Quantcast

Comments about ‘UteLinks: Pac-12 TV windfall may not be as great as reported’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 24 2014 11:25 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Back Talk
Federal Way, WA

very good point being made. How much will Utah net these first few years? Will the U Admin ask that the football team support even more of the Athletic budget to help reduce student fees and other general budget support?

Utah, We want our money back
PAC Country, CA

revenues are way over inflated in the end. The PAC is also way over-rated in the end.

Stringer Bell
Henderson, NV

I'm sure the anticipated "windfall" was based on the inclusion of DirecTV, the largest TV provider in the country. I don't understand these two greedy entities not being able to work something out. Nobody wins the way it is now.

Johnny Triumph
American Fork, UT

So much for greener pastures, this must leave the smaller PAC schools, like Utah, scratching their heads wondering how they missed the money path. Either that or they all misled the public into thinking this was a boon to things when it really wasn't. But then I suppose it is still better than being in the MWC.

romeisn'tburning
layton, ut

Did anyone at Oregonlive or the DesNews even bother to read that report from the John Cazano. The man does some very interesting things and specifically cites Oregon State's budget situation while making broad, sweeping, generalization that this is the case for other PAC12 institutions. The most interesting is the inclusion of one time buyouts for existing advertising deals at $1.3 million, and one time paybacks to the University at $6.5 million taken against the increases in revenue. What a joke, why not include the one time cost that OSU experienced last year to rebrand? This is why journalists shouldn't be allowed to do math. When you exclude the one time fees, which will be the case for them next year the increase will be +$11.6 million. Sounds like a windfall to me. Compared to the $6 million from the previous contract it almost a 200% increase.

Levin
Reno, NV

Utah's "new money" should be relative to their previous contracts with the MWC. Significantly less than the 6 million they are quoting for the Pac-10's previous contract.

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

Sorry to burst your bubble but if any of you BYU fans were to take time to actually read the story, you'd realize that this issue doesn't apply to Utah or Colorado. Only the other 10 schools are taking the revenue hit. Utah is still making far more money than they were in the MWC.

pocyUte
Pocatello, ID

The only one of those scenarios that effects Utah is the pay back, and that money still goes to the school, just not the athletic department.

Utah is a net 16.3 million over the whopping 1 million they were getting front the MWC.

U 90
Corona, CA

@Johnny Triumph "this must leave the smaller PAC schools, like Utah, scratching their heads"

Not really, given the alternatives (Indy or MWC) joining the PAC12 was the only viable option. But you already knew this, so why would you say Utah is scratching their head when they clearly made the best choice. I'm positive Dr. Hill has no regrets nor do the vast majority of Utah fans.

Who am I sir?
Cottonwood Heights, UT

On Feb. 8th the Tribune had an article from numbers filed with the Department of Education*. Among the breakout "national TV" revenue for the year 12/13 was $12.3 million vs 10/11 revenue of $1.2 million. (Note: 12/13 Utah's share of PAC-12 money was 50% (don't know if that applied to TV because the contract was based on both Colorado and Utah being members) This many very well be a "shortfall" from projections because Direct has not carried the PAC-12 network; however, it is a shortfall the U can live with until Direct realizes the cost (lost subscribers) of not carrying the PAC-12 network!
* I believe we can place reliance of data filed with the Department of Education!

G-Day-M8
WVC, UT

I think this is going to be the trend in all conferences. The first thing people will cut out when the economy really tanks is sports tickets and TV cable systems.

Many of the PAC 12 universities are spending close to 200 million dollars for facilities, Washington, California and Arizona particularly. Many more are well in excess of 100 million dollars. The money spent so far is debt with the expectations of revenue Larry Scott promised but has not delivered.

100 million with 30 million a year expected revenue would take 3 plus years to pay off and 200 million would take 6 plus years assuming a perfect projection. Now we know the real revenues are seriously lower so you do the math.

How can anyone trust Larry Scott when he couldn't deliver Direct TV? The PAC 12 network is not generating anywhere near the projections of 3 plus million a year.

The spirit of speculation is alive and well in the PAC 12. I hear a tremendous crash boom bang on the sidelines and it isn't a cheer squad.

Dr. Coach
Bountiful, UT

@romeisn'tburning

Don't you mean this year's 11.6 million dollar windfall when compared to the previous 6 million dollar contract is a 100% increase, not, as you wrote, a 200% increase?

Isn't this why bloggers shouldn't be allowed to do math?

Dutchman
Murray, UT

The only journalist qualified to analyze this issue is Jon Wilner. He has followed the money trail in the PAC 12 from day one. His reporting has been very accurate and straight forward. He was the first journalist to analyze and report that the PAC 12 expansion was a net economic benefit to all the schools. I am sure that Jon will have something to say on this issue soon. I look forward to his report.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

Levin:

You are correct. That article was in reference to the old Pac-10 contract, of which, Utah was never a part of, and those expenses were one-offs; not annuals. The title inadvertently misleads the reader that those expenses were "per team", rather than "per Pac-10 team". I believe Utah's contract with the MWC was worth somewhere in the vicinity of $2 million per school; not the $6 million Pac-10 schools were making. So using Canzano's math:

In 2011, Utah received only Pac-12 Network revenues ($800K), plus bowl revenues and the CCG (~$5.6 million). That amounts to ~180% increase over MWC funds. As Utah was never a member of the Pac-"10", there would have been no $1.3 million existing contractual marketing agreements for us to buy out of, nor any previous TV contract "paybacks".

In 2012, Utah received a 50% share of TV revenues, plus Pac-12 Network, bowl, and CCG money; or ~$16.0 mil.

In 2013, Utah is due to have received a 75% share, plus Pac-12 Network, bowl, and CCG money; or ~$21.2 mil.

Cougsndawgs
West Point , UT

I don't understand why BYU fans would care about this. BYU athletics is strong financially and one of only a few programs in the country that is in the black. BYU doesn't need the PAC12's money so this doesn't even concern them. PAC12 money is good for the university of Utah and good for the state, and as BSR pointed out these projections don't even include Utah or Colorado.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

This is funny because of our huge TV windfall coming out of China.

sammyg
Springville, UT

So funny to see so many fans go immediately on the defense whenever the PAC12 Network is headlined. I've yet to see a positive headline on the subject, there's always something amiss with it.

We all know that the numbers are fudged and we also know the coverage is not what was promised.

And yes, it's still not on Direct TV.

I'm not surprised the least bit that things are not what they said they would be on revenues.

red.diehard
Central, UT

looking at these comments, it is easily deduced that reading comprehension in our state is in bad shape.

MyPerspective
Salt Lake City, UT

Cougsndawgs
West Point , UT

"BYU doesn't need the PAC12's money so this doesn't even concern them."

Not only that but byu isn't in the Pac-12 so absolutely, positively doesn't even concern them.

Naval Vet
Brave Sir Robin
romeisn'tburning

That's the way I read the article as well. Regarding this thread...it's fun to watch byu fans put their wishful thinking in print.

Proud Ute
,

@sammyg

Try loosening your blue goggles and read it again my friend.
Then we'll help you if you're still confused.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments