Finally some good news for 2021! Great news for the Pac 10! If, of course, they can find a replacement that is competent. One would think that $5 million plus per year would attract a competent leader for this conference. How the Pac 12 can justify extending scott's (no caps, undeserved!) contract after irrefutable evidence of total incompetence is maddening and does not give me faith in the conference's ability to choose a good replacement. Maybe, of course, being a Cal Bear football fan since 1956 has made my cynical?
I just hope that we haven't passed the point of no return on the TV rights deal. Seems to me that the current national perception (accurate or not) of the Pac-12 is that nobody outside of the west coast wants to watch. Who would then want to pay better money for a TV package that has already proven to be unattractive? The next commissioner has a difficult sell to make to carriers and potential partners on the next deal. I also never understood the resistance to having a true broadcast partner that could ease the P12 to a wider audience (like ESPN or Fox) that would naturally include streaming.
Maybe ESPN will create a Pac-12 "network" package with wider distribution? Not being able to negotiate adequate distribution deals nor raise the $500 million he sought in the private equity markets doomed Scott.
Yes. Adding a down Colorado, and a Utah from a lesser conference was not exactly a master stroke. It certainly helped those two schools raise their profiles, but not the conference so much. Same thing happened with UA & ASU. In the really long run, it might be a good thing to lock down your geographical territory, but would probably have been better to add BYU & Boise St instead for more national attention. And yes, Larry got played. A master negotiator would have seen that the Big-12 schools were simply using the threat of leaving to get concessions from their own conference. Texas move to the Pac-12? Not in a million years.
I wonder what the Athletic Directors will be asking for in the next media deal?
I think the fans are calling for a limited number of night games, more Saturday games, more advanced notice on game times, and every game on TV (though that seems like a given at this point).
Last time, I think the AD's wanted more money, TV, and to spotlight the non-revenue sports. Although the intent to spotlight the non-revenue sports was good, in practice, there simply wasn't much of a market for this and was a net negative.
Adapting to the technology, I'd think (1) national channel would suffice, with an app for smart TVs which carry out of market non-national TV games for those rare OOC matchups that pit Cal against Idaho State. and you live in DC.
Sadly, I agree that the focus on the non-revenue sports was probably what caused Larry Scott, who used to run the Professional Women's Tennis, to overvalue the Pac-12 Networks in negotiation. Pac-12 Networks had (using past tense here because they already had to lay a lot of those people off and went into remote broadcasting as a money-saving move months before that was necessary due to COVID) award-winning coverage of the non-revenue sports thanks to the strong Pac-12 alumni in those sports. ESPN only gets those same talents for the national championships. Ultimately, people simply can't even get the Pac-12 Networks to appreciate the quality programming.
I hope they go away from the pivot to China. I say that as someone who lives in China. It's dumb to spend resources on this while we can't even get a good TV deal.
I think the China pivot was intended to eventually to get them to invest in a big way. They have big money, and if the conference has to have a certain amount of revenue, they might be able to get them to overpay for what the PAC-12 is currently putting on the field. But I'd prefer this not happen also.
I think there was some sort of idea that the University Presidents thought "more visibility in China will be good for attracting more international students" - but as someone who has gone to 3 of the last 5 new Chinese student send-off events in Shanghai - no potential Berkeley/Stanford/UCLA/UW students even know that American universities play sports at such a high level. It's just a weird disconnect between sports as advertising and not understanding what the Chinese student is looking for.
The next Commissioner needs to be essentially 2 things; much more aware of the realities of the campuses, and much more nimble.
It is revisionist history, or recentcy, by those who haven't been around since the bad old days, to not realize just how much of an improvement the media deal was over the piecemeal debacle that existed previously, both in term of $s and distribution. But Scott's deal was too long without opportunity to revisit, and a lack of performance criteria, which allowed it to be leap-frogged $ wise, and quickly became obsolete. The next deals need to not just be better, they need to be structured to be nimble as the media landscape and technology rapidly change.
The Pac-12 Network has been a colossal disappointment, but not because it was a bad idea. It was over-sized (7 channels when 2 with a game day 3rd alternate would have been sufficient), and once again, inexperience in media contracts produced problems. Inexperience resulted in a bad Comcast deal (which is the only kind there is) that was an early cash grab that subsequently handcuffed all future distribution negotiations, and ensured it wouldn't get on the largest single distributor in the country.
Not understanding that streaming is a supplement to broadcast distribution, not a substitute for it, compounded the distribution problem.
But it exists, and provides something that if properly distributed can become a successful distribution tool. Most people also have no clue how much infrastructure improvement was made on the conference campuses as a result of the network. Like so many aspects of the conference, Scott took over a relic of the dark ages.
The next commissioner needs to move beyond trying to be a shrewder negotiator than Scott really was to become a cooperation facilitator that will arm the conference with the exposure necessary to solve the lack of competitiveness.
The expansion of the conference should be seen as a significant accomplishment, but gets too little notice, or appreciation.
On the other side of things, something that gets too much notice is how badly butchered up the conference's officiating is in several sports, most notably (but certainly not exclusively) football. It was bad when Scott arrived, and hasn't been able to get out of its own way since.
