Conference Realignment

[Merkin]

But if the 4-corner schools went BIG 12, that would leave the PAC with just 6, which triggers the NCAA pulling the P5 designation, and the B1G would have no guilt in picking up the two PAC NW schools, plus maybe Stanford and CAL.

I like the idea of Stanford and Cal going to the Big 10. They are already the best academic conference per https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zac ... 2cd1c9511a and that would just lock it up for decades. Easy travel too for the other B1G teams since going to SFO is pretty easy from most places.


However, Stanford has won the NACDA Directors Cup many times, given to the athletic department with the most championships of all sports.

Stanford has won it 25 out of the 28 years and came in 2nd 2 out of those years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACDA_Directors%27_Cup

Will Bill call the Big 10 the Conference of Champions then?

[AzCatFan2]

We have no idea who the sources are, nor what kind of negotiator Kliavkoff is. It's possible that Kliavkoff and his people are behind some of negative leaks, but a deal is already done that will make the PAC teams happy. Kliavkoff then comes off as a white knight hero who struggled, but came out victorious. This is pure speculation on my part, and not saying this is what is happening. Just saying it's one possible explanation.

I think the real problem is the two large schools, Oregon and UW, want out. But while the B1G put the PAC on life support, the B1G has decided not to pull the plug yet, and take the two PAC NW schools. But if the 4-corner schools went BIG 12, that would leave the PAC with just 6, which triggers the NCAA pulling the P5 designation, and the B1G would have no guilt in picking up the two PAC NW schools, plus maybe Stanford and CAL. Behind the scenes, I think Oregon and UW are doing everything to muck up the PAC negotiations so they can get out.

The two AZ schools may be ready to leave, but Utah and Colorado would rather stay in the PAC than go BIG 12. And I'm sure if the BIG 12 takes just the two AZ schools. We're additions, but would only bring the Phoenix market, whereas the other 4-corner schools would bring Phx, SLC, and Denver. If just the two AZ schools leave without UU and CU, Oregon and UW are still stuck in the PAC.

Seems that second paragraph makes the exact case of why we should have bolted months ago. We must control our own destiny. This thing is on life support. 3 months or 5 years but it’s done.

Go to the Big 12, take the money and the exposure and wait for streaming to dominate zags you say

The BIG 12 deal includes streaming on ESPN+. We're not going to escape it. And if, and granted it's an if, the PAC deal is worth $3 million a year more than the BIG 12 deal, is leaving $15 million at the table worth "controlling our own destiny?" Not in my opinion.

[CardiacCats97]

Just remember who people's sources are

If we knew who people’s sources were, they wouldn’t be sources. They’d be quoted and named interviewees.

That is not the point

You told us to remember who peoples’ sources are, but we don’t actually know who peoples’ sources are. If you do, you should share that info so we can all be as informed as you are.

If you put some thought into it it is clear who people are talking to.

University presidents and ADs will say different things and have different viewpoints than assistant coaches for example.

I am not claiming to be informed more than you are. But I have ideas who talks to recruiting websites and I have ideas who national writers talk to. I factor that in with what I am told from recruiting website editors and what I am told from national writers.

What do they know. Who do they know. What is their goal. What information may they have that other people wouldnt. Etc

So we should remember who we are guessing they could be getting their info from.

Seems solid.

[dmjcat]

[dmjcat]

[ChooChooCat]

We have no idea who the sources are, nor what kind of negotiator Kliavkoff is. It's possible that Kliavkoff and his people are behind some of negative leaks, but a deal is already done that will make the PAC teams happy. Kliavkoff then comes off as a white knight hero who struggled, but came out victorious. This is pure speculation on my part, and not saying this is what is happening. Just saying it's one possible explanation.

I think the real problem is the two large schools, Oregon and UW, want out. But while the B1G put the PAC on life support, the B1G has decided not to pull the plug yet, and take the two PAC NW schools. But if the 4-corner schools went BIG 12, that would leave the PAC with just 6, which triggers the NCAA pulling the P5 designation, and the B1G would have no guilt in picking up the two PAC NW schools, plus maybe Stanford and CAL. Behind the scenes, I think Oregon and UW are doing everything to muck up the PAC negotiations so they can get out.

The two AZ schools may be ready to leave, but Utah and Colorado would rather stay in the PAC than go BIG 12. And I'm sure if the BIG 12 takes just the two AZ schools. We're additions, but would only bring the Phoenix market, whereas the other 4-corner schools would bring Phx, SLC, and Denver. If just the two AZ schools leave without UU and CU, Oregon and UW are still stuck in the PAC.

Seems that second paragraph makes the exact case of why we should have bolted months ago. We must control our own destiny. This thing is on life support. 3 months or 5 years but it’s done.

Go to the Big 12, take the money and the exposure and wait for streaming to dominate zags you say

The BIG 12 deal includes streaming on ESPN+. We're not going to escape it. And if, and granted it's an if, the PAC deal is worth $3 million a year more than the BIG 12 deal, is leaving $15 million at the table worth "controlling our own destiny?" Not in my opinion.

Their TV deal is not majority streaming. The PAC's TV deal is majority streaming. Our games against lesser competition would be on ESPN+ if we were in the Big 12. Our bigger games would be on streaming if we stay in the PAC 12.

You keep ignoring these facts as if they don't matter. This is why nobody with a brain is valuing your posts on the subject.

[ChooChooCat]

Just remember who people's sources are

Marchand/Ourand - The TV Networks
Scheer - Obviously Arizona and has some ties to ASU through Arizona
Wilner - Stanford/Cal - Who want the Pac 12 to stay alive
Canzano - OSU/Wazzu - Who desperately want the Pac 12 to stay alive

So the Pac 12 insiders are getting a 1000000000000% positive slanted view.

[ChooChooCat]

*GASP*

Is an expert validating my argument? I'm shocked, truly.

[ChooChooCat]

Huh? Musing from some random Kansas fan?

He has the same source Scheer has.

