SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
In before "we need UTerus."
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!
Imagine if this happened to the Pac
- Thread starter CarmelBuff
- Start date
ESPN redux: Clay Travis (yes, that guy) opines that ESPN will not be able to bid on the NFL the next time their contract is up (2021). Considering their last bid was $2 billion, and there's no reason to think Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, etc won't be jumping in to drive the bidding up, ESPN is probably not going to be able to keep up.
Now, I suppose one way to look at it is that ESPN will be saving $2 billion by not having to pay for a crappy MNF product, but it will end up costing them more than that on advertiser revenue. Along with their continued subscriber loss, that's going to have a huge impact on them.
So, here's a question: what happens to the SEC Network, the ACC Network, the Longhorn Network, etc if/when ESPN files for chapter 11? That's not a rhetorical question. Anybody know?
Now, I suppose one way to look at it is that ESPN will be saving $2 billion by not having to pay for a crappy MNF product, but it will end up costing them more than that on advertiser revenue. Along with their continued subscriber loss, that's going to have a huge impact on them.
So, here's a question: what happens to the SEC Network, the ACC Network, the Longhorn Network, etc if/when ESPN files for chapter 11? That's not a rhetorical question. Anybody know?
With the NFL, I think that ESPN getting MNF and taking it to cable was a coup at the time the deal was struck but that with declining interest in MNF it has turned into a bad deal.
Longhorn Network is close to rivaling the attempt to create its own mobile network for sports nuts and sell them a special ESPN mobile phone as the worst business decision they've ever made. I don't know how well they're doing with ACC and SEC, but it sure seems like they're in no hurry to make ACCN its own channel on my cable guide.
I don't know the bankruptcy laws and how things are structured within the Disney Corporation. Is ESPN just a division or is it an independent entity with Disney as the majority shareholder? Definitely seems like ESPN needs a restructuring, though, which would allow it to dump some bad assets.
GoBuffs08
Well-Known Member
All part of massive consolidation efforts being done by the various tv/movie studios. No different than the AT&T/Time Warner merger that has been going on for months.
Fact is ESPN is still losing tons of money and now Disney will own ESPN as well as all the Fox Sports networks. They will get to set whatever price they want the next round of football contract negotiations.
BlackNGold
Club Member
That is a crazy narrative. ESPN makes money and lots of it - it still is the most profitable division of Disney. The concern has been with Cord Cutting and the revenue from that declining - that is a forward-looking concern. But content is still king and ESPN content is still pretty strong - ESPN is launching a streaming service in 2018 and Disney with its acquisition of Fox will be a major player in Over the top programming.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
And us the consumers are going to take it in the ass.
The Fox sale does not include FOX TV, FS1 and FS2, nor any of the football properties by the way and if it did it would not pass the mustard for approval by the government for competition. The great TV Sports Bubble is coming up and will explode in everyone's face unfortunately. Probably more like time to cut Division 1 down to the 48 teams that we all spent time discussing. In order to drive up everyone's money, the available product needs to be more exclusive. Need to go big time and cutthroat right now before chaos ensues. This crap about USC is a joke, because their current infrastructure does not match their bravado and historical significance.
BlackNGold
Club Member
ESPN is not losing money - so it is not a fact. Revenues have been declining but they are not losing money, they are just not the insane cash cow they once were. But Disney is getting prepared to change that.
But it does include all the fox regional sports channels...
As others have said, ESPN is not losing money. It makes a lot, just less than it used to and it’s losing subscribers, which is forward looking and impacts Disney’s stock price. Disney cut salary and head count at ESPN to maintain profitability. When the next round of contracts come up for negotiation, there will be some very disappointed university presidents, who’ve made up to 50 year bond commitments on the premise that cash flow from TV money only goes up.
CarmelBuff
Well-Known Member
So...has anyone answered the OT. What if usc left the Pac?
Some of you say don't let the door hit ya in regards to usc? Really? They carry the entire conference and they aren't even that good.
