SB Nation Los Angeles Editor's Pick
Pac-12 TV Deal Update And Thoughts
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 7, 2011 11:24 AM PDT
Email
PrintOne of the most important things that will happen at any point this decade for UCLA and the entire Pac-12 is the negotiation of the new TV deal. With millions upon millions at stake at a time when athletic departments are facing shrinking budgets and cutting sports, it is something that will affect the future of every team in the conference. Last Thursday the conference's exclusive negotiating period with Fox ended and now everyone is in on the bidding.
If anyone has been on top of the Pac-12's new TV deal, it is Jon Wilner. Nearly every new piece of news about the TV deal that the conference is currently negotiating comes from him and yesterday he brought us some more details about the ongoing negotiations. Some of the highlights include:
- The conference is looking at a HUGE payday. The Pac-12 is the only conference not locked into a long-term deal and while the economy is down, sports media is doing very well. Networks are looking for added live sports to telecast and the Pac-12 will be their only option for a while so there is a ton of interest. One person estimated $220 million per year, which would be more than the SEC's $205 million per year in their new mega-deal.
- Most think that Fox is still the favorite to land the deal. They are looking for more live programming not just for their Fox Sports channels, but FX as well. They also just lost the Lakers to Time Warner and do not want to lose UCLA and USC as well. Comcast/NBC is another real possibility and ESPN is trailing, but they might try to bid with Turner.
- A Pac-12 Network is basically a done deal. The conference will partner with whoever it signs a TV deal with to form the network. It will allow the league to feature its non-revenue sports and any games in football or basketball not shown with its network partner will be on the Pac-10 Network. It will lose money early on, but they expect it to make money later on as well as increase exposure.
- The conference is going to focus on increasing their overall profile and exposure, while making use of all new technologies. This includes a plan to make the conference more mobile-friendly with the ability to watch games on a cell phone.
- The Thursday/Saturday basketball schedule will be a thing of the past. Only having two games limited the conference's ability to get games on TV and beyond the financial advantages of offering networks multiple nights of basketball games, it really hurt the conference visibility. Games will be played all days of the week beginning in 2012, but the conference will explore using chartered planes to cut down on missed class time.
The biggest piece of news from this isn't really new news, but the confirmation that Fox is still the favorite and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Fox has done an awful job with the Pac-10 in past years, but they are capable of doing exceptional work. The question is whether a deal with Fox will come with a commitment to doing their best work for the conference.
Fox is a 49% owner of the Big 10 Network and operate everything there and if anyone has watched it, they know that the production is top notch. Everything is in spectacular HD, they have Gus Johnson calling games and their programs on the teams, players, moments and history of the conference are great. Fox can be creative, unique and outstanding. They haven't done that for the Pac-10, but at least we know they are capable of it so would a new deal with Fox mean the conference gets Fox's best? If so, the production value will be outstanding.
The one thing that I have not seen addressed is whether the Fox network channel will be involved at all. Fox wants to put sports programming on FX and that would provide extra exposure for the conference, but Fox Sports, a Pac-10 Network and FX alone is not enough exposure for the conference. A deal with Fox has to include the Fox network or the opportunity to put some games on ESPN, ABC, CBS or NBC.
Speaking of NBC, with Comcast's purchase of them now final, they too are an interesting option. A weekly doubleheader on NBC with a Pac-12 game and Notre Dame would be great exposure. The network also has regional sports channel that they are expanding and Versus. Versus has been a joke for a while now, but they've made great strides since Comcast bought them and it's clearly become a priority to build it so it's not the major negative it once was. The Pac-12 could end up the centerpiece of a much bigger and much better Versus. Intriguing.
As for getting rid of the Thursday/Saturday basketball schedule, I think it's a necessary move. There are some positives to the schedule, but there are more positives to playing all days of the week. Besides the fact that more nights to play games and more games on TV means more money, it also means more visibility for the conference. Already having to fight the time difference issue, the Pac-12 can't be inflexible with regards to days of games. Wilner quotes Arizona head coach Sean Miller as being in favor of the schedule change and I know several more than favor it as well so it is popular with the teams.
