https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/think-the-pac-12-networks-are-struggling-with-audience-and-revenue-the-reality-might-be-worse-than-you-imagined/

https://outline.com/MNU7Cs


What I dont understand is why he makes so much money. The excuse of "I run two things" doesnt fly when you run them both so poorly. He should be fired twice.


I do understand that this is abysmal

Quote:

---

Remove that from the Pac-12 Networks' payout, and the Bears have received an average of $433,333

---

The Pac-12 ADs want Scott to be fired, but the presidents and chancellors aren't ready to do it, so the ADs continually leak bad news to Wilner or Canzano to get it out before the public.

Why is he paid so much?

A: his contract

Why won't they fire him

A: his contract (buyout)

Who is to blame?

A: I blame Buh.

I've got plenty of criticism for Scott who sold the university presidents by pitching them on the the p12 networks exposure for non-rev/women's sports.

But this article says nothing new in regard to the situation being any more bleak than 5 years ago. Anyone following the network payouts would know that nothing really changed in 2018 so the payouts would remain the same. DirecTV is not signing up so revenue will stagnate.

In fact, I'd guess the payout goes down about 500k/ school due to u-verse dropping the network after the 2018 football season. Timing shows that u-verse knows the football season was valuable, but the other 8 months are practically worthless.

Have to guess the only way to increase payouts now is to reduce expenses. Like fewer live non-rev events that no one watches.

What the total household numbers miss is that the p12 networks does bring in substantial revenue due to in market vs out of market contracts. I think it's north of $100 million. But expenses eat up much of that.

I'd also mention that getting the network into more homes nationwide would be good for exposure, but not be that huge on the revenue side. I think it might have been a better idea to charge less for out of market under the requirement that the cable/sat companies put it on a national tier in all markets. At least then you don't have the double whammy of no exposure and poor payouts.

CB - Thanks as always for the perspective on this. Is the conference prohibited contractually through its agreements with existing carriers to launch an a la carte service? Like via an app on Apple TV, Roku, etc or via the web?

ColoradoBear said:

---

I've got plenty of criticism for Scott who sold the university presidents by pitching them on the the p12 networks exposure for non-rev/women's sports.

But this article says nothing new in regard to the situation being any more bleak than 5 years ago. Anyone following the network payouts would know that nothing really changed in 2018 so the payouts would remain the same. DirecTV is not signing up so revenue will stagnate.

In fact, I'd guess the payout goes down about 500k/ school due to u-verse dropping the network after the 2018 football season. Timing shows that u-verse knows the football season was valuable, but the other 8 months are practically worthless.

Have to guess the only way to increase payouts now is to reduce expenses. Like fewer live non-rev events that no one watches.

What the total household numbers miss is that the p12 networks does bring in substantial revenue due to in market vs out of market contracts. I think it's north of $100 million. But expenses eat up much of that.

I'd also mention that getting the network into more homes nationwide would be good for exposure, but not be that huge on the revenue side. I think it might have been a better idea to charge less for out of market under the requirement that the cable/sat companies put it on a national tier in all markets. At least then you don't have the double whammy of no exposure and poor payouts.

---

I think the most telling comment in the article pertains to the existing contract buyouts schools had to make. As noted, it reduced Cal's share to significantly less than the low estimate. That was "news".

71Bear said:

---

I think the most telling comment in the article pertains to the existing contract buyouts schools had to make. As noted, it reduced Cal's share to significantly less than the low estimate. That was "news".

---

The buyouts aren't new news, they were reported years ago. The reason it catches your eye in this article is because the payouts from P12N are so much less than Tennis Larry promised they would be, and that fact coupled with the buyouts reduces each school's share to a small amount.

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

I think the most telling comment in the article pertains to the existing contract buyouts schools had to make. As noted, it reduced Cal's share to significantly less than the low estimate. That was "news".

---

The buyouts aren't new news, they were reported years ago. The reason it catches your eye in this article is because the payouts from P12N are so much less than Tennis Larry promised they would be, and that fact coupled with the buyouts reduces each school's share to a small amount.

