Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)

[Bison]

https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/...e-more-upset-with-the-pac-12-than-anyone.html

Interesting that the OSU president loves Larry Scott despite his athletic department losing six million annually.

 

[Buffnik]

As I have argued, maintaining 100% ownership of the conference's network and content was not Scott's mistake. That plus adding CU & Utah to expand to 12 with a larger footprint & a football championship game would be the things he has done well. It's all the other stuff that has been the problem.

Wilner's newsletter today (the one I blew up to 6 on the font size is the argument I've been making in defense of Scott on this):

Pac-12 strategy: Experts weigh in

We interrupt the popular narrative -- that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has pursued a horrendous media strategy -- for some perspective. (Yep, that gosh-darn perspective.)

In a recently-published roundtable discussion for AthleticDirectorU, a well-respected industry site, three media experts addressed the decision to retain 100 percent ownership of the Pac-12 Networks and the opportunity that presents for a mega-deal in coming years.

The experts are Tom Stultz, president of JMI Sports; AJ Maestas, CEO of of Navigate Research; and Hillary Mandel, senior vice president of IMG Media.
Surprise, surprise: They have a slightly different view of Scott’s strategy than the non-experts.
The link to the full roundtable is below, but here are a few snippets.

On the Pac-12’s decision to take 100 percent ownership of its network:
Stultz: "The true value of the conference’s strategy won’t be fully known until the next round of rights negotiations. The Pac-12 will have more options available to it than any other conference because of the rights it has retained. Whether or not that pays off will be clear once those negotiations occur."

Maestas: "No one can predict the future, but no sports property I know of regrets their decision to take equity in their own network. I think it was very smart at the time and long-term will prove to be the right decision, even if they are feeling some short term pain. If the Pac-12 had followed the Big Ten/SEC model, it would have committed itself to a disadvantaged position in perpetuity."

On the impact OTT will have on the value of sports rights:
Stultz: "As it relates to the Pac-12, the spinoff of the RSNs by Disney could provide interesting opportunities for the Pac-12 Network. The buyer may want to expand and thus seek to acquire or partner with the Pac-12. Or, an unsuccessful bidder may become enamored by the business and seek to use the Pac-12 Network as a platform for entering the sports network business. Time will tell."

On the Pac-12’s position when its current media deals expire in 2024:
Stultz: "The Pac-12 should be positioned very nicely to capitalize on a changing market that should be much clearer by then … The Pac-12 will have the deepest, broadest, most comprehensive package of content, sponsorship and media rights ever assembled to offer potential suitors. Unless there is a major disruption in college athletics, the Pac-12 should come out of these negotiations in a much stronger position."

Mandel: "The fact that Pac-12 controls its rights will give them flexibility and optionality when they come to market. Owning their own network has allowed them to collect crucial data on their fan base and audience which will be important in those future digital conversations."

Maestas: "They will be in a very strong position given the flexibility and ownership they control. Their deals are all lined up to expire at the same time as well which allows for a lot of room for creativity across their entire portfolio of inventory. The only fear I might have is mostly out of their control – the marketplace. Most major rights deals (major pro sports leagues and other collegiate conferences) expire before the Pac-12 window."

 

[Bison]

I still think 100% ownership is the right move going forward. I would tell anyone to think about being the president of a B1G, SEC, and ACC school and testifying in the state legislature why you might have to spend a lot of money to buy out Fox Sports' or ESPN's stake in the conference network. Suppose the price tag is $100M per school, that's going to raise eyebrows.

The only problem is the long wait before we can see if this is going to pay off.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

As I have argued, maintaining 100% ownership of the conference's network and content was not Scott's mistake. That plus adding CU & Utah to expand to 12 with a larger footprint & a football championship game would be the things he has done well. It's all the other stuff that has been the problem.

Wilner's newsletter today (the one I blew up to 6 on the font size is the argument I've been making in defense of Scott on this):

Pac-12 strategy: Experts weigh in

We interrupt the popular narrative -- that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has pursued a horrendous media strategy -- for some perspective. (Yep, that gosh-darn perspective.)

