PDA

View Full Version : Why making college basketball into a one semester sport is a bad idea



CDC84
10-19-2015, 07:58 AM
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball-news/4658423-college-basketball-season-start-schedule-larry-scott-pac-12


The supposed problem with college basketball starting in mid-November is that early season games are lost in the supposed crush of attention given during that period to college football. This is complete and utter nonsense. By Dec. 5, three weekends into college basketball, the college football season is down to seven scheduled games plus a few conference championship games. The overlap barely exists.

For this, Scott wants to forfeit college basketball’s ownership of a month – March – that is worth $771 million to the NCAA before anyone even has sold a ticket (or a hot dog, or a corporate hospitality event, or a sponsorship). And Scott would gamble that the NCAA Tournament could sustain that value against competition from the NBA playoffs, the Stanley Cup playoffs, the start of the Major League Baseball season and spring weather.

For what, exactly?

Problems attracting viewers to early college basketball games? Is that the issue? Are we sure about that? Because it’s not a problem at Kansas (drew 16,300 last season for Rider) or Kentucky (22,175 for Buffalo) or Arizona (14,655 for Northridge). It is not a problem in places that care deeply about college basketball in general and are eager to watch their beloved teams develop against whatever competition they face.

It is a problem in places that are not as connected to college hoops. Here’s the catch: Moving games to December is not going to change that.

mgadfly
10-19-2015, 08:58 AM
Not really much to fix. Some teams won't ever be able to sell out November games (or December games if we move them back a month).

If I was coming up with risky bad ideas I'd prefer to make a super pre-season tournament where the teams from the prior year's Sweet 16 spent the week of Thanksgiving re-crowning a champion. All the losers get another shot at rewriting history. I think that'd draw a lot of interest to the sport. GU v UCLA winner takes on Duke v Utah winner. I'd tune in.

hondo
10-19-2015, 09:47 AM
The solution is to simply add 2 months to the year. The year's third month could be Zaguary and Zagember could follow October and mark the start of college hoops.

MDABE80
10-19-2015, 11:02 AM
The solution is to simply add 2 months to the year. The year's third month could be Zaguary and Zagember could follow October and mark the start of college hoops.

this!

229SintoZag
10-19-2015, 12:14 PM
Isn't Larry Scott the genius who has presided over the startup of the one conference network that I still after four years cannot get on my TV as a DirecTV subscriber? Sure, I can get any game there is in the SEC, Big 11 networks and I can see pretty much any college football game in the country that is televised in American with my DirecTv sports package, but I can't see the Huskies or the Cougs regularly because of the rocket scientist Larry Scott.

Putting some of your most important football and men's basketball games on your own network, then refusing to sell access to that network to your fans, is a brilliant marketing decision.

I would not care as much if I could simply buy an online access to Pac 12 Networks to stream it for the games I want, but that is not an option. In this age of Hulu, netflix, HBO GO, etc., it is absurd that this is not an option, as this is where TV is going and I can just about ensure you that in a decade I will be able to do just that, whether Scott likes it or not.

Scott's only solution is to ask me to switch providers. Given that DirecTv is otherwise excellent, I refuse to do it just to see a few games a year.

The suggestion that we should filddle at all with college basketball, which is as close as I have ever seen to being a sport that is perfect and needs no fixing, is absurd--but not surprising coming from this guy.

maynard g krebs
10-19-2015, 01:00 PM
The idea of moving the CBB season back is ludicrous, I agree. But the pac-12 isn't trying to hold up Direct Tv from what I've read. They easily and immediately reached deals with Comcast and Dish. DTV has been trying to lowball them, apparently. Fault may not be with Scott on this particular issue.

Seems DTV's marketing strategy is to put all their eggs in the NFL basket; NFL premium package, whatever it's called, is incl in their basic package whether you want it or not. They've made a business decision regarding the Pac 12 network; you can't sell something if a buyer won't pay a reasonable price for the product.

