okaydo said:
LOL 80 .... you are a broken record but that was funny....calbear80 said:
Did Larry Scott hire Williams, Jones and Helton? I must have missed that day's news.
Go Bears!
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?sycasey said:Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
More importantly...UCBerkGrad said:But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?sycasey said:Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
71Bear said:More importantly...UCBerkGrad said:But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?sycasey said:Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?
The answer is a resounding YES.
Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?71Bear said:More importantly...UCBerkGrad said:But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?sycasey said:Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?
The answer is a resounding YES.
UCBerkGrad said:Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?71Bear said:More importantly...UCBerkGrad said:But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?sycasey said:Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?
The answer is a resounding YES.
Is the conference worse off in this department? Pac-12 has 4 of the top-23 highest paid coaches.calumnus said:UCBerkGrad said:Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?71Bear said:More importantly...UCBerkGrad said:But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?sycasey said:Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?
The answer is a resounding YES.
Not when inflation in salaries for top coaches (due to the even greater television revenues at our P5 competition) is taken into account.
That's who I blame.Bear19 said:
Buh.
Here is the list that SI published 2 days ago.UCBerkGrad said:Is the conference worse off in this department? Pac-12 has 4 of the top-23 highest paid coaches.calumnus said:UCBerkGrad said:Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?71Bear said:More importantly...UCBerkGrad said:But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?sycasey said:Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?
The answer is a resounding YES.
Not when inflation in salaries for top coaches (due to the even greater television revenues at our P5 competition) is taken into account.
https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/sports/highest-paid-college-basketball-coaches-14774331
Quote:
Once could say "well, that's 2MM more than they would be getting" - but other conferences are showing that there are other ways to run their networks such that 2MM would be an unacceptably poor return.
ColoradoBear said:
My take is that the P12Net/Scott cannot be blamed for most of the football issues, if looking at it from a pure revenue perspective. Donation/Ticket revenue is so great in the top football programs that it just dominates the TV money. We are talking $100+ million yearly at Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc.
More P12N money would help, sure just a bit, but not a lot - it's not bridging that huge revenue gap. P12N games on a more regional tier doesn't help exposure, but lets be real - all but a slight few of those games are likely not watched outside the the footprint anyway. The big games go on the primary TV contract. (Now if you want to look at the effect of the night games and 12/6 day holds - that could kill more revenue in the future as people give up coming to games. But that will affect other conferences too as they also have night games and 12/6 day holds.)
When it comes to basketball, I think it does make a significant difference. Firstly, the sports' per school revenues are nowhere near football levels for almost all hoops programs across the country. So extra money can bridge the gap especially for mid tier teams. There are also so many games that the P12N would be a good avenue for exposure. But then again, I doubt the rating would be that great even if carried for free nationally.
The Big Ten and SEC are sitting on piles of TV cash. They can pump that into non-rev sports. We might even ironically see those conferences start to dominate some of the non-rev sports more using the money from the FB TV contracts - while the P12 squanders money broadcasting non-rev sports to audiences of virtually no actual viewers.
Now from a PR perspective, it's just looking really bad. Lots of just stupid things.
This is partially true. Part of the problem is just endemic to location.UCBerkGrad said:
You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue for the schools or the inability to hire great coaches or not being able to recruit elite athletes.
Bad link.95bears said:
Looks like things may be changing?
Larry Scott losing Power
There you go....what this poster said. But, hey, Cal could be the talk-of-the-town in both football and basketballQuote:
venividivici said:
Anyone who thinks we don't need a new coach is delusional. D1 sports is a business. Butts in seats. How many will return with the satay us who. In the decades since Pete Newell retired Cal has had just one A level coach, Mike Montgomery. A laughable record. Hopefully the AD can see and count empty seats. What top player wants that scene. Time to get real. Play the game or move to D3.