But all everyone is doing is speculating. Amazed that there hasn't been any real leaks with all the people involved.

The fact a Pac 12 AD leaked info to national writers is bad, real bad. Every one is usually hush at this point whether good or bad, because you don't want to hurt negotiations, so things have to be really bad for 3 Pac 12 sources and especially the AD, to comment on just how bad they are.

[AzCatFan2]

We have no idea who the sources are, nor what kind of negotiator Kliavkoff is. It's possible that Kliavkoff and his people are behind some of negative leaks, but a deal is already done that will make the PAC teams happy. Kliavkoff then comes off as a white knight hero who struggled, but came out victorious. This is pure speculation on my part, and not saying this is what is happening. Just saying it's one possible explanation.

I think the real problem is the two large schools, Oregon and UW, want out. But while the B1G put the PAC on life support, the B1G has decided not to pull the plug yet, and take the two PAC NW schools. But if the 4-corner schools went BIG 12, that would leave the PAC with just 6, which triggers the NCAA pulling the P5 designation, and the B1G would have no guilt in picking up the two PAC NW schools, plus maybe Stanford and CAL. Behind the scenes, I think Oregon and UW are doing everything to muck up the PAC negotiations so they can get out.

The two AZ schools may be ready to leave, but Utah and Colorado would rather stay in the PAC than go BIG 12. And I'm sure if the BIG 12 takes just the two AZ schools. We're additions, but would only bring the Phoenix market, whereas the other 4-corner schools would bring Phx, SLC, and Denver. If just the two AZ schools leave without UU and CU, Oregon and UW are still stuck in the PAC.

Seems that second paragraph makes the exact case of why we should have bolted months ago. We must control our own destiny. This thing is on life support. 3 months or 5 years but it’s done.

Go to the Big 12, take the money and the exposure and wait for streaming to dominate zags you say

The BIG 12 deal includes streaming on ESPN+. We're not going to escape it. And if, and granted it's an if, the PAC deal is worth $3 million a year more than the BIG 12 deal, is leaving $15 million at the table worth "controlling our own destiny?" Not in my opinion.

Their TV deal is not majority streaming. The PAC's TV deal is majority streaming. Our games against lesser competition would be on ESPN+ if we were in the Big 12. Our bigger games would be on streaming if we stay in the PAC 12.

You keep ignoring these facts as if they don't matter. This is why nobody with a brain is valuing your posts on the subject.

You keep ignoring the macro trend of pay for TV. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers every year. This equates to tens of millions in carriage fee losses. Consider ESPN's future. Five years from now, expenses will be higher as they are paying the future SEC contract. Meanwhile, carriage fees from cable subscribers could be as high as $100 million a year less. How does ESPN survive, let alone profit?

The answer is by putting more and more content, including premium content, on ESPN+ to ensure more subscription fees for their streaming product.

It goes back to the argument against cable companies offering a la carte channel options. If they did that, customers would be paying more for less. Those non-sports watching cable subscribers who cut the cord were still paying ESPN carriage fees. Those are dwindling every year. The only way an ESPN survives long term is charging sports watchers more for a la carte sports. That means more content on +.

[dmjcat]

We have no idea who the sources are, nor what kind of negotiator Kliavkoff is. It's possible that Kliavkoff and his people are behind some of negative leaks, but a deal is already done that will make the PAC teams happy. Kliavkoff then comes off as a white knight hero who struggled, but came out victorious. This is pure speculation on my part, and not saying this is what is happening. Just saying it's one possible explanation.

I think the real problem is the two large schools, Oregon and UW, want out. But while the B1G put the PAC on life support, the B1G has decided not to pull the plug yet, and take the two PAC NW schools. But if the 4-corner schools went BIG 12, that would leave the PAC with just 6, which triggers the NCAA pulling the P5 designation, and the B1G would have no guilt in picking up the two PAC NW schools, plus maybe Stanford and CAL. Behind the scenes, I think Oregon and UW are doing everything to muck up the PAC negotiations so they can get out.

The two AZ schools may be ready to leave, but Utah and Colorado would rather stay in the PAC than go BIG 12. And I'm sure if the BIG 12 takes just the two AZ schools. We're additions, but would only bring the Phoenix market, whereas the other 4-corner schools would bring Phx, SLC, and Denver. If just the two AZ schools leave without UU and CU, Oregon and UW are still stuck in the PAC.

Seems that second paragraph makes the exact case of why we should have bolted months ago. We must control our own destiny. This thing is on life support. 3 months or 5 years but it’s done.

Go to the Big 12, take the money and the exposure and wait for streaming to dominate zags you say

The BIG 12 deal includes streaming on ESPN+. We're not going to escape it. And if, and granted it's an if, the PAC deal is worth $3 million a year more than the BIG 12 deal, is leaving $15 million at the table worth "controlling our own destiny?" Not in my opinion.

Their TV deal is not majority streaming. The PAC's TV deal is majority streaming. Our games against lesser competition would be on ESPN+ if we were in the Big 12. Our bigger games would be on streaming if we stay in the PAC 12.

You keep ignoring these facts as if they don't matter. This is why nobody with a brain is valuing your posts on the subject.

You keep ignoring the macro trend of pay for TV. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers every year. This equates to tens of millions in carriage fee losses. Consider ESPN's future. Five years from now, expenses will be higher as they are paying the future SEC contract. Meanwhile, carriage fees from cable subscribers could be as high as $100 million a year less. How does ESPN survive, let alone profit?

The answer is by putting more and more content, including premium content, on ESPN+ to ensure more subscription fees for their streaming product.

It goes back to the argument against cable companies offering a la carte channel options. If they did that, customers would be paying more for less. Those non-sports watching cable subscribers who cut the cord were still paying ESPN carriage fees. Those are dwindling every year. The only way an ESPN survives long term is charging sports watchers more for a la carte sports. That means more content on +.

Your arguments are bereft of any logic.

