http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/ncaa-which-power-5-conference-brings-in-the-most-money.html/5/
Larry Scott is such a ****ty commissioner. :lol:
Larry Scott is such a ****ty commissioner. :lol:
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!
P12 brings in more $$$ than other P5 conferences
- Thread starter SBG
- Start date
It's got to be the creative long play for the PAC-12. On the same business model with the same metrics, the PAC-12 would make less money than all other conferences.
Short-term, we'll lag the next few years as the new deals of others kick in. But we're hopefully the best positioned for the future.
Short-term, we'll lag the next few years as the new deals of others kick in. But we're hopefully the best positioned for the future.
Interesting that the payouts by major conferences to each team is so close together despite fairly healthy separation in revenue. Seems like the Pac 12 is playing this one fairly close to the vest to try to reinvest as much as possible in the Pac 12 Network while staying competitive on payouts.
It feels like this will work in the long run, but still TBD.
It feels like this will work in the long run, but still TBD.
No wonder Scott is smiling, I would be smiling too if I were making 3.5 M per year. Anyway, If he could get off his ass and get Direct TV on board that would increase revenue & payouts to schools substantially. I do like the fact that the money distribution to all the P-12 schools is equal, instead of the way it was set up for distribution when the Buffs were in the old B-12. Today in Rick Georges AD e-mail update, it's the 1st time that I can remember since he took over that he's not pleading poverty. His fund raising stats in that letter were pretty impressive.
Top 25 revenue producing Athletic Departments for 2013-2014 academic year:
10 from the SEC
7 from the Big 10
4 from the Big 12
3 from the Pac 12
1 from the ACC
Will be interesting to see if there are any changes in 2014-2015
http://footballscoop.com/news/what-athletic-departments-made-the-most-money-last-year/
10 from the SEC
7 from the Big 10
4 from the Big 12
3 from the Pac 12
1 from the ACC
Will be interesting to see if there are any changes in 2014-2015
http://footballscoop.com/news/what-athletic-departments-made-the-most-money-last-year/
SD Buff
Club Member
It's not just DirecTV, PAC needs to add carriage nationwide with the MSOs that already have a deal. Need to be on the sports tier at a minimum across comcast, Cox, time warner (hopefully helps vs hurts with Charter)
And they need to reign in the networks expenses. The long play is fine, but need to see a 5 million + distribution soon, at a minimum. SEC network is rumored to be distributing 10 million the first year. B1G is already there. The hope is getting the carriage and being wholly owned the PAC will match or exceed those numbers. But it's starting to get concerning
from phone
And they need to reign in the networks expenses. The long play is fine, but need to see a 5 million + distribution soon, at a minimum. SEC network is rumored to be distributing 10 million the first year. B1G is already there. The hope is getting the carriage and being wholly owned the PAC will match or exceed those numbers. But it's starting to get concerning
from phone
I think the reality of what they wanted to do with the Pac 12 network and the reality of what they can do with it are two different things. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it: I'd LOVE to see some coverage of the NCAA skiing championships. The Pac 12 has two of the top five programs in the country, and is likely to have one or both (CU and UU) in the mix for a national championship every year. That's the kind of publicity you want. If the goal was to televise a lot of Olympic sports, why not skiing? Skiing is an Olympic sport, too. Of course, setting up 20 cameras on the side of a mountain and running the cables isn't a cheap endeavor.
The future of TV is unbundling and streaming. That means no subsidy. So, yeah, the reality of what they wanted to do with the Pac 12 network and the reality of what they can do with it are two different things.
streaming yes, but why do networks want to unbundle? Has any major network done that yet?
BlackNGold
Club Member
But the ski team is not part of the PAC 12 conference - it is part of the Rocky Mountain Intercollegiate Ski Association (RMISA) as is DU and Utah. So I doubt the PAC 12 network has any built in rights to telecasting the events. Not a bad idea though and I am sure they could work something out.
