(02-18-2023 12:21 PM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 11:47 AM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 09:13 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  So diehard PAC fans would have to have at least three paid services to see the games? Plus all their other services, for other purposes.

If they're going streaming that's worse for fans than the deal MLS took with Apple. If a sports property is thinking of going to majority streaming then it's better for fans if they go all in on one like MLS did and put every single game on that one service. Then if the league wants they could negotiate like MLS did for some games to also be broadcast on a network or cable channel so that those specific games are more accessible to the general public.

Why deal with Amazon if they're only interested in a small amount of games? I get still dealing with a network like Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS to get games with the widest reach possible but Amazon is also streaming and is reportedly trying to play hardball.

Beecause they're out of options. They're not choosing between offers, they're pretty much begging for offers to cobble together a media rights number above or close to $30M or maybe even $25M per school.

The stock market, the media economics environment and the amount of money networks are throwing at streaming are very different than they were a year or two ago. Not in the PAC's favor.

I don't know to me it does seem like they do have a choice between going all in on Apple and going with a weird split of different streamers.

If Apple was willing to pay $250 million a year to MLS are they really not offering the PAC any more than that? Has domestic soccer really passed college football in value?

We're not talking about Alabama and Ohio State and Tennessee and LSU and Georgia and Michigan and Penn STate. We're talking Utah and Oregon and Arizona.

30 MLS teams vs 10 PAC teams, yes MLS could easily have more value. You're talking about small but loyal fanbases. And soccer hasn't hit its ceiling in the US. I know, I know, soccer has been the "sport of the future" in the United STates for my entire 50 year life, but that's still the perception and to some extent reality. MLS now is stronger than MLS 10-20 years ago.

Is PAC football or basketball in better shape than they were 10-20 years ago?

Quote:If Apple wants to get into live sports as apart of a long term strategy they're still sitting on more than enough cash to buy in to college football.

Yes, Apple has cash to burn. That doesn't mean they're going to set it on fire on purpose.

Quote:To me it seems like the attempt to cobble things together is more about a fear of having less of a reach by being just on streaming. Which is why doing what MLS did and getting Apple to agree to allow some games to also be on network TV or cable makes sense, but Amazon isn't network TV or even cable. If Amazon isn't buying a significant amount of games then I see no reason to force their inclusion

Because, presumably, Amazon is offering major money for that one game. (At least compared to what ESPN or Apple is offering for the GOTW).

Quote:unless for some reason Apple doesn't care about losing some of the Pac's biggest games to a streaming competitor. I imagine Apple would care about that and is offering less on their portion of the deal if every week one of the Pac's biggest games is on Amazon instead of Apple.

It's possible that these pieces do not fit together at all, and Apple-Amazon-ESPN ends up being a rumor that never comes to pass, or a failed deal.

Or it's possible that Apple is assembling strong subscription-based sports rights, things that small but dedicated audiences will pay $10 or 15 a month for. IF that's the strategy, then much like selling Fox the top game or two a week, then the GOTW is more valuable on Amazon, where a casual fan probably has PRime and can watch it, than on Apple TV, where a casual fan isn't going to subscribe just to watch that GOTW when they already have a ton of SEC and Big Ten and ACC, Big 12 games to choose from.

Your diehard fans will subscribe so that they can watch EVERY Oregon STate game. One or two will be on Amazon, three or four on ESPN After DArk, but they'll pay to see the other half-dozen or so games on Apple TV. (They may or may not have paid for the PAC-12 Networks, but a lot of them never had the chance)

(02-18-2023 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:21 PM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 11:47 AM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 09:13 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  So diehard PAC fans would have to have at least three paid services to see the games? Plus all their other services, for other purposes.

If they're going streaming that's worse for fans than the deal MLS took with Apple. If a sports property is thinking of going to majority streaming then it's better for fans if they go all in on one like MLS did and put every single game on that one service. Then if the league wants they could negotiate like MLS did for some games to also be broadcast on a network or cable channel so that those specific games are more accessible to the general public.

Why deal with Amazon if they're only interested in a small amount of games? I get still dealing with a network like Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS to get games with the widest reach possible but Amazon is also streaming and is reportedly trying to play hardball.

Beecause they're out of options. They're not choosing between offers, they're pretty much begging for offers to cobble together a media rights number above or close to $30M or maybe even $25M per school.

