No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

oskidunker said:

---

No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

---

Complete mismanagement. Because I live in part of the US where it is not part of the cable package but "outside the US" according to Fubo, Sling, YoutubeTV, etc there is no way for me to legally/officially watch it from home. I have to go to a lot of trouble and expense or risk just to see our games on the PAC-12 Network.

Then that lack of availability not only limits ad revenue it trashes our "viewership" numbers which is a big reason the PAC-12 imploded and Fox offered zero for us. That is the main way Larry Scott destroyed the conference. He failed and then failed to correct his failure despite having decades to do so. In many ways Kliavkoff was just handed a steaming turd, but did not appear to be in a hurry to fix things.

Lol- the travel may suck, but Cal Will unequivocally enjoy the ACC Network on ESPN next year!

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

---

Complete mismanagement. Because I live in part of the US where it is not part of the cable package but "outside the US" according to Fubo, Sling, YoutubeTV, etc there is no way for me to legally/officially watch it from home. I have to go to a lot of trouble and expense or risk just to see our games on the PAC-12 Network.

Then that lack of availability not only limits ad revenue it trashes our "viewership" numbers which is a big reason the PAC-12 imploded and Fox offered zero for us. That is the main way Larry Scott destroyed the conference. He failed and then failed to correct his failure despite having decades to do so. In many ways Kliavkoff was just handed a steaming turd, but did not appear to be in a hurry to fix things.

---

Vpn?

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

---

Complete mismanagement. Because I live in part of the US where it is not part of the cable package but "outside the US" according to Fubo, Sling, YoutubeTV, etc there is no way for me to legally/officially watch it from home. I have to go to a lot of trouble and expense or risk just to see our games on the PAC-12 Network.

Then that lack of availability not only limits ad revenue it trashes our "viewership" numbers which is a big reason the PAC-12 imploded and Fox offered zero for us. That is the main way Larry Scott destroyed the conference. He failed and then failed to correct his failure despite having decades to do so. In many ways Kliavkoff was just handed a steaming turd, but did not appear to be in a hurry to fix things.

---

Why rush when you have a $50m/school valuation (in your wildest dreams)?

/s

Btw- a 2024 acc schedule could be coming soon.

Miami's AD was on ACC Network earlier and said: "We are going to have an AD meeting in mid October, the 19th and 20th. So hopefully we will have something to look at and react to and very shortly thereafter we might be able to pull something out so everybody can see it."

There were two major blunders:

1. Setting a high price for carriage and then only getting the LOCAL cable companies on board to carry the network. It wasn't on the major national carriers (like DirecTV) and still isn't on most of them.

2. Not partnering with ESPN when they had the chance. The other conference networks are partnered with a larger media company and that's how they get carried.

Why Larry was so inflexible on all of this is still beyond me.

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

---

Complete mismanagement. Because I live in part of the US where it is not part of the cable package but "outside the US" according to Fubo, Sling, YoutubeTV, etc there is no way for me to legally/officially watch it from home. I have to go to a lot of trouble and expense or risk just to see our games on the PAC-12 Network.

Then that lack of availability not only limits ad revenue it trashes our "viewership" numbers which is a big reason the PAC-12 imploded and Fox offered zero for us. That is the main way Larry Scott destroyed the conference. He failed and then failed to correct his failure despite having decades to do so. In many ways Kliavkoff was just handed a steaming turd, but did not appear to be in a hurry to fix things.

---

Vpn?

---

Yes, but requiring customers to pay for a VPN to falsify their location so they can pay high prices for a service they only use to view the games not on other networks is not a great way to build your viewership.

sycasey said:

---

There were two major blunders:

1. Setting a high price for carriage and then only getting the LOCAL cable companies on board to carry the network. It wasn't on the major national carriers (like DirecTV) and still isn't on most of them.

2. Not partnering with ESPN when they had the chance. The other conference networks are partnered with a larger media company and that's how they get carried.

Why Larry was so inflexible on all of this is still beyond me.

---

#1 was building teh P12 network in the first place. If we had an existing business relationship, espn would have easily shown teh Pac Presidents why $50m per is more of a dream than dating Taylor Swift.

sycasey said:

---

There were two major blunders:

1. Setting a high price for carriage and then only getting the LOCAL cable companies on board to carry the network. It wasn't on the major national carriers (like DirecTV) and still isn't on most of them.

