(06-02-2023 07:41 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 07:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  At any given time with cable, I can simply change channels during timeouts and go to another one of the half dozen interesting football games in progress, then return to the one I'm most interested in when they get back from their commercial break. I don't know if I could do that with streaming services (and that's assuming I could find one that has the other channels I watch in addition to sports). At the end of the day, I suspect that my all in cost to watch TV in the future will be a lot higher than it is now. Hopefully, I won't live long enough to see the death of sports on cable.

You can do that now with streaming: close one app and open another. It's why new TVs show all of the apps beside each other now when you first turn the TV on.

That's not the same though, and I get that. There was talk of ESPN+ essentially becoming a TV guide for all college games: you could click on a picture of a game, and your screen would immediately show that game regardless of what streaming service it's on (as long as you're subscribed to the streaming service hosting the game). I'm not sure what happened to that idea, but it's genius.

If the only (or even the main) reason I have cable were to watch sports, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. But it's neither. Except occasionally for golf, I probably don't watch more than 6 hours of sports a week (pro and college combined). I could probably live on just having OTA sports if it came to that.

I won't buy Apple TV to watch a Pac game. If they were on ESPN or Fox, I would switch over and see what's going on. I think the Pac is going to have a hard time selling this to their members. They were already having visibility issues. This will compound the problem.

(06-02-2023 06:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 05:57 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 10:34 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I remember back when people thought streaming was going to be a permanently cheaper option. Never made sense. Streaming is not intrinsically any more or less expensive than delivering content by cable or satellite. It’s just going to take a minute for cable to die and for cable companies to realize they can be content aggregators for streaming the same way they were for cable.

UMD vs Charlotte on prime time OTA and MSU vs UW on Peacock shows the B1G is starting to invert their media, and the next round of contracts will probably all be inverted. It’s not a big deal for the PAC to go first.

Are you kidding?

- Amazon Prime: $14.99
- Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ bundle: $12.99
- Max: $9.99
- Apple TV+: $6.99
- Peacock: $4.99

= $49.95. Is your cable bill cheaper than that? Mine wasn't.

nd unlike cable, streaming is flexible. I can unsubscribe and resubscribe by simply pressing a button, whenever I want. Don't have to go through annoying phone calls. The new season of Stranger Things released? Subscribe to Netflix for one month, then unsubscribe. College football season is starting? Subscribe to Apple TV+ for four months, then unsubscribe.

a lot of that is because streaming is in its growth / honeymoon phase. the executives are now obsessing about how to get you to stop doing that.

it took ~50 years for cable to reach its current point of "our best customer retention strategy is not answering the phone when they call to cancel."

there's no tech reason that cable couldn't do the same. but that would lose them money

I am an old coot and no longer have cable, but I also no longer have ESPN. (I do miss it, but am not going to pay for it.)
That said Streaming is the future, but it isn't yet the present. Give it 10 years and it likely will be. Short term, next 5 to 10 years you have to give up visibility to get all on streaming.
If you are a head coach or AD you know it is going to hurt you not to have OTA coverage. Recruiting will suffer, and your name brand will suffer. Having most of your tier 3 and even most of tier 2 streaming is ok, you need tier 1 to be OTA.

(06-02-2023 08:31 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 06:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 05:57 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 10:34 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I remember back when people thought streaming was going to be a permanently cheaper option. Never made sense. Streaming is not intrinsically any more or less expensive than delivering content by cable or satellite. It’s just going to take a minute for cable to die and for cable companies to realize they can be content aggregators for streaming the same way they were for cable.

UMD vs Charlotte on prime time OTA and MSU vs UW on Peacock shows the B1G is starting to invert their media, and the next round of contracts will probably all be inverted. It’s not a big deal for the PAC to go first.

Are you kidding?

- Amazon Prime: $14.99
- Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ bundle: $12.99
- Max: $9.99
- Apple TV+: $6.99
- Peacock: $4.99

= $49.95. Is your cable bill cheaper than that? Mine wasn't.

nd unlike cable, streaming is flexible. I can unsubscribe and resubscribe by simply pressing a button, whenever I want. Don't have to go through annoying phone calls. The new season of Stranger Things released? Subscribe to Netflix for one month, then unsubscribe. College football season is starting? Subscribe to Apple TV+ for four months, then unsubscribe.

a lot of that is because streaming is in its growth / honeymoon phase. the executives are now obsessing about how to get you to stop doing that.

it took ~50 years for cable to reach its current point of "our best customer retention strategy is not answering the phone when they call to cancel."

there's no tech reason that cable couldn't do the same. but that would lose them money

I am an old coot and no longer have cable, but I also no longer have ESPN. (I do miss it, but am not going to pay for it.)
That said Streaming is the future, but it isn't yet the present. Give it 10 years and it likely will be. Short term, next 5 to 10 years you have to give up visibility to get all on streaming.
If you are a head coach or AD you know it is going to hurt you not to have OTA coverage. Recruiting will suffer, and your name brand will suffer. Having most of your tier 3 and even most of tier 2 streaming is ok, you need tier 1 to be OTA.

