|
Post by obf on Mar 2, 2018 8:50:02 GMT -8
Lots of great conversation in the thread! Too many folks to quote so here are some quick thoughts: Re: Fixed vs variable revenue...Really the fixed revenue should just be taken out of the conversation. OSU is getting my seat donation regardless of how many home games I actually get to buy season tickets for... I think the home game can STILL be argued to bring in more revenue than a body bag game. And again none of that even speaks to the benefits of an extra potential win, the extra community money from an extra home game, and the extra benefits for a much larger percentage of beaver nation. Sure, maybe the game at Penn state or Madison was fun for a few fans who actually got to go, but for someone like me who neither has the time or the money to fly to a destination, pay for a hotel, pay for tickets, etc. I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have the opportunity to see the Beavs live against ANYONE than watch them on TV, let alone watch them get demoralized and beat up... That lead to... Re: Lower attendance at sporting events:This is a trend I just don't get... Yeah, every sport is on TV now, and that makes the actual game times a little less convenient, and my couch is comfy and warm, and I can sit in my undies with a six pack next to me... Bah Hum Bug! Live sporting events are just SOOOOOOOO much better! Especially college ones! Granted I live in Corvallis so I am not treking down from Portland every Saturday, and maybe that would make my view different if I was. Of course the trend is real. Specifically for the Beavers I think we could tie it more closely to losses than increased TV watchers (yet another reason to have a nice early season win vs a nobody than an ugly loss vs a big name). Re: Lower TV ratings:So... we just blamed the lower attendance on the proliferation of sports on TV... But wait a second those ratings have gone down too! OH NO SPORTS ARE DEAD NO ONE IS GOING OR WATCHING ANYMORE!!!!! Hmm.... well, I don't buy that either. Clearly, we are underrating the effect of the internet. wilkyisdashiznit , I am not sure where you got your streaming numbers, but at least anecdotally I just don't believe them. I don't know ANYONE who consumes a bulk of their entertainment through traditional sources anymore! The only people I know who still have cable AT ALL either only use it for internet or only for the sports packages. One factor that no one wants to admit to is that pirated streams (thanks reddit!) have a HUGE viewership, and no one knows how to count it or stop it. Re: Football is dying:So... attendance is down, viewership is down, participation in youth leagues is down, big lawsuits are looming, sigh.... I guess my favorite sport is going the way of the dinosaur... hmmm... maybe. As long as there is big time money to be made the athletes will be streaming in to make it, regardless of risk, and as long as there is violence there will be people to pay for it. Let's be honest, sex and violence are the two most marketable things in the world, and have been since the beginning of modern man... Football has them both, and alcohol and food to boot. If we strip out the violence then, yeah I could see the engine being ripped out of the sports car that is the NFL/NCAA, but I just don't think there will be enough outrage to completely strip out the physical nature of the game. I hope it becomes safer, and I hope that there is more emphasis on fundamental tackling and not gratuitous torpedo head shots, but if the physicality of the game ever does become much less than it is now, you could be right, we may all just have to fall in love with the other football... I will have to say, though, as appalling as I personally found it (the fans being upset, not the players protesting), I think the whole anthem protest and the fans who stopped watching because of it out number the fans who stopped watching because of an aversion to and a way to protest hard hits that cause concussions... Re: Varsity e-sports:I say this as an avid video game player... Are you f*&^ing kidding me?!?!?! Of course in light of the discussion above, we may have actually found where all the attenders and watchers are going. A quick illustrative story... My son enjoys sports, he enjoys television, he plays video games, however his FAVORITE thing to do is watch "Dantdm" or "Pat and Jen" or any number of other youtubers. By far and away YOUTUBE is his main source of down time entertainment. He would rather watch THEM play minecraft than play it himself. Twitch (a streaming video service DEDICATED to streaming others playing video games) is blowing up, Youtubers like dantdm have 20+million subscribers, his videos get almost a million views as soon as they go up and many of them approach 40 million after a week. And that is just one semi famous youtuber. The way we consume entertainment and the entertainment we enjoy is changing vastly, on many fronts. That may indeed mean the death of our favorite traditional sports, but more likely it just means those traditional sports will have to pivot and find a way to use the new viewership modes to their advantage, and maybe even change their game to more closely match what people want.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Mar 2, 2018 10:03:02 GMT -8
I was lucky enough to come into tickets for the Terrace for the Stanford game last season. It's a phenomenal place to watch a game from. I don't drink, so paying a premium for access to alcohol doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, but if money wasn't an object, I think I would pick sitting in the Terrace over the Club. I've been sitting out in the elements long enough that it doesn't really bother me, and you're closer to the field there than I think pretty much any other seat in the stadium. When we had a hail mary at the end of that game, it felt like the pass was going to land in my lap. Loved it.
