The Pac-12 TV Deal
by Paragon SC on May 4, 2011 5:15 PM PDT
in General Pac-12
Email
PrintIt is hard to argue that Larry Scott didn't put together a good deal for the conference.
The LA Times has some of the particulars...
Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott said the deal leaves room for the conference to launch its own network next year, similar to what the Big Ten Conference started in 2007 in partnership with Fox.
Whereas the Big Ten only owns 49% of its network, Scott said the Pac-12 will keep total ownership of its network.
Scott said the Pac-12 will save premium content for its conference network -- ESPN and Fox will have the rights to 44 football games a season with a Pac-12 network getting the rights to 36 football games.
"And the [Pac-12] network will have very high-quality games," Scott said, "with either the first, second or third selections in different weeks. The conference network will have the best game of the week a couple of weeks each season.
"The ESPN family and Fox will have 68 basketball games and we'll have over 100 games for the Pac-12, and again a high quality."
Scott said the league also plans to develop its own digital network, similar to ESPN3, that will carry up to 500 events a year. Scott said he expects a Pac-12 network and the digital network to be up and running by August of 2012.
One thing that stays in place is our match-up against Notre Dame. There were rumblings that the USC/ND game was going to fall prey to the out of conference scheduling rule that says that OOC games can't be scheduled after the third week in the season.
Again, I can't fault Larry Scott for getting such a lucrative deal for the conference as a whole. He really did a great job in getting this done.
But I am still left scratching my head that USC (and to a lesser extent UCLA) left so much on the table.
The L.A. schools bring so much to the table with their traditions in football and basketball respectively.
USC moves the needle nationally. Their brand alone has to generate better than 20% of what the Pac-12 will be getting in this deal. UCLA is probably between 10-15%. Why would USC leave so much on the table? The TV networks could care less how the money is split as the deal is the deal.USC and UCLA will now get 17.5% of the revenues...much less than the greater than 30-35% hat they bring in their brand recognition.
I won't comment on what they were thinking in the Morgan Center but as I noted last month what was USC thinking?
Everyone makes money here but I could care less about the other schools...they are making a good nickel because of USC and UCLA's brand. USC could have leveraged its position much better than it did. The rest of the conference would have been ecstatic simply tripling their revenues but with USC's (and UCLA) silence in not leveraging their brand the rest of conference quadrupled their earnings.
A buddy of mine said this on a message board...
Larry Scott is about Larry Scott. The PAC 12 is his tool.
He is one slick salesman. Turned out great for the conference, USC is making more money than it was. All the other scenarios never got past first base. It now is what it is.
If you are frustrated or pissed off about what USC could have pursued or gave up or the weeknight games etc...take it up with the guy(s) at USC who followed this path.
Scott did what he had to do for the conference and himself. USC followed. USC is accountable and responsible for joining in, not Larry Scott.
I am not defending Scott. I am just trying to frame this issue and put the eggs where they belong.
He hits the nail on the head.
Scott did what benefited Scott (and the conference as a whole). He is the conferences hero. Haden on the other hand let Scott run rough shod over USC instead of leveraging their brand.
A great day for the conference, not the greatest day for USC...
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
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?
I think USC took one for the team
Not my choice and I’ve said so too many times on this site. No crying over spilt milk, although I do like MrPacTen’s idea!
it's not
something I really like, for a number of reasons, but it’s also kind of the obvious play once you look at it with a cynical perspective (especially since WSU/OS/Colo have opened the “selling home games” door wide open already).
In terms of pure financial gain, it’s probably a win for USC, maybe even a big win (I don’t really know the home gate #‘s very well, much less gate less operating expenses, much less gate less operating expenses plus 1/12 of the TV revenue generated, so it’s hard for me to come up with a good guess).
could you please
tell me what “selling home games” actually means, Thanks.
