after dark games are the highest rated Pac-12 games, so having McCaffrey on actually probably helped him insofar as more people saw him play, unless you think Voldemort Trophy voters vote only based on reading news stories on Saturday evening about the best plays of the day. I can't possibly believe that. My view has been that our Voldemort runner-ups have generally had the bad luck of losing to players on teams that were the national champions that year: Ingram (Alabama) over Gerhart in 2009, Newton (Auburn) over Luck in 2010, Henry (Alabama) over McCaffrey in 2015.
The two exceptions were RGIII over Luck in 2011 and Mayfield over Love in 2017. And Mayfield led his team to the CFP and lost in the semifinals in 2x overtime. So in all cases exception Baylor in 2011, our guy lost to a player and team with way more national exposure due to their team being better. It's really hard to win the Voldemort if your team isn't in contention for at least a NY6 Bowl, which we weren't with Love last year - we were a 4-loss team with only two top-25 wins (Washington and the Domers) when Love came in runner-up. Oklahoma had beaten Ohio State, Oklahoma State, and TCU twice.
I continue to believe that until our "product" on the field (and basketball court) improves, our primary weakness is that other conferences can plop an asterisk by any exceptional performances from our guys.