I think the deal hasn't been signed but nobody's left yet because each party still sees a path to their goals. This deal has at least 12 parties, 10 schools, the conference, and the media. School presidents have the final say but need to keep their AD and coaches happy. This deal is getting pulled in a lot of directions. My thoughts:
Apple prefers streaming only but is willing to sublicense at a discount. They're absolutely going to demand either a GOR or an exit clause if x number of schools leave.
OSU/WSU are soiling their pants at the thought of being left behind. They demand a GOR.
UO/UW want B1G so won't sign a GOR.
4C prefer PAC but will jump to B12 if the money is there. GOR is fine if roughly equal to B12, but won't sign if <$25M.
If true, this means various schools have mutually exclusive conditions that can only be resolved with media money that isn't there. No deal is possible and the PAC as we know it is dead.

(06-01-2023 10:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-01-2023 06:55 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Current issue is the concern about the ability to get a grant of rights signed with the conference for all 10 members, sources say over half of the 10 PAC 12 members would not agree to an all stream deal for the conference.

Link
https://twitter.com/TheMontyShow/status/...6313646086

Been saying that for months. The best media deal for the PAC will require GOR. At least 2 & probably several more PAC schools won't sign a deal requiring GOR so the offer becomes substantially less. Same happened with the ACC but they agreed to a GOR. A better deal was offered to the AAC but they couldn't get a GOR done because several schools refused - and for good reason. Easy to see that the PAC can't get B12 money because the B12 schools agreed to a GOR but the PAC won't.

So all of this discussion about the PAC having better schools than the B12 means nothing unless the PAC schools are willing to sign a GOR to get a deal equal or better than the B12. It's just that simple.

No one except UU, WSU and OSU are going to sign a GOR for more than 2 years, and that could be a stretch.

(06-02-2023 12:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Cable sucks. If I want CBS Sports I have to pay for the highest package, for instance (which I do). I'm getting all this extra crap I'll never watch in order to get a few channels and the price isn't worth it, but here we are.

(06-01-2023 10:34 PM)jrj84105 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 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.

Streaming is cheaper for people who don't want access to all the possible content out there. The complaint with cable was the forced bundles by regional monopolies forcing people to buy channels they didn't want in order to get the ones they did want.

If someone just wants one or two services then they will spend less in a streaming world than a cable one. People that want all the content out there will spend the same regardless of the medium.

That's why from a PAC-12 fan perspective a full Apple deal would be the best. They would buy the season pass from Apple and that would give them everything. No need for them from a college football standpoint to also have Amazon, ESPN+, and Peacock.

As for ISPs forcing streaming bundles on people that would require net neutrality to be further torn up so it would depend on the White House and FCC swinging back to the other party. As long as some semblance of net neutrality is in place your ISP has no right to tell you what websites or streamers you use your data to access the same way your electric company has no right to tell you what appliances you can use your electricity to power.

(06-02-2023 12:34 PM)clunk Wrote:  I think the deal hasn't been signed but nobody's left yet because each party still sees a path to their goals. This deal has at least 12 parties, 10 schools, the conference, and the media. School presidents have the final say but need to keep their AD and coaches happy. This deal is getting pulled in a lot of directions. My thoughts:
Apple prefers streaming only but is willing to sublicense at a discount. They're absolutely going to demand either a GOR or an exit clause if x number of schools leave.
OSU/WSU are soiling their pants at the thought of being left behind. They demand a GOR.
UO/UW want B1G so won't sign a GOR.
4C prefer PAC but will jump to B12 if the money is there. GOR is fine if roughly equal to B12, but won't sign if <$25M.
If true, this means various schools have mutually exclusive conditions that can only be resolved with media money that isn't there. No deal is possible and the PAC as we know it is dead.

If the PAC dies, they have no one to blame but themselves. They hired Larry Scott, told ESPN no to a TV channel, hired George K. Choose not to offer any B12 schools after Texas and OU announced they were leaving. Turned down a 24.5M dollar offer per school without UCLA and USC and went to open market.

Crazy just Crazy..

PAC 12 Dead by August? Why the delay & the CW info are a bad sign | Crystal Ball College Football
Chaos Podcast with Garrett Ross and Jack Mackenzie


Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMLT7pzut4Q

Colorado Coming Soon to the Big 12, PAC 12 Media Deal could Fall Apart Next - Grayson Grundhoefer on Crystal Ball CFB


Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoncRXZnb0

Pac-12 survival hinges on Arizona schools, not Colorado
by Jon Wilner

Link
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/02/m...-and-more/

Sounds like a deal might be ready to announce until next winter......

Utah President Taylor Randall becomes the latest in a list of Pac-12 presidents who have spoken to media in recent days.

Randall said on The Bill Riley Show, “There’s been a lot of comments from the media about how this is taking a long time, but it’s really that we started a year earlier than expected. So on our end, as Presidents, we’ve been really patient with the negotiations because they’re happening on an advanced timeline and will be done ahead of the original schedule regardless of when it comes through. I think we’re in a good spot, and I like what I’m hearing out of the President’s office both in terms of compensation and in distribution. I think we’ve still got a ways to go, but I think we’ve got solidarity in the President’s room of the remaining schools in particular. I don’t talk to a President from one of the remaining schools who’s not confident in the deal that’s being worked on.”

Link
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ays-to-go/

(06-02-2023 08:29 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  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.

I actually really like Apple TV. Their shows are well-done and they're constantly bringing out new content. However, their distribution pales in comparison to even other streamers right now. And I agree that not many are likely to purchase it just for the Pac. For the CFP, SEC or B1G? Sure. But not for the Pac.