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again
-R. Zimmerman
Correct me if wrong
But MrPacTen considers any trip without getting a game at home in return “selling home games”. While I don’t fully agree, I do see validity to his point. Personally I don’t put one time “true” neutral site games in that category (as opposed to what ND does). For example USC’s game against Va-Tech back in ’04, or if USC were to play say Alabama in the Chick a fil. Washington State playing ND in San Antonio or Oregon State playing TCU in Dallas are selling home games in my book.
by ev on May 4, 2011 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't
consider a true neutral site to be selling a home game. OTOH, playing VA Tech in DC isn’t really a true neutral site. Neither is playing TCU in Dallas. If it’s a short drive for one fanbase and a 4+ hour flight for the other… not really neutral.
OTOH, playing, say, LSU or any other SEC team in Dallas is something I would consider neutral.
The standard definition of selling a home game is what Colorado is doing w/ Ohio St this year, or what Wazzu has been doing w/ Auburn, Wisconsin etc.; going to the otehr school’s home stadium for a (generally < $1M) paycheck. I extend this definition slightly to also include “neutral site” games that are anything but.
Another example would be if Washington had a “neutral site” game at Qwest Field. Especially if that game was against someone outside the NW. OTOH, if they had a “neutral site” game in, say, San Francisco (for whatever reason), even if it was against, say, Rutgers, I’m usually more relaxed about that definition.
Ok but there is a big difference between
what USC did with Va-Tech and Oregon State did with TCU. The USC/VT game was set up by a third party, both teams were given a ticket allotment (that USC ask for less tickets is their problem), the BCA sold the rest and signed the TV rights. The two teams were paid about equal (USC actually got more) and the BCA took the rest. The fact the game was on the East coast was agreed to by USC prior to VT even being approached to play in it. The Oregon State game was vastly different, it was for all intensive purposes a TCU home game in another location. TCU picked the site, signed the TV rights, set the OS ticket allotment and pay, the Horn Frogs got the rest of the money. There was no real difference between what Oregon State did and Wazzu with Auburn other than the site not being the actual home stadium of the opponent. Kind of like what ND is doing which their AD at the time was quoted as saying: “it’s a home game in a different location”.
by ev on May 5, 2011 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I was just pleased it was at FedEx Field and not down in Blacksburg. The USC contingent would have been miniscule had we only had Lane Stadium tickets and frankly that’s not a trip I’d care to take. I’ve worked with VA Tech alumni for whom a Thursday night home game means effectively having to take 2 days off – and they live in the same state.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
the exact definition
isn’t something that I care about especially strongly. As noted in our previous discussion, it personally fell under my definition, but I certainly see the differences between that and a few other less gray area ones.
And to be honest, once the paycheck gets large enough ($3M+ for instance), who really cares. There’d even be some advantages to playing, say, Texas in Dallas, even if it really is a road game dressed up as a “neutral site” (exposure, Texas recruiting, building a connection w/ UT, etc. … and of course, a really large game check which USC gets to keep 100% of).
Not sure the size of the paycheck should make a difference.
Isn’t that just a question of who high price of a hooker you are? I would love USC to playing or even better set up it’s own neutral site games. They have an opening for a one way in ’14, maybe a new NFL stadium will be down in LA by then!
by ev on May 5, 2011 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions
the problem
with LA is (if I understand correctly) that the Pac-12 TV deal states taht the league retains TV rights to any neutral site game played within its footprint. I COULD be wrong about that, but I recall hearing that at some point.
Oh I didn't hear that one
Would be interesting if true. How about SD? Not sure the Pac12 can claim that city and it would work just as well for USC.
by ev on May 5, 2011 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
don't know
would depend on the definition of “footprint.” My guess is it’d count as inside footprint, but since I haven’t seen the agreements (am not even 100% that this is a rule), I don’t know.
While I can see the Pac12 making that definition
it’s would be pretty wide of one. SD is considered it’s own major media market by every site I’ve ever seen.
by ev on May 5, 2011 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Take the money and run
I completely understand the argument that SC draws more ratings for football and that we could have pushed for a larger share accordingly. I also understand that we’re going to get more than we did before. So the question I have is what would have been the results if SC had tried to derail the deal in order to get more? In other words, if SC had refused to sign unless they got X% more and the deal fell through, how would SC have been better off?