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Mar 2, 2018 10:30:28 GMT -8
Except for the dumb arse idea of the Terrace!!! Holy sh1t! We agree on something! I was editing as you posted This may be the end of the world And I agree! The Zombie apocalypse is upon us - I had a zombie dream last night, very strange.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Mar 2, 2018 10:33:08 GMT -8
This was a depressing read thru. Shoot me if E-sports becomes eligible for college scholarships Go Beavs? BANG BANG. UC-Irvine and Utah already offer scholarships. eae.utah.edu/esports/Wow am I just old as F? Seriously, college scholarships? I better start getting my boys on an 8 hour x-box schedule
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Mar 2, 2018 10:36:43 GMT -8
Lots of great conversation in the thread! Too many folks to quote so here are some quick thoughts: Re: Fixed vs variable revenue...Really the fixed revenue should just be taken out of the conversation. OSU is getting my seat donation regardless of how many home games I actually get to buy season tickets for... I think the home game can STILL be argued to bring in more revenue than a body bag game. And again none of that even speaks to the benefits of an extra potential win, the extra community money from an extra home game, and the extra benefits for a much larger percentage of beaver nation. Sure, maybe the game at Penn state or Madison was fun for a few fans who actually got to go, but for someone like me who neither has the time or the money to fly to a destination, pay for a hotel, pay for tickets, etc. I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have the opportunity to see the Beavs live against ANYONE than watch them on TV, let alone watch them get demoralized and beat up... That lead to... Re: Lower attendance at sporting events:This is a trend I just don't get... Yeah, every sport is on TV now, and that makes the actual game times a little less convenient, and my couch is comfy and warm, and I can sit in my undies with a six pack next to me... Bah Hum Bug! Live sporting events are just SOOOOOOOO much better! Especially college ones! Granted I live in Corvallis so I am not treking down from Portland every Saturday, and maybe that would make my view different if I was. Of course the trend is real. Specifically for the Beavers I think we could tie it more closely to losses than increased TV watchers (yet another reason to have a nice early season win vs a nobody than an ugly loss vs a big name). Re: Lower TV ratings:So... we just blamed the lower attendance on the proliferation of sports on TV... But wait a second those ratings have gone down too! OH NO SPORTS ARE DEAD NO ONE IS GOING OR WATCHING ANYMORE!!!!! Hmm.... well, I don't buy that either. Clearly, we are underrating the effect of the internet. wilkyisdashiznit , I am not sure where you got your streaming numbers, but at least anecdotally I just don't believe them. I don't know ANYONE who consumes a bulk of their entertainment through traditional sources anymore! The only people I know who still have cable AT ALL either only use it for internet or only for the sports packages. One factor that no one wants to admit to is that pirated streams (thanks reddit!) have a HUGE viewership, and no one knows how to count it or stop it. Re: Football is dying:So... attendance is down, viewership is down, participation in youth leagues is down, big lawsuits are looming, sigh.... I guess my favorite sport is going the way of the dinosaur... hmmm... maybe. As long as there is big time money to be made the athletes will be streaming in to make it, regardless of risk, and as long as there is violence there will be people to pay for it. Let's be honest, sex and violence are the two most marketable things in the world, and have been since the beginning of modern man... Football has them both, and alcohol and food to boot. If we strip out the violence then, yeah I could see the engine being ripped out of the sports car that is the NFL/NCAA, but I just don't think there will be enough outrage to completely strip out the physical nature of the game. I hope it becomes safer, and I hope that there is more emphasis on fundamental tackling and not gratuitous torpedo head shots, but if the physicality of the game ever does become much less than it is now, you could be right, we may all just have to fall in love with the other football... I will have to say, though, as appalling as I personally found it (the fans being upset, not the players protesting), I think the whole anthem protest and the fans who stopped watching because of it out number the fans who stopped watching because of an aversion to and a way to protest hard hits that cause concussions... Re: Varsity e-sports:I say this as an avid video game player... Are you f*&^ing kidding me?!?!?! Of course in light of the discussion above, we may have actually found where all the attenders and watchers are going. A quick illustrative story... My son enjoys sports, he enjoys television, he plays video games, however his FAVORITE thing to do is watch "Dantdm" or "Pat and Jen" or any number of other youtubers. By far and away YOUTUBE is his