Basically, you argue for jumping in front of the train now instead of 5 years down the road. In case you haven't noticed nobody (and I mean NOBODY) wants the streaming option. You don't see the SEC/B!G rushing to get their games streamed for a reason. If the UA can find an alternative to the P12 (B12 anyone) that pays the same (or even slightly less) as the P12 package but keeps us on ESPN/Fox for the next 5-6 years we should jump at the chance. Streaming may well be eventually forced on the have-nots of college sports but that doesn't mean we should delay it as long as possible.

[CardiacCats97]

ESPN - the worldwide leader in sports

Amazon - the worldwide leader of delivering dog treats, headphones, and a box of adult diapers to your door in under 48 hours.

These things are not the same.

I hate ESPN for how they fucked us but they are the BEST platform for sports content.

[ChooChooCat]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

[AzCatFan2]

Seems that second paragraph makes the exact case of why we should have bolted months ago. We must control our own destiny. This thing is on life support. 3 months or 5 years but it’s done.

Go to the Big 12, take the money and the exposure and wait for streaming to dominate zags you say

The BIG 12 deal includes streaming on ESPN+. We're not going to escape it. And if, and granted it's an if, the PAC deal is worth $3 million a year more than the BIG 12 deal, is leaving $15 million at the table worth "controlling our own destiny?" Not in my opinion.

Their TV deal is not majority streaming. The PAC's TV deal is majority streaming. Our games against lesser competition would be on ESPN+ if we were in the Big 12. Our bigger games would be on streaming if we stay in the PAC 12.

You keep ignoring these facts as if they don't matter. This is why nobody with a brain is valuing your posts on the subject.

You keep ignoring the macro trend of pay for TV. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers every year. This equates to tens of millions in carriage fee losses. Consider ESPN's future. Five years from now, expenses will be higher as they are paying the future SEC contract. Meanwhile, carriage fees from cable subscribers could be as high as $100 million a year less. How does ESPN survive, let alone profit?

The answer is by putting more and more content, including premium content, on ESPN+ to ensure more subscription fees for their streaming product.

It goes back to the argument against cable companies offering a la carte channel options. If they did that, customers would be paying more for less. Those non-sports watching cable subscribers who cut the cord were still paying ESPN carriage fees. Those are dwindling every year. The only way an ESPN survives long term is charging sports watchers more for a la carte sports. That means more content on +.

Your arguments are bereft of any logic.

Basically, you argue for jumping in front of the train now instead of 5 years down the road. In case you haven't noticed nobody (and I mean NOBODY) wants the streaming option. You don't see the SEC/B!G rushing to get their games streamed for a reason. If the UA can find an alternative to the P12 (B12 anyone) that pays the same (or even slightly less) as the P12 package but keeps us on ESPN/Fox for the next 5-6 years we should jump at the chance. Streaming may well be eventually forced on the have-nots of college sports but that doesn't mean we should delay it as long as possible.

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

Yes, this assumes the PAC deal is worth more. There are other considerations as well, such as increased travel costs in the BIG 12, and academic rankings of PAC schools versus BIG 12. If we can get $3 million a year or more per year in the BIG 12, then we should jump. If not, the streaming will work itself out, and we should take the money.

[ChooChooCat]

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

The TV deal isn't signed, because we are not set to be making as much money as the Big 12 let alone more than them. So your entire logic is null and void based off your first argument.

[AzCatFan2]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

ESPN lost over 2 million subscribers last year alone. That's over $15 million is lost revenue. That trend is expected to continue if not increase as older cable patrons pass, and aren't replaced by younger cord nevers. Please tell me how ESPN pays their known, increased future costs while seeing significant revenue losses from carriage fees in the future without resorting to increasing revenue from ESPN+.

[AzCatFan2]

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

The TV deal isn't signed, because we are not set to be making as much money as the Big 12 let alone more than them. So your entire logic is null and void based off your first argument.

Game isn't over yet. Final offers have not been put in the table and it's either sign or walk yet. Until that moment comes, neither of know what the final offer may be.

[ChooChooCat]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

ESPN lost over 2 million subscribers last year alone. That's over $15 million is lost revenue. That trend is expected to continue if not increase as older cable patrons pass, and aren't replaced by younger cord nevers. Please tell me how ESPN pays their known, increased future costs while seeing significant revenue losses from carriage fees in the future without resorting to increasing revenue from ESPN+.

Hence why ESPN isn't desperate to overpay for one late night window game of the Pac 12. We should probably just join the Big 12 and get the pro rata guaranteed money in their contract with ESPN huh? I knew you'd come around! Congratulations and welcome to the team.

[pc in NM]

So, how soon until Amazon buys ESPN from Disney (another streaming entity)??

[ChooChooCat]

So, how soon until Amazon buys ESPN from Disney (another streaming entity)??

Probably not until they stop laying off employees.

[dmjcat]

The bottom line is that there is NO good solution to the problem we are in. The B1G and SEC are NOT going to come calling...ever.

That doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and wait for the P12 ship to hit the iceberg. The UA needs to act proactively in its own best interests. In my opinion this means moving to the B12 as fast as possible. The money is likely going to be as least as good as the final P12 contract and it keeps us out of the Black-Hole of streaming sports for as long as possible.

The P12 has 4 options, none of which are good:

1) Stand pat at 10 teams
2) Incrementally expand to 12 by adding SMU/SDSU (seems to be the path we are on)
3) Merge with the B12 (this appears to be politically impossible)
4) Create a new Mega West Coast conference which would be a slightly better version of Conference USA. The idea
would be to add as many teams in large TV markets as possible. This might look like: Adding SDSU/SMU/Fresno State/UNLV/Houston/
Tulane to make the Pac16. The western division would include UW/WSU/UO/Cal/Stanford/Cal/FresnoState/SDSU
and the eastern division would be UNLV/Utah/UA/asu/Col/Tulane/Houston/SMU. This would add the CentralCali/Sandiego/LasVegas/
Dallas/Houston/NewOrleans markets and offer lots of streaming options. This option is probably not palatable to the Elite Cal members
and would significantly dilute whatever TV contract the P12 could negotiate.

