UC Davis 3:30
Washington 7:30
North Texas 1:15
ASU 7:30

I was hoping Washington kickoff would be earlier but this isn't a big surprise.


https://pac-12.com/article/2019/05/29/pac-12-networks-announces-first-three-weeks-2019-football-tv-schedule

ASU @ 7:30 as well, which makes sense for a Friday.

good afternoon game times for UCD and North Texas.

can't wait to be back in Memorial

I WAS, excited about an early Fall game in Seattle.
Now we have to think about it. ***.

Good grief. They did it again. Only ONE normal kickoff time.

Ugh, being a Seattle area guy and just having moved to within reasonable walking distance of Husky stadium I was pretty excited about this year's game. September can be spectacular here, but evenings, even at the height of summer can be chilly.

Boneheads. Given the usual lack of good games in week 2, why the heck wouldn't this game be at a normal time? UW being a likely top pick in the Pac12, but Cal beat them last year, etc. Even a 4 or 5pm start would be marginally OK.

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

I'll go and hope the weather cooperates, but it won't be what I was originally envisioning. Tailgating in the late morning/early afternoon with some Husky friends, 2pm game time, etc.

Right there with you. This is a big disappointment, I just assumed an early Sept. game at Husky Stadium would be an afternoon time and was looking forward to it, inviting friends up from the Bay Area. Will still get Cal section tickets for the game but, damn that sucks.

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

The two Pac 12 matchups on September 7 (Cal vs. Washington and USC vs. Stanford) are both at 7:30? Ugh.

Here is a dream:

Just like this announcement of 4 weeks of games being announced together, the next 4 weeks of games would be announced at the same time too followed by the last 4 games. No 12 or 6 day announcements week after week.

Now that would be a goal.

Go Bears

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

---

Let's take a look at "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money" shall we?

The contracts with ESPN and Fox bring in a total of roughly $250 million per year (divided among 12 schools) over a 12 year period. Each entity is contracted to show 22 football games/year plus the championship game which is alternated between them). Fox is committed to showing 8 on the over the air channel (aka: big Fox) and 14 on their cable outlet. In addition, there is basketball (Fox 22 games per year plus the tournament, ESPN 46 games a year) and other sports (ESPN also has some women's hoops and Olympic sports).

May I suggest that there is a substantial amount of money that is in play with the Fox football telecasts?

auberge said:

---

They have to play night games in Arizona in September, but otherwise there is no excuse for the 7:30 start times. The Pac-12 loses meaningful national media coverage when what should be marquee games, Stanford--U$C and Cal--UW, start at 10:30 and end in the wee hours in the Eastern time zone. I can't imagine the current contract being renewed when it expires, not soon enough.

---

The world of media has changed significantly since the contracts were signed at the beginning of this decade. However, the need for money has not. If anything, that need is far greater today. I foresee the sellout to the media continuing with no change regarding the issue of game times. Sports is in the midst of transitioning to a more "studio-like" environment - less emphasis on in-person attendance, far more emphasis on viewing through multiple platforms.

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

---

Let's take a look at "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money" shall we?

The contracts with ESPN and Fox bring in a total of roughly $250 million per year (divided among 12 schools) over a 12 year period. Each entity is contracted to show 22 football games/year plus the championship game which is alternated between them). Fox is committed to showing 8 on the over the air channel (aka: big Fox) and 14 on their cable outlet. In addition, there is basketball (Fox 22 games per year plus the tournament, ESPN 46 games a year) and other sports (ESPN also has some women's hoops and Olympic sports).

May I suggest that there is a substantial amount of money that is in play with the Fox football telecasts?

---

There may be a substantial amount of money in play with the Fox football telecasts, but the majority of that is for the over the air broadcasts, and what amount is for the ability to show FS1 after 5 or 6 p.m.?

If the $250M is divided among the two networks, then that is about $125M per network. 22 games each, that is about $5.6M per game for the Fox telecasts. Figure that the over the air are worth more. Let's assume that the 8 over the air is worth a little more than the 14 cable games portion, maybe the 14 cable portion is worth about $50M to Fox. So let's say FS1 can't do any games after 5 or 6 p.m. How much does that reduce the value of the contract, especially when the Arizona schools are happy to have the late games so they will still get some 7 or 7:30 games if they want. Can the cable portion of the Fox contract be worth less than 90% as much as it is worth now? A reduction of around $5M? Each school gets around $415 less per season? And how much more can Cal get in ticket sales if they eliminate 7:30 games from both the PAC-12 and FS1? I personally know 4 people who would go back to buying season tickets if they would drastically cut the number of post 6 p.m. Saturday games. How many more are there out there like that? And outside of season tickets, how many extra tickets can Cal sell per game if we avoid post 6 p.m. games?

