AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Pac-12 Network is restructuring
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Good first step. I look forward to them announcing the rest of the moves. If it's just cutting staff, it's a band-aid on a gaping wound
Fundamentally, this is not a personnel & org chart problem. The vision is fatally flawed.
As some on 247 pointed out, PACN showed a women’s tennis rerun on football signing day. That’s been the PACN philosophy, leading to these stupid regional networks and programming that isn’t designed to maximize eyeballs/revenue.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Disconcerting as a DirecTV customer.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Major overhaul is necessary. The financial gap between the PAC schools and everyone else is large enough to lead to immense shortfalls in facilities and staff quality over time.
I hope the next step is elimination of the regional feeds (move those to streaming only) and instead go to 1 national feed and an on-demand overflow feed (can be even part of the in-demand service on cable) for those times when you have more than 1 revenue sport on at a time. All the olympic sports can be tape delay for filler and live on the stream.
DTV isnt exactly a growth model either. Which is why they sold out to AT&T. Im saving at least $1000 a year not paying those pricks to not to carry the P12N. And Im getting the P12N from somewhere else a lot cheaper. DTV wants to bury P12N on some sports tier that few people buy. The P12N doesnt want that because it doesnt solve their problem. Hence the stalemate.
What and where the future is for pay TV is still playing out. My guess is that when 2020 rolls around (contract renewal) you might then see the P12N sold to someone with the clout to get the channel on DTV like ESPN or Fox. Or the P12N signs multiple streaming deal thru Amazon, Twitter, or Netflix.
I know this much. The future of TV delivery looks fractured rather than consolidated. ESPN has laid off a lot of people as well.
I think this is right.
With the multitude of new distribution models coming on-line the days of the traditional cable/satellite model may be numbered. Customers will no longer be able to be forced to pay for a 200+ channel package with a bunch of things they don't watch to get a few specific channels they do.
ESPN with to the extent of their power fight this because they stand to lose a lot. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they try to hold some of their specialty properties like conference networks under their control hostage to delay this transition.
PAC12 has some serious issues to deal with but they do have a lot of added flexibility they can use to do so down the road.
Everyone else? No. The big-10, SEC, OU, Texas and Kansas, yes.
Yeah. And it's not like owning its own network precludes expansion of its Tier 1 package that it sells to ESPN & FOXSports (or another bidder).
This is true.
I have to think that after the contracts are up they'd be looking at some direct streaming deals of some kind. Satellite and its limitations are passé compared to unlimited streaming platforms. That gets you in the door at a lot of homes. Now, If they kept Tier 2 for themselves that would probably better drive ratings and advertising rev.
buffalo1
Club Member
How quickly CU fans posting on innerwebs have gone from "Larry Scott is a genius and our new conference will leapfrog all others." to "Can we get rid of Larry yet?"
If Larry Scott was a genius, he wouldn't of had to settle for CU and Utah, he would have landed teams from Texas and Oklahoma.
And, BTW, I am forever grateful that we got the move.
I don't think Larry Scott is the problem.
Pac-10 was the most poorly monetized conference among the power conferences at the time he took over.
Scott engineered expansion to 12, which gained a championship game along with new markets and time zone.
Scott launched PACN without costing the universities any money losses while initially increasing revenues to the top of the college world.
Since then, other conferences made moves that changed that dynamic and the Pac lags again. But the Pac schools are making much more money than they did before. The biggest issue right now is that what looked like the model for the future with regional networks is not the way things have gone -- highlighted by the failure of LHN. The public's appetite for secondary content was greatly miscalculated by everyone. It has very little value.