In a recently-published roundtable discussion for AthleticDirectorU, a well-respected industry site, three media experts addressed the decision to retain 100 percent ownership of the Pac-12 Networks and the opportunity that presents for a mega-deal in coming years.

The experts are Tom Stultz, president of JMI Sports; AJ Maestas, CEO of of Navigate Research; and Hillary Mandel, senior vice president of IMG Media.
Surprise, surprise: They have a slightly different view of Scott’s strategy than the non-experts.
The link to the full roundtable is below, but here are a few snippets.

On the Pac-12’s decision to take 100 percent ownership of its network:
Stultz: "The true value of the conference’s strategy won’t be fully known until the next round of rights negotiations. The Pac-12 will have more options available to it than any other conference because of the rights it has retained. Whether or not that pays off will be clear once those negotiations occur."

Maestas: "No one can predict the future, but no sports property I know of regrets their decision to take equity in their own network. I think it was very smart at the time and long-term will prove to be the right decision, even if they are feeling some short term pain. If the Pac-12 had followed the Big Ten/SEC model, it would have committed itself to a disadvantaged position in perpetuity."

On the impact OTT will have on the value of sports rights:
Stultz: "As it relates to the Pac-12, the spinoff of the RSNs by Disney could provide interesting opportunities for the Pac-12 Network. The buyer may want to expand and thus seek to acquire or partner with the Pac-12. Or, an unsuccessful bidder may become enamored by the business and seek to use the Pac-12 Network as a platform for entering the sports network business. Time will tell."

On the Pac-12’s position when its current media deals expire in 2024:
Stultz: "The Pac-12 should be positioned very nicely to capitalize on a changing market that should be much clearer by then … The Pac-12 will have the deepest, broadest, most comprehensive package of content, sponsorship and media rights ever assembled to offer potential suitors. Unless there is a major disruption in college athletics, the Pac-12 should come out of these negotiations in a much stronger position."

Mandel: "The fact that Pac-12 controls its rights will give them flexibility and optionality when they come to market. Owning their own network has allowed them to collect crucial data on their fan base and audience which will be important in those future digital conversations."

Maestas: "They will be in a very strong position given the flexibility and ownership they control. Their deals are all lined up to expire at the same time as well which allows for a lot of room for creativity across their entire portfolio of inventory. The only fear I might have is mostly out of their control – the marketplace. Most major rights deals (major pro sports leagues and other collegiate conferences) expire before the Pac-12 window."

I posted about this for the same article in the other thread. Maestas was highly critical of Pac 12 fans who dont even remotely support their programs as well as southeastern and midwestern fans do. Thats a firm point.

https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/...e-more-upset-with-the-pac-12-than-anyone.html

Interesting that the OSU president loves Larry Scott despite his athletic department losing six million annually.

I bet. By today's standards OSU probably wouldnt even be invited to the conference for all the arguments we use against BSU, CSU, SDSU, USD, UNLV or Nevada.

 

[DrunkRalphie]

I posted about this for the same article in the other thread. Maestas was highly critical of Pac 12 fans who dont even remotely support their programs as well as southeastern and midwestern fans do. Thats a firm point.

I'm largely proud Pac12 fans aren't inbred hicks with no other options outside college football.

 

[Buffnik]

Cares more about the tradition and pageantry of the Rose Bowl than he does about competing for championships. I hate Larry Scott.

 

[Liver]

"owning" the rights is correct. how they are packaged and the limitations in the way they are licensed is a big part of the pain we are currently experiencing.

my "guess" is that he opposes the idea of an expanded playoff because it would require a commitment from the conference that will be out of cycle with what they are attempting to do with their other media rights.

flexibility isn't a bad thing as content is balkanized, provided that you have a product that enough viewers want to watch. the big question is whether the rights as they are bundled and bid on are going to be worth more or less in the next go-round. how much will ESPN pay for the sec rights next time? will that be more or less than the sec will be able to garner if they were to go direct on their own? are they even positioned to do that? etc.

the p12 has made some interesting bets.