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Without allies, USC was left with only two choices
All in or independence. It’s not like they could have strong armed the Pac12 into giving them more on their own.
by ev on May 4, 2011 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Well then there’s not really a whole lot to complain about.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
I would have gone for independence
But then I was unhappy about more than just the money issue. That said, outside of the true revenue sharing there isn’t a whole lot to complain about.
by ev on May 4, 2011 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
You need to think this through very carefully.
Independence would be OK football-wise but would relegate all other sports to irrelevance. What are you going to do, join the MWC for baseball and basketball, for example? You’re not going to schedule a full hoops or baseball season as an independent, and even if you tried the reality of being on the west coast means any quality schedule means travel expenses would be devastating.
Fuck you, Juju. We'll do it ourselves.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on May 7, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
WRONG
BOOM_BOOM that was the sound of the DUCKs being shot down again in a BCS Bowl Game---I guess all that Slave Money can't buy a championship.
oH and Flush the sound Our Basketball Program is going down the drain, anybody got some liquid Plumber.
by so.cal.native1952 on May 8, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
This Los Angeles we are talking about Elmo.
In fact the state of Calif has 3 cities with more population than Porland and 2 Sac and San Jose only a few 1,000 behind. Wake up smell those Roses or Road apples.
BOOM_BOOM that was the sound of the DUCKs being shot down again in a BCS Bowl Game---I guess all that Slave Money can't buy a championship.
oH and Flush the sound Our Basketball Program is going down the drain, anybody got some liquid Plumber.
by so.cal.native1952 on May 8, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
it would be indep in football only
You know, like ND. Outside of BB, relegating the other sports to another conference wouldn’t be as bad as you think. Some of those conferences are pretty good. Remember one of the reasons the Pac10 is the Conference of champions is because of USC.
by ev on May 8, 2011 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I understand that we could have tried for more
and that we’re probably responsible for more of the revenue than the other PAC-12 teams. Even still, I don’t have much of a problem with this deal. A couple points:
1) The relative contribution of the two most recent additions in terms of prestige and eyeballs is probably less than at least 8 of the other teams in the PAC-12. Tough to say “welcome to the conference, now sit at the kids table in terms of revenue.” I think certain concessions and promises needed to be made to lure Utah and Colorado over, so we probably came into the table with one hand tied behind our back.
2) It strengthens the perception of the conference, or at least doesn’t further diminish it the way a USC or LA-centric deal would be. Recent public perception, even after Oregon’s recent performance, is that the PAC-X is USC and the X-1 Dwarfs, or at least that there’s only one bowl-worthy team. If we’re getting a share plus a bonus of $Texas dollars, we don’t shake that. It’s also significant influx of reliable revenue to the other teams, which will allow them to improve their facilities and programs, increasing not just the perception but the actual strength of these programs. We’re already handicapped by the 3 hour time difference between us and the East Coast; anything we can do to strengthen our relative perception of our conference is a plus long-term. It lets us have a shot at a second BCS team, or (hopefully) another team in an eventual playoff.
3) Everyone else knows what we gave up. The relative value of a USC and a Colorado isn’t a secret to anyone. We already ensured that our schedule maintains our LA vs. Bay Area rivalries, and that probably wouldn’t have happened without the revenue sharing. That might come in handy down the road, as well.
I like the idea of a PAC-12 network a lot more than I like the idea of a USC network. I want to watch the non-USC football games that wouldn’t otherwise be widely available, and I want to watch USC and the other PAC-12 schools in a lot of the non-revenue sports, as well. The network is a huge benefit to the conference as a whole, and jeopardizing that over a couple of million dollars a year isn’t worth it to me.
by Boy Howdy on May 5, 2011 1:16 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
I too agree #2 is a good argument
However not on #3. All four Cali schools fought for and benefited from maintaining the rivalries. USC didn’t get any extra benefit in trading away unbalanced revenue for that one.
by ev on May 5, 2011 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
You guys don't even sell out your own football stadium.