As for Larry Scott, everything I'm hearing about the new TV deal makes me like Scott more and more. I'm still not sure if the expansion was worth it (I'm not sure there will ever be a way to definitively prove that it was or wasn't), but a completely new attitude was what the conference needed and he's brought it. Scott is definitely trying things that the Pac-10 wasn't even considering previously and it appears as if doing things because that's the way it was always done is not a valid reason anymore with the conference. That was essential to whoever the new commissioner was.
Now, the TV deal is not yet done so we won't know for sure how this turns out, but this is what Scott was brought in for and this will define the job he is doing. If he can get the $220 million per year that some have estimated he will have done a marvelous job. Hopefully any deal brings in that type of money as well and the visibility and better production that the conference needs as well.
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.
28 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Larry Scott, the anti-Hansen
I like it a lot…
I should be working right now...
Pac 12 is better off with Fox or NBC than ABC/ESPN
Being on Fox or even NBC will allow for way more exposure and Prime Time Games for the Pac 12. The Pac 12 could always have a Saturday night game on Fox showing nationally against whatever SEC, Big 10, or ESPN game they want to show that week.
I'm really excited about this
Especially with regards to non-revenue sports. I was flipping around DirectTV the other day and found a college softball game between 2 schools that I had never heard of in my life… looked like they might have even been Division II. Meanwhile, not one game from the Pac-10 opening weekend was televised. The Pac-10 is the most successful softball conference in history, and we’re lucky to get 1-2 televised regular season games per year. Without a conference station, we’re competing with every pro sports team in the area for precious air time, and that’s a battle we will never win.
I’m not saying everyone wants to watch college softball, but I think I speak for all the non-revenue sports when I say that a Pac-12 network would go a long way in bringing some enthusiasm and hopefully new fans to their teams (not to mention recruits).
http://twitter.com/UCLASoftball
Totally agree, Daynuh
If U.CL.A. Gymnastics or soccer or water polo were on TV, I’m tuning in.
If they show it, I will watch.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Cool but
the quality of production on the Fox Prime Ticket shows seems quite a bit lower than what is on ESPN. Is the Big 10 version better than that?
Much better
The Big 10 Network is very well produced. It is just good all the way around.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 6, 2011 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions
And ther is no way any of this could possibly have happened if we didn't have Colorado and Utah.
I still equate our new Commissioner to Professor Harold Hill for the way he played the community he was supposed to be serving.
Guerrero=Hansen
We need our own Larry Scott
To expand on that
In our recent reup with Adidas, Guerrero was unwlling to go to the open market and garner competitive bids because he had no faith in the UCLA product. Instead he signed something with Adidas without any competitive bids.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 7, 2011 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
That makes sense.
Oh wait. Not it doesn’t.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Need to add that to the list of Guerrero gaffes.
How is that even financially and professionally responsible?
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Hay guys, be nice!
Adidas has a commitment to marketing! They have one new commercial on the radio! What, you think we need two? We’re not made of money, you know.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Although if all UCLA and USC are getting is an extra $2M per year
of the $220M per year in the contract, Haden and Guerrero were not good negotiator.
Somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the value of the media contract is because LA is included. SC and UCLA should have demanded a bigger share of revenue.
I thought I remember
the $2 million figure being an insurance-kind of deal, just in case the results were lucrative enough to warrant UCLA and U$C signing on. I could be wrong, so I’ll have to go into the BN archives to find out.
I think you are right
USC and UCLA get extra money if the total revenue is not high enough
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Apr 7, 2011 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions
So if the TV deal is bringing in so much money...
then why can’t we afford to expand the student section on one sideline to 1,100 seats? The financial argument doesn’t even hold water anymore considering the revenue that will be coming in to our Athletic Department. Any way you slice it, the students are getting shafted. I feel sorry for those still defending the decision.
Troy is burning
There are some things that Scott may have been able to do better at.
But all in all, I agree that he’s leading the conference in a promising new direction.
Spot on, Bruin MW
I knew all was well wihen our commissioner used his own patented brand of personal diplomacy to bring Texas into the Pac 19. That was a coup. Oh, wait. He didn’t get Texas. He got perennial powerhouses Colorad and Utah. No doubt that’s what will get us the big TV deal. And not only that, it means that our football team will play every other team in the league every year …. Oh, wait.
