Bear Down Wildcats

The Big Million.

Haven't listened to the latest Marchand and Ourand podcast yet, but from what I understand, the PAC is down to less money to be on the 4th window on ESPN with Amazon as the streaming partner for a GOW, with everything else on the PAC-12 network. Or, take about 10 million more to be exclusive with Apple TV. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I do the the Steve Miller Band, and, "Take the Money and Run."

Just because something is new, doesn't mean it's destined to fail. Apple TV also has some positives, like the complete MLS contract, and a deal with DirecTv already in place to broadcast in all sports bars (https://worldsoccertalk.com/tv/mls-game ... 20504.html). If Apple gets the PAC, I would imagine this deal with DTV Business will be reworked to get all PAC games in sports bars as well.

Streaming is the future. It was rumored last May that Disney is considering making ESPN full streaming (https://whatsondisneyplus.com/espn-gett ... streaming/), and the number I've heard is it will start the transition when ESPN is down to 50 million cable subscribers. At its peak, ESPN had over 100 million. That's now down to 75 million, with ESPN losing an average of 8 to 10 million cable subscribers a year. Do the math, and by the time the next SEC and BIG12 contracts roll around, ESPN will likely be transitioning to an all streaming network.

If they go Apple are we to assume they retain zero inventory to sell to the networks?

Also are you implying we might get 25m from ESPN/streamer or 35m plus from all streaming? I would hope using the PAC Network to produce we could get at least 40m a year to go into oblivion

Why exactly are sports bars keeping DirecTv if they are losing NFL Sunday Ticket?

I don't know numbers, other than Apple's offer is reportedly $10 million more. That's the only rumor I heard. Also, the PAC-12 Network assets may not be included in the broadcast rights agreement, but included in a separate agreement that also brings each school revenue?

Good question about DTV and Sunday Ticket. Not sure what YouTube/Google is going to do, but broadband Internet still isn't available in a lot of rural areas where a lot of football lovers live. Satellite is. I have to think the NFL is going to want YT to work out a deal similar to what Amazon did with DTV Business. If no agreement happens, the NFL will be facing a PR issue, as it's David (the sports bar owner and patrons in rural America) vs Goliath (NFL and YT).

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:51 am Haven't listened to the latest Marchand and Ourand podcast yet, but from what I understand, the PAC is down to less money to be on the 4th window on ESPN with Amazon as the streaming partner for a GOW, with everything else on the PAC-12 network. Or, take about 10 million more to be exclusive with Apple TV. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I do the the Steve Miller Band, and, "Take the Money and Run."

Just because something is new, doesn't mean it's destined to fail. Apple TV also has some positives, like the complete MLS contract, and a deal with DirecTv already in place to broadcast in all sports bars (https://worldsoccertalk.com/tv/mls-game ... 20504.html). If Apple gets the PAC, I would imagine this deal with DTV Business will be reworked to get all PAC games in sports bars as well.

Streaming is the future. It was rumored last May that Disney is considering making ESPN full streaming (https://whatsondisneyplus.com/espn-gett ... streaming/), and the number I've heard is it will start the transition when ESPN is down to 50 million cable subscribers. At its peak, ESPN had over 100 million. That's now down to 75 million, with ESPN losing an average of 8 to 10 million cable subscribers a year. Do the math, and by the time the next SEC and BIG12 contracts roll around, ESPN will likely be transitioning to an all streaming network.

This is an incredibly idiotic take. "Streaming is the future"

Using your logic we should all commit suicide now because we are all going to die in the future anyway.

Here's a different idea.......lets switch to a conference (B12) which keeps us off streaming for a number of years and pays us just as much as the P12 alternative.

dmjcat wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:35 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:51 am Haven't listened to the latest Marchand and Ourand podcast yet, but from what I understand, the PAC is down to less money to be on the 4th window on ESPN with Amazon as the streaming partner for a GOW, with everything else on the PAC-12 network. Or, take about 10 million more to be exclusive with Apple TV. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I do the the Steve Miller Band, and, "Take the Money and Run."

Just because something is new, doesn't mean it's destined to fail. Apple TV also has some positives, like the complete MLS contract, and a deal with DirecTv already in place to broadcast in all sports bars (https://worldsoccertalk.com/tv/mls-game ... 20504.html). If Apple gets the PAC, I would imagine this deal with DTV Business will be reworked to get all PAC games in sports bars as well.

Streaming is the future. It was rumored last May that Disney is considering making ESPN full streaming (https://whatsondisneyplus.com/espn-gett ... streaming/), and the number I've heard is it will start the transition when ESPN is down to 50 million cable subscribers. At its peak, ESPN had over 100 million. That's now down to 75 million, with ESPN losing an average of 8 to 10 million cable subscribers a year. Do the math, and by the time the next SEC and BIG12 contracts roll around, ESPN will likely be transitioning to an all streaming network.

This is an incredibly idiotic take. "Streaming is the future"

Using your logic we should all commit suicide now because we are all going to die in the future anyway.

Here's a different idea.......lets switch to a conference (B12) which keeps us off streaming for a number of years and pays us just as much as the P12 alternative.

Please don't insult me with the suicide talk. College sports isn't life or death, and for those of us who have had family members who have committed suicide, your statement is beyond #%%$@^@ offensive!

The logic is, by all accounts, every conference is going to be mostly streaming come the next contract. The only games not streaming will be on OTA channels like Fox and ABC. ESPN will likely be 100% streaming sometime by 2030.

We also don't know the value of the Apple deal. It could be $5 million more a year than the BIG12? If it is, it's worth it. In five years, we'd have $25 million more in the bank, and have an exclusive streaming partner, while the BIG12 might be fighting for scraps on ESPN+. And Apple already has a deal with DTV Business. ESPN+ does not.

