(01-25-2023 09:26 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

We all knew GOR would be a sticking point for schools like Oregon with their eyes on the Big 10. And that assumed traditional platforms like ESPN/FOX.

Not surprising that the issue is magnified for a non-traditional platform like Amazon.

I can't see Oregon pledging a GOR to anyone longer than 2029-30, the end of the new Big 10 deal.

Is this a GOR issue, or an Amazon issue? If #13 Oregon vs #11 Utah is on Amazon Prime, and no one watches is, that's a problem for Oregon, GOR or no GOR.

(01-25-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 09:26 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

We all knew GOR would be a sticking point for schools like Oregon with their eyes on the Big 10. And that assumed traditional platforms like ESPN/FOX.

Not surprising that the issue is magnified for a non-traditional platform like Amazon.

I can't see Oregon pledging a GOR to anyone longer than 2029-30, the end of the new Big 10 deal.

Is this a GOR issue, or an Amazon issue? If #13 Oregon vs #11 Utah is on Amazon Prime, and no one watches is, that's a problem for Oregon, GOR or no GOR.

This is exactly what Ive been pointing out---we've assumed that if the Big12 and Pac12 pay outs are relatively close---the 4-corners will stay put. There may be a faction of Pac-12 teams that decide that similar money with substantially reduced exposure to casual linear TV fans is NOT acceptable---opting to reconsider the Big12 if the new deal is largely an Amazon TV package. If 2 of the teams adverse to a largely Amazon based TV deal are 4-corners teams----then expansion may not be over just yet. As Ive been saying----the problem the Pac12 has right now is its only stable as long as every current team believes it will get roughly Big12 money (or better) with substantial linear exposure (preferably close to the Big12 linear exposure). That current "stability" is quickly undermined in the ultimate final TV deal either offers substantially less money than the Big12 or substantially inferior exposure than the Big-12.....and THAT is why I think there is no deal yet (because none of the deals currently on the table remove those stumbling blocks to continued stability).

(01-25-2023 10:52 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 10:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I continue to believe that a lot of people *severely* underrate how much the Pac-12 schools are institutionally aligned with each other. Washington is every bit as snobby (to put it bluntly) as Cal and Stanford while everyone else in the league is as California-focused as institutions in the Big 12 are Texas-focused.

Even when UT and OU were still in the Big 12, my belief was that the members of the Big 12 liked the money but couldn't stand the conference, whereas the members of the ACC and Pac-12 loved their conference but weren't happy with the money.

Agreed, but don't you think Washington and Oregon could find the same snobbery in the ACC as part of a western flank? I'm sure they're at least testing the waters with the networks to see if this is financially viable.

For sure. To the extent that any of the Pac-12 schools that are AAU members (besides maybe Arizona) believe that they are forced to move, I absolutely believe that they'd be more hospitable to being a Western flank of the ACC than they would joining the Big 12 as-is.

The issue, of course, is that last part of whether it's financially viable. It wasn't financially feasible for the Big Ten to even just add Washington and Oregon. Realistically, a move the ACC couldn't be just 2 Pac-12 schools in the way that the Big Ten just did with USC/UCLA. Instead, it would be need adding most of or maybe even an outright full merger of the entire Pac-12, which means that there are a lot more mouths to feed.

(01-25-2023 11:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 09:26 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

We all knew GOR would be a sticking point for schools like Oregon with their eyes on the Big 10. And that assumed traditional platforms like ESPN/FOX.

Not surprising that the issue is magnified for a non-traditional platform like Amazon.

I can't see Oregon pledging a GOR to anyone longer than 2029-30, the end of the new Big 10 deal.

Is this a GOR issue, or an Amazon issue? If #13 Oregon vs #11 Utah is on Amazon Prime, and no one watches is, that's a problem for Oregon, GOR or no GOR.

This is exactly what Ive been pointing out---we've assumed that if the Big12 and Pac12 pay outs are relatively close---the 4-corners will stay put. There may be a faction of Pac-12 teams that decide that similar money with substantially reduced exposure to casual linear TV fans is NOT acceptable---opting to reconsider the Big12 if the new deal is largely an Amazon TV package. If 2 of the teams adverse to a largely Amazon based TV deal are 4-corners teams----then expansion may not be over just yet. As Ive been saying----the problem the Pac12 has right now is its only stable as long as every current team believes it will get roughly Big12 money (or better) with substantial linear exposure (preferably close to the Big12 linear exposure). That current "stability" is quickly undermined in the ultimate final TV deal either offers substantially less money than the Big12 or substantially inferior exposure than the Big-12.....and THAT is why I think there is no deal yet (because none of the deals currently on the table remove those stumbling blocks to continued stability).

The problem is that Big 12 expansion is only pro-rata for the ESPN part of the contract. You'd have to negotiate with Fox, who presumably has the Fox and FS1 games they want. And the upgrade from a UCF-Kansas State game to an Arizona State- West Virginia game seems trivial to me.

But nothing is set in stone until contracts are signed. (And not even then sometimes). And right now there is no TV contract.