main source of down time entertainment. He would rather watch THEM play minecraft than play it himself. Twitch (a streaming video service DEDICATED to streaming others playing video games) is blowing up, Youtubers like dantdm have 20+million subscribers, his videos get almost a million views as soon as they go up and many of them approach 40 million after a week. And that is just one semi famous youtuber. The way we consume entertainment and the entertainment we enjoy is changing vastly, on many fronts. That may indeed mean the death of our favorite traditional sports, but more likely it just means those traditional sports will have to pivot and find a way to use the new viewership modes to their advantage, and maybe even change their game to more closely match what people want. E sports are huge, especially with the extremely valuable 15-35 male demographic. Just as there are only a few players that are physically elite enough to get the schollies and then go on to make the big bucks, there are only a few players in e-sports who can make teams and play for literally millions at tournaments around the world. I have always believed (after getting my ar$e kicked way back when by my 5-6 year old sons, that the reason the US has the best fighter pilots in the world is because of the technology they grew up on. My kids were able to take games and keep a 4-D (time included) spatial awareness of the game and the other players that left me getting stomped on any time I tried to fly or battle with them. But I could sure hit a baseball farther than them (though they were better at football than I ever was). The only problem is e-sports fall flat with girls (presented here as a schollie issue) - as a person in the business I used to visit local high schools on career days to talk about tech jobs. Almost no girls in attendance at my sessions. It is both social and cultural. I knew of few young ladies that would be caught dead playing games all night as a teen, let alone tearing into computers and hanging with the geeks (I was part geek way back in the day), it just isn't cool. Sad. And it also explains some of the very sexist edge there is in the industry, which sucks, but that is a topic for a different board.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 2, 2018 12:36:14 GMT -8
Lots of great conversation in the thread! Too many folks to quote so here are some quick thoughts: Re: Fixed vs variable revenue...Really the fixed revenue should just be taken out of the conversation. OSU is getting my seat donation regardless of how many home games I actually get to buy season tickets for... I think the home game can STILL be argued to bring in more revenue than a body bag game. And again none of that even speaks to the benefits of an extra potential win, the extra community money from an extra home game, and the extra benefits for a much larger percentage of beaver nation. Sure, maybe the game at Penn state or Madison was fun for a few fans who actually got to go, but for someone like me who neither has the time or the money to fly to a destination, pay for a hotel, pay for tickets, etc. I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have the opportunity to see the Beavs live against ANYONE than watch them on TV, let alone watch them get demoralized and beat up... That lead to... Re: Lower attendance at sporting events:This is a trend I just don't get... Yeah, every sport is on TV now, and that makes the actual game times a little less convenient, and my couch is comfy and warm, and I can sit in my undies with a six pack next to me... Bah Hum Bug! Live sporting events are just SOOOOOOOO much better! Especially college ones! Granted I live in Corvallis so I am not treking down from Portland every Saturday, and maybe that would make my view different if I was. Of course the trend is real. Specifically for the Beavers I think we could tie it more closely to losses than increased TV watchers (yet another reason to have a nice early season win vs a nobody than an ugly loss vs a big name). Re: Lower TV ratings:So... we just blamed the lower attendance on the proliferation of sports on TV... But wait a second those ratings have gone down too! OH NO SPORTS ARE DEAD NO ONE IS GOING OR WATCHING ANYMORE!!!!! Hmm.... well, I don't buy that either. Clearly, we are underrating the effect of the internet. wilkyisdashiznit , I am not sure where you got your streaming numbers, but at least anecdotally I just don't believe them. I don't know ANYONE who consumes a bulk of their entertainment through traditional sources anymore! The only people I know who still have cable AT ALL either only use it for internet or only for the sports packages. One factor that no one wants to admit to is that pirated streams (thanks reddit!) have a HUGE viewership, and no one knows how to count it or stop it. Re: Football is dying:So... attendance is down, viewership is down, participation in youth leagues is down, big lawsuits are looming, sigh.... I guess my favorite sport is going the way of the dinosaur... hmmm... maybe. As long as there is big time money to be made the athletes will be streaming in to make it, regardless of risk, and as long