Another thread topic should be was the move to the Pac worth it from a football standpoint? Is recruiting better? Are the games as exciting? Is the play better? Do you look as forward the the games as you used too? Will it ever be like it used to be?
The 62-36 thread and the roar of the crowd. Will that ever be equaled again?
Some of you say don't let the door hit ya in regards to usc? Really? They carry the entire conference and they aren't even that good.
Another thread topic should be was the move to the Pac worth it from a football standpoint? Is recruiting better? Are the games as exciting? Is the play better? Do you look as forward the the games as you used too? Will it ever be like it used to be?
The 62-36 thread and the roar of the crowd. Will that ever be equaled again?
ESPN's normal ratings may be down, but are most ratings for every other network. Another thing nobody brings up is ESPN has awesome streaming ratings that are continuing to grow, especially with the younger crowd, they just have to figure out how to monetize it going forward.
Because of ESPN's content, along with Disney for the same, I would absolutely subscribe to their stand alone streaming service. If they back off on the content, there is no incentive to do so.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
That will never be replicated. Even if USC, Washington or someone comes into Boulder ranked #1 and we beat them, it'll be awesome, but not on that level.
The only way this would get dicey is if Pac-12 programs completely refused to schedule USC, but that seems unlikely. Everybody in the league recruits Southern California heavily and benefits from the exposure against USC.
Umm, UCLA? That school would still provide a lot of playtime exposure in socal. And there are other schools too, that while not compelling, could be scheduled to maintain a presence in the area.
1. Could USC assemble a workable schedule as an independent? Almost assuredly
BYU can, and it’s nowhere close to USC’s brand. Liberty still gets four-ish P5 teams on the schedule a season, and it’s even lower than BYU. Notre Dame doesn’t have any trouble. USC’s geography might make this a little trickier, but finding enough teams to build a quality slate doesn’t seem impossible.
BYU can, and it’s nowhere close to USC’s brand. Liberty still gets four-ish P5 teams on the schedule a season, and it’s even lower than BYU. Notre Dame doesn’t have any trouble. USC’s geography might make this a little trickier, but finding enough teams to build a quality slate doesn’t seem impossible.
This thought process is clearly limited to football and football only. Ask Notre Dame how difficult it was to schedule their non revenue sports. How expensive it was to travel much further than usual to play. How it even impacted their recruiting. ND's womens hoops team went to the NCAAs two times before 1995, the year they joined the Big East. Since 1995 their womens team has made the NCAAs every year.
Notre Dame (before 1995) and Liberty had the luxury of density close to them. That gave them a lot of smaller schools that they can schedule. But creates almost no excitement for Tv coverage. For fan attendance. For recruits for those sports.
USC would probably join BYU and Gonzaga in the West Coast Conference where there is an unequal revenue sharing arrangement for TV money....
WCC tax documents report in 2008 Gonzaga was paid $286,834 while the other 7 schools were granted an average of $122,173. Four years later in 2011, Gonzaga was paid $520,431, BYU was paid $457,026, and St. Mary’s College was paid $357,026. The rest of the conference averaged $259,693 per year.
https://www.loyalcougars.com/2015/0...-revenue-more-than-doubled-from-2007-to-2012/
https://www.loyalcougars.com/2015/0...-revenue-more-than-doubled-from-2007-to-2012/
Declining ratings for the NFL is going to force advertisers to direct their spend elsewhere. The NFL is no longer a sure bet as it once was.
Those contracts would be void I believe under bankruptcy law. Those entities would then be free to find a new payer for their content. The question you are not asking is would they get the same amount of money on the next go round in this evolving TV viewer landscape?
An ESPN bk filing is absurd because Disney has deep pockets. They'd spin it off after cleaning up the books at least.
BlackNGold
Club Member
USC has not threatened to leave the PAC12...this is simply an op-ed piece from fan media. The part that does ring true is the PAC 12 has totally screwed up on their approach to TV -scheduling is horrible - I know some of you like night games but I am not a fan and attendance shows most others are not either. The PAC12 network has not worked out the way it was predicted. The TV revenues could be better and there was an opportunity lost by the structure of Network. When a network (Fox or ESPN) runs your conference Network they have a vested interest in success (revenues). If ESPN was running the PAC 12 network we would be on DirectTV.