 

[onealcd]

The pac hasn’t gotten screwed out of a spot like the big 10 has so there are probably two different views there. Once the pac has a one loss champion miss out he will probably hear it from the AD’s but a 3 loss Washington, 2 loss USC and a 2 loss Stanford do not deserve to bitch and complain.

 

[Buffnik]

"owning" the rights is correct. how they are packaged and the limitations in the way they are licensed is a big part of the pain we are currently experiencing.

my "guess" is that he opposes the idea of an expanded playoff because it would require a commitment from the conference that will be out of cycle with what they are attempting to do with their other media rights.

flexibility isn't a bad thing as content is balkanized, provided that you have a product that enough viewers want to watch. the big question is whether the rights as they are bundled and bid on are going to be worth more or less in the next go-round. how much will ESPN pay for the sec rights next time? will that be more or less than the sec will be able to garner if they were to go direct on their own? are they even positioned to do that? etc.

the p12 has made some interesting bets.

Brings up an interesting consideration. Should the Pac-12 buy some of its lower tier bowl games and broadcast them on PACN? Would that force additional carriage?

 

[Liver]

Brings up an interesting consideration. Should the Pac-12 buy some of its lower tier bowl games and broadcast them on PACN? Would that force additional carriage?

bowls lose money so i am not sure about the economics of your suggestion. i think probably the easiest way to think about it overall is: how many viewers are there in the footprint, how many out of footprint, how many in total would be "must" purchasers of p12 content, and what would they pay? this is a bit different than traditional models-- ESPN cuts a deal with the sec and that is the content for a whole bunch of households, whether they like it or not. i don't think the top down forced viewership thing is sustainable. who are the p12's viewers? how many of them can't imagine not having their games? what if every single football and bb game was live streamed to subscribers on any device, for sure, no blackouts and no tiered distribution between diff networks?

 

[MiamiBuffs]

"owning" the rights is correct. how they are packaged and the limitations in the way they are licensed is a big part of the pain we are currently experiencing.

my "guess" is that he opposes the idea of an expanded playoff because it would require a commitment from the conference that will be out of cycle with what they are attempting to do with their other media rights.

flexibility isn't a bad thing as content is balkanized, provided that you have a product that enough viewers want to watch. the big question is whether the rights as they are bundled and bid on are going to be worth more or less in the next go-round. how much will ESPN pay for the sec rights next time? will that be more or less than the sec will be able to garner if they were to go direct on their own? are they even positioned to do that? etc.

the p12 has made some interesting bets.

Ask yourself this; Would you subscribe to the SEC Net on top of Pac12N? And or the Big10 Net? And or the ACC net if they were not in a bundle? The answer to that question should be instructive in terms of fans in other regions signing up for the P12N.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Brings up an interesting consideration. Should the Pac-12 buy some of its lower tier bowl games and broadcast them on PACN? Would that force additional carriage?

Kind of an interesting feedback loop you are proposing there: The bowls, I should think, get their monies for big payouts to participant programs mainly from big TV dollars. So now the conference would be giving the bowls the big money only to get a smaller amount back to the conference for its teams.

Anyway, I think that depends on the ratings of the bowls in question and if you could make it up in advertising dollars. Keep in mind that CBS and others have bought things like NFL rights at a loss but do so because it boosted ratings elsewhere on the network (60 minutes) which balanced out the loss.

The financial soundness of all that would be highly suspect and I dont see the much maligned Mr. Scott going there.

 

[Liver]

Ask yourself this; Would you subscribe to the SEC Net on top of Pac12N? And or the Big10 Net? And or the ACC net if they were not in a bundle? The answer to that question should be instructive in terms of fans in other regions signing up for the P12N.

it isn't exactly correlated like that- there are more factors involved-- the distribution of p12 fans is of course much higher in the footprint but there are certainly lots of fans elsewhere. that's why i broke it out like i did. additionally, the competitiveness of the football matters a lot. the better the league, the more viewers outside the footprint-- also, i mentioned this-- the quality of the product.

and, lastly, hyper-regionalism has historically hurt the p12-- between the time zone issues and the concentration of coverage in the east, along with the traditional nature of the p12 fan base (many of whom really don't give any **** about football other than p12 football), the short term answer isn't to cater only to the footprint. but, all tv viewing is becoming ultra-personalized and that trend won't stop.