The stock market, the media economics environment and the amount of money networks are throwing at streaming are very different than they were a year or two ago. Not in the PAC's favor.

I don't know to me it does seem like they do have a choice between going all in on Apple and going with a weird split of different streamers.

If Apple was willing to pay $250 million a year to MLS are they really not offering the PAC any more than that? Has domestic soccer really passed college football in value?

We're not talking about Alabama and Ohio State and Tennessee and LSU and Georgia and Michigan and Penn STate. We're talking Utah and Oregon and Arizona.

30 MLS teams vs 10 PAC teams, yes MLS could easily have more value. You're talking about small but loyal fanbases. And soccer hasn't hit its ceiling in the US. I know, I know, soccer has been the "sport of the future" in the United STates for my entire 50 year life, but that's still the perception and to some extent reality. MLS now is stronger than MLS 10-20 years ago.

Is PAC football or basketball in better shape than they were 10-20 years ago?

Quote:If Apple wants to get into live sports as apart of a long term strategy they're still sitting on more than enough cash to buy in to college football.

Yes, Apple has cash to burn. That doesn't mean they're going to set it on fire on purpose.

Quote:To me it seems like the attempt to cobble things together is more about a fear of having less of a reach by being just on streaming. Which is why doing what MLS did and getting Apple to agree to allow some games to also be on network TV or cable makes sense, but Amazon isn't network TV or even cable. If Amazon isn't buying a significant amount of games then I see no reason to force their inclusion

Because, presumably, Amazon is offering major money for that one game. (At least compared to what ESPN or Apple is offering for the GOTW).

Quote:unless for some reason Apple doesn't care about losing some of the Pac's biggest games to a streaming competitor. I imagine Apple would care about that and is offering less on their portion of the deal if every week one of the Pac's biggest games is on Amazon instead of Apple.

It's possible that these pieces do not fit together at all, and Apple-Amazon-ESPN ends up being a rumor that never comes to pass, or a failed deal.

Or it's possible that Apple is assembling strong subscription-based sports rights, things that small but dedicated audiences will pay $10 or 15 a month for. IF that's the strategy, then much like selling Fox the top game or two a week, then the GOTW is more valuable on Amazon, where a casual fan probably has PRime and can watch it, than on Apple TV, where a casual fan isn't going to subscribe just to watch that GOTW when they already have a ton of SEC and Big Ten and ACC, Big 12 games to choose from.

Your diehard fans will subscribe so that they can watch EVERY Oregon STate game. One or two will be on Amazon, three or four on ESPN After DArk, but they'll pay to see the other half-dozen or so games on Apple TV. (They may or may not have paid for the PAC-12 Networks, but a lot of them never had the chance)

From Feb 17th, 2023 John Wilner Hotline:

- ESPN and Amazon as the major players, but my hunch is that a third entity is involved, with Apple as the most likely.

- My guess is the media deal has a linear broadcast element, with a package of games on ABC and ESPN. Whether ESPN’s inventory haul is more or less than 25 percent of the Pac-12 total, which would match the current commitment, I cannot say.

- The Pac-12 presidents have discussed adding two schools, four schools or zero schools but have not made a final decision. SMU and San Diego State are believed to be atop the list, but at least two more are under consideration. (We cannot confirm their identities. Our only option is to speculate, and my hunch is Rice and Tulane.)

-The reason to add any schools is inventory — You can play 13-15 more home football games per season with 12 teams as opposed to 10, and those extra games could carry value to media partners. (26-30 more home football games per season with 14 opposed to 10)

My current Expansion estimates:
---No expansion: 50 percent
---Two schools: 40 percent
---Four schools: 10 percent

A week from now, those numbers could change. It’s a fluid process.


Link
https://www.marinij.com/2023/02/17/hotli...-and-more/

(02-18-2023 03:30 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  From Feb 17th, 2023 John Wilner Hotline:
....
Whether ESPN’s inventory haul is more or less than 25 percent of the Pac-12 total, which would match the current commitment, I cannot say.

I wonder if this is a more common thing than we as fans assume--that contract provisions carry over when there's not a ton of logic to them? That the new PAC contract is a 50-25-25 framework, so you have space for three partners, whether or not that reflects reality?