---

I should have been more clear. The new "news" was that some schools have paid off their share and some haven't. I figured everyone paid off their debt early in the process.

71Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

I've got plenty of criticism for Scott who sold the university presidents by pitching them on the the p12 networks exposure for non-rev/women's sports.

But this article says nothing new in regard to the situation being any more bleak than 5 years ago. Anyone following the network payouts would know that nothing really changed in 2018 so the payouts would remain the same. DirecTV is not signing up so revenue will stagnate.

In fact, I'd guess the payout goes down about 500k/ school due to u-verse dropping the network after the 2018 football season. Timing shows that u-verse knows the football season was valuable, but the other 8 months are practically worthless.

Have to guess the only way to increase payouts now is to reduce expenses. Like fewer live non-rev events that no one watches.

What the total household numbers miss is that the p12 networks does bring in substantial revenue due to in market vs out of market contracts. I think it's north of $100 million. But expenses eat up much of that.

I'd also mention that getting the network into more homes nationwide would be good for exposure, but not be that huge on the revenue side. I think it might have been a better idea to charge less for out of market under the requirement that the cable/sat companies put it on a national tier in all markets. At least then you don't have the double whammy of no exposure and poor payouts.

---

I think the most telling comment in the article pertains to the existing contract buyouts schools had to make. As noted, it reduced Cal's share to significantly less than the low estimate. That was "news".

---

Yeah, the buybacks are for sure eye opening. Don't want to diminish that fact at all. Those were all negotiated in 2012, so it's not like anything has changed though.

Cal's IMG deal expired in the summer of 2017, and was replaced by a Learfield deal that averages $8 million per year. One way to look at that is the Learfield deal could have been bigger had Cal not given over a lot of rights to the P12N.

If one totals up 2013-2017 P12Network payouts, Cal earned $7.1 from the P12N and paid IMG $7.1 million for the rights buyback. So that really means that for 2013-2017, Cal received no additional money for the P12N. I wonder if there was some kind of penalty paid to buy back out of original IMG deal.

But going forward from summer 2017, Cal should be receiving the full distribution amount from the P12N. So in 2018, Cal esentially received their 'first' payment from P12N of $2.7 million.

I am not sure what the other conferences are doing for content, but generally speaking I am not too impressed with the PAC12 programming. I watch an occasional game or rerun in a few sports, but not that often and most of the talk show segments are not very interesting.

Does anyone else watch any of these other networks or know what is different for them?

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

I think the most telling comment in the article pertains to the existing contract buyouts schools had to make. As noted, it reduced Cal's share to significantly less than the low estimate. That was "news".

---

The buyouts aren't new news, they were reported years ago. The reason it catches your eye in this article is because the payouts from P12N are so much less than Tennis Larry promised they would be, and that fact coupled with the buyouts reduces each school's share to a small amount.

---

I should have been more clear. The new "news" was that some schools have paid off their share and some haven't. I figured everyone paid off their debt early in the process.

---

That was the impression the conference gave us at the time. Looks like Larry & friends sold everyone on the idea that there would be so much money flowing in from P12N that the buyouts would seem small in comparison.

oldblue83 said:

---

YI am not sure what the other conferences are doing for content, but generally speaking I am not too impressed with the PAC12 programming. I watch an occasional game or rerun in a few sports, but not that often and most of the talk show segments are not very interesting.

Does anyone else watch any of these other networks or know what is different for them?

---

With the exception of football games, I don't watch either the SEC network or the P12 network. I do not have the B10 Network on my list of available channels.

There are still quite a few ADs who still want to keep Scott. Most notably the longest tenured ones like the guy from UCLA.

71Bear said:

---

oldblue83 said:

---

YI am not sure what the other conferences are doing for content, but generally speaking I am not too impressed with the PAC12 programming. I watch an occasional game or rerun in a few sports, but not that often and most of the talk show segments are not very interesting.

Does anyone else watch any of these other networks or know what is different for them?