If the Apple deal is worth less than the BIG12, then we should seriously consider going. But once we go BIG12, we're likely there for a long, long time. And the college sports landscape is likely going to change significantly in the next 10 years. Staying in the PAC, if it gives us more money, also offers us more flexibility. Not to mention, more UA students and alumni live in PAC states like CA and WA versus anything the BIG12 has to offer. Only the DFW offers any large UA alum presence in BIG12 country, and we are likely adding SMU.

I suspect SDSU and SMU were a done deal until a few schools told George to hold off until a deal is done. They may be out if the numbers come in poor.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:37 pm

dmjcat wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:35 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:51 am Haven't listened to the latest Marchand and Ourand podcast yet, but from what I understand, the PAC is down to less money to be on the 4th window on ESPN with Amazon as the streaming partner for a GOW, with everything else on the PAC-12 network. Or, take about 10 million more to be exclusive with Apple TV. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I do the the Steve Miller Band, and, "Take the Money and Run."

Just because something is new, doesn't mean it's destined to fail. Apple TV also has some positives, like the complete MLS contract, and a deal with DirecTv already in place to broadcast in all sports bars (https://worldsoccertalk.com/tv/mls-game ... 20504.html). If Apple gets the PAC, I would imagine this deal with DTV Business will be reworked to get all PAC games in sports bars as well.

Streaming is the future. It was rumored last May that Disney is considering making ESPN full streaming (https://whatsondisneyplus.com/espn-gett ... streaming/), and the number I've heard is it will start the transition when ESPN is down to 50 million cable subscribers. At its peak, ESPN had over 100 million. That's now down to 75 million, with ESPN losing an average of 8 to 10 million cable subscribers a year. Do the math, and by the time the next SEC and BIG12 contracts roll around, ESPN will likely be transitioning to an all streaming network.

This is an incredibly idiotic take. "Streaming is the future"

Using your logic we should all commit suicide now because we are all going to die in the future anyway.

Here's a different idea.......lets switch to a conference (B12) which keeps us off streaming for a number of years and pays us just as much as the P12 alternative.

Please don't insult me with the suicide talk. College sports isn't life or death, and for those of us who have had family members who have committed suicide, your statement is beyond #%%$@^@ offensive!

The logic is, by all accounts, every conference is going to be mostly streaming come the next contract. The only games not streaming will be on OTA channels like Fox and ABC. ESPN will likely be 100% streaming sometime by 2030.

We also don't know the value of the Apple deal. It could be $5 million more a year than the BIG12? If it is, it's worth it. In five years, we'd have $25 million more in the bank, and have an exclusive streaming partner, while the BIG12 might be fighting for scraps on ESPN+. And Apple already has a deal with DTV Business. ESPN+ does not.

If the Apple deal is worth less than the BIG12, then we should seriously consider going. But once we go BIG12, we're likely there for a long, long time. And the college sports landscape is likely going to change significantly in the next 10 years. Staying in the PAC, if it gives us more money, also offers us more flexibility. Not to mention, more UA students and alumni live in PAC states like CA and WA versus anything the BIG12 has to offer. Only the DFW offers any large UA alum presence in BIG12 country, and we are likely adding SMU.

Please don't insult the board with your so-called "Logic"

There is NO logic.....zip.........nada in moving to a streaming option which buries/hides your athletic programs. Even if inevitable we should delay that as long as possible.

dmjcat wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:56 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:37 pm

dmjcat wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:35 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:51 am Haven't listened to the latest Marchand and Ourand podcast yet, but from what I understand, the PAC is down to less money to be on the 4th window on ESPN with Amazon as the streaming partner for a GOW, with everything else on the PAC-12 network. Or, take about 10 million more to be exclusive with Apple TV. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I do the the Steve Miller Band, and, "Take the Money and Run."

Just because something is new, doesn't mean it's destined to fail. Apple TV also has some positives, like the complete MLS contract, and a deal with DirecTv already in place to broadcast in all sports bars (https://worldsoccertalk.com/tv/mls-game ... 20504.html). If Apple gets the PAC, I would imagine this deal with DTV Business will be reworked to get all PAC games in sports bars as well.

Streaming is the future. It was rumored last May that Disney is considering making ESPN full streaming (https://whatsondisneyplus.com/espn-gett ... streaming/), and the number I've heard is it will start the transition when ESPN is down to 50 million cable subscribers. At its peak, ESPN had over 100 million. That's now down to 75 million, with ESPN losing an average of 8 to 10 million cable subscribers a year. Do the math, and by the time the next SEC and BIG12 contracts roll around, ESPN will likely be transitioning to an all streaming network.

This is an incredibly idiotic take. "Streaming is the future"

Using your logic we should all commit suicide now because we are all going to die in the future anyway.

Here's a different idea.......lets switch to a conference (B12) which keeps us off streaming for a number of years and pays us just as much as the P12 alternative.

Please don't insult me with the suicide talk. College sports isn't life or death, and for those of us who have had family members who have committed suicide, your statement is beyond #%%$@^@ offensive!

The logic is, by all accounts, every conference is going to be mostly streaming come the next contract. The only games not streaming will be on OTA channels like Fox and ABC. ESPN will likely be 100% streaming sometime by 2030.

We also don't know the value of the Apple deal. It could be $5 million more a year than the BIG12? If it is, it's worth it. In five years, we'd have $25 million more in the bank, and have an exclusive streaming partner, while the BIG12 might be fighting for scraps on ESPN+. And Apple already has a deal with DTV Business. ESPN+ does not.

If the Apple deal is worth less than the BIG12, then we should seriously consider going. But once we go BIG12, we're likely there for a long, long time. And the college sports landscape is likely going to change significantly in the next 10 years. Staying in the PAC, if it gives us more money, also offers us more flexibility. Not to mention, more UA students and alumni live in PAC states like CA and WA versus anything the BIG12 has to offer. Only the DFW offers any large UA alum presence in BIG12 country, and we are likely adding SMU.