Yeah you are so popular.
by Cliff Harrising on May 7, 2011 12:20 PM PDT reply actions
you're kidding with this right?
USC led the conference in attendance for 7 straight seasons and then last year it fell off a bit. besides, attendance at games has nothing to do with national footprint and television ratings. Whether you like it or not, USC football is one of the top brands in college sports.
At USC we're not snobs, we're just better than you.
by TrojanCBB on May 7, 2011 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
THIS!
"Lightning from the Sky, Thunder from the Sea,"
"We aim .......... to please"
Conquest Chronicles
AMEN
Don't play F A G! Do not play F A G! Don't- (BLAST F). OH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU (BLAST A) DOING?! I SAID NOT TO (BLAST G)!
by DFWTrojanTuba on May 9, 2011 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions
It's apparent your memory is very short
Don't play F A G! Do not play F A G! Don't- (BLAST F). OH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU (BLAST A) DOING?! I SAID NOT TO (BLAST G)!
by DFWTrojanTuba on May 9, 2011 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions
ha
Haden on the other hand let Scott run rough shod over USC instead of leveraging their brand.
Haden did the only thing he could do. He had no leverage.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Dude you and your state Suck isn't that enough, if you didn't have the california schools it would be worst that the Big West.
Also the money that Nike pours into your little bum f_ck school, I mean how relavant is your state anyway and then you got washington. Wow you guys would really be a draw on National TV, or do you guys even have TVs oh thats right your player steal them along with PCs.
Go Ducks
BOOM_BOOM that was the sound of the DUCKs being shot down again in a BCS Bowl Game---I guess all that Slave Money can't buy a championship.
oH and Flush the sound Our Basketball Program is going down the drain, anybody got some liquid Plumber.
by so.cal.native1952 on May 8, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
whether our state sucks or not is irrelevant
I’ll take the fact that you went on to bash Oregon as opposed to debating the argument shows that you cannot dispute the facts in point.
Checkmate.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
i can dispute one of them...
outside of men’s basketball and football, conference affiliation means squat in every other sport. some of the non-revenue generating sports don’t even have a true pac12.
even men’s basketball is not really that big of a deal since there is a tournament. as long as if usc could bring in more money on football independently, none of the other sports would suffer at all.
At USC we're not snobs, we're just better than you.
You mean the same fact that were already stated
In this topic five days ago, those facts?
by ev on May 8, 2011 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
This isn't a game of chess or a freaking little debate Boy Piper it is reality, LA and california is a bigger Market than all of the other states. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
BOOM_BOOM that was the sound of the DUCKs being shot down again in a BCS Bowl Game---I guess all that Slave Money can't buy a championship.
oH and Flush the sound Our Basketball Program is going down the drain, anybody got some liquid Plumber.
by so.cal.native1952 on May 9, 2011 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Your story is based on poor assumption
That the Pac10 without USC and UCLA was going to get $20M+ per school. Talk about delusion. Oh and your example of BYU is wrong too, a better one would be Texas.
by ev on May 8, 2011 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
In the way they referenced the story it would be similar to BYU and not Texas.
The point was this: Where do olympic sports land when your football team goes independent?
Going independent would sacrifice olympic sports in a bad way. BYU had to join the WCC when they left the MWC. Texas stayed in the Big 12 and did not go independent so they did not have to sacrifice there olympic sports. Your comparison to Texas is not valid on this particular point.
USC is in the conference of champions where they have the 3rd most championships in the country behind UCLA and Stanford(100). That is extremely impressive. Something the administration probably didn’t want to gamble with.
