Pac12/Big12 alliance continues to make sense ...

[Jmarsh13]

There is no need to partner up with the Pac12 right now. The Pac12 Network is having huge carriage issues and is barely profitable due to low subs and very high overhead with a SF headquarters. BigXII is locked in until 2024/25 with T1/T2 content and each school can still leverage their T3 content as they see fit. So we are in solid shape for the near future.

ESPN is starting to go to the table for carriage fee negotiations with cable providers soon. Part of that will be the new ACC network that they promised to have up by Fall 2019. We will soon know if ESPN still wields the clout to force new channels (ACC Network) onto the base tier and demand high carriage fees and high yearly increases or if the cable providers start to cap carriage fee increases or move channels to higher tiers that have lower subscriber numbers.

This will start to shed some light into how much money ESPN is going to have going into the next round of sports rights fee negotiations with the different leagues. 1st up will be NFL and Monday Night Football that they currently pay $1.9B per year for 17 games. $100M+ per game is just crazy....

Not sure how anyone can look at the current landscape of cord-cutting and declining subs and think that sports leagues are going to be getting increases as the Cable TV money pie is quickly eroding away. BTN, SECN, P12N, and the future ACCN are all going to also be facing declining subs and a lack of bargaining power to raise rights fees. Everybody focuses on the ESPN subscriber decline but it is happening to these other networks as well so I would expect to see payouts from the conference networks to decline over the next 5 yrs as well.

The BigXII schools having control of their T3 rights is a big plus. Cyclones.TV could be the future to go direct to the fan or it could be a streaming channel added into Amazon Video Channels like an HBO. So many different ways to go but the good of it all will be the ability to get to watch the ISU games whether on TV or streaming. A far cry from a decade+ ago when we were lucky to have a handful of televised.

 

[weR138]

Still bringing those message board level hot takes I see. Do you honestly think that if the P12 falls on hard times and their only financial option is to take on a school such as BYU that they would allow something as petty as ideological differences get in the way of money?

Push comes to shove, money is winning that fight every single time.

It'd be an epic battle. I'm not saying money won't win but all the California schools would be vehemently against BYU as a voting partner.

 

[surly]

Phyllis brings a false comparative anyway. The California schools are filthy rich. It would take a great depression to change that reality. This isn't K-State/oSu economics we're dealing here.

ISU Foundation $666 million
Cal Berkeley $4.045 billion

 

[jdoggivjc]

Still bringing those message board level hot takes I see. Do you honestly think that if the P12 falls on hard times and their only financial option is to take on a school such as BYU that they would allow something as petty as ideological differences get in the way of money?

Push comes to shove, money is winning that fight every single time.

Yes - especially in the case of BYU, and, especially of late, Baylor. Cal and Stanford will never allow BYU into the conference.

 

[CascadeClone]

I would agree but if the 10-team B12 is unable to sell all of its FB inventory to T1/T2 producers at competitive rates for the new TV deals as they do now, they will need one T3 producer (i.e. conference network) for the leftover content. The only two alternatives that make sense would be to buy LHN from ESPN and convert it for conference wide use or buy equity into an existing PACN production house and use it for all 20 or 22 B12/P12 schools.

The B12 cannot add P12 schools without a conference network in place unless a 12 or 14 school B12 is able to sell all of its inventory to OTA T1 and T2 producers (and T2 includes Amazon, Google, etc. who would elect to produce live sports content). I highly doubt a 12 or 14 team B12 would be able to do that which is one big reason why there was no expansion last summer/fall with the likes of Houston and BYU.

What if you have it backwards? And you want the T3 rights to the individual schools, instead of a conference network?

Suppose you can't sell all the games, and every school has 2-3 games on their own outlet (LHN, cyclones.tv, etc). Would that not drive up individual schools T3 values (subscriptions) and bring more money per school?

Plus, the first game on your T3 station might well be more valuable than having that same game be the last one added to the T1 or T2. So, yes you could add P12 schools, if they want their own T3 rights, which would be the bigger ones anyway. Because you don't need (or even want?) to sell ALL the inventory.

I think this is where they are going. PLUS, it kind of squares the original circle that nearly killed the Big12. Texas and OU get more money from their T3, because they deserve/earn it, but ~80% of the TV money is still shared equally. It's just like the Great Compromise from the Constitution -- House AND Senate...

