(02-24-2023 04:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:07 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 03:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Stadium is sort of what this would be. (If it's real, of course).

Games on rando local TV stations. At least it's on TV.

ION local stations are no more "rando" than ABC local stations. It's channel 15 on my cable, right next to a Fox station, while FS1 is 35, BTN is 715, and ESPNU is 730. (I think it was since outlawed, but low-numbered channels were so desirable that cable systems used to offer them to satellite-delivered channels for a price.)

I call them rando channels because they're low rated. They aren't channels people are habituated to watch like ABC or Fox. Much like TruTV on cable, it's there on basic cable, but sports fans have to look up the number once a year when there's an NCAA tournament game. But you're used to TNT and TBS.

Quote:And as far as "low-rated" goes, I think we all remember the NFC deal with what at the time was a "low-rated" network of "mostly UHF stations." Fox is now one of the major players in sports broadcasting.

Yes, a thing happened 35 years ago. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen again. At least not powered by PAC-10 or PAC-12 sports.

Quote:Now the NFC is more desirable than any college conference, and Rupert Murdoch was willing to shell out big bucks for it - the point is that potential viewership is not dependent on what (or who) a network's CURRENT viewership is. Golf fans who've never watched the CW are watching golf on the CW.

I kind of agree--OTA is universally available, so it's an attractive platform. But current viewership IS important -- that baseline / built in audience is a factor. It's why the FOX network is worth .... something, while Nexstar bought CW basically for a dollar.

Quote:And while I'll admit to not understanding the current TV landscape, it was always my sense that when it comes to being seen, being on a broadcast station is preferable to cable, streaming, or anything people have to pay extra for.

Yes but.

OTA has the advantage of universal access. But cable or streamers generate more revenue, so they've bought up most sports rights. (By "they" I mostly mean ESPN. ESPN buys sports, charges a premium to carry ESPN on cable. Then if the cable company tries to drop ESPN, a thousand angry guys call up to cancel cable if they can't watch the games why are they paying all this money. Meanwhile 90% of the cable audience isn't watching those games and doesn't care, they just pay because it's cable. Until they dont, which is cord cutting)

I'm one of the people on the thread more or less in favor of the PAC signing with Ion TV for a 50% split of the ads (in other words, near-zero dollars). But that's partially a reflection of how terrible I see the PAC's options are. Being on television is better than not being on television (or being on a pay service that 90% of sports fans don't have)

Just dropping this in from the previous page:

(02-24-2023 03:01 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Found this: https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/most-wa...235475170/



For reference, ESPN2 is down at #41.

Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).


And Ion is typically (at least in my area) found in the same section of the Guide as ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX (if those are channels 3, 4, 5, and 6, I've typically seen Ion around 9 or 10). Would be an interesting experiment to hit that guide button and see live football on all 5 of those stations on a single screen in the guide.

Yeah, now that I realize that Ion Sports is available to practically everybody, I don't think this is as bad of a potential partner as people are claiming.

Yeah, Ion Sports currently gets almost no viewers, but it is available for people to watch. It's not like Ion Sports will still have zero viewers after they put PAC games on there.

You keep saying Ion Sports like it's a separate cable channel. It's just Channel 11 or 28 or 54 depending on what their affiliate in your area is.

(02-24-2023 04:40 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  There’s something weird going on.

Different reporters who generally trade in hard info rather than speculation got completely contradictory stories.

I’m putting on my tinfoil hat. This looks like an attempt to ferret out a mole (sorry for mixing mole and mustelid metaphors). At some point I’m going to start wondering if there is an inside party who would prefer that things go sideways prompting others to join them in the BigXII.

Plot straight out of a movie. Tell 8 people 8 different things and see what leaks out.

Apple TV REJECTS PAC 12! ION tv emerges as a new possible tv partner with PAC 12. Is this the end?
Gold&Blue Dude: More bad news for the PAC 12. Looks like Apple TV is actually turning DOWN the PAC 12, or is it the other way around? I’m hearing that the PAC 12 presidents did NOT wanna go 100% streaming. Now ION TV has emerged as a possible partner!!

