(05-26-2023 04:35 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 11:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-25-2023 06:11 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(05-25-2023 06:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 02:47 PM)46566 Wrote:  ESPN doesn't really need schools to jump ship. They can simply wait for the MWC deal with cbs sports to end and get games for a third of what the PAC is asking. Didn't the PAC want $30 million per school? MWC would jump at $7 or $8 million per school for the same TV time. It's still saving ESPN a lot of they were planning giving the PAC $20 million per school I think what's been thrown around here. (Not counting the streaming portion) I think the MWC deal ends a year or 2 after the PAC does. Simply fill the lost year with WCC basketball and other college conferences they already own. They can air FCS football games and they can market it as helping the small schools out.

ESPN was talking about Boise State should be in a P5 conference, and was harping them to get into the Big 12, but Big 12 stole from the AAC which is all ESPN's territory. Now, they have lost partial control over Houston, Cincinnati and UCF which they could easily be taken by Big 10 if they get AAU status.

The Boise brand has diminished over the last 10 or so year's from a public perspective. Boise State missed out on the Big 12 vote already and they don't have any place to drop Olympic sports to go football only. Hell I see Hawaii potentially being replaced by a all sports member. Conferences need content for high asking prices now and football only membership no longer moves the needle.

But, they are still racking up the wins, and still draw eyeballs to the tv set.

Yeah, I will watch Boise occasionally, but only if they are playing away. That blue field is way too gimmicky for me.

I don't have a problem with the field. It is a calling card for Boise. They have their niche and they own it.

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:22 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets take this back to the thread. ESPN and the PAC 12 are still talking. Marchand, Dodd and McMurphy reportings are nothing but full of BS and have been debunked number of times.

What are they talking about?

That about ESPN. PAC 12 and ESPN are still talking, not what Marchand is reporting.

Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:22 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets take this back to the thread. ESPN and the PAC 12 are still talking. Marchand, Dodd and McMurphy reportings are nothing but full of BS and have been debunked number of times.

What are they talking about?

That about ESPN. PAC 12 and ESPN are still talking, not what Marchand is reporting.

Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business.

with what content?

Apple has one MLB game a week, MLS, Pac 12 if they close the deal, and like five TV shows.

Quote: ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

ESPN has lost more subscribers than Apple has ever had. and they're still #1 in sports, and the most profitable media thing around.

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:22 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets take this back to the thread. ESPN and the PAC 12 are still talking. Marchand, Dodd and McMurphy reportings are nothing but full of BS and have been debunked number of times.

What are they talking about?

That about ESPN. PAC 12 and ESPN are still talking, not what Marchand is reporting.

Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

(05-27-2023 02:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:22 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  What are they talking about?

That about ESPN. PAC 12 and ESPN are still talking, not what Marchand is reporting.

Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business.

with what content?

Apple has one MLB game a week, MLS, Pac 12 if they close the deal, and like five TV shows.

Quote: ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

ESPN has lost more subscribers than Apple has ever had. and they're still #1 in sports, and the most profitable media thing around.

Again, Apple has more money than all the others combined. Yeah, their TV channel underperforms based on their other income sources. But, they are getting into sports and they are known for their innovation. As a tech company they understand they have to lead because following means you are always putting an inferior product on the market. I wouldn't underestimate them.

Apple is gaining, ESPN is losing. Do you understand trends? Sears and Roebuck was once the premier retailer in the world, you could literally buy all the materials and plans from them for a house and have it delivered, and they are only still around because they still have land to sell. GM had to be bailed out to the tune of $80B. They had a motto, "never be first." ESPN has said that they will be moving more of their content to streaming. Finally, ESPN was once dwarfed by NBC, CBS and ABC. They didn't have football or basketball, they got their foot in the door with other sports they could afford. Apple is like that right now save for the fact they have the capital to make big investments. I predict that Apple will be huge in the streaming market, including sports, by the time the PAC deal is done. Amazon wants to do that as well, but don't have the capital of Apple and are laying off people as well.

(05-27-2023 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:22 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  What are they talking about?

That about ESPN. PAC 12 and ESPN are still talking, not what Marchand is reporting.

Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

Where did I mention paying 3 times their worth? People on here sure like to assume things I do not say. Based on ESPN's original (reported) offer, that would be over $90M. I am hearing the deal will be within 10% of the B12 deal one side or the other. Again, some PAC members want a shorter deal so as to be positioned should the B1G comes calling, if that ever happens. The shorter the deal, the less the money.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

(05-27-2023 05:41 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  That about ESPN. PAC 12 and ESPN are still talking, not what Marchand is reporting.

Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

If Apple was making a play this past year to be the most successful company in this space, they wouldn’t be bidding on a dying conference in the least populated, most apathetic region on the country. Now without the premier brand and without LA. Adding G5 to replace USC/UCLA is the antithesis of Apple leveraging its resources to be the most successful sports media

If Apple was looking to leverage their capital advantage to be the most successful sports media company, they would have done things like have already locked down Oregon, paid enough to kept USC, built the PAC into a peer of P2. or just bought a P2 and sub-licensed to linear. Heck, buy ESPN or start their own postseason that pays more, like the LIV is to golf. Or secured Sunday Ticket


This is just a play to get a distressed asset on the cheap so that next round they can better get a P2 and the actual premium properties. Nice to have, if it can be acquired at a level that makes money for them

Remove the lipstick and Apple isn’t paying above market rate. Which is why there’s still no deal, and why SDSU is still in limbo

The question is, how low can Apple go before Oregon walks. That depends on other factors not yet decided, hence everyone punting this as far down the road as possible

(05-27-2023 05:41 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  That about ESPN. PAC 12 and ESPN are still talking, not what Marchand is reporting.

Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

Where did I mention paying 3 times their worth? People on here sure like to assume things I do not say. Based on ESPN's original (reported) offer, that would be over $90M. I am hearing the deal will be within 10% of the B12 deal one side or the other. Again, some PAC members want a shorter deal so as to be positioned should the B1G comes calling, if that ever happens. The shorter the deal, the less the money.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

I didn't say you did. It's a turn of phrase and the intent is to illustrate just because Apple has more cash than ESPN doesn't mean they're willing to spend more than ESPN.

Just to illustrate the level of uncertainty and conjecture in this broader conversation about the PAC, we don't actually know if Apple is the hangup here. We don't know if Apple is even pursuing the PAC with all that much gusto. All of that is guessing at this point. There is a serious dearth of real information coming from the PAC or coming out in relation to the media deal. There are murky reports of Apple involvement and there are murky reports of the PAC only getting about $25M, take your pick on the scuttlebutt that you want to base your conclusions on.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one lick if an announcement came that the PAC had been haggling with FOX and ESPN the whole time. Point being, you're betraying a perspective that is too interested in PAC success and I suspect that's because the PAC is the best shot for San Diego State to move up in the world. I don't blame you and I hope SDSU gets their shot at a higher level, I don't have anything against them.

Point being, you're obviously ignoring the broader context of everything that's gone wrong with the PAC over the last year plus and certainly in recent weeks. It really doesn't matter if Apple is on the cusp of taking over the sports media world or not. That's a non sequitur. Even if such comes to fruition it doesn't mean the PAC is in a good spot.

With regard to Apple, however, their foray into MLS hasn't exactly been a smashing success. It's still early, but there are serious questions about subscription numbers and viewership. All the while, MLS(which is still a relatively niche league) has lost out on a great deal of exposure at a time when they can't afford it.

Speaking of which, a lot of tech companies have been hesitant about sports streaming. Netflix flat out refuses to get into the market. Amazon has already been in the market with mixed results...I'm sure you're bullish on the prospects of Amazon compared to ESPN, right? That dynamic isn't automatically a harbinger for success.

Apple is clearly exploring their options and I'm sure they'll make a push here and there, but absolutely none of that guarantees that they or any other media outlet are coming to get the PAC out of a tight spot.

(05-27-2023 07:43 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 05:41 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

If Apple was making a play this past year to be the most successful company in this space, they wouldn’t be bidding on a dying conference in the least populated, most apathetic region on the country. Now without the premier brand and without LA. Adding G5 to replace USC/UCLA is the antithesis of Apple leveraging its resources to be the most successful sports media

If Apple was looking to leverage their capital advantage to be the most successful sports media company, they would have done things like have already locked down Oregon, paid enough to kept USC, built the PAC into a peer of P2. or just bought a P2 and sub-licensed to linear. Heck, buy ESPN or start their own postseason that pays more, like the LIV is to golf. Or secured Sunday Ticket


This is just a play to get a distressed asset on the cheap so that next round they can better get a P2 and the actual premium properties. Nice to have, if it can be acquired at a level that makes money for them

Remove the lipstick and Apple isn’t paying above market rate. Which is why there’s still no deal, and why SDSU is still in limbo

The question is, how low can Apple go before Oregon walks. That depends on other factors not yet decided, hence everyone punting this as far down the road as possible

The rumors of the PAC's death are greatly exaggerated.

Where is Oregon going? Washington? The PAC will survive intact for this round of realignment.

Apple likes the fact that the PAC has its own production facilities. Again, they have wanted the PAC for years now. They will play the market rate but that isn't nearly as low as you B12 guys think it is.

Should I point out that the B1G media deal still isn't finalized?

Oh, if sports out here in the West so bad why did the B1G add USCLA?

(05-27-2023 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 05:41 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 02:36 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Both of these are likely true:

Marchand is reporting they are not currently in serious talks to be a major rights bidder.

As Bob Thompson (former president of Fox Sports) said- that can change with a phone call.

IMO their reluctance to be a bigger player right now casts doubt on how much they'll pay for P12 rights.

That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

Where did I mention paying 3 times their worth? People on here sure like to assume things I do not say. Based on ESPN's original (reported) offer, that would be over $90M. I am hearing the deal will be within 10% of the B12 deal one side or the other. Again, some PAC members want a shorter deal so as to be positioned should the B1G comes calling, if that ever happens. The shorter the deal, the less the money.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

I didn't say you did. It's a turn of phrase and the intent is to illustrate just because Apple has more cash than ESPN doesn't mean they're willing to spend more than ESPN.

Just to illustrate the level of uncertainty and conjecture in this broader conversation about the PAC, we don't actually know if Apple is the hangup here. We don't know if Apple is even pursuing the PAC with all that much gusto. All of that is guessing at this point. There is a serious dearth of real information coming from the PAC or coming out in relation to the media deal. There are murky reports of Apple involvement and there are murky reports of the PAC only getting about $25M, take your pick on the scuttlebutt that you want to base your conclusions on.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one lick if an announcement came that the PAC had been haggling with FOX and ESPN the whole time. Point being, you're betraying a perspective that is too interested in PAC success and I suspect that's because the PAC is the best shot for San Diego State to move up in the world. I don't blame you and I hope SDSU gets their shot at a higher level, I don't have anything against them.

Point being, you're obviously ignoring the broader context of everything that's gone wrong with the PAC over the last year plus and certainly in recent weeks. It really doesn't matter if Apple is on the cusp of taking over the sports media world or not. That's a non sequitur. Even if such comes to fruition it doesn't mean the PAC is in a good spot.

With regard to Apple, however, their foray into MLS hasn't exactly been a smashing success. It's still early, but there are serious questions about subscription numbers and viewership. All the while, MLS(which is still a relatively niche league) has lost out on a great deal of exposure at a time when they can't afford it.

Speaking of which, a lot of tech companies have been hesitant about sports streaming. Netflix flat out refuses to get into the market. Amazon has already been in the market with mixed results...I'm sure you're bullish on the prospects of Amazon compared to ESPN, right? That dynamic isn't automatically a harbinger for success.

Apple is clearly exploring their options and I'm sure they'll make a push here and there, but absolutely none of that guarantees that they or any other media outlet are coming to get the PAC out of a tight spot.