(01-25-2023 11:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The issue, of course, is that last part of whether it's financially viable. It wasn't financially feasible for the Big Ten to even just add Washington and Oregon. Realistically, a move the ACC couldn't be just 2 Pac-12 schools in the way that the Big Ten just did with USC/UCLA. Instead, it would be need adding most of or maybe even an outright full merger of the entire Pac-12, which means that there are a lot more mouths to feed.

The breakeven point for the ACC and B1G are wildly different, tho. A western flank of Pac-12 schools might be able to substantially increase earnings for the ACC Network as well as increase the ESPN TV deal resulting in higher per-school payouts among existing ACC members. This can be true even if the same schools would be dilutive if added to the B1G.

It's a moonshot, yes, and it's a large multi-party negotiation, and those are notoriously difficult to pull off. But it would strengthen all schools against the threat of the B1G and SEC (because their revenue would presumably jump, making a move to the B1G or SEC less worthwhile), it would put pressure on Notre Dame to join the new "P3" conference, and it might be the least risky path forward for some Pac-12 schools (thru a best worst option analysis?).

(01-25-2023 11:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 09:26 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

We all knew GOR would be a sticking point for schools like Oregon with their eyes on the Big 10. And that assumed traditional platforms like ESPN/FOX.

Not surprising that the issue is magnified for a non-traditional platform like Amazon.

I can't see Oregon pledging a GOR to anyone longer than 2029-30, the end of the new Big 10 deal.

Is this a GOR issue, or an Amazon issue? If #13 Oregon vs #11 Utah is on Amazon Prime, and no one watches is, that's a problem for Oregon, GOR or no GOR.

This is exactly what Ive been pointing out---we've assumed that if the Big12 and Pac12 pay outs are relatively close---the 4-corners will stay put. There may be a faction of Pac-12 teams that decide that similar money with substantially reduced exposure to casual linear TV fans is NOT acceptable---opting to reconsider the Big12 if the new deal is largely an Amazon TV package. If 2 of the teams adverse to a largely Amazon based TV deal are 4-corners teams----then expansion may not be over just yet. As Ive been saying----the problem the Pac12 has right now is its only stable as long as every current team believes it will get roughly Big12 money (or better) with substantial linear exposure (preferably close to the Big12 linear exposure). That current "stability" is quickly undermined in the ultimate final TV deal either offers substantially less money than the Big12 or substantially inferior exposure than the Big-12.....and THAT is why I think there is no deal yet (because none of the deals currently on the table remove those stumbling blocks to continued stability).

I think if the money is equal or slightly greater, then Oregon will cave on the exposure aspect.

Oregon and Washington are limited in their ability to act, regardless of their overwhelming desire to do so.

1. They want to go to the B1G? Fine, but if the B1G isn't expanding then there is nowhere to go there. You can try to woo and convince and work a deal, great, but nothing matters if the B1G is settled for this media cycle.

2. If the B1G is unavailable what can they realistically do? Stay in the PAC or go to the Big 12. That's about it. I think Oregon and Washington prefer to stay in their current conference than join up with the Big 12, I get it. So the Big 12 either has to have some great offer for those two or the PAC has to be in a complete state of disarray. As bad as things have been for the PAC, I don't think it is at level right now.

3. If they are stuck or staying in the PAC, can they get more money out of the conference? They could probably get some concessions for keeping more of their bonus items like CFP appearances and NCAA units, but unequal revenue sharing from the media deal is likely off the table. CAL's UCLA tax is going to be a sore friction point for them because structurally CAL is going to be making more than Oregon. Unequal revenue is off the table because it only generates Oregon more if they are paying Oregon State/Wazzu/Colorado/Arizona/ASU/Utah less. Those schools wouldn't agree in principal. Oregon might have been able to threaten a departure for their concession on the issue, but the 4C schools know their value and their exit strategy to the Big 12. So if Oregon/Washington play hardball, the 4C schools can just pack up and leave.

5. The GOR is going to be a requirement for Oregon/Washington in the PAC or Big 12. Since it won't change regardless of where they play, finding appropriate terms and timelines is the next best option. Like others said, 5-6 years is likely the deal to make. It isn't going to fetch as much as it could with a longer agreement, but that is likely the deal that everyone can make.

Ultimately, we wind up with a PAC surviving for the next 5-6 years and they evaluate from there.

(01-25-2023 10:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 10:24 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 06:06 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 04:26 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  They have until 06/2023 to work something out or schools might decide it is time to make a deal with a known quantity (Big 12) or accept some untenable terms (all digital). I believe schools have until 07/01/2023 to announce if they are leaving before the 2024-2025 season. If there is no deal in place, it is hard to see them sticking around at that point.

In other words, expect the Big 12 (soon to be Big 16) hammer to come down around June 25th. They'll offer to six schools (Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona) and take the first four that jump.

If they are smart they go Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona to start, Cal and Stanford can be ignored, neither is leaving the comfort of the coast for the Big XII.

I guess it depends what "close to Big 12 money" would be.

However, I continue to believe that a lot of people *severely* underrate how much the Pac-12 schools are institutionally aligned with each other. Washington is every bit as snobby (to put it bluntly) as Cal and Stanford while everyone else in the league is as California-focused as institutions in the Big 12 are Texas-focused.

Even when UT and OU were still in the Big 12, my belief was that the members of the Big 12 liked the money but couldn't stand the conference, whereas the members of the ACC and Pac-12 loved their conference but weren't happy with the money. So, that has to be weighed here: the Pac-12 members truly *do* love their group and would be leaving *only* for money purposes, whereas the only reason why the Big 12 members are staying (to the extent of them even have other conference options) is *because* of the money. Don't get me wrong - money is the single most powerful force, so I'm not underrating it here. Rather, it's going to take a LOT more (not just a little bit or even a medium bit more) for the Big 12 to pry any Pac-12 school. I don't even think a gap of $10 million in TV money per year would move the needle. It would need to be a gap of $20 million-plus (e.g. the new Pac-12 deal isn't merely underwhelming, but rather an outright disaster).

Frank, I think you are absolutely spot-on in your analysis, though I think there's some nuance to the "California-focused" schools.

And I think Utah might be more NW-schools-focused than California-focused.

I think Colorado is more on the fence - leaning more towards either staying in conference with the San Fran schools, or hoping for a B10 invite to join the LA schools.

And I think AZ and AZ state might move with some sort of California presence. I don't see them as unhappy about the additions of SDSU and Fresno state, as perhaps WA, Cal, and Stanford might be.

I think the B12 could get the AZ schools to jump as a part of a California package. But listening to Yormark up to now, I'm not sure that he's able to get such a deal done. There's a difference between selling G5 schools to join the P5, and getting P5 schools to do a lateral move. And I say that knowing that there are still several months this year for him to do so, so who knows. But not looking optimistic so far.

Consider, per the reports we heard, the Arizona schools were only added due to pressure from the LA schools - who are gone.

https://tucson.com/sports/college/wildca...762ab.html

Quote:The '78 expansion was driven by UCLA chancellor Charles Young and Arizona president John Schaefer and not by TV revenue. [..]

Said Schaefer in 1976: "I've said on numerous occasions that I want the University of Arizona associated with the best in academia on a national level." [..]

The addition of Arizona and ASU met some notable resistance. Kush, of all people, didn't want to leave the WAC. "They need us more than we need them," he said. He was right, of course.

The old Pac-8 had no depth in football, played to about 55 percent capacity, and the basketball programs at Cal and Stanford were basically intramurals with scholarships. The Arizona schools immediately gave the league a buzz. Arizona soon led the Pac-10 in basketball attendance, and ASU was immediately the runaway leader in football attendance.

Academics drove the '78 expansion the way finances drove the 2010 expansion.

In December 1976, Washington president John Hogness said he would not ratify the UA-ASU expansion. The deal required a unanimous vote. "I've consistently said I'm opposed to the two Arizona schools joining the league," Hogness said. "I still feel that way."

Hogness also indicated that Stanford president Richard Lyman "didn't believe the Arizona schools are academically compatible with Stanford."

I think the AZ schools are likely willing to move to the B12 with the right incentive. It just is going to take someone creative enough and a good enough negotiator, to make that happen.

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

That mindset is crazy to me. TNF on Amazon averaged 11.3 Million viewers. When compared to the 13.3 Million average in the last season on Fox/NFL Network, it's not a big drop. Basically everyone has Amazon Prime because of the free shipping. Advertise the games on Amazon's home page and you have nothing to worry about when it comes to exposure. People will see it, think "Oh, a football game?", and watch it. It doesn't even matter what conference it is.


In order to make gains in perception, sometimes you have to do something completely different from what your competition is doing.

Part of the reason the Sun Belt made gains over the last decade is because of the tight partnership with ESPN. The partnership is so tight in part because the Sun Belt was the first FBS conference to agree to games on ESPN+, as a paid platform. Before that, college football games streamed for free on ESPN3, and broadcasting games on a paid streaming service was seen as a major risk. The SBC took that risk first. Less than a decade later, Southern Miss, Marshall, JMU, and ODU saw ESPN+ as a major benefit to joining the SBC. Fans of the conference know where to go to watch everything, in every sport.

In my opinion, it would be really dumb for schools to turn their noses at a partnership with Amazon Prime. If the PAC wants to get ahead in perception, they need to do something different. This is it.


A link for the TNF ratings I mentioned: https://theathletic.com/4077674/2023/01/...atings-tv/

The Mountain West was the first conference to have its own network. The Mtn.

Sometimes it's better to be the second arrival to a new market.

(01-25-2023 11:48 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

That mindset is crazy to me. TNF on Amazon averaged 11.3 Million viewers. When compared to the 13.3 Million average in the last season on Fox/NFL Network, it's not a big drop. Basically everyone has Amazon Prime because of the free shipping. Advertise the games on Amazon's home page and you have nothing to worry about when it comes to exposure. People will see it, think "Oh, a football game?", and watch it. It doesn't even matter what conference it is.


