Should The Pac-10 Get Better Television Deals?
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 3:00 AM PDT
in General
111 comments
via www.blogcdn.com
If I’m Larry Scott, I’m calling up Dick Ebersol and telling him that NBC needs to add a Pac-10 game of the week. Just like that, even if it’s just USC playing somebody else, every Pac-10 team is getting national exposure and providing a real alternative to the SEC on CBS or the regional/national game on ABC. As an added benefit, occasionally that regional/national game would involve Pac-10 teams. To use 2007 as an example, can you imagine how effective it would’ve been if in the morning/afternoon viewers were treated to UCLA vs. Stanford on NBC, not a great game but something to watch, and then had the chance to flip over to ABC and witness Tennessee @ Cal? Repeated exposure along those lines are how multiple BCS bids are earned.
I'm a little wary of a solution that involves ESPN, but the alternatives aren't much better.
- NBC is tied to Notre Dame and has shown no interest in showing many big sporting events anymore.
- CBS is tied to the SEC cash cow.
- FOX is in the last year of the BCS contract and hasn't shown the slightest bit of interest in broadcasting regular season games during their four year run.
By making weak national deals with ABC/ESPN and CBS, and weak regional deals with FSN, the Pac-10 is robbing its members of both money and exposure.How? Think about how ESPN operates. Whenever ESPN picks up a sport, like Nascar, all of a sudden there is a shift in programming to increase coverage of that sport. You may see "Nascar now" every once in a while, but how often have you seen NHL coverage on ESPN recently? Exactly. The NHL is now on the Versus network where it toils in relative obscurity. ESPN deals not only bring money to the sports they carry, but also add the incredibly important exposure factor. That factor could do wonders for the Cougs, who desperately need some national attention. For now, ESPN's financial and programming focus shifts to the SEC. And that's bad news for us.Of course this wouldn't be an issue if ESPN had a decent competitor. And for all intents and purposes, FSN should have been just that. What sports fan wouldn't love a national sports network divided into regional networks to provide more coverage of their local teams? It is great in theory, but failed in practice because there are already national and regional sports competitors not linked to FSN. When baseball teams like the Yankees and Red Sox ditched the regional networks and formed their own, FSN and its colleagues took an even bigger hit. And when ESPN is picking up key games here and there from your local teams, FSN loses the exclusivity that could have made it a valuable network.
My dream would be this: one national game given to ABC every week (which 90% of the time will involve USC), another given to the ESPN family of networks, and the other three or more placed on a Pac-10 Network. But the current regime is too old school and stubborn to go for something as progressive as a conference network (even though it would do wonders for basketball). So why not just give ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox one game, and the ESPN networks all the others? Even if you take a pay cut, the added exposure will make up for the difference. Financially, and in terms of marketing. The conference could actually support its schools by demanding each game is on TV. If you have to play a Thursday or Friday night game here and there, big deal. Did we really miss out by playing Idaho a couple years ago on a Thursday? Of course not.
1 recs |
111 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'll sell my soul if I have to...
… but I just want to see the day when cal plays on primetime ESPN/ABC HD with Gameday ON EVERY FUCKING SATURDAY
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on May 6, 2009 3:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh and all the talking heads have to suck Oski’s dick (figuratively of course… maybe)
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on May 6, 2009 3:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a fan of the "worldwide leader" either
But, with ESPN’s much ballyhooed establishment of a West Coast center at “L.A. Live”, now is the time for the Pac-10 to strike.
(And, as much as I hate to admit it, ESPN360.com is nice.)
Go Bears!
by California Pete on May 6, 2009 7:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree. and I think that the mouse has recognized
the myopia of espn’s conectucuit (sp) view point and trying to spread it out.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on May 6, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
More like they want to make FSN look more like crap (aren’t they like a block or two away) and create more of the Disney-celebrity synergy they can’t get in Bristol (lots of celebrities drop by the LA 10 PM studio now).
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, but all of those goals are easy if you are in LA
which imo, is part of the brisol myopia, guys watching stupid sports in their mom’s basement trying to broaden from that is the goal.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on May 6, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better TV Deals Please
I voted for better deals, even if it involves ESPN and the mouse. The Pac-10 needs to do something to better reach the casual fan back east. In addition to having a game of the week, it needs to be scheduled appropriately. If it is too early in the day, the casual fan will be too interested in their own team/conference, if its too late their tailgating and alcohol intake tuckers them out.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
by chowder on May 6, 2009 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, I think the Pac-10 needs to get people talking about our teams not named USC. I think the rest of the country is aware USC is great, and frankly they are tired of ESPN’s 7 year man crush on Pete and the Trojans. Plus, it would only help SC if other programs within the Pac-10 gained increased national prominence, moving the Pac-10 away from the 9 dwarves alias.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
by chowder on May 6, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“However, one could argue that the Pac-10 had weak television deals in 2007, yet still was considered one of the two strongest conferences in the land until the final weeks of the season.”