You created a straw man argument. I never said Apple would overpay for the media rights, just that they have wanted the PAC for years now. Again, the PAC12NW broadcast facilities wold give Apple a capability they don't have. Bob Thompson made that point very early on. That is an asset that is attractive to both Apple and Amazon.

Its funny, someone posts something positive about the PAC and get shouted down "you don't know that!!!" But anything negative about the PAC is the God's honest truth.

(05-28-2023 01:10 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 05:41 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined. The PAC is a great fit for them because the production facilities of the PAC12NW are considered state of the art. By 2030 I expect them to be dominant in the media streaming business. ESPN has lost 25% of cable subscribers since 2010. That is big and they recently announced they are looking to move more content to their streaming service.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

Where did I mention paying 3 times their worth? People on here sure like to assume things I do not say. Based on ESPN's original (reported) offer, that would be over $90M. I am hearing the deal will be within 10% of the B12 deal one side or the other. Again, some PAC members want a shorter deal so as to be positioned should the B1G comes calling, if that ever happens. The shorter the deal, the less the money.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

I didn't say you did. It's a turn of phrase and the intent is to illustrate just because Apple has more cash than ESPN doesn't mean they're willing to spend more than ESPN.

Just to illustrate the level of uncertainty and conjecture in this broader conversation about the PAC, we don't actually know if Apple is the hangup here. We don't know if Apple is even pursuing the PAC with all that much gusto. All of that is guessing at this point. There is a serious dearth of real information coming from the PAC or coming out in relation to the media deal. There are murky reports of Apple involvement and there are murky reports of the PAC only getting about $25M, take your pick on the scuttlebutt that you want to base your conclusions on.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one lick if an announcement came that the PAC had been haggling with FOX and ESPN the whole time. Point being, you're betraying a perspective that is too interested in PAC success and I suspect that's because the PAC is the best shot for San Diego State to move up in the world. I don't blame you and I hope SDSU gets their shot at a higher level, I don't have anything against them.

Point being, you're obviously ignoring the broader context of everything that's gone wrong with the PAC over the last year plus and certainly in recent weeks. It really doesn't matter if Apple is on the cusp of taking over the sports media world or not. That's a non sequitur. Even if such comes to fruition it doesn't mean the PAC is in a good spot.

With regard to Apple, however, their foray into MLS hasn't exactly been a smashing success. It's still early, but there are serious questions about subscription numbers and viewership. All the while, MLS(which is still a relatively niche league) has lost out on a great deal of exposure at a time when they can't afford it.

Speaking of which, a lot of tech companies have been hesitant about sports streaming. Netflix flat out refuses to get into the market. Amazon has already been in the market with mixed results...I'm sure you're bullish on the prospects of Amazon compared to ESPN, right? That dynamic isn't automatically a harbinger for success.

Apple is clearly exploring their options and I'm sure they'll make a push here and there, but absolutely none of that guarantees that they or any other media outlet are coming to get the PAC out of a tight spot.

You created a straw man argument. I never said Apple would overpay for the media rights, just that they have wanted the PAC for years now. Again, the PAC12NW broadcast facilities wold give Apple a capability they don't have. Bob Thompson made that point very early on. That is an asset that is attractive to both Apple and Amazon.

No, I'm afraid you created the strawman.

Earlier you said this:

Quote:That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined.

It's not relevant whether Apple has more money or not unless you're implying that Apple will spend what it takes to keep the PAC together and ensure it has a better contract than the Big 12. That is the context in which I responded. My point was that you can't guarantee the PAC will get a better contract. It's biased to assume otherwise. So yes, from that angle, you don't know what you don't know. I don't know either, but I'm not terribly confident in PAC success due to other factors we are aware of.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't really care if the Big 12 expands or if the PAC survives. I'm just examining what I see and there are a lot of indicators that don't project a good future for the PAC.

Whether Apple wanted the PAC for years or not, I don't really see how that matters. The PAC composition that Apple wanted clearly included USC and UCLA so the nature of that negotiation would have changed once it was announced they were leaving.

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Its funny, someone posts something positive about the PAC and get shouted down "you don't know that!!!" But anything negative about the PAC is the God's honest truth.

At this point, you're just exaggerating. I don't blame you for having passion about the topic for the reasons I stated earlier, but nobody is shouting you down...or at least I'm not. Disagreement does equate to denigration. To your point about negative news regarding the PAC, I would take the commentary more seriously if you weren't just completely ignoring all the negative.

(05-28-2023 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 01:10 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 05:41 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  That may be true, but that doesn't mean Apple will pay 3 times what something is worth in order to obtain it.

Businesses with huge war chests don't usually get there by being irresponsible with expenditures.

Where did I mention paying 3 times their worth? People on here sure like to assume things I do not say. Based on ESPN's original (reported) offer, that would be over $90M. I am hearing the deal will be within 10% of the B12 deal one side or the other. Again, some PAC members want a shorter deal so as to be positioned should the B1G comes calling, if that ever happens. The shorter the deal, the less the money.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

I didn't say you did. It's a turn of phrase and the intent is to illustrate just because Apple has more cash than ESPN doesn't mean they're willing to spend more than ESPN.

Just to illustrate the level of uncertainty and conjecture in this broader conversation about the PAC, we don't actually know if Apple is the hangup here. We don't know if Apple is even pursuing the PAC with all that much gusto. All of that is guessing at this point. There is a serious dearth of real information coming from the PAC or coming out in relation to the media deal. There are murky reports of Apple involvement and there are murky reports of the PAC only getting about $25M, take your pick on the scuttlebutt that you want to base your conclusions on.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one lick if an announcement came that the PAC had been haggling with FOX and ESPN the whole time. Point being, you're betraying a perspective that is too interested in PAC success and I suspect that's because the PAC is the best shot for San Diego State to move up in the world. I don't blame you and I hope SDSU gets their shot at a higher level, I don't have anything against them.