In order to make gains in perception, sometimes you have to do something completely different from what your competition is doing.

Part of the reason the Sun Belt made gains over the last decade is because of the tight partnership with ESPN. The partnership is so tight in part because the Sun Belt was the first FBS conference to agree to games on ESPN+, as a paid platform. Before that, college football games streamed for free on ESPN3, and broadcasting games on a paid streaming service was seen as a major risk. The SBC took that risk first. Less than a decade later, Southern Miss, Marshall, JMU, and ODU saw ESPN+ as a major benefit to joining the SBC. Fans of the conference know where to go to watch everything, in every sport.

In my opinion, it would be really dumb for schools to turn their noses at a partnership with Amazon Prime. If the PAC wants to get ahead in perception, they need to do something different. This is it.


A link for the TNF ratings I mentioned: https://theathletic.com/4077674/2023/01/...atings-tv/

Eh - it still depends on all of the details.

Most or all of the marquee games being on ABC/ESPN with lower tier/Pac-12 Network games on Amazon is one thing. This is what the NFL has. It would be surprising if anyone in the Pac-12 was overly concerned with that type of setup.

Most or all of the marquee games being on Amazon is an entirely different matter. I think the fear of Pac-12 leaders on that front would be quite justified. The NFL is a unique property that can singularly get people to go to an otherwise less-watched platform, whether it's Amazon or the NFL Network. People will seek out the NFL specifically.

Most (all?) other properties aren't like that. Sure, if you were to put Michigan-Ohio State or Alabama-Auburn on Amazon, then people will *actively* seek out those specific games on a national level. However, only a very small handful of college football games meet that standard (unlike the NFL where even the very worst matchup will be actively sought out on even the most obscure platform). Most of our sports viewing requires very little friction (e.g. "I'm turning on the main football game that's on one of the major networks") or might be downright *passive* (e.g. "I instinctively turn on ESPN first if I want to watch sports and if the game is interesting, I am just staying there and have no clue about what else is on other channels"). For me, I'll actively seek out wherever an Illinois game might be (just as most devoted fans will do so for their own teams), but it would take a truly marquee level game that doesn't involve Illinois for me to even think about going to Amazon or other streaming service on a college football Saturday compared to being able to easily switch between multiple games on linear TV back-and-forth. (Yes, my patience for switching between programs is about the same as a gnat... and I don't think that I'm alone.)

The Pac-12 isn't competing with the SBC or other G5 conferences for recruits and exposure. Their competitors are the other P5 conferences. The acceptable exposure standard is MUCH higher for the Pac-12.

(01-25-2023 12:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:48 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

That mindset is crazy to me. TNF on Amazon averaged 11.3 Million viewers. When compared to the 13.3 Million average in the last season on Fox/NFL Network, it's not a big drop. Basically everyone has Amazon Prime because of the free shipping. Advertise the games on Amazon's home page and you have nothing to worry about when it comes to exposure. People will see it, think "Oh, a football game?", and watch it. It doesn't even matter what conference it is.


In order to make gains in perception, sometimes you have to do something completely different from what your competition is doing.

Part of the reason the Sun Belt made gains over the last decade is because of the tight partnership with ESPN. The partnership is so tight in part because the Sun Belt was the first FBS conference to agree to games on ESPN+, as a paid platform. Before that, college football games streamed for free on ESPN3, and broadcasting games on a paid streaming service was seen as a major risk. The SBC took that risk first. Less than a decade later, Southern Miss, Marshall, JMU, and ODU saw ESPN+ as a major benefit to joining the SBC. Fans of the conference know where to go to watch everything, in every sport.

In my opinion, it would be really dumb for schools to turn their noses at a partnership with Amazon Prime. If the PAC wants to get ahead in perception, they need to do something different. This is it.


A link for the TNF ratings I mentioned: https://theathletic.com/4077674/2023/01/...atings-tv/

Eh - it still depends on all of the details.

Most or all of the marquee games being on ABC/ESPN with lower tier/Pac-12 Network games on Amazon is one thing. This is what the NFL has. It would be surprising if anyone in the Pac-12 was overly concerned with that type of setup.

Most or all of the marquee games being on Amazon is an entirely different matter. I think the fear of Pac-12 leaders on that front would be quite justified. The NFL is a unique property that can singularly get people to go to an otherwise less-watched platform, whether it's Amazon or the NFL Network. People will seek out the NFL specifically.

Most (all?) other properties aren't like that. Sure, if you were to put Michigan-Ohio State or Alabama-Auburn on Amazon, then people will *actively* seek out those specific games on a national level. However, only a very small handful of college football games meet that standard (unlike the NFL where even the very worst matchup will be actively sought out on even the most obscure platform). Most of our sports viewing requires very little friction (e.g. "I'm turning on the main football game that's on one of the major networks") or might be downright *passive* (e.g. "I instinctively turn on ESPN first if I want to watch sports and if the game is interesting, I am just staying there and have no clue about what else is on other channels"). For me, I'll actively seek out wherever an Illinois game might be (just as most devoted fans will do so for their own teams), but it would take a truly marquee level game that doesn't involve Illinois for me to even think about going to Amazon or other streaming service on a college football Saturday compared to being able to easily switch between multiple games on linear TV back-and-forth. (Yes, my patience for switching between programs is about the same as a gnat... and I don't think that I'm alone.)