Streaming may be the future, but it is a worse monetized model for networks and broadcasters than cable is. This all rolls down to being a smaller pond, more niche audiences have to directly invest to see the product, you can't use multiple non-sports audiences to buoy your sports packages, this leads to decreased viewership overall, which reduces the advertisement value, which decreases total payouts for sports.

(06-02-2023 08:44 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 08:31 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 06:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 05:57 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 10:34 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I remember back when people thought streaming was going to be a permanently cheaper option. Never made sense. Streaming is not intrinsically any more or less expensive than delivering content by cable or satellite. It’s just going to take a minute for cable to die and for cable companies to realize they can be content aggregators for streaming the same way they were for cable.

UMD vs Charlotte on prime time OTA and MSU vs UW on Peacock shows the B1G is starting to invert their media, and the next round of contracts will probably all be inverted. It’s not a big deal for the PAC to go first.

Are you kidding?

- Amazon Prime: $14.99
- Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ bundle: $12.99
- Max: $9.99
- Apple TV+: $6.99
- Peacock: $4.99

= $49.95. Is your cable bill cheaper than that? Mine wasn't.

nd unlike cable, streaming is flexible. I can unsubscribe and resubscribe by simply pressing a button, whenever I want. Don't have to go through annoying phone calls. The new season of Stranger Things released? Subscribe to Netflix for one month, then unsubscribe. College football season is starting? Subscribe to Apple TV+ for four months, then unsubscribe.

a lot of that is because streaming is in its growth / honeymoon phase. the executives are now obsessing about how to get you to stop doing that.

it took ~50 years for cable to reach its current point of "our best customer retention strategy is not answering the phone when they call to cancel."

there's no tech reason that cable couldn't do the same. but that would lose them money

I am an old coot and no longer have cable, but I also no longer have ESPN. (I do miss it, but am not going to pay for it.)
That said Streaming is the future, but it isn't yet the present. Give it 10 years and it likely will be. Short term, next 5 to 10 years you have to give up visibility to get all on streaming.
If you are a head coach or AD you know it is going to hurt you not to have OTA coverage. Recruiting will suffer, and your name brand will suffer. Having most of your tier 3 and even most of tier 2 streaming is ok, you need tier 1 to be OTA.

Streaming may be the future, but it is a worse monetized model for networks and broadcasters than cable is. This all rolls down to being a smaller pond, more niche audiences have to directly invest to see the product, you can't use multiple non-sports audiences to buoy your sports packages, this leads to decreased viewership overall, which reduces the advertisement value, which decreases total payouts for sports.

That's why bundled streaming packages will end up doing the best. The ones on an island are going to have a hard time.

On top of that, all steaming platforms need to lock down profile sharing once enough people are using them. Do the Facebook model. Make everything (nearly) free until people can't live without it, then turn off the sharing and crank up the ads.

I am old. I dvr games, streaming makes that difficult. I have no idea how to dvr streaming shiznit.

(06-02-2023 08:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 07:41 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 07:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  At any given time with cable, I can simply change channels during timeouts and go to another one of the half dozen interesting football games in progress, then return to the one I'm most interested in when they get back from their commercial break. I don't know if I could do that with streaming services (and that's assuming I could find one that has the other channels I watch in addition to sports). At the end of the day, I suspect that my all in cost to watch TV in the future will be a lot higher than it is now. Hopefully, I won't live long enough to see the death of sports on cable.

You can do that now with streaming: close one app and open another. It's why new TVs show all of the apps beside each other now when you first turn the TV on.

That's not the same though, and I get that. There was talk of ESPN+ essentially becoming a TV guide for all college games: you could click on a picture of a game, and your screen would immediately show that game regardless of what streaming service it's on (as long as you're subscribed to the streaming service hosting the game). I'm not sure what happened to that idea, but it's genius.

If the only (or even the main) reason I have cable were to watch sports, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. But it's neither. Except occasionally for golf, I probably don't watch more than 6 hours of sports a week (pro and college combined). I could probably live on just having OTA sports if it came to that.

What other reason is there to have cable besides watching sports?

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

(06-01-2023 08:55 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Too many streaming options. It was cheaper to have cable then need 10 different subscriptions to watch all the series and shows you want.