Please don't insult the board with your so-called "Logic"

There is NO logic.....zip.........nada in moving to a streaming option which buries/hides your athletic programs. Even if inevitable we should delay that as long as possible.

Bull. Not only should we think about today, but we should plan around the future. ESPN's current model is dying. Disney CEO Iger has already stated that ESPN will still pay for must have content, but may not be willing to pay for nice to have content. It's why ESPN let the MLS go to Apple, lock stock and barrel. At around 350,000 viewers a game (about the same as NHL games), the MLS was nice for ESPN to have, but nowhere near a must have.

Now, fast forward four years. ESPN is paying more for SEC, BIG12, and other new contracts. And their revenue is down because another 20-25 million or so are no longer subscribing. ESPN is announcing they are going streaming only in the future, and even with their increased revenue from streaming, they aren't expected to make as much in 2030 as they are making today. Is the BIG12 must have content? Or, does ESPN consider them nice to have?

Staying in the PAC also gives us more flexibility in the future. If the 4-corners sign with the BIG12, they will likely make us sign a Grant of Rights longer than their current TV contract, binding us to the BIG12 for a long time. The next round of contracts, ESPN will still must have the SEC, but maybe they want the SEC to be coast-to-coast, which would allow ESPN to drop the BIG12 and pick up Oregon, Washington, and a few others. This is something ESPN would have considered this go-round, but the SEC wanted nothing of it. And with a signed contract already, ESPN had no leverage to force the SEC's hand. Things may be different in a few years.

There's logic to staying. You are just too single minded to see it. There's also logic to going, and yes, part of that is staving off the switch to full streaming for a few years. But is that really worth it if we're stuck in the BIG12 for a long time with no other options? And our Tier 3 games are streaming on ESPN+ anyway? Not in my opinion. Especially considering that ESPN is still looking for cost cutting options in the future, the BIG12 will likely be high on the chopping block list when their next contract runs out.

25 extra in exchange for neutering ourselves. No thanks.
We'd have so much less exposure in those 5 years it'd make todays Pac look like prime time television.
If nobody is watching Pac today sure as shit nobody is going to watch it on Apple. Imagine getting dropped from AppleTV. That's like getting dumped by an ugly chick with bad breath.
And why do you keep snubbing your nose at the Big12. Right now their better than the Pac in everything that's worth having a tv contract. From fan basses to competitiveness to the ones in charge.
Nobody cares about apple television. Everybody wants to Netflix & Chill or catch new major movies on HBO. Apple is only known for phones, shit products and yuppies addicted to those shit products.

Why someone would be so married to the Pac12 that they’d pretend to be able to predict the future is beyond me.

All I do know is that if the PAC adds SMU and SDSU and then signs a deal with Apple, for the vast majority of sports entertainment fans, the league will basically cease to exist. The next half decade will bury us so deep in a black hole of nothingness we’ll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:13 pm Why someone would be so married to the Pac12 that they’d pretend to be able to predict the future is beyond me.

All I do know is that if the PAC adds SMU and SDSU and then signs a deal with Apple, for the vast majority of sports entertainment fans, the league will basically cease to exist. The next half decade will bury us so deep in a black hole of nothingness we’ll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

I hope you see the irony in your post. Why works I predict the future? You did exactly that by predicting the PAC will become the Mt. West if we sign the deal with Apple.

Know why Apple signed MLS and overpaid for the League? Soccer is a growing sport in the US with several already successful streaming deals. Premiere League on Peacock and The Champions League on Paramount. Streaming viewers also tend to be younger, and all sports leagues want to capture younger audiences. If Apple does this right, they will grow the MLS audience and set themselves up with younger viewers that will watch for years.

Why might Apple be interested in the PAC? Seattle and Portland are both top 6 in MLS attendance, and both LA teams average over 20k a game. There is potential synergy there. And with a potentially younger audience.

And predicting the current ESPN model is dying isn't difficult. They are losing millions of subscribers a year, and face increased costs. The BIG12 is far below in pecking order behind the SEC. No guarantee that by next round of contract negotiations, ESPN will have interest in the BIG12. We sign with the BIG12 now, we're likely stuck with them regardless.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:26 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:13 pm Why someone would be so married to the Pac12 that they’d pretend to be able to predict the future is beyond me.

All I do know is that if the PAC adds SMU and SDSU and then signs a deal with Apple, for the vast majority of sports entertainment fans, the league will basically cease to exist. The next half decade will bury us so deep in a black hole of nothingness we’ll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

I hope you see the irony in your post. Why works I predict the future? You did exactly that by predicting the PAC will become the Mt. West if we sign the deal with Apple.

Know why Apple signed MLS and overpaid for the League? Soccer is a growing sport in the US with several already successful streaming deals. Premiere League on Peacock and The Champions League on Paramount. Streaming viewers also tend to be younger, and all sports leagues want to capture younger audiences. If Apple does this right, they will grow the MLS audience and set themselves up with younger viewers that will watch for years.

Why might Apple be interested in the PAC? Seattle and Portland are both top 6 in MLS attendance, and both LA teams average over 20k a game. There is potential synergy there. And with a potentially younger audience.

And predicting the current ESPN model is dying isn't difficult. They are losing millions of subscribers a year, and face increased costs. The BIG12 is far below in pecking order behind the SEC. No guarantee that by next round of contract negotiations, ESPN will have interest in the BIG12. We sign with the BIG12 now, we're likely stuck with them regardless.

This is amazing. You out did yourself with this one.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:26 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:13 pm Why someone would be so married to the Pac12 that they’d pretend to be able to predict the future is beyond me.