 

[surly]

This is a very good piece on the state of PAC12 rights. For those who like to get into numbers, it provides some solid analysis and is a worthy read.

Consider how many resources (people power, money, etc.) have been plowed into the Pac-12 Networks over the years to promote thousands of athletes at public universities, and the costs are treated like nuclear codes ... Many schools owe $1 million (+/-) annually to IMG and Learfield for many years.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/20/pac-12/

 

[cykadelic2]

What if you have it backwards? And you want the T3 rights to the individual schools, instead of a conference network?

Suppose you can't sell all the games, and every school has 2-3 games on their own outlet (LHN, cyclones.tv, etc). Would that not drive up individual schools T3 values (subscriptions) and bring more money per school?

Plus, the first game on your T3 station might well be more valuable than having that same game be the last one added to the T1 or T2. So, yes you could add P12 schools, if they want their own T3 rights, which would be the bigger ones anyway. Because you don't need (or even want?) to sell ALL the inventory.

I think this is where they are going. PLUS, it kind of squares the original circle that nearly killed the Big12. Texas and OU get more money from their T3, because they deserve/earn it, but ~80% of the TV money is still shared equally. It's just like the Great Compromise from the Constitution -- House AND Senate...

The last thing you want is to have premium FB content (i.e. all FBS games) and conference MBB games distributed via 10 different T3 outlets, most with substandard production houses. You want one distributor to best produce and max monetize that content for the benefit of all 10 schools.

 

[cykadelic2]

It'd be an epic battle. I'm not saying money won't win but all the California schools would be vehemently against BYU as a voting partner.

Agree, the PACN needs equity partner(s) and an expanded footprint and their best option that would get P12 approval are 8 B12 schools (minus BU and WV). It may be those 8 schools' best option if the existing 10-school conference is unable to sell all of its FB inventory to T1/T2 producers for the new TV deals.

 

[ArgentCy]

The last thing you want is to have premium FB content (i.e. all FBS games) and conference MBB games distributed via 10 different T3 outlets, most with substandard production houses. You want one distributor to best produce and max monetize that content for the benefit of all 10 schools.

That's completely unnecessary in this environment. What do you think on-demand means? It would be easy to add an overarching or centralized environment for all T3 or other content. Simply make a Big XII or whatever and place all of the developers in that area. All kinds of options would be available. No longer would everyone be beholden to E$PN or FOX to dictate times and channels etc.

 

[cykadelic2]

That's completely unnecessary in this environment. What do you think on-demand means? It would be easy to add an overarching or centralized environment for all T3 or other content. Simply make a Big XII or whatever and place all of the developers in that area. All kinds of options would be available. No longer would everyone be beholden to E$PN or FOX to dictate times and channels etc.

I know what on-demand means but as mentioned before, the last thing you want is "B12 FB Fan" having to pick and choose from amongst 10 different T3 alternatives to meet his demand for B12 FB. You want one distributor to best monetize premium T3 content whether it is delivered via a linear network, direct streaming or Amazon/Hulu/etc. via monthly/annual subs or on a per game basis.

And your suggestion of an "overarching or centralized environment" is essentially a conference network with one production house. Having 10 different production houses would be terribly inefficient for premium FB and MBB content.

 

[3GenClone]

I know what on-demand means but as mentioned before, the last thing you want is "B12 FB Fan" having to pick and choose from amongst 10 different T3 alternatives to meet his demand for B12 FB. You want one distributor to best monetize premium T3 content whether it is delivered via a linear network, direct streaming or Amazon/Hulu/etc. via monthly/annual subs or on a per game basis.

And your suggestion of an "overarching or centralized environment" is essentially a conference network with one production house. Having 10 different production houses would be terribly inefficient for premium FB and MBB content.

I think a lot of people are caught up on traditional networks like the Big 10 Network where there is a single-studio that manages production for Tier 3 games. Instead, think of what Netflix is - they have their own original content like DareDevil, House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc and each show is created by their own production house but distributed through Netflix. A tier 3 setup that mirrors that model would mean low production costs from Netflix, but the trade-off is that the product is dependent on each studio/university and the product suffers if universities don't invest properly.

You're other point is regarding premium content, but do you really need to deliver "premium" Tier 3 content? How much will people in California care that 2 guys they've never heard of are calling the ISU-UNI game? People are going to watch it because it's football. I think this is the best arrangement as it would also allow the universities to keep their branding, like Cyclones.TV