I’m going to strongly disagree with that. Nobody in the rest of the country took the Pac-10 seriously last year, especially after it’s poor showing against the MWC, Cal’s loss to Maryland (went to the game because I live on the east coast), and Oregon States blowout loss to PSU. People out here respect/hate USC, but have little respect for the rest of the conference.
Anywhere outside of the western region, the Pac-10 gets almost 0 national exposure. Of course USC gets some, and occasionally a Cal-Maryland game is on ESPN (and makes the Pac-10 look terrible), but that’s about it. Nobody watches Versus. FSN is regional. The big games ABC picks up – also regional, so nobody sees them outside of the western region. The Pac-10 will sometimes get a later in the day game televised, but it’s Saturday night for the rest of the country, nobody is watching college football then unless really, really want to watch the game (which, again, is nobody without some ties to the western region).
For this year’s Pac-10 TV schedule, 6 of the 14 weeks the Pac-10 doesn’t have a single nationally televised game, only an ABC regional game. For weeks with nationally televised games, the first week includes a game at 10 pm and 10:30 pm EST. Oregon-Oregon St is at 9 pm EST on a weeknight. All other nationally televised games are at 8 pm EST. I think this makes it pretty clear the Pac-10 HAS to improve it’s national exposure.
by HyphyBearsFan on May 6, 2009 8:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He was talking about 2007, not 2008. For almost all of 2007, The Pac-10 and the SEC were the two big conferences. No one else was close. And then Dennis Dixon’s knee exploded.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For most of the season it looked as if USC was going to be overthrown. First by Cal, then by Oregon. Unfortunately, Cal quit on the season, and Oregon lost Dixon.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
by chowder on May 6, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad, didn’t read it carefully enough. I still stand by the last 2 paragraphs in my comment, though.
by HyphyBearsFan on May 6, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t get the ESPN disdain in the comments, but whatever. They show the most college football, and have by far the best college football productions. The Pac-10 needs to push for that more, and get the hell away from FSN.
Also, lets not make the mistake of thinking that the Big 10 got their at-large BCS bids because of exposure. They have gotten them either because the Rose Bowl will pick only Big10/Pac10, or because Ohio State is an incredibly attractive BCS team (if the automatic bid goes to another team) because they travel well and draw huge audiences.
I also find it a little strange that you seem to advocate stopping round robin scheduling, and thus getting rid of good football games, in order to bow down to the BCS. But a partnership with ESPN, which could arguably get us even more money in the long run, is somehow loathsome.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 8:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate ESPN because they are owned by Disney. I do not like Disney.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
by chowder on May 6, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sooooo you don’t like magic?
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on May 6, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I think he instead doesn’t like kingdoms.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on May 6, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the gathering, or otherwise?
the Maharg is above catch phrases
by Maharg on May 7, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my concern with espn is simply
the institutional myopia they have.
in the espn land of baseball there used to be three teams. Yankees, Red Sox, and Barry Bonds. Now there are two teams.
This is why I think the late sports center will help with Pac10 exposure. The staffers/producers who actually drive what gets on air will not be the same people as the ones who have never been further west than Chicago.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on May 6, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What the two above me said, plus...
It’s going to get really bad when ESPN takes over the BCS television rights next year. After being all grumpy about the system and advocating a playoff, watch them do an about face and start towing the company line, pimping it to an unhealthy and unconscionable degree.
Plus even with better deals, where exactly would you put us in the schedule to maintain exclusivity? It’d probably have to be a late game on ESPN (like Cal-Maryland this year), one that most of the country wouldn’t see anyway.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, first, I don’t think that the BCS under ESPN is going to be bad. I think it will be a million times better than it is under Fox.
Secondly, I take the opposing view of towing the company line on the BCS (which was debated throughout the blogosphere last year). ESPN wants money and viewers. They don’t do that by pretending the BCS is great. They do it by selling storylines. They do that by selling a great game, or talking about controversy or whatever. The people with opinions at ESPN will keep on with their same opinions. I also think that ESPN will be key in a move toward a playoff because that is going to make loads of money to whoever can monetize it, and ESPN can do that like no one else can.
As far as exclusivity, I guess I don’t know what you mean by that. Right now, ESPN picks the best games and go with those. But right now few of our games are even picked up by ESPN due to our other crappy contracts (I’m not sure of the exact TV conference pecking order). We could probably work out some better deals with plenty of networks, but at the current time, the Pac-10 contracts are fucked. FSN can STOP games from being broadcast, as if it were the 1960s. But you only get national exclusivity if you are the only conference or school on a network (SEC/CBS or ND/NBC). Other than that, it doesn’t happen.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, first, I don’t think that the BCS under ESPN is going to be bad. I think it will be a million times better than it is under Fox.
Agreed. Not really hard to be a million times better than the BCS on FOX though.
Secondly, I take the opposing view of towing the company line on the BCS (which was debated throughout the blogosphere last year). ESPN wants money and viewers. They don’t do that by pretending the BCS is great. They do it by selling storylines. They do that by selling a great game, or talking about controversy or whatever. The people with opinions at ESPN will keep on with their same opinions. I also think that ESPN will be key in a move toward a playoff because that is going to make loads of money to whoever can monetize it, and ESPN can do that like no one else can.