I am one of those who have have no clue how much infrastructure improvement was made on the conference campuses as a result of the network. I assume it's related to the network's ability to televise sports? I'm thinking most conference stadiums and arenas were already pretty up to snuff, as every campus had ESPN roll in once in a while to do a football or basketball game. So where were these improvements? In the tennis/gymnastics/track & field venues? If so, that that really a notable gain to hang your hat on?
And I agree, the network itself was not a bad idea, but in addition to too many sub-networks as you mention, the notion that people would flock to olympic sports was obviously wrong at the time. If instead, the model was to have the revenue sports subsidize the costs of televising the others, well, something that has no chance to generate revenue of it's own is not long for this world.
Most people have no clue, because you never see it, and are only aware of it when it either doesn't exist or fails. Most of the facilities were worse off than any given high end high school. A ton of wiring and repeaters and camera sets and wireless equipment, plus the control rooms (it no longer takes near the amount of semis rolling in). Lighting upgrades in some places, and press box overhauls. Also the backbone to carry an exponential increase in data. And yes, upgrading especially baseball stadiums. All that cost a lot of money, but had the side benefit of benefiting campus tremendously the rest of the time.
Totally agree. Let's not let Scott's failures paper over how bad Tom Hansen was. Cal was a nationally ranked team for all of 2006 with big stars like Marshawn Lynch and DeSean Jackson on the roster and somehow had two games go completely untelevised. Hansen refused ESPN's offer to "mirror" ABC telecasts on one of the other ESPN channels in regions where they weren't the primary game, ensuring we were constantly stuck in regional coverage. He sucked.
Larry obviously bit off more than he could chew with the Pac-12 Networks and the inflexibility of his original setup was the big issue. Not being on DirecTV after all these years was a huge failure. But still, it's not as big a failure as having games left off TV entirely.
I agree with all this. Scott wasn’t perfect and made plenty of mistakes but he inherited an absolute mess from Tom Hansen, who served as the Pac 10 commissioner for 26 years and basically let the Pac 10 fall behind everyone else, while also sent us down the road of poor officiating.
Scott, much like Tedford, started strong and then faded towards the end of his tenure.
At least every football game was televised though. That I could thank for.
https://twitter.com/RedditCFB/status/1352092661260431360
Bye Bitch
Any news on Henry To To possibly transferring to Cal?
Finally some good news for 2021! Great news for the Pac 10! If, of course, they can find a replacement that is competent. One would think that $5 million plus per year would attract a competent leader for this conference. How the Pac 12 can justify extending scott's (no caps, undeserved!) contract after irrefutable evidence of total incompetence is maddening and does not give me faith in the conference's ability to choose a good replacement. Maybe, of course, being a Cal Bear football fan since 1956 has made my cynical?
I just hope that we haven't passed the point of no return on the TV rights deal. Seems to me that the current national perception (accurate or not) of the Pac-12 is that nobody outside of the west coast wants to watch. Who would then want to pay better money for a TV package that has already proven to be unattractive? The next commissioner has a difficult sell to make to carriers and potential partners on the next deal. I also never understood the resistance to having a true broadcast partner that could ease the P12 to a wider audience (like ESPN or Fox) that would naturally include streaming.
Maybe ESPN will create a Pac-12 "network" package with wider distribution? Not being able to negotiate adequate distribution deals nor raise the $500 million he sought in the private equity markets doomed Scott.
I might be remembering this differently, but weren't Colorado and Utah added AFTER Scott got played by Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of the Big-12?
Now maybe I can watch the Network on AT&T's U-verse. June won't be here soon enough.
Yes. Adding a down Colorado, and a Utah from a lesser conference was not exactly a master stroke. It certainly helped those two schools raise their profiles, but not the conference so much. Same thing happened with UA & ASU. In the really long run, it might be a good thing to lock down your geographical territory, but would probably have been better to add BYU & Boise St instead for more national attention. And yes, Larry got played. A master negotiator would have seen that the Big-12 schools were simply using the threat of leaving to get concessions from their own conference. Texas move to the Pac-12? Not in a million years.
Celebrate good times!
I wonder what the Athletic Directors will be asking for in the next media deal?
I think the fans are calling for a limited number of night games, more Saturday games, more advanced notice on game times, and every game on TV (though that seems like a given at this point).
Last time, I think the AD's wanted more money, TV, and to spotlight the non-revenue sports. Although the intent to spotlight the non-revenue sports was good, in practice, there simply wasn't much of a market for this and was a net negative.
Adapting to the technology, I'd think (1) national channel would suffice, with an app for smart TVs which carry out of market non-national TV games for those rare OOC matchups that pit Cal against Idaho State. and you live in DC.
Will probably need 2 channels in order to handle the volume with overlapping football and basketball games. But not 7.
Sadly, I agree that the focus on the non-revenue sports was probably what caused Larry Scott, who used to run the Professional Women's Tennis, to overvalue the Pac-12 Networks in negotiation. Pac-12 Networks had (using past tense here because they already had to lay a lot of those people off and went into remote broadcasting as a money-saving move months before that was necessary due to COVID) award-winning coverage of the non-revenue sports thanks to the strong Pac-12 alumni in those sports. ESPN only gets those same talents for the national championships. Ultimately, people simply can't even get the Pac-12 Networks to appreciate the quality programming.
