Bear Down Wildcats

Posted in another thread but relevent here:

UAEebs86 wrote:Good read:

Is ESPN A Giant Bubble About To Burst?

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footba ... rst-071215

Thanks a lot Larry:


1. ESPN $6.61 x 94.5 million homes = $7.5 billion
2. NFL Network $1.31 x 73.6 million homes = $1.16 billion
3. FS1 .99 x 91.2 million homes = $1.08 billion
4. ESPN2 .83 x 94.5 million homes = $941.2 million
5. SEC Network .66 x 69.1 million homes = $547.3 million
6. Golf Channel .35 x 79.4 million homes = $332.2 million
7. NBC Sports Network .30 x 83.1 million homes = $299 million
8. Big Ten Network .39 x 62 million homes = $290.2 million
9. MLB Network .26 x 71.3 million homes = $222.5 million
10. FS2 .28 x 64 million homes = $215 million
11. NBA TV .29 x 57.2 million homes = $199 million
12. ESPNU .22 x 74.9 million homes = $198 million
13. CBS Sports Network .26 x 61 million homes = $190.3 million
14. NHL Network .32 x 37.4 million homes = $143.6 million
15. Pac 12 Network .39 x 12.3 million homes = $57.6 million

How many subscribers would be added if a deal was reached with DTV. Those numbers are pathetic. No wonder the pac 12 network has all those dumb commercials and mini interviews instead of normal advertising commercials

PHXCATS wrote:How many subscribers would be added if a deal was reached with DTV. Those numbers are pathetic. No wonder the pac 12 network has all those dumb commercials and mini interviews instead of normal advertising commercials

20 million. It would be a boost, but still a pretty small number overall.

Great news on more than one front.

now that i'm probably about to cut the cord permanently...blehhhh. i absolutely want to cut the cord and get sling but that would mean no dvr or rewatching or recording games i can't see and no pac 12 network at all...so i'd probably miss a good 20-25 football and basketball games unless i go to a sports bar or something.

ASUHATER! wrote:now that i'm probably about to cut the cord permanently...blehhhh. i absolutely want to cut the cord and get sling but that would mean no dvr or rewatching or recording games i can't see and no pac 12 network at all...so i'd probably miss a good 20-25 football and basketball games unless i go to a sports bar or something.

And you go to a bar and watch a couple of games a month for football or 4 or 5 a month for bball and inveritably have a couple brews and some food and bam, it was cheaper to get the service

azcat49 wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:now that i'm probably about to cut the cord permanently...blehhhh. i absolutely want to cut the cord and get sling but that would mean no dvr or rewatching or recording games i can't see and no pac 12 network at all...so i'd probably miss a good 20-25 football and basketball games unless i go to a sports bar or something.

And you go to a bar and watch a couple of games a month for football or 4 or 5 a month for bball and inveritably have a couple brews and some food and bam, it was cheaper to get the service

Anything w/o DVR capability is a non-starter. I haven't watched a commercial in years.

UALoco wrote:

azcat49 wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:now that i'm probably about to cut the cord permanently...blehhhh. i absolutely want to cut the cord and get sling but that would mean no dvr or rewatching or recording games i can't see and no pac 12 network at all...so i'd probably miss a good 20-25 football and basketball games unless i go to a sports bar or something.

And you go to a bar and watch a couple of games a month for football or 4 or 5 a month for bball and inveritably have a couple brews and some food and bam, it was cheaper to get the service

Anything w/o DVR capability is a non-starter. I haven't watched a commercial in years.

same here. But it's $25 a month as opposed to $130...that's a big temptation.

Tivo Roamio OTA can dvr anything off your hd antennae. Check it out. Doesn't work on sling though.

ASUHATER! wrote:

UALoco wrote:

azcat49 wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:now that i'm probably about to cut the cord permanently...blehhhh. i absolutely want to cut the cord and get sling but that would mean no dvr or rewatching or recording games i can't see and no pac 12 network at all...so i'd probably miss a good 20-25 football and basketball games unless i go to a sports bar or something.