Look, I'm pulling some of these numbers out of my butt (well, using your numbers and pulling some others out of my butt), I may be too high, too low. It is also possible that there are reasons why the "no FS1 or Pac-12 network after 5 or 6 p.m., but ESPN is OK" idea wouldn't work. But without some better numbers and a reason why that idea wouldn't work, nothing you say contradicts the argument that it "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money," especially if we're looking at the net of the reduced contract minus increased ticket sales. Maybe it would cost the PAC a lot of money, but if so, I'd like to see numbers that show that it would, as opposed to what you said that only leads me to think it is possible that it wouldn't cost the PAC that much money. And maybe that idea couldn't be negotiated without just giving up the incremental value to FS1 of being able to broadcast late games.

In any event, as you say, it will be interesting in the next round of negotiations to see if the presidents/chancellors care more about squeezing dollars than about the student athletes and the fans. Well, if I live that long it will be interesting to see.

Let's think about this from the TV network perspective. They need to space out their games to maximize ratings and sell advertising. Unfortunately for those that don't like night games the west coast has an exclusive window during evening hours when it's too late to start games in the eastern or central time zones. So despite generally lower ratings for P12 programs, this prime time window is a main component to the value of the conference's TV deal.

If the conference insisted on starts no later than 5pm PT, the networks would reduce their rights offer and revenue would decline. You think the conference is in any position to accept lower revenue? The networks can fill the 12PM ET, 3 PM ET/12PM PT, and 8 PM ET/5PM windows with higher drawing programs from the other 4 major conferences. What they really need the P12 for is that 7-8PM PT window which really appeals to the west coast audience plus the late night east coast crowd.

So even though Larry Scott is a pompous, profligate, and overpaid clown he understands this fact that the only way to reduce night games is to accept reduced revenue which puts the conference at a further disadvantage.

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

---

Let's take a look at "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money" shall we?

The contracts with ESPN and Fox bring in a total of roughly $250 million per year (divided among 12 schools) over a 12 year period. Each entity is contracted to show 22 football games/year plus the championship game which is alternated between them). Fox is committed to showing 8 on the over the air channel (aka: big Fox) and 14 on their cable outlet. In addition, there is basketball (Fox 22 games per year plus the tournament, ESPN 46 games a year) and other sports (ESPN also has some women's hoops and Olympic sports).

May I suggest that there is a substantial amount of money that is in play with the Fox football telecasts?

---

There is a substantial amount of money *overall* when you're talking about all games televised by Fox.

I'm saying that the FS1 games that start at 7:30 PT get poor ratings and are thus not worth much to Fox, so a no-late-starts-on-FS1 rule shouldn't cost much.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

Let's think about this from the TV network perspective. They need to space out their games to maximize ratings and sell advertising. Unfortunately for those that don't like night games the west coast has an exclusive window during evening hours when it's too late to start games in the eastern or central time zones. So despite generally lower ratings for P12 programs, this prime time window is a main component to the value of the conference's TV deal.

If the conference insisted on starts no later than 5pm PT, the networks would reduce their rights offer and revenue would decline. You think the conference is in any position to accept lower revenue? The networks can fill the 12PM ET, 3 PM ET/12PM PT, and 8 PM ET/5PM windows with higher drawing programs from the other 4 major conferences. What they really need the P12 for is that 7-8PM PT window which really appeals to the west coast audience plus the late night east coast crowd.

So even though Larry Scott is a pompous, profligate, and overpaid clown he understands this fact that the only way to reduce night games is to accept reduced revenue which puts the conference at a further disadvantage.

---

I guess the chancellors will have to decide what is more important: filling the stadium with fans or getting money for broadcasting games with low fan turnout.

If they choose the latter, the schools could save money by selling their stadiums and playing games in an empty studio.

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

---

Let's take a look at "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money" shall we?