Now, the main question on where the Pac-12 goes on vision, structure and content is going to come down to the presidents & chancellors. These are the folks who voted against extending an invite to Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to make a Pac-14. All Scott can do is put that in front of them. It's not his decision. These are the folks whose values push them toward loving the whole "Conference of Champions" market position with so many resources invested in broadcast and promotion of so-called "Olympic sports" (which is just a nice way of saying "revenue losing sports"). Like it or not, a rerun of a USC-UCLA football game from 30 years ago is going to draw more viewers than a live swimming & diving meet between Pac-12 squads that are ranked #1 and #2 in the nation.
Can you imagine how much more messed up it would be with UT in the conference and still having its own network? The fundamental plan may be flawed, but saying no to UT was the right move at the time.
The Pac-12 wouldn't have taken Texas with the longhorn network though and Scott was actually pretty damn close to landing them if the state legislature didn't get involved. Also, the Pac had the opportunity to add OU and OSU but the presidents said no.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
If the pac-12 owns all of its content I don’t see why they don’t make these channels their own subscription service? Why do they NEED DirecTV if they can sell a package to consumers who don’t want a TV package. I would pay $120 for a yearly package to stream any and all conference games. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who would be interested in that. I don’t pay for TV, I never have. Sometimes I do a free trial to catch an event or I pay for a month of sling to watch a few buffs games. But if I actually could pay and have the channel 24-7, I’d watch more content from it, as long as they don’t push local blackouts like MLB TV does. Either way, I don’t see why they can’t, maybe some of you have insight into why they can’t? Seems like a win win to me, you aren’t losing anything by having options.
It is amusing. If it weren't for him we'd still be dealing with Husker and Longhorn trolls.
- Flash back to 2011 and we signed the most lucrative TV contract among all conferences after expansion.
- A contract is a contract wether we like it or not. And it runs thru 2022 so suck it up.
- The Pac12 Network was born.
- There was only one other dedicated Conference TV network, the Big 10 channel, created in 2006.
- B1G chose to partner with Fox. We chose 100% ownership rather than copy their model (mistake).
- The SEC network that ESPN controls wasnt created until 2014
- The ACC network that ESPN will control will launch in 2019
- What does the Big12 have? The Longhorn Network.
Now we have sour grapes just because we have to wait to get more money. And its all Larry's fault because he wont break a silly contract!
Im pretty sure selling direct to consumers violates the terms of their contract with Dish and the other content delivery providers. Dish and the others contract for this content in order to attract subscribers to their business.
Those contracts deliver large sums of money with less overhead† for enterprise that are a cost to those providers before they pay us. Thus, all we do is produce and send them content and then we cash their checks and distribute to the schools.
† customer service agents, sales reps, ecommerce platforms, additional hardware infrastructure to support expanded streaming bandwith, marketing, advertising, etc.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
I can buy that. Wonder how MLB does it, maybe that’s why they have the local blackout restrictions.
It is amusing. If it weren't for him we'd still be dealing with Husker and Longhorn trolls.
The Pac10 could have picked from a few choices within their current footprint and left us where we were if they swallowed their AAC requirements. They also could have taken 3 Texas schools and OU and left us and UU out. But they didnt. So be thankful you dont have dustbowl games anymore.
- Flash back to 2011 and we signed the most lucrative TV contract among all conferences after expansion.
- A contract is a contract wether we like it or not. And it runs thru 2022 so suck it up.
- The Pac12 Network was born.
- There was only one other dedicated Conference TV network, the Big 10 channel, created in 2006.
- B1G chose to partner with Fox. We chose 100% ownership rather than copy their model (mistake).
- The SEC network that ESPN controls wasnt created until 2014
- The ACC network that ESPN will control will launch in 2019
- What does the Big12 have? The Longhorn Network.
Now we have sour grapes just because we have to wait to get more money. And its all Larry's fault because he wont break a silly contract!
A lot of assumptions made here which do not match reality.
Who does Larry Scott work for? Who previously invited CU to the PAC 10? But somehow Larry Scott and only Larry Scott is responsible for CU being in the Pac-12? Good one.
Your whole list of bullet points is supposed to absolve Scott because of the timing, but it actually just highlights the lack of foresight.