TheGonzagaFactor
10-19-2015, 01:10 PM
The idea of moving the CBB season back is ludicrous, I agree. But the pac-12 isn't trying to hold up Direct Tv from what I've read. They easily and immediately reached deals with Comcast and Dish. DTV has been trying to lowball them, apparently. Fault may not be with Scott on this particular issue.

Seems DTV's marketing strategy is to put all their eggs in the NFL basket; NFL premium package, whatever it's called, is incl in their basic package whether you want it or not. They've made a business decision regarding the Pac 12 network; you can't sell something if a buyer won't pay a reasonable price for the product.


It's a classic move in this situation for both companies to blame the other 100%. I'll usually side with anyone going against DTV until I learn otherwise.

Bogozags
10-19-2015, 01:21 PM
I'm sure the idea of the Hula-Hoop was also far fetched when it first came out BUT this is college basketball and the television networks are not going to give up their cash cow in February and March to move the sport into either the fall or spring semesters and can even imagine how this would work in the quarter semester system. This idea just isn't going to fly...

229SintoZag
10-19-2015, 01:25 PM
The idea of moving the CBB season back is ludicrous, I agree. But the pac-12 isn't trying to hold up Direct Tv from what I've read. They easily and immediately reached deals with Comcast and Dish. DTV has been trying to lowball them, apparently. Fault may not be with Scott on this particular issue.

Seems DTV's marketing strategy is to put all their eggs in the NFL basket; NFL premium package, whatever it's called, is incl in their basic package whether you want it or not. They've made a business decision regarding the Pac 12 network; you can't sell something if a buyer won't pay a reasonable price for the product.

Nonsense. Every other conference has been able to reach a deal with DirecTV. If DirecTv was the problem, they their recent purchase by AT&T, which had been able to do a deal themselves with Pac 12 pre-merger, should have broken the logjam. But it didn't.
It is ABSURD that the one slate of football and hoops games I cannot get universal access to is the local games in the Pac 12 as a Washington resident. If Scott had any business sense or savvy whatsoever, he'd offer an online streaming package to cut DirecTV out as the middleman. In this day and age, his best leverage with DirecTv is to let them know he does not need them. And the best way for him to let them know that is for a ton of DirecTv guys like me to be able to order online streaming for something modest (10 bucks a month or some trivial amount) that lets me get around the DirecTv roadblock through my apple tv or my hulu or whatever. Even ESPN now has an online only package through Sling. And the reality is that he probably does not even have to ink such a deal to make progress: if he just set up meetings with Apple and Hulu and Amazon and Sling, etc., and leaked a bunch of rumors about who is going to get the Pac 12 streaming deal, he'd have DirecTv caving like a wet blanket in no time.

I would also add that there is a virtue, when starting a new network, in getting eyeballs and subscribers in your column which may justify a less-than-stellar "first" deal, in an effort to "lock in" subscribers and eyeballs. Scott should have negotiated as much as he could and taken the best deal DirecTv gave him as an "initial" deal or even just an "interim" deal of one your or something--anything to get on the DirecTv system and to get their subscribes used to seeing Pac 12 Network. This would increase the viewership, which would increase the ad revenue to the network, and to DirecTv. This incentivizes everyone to keep the deal going once it is underway--which would give Pac 12 more leverage once the initial deal was about to expire. Rarely do networks not cut deals with cable providers once their carriage contracts expire. And when networks do get cut off, it usually gets resolved within days or weeks because of the irate customers who think they "bought" a package with certain channels, who are threatening class actions suits for paying for a package without those channels. If DirecTV starts signing up new subscribers and selling them incentive sports network deals and chanel packages, DirecTV owes those subscribers what it promised them and has some real explaining to do if it cannot deliver what the customer signed up and paid for. If it cannot deliver it owes refunds and it hemmhorages customers etc. This phenomenon will have a marvelous way of making DirecTv "come to Jesus" in negotiations.

