Lots of complaints on this format.
I’d take a peek.
Big Ten aims to have new media rights deal, worth up to $1 billion, in place around Memorial Day
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
For anyone interested, here's a pretty good article on the state of the Pac 12 Network and their media deals (not a good situation).
www.denverpost.com
Hotline investigation: Future of Pac-12 Networks in doubt as sports media world threatens to leave conference behind
The Pac-12 Networks are suffering significant subscriber losses, based on data provided by S&P. Add a changing media landscape, and the conference is running out of options.
www.denverpost.com
You're right about the Pac 12 needing to fix their visibility issue. The new Pac 12 commish (George Kliavkoff) was hired with that in mind. He was the president of MGM entertainment and sports. Prior to that, he was the Digital chief of NBCUniversal Media and Executive VP of business for Major League Baseball. It has been mentioned that his contact with NBC executives should help the Pac 12 regardless of the B1G's deal. Also, TNT/TBS wants one of the power conferences for their Saturday afternoon spot. The Pac 12 commish saw the move the previous commish did during covid (2020) and has said playing earlier games was a big hit. The Pac 12 may not play at noon eastern time, but expect 3/3:30 and primetime (7/7:30) games if they land with one of the networks. I like this guy and think he will better serve Pac 12 than the previous commish.
If the Pac 12 sees a nice increase in revenue which allows them to compete with other power conferences, don't be surprised if they make a power move to invite the remaining schools with adding. Kansas, Baylor, etc., look like attractive schools.
The SEC (and ESPN) may be thinking the loss of ESPN's rights to the college playoffs could be minimized their importance on the scene. Could ESPN's power move put SEC on the wrong side of the fence?
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Baylor can NEVER be in the PAC…neither can a tcu nor a byu type school. Anything that remotely harkens to religion in anyway is a non starter in the PAC.
What about a SEC-Big Ten playoff?
8 teams with 4 from each conference.
Big Ten Championship game (Saturday like usual) determines #1 and #2 seeds for the BIG.
The second place East/West teams play a consolation game for the #3 and #4 Big Seeding (Friday Night before the championship game)
UNLV is a dumpster fire. No local support whatsoever. When ISU came to visit 80% of the fans in stadium were from Iowa. I think your suggestion of Kansas or Okla State is their solution.
ALso
I agree with you that UNLV football is a total dumpster fire. They are RU during the Terry Shea years, but playing in a much worse conference. However, they do share the new stadium with the Raiders, so I keep hoping they make a change for the much better.
I agree with you that UNLV football is a total dumpster fire. They are RU during the Terry Shea years, but playing in a much worse conference. However, they do share the new stadium with the Raiders, so I keep hoping they make a change for the much better.
I follow the PAC-12 and comments on commish are spot on. PAC-12 presidents knew they needed change. Larry Scott (prior commish) lacked practical vision.
Outside of the Southeast and Texas, how many geographic areas get excited about watching SEC football on Saturdays? I've never seen it be a thing out West. Sure you get a few people here and there, but its not like anyone drops plans out here to watch it. Notre Dame gets more following, but they also are visible in the PAC footprint due to USC and Stanford games.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Come 2025 that’s 30 teams…hard to call yourself a champion when that’s all that could compete.
who knows how NIL, tv and streaming and any other moves will strengthen or dilute the product. I never thought cow and OU would join the sec but they are.
any real champion should at least come from the 4 P conferences. And no the b12 will not be (or should not be) a power conference once cow and methU leave.
If NBC plays a bigger role in Big Ten media rights, does that give Notre Dame a nudge to join the Big Ten?
Report: NBC Expected to Pursue Big Ten Media Rights; Contract Could Be Worth $1.1B
NBC is reportedly planning to pursue Big Ten media rights when the conference's contract with Fox and ESPN expires in 2023. <a...
syndication.bleacherreport.com
One thing the article got wrong is Fox should be worried about NBC going hard for the B1G. Look at the date of the article (2/17/22). Fox has locked up their share of the B1G deal, and the rest of the networks are battling for the remaining package. ESPN has to worry as they might be on the outside looking in.If NBC plays a bigger role in Big Ten media rights, does that give Notre Dame a nudge to join the Big Ten?
Report: NBC Expected to Pursue Big Ten Media Rights; Contract Could Be Worth $1.1B
NBC is reportedly planning to pursue Big Ten media rights when the conference's contract with Fox and ESPN expires in 2023. <a...syndication.bleacherreport.com
Yet schools can’t use this money to pay players .. stupid ass rule honestlyA $1 billion annual deal would project to an average of $71 million per school, per year.