The contracts with ESPN and Fox bring in a total of roughly $250 million per year (divided among 12 schools) over a 12 year period. Each entity is contracted to show 22 football games/year plus the championship game which is alternated between them). Fox is committed to showing 8 on the over the air channel (aka: big Fox) and 14 on their cable outlet. In addition, there is basketball (Fox 22 games per year plus the tournament, ESPN 46 games a year) and other sports (ESPN also has some women's hoops and Olympic sports).

May I suggest that there is a substantial amount of money that is in play with the Fox football telecasts?

---

There is a substantial amount of money *overall* when you're talking about all games televised by Fox.

I'm saying that the FS1 games that start at 7:30 PT get poor ratings and are thus not worth much to Fox, so a no-late-starts-on-FS1 rule shouldn't cost much.

---

However, they are part of a larger package of games. I suspect the two parties would not have agreed to the contract had it been written differently. P12: We want maximum dollars and exposure. FOX: ok, we need inventory on our cable station. How about this idea - we will televise eight games on "big Fox" if you agree to an additional 14 games on Fox cable for x dollars. P12: Where do we sign?

It's all about money. I used to think college football was fun, and enjoyed the Cal atmosphere at games at CMS. Now all that matters is the bottom line

Sad. Why bother anymore?

auberge said:

---

It's all about money. I used to think college football was fun, and enjoyed the Cal atmosphere at games at CMS. Now all that matters is the bottom line

Sad. Why bother anymore?

---

College athletics is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no room for sentiment. That went out with the raccoon coat. Your third sentence is a succinct summary of the current state of affairs.

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

---

Let's take a look at "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money" shall we?

The contracts with ESPN and Fox bring in a total of roughly $250 million per year (divided among 12 schools) over a 12 year period. Each entity is contracted to show 22 football games/year plus the championship game which is alternated between them). Fox is committed to showing 8 on the over the air channel (aka: big Fox) and 14 on their cable outlet. In addition, there is basketball (Fox 22 games per year plus the tournament, ESPN 46 games a year) and other sports (ESPN also has some women's hoops and Olympic sports).

May I suggest that there is a substantial amount of money that is in play with the Fox football telecasts?

---

There is a substantial amount of money *overall* when you're talking about all games televised by Fox.

I'm saying that the FS1 games that start at 7:30 PT get poor ratings and are thus not worth much to Fox, so a no-late-starts-on-FS1 rule shouldn't cost much.

---

However, they are part of a larger package of games. I suspect the two parties would not have agreed to the contract had it been written differently. P12: We want maximum dollars and exposure. FOX: ok, we need inventory on our cable station. How about this idea - we will televise eight games on "big Fox" if you agree to an additional 14 games on Fox cable for x dollars. P12: Where do we sign?

---

Sure, at the time the last TV contract was signed, the Pac would have let Fox start games at midnight on some channel that's only watched by 71 people, if Fox was willing to pay for that.

But...

-- Going forward, Fox can now see how low their ratings are for late night games on FS1, and if the Pac had skilled negotiators, they could get Fox to start all games earlier for not much of a decrease if any.

-- Of course, it's probably assuming too much to think that the Pac would have skilled negotiators. The ESPN/Fox contract for which Larry & Co. are still patting themselves on the back has been eclipsed by every single power conference TV contract signed since then. "Maximum" dollars? Not even close.

71Bear said:

---

auberge said:

---

It's all about money. I used to think college football was fun, and enjoyed the Cal atmosphere at games at CMS. Now all that matters is the bottom line

Sad. Why bother anymore?

---

College athletics is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no room for sentiment. That went out with the raccoon coat. Your third sentence is a succinct summary of the current state of affairs.

---

Exactly how much money does each Pac-12 school get for playing with these 7:30 PM start times? Does anyone know?

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

---

Let's take a look at "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money" shall we?

The contracts with ESPN and Fox bring in a total of roughly $250 million per year (divided among 12 schools) over a 12 year period. Each entity is contracted to show 22 football games/year plus the championship game which is alternated between them). Fox is committed to showing 8 on the over the air channel (aka: big Fox) and 14 on their cable outlet. In addition, there is basketball (Fox 22 games per year plus the tournament, ESPN 46 games a year) and other sports (ESPN also has some women's hoops and Olympic sports).

May I suggest that there is a substantial amount of money that is in play with the Fox football telecasts?

---

There is a substantial amount of money *overall* when you're talking about all games televised by Fox.