as there is violence there will be people to pay for it. Let's be honest, sex and violence are the two most marketable things in the world, and have been since the beginning of modern man... Football has them both, and alcohol and food to boot. If we strip out the violence then, yeah I could see the engine being ripped out of the sports car that is the NFL/NCAA, but I just don't think there will be enough outrage to completely strip out the physical nature of the game. I hope it becomes safer, and I hope that there is more emphasis on fundamental tackling and not gratuitous torpedo head shots, but if the physicality of the game ever does become much less than it is now, you could be right, we may all just have to fall in love with the other football... I will have to say, though, as appalling as I personally found it (the fans being upset, not the players protesting), I think the whole anthem protest and the fans who stopped watching because of it out number the fans who stopped watching because of an aversion to and a way to protest hard hits that cause concussions... Re: Varsity e-sports:I say this as an avid video game player... Are you f*&^ing kidding me?!?!?! Of course in light of the discussion above, we may have actually found where all the attenders and watchers are going. A quick illustrative story... My son enjoys sports, he enjoys television, he plays video games, however his FAVORITE thing to do is watch "Dantdm" or "Pat and Jen" or any number of other youtubers. By far and away YOUTUBE is his main source of down time entertainment. He would rather watch THEM play minecraft than play it himself. Twitch (a streaming video service DEDICATED to streaming others playing video games) is blowing up, Youtubers like dantdm have 20+million subscribers, his videos get almost a million views as soon as they go up and many of them approach 40 million after a week. And that is just one semi famous youtuber. The way we consume entertainment and the entertainment we enjoy is changing vastly, on many fronts. That may indeed mean the death of our favorite traditional sports, but more likely it just means those traditional sports will have to pivot and find a way to use the new viewership modes to their advantage, and maybe even change their game to more closely match what people want. Paying to stream NFL games is about one-fortieth of average television viewership. That cannot include illegal viewership, which does not help the NFL. If people are watching streams of something other than football, that is not going to help football either. I think that some of the drop off in viewership is the NFL's failure to transition to a more internet-based distribution system. However, the internet has destroyed traditional music and movie distribution markets. So, I do not know how realistic it is to say that the NFL and NCAA are going to out-smart the internet, when Big Music and Hollywood failed. One of the things that is currently acting to keep the Pac-12 down is that Larry Scott thought that he knew better than the Big Ten and tried to build the Pac-12 network without the help from a big-time media corporation. That endeavor has mostly blown up in the Pac-12's face. Whereas, the ACC, SEC, and Texas all fell in lockstep with the Big Ten and succeeded. Movies have largely survived thanks to making the viewing experience better. Attendance at cinemas has increased. However, for football, while paying viewership numbers have cratered, attendance numbers are also nosing downward. As obf points out, if viewership is cratering, you would expect that attendance would increase and vice versa. To have both trending downwards, especially while the national market has generally been positive, indicates that something else is draining all of the interest out of the system. It could be that some deus ex machina will apparate and save the current football system. (I think that the problems with the NFL are solvable, but the NFL is taking no action to solve them. The NCAA's problems are solvable, but the NCAA appears too incompetent or powerless to solve them.) Regardless, all of the data is trending downwards. I personally think that no (or at least insufficient) actions have been taken to actual solve any problems; thus, I believe that the current trends will continue. You can try and put lipstick on the pig that is football, but, at this point at least, it is still a pig.
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Mar 19, 2018 7:17:50 GMT -8
God damnit guys. I came here looking for response on the information contained in the article, of which there is a ton. Instead you guys are getting all sweaty over a couple typos, as if your favorite sportswriter never has any, or you haven't screwed up a word on this board ever. Credit should go to Moran for attending this event (to my knowledge, Eggers didn't post anything about the town hall, nor did the Gazette Times. Now, if we could actually go over the content: - I love that we're treating that extra money going to the previous coaching staff as an ongoing expense, rather than a one time thing coming off the books. Nice to see that will be re-invested in current coaches.
