HAS USC REALLY GIVEN AWAY ALL BROADCAST RIGHTS FOR 10 YEARS?

that big time sports are being de-emphasized? Could it be that we’re preparing for a day when USC will need a Pac-12 subsidy?
It could happen when the NFL comes to town and if USC starts ratcheting up the requirements for athletic scholarships.

I’ve always taken the view that football is essentially semi-pro, and one of the advantages of all the money that makes the idea of “scholar athlete” a cover rather than a reality is that the football program generates a lot of revenue that supports the non-revenue sports, the ones that are played by young men and women who for the most part, like the NCAA ad says, will be going to pro in something else.

In a year that saw USC add a varsity sport at the same time that Cal was reducing sports, I would very much like to know how the Athletic Department sees this move – of throwing more money into the conference pot – affecting their ability to provide long term support to volleyball, water polo, tennis, and track and field, to name a few. These are not money spinners, after all.

I don’t really think that this proposed model, unlike say professional sports’ revenue sharing, necessarily does much to increase football parity… scholarship limits provide some equalization and donors’ ability to improve facilities provides some distinction, it’s probably a wash compared to results on the field driving the decisions of new recruits.

But I think it has the capacity to bring down the non-revenue sports. Paragon mentions the Big 10 and SEC pooled resources; aside from baseball, do those schools compete at national championship levels in the same sports SC plays? I guess I should go look into it.

I get that there’s an impulse to be the conference equivalent of a “good corporate citizen.” I don’t even mind if the Athletic Department and the Administration try it. But I would very much like to see some indication of what they think the likely revenue picture is moving forward, and I for damn sure want them to pursue some kind of ability to walk and take the revenue with them.

I don’t contribute to the athletic department – I’m still paying my scholarship forward, so to speak, on academic donations. But a lot of alumni do support the athletic department, and I think they’re owed at least an explanation of how these plans affect the other varsity teams, especially as the alumni will be the ones getting hit up for more donations if there’s a future shortfall.

As you say, the B10 and SEC are all rights in. From the TV business perspective, locking in USC is critical to the deal, and you worth a premium on the contract for relinquishing those rights. Maybe a good 30-50% premium over a more flexible deal for USC?

Since Pat has taken over, he has done nothing but kiss ass. He wants to clean up USC’s image, which I did not really believe was in need of major repair. He wants the other Pac10 schools to like us. Meanwhile, we are being taken advantage of. By the NCAA. By the media. By the Pac10.

I think this plays in to Loco’s Project Stanford. The BoT and Max both respect the affiliation with other Pac10 elites, like Stanford, Kal, and UW. They have no desire to ever break this affiliation. Our strategy is to become the Stanford of SoCal, it would appear (credit Loco).

So, what’s $10-15 million a year for athletics when your goal is a $10 billion endowment? The “new USC”, the U of we’re Sorry and Contrite, will not go “rogue”. We want to be model sheep in the new conference herd.

Meanwhile, UofTexas may be setting themselves up for incredible economic windfalls in athletics. Of course, it’s possible that UT is being overly aggressive and will fall on their faces, and USC is being prudent by playing so conservative. Only time will tell.

The Big10 and SEC models are different, not the same. It’s the Big10 model the Pac12 is trying to emulate (which by the way outside of Texas is the best method). Technically the Trojans do have an escape clause, it’ the fact they can just leave the conference period and go independent giving a two year notice. Honestly none of this is new information, it’s been out there for months just few have put it out there showing just how bad of a deal this is for USC. Until the Texas deal was cut, the Big10 method was shown to be the best. Now not so much. USC should demand to keep it’s content and OOC games. It’s getting screwed by the new Pac12 deal, as surprisingly are UCLA, UW and maybe Oregon. That is the least they should do, however they should seriously consider going independent. This isn’t the 90’s, revenue works differently now. The Texas deal shows the huge revenue out there and USC would be better off on their own. Everyone else in the Pac12 takes when compared to USC, it’s time to stop giving to those who actually hurt USC.

If Haden and Nikias believes USC is worth Washington State, then I don’t believe we have the right people in charge of USC’s business affairs. This is horrific news.

LINK

On the verge of collapse just months ago, the Big 12 is nearing a cable agreement with Fox that will more than triple the conference’s revenue over its current contract.

The Big 12 and Fox are close to finalizing a long-term deal that will pay the 10-team league more than $60 million a year, well up from the $20 million it now receives from its cable contract, industry sources say.

Fox, meanwhile, has been in discussions with eight of the league’s schools about establishing a conference-specific channel for a handful of football games, up to 60 basketball games and Olympic sports. The channel would not include programming from the University of Texas, which has partnered with ESPN on a new Longhorns channel, or the University of Oklahoma, which is planning its own channel, as well.

It is my understanding that Larry Scott can only negotiate with Fox (Previous contract) till the end of the month. On April 1, he could throw open the bidding to include Comcast and others . SO, WHAT IS THE RUSH ? Fox countered today by this new deal giving up to 10 teams (excluding UT and OU) $60M a year along with their OWN dedicated Fox Sports Channel. We have supposedly been offered as the Pac-12 ONE PrimeTime game a week on the regular Fox Channel.

On any given Saturday, there will be at least 6 PAC-12 games that will be broadcast by Fox under this deal. Other than maybe the Mouse picking up a “filler” game here or there, who televises the rest ?

Rumor on the street is that the non USC’s (All our games will be on Fox or the Mouse) like WSU,Colorado’s and the rest will be allowed to package their own local deals (keep the cash, not share) not picked up by FOX or the Mouse. Another say WHAT in this equation.

Pac-11 would be a nothing conference without USC.

To be honest I don’t know that SC’s “brand” is on par with a team like Texas or ND. It’s not a state school, nor does it have the joy of being a bandwagon Catholic team.

SC is plenty popular when the football team is good. But, in my experience, during a long drought, SC feels forgotten. I can’t tell you how many times as a kid in the 80s and 90s, I used to wear SC shirts and get asked if that meant South Carolina.

For us to be able to pull a big deal on their own like Texas or ND, there would have to have evidence that people will watch an SC game solely because SC is playing. That may be true during the good times when we have an electric team, but if we ever have another Hackett on our hands who draws 40-50,000 to the Coliseum, not so much.

Learn from others, just don’t try to be them…..