|
Post by rtael on Jan 14, 2019 16:57:29 GMT -5
Few points: 1) Scott MUST have a 'sweetheart" arrangement ('scratch my back...") w/ the presidents-chancellors; 2) They Still Are making $, just not as much as others; 3) He WILL be canned! Been following this story for a LONG time: with insights from Jon Wilner of The Mercury News ("Pac-12 Hotline"). Conference is Not "dangling at the edge of a precipice": at All. It IS Way Behind other conferences, though, in bonanza-like incoming revenues! This Scott dude is proving to be Rather inept. Private universities aside, the PAC can, plus SHOULD, do better. When they moved their offices from Walnut Creek to San Fran, they were attempting to "try to hit the 'big time'"! NOT Quite Yet. So, can his a$$, and bring in some hot-shot, innovative entrepreneur/professional who can "think outside (Scott's) proverbial 'box'". Privatize 10% of the ENTIRE conference? Uhmmm, NO. Women's tennis fans couldn't agree more. As a general rule, fans hated his tenure with the WTA.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Jan 14, 2019 19:53:58 GMT -5
The first paragraph says not the Pac 12 but Pac-12 NewCo. But what is "NewCo"? A holding company for the conference? Or just for the media rights? The conference doesn't have any real assets except the media rights anyway, AFAICT. But it doesn't sound like they are selling a stake in the current Pac-12 Network, but in this new entity.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 14, 2019 20:41:38 GMT -5
The first paragraph says not the Pac 12 but Pac-12 NewCo. But what is "NewCo"? A holding company for the conference? Or just for the media rights? The conference doesn't have any real assets except the media rights anyway, AFAICT. But it doesn't sound like they are selling a stake in the current Pac-12 Network, but in this new entity. The conference trademarks are probably the most valuable thing the conference owns. I don't know exactly how things are structured, but if I were the PAC-12 I would have created the media company as a subsidiary and made sure that the conference owns the trademarks but allows the media company to use them.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 15, 2019 0:29:37 GMT -5
But what is "NewCo"? A holding company for the conference? Or just for the media rights? The conference doesn't have any real assets except the media rights anyway, AFAICT. But it doesn't sound like they are selling a stake in the current Pac-12 Network, but in this new entity. The conference trademarks are probably the most valuable thing the conference owns. I don't know exactly how things are structured, but if I were the PAC-12 I would have created the media company as a subsidiary and made sure that the conference owns the trademarks but allows the media company to use them. The PAC-12 conference trademark isn't that valuable. The individual schools would not give up their own licensing rights.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 15, 2019 1:55:20 GMT -5
Personally, just as a fan, I think the Pac-12 Networks is great - as a volleyball and softball fan, in particular, I'm in Pig Heaven. Revenues is a separate issue. With either less fervent fan-bases or less populous markets, and a time-zone disadvantage, it just isn't realistic to expect the Pac to command the same audience numbers as the B1G or SEC.
I do think that all of the conference networks have been built on a "cable network" model, when the future is streaming. They need to go from thinking "network" to thinking "platform". In a streaming world, the Pac, having retained total ownership of its network, and not having sold off half of its rights to an operating "partner", while it might have hurt them in the shorter-term, could be relatively advantaged in the longer-term.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 15, 2019 2:11:20 GMT -5
I do think that all of the conference networks have been built on a "cable network" model, when the future is streaming. They need to go from thinking "network" to thinking "platform". In a streaming world, the Pac, having retained total ownership of its network, and not having sold off half of its rights to an operating "partner", while it might have hurt them in the shorter-term, could be relatively advantaged in the longer-term. That's what Larry wants you to think, anyway. But the PAC's costs are higher and their revenues are lower, so exactly why is their business model a good idea?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 15, 2019 4:00:39 GMT -5
I do think that all of the conference networks have been built on a "cable network" model, when the future is streaming. They need to go from thinking "network" to thinking "platform". In a streaming world, the Pac, having retained total ownership of its network, and not having sold off half of its rights to an operating "partner", while it might have hurt them in the shorter-term, could be relatively advantaged in the longer-term. That's what Larry wants you to think, anyway. But the PAC's costs are higher and their revenues are lower, so exactly why is their business model a good idea? It's his multiple "network(s)" model that is driving up costs - I'd dump all but "regional" PNW, CAL, and MTN Networks, with a "national" network only for out-of-market areas or satellite providers. Wherever you are, you'd only have one network, with everything else moved to streaming.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 15, 2019 5:28:39 GMT -5
That's what Larry wants you to think, anyway. But the PAC's costs are higher and their revenues are lower, so exactly why is their business model a good idea? It's his multiple "network(s)" model that is driving up costs - I'd dump all but "regional" PNW, CAL, and MTN Networks, with a "national" network only for out-of-market areas or satellite providers. Wherever you are, you'd only have one network, with everything else moved to streaming. I'm more inclined to think it's the whole staff of people headquartered in downtown SF trying to run an entire network because supposedly that was better than just hiring people who already run networks to do that for us.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 15, 2019 16:26:47 GMT -5