AND YET: None of these dynamics are at play now because Scott has no business acumen and apparently wants an all or nothing ideal deal in his first contract with DirecTv. Not surprising, since he has no formal training in business, he has a bachelors in history. His claim to fame is running Women's Tennis. He has no relationship with the Pac 12, has no appreciation for its esteemed history as a conference, and no clue what he is doing. Meanwhile, Texas, BYU, the B1G, the SEC all run their own networks and are killing it in revenue, laughing all the way to the bank.

Given DirecTv's exclusive status with the NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTv has the biggest and one of the best sports-minded subscriber bases out there. To let that entire fan base (basically football fans in the entire western third of the country, given the Pac 12's footprint) sit there without access for now going on half a decade is almost criminally negligent leadership. I am shocked he still has his job.

ProjectMKUltra5
10-19-2015, 02:30 PM
Nonsense. Every other conference has been able to reach a deal with DirecTV. If DirecTv was the problem, they their recent purchase by AT&T, which had been able to do a deal themselves with Pac 12 pre-merger, should have broken the logjam. But it didn't.
It is ABSURD that the one slate of football and hoops games I cannot get universal access to is the local games in the Pac 12 as a Washington resident. If Scott had any business sense or savvy whatsoever, he'd offer an online streaming package to cut DirecTV out as the middleman. In this day and age, his best leverage with DirecTv is to let them know he does not need them. And the best way for him to let them know that is for a ton of DirecTv guys like me to be able to order online streaming for something modest (10 bucks a month or some trivial amount) that lets me get around the DirecTv roadblock through my apple tv or my hulu or whatever. Even ESPN now has an online only package through Sling. And the reality is that he probably does not even have to ink such a deal to make progress: if he just set up meetings with Apple and Hulu and Amazon and Sling, etc., and leaked a bunch of rumors about who is going to get the Pac 12 streaming deal, he'd have DirecTv caving like a wet blanket in no time.

I would also add that there is a virtue, when starting a new network, in getting eyeballs and subscribers in your column which may justify a less-than-stellar "first" deal, in an effort to "lock in" subscribers and eyeballs. Scott should have negotiated as much as he could and taken the best deal DirecTv gave him as an "initial" deal or even just an "interim" deal of one your or something--anything to get on the DirecTv system and to get their subscribes used to seeing Pac 12 Network. This would increase the viewership, which would increase the ad revenue to the network, and to DirecTv. This incentivizes everyone to keep the deal going once it is underway--which would give Pac 12 more leverage once the initial deal was about to expire. Rarely do networks not cut deals with cable providers once their carriage contracts expire. And when networks do get cut off, it usually gets resolved within days or weeks because of the irate customers who think they "bought" a package with certain channels, who are threatening class actions suits for paying for a package without those channels. If DirecTV starts signing up new subscribers and selling them incentive sports network deals and chanel packages, DirecTV owes those subscribers what it promised them and has some real explaining to do if it cannot deliver what the customer signed up and paid for. If it cannot deliver it owes refunds and it hemmhorages customers etc. This phenomenon will have a marvelous way of making DirecTv "come to Jesus" in negotiations.

AND YET: None of these dynamics are at play now because Scott has no business acumen and apparently wants an all or nothing ideal deal in his first contract with DirecTv. Not surprising, since he has no formal training in business, he has a bachelors in history. His claim to fame is running Women's Tennis. He has no relationship with the Pac 12, has no appreciation for its esteemed history as a conference, and no clue what he is doing. Meanwhile, Texas, BYU, the B1G, the SEC all run their own networks and are killing it in revenue, laughing all the way to the bank.

Given DirecTv's exclusive status with the NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTv has the biggest and one of the best sports-minded subscriber bases out there. To let that entire fan base (basically football fans in the entire western third of the country, given the Pac 12's footprint) sit there without access for now going on half a decade is almost criminally negligent leadership. I am shocked he still has his job.


https://media.giphy.com/media/5yLgocq1CCiB708HjSU/giphy.gif

ProjectMKUltra5
10-19-2015, 02:31 PM
I wish I had Pac12 network :(

DixieZag
10-19-2015, 03:19 PM
I'm sure it's true that there are fewer viewers (most places) in November when it is competing against football. Of course, that doesn't stop the NBA or NHL from starting even earlier. And, if maximizing viewership is the idea, pushing it well into the end of April, means pushing it into the NBA, NHL playoff seasons, and The Masters. So, while they could maybe gain a pick-up from November, they'd lose a lot more not having March be all about College BB.