2. Not partnering with ESPN when they had the chance. The other conference networks are partnered with a larger media company and that's how they get carried.

Why Larry was so inflexible on all of this is still beyond me.

---

Exactly. I get wanting to go big and do it ourselves in 2012 when it was launched, but to not admit your mistake and stick with mediocrity and failure for 11 years….

It is almost like the same executive who extended Knowlton out to year 12 and in turn extended Wilcox out to year 11 was involved! Just a big collection of academics and their overpaid incompetent sports administrators that destroyed our conference and nearly drove our program into the ground.

That network is the laughing stock out here on the east coast and it's sucked on the west coast as well.

sycasey said:

---

There were two major blunders:

1. Setting a high price for carriage and then only getting the LOCAL cable companies on board to carry the network. It wasn't on the major national carriers (like DirecTV) and still isn't on most of them.

2. Not partnering with ESPN when they had the chance. The other conference networks are partnered with a larger media company and that's how they get carried.

Why Larry was so inflexible on all of this is still beyond me.

---

They had a nice modern office in the Club Sport Complex off Treat Blvd near the Marriott and BART in WC.
Then, Larry the Grifter set his sights on San Francisco and a 114,000 sq. ft. lease for $75 million.

Now, they're back in the East Bay in Bishop Ranch / San Ramon with 42,000 sq. ft for only $1.8 million a year.
A savings of $5.2 million a year compared to their SF location.

DiabloWags said:

---

sycasey said:

---

There were two major blunders:

1. Setting a high price for carriage and then only getting the LOCAL cable companies on board to carry the network. It wasn't on the major national carriers (like DirecTV) and still isn't on most of them.

2. Not partnering with ESPN when they had the chance. The other conference networks are partnered with a larger media company and that's how they get carried.

Why Larry was so inflexible on all of this is still beyond me.

---

They had a nice modern office in the Club Sport Complex off Treat Blvd near the Marriott and BART in WC.
Then, Larry the Grifter set his sights on San Francisco and a 114,000 sq. ft. lease for $75 million.

Now, they're back in the East Bay in Bishop Ranch / San Ramon with 42,000 sq. ft for only $1.8 million a year.
A savings of $5.2 million a year compared to their SF location.

---

Tennis Larry wanted it closer to his home on the Peninsula.

Should have been in LA in partnership with Disney/ESPN or Fox all along, or at least soon after it was clear we were not making progress. Like 2015. San Ramon is not a media center. LA is the biggest media center in the country.

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

01Bear said:

---

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

---

I hate to defend Larry since obviously his cable plan was bad, but the cable model of forcing a lot of cable subscribers to pay a little bit for the Pac-12 Network made sense at the time. The problem, of course, was ensuring that it was widely available.

People are just getting used to the direct to consumer model in like the past year or 2, particularly with MLB and MLS on Apple. Football fans seem to only getting used to watching football on streaming in the past year or 2 with Thursday Night Football on Prime Video.

But, seriously, how many people would be willing to pay $50 or $100 a year for standalone Pac-12 Network? Maybe it would've been more appealing via a big company like Apple, but there are so many things to subscribe to nowadays. Not just TV. But media, apps, services, etc. There is a lot of subscription fatigue out there, especially with Netflix, Disney, etc. raising their prices.

Coverage of the game was horrendous. We finally run an uptempo offense and the camera crew can't keep up. Lol. Can't wait to get to the acc

JRL.02 said:

---

Btw- a 2024 acc schedule could be coming soon.

Miami's AD was on ACC Network earlier and said: "We are going to have an AD meeting in mid October, the 19th and 20th. So hopefully we will have something to look at and react to and very shortly thereafter we might be able to pull something out so everybody can see it."

---

Speaking of the Miami AD - they probably have their hands full after The U pissed that game away v. Ga Tech at home!

01Bear said:

---

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

---

The bolded is exactly why we never should have built our own network. Trying to compete with espn and Fox Sports, both billion dollar enterprises, was a fools-errand. It just defied common sense.

Sure, owning the rights to our own games is understandable, but it's a classic B-school make-buy decision. We chose to make, with not only zero experience in a cut-throat industry, but also zero interest by academics to invest to compete.