Disagree about the last part. ESPN is extremely self-serving. They’ll pull for a playoff when they don’t have the rights to the BCS, and when they do get it they’ll be all for the BCS. They might discuss the playoff angle a little here and there but they’ll pimp up the games to a maximum degree and take the profits they can get.
As far as exclusivity, I guess I don’t know what you mean by that. Right now, ESPN picks the best games and go with those.
I’m referring to finding a time in the day where the Pac-10 could put a game that most of the country would watch. The SEC gets its own slot (5 PM PST night game on ESPN). The ACC gets its own slot (5 PM PST night game on ESPN2). The Big East has its Thursday night game. The Big Ten finds a way to get its games on the network all the time. I worry that if we put the Pac-10 in the mix, that we might get something similar to the 3:30/12:30 regional plan, where only the West Coast gets our games anyway and we get split national coverage while the East Coast gets the game from the conferences on that side of the country. Because the only timeslot I see available is either a late 8 PM PST start, which most of the country would tune off to anyway.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question
How fixed are those SEC = ESPN, ACC = ESPN2 slots? I can distinctly remember a Vandy-UF game on ESPN2 only a few years ago.
Additionally, what’s to stop the Pac from getting the afternoon ESPN/ESPN2 slot, starting at 2:00 PM PST or thereabouts? I’m sure there’s more money in advertising for another conference football game than whatever they’ve got going on right now, if it’s not currently CFB.
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're not fixed, but ESPN generally has to show SEC games a majority of the 15 weeks
Of the regular season.
The ESPN2 slot in the afternoon is currently stuck with the reverse mirror of the regional broadcasts. ESPN doesn’t always broadcast college football in the mid-afternoon, not sure why that is. They definitely do have a slot available.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And when you say reverse mirror, what you mean is the ESPN2 game on the West Coast is the ABC game in the Southeast region, or something along those lines?
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Voted for: BCS is the problem
Look I get it.
East coast bias + no national TV = no respect for the Pac 10 = BCS bullshit.
But in that equation the problem is the BCS and instead of advocating for removal of the BCS, you’re advocating to change something in the hopes that the BCS will care. However, in reality, a TV programming change isn’t likely to make a bit of difference.
1. Advocating a long term change for a short term problem is short sighted
The premise of your argument is that the BCS is here to stay. While I agree it’s here to stay long enough to give us headaches for awhile, I think in 10 years time it will be gone. For what, I don’t know, but I don’t believe it will survive in its current structure. More importantly, I think eventually we get to some kind of playoff system, with the initial system being a 4 team playoff plus the champ game, and expanding to include 8 teams and later more. If we have a 4 team playoff do we need a different TV deal? I don’t think so. Would it help? Maybe.
2. You assume that a “better” TV contract equals more respect for the Pac 10.
This assumption is quite problematic in my eyes. The fact is the main problem with perception of West Coast sports in the east/midwest is the time zone. Casual fans in the east coast/midwest are just not going to stay up late to watch any “normal” west coast sporting event (i.e. not a playoff/championship). After a long day of watching football/tailgating/getting wasted, BanjoJoe is not going to stay up until 1 a.m. watching Cal vs. Oregon state, whether that game is on ESPN, ABC or NBC. You might as well advocate for the elimination of time zones because until that happens, I don’t think a different TV contract is going to make a bit of difference to the casual fan. In this sense, I think hardcore fan knows how good/bad/the Pac 10 is on any given year (and I’m defining hardcore fan as one who watches/follows other conferences other than his own).
A different unrelated example is baseball: a few years back (for a few years) the A’s and Angels were playing great baseball and both were playoff teams. TV contracts in baseball are more regionalized than college football but to the hardcore fan, the Extra Innings package provides an opportunity to catch all the games. This didn’t matter because come playoff time, all that ESPN and Fox were talking about was Yankees and Red Sox because no one in NY or Bos is staying up to watch late night games by west coast teams.
With the ESPN in LA thing, I don’t think this promises to change because as I understand it, west coast fans get a west coast version of SportsCenter at 10 p.m., and East Coast fans may get this, but not until 1 a.m.
3. What’s wrong with the current TV deal?
I understand your point about national exposure and don’t dispute that more nationally televised games would be a good thing for the Pac 10. But I don’t see the cause and effect part of your argument (more national exposure = better opportunity for BCS berths). What is the BCS based on? In simple terms, computer rankings,human rankings, and bowl tie ins. How are the human rankings achieved? Media Polls and Coaching polls, which, as we painfully know, are subject to lobbying and political influences. But is a better TV deal going to affect how coaches vote? Wouldn’t you think that coaches takes their voting responsibilities seriously regardless of a TV contract? I would like to think that if I had a vote, I would take the time to find out what happened in football the previous Saturday before I cast my ballot. As for the media poll, why not eliminate it completely as a factor? Same thing for bowl tie in games. Eliminate them so that weak ass Big 10 teams don’t get rewarded for playing the Southwestern Missouris of the world. That seems more of a solution than a better TV deal.