The Pac-12 isn't competing with the SBC or other G5 conferences for recruits and exposure. Their competitors are the other P5 conferences. The acceptable exposure standard is MUCH higher for the Pac-12.

I think a lot of people overestimate the willingness of casual fans to take the less easy route and switch platforms, waiting for it to load, instead of just keying the channel on the remote. And the willingness to even change the channel on the remote. Channels fight to be in key segments. The OTA channels all like to be in 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. on cable instead of their actual number. The sports channels all like to be around ESPN. Then viewers just hit channel up or down.

(01-25-2023 12:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:48 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

That mindset is crazy to me. TNF on Amazon averaged 11.3 Million viewers. When compared to the 13.3 Million average in the last season on Fox/NFL Network, it's not a big drop. Basically everyone has Amazon Prime because of the free shipping. Advertise the games on Amazon's home page and you have nothing to worry about when it comes to exposure. People will see it, think "Oh, a football game?", and watch it. It doesn't even matter what conference it is.


In order to make gains in perception, sometimes you have to do something completely different from what your competition is doing.

Part of the reason the Sun Belt made gains over the last decade is because of the tight partnership with ESPN. The partnership is so tight in part because the Sun Belt was the first FBS conference to agree to games on ESPN+, as a paid platform. Before that, college football games streamed for free on ESPN3, and broadcasting games on a paid streaming service was seen as a major risk. The SBC took that risk first. Less than a decade later, Southern Miss, Marshall, JMU, and ODU saw ESPN+ as a major benefit to joining the SBC. Fans of the conference know where to go to watch everything, in every sport.

In my opinion, it would be really dumb for schools to turn their noses at a partnership with Amazon Prime. If the PAC wants to get ahead in perception, they need to do something different. This is it.


A link for the TNF ratings I mentioned: https://theathletic.com/4077674/2023/01/...atings-tv/

Most or all of the marquee games being on Amazon is an entirely different matter. I think the fear of Pac-12 leaders on that front would be quite justified.

I 100% disagree with that statement, for reasons I've already explained. If a live football game is advertised on Amazon's homepage, people will click on it. It's the same reason why bowl ratings are still as high as they are: it's a football game, on a platform you can easily watch. The average general sports fan doesn't care if it's Pac-12 or Big 12. They see a football game, and they turn it on to kill some time.

On the other end of it, there's the Pac-12 fans, who would know exactly where to go to watch every game. No more fumbling through channels or looking up where your team is playing that week, because it's on Amazon. It's easy, and much cheaper than cable/satellite.

Sports streaming still has a lot of room to grow. Capture that audience.

(01-25-2023 11:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 10:52 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 10:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, I continue to believe that a lot of people *severely* underrate how much the Pac-12 schools are institutionally aligned with each other. Washington is every bit as snobby (to put it bluntly) as Cal and Stanford while everyone else in the league is as California-focused as institutions in the Big 12 are Texas-focused.

Even when UT and OU were still in the Big 12, my belief was that the members of the Big 12 liked the money but couldn't stand the conference, whereas the members of the ACC and Pac-12 loved their conference but weren't happy with the money.

Agreed, but don't you think Washington and Oregon could find the same snobbery in the ACC as part of a western flank? I'm sure they're at least testing the waters with the networks to see if this is financially viable.

For sure. To the extent that any of the Pac-12 schools that are AAU members (besides maybe Arizona) believe that they are forced to move, I absolutely believe that they'd be more hospitable to being a Western flank of the ACC than they would joining the Big 12 as-is.

The issue, of course, is that last part of whether it's financially viable. It wasn't financially feasible for the Big Ten to even just add Washington and Oregon. Realistically, a move the ACC couldn't be just 2 Pac-12 schools in the way that the Big Ten just did with USC/UCLA. Instead, it would be need adding most of or maybe even an outright full merger of the entire Pac-12, which means that there are a lot more mouths to feed.

ESPN can kill any talk of ACC expansion by lowballing, though they probably wouldn’t need to bc the ACC doesn’t have the votes to add a bunch of West Coast Leftovers. And even if they did have the votes, and ESPN was willing to pay actual value for any additions, how many Pac schools bring more than the $40m or so that the ACC is already paying? 2?

(01-25-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 09:26 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

We all knew GOR would be a sticking point for schools like Oregon with their eyes on the Big 10. And that assumed traditional platforms like ESPN/FOX.

Not surprising that the issue is magnified for a non-traditional platform like Amazon.

I can't see Oregon pledging a GOR to anyone longer than 2029-30, the end of the new Big 10 deal.

Is this a GOR issue, or an Amazon issue? If #13 Oregon vs #11 Utah is on Amazon Prime, and no one watches is, that's a problem for Oregon, GOR or no GOR.