I agree. IMO, the streaming is a net benefit only if you watch a very narrow subset of content. E.g., if I only watch sports, I can get the YouTube TV or something and save money.

Otherwise, the bill just keeps going up. Every media company is transferring content to their own service, and every streamer wants their $8 or $12 or $15 a month.

(06-02-2023 10:14 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

If we’re to believe this premise is true then why haven’t those with BXII invites departed yet?

I believe it’s somewhere in the middle. Apple is ironing out the terms of the deal and they are in the middle of a negotiation. Terms exchanged, stipulations altered etc. It’s not like Apple has been to the table with a conference for media rights before.

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 08:55 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Too many streaming options. It was cheaper to have cable then need 10 different subscriptions to watch all the series and shows you want.

I agree. IMO, the streaming is a net benefit only if you watch a very narrow subset of content. E.g., if I only watch sports, I can get the YouTube TV or something and save money.

Otherwise, the bill just keeps going up. Every streamer wants their $8 or $12 or $15 a month.

As someone with both, streaming is much cheaper. Cable still comes in tiered packages, so unless you got grandpappy’s chicken wire antenna to watch the local Dawgs, Tigers, Vawls, Roll Tide, or Irish (lol) then you’re paying for more than you need.

(06-01-2023 09:54 PM)Claw Wrote:  Does all streaming mean all games will be available on demand?

If it's like the apple/MLS deal yes. All games live streamed on apple. Some games are also simulcast on cable/ota. Game replays immediately available on demand. I'd assume if apple is paying this much for p12 they'd also paywall it like MLS and not include it with the normal apple tv+ sub.

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 10:14 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

If we’re to believe this premise is true then why haven’t those with BXII invites departed yet?

I believe it’s somewhere in the middle. Apple is ironing out the terms of the deal and they are in the middle of a negotiation. Terms exchanged, stipulations altered etc. It’s not like Apple has been to the table with a conference for media rights before.

Because the preference is to stick together. There is an unknown in that nobody seems to know exactly what the media deal is/will be. You have Oregon reps talking about getting plenty of linear exposure and more money than the Big 12, but then we have to ask who is the partner? Where is this coming from? Have they seen the figures, or is this just the PAC HQ relaying expected figures without an actual deal in hand? How long can any of these teams wait on an unknown, its been almost a year at this point and waiting through the storm has not helped their prospects?

Ultimately though, if a team (outside of Arizona who I think is generally for moving, but wants to stick with ASU) is looking at the Big 12, it isn't because they love the idea of the Big 12 but because the PAC has become so completely untenable that it is already sunk.

It's a little disappointing to potentially be allies of convivence in the Big 12 rather than peers of shared initiative, but being able to accept the current reality and that you live in it rather than grasping to the ghosts of what once was is some shared ground between those programs.

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 10:14 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

If we’re to believe this premise is true then why haven’t those with BXII invites departed yet?

I believe it’s somewhere in the middle. Apple is ironing out the terms of the deal and they are in the middle of a negotiation. Terms exchanged, stipulations altered etc. It’s not like Apple has been to the table with a conference for media rights before.

IMO they're ironing out the terms and making sure the pro rata in the contract will be honored for incoming schools. Plus, with most of these realignment announcements they happen at the end or shortly after the academic/athletic year, so we are just now entering what I would consider "the realignment window".

So if we get to the end of July and nothing has happened then you might be correct but if there's movement, well....

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 10:14 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

If we’re to believe this premise is true then why haven’t those with BXII invites departed yet?

I believe it’s somewhere in the middle. Apple is ironing out the terms of the deal and they are in the middle of a negotiation. Terms exchanged, stipulations altered etc. It’s not like Apple has been to the table with a conference for media rights before.

If you prefer option A you will give it until the 11th hour to materialize a way for it to happen.

Midnight is 6/30.

Will it happen? I don't know.

Can it? Absolutely.

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 10:14 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

If we’re to believe this premise is true then why haven’t those with BXII invites departed yet?

I believe it’s somewhere in the middle. Apple is ironing out the terms of the deal and they are in the middle of a negotiation. Terms exchanged, stipulations altered etc. It’s not like Apple has been to the table with a conference for media rights before.