I'm saying that the FS1 games that start at 7:30 PT get poor ratings and are thus not worth much to Fox, so a no-late-starts-on-FS1 rule shouldn't cost much.

---

However, they are part of a larger package of games. I suspect the two parties would not have agreed to the contract had it been written differently. P12: We want maximum dollars and exposure. FOX: ok, we need inventory on our cable station. How about this idea - we will televise eight games on "big Fox" if you agree to an additional 14 games on Fox cable for x dollars. P12: Where do we sign?

---

Sure, at the time the last TV contract was signed, the Pac would have let Fox start games at midnight on some channel that's only watched by 71 people, if Fox was willing to pay for that.

But...

-- Going forward, Fox can now see how low their ratings are for late night games on FS1, and if the Pac had skilled negotiators, they could get Fox to start all games earlier for not much of a decrease if any.

-- Of course, it's probably assuming too much to think that the Pac would have skilled negotiators. The ESPN/Fox contract for which Larry & Co. are still patting themselves on the back has been eclipsed by every single power conference TV contract signed since then. "Maximum" dollars? Not even close.

---

At the time it was signed, it was the biggest contract in college sports. Suggesting it was not a maximum deal is like saying Babe Ruth was hoodwinked into signing a $100,000 contract in the 1920's because Bryce Harper just signed a $330,000,000 contract last year.

Fox already has games on earlier. The 7:30 Pacific Time window fits their schedule.

Let's face it - the contract works for both sides - Fox gets inventory at the time they want and the P12 gets a boatload of cash.

Bear19 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

auberge said:

---

It's all about money. I used to think college football was fun, and enjoyed the Cal atmosphere at games at CMS. Now all that matters is the bottom line

Sad. Why bother anymore?

---

College athletics is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no room for sentiment. That went out with the raccoon coat. Your third sentence is a succinct summary of the current state of affairs.

---

Exactly how much money does each Pac-12 school get for playing with these 7:30 PM start times? Does anyone know?

---

As noted in an earlier post, each school receives about $21 million/year from the deals with ESPN and Fox. The Fox portion of the contract calls for 22 football games (8 on "big Fox" and 14 on their cable outlet) plus the championship game and 22 hoops games plus the tournament. If you divide the $21 million equally (a guess), Fox is paying about $10 million per school for their rights.

I believe the key element in the deal is that Fox would never have agreed to just the 8 games on "big Fox" without obtaining the inventory provided by the games on their cable outlet. Therefore, one might say the late games are worth $10 million to each school. Obviously, that is a stretch but I do think you have to look at the contract in totality. You can't parse out specific pieces and assess their value accordingly.

At least the games are televised and Cal fans (if they have access to the Pac-12 network) can see EVERY GAME, which has not been the case for all of Cal football's existence prior to the Pac-12 network. Consider the alternative: having to listen to Starkey for away games.

71Bear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

auberge said:

---

It's all about money. I used to think college football was fun, and enjoyed the Cal atmosphere at games at CMS. Now all that matters is the bottom line

Sad. Why bother anymore?

---

College athletics is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no room for sentiment. That went out with the raccoon coat. Your third sentence is a succinct summary of the current state of affairs.

---

Exactly how much money does each Pac-12 school get for playing with these 7:30 PM start times? Does anyone know?

---

As noted in an earlier post, each school receives about $21 million/year from the deals with ESPN and Fox. The Fox portion of the contract calls for 22 football games (8 on "big Fox" and 14 on their cable outlet) plus the championship game and 22 hoops games plus the tournament. If you divide the $21 million equally (a guess), Fox is paying about $10 million per school for their rights.

I believe the key element in the deal is that Fox would never have agreed to just the 8 games on "big Fox" without obtaining the inventory provided by the games on their cable outlet. Therefore, one might say the late games are worth $10 million to each school. Obviously, that is a stretch but I do think you have to look at the contract in totality. You can't parse out specific pieces and assess their value accordingly.

---

Thanks. With 7:30 start tiimes, seeing the game in person, means getting home very late if you have to travel 1-2 hours to get to Berkeley. Add the parking issues and watching on TV becomes the only real option.

Bear19 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

auberge said:

---

It's all about money. I used to think college football was fun, and enjoyed the Cal atmosphere at games at CMS. Now all that matters is the bottom line

Sad. Why bother anymore?

