1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

P12 brings in more $$$ than other P5 conferences

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by SBG, May 25, 2015.

  1. SBG

    SBG Formerly known as EFNMB Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    505
  2. SD Buff

    SD Buff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    313
    But doesn't distribute more. The Networks need better distribution and its hard not to question the expenses. 10 Network employees making more than 400K a year? I understand its a long play, but hope to see more than the 1 million projected in the 3rd FY.
     
  3. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,752
    Likes Received:
    16,467
    It's got to be the creative long play for the PAC-12. On the same business model with the same metrics, the PAC-12 would make less money than all other conferences.

    Short-term, we'll lag the next few years as the new deals of others kick in. But we're hopefully the best positioned for the future.
     
  4. Highlander

    Highlander Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,323
    Likes Received:
    1,567
    Interesting that the payouts by major conferences to each team is so close together despite fairly healthy separation in revenue. Seems like the Pac 12 is playing this one fairly close to the vest to try to reinvest as much as possible in the Pac 12 Network while staying competitive on payouts.

    It feels like this will work in the long run, but still TBD.
     
  5. Hugegroove

    Hugegroove Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,727
    Likes Received:
    121
    No wonder Scott is smiling, I would be smiling too if I were making 3.5 M per year. Anyway, If he could get off his ass and get Direct TV on board that would increase revenue & payouts to schools substantially. I do like the fact that the money distribution to all the P-12 schools is equal, instead of the way it was set up for distribution when the Buffs were in the old B-12. Today in Rick Georges AD e-mail update, it's the 1st time that I can remember since he took over that he's not pleading poverty. His fund raising stats in that letter were pretty impressive.
     
  6. TSchekler

    TSchekler Darth's Hero Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    11,245
    Likes Received:
    4,295
  7. SD Buff

    SD Buff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    313
    It's not just DirecTV, PAC needs to add carriage nationwide with the MSOs that already have a deal. Need to be on the sports tier at a minimum across comcast, Cox, time warner (hopefully helps vs hurts with Charter)
    And they need to reign in the networks expenses. The long play is fine, but need to see a 5 million + distribution soon, at a minimum. SEC network is rumored to be distributing 10 million the first year. B1G is already there. The hope is getting the carriage and being wholly owned the PAC will match or exceed those numbers. But it's starting to get concerning

    from phone
     
  8. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,532
    Likes Received:
    4,524
    I think the reality of what they wanted to do with the Pac 12 network and the reality of what they can do with it are two different things. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it: I'd LOVE to see some coverage of the NCAA skiing championships. The Pac 12 has two of the top five programs in the country, and is likely to have one or both (CU and UU) in the mix for a national championship every year. That's the kind of publicity you want. If the goal was to televise a lot of Olympic sports, why not skiing? Skiing is an Olympic sport, too. Of course, setting up 20 cameras on the side of a mountain and running the cables isn't a cheap endeavor.
     
  9. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,156
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    The future of TV is unbundling and streaming. That means no subsidy. So, yeah, the reality of what they wanted to do with the Pac 12 network and the reality of what they can do with it are two different things.
     
  10. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    streaming yes, but why do networks want to unbundle? Has any major network done that yet?
     
  11. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    609
    But the ski team is not part of the PAC 12 conference - it is part of the Rocky Mountain Intercollegiate Ski Association (RMISA) as is DU and Utah. So I doubt the PAC 12 network has any built in rights to telecasting the events. Not a bad idea though and I am sure they could work something out.
     
  12. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    609
    CBS is running their own streaming service it is $5.99 per month. Everyone is also watching what happens with HBONOW - content is the real value. Method of delivery is what is in flux.
     
  13. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    Yes i understand streaming but that is not unbundling. When is Viacom going to break apart their channels?
     
  14. SD Buff

    SD Buff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    313
    They don't want to unbundle. No one does other than the consumer. And I'll save everyone my broken record by just saying -- be careful what you wish for. Not the least bit convinced it will save us money, especially as sports fans.
     