Long overdue! Let’s make the Pac12 relevant again!
I hope they go away from the pivot to China. I say that as someone who lives in China. It's dumb to spend resources on this while we can't even get a good TV deal.
I think the China pivot was intended to eventually to get them to invest in a big way. They have big money, and if the conference has to have a certain amount of revenue, they might be able to get them to overpay for what the PAC-12 is currently putting on the field. But I'd prefer this not happen also.
Another situation where Scott misgauged the value of his product.
I think there was some sort of idea that the University Presidents thought "more visibility in China will be good for attracting more international students" - but as someone who has gone to 3 of the last 5 new Chinese student send-off events in Shanghai - no potential Berkeley/Stanford/UCLA/UW students even know that American universities play sports at such a high level. It's just a weird disconnect between sports as advertising and not understanding what the Chinese student is looking for.
The next Commissioner needs to be essentially 2 things; much more aware of the realities of the campuses, and much more nimble.
It is revisionist history, or recentcy, by those who haven't been around since the bad old days, to not realize just how much of an improvement the media deal was over the piecemeal debacle that existed previously, both in term of $s and distribution. But Scott's deal was too long without opportunity to revisit, and a lack of performance criteria, which allowed it to be leap-frogged $ wise, and quickly became obsolete. The next deals need to not just be better, they need to be structured to be nimble as the media landscape and technology rapidly change.
The Pac-12 Network has been a colossal disappointment, but not because it was a bad idea. It was over-sized (7 channels when 2 with a game day 3rd alternate would have been sufficient), and once again, inexperience in media contracts produced problems. Inexperience resulted in a bad Comcast deal (which is the only kind there is) that was an early cash grab that subsequently handcuffed all future distribution negotiations, and ensured it wouldn't get on the largest single distributor in the country.
Not understanding that streaming is a supplement to broadcast distribution, not a substitute for it, compounded the distribution problem.
But it exists, and provides something that if properly distributed can become a successful distribution tool. Most people also have no clue how much infrastructure improvement was made on the conference campuses as a result of the network. Like so many aspects of the conference, Scott took over a relic of the dark ages.
The next commissioner needs to move beyond trying to be a shrewder negotiator than Scott really was to become a cooperation facilitator that will arm the conference with the exposure necessary to solve the lack of competitiveness.
The expansion of the conference should be seen as a significant accomplishment, but gets too little notice, or appreciation.
On the other side of things, something that gets too much notice is how badly butchered up the conference's officiating is in several sports, most notably (but certainly not exclusively) football. It was bad when Scott arrived, and hasn't been able to get out of its own way since.
I am one of those who have have no clue how much infrastructure improvement was made on the conference campuses as a result of the network. I assume it's related to the network's ability to televise sports? I'm thinking most conference stadiums and arenas were already pretty up to snuff, as every campus had ESPN roll in once in a while to do a football or basketball game. So where were these improvements? In the tennis/gymnastics/track & field venues? If so, that that really a notable gain to hang your hat on?
And I agree, the network itself was not a bad idea, but in addition to too many sub-networks as you mention, the notion that people would flock to olympic sports was obviously wrong at the time. If instead, the model was to have the revenue sports subsidize the costs of televising the others, well, something that has no chance to generate revenue of it's own is not long for this world.
Most people have no clue, because you never see it, and are only aware of it when it either doesn't exist or fails. Most of the facilities were worse off than any given high end high school. A ton of wiring and repeaters and camera sets and wireless equipment, plus the control rooms (it no longer takes near the amount of semis rolling in). Lighting upgrades in some places, and press box overhauls. Also the backbone to carry an exponential increase in data. And yes, upgrading especially baseball stadiums. All that cost a lot of money, but had the side benefit of benefiting campus tremendously the rest of the time.
Totally agree. Let's not let Scott's failures paper over how bad Tom Hansen was. Cal was a nationally ranked team for all of 2006 with big stars like Marshawn Lynch and DeSean Jackson on the roster and somehow had two games go completely untelevised. Hansen refused ESPN's offer to "mirror" ABC telecasts on one of the other ESPN channels in regions where they weren't the primary game, ensuring we were constantly stuck in regional coverage. He sucked.
Larry obviously bit off more than he could chew with the Pac-12 Networks and the inflexibility of his original setup was the big issue. Not being on DirecTV after all these years was a huge failure. But still, it's not as big a failure as having games left off TV entirely.
Hansen was such a disaster. I also partly blame him for us not going to the Rose Bowl in 04.
I agree with all this. Scott wasn’t perfect and made plenty of mistakes but he inherited an absolute mess from Tom Hansen, who served as the Pac 10 commissioner for 26 years and basically let the Pac 10 fall behind everyone else, while also sent us down the road of poor officiating.
Scott, much like Tedford, started strong and then faded towards the end of his tenure.
Thanks for the good news Avi! Good riddance to the Wyking Jones of Conference commissioners...