New Pac-12 TV Deal: Was Dan Guerrero Sleeping At the Wheel, Costing UCLA Millions?
by Achilles on May 5, 2011 2:30 PM PDT
in UCLA Athletics
Email
PrintRyan yesterday provided the details on Pac-12's new TV contract with ESPN and Fox. The new commissioner Larry Scott basically hit the jack pot in $3 billion dollar deal for 12 years that works out to about $250 million dollars per year. Larry Scott deserves a lot of credit for upgrading the TV and financial footprints for a conference that had been lagging far behind other major conferences due to incompetence and lack of vision from its previous commissioner.
The new Pac-12 deal sounds great but did UCLA get its fair share in this new deal? There are some troubling questions on that issue that should put embattled athletic director Dan Guerrero under sharp focus. The concern here is not about Scott. Scott did his job about getting the conference bringing up to today's market standards. The concern here is whether Dan Guerrero did his job of looking out for UCLA's best interests.
Remember when Pac-12 announced realignment and a "new revenue sharing plan" back in October, USC and UCLA were supposed to receive $2 million more of broadcast revenue than the other 10 schools, until that revenue reached an annual threshold, which was supposed to be from $130 million to $170 million. Bud Withers from the Seattle Times provided the details of that special arrangement for UCLA and USC here. Under the new announced agreement that threshold now becomes moot. The reasoning for UCLA and USC getting more than other Pac-12 members was simple: these schools bring more to the table because of the LA market. There is also the respective "brands" of both schools.
Like it or not USC has a "brand" in college football. We have that in hoops. We do have a decent football history even though it has taken a huge hit under Dan Guerrero's leadership in last decade. Still UCLA has its share of draw and a lot of potential upside when it comes to college football. So one would think the athletic directors of both schools - Dan Guerrero and Pat Haden - would fight for their schools' fair share in this new deal. Did they do that?
Here is a quote in the Los Angeles Times from AJ Maestas, president of Navigate Marketing, a Chicago-based firm:
"If my client was USC, I would have asked for more money," he said. "The conference could not possibly get this kind of deal without USC as part of it. If you, as a school, are trying to maximize your revenue, UCLA and USC left a lot of money on the table with flat revenue sharing."
There is another angle to this. It costs a lot more money to maintain elite programs in Los Angeles that it does in places like Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene and Salt Lake City. It costs lot more to build facilities in Westwood. There is also the COL issue when it comes to paying skilled assistants in major revenue sports. So did Dan Guerrero make the case for UCLA when it comes to making sure Bruins were taken care of relative to other programs?
The answer is not clear. No one here has any confidence in Dan Guerrero and his dysfunctional athletic department for several reasons. We are not sure whether we can trust Guerrero and his staff to spend the extra revenue wisely. We also should raise questions about was Dan Guerrero sleeping at the wheel again and end up costing UCLA millions of dollars.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Leadership??
Saying under Dan Guerrero leadership is an oxymoron. It is his lack of skills in that area that has brought us to this sorry point. UCLA has produced the best and isn’t it time for an AD who can measure up to those standards?
applies to UCLA too
there
ARE (I think) some ways around the revenue deal to some extent. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see USC start doing 1 game / year at JerryDome or some other neutral site and pocketing the whole $4M or so the game generates instead of splitting it with everyone else. Hey, a whole quarter of the league is already selling home games, why shouldn’t USC (and maybe UCLA too) do the same thing, except for a lot more money?
That’s the way for UCLA/USC to get more $$$ than the rest. And as far as I know it’s legal under the current arrangements.
Quote is from a story on Conquest Chronicles
basically saying the same thing from their perspective – they state $c (and they do say UCLA, to a lesser extent) should have gotten more than an equal share because they are $c and everyone else isn’t. Article here. It’s hard to disagree with that from the perspective of the LA university or the LA “university.”
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Boy I didn't see the times today
I was making that argument a few days ago.
Dan is a lazy bureacrat. He will never change. The path of least resistance is what he looks for.
Here is an example how clueless DG is:
During the realignment both of the incoming schools were fight for the right to play UCLA and USC. The Northern California schools were fighting to maintain their yearly games against UCLA and USC. Why? They want to play in front of the LA area recruits. A game against either LA school is that much more likely to get national exposure.
And, DG never once thought about this when he was in the board room negotiating revenues?
