I guarantee you that they are going to do case studies in business school about how the PAC12 mismanaged their network.

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/2/13/18223555/pac-12-network-tv-channel-distribution-its-bad

The author confuses the old Tier 1 revenue from over-the-air broadcasts, Tier 2 from cable/satellite distribution, and Tier 3 from captive linear programming and on-demand streaming or previously single item pay per view.

The 2.6 million per school is low and the causes are very well understood. But the other two media partnerships were always significantly more valuable and revenue from those increased significantly over the past few years:

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/pac-12/pac-12-takes-a-victory-lap-in-announcing-record-revenues-but-should-it/

Something that bears remembering: their high Pac12 expenses include the costs of running the wholly owned network. Which is why distributions are so much less than top-line revenue.

The Pac 12 (Conference of Champions) is going to be a serious revenue disadvantage to the Big 10, SEC and and even the Big 12. When you have USC getting $20M a year less than not just Ohio State and Michigan, but Indiana, Purdue and Northwestern, it's a major problem. You are going to see more Pac 12 teams have to what Oregon State did this, play a guarantee game at Ohio State. I can't think of many times where a Pac 12 team got a 12:30 or 5:00 (Pacific time) slot on ABC or ESPN.

Of course they could do something about the expenses and move the league office from the current prime location in SF to somewhere much, much less expensive. Should be much less in Phoenix, or even East Bay. The commissioner's salary is probably at least twice what the other P5 leagues pay. The SEC does OK in Birmingham and the ACC is even smaller Greensboro.

greg.w.h said:

---

Something that bears remembering: their high Pac12 expenses include the costs of running the wholly owned network. Which is why distributions are so much less than top-line revenue.

---

Yea I read the Seattle Times article too. I think the real story is that university presidents and conference officials are completely unqualified to efficiently run a national TV network.

rootube said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

Something that bears remembering: their high Pac12 expenses include the costs of running the wholly owned network. Which is why distributions are so much less than top-line revenue.

---

Yea I read the Seattle Times article too. I think the real story is that university presidents and conference officials are completely unqualified to efficiently run a national TV network.

---

I think the more important issue for them is distribution in footprint and in the west which is where their real recruiting base is. If the 2.6 million per school means that amount minus the holdbacks for rights buybacks were the real issue, then total distribution should be about the same as the Big 12. They have weakness in their entertainment value that is weakening Tier 1/Tier 2 style revenue somewhat as well. But if you could divide 509 million 13 ways it's just under 40 million each. That smells like lost opportunity but who knows what the expenses really are?

This is an interesting article. It sounds like a mess for west coast PAC fans. Depending on who your cable provider you may get only local games and have to pay extra for PAC national. And even in the perfect storm of provider and subscription where you get local and national many times they are airing the same game. The whole thing feels like it was an excellent spreadsheet exercise that fell flat when they tried it in the real world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2016/03/12/pac-12-networks-still-battling-variety-of-distribution-issues/#3c0e235824c1

What's the PAC 12 Network in comparison to the BDF Network?

turboboost said:

---

What's the PAC 12 Network in comparison to the BDF Network?

---

From everything I have read if you factor in the rights buybacks and the cost of content production the Big12 is killing the PAC in per school revenue.

rootube said:

---

turboboost said:

---

What's the PAC 12 Network in comparison to the BDF Network?

---

From everything I have read if you factor in the rights buybacks and the cost of content production the Big12 is killing the PAC in per school revenue.

---

Here are the estimated PAC payouts apparently it's very difficult to track and they are not available through open records requests. The stated payouts for all conferences may also not account for media rights buybacks but I think you get the picture that the PAC is probably getting killed both in revenue and in people who are able to watch them play.

Nor does the conference distribute financial details to the schools, thereby avoiding the potential for those details to be subject to public records requests.
Instead, the annual payout figures are made available for temporary viewing by campus financial officers on a secure website, according to multiple sources.
The figure provided on the website is a lump-sum amount. Two sources with access have copied down that amount over the years, then dived by 12 to determine the payouts to each school.
Those payout numbers are as follows:
2013: None listed
2014: $862,000 per school
2015: $1,677,500 per school
2016: $1,980,250 per school
2017: $2,522,167 per school
2018: $2,666,667 per school

That is insane! Not a conference to look at joining. We dodged a bomb, not a bullet!

I guess Colorado and Utah are happy

W said:

---

I guess Colorado and Utah are happy

---

They are both where they belong...those are western schools with western mindsets...the idea of the sippies and other b12 schools in that conference, however, is laughable.

McInnis80 said:

---

Of course they could do something about the expenses and move the league office from the current prime location in SF to somewhere much, much less expensive. Should be much less in Phoenix, or even East Bay. The commissioner's salary is probably at least twice what the other P5 leagues pay. The SEC does OK in Birmingham and the ACC is even smaller Greensboro.

---

Unless you're a small business, executive office rent shouldn't be a huge bottom line buster. If it is, your business is far worse off than just moving offices would fix.

That's okay they run their government out there the same way. All hat and no cattle. They will make it work some day, some way!