And you go to a bar and watch a couple of games a month for football or 4 or 5 a month for bball and inveritably have a couple brews and some food and bam, it was cheaper to get the service

Anything w/o DVR capability is a non-starter. I haven't watched a commercial in years.

same here. But it's $25 a month as opposed to $130...that's a big temptation.

Keep in mind you won't just miss P12N games, you'll miss games on FS1 and FX also.

Thanks a lot Larry.

GB already answered a tweet question about this Adidas championship series deal and that it has no impact on AZ's / Nike relationship or contract.

Press Release:

adidas will also be integrated into some of Pac-12 Networks live event programming with on air talent and production staff wearing adidas apparel. Pac-12 staff and volunteers will also be outfitted in adidas apparel at Conference championship events.

Can't wait to see KO on set in some Adidas swim trunks or a zebra print track suit.

I'm old, cause I don't see the big deal about what the conference is aligned with.

It's essentially just the Network types who'll be wearing it. Occasionally I see people wearing a PAC-12 hat/shirt and this will be ADIDAS, but it's the same goofy people who sport an ESPN hat. We'll probably see ADIDAS ads more now too

Speaking of Adidas, I think ASU is unveiling their new Adidas uniforms today.

I'm guessing the Normals' normal uniforms will be in line with what they've been wearing.
The real Adidas-ification of horribly off-brand clown costumes probably won't be until they unveil their "special set" later on.

Sage&Silver wrote:Speaking of Adidas, I think ASU is unveiling their new Adidas uniforms today.

I'm guessing the Normals' normal uniforms will be in line with what they've been wearing.
The real Adidas-ification of horribly off-brand clown costumes probably won't be until they unveil their "special set" later on.

Tommorrow.

Looking at these I'm going to guess that ASSu's will be hideous as well.

Figures that Larry would align with the laughingstock of the industry.

p.s. those hideous backgrounds that Adidas uses when they send out these images make the uniforms look even more hideous than they actually are. Adidas apparently thinks the "Las Vegas casino carpet" motif is what the kids like.

azthrillhouse wrote:Figures that Larry would align with the laughingstock of the industry.

p.s. those hideous backgrounds that Adidas uses when they send out these images make the uniforms look even more hideous than they actually are. Adidas apparently thinks the "Las Vegas casino carpet" motif is what the kids like.

If it does not impact Arizona, why does anyone care? Adidas is giving tons of money, way more than Under Armor or Reebok or Nike were willing to give, to the conference to have people on the sidelines and the refs wear Adidas hats. Sure Adidas makes crappy uniforms but it does not play any roles into anything that will have any impact on Arizona, except you will probably be playing with an Adidas ball instead of whatever they played with in Vegas and in San Jose.

Larry has been a huge disappointment but for this deal I would have been more disappointed if he took a deal for less money with Nike or Under Armor.

nice soccer cleats.

They don't look bad. Addidas didn't really do anything risky other than maybe putting the tin foil around the letters which I actually think looks kinda cool.

I wonder what their A&M/Oregon/Arizona alternates will look like.

They aren't as bad as Louisville, Nebraska, and Miami. I don't understand the pattern on all the Adidas football jerseys, though. It looks like a basketball net. It's more visible on UCLA, Kansas, and some other schools.

FightWildcatsFight wrote:They don't look bad. Addidas didn't really do anything risky other than maybe putting the tin foil around the letters which I actually think looks kinda cool.

I wonder what their A&M/Oregon/Arizona alternates will look like.

I agree. The style is fine, The colors however...........................

azgreg wrote:

FightWildcatsFight wrote:They don't look bad. Addidas didn't really do anything risky other than maybe putting the tin foil around the letters which I actually think looks kinda cool.

I wonder what their A&M/Oregon/Arizona alternates will look like.

I agree. The style is fine, The colors however...........................

Yep, the mustard and rust really clash. Eek.