All I do know is that if the PAC adds SMU and SDSU and then signs a deal with Apple, for the vast majority of sports entertainment fans, the league will basically cease to exist. The next half decade will bury us so deep in a black hole of nothingness we’ll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

I hope you see the irony in your post. Why works I predict the future? You did exactly that by predicting the PAC will become the Mt. West if we sign the deal with Apple.

I actually predict the PAC will be a lesser conference than the Mountain West.

The difference between you and I is that I readily acknowledge that my opinion is informed conjecture. You on the other hand have invented a world where you know the motivations, maneuvers, and outcomes for everyone from Disney to Nike. You even made up a scenario where Oregon and Washington formally petitioned to join the B1G. It’s quite literally breathtaking. Especially in defense of this shitty conference that fucked over its member institutions way too many times both with inexcusable inaction and misguided actions.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:31 pm

dmjcat wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:56 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:37 pm

dmjcat wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:35 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:51 am Haven't listened to the latest Marchand and Ourand podcast yet, but from what I understand, the PAC is down to less money to be on the 4th window on ESPN with Amazon as the streaming partner for a GOW, with everything else on the PAC-12 network. Or, take about 10 million more to be exclusive with Apple TV. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I do the the Steve Miller Band, and, "Take the Money and Run."

Just because something is new, doesn't mean it's destined to fail. Apple TV also has some positives, like the complete MLS contract, and a deal with DirecTv already in place to broadcast in all sports bars (https://worldsoccertalk.com/tv/mls-game ... 20504.html). If Apple gets the PAC, I would imagine this deal with DTV Business will be reworked to get all PAC games in sports bars as well.

Streaming is the future. It was rumored last May that Disney is considering making ESPN full streaming (https://whatsondisneyplus.com/espn-gett ... streaming/), and the number I've heard is it will start the transition when ESPN is down to 50 million cable subscribers. At its peak, ESPN had over 100 million. That's now down to 75 million, with ESPN losing an average of 8 to 10 million cable subscribers a year. Do the math, and by the time the next SEC and BIG12 contracts roll around, ESPN will likely be transitioning to an all streaming network.

This is an incredibly idiotic take. "Streaming is the future"

Using your logic we should all commit suicide now because we are all going to die in the future anyway.

Here's a different idea.......lets switch to a conference (B12) which keeps us off streaming for a number of years and pays us just as much as the P12 alternative.

Please don't insult me with the suicide talk. College sports isn't life or death, and for those of us who have had family members who have committed suicide, your statement is beyond #%%$@^@ offensive!

The logic is, by all accounts, every conference is going to be mostly streaming come the next contract. The only games not streaming will be on OTA channels like Fox and ABC. ESPN will likely be 100% streaming sometime by 2030.

We also don't know the value of the Apple deal. It could be $5 million more a year than the BIG12? If it is, it's worth it. In five years, we'd have $25 million more in the bank, and have an exclusive streaming partner, while the BIG12 might be fighting for scraps on ESPN+. And Apple already has a deal with DTV Business. ESPN+ does not.

If the Apple deal is worth less than the BIG12, then we should seriously consider going. But once we go BIG12, we're likely there for a long, long time. And the college sports landscape is likely going to change significantly in the next 10 years. Staying in the PAC, if it gives us more money, also offers us more flexibility. Not to mention, more UA students and alumni live in PAC states like CA and WA versus anything the BIG12 has to offer. Only the DFW offers any large UA alum presence in BIG12 country, and we are likely adding SMU.

Please don't insult the board with your so-called "Logic"

There is NO logic.....zip.........nada in moving to a streaming option which buries/hides your athletic programs. Even if inevitable we should delay that as long as possible.

Bull. Not only should we think about today, but we should plan around the future. ESPN's current model is dying. Disney CEO Iger has already stated that ESPN will still pay for must have content, but may not be willing to pay for nice to have content. It's why ESPN let the MLS go to Apple, lock stock and barrel. At around 350,000 viewers a game (about the same as NHL games), the MLS was nice for ESPN to have, but nowhere near a must have.

Now, fast forward four years. ESPN is paying more for SEC, BIG12, and other new contracts. And their revenue is down because another 20-25 million or so are no longer subscribing. ESPN is announcing they are going streaming only in the future, and even with their increased revenue from streaming, they aren't expected to make as much in 2030 as they are making today. Is the BIG12 must have content? Or, does ESPN consider them nice to have?

Staying in the PAC also gives us more flexibility in the future. If the 4-corners sign with the BIG12, they will likely make us sign a Grant of Rights longer than their current TV contract, binding us to the BIG12 for a long time. The next round of contracts, ESPN will still must have the SEC, but maybe they want the SEC to be coast-to-coast, which would allow ESPN to drop the BIG12 and pick up Oregon, Washington, and a few others. This is something ESPN would have considered this go-round, but the SEC wanted nothing of it. And with a signed contract already, ESPN had no leverage to force the SEC's hand. Things may be different in a few years.

There's logic to staying. You are just too single minded to see it. There's also logic to going, and yes, part of that is staving off the switch to full streaming for a few years. But is that really worth it if we're stuck in the BIG12 for a long time with no other options? And our Tier 3 games are streaming on ESPN+ anyway? Not in my opinion. Especially considering that ESPN is still looking for cost cutting options in the future, the BIG12 will likely be high on the chopping block list when their next contract runs out.

Single Minded????

Pot, Meet Kettle

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:14 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:26 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:13 pm Why someone would be so married to the Pac12 that they’d pretend to be able to predict the future is beyond me.

All I do know is that if the PAC adds SMU and SDSU and then signs a deal with Apple, for the vast majority of sports entertainment fans, the league will basically cease to exist. The next half decade will bury us so deep in a black hole of nothingness we’ll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

I hope you see the irony in your post. Why works I predict the future? You did exactly that by predicting the PAC will become the Mt. West if we sign the deal with Apple.