The Pac-12 just doesn't have the rabid fan base that the SEC and B1G have. Even the ACC and B12 fan bases are larger/more loyal than what the Pac has to offer. The Pac has the advantage of big media markets (LA, SF, SEA, Portland, PHX, SLC, Denver, San Diego, etc.), but those are all pro sports type towns. Very little attention is paid to the college teams unless they're winning.

For the long term, if the Pac is going to stay (get to) on par with the other P5 conferences, they're going to have to make some radical changes. Some have been mentioned above...move the home office to somewhere like Sacramento where it's not so expensive...pay their commissioner a reasonable salary...etc. But they'll have to go deeper than that. In football, they MUST get themselves some exposure outside of their footprint. They need to make a concerted effort to play games at SEC, ACC and B1G schools. Whatever it takes...even if they don't make as much money as they should. USC, UCLA, Washington and Stanford have got to get games scheduled in the Central and Eastern time zones. And on top of that, they've got to get the marquee schools from the ACC, SEC and B1G to come to the west coast. Again, even if they have to take a little financial hit, they've got to get schools like Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan and Florida to play west of the Rockies. Cal and North Carolina did a home-and-home recently, but in the college football world, that match up is not going to move the needle. Sending Indiana to play Arizona or Virginia to play Utah or Kentucky to play Oregon State is not going to cut it. The Pac needs to be in the deal-making business...they need to get the crazy college football fans from the marquee schools out to the west coast to create some serious ticket sale demand and high profile TV exposure.

I did my undergrad at CU and I hate the Pac-12 network more than anything.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

The Pac-12 just doesn't have the rabid fan base that the SEC and B1G have. Even the ACC and B12 fan bases are larger/more loyal than what the Pac has to offer. The Pac has the advantage of big media markets (LA, SF, SEA, Portland, PHX, SLC, Denver, San Diego, etc.), but those are all pro sports type towns. Very little attention is paid to the college teams unless they're winning.

For the long term, if the Pac is going to stay (get to) on par with the other P5 conferences, they're going to have to make some radical changes. Some have been mentioned above...move the home office to somewhere like Sacramento where it's not so expensive...pay their commissioner a reasonable salary...etc. But they'll have to go deeper than that. In football, they MUST get themselves some exposure outside of their footprint. They need to make a concerted effort to play games at SEC, ACC and B1G schools. Whatever it takes...even if they don't make as much money as they should. USC, UCLA, Washington and Stanford have got to get games scheduled in the Central and Eastern time zones. And on top of that, they've got to get the marquee schools from the ACC, SEC and B1G to come to the west coast. Again, even if they have to take a little financial hit, they've got to get schools like Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan and Florida to play west of the Rockies. Cal and North Carolina did a home-and-home recently, but in the college football world, that match up is not going to move the needle. Sending Indiana to play Arizona or Virginia to play Utah or Kentucky to play Oregon State is not going to cut it. The Pac needs to be in the deal-making business...they need to get the crazy college football fans from the marquee schools out to the west coast to create some serious ticket sale demand and high profile TV exposure.

---

I love your post. But your signature line is offputting. At best.

Lateralus Ag said:

---

I love your post. But your signature line is offputting. At best.

---

OK, cool. Gig 'em.

rootube said:

---

I guarantee you that they are going to do case studies in business school about how the PAC12 mismanaged their network.

---

Larry Scott's absolute ineptness is why I've been predicting the BDF may end up raiding the PAC for a few teams.

longeryak said:

---

rootube said:

---

I guarantee you that they are going to do case studies in business school about how the PAC12 mismanaged their network.

---

Larry Scott's absolute ineptness is why I've been predicting the BDF may end up raiding the PAC for a few teams.

---

I'd be shocked to see anyone leave the PAC12. Especially the original teams. And especially to a crappy big 12.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

The Pac-12 just doesn't have the rabid fan base that the SEC and B1G have. Even the ACC and B12 fan bases are larger/more loyal than what the Pac has to offer. The Pac has the advantage of big media markets (LA, SF, SEA, Portland, PHX, SLC, Denver, San Diego, etc.), but those are all pro sports type towns. Very little attention is paid to the college teams unless they're winning.

For the long term, if the Pac is going to stay (get to) on par with the other P5 conferences, they're going to have to make some radical changes. Some have been mentioned above...move the home office to somewhere like Sacramento where it's not so expensive...pay their commissioner a reasonable salary...etc. But they'll have to go deeper than that. In football, they MUST get themselves some exposure outside of their footprint. They need to make a concerted effort to play games at SEC, ACC and B1G schools. Whatever it takes...even if they don't make as much money as they should. USC, UCLA, Washington and Stanford have got to get games scheduled in the Central and Eastern time zones. And on top of that, they've got to get the marquee schools from the ACC, SEC and B1G to come to the west coast. Again, even if they have to take a little financial hit, they've got to get schools like Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan and Florida to play west of the Rockies. Cal and North Carolina did a home-and-home recently, but in the college football world, that match up is not going to move the needle. Sending Indiana to play Arizona or Virginia to play Utah or Kentucky to play Oregon State is not going to cut it. The Pac needs to be in the deal-making business...they need to get the crazy college football fans from the marquee schools out to the west coast to create some serious ticket sale demand and high profile TV exposure.