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnC6Z_nrdG8

(02-24-2023 04:49 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Apple TV REJECTS PAC 12! ION tv emerges as a new possible tv partner with PAC 12. Is this the end?
Gold&Blue Dude: More bad news for the PAC 12. Looks like Apple TV is actually turning DOWN the PAC 12, or is it the other way around? I’m hearing that the PAC 12 presidents did NOT wanna go 100% streaming. Now ION TV has emerged as a possible partner!!

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnC6Z_nrdG8

Gold&Blue is what WVU calls itself. I'm not willing to trust any news from WVU.

And Gold&Blue Dude seems like something that the especially infamous Dude of WV might have renamed himself.

Greg Flugaur: ION television has emerged as a potential Pac-12 partner

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Empu_0Srgg

(02-24-2023 04:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:07 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 03:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Stadium is sort of what this would be. (If it's real, of course).

Games on rando local TV stations. At least it's on TV.

ION local stations are no more "rando" than ABC local stations. It's channel 15 on my cable, right next to a Fox station, while FS1 is 35, BTN is 715, and ESPNU is 730. (I think it was since outlawed, but low-numbered channels were so desirable that cable systems used to offer them to satellite-delivered channels for a price.)

I call them rando channels because they're low rated. They aren't channels people are habituated to watch like ABC or Fox. Much like TruTV on cable, it's there on basic cable, but sports fans have to look up the number once a year when there's an NCAA tournament game. But you're used to TNT and TBS.

Quote:And as far as "low-rated" goes, I think we all remember the NFC deal with what at the time was a "low-rated" network of "mostly UHF stations." Fox is now one of the major players in sports broadcasting.

Yes, a thing happened 35 years ago. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen again. At least not powered by PAC-10 or PAC-12 sports.

Quote:Now the NFC is more desirable than any college conference, and Rupert Murdoch was willing to shell out big bucks for it - the point is that potential viewership is not dependent on what (or who) a network's CURRENT viewership is. Golf fans who've never watched the CW are watching golf on the CW.

I kind of agree--OTA is universally available, so it's an attractive platform. But current viewership IS important -- that baseline / built in audience is a factor. It's why the FOX network is worth .... something, while Nexstar bought CW basically for a dollar.

Quote:And while I'll admit to not understanding the current TV landscape, it was always my sense that when it comes to being seen, being on a broadcast station is preferable to cable, streaming, or anything people have to pay extra for.

Yes but.

OTA has the advantage of universal access. But cable or streamers generate more revenue, so they've bought up most sports rights. (By "they" I mostly mean ESPN. ESPN buys sports, charges a premium to carry ESPN on cable. Then if the cable company tries to drop ESPN, a thousand angry guys call up to cancel cable if they can't watch the games why are they paying all this money. Meanwhile 90% of the cable audience isn't watching those games and doesn't care, they just pay because it's cable. Until they dont, which is cord cutting)

I'm one of the people on the thread more or less in favor of the PAC signing with Ion TV for a 50% split of the ads (in other words, near-zero dollars). But that's partially a reflection of how terrible I see the PAC's options are. Being on television is better than not being on television (or being on a pay service that 90% of sports fans don't have)

Just dropping this in from the previous page:

(02-24-2023 03:01 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Found this: https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/most-wa...235475170/



For reference, ESPN2 is down at #41.

Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).


And Ion is typically (at least in my area) found in the same section of the Guide as ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX (if those are channels 3, 4, 5, and 6, I've typically seen Ion around 9 or 10). Would be an interesting experiment to hit that guide button and see live football on all 5 of those stations on a single screen in the guide.

Yeah, now that I realize that Ion Sports is available to practically everybody, I don't think this is as bad of a potential partner as people are claiming.

Yeah, Ion Sports currently gets almost no viewers, but it is available for people to watch. It's not like Ion Sports will still have zero viewers after they put PAC games on there.

I'm 18 and looking for my big NIL deal. My top choices aren't going to include schools that have games on Apple or ION.

(02-24-2023 05:10 PM)splitstud Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:07 PM)NJMark Wrote:  ION local stations are no more "rando" than ABC local stations. It's channel 15 on my cable, right next to a Fox station, while FS1 is 35, BTN is 715, and ESPNU is 730. (I think it was since outlawed, but low-numbered channels were so desirable that cable systems used to offer them to satellite-delivered channels for a price.)