Big Ten aims to have new media rights deal, worth up to $1 billion, in place around Memorial Day
The Big Ten has not yet decided whether to have one, two or more partnerswww.cbssports.com
Your board name explains everything - you write like you are an insider - clearly you are not.
You know what the PAC12 can do to improve ratings? Stop starting your best games at 7/8pm PST!! How stupid are they? No one on the East Coast wants to start watching a game at 11pm EST!For anyone interested, here's a pretty good article on the state of the Pac 12 Network and their media deals (not a good situation).
Hotline investigation: Future of Pac-12 Networks in doubt as sports media world threatens to leave conference behind
The Pac-12 Networks are suffering significant subscriber losses, based on data provided by S&P. Add a changing media landscape, and the conference is running out of options.
Last edited:
A couple questions from a Q&A in the Athletic with ESPN president Jimmy Pitaro. I've always thought for this deal a good chance of a split 3 ways for the B10 package (Fox, ESPN, CBS) but reading his interview wonder if not a slight uptick in the odds of a 3 way split to be Fox, CBS, NBC. Still think odds are in favor of ESPN getting a piece but might have dial that down a little bit.
On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward
Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.
On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12
Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.
The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference.
On ESPN’s interest in Big Ten football rights heading forward
Pitaro: Look, we have a great relationship with the Big Ten. They are certainly an ascending conference. They had a fantastic season last year. I’m not just talking about football. … They’ve been a big part of ESPN for a long time now. It’s no secret. If (commissioner Kevin Warren) were on this podcast with me right now, he would be comfortable with me saying that we are in discussions. That being said, just like every other property, we enter these discussions understanding that we can’t get everything and that we’re going to proceed with both discipline and thoughtfulness. So I can’t tell you how this is going to play out. We are very much in it right now.
On whether ESPN’s SEC deal and added inventory impacts whatever future interest they might have in the Big Ten and Pac-12
Pitaro: So just in case anyone doesn’t know what the heck we’re talking about here. In 2024, we will add on to our game inventory with the SEC first pick (for football) every week. That has been the 3:30 p.m. ET broadcast window on Saturdays (on CBS). In addition, we’ll have the conference championship game. We’ll get an additional nine marquee SEC basketball games. We’ll have one out-of-conference SEC football game per team per year. So once Texas and Oklahoma are in (in 2025), we’ll have 16 out-of-conference games. In the 2024 season, it would be 14 games. That’s the deal we struck with the SEC.
The great thing about that deal if I had to summarize it with one word, it would be flexibility, meaning we’re now going to have a marquee game at 3:30 on broadcast on ABC but we also have the ability to put marquee games Saturday night on ABC. We’re going to have SEC games across ESPN and across ABC for all three windows on Saturday. I think if commissioner (Greg) Sankey were on this podcast right now, he would say that they’re really excited about being partnered with one enterprise where we can create that kind of flexibility. But just getting back to your question, is there less inventory? Of course there is because of when this SEC deal kicks off in 2024. However, we’ve been very thoughtful about this and there’s still plenty of room for Big Ten and Pac-12. We’re pursuing both. … No one should misinterpret: When we did this SEC deal, no one at ESPN said, OK, that means we’re walking away from another conference.
If you recall, in 2020, the Pac 12 had noon games (EST) and plenty of 3:30 EST games. In 2021, they returned to their usual schedule, resulting in rating struggles. The new Pac 12 commish has stated he wants more games for the Pac 12 in the 3:30 and 7:30 time slots. He wants greater exposure for the Pac 12 and knows if he is going to land a network deal, the networks will push for these time slots.
If NBC doesn't get a part of the B1G deal, expect NBC to push for Pac 12. The new Pac 12 commish is a former exec of NBC and has a good relationship with them. Based on what I heard and read, the Pac 12 may take the same approach the B1G is doing by splitting the TV package across multiple network platforms to maximize the money. I read TNT wants a piece of either the B1G (unlikely) or the Pac 12. Look for the Pac 12 to keep the Fox/FS1 deal and maybe expand coverage. Then add either NBC and/or TNT.
