Quantcast
Sports

UteLinks: Pac-12 TV windfall may not be as great as reported

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    March 27, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    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.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    March 27, 2014 12:19 a.m.

    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.

  • MyPerspective Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    Flashback
    Kearns, 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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 26, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    Yep, it's all about the money.

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    March 25, 2014 11:44 p.m.

    jarka-rus--

    "@U 90
    LOL 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 that close.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    March 25, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    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.

  • U 90 Corona, CA
    March 25, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    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.

  • jarka-rus Layton, Utah
    March 25, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    @U 90
    LOL winning by 7 points is a knockout?

  • U 90 Corona, CA
    March 25, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @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 .250 (1-3)

  • Old But Not Stupid Moorpark, CA
    March 25, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    PG #1 FAN
    Lindon, 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.

  • U 90 Corona, CA
    March 25, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    @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.

  • Old But Not Stupid Moorpark, CA
    March 25, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    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?

  • Gone fishin PAC Country, CA
    March 25, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    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??

  • PG #1 FAN Lindon, UT
    March 25, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Christine B. Hedgefog Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    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 income?

  • MyPerspective Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Duckhunter
    Highland, UT

    As 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.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 25, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    $4-$6 Million PER GAME! We are rolling in it!

  • ekute Layton, UT
    March 25, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    sammyg,
    Did you choose to ignore the heading over the actual story?

    "Canzano: PAC-12 TV windfall is sweet,..."

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    March 25, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • CO Ute PARKER, CO
    March 24, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Proud Ute ,
    March 24, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    @sammyg

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

  • MyPerspective Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    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.

  • red.diehard Central, UT
    March 24, 2014 6:13 p.m.

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

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    March 24, 2014 5:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 24, 2014 5:33 p.m.

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

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    March 24, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 24, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    March 24, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Dr. Coach Bountiful, UT
    March 24, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    @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?

  • G-Day-M8 WVC, UT
    March 24, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Who am I sir? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 24, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    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!

  • U 90 Corona, CA
    March 24, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    @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.

  • pocyUte Pocatello, ID
    March 24, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 24, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Levin Reno, NV
    March 24, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    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.

  • romeisn'tburning layton, ut
    March 24, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    March 24, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Stringer Bell Henderson, NV
    March 24, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Utah, We want our money back PAC Country, CA
    March 24, 2014 1:02 p.m.

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

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    March 24, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    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?