Golden Nuggets: Options for the Pac-12 Television Network
The Pac-12 should announce its television network deal sometime within the next six weeks (Pac-12 Media Day on July 26th would be an ideal time...). Jon Wilner examines the three options the conference is considering. See the link for more details on each model.
Model 1: Flip a channel.
In this scenario, the conference would partner with an existing programmer and flip (re-brand) an existing channel the way Discovery Health Channel became the Oprah Winfrey Network.
This model would eliminate distribution risk for the conference -- it would gain instant access to a channel that's already in 30-40 million homes, at minimum.
...
Model 2: Start from scratch.This option would align the conference with an existing cable or satellite operator in the creation of a new channel, with distribution baked in [similar to the Comcast Sports networks].
...
Model 3: The future is now.The Pac-12 would opt against the traditional subscription-TV model and become the first conference to create an internet-based network.
Instead of teaming up with Time Warner or Comcast, the league would align with Google or Apple.
Instead of turning on your television to watch the Pac-12 Network, you'd turn on your computer (or tablet or mobile phone).
After the jump, check out the final records, bowl appearances, and championships from the 33-year era of the Pac-10.
Football
- Uncle Ted reviews Pac-12 tight ends. Cal is in the middle "Good Shape" category.
- Tuscon Citizen has a great collection of records, bowl appearances, conference championships, and more from the Pac-10 era (which comes to an end on Friday). Cal's numbers would have been abysmal if not for Tedford.
- Mitchell Schwartz, Mychal Kendricks, and Bryan Anger earn spots on Athlon's All-Pac-12 Team. Brian Schwenke, Trevor Guyton, Sean Cattouse, and D.J. Holt made the third team.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Combine Model #3 with #1 or #2
My 2nd post on CGB!
While I assume many of you CGB loyalists and other SBNation loyalists would lean toward Model #3, I believe a combination of #3 and #1 or #2 would yield the greatest ROI. There is still a large population of audience who still prefer to watch things on TV, and our recent ESPN/FOX deal proves that there’s a lot of money left on the table.
We can predict the future all we want, but having a combination of Model #3 and a traditional platform will allow Pac-12 to cast the widest net in terms of exposure and revenue. Of course, the debate will now focus on HOW Scotty will negotiate the terms of using both! =)
my $0.02
I agree that the time is not yet ripe for #3. However, looking forward 5-10 years TVs that can stream the internet will, I believe, become commonplace. I’ve been seeing that more and more recently. Its still fairly expensive, but ts better to be in front of the wave than behind it.
The internet's most successful troll!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I agree completely here. I’m somewhat against using #1 because that may end up pigeonholing us into a weird channel with a less-than-opportune legacy viewership… Unforseen consequences may screw us. “What? Pac-12 Network is channel 315!?”
- however, would definitely allow us to control more of the variables and ensure that the rest of the country is able to flip and watch. Random channel flipping is how I accidentally find sporting events I had forgotten/didn’t know about anyway. That wouldn’t happen well with the online model…
which brings me to #3. This is definitely the way of the future and MUST be incorporated, whether via slowly rolling out or immediately available. SO many opportunities… But for people outside the Pac-12 to watch, they’ll have to WANT to watch first, which handcuffs #3’s emergence with the installation of #2 (or #1 I guess)
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Jun 28, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I want a combo of #2 and #3, which is a new channel with a heavy online component, a la ESPN3, but better.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jun 28, 2011 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the well-thought-out post, gobears157.
You’ve raised the bar for post #3. Come back soon. :)
Old Toothwrangler
I lean towards two solutions
A cable channel and a nearly independent online channel. There will need to be some overlap of content, but the opportunity to broadcast/stream lots at fairly low cost is hugely important.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Jun 28, 2011 7:06 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Something to remember
Options 1and 2 will come with a built in revenue stream in the way of subscription revenue from the cable fees, which one hopes leads to better production values and a financially sustainable operation…while I completely agree that option 3 is the way of the future, I’m unclear of the revenue model that makes it a go now, let alone down the road…is everyone willing to subscribe for a fee over the web?
"It's on the ROOF, oh yeah, one hundred PROOF, oh yeah....."
by TKE Prytanis 79 on Jun 29, 2011 10:44 PM PDT reply actions

by 


























