Point being, you're obviously ignoring the broader context of everything that's gone wrong with the PAC over the last year plus and certainly in recent weeks. It really doesn't matter if Apple is on the cusp of taking over the sports media world or not. That's a non sequitur. Even if such comes to fruition it doesn't mean the PAC is in a good spot.

With regard to Apple, however, their foray into MLS hasn't exactly been a smashing success. It's still early, but there are serious questions about subscription numbers and viewership. All the while, MLS(which is still a relatively niche league) has lost out on a great deal of exposure at a time when they can't afford it.

Speaking of which, a lot of tech companies have been hesitant about sports streaming. Netflix flat out refuses to get into the market. Amazon has already been in the market with mixed results...I'm sure you're bullish on the prospects of Amazon compared to ESPN, right? That dynamic isn't automatically a harbinger for success.

Apple is clearly exploring their options and I'm sure they'll make a push here and there, but absolutely none of that guarantees that they or any other media outlet are coming to get the PAC out of a tight spot.

You created a straw man argument. I never said Apple would overpay for the media rights, just that they have wanted the PAC for years now. Again, the PAC12NW broadcast facilities wold give Apple a capability they don't have. Bob Thompson made that point very early on. That is an asset that is attractive to both Apple and Amazon.

No, I'm afraid you created the strawman.

Earlier you said this:

Quote:That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined.

It's not relevant whether Apple has more money or not unless you're implying that Apple will spend what it takes to keep the PAC together and ensure it has a better contract than the Big 12. That is the context in which I responded. My point was that you can't guarantee the PAC will get a better contract. It's biased to assume otherwise. So yes, from that angle, you don't know what you don't know. I don't know either, but I'm not terribly confident in PAC success due to other factors we are aware of.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't really care if the Big 12 expands or if the PAC survives. I'm just examining what I see and there are a lot of indicators that don't project a good future for the PAC.

Whether Apple wanted the PAC for years or not, I don't really see how that matters. The PAC composition that Apple wanted clearly included USC and UCLA so the nature of that negotiation would have changed once it was announced they were leaving.

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Its funny, someone posts something positive about the PAC and get shouted down "you don't know that!!!" But anything negative about the PAC is the God's honest truth.

At this point, you're just exaggerating. I don't blame you for having passion about the topic for the reasons I stated earlier, but nobody is shouting you down...or at least I'm not. Disagreement does equate to denigration. To your point about negative news regarding the PAC, I would take the commentary more seriously if you weren't just completely ignoring all the negative.

That is no strawman argument, pointing out that is what we are hearing with regards to Apple. Again, I point out that Apple wants to expand its streaming service and getting the PAC content will do that. It does require them to partner with a linear producer so that is what they are doing. Again, they don't have the production capabilities currently so that is why the PAC and the PAC12NW is attractive to them. If Apple doesn't want to grow their business then why do it at all? Sports is a big part of doing that.

One poster on here basically said sports are dead in the west. Called people out here apathetic and yet the B1G grabbed USCLA. You want apathy, lose in LA and no one will show up. Sorry, but there is a market out here and there is less competition for it than East of the Rockies. There are 39M people in California alone. The B12 wants to grab western teams, why is that? I think it is because they compete against the SEC and B1G in every time zone they're in. The SEC won't expand west because they don't need to. B1G did to get into LA but there is no promise they will take any more western school. They value Notre Dame and some other ACC schools more. Given Oregon's research budget being ranked in the 140s, they are not going to take another school that will lose their AAU status. That happened with Nebraska.

According to one media guy, the PAC did a media valuation with two consultants in April and came with a range of $25.5M-34.5M. Even the low ball number won't kill the PAC but, down the middle you are at $30M. No PAC school is going to leave for the B12 with that number and the B1G looks to be done expanding for now.

Marchand have been debunked as that ESPN and Fox both are still talking. None of the reporters now who the PAC 12 is talking to. PAC 12 have been undervalued just like the top MWC teams are.

(05-28-2023 02:26 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 01:10 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 05:41 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Where did I mention paying 3 times their worth? People on here sure like to assume things I do not say. Based on ESPN's original (reported) offer, that would be over $90M. I am hearing the deal will be within 10% of the B12 deal one side or the other. Again, some PAC members want a shorter deal so as to be positioned should the B1G comes calling, if that ever happens. The shorter the deal, the less the money.

Apple is the most successful company in the history of the world. They are now just getting into sports media. Why would someone think they don't want to be the most successful company in that as well?

I didn't say you did. It's a turn of phrase and the intent is to illustrate just because Apple has more cash than ESPN doesn't mean they're willing to spend more than ESPN.

Just to illustrate the level of uncertainty and conjecture in this broader conversation about the PAC, we don't actually know if Apple is the hangup here. We don't know if Apple is even pursuing the PAC with all that much gusto. All of that is guessing at this point. There is a serious dearth of real information coming from the PAC or coming out in relation to the media deal. There are murky reports of Apple involvement and there are murky reports of the PAC only getting about $25M, take your pick on the scuttlebutt that you want to base your conclusions on.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one lick if an announcement came that the PAC had been haggling with FOX and ESPN the whole time. Point being, you're betraying a perspective that is too interested in PAC success and I suspect that's because the PAC is the best shot for San Diego State to move up in the world. I don't blame you and I hope SDSU gets their shot at a higher level, I don't have anything against them.

Point being, you're obviously ignoring the broader context of everything that's gone wrong with the PAC over the last year plus and certainly in recent weeks. It really doesn't matter if Apple is on the cusp of taking over the sports media world or not. That's a non sequitur. Even if such comes to fruition it doesn't mean the PAC is in a good spot.

With regard to Apple, however, their foray into MLS hasn't exactly been a smashing success. It's still early, but there are serious questions about subscription numbers and viewership. All the while, MLS(which is still a relatively niche league) has lost out on a great deal of exposure at a time when they can't afford it.