And Coach Prime has been the lead story everywhere but the game is on the P12 network?? Not a Prime fan but huge whiff

cal83dls79 said:

---

And Coach Prime has been the lead story everywhere but the game is on the P12 network?? Not a Prime fan but huge whiff

---

They have to put some Colorado games on P12 Network. Every conference network has rules like that.

Big Dog said:

---

01Bear said:

---

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

---

The bolded is exactly why we never should have built our own network. Trying to compete with espn and Fox Sports, both billion dollar enterprises, was a fools-errand. It just defied common sense.

Sure, owning the rights to our own games is understandable, but it's a classic B-school make-buy decision. We chose to make, with not only zero experience in a cut-throat industry, but also zero interest by academics to invest to compete.

---

I agree with your contention, but as with all "classic B-school decisions", there are exceptions. I don't think Elon Musk knew anything about building cars when he came on-board at Tesla, but he hired people who did and held them accountable. That's where the Pac12 presidents screwed up. Larry was a horrific hire and they refused to hold him accountable when results fell far short of promises. Then they apparently repeated the same thing with Kliavkoff.

sycasey said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

And Coach Prime has been the lead story everywhere but the game is on the P12 network?? Not a Prime fan but huge whiff

---

They have to put some Colorado games on P12 Network. Every conference network has rules like that.

---

I know but nobody subscribes to that platform. So another story lost . Waiting for Mad Dog

Big Dog said:

---

01Bear said:

---

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

---

The bolded is exactly why we never should have built our own network. Trying to compete with espn and Fox Sports, both billion dollar enterprises, was a fools-errand. It just defied common sense.

Sure, owning the rights to our own games is understandable, but it's a classic B-school make-buy decision. We chose to make, with not only zero experience in a cut-throat industry, but also zero interest by academics to invest to compete.

---

I agree entirely with you. However - that really is the problem. The media companies destroyed college football. The presidents of the colleges have been befuddled by what has been going in, and the two major partners for College football have been scheming to take only the best at the destruction of everyone else.

The conferences as a whole are to blame. Division 1 A football should have gotten together and built their own network. The billions that ESPN and Fox are making could easily have been distributed to the colleges instead of Disney and Murdoch. Games could have been sold to to outside interests but an all in one app for all college sports, etc would certainly get billions in revenue each year. I think each school in that category could certainly have about 75 to 100 million in annual revenue - it just the top 25. It is a shame that no one is agreeable and it is end up with all of the schools see college football decline.

I was making this same comment 3-4 years ago. I specifically signed up for Dish for P-12 coverage. At first it was great being able to catch Cal Soccer games. Then I think the coverage began to get spotty, then crappy. And boy was it disappointing overall. Seems like they always had 10 to 20 blank channels sitting idle for no reason. It quickly became obvious that they were hemorrhaging cash with no solution in sight. At first I felt bad for the network and conference. Then I just got annoyed and began rooting for the network's demise.

Looks like I'm getting my wish, to the detriment of our conference and traditions. Careful what you wish for I guess is the lesson here.

TandemBear said:

---

It quickly became obvious that they were hemorrhaging cash with no solution in sight. At first I felt bad for the network and conference. Then I just got annoyed and began rooting for the network's demise.

Looks like I'm getting my wish, to the detriment of our conference and traditions. Careful what you wish for I guess is the lesson here.

---

Realignment aside, the PAC-12 engaged on a futile endeavor as far as network coverage goes, and I am happy that is finally over.

$50 to $100 a YEAR for P12N would be palatable. But from what that article said about how bundling cable packages heavily subsidized sports channels, it looks like the pay-for-streaming model for a single sports channel or network would be $50 to $100 a MONTH. Or more according to the author. Perhaps P12N saw the financial impossibility of this and realized the bundle subsidy model was the only way to proceed. That was 11 years ago, so l can't imagine how a streaming only model could possibly have worked.

But that's my layman's take. I readily admit I have no idea.

oskidunker said:

---

No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

---

Or offer programmatic advertising? FFS, it's worth SOMETHING.

Pac12 was created from the ground up to be a case study at business schools.

Big Dog said:

---

01Bear said:

---

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

---

The bolded is exactly why we never should have built our own network. Trying to compete with espn and Fox Sports, both billion dollar enterprises, was a fools-errand. It just defied common sense.

Sure, owning the rights to our own games is understandable, but it's a classic B-school make-buy decision. We chose to make, with not only zero experience in a cut-throat industry, but also zero interest by academics to invest to compete.