Now, if someone wants to talk about moving the WCC conference season into the new year, as it most surely should be, I'd make that person king of college basketball.

Angelo Roncalli
10-19-2015, 05:16 PM
Now, if someone wants to talk about moving the WCC conference season into the new year, as it most surely should be, I'd make that person king of college basketball.

No one in the WCC likes this season's arrangement where league play begins before Christmas. I have been told that next season, league games will not begin before Christmas. They will likely start before New Year's, though...

maynard g krebs
10-20-2015, 01:40 PM
Nonsense. Every other conference has been able to reach a deal with DirecTV. If DirecTv was the problem, they their recent purchase by AT&T, which had been able to do a deal themselves with Pac 12 pre-merger, should have broken the logjam. But it didn't.
It is ABSURD that the one slate of football and hoops games I cannot get universal access to is the local games in the Pac 12 as a Washington resident. If Scott had any business sense or savvy whatsoever, he'd offer an online streaming package to cut DirecTV out as the middleman. In this day and age, his best leverage with DirecTv is to let them know he does not need them. And the best way for him to let them know that is for a ton of DirecTv guys like me to be able to order online streaming for something modest (10 bucks a month or some trivial amount) that lets me get around the DirecTv roadblock through my apple tv or my hulu or whatever. Even ESPN now has an online only package through Sling. And the reality is that he probably does not even have to ink such a deal to make progress: if he just set up meetings with Apple and Hulu and Amazon and Sling, etc., and leaked a bunch of rumors about who is going to get the Pac 12 streaming deal, he'd have DirecTv caving like a wet blanket in no time.

I would also add that there is a virtue, when starting a new network, in getting eyeballs and subscribers in your column which may justify a less-than-stellar "first" deal, in an effort to "lock in" subscribers and eyeballs. Scott should have negotiated as much as he could and taken the best deal DirecTv gave him as an "initial" deal or even just an "interim" deal of one your or something--anything to get on the DirecTv system and to get their subscribes used to seeing Pac 12 Network. This would increase the viewership, which would increase the ad revenue to the network, and to DirecTv. This incentivizes everyone to keep the deal going once it is underway--which would give Pac 12 more leverage once the initial deal was about to expire. Rarely do networks not cut deals with cable providers once their carriage contracts expire. And when networks do get cut off, it usually gets resolved within days or weeks because of the irate customers who think they "bought" a package with certain channels, who are threatening class actions suits for paying for a package without those channels. If DirecTV starts signing up new subscribers and selling them incentive sports network deals and chanel packages, DirecTV owes those subscribers what it promised them and has some real explaining to do if it cannot deliver what the customer signed up and paid for. If it cannot deliver it owes refunds and it hemmhorages customers etc. This phenomenon will have a marvelous way of making DirecTv "come to Jesus" in negotiations.

AND YET: None of these dynamics are at play now because Scott has no business acumen and apparently wants an all or nothing ideal deal in his first contract with DirecTv. Not surprising, since he has no formal training in business, he has a bachelors in history. His claim to fame is running Women's Tennis. He has no relationship with the Pac 12, has no appreciation for its esteemed history as a conference, and no clue what he is doing. Meanwhile, Texas, BYU, the B1G, the SEC all run their own networks and are killing it in revenue, laughing all the way to the bank.

Given DirecTv's exclusive status with the NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTv has the biggest and one of the best sports-minded subscriber bases out there. To let that entire fan base (basically football fans in the entire western third of the country, given the Pac 12's footprint) sit there without access for now going on half a decade is almost criminally negligent leadership. I am shocked he still has his job.