Remind me once again why I should think this guy is doing such a good job. Frankly, his job performance to me is not measurably different frrom that of UCLA’s alleged athletic director.
I wish I had Coach’s saying memorized, but I don’t so this will be a paraphrase: “Don’t mistake activity for accomplishment.”
At least he is trying
Personally, I’d rather have a commissioner who is active and trying new things, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all of his decisions. You’ve made your position on the whole expansion deal pretty clear and I respect that, but at least it put the rest of the conferences and the media on notice that the Pac 10/12 is not going to idly sit by and just react to whatever everyone else does, if we react at all. We are now a conference that is proactive rather than reactive.
Hansen was known for sitting on his thumbs and doing nothing for the conference. If Hansen was still commissioner we’d hear nothing about a tv deal until our groundbreaking new partnership with the Home Shopping Network where the conference gets a cut of everything sold during the Lawn and Garden Hour is announced.
I doubt we will like every decision he makes, but I much rather prefer a commissioner who swings for the fence and misses than one who never even manages to get to bat.
That's not good enough
It’s one thing to try and do new things, but if I don’t trust the judgment of the person doing it, then I would actually rather that person do nothing at all.
When I begin an argument by analogy, I generally add the caveat that such arguments are generally not a good idea.
You would have fared better without the analogy, so here are just a few shots that can be taken.
“A commissioner who swings for the fences” is OK, but he should have noticed (a) he was hitting against Nolan Ryan in his prime so he should have taken a little batting practice, (b) he should have realized that in a night game it would help him make contact if he turned the lights on, © he would be more effective if he took what we lawyers call a “bat” to home plate with him, (d) why should anyone think he could hit the ball as far as the fence based on his lengthy record of pop-ups to short. There are many more similar things to say.
You like a commissioner who is active and trying new things? Go to the local day care center and take any random three-year old. Plenty of activity there.
I don’t disagree that our old commissioner was bad. I just have yet to see any evidence that this new guy has any substance to him. So far, it’s been a lot of hype about expansion, and we brought in two teams which not only add nothing to the league, but in fact detract from what we had, and a TV deal that looks pretty much like what any of those active three-year olds could have done.
Of course, an active three year old would be unlikely to be able to focus enough to impose conference sanctions on just$c* for its lifetime of cheating. Oh, wait. Our new commissioner is “sitting on his thumbs and doing nothing” about that, to coin a phrase.
Again, heed Coach’s admonition: “Don’t mistake activity for accomplishment.”
I would like to see a deal with NBC.
Although, IF we get a Big Ten quality network, it’s a no brainer. Crossing my fingers here!
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Definitely Like The Idea Of A Pac 12 Network
Living here in the upper Midwest, I very much enjoy watching the Big 10 Network and although it may struggle early on, the new Pac 12 Network should give the conference much more visibility; something that was lacking in a glaring sort of way under the utterly incompetent Hansen regime.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Apr 8, 2011 4:29 AM PDT reply actions
My experience with Fox Sports & comment on Pac 12 network
I’ve had to be a Bruin from afar, living in New Jersey and now Minnesota. Thanks to Fox Sports (via the extra cost of Comcast sports package), I’ve been able to see essentially every UCLA BB game except for network regional broadcasts (a few every season) and the occasional pass due to a really inferior opponent.
I’m not sure that a Pac 12 Network station would ever be part of a sports package in regions east of Utah/Colorado.
Big 10 Network is everywhere, or at least here in Texas
So why not the Pac-!2 network? I think the conference channels are more of a throw-in for out-of-region fans. They only charge a significant subscription fee to the cable provider in-area, and then they just chase viewership out-of-area, if I understand the Big-10 network’s business model correctly.
So when you get the extra sports package, you will probably also get the PAC-10 network at no extra charge. I’m assuming channel availability, but that seems to be less of an issue nowadays, given the preponderance of niche programming that’s out there.
Where I am in Kansas
the Big 10 network is a part of the sports package that also includes the Fox College Sports channels – and thus most Bruin Prime Ticket/FSW games.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