Speaking of which, a lot of tech companies have been hesitant about sports streaming. Netflix flat out refuses to get into the market. Amazon has already been in the market with mixed results...I'm sure you're bullish on the prospects of Amazon compared to ESPN, right? That dynamic isn't automatically a harbinger for success.

Apple is clearly exploring their options and I'm sure they'll make a push here and there, but absolutely none of that guarantees that they or any other media outlet are coming to get the PAC out of a tight spot.

You created a straw man argument. I never said Apple would overpay for the media rights, just that they have wanted the PAC for years now. Again, the PAC12NW broadcast facilities wold give Apple a capability they don't have. Bob Thompson made that point very early on. That is an asset that is attractive to both Apple and Amazon.

No, I'm afraid you created the strawman.

Earlier you said this:

Quote:That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined.

It's not relevant whether Apple has more money or not unless you're implying that Apple will spend what it takes to keep the PAC together and ensure it has a better contract than the Big 12. That is the context in which I responded. My point was that you can't guarantee the PAC will get a better contract. It's biased to assume otherwise. So yes, from that angle, you don't know what you don't know. I don't know either, but I'm not terribly confident in PAC success due to other factors we are aware of.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't really care if the Big 12 expands or if the PAC survives. I'm just examining what I see and there are a lot of indicators that don't project a good future for the PAC.

Whether Apple wanted the PAC for years or not, I don't really see how that matters. The PAC composition that Apple wanted clearly included USC and UCLA so the nature of that negotiation would have changed once it was announced they were leaving.

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Its funny, someone posts something positive about the PAC and get shouted down "you don't know that!!!" But anything negative about the PAC is the God's honest truth.

At this point, you're just exaggerating. I don't blame you for having passion about the topic for the reasons I stated earlier, but nobody is shouting you down...or at least I'm not. Disagreement does equate to denigration. To your point about negative news regarding the PAC, I would take the commentary more seriously if you weren't just completely ignoring all the negative.

That is no strawman argument, pointing out that is what we are hearing with regards to Apple. Again, I point out that Apple wants to expand its streaming service and getting the PAC content will do that. It does require them to partner with a linear producer so that is what they are doing. Again, they don't have the production capabilities currently so that is why the PAC and the PAC12NW is attractive to them. If Apple doesn't want to grow their business then why do it at all? Sports is a big part of doing that.

One poster on here basically said sports are dead in the west. Called people out here apathetic and yet the B1G grabbed USCLA. You want apathy, lose in LA and no one will show up. Sorry, but there is a market out here and there is less competition for it than East of the Rockies. There are 39M people in California alone. The B12 wants to grab western teams, why is that? I think it is because they compete against the SEC and B1G in every time zone they're in. The SEC won't expand west because they don't need to. B1G did to get into LA but there is no promise they will take any more western school. They value Notre Dame and some other ACC schools more. Given Oregon's research budget being ranked in the 140s, they are not going to take another school that will lose their AAU status. That happened with Nebraska.

According to one media guy, the PAC did a media valuation with two consultants in April and came with a range of $25.5M-34.5M. Even the low ball number won't kill the PAC but, down the middle you are at $30M. No PAC school is going to leave for the B12 with that number and the B1G looks to be done expanding for now.

I'm not saying Apple doesn't want to expand its operation or doesn't want to have the PAC as a partner. Not denying any of that at all. My only point is that there's no guarantee Apple is going to pay what it takes to keep the PAC together.

PAC officials have been stating for weeks and months that a finalized deal was just around the corner and it hasn't happened. That alone suggests whatever is going on behind the scenes isn't cut and dry. Given all the questions being asked of officials at individual universities, more than one has implied staying in the PAC is not a foregone conclusion. That to me is the biggest indicator of turmoil.

I don't know how much money the PAC is going to get, but remember that Apple is streaming only. Yes, I'm sure there will be simulcasts here and there or exclusive games on linear, but if the deal is anything like what MLS got then the PAC could have a nice payday on a platform that hardly anyone is watching. That's a problem...college sports maybe more than anyone needs exposure because philosophically that's a big part of how they justify the expenditures on non-academic endeavors.

I think you're also saying that the 4 Corner schools will stick around if Oregon and Washington do...and you're saying Oregon and Washington don't have anywhere else to go. That's fair and I don't believe Oregon and Washington will go to the Big 12, but that doesn't necessarily mean a couple of PAC schools won't leave for a better contract if what the PAC gets is not up to par. Or at least that's what some of the school leadership seems to be implying in some of their statements.

I fully believe the PAC schools want to stick together, but that doesn't mean they will. It's hard to quantify just how bad the loss of the LA market is for that conference.

We'll just have to see.

Aztecgolfer,

The valuation estimates are no doubt very accurate ... in a vacuum. But we are not in a vacuum, we are in a market of supply and demand. Just as you can have a house worth $2M you have to sell (say moving to another city), which if there are no buyers who can afford it at that price (say a current economic downturn), you may well have to sell for a steep discount, so seems to be the case with the Pac-12 media situation.

ESPN spent the bank on the SEC, even outbidding CBS for the GOTW, and then most of their remaining budget on the Big 12 (they also have contracts with the ACC and American, plus smaller ones with others) so just don't have much cash left to spend; even the SEC has not secured any agreement to pay for going to 9 games. Fox similarly expended a lot more money than last cycle securing a bigger piece of the B1G and BTN, plus reupped with the Big 12, pretty much removing them from the market as well. NBC threw a big chunk of change at the B1G to get a primetime game, and still has to budget for Notre Dame's next contract. CBS spent a bit more to make sure they got the B1G GOTW to replace the SEC GOTW they lost to ESPN. So neither CBS nor NBC are in the market. There isn't a major network to anchor, it's a depressed market.