As to the TV thing, if I’m a college football fan outside of the Pac 10’s regional area, all I have to do is get the regional sports package from DirectV or wherever (at a cast of approx $13/month) and I can watch the Pac 10 or whatever is on the Fox regional network. As a Cal fan, the past few years virtually every game has been on TV either through Fox, Vs or Espn. And for me that’s all I can ask for. My point here is that if you want to watch the Pac 10 I don’t think it’s that hard to do so.
[I’m making some of these arguments for the sake of argument and to promote discussion of this important issue]
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that the bcs will be gone in 7 to 10 years.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on May 6, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I appreciate your comment
but here’s what I said:
For what, I don’t know, but I don’t believe it will survive in its current structure.
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1.
The premise of your argument is that the BCS is here to stay. While I agree it’s here to stay long enough to give us headaches for awhile, I think in 10 years time it will be gone….More importantly, I think eventually we get to some kind of playoff system, with the initial system being a 4 team playoff plus the champ game, and expanding to include 8 teams and later more.
I have outlined why I think that the BCS structure will be around longer than people think here and here. While not all of the questions/objections I raise are meaningful, there are enough unanswered questions there that I don’t think the BCS is going to disappear in the near or medium-term.
More importantly though, I take issue with your conclusion. Assume a playoff is implemented. What selection criteria would you use for the top 4 or 8 or more teams? A lottery? The four or eight teams geographically closest to the largest eight population centers or markets? I’m quite clearly not being serious because the only sensible way is through the same poll/BCS system we currently use, modified to maybe exclude teams that play an FCS opponent. The difference between #9 and #6 will mean millions of dollars in a playoff. Because you’re picking among close substitutes for that pecking order, every extra bit of exposure helps. That’s why a new TV deal is necessary.
2./3. My response to these two points can’t really be separated because I think that at base more national exposure, e.g. a ‘better’ TV deal, leads to greater respect. Put as succinctly as possible, national exposure through featured programming influences the general consensus. If people have the weekly opportunity to view Pac-10 games, particularly those between two non-USC teams, then their general perception of the CFB landscape will shift. The “BanjoJoes” tailgating all day in the Grove (Ole Miss) or at Death Valley (LSU) will have their flatscreen TVs on in the background, watching the games that are on. The main thing is that more exposure is the only way to counter the ‘Pac-1,’ which is the chief roadblock to placing more BCS teams. It refuses to recognize as quality competitors Cal, Oregon, and OrSt who have won 66.3%, 63.6%, and 62.9% of their games since 2002, good enough for 8+ wins a season over 13 games. Including USC’s ridiculous 90.1% win pctg, that means 40% of the conference has averaged 8 or more wins a season for 7 years. For comparison, the SEC boasts only 5 teams with such a winning pctg. over that same time span, though Alabama is on the cusp.
Those are the kinds of facts that announcers and color commentators will regularly bring up to a national audience that will then filter down to the level of the general consciousness. The consensus will change and new, deserved respect will be accorded the Pac-10. People will not be so quick to push Cal/Oregon/Oregon St. behind the tradition laden programs of the Southeast. And winter will last one day less in the hearts of children.
So to sum up: Support the children. Agitate for a ‘better’ Pac-10 TV deal.
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Nash
don’t have time to check on your links now, but what about my point that for only $13 bucks a month any football fan can get the regional sports networks (i.e. Fox) that show most Pac 10 games? (Am I wrong on this?) That’s pretty good considering that the games on Fox’s regional network aren’t part of ESPN’s gameplan which costs substantially more. So my point is, here is a cost effective, easy way to watch Pac 10 football, yet no one is watching because it’s on FSN and not ABC or ESPN? I don’t get it. It’s not like the games aren’t televised.
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cable is expensive enough as it is. If it’s not on my standard package, I’m not taking the trouble (and expense) to go and get it.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on May 6, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no choice
living in SoCal I have to get the sportspack cuz sometimes the Cal football and BBall games are not on FSN West (the LA FSNs).
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is that ESPN/ESPN2 is usually the only option available on standard cable sportswise
I’m not sure how many people get FSN or Versus around the country. And not as many people are willing to spend that much for their tv packages anymore (and they shouldn’t).
So even though technically all our games have been shown, it’s been hard for people outside the West Coast to see them. Pac-10 games on ESPN/ESPN2 would allow for national coverage without this issue.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, you have to buy the sportspack to watch Cal Football because you’re out-of-market. If I lived out-of-market, I’d do the same.
But I’m not too worried about Cal fans being able to watch the Bears play on TV. The games are almost always on TV somewhere. The problem is in exposing general college football fans to Cal and Pac-10 football. I go out of my way to watch Cal football, and beyond that, I’ll watch whatever’s on the standard cable package. I’d bet most other college football fans are the same way. I’ll watch SEC games that I don’t particularly care about because they’re on CBS. I watch Big 10 games on Saturday mornings on ESPN and ESPN2 because they’re the only thing on. Does an 11am kickoff suck for fans attending the games? Of course it does. Does it promote the league’s exposure around the country? Absolutely.