It's his multiple "network(s)" model that is driving up costs - I'd dump all but "regional" PNW, CAL, and MTN Networks, with a "national" network only for out-of-market areas or satellite providers. Wherever you are, you'd only have one network, with everything else moved to streaming. I'm more inclined to think it's the whole staff of people headquartered in downtown SF trying to run an entire network because supposedly that was better than just hiring people who already run networks to do that for us. They need to cut costs - relocating the HQ out of San Francisco might help - and optimize revenues. You can hire in or contract out for operational expertise. That doesn't mean leadership changes shouldn't be made. In my opinion, however, selling a 50% stake to ESPN or Fox Sports and letting them run the network (for half of the profits) would not come close to equalizing revenues with the B1G or SEC, and could result in even lower revenues, due to pre-existing demographic, cultural, and time-zone differences between the western and eastern halves of the US. Having to fill dead-air with programming on seven 24/7 "cable" networks, which neither the audience numbers nor advertising demand can justify, is also a cost driver. Shrinking the "cable" networks, while moving, say, 3/4's of current live events to a subscription-based streaming platform (Pac-12 Plus?), could both cut costs and increase revenues.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 16, 2019 16:56:21 GMT -5
Apparently, adding the Oklahoma schools to become the Pac-14 was seriously considered. Hotline newsletter: In an alternate universe, it’s the Pac-14...What if the objection was less to adding Oklahoma, a national brand in football, basketball, and softball, than to adding another land-grant "State" school (or "cow college")? An alternative travel partner for Oklahoma could be Kansas, a national brand in basketball. It would have the benefit of adding two "brands" to the portfolio and expanding the Pac into the Central Time Zone.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 16, 2019 17:41:06 GMT -5
Adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to make PAC-14 was never seriously considered. The Oklahoma schools were only really wanted if they came as part of a deal that included Texas.
If they added Oklahoma State it would have been interesting to see whether Oklahoma State would have had to add women's indoor volleyball or whether the PAC would have taken volleyball off their list of mandatory sports (football, women's indoor volleyball, and men's and women's basketball).
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 17, 2019 16:50:39 GMT -5
Adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to make PAC-14 was never seriously considered. The Oklahoma schools were only really wanted if they came as part of a deal that included Texas. If they added Oklahoma State it would have been interesting to see whether Oklahoma State would have had to add women's indoor volleyball or whether the PAC would have taken volleyball off their list of mandatory sports (football, women's indoor volleyball, and men's and women's basketball). According to the article, after the Texas deal fell through, they did look at inviting just the Oklahoma schools, but decided against it. My speculation was that the objection was more likely to be to Oklahoma State than Oklahoma, and that Kansas, a national basketball "brand", could be a possible substitute.
|
|
|
Post by Floyd R. Turbo on Jan 17, 2019 16:55:24 GMT -5
Adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to make PAC-14 was never seriously considered. The Oklahoma schools were only really wanted if they came as part of a deal that included Texas. If they added Oklahoma State it would have been interesting to see whether Oklahoma State would have had to add women's indoor volleyball or whether the PAC would have taken volleyball off their list of mandatory sports (football, women's indoor volleyball, and men's and women's basketball). According to the article, after the Texas deal fell through, they did look at inviting just the Oklahoma schools, but decided against it. My speculation was that the objection was more likely to be to Oklahoma State than Oklahoma, and that Kansas, a national basketball "brand", could be a possible substitute. I suspect that Oklahoma State and Oklahoma are a package deal in any conference change. Same with Kansas and Kansas State.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jan 17, 2019 17:06:39 GMT -5
Adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to make PAC-14 was never seriously considered. The Oklahoma schools were only really wanted if they came as part of a deal that included Texas. If they added Oklahoma State it would have been interesting to see whether Oklahoma State would have had to add women's indoor volleyball or whether the PAC would have taken volleyball off their list of mandatory sports (football, women's indoor volleyball, and men's and women's basketball). Oklahoma President David Boren went to Larry Scott and told him Oklahoma was willing to come (not sure if he was speaking for OSU, too). Scott told Boren they weren't welcome unless they could convince Texas to come, too.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jan 17, 2019 17:08:07 GMT -5
According to the article, after the Texas deal fell through, they did look at inviting just the Oklahoma schools, but decided against it. My speculation was that the objection was more likely to be to Oklahoma State than Oklahoma, and that Kansas, a national basketball "brand", could be a possible substitute. I suspect that Oklahoma State and Oklahoma are a package deal in any conference change. Same with Kansas and Kansas State. That's always been the assumption. But, according to some articles, the B1G has interest in OU and KU, but not OSU and KSU. We'll see if politics get in they way of future realignment.
|
|