Pac-10 network wants premium games
by Brian Floyd on Aug 2, 2010 10:10 AM PDT
Email
PrintAs part of the media tour last week, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott began revealing plans for the Pac-10 Network. The Big Ten Network put the model in place for a conference network -- with its success earning schools piles of money -- but Scott is looking to deviate from the plan.
“We’re not that far along in our planning,” Scott said.
But his goal is to have “more premier programming” than the “third-tier” games he said were on the Big Ten Network. The selection process for Big Ten football games greatly favors putting better games with greater ratings potential on ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC.
Thus far, conference networks are a haven for lower level games that don't get picked up by regional or national telecasts. The niche market is what's made the Big Ten Network so successful. By not using the early days of the Pac-10 Network in the same way, Scott is going against the proven model of success for a conference network.
Scott publicly announcing he would like premium games on the Pac-10 Network is another move to drum up interest in the Pac-10. It may be true, or it may be a attempt to draw in suitors for a Pac-10 Network while playing that against the major networks (ESPN/ABC, FSN). If the goal is to get the Pac-10 network on a close-to-basic cable package, this would do it.
On the flip side, this sounds like a negotiation ploy. By threatening to pull premium games off the main networks -- and subsequently adding them to a Pac-10 Network -- it creates a situation where the networks could pay a premium to ensure the high profile games stay on the major broadcasts. It's a simple -- yet typically successful -- tactic.
As Scott said, the planning for a Pac-10 Network is still in its infancy. A Pac-10 Network with a good number of "premium games" would be great, but only if the whole country could see it. If the goal is to increase exposure for the conference nationwide, the network needs to be readily available outside of the footprint. If it's not, this is likely part of some public posturing for the upcoming TV negotiations.
10 comments
|
Do you like this story?
Comments
This has to be posturing.
If there was a huge Pac10 game on and it was on the Pac10 Network most east coast viewers wouldn’t watch it, because they would find something relevant to their area to watch—but if it is on a major network like ABC or ESPN they will be more likely to watch it—especially if GameDay was involved. This big Pac10 game would over ride their local game. If every conference started holding their own premier games it could hurt the college football scene and revenues. Imagine 10 years down the road and the Pac10, Big10, ACC, SEC, etc. all play their own premier games—it would cause overlap and less interest by the nation, plus I don’t think the major networks will allow this to happen. There will always need to be a nation stage. We don’t want this to become like FoxSports regional.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
While it may just be posturing, I wouldn't be too surprised if it wasn't
Having major games on your network forces cable systems and Satellite providers to not only carry the network but put it on a lower tier of programming. This also allows the Network to raise their premiums and make more money. If providers refuse to carry the network on a low tier, they face a huge amount of customer backlash. This is similar to the NFL Network model. There was huge controversy when they decided to carry Thursday Night games on the network, but after a lot of fights with providers, it worked and they had to be picked up. I don’t know if this model will work for the Pac-10, as they don’t have as much power or clout as the NFL, but it is defiantly a strategy that Scott can implement to grow the new network.
But no one can afford to call the NFL's bluff
That isn’t the case with the Pac-10. Is it more likely that cable and satellite providers will pay the premiums, or is it more likely they’ll say “hey, we have survived this long with FSN carrying the Pac-10 games, why should we pay more?”
I just don’t see us as having such a strong position to be able to pull an NFL-type stunt. It really could backfire.
by johnnycougar on Aug 2, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think he's actually going to try it
I think of this more as a feeler right now. He’s gauging interest in the network, seeing if he can get it available outside the footprint, and also looking for ways to drive up the bidding for the main contract.
yeah, but the nfl was trying to get cable companies to put the network in the basic package
i don’t think the pac-10’s trying to do that (at least everywhere). i think they’re just trying to get onto the sports tier.
although regionally, the pac-10 has as much leverage as the nfl does nationally.
if the pac-10 network decided to put the usc/ucla game on their network only, the west coast would lose their minds.
USC Vs Ucla is okay
but if we are playing them, we hope to have that network available to all.
by well you win some and lose others on Aug 2, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
With the state of the programt
A Pac network is the best thing that could happen right now.
by Brian Floyd on Aug 2, 2010 12:54 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Larry scott would have liked if the Big 12 south joined too
He is good at what he does, and that is find where the money is and make deals to get it.
To make good deals you have to throw out many ideas and see what sticks. I don’t expect many of his ideas to stick, but more ideas will stick with him slinging them often than the previous commissioner ever accomplished.
Is nation wide Direct TV and Dish network coverage good enough to keep the top games on the PAC 10 network? If so I think that is what will happen, with local cable companies out west picking up the station and eastern cable companies putting it in a college sports package.
More likely would be a deal like the Mountain West Network, where the PAC 10 network has priority over a handful of top games throughout the season (Utah-BYU being one), with the cable partners then having picks of the line up each week. After that, the PAC 10 network would have rights to any games they want.
The MWC network deal does not allow teams to get outside deals for games they choose not to cover, like Utah vs. San Jose St. this year. I hope this part does not get adopted, though with the PAC 10 every games should be covered, except for the very few games with FCS opponents.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