I call them rando channels because they're low rated. They aren't channels people are habituated to watch like ABC or Fox. Much like TruTV on cable, it's there on basic cable, but sports fans have to look up the number once a year when there's an NCAA tournament game. But you're used to TNT and TBS.

Quote:And as far as "low-rated" goes, I think we all remember the NFC deal with what at the time was a "low-rated" network of "mostly UHF stations." Fox is now one of the major players in sports broadcasting.

Yes, a thing happened 35 years ago. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen again. At least not powered by PAC-10 or PAC-12 sports.

Quote:Now the NFC is more desirable than any college conference, and Rupert Murdoch was willing to shell out big bucks for it - the point is that potential viewership is not dependent on what (or who) a network's CURRENT viewership is. Golf fans who've never watched the CW are watching golf on the CW.

I kind of agree--OTA is universally available, so it's an attractive platform. But current viewership IS important -- that baseline / built in audience is a factor. It's why the FOX network is worth .... something, while Nexstar bought CW basically for a dollar.

Quote:And while I'll admit to not understanding the current TV landscape, it was always my sense that when it comes to being seen, being on a broadcast station is preferable to cable, streaming, or anything people have to pay extra for.

Yes but.

OTA has the advantage of universal access. But cable or streamers generate more revenue, so they've bought up most sports rights. (By "they" I mostly mean ESPN. ESPN buys sports, charges a premium to carry ESPN on cable. Then if the cable company tries to drop ESPN, a thousand angry guys call up to cancel cable if they can't watch the games why are they paying all this money. Meanwhile 90% of the cable audience isn't watching those games and doesn't care, they just pay because it's cable. Until they dont, which is cord cutting)

I'm one of the people on the thread more or less in favor of the PAC signing with Ion TV for a 50% split of the ads (in other words, near-zero dollars). But that's partially a reflection of how terrible I see the PAC's options are. Being on television is better than not being on television (or being on a pay service that 90% of sports fans don't have)

Just dropping this in from the previous page:

(02-24-2023 03:01 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Found this: https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/most-wa...235475170/



For reference, ESPN2 is down at #41.

Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).


And Ion is typically (at least in my area) found in the same section of the Guide as ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX (if those are channels 3, 4, 5, and 6, I've typically seen Ion around 9 or 10). Would be an interesting experiment to hit that guide button and see live football on all 5 of those stations on a single screen in the guide.

Yeah, now that I realize that Ion Sports is available to practically everybody, I don't think this is as bad of a potential partner as people are claiming.

Yeah, Ion Sports currently gets almost no viewers, but it is available for people to watch. It's not like Ion Sports will still have zero viewers after they put PAC games on there.

I'm 18 and looking for my big NIL deal. My top choices aren't going to include schools that have games on Apple or ION.

Well the PAC has swung and missed on pretty much all of those options. We're talking about what's achievable at this point

Larry Scott put the Pac-12 on its current rocky path. How did Scott manage to work a decade as commissioner? Why was he able to operate, seemingly unchecked?

The short answer: his bosses.

In August of 2012, the Pac-12 announced it was launching its own media company. This was sold to the public as a bold and innovative move. The Pac-12 planned to make its network as a side hustle. What the presidents and chancellors didn’t publicly say at the time was that they were going on their own because they had no other choice.

ESPN declined to partner with the Pac-12 on the launch of the network in 2012, I’m told. FOX and CBS also turned Scott’s conference down. So did the Discovery Channel, per a source involved in the negotiations.

“We weren’t wanted,” said the source. “The only option the Pac-12 had if it wanted its own network was to do it ourselves. I don’t think anyone who was sitting in the room — the presidents, chancellors, and consultants — nobody had launched a network. Nobody knew what it would take.”

Larry Scott justified his $5.4 million salary and the use of a private plane by explaining to his bosses that he wasn’t just running a conference. He was pulling double-duty as a media executive, too.

At the launch, the conference boasted that the network would be available in 40 million households. Later, the Pac-12 claimed it could be found in as many 90 million homes. But DirecTV refused to distribute the channel. So did some others. The poor distribution became a source of ongoing frustration for fans and schools. In the end, as few as 12 million television homes actually got the Pac-12 Network.

A few months ago, the Pac-12 Network announced it was moving the operation to a 42,000 square-foot facility in the Bay Area suburbs. I took that as a sign of progress. The move to a less expensive facility made sense. But I still wonder if the conference needs to be a media company at all.