Option 3 is probably the best but the UA might not be part of the post merger conference.

This leaves me back where we started. Take action proactively and get the hell off the sinking P12 ship now and reserve a landing
spot in the B12 before someone else does

[KillerKlown]

The BIG 12 deal includes streaming on ESPN+. We're not going to escape it. And if, and granted it's an if, the PAC deal is worth $3 million a year more than the BIG 12 deal, is leaving $15 million at the table worth "controlling our own destiny?" Not in my opinion.

Their TV deal is not majority streaming. The PAC's TV deal is majority streaming. Our games against lesser competition would be on ESPN+ if we were in the Big 12. Our bigger games would be on streaming if we stay in the PAC 12.

You keep ignoring these facts as if they don't matter. This is why nobody with a brain is valuing your posts on the subject.

You keep ignoring the macro trend of pay for TV. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers every year. This equates to tens of millions in carriage fee losses. Consider ESPN's future. Five years from now, expenses will be higher as they are paying the future SEC contract. Meanwhile, carriage fees from cable subscribers could be as high as $100 million a year less. How does ESPN survive, let alone profit?

The answer is by putting more and more content, including premium content, on ESPN+ to ensure more subscription fees for their streaming product.

It goes back to the argument against cable companies offering a la carte channel options. If they did that, customers would be paying more for less. Those non-sports watching cable subscribers who cut the cord were still paying ESPN carriage fees. Those are dwindling every year. The only way an ESPN survives long term is charging sports watchers more for a la carte sports. That means more content on +.

Your arguments are bereft of any logic.

Basically, you argue for jumping in front of the train now instead of 5 years down the road. In case you haven't noticed nobody (and I mean NOBODY) wants the streaming option. You don't see the SEC/B!G rushing to get their games streamed for a reason. If the UA can find an alternative to the P12 (B12 anyone) that pays the same (or even slightly less) as the P12 package but keeps us on ESPN/Fox for the next 5-6 years we should jump at the chance. Streaming may well be eventually forced on the have-nots of college sports but that doesn't mean we should delay it as long as possible.

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

Yes, this assumes the PAC deal is worth more. There are other considerations as well, such as increased travel costs in the BIG 12, and academic rankings of PAC schools versus BIG 12. If we can get $3 million a year or more per year in the BIG 12, then we should jump. If not, the streaming will work itself out, and we should take the money.

Of course "high risk, high reward" as you said earlier though right?
Like your "high risk, high reward" of tieing ourselves to Oregon so they can take us to the B1G with them?
Or your George Kliavkoff releasing bad info on him self so he can come out at the end and look like the guy that got the girl at the end of a dorky 80s movie.
This is a trend with you. Honest question, do you live your life "high risk, high reward"? I seriously doubt it. So why should a school sitting on a sinking ship do it?
If i gave you 5 grand more a year than your job for 5 years straight to stay working at home and ONLY able to step outside when after 9pm would you do it? Basically 25k extra to be a vampire for 5 years straight. Honest question.

[AzCatFan2]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

ESPN lost over 2 million subscribers last year alone. That's over $15 million is lost revenue. That trend is expected to continue if not increase as older cable patrons pass, and aren't replaced by younger cord nevers. Please tell me how ESPN pays their known, increased future costs while seeing significant revenue losses from carriage fees in the future without resorting to increasing revenue from ESPN+.

Hence why ESPN isn't desperate to overpay for one late night window game of the Pac 12. We should probably just join the Big 12 and get the pro rata guaranteed money in their contract with ESPN huh? I knew you'd come around! Congratulations and welcome to the team.

I don't disagree that ESPN might be thinking that if they could add the 4 corner PAC schools to the BIG 12, they could add about $180 million a year to that deal, which puts payment around $35 million per school in the BIG12, and nets ESPN plenty of late night content with the 4 corners plus BYU. And saves ESPN money. If this ends up being the deal we get, that's fine. The hold up is Utah and Colorado. They don't want to go to the BIG 12.

Here's an old article from 2015 explaining why cable companies don't charge a la carte. In 2015, when ESPN was charging carriage fees of just over $6, it was estimated the a la carte cost to be over $36. ESPN now charges over $7.50 in carriage costs, and revenue from this source is dropping annually, while known costs are rising. https://www.fiercevideo.com/cable/espn- ... yst%20says

[AzCatFan2]

Their TV deal is not majority streaming. The PAC's TV deal is majority streaming. Our games against lesser competition would be on ESPN+ if we were in the Big 12. Our bigger games would be on streaming if we stay in the PAC 12.

You keep ignoring these facts as if they don't matter. This is why nobody with a brain is valuing your posts on the subject.

You keep ignoring the macro trend of pay for TV. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers every year. This equates to tens of millions in carriage fee losses. Consider ESPN's future. Five years from now, expenses will be higher as they are paying the future SEC contract. Meanwhile, carriage fees from cable subscribers could be as high as $100 million a year less. How does ESPN survive, let alone profit?

The answer is by putting more and more content, including premium content, on ESPN+ to ensure more subscription fees for their streaming product.

It goes back to the argument against cable companies offering a la carte channel options. If they did that, customers would be paying more for less. Those non-sports watching cable subscribers who cut the cord were still paying ESPN carriage fees. Those are dwindling every year. The only way an ESPN survives long term is charging sports watchers more for a la carte sports. That means more content on +.

Your arguments are bereft of any logic.

Basically, you argue for jumping in front of the train now instead of 5 years down the road. In case you haven't noticed nobody (and I mean NOBODY) wants the streaming option. You don't see the SEC/B!G rushing to get their games streamed for a reason. If the UA can find an alternative to the P12 (B12 anyone) that pays the same (or even slightly less) as the P12 package but keeps us on ESPN/Fox for the next 5-6 years we should jump at the chance. Streaming may well be eventually forced on the have-nots of college sports but that doesn't mean we should delay it as long as possible.