- Season tickets fell off 15% during the GA tenure. 15%!!!
- Barnes suggests we classify money spent on football different from other schools. Why? Do we know for a fact that other schools do in fact factor in debt service, game ops, etc. in their calculations? This sounds like convenient accounting to me.
- I've long said that I disagree with non conference football scheduling for wins. We should schedule games people are going to attend or that are going to make us money. If someone knows what a home game vs. Portland State Labor Day Weekend makes us vs. a roady at the Horseshoe, I'd love to see it. If our goal is to make our football team better AND increase revenues, playing good teams on the road for a pay day seems a great way to do it. Plus, you play games that people want to travel to, that's a built in way to spend a weekend with your biggest donors. I know that Our Beaver Nation invites top donors to travel with them for one road game a year, typically a big non-conference game if available. It makes sense to me that having this big marquee games would be a great way to get people to increase their donations to a level that gets them an invite, as opposed to getting invited to travel to Stanford again. Only once in the last twenty years (2010) did we lose a one-off game that prevented us from making a bowl game, and that was vs. a freaking Mountain West team, so I don't buy this "losing those games is bad for our culture." We had a dip in 2011 thanks to roster turnover (we started an insane amount of freshman in 2011), but 2012 was our best season since the Fiesta Bowl. Didn't seem like it really hurt us to play those games. People worried about our national reputation should realize that we've never had one. We had one shot to raise our profile after the 2000 season, and we sucked.
- Doesn't sound like he's too keen on the idea of revamping the West Side right now, unless we do something goofy like turn it into a partial stadium/strip mall. Nothing says big-time college athletics like having an H&R Block behind section 15. Of course it's not his fault that we don't have the money to just finish the thing the right way.
- Bringing back men's track? Doesn't that mean adding another women's sport? Why no mention of that?
- I love that Barnes/Ray are critical of other ADs and presidents for bashing the conference tv deal, then proceed to bash those ADs and Presidents for "getting out over their skis." Seemed like a good opportunity to just be the bigger school and move on.
- The dropping Nike thing makes sense only if we are getting a significantly better deal from someone else. We're the closest major conference school to Nike, and I know that we test quite a lot of their new performance gear for them. That seems like a great marketing tool - come here and get to wear the latest Nike high performance gear before anyone else and provide them feedback to improve it.
I like the football games against top opponents, but this does more harm than good to a struggling team. Source: I played football.
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Mar 19, 2018 7:24:41 GMT -8
I still think St. Dennis had it right when he said "we need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head". Exactly, the entire Pac12 needs to slow it roll. We already play 9 conference games. USC totally shot themselves in the foot last year with their dumb OOC scheduling (W Mich, Texas, ND).
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 19, 2018 7:46:27 GMT -8
USC totally shot themselves in the foot last year with their dumb OOC scheduling (W Mich, Texas, ND). USC defeated Texas and WMU last year. It always plays ND, so that isn't even a factor in its OOC scheduling, it's a given they'll play ND. So I guess I don't see how their OOC hurt them. Most people would consider beating WMU, a 2016 Cotton Bowl team, and Texas to be a pretty major accomplishment.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 19, 2018 13:13:56 GMT -8
I still think St. Dennis had it right when he said "we need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head". Exactly, the entire Pac12 needs to slow it roll. We already play 9 conference games. USC totally shot themselves in the foot last year with their dumb OOC scheduling (W Mich, Texas, ND). The Pac-12 shot USC in the foot last year. The Trojans' non-conference schedule was already set. The Pac-12 then scheduled nine conference games such that USC did not have a bye. The Pac-12 then scheduled the Trojans to play in Berkeley and then play in Pullman six days later. At the same time, the Pac-12 scheduled it so that Washington State had four home games in a row leading up to the game with USC. Washington State 30 - USC 27. To compound matters, two weeks later, the Pac-12 scheduled the Cougars to play a road game against California on a Friday, fewer than six days after having to play a night game in Eugene. California 37 - Washington State 3. The Pac-12 then made California play in the Rose Bowl less than six days after playing on the Farm in the Big Game. UCLA 30 - California 27. The Pac-12 North was decided on a Friday night game that Stanford won on the Farm. Oregon finished with a bye, a home game against Arizona, and then a home game on a short week against Oregon State. The result was an unsurprising one-sided Civil War. The home team wound up going 6-1 on Friday games. To be more specific, the best team in the conference, Washington, did not even win its division, because of idiotic scheduling on the part of the conference. This opened the door for the second best team to win the conference with an extra loss, because of idiotic scheduling on the part of the conference, over the third-best team. None of the top three teams in the Pac-12 teams deserved to be a CFP team this year, so, ultimately, it all worked out, except inasmuch as the conference missed out on the extra $2 million that comes with placing a team in the CFP. There may be examples to choose from that make your point. 2017 USC is not one of them in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Mar 19, 2018 13:58:15 GMT -8
That $3B TV contract we signed back in 2011 demanded Friday night games. I found a Forbes article that says that deal increased per school revenue from media rights by $16 Million. Nobody was complaining about Larry Scott or having to play on a Friday night then. If we're complaining about the $2M (approximately $175K per school), that seems a bit ridiculous. I mean, the argument seems to be that the Pac-12 would be better off with crap non conference scheduling and fewer conference games than it is with the current model that netted us the $3B to begin with. Are we better off at Oregon State with a few more wins and millions less in revenue than we are now? I don't know.