I’m beginning to lose feeling in my fingers and toes.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I Would Like to believe
he fought, but I doubt it. We don’t have the sort of clout interest-wise in our football program to demand special treatment. Quite frankly U$C does not either, but they still draw significantly better ratings and attendance than we do. I believe the problem is more systemic, IE we have not succeeded in football, and thus are in no position to take advantage of the new frontier. DG has no leverage other than the “LA market” which is primarily there to watch U$C anyway. Even U$C can no longer claim to be the pride of the conference, however they’re still likely the biggest media draw. It’s a shameful scenario, and we should not have been in this position in the first place. DG’s mismanagement, cost-cutting, and repeated failures to capitalize on opportunities has cost us dearly, now in a pretty clear dollar figure.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I think UCLA and USC certainly had that clout
think about it this way: What is the value of the media contract if both LA schools bolted to another conference? It would be reduced by somewhere between a quarter and a third.
Nobody cares about the media rights to any other pac 12 market except Seattle and the Bay Area, and those are a huge second fiddle to the LA market.
Dan isn’t alone in this as Haden blew it too, but he is responsible. As I said, when you take a guy with no business experience and put him in a situation dealing with real business people like Larry Scott, he is going to get robbed and be so duped he will issue a press release thanking him for the robbery.
by silverlakebruin on May 5, 2011 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Pat Haden doesn't seem like a strong leader
A huge opportunity for UCLA if it had strong leadership.
No, I don' think he is either
I think if we both banded together on this (I know, blasphemy), we could have made the argument about the value of the LA market, and what the pac 10/12 needed to do to keep that market. Leaving by ourselves would be tough.
by silverlakebruin on May 5, 2011 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't think that's blasphemy at all
That would have been strategic thing to do for UCLA protecting our best interests. I think a strong leader at USC would have done the same.
Not blasphemy at all
While I cannot stand SC, I’m much more interested in UCLA’s succeeding than I am USC failing. If it’s good for UCLA, I want us to do it. It’s that simple and A is 100% right in saying we should have pushed for it.
I’ve seen from other places people blaming Larry Scott for this, which is complete crap too. His job is to do what’s best for the conference, which he did in spectacular fashion. It’s DG’s job to do what’s best for UCLA and IMO, he didn’t.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 5, 2011 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions
absolutely
Agree 100%.
Again, just another case of Dan asleep behind the wheel. Probably wondering what kind of donut to get on the way into work.
by silverlakebruin on May 5, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
part of it
was that the negotiations took place in the middle of the sanctions / appeal process. It was a bad time for USC to be a program that made major waves. Considering that the NCAA STILL hasn’t made an appeal ruling, I’d continue to expect USC to be publicly very quiet on all sort of issues, including this one.
That doesn’t explain why UCLA wasn’t more aggressive, though.
Guerrero is lazy, complacent, and conflict avoidant
isn’t that enough of an explanation?
by silverlakebruin on May 5, 2011 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
easier to do that than admit your pauley project
is generating zero excitement and you have to open up more premium seats to meet your financial goals.
by silverlakebruin on May 5, 2011 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I found this ironic considering Dan's treatment of alumni and students
regarding Pauley and his trail of deceptions. Imagine if Dan felt as obligated to the students, alumni and supporters of UCLA as he does to his fellow athletic directors? Dan’s loyalties are way misplaced.
“We made a commitment to the conference and to remain a conference of solidarity,” he said. “The other option is to take your ball and play someplace else.”
I'm not sure I can get behind this sentiment
To say it would be best to angle for more money overlooks other possible benefits.
First, let us not ignore that we are getting an absurd amount of money in this new deal as compared to the last. We’re more than tripling our income, at least. That’s no insignificant amount.
Second, conference solidarity is not something to laugh at. The SEC is on equal revenue sharing; right now, Florida is clearly top dog, but nobody is calling them incompetent for not trying to get more money. They are playing fair. Especially considering the type of players posters on this site say we should be building our team with, why should we want different players at the conference level?
by Captain Leebeard on May 5, 2011 4:42 PM PDT reply actions
The Big 12 (-2) is a cautionary tale
While I agree that UCLA and USC deserve incrementally more, I also think equity has its benefits. Look at what is happening to the "Big 12" (soon to be 10). Texas got a great deal, but the other schools, not so much. Nebraska and Colorado fled. Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and others might opt to leave as well. If UCLA and SC demanded much more (and both did to a point), who is to say that the Arizona schools wouldn’t have moved to another conference.
No arrangement will ever be truly equal with the Phil Knights and John Arrillagas of the world pouring money into the sports programs of their favorite schools, but that is where DG needs to step up so that UCLA can keep pace.
