Unfortunately the Pac doesn't have a ton of leverage. There aren't many media networks to work with and we don't even have the time zone monopoly with USC/UCLA leaving.
Would it be smart to work on a shorter term deal, putting ourselves off cycle with other conferences and hoping things feel less dire in, maybe, 5 years? Or just lock into the sure money longer and scrum with all the other conferences? I'd also be extremely weary of any grant of rights agreement similar to the ACC's.
P.S.: 3rd from last paragraph, "poot of the deal" is either a typo or extremely valid descriptor of the proposals.
I'd be stunned to see anything longer than five years. UW and UO will want as short a deal as possible. Cal and Stanford should as well. Those four can really bend the will of the rest of the conference.
Idk about our bargaining position. The four corners school have a very viable exit if it all goes to shit while we're at the mercy of the Big10's expansion plans. Wazzu and OSU are in deep trouble.
Technically the 4 corners schools can veto any new member (75% need to approve, SC and LA don't get a vote) without leaving. But that still leaves the door open for a couple to storm out in a huff.
I'm getting tired of all of this. There are so many other far more pressing things having to do with the Pac-12 conference, Cal's poorly performing AD, the people he hires and fires (or doesn't), poor team performance in revenue sports. I am now questioning the Chancellor's judgement about revenue sports in general at Cal. I didn't think I'd say this, but I am starting to think that either she's out of her depth or she has hung in the towel, maybe without even knowing it. I've said it before and will say it again: it doesn't make sense to a "task force" to decide on "rebranding," at least as the top priority. There seems to be many other things that seem more pressing that she needs to attend to re: current problems with revenue producing athletics at Cal.
Of course, what do I know. Given the context in which she's operating and how many fires there seem to be to put out, I don't quite get her sense of priorities, IF she's serious about doing something about Cal athletics and while also having to deal with the academic side of the university.
I think she cares, but I think she underestimated the stability of those programs and their following. I think she'll at least try to adjust, although I doubt she'll do anything with Knowlton until it's far past too late. He's a conformist and is good at taking and executing orders, but not an innovator or visionary or one to stir the pot. He's comfortable in a bureaucracy. She really needs someone who is going to advocate for some hard choices and not simply execute a budget. Right now, you see folks in leadership who have so far been unwilling to make bold, hard choices, and that why we're in the predicament we're in.
That sounds exactly right in terms of your assessment. I also think she cares. I don't dislike her or have any particular problem with her as Chancellor. But I do think you're absolutely correct about leadership and what the Athletic Department and Cal sports needs, desperately, at the present moment.
"Rebranding" reeks of a bunch of business marketing people doing their thang, but not necessarily understanding how Universities work. Not sure this smells like just the Chancellor.
The word is that ESPN wants the PAC12 deal badly AFTER they lost the BIG10 to Fox. And they want the west coast night games. ESPN used to own SEC, BIG10 & ACC. By losing BIG10 they just lost a boatload of revenue. I think by the time the deal is done and there are multiple media companies involved, the deal will be better than a lot of naysayers are forecasting. And there are a lot of 'what ifs' in this story that really have no evidence to back up their premise. Let's wait and see what shakes out. Stay tuned.
Hoping you're right. I don't think anybody, including the parties involved in the negotiations, knows how this will shake out. But I do think it's evident that Kliavkoff is working his ass off for dollars wherever he can find them.
It does seem like The PAC and ESPN are the last ones at the bar at closing time and just need a little more flirting before they leave together.
To anyone who is interested because way back during the season Kliavkoff said that he expected a deal to be done shortly after the season was over and it's obviously taken longer. my guess is the he and his team did an analysis of value adds by bringing different teams into the PAC12, and once that was determined he had to go out and figure out which teams were prospective members with legitimate interests in joining the PAC12. I'm sure he started with the teams that had the most media value. Will we just add 2 teams? How about 4 or 6? Will every team get the same revenue or will it be allocated based on media value. Teams like UNLV, SMU and Fresno state might make more in the PAC12 with a lesser share of revenue than they are currently pulling in. All this has yet to be announced. (As an example, Fresno State Football pulled in $13.361m from all sources last year. I couldn't get a media number. UNlV pulled in $12.223m from all sources. SMU made $21.2m from all sources. SDSU made $13.577 from all sources and ended up losing $3.323m. All of these teams would get bumps from joining a PAC12 collective even if they did not make as much as teams like UW, UO, CAL ad the rest of the staples of the PAC12 currently make).