I actually predict the PAC will be a lesser conference than the Mountain West.

The difference between you and I is that I readily acknowledge that my opinion is informed conjecture. You on the other hand have invented a world where you know the motivations, maneuvers, and outcomes for everyone from Disney to Nike. You even made up a scenario where Oregon and Washington formally petitioned to join the B1G. It’s quite literally breathtaking. Especially in defense of this shitty conference that fucked over its member institutions way too many times both with inexcusable inaction and misguided actions.

Yes, I guess motivations and future events. But I back my predictions based on events and market trends. Using the word petition might have been too strong for UW and Oregon's dealing with the B1G, but the two schools had meetings with conference lawyers and representatives. That's not in dispute.

What's also not in dispute is the issues ESPN are facing with increased contract costs and decreased carriage fee revenues. MLS was already a casualty. They were on ESPN since the league's inception in 1996. But ESPN only offered MLS $40 million for 4 years. No wonder MLS chose the Apple deal of $250 million for 10 years. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jabariyoun ... 588c0b5459)

I don't disagree PAC leadership have messed up spectacularly over the years. And Yormark, his leadership, and the BIG12 had its appeal. But I just don't think that's necessarily our best option, especially if we're forced to sign a long Grant of Rights, which yes, is just speculation on my part that this will be part of the deal.

I believe college sports is heading for two power conferences, and one maybe two former power conferences that become also-rans. Not hard to discern who the top 2 will be, and which 2 might have leftovers that either merge, or stay separate. And if we end up in the BIG12 as also-ran, so be it. But I'd rather keep the door open to other possibilities for as long as possible. I also believe that if we do hitch our wagon to the BIG12 now, we're in for the long haul.

You’d rather wait to see if streaming for five years on Apple kills us than align ourselves with the preeminent sports entertainment property which will slowly roll out into a majority streaming platform but not before cementing the Arizona sports brand in the minds of fans literally everywhere.

Make it make sense.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:33 pm You’d rather wait to see if streaming for five years on Apple kills us than align ourselves with the preeminent sports entertainment property which will slowly roll out into a majority streaming platform but not before cementing the Arizona sports brand in the minds of fans literally everywhere.

Make it make sense.

I don't think being on Apple will kill us. More and more live sports are already streaming. More will come. And Tier 3 rights for the BIG12 are streaming on ESPN+, along with the NHL, XFL, woman’s College basketball, college lacrosse, and a lot of other sports nobody cares about. Not to mention the risk of tying our future long term to the BIG12, which may find itself in a very similar situation the PAC is currently in when the next round of TV contract negotiations come up. And Apple may not be there to save them.

Go with Apple, and PAC football games become their biggest sports asset. Or, we can tie ourselves to the BIG12, stave off some streaming for a few years, but be part of a conference on a network that values the SEC and ACC over it.

Ten years ago, the decision would be easy. Even five years ago. But today? The landscape is changing, and ESPN is headed into some choppy seas. They will survive, but have already made cuts. More are likely to come. And maybe our better option is sign with Apple today, versus the BIG12, who may have worse options in a few years.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:44 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:33 pm You’d rather wait to see if streaming for five years on Apple kills us than align ourselves with the preeminent sports entertainment property which will slowly roll out into a majority streaming platform but not before cementing the Arizona sports brand in the minds of fans literally everywhere.

Make it make sense.

I don't think being on Apple will kill us. More and more live sports are already streaming.

I stopped reading there.

Apple WILL kill us.

It’s not whether our games are streamed or not, but how many, which matchups, and where those games are streamed.

Your love for the warm familiarity of this two-bit shitty conference has blinded you to that. Time to open your eyes.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:44 pm I don't think

Yes we know.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 6:28 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:44 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:33 pm You’d rather wait to see if streaming for five years on Apple kills us than align ourselves with the preeminent sports entertainment property which will slowly roll out into a majority streaming platform but not before cementing the Arizona sports brand in the minds of fans literally everywhere.

Make it make sense.

I don't think being on Apple will kill us. More and more live sports are already streaming.

I stopped reading there.

Apple WILL kill us.

It’s not whether our games are streamed or not, but how many, which matchups, and where those games are streamed.

Your love for the warm familiarity of this two-bit shitty conference has blinded you to that. Time to open your eyes.

Your hatred for the PAC has blinded you from seeing that it still may be the best option for us. And sorry, but the possibility of playing Central Florida 10:00 AM local Tucson start on FS1, followed by a home game against Kansas starting at 7:30 PM streaming on ESPN+ doesn't excite me. These are the potential games, and where they are being broadcast, we are looking at if we join the BIG12. If I have the choice of taking more money and being on Apple as their only, exclusive college conference, I'm taking the risk, and the extra money.

I think we should also learn from the ACC that tying yourself up long term is not a great idea. If the rumors are true that Yormark wants PAC schools that sign with the BIG12 to sign over a long term Grant of Rights, that should be a deal breaker. We know that in the next round of negotiations in five years, the BIG12 is still going to be third fiddle to the SEC, as well as the ACC, because ESPN will still have to honor that contract through 2035/36. What's to stop ESPN from under-bidding for BIG12 rights the next contract deal? Sign a long GOR with the BIG12, and we may be doing nothing but kicking the can down the road a few years, while limiting our options, binding our future to the BIG12, come hell or high water.

It’s weird how you’ve played out all of these scenarios in your mind on 2nd and 3rd negotiations years down the line and all of them come up negative for any PAC school that leaves for the Big12, but your ideas on what the PAC should do right now boil down to “eh… shrug… I guess we’ll be the guinea pig to see if 100% streaming works”.

Did you sign up for a lot of pharmaceutical trials when you were a student?