Were there a major network willing to be the primary, I'm pretty sure Kliavkoff would have wrapped up a deal already. (Note, I'm sure all four of those network groups plus Amazon have given whatever bids for parts they were interested or willing to take, but no doubt none covered more than a game or two a week and not apparently for that much money.) So, what you have left is Apple, who supposedly have the highest monetary offer (supposedly $200-245M range, but heavily dependent upon the Pac-12 driving certain levels of subscriptions in order to realize all of that (what is the guaranteed amount, $100M, $150M or something else?) and whose demand for exclusiveness means the best content like the Apple Cup, Oregon vs Washington, Notre Dame at Stanford, won't be on over air networks) and a bunch of syndicated TV show networks (CW, ION, Sinclair) of rather uneven quality.

It's not a question of how much the Pac-12 is worth, but how much the media companies are willing to pay. We really can only guess what is going on. But it looks like a house that has been on the market for way too long, so everyone is asking why.

The estimate is pretty fair... if there were inventory needs that weren't mostly met for the prior partners.
https://twitter.com/Baylor_S11/status/16...21409?s=20

Except ESPN & FOX have everything other than After Dark mostly covered. That limits what ad buys they can get. The windows remaining other than the Prime Time CBS window aren't going to price well enough to really break the bank IMO as this outlines.

https://sicem365.com/s/15070/realignment...ns-answers

(05-28-2023 05:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 02:26 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 01:10 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I didn't say you did. It's a turn of phrase and the intent is to illustrate just because Apple has more cash than ESPN doesn't mean they're willing to spend more than ESPN.

Just to illustrate the level of uncertainty and conjecture in this broader conversation about the PAC, we don't actually know if Apple is the hangup here. We don't know if Apple is even pursuing the PAC with all that much gusto. All of that is guessing at this point. There is a serious dearth of real information coming from the PAC or coming out in relation to the media deal. There are murky reports of Apple involvement and there are murky reports of the PAC only getting about $25M, take your pick on the scuttlebutt that you want to base your conclusions on.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one lick if an announcement came that the PAC had been haggling with FOX and ESPN the whole time. Point being, you're betraying a perspective that is too interested in PAC success and I suspect that's because the PAC is the best shot for San Diego State to move up in the world. I don't blame you and I hope SDSU gets their shot at a higher level, I don't have anything against them.

Point being, you're obviously ignoring the broader context of everything that's gone wrong with the PAC over the last year plus and certainly in recent weeks. It really doesn't matter if Apple is on the cusp of taking over the sports media world or not. That's a non sequitur. Even if such comes to fruition it doesn't mean the PAC is in a good spot.

With regard to Apple, however, their foray into MLS hasn't exactly been a smashing success. It's still early, but there are serious questions about subscription numbers and viewership. All the while, MLS(which is still a relatively niche league) has lost out on a great deal of exposure at a time when they can't afford it.

Speaking of which, a lot of tech companies have been hesitant about sports streaming. Netflix flat out refuses to get into the market. Amazon has already been in the market with mixed results...I'm sure you're bullish on the prospects of Amazon compared to ESPN, right? That dynamic isn't automatically a harbinger for success.

Apple is clearly exploring their options and I'm sure they'll make a push here and there, but absolutely none of that guarantees that they or any other media outlet are coming to get the PAC out of a tight spot.

You created a straw man argument. I never said Apple would overpay for the media rights, just that they have wanted the PAC for years now. Again, the PAC12NW broadcast facilities wold give Apple a capability they don't have. Bob Thompson made that point very early on. That is an asset that is attractive to both Apple and Amazon.

No, I'm afraid you created the strawman.

Earlier you said this:

Quote:That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined.

It's not relevant whether Apple has more money or not unless you're implying that Apple will spend what it takes to keep the PAC together and ensure it has a better contract than the Big 12. That is the context in which I responded. My point was that you can't guarantee the PAC will get a better contract. It's biased to assume otherwise. So yes, from that angle, you don't know what you don't know. I don't know either, but I'm not terribly confident in PAC success due to other factors we are aware of.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't really care if the Big 12 expands or if the PAC survives. I'm just examining what I see and there are a lot of indicators that don't project a good future for the PAC.

Whether Apple wanted the PAC for years or not, I don't really see how that matters. The PAC composition that Apple wanted clearly included USC and UCLA so the nature of that negotiation would have changed once it was announced they were leaving.

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Its funny, someone posts something positive about the PAC and get shouted down "you don't know that!!!" But anything negative about the PAC is the God's honest truth.

At this point, you're just exaggerating. I don't blame you for having passion about the topic for the reasons I stated earlier, but nobody is shouting you down...or at least I'm not. Disagreement does equate to denigration. To your point about negative news regarding the PAC, I would take the commentary more seriously if you weren't just completely ignoring all the negative.

That is no strawman argument, pointing out that is what we are hearing with regards to Apple. Again, I point out that Apple wants to expand its streaming service and getting the PAC content will do that. It does require them to partner with a linear producer so that is what they are doing. Again, they don't have the production capabilities currently so that is why the PAC and the PAC12NW is attractive to them. If Apple doesn't want to grow their business then why do it at all? Sports is a big part of doing that.

One poster on here basically said sports are dead in the west. Called people out here apathetic and yet the B1G grabbed USCLA. You want apathy, lose in LA and no one will show up. Sorry, but there is a market out here and there is less competition for it than East of the Rockies. There are 39M people in California alone. The B12 wants to grab western teams, why is that? I think it is because they compete against the SEC and B1G in every time zone they're in. The SEC won't expand west because they don't need to. B1G did to get into LA but there is no promise they will take any more western school. They value Notre Dame and some other ACC schools more. Given Oregon's research budget being ranked in the 140s, they are not going to take another school that will lose their AAU status. That happened with Nebraska.

According to one media guy, the PAC did a media valuation with two consultants in April and came with a range of $25.5M-34.5M. Even the low ball number won't kill the PAC but, down the middle you are at $30M. No PAC school is going to leave for the B12 with that number and the B1G looks to be done expanding for now.

I'm not saying Apple doesn't want to expand its operation or doesn't want to have the PAC as a partner. Not denying any of that at all. My only point is that there's no guarantee Apple is going to pay what it takes to keep the PAC together.

