AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Great news on Pac-12 finances
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Im not sure if im understanding what you're asking.
The pac 12 networks covered 850 live evnts last year, and that is exactly what our contracts say we had to cover.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10...ture-of-the-conferences-prized-media-company/
You're right. Maybe what I saw had to do with them having a broadcast crew for every Pac-12 game or match even when it was just going to be on the internet, not broadcast, in terms of what is running up costs.
Anyway, that 850 is really high. I'd bet that at least 700 of that number have fewer than 1,000 viewers. It shouldn't be hard to get Comcast to agree to a restructuring.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
It's funny, there was a whole discussion in another thread about what kind of season would result in Mac being fired and many people are resigned to the belief that Mac stays even if he misses a bowl game again because CU can't afford to fire him.
So yeah, more money would be a positive if it means we never have to keep a losing coach because we can't afford to fire him.
CUwhit21
Club Member
I mean, at some point, there will be a ceiling to the market. There can't possibly be much growth in TVs or in cable subscribers for revenue growth to continue at record levels, but maybe I'm missing something basic about how this market works. Even so, with the projected $50m projection for Big 10 schools next year, I'm not sure I see how the Big 10 can double the Pac 12's distribution in the near future. Their growth rate over the past 5 years isn't that much greater than the Pac 12's. Next year's projected growth is due to the new Tier 1 deal and won't be recurring growth.
In terms of expectations, I don't think we will ever be at the level of Ohio St, Alabama, etc. I also don't think we need $50m+ to consistently make bowl games and occasionally compete for conference titles. I'd like to see us do something more with the money we're getting, which is more than the ACC and not that far off from most Big XII schools.
Last edited:
Did you read why? We have an AD that didn’t make much money. The AD has a ton of expenses and not a lot of discretionary funds for additional spending. Yes, getting some extra cash is great, but I bet it’s already been earmarked for projects other than firing the coach and paying for new and better coaches.
The Pac will probably never be able to keep up with the SEC and BIG on revenue. Just a different level of fan support. Trade off for being in a conference within our natural alumni footprint.
What's going to be interesting is on what will happen in the next few years. That decision to only pay the B1G in-market carriage rates in media markets where the conference actually has a team is an interesting development. The continued move by consumers away from bundled cable packages and toward more a la carte streaming options is a huge market disrupter. The fact that viewership is declining for ESPN/ABC, NBC and CBS for sports is a huge market disrupter (Fox/FS1 is an outlier that has seen significant growth, but not enough to result in overall decline of the market).
Pac-12 does seem to be making some moves since Matt Shuken came on board as President in August of 2017.
Deal with fuboTv finalized August 2017
Deal with NCTC renewed in October 2017
Deal with Alibaba for China extended and expanded in October 2017
Deal for new Pac-12 Network channel on SiriusXM in December 2017
Deal with DAZN for Canada in March 2018
Of course, the elephant in the room remains DirecTV. That seems to be how most national sportswriters watch sports because it's the only thing that explains why so many of them say they don't see Pac-12 games. Otherwise, PACN would be available to them. I don't know how much DirecTV would add in revenue, but it seems to be a huge driver for exposure.
Pac-12 does seem to be making some moves since Matt Shuken came on board as President in August of 2017.
Deal with fuboTv finalized August 2017
Deal with NCTC renewed in October 2017
Deal with Alibaba for China extended and expanded in October 2017
Deal for new Pac-12 Network channel on SiriusXM in December 2017
Deal with DAZN for Canada in March 2018
Of course, the elephant in the room remains DirecTV. That seems to be how most national sportswriters watch sports because it's the only thing that explains why so many of them say they don't see Pac-12 games. Otherwise, PACN would be available to them. I don't know how much DirecTV would add in revenue, but it seems to be a huge driver for exposure.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
ADs don't make money. They spend whatever they take in, so adding revenue in the form of increased distributions from the conference wouldn't mean profit, but would mean we could increase expenses for things like facilities, maintenance, recruiting, salaries, and yes hiring/firing coaches.
It's pretty simple, the more money the AD takes in, the more flexibility the AD has to make necessary coaching decisions.
Or, if there is "profit", it gets put into an endowment fund rather than ever having actual profit. That's a pretty significant thing if RG can increase that fund because it pays for coaches and facilities without having to raise bonds.
Other ADs do make money. The big guns that we aspire to be (Alabama, Texas, etc.) bring in more money than they spend. They have operating surpluses that enable flexibility in hiring/firing and funding non-revenue sports.
Of course, getting more money is good. However, in the arms race of big time college football, not getting as much as other schools in other big conferences doesn’t solve much.