My point is, extra cable packages cost too much if they cost anything extra at all. They’re great for allowing far-flung alumni to keep following their teams, but terrible for promoting the conference to general CFB fans.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on May 6, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that we’re permanently f’d due to the timezone. Noon => 3 pm. 5 pm => 8 pm. These games do not HAVE to be on after the east coast games, if we had a more competitive TV contract our games could be competing for eyeballs right alongside of the east coast games.
There is an east coast bias, but that east coast bias is only amplified by results on the ground. If we go to back east (Tennessee, Maryland) and lay an egg, that is a MUCH bigger deal than an east coast time coming out here (Tennessee, Michigan State) and laying an egg – hence the word “bias”.
The problem isn’t time zones, the problem is geography. There are way more and way more established schools back east cause that’s just how the country grew up. Travelling all the way cross country to play games is highly problematic (hence the last paragraph), so games tend to be regional and the bias gets perpetuated.
It’s a chicken-and-the-egg thing. We won’t get a better TV contract cause of the perception of the conference, and we can’t change the perception of the conference cause of the lame TV contracts. I think that cougcenter’s points are very valid – in the current catch-22, we should just form our own channel. This may get us better exposure (but only for the serious football fan that will find our game more compelling than some lackluster east coast games currently on), but more importantly we at minimum remove our dependency on the existing TV networks and ensure that all our games get televised.
by tmoran3020 on May 6, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does having our own Pac 10 channel help
if people aren’t even watching on the FSN networks?
BTW, I’m all for the PAC 10’s own channel, but I don’t see the causal effect here.
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
First off FSN sucks. You can only get all the regional channels with a special subscription. For directv, for example, you need to get the “Sports Pack” for an extra like $13 or such a month. The Big-10 channel is standard on their second-to-lowest tier of channels and up. Since we (Pac-10 we) control the network, I’m sure we can swing a similar non-premium deal.
Also, FSN controls what games they pick up. Remember the slingbox game? If we control the network we can ensure all games get picked up. Period.
by tmoran3020 on May 6, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mentioned the sportspack thing
Your comment:
For directv, for example, you need to get the "Sports Pack" for an extra like $13 or such a month.
My previous comments:
As to the TV thing, if I’m a college football fan outside of the Pac 10’s regional area, all I have to do is get the regional sports package from DirectV or wherever (at a cast of approx $13/month) and I can watch the Pac 10 or whatever is on the Fox regional network.
but what about my point that for only $13 bucks a month any football fan can get the regional sports networks (i.e. Fox) that show most Pac 10 games?
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Only” $13 is a non-trivial thing. I bet that the amount of households that have the Sports Pack vs the amount of households that have the Big-10 network is a factor of 100. Non-premium is the way to go if your interest is not in dollars but in eyeballs.
by tmoran3020 on May 6, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok well I can't get the Big 10 channel without the $13 sportspack
so that doesn’t help your argument unless the Pac 10 provides their channel “free” nationally because of TV ads (unlikely).
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused.
What package do you have? The Big-10 network is on the “Choice” package and above – you don’t even get ESPN on the lowest priced one, the “Family” package.
by tmoran3020 on May 6, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if you and I are comparing apples and oranges
I’ve noticed that directv changes their plans pretty frequently – I’m looking at their current plans for reference, but when I was on directv I was able to stay with my old plan (including diff channels) for a super long time.
by tmoran3020 on May 6, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may be right
I’ve been told my package is so good it isn’t even offered anymore.
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been told my package is so good it isn’t even offered anymore.
Must…..control…..srcasm.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on May 6, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THANK YOU
3 or 4 times I’d typed something out. But then I realized, this isn’t the DBD. And that’s not allowed.
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, theres no strict rules or anything. But we try to keep it somewhat moderately close to perhaps creating the appearance of sane out here. So as to get linked at ESPN etc etc etc.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on May 6, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, you’re not going to send me to my room?
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was waiting for someone to respond . . .
took you all long enough.
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every game gets televised
Which isn’t the case right now. I think last year, USC, UCLA, Cal, Oregon State and UW were the only five schools that had all 12 games televised (could be wrong, but I distinctly remember several games not on TV or restricted to very very local coverage).
Also it’s much easier to find than FSN/Versus. I didn’t know which games would be televised on FSN/CSN until sometimes Saturday itself; Versus didn’t televise the first half of some games last year. Do you know how stupid that sounds? A Pac-10 Network simplifies distribution channels, etc. etc. You know which games will appear on TV, you don’t have to worry about not getting your game do to media restrictions etc.
You could have three/four of the five games put on the network (one or two early afternoon games with the bigger game getting national prominence, one late afternoon game, one evening game) and another one on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.
A Pac-10 Network allows for a move towards carte blanche in terms of which games get picked. Plus (let me emphasize this) EVERY GAME GETS TELEVISED. Under the current deal this isn’t the case.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's the case that would help
still i believe there would be a distribution problem for such a channel (i.e. being as readily available as ESPN/ESPN2).