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

Yes, this assumes the PAC deal is worth more. There are other considerations as well, such as increased travel costs in the BIG 12, and academic rankings of PAC schools versus BIG 12. If we can get $3 million a year or more per year in the BIG 12, then we should jump. If not, the streaming will work itself out, and we should take the money.

Of course "high risk, high reward" as you said earlier though right?
Like your "high risk, high reward" of tieing ourselves to Oregon so they can take us to the B1G with them?
Or your George Kliavkoff releasing bad info on him self so he can come out at the end and look like the guy that got the girl at the end of a dorky 80s movie.
This is a trend with you. Honest question, do you live your life "high risk, high reward"? I seriously doubt it. So why should a school sitting on a sinking ship do it?
If i gave you 5 grand more a year than your job for 5 years straight to stay working at home and ONLY able to step outside when after 9pm would you do it? Basically 25k extra to be a vampire for 5 years straight.

Have to weigh all factors. If I knew in 5 years, I knew everyone was also going to be vampires too, I'd take the money. I'd be in a better place 5 years from now. This is the streaming reality live sports is facing.

[KillerKlown]

You keep ignoring the macro trend of pay for TV. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers every year. This equates to tens of millions in carriage fee losses. Consider ESPN's future. Five years from now, expenses will be higher as they are paying the future SEC contract. Meanwhile, carriage fees from cable subscribers could be as high as $100 million a year less. How does ESPN survive, let alone profit?

The answer is by putting more and more content, including premium content, on ESPN+ to ensure more subscription fees for their streaming product.

It goes back to the argument against cable companies offering a la carte channel options. If they did that, customers would be paying more for less. Those non-sports watching cable subscribers who cut the cord were still paying ESPN carriage fees. Those are dwindling every year. The only way an ESPN survives long term is charging sports watchers more for a la carte sports. That means more content on +.

Your arguments are bereft of any logic.

Basically, you argue for jumping in front of the train now instead of 5 years down the road. In case you haven't noticed nobody (and I mean NOBODY) wants the streaming option. You don't see the SEC/B!G rushing to get their games streamed for a reason. If the UA can find an alternative to the P12 (B12 anyone) that pays the same (or even slightly less) as the P12 package but keeps us on ESPN/Fox for the next 5-6 years we should jump at the chance. Streaming may well be eventually forced on the have-nots of college sports but that doesn't mean we should delay it as long as possible.

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

Yes, this assumes the PAC deal is worth more. There are other considerations as well, such as increased travel costs in the BIG 12, and academic rankings of PAC schools versus BIG 12. If we can get $3 million a year or more per year in the BIG 12, then we should jump. If not, the streaming will work itself out, and we should take the money.

Of course "high risk, high reward" as you said earlier though right?
Like your "high risk, high reward" of tieing ourselves to Oregon so they can take us to the B1G with them?
Or your George Kliavkoff releasing bad info on him self so he can come out at the end and look like the guy that got the girl at the end of a dorky 80s movie.
This is a trend with you. Honest question, do you live your life "high risk, high reward"? I seriously doubt it. So why should a school sitting on a sinking ship do it?
If i gave you 5 grand more a year than your job for 5 years straight to stay working at home and ONLY able to step outside when after 9pm would you do it? Basically 25k extra to be a vampire for 5 years straight.

Have to weigh all factors. If I knew in 5 years, I knew everyone was also going to be vampires too, I'd take the money. I'd be in a better place 5 years from now. This is the streaming reality live sports is facing.

In 5 years normal people (SEC,BIG, Big12,ACC) are going to stay walking in daylight because they got tv deals with more exposure.

[CardiacCats97]

If your house is on fire, you don’t sit in your living room hoping someone on your block sees the flames and calls 911 for you. You get the fuck out.

AzCatFan2 would die of smoke inhalation straining to see if he can hear sirens.

[AzCatFan2]

Your arguments are bereft of any logic.

Basically, you argue for jumping in front of the train now instead of 5 years down the road. In case you haven't noticed nobody (and I mean NOBODY) wants the streaming option. You don't see the SEC/B!G rushing to get their games streamed for a reason. If the UA can find an alternative to the P12 (B12 anyone) that pays the same (or even slightly less) as the P12 package but keeps us on ESPN/Fox for the next 5-6 years we should jump at the chance. Streaming may well be eventually forced on the have-nots of college sports but that doesn't mean we should delay it as long as possible.

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

Yes, this assumes the PAC deal is worth more. There are other considerations as well, such as increased travel costs in the BIG 12, and academic rankings of PAC schools versus BIG 12. If we can get $3 million a year or more per year in the BIG 12, then we should jump. If not, the streaming will work itself out, and we should take the money.

Of course "high risk, high reward" as you said earlier though right?
Like your "high risk, high reward" of tieing ourselves to Oregon so they can take us to the B1G with them?
Or your George Kliavkoff releasing bad info on him self so he can come out at the end and look like the guy that got the girl at the end of a dorky 80s movie.
This is a trend with you. Honest question, do you live your life "high risk, high reward"? I seriously doubt it. So why should a school sitting on a sinking ship do it?
If i gave you 5 grand more a year than your job for 5 years straight to stay working at home and ONLY able to step outside when after 9pm would you do it? Basically 25k extra to be a vampire for 5 years straight.

Have to weigh all factors. If I knew in 5 years, I knew everyone was also going to be vampires too, I'd take the money. I'd be in a better place 5 years from now. This is the streaming reality live sports is facing.

In 5 years normal people (SEC,BIG, Big12,ACC) are going to stay walking in daylight because they got tv deals with more exposure.