Kansas, K-State, Missouri, and Iowa State
won’t opt to leave – nobody wants them. They may get tossed aside if the Big not12 finally explodes, but they sure as heck won’t voluntarily head elsewhere.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
what can he do
To make you guys happy? Yea he could have done a lot of things better but now ucla is getting 4 times more money with this new and your still whining….how bout on just this one little thing you say good job and move on to something else.
by SeattleBrewin on May 5, 2011 4:46 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
What did DG do to justify us saying good job?
Larry Scott and the conference did the work here. Lisa Love? Yeah, she can have some credit as the chair of the TV committee, but what exactly did DG do here to deserve credit? His conference happened upon unbelievable timing and very good negotiating and foresight from Scott. He took that and called it a day without doing what was best for UCLA.
As for what he can do to make us happy? How about getting UCLA a fairer share of the TV money considering the market UCLA brings? How about not screwing up the Pauley project? How about improving the baseball or softball or soccer facilities? How about not being behind other Pac-10 schools in exposure via online streaming? How about paying coaches more competitively? Should I continue?
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 5, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
i agree
That all those facilities need to be upgraded and coaches need to be paid and all your other points….but tell me where the money is going to come from? The state that gives iou’s, or how bout the donors (the ones that don’t help the school improve the academic buildings and so forth) or how bout all the revenue from the football and basketball games where the seats were mostly empty. Now that there will be 20 million+ coming in plus the money from crappy adidas he might be able to do some of those things…..but only time will tell!
by SeattleBrewin on May 5, 2011 5:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
UCLA ranks right near the bottom in the Pac-10 in donations
That is on the athletic department. They have not done enough to engage donors and cultivate donors for that. We heard stories about how much Neuheisel reached out to former players and got them back involved with the program when he took over. As AD, DG should have never let them get away from the program. Those are all potential big donors. They clearly do not prioritize the students and making sure they’re engaged in the athletic programs and guess what? Those are the future donors, or if the Morgan Center continues along their current path, future non-donors.
As for the money from adidas, I’m curious to see exactly what type of money we got from them since we never made it out of the exclusive negotiating period and don’t know what we could have gotten in an open market. We also signed that deal before the new TV deal that provides us unprecedented exposure and with it, free advertising for adidas on all of our uniforms, warm ups, shoes, equipment, etc. How much could we have gotten if adidas and other companies new their logo would be plastered all over TV the way it will be under our new TV deal?
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 5, 2011 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Where is the money going to come from?
How about demanding the revenue be split in line wlth the value your media market brings?
by silverlakebruin on May 5, 2011 5:31 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm think DG should focus on the new PAC 12 Network
UCLA has a stronger position here. Despite dreams of going global, the PTN will be focused regionally. Here is where being in the LA market will mean a lot more as it be the biggest source of revenue. In addition, UCLA’s strength in the nonrevenue sports will be come into play as it can provide a lot of the Olympic sport content. The PTN money could be huge. If DG fails to get a bigger piece of new network, then he is truly hopeless.
I think when they agreed to an even split
it was of all media revenue so the Pac-12 Network’s revenue will be split evenly amongst all schools. I think that ship has already sailed, although I could be wrong and hopefully am.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 5, 2011 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
You could be right
Didn’t Scott say he would make announcement on the new PTN in six months? Hopefully, that means there is still time to negotiate the revenue shares.
by Gen2Bruin1987 on May 5, 2011 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Want to know where the money went?
As recently as last fall, some in the Pac-10 fretted about commissioner Larry Scott’s spending, of which each school paid a share. No one in the league had ever spent money the way he spent money.
His preseason football blitz of East Coast media markets was estimated to cost about $750,000. He flies in private jets, hires drivers rather than rents cars, stays in 5-star hotels and has billeted the league at only the trendiest facilities. The announcement of the ESPN/Fox deal, for example, took place at the fashionable Biltmore hotel in Phoenix.
Scott hired high-priced help across the board, tapping into the NFL, the NBA, the Big Ten and other big-league precincts to totally reorganize the league’s high command. He hired a VP for Public Affairs, a VP for Business Affairs, a Digital Media Manager, a Chief Operating Officer and on and on.
Since Scott took charge, the front office payroll has surely grown by about $2 million a year, or more.
He brings in hundreds of millions more per year
and costs an additional $2M.
He will never get a job at the morgan center with those expenses, but most intelligent people realize that is a great trade off.
by silverlakebruin on May 6, 2011 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed.
You want the best, you have to PAY for the best. I hope the Morgan Center wakes up and realizes this soon.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
DG
Next time Danny G is seen we should let him know that we like to be wined and dined before he f#$%@ us. (If you watched the season premiere of South Park, you’ll know the reference).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
