All you BYU fans need to listen to your fellow Cougar Cougsndawgs and actually
read the article. This doesn't affect the U, because the U didn't
have the original Pac 10 money to start with. The U came into this with a clean
slate so virtually all the new revenue is an increase for the U. As far as some
of you saying the conference is overrated. Well, the Pac 12 has 3 teams in the
Sweet 16. And if you want to compare the U with BYU in all sports as some of
you like to do, in a few weeks at the Spring Football game the Utes will be
awarded the Deseret First Duel trophy after a dominating performance in all
sports of the past year giving the Utes a 41 - 6 advantage over BYU. So please
calm down Cougar fans and save your energy to cheer you teams on in real events.
To my fellow BYU fans. Regardless how how much the U of U will or won't get
via their PAC 12 membership, the fact of the matter is, there still better off
then we are. I will be the first to jump for joy if and when the
Cougars land in a conference like the BIG 12, but in the meantime, our football
team is still a sailboat without a rutter and while the WCC is a decent fit for
our other teams, its still a top heavy conference with three of four strong
schools and five or six subpar schools.
FlashbackKearns, UT"Yep, it's all about the
money."I'm not sure if you are trying to make some kind of
a point but you are correct...money naturally follows prestige. Elite
conferences make the money and membership in an elite conference does, in fact,
have its privileges.
Yep, it's all about the money.
jarka-rus--"@U 90LOL winning by 7 points is a
knockout?"After being forced to punt on 4th and 10, ER gets hit
with a deadball PF for doing what refs allowed to flourish all game long--Trash
talking. This bit of home-cooking lead directly to byu's only TD of the
game. Utah was in complete control of it from S2F and was never seriously
threatened by byu on their homefield. Final margin rarely tells the story by
itself, not unlike our 17 point victory in basketball, a game nowhere remotely
For all my fellow BYU fans on this article I implore you to read the
article...UTAH will not be affected by this, only the original PAC10 schools. I
ask my fellow BYU fans...why are you on this article, and why do you care? BYU
is doing fine financially and so is the University of Utah! Lets all enjoy NOT
being in the MWC and the greater amount of money and exposure that provides.
Isn't that something we can ALL enjoy and get along about? Sheesh,
it's like kindergarten in here sometimes.
jarka,I think it's funny how you all come on a Utah thread to
trash the Utes in hopes of validating somehow that the Y is better. Your
missing one important ingredient... that is BYU has to beat Utah first before
you commence the trash talk. We own you guys this year in basketball
and football. In addition, BYU has proven they can't compete as well as
Utah against PAC12 opponents in both sports with football record of .000 and a
basketball record of .250. Yes, knock out. You guys didn't even come
close in 2013-14.
@U 90LOL winning by 7 points is a knockout?
@Gone fishin "still middle of the pac or lower"Gone, I
couldn't agree more. Utah has proven that as of today they are no better
than mid to lower level of the PAC 12. But consider this, BYU has an even worse
record in the PAC12 than Utah so Y fans are in no position to talk smack.
Consider this:In football, Utah was .222 (2-9) in the PAC12, BYU was
.000 (0-2).In basketball, Utah was .500 (9-9) in PAC12 play, BYU was
PG #1 FANLindon, UT"All that money but you still
can't get in the NCAA Basketball tournament or qualify for a bowl game.
Uties are like the kid that buys a $500 baseball bat but can't get a hit to
save his life. All the money in the world will not change the fact that U are
bottom feeders in the PAC 10.2 and always will be."Sorry, Ute
fans, but I have to agree with PC#1's last sentence. With the recruiting
advantages (weather alone!) of the two AZ schools, the four Calif. schools, and
the two Oregon schools, you will never challenge for the Rose Bowl and only on a
rare occasion be a solid second tier team in basketball. As I've noted on
other threads, this is not your fault; you may blame it on the structural
disadvantages recruiting. Meanwhile, it would be nice to see a
little more realism from both U and BYU fan bases.
@PG #1 FAN "All that money but.... Uties are like the kid that buys a $500
baseball bat but can't get a hit to save his life.You mean like
the knock out blows they delivered to BYU in both Football & Basketball?
Not to mention owning the Deseret Duel 38-6.
Who am I sir?Cottonwood Heights, UT"This many [sic] 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!"Doubt that Direct TV will lose any--except maybe some of the crimson
crew--subscribers.Also,"* I believe we can place reliance
of data filed with the Department of Education!"After the
Obamacare (HHS) failure to launch a defective software product and the dumbing
down of the "common core" by the DoE, how can you rely on any "fact
or data" coming out of the D.C. beltway?
Naval,And yet u still cannot put a good product on the field and are still
middle of the pac or lower.Hmmmmm. Coaching perhaps??
All that money but you still can't get in the NCAA Basketball tournament or
qualify for a bowl game. Uties are like the kid that buys a $500 baseball bat
but can't get a hit to save his life. All the money in the world will not
change the fact that U are bottom feeders in the PAC 10.2 and always will be.
Did the foaming ice font on the hill get paid for before the shortfall? Or will
it fall on Utah tax payers foot the bill given the shortfall on projected
DuckhunterHighland, UTAs always, your post brings much humor
to the Utah sports board as you continue to attempt, by your own admission, to
stir the pot. Do you see the post from Naval Vet? Read it and understand it.
Then post another humorous comment.
$4-$6 Million PER GAME! We are rolling in it!
sammyg,Did you choose to ignore the heading over the actual story? "Canzano: PAC-12 TV windfall is sweet,..."
Try as I might I just can't get up any enthusiasm to care much about the
finances of the PAC 1.2, the U of U, BYU, or any other university. How does this
affect me at all, I ask? I graduated 17 years ago. I just want to watch some
sports now and then. Someone please explain how debating the financial merits of
"BCS conference" membership, WCC membership, or independence is supposed
to be of benefit to any of you?But, hey, it does provide one more
petty little thing for rivals to argue about.
As many other posters correctly noticed, this is primarily targeted at the PAC
10 schools and the 'new' money. Utah will get a healthy share even
with the 50% and 75% phase in. What also needs to be considered is the comment
about 'new' money. This is similar to getting a big raise in your
salary. Your previous income still comes in and you get even more from the new
revenue stream. Even if the new money is only 3 million, that is quite a raise
for any school.
@sammygTry loosening your blue goggles and read it again my friend.
Then we'll help you if you're still confused.
CougsndawgsWest 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 VetBrave Sir Robinromeisn'tburningThat'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.
looking at these comments, it is easily deduced that reading comprehension in
our state is in bad shape.
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
This is funny because of our huge TV windfall coming out of China.
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
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.
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.
@romeisn'tburningDon'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?
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.
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!
@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
revenues are way over inflated in the end. The PAC is also way over-rated in
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?