Hope we can get a deal done on somewhat favorable terms. Streaming is probably 5 years away from true critical mass when it comes to a tepid college football audience, e.g. the former Pac-12 Networks audience, so maybe Amazon isn't willing to pony up hundreds of millions for the rights which would offset an afterthought ESPN deal.
Does it run PAC 12 promos? Promos are a tell that they could not sell advertising during that time slot. When I watch, there's loads of promos and/or repeats of paid ads, back to back, to the point of nausea. Yeah, PAC12 Networks is a big fail.
Bowlesman has described the ad sales problem. Also even if you consider the pac 12 networks "free" you need the enhanced sports package to get it so it's not free
Not major league, not Triple A, maybe Double A, probably Sally League - and......crickets from Clueless Carol and her loyal sidekick Empty Suit Jim --- Jayzus, how pathetic ---
How come BYU is never in the conversation about the Pac-12. It is a natural rival of Utah and has a big following. I understand SDSU, but SMU? And we're supposed to be concerned about travel as well.
SLC is 29th market in the country, Dallas is 5th. BYU is owned by the LDS and follows religious scripture. SMU is non sectarian and allows academic freedom.
So on-brand that a Conference that already struggles immensely with national exposure would then choose to air up to half their games (as reported last week by Dennis Dodd on CBSSports.com) on a streaming platform that over 3/4 of the country probably doesn’t know provides that content.
And how does streaming sports content work for a bar/sports bar setting? Say Cal/ASU is gonna be on Amazon Prime - could fans go to a bar in say LA or NYC and watch it? Anyone know?
How did it work for Thursday night NFL games? I’m sure bars were able to stream Amazon Prime for those games. Going with Amazon Prime is probably the smart move in terms exposure and steaming since people who want to TNF NFL games will have it and you’re not asking people to go to a different streaming platform like Apple TV or Netflix to watch the P10/12 games.
Unfortunately the Pac doesn't have a ton of leverage. There aren't many media networks to work with and we don't even have the time zone monopoly with USC/UCLA leaving.
Would it be smart to work on a shorter term deal, putting ourselves off cycle with other conferences and hoping things feel less dire in, maybe, 5 years? Or just lock into the sure money longer and scrum with all the other conferences? I'd also be extremely weary of any grant of rights agreement similar to the ACC's.
P.S.: 3rd from last paragraph, "poot of the deal" is either a typo or extremely valid descriptor of the proposals.
I'd be stunned to see anything longer than five years. UW and UO will want as short a deal as possible. Cal and Stanford should as well. Those four can really bend the will of the rest of the conference.
Idk about our bargaining position. The four corners school have a very viable exit if it all goes to shit while we're at the mercy of the Big10's expansion plans. Wazzu and OSU are in deep trouble.
Technically the 4 corners schools can veto any new member (75% need to approve, SC and LA don't get a vote) without leaving. But that still leaves the door open for a couple to storm out in a huff.
No way Oregon and U-Dub sign a long deal
I'm getting tired of all of this. There are so many other far more pressing things having to do with the Pac-12 conference, Cal's poorly performing AD, the people he hires and fires (or doesn't), poor team performance in revenue sports. I am now questioning the Chancellor's judgement about revenue sports in general at Cal. I didn't think I'd say this, but I am starting to think that either she's out of her depth or she has hung in the towel, maybe without even knowing it. I've said it before and will say it again: it doesn't make sense to a "task force" to decide on "rebranding," at least as the top priority. There seems to be many other things that seem more pressing that she needs to attend to re: current problems with revenue producing athletics at Cal.
Of course, what do I know. Given the context in which she's operating and how many fires there seem to be to put out, I don't quite get her sense of priorities, IF she's serious about doing something about Cal athletics and while also having to deal with the academic side of the university.
I think she cares, but I think she underestimated the stability of those programs and their following. I think she'll at least try to adjust, although I doubt she'll do anything with Knowlton until it's far past too late. He's a conformist and is good at taking and executing orders, but not an innovator or visionary or one to stir the pot. He's comfortable in a bureaucracy. She really needs someone who is going to advocate for some hard choices and not simply execute a budget. Right now, you see folks in leadership who have so far been unwilling to make bold, hard choices, and that why we're in the predicament we're in.
That sounds exactly right in terms of your assessment. I also think she cares. I don't dislike her or have any particular problem with her as Chancellor. But I do think you're absolutely correct about leadership and what the Athletic Department and Cal sports needs, desperately, at the present moment.
"Rebranding" reeks of a bunch of business marketing people doing their thang, but not necessarily understanding how Universities work. Not sure this smells like just the Chancellor.