These wild scenarios again - who is saying the BIG12 will be behind the ACC?
The more likely scenario is the SEC gobbles up the creme de la creme of the ACC just like the BIG12 will do with the Pac with a few stragglers like the Oregon, Washington, Duke, ND's getting pulled in by the B1G.

But I readily admit that nobody knows for sure how everything will play out but at the moment if you don't recognize the Pac is in deep shit and will implode sooner rather than later, then your head is stuck in the proverbial sand and no sane, rationale argument will help you.

Next round of college conference negotiations will start around 2028/29. ESPN and ACC will still be under contract until 2035/36. If ESPN is struggling to and needs to cut costs, which college conference gets cut next round? SEC? No. ACC? Again no, because they can't break the contract. That leaves whom? The BIG12.

I agree the PAC has been poorly run over the years, which is actual a nice way of putting it and a gross under statement. But that doesn't mean it still isn't our best short-term option. And if moving to the BIG12 forces us to sign a long term GOR, that's a deal breaker. I agree we don't know how things will break the next round 5 years from now, other than the ACC schools will still be under contract they can't break. Staying in the PAC gives us flexibility for the next round versus signing our lot over to the BIG12 long term come hell or highwater.

Last, good management looks at both short and long term scenarios and should act based on what is likely best for both. Predicting ESPN might be struggling in five years and be looking to cutting more costs isn't a stretch. They are already cutting costs by laying off employees and not renewing rights for leagues like the MLS, and the market conditions, i.e., the loss of carriage rights revenues that caused the cuts, are predicted to get worse for ESPN. Signing on with the BIG12 long term could be nothing more than kicking the can down the road, and five years from now, the BIG12, and us, are in the exact same situation with ESPN. And because we signed long term with the BIG12, we'd have no other options at that point.

Stay, and Apple is a complete failure, and the BIG12 is thriving in five years with ESPN, and that contract only grows, the option to move to the BIG12 will still be on the table. Unless you think the BIG12 is happy with expanding west by taking more G5 teams like Boise St and Fresno St. But I doubt that's anything more than Yormark trying a marketing trick with the 4-corner schools, trying to create a sense of urgency. But the reality is the BIG12 already added four G5 schools, and I find it unlikely they would take more.

When media companies need to cut costs they fire people. They don’t get rid of live entertainment which is the only medium where people still watch commercials (like HOURS of commercials). The idea that ESPN would “cut” the Big12 from their roster is ludicrous. ESPECIALLY if they are getting those coveted low-competition late night slots with teams like Utah and Arizona.

If Apple is a complete failure, our brand and notoriety will fall off a cliff. It’s not like we’d be able to point to our strong ratings and the rise in subscribers if the experiment is a failure. We’d be like the former hottie who went and lived in a trailer with a meth head and dropped all her social media only to pop up at a bar five years later having had two kids, put on 40 lbs, and developed a bad pill habit talking about “remember the fun we used to have?” The stink of failure and desperation will tarnish us for decades.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:05 am When media companies need to cut costs they fire people. They don’t get rid of live entertainment which is the only medium where people still watch commercials (like HOURS of commercials). The idea that ESPN would “cut” the Big12 from their roster is ludicrous. ESPECIALLY if they are getting those coveted low-competition late night slots with teams like Utah and Arizona.

If Apple is a complete failure, our brand and notoriety will fall off a cliff. It’s not like we’d be able to point to our strong ratings and the rise in subscribers if the experiment is a failure. We’d be like the former hottie who went and lived in a trailer with a meth head and dropped all her social media only to pop up at a bar five years later having had two kids, put on 40 lbs, and developed a bad pill habit talking about “remember the fun we used to have?” The stink of failure and desperation will tarnish us for decades.

What do you call ESPN's decision to bid only $40 million for 4 years for MLS, and not come close to matching the $250 million for 10 offered by Apple if that's not getting rid of live entertainment? And if the PAC signs with Apple and not with ESPN, how is that not cutting live entertainment? When times get really tough, there are only so many employees you can cut before you get down to total bare bones. If ESPN is cutting employees now, will there be an additional trough of employees to cut five years from now that ESPN deem unnecessary to make a difference to the bottom line? Or, will cuts have to come from elsewhere?

And I don't see Apple to be a complete failure. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has less subscribers than Apple and no visibility at all in sports bars except in PAC areas, where sports bars pay for Comcast/Cox in addition to DTV. Apple has a deal with DTV business, and has more subscribers. And again, which is better? Streaming on ESPN+ along with a ton of other junk, including other college conferences, or being the exclusive partner with Apple? I'd argue the latter.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:41 am
Last,

Wanna bet?

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:17 am

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:05 am When media companies need to cut costs they fire people. They don’t get rid of live entertainment which is the only medium where people still watch commercials (like HOURS of commercials). The idea that ESPN would “cut” the Big12 from their roster is ludicrous. ESPECIALLY if they are getting those coveted low-competition late night slots with teams like Utah and Arizona.

If Apple is a complete failure, our brand and notoriety will fall off a cliff. It’s not like we’d be able to point to our strong ratings and the rise in subscribers if the experiment is a failure. We’d be like the former hottie who went and lived in a trailer with a meth head and dropped all her social media only to pop up at a bar five years later having had two kids, put on 40 lbs, and developed a bad pill habit talking about “remember the fun we used to have?” The stink of failure and desperation will tarnish us for decades.

What do you call ESPN's decision to bid only $40 million for 4 years for MLS, and not come close to matching the $250 million for 10 offered by Apple if that's not getting rid of live entertainment? And if the PAC signs with Apple and not with ESPN, how is that not cutting live entertainment? When times get really tough, there are only so many employees you can cut before you get down to total bare bones. If ESPN is cutting employees now, will there be an additional trough of employees to cut five years from now that ESPN deem unnecessary to make a difference to the bottom line? Or, will cuts have to come from elsewhere?

