[BostonCard]

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni..._lead.html

Yikes, not a pretty picture as the rogue vote by Guerrero is discussed along with Scott's public defenestration of the UCLA AD.  Funny, I had thought that given Shaw's comments about camps that we were the vote against them, but I guess it was UCLA.

BC

[BostonCard]

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni..._lead.html

Yikes, not a pretty picture as the rogue vote by Guerrero is discussed along with Scott's public defenestration of the UCLA AD.  Funny, I had thought that given Shaw's comments about camps that we were the vote against them, but I guess it was UCLA.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Nope, Shaw has long said that while he doesn't personally want to do camps, he feels like they're great for other teams.

[washingtonismoney]

Nope, Shaw has long said that while he doesn't personally want to do camps, he feels like they're great for other teams.

[fullmetal]

Guerrero's explanation for why he changed his vote was rather...unconvincing.

[fullmetal]

Guerrero's explanation for why he changed his vote was rather...unconvincing.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.  The fact is Scott is no different than Roger Goodell in that he can only do what his bosses - the presidents and chancellors of Pac-12 member universities - allow.  When you consider how far behind the times the Pac-12 was under the walking dead man Tom Hansen, isn't there good reason to believe its the conference bosses who haven't been bold enough?

They could have expanded to 16 before anyone else and didn't.  They could have allowed on-demand viewing of the Pac-12 Networks over the Internet and didn't.  They could have refused so many late kickoffs.  They could have done lots of different things.  My guess is Scott wanted to be the first conference to 16 teams and was stopped by Pac-12 schools who don't want to push the envelope and be bold because that just isn't the culture of the conference, no matter who the commissioner is.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.  The fact is Scott is no different than Roger Goodell in that he can only do what his bosses - the presidents and chancellors of Pac-12 member universities - allow.  When you consider how far behind the times the Pac-12 was under the walking dead man Tom Hansen, isn't there good reason to believe its the conference bosses who haven't been bold enough?

They could have expanded to 16 before anyone else and didn't.  They could have allowed on-demand viewing of the Pac-12 Networks over the Internet and didn't.  They could have refused so many late kickoffs.  They could have done lots of different things.  My guess is Scott wanted to be the first conference to 16 teams and was stopped by Pac-12 schools who don't want to push the envelope and be bold because that just isn't the culture of the conference, no matter who the commissioner is.

[dabigv13]

The bold move would have been staying the Pac 10, and getting a new TV deal that gets split 10 ways instead of 12, and still having a conference champ game if that really actually matters (doubt it). That's what the Big 12 lobbied for and, should they choose, can have this season.

Colorado and Utah are all well and fine, but the round robin scheduling was way better. And actually I don't really care about Colorado or Utah.

[dabigv13]

The bold move would have been staying the Pac 10, and getting a new TV deal that gets split 10 ways instead of 12, and still having a conference champ game if that really actually matters (doubt it). That's what the Big 12 lobbied for and, should they choose, can have this season.

Colorado and Utah are all well and fine, but the round robin scheduling was way better. And actually I don't really care about Colorado or Utah.

[stupac2]

Last I checked the NCAA told the Big 12 that they couldn't do a CCG with a 10-team conference. Has that changed?

[stupac2]

Last I checked the NCAA told the Big 12 that they couldn't do a CCG with a 10-team conference. Has that changed?

[BostonCard]

The decision not expand to 16 was not the Pac-12's.  The factors that killed the deal:

1) Texas didn't want to come if it had to give up the Longhorn network.
2) The other teams in the Big12 didn't want to come once ESPN jumped in to prevent them from leaving.

BC

[BostonCard]

The decision not expand to 16 was not the Pac-12's.  The factors that killed the deal:

1) Texas didn't want to come if it had to give up the Longhorn network.
2) The other teams in the Big12 didn't want to come once ESPN jumped in to prevent them from leaving.