"From the end spring new beginnings." - Pliny the Elder
Except we are talking about TV revenue
and Olympic sports do not generate revenue. Therefore an analogy using BYU is meaningless, they are a small program. While yes Texas is still part of the Big12, that is more in name than reality. They are starting their own network completely outside the Big12 and getting $15M per year just for those 3rd teir rights. Sacrificing olympic sports? Hardly. Outside of Basketball, which I would agree with, there are quality and respected programs in those other conferences. Remember the article talks about losing USC and UCLA (which would lead to others but we can leave that out for now), you lose the #1 and #3 programs in the conference (and #4 is a far way off too).
Yes I’m sure USC didn’t want to gamble at all, that is why independence was never on the table. However that really isn’t the point of the argument is it?
by ev on May 9, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I was just placing the BYU comment in context of the original article. I agree that BYU, or almost any school, will not generate revenue like USC.
The point that chasing revenue through independence could have a large negative to Olympic sports seems like a relevant consideration to me.
"From the end spring new beginnings." - Pliny the Elder
by daedalus17 on May 9, 2011 11:34 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Of course and I'm sure it figured into the fact
that USC never really considered independence. However keep a couple of things in mind. Not all USC sports are in the Pac10 (and that goes for Oregon and just about every conference school), some of the Trojans strongest sports are members of the MPSF. Both the BWC and the WCC are very good in many of those Olympic sports. Just how many baseball NC does Fullerton have, doesn’t seem to have bother them not being in a power conference.
by ev on May 9, 2011 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
The Ducks are getting a bit feisty over this.
I can only speculate as to why…
"I have a commanding voice." - Ed Orgeron
WHERE is Oregon anyway
BOOM_BOOM that was the sound of the DUCKs being shot down again in a BCS Bowl Game---I guess all that Slave Money can't buy a championship.
oH and Flush the sound Our Basketball Program is going down the drain, anybody got some liquid Plumber.
by so.cal.native1952 on May 8, 2011 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
their thread is just silly. there was only one guy on there that understood the value of USC to the conference.
At USC we're not snobs, we're just better than you.
Ah, but I never said USC wasn't valuable to the conference
I said USC can’t get the four votes it needs to force unequal revenue sharing, and can’t make more money as an independent than it can in the Pac-12.
I never said that they were more valuable (SC football is the most valuable brand in the conference). I simply said that it wasn’t possible to leverage it into forcing an unequal split, which is true.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Clearly it's an assumption
That USC couldn’t make more as an independent. As for the four votes you are right, of course that was stated already. The point was there should have been four votes, USC, UCLA and UW go without saying. They all made more than the average in the last contract. Why UW flipped is a mystery, but then so is the fact Oregon didn’t understand they were moving to that side of the line too. Interesting how it played out.
by ev on May 8, 2011 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
USC couldn't make it as an independent WHAT ARE YOU ON CRACK, or is that MM evry day starting to cloud your sense of reality Mr. Check mate.
BOOM_BOOM that was the sound of the DUCKs being shot down again in a BCS Bowl Game---I guess all that Slave Money can't buy a championship.
oH and Flush the sound Our Basketball Program is going down the drain, anybody got some liquid Plumber.
by so.cal.native1952 on May 9, 2011 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
That isn't what he said.
I think everyone knows USC could go independent and succeed. The real question is if they would be better off staying in the PAC 12. I think he is trying to say that the decision to stay was made based on the belief that staying is still better for the school over all.
"From the end spring new beginnings." - Pliny the Elder
by daedalus17 on May 9, 2011 8:25 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Short sighted...
‘SC had leverage, you just don’t see it….nor is it as conventional as you think it is, i.e going independent…
All ’SC had to do was say we have to take our time and do our due diligence on this deal. ’SC could have hired one of the big-time sports marketing firms to study exactly what the dollar-generating ability of the USC and to a lesser degree, the UCLA, brands would be.
So they could have said we’re not able to sign away all our rights at this time. Maybe we’ll wait until we get our final NCAA answer so we know exactly where we stand.