And I don't see Apple to be a complete failure. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has less subscribers than Apple and no visibility at all in sports bars except in PAC areas, where sports bars pay for Comcast/Cox in addition to DTV. Apple has a deal with DTV business, and has more subscribers. And again, which is better? Streaming on ESPN+ along with a ton of other junk, including other college conferences, or being the exclusive partner with Apple? I'd argue the latter.

The PAC-12 Network is a sports network.

ESPN is a sports network.

Apple is an electronics manufacturer with a small niche entertainment division.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:44 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:17 am

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:05 am When media companies need to cut costs they fire people. They don’t get rid of live entertainment which is the only medium where people still watch commercials (like HOURS of commercials). The idea that ESPN would “cut” the Big12 from their roster is ludicrous. ESPECIALLY if they are getting those coveted low-competition late night slots with teams like Utah and Arizona.

If Apple is a complete failure, our brand and notoriety will fall off a cliff. It’s not like we’d be able to point to our strong ratings and the rise in subscribers if the experiment is a failure. We’d be like the former hottie who went and lived in a trailer with a meth head and dropped all her social media only to pop up at a bar five years later having had two kids, put on 40 lbs, and developed a bad pill habit talking about “remember the fun we used to have?” The stink of failure and desperation will tarnish us for decades.

What do you call ESPN's decision to bid only $40 million for 4 years for MLS, and not come close to matching the $250 million for 10 offered by Apple if that's not getting rid of live entertainment? And if the PAC signs with Apple and not with ESPN, how is that not cutting live entertainment? When times get really tough, there are only so many employees you can cut before you get down to total bare bones. If ESPN is cutting employees now, will there be an additional trough of employees to cut five years from now that ESPN deem unnecessary to make a difference to the bottom line? Or, will cuts have to come from elsewhere?

And I don't see Apple to be a complete failure. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has less subscribers than Apple and no visibility at all in sports bars except in PAC areas, where sports bars pay for Comcast/Cox in addition to DTV. Apple has a deal with DTV business, and has more subscribers. And again, which is better? Streaming on ESPN+ along with a ton of other junk, including other college conferences, or being the exclusive partner with Apple? I'd argue the latter.

The PAC-12 Network is a sports network.

ESPN is a sports network.

Apple is an electronics manufacturer with a small niche entertainment division.

Point taken. But Apple is also entering the sports entertainment market with Friday Night Baseball and Major League Soccer. And ESPN used to be a network that broadcast mini-golf and Outdoor Games competitions. Things change. Companies change too.

Finally someone (ASU Athletics VP) in the know has something to say instead of just internet pundits just providing speculation.

However, he doesn't have a lot to say, just that it's frustrating.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:39 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:44 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:17 am

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:05 am When media companies need to cut costs they fire people. They don’t get rid of live entertainment which is the only medium where people still watch commercials (like HOURS of commercials). The idea that ESPN would “cut” the Big12 from their roster is ludicrous. ESPECIALLY if they are getting those coveted low-competition late night slots with teams like Utah and Arizona.

If Apple is a complete failure, our brand and notoriety will fall off a cliff. It’s not like we’d be able to point to our strong ratings and the rise in subscribers if the experiment is a failure. We’d be like the former hottie who went and lived in a trailer with a meth head and dropped all her social media only to pop up at a bar five years later having had two kids, put on 40 lbs, and developed a bad pill habit talking about “remember the fun we used to have?” The stink of failure and desperation will tarnish us for decades.

What do you call ESPN's decision to bid only $40 million for 4 years for MLS, and not come close to matching the $250 million for 10 offered by Apple if that's not getting rid of live entertainment? And if the PAC signs with Apple and not with ESPN, how is that not cutting live entertainment? When times get really tough, there are only so many employees you can cut before you get down to total bare bones. If ESPN is cutting employees now, will there be an additional trough of employees to cut five years from now that ESPN deem unnecessary to make a difference to the bottom line? Or, will cuts have to come from elsewhere?

And I don't see Apple to be a complete failure. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has less subscribers than Apple and no visibility at all in sports bars except in PAC areas, where sports bars pay for Comcast/Cox in addition to DTV. Apple has a deal with DTV business, and has more subscribers. And again, which is better? Streaming on ESPN+ along with a ton of other junk, including other college conferences, or being the exclusive partner with Apple? I'd argue the latter.

The PAC-12 Network is a sports network.

ESPN is a sports network.

Apple is an electronics manufacturer with a small niche entertainment division.

Point taken. But Apple is also entering the sports entertainment market with Friday Night Baseball and Major League Soccer. And ESPN used to be a network that broadcast mini-golf and Outdoor Games competitions. Things change. Companies change too.

C’mon man. ESPN didn’t start out making widgets and then decide to dabble in sports media. They also have a 40 year track record promoting the very thing we need to be promoted.

Amazon is a bad deal. Apple is an even worse one. Don’t let your desire to stick it out and see if the PAC can make it work cloud the fact that the deals they’ve been talking about are not good for the visibility of the conference and it’s member institutions.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:52 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:39 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:44 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:17 am

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:05 am When media companies need to cut costs they fire people. They don’t get rid of live entertainment which is the only medium where people still watch commercials (like HOURS of commercials). The idea that ESPN would “cut” the Big12 from their roster is ludicrous. ESPECIALLY if they are getting those coveted low-competition late night slots with teams like Utah and Arizona.

If Apple is a complete failure, our brand and notoriety will fall off a cliff. It’s not like we’d be able to point to our strong ratings and the rise in subscribers if the experiment is a failure. We’d be like the former hottie who went and lived in a trailer with a meth head and dropped all her social media only to pop up at a bar five years later having had two kids, put on 40 lbs, and developed a bad pill habit talking about “remember the fun we used to have?” The stink of failure and desperation will tarnish us for decades.