BlackNGold
Club Member
CBS is running their own streaming service it is $5.99 per month. Everyone is also watching what happens with HBONOW - content is the real value. Method of delivery is what is in flux.
Yes i understand streaming but that is not unbundling. When is Viacom going to break apart their channels?
SD Buff
Club Member
They don't want to unbundle. No one does other than the consumer. And I'll save everyone my broken record by just saying -- be careful what you wish for. Not the least bit convinced it will save us money, especially as sports fans.
Bufffan68
Club Member
I could see networks independently streaming taking some revenue from DISH et al, but it seems the logical outcome of this would be every network streaming separately for a charge. If that's the case, who the **** would want 20 separate invoices? IDK...maybe I'm getting too old to see how this streaming would be any better than what we've got.
Deleted member 807
Guest
This! An OTT pay-per view to watch the Buffs could easily cost north of $40 per game.
Those are the kinds of services where the only way you get signed up is with auto billing to your credit card. No one wants individual invoices for sub $10.
Sports is starting to realize their content is more valuable then viacoms. And alternative delivery infrastructure now is starting to mature. If they leave enmasse bundling collapses.
Last edited:
Ill only subscribe to CU sports streams. I have no interest in any pro sports.
Alternate delivery has been here for more than a decade.
SD Buff
Club Member
Sports programming doesn't want unbundling. They are the biggest advocates and will be fighting tooth and nail to keep it. That doesn't mean they won't offer an alternative for cord cutters, but it's not a model they are hoping takes hold. ESPN would much rather get $6+ a month from every US cable household than $25 a month for the 25-30% of US households who actually watch ESPN. (probably more than $25 considering people will probably be able to renew and cancel anytime they want) And the local RSN's? Yeah, they like bundling too. Big time.
Last edited:
Sports are the only content that arent widely time shifted so they get the big bucks from advertising. As more and more people start cord cutting, it will be interesting to see what they do.
Sports and the traditional delivery services are best friends at the moment. Live events are the only thing holding back the majority of the cord cutters and the sports content providers benefit from the bundling.
I still don't know how long this lasts or that most consumers will be better off without bundling when the individual channel prices go up. The transition to full unbundling seems inevitable in everything but timing.
Netflix is 37% of all consumed bandwidth.
CBS is charging $5.99 a month for its offering. Do you think they get that from the subsidy? If ESPN thinks they get $20 versus their current $5 theyll do it. Though your right its an economies of scale issue right now that still gives cable sat the balance of power.
Another way to think of it is to project out 20 years. The current subscriber base for cable and sat is probably older, established, and graying. No new young subscribers are lining up for $110 a month of crap. Or buying houses either. That's a problem for the industry because they cant establish a new crop of monthly religious payers that blindly add their CC to autopay.
Sooner or later the dam is gonna break. Follow the money.
Last edited:
http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/
Sorry, its 37% at peak consumption hours. Not total. My bad.
And? What is your point
SD Buff
Club Member
Do I think they get that from the dollar something CBS gets for every cable household in the country vs. who would be willing to pay 5.99 a month to stream a live CBS station they can get OTA for free? Yeah, I think they get that.
Not sure what you're arguing here. How would this be a better deal for the consumer? So Congress passes a la carte programming. NBC, ABC and Fox follow that pricing model for live streaming. NBC Universal, Viacom, the networks, etc. who own HULU then jack up the subscription fee b/c they are no longer getting the carriage fee for every cable household in the country (USA Network, TNT, MTV, etc. are basic cable) They jack up their cost to Netflix.
And since as you said, netflix already takes up so much bandwidth, what do the MSO's do to internet fees? You think they'll get us there?
You're right in that change is coming. Its inevitable. I am just strongly skeptical it's going to be some Utopian system of click and pay content which saves the consumer bundles of money.
Some of us would pay more. Some of us would pay less.
When I consider a la carte as something that will work for the consumer and eventually be of benefit, I don't think of it as subscribing to a channel. I think of it like going to youtube and choosing what I want to watch on an individual program basis. Basically, everything becoming a PPV event.