Somewhere, someone, came up with the $2 million premium each for a media deal worth less than $170 million annually for the league. USC probably could have done a better job there. With some sort of escalator clause. Let’s face it, that agreement in principle said USC and UCLA deserved more. So to say USC and UCLA had no other option is not really correct. They could have said they needed more time to think about it.
Think they would have had some leverage then?
I Do!
Especially when the rest of the league realized how much more money could be on the table with them. There would have been a 10-team stampede to give USC (and UCLA), within reason, whatever they wanted.
I mean come on, if we did that and the rest of the conference wasn’t happy whatt were you going to do? Kick us out?
Right…
A number of schools were already pissed about not being able to play in LA on a regular basis.
How about never…
Just curious, how much do you think the Pac-10 rights without the LA schools and SoCal media market would be worth? And how much would the rest of the league be worth to Fox/ESPN if they couldn’t play in LA?
Pretty obvious answer there: A whole lot less.
THAT is leverage. USC had lots of it. But it had to be willing to use it. Unfortunately they didn’t. The delay would also have allowed USC to explore the four California schools/Texas/Arizona/Oklahoma eight-team league, Elite Six league….etc.
And if you think the Pac-10/11/12 kicks the Trojans out in the other sports in a fit of temporary insanity, guaranteeing they barely ever play in LA would happen……think again.
Nothing wrong with looking at ones options.
You made some good points in your piece Dave but you but mentioned that we are delusional…well, so are you.
The Pac-12 is not the only conference who will be pursuing the same multi-media content creation, distribution and partnership strategy. You are flat out crazy if you don’t realize the Big 10 Network is already on this path.
I would not be surprised at some point if ESPN works the back-channels to “sell off the assets” of its red-headed step-child conference the Big 12. It worked the back-channels to preserve it and it can do the same thing to sell it off for its own gain. I could see this happening when discussions roll around for a new Big 10 deal.
Larry Scott is obviously very good at what he does but he isn’t the only guy with vision…
"Lightning from the Sky, Thunder from the Sea,"
"We aim .......... to please"
Conquest Chronicles
by Paragon SC on May 9, 2011 4:54 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
To set the record straight I really don't have a beef with the deal, why because SC signed it and it is their crap now.
I agree completely with Jims statement and another thought how could the out of state teams recruit in the so. cal area without saying we will play there 2 times in 4 years at our school. See Checkmate you don’t get it must be that lack of Sun you get in that Pooduck state you live in, oh and BTW how many National FB championships have the Duckies won?
BOOM_BOOM that was the sound of the DUCKs being shot down again in a BCS Bowl Game---I guess all that Slave Money can't buy a championship.
oH and Flush the sound Our Basketball Program is going down the drain, anybody got some liquid Plumber.
by so.cal.native1952 on May 9, 2011 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Rec him up!
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again
-R. Zimmerman
if USC threatened to walk and kill the TV deal. they would get the votes.
At USC we're not snobs, we're just better than you.
USC is extremely valuable, but a united conference is also extremely valuable.
Notre Dame is a good example. Take a look at this article.
What do Vanderbilt and Northwestern have in common when it comes to football? Answer: They likely both get more money for their televised football games than Notre Dame does. As does every other team in the Big Ten and the SEC.
Note: The article is a couple years old so the $9 million per year is wrong. The new contract average payment is $15 million. So the point still holds true.
"From the end spring new beginnings." - Pliny the Elder
Conference stability creates a multiplier effect to increase payouts.
USC can’t guarantee consistency like a conference can. USC is extremely valuable, but even more valuable with allies.
The PAC12 can always guarantee the TV network a conference champion that will garner national media attention. When one team is down, then another is up. Year in and year out. No strikes, no disruptions. Just consistent production. There is a large dollar value added by simply banding together as a conference.
Plus there is a lot of bargaining strength when you bargain united as a block. College football has historically been undervalued because teams did not stand together. Now that is changing. This is why college football is trending toward super conferences.
There is a synergy here where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. USC may be the most valuable individual part, but still raises its value by banding together and sharing with the cream of western college football.