BC

[82lsju]

Last I checked the NCAA told the Big 12 that they couldn't do a CCG with a 10-team conference. Has that changed?

yes

The Big 12 now has the ability to conduct a conference championship football game without expanding from 10 teams, thanks to a vote Wednesday at the NCAA convention in San Antonio.

The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.
...
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said it is too early to speculate whether this vote means the Big 12 will resume playing conference title games as it did for its first 15 years of existence.


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...title-game

[82lsju]

Last I checked the NCAA told the Big 12 that they couldn't do a CCG with a 10-team conference. Has that changed?

yes

The Big 12 now has the ability to conduct a conference championship football game without expanding from 10 teams, thanks to a vote Wednesday at the NCAA convention in San Antonio.

The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.
...
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said it is too early to speculate whether this vote means the Big 12 will resume playing conference title games as it did for its first 15 years of existence.


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...title-game

[CTcard]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.  ...

They could have expanded to 16 before anyone else and didn't.  They could have allowed on-demand viewing of the Pac-12 Networks over the Internet and didn't.  They could have refused so many late kickoffs.  They could have done lots of different things.  My guess is Scott wanted to be the first conference to 16 teams and was stopped by Pac-12 schools who don't want to push the envelope and be bold because that just isn't the culture of the conference, no matter who the commissioner is.

For the most part I agree with your first statement, depending upon exactly what one wishes to define as "falling behind". For most people that means the Pac 12 making less money than the SEC and Big Ten. The primary problem leading to that situation is that the population in the west is generally less interested in (i.e. less willing to dump dollars on) college football than that in the south and midwest. That is primarily not Larry Scott's fault, though part of his job is to drum up interest.

Most of your issues in the latter paragraph would not necessarily serve to improve the revenue situation.

It is not clear that expanding to 16 would have put the Pac 12 members in a better financial situation than currently; it would have depended upon the details. At any rate, I thought the key stumbling block was Texas refusing to abandon the Longhorn Network or agree to equal revenue sharing.

It seems to be almost universally agreed in the TV business that independent on-demand viewing is a revenue killer. So we all would certainly like it, but it probably wouldn't help stopping the Pac 12 from falling behind the SEC.

Late kickoffs is similar. Those were put in place explicitly to bring in more money in the bargaining with the TV networks.

I think the steps to "modernize" that are likely to come down the pipe are going to annoy us, and certainly cost us coin. 

[CTcard]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.  ...

They could have expanded to 16 before anyone else and didn't.  They could have allowed on-demand viewing of the Pac-12 Networks over the Internet and didn't.  They could have refused so many late kickoffs.  They could have done lots of different things.  My guess is Scott wanted to be the first conference to 16 teams and was stopped by Pac-12 schools who don't want to push the envelope and be bold because that just isn't the culture of the conference, no matter who the commissioner is.

For the most part I agree with your first statement, depending upon exactly what one wishes to define as "falling behind". For most people that means the Pac 12 making less money than the SEC and Big Ten. The primary problem leading to that situation is that the population in the west is generally less interested in (i.e. less willing to dump dollars on) college football than that in the south and midwest. That is primarily not Larry Scott's fault, though part of his job is to drum up interest.

Most of your issues in the latter paragraph would not necessarily serve to improve the revenue situation.

It is not clear that expanding to 16 would have put the Pac 12 members in a better financial situation than currently; it would have depended upon the details. At any rate, I thought the key stumbling block was Texas refusing to abandon the Longhorn Network or agree to equal revenue sharing.

It seems to be almost universally agreed in the TV business that independent on-demand viewing is a revenue killer. So we all would certainly like it, but it probably wouldn't help stopping the Pac 12 from falling behind the SEC.

Late kickoffs is similar. Those were put in place explicitly to bring in more money in the bargaining with the TV networks.

I think the steps to "modernize" that are likely to come down the pipe are going to annoy us, and certainly cost us coin. 