The business case for streaming more live sports, including premium content, is simple. ESPN and FOX costs are guaranteed to rise as new conference and pro sports contracts begin. Carriage fees revenues will continue to fall as more people cut cords and less people subscribe to ESPN and FS1 with cable and satellite providers. How does ESPN and FOX keep the SEC, B1G, and BIG12 in the light with increasing costs and decreasing revenues? Simple. Find other avenues for increased revenues that not only make up for lost ones, but allow to cover increased costs. Streaming can accomplish this. If you, or anyone else has a better answer, I'm all ears. So are the execs with the Disney ears.

[GlobalCat]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

Per the Nielsen report I shared on sports viewership, this is incorrect.

[GlobalCat]

So, how soon until Amazon buys ESPN from Disney (another streaming entity)??

Probably not until they stop laying off employees.

There is a rumor that ESPN was put into its own division in the recent Disney reorg to give it options to take on additional outside investment. There were a couple of big activist investors who had taken bets on Disney that advocated for spinning off ESPN, all of whom backed off after learning more about Disney's business model and plans for the business.

[ChooChooCat]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

Per the Nielsen report I shared on sports viewership, this is incorrect.

Share it again.

[EastCoastCat]

If one more person says "there is a rumor" I am going to implode...

[azgreg]

[TheCatInTheHat]

It seems there are few rules left these days (a global statement.) Based on that, and the fact that you can get away with all kinds of stuff in the margins of life, here's my thought on what might be a nice outcome. I don't really care about having any self-proclaimed lawyer or media consultant explain why it's not possible to boot certain schools. Just a random sketch that tells Oregon, Washington, and Stanford to go pound sand and good luck finding some safe harbor that will be so much more palatable to their collective egos. You look at the West, and it would be a pretty nice place to live in to play 7 of your 8 or 9 league games each year. Also pretty good overall in hoops and baseball. For TV markets, you get 5. Dallas, 6. San Fran, 7. Houston, 11. Phoenix, 16. Denver, 27. San Diego, 30. Salt Lake, and 34. KC. (And if somebody pipes up that KC is in Missouri, not Kansas, I'll scream; look at a map.) It would be nice to keep the Vegas tournament thing and even put that league HQ there, but that would probably inevitably be Dallas. And with 5 Texas schools, they'd have the leverage. But, after all the junk out of the Bay Area these past 44 years, I think I could be at least as happy with that.

[dmjcat]

The BIG 12 deal includes streaming on ESPN+. We're not going to escape it. And if, and granted it's an if, the PAC deal is worth $3 million a year more than the BIG 12 deal, is leaving $15 million at the table worth "controlling our own destiny?" Not in my opinion.

Their TV deal is not majority streaming. The PAC's TV deal is majority streaming. Our games against lesser competition would be on ESPN+ if we were in the Big 12. Our bigger games would be on streaming if we stay in the PAC 12.

You keep ignoring these facts as if they don't matter. This is why nobody with a brain is valuing your posts on the subject.

You keep ignoring the macro trend of pay for TV. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers every year. This equates to tens of millions in carriage fee losses. Consider ESPN's future. Five years from now, expenses will be higher as they are paying the future SEC contract. Meanwhile, carriage fees from cable subscribers could be as high as $100 million a year less. How does ESPN survive, let alone profit?

The answer is by putting more and more content, including premium content, on ESPN+ to ensure more subscription fees for their streaming product.

It goes back to the argument against cable companies offering a la carte channel options. If they did that, customers would be paying more for less. Those non-sports watching cable subscribers who cut the cord were still paying ESPN carriage fees. Those are dwindling every year. The only way an ESPN survives long term is charging sports watchers more for a la carte sports. That means more content on +.

Your arguments are bereft of any logic.

Basically, you argue for jumping in front of the train now instead of 5 years down the road. In case you haven't noticed nobody (and I mean NOBODY) wants the streaming option. You don't see the SEC/B!G rushing to get their games streamed for a reason. If the UA can find an alternative to the P12 (B12 anyone) that pays the same (or even slightly less) as the P12 package but keeps us on ESPN/Fox for the next 5-6 years we should jump at the chance. Streaming may well be eventually forced on the have-nots of college sports but that doesn't mean we should delay it as long as possible.

The logic is $$. If five years from now, every school has multiple games being streamed only per year, and say if the PAC deal is worth $3 million more a year than the BIG 12, 5 years from now, wecwill all be in the same streaming place. But if we stay in the PAC, we'd have $15 million more.

Yes, this assumes the PAC deal is worth more. There are other considerations as well, such as increased travel costs in the BIG 12, and academic rankings of PAC schools versus BIG 12. If we can get $3 million a year or more per year in the BIG 12, then we should jump. If not, the streaming will work itself out, and we should take the money.

Unfortunately your argument is not logical and is, in fact, an excellent example of One dimensional thinking.

First, we have no evidence that the final P12 contract is going to pay more. In fact, all of the available evidence would point to a contract which pays no more, and possibly less, than what the B12 will receive.

Second, your illogical one dimensional argument assumes that everything else will remain the same over the next 5 years, which it almost certainly will not. Consider Oregon/Washington. Do you think they are going to be happy taking a pay cut while simultaneously being buried in a streaming hell-hole of Amazon cyberspace??? I can easily see a scenario where the B12 Commissioner offers a life-raft to UO/UW and cuts them in on some of the $100M windfall the B12 just received from Texas/OU. Yomark can offer UO/UW an additional $5M/year over the next five years to join the conference....while keeping them off streaming. The P12 would then implode and Mr. Yomark could then pick and choose which additional P12 teams to add to the B12. Unfortunately, the UA might not make the cut. The reality is that the UA is not Cinderella.......its one of her ugly step-sisters. The UA has a historically poor football program and exists in a small TV market. asu, Utah, and Colorado will all likely be more attractive to the B12........which could leave the UA in a watered down Pac-Whatever that will in reality be worse than the MWC.

Imagine the UA being in a MWC style conference with a sub $10M/year TV contract. The UA athletic dept. would be forced to cut numerous mens & womens sports, cut back the basketball/football recruiting budget, and pay coaches less. Current UA coaches like CT Lloyd would likely cut and run at the earliest moment........and the UA athletics program would wither and die on the vine.....imagine being UTEP.
Thats why it is imperative that the UA act proactively to save its own skin.....instead of sticking its head in the sand and hoping something good happens.