For my part. I will now always root for USC and all other PAC 12 teams in non-conference games. I will be watching in conference games that don’t involve the Utes. Even watching a Stanford, UCLA or other PAC 12 Olympic sports earn their championships.
"From the end spring new beginnings." - Pliny the Elder
Valid but not quite a complete comparison
ND is getting $15M per for football only, all other revenue comes through the Big East and without that number we can’t complete the comparison. What is that number, $1M?, $2-3M? Keep in mind you are talking about a contract that was negotiated back in 2008 (for the 2011-2105 seasons), at a time frame when no one thought any conference would even get close to the SEC deal.
by ev on May 9, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
It is impossible to get a complete picture with time involved with contracts.
We do know that there would be large risk involved. Would it be worth the risk?
With the time issue, the best I can do is look at an old snapshot in time. A few years ago the ND deal had lost huge ground to big conference deals.
Plus it is unknown if USC could get a national deal as good as the ND NBC. ND has both a large Chicago market followig, plus a large national catholic following that puts them in a unique position.
In addition, the BE is a pretty nice option for non Olympic sports. I don’t think USC has that nice of a backup position. Would they join BYU in the WCC? That option doesn’t seem fitting for the caliber of programs USC has.
I wouldn’t doubt if SC could get a bit more money, but the damage to the big picture doesn’t seem like it would be worth it to me.
"From the end spring new beginnings." - Pliny the Elder
by daedalus17 on May 9, 2011 12:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Absolutely, a huge risk
But not selling part of your network to a major media network is a big risk too. With big risks, come big rewards, the Pac12 network is counting on that. The ND argument has been floated and often, not sure it’s valid anymore. Media and rights work differently now, it’s the old model. That said, your argument is probably in line with USC administration thinking. After all, as best we can tell, independence was never a real consideration.
by ev on May 9, 2011 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
notre dame more than makes up for it in the increased bowl money they get by not having to share.
At USC we're not snobs, we're just better than you.
Beaver here
As one of the middle-of-nowhere schools in the same boat as WSU, a lot of OSU fans are ecstatic with the deal. We didn’t generally like the Larry Scott changes at first, with the 12 teams, two divisions, and all that, but he ended up pulling everything off brilliantly, and the huge increase in revenue outweighs some of the irritations (like not being able to play everyone every year.)
I can really see both sides on this one… There is no question that USC and UCLA bring a lot of the media contract’s value. Most people know that. I can understand frustration that a national brand like USC (with huge budget) is getting the same amount of money as, say, WSU (with smallest Pac budget.) The revenue sharing helps the OSUs and WSUs way more than it does the USCs and UCLAs.
On the other hand, the choice was to either accept a deal that brings in a truckload of money and improves everyone’s situation, or to fight it to try to get more, and risk the whole thing collapsing. (The independent route isn’t a sure-fire bet.)
So yeah, I can understand why the LA schools are kind of frustrated at this. If it wasn’t the best overall choice for their schools, though, I don’t think Guerrero and Haden would have gone for it. This should make the Pac-12, USC and UCLA (ok I know you guys don’t care about them :p ), included, a lot better. Plus, strong conference and strong perception = better championship chances. It was always bull that one football loss would keep you guys out of the NC game, but one and two-loss SEC teams made it because of perception.
As a conference fan, thanks :)
Well put
Still USC and UCLA did fight for more, that is where the $2M per any year revenue is under $170M deal came from. Still neither program had much leverage beyond the threat to leave, a threat that wasn’t realistic. However that threat wasn’t realistic not becaause they couldn’t make more or survive as an independent, it’s because they didn’t want to be independent. So yes, as you say, overall this is a good for USC and UCLA.
by ev on May 9, 2011 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Heh...
"Lightning from the Sky, Thunder from the Sea,"
"We aim .......... to please"
Conquest Chronicles
by Paragon SC on May 9, 2011 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Conquest Chronicles
Related FanShots on Conquest Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