[OutsiderFan]

I'll admit there are no easy answers for the Pac-12, and Larry Scott isn't perfect, but I've never heard anyone defend Tom Hansen as competent.

[OutsiderFan]

I'll admit there are no easy answers for the Pac-12, and Larry Scott isn't perfect, but I've never heard anyone defend Tom Hansen as competent.

[OutsiderFan]

TV deals, bowl match-ups, refusal to go to +1 playoff (that came anyway, only 8 years later) and giving up the Rose Bowl anyway, terrible officiating.  Pac-10 fans routinely complained about Hansen to a degree not seen with Larry Scott.  I even remember a petition and website in favor of firing Tom Hansen.

Larry Scott may not be perfect, but he is way, way more competent and imaginative than Hansen ever thought of being. 

[OutsiderFan]

TV deals, bowl match-ups, refusal to go to +1 playoff (that came anyway, only 8 years later) and giving up the Rose Bowl anyway, terrible officiating.  Pac-10 fans routinely complained about Hansen to a degree not seen with Larry Scott.  I even remember a petition and website in favor of firing Tom Hansen.

Larry Scott may not be perfect, but he is way, way more competent and imaginative than Hansen ever thought of being. 

[winflop]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.

I think it's quite fair.  He is ultimately responsible for the crappy terms of the TV deal and for the failure to get P12N on DirecTV.  Both have major negative implications for exposure of the conference to a national audience.  Maybe others couldn't have done better at the time, but when I look at the deal today I see one that was locked in for too many years without enough flexibility for the conference to renegotiate if market dynamics changed.

[winflop]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.

I think it's quite fair.  He is ultimately responsible for the crappy terms of the TV deal and for the failure to get P12N on DirecTV.  Both have major negative implications for exposure of the conference to a national audience.  Maybe others couldn't have done better at the time, but when I look at the deal today I see one that was locked in for too many years without enough flexibility for the conference to renegotiate if market dynamics changed.

[CTcard]

... Pac-10 fans routinely complained about Hansen to a degree not seen with Larry Scott.  I even remember a petition and website in favor of firing Tom Hansen.

https://www.facebook.com/FireLarryScott/

[CTcard]

... Pac-10 fans routinely complained about Hansen to a degree not seen with Larry Scott.  I even remember a petition and website in favor of firing Tom Hansen.

https://www.facebook.com/FireLarryScott/

[oldalum]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=14933.msg161066#msg161066 date=1461264704]
I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.

I think it's quite fair.  He is ultimately responsible for the crappy terms of the TV deal and for the failure to get P12N on DirecTV.  Both have major negative implications for exposure of the conference to a national audience.  Maybe others couldn't have done better at the time, but when I look at the deal today I see one that was locked in for too many years without enough flexibility for the conference to renegotiate if market dynamics changed.
[/quote]

Actually I don't think it's fair. We don't know the cards Scott had to play at the time, so I don't see how we can judge now how well he played them. Just looking at the outcome doesn't tell you anything about how well he played his hand. He had a weak hand because of the projected viewership compared to those of other conferences. DirectTV had very strong negotiating power because they were willing to walk away (and did), because they didn't need the Pac-12 because of the weakness of the Pac-12 audience. Scott would have had to match with all other cable channels the same deal DirectTV wanted, which might have made the economics of the network impossible. I would guess (but don't know) that the TV deal is the one that maximized the revenue, which is what I believe he was told to do. If Scott had gone to the Univ. presidents and A.D.'s and said, we can limit night games to improve the at-game fan experience but it would cost us $X billion, they probably would have said we want the $. Maybe he did, we don't know. Now it looks like a shorter deal would have been better, but was that predictable then? If the bottom had fallen out of the market, would we be criticizing him now for failing to get a longer deal? Maybe a shorter deal would have cost us $Y billion, we don't know. My point is, we just don't know enough to judge.