ultimately, there will be a much larger playoff system in place and there will be rotated national games amongst the p5 conferences. the inter-conference games and the playoffs will get national coverage, along with a few "game of the week" type matchups. everything else is going to be available to those who want it. every p5 game will be televised and available on every screen/device. for a price. the p12 is trying (although not yet succeeding) to be in front of this wave. we'll see how it shakes out.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

it isn't exactly correlated like that- there are more factors involved-- the distribution of p12 fans is of course much higher in the footprint but there are certainly lots of fans elsewhere. that's why i broke it out like i did. additionally, the competitiveness of the football matters a lot. the better the league, the more viewers outside the footprint-- also, i mentioned this-- the quality of the product.

and, lastly, hyper-regionalism has historically hurt the p12-- between the time zone issues and the concentration of coverage in the east, along with the traditional nature of the p12 fan base (many of whom really don't give any **** about football other than p12 football), the short term answer isn't to cater only to the footprint. but, all tv viewing is becoming ultra-personalized and that trend won't stop.

ultimately, there will be a much larger playoff system in place and there will be rotated national games amongst the p5 conferences. the inter-conference games and the playoffs will get national coverage, along with a few "game of the week" type matchups. everything else is going to be available to those who want it. every p5 game will be televised and available on every screen/device. for a price. the p12 is trying (although not yet succeeding) to be in front of this wave. we'll see how it shakes out.

There are trends that I think work against this thesis above....

• The world is awash in an ever growing sea of media competing for a limited number of eyeballs in a limited amount of time.
• The TV in the living room is no longer the center of the household where families gather socially to watch major events. Its often one viewer only and were not branding kids as future fans like we were when you and I were kids.
• The fan who casually consumes a 2nd game or 3rd is disappearing because he's somewhere else having DVRd the main event he interested in.
• A TV in everyones pocket offers endless streams of other content for the youngers. Were teaching those future generations that content is free too.
• Football, which can be replaced someday as the main event, has had declining participation rates because of all the bad news surrounding head trauma.

Heh whats worse about my idea you quoted is that if all 4 networks were a la carte they'd also be competing against each other price wise to get business.

The more I think about this more likely I think it is that our conference NEEDS to sells its rights and half the Pac12N to someone like NBC or CBS who've been left out of the ESPN/ABC/SEC/ACC and Fox/B1G races (if they care). CBS having less SEC might be int the mood to pick up market. NBC doesnt seem interested in playing.

Ultimately, what we want is to broadly reach both todays fans and brand the next generation. So we need a major network airing our games on free TV as well as a way to earn subscriber money. Amazon and Netflix are a nice idea for subscriber money but were trading a lot of accessibility and thus audience size.

 

[Liver]

There are trends that I think work against this thesis above....

• The world is awash in an ever growing sea of media competing for a limited number of eyeballs in a limited amount of time.
• The TV in the living room is no longer the center of the household where families gather socially to watch major events. Its often one viewer only and were not branding kids as future fans like we were when you and I were kids.
• The fan who casually consumes a 2nd game or 3rd is disappearing because he's somewhere else having DVRd the main event he interested in.
• A TV in everyones pocket offers endless streams of other content for the youngers. Were teaching those future generations that content is free too.
• Football, which can be replaced someday as the main event, has had declining participation rates because of all the bad news surrounding head trauma.

Heh whats worse about my idea you quoted is that if all 4 networks were a la carte they'd also be competing against each other price wise to get business.

The more I think about this more likely I think it is that our conference NEEDS to sells its rights and half the Pac12N to someone like NBC or CBS who've been left out of the ESPN/ABC/SEC/ACC and Fox/B1G races. Ultimately, what we want is to broadly reach both todays fans and brand the next generation. So we need a major network airing our games on free TV as well as a way to earn subscriber money. Amazon and Netflix are a nice idea for money but were trading a lot of accessibility and thus audience size.

respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about.

i will elaborate at some point when i have more time, but, in a nutshell, you want to sell off the rights at what will now be a huge discount to counter a threat that is an inevitable force that cannot be stopped. you're fighting the last war, general.

scott and the p12 plan was ill-timed and too early and badly executed, but that doesn't mean the plan itself is wrong in the long run.

more later, if i feel like it.