(06-02-2023 05:22 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Sounds like a deal might be ready to announce until next winter......

Utah President Taylor Randall becomes the latest in a list of Pac-12 presidents who have spoken to media in recent days.

Randall said on The Bill Riley Show, “There’s been a lot of comments from the media about how this is taking a long time, but it’s really that we started a year earlier than expected. So on our end, as Presidents, we’ve been really patient with the negotiations because they’re happening on an advanced timeline and will be done ahead of the original schedule regardless of when it comes through. I think we’re in a good spot, and I like what I’m hearing out of the President’s office both in terms of compensation and in distribution. I think we’ve still got a ways to go, but I think we’ve got solidarity in the President’s room of the remaining schools in particular. I don’t talk to a President from one of the remaining schools who’s not confident in the deal that’s being worked on.”

Link
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ays-to-go/

So the new excuse is that the negotiations were a year earlier than they were expected.

(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.

Allow me to present an alternative hypothesis. The Pac office has never had a offer that would convince UW and UO to sign a GoR, and they cannot get one without some word from the B1G. So, the Pac is waiting on the B1G, who is waiting on the big 12 to deliver the killing blow, who is waiting on the Pac...etc etc etc. It's a 3 way staring contest.

(06-02-2023 10:33 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  

(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.

It doesn't matter how much the Pac schools like each other. If this is the only deal on offer, it needs to be for $45m a year or a bunch of them are going to leave.

(06-02-2023 05:40 PM)bryanw1995 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.

Allow me to present an alternative hypothesis. The Pac office has never had a offer that would convince UW and UO to sign a GoR, and they cannot get one without some word from the B1G. So, the Pac is waiting on the B1G, who is waiting on the big 12 to deliver the killing blow, who is waiting on the Pac...etc etc etc. It's a 3 way staring contest.

Sooooo A Mexican standoff?? Although I believe in this one there will be one or two winners...

(06-02-2023 05:36 PM)TeamRamRod1 Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 05:22 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Sounds like a deal might be ready to announce until next winter......

Utah President Taylor Randall becomes the latest in a list of Pac-12 presidents who have spoken to media in recent days.

Randall said on The Bill Riley Show, “There’s been a lot of comments from the media about how this is taking a long time, but it’s really that we started a year earlier than expected. So on our end, as Presidents, we’ve been really patient with the negotiations because they’re happening on an advanced timeline and will be done ahead of the original schedule regardless of when it comes through. I think we’re in a good spot, and I like what I’m hearing out of the President’s office both in terms of compensation and in distribution. I think we’ve still got a ways to go, but I think we’ve got solidarity in the President’s room of the remaining schools in particular. I don’t talk to a President from one of the remaining schools who’s not confident in the deal that’s being worked on.”

Link
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ays-to-go/

So the new excuse is that the negotiations were a year earlier than they were expected.

The present deal expires July 1, 2024 and the drop dead date approaches. The new deal is on the critical path because much else depends on the results. And there is no guarantee they can get a better deal by waiting.

I surmise every second ticking away puts more pressure on the Colorado and other potential Big 12 targets to act.

(06-02-2023 01:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  Cable sucks. If I want CBS Sports I have to pay for the highest package, for instance (which I do). I'm getting all this extra crap I'll never watch in order to get a few channels and the price isn't worth it, but here we are.

You could get CBSSN with YouTube TV for $72 a month.

Which means either:
A) You actually do value some of that "extra crap" you're getting with cable that you can't get with YT TV, or

B) You only have one cable box

(06-01-2023 10:34 PM)jrj84105 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 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.

streaming vs spectrum can save you a good $20 since spectrum has a $25 regional sports fee

(06-02-2023 05:22 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Sounds like a deal might be ready to announce until next winter......

Utah President Taylor Randall becomes the latest in a list of Pac-12 presidents who have spoken to media in recent days.

Randall said on The Bill Riley Show, “There’s been a lot of comments from the media about how this is taking a long time, but it’s really that we started a year earlier than expected. So on our end, as Presidents, we’ve been really patient with the negotiations because they’re happening on an advanced timeline and will be done ahead of the original schedule regardless of when it comes through. I think we’re in a good spot, and I like what I’m hearing out of the President’s office both in terms of compensation and in distribution. I think we’ve still got a ways to go, but I think we’ve got solidarity in the President’s room of the remaining schools in particular. I don’t talk to a President from one of the remaining schools who’s not confident in the deal that’s being worked on.”

Link
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...ays-to-go/

That interview was in March.

(06-02-2023 05:40 PM)bryanw1995 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.

Allow me to present an alternative hypothesis. The Pac office has never had a offer that would convince UW and UO to sign a GoR, and they cannot get one without some word from the B1G. So, the Pac is waiting on the B1G, who is waiting on the big 12 to deliver the killing blow, who is waiting on the Pac...etc etc etc. It's a 3 way staring contest.

And apparently has been for some time now...

(06-02-2023 06:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(06-02-2023 05:40 PM)bryanw1995 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.

Allow me to present an alternative hypothesis. The Pac office has never had a offer that would convince UW and UO to sign a GoR, and they cannot get one without some word from the B1G. So, the Pac is waiting on the B1G, who is waiting on the big 12 to deliver the killing blow, who is waiting on the Pac...etc etc etc. It's a 3 way staring contest.

And apparently has been for some time now...

Once the PAC12 new media deal is known, I think events will avalanche very quickly.

Fascinating stuff.....