Yes, completely agree.
The word is that ESPN wants the PAC12 deal badly AFTER they lost the BIG10 to Fox. And they want the west coast night games. ESPN used to own SEC, BIG10 & ACC. By losing BIG10 they just lost a boatload of revenue. I think by the time the deal is done and there are multiple media companies involved, the deal will be better than a lot of naysayers are forecasting. And there are a lot of 'what ifs' in this story that really have no evidence to back up their premise. Let's wait and see what shakes out. Stay tuned.
Hoping you're right. I don't think anybody, including the parties involved in the negotiations, knows how this will shake out. But I do think it's evident that Kliavkoff is working his ass off for dollars wherever he can find them.
It does seem like The PAC and ESPN are the last ones at the bar at closing time and just need a little more flirting before they leave together.
Agree
Poor guy inherited an absolute mess of a Conference from Larry Scott.
"poor guy"?
Oh please, the mess was obvious before he took the job. He's paid well as a fixer, but even fixer's fail bcos the business prop is in a death spiral.
I hope you are right. But this statement begs the question: To whom is it targeted?
To anyone who is interested because way back during the season Kliavkoff said that he expected a deal to be done shortly after the season was over and it's obviously taken longer. my guess is the he and his team did an analysis of value adds by bringing different teams into the PAC12, and once that was determined he had to go out and figure out which teams were prospective members with legitimate interests in joining the PAC12. I'm sure he started with the teams that had the most media value. Will we just add 2 teams? How about 4 or 6? Will every team get the same revenue or will it be allocated based on media value. Teams like UNLV, SMU and Fresno state might make more in the PAC12 with a lesser share of revenue than they are currently pulling in. All this has yet to be announced. (As an example, Fresno State Football pulled in $13.361m from all sources last year. I couldn't get a media number. UNlV pulled in $12.223m from all sources. SMU made $21.2m from all sources. SDSU made $13.577 from all sources and ended up losing $3.323m. All of these teams would get bumps from joining a PAC12 collective even if they did not make as much as teams like UW, UO, CAL ad the rest of the staples of the PAC12 currently make).
Hope we can get a deal done on somewhat favorable terms. Streaming is probably 5 years away from true critical mass when it comes to a tepid college football audience, e.g. the former Pac-12 Networks audience, so maybe Amazon isn't willing to pony up hundreds of millions for the rights which would offset an afterthought ESPN deal.
Does it run PAC 12 promos? Promos are a tell that they could not sell advertising during that time slot. When I watch, there's loads of promos and/or repeats of paid ads, back to back, to the point of nausea. Yeah, PAC12 Networks is a big fail.
Bowlesman has described the ad sales problem. Also even if you consider the pac 12 networks "free" you need the enhanced sports package to get it so it's not free
Yeah, I did not get the enhanced package and, so, it was not free for me and, hence the ads.
You, with the enhanced package probably had the channel, ad-free, which, also, means no promos.
Not major league, not Triple A, maybe Double A, probably Sally League - and......crickets from Clueless Carol and her loyal sidekick Empty Suit Jim --- Jayzus, how pathetic ---
How come BYU is never in the conversation about the Pac-12. It is a natural rival of Utah and has a big following. I understand SDSU, but SMU? And we're supposed to be concerned about travel as well.
BYU is also already in the Big12. Why would they leave the Big12 for the Pac10?
SLC is 29th market in the country, Dallas is 5th. BYU is owned by the LDS and follows religious scripture. SMU is non sectarian and allows academic freedom.
Agree, it's more about market than anything else like academics or religion. That said, there are a ton of BYU fans nationally because of the church.
Ironically, it's not about market if we prioritize streaming, but viewership.
So on-brand that a Conference that already struggles immensely with national exposure would then choose to air up to half their games (as reported last week by Dennis Dodd on CBSSports.com) on a streaming platform that over 3/4 of the country probably doesn’t know provides that content.
And how does streaming sports content work for a bar/sports bar setting? Say Cal/ASU is gonna be on Amazon Prime - could fans go to a bar in say LA or NYC and watch it? Anyone know?
How did it work for Thursday night NFL games? I’m sure bars were able to stream Amazon Prime for those games. Going with Amazon Prime is probably the smart move in terms exposure and steaming since people who want to TNF NFL games will have it and you’re not asking people to go to a different streaming platform like Apple TV or Netflix to watch the P10/12 games.
I dunno - I watched all the TNF at my or someone else’s home…
It’ll be interesting to see what those same places do with YouTube getting the Sunday ticket.