Why don't these Smart TVs have a button able to change the source/input and toggle between these streams/cable games? It seems you have to go into the Prime App and then scroll to sports and what not, but why can't the apps stay open in the background to allow for seamless toggling like the recall button on your cable remote?

(01-21-2023 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Occam’s Razor folks. The simplest explanation is generally the most likely. A Pac12 tv deal hasn’t been signed because the Pac12 hasn’t been able to get a deal good enough to prevent the 4 corners defection. If they really had a deal that was in the 30-to-40 million per team range they would have already signed it and secured the Pac12 mid-term future. When your commissioner says dumb stuff like women’s basketball is a value key to a tv deal—or the Pac12 media value is now higher because Colorado hired Prime Time—-you can sense just how desperate conference leadership really is.

The fact is---assuming the Big10 isnt going to raid the Pac12 any further this round---then the Pac is currently "stable"---but they only remain stable IF they can sign a TV deal reasonably similar to the Big12's TV deal. The Pac12 leadership knows this. It took the Big12 all of a month to reach an agreement with FOX and ESPN---so common sense tells us if there was an acceptable deal on the table that was similar or better than the Big12's TV deal---it would have already been signed. That tells me that the Pac12 knows what the bidders have on the table and they cant accept the current bids without destabilizing the 4-corners.....so Pac12 leadership is delaying hoping they can somehow pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat.

On the value of Colorado with Coach Prime, this was an interesting article from yesterday:
https://www.on3.com/college/colorado-buf...ff-pac-12/
Colorado has the No. 1 ranked transfer portal recruits, according to the On3 Database. In the Class of 2023 alone, Colorado is No. 30 nationwide. “Well, they’re going to get a whole nother year of recruiting,” Klatt said. “And they’re probably going to have numbers that are much higher than what they just did in the last what, two or three weeks? When they were able to pull in the 19th best combined class in the country. I expect that to go up"

“Their talent is going to be a top three talent roster in the conference in 2024, which means you should compete for the conference title. And if you’re competing for the conference, you’re competing for a chance to go to the 12-team playoff. I think you can go that quickly. Again, I’ll just put it to you this way. Deion Sanders at Colorado, likely in my opinion, will compete for a playoff spot in Year 2, in 2024.”

Colorado will open at TCU next season and then come home to play Nebraska. Those two games will either be on ABC, FOX, or ESPN. So Coach Prime to Colorado is going to add value to the conference. The question is, how much value does he bring?

On women's basketball, the South Carolina-Stanford women's game on November 20th on ABC got 727,000 viewers and peaked at 1.2 million viewers. That was on an NFL Sunday and it beat the Illinois-Virginia men's game on ESPN it went against head-to-head. Women's athletics are trending upward in TV ratings and the Pac-12 has been good in this area and they just want to maximize the value in their next media deal.

I used to negotiate contracts and it could often take me over a year to do a new deal. The Pac-12 media deal will be a new deal, with at least one new vendor. Once they went to the open market, that meant the deal was going to take much longer and the PAC wanted to get to the open market. The Big-12 chose not to go the open market and simply extend their current deal with the same two vendors. We will see which path was the better choice.

The Pac-12 just announced that they were moving the Pac-12 Networks studios out of San Francisco and to San Ramon on a new lease. They could not finish the media deal until they got that done. It is likely that Amazon or Apple will use the Pac-12 Networks production facilities to televise Pac-12 sporting events and other sporting events.

(01-25-2023 01:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ESPN can kill any talk of ACC expansion by lowballing, though they probably wouldn’t need to bc the ACC doesn’t have the votes to add a bunch of West Coast Leftovers. And even if they did have the votes, and ESPN was willing to pay actual value for any additions, how many Pac schools bring more than the $40m or so that the ACC is already paying? 2?

I wouldn't call a package of schools like UW, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Arizona St, and Colorado as "leftovers". And we can assume that UW/Oregon/+some others likely clear the $40m threshold because they were widely believed to be imminent expansion candidates for the B1G, which has a much higher expansion threshold, closer to $100m.

I frankly believe the ACC would be elated to have UW, Oregon, Cal, and Stanford join the conference. I mean, the league has added BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville over the years. Those are great eastern schools, but these larger Pac-12 schools would pretty clearly raise the ACC's profile, no?

(01-25-2023 01:16 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Occam’s Razor folks. The simplest explanation is generally the most likely. A Pac12 tv deal hasn’t been signed because the Pac12 hasn’t been able to get a deal good enough to prevent the 4 corners defection. If they really had a deal that was in the 30-to-40 million per team range they would have already signed it and secured the Pac12 mid-term future. When your commissioner says dumb stuff like women’s basketball is a value key to a tv deal—or the Pac12 media value is now higher because Colorado hired Prime Time—-you can sense just how desperate conference leadership really is.