Thats the problem the UA is in.......We are playing 3 dimensional conference realignment Chess.......not a one dimensional game.

[wyo-cat]

It seems there are few rules left these days (a global statement.) Based on that, and the fact that you can get away with all kinds of stuff in the margins of life, here's my thought on what might be a nice outcome. I don't really care about having any self-proclaimed lawyer or media consultant explain why it's not possible to boot certain schools. Just a random sketch that tells Oregon, Washington, and Stanford to go pound sand and good luck finding some safe harbor that will be so much more palatable to their collective egos. You look at the West, and it would be a pretty nice place to live in to play 7 of your 8 or 9 league games each year. Also pretty good overall in hoops and baseball. For TV markets, you get 5. Dallas, 6. San Fran, 7. Houston, 11. Phoenix, 16. Denver, 27. San Diego, 30. Salt Lake, and 34. KC. (And if somebody pipes up that KC is in Missouri, not Kansas, I'll scream; look at a map.) It would be nice to keep the Vegas tournament thing and even put that league HQ there, but that would probably inevitably be Dallas. And with 5 Texas schools, they'd have the leverage. But, after all the junk out of the Bay Area these past 44 years, I think I could be at least as happy with that.

I’d switch Tx Tech and OSU. Stillwater is on I-35 and Lubbock is much farther west.

I’d be totally fine with this.

[TheCatInTheHat]

I hear you. My "logic" was to group teams in twos for the final rivalry weekend. Colorado, Oklahoma St, and Iowa St are the logical "orphans." But, you're right; based on geography, TT should go west to play Colorado, and Ok St can play ISU. It's only an academic exercise, but I just wanted to show that a West Division that you mostly stay in could be pretty decent.

[AzCatFan2]

We have no idea if the PAC contract will pay more, less, or about the same as the BIG12. Just rumors (sorry). But we do know that the L. A. D schools will likely be paying additional $4.5 million to $5.5 million in travel costs when they move to the B1G. I'd think Oregon and UW would have similar increases if they moved to the BIG12. So really think Oregon and UW leave for $5 million a year more, when that may not even cover additional travel costs?

The 4 corner PAC schools have a different story with the BIG12 because of geography. Our additional travel costs would be more like $1.5 to $2 million. $5 million more for us is an increase.

Also remember, UW, Oregon, Utah, and Colorado look down at the BIG12 academically. I believe if the 4 corners left today, we could probably get $35 million a year in the BIG12. Or more. But Utah and Colorado don't want to go. Neither does Oregon and UW, who have their eyes on B1G money.

[EastCoastCat]

The LA schools are spending that additional travel money because they can - they are getting 65-75mil from their move - and because the travel is farther to Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey than it is for Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and Iowa.

The travel expenses are minimal in the grand scheme and will no way factor in those schools decision to leave a dying PAC conference.

And do you really think a few mill in travel expenses does anything to Uncle Phil?

That argument is baseless.

[CardiacCats97]

Does the AD charter flights or are they provided by donors. I thought it was the latter.

[dmjcat]

BTW, the "Academic" argument is downright silly. The PAC12 is an ATHLETIC conference, NOT an academic conference. Professors/Researchers at the UA are free to collaborate with other Profs/Researchers at ANY university regardless of what athletic conference they belong to.

[GlobalCat]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

Per the Nielsen report I shared on sports viewership, this is incorrect.

Share it again.

https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2022/l ... are-ready/

I don't know if I agree with all of the report's conclusions, but this is the type of report that execs at media companies + advisory firms use to guide decision making.

[dirtbags]

how about fan attendance? they say arizona fans travel well and show up at away games, but we're actually just all over the west coast and southwest / texas + big cities (nyc, chi, dc etc.). you can hear the "u of a" chant loud and clear at maples pavillion today - will the same happen in say, ames, stillwater, or morgantown? i wonder what our road games would look and sound like in a conference like the big12

[TheCatInTheHat]

BTW, the "Academic" argument is downright silly. The PAC12 is an ATHLETIC conference, NOT an academic conference. Professors/Researchers at the UA are free to collaborate with other Profs/Researchers at ANY university regardless of what athletic conference they belong to.

Yeah, I remember when we moved to the Pac in 1978. The two big things were to play the LA schools with the media attention, and the academic thing with "being in the same league with Stanford and Cal." But the academic thing never seemed to amount to much. You can be an Ivy League school, but Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia still look down their noses at Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Penn.

[ChooChooCat]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

Per the Nielsen report I shared on sports viewership, this is incorrect.

Share it again.

https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2022/l ... are-ready/

I don't know if I agree with all of the report's conclusions, but this is the type of report that execs at media companies + advisory firms use to guide decision making.

Well after looking at it, people are streaming, but they're streaming the TV networks specifically. They're watching a game on FOX on FOX.com or utilizing their ESPN app or what is primarily occurring is people are dropping traditional cable I.E. using cable boxes, but instead are using streaming cable options like YoutubeTV, Hulu, Sling, etc. So in other words basically people are still using cable to stream, so yeah technically they're streaming, but they're not utilizing solely streaming apps like Amazon to view sports. They're using streaming cable aggregates or going directly to the common source I.E. ESPN. It still doesn't look good for the Pac 12 if it's going to be heavy Amazon/ESPN+.

[ChooChooCat]

how about fan attendance? they say arizona fans travel well and show up at away games, but we're actually just all over the west coast and southwest / texas + big cities (nyc, chi, dc etc.). you can hear the "u of a" chant loud and clear at maples pavillion today - will the same happen in say, ames, stillwater, or morgantown? i wonder what our road games would look and sound like in a conference like the big12

You're not wrong, our "home" advantage on the road would probably disappear since most of our alums are on the west coast, but our national appeal will absolutely disappear remaining in the Pac 12. Not every move is perfect that's for sure.