The Pac-12 presidents and chancellors need to be informed, proactive, and decisive. They need to demonstrate that they understand how critical this media rights negotiation and expansion decision are to the Pac-12’s future. They have to get it right and they can’t sit around debating it into paralysis.

It’s time for the Pac-12’s leaders to lead.


Link
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-ti...ses-in-pac

(02-24-2023 05:29 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Larry Scott put the Pac-12 on its current rocky path. How did Scott manage to work a decade as commissioner? Why was he able to operate, seemingly unchecked?

The short answer: his bosses.

In August of 2012, the Pac-12 announced it was launching its own media company. This was sold to the public as a bold and innovative move. The Pac-12 planned to make its network as a side hustle. What the presidents and chancellors didn’t publicly say at the time was that they were going on their own because they had no other choice.

ESPN declined to partner with the Pac-12 on the launch of the network in 2012, I’m told. FOX and CBS also turned Scott’s conference down. So did the Discovery Channel, per a source involved in the negotiations.

“We weren’t wanted,” said the source. “The only option the Pac-12 had if it wanted its own network was to do it ourselves. I don’t think anyone who was sitting in the room — the presidents, chancellors, and consultants — nobody had launched a network. Nobody knew what it would take.”

Larry Scott justified his $5.4 million salary and the use of a private plane by explaining to his bosses that he wasn’t just running a conference. He was pulling double-duty as a media executive, too.

At the launch, the conference boasted that the network would be available in 40 million households. Later, the Pac-12 claimed it could be found in as many 90 million homes. But DirecTV refused to distribute the channel. So did some others. The poor distribution became a source of ongoing frustration for fans and schools. In the end, as few as 12 million television homes actually got the Pac-12 Network.

A few months ago, the Pac-12 Network announced it was moving the operation to a 42,000 square-foot facility in the Bay Area suburbs. I took that as a sign of progress. The move to a less expensive facility made sense. But I still wonder if the conference needs to be a media company at all.

The Pac-12 presidents and chancellors need to be informed, proactive, and decisive. They need to demonstrate that they understand how critical this media rights negotiation and expansion decision are to the Pac-12’s future. They have to get it right and they can’t sit around debating it into paralysis.

It’s time for the Pac-12’s leaders to lead.


Link
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-ti...ses-in-pac

Well I thought ION was a joke, but Brett McMurphy is not a troll. Also the above article stats that the Pac12 in 2012 tried to do business with the Discovery Channel.

Looks like this isn't the first time the Pac has had to beg!

(02-24-2023 01:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  ... 2. As Deseret News recently noted, there must be some party in the PAC-12 that's leaking all these negotiations, and it's doubtful that it's a party that's remotely happy with how negotiations are going.

So has PAC-12 HQ started having staff pass along different fake information to different schools to find out where the leaks are coming from?

McMurhphy hasn’t deleted the Ion tweet. He must be serious.

(02-24-2023 05:39 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 01:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  ... 2. As Deseret News recently noted, there must be some party in the PAC-12 that's leaking all these negotiations, and it's doubtful that it's a party that's remotely happy with how negotiations are going.

So has PAC-12 HQ started having staff pass along different fake information to different schools to find out where the leaks are coming from?

That’s what I think but instead every single story hit the press so it’s just a big sieve.

ION feels like the Boost mobile of television partners

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).

That's because cable subscriptions have plummeted to about 52% of households, while Ion is free and available in 69% of households.

(02-24-2023 06:17 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).

That's because cable subscriptions have plummeted to about 52% of households, while Ion is free and available in 69% of households.

But the point is, people are watching it.

(02-24-2023 06:17 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).

That's because cable subscriptions have plummeted to about 52% of households, while Ion is free and available in 69% of households.

ION is also on Directv, Dish and many cable providers. Pretty easy to find.

(02-24-2023 04:40 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  There’s something weird going on.

Different reporters who generally trade in hard info rather than speculation got completely contradictory stories.

I’m putting on my tinfoil hat. This looks like an attempt to ferret out a mole (sorry for mixing mole and mustelid metaphors). At some point I’m going to start wondering if there is an inside party who would prefer that things go sideways prompting others to join them in the BigXII.