The Big 12 is the one power conference that may be on the outside looking in as they don't come up for media renewal until 2025. The teams the Big 12 added don't move the needle nationally. I expect the B1G to be a bully with this new media deal, and whatever the B1G doesn't get, the Pac 12 gobbles up. The new Pac 12 deal will be better than what they have now. The Big 12 will be left with scraps.
Could this be the start of the Big 12 becoming the new Big East? Will college football go to 4 power conferences?
There are clear tiers being established with these media deals:
1st tier: SEC and B1G (The true Power 2)
2nd tier: ACC and Pac 12
3rd tier: New Big 12, BE for basketball
4th tier: AAC, MW
5th tier: The rest
They are back to the crappy schedule again this season too.
I actually think the ACC is better than the PAC12 on intrinsic value but stupid biz decisions locked them at the bottom (or close to it) of the P5. I've said multiple here, I do think there's a decent chance ND joins a conference (B10/ACC) at the time of the ACC GOR so if it's the ACC that would firmly put them at 3. If the B10 ever went national, which I still wouldn't rule out, then I'd think the B10 would be the more preferable home for them.
Yeah if the major Pac 12 schools (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, etc,) decide to merge with the B1G, ND and likely UNC/UVA will want in on this national conference.
I don't know that I'd expect that many...USC would be the main one and then is it 1, 3 or 5 in addition. IMO USC, Oregon, Washington and then is it 1 or 3 extra...would depend on the networks and if they're willing to pay. Fox has always been bold right from their days of breaking into the NFL and more recently their foray into CFB. IMO having a strong foothold in a national CFB conference that could some day possibly also include ND seems like an appealing long term vision/strategy for them. Is the money there for such a vision? Don't know. I know some think it's ludicrous but how many tectonic plates have we seen shift in the last decade or two with the most recent being OU/Texas.
UCLA most definitely will be in the group with USC/Oregon/Washington should that happen. USC isn't leaving UCLA behind, they're tied at the hip like OSU/Michigan or Texas/Oklahoma. After that it'll likely be based on network areas so I could see Colorado or Arizona.
Big Ten: "They are certainly an ascending conference."
This explains a lot about the ESPN President, from Wikipedia:
"Pitaro graduated in 1987 from Edgemont High School in Scarsdale, New York.[2] In 1991, Pitaro graduated from Cornell's College of Human Ecology with a Bachelor of Science degree in Consumer Economics And Housing. He was a player on the Cornell Big Red football team. He earned his Juris Doctor from St. John's University Law School in 1994."
An Ivy League and Big East guy calling the B1G an ascending conference. That is ironic and rich.
Last edited:
On first blush I get the USC/UCLA thing but I don't know the politics of the publics over there and is there any issue with Cal/UCLA and how that might affect things. If there was no issue than I'd say yea both the teams in LA but because of politics I don't know how that would work out.
It depends on what these new deals bring. Estimates for the PAC12 new deals are falling behind anywhere from 20-40M/year which seems like an untenable situation. That's why I could see a USC go without UCLA if the political issues aren't feasible to resolve.
The Pac 12 location is one main drawback to the value of the conference, but if they move games to times more accessible for people in the east to watch, things will change. The new commish of the Pac 12 thinks the EST times are ideal but likely will not happen until the Pac 12 signs the media deal.
I'm not sure where you heard the Pac 12 would fall way behind even with the new deal, but that's not accurate. The new Pac 12 is a former TV exec who understands the process. It's understood the Pac 12 doesn't have the same value or importance to the football scene as the B1G or SEC, but it does have more value than the ACC. As I stated earlier in this thread, the Pac 12 approach may be similar to the B1G, which would allow them to stay closer to the B1G and SEC and ahead of the ACC and Big 12. The Pac 12 is next up for a new media deal, and they are looking to take the same approach as the B1G by splitting the media rights across multiple platforms to maximize the money.
It's nearly impossible to be more valuable if the source of money comes from one place. The Pac 12 will have several networks bidding for their rights. Meanwhile, the ACC is stuck in a terrible deal that will last for another dozen years and comes from one source.
FYI: USC or even UCLA don't have an ego like Texas, and therefore neither will rock the boat like the Longhorns. They tend to walk in unison if you know anything about the Pac 12.
Last edited:
Mike Aresco is a former tv executive as well, from CBS IIRC. He's the commish of the AAC. Him being a former tv exec is nice but the conference's intrinsic value is what it is. He can't wave a magic wand and make it more valuable.