[oldalum]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=14933.msg161066#msg161066 date=1461264704]
I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.

I think it's quite fair.  He is ultimately responsible for the crappy terms of the TV deal and for the failure to get P12N on DirecTV.  Both have major negative implications for exposure of the conference to a national audience.  Maybe others couldn't have done better at the time, but when I look at the deal today I see one that was locked in for too many years without enough flexibility for the conference to renegotiate if market dynamics changed.
[/quote]

Actually I don't think it's fair. We don't know the cards Scott had to play at the time, so I don't see how we can judge now how well he played them. Just looking at the outcome doesn't tell you anything about how well he played his hand. He had a weak hand because of the projected viewership compared to those of other conferences. DirectTV had very strong negotiating power because they were willing to walk away (and did), because they didn't need the Pac-12 because of the weakness of the Pac-12 audience. Scott would have had to match with all other cable channels the same deal DirectTV wanted, which might have made the economics of the network impossible. I would guess (but don't know) that the TV deal is the one that maximized the revenue, which is what I believe he was told to do. If Scott had gone to the Univ. presidents and A.D.'s and said, we can limit night games to improve the at-game fan experience but it would cost us $X billion, they probably would have said we want the $. Maybe he did, we don't know. Now it looks like a shorter deal would have been better, but was that predictable then? If the bottom had fallen out of the market, would we be criticizing him now for failing to get a longer deal? Maybe a shorter deal would have cost us $Y billion, we don't know. My point is, we just don't know enough to judge.

[BostonCard]

Well, one of the key decisions was not to split ownership of the Pac-12 networks.  Initially it looked like a good move, but perhaps in retrospect it might not have been.  ESPN or Fox or someone else might have been able to exert leverage on carriers like DirectTV that the Pac-12Nets as an independent entity could not.

Then again, not tying the networks to a ball and change of a legacy sports television network might, in the very long term (10 years +) prove to be brilliant.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, one of the key decisions was not to split ownership of the Pac-12 networks.  Initially it looked like a good move, but perhaps in retrospect it might not have been.  ESPN or Fox or someone else might have been able to exert leverage on carriers like DirectTV that the Pac-12Nets as an independent entity could not.

Then again, not tying the networks to a ball and change of a legacy sports television network might, in the very long term (10 years +) prove to be brilliant.

BC

[oldalum]

yes, retaining 100% ownership was a long-term gamble that could pay off big as on-demand viewing supplants cable subscriptions (the Pac-12 network would make a lot more money off me if it charged me per view rather than through Comcast), but that depends on how long is long-term and whether the network can support the conference adequately enough until then. I would guess that the Pac-12 has less non-Pac-12 national viewership than some other conferences, so we might be better off selling just to our own fans and keeping 100% while the SEC may be better off selling football to the nation and keeping 50%. Scott and the universities (he's not a free agent) might well have made the wrong decision, but I find it hard to say it was obviously a poor decision at the time, or that a better negotiator would have done better, especially when I know essentially nothing of the facts at the time. When complex decisions don't turn out well, it's easy to find fault and cast blame, but I don't think it's usually so straightforward.

[oldalum]

yes, retaining 100% ownership was a long-term gamble that could pay off big as on-demand viewing supplants cable subscriptions (the Pac-12 network would make a lot more money off me if it charged me per view rather than through Comcast), but that depends on how long is long-term and whether the network can support the conference adequately enough until then. I would guess that the Pac-12 has less non-Pac-12 national viewership than some other conferences, so we might be better off selling just to our own fans and keeping 100% while the SEC may be better off selling football to the nation and keeping 50%. Scott and the universities (he's not a free agent) might well have made the wrong decision, but I find it hard to say it was obviously a poor decision at the time, or that a better negotiator would have done better, especially when I know essentially nothing of the facts at the time. When complex decisions don't turn out well, it's easy to find fault and cast blame, but I don't think it's usually so straightforward.