And does every Big 10 game now get TV? It seems like they still pick and choose.
"Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety." - Furd Rugby Coach on forfeiting 2001 Rugby game vs. Cal
by oaktownmario on May 6, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Not every Big 10 game gets on TV (cause they have no rights to OCC away games), and they overflow some games to other channels which may or may not get picked up by your local cable station. But the discrepancy between their televised numbers and ours is big:
2008 Football
Big 10
Games televised: 99%
Games nationally televised: 98%
Pac 10
Games televised: 87%
Games nationally televised: 64%
(“National TV” includes ABC, BTN, CBS, CBS-CS, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, Fox College Sports, FSN, NBC)
(“Non-national TV” includes ESPN Regional, regional sports networks, local stations and streamed games)
Source (and far more interesting stuff):
http://www.bigtennetwork.com/corporate/Faq.asp
I think the Pac-10 is only as high as 64% due to the FSN, which personally I wouldn’t categorize as national for the reasons we’ve been discussing.
by tmoran3020 on May 6, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
wowzers.
I think Wilner had an article that said the Big10 brings in $200 million more than the Pac10 thanks, in part, to their TV scheduling.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
by carp on May 6, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of this...
Pac-10 isn’t going to start games before 12:30 local time. But by that point, it’s already 3:30 EST. So at that point, Pac-10 games are competing with the better games throughout the rest of the country.
Typically, crappy games start at noon. These are nationally televised because it’s noon EST and there are few games on then.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Which is why a Pac-10 Network (3 PM EST starts, 12 PM PST starts) could help fix that problem without having to cater to the ESPN conglomerate.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would catering to ESPN even be a bad thing?
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it wouldn’t be terrible, but I feel we can walk the line the way the Big Ten does to get maximal coverage from ESPN and also make sure every other game gets shown.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
Most Big 10 coverage on ESPN is done early in the day, as the Big 10 has the monopoly on the 12 EST time slot. After that, they have a regional 3:30 game, and then MAYBE a night game. But even that isn’t all that often.
IMO, ESPN seems to just want to show the good games. They want to put out an entertaining product, and they promote the hell out of that, especially the Saturday Night games, which are typically the biggest games of the week, regardless of which conference it is.
Do we want ESPN to get first dibs at those games? I say yes, because they are a hell of a promotional tool. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen with the Pac-10, but does with other conferences.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd for quoting me
See, self-promotion is how you get noticed around here.
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 11:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s pretty simple. It’s money. The more people that watch a game, the more advertising dollars a station can pull in. Why would ESPN want to schedule more games in the most highly dispersed, least densely populated BCS conference? We have basically two viable major media markets: the Bay Area and LA. Seattle would count if the Huskies didn’t suck so hard. So you get what you get: lots of exposure for SC and some for Cal. Oregon gets love, too, because a good deal of the state of Oregon watches Duck football.
This isn’t about ESPN diabolically screwing the Pac 10 or East Coast Bias or NBC’s Notre Dame lovefest. It’s about the fact that people on the east coast want to watch UCLA vs. Wazzu at 7pm as much as people on the west coast want to watch Iowa State vs. Wisconsin at 11am…
When the Pac 10 gets more dedicated fanbases in better media markets, we’ll start to see more attention from ESPN. Until then, be happy with being able to watch your team at all.
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 12:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The Big 12 is about as highly dispersed and as sparsely populated as the Pac-10
Doesn’t stop ESPN/ABC from showing a lot of their games. It certainly didn’t stop tWWL from riding the Oregon train last season and Gameday taking two trips to Eugene, as well as buying the rights for Oregon-Arizona State.
No one said it was a screwjob; we’ve had a chance for better contracts, but Hansen went with FSN because it’d allow for better promotion of smaller sports, like tennis, cross country, etc. It’s obvious that this strategy has marginalized the Pac-10, which was promoted pretty strongly over half a decade ago (I remember those 3:30 games on ABC with Keith Jackson fondly), and now it only happens when an Oregon pops up. We underestimated the lengths ESPN would go to pimp up the teams and the conferences that they show at the expense of others, which is why the argument for joining ESPN is very strong.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big 12 teams have far, far more dedicated fanbases than the Pac 10 schools. EVERYONE in Nebraska is a Huskers fan, EVERYONE in Oklahoma is a Sooner fan. aTm has a massively dedicated fanbase, even when they suck. Give Texas Tech and Okie State decent years (like last one), and everyone in the midwest will want to be watching their team. There’s just no way you can compare the fanbases of the Big 12 teams to Pac 10 teams. The end point is that way more people want to watch Big 12 football than Pac 10 football.
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, but what about Iowa State? Missouri? Baylor? Did Kansas even know they had a football program until last year?
You could make similar arguments for USC, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Wazzu, ASU, etc. Big 12 might be slightly better in terms of TV ratings and attendance than the Pac-10, but the differences aren’t as astronomical as you weigh them to be.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
differences aren’t as astronomical as you weigh them to be
I think they are. What am I basing this off of? The fact that ESPN thought the Big 12 was a much better market than the Pac 10 and thus decided to show many more of its games in primetime.