The fact is---assuming the Big10 isnt going to raid the Pac12 any further this round---then the Pac is currently "stable"---but they only remain stable IF they can sign a TV deal reasonably similar to the Big12's TV deal. The Pac12 leadership knows this. It took the Big12 all of a month to reach an agreement with FOX and ESPN---so common sense tells us if there was an acceptable deal on the table that was similar or better than the Big12's TV deal---it would have already been signed. That tells me that the Pac12 knows what the bidders have on the table and they cant accept the current bids without destabilizing the 4-corners.....so Pac12 leadership is delaying hoping they can somehow pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat.

On the value of Colorado with Coach Prime, this was an interesting article from yesterday:
https://www.on3.com/college/colorado-buf...ff-pac-12/
Colorado has the No. 1 ranked transfer portal recruits, according to the On3 Database. In the Class of 2023 alone, Colorado is No. 30 nationwide. “Well, they’re going to get a whole nother year of recruiting,” Klatt said. “And they’re probably going to have numbers that are much higher than what they just did in the last what, two or three weeks? When they were able to pull in the 19th best combined class in the country. I expect that to go up"

“Their talent is going to be a top three talent roster in the conference in 2024, which means you should compete for the conference title. And if you’re competing for the conference, you’re competing for a chance to go to the 12-team playoff. I think you can go that quickly. Again, I’ll just put it to you this way. Deion Sanders at Colorado, likely in my opinion, will compete for a playoff spot in Year 2, in 2024.”

Colorado will open at TCU next season and then come home to play Nebraska. Those two games will either be on ABC, FOX, or ESPN. So Coach Prime to Colorado is going to add value to the conference. The question is, how much value does he bring?

On women's basketball, the South Carolina-Stanford women's game on November 20th on ABC got 727,000 viewers and peaked at 1.2 million viewers. That was on an NFL Sunday and it beat the Illinois-Virginia men's game on ESPN it went against head-to-head. Women's athletics are trending upward in TV ratings and the Pac-12 has been good in this area and they just want to maximize the value in their next media deal.

I used to negotiate contracts and it could often take me over a year to do a new deal. The Pac-12 media deal will be a new deal, with at least one new vendor. Once they went to the open market, that meant the deal was going to take much longer and the PAC wanted to get to the open market. The Big-12 chose not to go the open market and simply extend their current deal with the same two vendors. We will see which path was the better choice.

The Pac-12 just announced that they were moving the Pac-12 Networks studios out of San Francisco and to San Ramon on a new lease. They could not finish the media deal until they got that done. It is likely that Amazon or Apple will use the Pac-12 Networks production facilities to televise Pac-12 sporting events and other sporting events.

Nick Saban adds value. Deion is 100% untested.

(01-25-2023 11:36 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 09:26 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

We all knew GOR would be a sticking point for schools like Oregon with their eyes on the Big 10. And that assumed traditional platforms like ESPN/FOX.

Not surprising that the issue is magnified for a non-traditional platform like Amazon.

I can't see Oregon pledging a GOR to anyone longer than 2029-30, the end of the new Big 10 deal.

Is this a GOR issue, or an Amazon issue? If #13 Oregon vs #11 Utah is on Amazon Prime, and no one watches is, that's a problem for Oregon, GOR or no GOR.

This is exactly what Ive been pointing out---we've assumed that if the Big12 and Pac12 pay outs are relatively close---the 4-corners will stay put. There may be a faction of Pac-12 teams that decide that similar money with substantially reduced exposure to casual linear TV fans is NOT acceptable---opting to reconsider the Big12 if the new deal is largely an Amazon TV package. If 2 of the teams adverse to a largely Amazon based TV deal are 4-corners teams----then expansion may not be over just yet. As Ive been saying----the problem the Pac12 has right now is its only stable as long as every current team believes it will get roughly Big12 money (or better) with substantial linear exposure (preferably close to the Big12 linear exposure). That current "stability" is quickly undermined in the ultimate final TV deal either offers substantially less money than the Big12 or substantially inferior exposure than the Big-12.....and THAT is why I think there is no deal yet (because none of the deals currently on the table remove those stumbling blocks to continued stability).

I think if the money is equal or slightly greater, then Oregon will cave on the exposure aspect.

Oregon and Washington are limited in their ability to act, regardless of their overwhelming desire to do so.

1. They want to go to the B1G? Fine, but if the B1G isn't expanding then there is nowhere to go there. You can try to woo and convince and work a deal, great, but nothing matters if the B1G is settled for this media cycle.

2. If the B1G is unavailable what can they realistically do? Stay in the PAC or go to the Big 12. That's about it. I think Oregon and Washington prefer to stay in their current conference than join up with the Big 12, I get it. So the Big 12 either has to have some great offer for those two or the PAC has to be in a complete state of disarray. As bad as things have been for the PAC, I don't think it is at level right now.

3. If they are stuck or staying in the PAC, can they get more money out of the conference? They could probably get some concessions for keeping more of their bonus items like CFP appearances and NCAA units, but unequal revenue sharing from the media deal is likely off the table. CAL's UCLA tax is going to be a sore friction point for them because structurally CAL is going to be making more than Oregon. Unequal revenue is off the table because it only generates Oregon more if they are paying Oregon State/Wazzu/Colorado/Arizona/ASU/Utah less. Those schools wouldn't agree in principal. Oregon might have been able to threaten a departure for their concession on the issue, but the 4C schools know their value and their exit strategy to the Big 12. So if Oregon/Washington play hardball, the 4C schools can just pack up and leave.