PHXCATS wrote:

azthrillhouse wrote:Figures that Larry would align with the laughingstock of the industry.

p.s. those hideous backgrounds that Adidas uses when they send out these images make the uniforms look even more hideous than they actually are. Adidas apparently thinks the "Las Vegas casino carpet" motif is what the kids like.

If it does not impact Arizona, why does anyone care? Adidas is giving tons of money, way more than Under Armor or Reebok or Nike were willing to give, to the conference to have people on the sidelines and the refs wear Adidas hats. Sure Adidas makes crappy uniforms but it does not play any roles into anything that will have any impact on Arizona, except you will probably be playing with an Adidas ball instead of whatever they played with in Vegas and in San Jose.

Larry has been a huge disappointment but for this deal I would have been more disappointed if he took a deal for less money with Nike or Under Armor.

I disagree. I think that Larry is an example of a line of thinking that I see in corporate America as well, that any revenue is good revenue. (Steve Patterson another disciple of this line of thinking). If Adidas "enhances the brand" just as much as Nike would, then yes, by all means take Adidas's money. If, however, Adidas brings revenue but diminishes the brand (i.e. every Pac-12 advertisement gets slapped with that hideous casino floor theme that Adidas uses) and the Pac-12 becomes a bit of a joke, is it worth the extra $2 million (or whatever) you got from Adidas? There is such a thing as bad revenue.

My pet example (not the only one) - jacking the schedule around to theoretically optimize national TV exposure to ESPN/Fox's benefit. That's a cash grab, but it might do long-term damage to revenue as fans in the footprint become disconnected and the fans outside the footprint have to stay up late to watch the games.

Sometimes a cash grab is good (moving the basketball tournament to Vegas), sometimes it's not.

p.s. I'm exceedingly disappointed that Adidas didn't stick ASU with a train wreck uniform as they have with Nebraska, UCLA, Louisville, etc.

Scott better get his sh*t together quick as Ted Miller said he thinkks as the SEC and BIG10 rewrite there deals he thinks that coaching salaries will escalate to 4-5 per at the power conference level.

If we are not there all these good coaches in our conference will be tempted to move as will the top assistants for a bigger pay check

Sigh...he won't, and the conference will just end up adding more teams, bringing down its Research-1 rep until it becomes the Big East out west.

Most other pieces are in place to run this conference like one of the Power 5 that it is, and should remain. He just needs to go.

Yeah with our tv deal there's no way the wsu and osus of the conference could afford 4 million a year for a coach.

There's a concept out now that speculates the P4 or P5 will collectively bargain with TV Networks in 10 years or so as another negotiating cycle comes closer.

It's a concept. Lots of naysayers and truth tellers out there on this. Pac12 has a serious future issue with their geography footprint, time zone and P12 Networks. Well at least an issue to keep up with the SEC and B1G (mainly because of B1Gnetwork $). Even if P12 Networks gets added to DTV or sell P12 sells equity in the network, I don't think it will ever be able to match B1G, SEC money for any sustained period of time (Population, demand, time zone).

Fact is no one really knows. I do think it has some positives: More specifically Money. NFL does it and it's very profitable. Costs for college athletics, I think will spike in costs (COA, infrastructure, aging facilities, fighting attendance, state budgets being cut). CFBPlayoff money for all P5 conferences doubled (collectively) the 1st year over the old BCS era Bowl conference alignment NY6.

New P5 legislative autonomy fits it well. Being able to expand the number in CFB playoffs works in well (8, 16?). You hear lots of coaches this week saying the NCAA should regulate scheduling more, finally standardize number of conference games played in each league and conference championship games. Assume TV networks would love, because they theoretically could offer more compelling match-ups more often through the season.

People downplay why the SEC for example would want to play along. Answer: Sustainability, More Money to fight costs. Most conferences share conference revenue now for the health of an entire league (e.g. WSU). Similar concept. Power in numbers. Could see Individual conference TV networks benefit because of theoretical regulated scheduling, those same networks could ask for more money because slightly more compelling match-ups to sell on 3rd tier rights.

I'm not suggesting this will happen or that it's even a serious concept. Just that it's a concept that's out there. I am confident that costs will go up and attendance a long-term CFB issue. And that finding ways to make more Money always a thing.