PAC officials have been stating for weeks and months that a finalized deal was just around the corner and it hasn't happened. That alone suggests whatever is going on behind the scenes isn't cut and dry. Given all the questions being asked of officials at individual universities, more than one has implied staying in the PAC is not a foregone conclusion. That to me is the biggest indicator of turmoil.

I don't know how much money the PAC is going to get, but remember that Apple is streaming only. Yes, I'm sure there will be simulcasts here and there or exclusive games on linear, but if the deal is anything like what MLS got then the PAC could have a nice payday on a platform that hardly anyone is watching. That's a problem...college sports maybe more than anyone needs exposure because philosophically that's a big part of how they justify the expenditures on non-academic endeavors.

I think you're also saying that the 4 Corner schools will stick around if Oregon and Washington do...and you're saying Oregon and Washington don't have anywhere else to go. That's fair and I don't believe Oregon and Washington will go to the Big 12, but that doesn't necessarily mean a couple of PAC schools won't leave for a better contract if what the PAC gets is not up to par. Or at least that's what some of the school leadership seems to be implying in some of their statements.

I fully believe the PAC schools want to stick together, but that doesn't mean they will. It's hard to quantify just how bad the loss of the LA market is for that conference.

We'll just have to see.

And there is nothing out there that says Apple won't pay market value either. My understanding is that they are trying to satisfy the PAC's desire to broadcast games on linear media producers. This means the PAC is negotiating with Apple, known to be deliberate, who then is negotiating with other, linear provides. Wouldn't you think that would add complexity to the process?

Apple is looking to buy the media rights? They can do with that what they want under the terms of the contract the sign with the PAC. The PAC wants exposure on linear broadcasting so that is what they are, reportedly, working on.

Tell me one thing. Why does the PAC deal have to be done now, weeks ago or months ago? Why? Where is such a "deadline" coming from? Sure was never said by Klavikoff. You just had the Wazzu university president say that one media partner doesn't want the deal announced until mid June due to the fact they are laying off people.

By the way, there is no guarantee that ESPN can honor their contractual obligations either. They are laying off thousands, not Apple.

Everything I have read is that the PAC will get a deal good enough to keep them together for now. Sure, if the B1G comes calling, pretty much every PAC school would make the jump. But, the B1G is done expanding for now and schools like Washington and Oregon would want to come into the conference at reduced shares. UCLA didn't, and both UO and UW have been much more successful in football. UCLA can't even half fill the Rose Bowl and they are stuck with that deal until 2042. Ever see the Rose Bowl with 20K fans in it. Not a good look.

(05-28-2023 05:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ....

I fully believe the PAC schools want to stick together, but that doesn't mean they will. It's hard to quantify just how bad the loss of the LA market is for that conference.

We'll just have to see.

That sums it up succinctly, I'd say.

PAC schools took a real sucker punch with that 'Alliance' business followed by the gouging out of the LA schools. I wish them the best. P2 invitations, or at least living to compete another day as a conference.

(05-28-2023 05:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 02:26 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2023 01:10 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 08:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I didn't say you did. It's a turn of phrase and the intent is to illustrate just because Apple has more cash than ESPN doesn't mean they're willing to spend more than ESPN.

Just to illustrate the level of uncertainty and conjecture in this broader conversation about the PAC, we don't actually know if Apple is the hangup here. We don't know if Apple is even pursuing the PAC with all that much gusto. All of that is guessing at this point. There is a serious dearth of real information coming from the PAC or coming out in relation to the media deal. There are murky reports of Apple involvement and there are murky reports of the PAC only getting about $25M, take your pick on the scuttlebutt that you want to base your conclusions on.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one lick if an announcement came that the PAC had been haggling with FOX and ESPN the whole time. Point being, you're betraying a perspective that is too interested in PAC success and I suspect that's because the PAC is the best shot for San Diego State to move up in the world. I don't blame you and I hope SDSU gets their shot at a higher level, I don't have anything against them.

Point being, you're obviously ignoring the broader context of everything that's gone wrong with the PAC over the last year plus and certainly in recent weeks. It really doesn't matter if Apple is on the cusp of taking over the sports media world or not. That's a non sequitur. Even if such comes to fruition it doesn't mean the PAC is in a good spot.

With regard to Apple, however, their foray into MLS hasn't exactly been a smashing success. It's still early, but there are serious questions about subscription numbers and viewership. All the while, MLS(which is still a relatively niche league) has lost out on a great deal of exposure at a time when they can't afford it.

Speaking of which, a lot of tech companies have been hesitant about sports streaming. Netflix flat out refuses to get into the market. Amazon has already been in the market with mixed results...I'm sure you're bullish on the prospects of Amazon compared to ESPN, right? That dynamic isn't automatically a harbinger for success.

Apple is clearly exploring their options and I'm sure they'll make a push here and there, but absolutely none of that guarantees that they or any other media outlet are coming to get the PAC out of a tight spot.

You created a straw man argument. I never said Apple would overpay for the media rights, just that they have wanted the PAC for years now. Again, the PAC12NW broadcast facilities wold give Apple a capability they don't have. Bob Thompson made that point very early on. That is an asset that is attractive to both Apple and Amazon.

No, I'm afraid you created the strawman.

Earlier you said this:

Quote:That's because it appears that Apple will be the majority owner of the media rights, with other linear media partners getting games. Apple has coveted the PAC for years, and they have more money than Fox, Disney, NBC, CBS and ABC combined.

It's not relevant whether Apple has more money or not unless you're implying that Apple will spend what it takes to keep the PAC together and ensure it has a better contract than the Big 12. That is the context in which I responded. My point was that you can't guarantee the PAC will get a better contract. It's biased to assume otherwise. So yes, from that angle, you don't know what you don't know. I don't know either, but I'm not terribly confident in PAC success due to other factors we are aware of.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't really care if the Big 12 expands or if the PAC survives. I'm just examining what I see and there are a lot of indicators that don't project a good future for the PAC.