5. The GOR is going to be a requirement for Oregon/Washington in the PAC or Big 12. Since it won't change regardless of where they play, finding appropriate terms and timelines is the next best option. Like others said, 5-6 years is likely the deal to make. It isn't going to fetch as much as it could with a longer agreement, but that is likely the deal that everyone can make.

Ultimately, we wind up with a PAC surviving for the next 5-6 years and they evaluate from there.

Nope. The GOR is NOT a requirement for the Pac12....a GOR requires a unanimous decision. The deal will be for slightly less as networks are paying that GOR bonus for a reason (they know what content they are getting for the term of the deal)---but TV deals dont REQUIRE a GOR. Thus, when it comes to a GOR---everyone has leverage---particularly your top TV draws. The fact is---Oregon might prefer a Pac12 without some 4 corners schools to signing a GOR because they no longer view the Pac12 as anything more than a temporary waiting room.

Heck---if Im wheeling and dealing as the head of the Big12---Im fine giving Oregan and Washinton a home with no GOR---but the 4-corners have to sign a GOR if they want in. Oregon and Washington are rentals---everyone knows that. The real game is whether the Big12 or Pac12 survives. Carving off Oregon and Washington means the 4-corners are now far better off moving to the Big12. Sure---The Big12 would be the bad guy in that scenario---but the Big12 will survive. Besides---I dont see the ACC wringing its hands about being the "bad guy" that largely ended the old Big East.

(01-25-2023 12:58 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 12:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 11:48 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2023 05:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Tim Montemayor: TV industry sources: Oregon is among several PAC 12 school hesitating to sign a grant of rights for a deal with Amazon. The issues surround a belief that fans & CFB decision makers will not go to Amazon specifically to watch PAC 12 games, which Oregon and others say damages them.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...7806219264

That mindset is crazy to me. TNF on Amazon averaged 11.3 Million viewers. When compared to the 13.3 Million average in the last season on Fox/NFL Network, it's not a big drop. Basically everyone has Amazon Prime because of the free shipping. Advertise the games on Amazon's home page and you have nothing to worry about when it comes to exposure. People will see it, think "Oh, a football game?", and watch it. It doesn't even matter what conference it is.


In order to make gains in perception, sometimes you have to do something completely different from what your competition is doing.

Part of the reason the Sun Belt made gains over the last decade is because of the tight partnership with ESPN. The partnership is so tight in part because the Sun Belt was the first FBS conference to agree to games on ESPN+, as a paid platform. Before that, college football games streamed for free on ESPN3, and broadcasting games on a paid streaming service was seen as a major risk. The SBC took that risk first. Less than a decade later, Southern Miss, Marshall, JMU, and ODU saw ESPN+ as a major benefit to joining the SBC. Fans of the conference know where to go to watch everything, in every sport.

In my opinion, it would be really dumb for schools to turn their noses at a partnership with Amazon Prime. If the PAC wants to get ahead in perception, they need to do something different. This is it.


A link for the TNF ratings I mentioned: https://theathletic.com/4077674/2023/01/...atings-tv/

Most or all of the marquee games being on Amazon is an entirely different matter. I think the fear of Pac-12 leaders on that front would be quite justified.

I 100% disagree with that statement, for reasons I've already explained. If a live football game is advertised on Amazon's homepage, people will click on it.

I don't think that's especially true. If you want to grab a beer and watch some football, you'll turn on ESPN, flip through the OTA channels.

I don't think you're going to get a lot of casual viewership from people browsing Amazon for birthday or Christmas presents or just stuff they need on a Saturday afternoon and then an add for a PAC-12 game comes on and the light goes on and they remember that college football is an option.

The people watching the PAC-12 on Amazon are people who go looking for those particular games. Much like the people watching NFL Thursday Night Football on AMazon. It's Thursday night, let's watch some football. Where is it? Amazon, OK let's fire up Prime Video.

Quote: It's the same reason why bowl ratings are still as high as they are: it's a football game, on a platform you can easily watch. The average general sports fan doesn't care if it's Pac-12 or Big 12. They see a football game, and they turn it on to kill some time.

But the Amazon PAC-12 games are competing with, realistically, a dozen other P5 college games that you could have or did watch that day on OTA/ESPN/2/U, not to mention FS1, ESPN+, CBS-SN.

Quote:On the other end of it, there's the Pac-12 fans, who would know exactly where to go to watch every game. No more fumbling through channels or looking up where your team is playing that week, because it's on Amazon. It's easy, and much cheaper than cable/satellite.

Problem is, how many diehard fans does the PAC have? Not enough to make Pac-12 Networks work, that's for sure. For the programs to recruit and succeed, they need more than their own fans, they need national credibility.

Right.

Oregon: Want me to sign a GOR, give me a bigger piece of the pie.