Report: Pac-12 Networks renew push for deal with DirecTV

http://arizonasports.com/2015/08/13/pac ... l-directv/

If you’re a Sun Devil or a Wildcat with a subscription to DirecTV, it’s time to cross your fingers.

The Pac-12 Networks have renewed discussions with the satellite television provider and hope to reach a deal with DirecTV by the start of the 2015 football season, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Negotiations for DirecTV to carry Pac-12 Networks eventually went silent after the conference television network launched in 2011. As a result, the conference has since lost out on an audience of 4 million subscribers in Nevada, Arizona, Washington, California, Utah, Oregon and Colorado.

But AT&T’s acquisition of DirecTV, which closed last month, seemed to renew hope a contract could be reached because AT&T and the Pac-12 have ongoing partnerships.

Additionally, a recent letter to the president of Pac-12 Networks and chairman of AT&T sent by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) asked the two parties to re-engage in discussions about a deal.

What does this mean for fans of Pac-12 sports? Let’s look no further than the nonconference television schedules for the ASU and Arizona football teams.

After the Sun Devils open Sept. 5 against Texas A&M on ESPN, they play their next two games on the Pac-12 Networks, on Sept. 12 against Cal Poly and Sept. 18 against New Mexico.

The Wildcats open the year Sept. 3 with a Pac-12 televised game against UTSA and again appear on the network Sept. 19 while hosting NAU.

The conference schedules have yet to be released, but additional games for ASU and Arizona will air on Pac-12 Networks.

Well, now we know how bad the TV deal could be...
Not available on all providers including DTV... AND online streaming is disallowed within the state of Oklahoma.

So it looks like BigXII fans have to pay for cable, then pay for whatever sports pack those non-prime-time games are on, then buy pay-per-view for the third tier games.

Sage&Silver wrote:

Almost can't tell if that is Bob or ****ing Mike, they look so much alike. Although surely Bob.

What? Same $$$ as ntOSU and less than Utah? And no money to coaches?


http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blo ... um=twitter


A new contract with Nike has put the University of Arizona on par with other schools in the Pac-12.

The university and the sportswear giant in March signed a 10-year extension, the longest of any in the Portland Business Journal's database of apparel deals.

Nike provided the university $1 million in equipment and apparel last year, the lowest of the 10 public universities in the conference.
The new deal increases that to $2.2 million, putting it on par with Oregon State ($2.2 million) and just below Utah ($2.4 million).

Over 10 years, the university will get $23.3 million in equipment and apparel from Nike.
Unlike most, the deal does not provide cash payments to the university.

Such payments often go to head coaches of football and basketball teams, such as Under Armour's deal with the University of South Carolina that includes $750,000 for football coach Steve Spurrier.
The competition to outfit top college athletic programs has never been more intense.
Arizona joins a list of universities that recently signed significantly bigger extensions, including Indiana, the University of Cincinnati, Arizona State University, Michigan, Texas A&M, Georgia, Kentucky, the University of Florida and Florida State.
University deals are coveted by sportswear companies because of the access to loyal and upwardly mobile students who can become lifelong consumers and buy numerous types of branded products like shoes, T-shirts, hoodies and hats.

Merkin wrote:What? Same $$$ as ntOSU and less than Utah? And no money to coaches?


http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blo ... um=twitter


A new contract with Nike has put the University of Arizona on par with other schools in the Pac-12.

The university and the sportswear giant in March signed a 10-year extension, the longest of any in the Portland Business Journal's database of apparel deals.

Nike provided the university $1 million in equipment and apparel last year, the lowest of the 10 public universities in the conference.
The new deal increases that to $2.2 million, putting it on par with Oregon State ($2.2 million) and just below Utah ($2.4 million).

Over 10 years, the university will get $23.3 million in equipment and apparel from Nike.
Unlike most, the deal does not provide cash payments to the university.