 

[hokiehead]

respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about.

i will elaborate at some point when i have more time, but, in a nutshell, you want to sell off the rights at what will now be a huge discount to counter a threat that is an inevitable force that cannot be stopped. you're fighting the last war, general.

scott and the p12 plan was ill-timed and too early and badly executed, but that doesn't mean the plan itself is wrong in the long run.

more later, if i feel like it.

please do. I thought Miami made some very relevant points and am interested in your rebuttal

 

[MiamiBuffs]

respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about.

i will elaborate at some point when i have more time, but, in a nutshell, you want to sell off the rights at what will now be a huge discount to counter a threat that is an inevitable force that cannot be stopped. you're fighting the last war, general.

scott and the p12 plan was ill-timed and too early and badly executed, but that doesn't mean the plan itself is wrong in the long run.

more later, if i feel like it.

Badly executed my ass; He doubled conference revenue while adding two more seats at the table too and added the nations 2nd conference only TV network. The Pac10 TV rights were up. What part of that do you not understand. Should they have just remained the Pac10 for another 10 years and 80 million dollars? The previous commissioner was hardly a visionary leader. The BIG11 network single feed channel wasnt exactly lighting it up back then. I dont think I ever had it until some DirecTV package along the way included it.

Ehhh, I guess I didnt say it well but I think something that radical more happens in 2022 when the whole kit and kabodle rights is up for bid. Maybe we give those things up in order to get the largest of the largest contract EVAR.

The trends for media consumption I dont think Im very wrong on. I think your right about high quality content but I see that quality not as conference just a half dozen football programs in any given year.

 

[Liver]

Badly executed my ass; He doubled conference revenue while adding two more seats at the table too and added the nations 2nd conference only TV network. The Pac10 TV rights were up. What part of that do you not understand. Should they have just remained the Pac10 for another 10 years and 80 million dollars? The previous commissioner was hardly a visionary leader. The BIG11 network single feed channel wasnt exactly lighting it up back then. I dont think I ever had it until some DirecTV package along the way included it.

Ehhh, I guess I didnt say it well but I think something that radical more happens in 2022 when the whole kit and kabodle rights is up for bid. Maybe we give those things up in order to get the largest of the largest contract EVAR.

The trends for media consumption I dont think Im very wrong on. I think your right about high quality content but I see that quality not as conference just a half dozen football programs in any given year.

well, you accidentally said a few correct things--- yes, big ass deals like the one you want are cyclical and we don't want do anything out of cycle without a great reason. and, yes, the right play at the time was the addition of the teams and the renegotiation, but they ****ed up in the rights retained and licensed, and at what costs and terms. for example, the reason that directv doesn't carry the p12n is because the p12 negotiated ****ty MFNs with the cable guys and directv had the benefit of going last and seeing the actual eyeball numbers. so they wouldn't pay the p12 ask. had the p12 done the deal on directv's terms then the cable guys would have been entitled to equal level pricing which would have ****ed the revenue up across the board. you amateur.

and, allow me to add that certain ott rights thrown into the cable deals coupled with the way they negotiated the selection rights across the nets was sub-optimal.

what they did right, strategically, perhaps, in the long run is owning the network outright and now you want to sell part of all of that at a market low, with no leverage. don't quit your day job, junior.

these are big deals, negotiated by trained professionals, and they move very slowly.

you and your grandma adjust your rabbit years and keep talking about "free" tv.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

It's always collegial with you.

for example, the reason that directv doesn't carry the p12n is because the p12 negotiated ****ty MFNs with the cable guys and directv had the benefit of going last and seeing the actual eyeball numbers. so they wouldn't pay the p12 ask. had the p12 done the deal on directv's terms then the cable guys would have been...

