No Reason We Can't Have a Pac 10 Network -- If That's a Good Thing
by Class of 66 on Jun 14, 2010 7:57 PM PDT
Email
PrintI started to discuss this in another thread; but, rather than change its direction, I thought I'd post some thoughts here.
My main point: There is no reason that a strong commissioner can't negotiate a TV contract along the lines that are being discussed for other conferences.
Although I don't think it is the right way to analyze the issue, some have focused on the media markets in which the teams appear. The thesis was that the Big 12 schools possessed desirable markets. I don't think that's the right analysis, but here are the numbers.
Pac 10
LA #2
SF #6
Phoenix #12
Seattle #13
Denver #16
Portland #22
Big 12
Kansas #32
Oklahoma City (Not Norman or Stillwater) #45
Austin #48
The obvious problem with this analysis is it is based upon the assumption that a team's appropriate market is the market in which it is located. That probably isn't true. Texas claims all of Texas; that's not true. A&M is located in College Station; not on the market share map; I'm sure it claims all of Texas, too; and I'm sure that's not true either.
There are probably better demographics that explain who watches which teams. If that's true, I think the Pac 10 picks up most of California including another major media market -- San Diego.
The bottom line -- none of the analysis done, to date explains why if the Big 12 can get a better contract than we can.
As I said in another thread, a Pac 10 network will have little competition for the late night midwest and eastern viewers; the Pac 10 will have the only games on.
I think we have not had the TV respect we deserve because of two factors:
First, we have yet to market west coast sports very well. We play an exciting brand of football and basketball and don't take advantage of it in promoting TV viewership.
Second, and perhaps the biggest problem, it has been almost impossible to find our games, nationwide because of the terrible coverage we've had due to the weak contract. Can anyone say "Versus"?
Finally, I've still not seen hard numbers to support the claims that schools will be doubling their revenues. All I've heard are "projections". You cannot take projections to the bank. Don't believe me? Ask the people who invested with Maddof and Stanford.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Aside from San Diego
Don’t forget #20 is Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto… yeah that ranking shocked me as well
Well, the Big-12 market
includes Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Arguing otherwise is a little silly – those markets are the 5th, 10th, and 37th markets in the country.
Now that said, the total potential eyeballs in the Pac-12 are even larger: the 2nd, 6th, 12th, 13th, 16th (new: Denver), and 20th, just in the Top-20 alone.
Whatever agreement the Pac-10 signs, it should be relatively substantial, although it is somewhat concerning that it appears to be FOX that saved Texas + The Little 9.
I’m not sure who interested in signing a distribution agreement with the Pac-12. It may just come to the Pac-12 establishing their own network now. We’ll see.
Do you have a link confirming it was Fox?
I just put up a post in Hero’s thread assuming it was ESPN.
I should be working right now...
I to challenge the idea that we needed the Texas teams (primarily) to get enough viewers to have a network
As I wrote, I think that the TV markets are probably statewide — for both conferences. It makes no sense to look at “college towns”. When you expand the markets — we are more than competitive with the current 10 teams they have remaining.
Most of our college towns are bigger market towns than theirs. They do not have a college in a big city market so, without using statewide numbers they are in trouble. We have teams in big city markets — 3 in the top 10 and 6 in the top 25.
In LA, there is no pro team competition as there is in football for Dallas and Houston.
I still believe that the focus on potential market share is not the reason we have failed to get a network or a decent TV contract.
I think the past Pac 10 administration did not know how to market or negotiate.
Scott seems to understand both. He may not have pulled off this deal, but he sure got a lot of publicity for the conference. And, he is showing himself to be aggressive on its behalf.
sjh
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