Such payments often go to head coaches of football and basketball teams, such as Under Armour's deal with the University of South Carolina that includes $750,000 for football coach Steve Spurrier.
The competition to outfit top college athletic programs has never been more intense.
Arizona joins a list of universities that recently signed significantly bigger extensions, including Indiana, the University of Cincinnati, Arizona State University, Michigan, Texas A&M, Georgia, Kentucky, the University of Florida and Florida State.
University deals are coveted by sportswear companies because of the access to loyal and upwardly mobile students who can become lifelong consumers and buy numerous types of branded products like shoes, T-shirts, hoodies and hats.

This is infuriating.

asu fucks Nike over, gets paid big time bucks by adidas, and we get ready to sign a new contract, and GREG BYRNE doesn't use that as huge leverage to make Nike either pay us a hell of a lot more or do a first rate rebranding and excellent uniforms? That is a huge opportunity that is now lost.

A rebranding of Arizona and fresh Nike apparel could easily disrupt adidas's business success in Arizona. I mean, this is a boneheaded move by the UA AD AND Nike.

I can't believe Arizona let that opportunity vanish. Our brand is more valuable than asu's brand is. Nike has not shown us their best products.

Just reading through peoples twitter, seems there's some confusion about this Nike article. Maybe only a portion of the total deal

Wtf, that would have been amazing.

It seems the relationship between AZ and the conference is ackward at best. We turn down an opportunity to be on the drive but understandably leap at a chance to be on HBO which is blocked by the conference.

It''s not like people will turn off HBO to watch the PAC channel Larry, ever. That would have been more exposure for our conference. He is such a slimey, self serving POS.

azcat49 wrote:It seems the relationship between AZ and the conference is ackward at best. We turn down an opportunity to be on the drive but understandably leap at a chancevto be on HBO which is blocked by the conference.

It''s not like people will turn off HBO to watch the PAC channel Larry, ever. That would have been more exposure for our conference. He is such a slimey, self serving POS.

What a chode.

Seriously? WTF. Asshole.

Reading the article on pacifictakes about the deal puts it somewhat into perspective. Arizona having its own hard knocks would have given the team a huge national exposure boost that the conference was just not ok with.

It's easy for notre dame to do it since they are unaligned.

As a complete homer though I think that show would have been fucking amazing.

Edit: http://www.pacifictakes.com/arizona-wil ... -rodriguez

Link to article

So the conference is not ok with another marque team? It only works if it is UCLA or USC?

Sure we would get a boost in recruiting but Oregon doesn't get one in there relationship with Nike? USC with the entertainment industry?

They should have let us do it but had us share the revenue with the conference. I really don't understand the logic

I understand the logic. I'm not saying I agree with it but I understand it. USC and Oregon had already had their ties established before this, so it's not exactly apples to apples. I mean shit, USC is still reaping the benefits of being a former football powerhouse, it just is what it is.

All we need to do as a school is keep the momentum we have going in a positive direction, instead of letting it slip by us like it did in the past. Scott can try and hold us down all he wants but if we keep shoving it in his face, there's not much he can do.

I really wish there was some conference alternative for us outside of the Pac-12.

Well one day soon enough it'll be the pac-16, does that make you feel any better?

The only part I understand is protecting the drive series which no one other than the fans of those teams watch.

Scott was brought in to expand our footprint and our revenue why pass up big dollars and share that revenue while building greater brands within the conference.

Back in thr 70's AZ/ we were visionaries when Dr. Schaefer wanted to move us to the PAC from the WAC. Many thought us crazy including our vagina sisters to the north. Hopefully we have some more visionaries left in our leadership because this cost us money and damaged us in building our brand

azcat49 wrote:So the conference is not ok with another marque team? It only works if it is UCLA or USC?

Sure we would get a boost in recruiting but Oregon doesn't get one in there relationship with Nike? USC with the entertainment industry?

They should have let us do it but had us share the revenue with the conference. I really don't understand the logic

The logic is Arizona told the Pac-12 Network to kick rocks when offered to do the Drive, so now the Pac-12 can repay Arizona with a middle finger in return.