The biggest miscalculation was on Pac-12 fans.
DTV and other carriers made a bet that Pac-12 fans would choose and value the entertainment packaged they liked and had comfort with over a Pac-12 Network. They weren't willing to pay any premium (i.e., offering on basic package and not charging customers more to offset) because they didn't think it would lose them business. They were right.
If they'd pulled that with ACC, SEC, B1G or Big 12 fans, DISH would have had record switches.
Scott must work within that reality.
DTV and other carriers made a bet that Pac-12 fans would choose and value the entertainment packaged they liked and had comfort with over a Pac-12 Network. They weren't willing to pay any premium (i.e., offering on basic package and not charging customers more to offset) because they didn't think it would lose them business. They were right.
If they'd pulled that with ACC, SEC, B1G or Big 12 fans, DISH would have had record switches.
Scott must work within that reality.
Last edited:
yeah, if Pac fans aren't willing to change providers in order to watch games from their alma maters, the league is in a bad place.
Lack of foresight? He brought about the creation of the 2nd conference TV Network. You disagree with the dates? You dispute the existence of major conference based networks? Caused I looked them and there start dates all up.
Why did CU turn down that invitation way back when? Could it have been this:
Revenue from the Pac-10’s primary football contract with ABC/ESPN, its secondary football deal with Fox Sports Net and its basketball deal with FSN place the conference fifth in total revenue behind the Big Ten, the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big 12, said Kevin O’Malley, a television industry consultant. MARCH 24, 2009
Here is part of why they hired him:
According to the WTA, Scott presided over a fivefold increase in sponsorship revenue, a 250 percent increase in overall revenue, a 40 percent increase in prize money and $710 million in new stadium investments. MARCH 24, 2009
Here is what he delivered:
The new contract, which begins with the 2012-13 school year, will net the conference around $250 million annually.
The ACC recently signed a deal for $155 million a year
the Big 12, recently reached a deal with Fox that made its total package worth around $130 million per year
The Big Ten has contracts bringing it around $220 million per year, and
the SEC gets around $205 million per year, according to The Associated Press. May 3, 2011
The ACC recently signed a deal for $155 million a year
the Big 12, recently reached a deal with Fox that made its total package worth around $130 million per year
The Big Ten has contracts bringing it around $220 million per year, and
the SEC gets around $205 million per year, according to The Associated Press. May 3, 2011
By my reading we had the largest contract of all the conferences at the time when we signed that. Are you advocating that we tear up the TV contracts because you dont like them now? Because the schools that went to the table after us were able to get bigger deals when their turn came? How did the ACC do in their deal? Their network will not launch until 2019.
While he works for the Presidents why dont they seem to share your view and fire him instead of renewing him until 2022?
The lack of foresight was three-fold:
-Conference realignment was even close to being finished. His clumsily pitched Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to get to 14. Admittedly not a bad option, but that was it with other conferences going to 14?
-Uh yeah, the money kinda matters in this case. Just shrugging your shoulders and not anticipating what the other conferences were going to get only a few short years later is not an argument.
-Not understanding the extreme value or lack thereof for a conference network not having national distribution. The "we will get that resolved later" strategy has failed miserably.
Apparently we are not allowed to evaluate his tenure on 2018 conditions. Much better to rely on what the outlook was supposed to be in 2011.
-Conference realignment was even close to being finished. His clumsily pitched Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to get to 14. Admittedly not a bad option, but that was it with other conferences going to 14?
-Uh yeah, the money kinda matters in this case. Just shrugging your shoulders and not anticipating what the other conferences were going to get only a few short years later is not an argument.
-Not understanding the extreme value or lack thereof for a conference network not having national distribution. The "we will get that resolved later" strategy has failed miserably.
Apparently we are not allowed to evaluate his tenure on 2018 conditions. Much better to rely on what the outlook was supposed to be in 2011.