---

As much crap as I talk about USC's academics, I do give them credit for having a great film and media program. There's no way no one at USC's (or even UCLA's, for that matter) media studies program couldn't figure out how to run conference sports network successfully. The problem is that Tennis Larry and Kickback Kliavkof refused to seek expert advice and instead relied either on their own ideas or on their college buddies.

01Bear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

01Bear said:

---

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

---

The bolded is exactly why we never should have built our own network. Trying to compete with espn and Fox Sports, both billion dollar enterprises, was a fools-errand. It just defied common sense.

Sure, owning the rights to our own games is understandable, but it's a classic B-school make-buy decision. We chose to make, with not only zero experience in a cut-throat industry, but also zero interest by academics to invest to compete.

---

As much crap as I talk about USC's academics, I do give them credit for having a great film and media program. There's no way no one at USC's (or even UCLA's, for that matter) media studies program couldn't figure out how to run conference sports network successfully. The problem is that Tennis Larry and Kickback Kliavkof refused to seek expert advice and instead relied either on their own ideas or on their college buddies.

---

From what I hear about Kliavkoff, he knew this stuff pretty well, but wasn't connected enough in college football to be able to know what others schools were up to and how fast he needed to move. Saying he is as bad as Scott is like saying Wilcox is as bad as Holmoe. He wasn't able to meet the moment, no question.

Big C said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

01Bear said:

---

I actually agreed with Larry that the Pac should own the rights to its own games. The main problem is that he never figured out that the Pac should've created a direct to consumer business model instead of trying to license the rights to cable and satellite companies, especially once DirecTV refused to pay the price he was charging.

The problem is Larry wasn't really a visionary, let alone an advocate for the Pac-12. He was an empty suit who was only looking out for his own self-interests. He didn't understand where media was headed (read: online streaming). Instead, he just followed the path that would get him paid the most and offer him the most perks.

Unfortunately, the Pac-12 universities' Presidents were equally clueless. None of them really understood media. They were all academics. They listened to Tennis Larry and believed he knew what he was talking about. When they finally realized that Larry was only interested in padding his own pocketbook, they replaced him with another person who doesn't understand modern media (let alone one who understands the shifting media landscape). So, again, instead of a direct to consumer model, the Pac-12 Network was still trying to sell game rights to linear broadcasters.

It's also arguable that the reason none of the powers that be figured out the direct to consumer model is because they're all so darn old. They grew up with linear TV. They still watch linear TV. They don't understand that modern viewers are increasingly moving away from linear TV, especially younger viewers. It's one of the hazards of having only older folks in positions of leadership in an area where older folks are a smaller segment of the market.

In short, the Pac-12 Network was the right idea, the execution was ridiculously tied to 20th century media models. It's possible part of the reason for the poor execution is that the people in charge are all boomers or early Gen Xers.

---

The bolded is exactly why we never should have built our own network. Trying to compete with espn and Fox Sports, both billion dollar enterprises, was a fools-errand. It just defied common sense.

Sure, owning the rights to our own games is understandable, but it's a classic B-school make-buy decision. We chose to make, with not only zero experience in a cut-throat industry, but also zero interest by academics to invest to compete.

---

As much crap as I talk about USC's academics, I do give them credit for having a great film and media program. There's no way no one at USC's (or even UCLA's, for that matter) media studies program couldn't figure out how to run conference sports network successfully. The problem is that Tennis Larry and Kickback Kliavkof refused to seek expert advice and instead relied either on their own ideas or on their college buddies.

---

From what I hear about Kliavkoff, he knew this stuff pretty well, but wasn't connected enough in college football to be able to know what others schools were up to and how fast he needed to move. Saying he is as bad as Scott is like saying Wilcox is as bad as Holmoe. He wasn't able to meet the moment, no question.

---

Now that I think about it, Cal should offer a graduate degree in sports media that focuses on production. Not only could Cal get more graduate transfers that way, but it could be helpful to Cal to have alumni in the production booths and in the front offices of media producers. One of the first classes could be a case study on the collapse of the Pac-12.

oskidunker said:

---

No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

---

You won't have to worry about it soon enough

dimitrig said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

No advertisers at time outs. Just relentless music. Why didn't they offer a price advertisers would pay?

---

You won't have to worry about it soon enough

---

Has anyone checked out the ACC Network?