Viewers equals dollars!
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That isn’t how television deals work. The Pac-10 signed a certain number of games off for ESPN to view. The Big 12 did the same, only they signed off on a lot more games.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Big 12 also makes it easy for ESPN to pick up games. The Pac-10 does not. The 2007 ASU/Oregon game was almost not even televised outside of FSN Arizona because of rules from the 1960s.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I remember that
When was the last Pac-10 televison contract created?
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure…. But it still contains clauses that allow to FSN to stop broadcast of any competing Pac-10 game.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure ESPN has some say in how many games they sign…
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course they do
But Hansen and his crew chose the FSN/Versus deals. ESPN is not going to pass on the opportunity to distribute MORE games. That’s not their MO.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you know, for a fact, that ESPN offered the exact same number of games to both the Pac 10 and the Big 12, but because Tom Hansen wanted to go with FSN/Versus deals, the Big 12 received more?
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way I understand it
Hansen was offered an ESPN package, but the games would be on at around 10 PM EST, 7 PM PST. Considering that the package would be cheap because the rights are cheaper late. Hansen opted for the Versus/FSN deals because the times would be more reasonable.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But was he offered the same number of games as the Big 12?
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Big 12 has had a longstanding contract with ABC (not just ESPN, ABC itself) because they show the Big 12 Championship game. So they get about 19-20 games a year.
We get the same thing right about now, but we had to settle for the 3:30/12:30 window with only token regional coverage. I would assume a similar deal would’ve been offered where we get the exclusive late night Pac-10 game on ESPN, similar to what happens on FSN/CSN every now and then.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of our 20 games go to the 3:30/12:30 window
So that only leaves around 10 games for ABC primetime or ESPN, and most of those games are early in the season with the plum OOC matchups. Not many of our conference matchups get national television coverage late in the season.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, so you don’t think the fact that we are bumped earlier to the crummier windows for conference matchups has to do with ESPN preferring to air other games?
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It has something to do with it, yes.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the real reason is evil ESPN East Coast bias and the SEC Big 10 overlords hellbent on removing the Pac 10 from the sands of time?
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nonsense. Why would ESPN want to keep the Pac-10 down? It’s had rights to the Rose Bowl for forever.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So a business is trying to maximize profit?
Get. The. Fuck. Out
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well..
Plus, the fact that the Big 12 had the best college football games last year, with another huge game every week…..
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Current contracts have about half of our 20 games in the regional slot
So we only have about ten slots that can be used to show Pac-10 games on ESPN or ABC primetime.
The Big 12 does the same, but they have a network contract with ABC and can show up to 19 games, giving them the flexibility to distribute their games in the primetime window
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again...
Their games start 3 hours earlier, so they can fit more games in… A lot of those games are early games.
On top of that, lets not forget that the Big 12 also has a deal with FSN, and shows just as many games there, and it doesn’t seem to hurt their relationship with ESPN.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on May 6, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
But they do have two additional teams in the conference, so that kind of balances out (they need to show one additional game and thus take up that early slot). In either case, the Pac-10 hasn’t really taken advantage of their anachronistic TV deals.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because they're more "passionate"
Doesn’t mean they won’t watch the games in record numbers that dwarf the Pac-10 numbers.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it does!
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Phoenix
Is the 6th largest city in the country.
If you go by metropolitan areas, 4 of the 15 largest, 5 of the 20 largest, and 6 of the 25 largest are within Pac-10 states.
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah the more I think about it
The Big 10, SEC and Big 12 aren’t exactly in the hotbeds of civilization either…
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t need to be in a hotbed of civilization to watch TV… People on the west coast just…don’t. Therefore ESPN is going to rely on the west coast’s biggest market, by far…
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 6, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
People on the West Coast don’t watch TV? What? WHAT?
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Notes & Errata
Okay, so I was reading way too quickly and underplayed the statistics according to wikipedia. The Pac-10, which is the only major conference in any of its four states, has the following shares:
5 of the Top 15: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (#2; 12,872,808), Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale (#12; 4,281,899), San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont (#13; 4,274,531), Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario (#14; 4,115,871 – really?! That many people live in the O.C.?), Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue (#15; 3,344,813)
6 of the Top 20: San Diego–Carlsbad–San Marcos (#17; 3,001,072)
8 of the Top 25: Portland–Vancouver–Beaverton (#23; 2,207,462), Sacramento (#25; 2,109,832)
The Big 12 has four of the Top 25 and two of the Top 10: Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington (#4; 6,300,006) and
Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown (#6; 5,728,143). St. Louis is #18 and Denver is #21.