---

I think they have played a few of these games. UW vs Auburn last year comes to mind. UCLA vs OU. USC vs tu. All losses.
Year before: Bama vs USC. A&M vs UCLA. Colorado vs Michigan.

It's hard sometimes to plan who will be good years in advance. USC and Oregon sucking lately has hurt the PAC.

I just don't think overall the PAC12 has faired well in these bigger matchups/games. Which further isolates the conference from playoff discussion early in the season.

The PAC12 has always been a media after thought. The 'west coast' bias is a term I grew up hearing. Hard to fight it when you are 3 hours behind. Hell college game day is literally in the dark out there when they start their show.
How many more huge crossover games would make sense? Who are the teams that would need to cross over to make the difference? USC, WA, UO?

I think the PAC12 is just in a tough position media wise.

rootube said:

---

4 said:

---

This thread is amazingly uninteresting

---

I apologize for the glaring lack of A&M/tu and Kyler Murray offseason content.

---

those are uninteresting too

FormerVancouverAg said:

---

rootube said:

---

4 said:

---

This thread is amazingly uninteresting

---

I apologize for the glaring lack of A&M/tu and Kyler Murray offseason content.

---

those are uninteresting too

---

Perhaps you have a newsletter I could subscribe to that has content and style guides I could use to make my posts more appealing to you. You realize I can see YOUR posting history right?

Just to add to the pain of football, the Pac 12 is having a dreadful year in basketball this year. Washington will probably win the league, but may need to win the conference tournament to get an NCAA Tournament bid. Right now they are looking at around a 9-11 seed. Ouch.

I don't know what happened to make Direct TV mad, but this is not good. I suspect Larry Scott may have burned some bridges. I don't if one of the league's AD's have the clout to have a sit down with Direct TV and I would be surprised if any member of the "Pac 12 CEO group" has the desire or connections to get anywhere with Direct TV. The league presidents should ask the USC President to see if he has entertainment industry connections to get a deal. If that means getting rid of Larry Scott so be it.

I just wonder how much dealing Larry Scott has with the ADs?

Quote:

---

...to stay (get to) par with the other P5 conferences, they're going to have to make some radical changes.

---

The PAC presidents are socialists. Athletics are way down on most of their concerns. Most of their fans do not care enough to provide the proper motivation. Most of the PAC institutions have been facing budget shortfalls for years. There is a political cost anytime the "stakeholders" see what appear to be large amounts of money going to athletics.

The member institutions also carry more money-losing sports, than most conferences.PAC has 11 men's sports and 13 women's. The SEC is 9/11. The PAC members also have other varsity sports which are not sponsored by the conference.

If they really cared about athletics, they would fire the commissioner and clean house. Then, they would mandate spending minimums on football and men's hoops. Members would be told to start cutting money-losing programs until able to properly fund flagship programs.

But, they will not because their alums will not make them.

https://pac-12.com/content/pac-12-sports-championships


Edit to Add:

Firing the commissioner and cutting HQ costs would be a partial-measure. The PAC is disadvantaged by a less populated region, with low market saturation. Product mediocrity is only part of that problem.

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Quote:

---

The PAC is disadvantaged by a less populated region, with low market saturation. Product mediocrity is only part of that problem.

---

---

The PAC region can't be less populated than the Big 12's region, can it? What are the major markets/population centers in B12 states?

Texas - Houston, SA, D/FW, Austin, El Paso
Oklahoma - OKC, Tulsa
Kansas - none...unless you give them credit for Kansas City
Iowa - none
West Virginia - none

I guess you could say the B12 stretches somewhat into Missouri, Illinois, New Mexico, and maybe Nebraska. But other than Chicago and St. Louis, that doesn't gain much for them. And saying CHI and STL are Big 12 markets would be an unbelievable stretch.

The Pac-12 footprint has plenty of people to make a major conference work. What they don't have is the right kind of people...those with enthusiasm for sports and the realization that football can be a major money maker for everyone. As you mentioned, folks at Stanford care just as much about the gymnastics and water polo teams as they do about the football and basketball teams.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

Lateralus Ag said:

---

I love your post. But your signature line is offputting. At best.

---

OK, cool. Gig 'em.

---

Holy smokes

Did you just put an Ag spin on a Kissy Tom Quote?

Agreed. The football fans in most of the PAC12 regions are not die hards. Loyalty to the programs reminds me a lot of tu. The team wins you see everyone in the shirt. Team loses and it's like they never heard of the team.

Nobody compares to the SEC for football and baseball fans.

I thought we were comparing the PAC to the B1G and SEC. Those are the leaders. Yes, the PAC does have more population than the BDF. But, the BDF is a bad model. They are struggling for a deal on their CCG. When the LHN finally collapses, tu will demand and get uneven revenue distributions. The others will start to hurt financially.

And I agree about the wrong kinds of people in the PAC footprint. They would rather get high.

Yes, it was awesome