  15. Bufffan68

    Bufffan68 Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2014
    Messages:
    4,233
    Likes Received:
    756
    I could see networks independently streaming taking some revenue from DISH et al, but it seems the logical outcome of this would be every network streaming separately for a charge. If that's the case, who the **** would want 20 separate invoices? IDK...maybe I'm getting too old to see how this streaming would be any better than what we've got.
     
  16. Clean Undies

    Clean Undies Flagship of the 12-Pac Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,301
    Likes Received:
    5,992
    This! An OTT pay-per view to watch the Buffs could easily cost north of $40 per game.
     
  17. Highlander

    Highlander Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,323
    Likes Received:
    1,567
    Those are the kinds of services where the only way you get signed up is with auto billing to your credit card. No one wants individual invoices for sub $10.
     
  18. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,156
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Sports is starting to realize their content is more valuable then viacoms. And alternative delivery infrastructure now is starting to mature. If they leave enmasse bundling collapses.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2015
  19. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,156
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Ill only subscribe to CU sports streams. I have no interest in any pro sports.
     
  20. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    Alternate delivery has been here for more than a decade.
     
  21. SD Buff

    SD Buff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    313
    Sports programming doesn't want unbundling. They are the biggest advocates and will be fighting tooth and nail to keep it. That doesn't mean they won't offer an alternative for cord cutters, but it's not a model they are hoping takes hold. ESPN would much rather get $6+ a month from every US cable household than $25 a month for the 25-30% of US households who actually watch ESPN. (probably more than $25 considering people will probably be able to renew and cancel anytime they want) And the local RSN's? Yeah, they like bundling too. Big time.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2015
  22. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    Sports are the only content that arent widely time shifted so they get the big bucks from advertising. As more and more people start cord cutting, it will be interesting to see what they do.
     
  23. Highlander

    Highlander Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,323
    Likes Received:
    1,567
    Sports and the traditional delivery services are best friends at the moment. Live events are the only thing holding back the majority of the cord cutters and the sports content providers benefit from the bundling.

    I still don't know how long this lasts or that most consumers will be better off without bundling when the individual channel prices go up. The transition to full unbundling seems inevitable in everything but timing.
     
  24. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,156
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Netflix is 37% of all consumed bandwidth.
     
  25. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,156
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    CBS is charging $5.99 a month for its offering. Do you think they get that from the subsidy? If ESPN thinks they get $20 versus their current $5 theyll do it. Though your right its an economies of scale issue right now that still gives cable sat the balance of power.

    Another way to think of it is to project out 20 years. The current subscriber base for cable and sat is probably older, established, and graying. No new young subscribers are lining up for $110 a month of crap. Or buying houses either. That's a problem for the industry because they cant establish a new crop of monthly religious payers that blindly add their CC to autopay.

    Sooner or later the dam is gonna break. Follow the money.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2015
  26. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,532
    Likes Received:
    4,524
    Link?

    I'm not arguing it, but that seems incredible to me if true.
     
  27. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,156
    Likes Received:
    2,029
  28. tante

    tante Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,787
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    And? What is your point
     
  29. SD Buff

    SD Buff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    313
    Do I think they get that from the dollar something CBS gets for every cable household in the country vs. who would be willing to pay 5.99 a month to stream a live CBS station they can get OTA for free? Yeah, I think they get that.

    Not sure what you're arguing here. How would this be a better deal for the consumer? So Congress passes a la carte programming. NBC, ABC and Fox follow that pricing model for live streaming. NBC Universal, Viacom, the networks, etc. who own HULU then jack up the subscription fee b/c they are no longer getting the carriage fee for every cable household in the country (USA Network, TNT, MTV, etc. are basic cable) They jack up their cost to Netflix.

    And since as you said, netflix already takes up so much bandwidth, what do the MSO's do to internet fees? You think they'll get us there?

    You're right in that change is coming. Its inevitable. I am just strongly skeptical it's going to be some Utopian system of click and pay content which saves the consumer bundles of money.
     
  30. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,752
    Likes Received:
    16,467
    Some of us would pay more. Some of us would pay less.

    When I consider a la carte as something that will work for the consumer and eventually be of benefit, I don't think of it as subscribing to a channel. I think of it like going to youtube and choosing what I want to watch on an individual program basis. Basically, everything becoming a PPV event.
     

Share This Page