[ChooChooCat]

Does the AD charter flights or are they provided by donors. I thought it was the latter.

The AD does for the big sports or big events for the lesser sports. On special occasions donors will front the bill if need be.

[PHXCATS]

Just remember who people's sources are

Marchand/Ourand - The TV Networks
Scheer - Obviously Arizona and has some ties to ASU through Arizona
Wilner - Stanford/Cal - Who want the Pac 12 to stay alive
Canzano - OSU/Wazzu - Who desperately want the Pac 12 to stay alive

So the Pac 12 insiders are getting a 1000000000000% positive slanted view.

top line is right i believe

who at those schools for the rest? and Wilner and Canzano have more sources than those four schools

[AzCatFan2]

Again spouting about macro trends of Pay TV. What's the macro trend for sports fans? I'll give you a hint, it's not heading towards streaming any time soon. The macro trend says cable TV is dying for the non-sports fan, but it is beyond live and well for the sports fan as that's where they can literally consume the most of it. Nobody and I mean nobody outside of the little Pac 12 fanbase that there is will tune in to Pac 12 games on Amazon. Pushing for us to sign with Amazon for Tier 1 in the year 2023 is literally pushing for your own irrelevancy and will greatly hurt you come next TV contract time or for further realignment.

Maybe come next TV deal streaming on Amazon will be better positioned. Today and over the next 5ish years? No, it's not positioned well at all. Hell the TNF ratings are clear as fricken day it is absolutely not.

Per the Nielsen report I shared on sports viewership, this is incorrect.

Share it again.

https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2022/l ... are-ready/

I don't know if I agree with all of the report's conclusions, but this is the type of report that execs at media companies + advisory firms use to guide decision making.

Well after looking at it, people are streaming, but they're streaming the TV networks specifically. They're watching a game on FOX on FOX.com or utilizing their ESPN app or what is primarily occurring is people are dropping traditional cable I.E. using cable boxes, but instead are using streaming cable options like YoutubeTV, Hulu, Sling, etc. So in other words basically people are still using cable to stream, so yeah technically they're streaming, but they're not utilizing solely streaming apps like Amazon to view sports. They're using streaming cable aggregates or going directly to the common source I.E. ESPN. It still doesn't look good for the Pac 12 if it's going to be heavy Amazon/ESPN+.

What the report shows is the live sports viewing public is willing and able to stream live sports. Couple this with the fact ESPN and FS1 are losing carriage fees every year from cord cutters and cord nevers who don't replace older customers when they pass on, plus the fact ESPN and FOX have guaranteed higher contractual costs in the future, and you quickly come to the conclusion that more live sports streaming is in the future. How else is FOX and ESPN supposed to pay their contracts?

Amazon may be high risk, and they aren't a major in live sports. But there was a time when people laughed at CNN (Chicken Noodle Network) and ESPN believing 24/hour network covering just one thing (news and sports respectively) was doomed to fail. And to make people to pay to watch it? Preposterous! Yet, he we are, and both are still broadcasting.

[azcat49]

I don’t know anyone in my circle who has streamed a sporting event. Now of course if the cats move to that platform then I will but no way does a streaming service provide as many eyeballs as basic TV or cable does.

It amazes me your fight in this battle. You are steadfast in the midst of overwhelming info that points that these moves are catastrophically bad for the member institutions. And your support of this slowly declining conference makes you its #1 super fan.

I am sure we will survive but when this thing blows up in 5-7 years and we are right where the majority of fans think we should be, we all might ask was the cost of waiting worth it. I think not

[AzCatFan2]

I don’t know anyone in my circle who has streamed a sporting event. Now of course if the cats move to that platform then I will but no way does a streaming service provide as many eyeballs as basic TV or cable does.

It amazes me your fight in this battle. You are steadfast in the midst of overwhelming info that points that these moves are catastrophically bad for the member institutions. And your support of this slowly declining conference makes you its #1 super fan.

I am sure we will survive but when this thing blows up in 5-7 years and we are right where the majority of fans think we should be, we all might ask was the cost of waiting worth it. I think not

I'm turning 50 this year. I stream sports all the time. Including many UA Baseball games, which stream through the PAC12 network. I get access through Sling, a streaming service.

And it's not necessarily what I want. It's just the reality of where live sports on TV is headed. Again, the reality is ESPN and FOX are losing millions of cable/satellite subscribers annually, which equates to tens of millions in reduced revenues. They also face increased, contractual payments. If they are to survive and profit, how else do they do this without increasing revenue from streaming?

Five years from now, it wouldn't shock me if all games on the SEC Networks and B1G 10 Network are streaming only. It's a way for ESPN and FOX to get the diehards who can't miss a game to subscribe and get really comfortable with streaming live sporting events. Again, it's not what I want. But all market conditions point to this being the future. Then, when the next round of contracts begin, even more games will be streaming only for all conferences. How else can FOX and ESPN sustain their business model?

So, we can fight it and maybe take scraps while trying to stay on ESPN. Bolt to the BIG 12, which already has games streaming on ESPN+ as part of their package, or embrace the future now, assuming the money is worth it. I say, with the future being what it is, if the money is good from Amazon, take it. If it's not significantly more, the BIG 12 would love to have us.

ESPN and FOX know the future. I don't think ESPN would be real happy if the 4-corner schools go BIG 12, leaving Oregon and UW, plus CAL and Stanford to go B1G, because it means FOX has the top 4 schools in the west in terms of value. But FOX would also be paying premium, B1G prices for them. The 4-corners could go BIG 12, and ESPN would have us, plus BYU, and could pay $35 million a year for each, and have plenty of 4th slot content, and at a price that is likely profitable. This is likely what Yormack is telling both ESPN and the 4-corner schools, and to be honest, it's a decent offer. And if ESPN plus Amazon can't beat it significantly, then we should take it, assuming Utah and Colorado want to go too.