Kliavkoff is in the same boat. They are what they are and there's only so much he can do to make up for that. I've read articles for estimates from media firms for the B10 to be around 70-75M at the start of the new deal and pushing towards 100M by the end of the decade. Same for the SEC at the end of the decade. Another article from Jon Wilner who covers the PAC12 where he estimated the PAC12's new deal to average around 50M/year over the life of the deal. That average alone is 20M behind what the estimate for the B10 is at the start of its deal, not the average per year for the B10. So reading things like that gives me 20-40M behind. So the 50M/yr average is an improvement like you say but the B10/SEC "improvements" look to be much larger.
What do you think the gap per year between payouts for the PAC12 and the B10 will be?
EDIT: As for USC/UCLA that to me isn't about ego, that to me would be about necessity. Like I said above, most if not all of these movements of the last couple decades wouldn't happen if not for the feel of necessity. There's a lot of inertia there that has to be overcome and it's usually the financial gap that overcomes it. This could be the case in this instance as well.
Last edited:
The ACC is locked into a bad deal with ESPN until 2036. For now, ESPN has no reason to keep them competitive with the other power conference. The ACC commish may not even be around when the ACC is up for a new media deal.
Aresco brings crap to the table, so you're not comparing apples to apples in this one. You can't be serious about comparing a G5 conference to a power conference?
I've read a similar thing about the B1G, but that was before the streaming service decided to throw their hats into the ring. They may throw silly money into the deal that no one saw coming to get a slice of the pie. I read a PSU article that said the agreement could be $87.5 million near the beginning and top out around $110 million at the deal's conclusion. This is possible because we are talking about multiple platforms being involved.
I saw the same thing about the Pac 12, but then it was mentioned that Pac 12 would approach the new media deal the same way the B1G has, and that's to sign with multiple networks. Time Warner/TNT and other networks want in even if they overpay. TNT knows they are not getting in on the B1G deal, so Pac 12 is the next best thing. Fox/FS1 will likely expand their deal with the Pac 12. I now hear the Pac 12 media deal could be around $65/70 million throughout the agreement. Live content is king.
I'm a little confused why people think the SEC will stay dollar for dollar with the B1G when their source of income is solely from ESPN. I understand adding Texas and Oklahoma adds value, but they are drawing from one well that doesn't have unlimited resources. Disney has made it clear ESPN has to slow down with throwing money around and expecting them to foot the bill. Disney is even exploring the possibility of spinning ESPN off as a separate company to foot its own bills. If that's the case, then the ACC and SEC jumped into bed with the wrong partner.
There are some concerns within the SEC circles. With the likelihood of ESPN losing control of the college playoffs, the SEC (value) may take a hit without the ESPN hype machine. The SEC commish has floated the idea of an All-SEC playoff. Also, some in the SEC circle believe ESPN will not be able to match the B1G's multiple network deal. They feel the B1G will sign another media again before the SEC even comes up for their next deal. That will only widen the gap.
I've said it multiple times the "NIL will ruin CFB, schools can't afford it" is an indictment of ADs and college athletics - not NIL.
If schools are receiving $100m a year in media revenue (nevermind gameday revenue, ad money, alumni donations) but are still ruined by some going to NIL or reduced donations (because alumni are spending on NIL instead) then the entire framework of college athletics needs to be scraped and start over.
NIL isn't making college athletics finances "unsustainable" all of a sudden.
G5/P5 doesn't matter, the principle is the same. Your intrinsic value is is your intrinsic value whatever level it is and there's only so much any commish can do to enhance it. Aresco couldn't stop Cincy, UCF, Houston from leaving to a mortally wounded B12 because even in that state it still has more value than the AAC. Same would be the case between the PAC12 and B10 and what Kliavkoff could do if any school really wanted to move, especially with a huge financial gap.
As to the gap between the PAC12 and B10, you've increased the numbers of both conferences but that financial gap still sits in the 20-40M range I mentioned so the numbers are kind of irrelevant in one sense because the gap is constant between the 2. I actually think a 20M gap could be "stomached" for a bit but if it balloons to 30-40M/yr I'm not as sure. You add the added expenses of NIL to donors/ADs well then you'd think any reasonable AD would look for any avenue to maximizing media revenue including jumping conferences if the opportunity is there. I'm also skeptical of how far WMD will go. They also just took on a ton of debt from the ATT spinoff. IIRC the PAC12 used to be on TBS a long while ago and not sure that helped their exposure. Personally, I don't think that's the correct avenue for them unless it's ridiculous money thrown at the PAC12 but I don't think it will be.