---

With the exception of football games, I don't watch either the SEC network or the P12 network. I do not have the B10 Network on my list of available channels.

---

Comcast dropped BTN to the sports package here in Colorado. Didn't watch much before, don't miss it, glad I'm not 'paying' for it.

One thing I don't understand. I subscribe to Xfinity (Comcast). I live in Alameda (East Bay). I get the Pac-12 Network in HD and non-HD. But Pac-12 Bay Area isn't included. If it's not being shown in the Bay Area, where is it being shown? Why should Cal and Stanford contribute to the network if their regional programming isn't available in their home region? Makes no sense to me.

calalum81 said:

---

One thing I don't understand. I subscribe to Xfinity (Comcast). I live in Alameda (East Bay). I get the Pac-12 Network in HD and non-HD. But Pac-12 Bay Area isn't included. If it's not being shown in the Bay Area, where is it being shown? Why should Cal and Stanford contribute to the network if their regional programming isn't available in their home region? Makes no sense to me.

---

P12N should have the stuff on the "regional networks" on an alternate channel or on internet-only.

But that quibble is minor when compared to all of the significant screwups of Larry & Co. with respect to P12N.

calalum81 said:

---

One thing I don't understand. I subscribe to Xfinity (Comcast). I live in Alameda (East Bay). I get the Pac-12 Network in HD and non-HD. But Pac-12 Bay Area isn't included. If it's not being shown in the Bay Area, where is it being shown? Why should Cal and Stanford contribute to the network if their regional programming isn't available in their home region? Makes no sense to me.

---

Same here. I think you need to "special order" to get get Pac 12 Bay Area, but I already have some premium channels and that should definitely be included. And it was, until this year (or last year, I forget). There was only one time I "needed" it, though, when a Cal basketball game wasn't on the HD channel. Of course, the team is so lousy this year, I just said "screw it" and didn't watch.

Crazy.

Common sense, or the lack thereof.

Why the Uni Presidents believed that larry scott had the background to build up a profitable television network is beyond comprehension. The only real benefit of the p12 is televising non-rev sports, which are not popular on espn or fox. But, did they really believe that reruns of reruns of women's gymnastics was gonna be a big television draw? What were they smoking?

(Having lived in sports-crazed ACC and Big Ten country, there is no comparison to fan interest to the more sparsely populated west. Just different sports market segments, and price points.)

oldblue83 said:

---

I am not sure what the other conferences are doing for content, but generally speaking I am not too impressed with the PAC12 programming. I watch an occasional game or rerun in a few sports, but not that often and most of the talk show segments are not very interesting.

Does anyone else watch any of these other networks or know what is different for them?

---

I don't watch the others. But I will give props to the P12N's Saturday night football wrap up show. The name escapes me now. The analysts are usually not great (Toby Gerhart, for example, seems to have suffered brain damage during his football career and I don't know why they kept trotting him out). Although, Ryan Leaf was shockingly good last year and I wouldn't be surprised to see him poached by ESPN soon.

But if you're a fan of a Pac-12 school, the show is can't miss. It's a full hour of highlights and analysis on the PAC-12 games of the day, and it's very heavy on the highlights. Compare to ESPN's College Gameday Final or Sportscenter, where Pac-12 schools are lucky to get 30 seconds of highlights.

BearSD said:

---

calalum81 said:

---

One thing I don't understand. I subscribe to Xfinity (Comcast). I live in Alameda (East Bay). I get the Pac-12 Network in HD and non-HD. But Pac-12 Bay Area isn't included. If it's not being shown in the Bay Area, where is it being shown? Why should Cal and Stanford contribute to the network if their regional programming isn't available in their home region? Makes no sense to me.

---

P12N should have the stuff on the "regional networks" on an alternate channel or on internet-only.

But that quibble is minor when compared to all of the significant screwups of Larry & Co. with respect to P12N.

---

I just personally wish the PAC-12 set up a subscription streaming model for 1) any content not sold for live broadcast on another network and 2) have the content that is sold for live viewing elsewhere available to watch later.