To me the question is what is the conference doing to fix the problems. Pushing Olympic sports is great, but they don't generate money.
To me the question is what is the conference doing to fix the problems. Pushing Olympic sports is great, but they don't generate money.
The night game thing wouldn't be an issue if:
1. The Pac-12 would do more with spreading its conference games over the 14 weeks instead of having them all in the final 10 weeks. (More of the night feature games would then only involve 1 Pac-12 team instead of 2.)
2. The Pac-12 would make a strong policy that games on PACN are day games. Night games are only: 1) National network feature game on Saturday night, 2) National network feature game on Friday night, 3) A 2nd Saturday night game for national cable (maybe ESPN, but maybe U or 2).
As a season ticket holder, I'm cool with a home game being at night if it has event status from being on a national network with that exposure. But if it's only on PACN, it better be a day time kickoff.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
The Friday games are worse than the Saturday night games. If USC-WSU is on a Saturday, USC probably wins that game and is in the playoff. It's a disservice to the entire conference.
Yes, but the main issue is they played an away game the previous Saturday. If they had a home game and then went on the road for a Friday game it wouldn’t be a big deal.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
It would be less of a big deal, but still a problem. Putting two of your highly ranked teams (USC was 5th at the time, WSU 16th) on a non-Thanksgiving Friday is just dumb. They did the same thing with Washington-Stanford this year. Would the SEC do that with Alabama-LSU or Auburn-Georgia? USC was so banged up that game that an extra day may have been the difference and when you're trying to get a team in the playoff as a conference, why would you put them in that position? It's bush league.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Disney doesn't own Fox Sports-that stayed separate.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
They won't. I think they're signaling to the conference that the revenue distribution with the network is an issue. Getting it on DirectTV would solve everything.
NeverGiveIn
Confused by the facts
Exactly, I think USC is getting to be a little big for its britches. They're a good team in the Pac-12....why are they resentful? Because we all suck too much and we're holding them back? Boo frickin hoo....the above data points suggest otherwise. Sorry you have to play with the neighborhood kids, when you think you're the prettiest girl in town.
I hope they stay, they're generally a good, but potentially quite beatable team, so it would make for an exciting win.
USC has leverage but UCLA will have to play along for it to work. Such articles are a way that USC could indirectly threaten the Pac-12's future without saying it publicly. The school that would replace USC if UCLA decides to stay pat would clearly be San Diego State. Their new 35,000 seat stadium will be put on a ballot and is competing with a soccer group that hopes to bring the MLS to San Diego. Whichever wins the most votes will move forward. If it doesn't go SDSU's way, USC will gain more leverage against the conference and the same could be said for UCLA.
If SDSU's situation is favorable, we can just easily tell USC that they are free to go and all Pac-12 schools will still want to schedule USC anyway for recruiting purposes and they would want to do that since schools from outside the Pac-12 such as the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and ACC could swoop in and take recruits out of California which could weaken the Pac-12 which could play into the hands of Pac-12 programs that do not put all their recruiting eggs in the California basket. This could encourage Texas to leave the Big 12 which would bring stability back to that conference.
If SDSU's situation is favorable, we can just easily tell USC that they are free to go and all Pac-12 schools will still want to schedule USC anyway for recruiting purposes and they would want to do that since schools from outside the Pac-12 such as the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and ACC could swoop in and take recruits out of California which could weaken the Pac-12 which could play into the hands of Pac-12 programs that do not put all their recruiting eggs in the California basket. This could encourage Texas to leave the Big 12 which would bring stability back to that conference.
Which means selling part of the Pac-12 Network as it appears.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
The conference scheduling sucks. The Buffs are going to play all nine conference games in a row without a bye in 2018. Hard to keep a team healthy for a schedule like that one.
About as absurd as SC leaving the Pac-12. So since we're discussing the absurd, I thought I'd ask the question.