Nonsense, noun: spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.

I really don't think that applies in the case of my post. I merely pointed out that there are two sides to this issue, and I think it's incorrect to blame Scott entirely. In Scott's words " THE SCHOOLS (caps mine) weren't willing to compromise the business model..."; that implies that he is carrying out the wishes of the members' presidents/ADs. Continuing, "We've got partnerships with over 70 different companies that pay the same rates and give us a lot of exposure. (We) can't do something dramatically different for one that we're not doing for the 70 other partners."

The league's members voted unanimously to reject ATT's last offer; it wasn't the unilateral decision by Scott that you suggest.

There's a long list of things that have improved for the pac since he took over. I won't list them all, but the bottom line is that the schools' athletic programs are raking in a ton more money than they were before. Hard to reconcile that with his alleged lack of business acumen imo.

You may be right about some of the things they could be doing; I don't know or care. But none of that is really germane to the topic in a more than tangential way.

If you want to see an example of nonsense posted on this board, there was a post in a recent thread about the WSU series claiming that it is better to play a low RPI team from a major conf than one from a mid or low tier conf, when in fact the opposite is true. Perhaps you remember it, and my hope is that that memory will help you avoid the use of pejoratives regarding others' posts in the future.

And in that vein, it's interesting to note the contradiction in your earlier post between complaining, yet saying it doesn't matter enough to you to switch providers over a handful of games. That's exactly why DTV won't pay market rate. If they had a few hundred thousand cancellations (in addition to mine and, I assume, a few others), they'd change their tune in a hurry. But it bothered you enough to #####, but not enough to change providers.

229SintoZag
10-20-2015, 03:06 PM
Nonsense, noun: spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.

I really don't think that applies in the case of my post. I merely pointed out that there are two sides to this issue, and I think it's incorrect to blame Scott entirely. In Scott's words " THE SCHOOLS (caps mine) weren't willing to compromise the business model..."; that implies that he is carrying out the wishes of the members' presidents/ADs. Continuing, "We've got partnerships with over 70 different companies that pay the same rates and give us a lot of exposure. (We) can't do something dramatically different for one that we're not doing for the 70 other partners."

The league's members voted unanimously to reject ATT's last offer; it wasn't the unilateral decision by Scott that you suggest.

There's a long list of things that have improved for the pac since he took over. I won't list them all, but the bottom line is that the schools' athletic programs are raking in a ton more money than they were before. Hard to reconcile that with his alleged lack of business acumen imo.

You may be right about some of the things they could be doing; I don't know or care. But none of that is really germane to the topic in a more than tangential way.

If you want to see an example of nonsense posted on this board, there was a post in a recent thread about the WSU series claiming that it is better to play a low RPI team from a major conf than one from a mid or low tier conf, when in fact the opposite is true. Perhaps you remember it, and my hope is that that memory will help you avoid the use of pejoratives regarding others' posts in the future.

And in that vein, it's interesting to note the contradiction in your earlier post between complaining, yet saying it doesn't matter enough to you to switch providers over a handful of games. That's exactly why DTV won't pay market rate. If they had a few hundred thousand cancellations (in addition to mine and, I assume, a few others), they'd change their tune in a hurry. But it bothered you enough to #####, but not enough to change providers.

For the record krebs, I was referring to the spin from Pac 12 and Scott as nonsense, not you personally. Sorry you took it that way. I won't respond to your personal attacks. If you want to take the position that playing teams from weak conferences is a superior approach to playing teams from power conferences, be my guest. I know how the RPI works and always have; the post you were referring to had a mistake in it where I left a word out. I admitted it and we moved on.