Let's assume that we had only 8 conference games over the past three seasons, and that we conveniently remove three losses and replace them with 3 wins against crummy schools. Let's also assume that we didn't play Michigan (I'm going to leave in CSU, Boise, and Minnesota, as those are all home and home deals against decent but not great competition). So we are adding 4 wins over the past three years, making us 4-8 in 2015, 5-7 in 2016, and 2-10 in 2017. Now we are 11-25 in the GA era, 4-20 in conference games. Are we in a better place? Are there more fans in the stands? Do we get better recruits? I doubt it, because if we went to that model, all the other Pac-12 schools are replacing conference games with punching bags as well, meaning we're still low man on the totem pole for most recruits.
And seriously, we're going to complain about USC and Washington getting the shaft in something? Again, someone's got to play in those games. If it's us, everyone cries "they always give the USC's and Washington's all the breaks so the little guy never gets a shot!"
People are acting like it's Larry Scott's fault that ESPN and Fox don't want to pay as much for Pac-12 football as they do for SEC or Big Ten football. Like he didn't take the best deal offered.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 19, 2018 14:20:28 GMT -8
I think his point was, the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC would never do that in scheduling to their top teams. It puts the Pac-12 at a scheduling disadvantage when competing for a playoff spot, relative to its peers in contention for the same spots.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Mar 19, 2018 14:46:50 GMT -8
I think his point was, the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC would never do that in scheduling to their top teams. It puts the Pac-12 at a scheduling disadvantage when competing for a playoff spot, relative to its peers in contention for the same spots. Clemson played a Friday road game vs. Syracuse this year. They lost. Florida State played a Friday road game vs. Boston College. They lost. The ACC is in the same boat we are for the most part, though maybe for different reasons. Big Ten, Big 12, SEC....they're not. They don't have to play Fridays because they can play Saturday noon eastern time games on national TV. We can't do that. I can't even imagine the uproar if we tried to play a 9am local time game. The fact of the matter is that the Pac-12 is time zonally challenged. We can't play noon Eastern Time games on Saturdays. I'm trying to imagine the uproar of a 9am kick. If we play mid day games, nobody watches because the crazed SEC/Big10 fans are all watching their games. So we play late at night, only that sucks because all those rowdy midwestern and southern folks are passed out drunk or out drinking more to celebrate/drown their sorrows. So we play Fridays to get at least some people in other time zones to watch our games. And it sucks....but again the option is to take less money from a TV deal and disadvantage our programs that way. Pick your poison.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 19, 2018 15:23:53 GMT -8
That $3B TV contract we signed back in 2011 demanded Friday night games. I found a Forbes article that says that deal increased per school revenue from media rights by $16 Million. Nobody was complaining about Larry Scott or having to play on a Friday night then. If we're complaining about the $2M (approximately $175K per school), that seems a bit ridiculous. I mean, the argument seems to be that the Pac-12 would be better off with crap non conference scheduling and fewer conference games than it is with the current model that netted us the $3B to begin with. Are we better off at Oregon State with a few more wins and millions less in revenue than we are now? I don't know. Let's assume that we had only 8 conference games over the past three seasons, and that we conveniently remove three losses and replace them with 3 wins against crummy schools. Let's also assume that we didn't play Michigan (I'm going to leave in CSU, Boise, and Minnesota, as those are all home and home deals against decent but not great competition). So we are adding 4 wins over the past three years, making us 4-8 in 2015, 5-7 in 2016, and 2-10 in 2017. Now we are 11-25 in the GA era, 4-20 in conference games. Are we in a better place? Are there more fans in the stands? Do we get better recruits? I doubt it, because if we went to that model, all the other Pac-12 