(08-01-2023 05:23 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 05:14 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 02:09 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Have to say:

This seems awfully similar to what MHVer3 said. By the way MHVer3 said $240M for 12 schools and $20M on average.

I don't understand what is there to analyze. You either give it a go with Apple or not.

Its about the platform more so than the money. Who cares about the variable escalators? Figure its a 20-22 mil per school deal.

I think this deal is toxic for Arizona basketball since their brand relies on TV. Most of the PAC however can live with it.

How did Oregon football build a national brand? Was it through a subscription service? Early on, DeBoer at UW talked about exposure, recruiting, national brand, you can't do that under a subscription plan.

(08-01-2023 04:58 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 04:53 PM)UIWElite Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 04:50 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 03:50 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 03:45 PM)e-parade Wrote:  It is a massive difference for sure.

Yes, but I would assume that Apple TV would operate PAC programming in a similar manner to the MLS package (MLS Season Pass), which is a completely different fee just for that programming. In that way it would be the same, you are paying the fee for PAC12 sports only.

If Apple TV+ puts the Pac-12 on a separate paid tier, like MLS Season Pass, the Pac-12 is doomed.

If it's on the standard plan, like MLB on Friday nights, I think it's a great move for the Pac-12.

MLB on Friday nights is one or two games though. If Apple is paying significant money, its not going to be only for 2 games on Saturday nights.

If I'm the Pac-12 (or Apple), I'm fighting to get all games on the standard tier, like MLB on Friday nights.

I'm someone who really believes streaming is the future, but I don't think any FBS conference is popular enough to sustain success as its own separate paid plan on Apple TV+ right now. It needs to be on the standard tier, or it won't work (in my opinion).

Well if its the future, you get on in the future. You lose nothing by getting over the air exposure now and switching in 10 years.

(08-01-2023 05:05 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 04:13 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

Considering he and Wilmer are the mouth pieces that provide little objection, I was quite alarmed when I heard on Friday that the PAC should be on the offensive and look to add SDSU, SMU, Rice and UNLV (assuming they get down to 8 members). If they are throwing this out there, then Kliavkoff and Presidents have certainly discussed/floated out there as well.

No disrespect to Rice and UNLV, but if they are being pitched as last stand aggressive options to save the PAC, the league might already be dead.

It becomes a G6.

(08-01-2023 01:23 PM)Chappy Wrote:  When Larry Scott blamed the schools rather than himself for the stale PAC-12 football product, it was seen as him making excuses for his own failures. Well, maybe he was right.

Larry Scott had nothing to do with the recent mediocrity of the PAC-12 in both football and basketball.

But he is to blame for not getting Texas and OU and for the failure of the PAC Network. And those were events that actually occurred before the PAC hit its recent rut in football (the PAC has always been the pretty distant #6 basketball conference as far as I'm aware). So it's not even like you can claim that Texas, OU and potential PAC Network TV partners were dissuaded from joining with the PAC because of the conference's recent slump in football.

(08-01-2023 06:17 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 05:23 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 05:14 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-01-2023 02:09 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Have to say:

This seems awfully similar to what MHVer3 said. By the way MHVer3 said $240M for 12 schools and $20M on average.

I don't understand what is there to analyze. You either give it a go with Apple or not.

Its about the platform more so than the money. Who cares about the variable escalators? Figure its a 20-22 mil per school deal.

I think this deal is toxic for Arizona basketball since their brand relies on TV. Most of the PAC however can live with it.

How did Oregon football build a national brand? Was it through a subscription service? Early on, DeBoer at UW talked about exposure, recruiting, national brand, you can't do that under a subscription plan.

Exactly. Having a big money donor behind your school helps as well. (Like Phil Knight and Oregon.)