Quote:at least two more are under consideration. (We cannot confirm their identities. Our only option is to speculate, and my hunch is Rice and Tulane.)

Maybe when you're this far down the pecking order, the difference between Fresno's fanbase and Rice's fanbase is trivial--they're both effectively zero?

Quote:Link
https://www.marinij.com/2023/02/17/hotli...-and-more/

(02-18-2023 03:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 03:30 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  From Feb 17th, 2023 John Wilner Hotline:
....
Whether ESPN’s inventory haul is more or less than 25 percent of the Pac-12 total, which would match the current commitment, I cannot say.

I wonder if this is a more common thing than we as fans assume--that contract provisions carry over when there's not a ton of logic to them? That the new PAC contract is a 50-25-25 framework, so you have space for three partners, whether or not that reflects reality?

Quote:at least two more are under consideration. (We cannot confirm their identities. Our only option is to speculate, and my hunch is Rice and Tulane.)

Maybe when you're this far down the pecking order, the difference between Fresno's fanbase and Rice's fanbase is trivial--they're both effectively zero?

Quote:Link
https://www.marinij.com/2023/02/17/hotli...-and-more/

If it's Apple and ESPN and they need more inventory - I could see the PAC Officials approving this.

(02-18-2023 12:44 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:31 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:21 PM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 11:47 AM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  If they're going streaming that's worse for fans than the deal MLS took with Apple. If a sports property is thinking of going to majority streaming then it's better for fans if they go all in on one like MLS did and put every single game on that one service. Then if the league wants they could negotiate like MLS did for some games to also be broadcast on a network or cable channel so that those specific games are more accessible to the general public.

Why deal with Amazon if they're only interested in a small amount of games? I get still dealing with a network like Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS to get games with the widest reach possible but Amazon is also streaming and is reportedly trying to play hardball.

Beecause they're out of options. They're not choosing between offers, they're pretty much begging for offers to cobble together a media rights number above or close to $30M or maybe even $25M per school.

The stock market, the media economics environment and the amount of money networks are throwing at streaming are very different than they were a year or two ago. Not in the PAC's favor.

I don't know to me it does seem like they do have a choice between going all in on Apple and going with a weird split of different streamers.

If Apple was willing to pay $250 million a year to MLS are they really not offering the PAC any more than that? Has domestic soccer really passed college football in value? If Apple wants to get into live sports as apart of a long term strategy they're still sitting on more than enough cash to buy in to college football.

To me it seems like the attempt to cobble things together is more about a fear of having less of a reach by being just on streaming. Which is why doing what MLS did and getting Apple to agree to allow some games to also be on network TV or cable makes sense, but Amazon isn't network TV or even cable. If Amazon isn't buying a significant amount of games then I see no reason to force their inclusion.

MLS is a nationwide product in most every major market now. Its demographics trend younger and more racially diverse. It has seen a major uptick in interest over the past 7-10 years. It's a growth investment. These from several years ago, when MLS had fewer teams...interest has only grown since. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2018/ga...in-the-us/ https://www.sounderatheart.com/2016/5/12...%20of%2045

Compare that to the PAC-12, where fan interest is dwindling, and it's in only 7 major markets (Cal/Stanford share SF; Oregon/OSU share Portland; Pullman/Spokane isn't "major"). There's no way Apple is going to pour the same amount of money into the PAC-12. If anything, even if they're dilutive of the payout, adding more tonnage through programs like SDSU and SMU may be necessary to even get Apple the inventory at which they'd want to consider it.

The MLS has a $90 million tv contract, or about $3 million per team. Which honestly is about $2.5 million per team than they deserve.

Even the WNBA has more people who watch it than the MLS. Almost all of the few soccer fans in the US watch European soccer.

There was an MLS game televised on network FOX that attracted 477,000 viewers. I have no idea why TV companies are seriously paying for that.
https://deadspin.com/so-what-will-mls-do...1848784249


"Interest in the MLS growing"? Yeah, well maybe they had 277,000 fans 10 years ago, and 477,000 fans now. Who cares?

$250 million a year not $90 million.

Quote:On Wednesday, Major League Soccer and Apple gave further details about their new broadcast agreement which will kick off with the 2023 season. The league and tech giant announced a 10-year pact this summer, with Apple paying $2.5 billion for the rights to show every MLS match.