What do you call ESPN's decision to bid only $40 million for 4 years for MLS, and not come close to matching the $250 million for 10 offered by Apple if that's not getting rid of live entertainment? And if the PAC signs with Apple and not with ESPN, how is that not cutting live entertainment? When times get really tough, there are only so many employees you can cut before you get down to total bare bones. If ESPN is cutting employees now, will there be an additional trough of employees to cut five years from now that ESPN deem unnecessary to make a difference to the bottom line? Or, will cuts have to come from elsewhere?

And I don't see Apple to be a complete failure. We survived the PAC-12 Network, which has less subscribers than Apple and no visibility at all in sports bars except in PAC areas, where sports bars pay for Comcast/Cox in addition to DTV. Apple has a deal with DTV business, and has more subscribers. And again, which is better? Streaming on ESPN+ along with a ton of other junk, including other college conferences, or being the exclusive partner with Apple? I'd argue the latter.

The PAC-12 Network is a sports network.

ESPN is a sports network.

Apple is an electronics manufacturer with a small niche entertainment division.

Point taken. But Apple is also entering the sports entertainment market with Friday Night Baseball and Major League Soccer. And ESPN used to be a network that broadcast mini-golf and Outdoor Games competitions. Things change. Companies change too.

C’mon man. ESPN didn’t start out making widgets and then decide to dabble in sports media. They also have a 40 year track record promoting the very thing we need to be promoted.

Amazon is a bad deal. Apple is an even worse one. Don’t let your desire to stick it out and see if the PAC can make it work cloud the fact that the deals they’ve been talking about are not good for the visibility of the conference and it’s member institutions.

All in on Apple is being rejected by the university presidents. Even they can’t attempt to make the arguments for its positives.

If the PAC 12 survives they’re going to make considerably less than every one and will absolutely have worse exposure than every one. This isn’t helping anybody.

Only last magic bullet is ESPIN low balling the conference because they know it’s going to implode and they know many will defect to the Big 12 which benefits them……and us

If it’s down to ESPN as the only major media outlet with interest we are borked.

Why would ESPN pay for the rights to 10/12 Pac teams when it could force 4/6 desirable Pac schools to the Big12? They can maintain games in the pacific time zone without floating two conferences.

George better get CBS or Fox or NBC to reconsider.

In re UofA wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:35 pm If it’s down to ESPN as the only major media outlet with interest we are borked.

Why would ESPN pay for the rights to 10/12 Pac teams when it could force 4/6 desirable Pac schools to the Big12? They can maintain games in the pacific time zone without floating two conferences.

George better get CBS or Fox or NBC to reconsider.

Friendly reminder that the Big12 only has one primary home media market (Dallas) that matters. Everything else is very small change when it comes to attractiveness to advertisers in media buying markets.

GlobalCat wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 pm

In re UofA wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:35 pm If it’s down to ESPN as the only major media outlet with interest we are borked.

Why would ESPN pay for the rights to 10/12 Pac teams when it could force 4/6 desirable Pac schools to the Big12? They can maintain games in the pacific time zone without floating two conferences.

George better get CBS or Fox or NBC to reconsider.

Friendly reminder that the Big12 only has one primary home media market (Dallas) that matters. Everything else is very small change when it comes to attractiveness to advertisers in media buying markets.

Friendly reminder that Markets only matter to conference networks. ESPN doesn’t care that there’s two Bay Area schools in the PAC 12 if nobody in the Bay Area watches the PAC 12. Brands and competitive matchups matter in this environment. Markets do not. If markets mattered the PAC 12 would have a $40 million plus per TV deal even without the LA schools. We’re looking at $25 million, which is less than that conference with only DFW.

Media markets only matter when the markets watch. Regardless of the market size, I believe the Big12 got better ratings because their fans care about football. What has SF, Seattle, Phoenix and Denver done to attract suiters? Regardless of the truck stop markets, ESPN gave them a lot more money. There was a time in the cable era when market size was important for premium charges. Now providers want compelling programing and eyeballs.

Doesn't matter what the population is if no one watches them.

There is a reason why both Cal and Stanford greatly reduced the sizes of their stadiums, and still can't sell out.

Same with SDSU. Who watches them?

First game of the season, playing Arizona, in a brand new stadium on nationwide over the air.

Weekly TV ratings:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/colleg ... v-ratings/






Haven't found an updated list yet, but this is a good indicator.

Those only count linear games so no PAC channel games numbers are included. We had I think two network games, SDST and ASSU so our numbers are way down but the point of the lack of viewers in the conference/west is accurate

I am having a big problem with the current format and the Pac-12 Network. All the major streaming services have problems with shortcomings. Sling doesn't offer local channels if you don't live in the area where they have the local service. Fubo and Vidgo have Pac-12 Network and local channels but don't have TBS, TNT, or TruTV so I can't watch the NCAA tourney. Hulu Live and YouTube TV have has everything but the Pac-12 Network. This makes it tough for UA fans if they want to see all the games or NCAA tourney.

Sling is perfect if you can receive local channels on an antenna (I can't).

As for games on streaming services I will be able to watch the Cats on demand. I work a schedule where I rarely seem them live anyway. If you are looking for more exposure you need to play games more in primetime and bigger networks like ESPN, Fox, and your local channels. Plus, the games need to be played earlier. Seeing games at 10 pm or later on the east coast is not helpful.

Therefore, I believe the Cats should move to the Big-12 for more exposure, especially since we are a basketball school and UCLA is leaving. The level of competition in the Pac won't be the standard the Cats need to prepare for the NCAA tourney slugfest. We should have left yesterday.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:37 am

Lmao,

So just a complete shitshow

One step closer to CSPAN2 After Dark.

We are a complete laughing stock.