schools are replacing conference games with punching bags as well, meaning we're still low man on the totem pole for most recruits. And seriously, we're going to complain about USC and Washington getting the shaft in something? Again, someone's got to play in those games. If it's us, everyone cries "they always give the USC's and Washington's all the breaks so the little guy never gets a shot!" People are acting like it's Larry Scott's fault that ESPN and Fox don't want to pay as much for Pac-12 football as they do for SEC or Big Ten football. Like he didn't take the best deal offered. I personally do not have a dog in the fight. I was responding to biggieorange's post. 2017 USC is a poor example of tough scheduling undoing a season. It seems a much better example of a conference actively mediocritizing the best teams in the conference, preventing them from playing in the CFP. A problem with the setup was that the conference removed good games that would have played well on Saturday and moved them to Friday, when no one would watch them. This meant that the games not being chosen for College GameDay and not receiving pre-game hype from the same program. For example, the Pac-12's premier game on the September 29-30 weekend was #5 USC @ # 16 Washington State, one of three games featuring ranked teams that weekend. The day after Washington State upset USC, College Gameday went to Blacksburg to hype Clemson and Virginia Tech. The ratings for USC-Washington State were more than 66% less than Clemson-Virginia Tech. The game that should have been on a Friday? The 42-7 Washington-Oregon State beat-down that aired on the Pac-12 Networks. Two weekends later, #8 Washington State traveled to Berkeley to play 3-3 California. The Bears won 37-3. College Gameday went to Harrisonburg, Virginia, to watch Villanova and James Madison not play basketball. UCLA-Arizona would have been a better game to put on Friday. Four weekends later, #9 Washington traveled to 6-3 Stanford. The Cardinal won 30-22. Oregon State and Arizona would have been a better game for the Friday night slot or Arizona State @ UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Mar 19, 2018 15:27:25 GMT -8
That $3B TV contract we signed back in 2011 demanded Friday night games. I found a Forbes article that says that deal increased per school revenue from media rights by $16 Million. Nobody was complaining about Larry Scott or having to play on a Friday night then. If we're complaining about the $2M (approximately $175K per school), that seems a bit ridiculous. I mean, the argument seems to be that the Pac-12 would be better off with crap non conference scheduling and fewer conference games than it is with the current model that netted us the $3B to begin with. Are we better off at Oregon State with a few more wins and millions less in revenue than we are now? I don't know. Let's assume that we had only 8 conference games over the past three seasons, and that we conveniently remove three losses and replace them with 3 wins against crummy schools. Let's also assume that we didn't play Michigan (I'm going to leave in CSU, Boise, and Minnesota, as those are all home and home deals against decent but not great competition). So we are adding 4 wins over the past three years, making us 4-8 in 2015, 5-7 in 2016, and 2-10 in 2017. Now we are 11-25 in the GA era, 4-20 in conference games. Are we in a better place? Are there more fans in the stands? Do we get better recruits? I doubt it, because if we went to that model, all the other Pac-12 schools are replacing conference games with punching bags as well, meaning we're still low man on the totem pole for most recruits. And seriously, we're going to complain about USC and Washington getting the shaft in something? Again, someone's got to play in those games. If it's us, everyone cries "they always give the USC's and Washington's all the breaks so the little guy never gets a shot!" People are acting like it's Larry Scott's fault that ESPN and Fox don't want to pay as much for Pac-12 football as they do for SEC or Big Ten football. Like he didn't take the best deal offered. How could you assume an easy out of conference game against a “crummy” school would be a win, at least last year anyways. Last year we squeaked to one victory simply because PSU, the worst team at it’s level, screwed up on a few kicks. We would have had to have played WOSC or SOSC (or whatever their names are these days) to have had a good shot at an extra win this last season.
|
|