Do we really think we could beat MWC teams right now?Blueblood said:There you go....what this poster said. But, hey, Cal could be the talk-of-the-town in both football and basketballQuote:
venividivici said:
Anyone who thinks we don't need a new coach is delusional. D1 sports is a business. Butts in seats. How many will return with the satay us who. In the decades since Pete Newell retired Cal has had just one A level coach, Mike Montgomery. A laughable record. Hopefully the AD can see and count empty seats. What top player wants that scene. Time to get real. Play the game or move to D3.
while playing in the MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE. Oh, I know many of you see such a move as a laughable degradation to Cal sports....and for awhile, maybe it would be...but such fans don't see that Cal's administration of sports is already reflective of a MWC school. Cal is beginning to walk like a duck....quack like a duck....and is surely acting like a duck.....so maybe the Bear should be replaced with a duck?
Oh, Cal could eventually bring the Bear back by leading the charge to create a new conference, for example, without the u$C's but some imaginative members.....????
Think he was trying to link this:sycasey said:Bad link.95bears said:
Looks like things may be changing?
Larry Scott losing Power
This is true. Pac-12 programs need to focus more on donations and ticket sales.ColoradoBear said:
Donation/Ticket revenue is so great in the top football programs that it just dominates the TV money. We are talking $100+ million yearly at Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc.
FiatSlug said:
It's more than just Pac-12 football sucks.
The TV distribution rights via ESPN and Fox are subservient to the programming needs of those networks. The Pac-12 is treated as filler for those networks' programming schedules. Consequently, many Pac-12 games are after dark, which in turn depresses in-game attendance. The 12-day and 6-day windows also depress in-game attendance because fans who might otherwise attend a game make other plans in advance of game dates.
The Pac-12 hurt themselves by hitching their TV distribution to ESPN and Fox. The Pac-12 needs to be the primary client at a network with national coverage and distribution. That effectively eliminates CBS, who gives the SEC primary status.
NBC 's contract with Notre Dame is running out in 2022, IIRC. The Pac-12 could do much worse sticking with ESPN and Fox.
There might also be possible advantages with a package that includes both NBC and CBS if it minimizes Pac-12 after dark AND ensures that kickoffs are set 19 to 26 days in advance, thus aiding ticket sales.
The deal that Larry Scott made with ESPN and Fox in 2011 looked good until other P5 conferences made their deals with those same networks 2 to 3 years later. Those deals revealed that the Pac -12 was still secondary to the SEC, ACC (!), B1G, and even the Big 12. Pac-12 presidents and fans were sold a bill of goods by Larry Scott.
We can do better and deserve better
GMP said:FiatSlug said:
It's more than just Pac-12 football sucks.
The TV distribution rights via ESPN and Fox are subservient to the programming needs of those networks. The Pac-12 is treated as filler for those networks' programming schedules. Consequently, many Pac-12 games are after dark, which in turn depresses in-game attendance. The 12-day and 6-day windows also depress in-game attendance because fans who might otherwise attend a game make other plans in advance of game dates.
The Pac-12 hurt themselves by hitching their TV distribution to ESPN and Fox. The Pac-12 needs to be the primary client at a network with national coverage and distribution. That effectively eliminates CBS, who gives the SEC primary status.
NBC 's contract with Notre Dame is running out in 2022, IIRC. The Pac-12 could do much worse sticking with ESPN and Fox.
There might also be possible advantages with a package that includes both NBC and CBS if it minimizes Pac-12 after dark AND ensures that kickoffs are set 19 to 26 days in advance, thus aiding ticket sales.
The deal that Larry Scott made with ESPN and Fox in 2011 looked good until other P5 conferences made their deals with those same networks 2 to 3 years later. Those deals revealed that the Pac -12 was still secondary to the SEC, ACC (!), B1G, and even the Big 12. Pac-12 presidents and fans were sold a bill of goods by Larry Scott.
We can do better and deserve better
This is all well and good. But the fact is our ratings suck because while we care, so many around us do not. I don't think there's much the conference can do to overcome that, other than surpassing the SEC in football superiority for an extended period of time.
I, too, blame Buh.Bear19 said:
Buh.