---

College athletics is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is no room for sentiment. That went out with the raccoon coat. Your third sentence is a succinct summary of the current state of affairs.

---

Exactly how much money does each Pac-12 school get for playing with these 7:30 PM start times? Does anyone know?

---

As noted in an earlier post, each school receives about $21 million/year from the deals with ESPN and Fox. The Fox portion of the contract calls for 22 football games (8 on "big Fox" and 14 on their cable outlet) plus the championship game and 22 hoops games plus the tournament. If you divide the $21 million equally (a guess), Fox is paying about $10 million per school for their rights.

I believe the key element in the deal is that Fox would never have agreed to just the 8 games on "big Fox" without obtaining the inventory provided by the games on their cable outlet. Therefore, one might say the late games are worth $10 million to each school. Obviously, that is a stretch but I do think you have to look at the contract in totality. You can't parse out specific pieces and assess their value accordingly.

---

Thanks. With 7:30 start tiimes, seeing the game in person, means getting home very late if you have to travel 1-2 hours to get to Berkeley. Add the parking issues and watching on TV becomes the only real option.

---

Yep. That is the trade-off the Presidents/Chancellors agreed to when they decided to opt for cash over fan experience.

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

71Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

nwbear84 said:

---

The Pac12 should play zero 730 starting time games, except maybe early season AZ/ASU home games.

---

If it was up to me, Pac-12 teams could never be forced to start a football game after 5 pm, but I'd settle for this compromise: Home teams can start at 7:30 if they want to, but a game can be forced to a start time after 6 pm only if the game is on ESPN or an over-the-air network. Any game on FS1 or P12N has to start no later than 6 pm local time, unless the home team wants a later start.

---

Of course, that would mean forfeiting the millions of dollars paid by television to the schools. The decision to create an environment in which game times would change radically was made with full knowledge that fans would be inconvenienced. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next round of negotiations. Will the Presidents/Chancellors continue down the road of squeezing every dollar without regard for the fans who attend the games? We shall see......

---

Wouldn't cost the Pac that much money. Wouldn't affect ESPN at all; they could still move games to 7:30. It would only impact late games that Fox banishes to FS1, and is it really worth much to Fox to be able to start games on FS1 at 7:30 PT? The ratings for those late games on FS1 are poor.

---

Let's take a look at "wouldn't cost the PAC that much money" shall we?

The contracts with ESPN and Fox bring in a total of roughly $250 million per year (divided among 12 schools) over a 12 year period. Each entity is contracted to show 22 football games/year plus the championship game which is alternated between them). Fox is committed to showing 8 on the over the air channel (aka: big Fox) and 14 on their cable outlet. In addition, there is basketball (Fox 22 games per year plus the tournament, ESPN 46 games a year) and other sports (ESPN also has some women's hoops and Olympic sports).

May I suggest that there is a substantial amount of money that is in play with the Fox football telecasts?

---

There is a substantial amount of money *overall* when you're talking about all games televised by Fox.

I'm saying that the FS1 games that start at 7:30 PT get poor ratings and are thus not worth much to Fox, so a no-late-starts-on-FS1 rule shouldn't cost much.

---

However, they are part of a larger package of games. I suspect the two parties would not have agreed to the contract had it been written differently. P12: We want maximum dollars and exposure. FOX: ok, we need inventory on our cable station. How about this idea - we will televise eight games on "big Fox" if you agree to an additional 14 games on Fox cable for x dollars. P12: Where do we sign?

---

Sure, at the time the last TV contract was signed, the Pac would have let Fox start games at midnight on some channel that's only watched by 71 people, if Fox was willing to pay for that.

But...

-- Going forward, Fox can now see how low their ratings are for late night games on FS1, and if the Pac had skilled negotiators, they could get Fox to start all games earlier for not much of a decrease if any.

-- Of course, it's probably assuming too much to think that the Pac would have skilled negotiators. The ESPN/Fox contract for which Larry & Co. are still patting themselves on the back has been eclipsed by every single power conference TV contract signed since then. "Maximum" dollars? Not even close.

---

At the time it was signed, it was the biggest contract in college sports. Suggesting it was not a maximum deal is like saying Babe Ruth was hoodwinked into signing a $100,000 contract in the 1920's because Bryce Harper just signed a $330,000,000 contract last year.

Fox already has games on earlier. The 7:30 Pacific Time window fits their schedule.

