Printable View
Interesting article by Jon Wilner:
Pac-12 finances: SEC and Big Ten
revenue comps, Pac-12 Networks profit, Larry Scott’s pay and much more
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/college...12475585937500
I am not sure what to make of these numbers at this point. It does occur to me that the decision not to sell part of the "asset" to ESPN or Fox, et al., is looking pretty prescient, with the advance of streaming technology.
"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus
More on this subject from the SL Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3919194-1...ibers-say-they
"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus
ESPN Loses Another 1.5 Million Subscribers As Cord Cutting Accelerates
I am no expert, but think it may be turning out to be a good thing the PAC-12 hasn't sold its content to the networks. Down the road we may be paying more for that content (our our favorite league will be making less money).
PAC-12 Network content coming on... Twitter?
Pac-12 Networks reaches landmark distribution deals with Twitter, Cox, Frontier
http://pac-12.com/article/2016/07/13...r-cox-frontier
weird, can't say I've watched anything live on twitter beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by LA Ute
Considering that they won't show any basketball or football, that statement will likely continue to hold true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorcho
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I watched Pac-mas live on Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorcho
There were a lot of Pac 12 Network threads to choose from, but I went with this one.
New article from Wilner: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/...-you-imagined/
Quote:
Information provided to the Hotline by SNL Kagan, the renown media research firm, indicates the Pac-12 Networks have lost seven percent of their audience since the peak in 2016, with much of the decline attributed to the discontinuation of service on U-verse last year.
Quote:
The figure provided on the website is a lump-sum amount. Two Hotline sources with access have copied down that amount over the years, then dived by 12 to determine the payouts to each school.
Those payout numbers are as follows:
2013: None listed
2014: $862,000 per school
2015 $1,677,500 per school
2016 $1,980,250 per school
2017: $2,522,167 per school
2018: $2,666,667 per school
John Wilner on the latest PAC-12 network drama.
Quote:
ESPN's offer swatted away
Quote:
Adrift for years in deep water, the Pac-12 Networks had a lifeline: According to a report in the SportsBusiness Journal, no less a savior than ESPN swooped in last fall with an offer to take ownership of the networks. The proposal called for a lengthy contract (into the 2030s) but would have provided the networks with long-sought carriage on DirecTV.
And the Pac-12 said thanks … but no.
Yep, commissioner Larry Scott and the presidents/chancellors rejected ESPN’s offer and doubled … no, tripled-down on the same strategy that created the problems in the first place.
And they were right.
Tempting as the ESPN offer seems, it was the wrong move for the networks at this point in their life cycle.
One could make a highly-credible case that Scott's original business model — with the conference retaining 100 percent ownership in a media company with supply (six regional networks, 850 live events) that far overestimated demand -- was a major strategic blunder that has severely hindered the schools on two fronts: revenue and exposure.
But that doesn’t mean selling ownership in the networks now was the smart move.
From here, it appears the Pac-12 had two options when ESPN came a-knocking:
Option 1: Sell off the Pac-12 Networks and head into the momentous media negotiations in 2024 with the only inventory available being the 44 football and 70 men's basketball games currently on ESPN and Fox as part of the Tier 1 deal.
Option 2: Keep control of the Pac-12 Networks and saddle up to the negotiating table in 2024 with every last bit of content in the warehouse.
My guess is that Scott and the CEOs concluded the windfall from Option 1 (whatever ESPN was willing to pay now for the struggling networks, plus the value of the Tier 1 rights in a few years) wouldn’t be as substantial as the windfall from Option 2 (everything available to the highest bidders, which could include the deep-pocketed digital media companies).
And they’re probably right. The value of live sports continues to grow, and the potential for multiple bids seems high.
(Of course, the better the Pac-12 performs on the field in the 18-24 months before negotiations begin, the better its prospects to hit the jackpot -- and policy made by the conference office impacts performance on the field. In other words: Get the football operations side fixed, quickly.)
What's more, selling to ESPN would have removed an enticing option currently on the table — the ability to create a media-rights holding company that, in theory, could become a substantial company over time, with the rights to other sports and events, domestically and internationally.
Who knows if that possibility will ever be realized, but it wouldn’t exist if the conference had handed over the networks to ESPN.
Had the life line been offered five years ago, when it became clear a DirecTV deal wasn't happening, the Pac-12 might have been wise to accept.
But ESPN waited … waited until the Pac-12 seemed desperate and vulnerable.
And now it’s too late to sell.
It’s too late in the current rights cycle for the conference to change course.
Sell to ESPN now, and the sacrifices made by the schools in revenue and exposure would be for naught.
Sell to ESPN now, and the last seven years are rendered a waste.
It would have been the easy thing to do, and the wrong thing. -- Jon Wilner