Whether Apple wanted the PAC for years or not, I don't really see how that matters. The PAC composition that Apple wanted clearly included USC and UCLA so the nature of that negotiation would have changed once it was announced they were leaving.

(05-27-2023 01:23 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  Its funny, someone posts something positive about the PAC and get shouted down "you don't know that!!!" But anything negative about the PAC is the God's honest truth.

At this point, you're just exaggerating. I don't blame you for having passion about the topic for the reasons I stated earlier, but nobody is shouting you down...or at least I'm not. Disagreement does equate to denigration. To your point about negative news regarding the PAC, I would take the commentary more seriously if you weren't just completely ignoring all the negative.

That is no strawman argument, pointing out that is what we are hearing with regards to Apple. Again, I point out that Apple wants to expand its streaming service and getting the PAC content will do that. It does require them to partner with a linear producer so that is what they are doing. Again, they don't have the production capabilities currently so that is why the PAC and the PAC12NW is attractive to them. If Apple doesn't want to grow their business then why do it at all? Sports is a big part of doing that.

One poster on here basically said sports are dead in the west. Called people out here apathetic and yet the B1G grabbed USCLA. You want apathy, lose in LA and no one will show up. Sorry, but there is a market out here and there is less competition for it than East of the Rockies. There are 39M people in California alone. The B12 wants to grab western teams, why is that? I think it is because they compete against the SEC and B1G in every time zone they're in. The SEC won't expand west because they don't need to. B1G did to get into LA but there is no promise they will take any more western school. They value Notre Dame and some other ACC schools more. Given Oregon's research budget being ranked in the 140s, they are not going to take another school that will lose their AAU status. That happened with Nebraska.

According to one media guy, the PAC did a media valuation with two consultants in April and came with a range of $25.5M-34.5M. Even the low ball number won't kill the PAC but, down the middle you are at $30M. No PAC school is going to leave for the B12 with that number and the B1G looks to be done expanding for now.

I'm not saying Apple doesn't want to expand its operation or doesn't want to have the PAC as a partner. Not denying any of that at all. My only point is that there's no guarantee Apple is going to pay what it takes to keep the PAC together.

PAC officials have been stating for weeks and months that a finalized deal was just around the corner and it hasn't happened. That alone suggests whatever is going on behind the scenes isn't cut and dry. Given all the questions being asked of officials at individual universities, more than one has implied staying in the PAC is not a foregone conclusion. That to me is the biggest indicator of turmoil.

I don't know how much money the PAC is going to get, but remember that Apple is streaming only. Yes, I'm sure there will be simulcasts here and there or exclusive games on linear, but if the deal is anything like what MLS got then the PAC could have a nice payday on a platform that hardly anyone is watching. That's a problem...college sports maybe more than anyone needs exposure because philosophically that's a big part of how they justify the expenditures on non-academic endeavors.

I think you're also saying that the 4 Corner schools will stick around if Oregon and Washington do...and you're saying Oregon and Washington don't have anywhere else to go. That's fair and I don't believe Oregon and Washington will go to the Big 12, but that doesn't necessarily mean a couple of PAC schools won't leave for a better contract if what the PAC gets is not up to par. Or at least that's what some of the school leadership seems to be implying in some of their statements.

I fully believe the PAC schools want to stick together, but that doesn't mean they will. It's hard to quantify just how bad the loss of the LA market is for that conference.

We'll just have to see.

And one PAC president said a company wants to hold off announcing because of it being a bad visual spending that kind of money while laying off employees. The one person not really talking right now is Klavikoff. I've never heard him say a deal was imminent. I have heard some PAC presidents that have said they are "sticking together" and they expect a deal to be done "soon." I haven't heard one give a specific date. Again, the PAC media deal doesn't expire until June 30, 2024, 13 months from now. Whatever timeline people are talking about doesn't pertain to the people actually negotiating. Yes, the PAC knows there is a "deadline" come the end of June due to SDSU's increased exit fee. Not sure what SMU might have going on in that. But, that "deadline" can be managed.

(05-29-2023 12:53 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  And there is nothing out there that says Apple won't pay market value either. My understanding is that they are trying to satisfy the PAC's desire to broadcast games on linear media producers. This means the PAC is negotiating with Apple, known to be deliberate, who then is negotiating with other, linear provides. Wouldn't you think that would add complexity to the process?

Apple is looking to buy the media rights? They can do with that what they want under the terms of the contract the sign with the PAC. The PAC wants exposure on linear broadcasting so that is what they are, reportedly, working on.

Tell me one thing. Why does the PAC deal have to be done now, weeks ago or months ago? Why? Where is such a "deadline" coming from? Sure was never said by Klavikoff. You just had the Wazzu university president say that one media partner doesn't want the deal announced until mid June due to the fact they are laying off people.

By the way, there is no guarantee that ESPN can honor their contractual obligations either. They are laying off thousands, not Apple.

Everything I have read is that the PAC will get a deal good enough to keep them together for now. Sure, if the B1G comes calling, pretty much every PAC school would make the jump. But, the B1G is done expanding for now and schools like Washington and Oregon would want to come into the conference at reduced shares. UCLA didn't, and both UO and UW have been much more successful in football. UCLA can't even half fill the Rose Bowl and they are stuck with that deal until 2042. Ever see the Rose Bowl with 20K fans in it. Not a good look.

Never said by Kliavkoff? Pretty sure K has used the word "imminent" multiple times over the past 6-8 months when discussing the media deal? Maybe imminent just means something different to him than it does the entire rest of the English-speaking world?

Additionally, numerous Pac presidents have used that word or one of its synonyms, and a number of them have put forth actual dates the new deal was supposed to be released by, only for every single one of those dates to come and go without a new deal.

So, no, maybe the Pac doesn't NEED to have a new deal right now, but, if not, maybe just stop telling everyone it's right around the corner.