Let's face it - the contract works for both sides - Fox gets inventory at the time they want and the P12 gets a boatload of cash.

---

That analogy doesn't work. It was only six years between the Pac signing for an average of $250 million/year from ESPN and Fox, and the Big Ten signing for an average of $440 million/year. That is in no way comparable to the 97-year gap between Ruth's "record" contract in 1922 and Bryce Harper's in 2019.

Hell, even if you want to try to make a better analogy with Ruth -- there were 27 years between when he first made $50,000/year and DiMaggio getting $100,000/year.

And of course the other power conferences have passed the Pac-12 in TV revenue as well in the same short period of time. Even the ACC will be well ahead of the Pac starting this year, because they have a conference network for which they actually get paid and which will be actually available to more than a handful of viewers.

I officially got off the bus of the prior administration when they started telling me all that mattered was TV revenue. Basically their position was the gap between ticket sale revenue and TV revenue was so vast that we could play in an empty stadium at 3:00 am and that would be better for Cal than giving up on the "lucrative" TV deal.

What this ignores of course is that this is a university not a semi-pro league. The games are supposed to be there for the students and the alumni, not the football junkies around the country who need something to watch at 1:00 am. We seemed to have lost sight of that in pursuit of the all mighty dollar. And of course their revenue model ignored the fact that your sports donations are largely driven by your fans in attendance. When you add those to the mix then sacrificing ticket sales for TV revenue looks a whole lot less compelling.

As others have noted, we are stuck with this system for the next few years. We made the deal with the devil. But this needs to be seriously revamped in the renegotiation.

Sebastabear said:

---

I officially got off the bus of the prior administration when they started telling me all that mattered was TV revenue. Basically their position was the gap between ticket sale revenue and TV revenue was so vast that we could play in an empty stadium at 3:00 am and that would be better for Cal than giving up on the "lucrative" TV deal.

What this ignores of course is that this is a university not a semi-pro league. The games are supposed to be there for the students and the alumni, not the football junkies around the country who need something to watch at 1:00 am. We seemed to have lost sight of that in pursuit of the all mighty dollar. And of course their revenue model ignored the fact that your sports donations are largely driven by your fans in attendance. When you add those to the mix then sacrificing ticket sales for TV revenue looks a whole lot less compelling.

As others have noted, we are stuck with this system for the next few years. We made the deal with the devil. But this needs to be seriously revamped in the renegotiation.

---

Do you really think the next negotiation will be any different? Once the media starts waving around money, the conference will mindlessly follow in whatever direction they are being led. The good ship, "Fan Experience" sailed away many years ago.

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I officially got off the bus of the prior administration when they started telling me all that mattered was TV revenue. Basically their position was the gap between ticket sale revenue and TV revenue was so vast that we could play in an empty stadium at 3:00 am and that would be better for Cal than giving up on the "lucrative" TV deal.

What this ignores of course is that this is a university not a semi-pro league. The games are supposed to be there for the students and the alumni, not the football junkies around the country who need something to watch at 1:00 am. We seemed to have lost sight of that in pursuit of the all mighty dollar. And of course their revenue model ignored the fact that your sports donations are largely driven by your fans in attendance. When you add those to the mix then sacrificing ticket sales for TV revenue looks a whole lot less compelling.

As others have noted, we are stuck with this system for the next few years. We made the deal with the devil. But this needs to be seriously revamped in the renegotiation.

---

Do you really think the next negotiation will be any different? Once the media starts waving around money, the conference will mindlessly follow in whatever direction they are being led. The good ship, "Fan Experience" sailed away many years ago.

---

Thinking and hoping are not synonyms.

Why are we playing UC Davis and North Texas? There is nothing in it for us but a risk of injury and two wasted game days. If we win it's "So what?" If we lose it's a big humiliation. I will not be attending either game. I cannot get excited about beating either team and there are much better games on TV that I don't have to drive through traffic for two hours each way to get to.

Larno said:

---

At least the games are televised and Cal fans (if they have access to the Pac-12 network) can see EVERY GAME, which has not been the case for all of Cal football's existence prior to the Pac-12 network. Consider the alternative: having to listen to Starkey for away games.

---

Exactly. Is Starkey really doing Cal games again?

And when we beat Washington (even though it starts at 7:30 ) my only problem will be coming down enough to get to sleep.