As to the model of splitting between networks, it's not really a B10 model, it's the NFL that's the smart one in the room. I think others are copying that now if they can. NFL has its playoffs, super bowl and regular season on a wide variety of networks and their ratings are good enough to justify the networks paying up for a piece. If you have a premium property you can do that. The B10 does and if they really want to split it, that's more reason for expansion to have the inventory to satisfy the needs of multiple partners.
As to the SEC, that contract was set up awhile back by the last commish and I don't think they will do the same next time around. They gave ESPN their GOTW because ESPN threw crazy money (300M/yr) at them for it. It all expires at the same time in the mid 2030s and I'd guess as a premium property they too at that time will split their package up in similar fashion across networks/outlets. Texas/OU don't add anything as far as the SEC main package in the short term so those estimates should be correct. Texas/OU will add value to the conference in the long term. They are just being made whole (full share) on arrival but nothing beyond that for the conference. The big boost for the SEC will be when the SEC GOTW on ESPN kicks in and that's about it until the mid 2030s when all their packages are up for bid. So you'd think the estimates for the SEC would be based on fairly known numbers. You're right though as far as the B10, it's very possible they could have another deal come up by the time the SEC's current one expires.
I've said quite a while back that I could see the media landscape as far as sports rights is concerned being fractured and that ESPN over time will lose its hold to some degree. Especially true when you have deep pocket tech companies throwing money around. Plus it's just beneficial for the sports leagues to have more players involved just like it will be for the CFP in a handful of years. I have read DIS could spinoff ESPN and think it's a decent possibility but you know if that ever happened I'd kind of wonder if one of those tech companies might not try and swallow it up after and roll it into its streaming service.
The principle is not the same. If that were the case, the Big East would still be around. Even before Cincy, UCF, etc., departed the AAC, the media deal established by Aresco was sh*tty at best. You can't expect to gain something when you have nothing to offer.
If the new media (2024) deal works out for the Pac 12, that next media deal (likely 2032) will pay for itself. The Pac 12 has several national brands that can increase in value if the league moves games to beneficial time slots, such as 3:30 PM EST games or 7:30/8 PM EST games. That much has been made clear to the Pac 12 if they want a better TV situation. The Pac 12 still has time to get it right before the SEC or ACC media rights come up for renewal. IMO the Pac 12 will never close that gap on the B1G, but they can against the SEC.
AT&T's scorch earth tactics were harmful and will take some time to overcome, but it starts with the Pac 12 getting rid of former commish Larry Smith. This is why the Pac 12 hired someone similar to former B1G commish Delany. Someone who can maneuver the league into a position to capitalize on its potential. The Pac 12 is playing the long game since it has time to get it right. The TBS thing is true, but I think you have your facts mixed up. Time Warner/TNT (& TBS) sports division is not the same as it was years ago. TNT is well known, and its sports platform is respected. They have national deals with the NHL, MLB, and NBA, so it's not an amateurish operation as you're trying to make it out to be.
Disney might stop printing money for ESPN. The SEC might have made out like bandits in the short term with ESPN purchasing the rights from CBS, but it's a long time to the following media rights deal for the SEC. By the time we see the mid-2030s, the landscape of college football will likely have changed. ESPN is losing the college football playoff and access to the other power conference games. Advertisement will impact the bottom line. Less money means less money to offer to the SEC unless ESPN screws the ACC.
I know the B1G didn't create the model for splitting games across several platforms, but it's a first for college sports. The B1G is the first to experience this on this level. Pac 12 will not be far behind.
To me it is the same cause whatever value you have you have and there's only so much you can do. The BE does exist, as a basketball conference, where it has some value but not as football one where it has less and there's not much to be done about that. You think the PAC12 can do something with better time slots and more networks etc and sure they can and will get some bump but only so much of a bump because they are what they are and their intrinsic value can't match the B10 or SEC. You can do your best to maximize what you have but there's a limit to that, that's my point.
I posted an article awhile back of the type of games that the networks love as in 3.5-4M+ viewers. The PAC12 had just low single digits (B10/SEC double digits) IIRC and don't remember that they were intraconference games either but more interconference games like OSU/Oregon. Now part of that might be game times but I don't think that's the only reason because games that are in better time slots don't do all that great either. The champ game isn't usually highly rated too. There's only so much you can do then if those are your numbers and intrinsic value.