Why havent they departed yet? Simple. Because they dont need to yet. The current Pac12 deal is good through the end of the 2023-2024 season. Right now, there is no deal that can get everyones signature. Since the preference is to stay together---there is still time to keep trying for an acceptable deal that holds the Pac12 rump together---even though it is appearing increasingly unlikely that such a deal will emerge. Right now, the schools with options do not believe that allowing Kliavkoff additional time to craft a deal will negatively impact their alternative options. But that position will eventually change as the time on the clock slowly ticks away---eventually forcing a choice by the end of 2023 (perhaps even as late as the very early months of 2024 if we really press the margins of what is possible). Bottom line----at some point in the next 6 to 7 months, the Kliavkoff's time to get an acceptable Pac12 deal will expire. My personal guess is there will be realignment by the end of this year---probably in the late fall.

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 10:14 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

If we’re to believe this premise is true then why haven’t those with BXII invites departed yet?

I believe it’s somewhere in the middle. Apple is ironing out the terms of the deal and they are in the middle of a negotiation. Terms exchanged, stipulations altered etc. It’s not like Apple has been to the table with a conference for media rights before.

I have a theory, ACC does not see any $$ from the ESPN Sublicense money for the ACC games on RSN (Bally Sports) as ESPN pockets it all.

I believe the current issue within the PAC10 is twofold, they want to get a GOR signed so they need Apple to get sublicense agreement with a linear provider. The PAC is trying to get some cash for said Sublicense agreement by either asking Apple for more $$ or by trying something new where they get a piece of sublicense??

So the schools are waiting on a final number and George is taking his time, and everyone is waiting. Whatever happens it is going to be interesting because in August of 2022 PAC Officials to include George thought they could actually get 400M per year without USC & UCLA. Talk about being tad far removed.

If its like the MLS deal, the PAC will be doing a linear only deal versus Apple sublicensing. MLS has a deal with Fox and Univision for Linear coverage and Apple for streaming coverage. No sublicense involved.

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 10:14 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im where I always have been. The preference across the board for the Pac12 rump is to stay together. Thus, simple logic tells us if there really was an acceptable deal on the table that is fairly close to the Big12 payout----they all would have already signed it---likely with some sort of short term GOR. So clearly, a deal thats somewhat similar to the Big12 deal in terms of payout and exposure is NOT on the table---and that is why there is no ability to get unanimous agreement on a GOR. You dont need to have inside sources to get a good idea of what must be going on---you just need to pay attention to what the schools have and have not done.

Bingo!

You nailed it. If a deal was there that hit the money, security and visibility the Pac-12 wants, they'd have already signed it and the schools would have signed a GOR and maybe expanded. Obviously, something is amiss.

The Pac-12 leadership committee and then by extension the commissioner they hired, have been slow to recognize the lay of the land among the industry providers, thus they failed to take the correct actions. More than once emotion and divergent agendas sidetracked both the members and the leadership (e.g., the UC Board/UCLA circus). As a result, Kliavkoff and the executive committee failed to recognize the media environment and developed absolutely the wrong strategy and the available media money dried up (Yormack hired a much larger and more connected media consulting company, which drove a clear strategy and executed it). I have absolutely no doubt that whatever money was offered from ESPN and Fox at the opening of the process is off the table and much lower numbers are there now, requiring a far larger and shakier subscription dependent streaming component.

We have been in this "something is about to happen" stage for literally 8 or 9 months now. Not a good sign.

If we’re to believe this premise is true then why haven’t those with BXII invites departed yet?

I believe it’s somewhere in the middle. Apple is ironing out the terms of the deal and they are in the middle of a negotiation. Terms exchanged, stipulations altered etc. It’s not like Apple has been to the table with a conference for media rights before.

In my opinion the B12 is really the last option for most Pac schools.

I do suspect the current ESPN offer is (much) worse than the original one offered during the exclusive window. They should have taken it as many people (including me) said…

So it seems like Apple (+ CW) is the only viable option at this point. Maybe it does take this long to iron out details. Or maybe some Pac schools are still waiting for a call from the BIG. Or maybe they are in talk with the ACC.

(06-02-2023 10:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 08:55 PM)Fanofreason Wrote:  Too many streaming options. It was cheaper to have cable then need 10 different subscriptions to watch all the series and shows you want.

I agree. IMO, the streaming is a net benefit only if you watch a very narrow subset of content. E.g., if I only watch sports, I can get the YouTube TV or something and save money.

Otherwise, the bill just keeps going up. Every streamer wants their $8 or $12 or $15 a month.

As someone with both, streaming is much cheaper. Cable still comes in tiered packages, so unless you got grandpappy’s chicken wire antenna to watch the local Dawgs, Tigers, Vawls, Roll Tide, or Irish (lol) then you’re paying for more than you need.

Like you, I have both, but feel I get more value out of cable.

Sure, I pay for a lot of stuff I don't need, but replicating what I do want out of cable would IMO likely be more if it was all unbundled in to streaming. I subsidize others, but get subsidized too.