This is now my preferred narrative to follow.

(02-24-2023 06:32 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 06:17 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).

That's because cable subscriptions have plummeted to about 52% of households, while Ion is free and available in 69% of households.

ION is also on Directv, Dish and many cable providers. Pretty easy to find.

Right but think of it in terms of revenue: Pro sports teams don't suffer when their attendance is terrible... if the suites and premium seats are sold. Premium seating is like 20% of the capacity, but brings in 65% of the revenue.

Ion gets ratings because there's a lot of people NOT PAYING for cable (aka, not as well off financially) with limited options.

Which means advertisers aren't going there, they're better off buying ads on ESPN, USA, TNT and TBS despite lower ratings because the viewers have more disposable income to spend on their products than people who can't afford cable and therefore watch Ion.

The less ad revenue Ion has, the less they can afford in rights fees. Hence this is extremely discouraging news for the Pac-12.


And let's not pretend this is "the Pac-12's fault." This is all ESPN's doing.

ESPN doesn't want to pay the Pac-12 what they're "worth" because they dedicated those funds elsewhere. And they did so to the Big 12 because after decided to consolidate their holdings (Texas/Oklahoma into the SEC), the Big 12 called them out on trying to kill the league. ESPN ponied up to them to not be exposed. And that left the Pac-12 screwed.

(02-24-2023 05:03 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  It is unfathomable that a human can be so devoid of critical thinking that they cite Gold&Blue Dude as a source.

Good golly people, we've all learned critical thinking skills at some point in life. Let's use them.

I don't know why you're surprised. We're on page 5 for an obviously troll tweet.

(02-24-2023 06:42 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 06:32 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 06:17 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  Ion (11th) gets better ratings than either TBS (15th) or TNT (13th).

That's because cable subscriptions have plummeted to about 52% of households, while Ion is free and available in 69% of households.

ION is also on Directv, Dish and many cable providers. Pretty easy to find.

Right but think of it in terms of revenue: Pro sports teams don't suffer when their attendance is terrible... if the suites and premium seats are sold. Premium seating is like 20% of the capacity, but brings in 65% of the revenue.

Ion gets ratings because there's a lot of people NOT PAYING for cable (aka, not as well off financially) with limited options.

Or they're just really cheap. Which is pretty much the same thing from the advertiser's POV.

Quote:Which means advertisers aren't going there, they're better off buying ads on ESPN, USA, TNT and TBS despite lower ratings because the viewers have more disposable income to spend on their products than people who can't afford cable and therefore watch Ion.

The less ad revenue Ion has, the less they can afford in rights fees. Hence this is extremely discouraging news for the Pac-12.

Oh yes. I don't know if I believe that Ion is making a play, or if Dodds is just screwing with us. But Ion isn't putting much if any money on the table. They're offering the PAC Saturday afternoons and evenings on OTA television.

Quote:And let's not pretend this is "the Pac-12's fault." This is all ESPN's doing.

ESPN doesn't want to pay the Pac-12 what they're "worth" because they dedicated those funds elsewhere. And they did so to the Big 12 because after decided to consolidate their holdings (Texas/Oklahoma into the SEC), the Big 12 called them out on trying to kill the league. ESPN ponied up to them to not be exposed. And that left the Pac-12 screwed.

It kind of is the PAC-12 's fault, going back 10-12 years. They put themselves in this position with the Pac 12 Networks fiasco. They have consistently over-rated their own leverage and value, they didn't react and change strategies when they lost USC and UCLA.

Another way of saying what you're saying is that there a limited amount of game windows across Fox, FS1, ABC, ESPN, ESPN-2, and ESPN-U, and Yormark noticed that ESPN has already bought inventory to fill a whole lot of those windows and acted to secure the last few spots on TV. Kliavkoff did not pursue those windows, chose to try to partner with streaming companies instead.

But yes, the PAC is in this situation because it seems that ESPN has removed the "price floor" for P5 college sports. If the rumors are right, then the $250M offer (which would at least keep the PAC together and on ESPN) is not still on the table.

The PAC's situation increasingly resembles the situation the New Big East found itself in in 2012. They "went to market", and it turned out there wasn't much market to go to. ESPN doesn't NEED the PAC, Fox doesn't need the PAC. so they have no leverage.