This question may be obvious, but what would be wrong with getting ESPN2 to broadcast a 7PM PST Pac-10 game every week, assuming they don’t already do this? It wouldn’t inconvenience the fans, as FSN already does this pretty regularly. It would improve the programming that they would likely have on during this time slot. And most importantly it would remove the real barrier that Mountain, Central, and Eastern time zone fans face to watching these games without forking out a bunch of money. There are more than 50,000,000 people living in the four Pac-10 states, and even as far east as Tennessee, it’d still only be 9 pm at kick-off. Certainly you wouldn’t get the same level of viewership on the east coast as a midday game would, but it would still draw significant viewership. 1% of 250,000,000 is still a big number.
In summation, I think a very attractive intermediate step would be to get that time slot filled and have the 800 lb gorilla of ESPN start throwing their marketing might behind it. I think this would remove a bit of the “Thar be dragons” attitude of east coast fans towards the Pac-10 and allow them to familiarize themselves with various players. Of yet more utility would be the exposure of the Pac-10 to East Coast recruits. I just can’t think of a reason to be opposed other than “It’s late” and “I don’t like ESPN,” both of which are easily countered. Pac-10 teams play late games anyway, might as well get them broadcast as widely as possible and they may be a son’ofa bitch, but at least make them our son’ofa bitch.
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Money
The 7 PM PST slot is too late to get premium advertisers selling in that bloc, and the FSN deal for a similar 7 PM slot is much cheaper. Even though we’re losing exposure, these guys only look at it from a financial viewpoint.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m having a tough time connecting the dots on this one. Maybe if you were more specific about “these guys.”
Things I grant: FSN late night airtime is cheaper than ESPN late night airtime. Premium advertisers are therefore less likely, or totally unwilling, to purchase ads in that time slot on ESPN/ESPN2.
Things that make me say so what?: The football conference isn’t getting paid through the advertisers, it’s getting paid by the networks. ESPN has to be running some ads at that hour. Even if they have fewer commercials, their total revenue in that time slot can’t be much lower, if at all, due to the higher rates. So, why would it matter if ESPN only got secondary advertisers during Pac-10 games? Or am I wrong and the difference is so profound that FSN just blew ESPN away in their offer?
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"These guys"=Hansen and the Pac-10 sports execs
The deal just wasn’t worth enough to them I guess.
I think FSN also offered to broadcast other Pac-10 minor sports, which is why they went with the FSN deal. It was cheaper and offered a greater number of sports with better ad splits.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
That definitely makes more sense regarding the small sports because that’s where the Pac-10’s competitive advantage is greatest.
It’s a shame two deals couldn’t be worked out going with the highest exposure where the Pac-10 deserves it and still making use of the FSN networks for the minor sports. On the other hand, the value for FSN is in collecting the high profile sports, so it’s not too surprising.
by Nashville on May 6, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Corrections
At least among urban geographers (yes, there is such a thing; I am one), it’s more typical to use “combined” metro areas, rather than the “primary” metro areas, when doing national-level comparisons. Here is the appropriate link on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas
Better yet, here is data straight from the Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/metro.html
Also, OC is in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana statistical area. Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario instead consists of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, aka the “Inland Empire” or “the 909”.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on May 6, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
please, don’t lump riverside and san bernadino in with Orange County. Its offensive. Its bad enough they toss the 714’s in with the 949’s, but the 909’s PLEASE! They are WAY diferent culturally, economically, and socially.
Orange County is actually represented in the LA-Long Beach Demographic via the Santa Ana designation.
And yes, Orange County has about 3 million people, if it were its own state, it would be ranked 30th in population, and back in the mid-90’s if it were its own country it would have had the 30th largest economy on earth (slightly before Isreal)
They're after our precious bodily fluids
by chowder on May 7, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, to sarcasm.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
by chowder on May 7, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what if the TV deals are lousy because most viewers are ON A BOAT during gamedays?
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
by carp on May 6, 2009 2:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You’re referring to our commish going on a cruise?
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes…after a match of tennis with Bowlsby of course.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
by carp on May 6, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea of having a national game on NBC. They can’t be happy with just Notre Dame a couple games a year. NBC would be smart to get more involved in the College Football world.
by calbear1017 on May 6, 2009 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
NBC has lost money with the NFL, NBA, and MLB to broadcast sports
And don’t seem to be very interested in getting back in the game.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're happy with Notre Dame
Because they’re the biggest draw in college football and they receive guaranteed good ratings.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that’s a bummer. I was just thinking out loud
by calbear1017 on May 6, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I'm bummed about it
NBC only thinks in terms of which sporting events earn them money, which leaves them with niche events like tennis & golf, and of course the Olympics. They even lost a ton of money with the Super Bowl this year.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on May 6, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of our 20 games go to the 3:30/12:30 window
So that only leaves around 10 games for ABC primetime or ESPN, and most of those games are early in the season with the plum OOC matchups. Not many of our conference matchups get national television coverage late in the season.
Here’s something the pac-10 can actually do something about have our OOC schedule rolling throughout the season so the coverage of pac 10 isn’t just in the beginning of the year.
ND plays the ’furd late and plays USC late in the season occasionally. Auburn played west virginia towards the end of last season so it could be done.
by Longhorn@Berkeley on May 6, 2009 6:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