Just look at the B12, they had big brands too like Texas/OU and what happened to them? They were rebuffed by the networks for early negotiations and then saw the ESPN bid for SEC GOTW and felt the necessity to leave or fall behind and this is the richest athletic department in the country. Same situation could be true for USC and other PAC12 schools who want to compete at a high level. That's why I give the next 2 years for the time frame if anything happens. By then all the numbers will be known for both the B10 and indications for the PAC12. They will see how big the gap is and if it's something untenable or not. I don't think they will close the gap significantly with either the B10 or the SEC and will likely be 20-40M behind both of them. IMO uneven revenue share might be the only solution but I always wonder how well that kind of arrangement works longer term.
I don't think ATT did anything scorched earth, problem is they got into businesses they never should have been in and took on a lot of debt to it. Now they are more focused on what their bread and butter should be but some of that debt is saddled on the WMD spinoff so I'm not as certain they will go as far as you think but we'll see. I don't watch those sports you mentioned but do know NBA on TNT has been a big thing for a long time and MLB is good too, didn't even know that NHL moved there. I think that goes to the point though, will the casual fan find the PAC12 which isn't particularly appointment programming on its own. Promotion and exposure on the other networks is especially crucial for them. I don't even think it's the best idea for the B10 to leave ESPN completely but that's at least with the alternative of 3 broadcast networks which is a pretty good alternative. I think the PAC12 moving any of their package to TNT/TBS unless the money was crazy would be a bad move...stick with the top broadcasters ESPN, Fox, CBS, NBC as close as you can IMO.
More on the PAC12.
As the Pac-12 formulates a strategy for its upcoming media rights negotiations, one component seems clear: Eliminating football night games altogether isn’t realistic — or smart.
Instead, the conference is focused on an issue that doesn’t receive as much attention as the late kickoffs: Reducing the number of six- and 12-day selection windows for its TV partners.
“That’s a high priority for us,” said a source with knowledge of the Pac-12’s negotiating strategy.
“We need to find the right windows for the right games, specifically for football but generally for all sports.”
While many Pac-12 fans recoil at the thought of 7:30 p.m. PT games, the larger issue is not knowing until a week or two before kickoff whether the game will start at 12 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. or anytime in between.
The late games would be more palatable if fans could plan several weeks, if not months, in advance.
“The feedback we’ve gotten,” the source said, “is that the six- and 12-day windows are a bigger issue than the night games themselves.”
As the Pac-12 formulates a strategy for its upcoming media rights negotiations, one component seems clear: Eliminating football night games altogether isn’t realistic — or smart.
Instead, the conference is focused on an issue that doesn’t receive as much attention as the late kickoffs: Reducing the number of six- and 12-day selection windows for its TV partners.
“That’s a high priority for us,” said a source with knowledge of the Pac-12’s negotiating strategy.
“We need to find the right windows for the right games, specifically for football but generally for all sports.”
While many Pac-12 fans recoil at the thought of 7:30 p.m. PT games, the larger issue is not knowing until a week or two before kickoff whether the game will start at 12 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. or anytime in between.
The late games would be more palatable if fans could plan several weeks, if not months, in advance.
“The feedback we’ve gotten,” the source said, “is that the six- and 12-day windows are a bigger issue than the night games themselves.”
Last edited:
Father pro football player. Doesn't matter.
President of Fiesta bowl. Doesn't matter. (Wonder if he was involved in their fraud scandal?)
MBA. LOL (I consider this a negative)
Played College basketball. Doesn't matter.
Sports Law. Doesn't matter.
Sports Agent. Doesn't matter.
None of that involves managing an athletic club like the Big Ten. The Big Ten is a political league (like it or not) and picking Barry Alvarez or Gene Smith would have been 1000% better.
This is also the big leagues, you don't get to learn on the job here.
There's been talk (for a while) of removing all football games from Pac 12 to the networks for a more extensive inventory to select games for national exposure. I'm sure the networks want more opportunities to show USC, Oregon, and UCLA than Utah.
The issues with kickoff times are tied to habits of night games in the interest of the local fanbase. The league knows if they want more money, they will have to change some of its rituals, like the majority of the league playing 7:30 PM PST games.
Pac 12 will have to get used to networks dictating the time of national games only a few days out. That is standard in most of the country.
The Pac 12 and the networks would have to work out the schedule in advance like the B1G. By the summer, we fans have a firm idea of the time, dates, and tv info on B1G games.