Another point is that I think all of us would love to see the addition of some sports at CU.
If we ever want to see things like Women's Beach Volleyball and Men's Lacrosse, let alone Hockey and Baseball/Softball programs, the only way that happens is if revenues increase.
If we ever want to see things like Women's Beach Volleyball and Men's Lacrosse, let alone Hockey and Baseball/Softball programs, the only way that happens is if revenues increase.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Can anyone explain this to me?
Dennis DoddVerified account @dennisdoddcbs
FollowFollow @dennisdoddcbs
Live from Fiesta Summit: Pac-12 returned 73 percent of revenue to members. Most, if not all other FBS conferences, return more than 90 percent. Larry Scott stresses it's a tax accounting issue where other conferences don't have to report expenses related to their networks.
8:15 PM - 3 May 2018
Dennis DoddVerified account @dennisdoddcbs
FollowFollow @dennisdoddcbs
Live from Fiesta Summit: Pac-12 returned 73 percent of revenue to members. Most, if not all other FBS conferences, return more than 90 percent. Larry Scott stresses it's a tax accounting issue where other conferences don't have to report expenses related to their networks.
8:15 PM - 3 May 2018
Pac-12 owns 100% of its tv network and has all the costs associated with that on its books. Other conferences own from 0% (SEC) to 51% (B1G) and the partner pays for all the network management. Their only expenses are things like the commissioner's office for the conference.
The pac 12 network is owned by the conference, and has expenses. Therefore, total conference revenue is going to include the total revenue from the network, and not just what espn gives the sec for the sec network, and the conference is not going to give as high a percentage of its revenue to its members as they have to pay the networks expenses, which the sec does not, as they do not own and operate the network.
I don’t expect the Pac to be even with the BIG/SEC. However, there are ways to cut that gap, but the pac schools seem content with what is happening. 20 million is a lot of money to do a lot within an athletic program. If the pac wants to compete at the highest level, then do it.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
I'm not talking about competing in the arms race with Alabama and Texas, I'm talking about being able to replace a coaching staff when necessary and more revenue would help in that regard. We should never be in a position where we are forced to hang on to an expensive coach who isn't winning because we can't afford it and that's the position many people here seem to think we're in now so how anyone can argue that another $5-10M wouldn't make a difference is beyond me.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Like use the spring to highlight those sports.....which would allow football and basketball to be the focus in the fall and winter.
Other conferences getting more money drives up the market price for the best coaches. If CU is going to fire MacIntyre and his staff after this season, it’ll take more than a few million extra bucks.
Bufffan68
Club Member
Hard to complain about $31M...at the same time no problem with looking at how we can get more. Not sure why it seems difficult to hold these 2 thoughts simultaneously.
I see no problem with having one flagship station and partner with FS1 or ESPN, then keeping the regional networks either on a pay-extra sports package or streaming. If the PAC 12 wants to remain so invested in non-rev sports, then they need rev sports to maximize its revenue for the health of all sports. This doesn't seem a difficult concept either.
I see no problem with having one flagship station and partner with FS1 or ESPN, then keeping the regional networks either on a pay-extra sports package or streaming. If the PAC 12 wants to remain so invested in non-rev sports, then they need rev sports to maximize its revenue for the health of all sports. This doesn't seem a difficult concept either.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Schools like Stanford or USC establish endowments for coaches based on well heeled donors. Stanford’s sports endowment is $270M. That’s about 10X bigger than CU’s.
It sure would be nice to not only have P12N revenues, but an athletic endowment that 100% funds a number of coaching salaries for revenue and non-revenue coaches and assistants.
HighlandsBuff
Well-Known Member
Stanford, my wife's alma mater, has the most obsequious names for all the positions now, because of this. David Shaw is the "David M. Freeman Director of Football" and Tavita Pritchard is the "Andrew Luck Director of Offense" and the "Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coach". They refer to the coaches by these names in every press release. It's a bit comical. At the same time, the amount of money surrounding their programs, academic and athletic, is astounding...
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
So our options are to try to generate more revenue or hire cheaper coaches - I prefer the former. Which do you prefer?
The pac 12 is communist? Great! I eagerly await our fomenting violent revolution on Georgia’s Campus, developing spies within Alabama’s AD and expropriating Google’s assets for the good of the people, by which I mean new luxury boxes and a brewery where Balch is.
Maybe Larry is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. What if the Pac-12, owning all of its broadcasting infrastructure, bought the broadcasting rights to other conferences? Turning the Pac-12 Network into a College Sports Network. Pac-12 would be unstoppable.
I think this is a direction it needs to go. Maybe not buying all the rights, but maybe competing with the likes of FS1 for tier 2 rights in several conferences.