...Thrilled? DTV had their chances to achieve most favored nation status and they wouldnt bite. It's my understanding that the center of gravity for DTVs clients at the time were in the midwest and on the east coast. They wanted to pay far less than we wanted and they wanted to relegate us to add on instead of putting us inside a package. Maybe it was a mistake to not just go right over to their house, climb in their bed, and take our panties off right up front so as to get on the biggest deal in town. Cable would have been thrilled because most favored nation would have set a lower price per subscriber. Oh well.

what they did right, strategically, perhaps, in the long run is owning the network outright and now you want to sell part of all of that at a market low, with no leverage. don't quit your day job, junior.

What my point is with that is that could be the big plum thats dangled in the next round that, for the right price, takes away the cost of running the network and throws a big pile of cash at the conference. Someone like NBC then goes to DTV and the others and says its packaged with CNBC, MSNBC, and NBCSP (Or maybe Amazon bundles with FSN Regionals if they win) so take it and like it.

you and your grandma adjust your rabbit years and keep talking about "free" tv.

Growing up on the east coast I was always fascinated by the few Pac 10 games that ever came on TV. I remember watching Aikman and his saga going from OU to UCLA. On some level that planted some seeds with me regarding the west coast. My point is that this is partly how schools attract out of state students.

 

[Buffs35]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...onsidering-taking-on-private-equity-investors

 

[CarolinaBuff]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...onsidering-taking-on-private-equity-investors

I was just reading that. In summary the conference is looking to sell off 10% of their equity to an investor, or group of investors. Sounds like they're trying to put a spin on things instead of trying to actually increase distribution and value.

 

[Buffs35]

I was just reading that. In summary the conference is looking to sell off 10% of their equity to an investor, or group of investors. Sounds like they're trying to put a spin on things instead of trying to actually increase distribution and value.

View attachment 28638

Can't wait for the pro Scott/100 percent ownership crowd to spin this. Valuation seems high, but good for them if they can get that valuation. Too bad it doesn't appear to be a pairing with a major network or streaming service.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

 

[patebuff]

 

[MiamiBuffs]

2022 is a long ways away. But at least they’re thinking about the problem.

I’ll go out on a limb and guess this cash infusion might really be for the penalty for the early termination of said 2022 TV rights contract. The payoff obviously being getting revenue parity with SEC and B1G sooner. It’s risky though because TV might not pay up that level of money.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Sounds great for year one, two, maybe three; but then everyone will forget what they did with that big lump sum distribution and now realize that they have a long-term investor involved in their business affairs and another voice at the table (one that is a larger single % than any one school). This never works unless you have a bullet-proof plan to use the investment to expand aggressively in order to increase profits/distributions above and beyond the additional mouth-to-feed (just like conference expansion). Unless the investor brings more to the table than just cash; this has disaster written all over it.

This seems really desperate on the Pac-12's part. I hope I am wrong but I wasn't nervous about the state of affairs until this idea sprung up.

 

[Buffnik]

This is a good move. The brand needs repair.

 

[Darth Snow]

This is a good move. The brand needs repair.

That's a good step... as long as the brand is actually fixing what's wrong. Also, hiring the firm that worked with US Gymnastics is a great sign the brand has no intention of fixing anything. The USG's handling of their (horrific) scandal has been awful. This hire seems to be about trying to change the public's mind on the need for change instead of to trumpet changes.

 

[Buffnik]

That's a good step... as long as the brand is actually fixing what's wrong. Also, hiring the firm that worked with US Gymnastics is a great sign the brand has no intention of fixing anything. The USG's handling of their (horrific) scandal has been awful. This hire seems to be about trying to change the public's mind on the need for change instead of to trumpet changes.

Well, sure. They better not just be spin doctoring. There also need to be changes inside the Pac-12 offices. Otherwise it's empty and no one will buy what they're selling. There has to be meat on the bone, too.

 

[Darth Snow]

Well, sure. They better not just be spin doctoring. There also need to be changes inside the Pac-12 offices. Otherwise it's empty and no one will buy what they're selling. There has to be meat on the bone, too.

Given what we know of Pac 12 leadership, I think the odds are clearly in favor of a meat free bone.