[winflop]

My biggest issue is that Scott locked the conference into a long-term deal with no options to get out or renegotiate after 3-5 years.  In two industries that is this dynamic (sports and media), that is just plain STUPID.

[winflop]

My biggest issue is that Scott locked the conference into a long-term deal with no options to get out or renegotiate after 3-5 years.  In two industries that is this dynamic (sports and media), that is just plain STUPID.

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone know how long the original cable/satellite deals last?  More specifically, how long until the conference is legally allowed to offer on-demand programming over the Internet?

I know I sound like a broken record on this issue, but I am convinced the Pac-12 Network will generate more money when it is available on demand. 

Let's look at some numbers now.  According to this, http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/ the Pac-12 is getting $.39/mo per cable subscriber and it is in 12,300,000 homes.  That works out to $57,564,000 in annual revenue, or pretty close to my crude estimates for a pay online only model that would look something like this:

How many Pac-12 fans are there in total?  Would 100k fans per Pac-12 school on average be a reasonable number?  That would give the Pac-12 1.2 million fans.  Seems a little light to me, but let's use this for starters.

If you had say half of these fans paying for a Pac-12 Network subscription for say $100/year, the conference would net:
600k fans x $100 = $60 million in annual revenue.  This number seems conservative to me.

We know the actual model is paying the schools about $1MM - $1.5MM per year.  My proposed online only model would match that.  BUT, the online model would leave room for revenue growth, by growing the fan base, something that can't be done with the barriers to cable and satellite subscriber growth.  Advertising revenue would also increase.  The current model doesn't allow for any growth, and if anything, revenues will shrink because cord cutters and cord nevers is only a growing trend, not a fading one, so no other distribution partners are going to add much more to that 12,300,000 number. 

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have a business that serves 600,000 people happy to pay $100/yr, than one with 12,300,000 people - many who don't have any interest in your product - paying $4.68/yr for it?

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone know how long the original cable/satellite deals last?  More specifically, how long until the conference is legally allowed to offer on-demand programming over the Internet?

I know I sound like a broken record on this issue, but I am convinced the Pac-12 Network will generate more money when it is available on demand. 

Let's look at some numbers now.  According to this, http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/ the Pac-12 is getting $.39/mo per cable subscriber and it is in 12,300,000 homes.  That works out to $57,564,000 in annual revenue, or pretty close to my crude estimates for a pay online only model that would look something like this:

How many Pac-12 fans are there in total?  Would 100k fans per Pac-12 school on average be a reasonable number?  That would give the Pac-12 1.2 million fans.  Seems a little light to me, but let's use this for starters.

If you had say half of these fans paying for a Pac-12 Network subscription for say $100/year, the conference would net:
600k fans x $100 = $60 million in annual revenue.  This number seems conservative to me.

We know the actual model is paying the schools about $1MM - $1.5MM per year.  My proposed online only model would match that.  BUT, the online model would leave room for revenue growth, by growing the fan base, something that can't be done with the barriers to cable and satellite subscriber growth.  Advertising revenue would also increase.  The current model doesn't allow for any growth, and if anything, revenues will shrink because cord cutters and cord nevers is only a growing trend, not a fading one, so no other distribution partners are going to add much more to that 12,300,000 number. 

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have a business that serves 600,000 people happy to pay $100/yr, than one with 12,300,000 people - many who don't have any interest in your product - paying $4.68/yr for it?

[winflop]

I like the idea but no way are you going to get 600,000 people to shell out $100/year.  That price is way too high.  $30-40 would seem an attractive price to a larger market.

[winflop]

I like the idea but no way are you going to get 600,000 people to shell out $100/year.  That price is way too high.  $30-40 would seem an attractive price to a larger market.

[CowboyIndian]

They should offer F all games at pay per view,

That's what they're doing now.

[CowboyIndian]

They should offer F all games at pay per view,

That's what they're doing now.