Some things never change -MoragaBear said:
https://footballscoop.com/news/report-pac-12-considering-buying-out-larry-scotts-contract-early/
Great! It can't happen soon enough. Scott has been a disaster for the conference. Hopefully, he will be replaced with someone who actually knows what he or she is doing and can make the Pac-12 competitive with the other Power 5 conferences.MoragaBear said:
https://footballscoop.com/news/report-pac-12-considering-buying-out-larry-scotts-contract-early/
Just awful in a different way.sycasey said:
...
Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.
sycasey said:
I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!
Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.
Yeah, the local channels don't seem to be any kind of value-add and if anything are an impediment to getting the network picked up by service providers. You can still show the Olympic sports on the network, as there are plenty of hours when football and basketball games are not being played, plus you can keep putting stuff up for online streaming and do it cheaper (at least I'd assume it could be done more cheaply).golden sloth said:sycasey said:
I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!
Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.
I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.
Drop the local channels, focus on football and basketball to streamline in all. Also, there is obvious stuff they can do to improve content like create an extended 8 -10 minute highlight from every game that you can play on the channel and post to youtube.
oskidunker said:
Not understanding why he has not cut a deal with Direct Tv or why The School presidents think they need him gone to get such a deal. Are they willing to make concessions Scott is not? are they willing to sell some rights to ESPN?
If cutting a deal with DT would increase conference revenues, why has Scott not done this? Especially now when we are obviously worth less, some kind of deal could be made. Too bad he did not get such a deal before the Virus has made our leverage less. Bad risk he took which has now come home to roost .
sycasey said:
I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!
Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.
Quote:
but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.
I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.golden sloth said:
I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.
Not having an online archive for subscribers really sucks.sycasey said:Yeah, the local channels don't seem to be any kind of value-add and if anything are an impediment to getting the network picked up by service providers. You can still show the Olympic sports on the network, as there are plenty of hours when football and basketball games are not being played, plus you can keep putting stuff up for online streaming and do it cheaper (at least I'd assume it could be done more cheaply).golden sloth said:sycasey said:
I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!
Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.
I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.
Drop the local channels, focus on football and basketball to streamline in all. Also, there is obvious stuff they can do to improve content like create an extended 8 -10 minute highlight from every game that you can play on the channel and post to youtube.
Is that really true? We definitely had some 7:30 PM starts under Hansen. Granted, not as many, but they happened.Big Dog said:
Disagree about not worse than Hansen. At least Tom stood for something: no games starting so that they will end the next day;
For some reason the local Pac-12 network has been interspersing reruns of the women's gymnastics tournaments with the classic Cal football games.Golden One said:I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.golden sloth said:
I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.
Yeah, but when Hansen was commissioner, we didn't have any 4 1/2 hour games.sycasey said:Is that really true? We definitely had some 7:30 PM starts under Hansen. Granted, not as many, but they happened.Big Dog said:
Disagree about not worse than Hansen. At least Tom stood for something: no games starting so that they will end the next day;
Blame Sonny Dykes!Cal8285 said:Yeah, but when Hansen was commissioner, we didn't have any 4 1/2 hour games.sycasey said:Is that really true? We definitely had some 7:30 PM starts under Hansen. Granted, not as many, but they happened.Big Dog said:
Disagree about not worse than Hansen. At least Tom stood for something: no games starting so that they will end the next day;
Whether the schools should have them involves Title IX ramifications.Golden One said:I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.golden sloth said:
I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.
There is no reason to totally drop these sports from the network. Football and basketball can't fill every hour of programming. The issue is more all of the regional networks that seem to have been created to showcase the Olympic sports but aren't really drawing interest. Other conferences have shown that a single conference network is fine and you are still able to show a variety of sports on them.mbBear said:Whether the schools should have them involves Title IX ramifications.Golden One said:I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.golden sloth said:
I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.
The successful conferences show the "non-revenue sports" to show broad support for their athletic community, and obviously gender; this argument would not show Women's sports at all. Women's basketball would get a pass for some because they are playing something of some interest?
The Big 10 was showing some of these sports long before they had the Network. Again, this was never about economic gain, but rather some support for the college community as a whole. They paid outlets to air and produce games-it was something beyond a "professional sports" mentality.
59bear said:
If only Scott had been as successful in promoting the conference as he has been in promoting himself, we'd all be happy. Unfortunately, the PAC's slippage vis a vis the SEC/Big10, exacerbated by time zone challenges that put a significant amount of tv exposure outside the prime time window of a large segment of the populace, has led to a dispiriting trend of prime west coast talent heading east and south. I only wish the answer to reversing the declining fortunes of our conference were as easy as replacing Larry Scott.