I will stand by what I said about Scott and the DirecTV deal. It is an abomination that he has not gotten something done for 5 years now on this. The Pac 12 Network has improved revenue as has the Pac 12 title game and the hoops Pac 12 tournament. I don't doubt this. I am just saying he could be doing better and should be. The buck needs to stop with him and the bottom line is he hasn't gotten it done.

seacatfan
10-20-2015, 03:08 PM
Pac 12 Network is generally great, allows me to watch a whole lot more games than before, including sports other than football and basketball. One negative is that games can be any day of the week and start times can be fairly odd. On the one hand it makes sense that they want to fill up as much programming with live events as possible. However the downside is that in some cases it's absolutely killing attendance at games (volleyball has been particularly hit hard by this). I guess the conference is content with dwindling live audiences for many of the games as long as they have some eyeballs watching the games on TV.

maynard g krebs
10-20-2015, 06:07 PM
For the record krebs, I was referring to the spin from Pac 12 and Scott as nonsense, not you personally. Sorry you took it that way. I won't respond to your personal attacks. If you want to take the position that playing teams from weak conferences is a superior approach to playing teams from power conferences, be my guest. I know how the RPI works and always have; the post you were referring to had a mistake in it where I left a word out. I admitted it and we moved on.

I will stand by what I said about Scott and the DirecTV deal. It is an abomination that he has not gotten something done for 5 years now on this. The Pac 12 Network has improved revenue as has the Pac 12 title game and the hoops Pac 12 tournament. I don't doubt this. I am just saying he could be doing better and should be. The buck needs to stop with him and the bottom line is he hasn't gotten it done.

Not buying any of your first paragraph. And I didn't take the position cited; only referenced RPI.

When you quote a post and respond with the word "nonsense", that is taken as a response to the post by anyone who reads it. If you had said what you just have claimed to have meant, I would have taken it as that. Pretty poor self-expression at best.

As to business school being a prerequisite for anything, Gates is a college dropout; he's not alone. It doesn't take an MBA to understand that if you give one customer a price break, every other customer you have that finds out about it will demand the same. As I said, Scott is bound by the votes of the member schools. You can defend your position all you want, but it's sounding pretty obtuse, frankly.

When I had DTV, one channel or another was disappearing from the airwaves every couple of months due to contract disputes.

As to personal attacks, that's really how I took yours. Just defending my nonsensical post, not attacking.

By the way, I need some legal help. I'm willing to pay ten dollars an hour. I'm sure you'll be happy to go to work for me.

229SintoZag
10-21-2015, 05:27 AM
Not buying any of your first paragraph. And I didn't take the position cited; only referenced RPI.

When you quote a post and respond with the word "nonsense", that is taken as a response to the post by anyone who reads it. If you had said what you just have claimed to have meant, I would have taken it as that. Pretty poor self-expression at best.

As to business school being a prerequisite for anything, Gates is a college dropout; he's not alone. It doesn't take an MBA to understand that if you give one customer a price break, every other customer you have that finds out about it will demand the same. As I said, Scott is bound by the votes of the member schools. You can defend your position all you want, but it's sounding pretty obtuse, frankly.

When I had DTV, one channel or another was disappearing from the airwaves every couple of months due to contract disputes.

As to personal attacks, that's really how I took yours. Just defending my nonsensical post, not attacking.

By the way, I need some legal help. I'm willing to pay ten dollars an hour. I'm sure you'll be happy to go to work for me.

Please don't be offended, but I really don't care if you "buy" anything. After the word "nonsense" I went on to explain in very exquisite detail why I disagreed with the spin from the Pac 12 on their dispute with DirecTV. It should be obvious that is where my beef is: with the Pac 12's nonsensical approach to this and their spin that this is all DirecTv's fault. I made a lot of points attacking the Pac 12 and attacking their fearless leader. I said not one word about you. I don't even know you and I am quite sure we likely have never met. Lighten up. My bet is if we did meet we'd get along swimmingly.

As for your invitation to do legal work for ten dollars an hour, I'd gladly do that work if I thought that it was an investment in a long term deal that would foster a relationship over many years that would help me be profitable. I'd gladly take a short term hit if it was part of a measured and calculated approach toward a long term success. I'd take the long view on that. I wish the Pac 12 would take the same approach.