Another way to increase the appeal of the Pac 12 is to push the alliance partners (B1G & ACC) to schedule more non-conference games on their media deal that are attractive. USC against Clemson is sexy. Heck, the Oregon and Ohio State was a big hit for Fox. It's all about marketing, and the Pac 12 isn't used to working the public. This is why you'll never see Ohio State vs. Michigan on BTN. There is a reason why Larry Smith is no longer the Pac 12 commish.
The bottom line is the Pac 12 has to stop thinking small. The conference is sitting on a goldmine with teams like USC, Oregon, Washington, and UCLA. It has enough national appeal to be successful financially.
More about the F1 deal I mentioned above as a point of reference and just how far a streaming service could go. Still ended up with ESPN even though they weren’t the highest bid. I think that was a good move unless others blew them out of the water. Numbers surpassed the 50M/yr estimates by a quite a bit
From the article:
F1 has agreed to renew its rights deal with ESPN through 2025, sources told SBJ. The three-year deal still doesn’t have a signed contract, but the racing series told Amazon and Comcast executives on Friday that neither company's bid was going to be accepted. Sources say that ESPN has agreed to pay around $75-90M per year for the rights. Currently, ESPN pays in the neighborhood of $5M per year for the rights, having signed a 3-year/$15M deal in 2019.
F1 has agreed to renew its rights deal with ESPN through 2025, sources told SBJ. The three-year deal still doesn’t have a signed contract, but the racing series told Amazon and Comcast executives on Friday that neither company's bid was going to be accepted. Sources say that ESPN has agreed to pay around $75-90M per year for the rights. Currently, ESPN pays in the neighborhood of $5M per year for the rights, having signed a 3-year/$15M deal in 2019.
ESPN’s deal gives the media company flexibility to put a small, but undetermined number of races exclusively on its ESPN+ streaming service. Most races will be carried on linear television, either ABC or ESPN, sources said.
Sources said that Amazon put forth a higher bid -- said to be around $100M per year -- with the right to sublicense to a linear broadcast network. Comcast’s offer was similar to ESPN’s monetarily, sources said. Comcast’s offered would have put several of its races on its Peacock streaming service -- in addition to linear coverage on NBC and USA Network. Through its Sky subsidiary, Comcast is a big F1 partner outside of the U.S. Netflix had discussions with F1 and actually made an offer, but its bid wasn’t close on money. F1 executives made it clear that they were not ready to put all of its races on a streaming service yet.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com
From the article:
F1 has agreed to renew its rights deal with ESPN through 2025, sources told SBJ. The three-year deal still doesn’t have a signed contract, but the racing series told Amazon and Comcast executives on Friday that neither company's bid was going to be accepted. Sources say that ESPN has agreed to pay around $75-90M per year for the rights. Currently, ESPN pays in the neighborhood of $5M per year for the rights, having signed a 3-year/$15M deal in 2019.
F1 has agreed to renew its rights deal with ESPN through 2025, sources told SBJ. The three-year deal still doesn’t have a signed contract, but the racing series told Amazon and Comcast executives on Friday that neither company's bid was going to be accepted. Sources say that ESPN has agreed to pay around $75-90M per year for the rights. Currently, ESPN pays in the neighborhood of $5M per year for the rights, having signed a 3-year/$15M deal in 2019.
ESPN’s deal gives the media company flexibility to put a small, but undetermined number of races exclusively on its ESPN+ streaming service. Most races will be carried on linear television, either ABC or ESPN, sources said.
Sources said that Amazon put forth a higher bid -- said to be around $100M per year -- with the right to sublicense to a linear broadcast network. Comcast’s offer was similar to ESPN’s monetarily, sources said. Comcast’s offered would have put several of its races on its Peacock streaming service -- in addition to linear coverage on NBC and USA Network. Through its Sky subsidiary, Comcast is a big F1 partner outside of the U.S. Netflix had discussions with F1 and actually made an offer, but its bid wasn’t close on money. F1 executives made it clear that they were not ready to put all of its races on a streaming service yet.
F1 renews with ESPN for U.S. media rights through 2025
Formula 1 has renewed its U.S. media-rights deal with ESPN through 2025, according to sources.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com
Latest posts
-
-
-
***WAR ROOM: Latest Recruit Scoop and Team News on Rutgers Athletics***
- Latest: Christian0007
-
With the portal now open, does Gavin Wimsatt enter after the spring game?
- Latest: Nycrusupporter