(03-22-2019 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: (03-22-2019 12:13 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: (03-22-2019 08:53 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: Because this is a TV driven sport now, the Pac-12 is at a disadvantage due to their time zone. They are hurting in their ratings because of when their games are played. Night games in the Pac-12 do poorly in ratings since a good portion of the central and eastern time zones have tuned out. That alone will affect future TV revenues going forward.
Not true. Wrong. When the Pac-12 signed their current TV deal with ESPN and Fox in 2011 for a then record $3 billion over 12 years, do you think the networks were aware of the time zones at that time? This is a look at two weeks in October of Pac-12 football:
October 18th, 20th (All times are pacific)
Stanford at Arizona State 6:00 pm ESPN (Thursday)
Colorado at Washington 12:30 pm FOX
California at Oregon State 1:00 pm PAC-12 Network
Oregon at Washington State 4:30 pm FOX
USC at Utah 5:00 pm PAC-12 Network
Arizona at UCLA 7:30 pm ESPN2
October 26th, 27th
Utah at UCLA 7:30 pm ESPN (Friday Night)
Oregon State at Colorado 12:00 pm PAC-12 Network
Arizona State at USC 12:30 pm ABC
Washington at California 3:30 pm FS1
Washington State at Stanford 4:00 pm PAC-12 Network
Oregon at Arizona 7:30 pm ESPN
For these two weekends, three of the twelve games started at 7:30 in the west or 10:30 in the east. Two of the games were Saturday Night games. If you live in the west, that is a normal time for a night game. If it doesn't work out for the east coast, then it is an east coast issue. But most of the Pac-12 games are during the day.
On the weekend of the October 26th, ESPN had Oregon at Arizona at 7:30, ESPN2 had Hawaii at Fresno State at 7:30 and ESPNU had San Diego State at Nevada at 7:30. Typical Saturday Night in October in the Pacific time zone.
The problem is, two out of the six weekend games are on the Pac-12 Network. Since few people are watching the Pac-12 Network, they could start the games at any time of the day. Two of the six games are not being seen regardless of starting time because they are on the Pac-12 Network.
Which gets us back to the original topic of this thread, which is finding investors for the Pac-12. Larry Scott has mismanaged the conference and now he wants to find some suckers to bail him out. He may pull it off, but that does not mean an investment in the Pac-12 Network is a good idea. But at least the people losing the money on this scheme will be people that can afford it.
Agreed - that schedule is just about PERFECT in terms of time of day distribution:
1 Thursday night
1 Friday night
3 noon-ish games (2 per week)
4 mid-day games (3:30, 4:00, 4:30 and 5:00)
2 prime-time games (local time)
NOTE: the mid-day Pacific games ARE prime-time on the East coast.
Having half of their East-coast prime-time games on the Pac-12 Network would be fine... IF anyone actually, you know, HAD the PTN.
PTN does need an investor, but Leisure Suit Larry is going about it all wrong, IMO - the one investor the Pac-12 needs is ESPN, and I think they need to sell them a 50% stake. Do that and every cable company West of the Rockie Mountains will carry the PTN within 3 years, tops (and that accounting for time to repair the relationships Larry Scott has damaged).
Oh, and Scott has to go.
they might NEED (badly) for ESPN to be an investor, but ESPN needs them the least and ESPN is in the worst shape to take them (not saying ESPN is in bad shape per say they are just in the worst shape to take the PAC12n)
1. ESPN does not need the overhead of a studio, trucks, talking heads and everything else that ESPN has been cutting back on sharply with two rounds of firings and cut backs
2. ESPN just took on the Fox properties and still needs to dispose of some of them and is having trouble doing so....sure ESPN might have kept some or all of them if regulators did not require the sales, but the sales are required and going slower than expected and for less than expected
3. ESPN still needs to successfully merge what they have kept after the sell offs so adding the PAC12n into that mix with all of the PAC12n issues is not a good idea at least in the near term and middle term future
4. ESPN has the ACCn to deal with and to get up and running and to force on cable MSOs/Subscribers and that is becoming less and less popular
5. it has been PROVEN by the market that there are no repercussions for cable MSOs to say no to the PAC12n and even to drop it
hardly the battle ESPN wants to fight with the need to cram the ACCn especially when there is zero doubt that the cable MSOs can tell ESPN (or any other potential partner) that no one wants the network and no one cares if they carry the network or not
and ESPN trying to cram that on cable MSOs with all of the other 4 headaches associated with taking on the PAC12n is simply a horrible move for ESPN and really could be the leak that burst the dam on cable MSOs holding out and challenging ESPN/Disney/ABC to go ahead and pull all their channels from them because they refuse to carry a channel that the market has clearly and resoundingly said they do not want
6. the PAC12n makes next to nothing they would have to practically GIVE the network to ESPN to make it worth it to ESPN because as of now the profits are $24 million or so and ESPN does not need the overhead, but getting rid of it does not come for free and if ESPN was to do so they should expect pretty much all the profits from doing so....and they should expect a large amount of the profits for cramming the network onto cable MSOs as well
/
PAC 12 looking for someone to invest 750 million to bail them out
, look up specialty license plates from North Carolina stretching all the way out to the state of Texas. See how many Alabama and Auburn license plates you find. See how many Georgia license plates you'll find. Then compare that to how many Pac12 specialty license plates you would find in any state. And yes, I actually want you to do this. 
